Was the Talmud in use in the first century?
Fabio M. Rossetti
from London claiming to be a Student Rabbi. In the course of this
discussion the funny guy has more or less claimed that the Talmud was in
use in the first century, or that at least Talmud (which, AFAIK, was
written several centuries later based on the ORAL law) contains written
material going back to Jesus' time. I find this thesis wholly
preposterous, but since I am no expert in judaic studies I'd like to ask
for your opinion.. Here's the relevant passages from my discussion, took
from another forum:
8<---
A new long chapter could be opened on whether the Talmud had normative
value in Jesus’ time. It had not, and it’s not even cited by M.
[..]
L. finds inconceivable the presence of *textual* (emphasis mine)
material from the time of within the Talmud.
[..]
The high academic level is something British Judaism is rightly proud
of. Other than some marginal fundamentalists of Hungarian origin, even
orthodox scholars generally accept textual criticism. Nobody is outraged
discovering textual material from Jesus time in the *baraitot* (again
emphasis mine). Obviously, without normative value.
8<---
cindys
wrote:
> Last week I had a very strange exchange of messages with a funny person
> from London claiming to be a Student Rabbi. In the course of this
> discussion the funny guy has more or less claimed that the Talmud was in
> use in the first century, or that at least Talmud (which, AFAIK, was
> written several centuries later based on the ORAL law) contains written
> material going back to Jesus' time. I find this thesis wholly
> preposterous, but since I am no expert in judaic studies I'd like to ask
> for your opinion.. Here's the relevant passages from my discussion, took
> from another forum:
The Talmud consists of the Mishna plus the gemara (which, loosely,
represents the exposition of the Mishna). The Mishna was redacted
approximately 200 CE by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The baraisos are parts of
the Mishna which did not make the proverbial cut into the official,
redacted Mishna but often appear as part of the extended discussion in
the gemara. The Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi) is believed to have been
redacted around 350 CE. The Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) is believed to
have been redacted between 500 and 550 CE. Prior to these redactions,
the information contained therein was passed orally from teacher to
student, from generation to generation. So, yes, it would be accurate
to say that much of the material in the work we call "The Talmud" was
in oral use in what would be considered Jesus' time, even though it
was not redacted until several centuries later.
The Jewish traditional view, BTW, is that the oral law along with the
written law was given to Moses on Sinai. Parts of the oral law are
contained in the Talmud. Not all of the oral law is contained in the
Talmud, and not all parts of the Talmud are legalistic.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> from London claiming to be a Student Rabbi. In the course of this
> discussion the funny guy has more or less claimed that the Talmud was in
> use in the first century, or that at least Talmud (which, AFAIK, was
> written several centuries later based on the ORAL law) contains written
> material going back to Jesus' time. I find this thesis wholly
> preposterous, but since I am no expert in judaic studies I'd like to ask
> for your opinion.. Here's the relevant passages from my discussion, took
> from another forum:
>
> 8<---
> A new long chapter could be opened on whether the Talmud had normative
> value in Jesus’ time. It had not, and it’s not even cited by M.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that the talmud lacked
"normative value" in Jesus' time. And who is M?
> [..]
> L. finds inconceivable the presence of *textual* (emphasis mine)
> material from the time of within the Talmud.
Who is "L"?
> [..]
> The high academic level is something British Judaism is rightly proud
> of. Other than some marginal fundamentalists of Hungarian origin, even
> orthodox scholars generally accept textual criticism. Nobody is outraged
> discovering textual material from Jesus time in the *baraitot* (again
> emphasis mine). Obviously, without normative value.
Why are the baraitot without normative value? And why the use of
quotation marks?
As far as traditional Jews are concerned, the oral material that later
came to be part of the redacted talmud had normative value from the
time it was received by Moses on Sinai, and it continues to have
normative value on this very day where it constitutes the basis for
much of our current Jewish law.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Fabio M. Rossetti
> I don't understand what you mean when you say that the talmud lacked
> "normative value" in Jesus' time. And who is M?
>
>> [..]
>> L. finds inconceivable the presence of *textual* (emphasis mine)
>> material from the time of within the Talmud.
>
> Who is "L"?
I am reporting the content of a conversation I had with about a guy X
about a book written by Y..., but I don't want to name names for privacy
reasons, just find the facts from informed people. BTW, I should I have
written..
>> L. finds the presence of *textual* (emphasis mine)
>> material from the time of Jesus, within the Talmud, inconceivable.
>
>> [..]
>> The high academic level is something British Judaism is rightly proud
>> of. Other than some marginal fundamentalists of Hungarian origin, even
>> orthodox scholars generally accept textual criticism. Nobody is outraged
>> discovering textual material from Jesus time in the *baraitot* (again
>> emphasis mine). Obviously, without normative value.
>
> Why are the baraitot without normative value?
I should ask the funny guy from London, probably he meant that was
written in the baraitot was mandatory for observant Jews.
> And why the use of
> quotation marks?
Because I am 'quoting' somebody else :-)
>
> As far as traditional Jews are concerned, the oral material that later
> came to be part of the redacted talmud had normative value from the
> time it was received by Moses on Sinai, and it continues to have
> normative value on this very day where it constitutes the basis for
> much of our current Jewish law.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
>
So it is safe to say that in the first century (i.e. in Jesus time, it
was a discussion about the Jewish environment where Jesus and Mary of
Nazareth lived) 1) the Talmud did not exist 2) there was no *written*,
*textual* material which, even centuries later, was (directly) included
in the Talmud ? I am a layman with a moderate interest in the subject,
mind you.
yaco...@aol.com
> On Jan 18, 12:27 pm, "Fabio M. Rossetti" <f.rossettiNOS...@libero.it>
> wrote:> Last week I had a very strange exchange of messages with a funny person
> > from London claiming to be a Student Rabbi. In the course of this
> > discussion the funny guy has more or less claimed that the Talmud was in
> > use in the first century, or that at least Talmud (which, AFAIK, was
> > written several centuries later based on the ORAL law) contains written
> > material going back to Jesus' time. I find this thesis wholly
> > preposterous, but since I am no expert in judaic studies I'd like to ask
> > for your opinion.. Here's the relevant passages from my discussion, took
> > from another forum:
>
> ----------
> The Talmud consists of the Mishna plus the gemara (which, loosely,
> represents the exposition of the Mishna). The Mishna was redacted
> approximately 200 CE by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The baraisos are parts of
> the Mishna which did not make the proverbial cut into the official,
> redacted Mishna but often appear as part of the extended discussion in
> the gemara. The Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi) is believed to have been
> redacted around 350 CE. The Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) is believed to
> have been redacted between 500 and 550 CE. Prior to these redactions,
> the information contained therein was passed orally from teacher to
> student, from generation to generation.
That is not true at all. Read the Iggereth Sherira Gaon, Maimonides,
Shemuel Ibn Nagrela, etc. etc.
The Mishna was written in a proto form from the early second temple,
and was already organized into 60 tractates by the time of Shammai and
Hillel.
> So, yes, it would be accurate
> to say that much of the material in the work we call "The Talmud" was
> in oral use in what would be considered Jesus' time, even though it
> was not redacted until several centuries later.
Not exactly. Jesus lived in Tannaitic times. The "sehma'ta" with
which the Mishna was studied may provide the conceptaul background
for, but is not the official statements of the Emora'im that were
accepted in Babylonian Academies and ultimately included in the
Talmud.
> The Jewish traditional view, BTW, is that the oral law along with the
> written law was given to Moses on Sinai.
Yes, but not the whole corpus found in the Talmud. Only a small
fraction, actually.
*That* is the actual traditional view.
> Parts of the oral law are
> contained in the Talmud. Not all of the oral law is contained in the
> Talmud,
Besides Tannaitic literature, oh yes it is.
Jacko
cindys
> for, but is not the official statements of the Emora'im that were
> accepted in Babylonian Academies and ultimately included in the
> Talmud.
>
> > The Jewish traditional view, BTW, is that the oral law along with the
> > written law was given to Moses on Sinai.
>
> Yes, but not the whole corpus found in the Talmud. Only a small
> fraction, actually.
>
> *That* is the actual traditional view.
>
> > Parts of the oral law are
>
> > contained in the Talmud. Not all of the oral law is contained in the
> > Talmud,
>
> Besides Tannaitic literature, oh yes it is.
Other than the fact that I did clearly state that the corpus of the
talmud is not limited to the oral law (or at least I thought I did), I
stand corrected, as you are much more knowledgeable in this area than
I am.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Patty
wrote:
> cindys ha scritto:
>
> > I don't understand what you mean when you say that the talmud lacked
> > "normative value" in Jesus' time. And who is M?
>
> >> [..]
> >> L. finds inconceivable the presence of *textual* (emphasis mine)
> >> material from the time of within the Talmud.
>
> > Who is "L"?
>
> I am reporting the content of a conversation I had with about a guy X
> about a book written by Y..., but I don't want to name names for privacy
> reasons, just find the facts from informed people. BTW, I should I have
> written..
>
Sorry, you get no traction unless
a) you name the book and its author so we can see what was really
written.
b) get your funny guy to come on line and say what he said.
Third hand sources are never accurate, I know this from real-world
experience not just in written material but also in my job.
I've said this to other people on this group so don't think I'm
singling you out.
I think that when Cindy says redacted, -- and I know she will correct
me if I'm wrong about this -- she means written down. That doesn't
mean that Pentateuch was the only thing that existed up to that
point. That means that historically Jews resisted writing anything
down including the Pentateuch was put into writing. Talmud was not
written down until what, Cindy, about 7 centuries after Pentateuch was
written down?
Proof that extra-Pentateuchal material existed long before the Mishnah
were collected by R. Akiva (he died in 132 CE) let alone before Gemara
was written down include the following:
A Mishnah from Tractate Kelim (1:1) is cited in Haggai 2:13 recording
a discussion in 520 BCE; a Mishnah from Yadaim (4:7) is cited in a
letter written by the founders of Qumran as part of the reason for
seceding from the society the Hasmoneans were building, and the
secession happened about the time the Hasmoneans refused to return the
priesthood to the descendants of Tsadok High Priest. (Schiffman,
Lawrence, “Origin and Early History of the Qumran Sect” Biblical
Archaeology. Volume 58 Number 1, March 1995.) Neither of these is
cited in Talmud; neither Talmud has gemara to these Mishnah.
Gemara references rulings from around 80 BCE, during the reign of the
Hasmonean King Yannai, by his brother-in-law R. Shimon ben Shetach,
and R. Shimon's colleagues including R. Yehudah b. Perachiah,
including the jailing of a student of R. Yehudah who led Jews into
idol worship and was executed for that.
Gemara also includes rulings and other discussions by R. Hillel and R.
Shammai who died by about 10 CE.
These are all Talmud and they are just a few of the attributed rulings
in the 2,711 pages of Babylonian Talmud and the something like 1,700
numbered pages of the Jerusalem Talmud -- and the two are more than
just copies of each other -- vastly more.
If you are so interested in this and you have a free public library,
start using it.
Cheers