Question 1 The Oral Tradition of the Jews and the Old Covenant

In my opening statement I demonstrated how the Jews did not hold the Scriptures to be their only authority in regards to Divine Revelation. You responded by one small paragraph questioning their infallible character. How then do you regard Jesus Christ Himself who makes use of an Oral tradition in regards to the Old Covenant when referring to an oral teaching of the Rabbis, which is found no place in the Old Testament Sacred Scriptures? Jesus Himself in Matthew 23: 1-3: refers to an Oral Tradition and teaching to be followed by His own command, yet the Old Testament Scriptures make no reference to this. Jesus is quoted in the Gospel of Matthew, "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all the things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.’ " There are other New Testament Scripture passages as well that prove an oral teaching of the Jews. For example 1 Cor 10:4 which is found only in Jewish Oral Tradition.

The chair of Moses was the oral teaching authority of the Jews. Yet Sacred Scripture is silent on this. How do you explain away this clear contradiction to Scripture alone in reference to the Jewish Oral tradition? I presented evidence from two Jewish scholars in my opening statement, who readily admit that the Jewish faith was not a faith of Scripture alone, yet you never even made an attempt to refute them in your rebuttal.

In case you need refreshing these were my sources that I provided this in my opening essay.

“In reading many sources on Judaism one point is crystal clear. They did not hold to a Scripture alone position regarding God's Divine Revelation to them. In regards to the Torah, they believed that there was the written Torah and the Oral Torah (Torah she-be-al peh) that coincided with it. They believed that this oral tradition held the same weight and antiquity that the written text did. (1995 Ariel)”

“It is understood by the Jewish people that every written law must be accompanied by an oral one to preserve proper interpretation of the written. (2006 Steinsaltz)”

You replied with, “No good reason has been given for this distinct source of revelation. MB provides an analogy to the Rabbinical traditions, but acknowledges that the Rabbis were not inspired, but were fallible men. Thus, the Rabbinical traditions fail MB. If fallible traditions were ok for the Jews, the analogy would suggest that they would also be ok for the nations. “

Yet my two Jewish scholars say that the Oral Tradition held the same weight as the written. This means that they are Divine Revelation from God Himself. My question is, why do you reject the ancient Jewish position of Scripture and Tradition as one living source of Divine Revelation, when I have presented two scholars who attest to it? I have now provided an additional example presented from Sacred Scripture itself with Jesus Himself clearly referring to an oral Tradition of the Jews. Please explain.

Sources

Ariel, David S. What Do Jews Believe. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.

Steinsaltz, Adin. The Essential Talmud. New York: Basic Books, 2006.



Answer 1 by Turretin Fan

MB asked: “My question is, why do you reject the ancient Jewish position of Scripture and Tradition as one living source of Divine Revelation, when I have presented two scholars who attest to it?

My reason for rejecting MB’s scholars is Scripture, as will be explained below.

MB also asked: “I have now provided an additional example presented from Sacred Scripture itself with Jesus Himself clearly referring to an oral Tradition of the Jews. Please explain.”

As best understood, this is supposed to be part of one question, since the rules limit the number of questions for MB to ask. Thus, the explanation is interlaced within the detailed response below. Furthermore, it should be noted that there is an important shift in MB’s claim between saying that Jesus referred to an oral tradition and claiming that oral traditions were infallible. That Jews had oral traditions is undisputed and even if MB’s scholars disagree, one would think that MB would admit that the Jewish traditions were fallible.

For the more detailed reply:

A) As Cyril of Alexandria (5th Century) wrote regarding Isaiah 9:14-16: There were some among the Jews, in fact, who interpreted the Law given through the all-wise Moses, but acted corruptly by unjustly applying to the laws of Moses unwritten traditions, human requirements, and teachings. They led the mass of Jews astray, and caused them to rear their neck proudly against Christ; so since they followed the views of the priests, who acted in the role of a head, he called then the tail, since, as I said, the tail follows the head when we think in terms of a single body. When he refers to them as prophets, however, we shall not take them to be holy and true prophets, since he went on to say that they teach iniquity.”

B) Jesus was able to “make use of an Oral tradition,” but in Scripture He did so only in a critical way (for example he bashes the Jews’ oral tradition in Matthew 15:2-6, Mark 7:3-13, and Luke 6:1-5).

C) Jesus’ comment in Matthew 23:1-3 about the “seat of Moses” and “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you,” does not support MB’s contention that the “ancient Jewish position” was that “Scripture and Tradition [are] one living source of Divine Revelation.” This can be seen as follows:

i) Jesus’ disciples recognized that Jesus did no mean that the Sanhedrin’s authority was on a par with the Word of God, for when that body of authority contradicted the word of God the disciples violated the teaching that body:

Acts 5:27-29

27And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

ii) The concept of the “chair of Moses” is simply a metonym, like the “seat of the scorner” or the “path of the righteous.” There is no good reason to suppose that the reference to the “seat of Moses” is a reference to anything other than to the role of leadership over Israel.

iii) As noted above, no one doubts that the Jews had oral teachings. 1 Corinthians 10:4 (cited by MB) doesn’t prove that, but it is a moot point.

iv) MB seems to fall into the trap of conflating oral (or simply extra-scriptural) tradition with respect to history with oral tradition of the kind needed for his counter-plan.

D) MB states, “I presented evidence from two Jewish scholars in my opening statement, who readily admit that the Jewish faith was not a faith of Scripture alone, yet you never even made an attempt to refute them in your rebuttal.” Jesus himself condemned Jewish scholars who made Scriptures of none effect through their tradition. I don’t have a better answer than His.

E) MB repeats the two modern Jewish sources from his opening essay. I certainly agree that like Catholicism, Judaism cannot justify itself from Scripture alone, and consequently must deny Sola Scriptura. I also agree that consequently the claims of modern Judaism are very similar to the claims of Rome: and just as false in Jesus’ day when he condemned the Jews, as in our day, when we condemn Roman traditions.

F) MB argues that according to his Jewish sources, the ancient Jewish Oral Tradition held the same weight as the written.

i) Yes – they said so, but MB claimed that the Oral Traditions were fallible. MB contradicted his own evidence. MB was right in saying that they were fallible, for Jesus condemned them. I have a standard to determine whether MB or the Jews are right, the infallible standard of Scripture.

ii) But now it seems to be the case that MB wants to adopt the position of his Jewish sources. MB states, “This means that they are Divine Revelation from God Himself.” If that is so, why does MB not obey them? In particular, on the issue of the canon, why does MB reject their testimony? Furthermore, why does MB accept Jesus’ claim to be divine, since Jesus contradicted the oral traditions of the Jews?

G) As Chrysostom (4th to 5th centuries) declared against Judaizing Christians, “Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ.

-TurretinFan