The Christ Centred Cosmic Civilisation

Episode 75: Sola Scriptura, Jewish Mysticism, and the Talmud

• Paul

Share episode

Send us a text

Unlock the intricate connections between the Talmud and Christian theology with us as we tackle a question that has theologians buzzing: Does referencing the Talmud align with the principle of sola scriptura? Our guest, PJ from the Global Church History Project, joins us to navigate this theological maze, examining how Protestantism's scripture-alone stance rubs against rabbinical Judaism’s oral traditions. We'll also explore the potential clashes for Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, delving into how the Talmud sometimes stands in opposition to early church teachings. Plus, discover the alternative Jewish perspectives offered by the Karaites, who align with ancient traditions seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Journey with us through the evolution of Jewish thought, from ancient mysticism to the modern interpretations that intrigue theologians today. We explore the intersections of Jewish mysticism with Christian concepts like the Trinity, guided by influential figures such as Maimonides and Philo. Contrast the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, considering their unique historical contexts within the Persian and Roman empires. Dive into the tapestry of Judaism's diverse past, from Essenes to Pharisees, while discussing the trend of Christian commentators referencing the Talmud. Join us as we advocate for a return to understanding the Bible as a singular, complete source, much like the Karaites’ approach.

The theme music is "Wager with Angels" by Nathan Moore

Speaker 1:

Okay, welcome to the next episode of the Christ-Centered Cosmic Civilization. And we're thinking about the Talmud, the core body of material at the center of Judaism but which is often referenced by Christian commentators of a particular kind anyway. And we're just wanting to question that because I mean, I personally, on an anthropological level it's a fascinating body of material and it helps to give us a great understanding of this important world religion and these people who are deriving culture and lifestyle and beliefs and values from this thing called the Talmud. So if I was studying this as an anthropologist or even a sociologist, it's fascinating in a different way. But why we're having to engage with it in a sort of biblical studies and theological way is because people, christians, even modern Christians, reference this body of material, the Talmud, as a source for Christian theology and for understanding the Christian scriptures. And therefore we have to kind of examine that a little bit more closely and say is that a right thing to do? Is that a safe thing to do? And perhaps there are two reasons. First of all, I want to mention PJ is here from the Global Church History Project and on all this material on Talmud, there are two papers that the Global Church History Project has produced on this, with a huge amount of material and details on this, with a huge amount of material and details, footnotes very academic paper in a way, but absolutely fascinating and that's why we've asked PJ on for this. And if you go to patreoncom slash global church history, you will be able to get access to that. But in that he notes that Christians ought to be concerned about referencing this material from a different religion, not just because of fears of cultural appropriation and like what you know what. What business is it of Christianity to go like taking materials from a different religion, a different culture to do that?

Speaker 1:

More theologically speaking, first of all, protestantism at its best has had this passion for sola scriptura, the idea being let us study the Bible itself and get the meaning of the Bible from the Bible, that the Bible will equip us with all we need in order to understand the Bible. And there is a kind this tradition of Judaism agrees with that, doesn't it? The Keraites. So I'll ask you to just talk a little bit more about them in a moment. So that's one reason for why we're investigating the Talmud and saying is this a right thing to do, to abandon the principles of Sola Scriptura and go no, actually, because rabbinical Judaism definitely doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura. It says no, you cannot understand the Hebrew text of the Bible on itself. You need oral traditions that floated around for 800 years, that provide Additional stories, background, info, text context, all sorts of things. And only when these two revelations, like this oral Torah, is put with the written Torah, then the two together enable, give you understanding of the scriptures. So those two, so Protestants, on the one hand, will have a concern should do, should do and say, well, hang on. This can't be right to draw from a tradition that is overtly and explicitly rejecting sola scriptura and the whole that that's at the core of the Talmud. A rejection of Sola Scriptura as a way of handling the Bible. It's literally saying you can't understand the Bible in itself. So that's one problem.

Speaker 1:

But for Roman Catholics and Orthodox people, you highlight in your paper an additional problem that the kind of things that the early church fathers believe about the bible are directly rejected and attacked by the Talmud. And so it's like you can't, on the one hand, go. Let us revere the authority and accuracy of the early church fathers and also let us draw from the Talmud, because the Talmud goes against the early church fathers. Is that correct? Yeah, absolutely. And um, it's especially strange when you think there's so like it's taken to be so definitive, as, like, this is the text that all jews believe and there, but then we've got Philo, josephus, and then these other, like the Keraites, and we've got even Kabbalistic stuff and we might look at that how different that is. Why don't you tell us about those two things A little bit more? You mentioned the Keraites last time. Why don't you tell us a bit more about them? And then I'd like to know more about the count, this cabala point. Yeah, yeah, so they are connected in a very interesting way.

Speaker 1:

So we've had the official, I suppose, rabbinist perspective on late antiquity, but the charaites have a very different view of what was going on at the time. So the uh rabbinists believe that when the Romans took Jerusalem, they destroyed all the other sects and all that was left were the Pharisees, and they say that they are the continuous Pharisees. The Karaites say quite differently, that they are from the Zadokites, who were not the Sadducees. The Zadokites are Essenes, basically. When you read the Dead Sea Scrolls, they call themselves the Sons of Righteousness, the Banu Zadok, basically. And so that's who the Karaites say they are. So they say the other sects weren't annihilated and they claimed descent from the Essenes and there's very good reason to believe them.

Speaker 1:

The very first person to call himself or to be called a Karait was a guy called Anan in the Abbasid Caliphate. So that's in, I think, the 9th century. I think he is, and he actually quotes from and uses the same exegesis as the Damascus document, which is the foundational document of the Essene community at Qumran. So when we thought about how the rabbinists deliberately cut themselves off from ancient literature by saying we won't read any and we won't preserve any, and then this guy quotes perfectly from the Damascus document, which we know is from antiquity, that proves that there were other Judaisms that survived the Roman conquest and preserved their different perspective. And that is particularly important because this is a guy that quotes this Damascus document, which is part of the Dead Sea Scrolls community. The Essenes and he's quoting that in, say the 9th century.

Speaker 1:

But we didn't have those Dead Sea Scroll documents In the modern age. We get them in the after the second world war kind of thing. We couldn't have checked him in the 17th century or something and said, oh well, what are you quoting from, whereas now we can check and we go oh yeah, this dude obviously has access to a body of written materials that we know existed and he's accurately quoting from it. So there are written materials that we know existed and he's accurately quoting from it. So there are written texts that go back right to, you know, possibly 300 BC, things like that, or 200 BC, whatever you want to cite that as. So there's this Essenes, like the Dead Sea Scroll kind of community, and then Philo is also much more in harmony with that kind of Judaism and they're very into writing things down and much more kind of that kind of scholarly way of writing things down and publishing books and all that kind of thing. And then the Dead Sea Scroll community has that, and then the idea then is that that kind of Judaism survives and obviously passes on its documents, because there's a guy in the 9th century AD who is able to quote from those documents, and so there's strong evidence for the survival of another tradition, evidence for the survival of another tradition of Judaism that wasn't based on these oral traditions the same and had never rejected written documents.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, and there's actually another group known as the Sabians or the Mandeans, and they. Similarly, they quote Essene stuff and they use a lot of words that we only ever see elsewhere in the Qumran community, and so they're like a Gnostic group and they live in Mesopotamia, but they claim to have been disciples of John the Baptist, who left Israel when they rejected Jesus. And then so it seems, given that everything, all the words and everything they're using is Essene, it seems we should kind of believe them. They are exactly who they say. They are Like people who had been followers of John who ended up rejecting Jesus, and so they went into exile near Baghdad and near Nineveh. That seems to be them. But then of course, you think well, that is quite interesting that they also survived and they have an equal claim to ancient Judaism, as would rabbinists and Karaites and things, and also shows that Esseneism was stronger than was previously assumed. And so we have two quite large essene um strands of uh judaism that survive, and we also know loads of early essenes became christians. Of course there's loads of loads of that stuff. That's always very interesting.

Speaker 1:

And then, if we look at yet another essene strand, when the um almohads and groups like those really ramp up the persecution of Jews and Christians in Iberia, loads of them have to flee, including Maimonides. So this is now we're talking about after the Islamic invasion of Spain. And then, when that happens, there's an initial complete, almost destruction of Christian civilization, universities, centres of learning, but then the policies they pursue are hostile to both Christians and Jews. And then, at that point, jews have to flee from the Iberian Peninsula, yeah, and so they're quite well known to be very isolated from the rest of judaism. They're often called sephardic jews, um, and they take all their documents with them, including the damascus document, to cairo. And so the cairo geniza has a damascus document, uh, preserved, which was taken by an iberian jew, uh, so in iberia there had been a continual essenism, and then it's in iberia around that time that we see cabala form, and so we see like maimonides and rabbinists like that.

Speaker 1:

So maimonides, we know it did, did quote from the Talmud and the Mishnah especially. So just tell us a bit more about this Maimonides guy. He's come from Spain and goes to Cairo, yeah, and then Cairo becomes a centre of scholarship, I suppose in Judaism, a particular kind of it. Is that correct? Yeah, so Maimonides. So what we know, then, from the Damascus document is that there's lots of non-Rabbinists who live in Spain, but Maimonides is a Rabbinist who lives in Spain, so there's both of them going on. But he kind of turns Talmudic Rabbinism to a scholastic direction. Him and Ibn Ezra and jews like that really try and ramp that up and so they go really far down like a divine simplicity route. But the kind of essienists aren't too happy with that and so they respond with like kabbalah, ah. So this is fascinating.

Speaker 1:

So in cairo, because of the persecution of Jews by the Muslims in Spain and things like that, cairo is a collection point and you've got the rabbinic Judaism that is detached from texts, really, and how it has this idea of you need additional revelation alongside scripture to make sense of it, and so therefore, they would regard philosophy as such a supplement, and therefore they'll say, yeah, there's the oral traditions, but we also will have Greek philosophy, and Greek philosophy is something that can add, add revelation, add context, and then so with that, armed with all that, they introduce divine simplicity, that and greek philosophy into this concept of judaism, and that's rabbinic judaism that comes out of cairo, that has this kind of philosophical bent and an abstraction to it and so on. But then there's this alternative kind of Judaism is like no, they, you know, are obviously horrified with that kind of divine simplicity stuff, paganism, and they are like going to produce something that's got a more personalist feel to it. Tell us about that. So in Kabbalah it describes God as basically and intrinsically divided into what they refer to as Sephiroths. Sephiroths, right, okay. So they say there's three supernal Sephiroths that live in the uppermost realm, beyond the abyss, where humans cannot dwell, and then there's seven Sephiroths that are a result of God, to an extent, the three supernals interacting with creation. And so you have seven mundane Sephiroths, three supernals, and so God is made up of ten powers in Kabbalistic thought. So, oh, yeah, okay, I mean obviously we're thinking the Trinity and the Archangels are we? Yeah, yeah, go on, talk about that.

Speaker 1:

And so they do say that the Archangels, they say, rule over Sephiroth. And so we do obviously think about that idea where you've got the lamp stand and that has the oil leading into lamps, but the lamps are like separate, and so in revelation we see that the seven lamps are the seven angels and but the lamp stand is the spirit, and so we do see this, but the spirit, kind of like sends energies into these created beings and everything. And so they do say that the seven holy archangels rule over there like seven Sephiroth, but the seven Sephiroth are like um, manifestations of God, um, they also believe, as did the Qumranists and as did philo and so on, that the world is eternal, so that, uh, they believe that whole thing. So, even though they link that to creation in some way, they also say that's intrinsic to god because they say creation has always existed. Yeah, so we've all thought about, uh x, uh, yeah, how that was really the ancient Jewish opinion and they went ex nihilo later. So what a, what a interesting time that must have been in Cairo, where you've got the Maimonides kind of guy who has lost all personal characteristics of God at all and has ended up with, you know, really adopted a Neoplatonic one as an underlying concept of God and then interprets the scriptures with the oral tradition stuff. So he's gone that route.

Speaker 1:

But these lot are preserving this older kind of Judaism that has within it, like the Philo stuff, the Dead Sea Scrolls stuff, hence it is kind of Trinitarian, basically that intrinsic to God. There are the three Sephiroths, supernal Sephiroths, and that's internal to God, because that notion of trinitarianism within judaism there's a like a book been written about that. But you often come across that in medieval studies, where you've got trinitarianism as something that they might claim it isn't a christian thing, it's a jewish thing and that christians have stolen it. So they these and these are cabala people. And then they also have that the three supernal sephiroths, when they, when they uh, engage with the primal chaos and produce the creation, in that process I produced seven mundane Sephiroths and we, from understanding what's really going on, we're like, oh, that's the Trinity and the seven archangels, and we go, oh, yeah, we can see exactly what the truth is in that.

Speaker 1:

But then that's a fascinatingly different tradition to that rabbinical Judaism, isn't it it? Yeah, uh. So they try and uh, try and say, when the kind of inquisitions after them, they try and say, oh, but we believe in like a divine essence, that symbol and all that. So they kind of go that route a bit. But yeah, like you think, intrinsically it does seem quite different from what Maimonides and Ibn Ezra and so on were after. And they also have, like, when they talk about even the essence of God, though they add a threeness, because then they talk about the light, not limited, and they say each of those words light not, and limited are like characteristics or faces. Sometimes they say you know personae in, uh, the divine nature. So they do have like not, which is like what you cannot comprehend and that seems most like the father. And then, yeah, is then the, uh, the cabal of tradition? Does that draw from christian material, or or just Bible, or what? What's the sources for that? Well, I reckon, because of the Damascus document that rolls up and everything, I think to an extent like, yeah, it is Christian sources insofar as we believe the Second Temple Jews were. But I think it does seem to be presented as and I haven't seen too much argument against it that it does seem authentic, yeah, authentic to Judaism, to original Judaism. But there's this other kind of Judaism, rabbinical Judaism, and that's another fascinating non-Christian religious tradition. But this now help me with this.

Speaker 1:

When I think about Talmud talmud sometimes I often they go quote from what they call the babylonian talmud, as opposed to what, and what are the differences between? How come that? Because I thought the whole idea was it's locked down and there's only one talmud, and that's like orally collected in 200, written down in 550, commented on and expanded to 800, and then that's it. How come. There are two Talmuds, yeah. So basically you have, as you say, the Babylonian Talmud, and mostly when they talk about the Talmud they mean the Babylonian Talmud.

Speaker 1:

But there is an earlier one one. How earlier we don't know, but it seems as if that's the one the babylonian talmud is basing itself off of. This other one is called the jerusalem talmud. Uh, although it wasn't composed in jerusalem, it's in the levant, so sometimes they might call it the israelite talmud or thevantine one. But they have two different kinds of Aramaic ones. One's written in, you know, levantine, yeah, and it has Roman and Greek loanwords. The other one is in Babylonian Aramaic and it has, like, persian loanwords. So it's literally a division between the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, and each of those two empires has their own Talmud tradition.

Speaker 1:

But the Jerusalem one, the Roman one, is considered to be earlier. How do we know it's earlier? Well, for one, the wording agrees with the Rehob Mosaic. Ah, what is the Rehob Mosaic? So that is where we have a synagogue in the Roman Empire, the eastern part of the Roman Empire, and it has a text which describes how you're supposed to do farming in Israel, and some of the lines in it perfectly agree with the Jerusalem Talmud. Most of it doesn't. Most of it is like lines that are not in the Talmud. There's some things that you would expect from the Talmud to Most of it doesn't. Most of it is like lines that are not in the Talmud. There's some things that you would expect from the Talmud to be there that aren't. So.

Speaker 1:

It represents a much earlier form of this oral tradition than is later crystallised in the Mishnah and so on. So what I heard about that synagogue is like, though the synagogue itself goes back to, say, the third century, so quite early. The relevant mosaic is probably from the sixth century, when, with the, when the synagogue is expanded, and in that mosaic then there is some text that completely coheres with the Jerusalem Talmud, but not the Babylonian Talmud. But there's other things that are, there's other writings. That isn't part of the Talmud either, and would that indicate that at that stage the Talmud is still sort of in development or there's a process going on?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it does seem to be redacting for quite a long time and, as we thought, even in like the 11th century, where you've got maimonides, and he refers to the talmud saying oh, we defer to the greeks when it comes to philosophy, and then the missioners we have now don't say that, so that it was still being redacted in the 11th century. Um, but it just goes to show how much redaction could take place between one point and another. And, like the first kind of reference to there being a Talmud, so, like there we're seeing a reference to something we might recognize as a Talmud, but it's not calling itself that. But there is a letter, I believe, from the 8th century, where someone refers to a Talmud. So let's get this straight for a second, like so that even the early church fathers don't refer to the Talmud existing. Yeah, Epiphanius and Jerome refer to the repetitions, and so Mishnah means the repetitions, so there may have been an early form of that going on. And if that PhD we talked about before, if that's correct, then that all tees up with what he's saying really. If that's correct, then that all tees up with what he's saying really. Dr Jeremy Tabak, his PhD, where he does say most of that content in it is from the 4th and 5th century. So that's when the church fathers start referring to the repetitions, right? So this is quite important as we gather our thoughts really, as we gather our thoughts really.

Speaker 1:

So, first of all, the claim that there is this body of oral traditions that are circulating for nearly a thousand years, that obviously there's no evidence for that, obviously, and the idea that the correct interpretation is being held in these oral traditions. What goes against that is there's Jesus and he doesn't seem very happy with people's ideas. So where are the oral traditions, whatever they contain? In the first century, when jesus is interacting with people, he they're not necessarily producing a correct view of the old testament, of the hebrew scriptures, because jesus seems fairly unhappy with what are called the scribes and the teachers of the law and so on. So the, the religious authorities there that he interacts with, obviously don't correctly understand the Hebrew Scriptures, because Jesus says to them they don't, in its heart, what it's really all about, which is him. So there obviously isn't real clear evidence that there are all these oral traditions around and so on, although the Apostle Paul does warn, saying don't have anything to do with these Jewish myths and legends. So he might then be saying look, there are these sort of things circulating around like additional stories that are claimed to be background info to the Bible, and he's like says, don't have anything to do with them. Is that possible? Yeah, certainly those techniques. I think there is a definite. Is that possible? Yeah, certainly those techniques. I think there is a definite point that I personally think and this obviously is just a theory, I don't have the Well, I have some things to back it, but it has to be constructed.

Speaker 1:

But anyway, I believe rabbinic Judaism is Sadduceeism and Phariseeism linked together, because I think the rejection of prophets is actually key to rabbinism but not really to Phariseeism, because Saints Philo and Josephus refer to prophets in their own time. Josephus loves one particular one called Jesus Ben Hananiah, who keeps prophesying about the fall of Jerusalem until it is destroyed, and Philo believes a septuagint is a prophetic word. So, um, you have this real kind of break there where they say there's these years of silence and now you have to defer to rabbis because there are no prophets, and then john the baptist comes and simeon comes out to you before. So you get simeon, john, jesus, who were clearly anna and anna yeah, you're right, we shouldn't forget anna and then these other ones that philo and josephus mentioned, that we wouldn't have otherwise known, like the prophet jesus ben hanani, um, who were all just prophesying, and the pharisees kind of hate that and the sadducees hate it, and I think they kind of team up because the sadducees say we reject even anything written that isn't just the law of Moses, so they even reject the laws, the prophets and so on. I think rabbinic Judaism is them teaming up like we see them team up against Jesus. Once Jesus becomes the stumbling block to them, they team up. And I think that's actually what rabbinic Judaism is.

Speaker 1:

Actually what rabbinic Judaism is Is a rejection of the prophets and that that is enough to rejection of Jesus and this new batch of prophets that are all into Jesus kind of thing and they go oh, we've got to stand against all this stuff, and then that out of that eventually you get rabbinic Judaism. Yeah, but there's this other kind ofism that's more in touch with philo josephus as well to a degree, but the dead sea scrolls and so on, yeah, and that, uh, and they don't believe, uh, prophecies ever came, yeah, and isn't it they? They, they call themselves the prophets and you know the community and the bible agrees on them, because luke refers to and minion, who is a well-known essene. He just calls him minion the prophet. He's just like yeah, that's exactly who the essene community are. The pharisees would hate to hear it, but it's true.

Speaker 1:

So what we're learning is that there are these different strands of judaism that go on, uh, the New Testament times and so on, but also that there are different kinds of what we call Judaism, even before New Testament times going on, like with the Essenes, the Pharisees, sadducees and so on. So we know they're going on at that time and that there are different kinds of judaism that carry on going on, and rabbinic judaism is the one that, like, centers itself on this talmud thing. There are other kinds of judaism that don't do that and and retain written texts that go earlier. And we're finding how fascinating, how fascinating Judaism is as like a collection of different traditions. But I think the word we want to say is as fascinating as these things are.

Speaker 1:

And yet there's a problem when Christian commentators believe that the Bible should be interpreted on the basis of this thing called the Talmud, or that it even is supplemental to or it's good to quote from it, or things like that. But actually lots and lots of things that people say nowadays surprising number of things in their biblical studies. They draw from the Talmud and quote it, or just say things like the Sanhedrin point you made, but there's other ones like it, where there's these stories that circulate that are not in the Bible but are referenced in sermons, commentaries that actually come from the talmud, and I I think the challenge is is to say don't, don't do this like. Have confidence in the actual bible. Let's be like that, that other group of uh, the, the jews, who were those ones, yeah, the carites. They were just like no, the Bible's enough, let's just study it properly and the Bible will give us what we need to understand the Bible. They did that.