To Embrace Hebrew Roots: Part I
The Bible & The Talmud
Overview:
This article explores the teaching of the Talmud in relation to the Bible. It evaluates the push for other transcripts other than the Received Greek Texts, and evaluates the teachings of , for example, Peter Michas and Jacob Prasch, and other advocates of Hebrew translations who postulate that the Greek manuscripts hold error. It evaluates the need for Midrash, Mishnah, Haggadah, Halakah, and the use of the "Ancient Wisdom" versus the teaching of the New Testament and the sufficiency of Scripture with the teaching of the Holy Spirit. It shows who the scribes and Pharisees were, the Biblical view of oral traditions and the difference between New Testament beliefs versus Global Halacha and acceptance of the oral traditions.
A personal Note: Although the research on Hebrew Roots issue has encompassed material that I have found disturbing, it in no way has changed my feelings about those involved, especially the Jewish people. I hold no anger, resentment or animosity toward any. However, I have felt a deep sense of grief because of many things. What I feel very strongly is that all the issues addressed were dealt with at the cross. Truly, His grace is sufficient. What I do have, is a strong sense or desire to see deceptions--regardless of who propagates them--exposed. This issue is very large and complex. Not all that is said about one group's views can necessarily be applied to all. However, an overview must be established and various thoughts and attitudes tested to Scripture. I do not necessarily agree with the theological positions of some sources I quote from. In fact, some I strongly disagree with. However, I have tried to establish all pertinent facts with at least one or more other sources, each saying the same or similar things and then have chosen which stated the issue with the most clarity.
2 Peter 1: 20-21:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
What of the Bible? Is Scripture sufficient in itself and considered by the Hebrew Roots ministries to be the inerrant Word of God? Are the Old and New Testament the complete revelation of God's will for the salvation of man? Do they constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice? Or is it true as stated by Peter Michas that we must return to the Hebrew or Aramaic writings and the Oral traditions of Judaism for New Testament doctrine?
"Is The New Testament Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek? by Peter Michas"
"…since existing New Testament manuscripts are Greek, written to express Hebraic concepts, why be limited to the Greek or English translations when we have Hebrew,… The New Testament is in the pattern of the Jewish traditional work of Torah, Mishnah, Haggadah, Halakah, Talmud and Midrash, but inspired by God Himself for the common people."
"These Hebraic works as well as the Inspired Scriptures were quoted from by Jesus and all the writers of the New Testament… to have full comprehension, we must read the scriptures in the proper Hebraic context… the New Testament is Hebrew/Aramaic and not Greek or English in origin or thought… Most all of the Judaic writings have been preserved for us and now translated into proper English directly from the Hebrew, as well as explained in true Hebraic manner…" 1.
In an email dated1/19/99, James Trimm of the "Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism" responded to questions regarding the sources of manuscripts for the Semitic New Testament Project (SNTP), on which he is working.
"…It is such a delight to spend so much time buried in the text in its original language... The SNTP is based on Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek manuscripts…the Aramaic text makes much more sense than the Greek text…This is just one example from this project which I believe will revolutionize New Testament understanding…"
2 Peter 3:16:
" As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Orthodox scholars agree that the New Testament was originally written in Greek.
"The New Testament writings were composed in Greek." 2.
Unger's Bible Dictionary states:
"Despite the critical claim that Matthew wrote the gospel in Aramaic, this contention has never been proved. If there was an Aramaic original it disappeared at a very early age. The Greek gospel, which is now the Church's heritage, was almost beyond doubt written in Matthew's lifetime." 3.
"By whom the gospel of Matthew was given in our present Greek form is unknown, but probably by himself. The consensus of critical scholars is that it is not a mere translation but an original composition." 4.
John 17:17:
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
Hyam Maccoby, grandson to the famous Rabbi Haim Zundel Maccoby, the Polish Kamenitzer Maggid, [spirit guide], propounds the view of Peter Michas and other Hebrew Roots advocates that the Gospels were written in an era of extreme prejudice and hatred towards the Jews and that this anti-Semitism was reflected in the New Testament. Hyam Maccoby impugns the accounts of Mark and Luke:
"… the Gospel of Mark, … the Gospel in which the lines of policy were laid down by the Gentile-Christian Church; a policy of condemnations of the Jews as an accursed people."
"…What had been the history of the Christian Church since the death of Jesus? The bulk of the New Testament which purports to give this history is The Acts of the Apostles; but this is a Gentile-Christian composition written about 100 A.D. by Luke, giving a Gentile-Christian slant to the events of those years. By reading between the lines of Acts, by following using a supplementary sources such as Josephus, the Talmud and early Christian historians, we can reconstruct the true history of the early church." 5.
Scripture tells us many times that God's Word is pure.
Psalm 12:6,7:
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Error in the Bible
Other HR and related groups make the excuse that there is error in the Bible, which must be eliminated. Promoting their NEW Translation called "The Book of Yahweh," the House of Yahweh stated this regarding the Scriptures,
"… Many phrases have been deliberately mistranslated in order to hide their true meaning, so that Scripture would not bring to light the deceitful teaching of the established, and popular, religious organizations. The alteration of Yahweh’s Scriptures, either by untranslating or mistranslating, has caused the True Work, which His Prophets spoke of, to be hidden in most translations of the Scriptures, and has been damaging to those who are searching the Scriptures for the way to Eternal Life."
"However, the most damaging error in all the Scriptures, was the error of removing YAHWEH’S NAME from the very scriptures He inspired to be written, and writing in its place the pagan titles of GODS, and SATAN HIMSELF! Because of this grave error, those who are calling upon the names of gods and Satan, even though ignorantly, are actually worshiping the gods and Satan—for they are not calling upon, and with, The NAME of YAHWEH!" 6.
Psalm 119:104,105
"Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."
In his article, Explaining the Midrash, Jacob Prasch stated that we need the knowledge of the Midrash and Jewish thought to rightly understand the Bible.
"…But Matthew appears to take the passage out of all reasonable context and twist it into talking about Jesus. We have to ask, is Matthew wrong? or is there something wrong with our Protestant way of interpreting the Bible? There is nothing wrong with Matthew, and there is nothing wrong with the New Testament. But there is something wrong with our Protestant mentality…They were reading a Jewish book as if it were a Greek book… The first step is going back to reading the Bible as a Jewish book, instead of as a Greek one." 7.
Referring to the Midrash, Mr. Prasch said:
" It takes the wisdom of the ancients to really understand these things." 8.
"Wisdom of the Ancients" bears an uneasy resemblance to Ancient Wisdom, which is the esoteric term used by occultists for Gnosis or Mysticism. William Kingsland wrote of this wisdom in his book, " THE GNOSIS OR ANCIENT WISDOM IN THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES: OR THE WISDOM IN A MYSTERY":
"...when I speak of the Gnosis, I do not refer specifically to the Greek or Coptic variety, but to that 'Ancient Wisdom' which can be discovered as a thread of gold running through allegories and myths and fables from the very earliest times of which we have any literary records, and which has more recently been somewhat more fully expounded to us by some of the existing Masters of that Wisdom." 9.
Are Christians unable to understand the Bibles teachings without this Ancient Wisdom?
Psalm 19: 7-11:
"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping them there is great reward."
What about other sources of Jewish thought regarding the Messiah, the kingdom of God, sin and salvation? How do teachings expounded from the "Ancient Wisdom" compare with the New Testament teachings? What differences may be found between the inspired Old and New Testament and the "Mishnah, Haggadah, Halakah, Talmud and Midrash?" Has the Holy Spirit equally inspired these sources?
Perhaps Peter Michas is correct in saying that we need to understand the original concepts from history and as they are taught now —particularly from these books and the Jewish people themselves. Obviously, they would hold the keys to the Hebrew Roots of Christianity as taught by the Jewish sages.
Avi ben Mordechai, an Orthodox Sephardic Jew, concurs with Hebrew Roots teachers that the ancient Jewish teachers of the Law hold the answers:
"…Since Sha’ul followed Messiah Y’shua, who also taught the Oral and Written Torah, I submit (at this time in my life) that we should be following in the footsteps of Judaism’s great teachers of G-d’s Law,… I believe that Judaism’s ancient scholars and sages were far more knowledgeable on the Oral Traditions than we could ever hope to be." 10.
In other words, the rabbinical scholars are saying much the same thing as the leaders of the Hebrew Roots/Messianic movements. According to these eminent scholars, the Bible is in error and insufficient in itself, and therefore not easily or correctly understood without the aid of select knowledge and insight from the written and oral traditions of the Hebrew rabbis and scribes of old. Among the ancient Jewish writings which we are urged to study, the Talmud is regarded by the Jewish people as more important than even the Scriptures.
We are reminded in 1 Corinthians 2:5:
"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
James 1:5:
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
Primacy of theTalmud
Author, Nesta Webster quotes Talmud translator, Michael Rodkinson's view of the importance of the Talmud in Jewish life:
" The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud."¹ 11a.
She goes on to mention the lesser importance of Scripture given by the Talmud:
" The Talmud itself accords to the Bible only a secondary place. Thus the Talmudic treatise Soferim says: 'The Bible is like water, the Mischna is like wine, and the Gemarah is like spiced wine.'" 11.
One can verify these statements in the Talmudic treatise Soferim, in the tract Sopherim XV, 7, fol.13b. This teaching regarding the inferior status of the Bible is echoed in the tract Babha Metsia, fol. 33a:
"Those who devote themselves to reading the Bible exercise a certain virtue, but not very much; those who study the Mischnah exercise virtue for which they will receive a reward; those, however, who take upon themselves to study the Gemarah exercise the highest virtue. " 12.
The author, Rev. I.B. Pranaitis, reiterates the high esteem with which the Talmud and its writers are held, either placing it on a level with Scripture or surpassing it:
"In the tract Erubhin, f.13b, where it is related that there was a difference of opinion between the two schools of Hillel and Schamai, it is concluded that:
"The words of both are the words of the living God."
In the book Mizbeach, cap. V, we find the following opinion:
"There is nothing superior to the Holy Talmud." "Contemporary defenders of the Talmud speak of it almost in the same way." 13.
"…The following is a well-known and highly praised opinion in the writings of the Rabbis:
"My son, give heed to the words of the scribes rather than to the words of the law."
The reason for this is found in the tract Sanhedrin X, 3, f.88b:
"He who transgresses the words of the scribes sins more gravely than the transgressors of the words of the law." 14.
From the Babylonian Talmud we read that rabbis can debate God---and win:
Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi
won the debate. 15.
Maimonides defines the various ways one would be considered a denier of the Law, meaning not the Bible, but the oral law as set down by the sages:
Rabbi Maimonides, in Hilkhoth Teschubhah (III, 8) gives the list of those who are considered as denying the Law: "There are three classes of people who deny the Law of the Torah: (1) Those who say that the Torah was not given by God, at least one verse or one word of it, and who say that it was all the work of Moses; (2) Those who reject the explanation of the Torah, namely, the Oral Law of the Mischnah, and do not recognize the authority of the Doctors of the Law, like the followers of Tsadok (Sadducees) and Baithos; (3) Those who say that God changed the Law for another New Law, and that the Torah no longer has any value, although they do not deny that it was given by God, as the Christians and the Turks believe. All of these deny the Law of the Torah." 16.
Scribes and Pharisees
Who are the scribes whose words or oral law must be listened to and obeyed above all the written law? Quoting again from Hyam Maccoby’s, Revolution in Judaea, is the following explanation of the terms Pharisee, Sadducee, scribes and rabbis, at the time of Christ.
"These [the Pharisees] were the members of the body of ‘Comrades’ (Haverim) as they called themselves. Their leaders were called ‘Wise Men’ (Hahamin), and they were later given the title ‘Master" (Rabbi) before their names. These leaders were also sometimes known as the ‘Scribes’ after the title of Ezra and his followers in late Biblical times. Pharisees, in fact, regarded Ezra as the founder of their movement, and they regarded themselves as the heirs of the Prophetic tradition." 17.
The term Pharisee was used at the time of Jesus, and eventually became replaced completely with rabbi, who was often a lay teacher. Rabbi Maccoby explains the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of Christ.
"The central religious distinction between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was on the question of the ‘Oral Law’. The Pharisees held that in addition to the revealed word of God in Scripture ( i.e. the Old Testament, as Christians later called, and especially the five books of Moses known as the Torah or ‘Teaching’) there was an oral tradition consisting of interpretations and enactments supplementing and developing the Written Law." 18.
"…The Sadducees, on the other hand, held that the whole of Judaism lay in the Written Law which was a closed and final revelation with no need of interpretation or development. The Sadducees, ...wanted to keep Judaism simple. They wanted it to be centered around three great institutions, the Scripture, the Priesthood, and the Temple…" 19.
Mr. Maccoby goes on to develop the Pharisaical view of the Torah as a dynamic document, subject to new interpretations by themselves, according to the Oral Law:
"… To the Pharisees, however, this policy was, in their own graphic phrase, ‘to put Torah into a corner’.[B.Kiddushin, 66a.(Talmud)] The Torah was to them, a living thing which must continually encounter and grapple with new circumstances, thus, giving rise to new decisions which became part of the developing Oral Law. This does not mean the Pharisees regarded the Bible as imperfect. It was the Word of God, revealed to Moses and the Prophets. But new circumstances were continually drawing out of it new depths of meaning; its content was inexhaustible. This growing knowledge of the possibilities of the Torah, revealed through time in the processes of history, was the Oral Law. In other words, the place of the Torah was ‘not in heaven, but in the hands of men’; [B.B.Metz, 59b. (Talmud)] and the Oral Law was thus the working, human reality of the divine revelation." 20.
"The Pharisees, however, always claimed that the Oral Law, of which they were supporters and champions, went back to the origins of Judaism and that the Sadducees, in denying the Oral Law, were heretics who were attempting to abolish a fundamental religious principle. " 21. |
