Messianic JudaismQuestion: I would like to know the practical implications for the above statements. See Earlier Post Messianic Judaism
Answer: I believe that a scholarly view of “Jewish Christianity†or “Christian Judaism†to use the academic terms for the earliest Jewish followers of Yeshua recognizes that there was not a monolithic expression among the various circles that embraced the messianic claims of Yeshua. That being said, this will be a complicated task and to some extent the practical implementation of this will be reflective of the underlying Jewish background and experiences of each Messianic community just as it exists within the normative Jewish community.
Conservative Judaism views the Talmud as authoritative but views it through the lens of modernity. Reconstructionists view Halakhah as a source of authority, the key being “a†source that has a vote but not a veto. In short all Judaisms recognize Talmud as an authoritative source, if for nothing else for past Jewish expression. Even Reform Judaism seeks to review halakhah and biblical sources in developing its rabbinic responsa, even though Reform Judaism has largely become the movement of individual choice.
As a whole, Messianic Jews and non-Jews in their midst still view Jewish sources rather wearily and do not see them as authoritative sources for believers in Yeshua.
Messianic Jewish circles must become familiar with and embrace Jewish sources as part of their own identity and experience while maintaining the ability and discretion to emphasize, deemphasize, uphold, or reject certain aspects of the Jewish theological smörgåsbord.
First we have to establish that a hierarchical view of authority can exist. Then we must philosophically or epistemologically orient ourselves to the view that the Torah is the sieve through which all subsequent texts of the Tanakh or the Apostolic writings are understood.
Question:
Some consider the Talmud to be authoritative. Some do not. Most Chabadniks consider Tanya and other works to be authoritative . Some consider Sefer HaZohar to be authoritative.
Answer:
Messianic Jews must view Jewish sources as plates or entrees on a buffet. The buffet is the Jewish experience, or “Judaism.†Different groups select or emphasize different aspects of the meal even as some aspects of the meal remain indepensible to any complete meal.
Most Messianic Jewish congregations need to “get to the buffet†first before concern about the applicability of Tanya and Zohar to Jewish life. Yet such sources should be embraced even as they are reviewed in light of Messianic Jew’s assertion that Yeshua is the Messiah.
Question: Was the entire Tanakh accepted by the Sadducees or only the first five books?
Answer: There is little evidence to definitively state whether the Sadducees believed in any texts outside of the Torah as far as I am aware.
Are these works authoritative, canonical, both or neither?
Question: When referencing the structure of the canon, how should we relate to books referenced by the Tanakh that are not in the Tanakh such as Sefer HaYashar.
Answer: I would say that books like Sefer HaYashar are not of great concern simply because we have no credible text or manuscript to work with. In this case, there is no practical application or modification that can take place in the canon for non existent texts. The Apocrypha or Pseudo-pigrapha are pontentially better candidates for discussion.
Tags: Christian Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Halakhah, Jewish, Jewish Christianity, Messianic Jews, Messianic Judaism, Reform Judaism, Talmud
9 responses so far ↓
1 daniel // Feb 25, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Please discuss the difference between works that are authoritative, canonical, both or neither and give some examples.
2 anonymous // Feb 26, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I was initially going to make arguements about the authority/inspiration of the Talmud but since you have asked to limit commentary to the Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha, I will do so.
I’m going to argue that I & II Maccabees are inspired and should have remained canonical but might be willing to debate how authoritative they are for the present (or at least those in the diaspora).
It would be my arguement that both works provide valuable insight into the conflict between Jews and the Greeks and why the book of Acts discusses conflict between the two and why goyim should abstain from eating animals with blood remaining in them, that which is strangled/trafe, meat sacrificed to idols etc.
The Vatican pronounced damnation on anyone who did not accept the Apocrypha and so these books were dropped from many Christain bibles in response.
There are some modern versions, however, who have added them back.
I would dispute the inspiration/authority of other apocryphal works such as Bel and the Dragon though which was also dropped from the Protestant canon and rightfully so.
3 admin // Feb 26, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Please feel free to comment on the authority/inspiration of the Talmud. My comment was only in reference to Sefer haYashar.
4 anonymous // Feb 27, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Nehemiah 8:14
And they found written in the Law, how that HaShem had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;
One might think that if the oral law went all the way back to Moses that they would have known about Succos.
Should we discuss Talmud Yerushalmi or Bavli?
5 daniel // Feb 27, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Could a posibility be that that the Mishna was developed over time and not mystically passed on from Moshe to the Great Assembly then to the Yahvne Sanhedrin?
6 anonymous // Feb 27, 2008 at 4:42 pm
It is much more likely it developed over time, especially since it references events, places and issues that did not exist in the time of Moshe Rabbenu, especially since Talmud Bavli was written in Aramaic and not Hebrew.
Accepting the oral tradition as an oral tradition that offers insight, guidance and commentary is much more rational that claiming that it was handed to Moshe on a third tablet of stone at Sinai.
I would then accept it as being somewhat authoritative and offering insight but not 100% inspired by G-d, especially since tradition overrules the written law on numerous occasions.
7 Jacob // Feb 27, 2008 at 5:52 pm
On what points does the tradition override the Written Torah?
There are two views in Orthodoxy. One that views the entirety of the Oral Torah revealed at Sinai, and the other as being Divinely inspired, but derived over time via the study of the Sages.
8 anonymous // Feb 27, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Compare and discuss Mishneh Shevi’it 10:3 with Devarim 15:2 which states
“And this is the manner of the release; to release the hand of every creditor from what he lent his friend; he shall not exact from his friend or his brother, because time of the release for the Lord has arrived.”
Hillel repealed the nullification of debts in the sabbatical year because it was unfavorable to lenders, who would not be inclined to lend money to someone at if the debt would be forgiven.
Rosh HaShannah is to be a day of blowing the shofar, but if it falls on a shabbos, it is not blown, etc…
9 daniel // Feb 27, 2008 at 7:12 pm
How do you guys feel about progressive revelation after the revelation of Meshiach in first century Israel? I heard messianics believe in new revelations though traditional rabbinical sources such as the Zohar, something that would be antithetical to the traditional Christian view that G-d fullness of revelation was in Yeshua HaMeshiach and everything that needed to be said was expounded n the Memoirs of the Disciples.
Leave a Comment