Counter-Missionary > The Oral Law - Part II

The Oral Law - Part II

Let’s take this a step further. What if 1,000 prophets of the caliber of Elijah and Elisha tell you that the Torah means one thing, but 1,001 sages tell you it means something else? Whom do you follow? Maimonides, the most influential medieval Jewish scholar, is emphatic: “The final ruling is in accordance with the 1,001 sages.”4 Yes, the Talmud even teaches that if Elijah himself differed with a rabbinic tradition or a prevailing custom of the people—not a biblical Law itself but simply a tradition or custom concerning that Law—then he should not be followed. Talmud, Yebamot 102a.

This is not an argument.

If a 1000 prophets are false, and one prophet is true, you are supposed to listen to the one prophet. (Cf. Deut 13:1-12, Deut 18, I Kings 18).

Brown is grabbing at lose straws here. The standard of evidence requires that there is an Oral Torah, anyone who disagrees is a false prophet. Hence, any prophet, no matter how great, denies the veracity of the Oral Torah, is denying G-d Himself, since G-d Himself declared that we are to listen to the judges and priests and their rulings (Exo 18, Deut 16, Deut 17:8-12 etc). Anyone in violation of that will be violating a Torah-precept. A prophet who denies this is a classical false-prophet since he denies G-d's mastery over His Torah and the way it is to be interpreted.

The sources that Brown cites are too vague. Maimonides (Rambam) wrote an introduction to the Mishnah on every Seder, as well as an introduction to Mishnayos. However, it is lengthy. Brown should provide a better citation if I'm to look up the source. The reference to Yevamos is completely wrong. It isn't related to the discussion at all.

“But,” you might say, “there may be something to that. Shouldn’t we follow the plain and obvious meaning of the Bible even if some prophet claims that God told him otherwise?” Of course we should. But that is not what Maimonides was saying. He actually argued that if someone like Elijah favored the plain and obvious meaning of the Scriptures instead of the rabbinic tradition, the tradition was to be followed.

Question for Dr Brown. Lets assume the Rabbis are right. That means that the Rabbinical interpretation is the correct interpretation, how G-d wants the people to interpret the text. By virtue of this fact then, any prophet that argues for the plain and simple meaning of the scriptures is not only wrong, but going against G-d. A serious crime no? Your argument then is irrelevant.

So even a proven prophet, backed by the power of God and following the plain sense of the Bible, has less weight than rabbinic tradition. And the sages, by a majority of even one, outweigh the likes of Elijah and Elisha when it comes to interpreting the Law. Are things getting clearer now?

An established prophet, backed by the power of G-d, doesn't follow the plain sense of the text, but rather the Rabbinic interpretation of scripture. Your argument is flawed. Things are becoming more hazy.

More Weight—Rabbis or God?
But it doesn’t stop there: A legal decision made by the majority of the sages carries more weight than even the voice of God! According to one of the most famous stories in the Talmud (Baba Mesia 59b), there was a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer the Great and the sages about whether or not a particular kind of oven was ritually clean. He answered every one of their arguments, but they refused to accept his decision. Rabbi Eliezer then called upon a series of miracles to verify his ruling: If the Law is in accordance with me, then let this carob tree be uprooted; let this stream of water stop flowing; let the walls of this house of study collapse. Amazingly, the Talmud teaches that each miracle happened, but still the other rabbis refused to be moved.

But Dr Brown, you rejected the Talmud as the statements of man, and have little weight in your circle of reading the Bible literally. Why then do you cite it as proof for your assertion, when you yourself reject its premise - that it is G-d given. Double-standards again.

Finally, Rabbi Eliezer called on God Himself to verify his position. Immediately, a voice came from heaven saying, “Why are you troubling Rabbi Eliezer? The legal ruling is always in accordance with him.” To which Rabbi Joshua exclaimed, “It is not in heaven!” In other words, since the Torah was given at Mount Sinai (and is therefore no longer “in heaven”), legal decisions are to be made solely on the basis of human reasoning and logical deduction. Period. As expressed by the legal authority Rabbi Aryeh Leib: “Let the truth emerge from the earth. The truth be as the sages decide with the human mind.”6

This is a well-known Talmudic Medrash (Bava Metzia 59a-b). There is some dispute whether or not its to be taken literally among the more recent commentators. Nonetheless, what is seldom quoted is the end of the Medrash:

R. Noson said to Eliyahu: What was Hashem doing at the time of that dispute?
He laughed and said 'My children have made (My Torah) Eternal'. That day, they burned all the food which was Tahor according to R. Eliezer (and Tamei according to Chachamim); they voted and excommunicated him. R. Akiva volunteered to inform him, lest this be done improperly.
Wherever R. Eliezer looked at was burned. R. Gamliel (the Nasi, who authorized the excommunication) was on a boat; a storm was about to sink it.
R. Gamliel said: Hashem, you know I acted for Your honor, so disputes will not increase in Yisrael. (The storm abated.)

Dr Brown however missed a number of key points.

1. The reference here is not that man is overriding G-d, or that somehow G-d has been overruled. The point is a point in authority of the Sages. G-d gave the sages the rules of interpretation and the right to decide agreement - to avoid dispute. The point is that while individuals have weight and are right in of themselves they are not in a position to argue against the Sages in practical application of the law.

2. A Heavenly Voice (Bas Kol) is considered a lower form of prophecy than Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit), the Sages could override this level of prophecy, if it is conflict with accepted laws. (See Tosefos (Rebbi) Yevamos 14a).

3. This is a logical point. Both opinions - the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer were true and 100% valid. The question was application in Halacha. This dispute was resolved by the fact that the rules are to be followed even when it seems contrary (as per the verse in Deut 17:8-12 - do not veer from the left or the right).

4. If you accept that the rules of interpretation and the Sages' mandate is G-d given, plus the fact that Brown failed to quote the end of the discussion - you see that G-d accepted the fact that the sages made His Torah eternal, together with the fact that a heavenly voice could be overriden, but not higher degrees of prophecy is suggestive therefore that the Sages represent G-d, and are doing G-d's will.

And so if God speaks—as He did here—the sages can (and should!) overrule Him if they disagree with His interpretation. What was the basis for such an incredible position? The Talmud cites the last three words of Exodus 23:2 and interprets them to mean, “Follow the majority.” But the text says the exact opposite! Just read the whole verse. The meaning is clearly, “Don’t follow the majority.” Even J. H. Hertz, the former chief rabbi of England, wrote: “The Rabbis disregarded the literal meaning of the last three Hebrew words, and took them to imply that, except when it is ‘to do evil,’ one should follow the majority.”7 And that is their support for negating and disregarding the voice of God! A verse that says “Don’t follow the majority” was sliced up and reinterpreted so as to mean, “Follow the majority,” and, on this basis, God Himself was overruled. It almost takes your breath away.

Exodus 23:2 reads:
Do not be a follower of the majority for evil.

A simple reading of the verse is that for good you should follow the majority - in a matter of halacha when both opinions have equal merit, we should follow the majority.

Can Rabbis Change the Torah?
Amazingly, the Talmudic text goes on to say that Elijah later informed one of the rabbis that God laughed about the incident saying, “My sons have defeated Me!” Talk about “majority rules”! Not only is it true that 1,000 prophets following the plain sense of the Scripture don’t stand a chance against 1,001 sages, but God Himself doesn’t stand a chance against even two sages should they beg to differ with Him! Did you have any idea that the power of tradition and human authority went so far?

Actually, Brown failed to cite the proper source, and he misquoted the end of the Medrash. He failed to address the significance of what the Medrash was talking about, and he failed to address Tosefos in Yevamos, who points out that we're talking about a Heavenly voice which has a lower status than Ruach HaKodesh.

Dr Brown also forgot that the Sages were also right in their approach. The question was not who was right, as is often misunderstood. Both Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages' view had equal merit, the Talmud was pointing out a question of application in halacha - what to do. For that, the sages, were correct - one can only have one view that of what G-d ordained - to follow the majority.

It is not that these rabbis were arrogant or irreverent. They simply believed that it was their God-given duty to interpret and make Laws, and, over the process of time, they came to believe that their traditions were sacred.

Dr Brown makes it all sound as though its simply belief. Its both logical and scriptural. Brown asserted that: "There is no biblical evidence for an unbroken chain of tradition and plenty of evidence against it."

Yet brown has cited no evidence against the biblical chain, but has shown that the Sages have Biblically mandated allowances. Brown has shown that there is an unbroken chain of tradition - he has cited verses that show clearly that the Sages represent G-d.

They even claimed to have the right to change the biblical Laws if necessary. What was their scriptural support for this? Psalm 119:126: “It is time for you to act, O LORD; your law is being broken.” To which you might say, “I don’t get it. What has this verse got to do with changing the Law?” Nothing.

Dr Brown didn't bother to cite in full the meaning behind this verse. The context of this verse is used specifically in times of emergency (Yoma 69a and Gittin 60a) However, Brown's subterfuge for not understanding the Talmud's learning of the verses, as reason to discredit it is very poor logic, and not sound reasoning.

Also Dr Brown created a strawman. The argument is that under emergency measures, the sages have the right to abrogate certain commands, in favor of other commands. The classical example of this is that it is forbidden to write down the Oral Law (Gitten 60a). However, since there was a genuine fear of it being lost and forgotten entirely over many generations due to the strain of exile, the Sages used this verse as support for allowing it to be written down in is entirety and publically made available. The Oral Law was already written down in private lecture notes by the sages, to ensure veracity, but these could not be publically disseminated. Since this was an emergency measure to prevent a massive loss to Israel, the sages used this verse: the verse of acting in a scenario, which would result in the potential of laws being ignored or broken.

This is not a blanket statement to allow the sages to abrogate the Torah in every situation. But is only allowed in certain specific circumstances.

But it was totally reinterpreted (actually, totally misinterpreted) to mean: “Sometimes, in order to act for the Lord, it is necessary to dissolve His Laws.” I kid you not.

As was discussed above, the sages have the power, under specific circumstances, to allow one law to be abrogated in favor of a more pressing law.

Question: Dr Brown is interested in making comparisons to the United States Supreme Court. Since Dr Brown has not sudied US Law, I will give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the power the Supreme court has in matters of judicial emergency. Let us imagine that the country is at war and is facing financial collapse. In order to avoid almost certain ruin, the Supreme Court could temporarily void the constitutional ammendment allowing states to individually set their own taxes, and force the federal legislature to impose a single tax on all states.

Maybe Dr Brown will feel that the US Constitution is too sacred and holy to simply temporarily void, a relatively minor ammendment, and would certainly rather that the country face financial collapse. Or Dr Brown would prefer that the veto power over the senate in times of crisis not be used, since he values democracy over logic, and reason?

But lets get real over here. The sages have a mandate - to safeguard and perpetuate G-d's Law. It is meant to be obeyed and followed. If the sages have a specific source - to allow them specific veto power in times of crises to abrogate specific laws for the benefit of all, is it entirely wrong of them to do so? Remember, we're not talking about every sage, in every era, we're talking about the Great Court, who sat at the seat of the equivalent Supreme court of Israel, who were in the hall of hewn-stone - a hall situated on the Temple Mount, practicing righteous judgment, in the House of G-d - the Holy Temple. With G-d's Divine sanction they made laws, binding on Israel, so that the Law would be followed and practiced even today.

Is it any wonder, then, that at times the Talmud credits the sages with “uprooting Scripture” with their interpretations?9 This is something worth remembering the next time someone tries to tell you that Jesus and Paul freely went around breaking and changing the laws.

1. Is it any wonder that Dr Brown's attacks at the Talmud are not at all thoughtout, not properly cited. I'm suprised the Dr Brown didn't provide all the sources in the Talmud of this often quoted phrase? But then again, Brown's penchant for academic rigor is only available when it suits him?

2. Brown cites Sotah 16a as support for the 'Sages' uprooting verses:

We can learn from R. Yishmael, who said that in three places, a tradition from Moshe from Sinai uproots the verse.

1. "(You will cover the blood) in dirt" - but the law is, it may be covered with anything (in which vegetation can grow. (Leviticus 17:13)
2. "(A Nazir may not shave with a) razor" - but the law is, he may not totally remove hairs in any way; (Numbers 6:5)
3. "(The husband will write) a Sefer (of divorce)" - but the law is, he may write on anything.(Deuteronomy 24:1)

Rashi comments that: this is a law learned from Moses at Sinai.

1. When the Talmud lists these, it usually lists these as the only time this happens. Brown assumes that this a precedent for all laws in all places. This is not the case. It happens to be in Sotah, there is a dispute regarding an additional law if it is in the list or not. But thats it! No other laws are like this.

2. The law being uprooted is not a decree of the Sages. Brown failed to mention that it is a tradition heard from Moses at Sinai - meaning G-d told Moses these laws precisely because these are the only three in existence that 'uproot' verses.

3. What exactly is the uprooting? you can cover with anything, you may not totally remove the hairs, and a bill of divorce maybe written on anything.

Brown's lack of academic rigor has shown that really the power to uproot lies with G-d himself, that the verses in question number three in total, and the serious 'uprooting' that Brown suggests is simply an extension of the law a little to be more inclusive. If this is the only example of 'uprooting' that Brown tells us the sages are guilty of (besides the fact that it is not the sages at all), then Brown better hold true to his words: "I want you to understand that this is not a matter of finding minor contradictions and interpretative difficulties. No." If Brown is correct, then we should hold his actions to his words - Brown, take head - the uprooting are a few minor interpretative extensions, as is clearly spelled out in the Talmud here, and in Rashi.

And where do the rabbis claim that the Bible itself makes reference to the Oral Law? One key text is Exodus 34:27:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

What does this verse have to do with the Oral Law? Nothing at all! The context speaks of Laws to be written down.

The implication is that G-d spoke laws that were not written down. And Moses was told NOT to write these down. I wonder why? QED.

How then did the authors of the Talmud find a reference here to the unwritten Law? First, they failed to quote the beginning of the verse (“Write down these words”).

Those involved in Talmudic discussion will tell you that the Talmud rarely cites entire verses. The assumption is that you will take the trouble to look it up, and that you already know the verse, just the hint of a word here and there will remind you where it is. This is a poor argument - it is rare the Talmud quotes entire verses in full.

Then, they noticed that the Hebrew phrase translated “in accordance with” (‘al pî) was very close to the Hebrew phrase for “oral” (‘al peh).

Dr Brown's own logic fails him. Brown failed to point out that the root in Hebrew Peh (פה), means mouth. When the Torah uses the form it generally refers to the mouth. In English the same is true: When you go to the dentist, for a teeth cleaning, you visit the Oral hygenist. many exams involve an Oral test - a test involving Oral information. The mouth is a key reference here to the Oral nature of transmission: in Hebrew: Al Peh (על פה). Brown also 'forgot' to mention that Heberw is a root-based language (while there is some disagreement exactly if the root system is intrinsic or is a means to explain the language), nonetheless, the point is that the same root is employed. The phrase: Al Peh - means upon the mouth - literally. However, it is a idiomatic expression (something all languages have at their core), which means - through the mouth - or through oral transmission. The usage in general parlance is according to Hebrew - Al Peh (על פה) - meaning - that I heard the satement from him, and according to him etc...

This is not the work of the Sages, but simple grammatical structure. Brown forgot to mention that this may be found in that veritable grammar source that every Hebrew Academic knows - Kautsch's Gesenius' Grammar.

Brown seems to assume that because the Sages said it, it is Rabbinic, and if not, its scriptural. Did it occur to Brown to ask: How did they infer it?

So, the verse was understood as if it said: “Write down these words, for on the testimony over these words, I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” But that is not what the Hebrew says, as any reliable Jewish translation of the Bible will tell you at once. A play on words is one thing; the real meaning is something else.

Let us analyze the verse in Hebrew to satisfy Brown's attack: (I have used the NASB here) To avoid being accused of taking the verse out of context:

Exodus 34
27 Then the LORD said to Moses, " Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. 29 It came about when Moses was coming down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the testimony {were} in Moses' hand as he was coming down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because of his speaking with Him. 30 So when Aaron and all the sons of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. 31 Then Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the rulers in the congregation returned to him; and Moses spoke to them. 32 Afterward all the sons of Israel came near, and he commanded them {to do} everything that the LORD had spoken to him on Mount Sinai.

כז וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, כְּתָב-לְךָ אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה: כִּי עַל-פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, כָּרַתִּי אִתְּךָ בְּרִית וְאֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל. כח וַיְהִי-שָׁם עִם-ה', אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לַיְלָה לֶחֶם לֹא אָכַל, וּמַיִם לֹא שָׁתָה; וַיִּכְתֹּב עַל-הַלֻּחֹת, אֵת דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית עֲשֶׂרֶת, הַדְּבָרִים. כט וַיְהִי, בְּרֶדֶת מֹשֶׁה מֵהַר סִינַי, וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה, בְּרִדְתּוֹ מִן-הָהָר; וּמֹשֶׁה לֹא-יָדַע, כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו בְּדַבְּרוֹ אִתּוֹ. ל וַיַּרְא אַהֲרֹן וְכָל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה, וְהִנֵּה קָרַן, עוֹר פָּנָיו; וַיִּירְאוּ, מִגֶּשֶׁת אֵלָיו. לא וַיִּקְרָא אֲלֵהֶם מֹשֶׁה, וַיָּשֻׁבוּ אֵלָיו אַהֲרֹן וְכָל-הַנְּשִׂאִים בָּעֵדָה; וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה, אֲלֵהֶם. לב וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן נִגְּשׁוּ, כָּל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיְצַוֵּם אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה' אִתּוֹ, בְּהַר סִינָי. לג וַיְכַל מֹשֶׁה, מִדַּבֵּר אִתָּם; וַיִּתֵּן עַל-פָּנָיו, מַסְוֶה. לד וּבְבֹא מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי ה', לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ, יָסִיר אֶת-הַמַּסְוֶה, עַד-צֵאתוֹ; וְיָצָא, וְדִבֶּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֵת, אֲשֶׁר יְצֻוֶּה. לה וְרָאוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-פְּנֵי מֹשֶׁה, כִּי קָרַן, עוֹר פְּנֵי מֹשֶׁה; וְהֵשִׁיב מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הַמַּסְוֶה עַל-פָּנָיו, עַד-בֹּאוֹ לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ.

G-d tells Moses to write down the Ten Commandments (Deut 5) Brown will agree that this really doesn't cover most of the Torah and what it says, yet G-d tells us in v. 32 that after Moses came down (a second time), all of Israel heard what Moses said and commanded to do, that G-d said on Mount Sinai. It seems that G-d told Moses to write one thing down, and to tell the people a lot of extra information that was not written down. Why didn't Moses simply say - look guys, here is the rule book follow this, no need to listen to G-d no more....read the book, and do what it says...QED. This Brown's argument - follow the Torah, just like the Sadducees and Karites before him. Yet Brown knows that this argument fails - the Torah tells us that G-d spoke things that were not written down.

Nonetheless, Brown's argument against Jewish translations doesn't hold water: the Artscroll Tanach, Stone Edition translates the key verses (Exo 34:27-28):

Hashem said to Moses, "Write these words for yourself, for according to these words have I sealed a covenant with you and Israel. He remained there with Hashem for forty days and forty nights - he did not eat bread and he did not drink water - and He wrote on the Tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

This is the Judaica Press Translation:
The Lord said to Moses: "Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel." He was there with the Lord for forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water, and He inscribed upon the tablets the words of the Covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Brown failed to consider the entire meaning of the passage:

And how did Rashi, the greatest of all Jewish biblical commentators, handle the clear meaning of this verse that the covenant was based on the written Word? He interpreted “Write down these words” to mean these words only, explaining that “it is not permitted to write down the words of the Oral Law.”10 So, God says, “Write!” but the tradition says, “Don’t write it all!” God makes His covenant with Israel based on what was transmitted in writing; the Talmud says that the real essence of the covenant was based on what was transmitted orally. And isn’t it strange that a biblical text clearly emphasizing the Written Law was utilized by the Talmud to point to the Oral Law—based on a play on words alone? What an example of grasping at straws!

Rashi writes:

את הדברים האלה. ולא אתה רשאי לכתוב תורה שבע"פ:

Exo 34:27: these words. But you are not permitted to write down the Oral Torah. [from Gittin 60b].

Exo 34:31. But Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the princes of the community returned to him, and Moses would speak to them.

Rashi writes:

הנשאים בעדה. כמו נשיאי העדה:
וידבר משה אליהם. שליחותו של מקום ולשון הווה הוא כל הענין הזה:

the princes of the community Heb. הַנְשִׂאִים בָּעֵדָה lit., the princes in the community, like נְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה, the princes of the community.
and Moses would speak to them [sharing] the Omnipresent’s message, and this entire passage is in the present tense.

Exo 34:32. Afterwards all the children of Israel would draw near, and he would command them everything that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai.

Rashi writes:

ואחרי כן נגשו. אחר שלמד לזקנים חוזר ומלמד הפרשה או ההלכה לישראל. תנו רבנן כיצד סדר המשנה משה היה לומד מפי הגבורה נכנס אהרן שנה לו משה פרקו נסתלק אהרן וישב לו לשמאל משה נכנסו בניו שנה להם משה פרקם נסתלקו הם ישב אלעזר לימין משה ואיתמר לשמאל אהרן נכנסו זקנים שנה להם משה פרקם נסתלקו זקנים ישבו לצדדין נכנסו כל העם שנה להם משה פרקם נמצא ביד כל העם א' ביד הזקנים ב' ביד בני אהרן שלשה ביד אהרן ארבעה וכו' כדאיתא בעירובין (דף נד):

Afterwards… would draw near After he taught the elders, he would repeat and teach the chapter or the halachah to the Israelites. The Rabbis taught: What was the order of teaching? Moses would learn from the mouth of Almighty. Aaron would enter, and Moses would teach him his chapter. Aaron would move away and sit at Moses’ left. His [Aaron’s] sons would enter, and Moses would teach them their chapter. They would move away, and Eleazar would sit at Moses’ right and Ithamar would sit at Aaron’s left. [Then] the elders would enter, and Moses would teach them their chapter. The elders would move away and sit down on the sides. [Then] the entire nation would enter, and Moses would teach them their chapter. Thus, the entire nation possessed one [lesson from Moses], the elders possessed two, Aaron’s sons possessed three, Aaron possessed four, etc., as is stated in Eruvin (54b).

But Dr Brown fails to appreciate what is going on over here. Is Rashi truly misunderstanding the text? or reading the text in context? You see, if you read v.32, what was G-d saying to Moses that wasn't written down - you see, Rashi had a problem in the verse - if we read things literally as Brown wishes, we have to ask ourselves, on v. 32 what did Moses teach that was different from what was already written in the Ten Commandments? If Moses was told to write the whole Torah - which took 40 days/nights, what was he teaching the people? Tell them to read the text. Moses' job was complete, and they didn't need any more explanation, yet time after time, the same process happens - G-d tells Moses X, and Moses relays it to the people - why? Wasn't it written down according to Brown? Brown will argue that over a 40 year period, the text wasn't finalized, and only at the end was it finally formed. Lets accept this point - so G-d was teaching them what? new laws not written yet? Write them down then....no need to waste time in the desert with teaching laws, write them down....!?

According to Brown, Joshua's statements are also a wonder:

Joshua 24
22 Then Joshua said, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the Lord." "Yes, we are witnesses," they replied. 23 "Now then," said Joshua, "throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel." 24 And the people said to Joshua, "We will serve the Lord our God and obey him." 25 On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he drew up for them decrees and laws. 26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the Lord. 27 "See!" he said to all the people. "This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God."

According to Dr Brown, Joshua's statements are very hard to understand - what was Joshua making new covenants and what was he doing making decrees and laws? What did Joshua add to the Torah?

The complete absence of any mention of an Oral Law in the Hebrew Bible stands in direct contrast to the frequent references to the binding nature of the Written Law found throughout the Scriptures.

And Dr Brown's statements, as we have shown above are flawed. The fact that G-d tells Moses to write things down, implies that He told Moses information that was not written down.

Just read verses like Deuteronomy 31:2426:

After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end [and notice: there was no part of the Law that Moses failed to write down; he wrote it all, from beginning to end], he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD: “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.”

Deuteronomy 31:23-27 (Judaica Press, Translation)
And He commanded Joshua the son of Nun, and said: "Be strong and courageous! For you shall bring the children of Israel to the land that I have sworn to them, and I will be with you." And it was, when Moses finished writing the words of this Torah in a scroll, until their very completion, that Moses commanded the Levites, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: "Take this Torah scroll and place it along side the ark of covenant of the Lord, your God, and it will be there as a witness. For I know your rebellious spirit and your stubbornness. Even while I am alive with you today you are rebelling against the Lord, and surely after my death!

וַיְצַו אֶת-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, וַיֹּאמֶר חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ כִּי אַתָּה תָּבִיא אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לָהֶם; וְאָנֹכִי, אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ. כד וַיְהִי כְּכַלּוֹת מֹשֶׁה, לִכְתֹּב אֶת-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה-הַזֹּאת עַל-סֵפֶר: עַד, תֻּמָּם. כה וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם, נֹשְׂאֵי אֲרוֹן בְּרִית-ה' לֵאמֹר. כו לָקֹחַ, אֵת סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה, וְשַׂמְתֶּם אֹתוֹ, מִצַּד אֲרוֹן בְּרִית-ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם; וְהָיָה-שָׁם בְּךָ, לְעֵד. כז כִּי אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי אֶת-מֶרְיְךָ, וְאֶת-עָרְפְּךָ הַקָּשֶׁה; הֵן בְּעוֹדֶנִּי חַי עִמָּכֶם הַיּוֹם, מַמְרִים הֱיִתֶם עִם-ה', וְאַף, כִּי-אַחֲרֵי מוֹתִי. כח הַקְהִילוּ אֵלַי אֶת-כָּל-זִקְנֵי שִׁבְטֵיכֶם, וְשֹׁטְרֵיכֶם; וַאֲדַבְּרָה בְאָזְנֵיהֶם, אֵת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וְאָעִידָה בָּם, אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ. כט כִּי יָדַעְתִּי, אַחֲרֵי מוֹתִי כִּי-הַשְׁחֵת תַּשְׁחִתוּן, וְסַרְתֶּם מִן-הַדֶּרֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶתְכֶם; וְקָרָאת אֶתְכֶם הָרָעָה, בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים כִּי-תַעֲשׂוּ אֶת-הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי ה', לְהַכְעִיסוֹ בְּמַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵיכֶם. ל וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה, בְּאָזְנֵי כָּל-קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-דִּבְרֵי הַשִּׁירָה, הַזֹּאת עַד, תֻּמָּם.

Brown fails to address a key point. Judaism understands that the Written and Oral Torahs are intrinsic to each other, the fact that the verses state that the written Torah was written is not a proof against the Oral Torah.
Remember: lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.
The verse here indicates that the Scroll was written. Judaism doesn't deny that the Written Torah is central, and the Word of G-d.

There are plenty of verses (cited above throughout my critique that show that the Torah lends itself to wide varieties of interpretation, and that Oral Torah is given from G-d in a number of places) which Brown purposefully ignores (such as Daniel 6:10).

There are plenty of other verses that say the same thing, such as Exodus 24:7-8; Deuteronomy 17:14-20; 28:58-59; 30:9-10; Joshua 1:8; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:13; 2 Kings 22:13; 23:3,21; 1 Chronicles 16:39-40; 2 Chronicles 30:5; 31:3; 35:26-27; Ezra 3:24; 6:18; Nehemiah 10:28-29; 13:1; Daniel 9:13. I encourage you to look up these verses and read them carefully. Where is there any mention of an Oral Law?

If the Oral Law is intrinsic, and essential and that the Oral Torah was never meant to be written down, why would I expect there to be a mention of it? Again, lets accept the Torah's standard of evidence, before we put our own opinions on the matter.

Nonetheless:

Exodus 24:7-8
Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey." Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Deuteronomy 17:14-20
When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,"
be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees. and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

The Torah says to obey G-d, and follow His commandments. Several commandments involve taking heed of the judges and priests - Exo 18, Deut 16 Deut 17:8-12. It would therefore be logical to do what they say, since the Torah says to listen to them - this shows that listening to judges and priests is a Torah-precept.

Deuteronomy 28:58-59
If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name--the Lord your God-- the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses.

Deuteronomy 30:8-20
You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Brown took these verses out of context. The highlighted passages show that clearly, an Oral Torah is hinted to. Why should it be in our mouths? Surely it should be written down and guarded from error? hmmmm. The implication of the first verse above indicates that there were other laws given on other days....other laws?

Joshua 1:8
Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.

According to Brown, the book of law should not depart from your hand, read it day and night, so that you are careful to perform it. The verse says that the Torah should be spoken about so that it is not forgotten - why? Why are we to forget what is written?

Joshua 23:6
"Be very strong; be careful to obey all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, without turning aside to the right or to the left.

The reference to I Kings 2:13 is the wrong quote.

2 Kings 22:13
"Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord's anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us."

2 Kings 23
3 The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the Lord--to follow the Lord and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. Then all the people pledged themselves to the covenant. 21 The king gave this order to all the people: "Celebrate the Passover to the Lord your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant."

If the Torah's laws are within reach, and easy to accomplish (Deut 30), and they performed the celebration of Passover. I would like to know from Dr Brown, did they labor on the six days intervening Passover or not? The verses are in contradiction to each other. Please provide accurate resolution that is sourced in what G-d wants....

1 Chronicles 16:39-40
David left Zadok the priest and his fellow priests before the tabernacle of the Lord at the high place in Gibeon to present burnt offerings to the Lord on the altar of burnt offering regularly, morning and evening, in accordance with everything written in the Law of the Lord, which he had given Israel.

2 Chronicles 30:5
They decided to send a proclamation throughout Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, calling the people to come to Jerusalem and celebrate the Passover to the Lord, the God of Israel. It had not been celebrated in large numbers according to what was written.

2 Chronicles 31:3
The king contributed from his own possessions for the morning and evening burnt offerings and for the burnt offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moons and appointed feasts as written in the Law of the Lord.

2 Chronicles 35:26-27
The other events of Josiah's reign and his acts of devotion, according to what is written in the Law of the Lord--all the events, from beginning to end, are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.

Where is this book of Kings? Why are things not recorded in 2 Chronicles / 2 Kings? According to Brown it is an impossibilty that other things were recorded elsewhere, and Oral testimony transferred? Why not?

Ezra 3:24 is a misquote

Ezra 6:18
And they installed the priests in their divisions and the Levites in their groups for the service of God at Jerusalem, according to what is written in the Book of Moses.

Nehemiah 10:28-29
"The rest of the people--priests, Levites, gatekeepers, singers, temple servants and all who separated themselves from the neighboring peoples for the sake of the Law of God, together with their wives and all their sons and daughters who are able to understand--all these now join their brothers the nobles, and bind themselves with a curse and an oath to follow the Law of God given through Moses the servant of God and to obey carefully all the commands, regulations and decrees of the Lord our Lord.

In contrast to Kings, Nehemiah writes: to obey carefully all the commands, regulations and decrees but what about that which was written? Kings specifically mentioned writing as well as Ezra, but Nehemiah not? why not? According to Brown, they should have followed just what was written. Why did Nehemiah not add that all important phrase....

Nehemiah 13:1
On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever be admitted into the assembly of God,

Daniel 9:13
Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth.

It is possible that a rabbinic Jew might point to Nehemiah 8:8, the only verse which mentions that the Levites made the Law clear as it was being read. This means either that they translated it into a more understandable language (probably Aramaic for the exiles), or else they explained its meaning. This, of course, was the role of the priests and Levites: to educate the people in the Torah (see Leviticus 10:10-11). But, once again, to make some connection between this verse and an alleged unbroken chain of binding tradition is to build a mountain out of a non-existent mole hill.

Nehemiah 8:8
They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.

Once again Brown fails to make the proper connection, based on the proper verses. We already showed that the right to leadership was passed from Moses to Joshua, and Joshua passed it on to the elders (Cf. Josh 24). Secondly, Brown assumes the verses he cited are used to show that there is an Oral Law. However, I clearly showed that other verses are used. Brown offers us a strawman argument and then expects religious Jews to agree to him?

And, if there were such an authoritative chain of interpretation, why are there so many disagreements about the Law on virtually every page of the Talmud? One could almost say that the Talmud consists of disagreements and discussions about the interpretation and application of the Law. And why do the great rabbinic commentaries differ on the meaning of hundreds and hundreds of biblical verses? Where is the authoritative chain of tradition?

Did Brown ever consider the arguments? Lets take a classic dispute between Hillel and Shammai (Berachos 1:1). Hillel argues the time for reading the shema (the verses in Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21 and Numbers 15:37-41) is dependent on the verses in Deuteronomy 6:6 (when you arise and when you retire, and that the position for doing either is (on the way) in any manner. Shammai argues that the verses of position - indicate position - meaning that it must be recited lying down and standing up. Shammai agrees that time is in the morning and evening.

Nonetheless, both are in agreement over a wide range of issues - that the command to say Shema is a Torah-precept, to be recited twice daily, that the verses are those cited above. The only difference in this one detail is the position of doing it. Which is a by-product of reading the verses. The same is true for 100% of all the disagreements in the Mishnah and Talmud.

In addition, everyone is unanimous in terms of what a Jew is required by Law (see the Shulchan Aruch), that no-one recites the Shema lying down. In fact, You will find that in 95% of the entire code of Jewish Law, 5% is variable in terms of tradition, and that 5% is not even a halachic difference of significance, but rather cultural preference.

Brown's argument is flawed from a logical perspective. So far I have shown that a.) the disputes mentioned in the Talmud are hair-splitting minute differences, often in how to read a verse, or the interpretation of a given rule, and usually the outcome (the practical application) doesn't change at all. b.) The overall disagreement is considerably small, very little is in dispute.

However, let us assume Brown's position. What difference does it make if there are disagreements and disputes about how to read a verse, or various ways of interpreting a verse - remember, we already determined that the the people themselves had disputes and needed resolution (Exo. 18). Disagreement or argument is really the wrong word to describe the differences of opinion. Rather, the word in Hebrew is Machlokes (מחלקת) from the root חלק meaning to divide or to smooth. In any debate there are usually two sides, with different perspectives. A division occurs when you see the positive and negatives of each perspective. Once each relevant perspective is determined, a decision is made on who to follow, based on rules given by G-d. The overarching point is that this process of determining what the decisions are and what the point of division is, is part of truly obtaining an appreciation of the the truth and veracity of Torah.

If the disagreements are minute, hair-splitting differences, over the details, then the rest is built on solid foundations, then there is less chance of collapse.

Mayor Guiliani understood that if you focus on the tiny details such as jaywalking and loitering, cracking down on these relatively minor offenses, serious capital offenses dropped dramatically. Why? Because the details count - if the policemen are occupied with the tiny details, then the big matters are really important. If the details are not important, then the bigger details are less important.

Brown in the same breath criticizes Rabbis for having tinted glasses, and believes he has found that Rabbinic traditions, as he sees them, lack the solidity to stand up to academic rigor. Yet, Brown criticizes the same Rabbis for having disagreements and arguments, in determining the truth - which is it Brown? adopting double standards is your strong point, but take your pick, if you wish to state that Rabbinics lacks academic rigor and reliability, then why all the fuss about details and disagreement? If Rabbinics accepts rigor and scruitiny, don't criticize Rabbinics for finding the truth, through argument and discussion.

No, God did not give an Oral Law to Moses on Mount Sinai.

A bold statement Brown, but completely built upon a strawman of verses, that barely support your position. The opposite is true, the verses I have brought have shown that there is an Oral Law that was given Orally. Remember - lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.

The very first mention of even the concept of such a binding, oral tradition is more than 1,400 years after Moses.

The Torah describes the following scenario:

Deuteronomy 12.20-21:
When HASHEM your G-d shall enlarge your border, as He has promised you, and you shall say: 'I will eat meat', because your soul desires to eat meat; you may eat meat, after all the desire of your soul.
If the place which HASHEM your G-d shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall kill of your herd and of your flock, which HASHEM has given you, as I have commanded you, and you shall eat within your gates, after all the desire of your soul.
כִּי יַרְחִיב ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר, כִּי תְאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ, תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר.
כִּי יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ לָשׂוּם שְׁמוֹ שָׁם, וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה' לְךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ, בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ, בְּכֹל, אַוַּת נַפְשֶׁךָ.

If a person is living in the land of Israel, it seems the Torah has granted permission to slaughter his flock and eat the meat. The question then is: what is a permitted way to slaughter? The Torah says: As [G-d] commanded you . Yet, no-where in any of the Prophets, Writings or Torah does it explain the command on how to slaughter an animal and yet, it is central to being able to eat meat. It is possible to argue that perhaps, since we don't know, we should refrain from eating meat. In the past they knew, so at some point the people must have known. How? If it is not mentioned anywhere, G-d must have told them. It may be good advice not to eat, until we work out how to kill an animal in a permissible manner. However, when it comes to sacrifices, which occur on a daily basis , we need to know how to slaughter and there is no indication in the written text.

Furthermore, Brown cited Deuteronomy 30:1-15, a key set of verses telling us that the Torah is easy to keep, and must be followed. If G-d expected people to follow His rule book, and told Moses: "As he commanded" how does one slaughter meat?

The first mention of the Oral Tradition is in Exodus 13, and perhaps even earlier. Those same veritable scholars that Brown parades as his superior qualifications will tell you that until Moses came along, everything done by the forefathers - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, every event etc. was all passed down orally. How did the people recognize Moses' authority - Oral signs passed down from Jacob to his sons....etc. etc. Yet Brown wishes to ignore the evidence. I would posit to Brown, that since Moses ate meat, how did Moses know how to slaughter: "As G-d commanded" without any indication in the verses as to how?

Not to mention the classic verse in

Daniel 6:10:
Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before.

Brown cited Daniel 9:13 as evidence for only the written Torah, yet Brown proved that Daniel followed G-d, and was a prophet, and did what was written in the Torah. Yet, why is Daniel praying three-times a day, and yet no-where is it written in the Law of Moses to pray at all? How did Daniel know? Is Daniel the first to pray to G-d? Yet it is a well-known Rabbinic ordinance to pray three-times a day. So much for the Oral Torah being unbiblical.

What’s more, many of the Jewish groups that existed in Jesus’ day, such as the Sadducees and the Essenes, had no belief in any such tradition. That was a distinct doctrine of the Pharisees. Why? Because they were the ones who invented the whole idea of an unbroken chain of binding, oral tradition, beginning shortly before Jesus came into the world. And, as they passed their unique traditions on to their successors, the new generations began to say: “We didn’t invent these teachings, we inherited them. They have been passed on to us from our fathers. They go back many years …. way back … as far back as we can remember … all the way back to Moses.” Not quite!

Brown's argument is fundamentally flawed.

Remember - lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.
1. Jews have a tradition of naming every major person who had any significance in history. Moses brought the Torah, Joshua brought us into the land, the Judges ruled, the Kings ruled, Jehoakin led us into exile, Ezra brought us out, everyone of significance is mentioned and is well known. You will not find a blank name anywhere in history telling us that one day - he invented this new thing called an Oral Tradition and convinced the entire Jewish people to follow the Rabbis. How do you convince the entire nation to listen to the Rabbis? Today, everyone celebrates Chanuka - a Rabbinical festival, with 8 lights, and oil and latkes. Everyone celebrates Passover with a Haggadah, reading the story (all Rabbinic mandates), Everyone celebrates two-days Festival days in areas of the Diaspora - Rabbinic mandate. The Jewish calendar is Rabbinically mandated. Every aspect of Jewish life has the mark of the Rabbis, and yet Brown posits that one day a couple of Pharisees made this all up, and convinced everyone to follow them. Why should they? We see from scripture that the Jews are a stiff-necked people, they dislike leadership, they hate change. Jews will not accept authority and control unless it was truly legitimate (Cf. Num 16-18). Brown is no historian, and therefore his arguments lack historiography and methodology. It is illogical to posit his theory for a number of reasons:

1. It lacks historical imagination - there is no historical personage or influence that changed the status quo

2. The nature of societies is that binding, legal changes require consensus, without consensus laws fall by the wayside, and are lost. If the Rabbis made things up, their power would have been lost long ago, and their enactments ceased to have made an impact. The point is that they have had a lasting binding effect on all of Israel. Brown fails to acknowledge accepted historical facts that the majority of Jews in Israel at the time before and after Jesus were Pharisees, and only a small portion were Sadducees and even smaller Essenes. The Pharisees were the only group that survived the destruction of the Temple as a specifically Jewish group.

3. Lets imagine the scenario - Fred tells the people that their ancestors never heard the enactments of the Rabbis, but he lies and says that over time they accepted them as part of society, and now we're passing them onto you the next generation. The question is why should the people follow Fred? The laws are complex, seemingly make life more taxing and difficult. Why should they listen to the Rabbis? Yet, we see that the people accepted the legitimacy of the Rabbis over and above Roman rule. The accepted leaders were the Rabbis.

4. Brown should provide historical argument and sources for the time in which this myth was invented, and by whom. You see, the Jews have a name, date of birth and death, all the way to Sinai.

Let the truth be told. There was no secret Law given to Moses by word of mouth or passed on by him orally to the biblical prophets and leaders. Actually, our forefathers sometimes forgot the Written Law (read 2 Kings 22 for a classic example of this). An Oral Law wouldn’t have stood a chance. And there is not a single example in the Scriptures where anyone was ever punished, rebuked, or held accountable for breaking any so-called binding tradition. That’s because there was no such tradition to break. Only violations of the written Word were considered sinful.

Remember - lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. The people were admonished time again, for not obeying the words of G-d, and not listening to Him. It is a biblical precept to listen to the judges, and teachers (which Brown admits that there are teachers). The Aramaic word for teacher in Rabbi. It would be unsuprising for a king such as Achav, who threw Isaiah into prison, would not take kindly to Rabbinical instruction either.

Nonetheless II Kings 22 needs a little explanation:

Throughout the prophets and writings, it can be seen quite visibly that the Jewish people have worshipped idols. The prophets are replete with messages that tell the Jewish people to repent, and they continually bemoan the sins of the generation. A substantial amount of Jews are falling by the way side, and are like cracks in the pipeline of transmission. Then there is a rediscovery and the Jewish people once more follow the text . The Radak explains that Menasseh destroyed the hard work of his father: Hezekiah, through a thorough systematic destruction of the Torah scrolls and literature in the land, sixty-seven years later after his reign, the Torah’s discovery was a surprising revelation, since the people were unfamiliar with its contents. Is this a contradiction against the tradition of the chain of Jews to Sinai (the Kuzari)?

No. Firstly, a fifty-five year period is not sufficient to suddenly cause mass amnesia on the entire population to the extent that a large group - say 300 000 people (being a fifty-percent majority), would be unable to pass down the main message of G-d taking the Jews out of Egypt and giving the Torah to the Jewish people, and the revelation of Sinai. Secondly, the nation as a whole lost aspects of the tradition. Josiah specifically is affected by certain verses , and not the whole scroll. Remember the text suggests that scrolls were found, and that Yoshiyahu was weeping over the laws that were transgressed - nobody disputed (and hence weeping over the lack of evidence for the Exodus) that the Exodus and Revelation at Sinai did not happen; but rather the king is weeping and repenting over previous sins, not over the loss of historical information, or the lack of knowledge (remember nobody is in dispute of the veracity of the actual scrolls).

Additionally, the book of Chronicles elucidates that the scrolls that were found were the actual scrolls written by Moses’ own hand. This means that from 2488 AM, until at least 3316 AM (that is 828 years) the Jewish people were in possession of a Torah scroll written by Moses’ own hand. Furthermore, these were hidden during the period of mass burnings; before Josiah and his discovery. They were re-discovered again after the Babylonian exile by Ezra (3413 AM) [Nehemiah 8.1-11; Radak to II Chronicles 34.14.]. This amounts to 925 years that we were in possession of a hand written text written by Moses himself !

Furthermore, the tradition itself (as embodied in the Talmud) specifically mentions times when even Joshua (and subsequently the entire Jewish people) forgot three-thousand laws after the death of Moses [Babylonian Talmud, Temurah 16a.].

Brown argues that due to this loss, it is likely that thousands of laws and information would be lost. Brown lacks trust in G-d. G-d provided the means to understand His Torah, and gave the keys to His beloved, chosen people. If G-d wishes, a miracle can occur, that would prevent the loss of information. The Talmud is capturing the tragedy of the loss of Moses' influence on Israel. Brown forgets to inform us that they regained the laws, and have continued on today. Yes there is information that was lost, but this is not detrimental to understanding the Torah, G-d would never allow His Torah to be misunderstood by His people.

For more elaboration on this point, click here

The Truth
Now it’s time to listen to that Word. The Torah tells us that wherever we Jews are, even scattered around the world, “if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find Him if you look for Him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 4:29). Jeremiah the prophet gave the same message: “You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13). And the Book of Proverbs says:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight (Proverbs 3:56).

God will not let you down—if you sincerely seek His truth. Why not humble yourself and ask for His help? There is a place for reason and rational discussion, and there is a place for seeking God too. They go hand in hand! But the Lord opposes those who are wise in their own eyes. Study the Word and seek God. You will not be disappointed.

This is all subterfuge for using one's own intellectual abilities as opposed to others. Brown should heed other verses in Tanakh:

Psalms 94:8 Take heed, you senseless ones among the people; you fools, when will you become wise? 9 Does he who implanted the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see? 10 Does he who disciplines nations not punish? Does he who teaches man lack knowledge? 11 The Lord knows the thoughts of man; he knows that they are futile.

Psalms 107:1 But he lifted the needy out of their affliction and increased their families like flocks. 42 The upright see and rejoice, but all the wicked shut their mouths. 43 Whoever is wise, let him heed these things and consider the great love of the Lord.:

Proverbs 1:2 for attaining wisdom and discipline; for understanding words of insight; 3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right and just and fair; 4 for giving prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the young-- 5 let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance-- 6 for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise.

Proverbs 3:30 Do not accuse a man for no reason-- when he has done you no harm. ... 33 The Lord's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous. 34 He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble. 35 The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame.

Proverbs 8:32 "Now then, my sons, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways. 33 Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not ignore it. 34 Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway. 35 For whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the Lord.

Proverbs 13:20 He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm.

Brown assumes that all the sages of the Talmud are fools, but his learning and abilities are greater and he can read the Tanakh better than they. Brown also writes: "But the Lord opposes those who are wise in their own eyes." Brown has provided incorrect sources, misquoted the Talmud, and then offers strawman attacks at its logic and then claims to be an authority, greater than those sages.

When Moses and the prophets couldn’t figure out how to interpret or apply the Law, they prayed and asked God for the answer. And God showed them what to do!12 Why not follow their lead? Why be smarter than Moses and the prophets and try to figure it all out for yourself?

Brown assumes that the Sages of the Talmud follow intellectual prowess at the expense of Divine revelation, yet, we have already shown that they have Divine inspiration. Which is acknowledged by G-d Himself. Yet, he forgot the Mishnah in Berachos:

ה,א אין עומדין להתפלל אלא מתוך כובד ראש. חסידים הראשונים היו שוהין שעה אחת ומתפללים, כדי שיכוונו את ליבם למקום. אפילו המלך שואל בשלומו, לא ישיבנו; ואפילו נחש כרוך על עקבו, לא יפסיק.

The Mishnah discusses righteous individuals (Sages that are valued for their piety and devotion) that are steeped in prayer for most of the day. The Talmud discusses certain questions about how they learned etc. The point is that even our Sages of the Talmud prayed and revered talking to G-d and praying for Divine assistance. Dr Brown asserted that Heavenly voices spoke to our Sages. If this is true, we can see clearly a dialogue between the Sages and G-d. To claim that the Sages are somehow rejecting Divine assistance is to the contrary. The Mishnah in Berachos 4:2 also tells us that our Sages used to pray to G-d before they entered into the study halls.

Study, yes, by all means. But ask God to open your eyes when you do! (That’s exactly how the Psalmist prayed in Psalm 119:18.) Ask God to guide you into the truth.

The implication? Sages follow their intellectual heads rather than their hearts. Yet Brown offers accusation against the Sages and the Torah they represent.

It is not that the rabbis meant evil. They really believed in what they did, and there is often beauty and wisdom in their words. They were totally committed to their traditions, and through these traditions, they sought to bind the people of Israel together. But, while the traditions may have bound us together, they have, more importantly, bound us up.

More word-games and word-play Brown uses as discussion. If Brown is open to debate and information, as the author of Proverbs suggests, maybe Brown should entertain the academic rigor he has found in university halls - a haven of secularism, and lack of piety, and consider learning the Talmud properly, and be open to wisdom and other fields of inquiry (Cf. Berachos 4:2).

You can be free today.

“To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’” (John 8:3132).

And Brown fails to mention Matthew 23:2-3, and Matthew 5:19-20

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I wonder if Brown's righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, that for Jesus sit in Moses' seat.

Nonetheless, Jesus launches the same attacks at the Pharisees, calling them hypocrites. I will spare the venom of John 8:44-47 for another time, but suffice to say, if Brown is of the same ilk as Jesus, we may infer (rightly or wrongly), that as I have shown that Brown is hypocritical and offers double standards and lacks academic integrity and rigor, so too Jesus' attacks.

Commentary by Sid Roth
I never heard much talk about the Messiah when I was a child. At our Passover seder we would open the door for Elijah to announce the Messiah. But the adults viewed the event as a fairy tale, almost like the Jewish version of Santa Claus. As I got older, I realized it was just “pretend,” but I went along with the charade for the sake of the young children and “tradition.”

Sid Roth's commentary calls for an emotional appeal. Sid feels that now that Brown has vindicated his lack of knowledge of Judaism, he somehow feels emotionally attached. If Sid bothered to open up a standard Haggadah he would have found that it is repelete with references to the Messiah. His experiences are not universal but rather specific. I grew up with the Seder being real, and a powerhouse of how G-d saved the Jewish people from destruction, and His eternal love and connection to the people as a whole. But then, Sid wishes to extrapolate to all experiences. Roth's emotional baggage has its place in a psychological chair, and not on a radio website.

The rest is the classic missionary diatribe which I don't wish to discuss at any great length, it is easily shown to be false on Singer's excellent website. Click here.

Closing remarks:

Dr Brown opened his article by stating that Rabbinic Judaism without the Rabbis is still Judaism. He observed that Judaism stands alone, without Rabbinic Oral Traditions. Christianity falls apart without Jesus - the Messianic savior.

Brown is incorrect. There is no Judaism without the Rabbis. You see without the Talmud, and those Rabbis, I would like Brown to answer how it is that he is reading a bible in the original today? How does know the Hebrew version is reliable, accurate and has been maintained throughout the years as reliable? Dr Brown is able to read Hebrew with ease. If you ask him to point to an alef, he will show you an alef. Tell me Dr Brown, how do you know that an alef is an alef, maybe an alef is really a bet? Dr Brown tells us that Judaism exists without the Rabbis, yet I would like to know from Dr Brown, what Tzitzis are, with all the Ugaritic sources, and Akkadian information, and every other scholarship under the sun, you will not come to the conclusion that Tzitzis are white fringes on the corners of garments. I would like to know when to celebrate Passover, when is Rosh Hashanah? When does the new-moon come Dr Brown? Without those Rabbis Dr Brown, you would have no Tanakh to read in Hebrew, and you would not know what Tzitzis are, and you wouldn't be sure an alef is an alef.

When Dr Brown has some real evidence about the realities of a real living tradition and the fact that Jews live Judaism precisely because Judaism is intrinsically rabbinic, I think I'm going to follow G-d who tells the Rabbis 'as he commanded' how to slaughter animals, rather than rely on Dr Brown's deluded reality about following the law as the Karites do.

References:

1. www.mechon-mamre.org for all Hebrew scriptural citations and the Mishnayos.
2. Rashi's & Ramban's text is from a standard Mikraos Gedolos Edition.
3. Judaica Classic Translation with Rashi's Translation
4. Talmudic sources courtesy of dafyomi.co.il
5. Oral Torah: Rabbi Dr D. Gottlieb: articles & essays
6. Oral Torah: Rabbi L. Kelemen: Rational Divinity Series
7. Chavel, C. (transl.) (1976) Ramban Commentary on the Torah, Shilo, New York.
8. Lampel, Z. (1992) The Dynamics of Dispute,Judaica Press, New York.
9. Torah Logic: TheLogician.net
10. Kautsch (Transl: Cowley) Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, 2nd Ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford
11. Scherman, N. (ed) (1996) The Stone Tanach, Mesorah Publ, New York.
12. Radday, Y. and Shore, H. "Genesis - An Authorship Study", Analecta Biblica (1985) No. 903, Loyola Press.
13. Kikawada, I.M. and Quinn, A. (1985) Before Abraham Was, Abingdon Press, pp. 124-5.
14. Cassuto, U. (2006) The Documentary Hypothesis, Shalem Press, p. 120.
15. Bronner, L. (1974) Biblical Personalities and Archaeology, Keter Publishing House, pp. 54-60.
16. Harrison R.K. (1970) Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 516.
17. Scriptural References are inline.

Updated and Revised: 6 January 2009, 9:20 pm (Jerusalem Standard Time)