I share your views exactly. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Since Oral Tradition acts in parallel only in communities where there is a prophetic stream involved in daily life, we are now so far removed from this kind of living that we imagine it as foreign and unnecessary. But it was essential to the religious views of the first century. Whatever helps us get closer to the thinking of Yeshua, helps! That doesn’t mean it is divinely inspired. It means it is helpful.

Thanks again, Drew. Your contributions are vital to the process.

I think some of Skip’s writings are a bit upsetting to you. Yet you read them and yes, he is a good writer. I think what Skip is saying is said in this article. That unless we know and understand Paul as a Hebrew, which is what he was and is, we can never understand what he is saying. I have believed for a long time that the translations that we have are not very trustworthy. Things were so changed in the second and third century that it took away the Hebrew world view and adopted the Greed world view. The question for today is how can we have a Christian worldview if we do not understand the Hebrew worldview out of which it comes?

A lengthy response … but a very touchy topic!

I can concur my brother and perhaps over the course of days you will be providing details regarding the development of the Mishnah, related Tannaitic writings and the Gemara? Maybe?

However please let us be clear on a number of matters:

1) There is no irrefutable written support in The Word for the “Oral Tradition” …. it is implied;
2) It is presumed that there was not consensus and unity regarding the role and relationship of the “oral tradition” respective to “Torah” and Israelite society.
3) The recording of the Oral Tradition (Mishnah … around 200 CE) was necessary because of the destruction of the Temple and Jewish society;
4) The commentaries and evolution of Rabbinic thought in response to the Mishnah, resulted in two major recensions of the Gemara – (One compiled in Israel around 375 CE and one compiled in Babylonia around 500 CE) The later one commonly dominating in acceptance!
5) Assuredly the influence of the Babylonian Talmud came from a significant population of Jewish sages which did not return from Babylonia.
6) The Talmud in Rabbinic (a.k.a. mainstream Jewish) culture rose to equal importance to the Torah and in fact is viewed as being integral to Torah (Talmud + Books Of Moshe = Torah)
7) Despite the tremendous efforts it must be admitted that ultimately these works evolved under the guidance of a Rabbinic “See” that did not accept Yeshua! Essentially at best it was developed in partial blindness!

My point is that caution is necessary when the topic of Oral Tradition is invoked. I agree Skip that it is a topic that simply can not be brushed under the rug.

Certainly there was Oral Tradition (as you point out) that we will never have available to us. Teachings and traditions by Yeshua and subsequently Sha’ul and all of the early Apostles, et. al., lost forever to antiquity. Yet we must remain leery because the early Gentile Church (Rome) used this “oral tradition” mandate to develop and justify much doctrine and theology which we know is simply counter to ELOHIM’s WORD! a.k.a. “Church Tradition”.

From a personal perspective (opinion) I approach the Talmud as being a much more transparent development process. The Talmud, unlike church tradition, most assuredly provides us a far better glance into the roots and thought processes of the Hebrews. The Talmud most assuredly shows us a better model for community based halakha … the Talmud clearly can help us see our roots … but …

The Oral Tradition is lacking a fundamental component …. it is not reflective of the reality of Yeshua (The Beginning and End of all things). We can thus debate all day long the wonderful merits of the Oral Tradition, but in the back of my mind I always consider how these works would differ if these Rabbis knew Yeshua (We must admit the Oral Tradition would be different … no?). I always wonder what influences living in Babylonia affected the outputs of the works. I always wonder where the roots of Rabbinic mysticism emanated from and the impacts to these works. Essentially I exercise caution and frankly so does the Rabbi of my own Messianic Jewish congregation.

If over the years of studying these materials and associated history I have developed some wrong concerns, Skip or anyone else in the community … please let me hear the alternative views. The Talmud represents an amazing corpus of works and undoubtedly the best views we can get into the mindset of “The Hebrew”. As for me however I have never been convinced that Oral Tradition should held in the same light as “The Written Word”.