continuing with: WHY SOME JEWS
LOOKED FOR CHRIST …
an article written by Lawrence Sloma of
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
TALMUD
OR TORAH....what is Saul saved from ???
Paul Argues Talmud
before the Sanhedrin
An Understanding of Acts 23:6
In Acts 22:30-23:10 Paul is brought before the Sanhedrin for judgment. Paul’s defense in this trial has been poorly understood in the past. In order to have a proper understanding of Paul’s defense, requires having a basic understanding of the Talmud. Now the Talmud is a Pharisaical Book of Tradition.
Paul realizes that he has not been brought before the Pharisaic Sanhedrin, which was headed by Hillel and his descendants, but to the political Sanhedrin made up of Sadducees and Pharisees and headed by the High Priest.
An Understanding of Acts 23:6
In Acts 22:30-23:10 Paul is brought before the Sanhedrin for judgment. Paul’s defense in this trial has been poorly understood in the past. In order to have a proper understanding of Paul’s defense, requires having a basic understanding of the Talmud. Now the Talmud is a Pharisaical Book of Tradition.
Paul realizes that he has not been brought before the Pharisaic Sanhedrin, which was headed by Hillel and his descendants, but to the political Sanhedrin made up of Sadducees and Pharisees and headed by the High Priest.
In
Acts 23:3 he questions the High Priest’s right to judge him,
accusing him of violating Torah. In verse 4 Paul is asked why he
dares to criticize the High Priest. In verse 5 Paul responds with
sarcasm, saying “I did not know my brothers, that he was the
Cohen”. Paul knew that Chananyah was not a valid High Priest, and
this was his point in verse 5.
In Acts 23:6 Paul proclaims himself (in the present tense) to be a 'Pharisee' (he did not quit) and he then makes the defense “concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead, I am being judged.”
As verse 8 tells us “the Sadducees said there is no resurrection”. The Sadducees (Tzadokim) were founded by a certain Zadok. Zadok was a talmid (disciple) of Antigonus of Soko who misunderstood his teaching. Antigonus taught: “Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.” (m.Avot 1:3)
The Mishna Avot of Rabbi Natan tells us how Zadok misunderstood the teachings of Antigonos:
In Acts 23:6 Paul proclaims himself (in the present tense) to be a 'Pharisee' (he did not quit) and he then makes the defense “concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead, I am being judged.”
As verse 8 tells us “the Sadducees said there is no resurrection”. The Sadducees (Tzadokim) were founded by a certain Zadok. Zadok was a talmid (disciple) of Antigonus of Soko who misunderstood his teaching. Antigonus taught: “Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.” (m.Avot 1:3)
The Mishna Avot of Rabbi Natan tells us how Zadok misunderstood the teachings of Antigonos:
Antigonos
of Soko had two students. They would con his teachings by rote and
then teach the other students... They started to question the meaning
of this teaching. They asked themselves why our teachers taught this
way. Is it possible that a worker could function faithfully all day
long and not receive his just wage at the end of the day? [They
reasoned that] if our teachers were sure that there is another world
and a resurrection of the dead they would not have worded their
teaching in this way. They seceded from Torah and two schismatic
schools derived from them: Sadducees and Boethusians. The Sadducees
were named for Zadok and the Boethusians for Boethos...
(Mishna Avot of Rabbi Natan 1:3)
Zadok misunderstood Antigonos’ teaching. He wrongly concluded that since we should no keep Torah to gain a reward, that there must not be any reward. Zadok concluded that there is no reward to be obtained in the afterlife, nor any punishment to be avoided. The Sadducees believed that there is no afterlife and no resurrection. As Josephus writes:
But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies….(Josephus; Antiquities 18:2:4)
(Mishna Avot of Rabbi Natan 1:3)
Zadok misunderstood Antigonos’ teaching. He wrongly concluded that since we should no keep Torah to gain a reward, that there must not be any reward. Zadok concluded that there is no reward to be obtained in the afterlife, nor any punishment to be avoided. The Sadducees believed that there is no afterlife and no resurrection. As Josephus writes:
But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies….(Josephus; Antiquities 18:2:4)
Matthew writes:…the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection…(Matt. 22:23)
And as we read here in Acts: For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit…(Acts 23:8)
Now there is a Pharisaic tradition recorded in the Mishna tractate Sanhedrin which deals with which “apostate doctrines” were worthy of disfellowshipment. The Mishna passage in question reads:
All Israelites have a share in the world to come…And these are the ones who have no part in the World to Come: He who says, the resurrection of the dead is a teaching which is not derived from the Torah…
(m.San. 10:1)
The
Talmud is made up the Mishna and the Gemara. In the Talmud a passage
of Mishna is followed by commentary known as Gemara. In the Talmud
the Gemara to m.Sanhedrin 10:1 begins at b.Sanhedrin 90a and runs
through b.Sanhedrin 99a.
At around b.Sanhedrin 97a this section of Gemara transitions from a discussion of the doctrine of the resurrection (in 90a-96b) to a discussion on the timing of the coming of Messiah (in 97a-99a). This is not just a random shift, but a logical transition.
The transition point of this Gemara reads as follows:
Rabbi Nahman said to Rabbi Isaac: “Have you heard when Bar Nafle will come?” “Who is Bar Nafle?”, he asked. “Messiah,” he answered, “Do you call Messiah Bar Nafle?” “Even so,” he rejoined, “As it is written: “In that day, I will raise up the tabernacle of David ha-nofelet [that is fallen]. (Amos 9:11)” (b.San 97a)
At around b.Sanhedrin 97a this section of Gemara transitions from a discussion of the doctrine of the resurrection (in 90a-96b) to a discussion on the timing of the coming of Messiah (in 97a-99a). This is not just a random shift, but a logical transition.
The transition point of this Gemara reads as follows:
Rabbi Nahman said to Rabbi Isaac: “Have you heard when Bar Nafle will come?” “Who is Bar Nafle?”, he asked. “Messiah,” he answered, “Do you call Messiah Bar Nafle?” “Even so,” he rejoined, “As it is written: “In that day, I will raise up the tabernacle of David ha-nofelet [that is fallen]. (Amos 9:11)” (b.San 97a)
No comments:
Post a Comment