Moses lived between 1,300 and 1,400 years before Christ.
The notion that Jewish scholars didn't talk about Mosaic Law until a few centuries before Jesus Christ is laughable. Deserving of ridicule.
Who is saying that?
The Deuteronomic texts were probably based on oral traditions dating to the times you stated, if not perhaps a few centuries later. The texts themselves were not being compiled before 1,000 B.C.
What's disputed here is not the Torah, but the oral Torah, of which the Talmud is one part. The Talmudic Jews like to retroactively antedate their Talmudic tradition to earlier than it actually was. You're arguing that there must have been a secret oral law given to Moses, in addition to what we get as the exoteric Mosaic law. There's no evidence for that, other than from rabbinic Jews themselves, who would have a great interest in legitimizing their much later commentaries by claiming they were far earlier than they were.
So Moses receives the law between 1400-1300, and we have the Deuteronomic texts being compiled 1,000-800 B.C. But we supposedly don't get any written forms of the Oral Torah until 200 B.C.? Over 1 millennium later?
That deserves ridicule. Nobody, other than the lying Rabbis, think the Talmud's contents date to a time before Christ.
I think considerable confusion can be abated here by just saying this:
Yes, there are surely elements of the Oral Tradition that were codified for the first time in the Talmud. There are also, undeniably, teachings within the Talmud that are dated after the time of Christ. This has to be the case, since the Talmud explicitly discusses Christ, and blaspheme Him. Obvioisly those ideas do not date back to Moses.
And if those ideas are "younger" than Christianity, if the Talmud was used as a tool to attack the Christian belief that the Messiah had come, then are we not justified in believing that certain, let us say, convenient interpretations as exegesis of the Torah may have been retroactively applied such that their narrative that Christ was a false prophet would seem more legitimate? Given that the Talmudic tradition was solely oral prior to the Talmud's publication, what would have stopped those rabbis from simply publishing new-fangled anti-Christian interpretations of the Torah with the Talmud and calling it "an oral tradition as old as Moses"?
The answer is nothing. They had free reign to do this, and anyone with even a cursory understanding of the revolutionary spirit of Christ-rejecting Jews under the New Covenant would not be faulted in believing this is exactly what they did.
Don’t waste your time convincing OP or expecting a response. The only reason would be to put it out ‘publicly’.
(post is archived)