@ObamasPinkSock 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.