What is the Talmud?

[Qnts2]

Sorry, the previous response I was going to post decided not to work in the manner I was expecting. I typed inside the quote and it seemed to add to what you were saying. Didn't want to give any confusion lol

Anyways, according to the Talmud and rabbinical tradition, the presiding officer was a Pharisaic scholar, or Nasi (President) (Mantel, 1961; Hoenig, 1953). The position of Nasi was created in about 191 BCE when the Sanhedrin lost confidence in the ability of the high priests to serve as the head of their body. Not surprising, given that the high priest was often opposed to the Oral Law. This doesn't mean the High Priest wasn't present, nor does it mean that the office thereof had no reverence from the people. But ultimately, it was the zugot, the Nasi and Av Beit Din, that held authority, and it was through these that the religion progressed after the temple's destruction. The religion was geared towards a Judaism without temple or priesthood. 

 

You are going well beyond the intention of my post. An introduction to the Talmud was given. I made no error. What I gave was an accepted intro to the Talmud by Judaism, most Rabbi's, and the standard introduction given in Hebrew school and to new converts. Among Jewish people, this is not something to make so convoluted or to argue as almost all would agree. 

 

And, you are missing an understanding of the chain of command and the supposed chain of transmission.

 

The Talmud was recorded after the destruction of the Temple by the Pharaisees but prior to the destruction, it doesn't matter that the Sadducee's (who were mainly the priests) did not believe in an Oral Torah, unless you are fighting the validity of the Talmud. In order to validate the Oral Torah as having been received at Mt. Sinai, it had to be orally transmitted thru certain groups who would be able to transmit it orally. The Priests were the head judges, so the Priests as judges are part of the chain of transmission. It doesn't matter if this is true or not, unless you believe the Talmud was given to Moses (the brother of Aaron, the first Priest). The Great Assembly refers to the Great Sanhedrin, which was led by the High Priest and had many other Cohanim, as judges.  As soon as the judges, and the Great Assembly is part of the transmission, that means it is transmitted thru the Priesthood.  At the time of Jesus and after, there were a fair number of Pharisees who were judges also, but the High Priest was still the head of the Great Sanhedrin. You are looking at political game playing, but political game playing is not used to justify the Mishnah, it must have a clear claimed order of transmission, minus any politics. The authority of each group to transmit and record must be accepted and justified. 

 

Now, does the Talmud have any validity. Yes. As I already stated, I believe the Mishnah actually contains the accepted judgements of previous discussions, not that it was transmitted from God to Moses at Mt. Sinai, but that it contains valid judgements. The people were to obey the judges and the judges on the higher courts were biblically justified to make such judgements concerning the practice of the law. That is why Jesus said, to obey those who sat on Moses seat. Moses was the first judge. As a judge, he made decisions on how to practice the written law which God gave to the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. The position of judge was given authority in the Mosaic covenant. The head judge was the high priest. Corrupt or not, the law said to obey those who sit on Moses seat and Jesus agreed since to say differently would have been a violation of the law. Corrupt or not, Paul showed great deference to the High Priest, because the law demanded it. At the time, Paul didn't know who the High Priest was. There was so much polical maneuvering that the person filling the role of High Priest would change on average of every couple of years. So, even though that is an issue, Paul still showed deference to the person in the office, because the Mosaic law demanded it.   

 

The Talmud also gives quite a bit of Jewish history.  Do I study the Talmud anymore? No. It is not the orally transmitted words of God. And as a believer, I am under a different covenant. I do sometimes use the Talmud to explain Jewish views and history, and as a part of debates with anti-missionaries (when I have no choice but to debate).