This give a link to the article of Brown's it is rebutting, but here is a short snippet from Brown's argument, Brown is in red and the writer in dark red and blue:
Rabbinic Judaism believes that G-d gave Moses a Written Law (found in the Torah, the five books of Moses). But, we are told, most of the commandments in the Law are briefly worded, general statements, something like the headings of a paragraph in a book. They need interpretation. They need to be expanded and explained. So, according to the traditional belief, G-d also gave Moses an Oral Law that interpreted the Written Law. Moses then passed this on to Joshua, who passed it on to the 70 leading elders in his generation, who passed it on to the prophets of the next generations.
And so it went, but not without lots of additions. This is because the rabbis teach that the Oral Law kept growing, since in every generation, new traditions were developed and new situations emerged which called for new applications of the Law.
Brown then goes on to say the Rabbis not only added to and complicated the REAL law, but that all you need is the written law. Now, on to the article:Please note: I have not commented on every point in the article, that doesn't mean I agree with what was stated.
Disclaimer: I don't claim to be scholar, don't email me telling me Dr Brown is a Ph.D. and I'm not. People should think for themselves about the issues.
My comments are highlighted in blue.
I have cited verses from the NIV. While I disagree entirely with the translation, I have provided these for reference. For fonts I have chosen Arial, Times New Roman and (all a provided by Microsoft Windows XP). The Hebrew is best viewed in Internet Explorer.
I've tried to put Brown's comments in red.
“Meantime, shmeantime. If you don’t know Hebrew, it doesn’t mean a thing.”
Brown is correct here. If you don't know Hebrew, you're dead in the water. However, Brown is wrong in his approach. He is well versed in many languages some of which are Akkadian and Ugaritic - well known in Academic circles as fundamental to understanding Ancient Hebrew.
Judaism rejects the Academic approach to Scripture. Academics will use the Septuagint, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Arabic and every other source to determine meanings of words, culture and information. This is not the Torah approach. Torah Judaism is about learning what G-d's interpetation of His writings are. Judaism has an Oral tradition on how to read, apply and understand the text. For example, consider Hebrew grammar, Dr Brown's professors will probably cite Cowley's translation of Kautsch's excellent grammar. What Brown doesn't mention, is the source for Kautsch's Grammar - German scholars of the same ilk as Wellhausen, who propagated the notion of the JEDP theory of scripture claiming that the Torah was written by multiple editors. Their view has been rejected in recent times by other scholars.
These German scholars built their work on research obtained by scholars such as Christian Ginsburg, Levitas and Jewish Grammarians. Ginsburg relies heavily on Levitas, and Jewish Grammarians. Levitas is himself a Rabbi, Torah Jew, and the major Jewish Grammarians are none other than the major commentators of the Torah and Nach: Rabbi Dovid Kimchi (Radak), Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchaki (Rashi) and Rabbi Avraham ben Ezra (Ibn Ezra).
Its hypocritical in the same breath to herald Dr Brown's academic achievement (something not to be discredited - it is a tremendous accomplishment, given his background), and deny its academic origins.
My drug abuse was not due to some inner turmoil or spiritual quest. I used drugs because they made me feel good! You see, I was a fairly talented, teenage rock drummer, and the whole Woodstock, cast-off-restraint, get high, do-your-own-thing mentality appealed to me. I wanted to be like the rock stars! Soon, life became one big party.
Dr Brown's past life is not under discussion. His achievements are inspirational, but play to emotions. I can name several people who had similar backgrounds who have achieved similar levels of scholarship and expertise in Torah-true Judaism.
He also brought me to meet with Ultra-Orthodox, Lubavitcher rabbis in Brooklyn who specialized in dealing with “straying” young Jews like me. For my part, I was happy to have the opportunity to share my faith with these sincere men. After all, I was reading the Bible day and night, memorizing hundreds of verses, praying for hours, even persuading a Jewish G-d’s Witness that her religion was not biblical. But these rabbis in Brooklyn had answers I had never heard before. And all of them had been able to read and understand Hebrew since their childhood. I could barely remember how to pronounce the letters! Plus, they looked so Jewish, with long black beards and all. Their faith seemed to be so ancient and authentic. Was mine?
This is drummed up as the following: If Ultra-orthodox Lubavitcher Jews couldn't convince me of the truth, then its obviously false, and my message is true...
So it was that I began to study Hebrew in college. If my faith was based on truth, it could withstand honest academic scrutiny. If Jesus was really the Jewish Messiah, I had nothing to fear. Serious questions deserved serious answers, and I was determined to follow the truth wherever it led, regardless of the consequences.
This is a point that sadly few address. If the truth cannot stand to absolute scrutiny, it is not truth.
Almost all my courses were taught by Jewish professors and, along the way, I also had the opportunity to do some private study with several rabbis. What happened to my faith? It actually became stronger. As I learned more, I became even more convinced that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah, the one whose life, atoning death, resurrection, and return were foreshadowed in the Hebrew Scriptures. I had sound answers for serious questions!
I also discovered something unexpected: It was not the New Testament faith that was built on faulty foundations; the foundations of rabbinic Judaism were faulty! It was rabbinic Judaism, not the New Testament faith, that deviated from the Hebrew Bible.
This is your opinion, Dr Brown. Please provide adequate citation and sources to support your position.
Rabbinic Judaism does not even claim to be based upon a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Instead, the rabbis say that their faith is the continuation of an unbroken chain of tradition dating back to Moses and the prophets. This is a crucial point. As we will see later, such an unbroken chain does not exist.
And why is Luther's interpretation of how to read Scripture any more accurate? Dr Brown's logic here is flawed. Who told Dr Brown that the literal word of the Torah, and Nach is what G-d wants? If we take a simple passage such as:
Leviticus 24:20
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.
The literal meaning is that if Reuven decides to gouge out Shimon's eye, the recompense is that Reuven should be equally required to gouge out his own eye.
However, what happens if Reuven already, has only one eye, or is blind? Imagine Shimon has two fully functional eyes. Is it entirely just or fair that Reuven be completely blinded, whereas Shimon, while obviously has only one eye, can still see?
This example shows that while the text, read quite literally, implies a particular outcome that doesn't really do justice.
Dr Brown will argue that - that is exactly what G-d wants - Reuven should be blinded completely, whereas Shimon not.
I would like to respond with the following scenario: Reuven is particularly weak. His constitution allows that if his eye is gouged out he will almost certainly die. Reuven gouges Shimon's eye out. Does that mean Shimon has a right to gouge out Reuven's eye, if it will certainly kill him? Lets imagine that Brown's reading is true, and that we should take the literal meaning of the verse. Shimon does so, and Reuven dies on the spot. Has Shimon carried out the verse's literal meaning and sense?
No. The verse specfifically says: As he has injured, so he is to be injured...nothing to do with killing another. In fact, Shimon did worse - he killed Reuven.
Already, we have to restrict Shimon's action away from killing Reuven. Already we have to move away from the literal meaning of the verse.
I have provided two arguments in favor of reading the verse not literally.
Throughout the Torah (contextual), the Torah uses injury in reference to a monetary loss. It therefore means that when the Torah describes physical damage between two parties, the injury caused is monetary in application. (A quick reference to Exo 21-24 will show this point).
The Torah is therefore telling us that compensation should be in equal monetary terms. The verse cannot be therefore read literally.
Dr Brown will ask the following question: But wait, if the Torah really wanted that to be read, let it say that, let it say: an eye for money, a tooth for money....etc.
Dr Brown failed to understand the sources. You see, the reading of the verse literally, cannot be, since the verses in Exodus, and repetition in Ex 21:24, 27, Deut 19:21, show that this cannot be. So far we have not used the Rabbis interpretation.
Thus, you're stuck, if you read the verses literally, application becomes inconsitent with reality, and the Torah rejects the proposition (it mentions nothing about murder or death, only injury - implying that injury less than death). If not, the verses are inconsistent with the literal meaning.
We have a textual difficulty in the text, as opposed to a logical or contextual difficulty. This is easily resolved.
1. The reference to eye-for-eye tells me that the injury of the party is directly causational. I cannot claim monies for past damage or other ailments that are not direct causes: Imagine Shimon causes Reuven's ox to lose a leg. The fact that Reuven was going to use that leg as a means to dig a hole for buried treasure, and would now be delayed, is not enough direct causes to force Shimon to pay damages for that infraction as well as the direct damage of losing a leg.
2. The approach is important. The Torah is telling me that while monetary compensation is the practical application of the conditions that allowed me to fulfill the words of G-d, my understanding must be that the compensation is in direct consequence of my actions. Shimon's compensation for Reuven must be viewed as though Shimon's limb should have been used as compensation (in theory), but for reasons of practicality could not be substituted.
Those that are interested, will find that this explanation is found in the Talmud. It is not made up, it is not an abrogation of the Torah, but rather a full application of the Torah in reality.
It should be pointed out here that not every verse in the Torah is taken in this sense. We have an Oral tradition and set of rules of interpretation and exegesis in clarifying which verses are to be taken non-literally.
But the real question is: On what foundation is traditional Judaism based? Judaism as we know it today is not the religion of the Torah as much as it is the religion of rabbinic tradition. Without tradition, there could be no traditional Judaism; without the rabbis, there could be no rabbinic Judaism. This is very significant! For many of our people, human tradition is more important than biblical truth.
Dr Brown is partly correct. Judaism's fundamental basis is the Torah - the Torah both written and oral together. Dr Brown however is using word-play to avoid the over-arching problem - Rabbinic Judaism is a western, academic concept to distinguish between Judaism exemplified in the Torah as opposed to Judaism as interpreted by the Sages of the Talmud.
My question for Dr Brown is the following. If Biblical Judaism has no relationship to Rabbi's or their interpretation of Scripture, then what do the following verses imply about leaders in position of authority?
Deuteronomy 17:
8 If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge--whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults--take them to the place the Lord your G-d will choose. 9 Go to the priests, who are Levites, and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. 10 You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place HaShem will choose. Be careful to do everything they direct you to do. 11 Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. 12 The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your G-d must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. 13 All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again.
Exodus 18:
15 Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me to seek G-d's will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of G-d's decrees and laws." 17 Moses' father-in-law replied, "What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may G-d be with you. You must be the people's representative before G-d and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. 21 But select capable men from all the people--men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain--and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied." 24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.
I have a simple question. If all the laws themselves are carefully spelled out in detail, written out as the pure word of G-d, then why does G-d Himself instruct the people to seek out judges, why does G-d accept the advice of Moses' father-in-law, to set about judges among the people? Why does Moses need to teach the Judges the decrees and laws, if everything is so perfectly clear?
the rest of the article can be read at http://torah613.awardspace.com/articles.php?id=006
