The Mishna's [In]Authenticity

Here is a discussion I had with Moshe b.Chaim, which appears on his website:

Reader: How can we be sure, that the Mishna brings us the "Torah she beal peh" that was delivered in Sinai? Maybe it was just what Rebi Yehuda Hanasi observed in his generation? Mesora: If that is the case, why didn't our Talmudic Sages suggest this? They realized that unanimous  acceptance is verified proof that the previous generation attested to this. This is our Mesora – tradition – going back to Moses. Reader: You are arguing that: 1) There was unanimous acceptance. 2) Unanimous acceptance by an ideological group proves their ideology. Mesora: Yes, mass conspiracy to the event of Sinai where we learned the Oral and Written Law cannot  be fabricated. Man cannot create a mass conspiracy. Reader: However, both of these statements are false. a) there was no unanimity, and there were myriad opposition groups. The Sadducees existed prior to the Talmudic and Mishnaic period, from the beginning of the 2nd temple era. Mesora: The Talmud proves unanimity as stated above. Sadducees confirm the truth of the law given at  Sinai. Why didn't they simply state Sinai never occurred? They couldn't, because it did, and their attempt to denounce Oral Law meant they perceived the Oral law. One cannot denounce what does not exist. But you must ask, who determines the truth of a system: the original recipients, or those who come later? This is the very same argument against Christians attempting to redefine various verses in our Torah. They oppose Rabbinical interpretations, which preceded them. To determine the truth of any system, we look to those who received it initially.

http://www.mesora.org/mishnaauthentic.html

There are a few fallacies the reader should beware of, made by Ben Chaim.

First: “You are arguing that: 1) There was unanimous acceptance. 2) Unanimous acceptance by an ideological group proves their ideology.

Mesora: Yes, mass conspiracy to the event of Sinai where we learned the Oral and Written Law cannot be fabricated. Man cannot create a mass conspiracy. “

But this is a circular argument. The acceptance of the oral law was not unanimous, except by the Perushim, who did accept it. He claims that since the Perushim believed in it, therefore it must be true. This is nonsensical argumentation. The belief in Jesus is unanimous by the believers in Jesus, just as the belief in the Koran is unanimous by the believers in the Koran. This doesn't say anything about the truth of those beliefs. What ben Chaim is saying about mass conspiracy is a rehash of the Kuzari argument. But this again is nonsense. Many Muslims believed that it was the Jews who orchestrated the 9/11 terror atrocity. In fact, they "knew".  This is a simple example of mass conspiracy theory created by man. Another is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the blood libels etc. These examples are disproofs of the Kuzari principle, and of B Chaim's claims.

Next: “ Sadducees confirm the truth of the law given at Sinai. Why didn't they simply state Sinai never occurred? They couldn't, because it did, and their attempt to denounce Oral Law meant they perceived the Oral law. One cannot denounce what does not exist. But you must ask, who determines the truth of a system: the original recipients, or those who come later? This is the very same argument against Christians attempting to redefine various verses in our Torah. They oppose Rabbinical interpretations, which preceded them. To determine the truth of any system, we look to those who received it initially.”

The Sadducee Kohanim were descended from Aaron, and were entrusted by Moses with the Torah scroll. They were the keepers of the Torah, and they were the address that the Torah tells us to turn to in Deut 17, in case of any disputes. They rejected the innovations and changes of the Pharisee law. The fallacy that ben Chaim is guilty of is “begging the question”. He assumes that the Sadducees came later than the Oral Law, but this is false. They are the house of Zadok, which was around since the time of King David. Who, on the other hand, were the Pharisees, and where did they come from? The founding fathers of Phariseeism were Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were gentiles and were the descendants of Sennacherib, the evil enemy of Israel.

All B. Chaim is doing is making a dogmatic statement that the Pharisees were right, simply because he says they were right.

His next fallacious claim is that the Sadducees could not denounce Sinai (because it was true) and hence they were unable to denounce the Oral law on the same grounds! They did denounce the oral law, and this is precisely what destroys his claim about unanimous acceptance. The oral law emerged in the time of the sadducees, and that is why they denounced it. They also denounced Jesus, when he emerged. As for christian redefinitions of the Torah, this is rather a rich claim, considering that the Pharisees were the ones who redefined the verses in the Torah left right and centre!

A claim to the historical presence of Pharisees is being made without any evidence. There is no evidence for them having existed during the 1^st Temple era. There was no rabbinic law or additions during that period, and we know that practices were kept according to Sadducean interpretation. There was no Sanhedrin; no rabbinical fences, and Omer was counted correctly (from the day after the Shabbat), etc.

The empty claims of the historical primacy of the Pharisees, when looked into in detail and reference to the 1^st Temple literature (TNK) actually disproves the entire oral law.