At the heart of the Orthodox defense of the Oral Torah is an attack on the Jewish Bible that I call the "ambiguity argument". The argument consists of three parts. First, that the Jewish Bible is somehow ambiguous or lacking. Second, this ambiguity in the Jewish Bible implies the existence of another revelation that reduces the ambiguity. Third, that the Oral Torah is just such a revelation. In the following chapters, we will come across many specific examples of the ambiguity argument. Here, I want to identify the argument as such and make clear that each one of its three parts is false. The Jewish Bible itself clearly says that the ambiguity argument is false. XXX Finally, even if we agreed that ambiguity reduction is a good thing, that is an argument against the Oral Torah, not for it.
Ambiguity
The Rabbis use a variety of arguments to attack the Jewish Bible and to try to show that it is lacking. These include:
Some people have understood the Bible to mean things that we know are false, therefore the Bible is ambiguous.
Here are two responses to this. First, plenty of people first have certain beliefs and then use various religious works to try to justify them. Just because someone uses the Jewish Bible to try to justify their preconceived beliefs does not mean that the Bible is lacking. When we set aside our preconceived notions and honestly try to understand what the Jewish Bible actually says, then we can see that various doctrines that some people claim are supported by the Jewish Bible are not.
Second, when the Rabbis say "things that we know are false", we have to ask, how do we know that they are false? If we know that they are false from the Jewish Bible, then fine and good, but that means that the Jewish Bible is not lacking. Thus, the only possible Rabbinic response is that we know them to be false from the Oral Torah. In other words, to prove the Oral Torah they say that these things are false. But to know that these things are false, they must assume that the Oral Torah is true. They assume that the Oral Torah is true is order to prove that it is true. This is a logical fallacy called begging the question.
The Jewish Bible refers to commandments that are not recorded in it.
This is a popular proof of the Oral Torah. Yet, when one looks at specific instances of these alleged references, in every single case, either the alleged reference is not actually a reference, or the commandment to which the reference is made is actually recorded in the Jewish Bible as well. Such sloppiness, claiming that something is not in the text while it is plainly stated, is rather sad. For examples, see XXX.
The Bible does not tell us what to do in some situation.
This attack on the Jewish Bible implicitly assumes that the Bible should tell us what to do in all possible situations, or at least in the particular situation under consideration. It is understandable why the Rabbis make this assumption — after all, the Oral Torah does have laws for many specific situations specified down to minute details. Yet, the assumption is unsubstantiated. The Bible never claims that it contains instructions on how to behave in all possible situations.
The meaning of some term in the Bible is unclear.
It has been many centuries since the Jewish Bible was written down. It is not surprising that we do not immediately know the meaning of some word that it uses or do not immediately understand some cultural or political reference that it makes. In the overwhelming majority of cases when this occurs, the meanings of words and references can be learned in two basic ways. First, we can do this by using internal evidence, that is, evidence that exists in the text of the Jewish Bible itself — we can learn the meaning of a word or concept by seeing how it is used in other places in the Bible. Second, we can do this using external evidence. This is a bit more involved, and requires the study or such sciences as linguistics, archeology, and anthropology.
Still, in a few instances, it is not clear specifically what the Bible means. A good example of this is the Bible's list of birds that are forbidden for human consumption (Leviticus 11:13-19). We do not know for certain the meaning of some words on that list. Even such real ambiguity is not a problem however. There are two approaches to it. First, one can avoid eating all birds except those that are specifically mentioned as being permitted. Second, based on all the information available to us, we can make very good educated decisions about which birds are forbidden by the list. Every single day people make decisions without having all the possible information available to them. This is no different. See a more detailed discussion here. XXX Even the few cases of real ambiguity do not actually imply an Oral Torah, as we see below.
Implications
Having established that the Jewish Bible is ambiguous to their satisfaction, the Rabbis then say that this implies the existence of another revelation that reduces the ambiguity. A lack of such additional revelation leads to some uncomfortable theological consequences, therefore, they say, such a revelation must exist. But such argument is a logical fallacy called appeal to consequences. Just because there is some perceived negative consequence to Bible's perceived ambiguities does not mean that something else must exist that explains the ambiguities.
Having established to their satisfaction that another revelation exists, the Rabbis say that the Oral Torah is this other revelation. This can be immediately rejected as a non sequitur argument.
Also, let us remember, that the whole logic behind the ambiguity argument is that the Jewish Bible is ambiguous and that the Oral Torah reduces the ambiguity. Aside from all the logical fallacies outlined above, the statement that the Oral Torah reduces ambiguity is a testable one. As it turns out, the statement is patently false. The amount of ambiguity in the Oral Torah is massive, and is much greater than any possible ambiguity in the Jewish Bible. This is discussed here. XXX Thus, even if we do accept that ambiguity reduction is a good thing, which, as explained above, the Rabbis do not prove, then that is actually an argument against the Oral Torah, not for it.