Transition from "Temple Judaism" to "Rabbinic Judaism"

Question

In reference to this comment on the Worldbuilding.SE question, "What educational resources could help someone who knows they will time travel to the future?":

There is little resemblance between medieval and modern Rabbinic Judaism and the Temple Judaism of the antiquity. For a simple example, Temple Judaism has priests and sacrifices; Rabbinic Judaism has neither priests nor sacrifices. That's one massive difference. For another example, Temple Judaism had nothing even remotely resembling the Talmud and the extremely complicated system of rules and regulations which give Rabbinic Judaism its distinctive color. The entire very elaborate system of halakha is post-classical.

What traditional Jewish sources (if any) would seem to support the contention that Judaism evolved from so-called "Temple Judaism" to so-called "Rabbinic Judaism"?

Answer 1

The place to look for this is in Collected Writings of Rav S.R. Hirsch, the volume on Oral Law (I think Vol. 5 but I can't check it.)

The volume is divided into two parts.

The first part is a critique of H. Graetz's "History of the Jews" the volume discussing the evolution of the Oral Law.

The second part is a critique of Zechariah Frankel's "Darkei Mishna".

In both parts, Rav Hirsch quotes the authors citing various sources and drawing mistaken conclusions.

He then shows why their approaches are mistaken and brings proofs to that effect, and explains the correct understanding of the texts.

If you want a sampling of traditional sources which can be misunderstood to mean that there was a transition from "Temple Judaism" to "Rabbinic Judaism" check out the volume.

One example: Graetz builds a lot upon the assumption that Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai came to do exactly this. In post-churban Judaism, RYbZ felt the need to shift the focus from the Beis Hamikdash to Torah study. Graetz then brings a number of sources which could superficially be understood to mean this is what he did.

Rav Hirsch then quotes those sources in their context, shows how Graetz misinterpreted them, brings other sources to buttress his arguments, and then explains what RYbZ actually came to do.

And while it's a shame that both Graetz and Frankel were kofrim, they at least knew a lot. Thus they quote sources from all over the place- albeit improperly. As a result, Rav Hirsch is literally bringing from all over Shas Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, masechtos ketanos and more in order to discuss and refute their claims.

Thus this work is the best one for anybody who wants to see authentic sources which could be misinterpreted, while also seeing the proper way to read them as well.

Answer 2

I have posed this question to 2 different judaic studies professors. Since these were private conversations I cannot disclose who they were. Both are very respected in their fields. One studies rabbinic literature and the other bible, and they both gave me more or less an identical response, which to me lends it more credence:

Early research into this topic was done at a time when few jews were in academia. Further, many academics were Christian and wanted to bifurcated rabbinic Judaism from second temple Judaism as a pro Christian polemic. Modern academics today reject this view as biased and untenable instead assuming a much closer relation between the 2.

In other words, the answer to your question is: none. That doesn't mean there are no differences between pre and post the churban, just that the complete bifurcation between the 2 periods is a fabrication.

Answer 3

Not a complete answer, but here is a source that hints it:

משנה הוריות ג ח

אבל אם היה ממזר תלמיד חכם וכהן גדול עם הארץ, ממזר תלמיד חכם קודם לכהן גדול עם הארץ.

Mishna Horayot 3:8

If The Mamzer is Talmid Hacham , and the prime priest is Am Haartz the Mamzer takes precedence [to be released from kidnappers]

בבלי הוריות יג א

מה"מ א"ר אחא ברבי חנינא דאמר קרא (משלי ג, טו) יקרה היא מפנינים מכהן גדול שנכנס לפני ולפנים

Babvli Horayot 13:a

Where it comes from? Rabbi Aha son of Rabbi Hanina says: the verse (Proverbs 3:15) says [the Tora] is more important than pearls (Hebrew: Pninim) - Meaning from the prime priest who enters to the interior [Kodesh HaKodashim] (Hebrew: Lifnai U'Lifnim)

Answer 4

Normally anceint books by well-respected rabbis work for sources. Although this is not an anceint book, I think it is well-written and might contian the sources you're looking for.

Rabbi Binyamin Lau's four volumes called “The Sages” explains the development of the Oral Law by the Pharisees and Rabbis. He feels that the changes were made because of the necessities of the later time. He does not criticize the rabbis since the changes were made in the spirit of the Torah and that a careful reading of the Torah shows that it wants to be updated. For example, Maimonides felt that G-d neither needs nor wants sacrifices but “allowed” sacrifices to continue. But this is not an ideal mode of worship and will not be reinstituted when people become more sophisticated. You could apply the same to the laws of slavery, rape, and captive women. In short, we are not Torah Jews but Rabbinic Jews.