This seems really dismissive of Jewish oral tradition... and if we dismiss that, then aren't we likewise opening the door to dismissing much of the scriptures? And what about 1 and 2 Maccabees, they are part of the canon, or were for the entirety of Christian world up until Luther.
Well the challenge with "oral tradition" is that you don't really know what it was until it's written down. I know that's sounds rather oxymoronical; but it presents real issues for historians, because you can't accurately pinpoint the timing or accuracy of something
until it's written down.
For example, there's a lot of Native American oral tradition that allegedly goes back centuries before Europeans ever came along. The only problem with this is; that many elements of this lore (especially in the east coast tribes) comes out of colonial European societies; such as "running the gauntlet".
"Running the gauntlet" was a military disciplinary measure used by the British army, which has its origins in Ancient Rome. The Romans used the same terminology; so obviously it's more likely the British got the idea and its terminology from the Romans, not the Native Americans; seeing how colonial armies were modeled off the Roman army.
Another of the oral traditions of our local tribes; (I live in western NY) has to do with tools and weapons they invented. Now there is no doubt they invented these weapons and tools; yet in order to fashion them in the manner they are said to be "traditionally invented"; requires the ability to forge iron. Native Americans did not have that knowledge until the Europeans came. They could forge things in gold and sliver; but not iron. Now they did possess iron "ball hammers"; but those were constructed out of meteorites.
So, here is where the real challenge comes in historically and this is why the Scripture instructs us to interpret it by comparing it to itself, not someone's cultural tradition. (Isaiah 28)
So if you understand that you get Spiritual truth by comparing the Scripture to itself; than you don't run the risk of dismissing Scripture by setting aside the cultural interpretations thereof.
Now it is useful to know some if this historical information; because if you do know it, certain details of the Scripture make more sense.
(Warning - here comes another history lesson and my apologies for it being so long - LOL)
For example: "Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows twice, you'll deny me 3 times." That's often interpreted as a chicken; but it wasn't a literal chicken.
Soldiers watches were divided up by times of the day and night and the time between 3 and 6 AM was "the crowing of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" or "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] watch". The "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowing" was two trumpet blasts that signaled to soldiers when the start and end of watch was. The trumpet would blow in one direction and then roughly 5 to 10 minutes later, blow in the other. The first blast was to signal to soldiers coming on watch that they needed to get to their post and you better be there by the second blast. The soldiers leaving watch were released at that point. So the "crowing of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" was roughly 3 AM.
So Peter denies Jesus at roughly 3 AM. Ironically, jump over 2 days and the resurrection likely happened at 3 AM. There were more than 2 soldiers at the tomb when it happened, and we can figure this out by plural use of language when it speaks about some being paid off; while other's apparently maintained what they'd seen. And it's not likely there would have been more than 2 soldiers posted to the tomb on a watch. So the likelihood that the resurrection happened about 3 AM is pretty high. We know it happened before the sun came up.
The resurrection probably spread around the Antonia fortress before it spread around the rest of Jerusalem; and there were about 5000 soldiers stationed on that base.
The Antonia fortress is also what many (probably most) people today call "the temple mount". The Dome of the Rock Mosque does not sit where the temple was. The temple was south of the fortress in the City of David and there is nothing left today of the temple.
Archeologists have found portions of the "basement floor" of the temple where there are channels carved into the stone where the blood from the sacrifices would have drained off into the "run off" of the Gihon spring; but no-one claims publicly to know what that is; because declaring that this is actually where the temple was, would "upset the political applecart" too much. Too many traditions and thus modern rabbis as well as Zionist Christians have declared that the Dome of the Rock is where the temple "should be rebuilt". The "wailing wall" which is said to be one of the walls of the temple is actually the western wall of the fort. We also have records of this from antiquity. Josephus said that the only structure left standing in Jerusalem at the end of the siege was this fort. Josephus called it "an abomination".
The Temple, 30 AD and John the Baptist:
So also, what people think is the "foundation stone" (thought to be of the temple, which is inside the Dome of the Rock Mosque someplace) is a natural rock feature of the land and it is said by early Christian custom to be part of what Scripture calls "the pavement", which was part of the Praetorium in the Antonia Fortress. This is where Pilate would have heard the charges against Jesus and also where the crowds would have told Pilate to crucify Jesus. This rock feature was called "the judgment stone" by the Romans.
Now the prison house that held Barabbas and the other thieves would have also been inside this Roman fort. The southern steps of the fort butted up to the north end of the "court of the gentiles" of the temple.
On the north end of the temple (across the court of the gentiles) was a structure called "the hewn stone chamber" which was where the Sanhedrin was suppose to meet to hold trials. They were suppose to hold trials in this area "in front of" the north side of the temple so God could "oversee" their judiciary processes. The north end of this "chamber of hewn stone" opened into the court of the gentiles and the southern door opened into the "court of the priests" inside the temple.
Directly east of this, as the southern wall that separated the court of the gentiles from the court of the Jews (Jews south of the wall, gentiles north of the wall) were structures where the animals to be purchased for sacrifices were stored. The "money changers" would have originally been here also. This was also probably where "the tower of Siloam" was. This tower housed birds to be sacrificed. Attached to this tower was some sort of walkway which transversed the court of the gentiles. This walkway collapsed and killed a bunch of people, sometime before the Passover that Jesus was arrested. This event is recorded in Scripture and I'll explain how this fits together in a minute.
Now interestingly in 30 AD there was a massive earthquake in Turkey. We have historical record of this. This earthquake did affect Jerusalem and though it didn't do much structural damage, it did damage this "chamber of hewn stone". Both Josephus and the Talmud talk about this earthquake as having "evicted" the Sanhedrin from this chamber. Also the Talmud states this quake caused the inner doors of the temple to open and they couldn't ever really get them properly closed again. These doors were right behind the veil of the temple.
Now this quake obviously damaged the north wall of the complex and so the money changers were moved north into the court of the gentiles on the other side of this wall. Apparently though, they were still using the tower of Siloam to house sacrificial birds. Luke 13:1-5 talks about this. It's a very brief blurb and it's only a couple of sentences.
The incident of this tower falling is coupled together with another incident described as Pilate sending soldiers into the temple after a bunch of Galileans where as the Scripture says "who's blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices".
Now if you go back into the historical records of the Greeks as well as the Old Testament, Jews throughout history have been accused of as well as guilty of performing human sacrifices. There are records of secular court cases throughout Europe that go back centuries of such things; as well as this is claimed by some to be still going on today.
Matter of fact, according to the Greeks side of the story of the Maccabees's revolt; this is why the Greek king (Antiochus VI) forbid Jewish religious customs. There's a story in an anthology by a Greek historian that records the king going into the Jewish temple and finding a Greek merchant who'd been abducted from some city and was being held captive there. As soon as this merchant saw the king, he ran up to him and fell at his feet and pleaded for his life. As the story goes, this merchant had been held captive there for nearly a year and one of the servants that brought him food, had told him that they intended to use him as a sacrifice in a vow the Jews had made among themselves to "hate the Greeks forever".
So having this history that the Romans were aware of, coming from the Greeks; we can surmise by the context of what is said in Scripture as to why Pilate sent soldiers into the temple after these people.
So this event is coupled to this other event of the tower of Siloam falling on people in the court of the gentiles. And note what Jesus says. You suppose these Galileans were sinners above all Galileans for forbearing such things. I tell you that unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Interesting condemnation to come out of Jesus's mouth if these people were just innocent victims of senseless Roman brutality!
Back to John, Jesus and Herod the Great:
Now, jumping back to 30 AD and this earthquake. I believe the Talmud said it was alleged to have happened during Passover. The secular record (as it related to the cities in Turkey that were destroyed) only said "spring of the year".
John the Baptist appears on the scene in summer of 29 AD at the commencement of the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. Now we actually have some "confirmation" from the Romans as to when John most likely began preaching. Now Tiberius's reign actually began in July of 14 AD after Augustus died; but he wasn't "officially installed" until September of that year. Jump ahead 15 years and John probably began preaching in July of 29 AD. (As Scripture declares at the the commencement of Tiberius's 15th year.) Yet, Low and behold in September there is a solar eclipse which marks the commencement of Tiberius's "official reign" of his 15th year. We know this because the Romans minted a coin that came out in 30 AD.
Now what's the significance of this coin? Apparently, the Jewish leaders also felt this solar eclipse was something to take note of, because suddenly they are coming down from Jerusalem to see John who's baptizing people in the Jordan river and telling the nation to repent. What's interesting about this Roman coin; is that it has Tiberius "in eclipse" on the front of it
AND.... the Jewish temple on the back! Now aint THAT a fascinating piece of history!
This solar eclipse and the leaders of the nation coming down to see John the Baptist by the Jordan, would have occurred about the time of the feast of tabernacles. Jesus was most likely the last person John baptized. Jesus is immediately driven by the Spirit into the wilderness and the leaders arrest John.
The birth of Christ and what the leaders already knew:
Now back up almost 40 years to about 8 BC. Herod the Great had finished the "rebuild" of the temple and it "opened for business" being rededicated that year. The first major feast being conducted in this brand new temple was probably Passover. (This was actually the 3rd temple because Herod had actually torn down and reconstructed the entire temple from the days of Ezra.)
What happens in Passover of 8 BC? Low and behold - An angel comes to the father of John the Baptist! John is conceived probably about July of that year. Jesus is conceived round about December of that year. John is born about the time of Passover of 7 BC. Jesus is born about the time of Feast of Tabernacles of 7BC.
Two years pass, the Magi show up in Jerusalem about 5 BC, probably in the fall. And it aint just a couple of guys on a camel. We're talking caravans of people. There were probably more than one set of Magi that were coming from different directions. We can deduce this from language in the Bible where some say "we come from the east" and others say "we saw his star in the east". One set was coming from the direction of India, another from Africa and maybe the 3rd from Europe. Tradition assumes there are 3 kings because there are 3 gifts. (Fair enough.) The Scripture says Herod was disturbed by this as was all of Jerusalem.
So the Magi go find Jesus and an angel tells Jospeh to take Jesus and Mary into Egypt, while the Magi all go home in different directions and never come back to Herod. Herod become incensed and kills all the boys 2 and under in Jerusalem. (This hearkens back to Moses being hid in a basket and "found" by Pharaoh's daughter.)
Now interestingly, historical record tells us that in 5 BC there was a comet that passed earth that was quite visible from Jerusalem. The ancients saw comets as bad omens. So here, this comet comes, these magi show up saying: "the King of the Jews is born" and Herod is like - I'm in deep .... and this is probably part of the imputes that causes him to kill these babies in Bethlehem.
Historical record tells us that Herod the Great dies suddenly in February of 4 BC. An angel comes to Joseph and tells him to go back to Judea.
Now jump over to the book of Daniel. There's two sets of numbers in Daniel 8 and 12 (I believe they are). one is 1290 days. The other is 2300 days. Well, it's 1290 days from the angel appearing to John's father to the Magi and it's 2300 days from the angle appearing to John's father to Jesus returning from Egypt.
So jump ahead again some nearly 40 years and here's John preaching in the wilderness and who's on the throne than Herod the Great's son! Gee guys, doesn't this look familiar!
So there's your history lesson for today - and does this not bring reason to pause concerning alleged rabbinic oral traditions?
Next - I'll address your question about the books of Maccabees and what the Protestants call "the Apocrypha".