Basically, it depends on what you’re looking for. There’s quite a bit of literature, but each work is written for a different purpose.

If you’re looking for literature that describes modern critical scholarship, you can find it in Urbach and in the introductions of Albeck. For a modern introductory book to the field, you can read the one from the Open University, which I understand deals with this, though I haven’t read it.

If you’re looking for God-fearing scholars who polemicized successfully, it should be said, with the old "Science of Judaism" movement (which includes Rapoport, Jost, Frankel, Shadal, Weiss, Geiger, Zunz, and the rest of the gang) in that very same period, there is the scholarly literature that came out of the study hall of the Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin. The most basic book on this subject to come out of there is HaLevi’s old Dorot HaRishonim; if you’ve read the basic "Science of Judaism" works, it’s basic to read that as well. There is also Toledot Yisrael by Ze’ev Yaavetz (though nowadays it is considered unreliable, and I personally haven’t had a chance to read it), and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann’s books on the Mishnah. Malbim also dealt with these matters in his commentaries, especially in his introduction to Leviticus.

If you’re looking for modern God-fearing scholars of the school that defends tradition from a research-oriented perspective, there is the comprehensive book by Inbal, which is a must-read for anyone interested in these topics:

https://www.mosadharavkook.com/shop/the Oral Torah-2/

It’s truly an encyclopedia. There’s no topic he doesn’t deal with. I highly recommend it.

There are also the books of Margaliot (personally, I haven’t had the chance to read them) or of Korman (good in terms of concepts, but not very deep or scholarly in my opinion).

In short, there’s no shortage of material. Be more precise about exactly what you’re looking for, and it’ll be possible to recommend something specific.

Thank you very much for the references.

I think for now I’ll focus on Albeck’s introductions, HaLevi’s Dorot HaRishonim, and Inbal’s Oral Torah.

I’ve already read Urbach’s Beliefs and Opinions, which is very innovative, but it does not provide a chronological picture of the development of the Oral Torah.

I’m nearing the end of my degree as a Jewish Studies student at the Open University, so I’ve gotten to know its books in depth, but I thought there might be an Orthodox engagement with the studies and conclusions put forward by the authors I mentioned.

In general, I’m convinced by the basic outline of development drawn by Frankel and Tchernowitz. Many people tell me there must certainly be a substantive Orthodox refutation of those conclusions, but so far I haven’t seen any worthwhile engagement with them — only a straw-man rejection.

There definitely is. If so, it seems that HaLevi, Inbal, and Albeck are indeed the best fit.
On the one hand, Inbal is more up to date and also covers modern scholarship (and therefore his refutations are stronger), and on the other hand, HaLevi’s advantage is that he goes one by one through the claims of all the Science of Judaism people, according to the stages of historical development.

There’s also the book Tora And Logic by Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman (a unique genius, for those who know).
But the book was never printed. Apparently you can find a copy with his grandson, Rabbi Schneur Potash, in Jerusalem

It seems regarding Inbal that despite his broad scope, his method is terribly apologetic, no?

He is indeed apologetic in certain parts (and in others he is actually willing to concede their points). And despite his basic bias, on many things he has real answers, which he also brings from scholarly literature, and these data have great significance. I’ll give you an example: Jewish Studies scholars dispute the antiquity of tefillin. He cites a passage from an article showing that the word "totafot" in ancient Egyptian is something like an ornament that was placed on the head. From this it follows that our tefillin are not a fiction of the Sages and that Scripture did not mean some metaphor; rather, the source of the Jewish law is genuinely ancient. He also shows that many Mishnah terms fit the Hellenistic period rather than the Roman one, and many more proofs in other areas as well (the source of the derashot, the antiquity of Kabbalah, and so on).

Believe me, I’m not quick to recommend books that I think are low-level, but his book is very impressive, and I would recommend that anyone interested in the subject read it, and even if they aren’t.

In any case, notice that I asked the questioner beforehand whether he was looking for critical scholarly literature, or literature that defends Orthodoxy with real arguments. And it was only under that rubric that I referred him to Inbal and HaLevi.

And with*

For the questioner: another important set. Gilat’s book on the development of Jewish law is excellent. The introduction to the responsa Dor Revi’i is very important. Halbertal’s book Interpretive Revolutions is fascinating. And it’s worth looking among the rabbis of the advanced study hall of Yeshivat Otniel for rabbis whose method of study is committed to Orthodoxy together with acceptance of the development of Jewish law as a deeply rooted faith-based process. Rabbi Nagan, Rabbi Ariel, maybe also Rabbi Amiel.

The foundation of foundations and the pillar of wisdoms are the ancient introductions of Maimonides to his commentary on the Mishnah and to the Mishneh Torah. Just now, the publishing house Moshe Institute brought out: "Rabbi Yosef Kapach’s Lectures on Maimonides’ Introductions to His Commentary on the Mishnah," volume 1. Also very important are: "The Letter of Rav Sherira Gaon" and "Seder HaKabbalah" by Meiri. And "Give to the wise and he will become wiser still."

With blessings,
S. Z. Levinger

There’s also Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits’s book Jewish law: Its Power and Purpose, in the style of Gilat. Though for answers to the "Science of Judaism" school, it’s definitely HaLevi and Inbal (and the opening chapters of Albeck). By the way, regarding Urbach, I wasn’t talking about his book Beliefs and Opinions but rather his book on Jewish law.

Thank you very much for the references; I hope to find in them a worthwhile engagement.
I’ve already started going through Inbal, and I have to note that in this context of the development of the Oral Torah from a historical perspective, there isn’t much engagement there. The treatment seems to speak of the Oral Torah always as a single whole, one heading that gathers together all the interpretations, fine distinctions, etc.; that sounds far from reasonable. As I noted, I’m still at the beginning, only after the first 80 pages.

As for the one who recommended Maimonides’ introduction to the Mishnah, Rav Sherira Gaon’s letter, etc. — thank you. Those sources are very well known, but it seems to me that they present the belief in its full form and proceed from known axioms. Maimonides, however, describes the Oral Torah very differently in the Guide of the Perplexed than in his introduction to the Mishnah. I believe this is because he intended the books for different target audiences.

I’m looking for an intellectual engagement based on evidence from the world of the Talmud and from scholarship in parallel, in order to try to arrive for myself at this important core issue regarding the development of the Oral Torah, where the derivative question will be that of the source of the Oral Torah’s authority.

I’d also be happy for references to scholarship on all types of development within the Oral Torah, not necessarily Jewish law. For example, the development of the principles of faith among the people — I really loved Kaufmann’s History of the Religion of Israel. In Jewish philosophy, so far I’ve only read Guttmann.

Actually, "Rav Tzair" is not considered all that much today; he tends to make sweeping statements and supports himself less with evidence. Scholars nowadays have torn apart a lot of what he wrote.

Ariel, I’d be glad if you could refer me to those scholars or articles in which they discussed Rav Tzair’s claims.

The truth is that from looking into his words I saw many sources and pieces of evidence. There are a few basic assumptions, such as the division into political and spiritual approaches and what follows from them — for example, that the spiritual camp draws converts near and the political camp pushes them away — and on that one can certainly argue.
In general, his explanations of laws given to Moses at Sinai, accepted interpretations, and methods of study that developed from Hillel to Rabbi Akiva are, in my opinion, definitely explained with good sense.