xvi LIST OF CHIEF WORKS AND EDITIONS

LIST OF CHIEF WORKS AND EDITIONS REFERRED TO

Mishnah. Amsterdam, 1685.

Talmud Jerushalmi. Krotoschin, 1866.

Talmud Babli. Wilna, 1880-85.

Hesronoth ha-Shas. No date.

Rabbinowicz, R. Diqduqe Sopherim, Variae Lectiones in Mishnam

et Talm. Babylonicum, 1867-1886.

Tosephta. Ed. Zuckermandel, 1881.

Siphri. Ed. Friedmann, 1864.

Siphra. Ed. Weiss, 1862.

Mechilta. Ed. Friedmann, 1870.

Pesiqta de R. Kahana. Ed. Buber, 1868.

Pesiqta Rabbathi. Ed. Friedmann, 1880.

Tanḥuma. Ed. Buber, 1885.

Midrash Rabboth. Wilna, 1887.

Jalqut Shimoni. Warsaw, 1875.

Frankel, Z. Darke ha-Mishnah, 1859.

Mebo ha-jerushalmi, 1870.

Levy, J. Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, 1876-1889.

Hamburger, J. Realencyclopädie für Bibel u. Talmud, 1870-1901. Zunz, L. Gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden, 1832.

Jost, J. M.

Grätz, H.

Weiss, J. H.

Weber, F. 1880.

Bacher, W.

Geschichte des Judenthums, 1857.

Geschichte der Juden.

Geschichte der Jüdischen Tradition, 1871.

System der Altsynagogale Palestinensische Theologie,

Agada der Tannaiten, 1884-90.

Agada der Babylonischen Amoräer, 1878.

Agada der Palestinensischen Amoräer, 1892-1899.

Laible H. Jesus Christus im Talmud. Berlin, 1891.

Friedländer. Der vorchristliche jüdische Gnosticismus. Göttingen, 1898.

Christianity in Talmud and

Midrash

INTRODUCTION

THE passages from the Talmud and other Rabbinical works which will be considered in the following pages are excerpts from a literature of enormous extent, in which the intellectual energy of the Jewish nation during many centuries found ample and varied expression. To give a detailed account of this literature would lead me far from my main subject, and would, moreover, need a considerable volume for its full description. All that seems necessary here is to give in a few words a general account of the Rabbinical literature, so that the reader may be able to judge of the kind of evidence furnished by the passages which will be quoted, from some knowledge of their origin.

The details of date, authorship and contents of the several writings may be found in works of reference accessible to scholars, such as Zunz' "Gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden," Hamburger's "Real-Encyklopädie für Bibel und Talmud," or, for English readers, the "Introduction to Hebrew Literature

of Etheridge, a work of considerable value, in spite of the strong theological bias of the writer.

In an often quoted passage (Aboth, i. 1 sq.) the Talmud declares that "Moses received Torah1 from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue. Simeon the Just was of the remnants of the Great Synagogue. Antigonos of Socho re

ceived from Simeon the Just . . . . Jose ben Joezer of Zereda, and Jose ben Johanan of Jerusalem received from them."2 Then follow the names of successive pairs of teachers down to Hillel and Shammai, who were contemporary with the beginning of the Christian era; and after these are mentioned singly the leading Rabbis of the first two centuries. The treatise, Pirqē Abōth,' as its title indicates, is a collection of 'Sayings' by these Fathers' of Israel. Now, whatever may be thought of the historical accuracy of the statement just quoted, it expresses clearly enough the view which the great founders of the Rabbinical literature held concerning their own work. It gives the keynote of the whole of that literature; it indicates the foundation on which it was built, and the method which its builders one

1 Torah, literally Teaching.' The usual translation 'Law' is too narrow in its meaning. Torah denotes the whole of what, according to Jewish belief, was divinely revealed to man. As the Pentateuch contained the record of that revelation, the Torah denotes the whole contents of the Pentateuch, whether narrative or precept; and further, it includes not merely the written contents of the Pentateuch, but also the unwritten Tradition, the so-called Oral Law, which finally took shape in the Talmud.

2 There is a gap between Antigonos and the first Pair, as is pointed out by Strack in his edition of the Pirqe Abōth, 1882, p. 9. The Pairs of teachers are technically known as Zūgōth (П1211).

and all adopted. The foundation is the Decalogue, and the method is Tradition.

The foundation is the Decalogue.

More exactly,

it is the famous declaration, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut. vi. 4, 5), a declaration enshrined in the Jewish liturgy as the very soul of Judaism.1 The Rabbinical literature is an attempt to furnish a complete answer to the question, "How shall a man love the Lord his God with all his heart and soul and might?" And even those Rabbinical writings which seem to have least reference to this main subject are dependent on it to this extent, that they would not have been written unless there had been in the minds of their authors the consciousness of this great fundamental principle.

The links in the chain of development are easily distinguished, according to the Rabbinical theory. Upon the Decalogue (of which the Shema' is the summary) rests the Pentateuch. The Ten Commandments were expanded into greater detail; and the historical and legendary parts, as we should call them, were included, or rather were expressly written with the same object as the legal parts, viz., for instruction in the right conduct of life. Moses was regarded as the author of the whole, unless with the exception of the last eight verses of Deut. (b. B. Bathr. 14b).2

Upon the Pentateuch rested the whole of the

1 It is known as the Shema', from its first word in Hebrew. The Shema', as recited, includes some other texts.

2 See the Talmudic theory of the authorship of Scripture in Traditio Rabbinorum Veterrima de Librorum V. Testti ordine atq. origine illustrata a Gustavo Arminio Marx. Theol. licentiato. Lipsia, 1884.

other scriptures, according to the Rabbinical theory. That is to say, they were to be interpreted in conformity with the Pentateuch, or rather with the Torah, or Teaching, of which the Pentateuch was the written expression. The Rabbis held that the Torah, or teaching, which Moses was commissioned to give to Israel, was partly written and partly oral. It is the written Torah which is found in the Pentateuch, and developed in the other scriptures. The oral Teaching was said to have been handed down, from one generation to another, as the key to the interpretation of the written Teaching. That the Pentateuch was regarded as the standard to which the other scriptures must conform is shown by the well-known discussion as to whether the books of Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes were to be included in the Canon. The reason alleged against them was that they contradicted the Torah; and it was only after this contradiction had been explained away that they were recognised as canonical (b. Shabb. 13b, 30b). What may be the value of this statement for the critical history of the O.T. Canon is a question which does not arise here.

The Rabbinical theory thus regarded the O.T. scriptures as a body of instructions based upon the Torah of Moses; and when it is said, in the passage above referred to, that the prophets delivered the Torah to the Men of the Great Synagogue, this probably means that the Rabbis traced their own system to Ezra and Nehemiah, and thus could regard it as the continuation of the Teaching handed down by the Prophets from Moses himself. It is certain that they did thus regard it, even to the extent of believing that the whole of the Oral Law was given