CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY I Volume 43 , Number 4 i2nnouncernent: -1 hird Annual Symposium > on the Lutheran Confessions ............................................ 27 1 Rabbinical Lb'r-itings of the Early Christian Centuries and ....... New Testament inter-pretat ;on Ravmond F. Surburg 273 God's Ministers. Their Calls. and Their ................ Relationship to Each Other Vefnon H. Harley 286 The Case of the Lost Luther Reference ... Bjar-ne lV.Teigen 295 The State of Evangelisr~l in the ............ Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod E r ~ . i n J . Kolb 3 10 A n AppIication of' Case Grammar to Two ..................... New Testament Passages Theodore Mueller 320 A Reformation Hymn ............................... Douglas Judisch 326 Opinion of the Department o l Systematic Theolop). ........... 327 Homiletical Studies .............................................................. 338 7 7 3 ...................................................................... Book Reviews - Rabbinical Writings of the Early Christian Centuries and New Testament Interpretation Raymond F. Surburg Both Christians and Jews have the Old Testament as a feature of their respective faiths. Christianity utilizes as its authority the Old Testament and the New Testament. Judaism relies for its teachings upon the Old Testament and the Talmud. By the year A.D. 70 the cleavage between Christianity and Judaism may be said to have been finalized.With the destruction of Jerusalem and its sacred Temple the break between Judaism and Christianity was final. By the end of the first Christian century the New Testa- ment canon was complete and the direction that Christianity took was permanently determined. Certain Jewish writings which came to be written in the first and second centuries A. D. likewise determined the permanent course of Judaism. The Talmud is the primary major source for the understanding of Judaism. In addition to the Talmud, other sources are laws known as Baraithoth and passages from a collection called the Tosefta. The Talmud is comprised of two main parts: the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishnah was put into written form in the first and second centuries of the Christian era. although in its oral form its roots extend back a number of cen- turies prior to Christ's birth. The word "Mishnah" means "repe- tition"; it is a lawbook that was produced by rabbis and scholars who resided in Palestine before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 as well as during a century and a half after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem. The Gemara, which means "completion," is a commentary of the Mishnah, and is the work of later scholars called the Amoraim. The Gemara treats of legal matters and those matters known as Haggadah, meaning "saying" o r "narrative." In order to understand adequately the background of the Gospels and the Epistles it is desirable and helpful to have an ac- quaintance with those writings that exhibit the character of Judaism, namely, the Mishnah, the Midrashim, the Tosefta, and the Baraithoth. The origin and character of these writings will briefly be discussed in this essay, because these writings will help show the different direction Judaism took as compared with Christianity in the two centuries after the close of the New Testa- 274 CONCORDIA THEOL-OGICAL QUARTERLY ment canon. Solomon Zeitlin wrote about the importance of the Talmud as follows: The Talmud is a storehouse of law, religion, history, ethics, metaphysical speculations, medical science, astronomy and folklore. It is an encyclopedia covering every phase of human activity, a mine of information for the study of religion, his- tory and civilization not only of the Jews but of the peoples of the entire middle east. It is important for a proper under- standing of the origin of Christianity, since this literature came from men who taught a t the time that Jesus did. It is es- sential for a true comprehension of the controversies over the law between the Pharisees as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. The Oral Law and the Written Law according t o the Jewish Conception Jewish scholars believe that from the very beginning of their history as a nation the Hebrews had both written and oral laws that existed side by side. The written laws are found in the Torah, o r the Pentateuch of Moses. In the writings of the prophets and in the Hagiographa (Kethubim) there are references to laws that are not contained in the Torah of Moses, thus showing that there were oral laws existing besides the written one. Thus in the Book of Jeremiah it is recorded that, when Jeremiah purchased a field from Hanamel, a deed was written in the presence of witnesses. Yet in the Pentateuch there is no law stating that a sale of property was transferred by means of a deed witnessed by people who signed their names t o it. The custom of transferring property by taking off the shoe as described in Ruth 4 is not required by the Torah. Zeitlin believes that the unwritten laws coexisted with the written laws2 The Jews had a tradition that thousands of laws were forgotten during the time that the people mourned for Moses after he had died. The unwritten laws were called "torah shebe-a1 pew ("oral law"), while the written laws were referred t o as "torah shekitab" (that is, "written law"). With the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 587 B.C. the surviving Jews in the Dispersion began t o keep the letter of the law and build a hedge around the 555 different laws which the Jews claimed they found in the Pentateuch. There arose a new group of specialists in the Scriptures who came t o be known as the Sopherim, "the Scribes." They claimed Ezra as the founder of their order, which by the time of Jesus had become the recog- nized guild of Bible-text specialists. The position was taken by the Jews that the written laws of Moses had to be adapted as new conditions developed. The claim is made by the Talmud that the "Great Synagogue" ( I 20 men) had Rabbinical Writings 275 - such authority, but modern scholarship is convinced that no real proof exists of the existence of this body of men. At first, it is believed, legal interpretation was the prerogative of men of priestly lineage, but in the course of time members of other tribes also became experts in the Old Testament Scriptures. In Ezra6:7, Ezra is called "a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses." Also in Ezra 7: 12,2 1 Ezra is given the title "Ezra the Priest, the scribe of the law of heaven." In one of the Aramaic portions of Ezra, 7: 12- 16, Ezra is referred to as an official in the bureaucracy of the Persian Em- pire, and as an official for the Jews he would need to have had knowledge of Jewish law as well as of Persian. Some scholars also hold that the rise of the Sopherim was fur- thered by the need to guard the Old Testament canon, which was in existence by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah according to the statement of Josephus in his apologetic writing, Contra Apionem (1:8).3 The Sopherim probably saw to it that all copies of the Old Testament Scriptures would conform to the standard text. It is held that during the first century B.C. these men resorted to the device of counting all the verses, words, and letters of each book and placed the statistics at the end of a book. This information would enable future copyists to check their own copies against the right total of verses, words, and letters. These statistics have been incorporated into the Masora Finalis of each book of the Massoretic Bible. The Sopherim worked out the so-called tiqqune sopherim, eighteen decrees laid down by the scribes in the interest of Biblical interpretation. An analysis of these rules would show that some have little justification for use. A number were of an antianthropomorphic character, aimed at protection of the dignity of God in some way. The Development of the Oral Law The oral tradition of Judaism is believed to have developed in houses of study and in the synagogal service. Synagogues are believed to have originated during the Babylonian exile. Jere- miah addressed his letter (Jer. 29:I) to the elders, priests, and prophets among the Babylonian exiles. From Ezekiel it can be inferred that the prophet Ezekiel had meetings with the elders. So far no details are available on the development of the rabbinical academies which later on came to play an important role in the perpetuation of Jewish thought and life. It may, however, reason- ably be assumed, that the study of the Law was pursued by the Jews in Babylonia. In Schubert's opinion the concept of oral law was a special con- tribution of Pharisaism.4 Yet is should be noted that the Pharisees were not the only sect to have oral traditions. From the Qumran writings it is evident that the Essenes of Qumran had a legal tradi- 276 CONCORDIA THEO1,OGICAL QUARTERLY tion that had been stabilized since the second century B.C. Stricter interpretation of Pentateuchal laws appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Book of Jubilees. Concerning this matter Schubert wrote: While the latter [i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls], because of the proximate eschatological expectation of the priestly- apocalyptical circle that sponsored them, contain extra-or- dinarily severe laws, the Pharisaic legal interpretation is dis- tinguished by much greater mildness.' The Pharisaic interpretation of the written Law was far more rea- sonable than that of the apocalyptical groups in Judaism. The Pharisees held that after the death of ,the last three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the Holy Spirit, that is, the gift of prophecy, had left Israel (Tos. Sotah 13:2; Yom. 9b; Sanh. I la). According to the Pharisaic tradition oral tradition was part and parcel of the prophetic heritage. Thus Avoth i.1 of the Mishnah states: "Moses received the Law on Mt. Sinai and handed it on to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders t o the prophets, and the prophets handed it on t o the men of the great Sanhedrin." By means of the concept of oral law the rabbis were enabled to establish a link between Moses and themselves. The rabbis went so far as t o make the claim that their interpretation and additions had already been given orally to Moses on Mt. Sinai (Berakhoth 5a). According t o one haggadic tradition the only reason that Moses had not been given the Mishnah was t o prevent the Gentiles from obtaining it, which it was believed would have happened had the Mishnah been rendered into Greek. Johannan bar Nappaha, a third-century scholar, asserted: "The Holy One, praise be He, made the covenant with Israel solely for the sake of the orally handed-on word" (Gittin 60b). In Schubert's opinion the idea of the development of the oral law may also be associated with the prohibition of writing, con- cerning which rabbinical tradition does not present a monolithic position. Some scholars hold that the injunction against writing was certainly not taken seriously by Sirach and the authors of the two books of the Maccabees who at the beginning of the second century B.C. composed their books. Since the Pharisaic move- ment came into being after the writing of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus cannot be considered a violation of the later Pharisaic prohibi- tion. The laws, for example, that were composed by the Qumran community, were probably rejected by the Pharisees. Early Pharisaism was opposed t o the writing of religious books. From the Mishnah (Sankedrin 10:l) it appears that the apocryphal writings were not to be read. This prohibition enabled the Pharisees to prevent the breakup of Judaism into a number of Rabbinical Writings 277 divergent sects and helped Pharasaic doctrine to become nor- mative Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Pharisees and Sadducees on Oral Law The Tannaitic literature, as well as Josephus, claims that the Sadducees could not reject all oral law, for many matters had never beendefined in the written law and were thus determined by custom, handed down orally from generation to generation. The great point of difference between the Sadducees and the Phari- sees was the insistence of the latter that the oral law was just as binding as the written law, a stance which the Sadducees would not recognize. For the latter the written Pentateuchal laws were more binding than any oral law. It was the contention of the Pharisees that the written laws constantly needed to be changed due to new cultural conditions and the people's position. This stance was totally unacceptable to the Sadducees. According to Zeitlin's understanding the passage of time forced the Jews to rewrite and redefine laws that were outmoded.' During the period of the second commonwealth an institution was developed that made necessary revisions. This was the Sanhedrin, whose existence is traced back to 141 B.C. when it is referred to as a bet din ("court") and was invested with the power of changing Pentateuchal laws to meet new community require- ments. Until the Hasmonean period the Jewish state had been a theocracy with the seat of authority located in the high priest. After the establishment of the second commonwealth nomo- cracy (ruIe by law) took the place of the high priest. The Sopherim, the Scribes of the Sanhedrin, introduced new laws as Rabbi Joshua is reported to have done in Tractate Tebul Yom 4:6. They emended many Pentateuchal laws as is evident from commands given in the Talmud when compared with the direc- tives in the Pentateuch. According to the Pentateuch, levitical purity was not to be completed after sunset, but this arrangement worked a hardship for the Jews. The Scribes interpreted this rule in such a way that it applied only to the priests in the matter of eating of sacred food. According to the Pentateuch, cattle needed to be slaughtered before their meat could be eaten, but the method of killing was not defined. So the oral law defined ritualistic slaughter as cutting the throat. There were cases where the oral law was preferred to the written law. According to the Pentateuch, a fowl's blood was to be covered with sand, but, ac- cording to the oral law, anything at hand could be used to cover the blood. Changes in the written law were also made regarding civil matters by the developers of the oral law. The Mosaic Pen- tateuch has laws about damages and injuries, but there are no directives in it that distinguish between degrees of liability and 278 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY injury. The oral law attempted to answer the problems which arose in this situation. The oral law took cognizance of changed sociological conditions and endeavored to address them. According to Jewish tradition, the term "Sopherim" is to be ap- plied to the earliest group of Scribes working between the fifth century and the third century B.C. It includes the men from Ezra to Antigonus of Socho. The Scribes were followed by the scholars called Zugoth ("pairs" of textual scholars) from the second to the first century B.C., from Rabbi Jose ben-Joezer to Hillel. The scholars who lived from the death of Hillel to the death of Judah Hannasi after A.D. 200 are known as the Tannaim, which means "repeaters" or "teachers." The teachings of the Sopherim, the Zugoth, and the Tannaim are found in the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Baraithoth and the Midrash. In these writings more than two hundred Tannaim are referred to, the majority having the title of Rabbi or Rabban ("our teacher"). Methods of Teaching the Oral Law The earliest way of teaching the law was by means of Midrash, that is, a running commentary.8 An exposition of a Biblical text that yields a legal teaching was known as a Midrash Halachah; if it was a nonlegal, ethical, or devotional teaching it was called a Midrash Haggadah. The Midrash method was employed by the teachers who followed Ezra, the scholars whose activities ter- minated about 270 B.C. With the Zugoth scholars a new method of teaching was begun, which actually was a rival to that of the Midrash. The new method propounded oral law that was not based on Holy Writ. The advantage of this method, as stated by Epstein, was as follows: This evidently represented a progressive method of teaching in that it enabled the teachers to put in order of the day any such subjects as they desired, without being tied to the sequence of biblical texts.9 The teachers who employed the new method might still have traced the subjects discussed to the Biblical text. The fact that they did not was due to the Sadducees, who used the written text of the Torah to attack the oral laws. Since the Scriptural basis for the oral law was removed, the laws were perpetuated by repeti- tion. The word "Mishnah" means "repetition." The teachers ,that employed repetition as a met hod were called Tannaim. Although the repetition method became popular it did not oust the older Midrash method. The latter method was permitted to control the Haggadic field; yes, even in the Halachah its influence did not cease, so that both Midrash and Mishnah existed side by side as media for instruction in Halachah. In the two centuries before the birth of Christ the Jewish reli- Rabbinical Writings 279 gious leaders not only tried t o interpret the Pentateuchal laws so as to bring them into harmony with contemporary life, but they attempted to turn some of the old Halachoth into written law, so that they might be employed as a basis for deducing new oral laws as new situations required them. With regard to the interpretion of Pentateuchal law and the Halachoth there arose two schools of thought. They were the Shammaites and the Hillelites; the former representing the more conservative among the Pharisees, and the latter the more liberal. These two groups were named after sham- mai and Hillel, the last of the Zugoth or "pairs." They were the two leading scholars during the reign of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.). Both men were leaders in the Sanhedrin. Although the Hil- lelites and the Shammaites were all Pharisees, there were dif- ferences on many points between the two schools of thought rela- tive to the interpretation of the oral law. Through his grandson Gamaliel, Hillel became the ancestor of a line of patriarchs that were very influential in Palestinian Judaism during the early Christian centuries. Not much is known about Shammai; many sayings are attributed to his followers rather than t o him. Sham- mai was more actively opposed to Herodian and Roman rule than was Hillel. The positions of these two schools of thought are im- portant for understanding the teaching of Christ o n divorce as stated in Matt hew 5:3 1 -32. According to Deuteronomy 24: 1 Moses allowed divorce for "something indecent." The school of Shammai contended that meant adultery only; while the Hil- lelites understood the term broadly and included trivial causes, such as a wife burning her husband's dinner. Thus, when the ques- tion was put to Jesus: "1s it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?" Jesus was being asked as to whether Hillel was right or wrong. The Compilation of Halachic Teaching Efforts t o compile the Halachic teachings in Mishnah form were made during the early stages of its progression. Epstein is convinced that there is strong proof that about 50 B.C. the schools of Shammai and Hillel possessed a codified body of Mishnaic lore.9 One of the outstanding collections was that of Rabbi Akiba who died a martyr's death in 135 A.D. Akiba's col- lection became the basis of the Mishnah of Rabbi Judah the Prince (ca. 1 lo? - 175? A. D.), a work that incorporates a digest of the whole legal system governing the Jewish community as developed by the Palestinian schools throughout the periods of the Sopherim, the Zugoth, and the Tannaim up to the third Chris- tian century. The materials in the Mishnah have some im- portance for textual criticism because of their numerous quota- tions of the Old Testament text, which sometimes differs slightly from that found in the Massoretic Bible. 280 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Another type of Rabbinic material that arose between A.D. 100 and 300 was the Tosefta ("addition" or "supplement"). The Tosefta is a collection of teachings and traditions of the Tannaim which were closely related to the Mishnah. The Tosefta is sup- posed to contain that portion of Rabbi Akiba's original Mishnah that he omitted in his shortened form. The Two Talmuds The Talmud ("instruction") grew up between A.D. 100 and A.D. 500. It contains two main divisions: the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishnah ("repetition") was completed by about A.D. 200. It was written in Hebrew and constituted, as previously noted, a digest of the various oral laws, traditions, and explana- tions of the Old Testament then current in Judaism. The Mishnah was divided into six orders (sedarim) as follows: (1) Zeraim ("seeds") deals mainly with agricultural laws (7 tractates); (2) Moed ("appointed season") has laws concerning the sabbath, festivals, and facts (12 tractates); (3) Nashim ("women") has laws concerning marriage, divorce, and vows (10 tractates); (4) Neze- kim ("damages") has laws pertaining to the sanctuary and sacrifi- cial rites ( 10 tractates); (5) Kodashim ("consecrated things") has laws pertaining to the sanctuary and sacrificial rites (1 1 tractates); (6) Tohoroth ("cleanliness") has laws pertaining to ritual purity and impurity (12 tractates). Like the Mishnah, the Tosefta also contains six orders, but the material in the Tosefta is more dif- fuse than that in the Mishnah. The language of the Mishnah is new Hebrew (i-e., Rabbinic Hebrew) as distinguished from Biblical or Classical Hebrew. This form of Hebrew developed during the time of the Second Temple (51 5 B.C. - A.D. 70), has Greek and Latin loan words, and reveals a marked Aramaic influence. While Mishnaic Hebrew is well suited to setting forth practical matters, scholars claim that it lacks the vigor and poetic grandeur of Biblical Hebrew.10 The period that followed the Tannaim was that of the Amoraim (plural of "speaker, explainer"). Their work was limited to explaining the assertions and teachings of the Tan- naim. In Palestine there were five generations of Amoraim and in Babylonia seven generations who concerned themselves with the transmission of Tannaitic teachings. The teachings and disputes of the Amoraim are called the Gemarah ("completion"). The Gemarah is not, like the Mishnah, written in a form of Hebrew, but rather in Aramaic, with an Eastern Aramaic dialect em- ployed in the Babylonian Talmud and a western Aramaic dialect in the Palestinian Talmud. Both Talmuds have with slight variations the same Mishnah, but they differ greatly in respect to the size and content of the Gemarah and its relationship to the Rabbinical Writings 28 1 Mishnah. The Palestinian version has t hirty-nine tractates, deal- ing with the first four orders. The Babylonian Talmud has thirty- six tractates (dealing mainly with orders 2-5). but it is nearly four times the size of the Palestinian. The Babylonian has about 2,500,000 words as compared with the 750,000 of the Palestinian Talmud. The Mishnah is characterized by brevity, clarity, and compre- hensiveness and was used as a textbook in the rabbinical academies. It was edited and became the standard book of in- struction in Tiberias, Caesarea, Sepphoris, and Lydda in Palestine and in Sura, Pumbeditha, and Nehardea in Babylonia. As a result of learned discussions about the law the formation of two different Talmuds came about. Feinberg claims that the greater part of the discussion in the Talmud is in dialogue form. In the Haggadah lengthy digressions are often found. Two-thirds of the Talmud is of the nature of a commentary on the Mishnah. One Jewish Encyclopedia article states that the Gemara pro- ceeds by way of question and answer and generally follows the method of analogy and association, as a result of which a discus- sion may cover a wide range of subjects and often end up with a completely different subject than that with which it began.' Frequently a discussion by two rabbis concerning one point of law would result in an enumeration and explanation of all other differences between the two discussants. Ofthe importance of the Talmud the French scholar Darmsteter wrote: The Talmud, exclusive of the vast Rabbinic literature attached to it, represents the uninterrupted work of Judaism from Ezra to the sixth century of the common era. the resultant of all living forces and of whole religious activity of a nation. If we consider that it is the faithful mirror of the manners, the institutions. the knowledge of the Jews, in a word of the whole of their civilization in Judea and Babylon during the prolific centuries preceding and following the advent of Christianity, we shall understand the importance of a work, unique of its kind, in which a whole people has deposited its feelings, its beliefs, its soul.lz Robert Travers Herford in Talmud and the Apocrypha has made a comparative study of the Talmud with apocryphal lit era- ture. Herford attempts t o study these two types of religious litera- ture and t o account for their differences while documenting their emanation from a common source. Books DeaIing with Rabbinic Exegesis and the New Testament Many publications have attempted to show the value of rabbinic studies to the interpretation of the New Testament. Wil- 28 2 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY liam Doeve, in Jewish Hermeneutics in the S-vnoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen, 1954), pages 5-5 1, has recounted the history of rab- binic studies and their application to problems of New Testa- ment interpretation. Claude J. G. Montefiore's The Synoptic Gospels (2nd ed., 2 vols.; London, 1927) is considered t o this day by many to be a classic exposition. A volume published three years later, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teaching, supple- ments the 1927 book; the British scholar Israel Abrams com- pares the teachings of the rabbis to Christ's teachings. In this volume he defends the Pharisees' doctrines. The Lutheran scholar Gustaf Dalman has shown that many parallels do exist in rabbinic writings that elucidate New Testa- ment concepts. Die Worte Jesu (Leipzig, 1898) and Jesus-Jeshua (Leipzig, 1922) furnish the Christian exegete with an elaborate background of rabbinic materials. Both of these works have been translated into English as The Words of Jesus, translated by David Kay, and Jesus-Jeshua by Paul Levertoff (1929). David Daube, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), has furnished New Testament students with illustrations of materials of a rabbinic nature which could help to clear up obscurities in the New Testament. Morton Smith, in Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels, (Journal of Biblical Literature Mono- graph Series, VI; Philadelphia, 1951), has provided detailed analyses of rabbinic materials useful for New Testament exegesis. Joachim Jeremias, in Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadel- phia: Fortress Press, 1969), deals with the Holy City in Jesus' time and investigates its economic and social conditions during the New Testament period. The book is replete with references t o Mishnah and the two talmuds. Paul Fiebig made a study o f t he parables in his Die Gleichnisse Jesu im Lichte der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des neuentestament- lichen Zeitalters (Tiibingen, 19 12), and he investigated the miracles in his study, Jiidische Wundergeschichten des neuen- testamentlichen Zeitalters (Tiibingen, 19 1 l), Using rabbinical materials Fiebig made a study of the Sermon on the Mount in Jesu Bergpredigt (Gottingen, 1924). Between 1922 and 1928 two German scholars published a commentary on the New Testa- ment which draws together in five volumes materials from the Talmud and Midrash that help one to understand many state- ments in the New Testament. When using this resource it must be borne in mind that much rabbinical material cited by Strack and Billerbeck is late and therefore does not reflect first-century Judaism. Some scholars claim that this commentary is an in- dispensable work for New Testament interpretation.') Alfred Edersheim (1 825-1 889), of Jewish extraction and a con- vert to Christianity, was Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint a t Rabbinical Writings 28 3 the University of Oxford (1884-1889). He wrote a number of volumes in which he utilized materials from the Mishnah, the Gemara, and other rabbinical writings. In addition to The Temple-Its Ministry and Services as They Were in the Time of Christ and Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ, there was his two-volume magnum opus, The Life i n d Times of Jesus the Messiah.I4 Published nearly a century ago, it now is available in a one volume edition. Edersheim devoted seven years to the writing of this work, for which a number of his earlier books were a preparation. Wilbur Smith claimed that this book is "the most important general work on the life of Christ in our language." In setting forth and evaluating all the views of the life and teaching of Christ, Edersheim gives a reconstruction of Jesus' life and teaching in all their surroundings of place, society, popular life, and intellectual and religious development. He gives extensive quotations from many different rabbinical writings. Edersheim used the background of Jewish social life and t radi- tion to illuminate the life of Christ and thereby endeavored to produce fresh insights into Jesus' acts and teachings.14 With Edersheim one should contrast the writings of Joseph Gedaliah Klausner, an ardent Zionist who in 1949 was a candidate for the presidency of Israel. He wrote two books deal- ing with New Testament topics, namely, with Jesus Christ and with Paul. His Jesus of Nazareth: His Lif4 and Times and Teach- ings (Macmillan, 1925) was written originally in modern Hebrew and published in Jerusalem in 1922. Herbert Dancy translated this work,in which Klausner argued that Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian, setting forth a position which Julius Wellhausen had advanced earlier. Klausner's volume dealing with Paul was also written in modern Hebrew and was translated into English by William Franklin Stinespring as From Jesus to Paul (Macmil- Ian, 1943). In it Klausner repeated a position expressed by other Jewish writers, namely, that it was Paul who was responsible for separating Judaism from Christianity. Klausner's tracing of the development of Christianity is based mainly on Jewish sources which Christian scholars should examine when they evaluate Klausner's erroneous characterization of St. Paul. Foonot es 1 . Solomon Zeitlin, "Talmud," Encyclopedia Brirannica, 1963, 21 :768. 2. Ibid., p. 768. 3. Gleason L. Archer, A Survev of Old Testament Inrroducrion (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), p. 63. 4. K. Schubert, "Talmud," New Carholic Encyclopedia, 16:923-924. 5 . Ibid., p. 923. 6. Ibid., p. 924. 7. Zeitlin. op. cir. 284 CONCORDlA THEOL-OGICAI. QUARTERLY 8. K. Schubert, "Midrashic Literature," Neul Catholic Encvclopedia, 9:823- 825. 9. I. Epstein, "Talmud." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4:512. 10. Cf. K. Albrecht, Neuhebraische Grammatik (Munchen: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagshandlung, 1913), 136 pp.; M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), 248 pp.; M. H. Segal, "Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relationship to Biblical Hebrew," Jewish Quarterly Review, 20 ( 1908), 647-737. 11. Cecil Roth, The Standard Jewish Encvclopedia. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1962), pp. 1786-1 787. 12. The Talmud, p. 7, as quoted in the article "Talmud and Midrash," J. D. Douglas, The New Bible Dictionarv (Grand Rapid, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1926), p. 1237. 13. Herman L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrash (Miinchen: C. H . Beck'sche Verlagshandlung, Oscar Beck, 1922-1924), 5 vols. 14. These three volumes are published by Eerdmans Publishing Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Bibliography Ausubel, Nathan. The Book of Jewish Knowledge. New York: Crown Pub- lishers, 1964. "Talmud," pp. 452-453. Bachert, W. "Talmud," The Jewish Encyclopedia, 10: 160-165. Bernfeld, S. Der Talmud. Sein Wesen, seine Bedeurung und seine Geschichre. Berlin: Verlag von S. Calvary, 1900. Bokser, Ben Zion. The Wisdom of the Talmud. New York: Philosophical Library, 195 1. Cohen, A. Everyman's Talmud. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1949. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah, Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatorv Notes. London: Oxford University Press, 1933. Davies, Ellyn. "Talmud," Chamber's Encyclopedia, 13:440-44 1. Deutsch, Emanuel. The Talmud. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1896. Epstein, I. "Talmud," The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4.5 1 1-5 15. Fiebig, Paul. Der Talmud, seine Enrstehung, sein Wesen, sein Inhalt. Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer Verlag, 1929. Funk, S. Die Enstehung des Talmuds. Zweite verbesserte Auflage. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 19 10. , Talmudproben. Leipzig: C. J. Goschensche Verlagshandlung, 19 12. Goldin, Judah. The Living Talmud. The Wisdom of the Fathers with an Essay by Judah Goldin. New York: New American Library, 1957. Gutstein, Morris A. "Talmud," Collier's Enc.vciopedia, 18: 16 1. Margolis, Max L., and Alexander Mark. A History of the Jewish People. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1927. Pp. 2 16-230. Mielzinger, M. Introduction to the Talmud. New York: Bloch Publishing Com- pany, 1925. Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Three Centuries of the Christian Era. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1927). 1. Oesterley, W. 0. E., and G. H. Box. A Short Survey o f the Literature of Rab- binic and Medieval Judaism. London: Society for the Promotion of Chris- tian Knowledge, 1920. Pp. 4-140. Revel, Hirschel. "Talmud," The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 10: 160- 165. Strack, Herman L. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1931. Rabbinical Writings 285 Trattner, Ernest R. Understanding the Talmud. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1955. The Talmud of Jerusalem. With a preface by Dagobert D. Runes. New York. philosophical Library, 1956. Waxman, Meyer. A Histor-v of Jewish 1-iteralure. New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 193 I . Pp. 59-84; 1 19- 135. Werblowsky, R. J. Zei, and Wigoderg. The Encyclopedia of [he Jewish Rel;gion. Jerusalem. Massada P. E.G. Press, 1966. White, W. " Talmud," The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:589- 594. Zeitlin, Solomon. "Talmud," Enc~vclopedia Britannica, 2 1 :768-77 1 . Editions of the Talmud Epstein, I. The Babylonian Talmud wirh 1ndice.r. 36 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1961. Goldschmidt, L. Der Babylonische Talmud. 1 5 vols. 1897-1 909. Schwab, M., Le Talmud de Jerusalem traduit pour la premiere fois. I 1 vols. Paris, 1878-90.