reasoning and of conveying instruction, and, to a certain extent also, in the doctrines taught by each. Such a resemblance, which, on close examination, will be found actually to exist between them, bears decisively upon many points, which are of supreme importance to the genuineness and authenticity of the historical and didactic portions of the New Testament. It does so particularly on the date of their composition, and on the question as to the pre-Nicene, and Jewish origin of doctrines like the Trinity and the Atonement.1 Moreover, the systematic elaboration of Rabbinism is but one of the manifold phases of the intellectual activity in the field of religious and metaphysical speculation, which characterised the first ages of the Christian era, both in the East and in the West. Hence it may be assumed, that the authors of the Talmud, dispersed in both these divisions of the world, had come into mental contact with the various systems of Gnostic and Oriental philosophy, and might, therefore, be expected to throw some light upon them, as well as upon the domestic, social, and political relations of their Gentile neighbours in the Roman and Persian Empires. How strange, then, that with such weighty reasons for a re-production of the Talmud in the English language, no such undertaking has been attempted! Other works, such as the Coran, the Veda, etc., which present far more limited fields for historical, theological, and speculative research, have been made accessible to the English reader; but of the canonical books of Rabbinism, little more is known than what is presented in partial and fragmentary translations, and occasionally furnished by writers in periodical magazines, who indulge in mutual, and not unfounded, recriminations of distortion, and intentional suppression of treatise, folio, and column. It is, however, undeniable, that the task of rendering the whole Talmud into another language is beset with almost insuperable difficulties. Formidable, if not insurmountable, are the literary obstacles which the translator would have to grapple with, in his endeavours to digest and reduce to order the bewildering and apparently contradictory mass of matter which is piled up in almost inextricable confusion, and compressed within twelve densely printed folio volumes. The idiom also, or rather the idioms, in which the Guemara is written, are for the most part hybrid and unintelligible without the aid of commentaries. And in addition to the deterring magnitude of the labour before him, the translator could scarcely 1 See page 20, Note 21, T. N.; page 22, Note 43, T. N.; pages 141-143; pago 191, Note 32, and T. N.; page 332, T. N.; page 465, Verse 1, ff. Pinner alludes to an Arabic translation of the whole Talmud, which, he says, was executed at Cordova, Spain, by Rabbi Joseph ben Isaac Stanas; but which exists nowhere. Pinner himself undertook one in German; but he did not go beyond the first treatise, Berachoth. b 2 hope to secure the pecuniary outlay, which would be required to carry his work through the press. Swayed by considerations like these, the compiler conceived and carried out the idea of offering to the public A compendium of the Talmud in the original, or an indiscriminate selection of passages from all parts of that work, illustrative, in some measure, of everything that is of interest in it to the Theologian, the Bible Exegete, the Historian, and the Archæologist. What distinguishes this work from other publications of the kind is, that it does not dictate a judgment upon the Talmud, but enables the reader to form one for himself. Many thousands of Talmudical extracts are given with treatise, folio, and column for each. And any one, at all conversant with the original, may easily test the accuracy of each citation. But in what relation do the New Testament and the Talmud stand to each other, how did the latter originate, and when did it assume its present form? Rabbinism and Christianity, like Esau and Jacob, are the twin offspring of the same parent. Notwithstanding their wide divergence and irreconcilable antagonism, each is a product of the Jewish mind, and the natural and necessary consequence of the Mosaic Theocracy. Both reposed, more or less unperceived, beneath the surface of that system; both were conceived and brought into existence in the house of Israel; and both attained their full maturity, and appeared on the stage of the world's history, at about the same time. The growth of Rabbinism, as the embodiment of the material and outer aspect of the Theocracy, was, indeed, more marked and tangible than that of Christianity, which is the expression of its spiritual essence. But in point of consolidation, or emergence from a state of embryo, it was not only preceded by Christianity, but its establishment was accelerated by the prevalence of the Gospel, and the annihilation of the Mosaic system by the Romans. But notwithstanding their simultaneous conception and birth, so divergent were these two creeds from the first in their nature, aims, and aspirations, that, after a brief joint occupation of the same field, their separation became inevitable. Each pursued its own course, and the history of the last eighteen centuries is a record of the ever-widening gulf between them. Their relation to each other may not unfitly be illustrated by a river confined to a narrow bed, and holding two different elements in combination, with scarcely any affinity between them. After a long and chequered career from its fountain head, during which an all but hopeless struggle for existence is, for centuries, maintained by both elements, their combination is severed by the formation of two unequal streams. One gathering up the purer element expands and increases in volume, renewing the face of the earth as it flows on; whilst the other runs on in its old confined bed, retaining, multiplying, and intensifying the grosser element that was left to it after the separation had taken place. The Mosaic Theocracy is a political constitution directly promulgated by God, as the sole Legislator and the absolute Sovereign of the nation. Permeated by His Spirit, it holds, as it were, in solution, deep spiritual truths and vast moral aims, to be eliminated, solidified, and, in process of time, imparted and applied for the benefit of the whole human race, through the agency of the people, who are specially selected for the realization of that purpose. Divested of this ulterior design, the Theocracy becomes objectless, and is reduced to a myth. The inculcation of the Divine Unity only, which was not a new doctrine at the age of Moses, would neither account for the elaborate sacrificial worship, nor for the stupendous exertion of supernatural power, which attended the introduction and the development of the Levitical dispensation, and which proved so barren of results to the Jews themselves, as contrasted with other nations, who were not so favoured. Christianity, therefore, as the realization of the deeper and more comprehensive aims, which were veiled in Mosaism, is at once the only justification of that system and its necessary consequence. As the hidden kernel, and owing to the abandonment of its old Hebrew channel, its evolution out of Mosaism is less apparent than the Rabbinic fossilisation of the shell. But no one disputes the existence of the oak in the acorn, though its development is far less perceptible to the senses. It is perhaps incorrect to say, that Christianity had abandoned its old Hebrew depositaries. In reality, it did so only after a severe conflict, from which it emerged with myriads of individual trophies,1 which, carrying its banner to all parts of the Roman Empire, infused new life into the dead body of paganism, and became the salt of a decaying world; and it did not wholly relinquish the Jewish field, even after it had become apparent, that the nation, as such, was lost to it, at least, for the present. Nor was there anything surprising in this discovery. It was only after a hard struggle, prolonged for centuries, that even Mosaism in its external form could gain a permanent hold upon the mind of a small remnant, whilst it failed completely to strike root among the vast majority of the tribes. And if the people were so slow to apprehend and assimilate the rudimentary principles of morality, and the first elements of religious truth, promulgated on Sinai, is it wonderful that comparatively few only could rise to the conception of the deeper and more comprehensive scope of the Theocracy, and that the nation, as such, remained indifferent, when there appeared above the surface that hidden germ, which was destined 1 Ac. xxi. 20, πόσαι μυριάδες εἰσὶν Ἰουδαίων τῶν πεπιστευκότων, to develop into a mighty tree, under whose shelter nations yet unborn should repose? Once, however, divested of its ulterior designs, the Theocracy became the most formidable barrier against the reception of Christianity by the Jews. The incidental proofs furnished by the Evangelists, that the Divinity claimed by and for Jesus, was only in so far the cause of His rejection, as He was the Claimant,' is abundantly confirmed in the pages of this compilation. The offence of the cross consisted, on the one hand, in the annihilation of the hope, so fondly "'3 and of cherished, of a Messianic scourge of " the nations of the world,' the political exaltation of Israel; and on the other hand, in its exhibition of a standard of righteousness, towering far above the Pharisaic conception of it, and, what was most keenly resented, altogether destructive of the boasted perfection of the scribes. But even these stumbling-blocks, though formidable as far as they went, were only of a negative kind, and might have been overlooked. What could not be disregarded in the new dispensation, was the expansion of the Theocracy into the universal church-which, after the destruction of Mosaism by the Romans, would, no doubt, have been fatal to the continued existence of a Jewish nationality-the actual removal of the middle wall of partition, and the proclamation of the equality of Jew and Gentile. Proselytes, and devout Heathen, to whom an inferior and irksome position had been assigned in the Synagogue, hailed with joy the offer of admission to an unrestricted enjoyment of all the privileges of filial relationship with the God of Israel, without the necessity of submitting to the administration of a painful rite, and exchanging their nationality for one which was conferred upon them with ill-concealed reluctance and distrust. But the elevation of the Gentile was bitterly resented as the degradation of the Jew; and the fact, that this radical revolution was effected through Jewish agency, blew the spark thus kindled into a devouring and inextinguishable flame, which has now been fed by the intensified animosity of eighteen centuries.5 A closer examination of the two aspects of the Theocracy and their relation to each other, will enable us to ascertain the limits of "the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," and to account for its superficiality, and the confidence of the Rabbis in their own ability, not only to satisfy, but to exceed, the requirements of the Law, both oral and written." That institution, as has already been intimated, and as its name indicates, was at once political and religious. 1 Mat. xxvi. 63; Mar. xii. 36, 37; xiv. 61; Lu. xxii. 70. 2 See page 20, Note 31; page 23, T. N. g. ff. 4 Page 282, Note 21; page 472, Note 10. See page 110, last paragraph; page 310, Note 12. 3 Page 11, T. Ñ. a. 5 Ac. xxii. 21-23. Owing to the direct and absolute Sovereignty of God over the people, in temporal as well as in spiritual matters, these two elements, unlike the modern Church and State, were essentially and inseparably intermingled; one could not exist without the other. As, however, the rewards and penalties attached to a national constitution, could only affect the mundane prospects of the people, because, as such, it had no existence in eternity, "the God of the spirits of all flesh" was lost sight of in the temporal King of the nation. "The kingdom of heaven," or "the kingdom of God," meant nothing else but Jehovah's visible dominion, in the person of a Messianic descendant of David, over Israel, as the dominant race, in the first instance, and, through them, over "the nations of the world." Obviously, then, in such a purely material government, it could only be actual, and not merely contemplated, but unaccomplished transgression, which constituted a violation of the laws. "The Holy One, blessed be He!" sounds the Rabbinic maxim, "takes cognisance only of evil deeds, but not of sinful intentions; for it is written (Ps. lxvi. 18): If I contemplate iniquity in my heart, the Lord does not notice it."1 In other words, the religious and spiritual element was reduced to the level of the political and civil; the Jew's eternal relations to his Creator were merged in his transitory relation to the state; and the immortal soul was regarded in the light of a vanishing citizen of a passing commonwealth. Hence it is, that terms like salvation, righteousness, holiness, baptism, sanctification, and the kingdom of heaven, which abound in the Talmud as well as in the New Testament, convey totally different, and sometimes even antagonistic ideas, when used by the authors of Rabbinism and the founders of Christianity; and hence also it is, that, "as touching the righteousness which is in the law," St. Paul, like the Rabbis, deemed himself "blameless." " "For I say unto you," is the emphatic declaration of our Saviour, "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." In that one sentence He sums up the sharp contrast between the Christian and Rabbinic conceptions of the Theocracy, which runs through the inimitable Sermon on the Mount, that New Law of the New Covenant. He gives full prominence to its hidden spiritual and eternal aspect; He brings out, or attaches a deeper and a wider significance to the Law; and He exalts the citizen of a visible and transient commonwealth into a denizen of an invisible and everlasting kingdom. But if the Mosaic dispensation was, as it certainly could not in the first instance be otherwise than, regarded in the light of a political 1 Kiddushin, fol. 40, col. 1. 2 Phi. iii. 6. |