[ p. 76 ]
The religion of Jesus was an expression and declaration of the love of God in the face of this utterly discouraging political situation. His religion becomes clearer after a study of some of the various ways in which the Jews endeavored to preserve their conviction that God would some day bless their nation.
The Jewish people were particularly characterized by their reverence for their sacred scriptures. These scriptures were not all regarded alike. The first five books of what modern Christians call the Old Testament composed the most sacred portion. These five contained the Torah, or Law, which prescribed for the follower of Jehovah just how he should live. The second class of scripture was called the Prophets. The books of the Prophets were held in high respect, but they were not shown the same reverence which was accorded to the Torah. A third class of “writings” was not held to be authoritative in any severe sense of the word. The book of Psalms is an example of these writings. The Psalms were on the same general plane as a church hymn book of our modern day.
The reverence of the Jews toward the Law of their God had been growing through many centuries. When the Jewish nation was successful in war or other enterprise, the Jews felt that their success was due to their careful observance of their religious Law. When disaster came, or when they were unfortunate in any undertaking, they felt that it was because of their carelessness in or ignorance of the proper observance of the Law.
The Law thus grew in authority year by year and century [ p. 77 ] by century until it became the center of the life of the nation. In the time of Jesus the Law was being interpreted word by word in an ever more precise and literalistic manner. The loyal Jew tried to win God’s favor by an exact observance of every word of Law. This was leading to a legal view of the relation between God and His children. God was being regarded as a judge. Life was considered more and more as a time of probation. The rewards or punishments of life were postponed to the future. This idea that God makes certain requirements and that he rewards or punishes in accordance with one’s actions, is not in itself a degrading or harmful conception. On the contrary, it was the basis of much high and noble conduct on the part of Jews, individually and nationally.
But a difficulty arose in connection with this attitude. If God rewards exactly in proportion to the way in which a man keeps the individual statutes of the Law, then it becomes necessary to define accurately what constitutes a transgression and what does not. To this task of interpreting and explaining the Law, the Jewish scribes gave themselves with remarkable results.
The commandment in regard to keeping the Sabbath Day was interpreted at great length, as were the other commandments. Just what may a man do on the Sabbath, and what may he not do? How far may anyone walk on the Sabbath Day without becoming guilty of breaking the commandment. The phrase “A Sabbath Day’s journey” became so common an expression that it was used as a designation of distance. In Acts 1: 12 is the statement that the Mount of Olives is a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem.
In an attempt to discover how far it is permissible to go on the Sabbath, the scribes, searching their scriptures, found that, according to Joshua 3: 4, the ark of the Israelites went ahead of the Children of Israel in the wilderness at a distance of 2,000 cubits (3,000 feet). This would indicate that it was permissible on the Sabbath to go this distance for worship and return. There was considerable pressure put upon the scribes in the time of Jesus, to extend this distance, if possible. The scribes, therefore, [ p. 78 ] proceeded to explain that where a man has food for two meals, there is his legal abiding place for the Sabbath. In case a man wishes to double the Sabbath-day limit, he needs only to go out before the Sabbath and place food at a halfway point. He may then, on the Sabbath, go from his home a distance of 2,000 cubits to the spot where he has placed food sufficient for two meals (cf. Ex. 16: 29), which is his legal abiding-place, and then he may go from that point another 2,000 cubits ( Mishna , Treatise “Erubin,” IV, 5, 7, 8).
Many of the explanations of the Jewish Law are so detailed that they seem impossible as a practical standard for living. Nevertheless, if anyone is to understand the teaching of Jesus, with its good news of the fatherhood of God and the supremacy of love, he should read at some length in the Talmud, or Commentary, of the Jews.
The volume of this Talmud which has to do particularly with the Commandments is called the Mishna. In the Mishna are a large number of treatises. One of these is called “Sabbath” and has to do with the Commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The Mishna was not reduced to writing until the second century, but it represents to a considerable extent the temper of the oral teaching of the Scribes in the time of Jesus.
Chapter I of the treatise “Sabbath” has to do with cooking and similar activities. Chapter II takes up the question of lighting or extinguishing lamps upon the Sabbath: [1]
With what kind of wick may lamps be lighted on the Sabbath? They may not be lighted with the moss that grows on cedars, or with undressed flax. . . .
Anything which grows from the wood of a tree is right to use to light with, except flax. . . .
A person may not make a hole in an eggshell and fill it with oil and hold [ p. 79 ] it over a lamp in order that the oil may drop into the lamp, even if the eggshell be of pottery. But if the potter had originally joined it with the lamp, it is permissible, because they are then one vessel. A man may not fill a dish with oil and put it beside the lamp and then put the end of the wick into it so that it may draw the oil; but Rabbi Jehudah permits this.
One who puts out a lamp because he is afraid of robbers or of an evil spirit, or in order that a sick person may sleep, is not guilty; but if he puts it out to save the lamp or to save oil or wick, he is guilty.
Chapter III deals again with the question of cooking:
Cooked food may be cooked before the Sabbath (which begins at sunset) and kept on a stove, if the stove is heated with stubble or brush. If it is heated with wood, the food must not be put on it until the fire is cleaned out or covered with ashes. (The idea is that the stove heated by wood retains its heat long enough to perform the actual work of cooking, which is not permissible on the Sabbath.) The School of Shammai state that warm water, but not cooked food, may be placed on a stove heated with wood; the School of Hillel state that both warm water and cooked food may be placed on the stove. The School of Shammai hold that you may take anything off the stove, but you must not put back anything which you have taken off; the School of Hillel hold that food may also be put back on the stove.
An egg must not be put beside a hot kettle on the Sabbath, that it may be prepared for eating; it must not be wrapped in hot cloths; nor may it be put into hot sand or dust that it may be cooked.
At one time the people of Tiberias carried a pipe of cold water through a stream of their hot spring. But the Rabbis explained to them that this water, like any other heated on the Sabbath day, is not permissible for their washing or drinking; that on festival days this water is prohibited to use for washing, but permitted for drinking.
A man may not pour cold water into a kettle of hot water which has been removed from the fire, in order to make the cold water warm. But he may pour cold water into a kettle of hot water in order to cool the latter. . . .
It is against the Law to place a dish under a lamp to catch the oil that drops. But if it has been placed there before sunset, it is permissible to let it remain; but the oil caught in it must not be used. … A dish may be placed under a lamp to catch the sparks, but no water may be put in it, as water extinguishes.
Chapter IV deals with the question of the kind of a load that may be carried on the Sabbath without breaking the Commandment.
What may a woman carry on her person when she goes out? A woman may not go out . . . with a frontlet and pendants unless sewn to her cap. . . .
A woman may not go out with a needle that has an eye, nor with a finger ring which has a seal on it, nor with a smelling-bottle or balm-flask.
[ p. 80 ]
A man must not go out with a sword or a bow or a shield.
A woman may go out with plaits of hair, whether her own or of another woman, or of an animal; with frontlet and pendants if they are sewn to her cap; with a false tooth or a gilt tooth.
Women may go out with a coin fastened on a swelling in the feet. Arabian women may go out with their large veils.
A woman may fold up a stone, or a coin, in her dress provided she does not do it especially on the Sabbath.
The cripple may go out with his wooden leg. But if the wooden leg has a hollow receptacle, it is unclean. . . .
The chair and crutches of an invalid may become unclean; he may not go out with them on the Sabbath.
It is permissible to carry the egg of a grasshopper or the tooth of a fox or the nail of one who has been hanged, as medical remedies.
Chapter XII deals with the question of occupation on the Sabbath.
How much must a man build to become guilty? Whoever builds anything, whoever chops a stone, strikes with a hammer or uses a plane or bores a hole, is guilty.
Whoever ploughs at all, or weeds, or clears away branches, is guilty. Whoever gathers wood, if it is to clear the ground, is guilty. . . .
Whoever writes two letters, whether with his right hand or with his left, whether he writes one letter twice or two different letters, or with different inks, in any language, is guilty.
Whoever writes two letters on two separate occasions one in the morning and one in the afternoon, is guilty.
Chapter XIII has some interesting specifications in regard to catching a wild animal.
Whoever hunts a bird into a cage, or a deer into a house, is guilty. The rule is that when the capture is not complete, the man is not guilty; but when the capture is complete, he is guilty.
If a stag enter a house (or a yard) and one man shuts him in, he is guilty; if two men shut him in, they are not guilty.
If one man puts himself in the gateway to prevent the deer from escaping, but does not fill the gateway, and the second man places himself next and does fill it, the second man is guilty. If the first one places himself in the entrance and fills it and the second person places himself at his side, even if the first person should then get up and go away, leaving the second in the gateway, the first is guilty and the second is not.
Chapter XV lists and describes the kinds of knots which may be tied on the Sabbath, and those which may not be tied.
[ p. 81 ]
These knots make a person guilty: The camel-drivers’ knot, and the boatmen’s knot. As a man becomes guilty by tying them, so also he becomes guilty by untying them. Rabbi Meir says “A knot which a man can untie with one hand only does not render him guilty.”
There are knots which do not render guilty: A woman may tie her cap ribbons and her sandal-laces, also skins of oil and pots of meat. Rabbi Jehudah stated the rule thus: “Any knot which is not intended to be lasting does not render guilty.”
Chapter XXI affirms:
A man may lift his child with a stone in its hand.
If a stone is lying on the spout of a cask, a man may tip the cask to one side so that the stone will fall off. If there be money or coins on a pillow or bolster, it may be turned so that the coins will fall off.
Men may carry away from the table pieces of food less than the size of an olive, also the husks of beans as food for cattle.
In Chapter XXII we find:
If a barrel or cask breaks, enough may be saved to serve three meals. The owner may also invite others to save for themselves. Men must not squeeze fruits so as to extract the juice; and if the juice oozes out of itself, it is not permissible to use it.
In Chapter XXIV we read:
A man who is overtaken by sunset while on the road must give his pack to a gentile to carry. If there is no gentile, with him, he must put it on his donkey. As soon as he arrives at the first house or the first village, he shall take off such things as may be removed on the Sabbath; and as to the things which may not be removed, he loosens the ropes, that they may drop off of themselves.
“Alas for you Pharisees who clean the outside of the cup and the plate while inside you are full of greed and evil. Clean first the inside and the outside will take care of itself” (Lk. 11: 39, 40; Matt. 23: 25, 26).
“Alas for you Pharisees who tithe mint and rue and every little herb, and yet neglect justice and kindness. These are the things you ought to do without neglecting those lesser things” (Lk. u: 42; Matt. 23: 23).
“You strain out the gnat and swallow the camel” (Matt. 23: 24).
[ p. 82 ]
The Messianic Hope
Thy people shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land forever. Violence shall no more be heard in thy land (Isa. 60: 18, 21).
Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake (Dan. 12: 2).
Who do people say that the son of man is? Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets (Matt. 16: 14).
Then came some Sadducees who did not believe that there is a resurrection (Mk. 12: 18).
And the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham at a distance, and Lazarus in his bosom (Lk. 16: 22, 23).
It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be cast into hell where the worm does not die and the fire never goes out (Mk. 9: 48).
The Hope of Better Days .—The differing ideas of the Jews regarding the kingdom of God will be reviewed in a later chapter on Jesus’ teaching regarding the Kingdom. In the present introductory statement only the general background is given.
The Messianic Hope had a fairly natural origin and growth among the Jews. Every nation has its forward look to a time when a greater degree of justice will be established, when present evils will be remedied and prosperity will bring happiness. When the Hebrews were delivered out of slavery in Egypt they went forth with high hopes. They soon found themselves in a trackless desert, with barely enough to eat, but their leaders encouraged them with visions of a land flowing with milk and honey. When they finally caught a first glimpse of Palestine, it did indeed present a pleasant contrast to the desolateness of the wilderness.
[ p. 83 ]
As the Hebrews entered the promised land and conquered the districts on the mountain ridge which forms the backbone of the country, they felt that Jehovah’s goodness was beyond all expectation or expression. Then came years of hard reality, which showed them gradually that this mountainous country was not as fertile as they had hoped it might be. Furthermore, their princes and leaders were often found to be unjust and selfish.
But the Jews did not give up their hopes. Prophets arose who told them that so surely as they kept the law of Jehovah, and did his will, they as a nation would some day receive great blessings from him. Thus with increasing definiteness the Jews visualized a future kingdom. Their hope was sometimes bound up with the idea of a special leader or king or messiah, whose courage and strength would usher in a better day. The term “messiah” means “anointed one.” Anointing was a part of the ceremony of crowning a king. The term etymologically means little more than king, but was usually reserved in Jewish usage of Jesus’ day for that future king who would inaugurate national prosperity.
Often there was no particular thought of such a leader, however. In Jesus’ day, many of the Jews who were expecting the Kingdom, had no definite ideas of a special messiah, but thought of Jehovah as himself dispensing the blessings. Again, some expected a prophet like Elijah, who would announce the day. Many thought that Jesus was such a prophet, or that he was Elijah come back to life (Matt. 16: 14, cf. John 1: 21). Generally speaking, all Jews expected the future era of prosperity, but the ideas as to whether the era would be brought about by a messianic leader and what sort of a man such a leader would be, were widely different.
The Resurrection .—The greatest personal problem which arose in connection with the expectation of the Kingdom was presented by the fact that men who were loyal to Jehovah, perhaps giving their lives in battle to protect the worship of the [ p. 84 ] temple, died without having shared in any of the blessings which Jehovah had in store for the Jews. Very naturally there came the thought of a resurrection of the righteous to enjoy the kingdom. Those who had died would arise from their graves (Dan. 12: 2; Mk. 12: 18, 23; Lk. 14: 14).
Naturally too, the question arose as to a possible resurrection of the wicked for punishment. Again the Jews followed the natural logic of their thought. The wicked should not arise at the coming of the kingdom to share in its blessings, but should arise at a later time, in a second resurrection, when the punishment which was due them would be administered (Rev. 20: 5). The Jewish thought was somewhat indefinite in regard to this remote future. But the expectation of a future kingdom and the resurrection of the righteous was very definite and clear.
The Messianic Age .—The messianic age was conceived in many different ways, according to the character and ideals of different groups of the Jews. The earliest and simplest idea was that all who were blood descendants of Abraham would inherit the kingdom, which would consist of physical and material benefits. Old Testament prophets, however, emphasized the need of perfect ethical and religious harmony between the people and their God. Unfaithful Jews would be the first object of God’s wrath when he should inaugurate the new dispensation.
In Jesus’ day there had been a marked development of the ethical and spiritual ideas of the kingdom. Only men of upright character should have a share; in fact, any imperfections of character would be removed. Holiness was conceived as one of the blessings to be bestowed in the new kingdom. Furthermore, noble personal qualities and the ideal of brotherhood were placed above food and land and other material blessings.
The Psalms of Solomon contain some lines which beautifully express this higher Judaism of the time of Jesus. Righteousness, virtue, and purity are emphasized in a way which comes very close to the religion of Jesus:
There shall be no iniquity among them in his days; For all shall be holy and their king is the Master.
[ p. 85 ]
He shall not put his trust in horse and rider and bow; Nor shall he multiply for himself gold and silver for war; Nor by ships shall he gather confidence for the day of battle. . . .
He shall have mercy upon all nations that come to him in fear.
He himself also is pure from sin. . . .
He shall tend the flocks of the Lord with faith and righteousness; and he shall suffer none to faint in their pasture ( Ps . of Solomon, 17).
The Life after Death .—Because of this emphasis on the messianic age, and this dominating interest in the kingdom to be established on earth in the near future, the Jews showed very little concern in any life immediately after death. Between the time of a man’s death and the great resurrection at the inauguration of the kingdom, the individual soul was supposed to do very little more than wait. There were no very clear ideas of a reward or judgment before the resurrection. All souls, both good and bad, were supposed at death to go to Hades, or Sheol. The New Testament being in the Greek language, uses the Greek word “Hades,” while the Old Testament uses the corresponding Hebrew term “Sheol.”
Hades or Sheol was sometimes pictured as having different sections for the good and the bad. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, both are described after their deaths as existing in Hades, the rich man in a place of considerable discomfort, and Lazarus with Abraham some distance away (Lk. 16: 22). The location of Hades was usually conceived to be somewhere below the surface of the earth. In the story of Virgil’s “/Eneid” the visit of yEneas to Hades is described at great length. And a significant incident in the legend of Orpheus and Eurydice is the journey which Orpheus made down the long trail that leads from the surface of the earth to the lower regions.
The section of Hades where the unjust and selfish were congregated was as hot and humid as the tenement district of a congested city in midsummer. The locality where the righteous were gathered, awaiting the resurrection, was more like a large and shady park. The Greek word for park is “paradise” (Lk. [ p. 86 ] 23:43). The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek “paradise” is “Abraham’s bosom” (Lk. 16: 22).
The word “hell” is somewhat rare in the Jewish literature of the time. Where it does occur (Mk. 9: 48; Matt. 5: 29, 23: 33), it is a translation of the word “Gehenna,” which comes from a Hebrew term meaning the “Valley of Hinnom.” Jerusalem is located upon a rocky prominence, formed by the junction of two streams. On the east side of Jerusalem is the brook Kidron. On the west side of Jerusalem is the Hinnom. The east slope was beautified; just across the Kidron was the Mount of Olives. The western valley was used as a dump for the rubbish of the city. When a Jew of Jerusalem spoke of “hell” he could point with his finger to the spot. In vivid terms of the day he could tell of judgment when Jehovah would set up his throne in Jerusalem; he could picture the alternative of being admitted to the city and to the new kingdom, or of being expelled and thrown out like rubbish into the valley of the Hinnom. This dump heap, like any other in the world, was infested with worms which fed there without ceasing. Naturally, too, the fire which destroyed the refuse never went out, because it was continually replenished by new loads of rubbish. “It is better for you to get inside the kingdom of God with only one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell where the worm never dies and the fire never goes out” (Mk. 9: 47, 48).
The Jewish idea of “heaven” was clear and simple. God and his angels have a definite place of abode, above the earth in the sky. There God’s throne is located and angels wait upon him and carry out his commands. It would not be quite true to say that no mortal ever entered heaven in the Old Testament day, for the story of Elijah states that at the close of his earthly sojourn he was taken up in a chariot of fire (II Kings 2: n). He did not die and so did not go to Hades.
The Jewish book entitled the Assumption of Moses which was not included in the Jewish canon of Scripture but, nevertheless, was widely accepted, claimed that Moses also was carried up to [ p. 87 ] heaven. So it was easy for a Jew to understand that, at the transfiguration, when Jesus was upon a very high mountain, the two men who conversed with him were Moses and Elijah. [2]
The Jewish conception of “Angels” was quite different from that of Western peoples. They were conceived as a race of supernatural beings, superior to men but subject to God. The Jews never spoke of a human being becoming an angel. The distinction is very clear and sharp. The names of angels are always masculine. No feminine angels appear in the Old Testament. Angels are always pictured in Jewish literature as masculine figures of great strength and power.
Another word not always understood is “eternal.” Often in Jewish literature occurs the contrast between this “world” and the life “eternal” (Mk. 10: 30; Lk. 18: 30). The adjective “eternal” ( Aionios ) and the corresponding noun “world” ( Aion ) always have reference to the present age and the future messianic age. Jewish literature does not have a contrast between an earthly and a future heavenly existence, but emphasizes the contrast between this present imperfect age and the better age (Aion) to be realized in the near future on earth.
The whole subject of the messianic hope of the Jews may be summed up in the statement that their history and the virile leadership of their prophets had led them to expect for their nation a great future. They thought of this future nationalistically rather than individualistically. This splendid kingdom was to be established upon earth in the near future. It so completely occupied their thought as to displace any definite ideas of individual immortality. Their main concern was that faithful Jews who had departed should return at the call of God to share in the great blessings of that earthly kingdom.
The increasing emphasis upon the moral and spiritual character of the kingdom will be noted in a later chapter indicating [ p. 88 ] the development of the spiritual picture of that kingdom which occupied such a prominent place in the religion of Jesus.
Since the appearance of the monumental two-volume work of G. F. Moore entitled Judaism there has been a lively discussion among scholars as to the nature of the Jewish religion of the time of Jesus, and in particular as to the relation of Jesus’ religion to the Jewish religion. Many articles have appeared on the subject. That of F. C. Porter “Judaism in New Testament Times” [3] and others mentioned in the supplementary reading at the close of this chapter, will introduce the reader to the recent literature on the subject.
In this discussion many things still remain uncertain, but some basic facts stand out more clearly than ever before. Moore is essentially correct in his statement that “Christian interest in Jewish literature has always been too apologetic or polemical rather than historical.” [4] The fact has become clear that Judaism in the time of Jesus was not a decadent religion, but a vigorous one with able leaders, and with ability to adjust itself to rapidly changing circumstances. There is great need of a more sympathetic understanding of this developing Jewish religion of that period.
The most important fact regarding the situation is that the nationalism of the Jews lost much of its political and military character, in the face of the overwhelming military power of Rome. The Jews preserved their nationalism by a supreme emphasis on the religious side of their genius which carried them through their political disasters and military defeats.
This religious nationalism was principally expressed in the two forms described in this chapter. The Messianic hope took on a transcendental form. The new Age was not conceived as a natural outgrowth of the present one. There was a growing [ p. 89 ] emphasis upon the supernatural. “The transfer of the sphere of final retribution to another existence” brought the new eschatology. “The new eschatology did not dispose of national hope.” [5] The most significant advance, says Moore, was in the fact that Judaism was counting religion increasingly a personal relation between the individual and God.
This emphasis on the life of the individual opens the way to an understanding of the extreme legalism of the time. The kingdom in its new form was to be a gift from God, which he in his omnipotence would some day establish upon earth without any great amount of assistance on the part of the Jews. It was clear on this basis that God would give the highest place to those who had served him best. And so there was patient, prolonged and careful scrutiny of the Law to discover just what acts would be most pleasing to Jehovah.
Moreover, legalism was a direct attempt to preserve the nationalism of the Jews. W. C. Graham in his article, “The Jewish World in which Jesus Lived,” has well said, “Now one can understand what the Pharisees were trying to do by means of their elaborate system. They were trying to preserve the Jewish people as a distinct social group until their great day of vindication should appear.” [6] It was “A Pharisaical system of social control through the inculcation of an ethical system.” “Jesus felt that the Pharisaic system failed at the point of greatest need. It failed to reach those who needed it most. It was a middle-class bourgeois religion which offered little for those upon whom the heaviest burdens of life rested.” [7] “The Sayings of Jesus,” constituting a later chapter of this volume, begin with his words of comfort and inspiration to the poor people of Galilee.
B. W. Bacon emphasizes again the fact that Jesus broke with prevailing tendencies of Judaism. He writes: “Professor F. C. Porter [in the article cited above] expresses as follows his sense that Jesus and Paul are essentially at one in their revolt against [ p. 90 ] the tendencies of Judaism in their time to become a religion of a book: ‘The Mishna is a classical expression of the religion of a book, a religion of authority. The New Testament is the classic of the religion of a person, the religion of inwardness and freedom. I may be permitted to express my own conviction—it may seem just now an historical heresy—that this difference goes back to Jesus and was made by him . . . that Jesus was not orthodox.’ ” [8]
While the Pharisee rejoiced in his marvelously constructed system of social control and found it highly successful in preserving the nationalism of the Jews, Jesus turned his attention to the less privileged classes who bore the burdens of the nation. He gave to them a way of expressing their loyalty to their God and a path to happiness and service. They had no chance to master the legalistic details and technicalities which were easy enough for the middle class. But they could express themselves in ways which Jesus revealed to them, and so follow the divine will into that higher nationalism in which all men are children of God and all who do his will find in him a heavenly Father.
Bosworth, Life and Teaching of Jesus , pp. 23-48.
Bundy, The Religion of Jesus , pp. 1-38.
Case, Jesus , pp. 1-38.
Fairweather, Background of the Gospels , pp. 13-92, 265-292.
Foakes Jackson and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity , pp. 35-136.
Kent, Life and Teaching of Jesus , pp. 34-42.
Matiiews, History of New Testament Times, pp. 179-196.
McCown, The Genesis of the Social Gospel , pp. 75-186.
Schurer, Jewish People in the Time of Jesus , Div. II, Vol. II, pp. 154-187.
Walker, Teaching of Jesus and Jewish Teaching , pp. 85-100.
Wendt, Teaching of Jesus , Vol. I, pp. 33-89.
Zenos, Plastic Age of the Gospel , pp. 3-26.
The citations in this chapter are selected and adapted from DeSola and Raphall, The Mishna. A more elaborate edition recommended to the student interested in pursuing the subject further is the translation of the Talmud by Rodkinson.* The German edition now in process of publication is excellent: Die Mischna. Traktat, “Schabbat,” by Wilhelm Nowack, published by Topelmann in Giessen, 1924. ↩︎
There was one other who at the close of his life “was not; for God took him” (Gen. 5: 24). But Enoch was a man about whom little was known. He played an insignificant role in Jewish thought. ↩︎
Journal of Religion, January, 1928. ↩︎
Quoted by Porter, p. 32. ↩︎
Moore, I, p. 121. ↩︎
Journal of Religion , 1928, p. 578. ↩︎
Ibid., p. 580. ↩︎
Journal of Biblical Literature , 1928, p. 230. ↩︎