NOTES FROM THE TALMUD AND OTHER RABBINIC WRITINGS
Compiled by Irene Belyeu
The following are quotations from Rabbinic writings that I feel serve as referents in some way to the Book of Revelation. These are principally from the following two books:
(1) Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, a four-volume set by John Lightfoot, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edition, reprinted from the edition originally published by Oxford University Press, 1859, with an introduction by R. Laird Harris copyrighted 1979 by Baker Book House Co. (U.S.A. 1989).
And:
(2) Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, by W. D. Davies, Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Row Publishers, New York and Evanston, (1948).
I realize that these are secondary sources and that one should go directly to the writings themselves; however, I have not had the opportunity up to this time to do that. I believe most of these references are sufficient to direct one to the original source.
The referents are arranged in regard to the Book of Revelation passage to which I feel they apply or have some contribution to make to the understanding of those passages. For example, I begin with referents to Revelation 1:1, continue with 1:2, etc. The articles are separate and separately named for each referent.
My comments are in small caps in the text that follows. References to Lightfoot will be given as Volume and page number(s), for example: [3:330-1]. References to Davies will be given as page number only, for example [189].
As an introduction to this section, a word about the Talmud might be in order. The Talmud was the written end result of the Jewish ‘oral law’ which was used as authoritative by the Pharisees of the New Testament. It was also called the ‘second law,’ or Mishnaioth. The oral version of it which was current at that time is what Christ referred to as the “traditions.” This ‘oral law,’ which according to their doctrine, dated back to the time of Moses, was oral, not written, in the time of Christ.
It is obvious that ‘oral law’ is much more susceptible to change and contamination than a written record. Because of this, we do not know just what was considered as part of this ‘law’ in Christ‘s day, or perhaps what variations or versions of it were current. It is clear that Jesus had no respect for their ‘oral law,’ but rather cited written Scripture as authoritative. In about 200 A.D., the so-called ‘oral law’ was gathered from many sources, compiled, and written by the schools of the Rabbis both in Jerusalem and in Babylonia. Two Talmudim developed, – the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud.
Lightfoot, [1:160-1] gives this account:
“R. Judah, who first removed the university to Tiberias, sat also in Zippor for many years, and there died: so that in both places were very famous schools. He composed and digested the Mishnaioth, [‘the second law’] into one volume. ‘For when he saw the captivity was prolonged’ (they are the words of Tsemach David, translated by Vorstius), ‘and the scholars to become faint-hearted, and the strength of wisdom and the cabala* to fail, and the oral law to be much diminished, – he gathered and scraped up together all the decrees, statutes, and sayings of the wise men; of which he wrote every one apart, which the house of the Sanhedrim had taught, &c. And he disposed it into six classes; which are Zeraim, Moed, Nezikin, Nashim, Kedoshim, Tahoroth.’ And a little after; ‘All the Israelites ratified the body of Mishnaioth, and obliged themselves to it: and in it, during the life of Rabbi, his two sons, Rabban Gamaliel and R. Simeon, employed themselves, in the school of the land of Israel: and R. Chaija, R. Hoshaia, R. Chaninah and R. John, and their companions. And in the school of Babylon, Rabh and Samuel exercised themselves in it,’ &c.”
{*Cabala: a system of belief in miracles wrought by magical arts, of interpreting the Scriptures by the cipher method, as if they were encoded, secret messages. The secrets thus propounded were derived from occult practices.}
There are many differences between the Jerusalem Mishna and the Babylonian: “…differences in words, without number, – in things, in great number; which he that compares them will meet with every where.”[1:161]
Having stated the nature of these writings, it is clear that they should not be used to contradict the teachings of the Scriptures themselves. Lightfoot’s use of them, therefore, in illuminating the text of the New Testament is given thus:
“For, first, when all the books of the New Testament were written by Jews, and among Jews, and unto them; and when all the discourses made there, were made in like manner by Jews, and to Jews, and among them; I was always fully persuaded,…that that Testament could not but everywhere taste of and retain the Jews’ style, idiom, form, and rule of speaking.
“And hence, in the second place, I concluded as assuredly that, in the obscurer places of that Testament (which are very many), the best and most natural method of searching out the sense is, to inquire how, and in what sense, those phrases and manners of speech were understood, according to the vulgar and common dialect and opinion of that nation; and how they took them, by whom they were spoken, and by whom they were heard. For it is no matter what we can beat out concerning those manners of speech on the anvil of our own conceit, but what they signified among them, in their ordinary sense and speech. And since this could be found out no other way than by consulting Talmudic authors, who both speak in the vulgar dialect of the Jews, and also handle and reveal all Jewish matters; being induced by these reasons, I applied myself chiefly to the reading these books….that, if it were possible, I might arrive to a fuller and more deep knowledge and understanding of the style and dialect of the New Testament.
“…these authors….are sufficiently reproached by those that have read them, but undergo much more infamy by those that have not.
“The almost unconquerable difficulty of the style, the frightful roughness of the language, and the amazing emptiness and sophistry of the matters handled, do torture, vex, and tire him that reads them. They do everywhere abound with trifles in that manner, as though they had no mind to be read; with obscurities and difficulties, as though they had no mind to be understood: so that the reader hath need of patience all along, to enable him to bear both trifling in sense and roughness in expression….
“I. I resolved with myself to observe those things which seemed to yield some light to the holy Scriptures, but especially either to the phrases, or sentences, or history of the New Testament.
II. To set down such things in my note-books, which carried some mention of certain places in the land of Israel, or afforded some light into the chorography of that land.
III. To note those things which referred to the history of the Jews, whether ecclesiastical, or scholastic, or civil; or which referred to the Christian history, or the history of the rest of the world.
And now, after having viewed and observed the nature, art, matter, and marrow of these authors with as much intention as we could, I cannot paint out, in little, a true and lively character of them better than in these paradoxes and riddles: There are no authors do more affright and vex the reader; and yet there are none who do more entice and delight him. In no writers is greater or equal trifling; and yet in none is greater or so great benefit. The doctrine of the gospel hath no more bitter enemies than they; and yet the text of the gospel hath no more plain interpreters. To say all in a word, to the Jews, their countrymen, they recommend nothing but toys, and destruction, and poison; but Christians, by their skill and industry, may render them most usefully serviceable to their studies, and most eminently tending to the interpretation of the New Testament.
“….We know how exposed to suspicion it is to produce new things; how exposed to hatred the Talmudic writings are; how exposed to both, and to sharp censure also, to produce them in holy things. Therefore, this our more unusual manner of explaining Scripture cannot, upon that very account, but look for a more unusual censure, and become subject to a severer examination. But when the lot is cast, it is too late at this time to desire to avoid the sequel of it; and too much in vain in this place to attempt a defence. If the work and book itself does not carry something with it which may plead its cause, and obtain the reader’s pardon and favour; our oration, or begging Epistle, will little avail to do it. The present work, therefore, is to be exposed and delivered over to its fate and fortune, whatsoever it be….” [2:3-5]
W. D. Davies in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, says:
“… the Mishnah was not compiled till the end of the second century, and most of the other Rabbinic sources are later than the third century. While it is clear that the Rabbinic sources do preserve traditions of an earlier date than the second century, and that it is legitimate to define the Mishnah as a ‘deposit of four centuries of Jewish religious and cultural activity in Palestine beginning at some uncertain date possibly during the earlier half of the second century BC and ending with the close of the second century A.D.’, it must never be overlooked that Judaism had made much history in that period. It follows that we cannot, without extreme caution, use the Rabbinic sources as evidence for first-century Judaism. Especially is it important to realize that our Rabbinic sources represent the triumph of the Pharisean party, and moreover of a ‘party’ within the Pharisean party as it were, that of Johanan ben Zakkai. Pharisean opinions alone are recorded; parties, movements and opinions contrary to these were naturally excluded.” (p. 3).