"Mishnah"

Mishnah (Heb. ‫)מִ שְ נָה‬ The Mishnah (M) is the foundational document for formative Judaism. Both a collection of oral tradition and an edited work of redactors ca. 200 AD, M comprises the earliest data available for early rabbinic Judaism, from which all modern branches of Judaism derive. All subsequent Jewish legal thinking takes M as the point of departure, including both Talmuds, which adopt M as the organizing principle. Central to the religious thought of rabbinic Judaism is the myth that not only were the Scriptures divinely inspired, but also the Oral Torah (a body of spoken material passed on from generation to generation). The first chapter of ε’s tractate Avot constructs the myth of the Oral Torah being delivered to Moses alongside the written Torah and subsequently passed on to each generation. The Oral Torah was said to be handed down by the Scriptural heroes, the prophets, and finally to the rabbis who created the corpora we call early rabbinic literature. Judah ha-Nasi (Judah the Princeν always in ε and often in other documents simply referred to as “Rabbi”) is traditionally credited with compiling M ca. 200 AD. This article describes ε’s contents briefly, scholarship on M, as well as the use of M for interpreting the NT and the Judaism of Jesus’ day. !! Content M is divided into six orders (sedarim), or divisions, each with a number of tractates (62 total), roughly based on topical content. The six divisions are as follows: 1. Zeraimμ “Seeds,” but more generally, Agriculture (11 tractates). Zeraim’s tractates set forth the legal standards in maintaining the holiness of the δand and keeping God’s commands regarding that Land and its agricultural produce. Topics include, among others: benedictions; the corner of the field (Lev 19:9; 23:22; Deut 24:19); prohibited mixture of things (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9–11); the seventh year for fields (Exod 23:11; Lev 25:1–7); various produce offerings. 2. εoedμ “Appointed Times” or “Set FestivalsήFeasts” (12 tractates). Topics include, among others: Shabbat (the Sabbath) (Exod 20:10; 23:12; Deut 5:14); Passover (Exod 12:23; 15:34; 34:18; Lev 23:5–8; Num 28:16–25; Deut 16:1–8; the Day of Atonement (Lev 16); Sukkot (Feast of Booths) (Lev 23:33–36; Num 29:12–39; Deut 16:13–17); Rosh ha-Shanah (σew Year’s festival) (Lev 23:24–25; Num 29:1–6). 3. σashimμ “Women” (ι tractates). Topics include, among others: levirate marriage (Deut 25:5– 10; but, compare Ruth 4; Matt 22:24); marriage contracts; vows and their cancellation (Num 30); Nazirite vow (Num 6); the suspected adulteress (Num 5:11–31; compare John 8:1–11); tractate Sotah ends with signs of the εessiah’s coming (compareμ 4Q521; Matt 24; 1–2 Thess); divorce certificates (Deut 24:1); betrothals. 4. σeὐikinμ “Damages” (10 tractates). Topics include, among others: compensation for theft, robbery, or bodily harm; claims to lost and found objects; real estate law; the Sanhedrin; capital offensesν penalty of “stripes” (Deut 25μ1–3); involuntary manslaughter and cities of asylum (Deut 19:1–13; Num 35:9–34); idolatry, idolaters, and contact with either. 5. Qodoshimμ “Holy Things” (11 tractates). Topics include, among others: sacrificial victims, both suitable and unsuitable; meal offerings (e.g., Lev 2; 5:11–13; 7:9–10); clean and unclean animals. θ. Tohorotμ “Purities” (12 tractates). Topics include, among others: types of impurity involving vessels, utensils, and the like; impurity of corpses; leprosy (Lev 13–14); the red heifer (Num 19); degrees of defilement by contact with impure objects; defilement through liquids; miqvaot (immersion pools) for purification (Lev 15:12; 14:8; 15:5; Num 31:23); menstrual uncleanness (Lev 15:19. Lev 12); ritual importance of the hands (see also, Matt 15:2, 20; 23:25; Mark 7:2; Luke 11:38). !! Origin Scholarship has long debated the origins of M, with most explanations relying, to some degree, on the tradition in Gaon Sherira’s letter of λκι, Iggeret Rab Sherira Gaon (for bibliography, see, Stemberger, Intro, 108). In the letter he answers the congregation’s questions about how ε was written down. His answer brought together Talmudic data to form an historical outline of the period. He assumes that the oral Torah derives directly from Moses. As ε’s apologetic work, tractate Avot (also known as Pirkei Avot), tells the story of each successive generation passing on the Oral Torah, starting with Moses all the way to Judah Ha-Nasi (Guttman argues Avot was only inserted later, ca. 3ίίν “The Problem,” 13ι–55). Until the latter half of the 20th century, a long prehistory for the Mishnaic halakha was assumed, either tracing it back to Sinai (Hoffman, The First Mishna) or to the exilic study of Scripture (Frankel, Darkhe). The traditional account holds that Rabbi Judah edited M, using as his main source, the previous Mishnah of Rabbi Meir. R. εeir’s εishnah was based on that of his teacher, Akiva. Rabbi Akiva used a ‘first εishnah’ which was based on the sayings from biblical times. Not until the work of Saul Lieberman and J. N. Epstein did the study of M take a critical turn and leave the domain of Judaic theology and enter a more structured discipline (for an overview of the transition, consult Neusner, Modern Study). Epstein, working from a predominately literarycritical examination of the document itself, largely dispensed with the tradition. Although, however difficult wading through the rabbinic traditions is, they cannot be so easily dismissed. For example account has to be made of the two references in the 4th century Christian, Epiphanius, where it is remarked that among the Jews the traditions of the elders are called deuteroseis. Four are highlighted: one in the name of Moses, one according to R. Akiva, one to Rabbi Judah, and the fourth according to the sons of the Hasmoneans (Adversus haereses, 33.9 and the parallel 15.2). The New Testament also provides evidence of these oral traditions before the redaction of ε. For example, in εatt 15μ2 the Pharisees ask Jesus, “why do your disciples break the tradition of the eldersς” (all translations are my own). Some have attempted to connect the origin of M with biblical interpretation. That is to say, in contrast to the Oral Torah being given alongside the written at Sinai, these theories posit that the Oral Torah began as exegetical traditions upon the Bible. Jacob Lauterbach (Rabbinic Essays, 163–256) posited that the midrashic method of teaching was prior, in which the teaching followed and always cited the biblical text. Only later, during the Maccabean period, when qualified teachers were scarce, did the mishnaic method arise (wherein Jewish law was promulgated without reference to biblical texts). Within M itself, three groups of halakhot are visible: those derived from Scripture; those completely independent of Scripture; and those formed independently, but later attached to Scriptural proof-texts (Stemberger, Intro, 128). Careful study is required of the transmission process within a largely oral culture, such as the Judaism of Palestine in Jesus’ day. ε’s traits of composition clearly show the signs of a document made to facilitate easy memorization. Important here is εartin Jaffee’s Torah in the Mouth. Jaffee explores the ways in which oral performance of texts (early mishnahs) in public settings affected the transmission of the written versions of those texts. Further, how do the interpretive traditions associated with the written texts grow into an independent corpus requiring ideological legitimation (i.e., securing its place as one half of the Torah)? !! Language and Style M is written almost entirely in what is called Mishnaic Hebrew. A few scattered sentences in Aramaic exist and include some sayings from early rabbis as well as quotes from documents of realia (e.g., marriage contracts, leases, and divorce certificates). Mishnaic Hebrew differs from biblical Hebrew in both grammar and vocabulary. Loan words come mostly from Aramaic, but also Greek, Akkadian, Persian, and Latin. Further, some biblical Hebrew words take on new meanings or become technical terms in rabbinic parlance. The Hebrew of M shares most characteristics with the Tosefta, halakhic midrashim, and baraitot of the Palestinian Talmud (baraitot of the Babylonian Talmud being more influenced by the language of the Amoraim; see Kutscher, “εishnaic Hebrew,” θ3λ). More detailed descriptions and bibliography can be found in Stemberger, Introduction, 101–107; Bokser and Goodblatt in Neusner, Study of Ancient Judaism II, 63–70 and 136–144, respectively. While no completely satisfactory grammars are to be had, the English student can consult the dated Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew by Segal, or Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew by Miguel Pérez Fernández. For lexicons, the easiest for English readers is still that of Jastrow (Dictionary of the Targumim, etc., 1886–1903 with numerous reprints). !! Date and Dating The following relative chronology of rabbinic documents is generally agreed upon in the field (e.g., see the relevant section for each text in Strack and Stemberger, Introduction; Neusner, Introduction, 13–14). M is the first text in the rabbinic canon (ca. 200 AD). The sequence for those writings concerned with, in a broad sense, commenting upon M, is the Tosefta (between ca. 2ίί and 4ίί AD (cf. Hauptman’s Rereading Mishnah, who argues an early redaction of the Tosefta preceded M). Then, the Talmud of the Land of Israel (also called the Palestinian Talmud, or the Yerushalmi (ca. 400). Later, the Babylonian Talmud (also called Bavli) (traditionally 500 AD, but also could be after the Islamic conquest; see, Stemberger, “Dating,” 82). As for the sequence of writings taking their starting point with Scripture, dating and sequence is less certain. These writings, called Midrash, took a different approach from the aforementioned. In contrast, they sought to unite Scripture (here, the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament) with rabbinic teaching and thought. Thus, (1) for Exodus, we have Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael and Mekhilta de Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai (both rabbis lived in the 2nd century, but the texts are certainly later, and Mekhilta de Rabbi Simeon later than the former as well as Sifra and Sifre) (see, Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 259). Then, (2) Sifra for Leviticus; (3) Sifre on Numbers and Sifre on Deuteronomy; (4) then, Leviticus Rabbah, Pesiqta deRab Kahana, Pesiqta Rabbati; (5) finally, Ruth Rabbah, Esther Rabbah, Lamentations Rabbah, and Song of Songs Rabbah. The date of, and the ability to date, isolated material within M remains of utmost importance for critical biblical studies and the history of Judaism during the time of Jesus and early Christianity. The crux of the problem is that while rabbinic literature contains invaluable information about the Judaism of Jesus’ day, ε’s attributions of sayings to specific rabbis cannot always be trusted and there is never a guarantee that the formulations of law found therein are from centuries prior to the early third century. Stemberger notes, “the reliability of attributions to sages of the period before 70, above all from the time before the common era, remains beyond any serious control” (“Dating Rabbinic Traditions,” κιν see also his Introduction, 57–59). Neusner often states the maxim (even in the title of one book)—What we cannot show, we do not know. However, the undeniable fact remains that early rabbinic literature has much to teach the student of New Testament about the world of the Gospels. What is still missing, though attempts have been made, is an appropriately critical methodology in using these materials. An ongoing current attempt is David Instone-Brewer’s projected six volume TREσT project (Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament), the first two volumes of which are currently available (2004 and 2011). Instone-Brewer makes a valiant effort at bringing the traditions of the rabbis to New Testament scholarship and he is aware of the complex issues in dating rabbinic material. Further, he structures the six volumes according to the six orders of M, a much appreciated step forward from Strack and Billerbeck’s Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (though that still remains a useful sourcebook of comparative material). However, Instone-Brewer’s work is not without its flaws. For example, in these first two volumes his methodology and historical assumptions have been called into question (see Avery-Peck’s review). Most prominently, against much previous scholarship (e.g., Neusner, Stemberger in Bierenger et. al., Cohen in From the Maccabees, 207–23), he assumes a seamless transition between the Judaism pre-70 and the rabbinic Judaism which came to dominate after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (he uses 70 AD as a boundary of inclusion, i.e., his interest is bringing forth those rabbinic statements that can be shown to have originated pre-70). The questions in his historical assumptions revolve around the following: belief in a full continuity of halakhah (Jewish law) from pre-70 to the compiling of M; belief that Jesus, his followers, and most Jews of the time followed the Pharisaic halakhah (that which continued with the rabbis and present in M); finally, his belief of an absolute dominance of the rabbinic Sanhedrin led by Gamaliel immediately after ιί (Stemberger, “Dating,” λ5). Several points of Instone-Brewer’s methodological approach deserve note as well. For instance, he accepts references to the Temple and the Temple cult as criteria for dating. Further, while clearly aware of problems in dating rabbinic traditions, he moves forward with uncritical and, as of yet, unverifiable assumptions. The conflict here is clearly represented on the first pageμ “The εishnah…inherited its structure from previous collections that are very ancient…a faithful reflection of the ideas and practices of rabbinic Judaism before 70 CE. However, they do not represent the actual words spoken or written before 70 CE, because they have been edited into later collections and then abbreviated and rewritten for easy memoriὐation” (1). While no one claims ε is entirely made up of new material, following Albeck’s claim that the editors merely collected earlier traditions has proven equally indefensible (Albeck, Einführung, 149; see also, Epstein, Introduction). He also relies heavily on attributions to specific rabbis for dating purposes. While previous work has shown that attributions of sayings, or at least the content of the sayings, can be accepted for the given historical period of that rabbi’s generation, this conclusion does not always hold for the pre-70 period (Neusner developed the method, first used in his Pharisees, vol 3, 180–238; see also his “Evaluating”). Thus, Instone-Brewer adopts σeusner’s method in this regard, but for an ill-suited historical period. Much more care needs to be used when dealing with the pre-70 period. Moreover, on pages 33–4 Instone-Brewer discusses his second most important method for dating traditions—logical precedence. This method (also developed by Neusner) attempts to verify a particular statement’s provenance by showing its logical relationship to other related rabbinic laws (See σeusner’s massive History of the Mishnaic Law where the method is carried out on the entirety of M, covering 5 of the six orders [the sixth covered by his students], totaling 37 volumes and spanning 1974–85. σeusner’s Form-Analysis and Exegesis can serve as a one volume introduction, in which he exemplifies his approach to M and method of exegesis). This History of the Mishnaic Law isolates the various periods of development in Jewish law, including the period of pre-70 and showed how important the final redactors were in the final product of M. Instone-Brewer mentions this as a method of dating, but then relies heavily on attributions and does not engage the results of previous work on the exact same questions (see also, Avery-Peck, “Review,” 54θ). Nevertheless, Instone-Brewer’s work is to be commended for its scope, intent, and bringing to New Testament scholars the traditions of the rabbis. It will serve as a useful sourcebook and introduction to rabbinic literature in relation to the New Testament. His methodological approach needs refinement, but is on the right track and certainly a step in the right direction (vis-à-vis Brad Young’s lack of method and Strack and Billerbeck’s misguided one). !! Rabbinic Literature, Early Christianity, and the New Testament A few notes of contrast with the New Testament and early Christianity may be apropos (see Bieringer et. al., The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature; Neusner, Introduction, xxiii–xxvi). Unlike the New Testament and other early Christian literature, the rabbinic corpus has reached us as a nearly homogeneous whole. Though there is disagreement among particular rabbis, all have been brought together at the same table, in the same document. Whereas early Christianity enjoys a myriad of individual voices (Paul, Justin Martyr, Arian, Origen, Augustine, Irenaeus, etc.), all speaking for themselves in their own documents, rabbinic literature gives us only bits of individual thought and always through the redactors’ vision. Individuality in rabbinic literature hardly exists—everyone speaks about the same things, in the same way, using the same rhetorical patterns and logic. The way forward for students of the New Testament in approaching rabbinic literature is to read those texts on their own terms and respecting their own contexts. While doing so, exploring common traditions within both the New Testament (focus has been primarily upon the Gospels; however, see Tomson in New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, 135–206, for approaching Paul with these questions) and rabbinic literature can help us understand both texts more clearly. Unsatisfying is the project of trying to determine literary dependence in either direction. Equally unprofitable is attempting to uncover the ipsissima verba of Jesus or other New Testament figures by means of rabbinic literature (see Young, Jesus and his Jewish Parables and σeusner’s review in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: New Series I, 127–34). However, much comparative material does exist and is giving scholars new insights into, and appreciation for, the intertextuality of the New Testament and rabbinic writings. Though at the time of Jesus M was not yet written down, many traditions within M can be shown to have already existed via Josephus, the New Testament itself, and the DSS (4QMMT in particular). New Testament students and scholars are greatly benefitted by the ongoing project: The New Testament Gospels in Their Judaic Contexts, of which the first volume, on Mark, is presently available. The project gathers a vast amount of material from Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, DSS, and rabbinic literature, all of which shed light upon the gospels (compare Instone-Brewer). Therefore, when comparative material exists, it is imperative that both are studied side by side. When looking at two different, but similar things, both become illuminated. The following are some examples of common traditions and shows the mutual benefit of understanding (for further examples, see Fernández, “τral Traditions”; ibid., “σew Testament”ν Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar; Instone-Brewer, Traditionsν all the chapters in the section “Halakhah” in New Testament and Rabbinic Literature). Fernández makes a useful distinction of types of oral material found within the Gospels: matters of realia, linguistic, Haggadah, and Halakhah. I. Realia. Throughout the Gospels an undercurrent of anti-Samaritanism is felt (e.g., John 4; Luke 9:51–3; Matt 10:5–6). The same background is present in M, but much more outspoken, particularly in terms of ritual purity. Though Samaria is between Judaea and the Galilee geographically, M never considers Samaria as part of ‫( ארץ ישׂ ָראל‬the land of Israel). Instead, M puts Samaritans consistently on the same plane as Gentiles. For example, m. Shebiith 8:10 states that R. Elieὐer used to say, “The one who eats the bread of the Samaritans is like the one who eats the flesh of swine” [all M translation are my own]. Further, m. Tohoroth 5μκ, “If there was one foolish woman in the city, or a gentile, or a Samaritan, all the saliva in the town is unclean.” Finally, m. Niddah ιμ5, “This is the general ruleμ In any matter in which they [the Samaritans] are suspected, they are not believed.” II. Linguistic. Though the gospels come to us in Greek, Jesus and his followers would have more often spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Therefore, many instances of “Semitisms” occur in the σew Testament. Many of these have parallels in rabbinic literature. For example, the expression “to do the δaw” in John 7:19 ( αὶ ὶ ἐ ποιεῖ ὸ ό , “yet none of you do the δaw”), Rom 2:13–4 ( γὰ ἱ ἀ α αὶ ό υ α πα ὰ [ ] , ἀ ʼ οἱ ποιηταὶ ό υ αω α , “For it is not the hearers of the δaw who are just before God, but the doers of the δaw will be justified”), or Gal 5:3. This language sounds peculiar to us, but is commonplace to the rabbis. In m. Qiddushin 4:14 it states, “we find that Abraham our father did the whole Torah before it was given” (compare Gen 2θμ5 and the typical language of the Hebrew Bibleμ “kept the commandments”). III. Haggadah. Though Haggadah is relatively sparse in M, much of what is found can also be found in the Gospels. For instance, compare Mark 13 with m. Sotah λμ15, “With the footprints of the Messiah insolence will increase and expensiveness reach its height; the vine will yield its fruit but the wine will be expensive; and the government will fall into heresy and there will be no rebuke. The House of Meeting will be for fornication. Galilee will be laid waste and Gablan will be made desolate; and the people of the frontier shall go about from city to city with none to show pity on them. The wisdom of the Scribes will be degenerate and those who fear sin will be despised, and truth will be absent. Young men will shame the elders, and the elders shall rise up before the children. ‘The son dishonors the father, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-lawμ a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.’ (Micah 7:6)” IV. Halakha. In εatt 5μ1ι Jesus is quoted as saying, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the δaw and the prophetsν I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.” Indeed many halakhot of Jesus find parallels in M. For instance, compare Luke 17:3 and Matt 5:23–4 with m. Yoma κμλ, “If a person says, ‘I will sin and repent, and I will sin and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. If he said, ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow.” !! Text, Editions, and Translations Manuscript evidence for M falls into two major categories: Palestinian and Babylonian text types. Since the Talmuds took up a version(s) of M and commented upon it, they are intricately linked. The text types do exhibit some mutual influence. Isolated M mss (i.e. without Gemara (commentary)), exist only for the Palestinian type. The oldest available textual witnesses to M are fragments from the Cairo Genizah, the earliest of which are ca. seventh or eighth century (Stemberger, Introduction, 140). Of complete mss, MS Kaufman is most important (ca. twelfth century) and is of the Palestinian text type (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest). Teachers and students will find most useful: http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/mishna/selectmi.asp, where you can select which M tractate, chapter and verse, and whichever mss you want to view (free). Also helpful is The Bar-Ilan Responsa Project: http://www.responsa.co.il/home.enUS.aspx (with subscription). Printed critical editions include the “Giessen εishnah,” begun in 1912 and yet to be completed. These volumes include text with critical apparatus, German translation, introductions, and commentary in the footnotes. Secondly, The Institute for the Complete Israeli Talmud has also been undertaking a critical edition, but with much work remaining: The Mishnah with Variant Readings Collected from Manuscripts, etc. A number of critical editions of individual tractates have appeared (for a list, see Stemberger, Introduction, 143–4). The easiest and most widely used (due to it being complete, the Hebrew is pointed (by H. Yalon), and accessible, having been reprinted many times) is that of Chanoch Albeck, Shishah Sidre Mishnah, 6 volumes. Finally, most editions of the Talmud include a M text, since it is structured around and comments upon M. The later volumes of the “Giessen εishnah” provide the best approach: start with the Kaufman MS as the base text and supplement with a critical apparatus of variant readings. Complete one-volume English translations include the classic Danby translation (1933), as well as a more recent one by Neusner (1988), both entitled The Mishnah. For a sample of traditional commentary (interpreting ε in light of the Talmud) available in English, consult Pinhas Kehati’s commentary, including pointed Hebrew text, English translation and commentary. A detailed commentary focusing primarily on matters of tradition and form criticism is the aforementioned work of Neusner (and for one order of M, his student Alan Avery-Peck), A History of the Mishnaic Law. An ongoing Hebrew commentary, more optimistic about what we can know about the pre-ιί situation in Palestine, is provided in Shmuel Safrai and Ze’ev Safrai, in cooperation with Chana Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel (10 volumes thus far). !! Useful Websites http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/b0.htm http://www.responsa.co.il/home.en-US.aspx http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/tannaim/ http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/mishna/selectmi.asp !! Bibliography Albeck, Ch. Introduction to the Mishnah. Tel Aviv: Dvir Co., 1966 [Hebrew]. ________. Einführung in Die Mischna. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971. Avery-Peck, Alan. "Review: Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament, Volume 1." The Catholic Biblical Quaterly 68, no. 3 (2006): 545-46. Bar-Asher, Moshe. "Mishnaic Hebrew: An Introductory Survey." In Cambridge History of Judaism IV, edited by Steven Katz, 369-403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Bieringer, Reimund, et. al., ed. The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bowker, John. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Boyarin, Daniel. Sparks of the Logos: Essays in Rabbinic Hermeneutics. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. The Human Will in Judaism: The Mishnah's Philosophy of Intention. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Evans, Craig. "Jesus and Rabbinic Parables, Proverbs, and Prayers." In Jesus and His Contemporaries, 251-297. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Fernández, M. P. "Gospels, Oral Traditions of the Mishnah in." In The Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, 2, 892-904. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Fernández, M. P. "New Testament, Mishnaic Readings in The." In The Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, 3, 1852-58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Frankel, Z. Darkhe Ha-Mishnah. Leipzig: H. Hunger, 1859. Goodblatt, David. "Bibliography on Rabbinic Judaism from Talmudic to Modern Times." In Understanding Rabbinic Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, 383-402. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974. Guttman, A. "The Problem of the Anonymous Mishnah." Hebrew Union College Annual 16 (1941): 137-55. Hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Hoffmann, D. Z. The First Mishna and the Controversies of the Tannaim. New York: SepherHermon Press, 1977. Houtman, Alberdina. Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Instone-Brewer, David. Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament. Vol. 1-2. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004-. [projected six volumes] Jafé, Dan, ed. Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE-400 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. Krupp, Michael. Einführung in Die Mischna. Frankfurt: verlag der weltreligion, 2007. Kutscher, Eduard Yecheskel. "Hebrew Language, Mishnaic." In Encyclopedia Judaica, edited by Cecil Roth, 16, 1590-1607. New York: Macmillan Company, 1972. Reprint, 2007, vol 8, 639-49. Lapin, Hayim. "The Origins and Development of the Rabbinic Movement in the Land of Israel." In Cambridge History of Judaism IV, edited by Steven Katz, 206-229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Lauterbach, Jacob. Rabbinic Essays. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951. Liebermann, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees before 70. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1971. ________, ed. The Modern Study of the Mishnah. Leiden: Brill, 1973. ________. Form-Analysis and Exegesis: A Fresh Approach to the Interpretation of Mishnah. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980. ________, ed. The Study of Ancient Judaism. Vol. 1. New York: Ktav, 1981. [excellent annotated bibliographies] ________. Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah. 2 ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. ________. Uniting the Dual Torah: Sifra and the Problem of the Mishnah. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1990. ________, ed. Approaches to Ancient Judaism: New Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990-. ________. Judaism as Philosophy: The Method and Message of the Mishnah. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991. ________. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1994. ________. "Evaluating the Attributions of Sayings to Named Sages in the Rabbinic Literature." Journal for the Study of Judaism 26, no. 1 (1995): 93-111. Pérez Fernández, Miguel. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Reichman, Ronen. Mishna Und Sifra. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Safrai, S., ed. The Literature of the Sages: First Part: Oral Torah, Halakhah, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. Sandmel, Samuel. "Parallelomania." Journal of Biblical Literature 81, no. 1 (1962): 1-13. Schürer, Emil, Géza Vermès, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black, and Martin Goodman. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135). 3 vols. Rev. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973. Stern, David. "Jesus' Parables from the Perspective of Rabbinic Literature." In Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity, edited by Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyschogrod, 42-80. New York: Paulist Press, 1989. Strack, H. L. & Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Urbach, Epraim. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979. Wegner, Judith. Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Young, Brad. Jesus and His Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus' Teaching. New York: Paulist Press, 1989. —John C. Johnson