this interpretation of Hezekiah's prayer, [e Is. xxxviii. 2. Beautiful prayers in Ber. 16 b, 17 a; but most painful instances very frequently occur in the Midrashim, such as in Shem. R. 43.] when the King is represented as appealing to the merit of his fathers, detailing their greatness in contrast to Rahab or the Shunammite, who yet had received a reward, and closing with this: 'Lord of the world, I have searched the 248 members which Thou hast given me, and not found that I have provoked Thee to anger with any one of them, how much more then shouldest Thou on account of these prolong my life?' After this, it is scarcely necessary to point to the self-righteousness which, in this as in other respects, is the most painful characteristic of Rabbinism. That the warning against prayers at the corner of streets was taken from life, appears from the well-known anecdote [f Jer. Ber. 8 c] concerning one, Rabbi Jannai, who was observed saying his prayers in the public streets of Sepphoris, and then advancing four cubits to make the so-called supplementary prayer. Again, a perusal of some of the recorded prayers of the Rabbis [g Ber. 29 b.] will show, how vastly different many of them were from the petitions which our Lord taught. Without insisting on this, nor on the circumstance that all recorded Talmudic prayers are of much later date than the time of Jesus, it may, at the same time, be freely admitted that here also the form, and sometimes even the spirit, approached closely to the words of our Lord. On the other hand, it would be folly to deny that the Lord's Prayer, in its sublime spirit, tendency, combination, and succession of petitions, is unique; and that such expressions in it as 'Our Father,' 'the Kingdom,' 'forgiveness,' 'temptation,' and others, represent in Rabbinism something entirely different from that which our Lord had in view. But, even so, such petitions as 'forgive us our debts,' could, as has been shown in a previous chapter, have no true parallel in Jewish theology. [1 For some interesting Rabbinic parallels to the Lord's Prayer, see Dr. Taylor's learned edition of the 'Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,' Excursus V. (pp. 138-145). The reader will also find much to interest him in Excursus IV.]
Further details would lead beyond our present scope. It must suffice to indicate that such sayings as St. Matt. v. 6, 15, 17, 25, 29, 31, 46, 47; vi. 8, 12, 18, 22, 24, 32; vii. 8, 9, 10, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, have no parallel, in any real sense, in Jewish writings, whose teaching, indeed, often embodies opposite ideas. Here it may be interesting, by one instance, to show what kind of Messianic teaching would have interested a Rabbi. In a passage [a Abhod. Zar. 17 a and 27 b.] whichdescribes the great danger of intercourse with Jewish Christians, as leading to heresy, a Rabbi is introduced, who, at Sepphoris, had met one of Jesus' disciples, named Jacob, a 'man of Kefir Sekanya,' reputed as working miraculous cures in the name of his Master. [1 Comp. the more full account of this Jacob's proposal to heal Eleazar ben Dama when bitten of a serpent in Jer. Shabb. xiv. end. Kefir Sekanya seems to have been the same as Kefir Simai, between Sepphoris and Acco (comp. Neubauer, Geogr. p. 234.)] It is said, that at a later period the Rabbi suffered grievous persecution, in punishment for the delight he had taken in a comment on a certain passage of Scripture, which Jacob attributed to his Master. It need scarcely be said, that the whole story is a fabrication; indeed, the supposed Christian interpretation is not even fit to be reproduced; and we only mention the circumstance as indicating the contrast between what Talmudism would have delighted in hearing from its Messiah, and what Jesus spoke.
But there are points of view which may be gained from Rabbinic writings, helpful to the understanding of the 'Sermon on the Mount,' although not of its spirit. Some of these may here be mentioned. Thus, when [b In St. Matt. v. 18.] we read that not one jot or title shall pass from the Law, it is painfully interesting to find in the Talmud the following quotation and mistranslation of St. Matt. v. 17: 'I have come not to diminish from the Law of Moses, nor yet have I come to add to the Law of Moses.' [c Shabb. 116 b.] [2 Delitzsch accepts a different reading, which furnishes this meaning, 'but I am come to add.' The passage occurs in a very curious connection, and for the purpose of showing the utter dishonesty of Christians, a Christian philosopher first arguing from interested motives, that since the dispersion of the Jews the Law of Moses was abrogated, and a new Law given; and the next day, having received a larger bribe, reversing his decision, and appealing to this rendering of St. Matt. v. 17.] But the Talmud here significantly omits the addition made by Christ, on which all depends: 'till all be fulfilled.' Jewish tradition mentions this very letter Yod as irremovable, [d Jer. Sanh. p. 20 c] adding, that if all men in the world were gathered together to abolish the least letter in the Law, they would not succeed, [e Shir. haSh. R. on ch. v. 1 l,ed. Warsh. p. 27 a.] Not a letter could be removed from the Law [f Shem. R. 6.], a saying illustrated by this curious conceit, that the Yod which was taken by God out of the name of Sarah (Sarai), was added to that of Hoshea, making him Joshua (Jehoshua). [a Sanh. 107a, and other passages.] Similarly, [b In Vayyik. R. 19.] the guilt of changing those little hooks ('titles') which make the distinction between such Hebrew letters as and and and, is declared so great, that, if such were done, the world would be destroyed. [1 The following are mentioned as instances: the change of into in Deut. vi. 4; of into in Exod. xxxiv. 14; of into Lev. xxii. 32; of into first verse of Ps. cl.; of into in Jer. v. 12; into 1 Sam. ii. 2. It ought to be marked, that Wunsche's quotations of these passages (Bibl. Rabb. on Shir haSh. R. v. 11) are not always correct.] Again the thought about the dangerof those who broke the least commandment is so frequently expressed in Jewish writings, as scarcely to need special quotation. Only, there it is put on the ground, that we know not what reward may attach to one or another commandment. The expression 'they of old,' [c St. Matt. v. 21.] quite corresponds to the Rabbinic appeal to those that had preceded, the Zeqenim or Rishonim. In regard to St. Matt. v. 22, we remember that the term 'brother' applied only to Jews, while the Rabbis used to designate the ignorant [d B. Kamma 50 b.], or those who did not believe such exaggerations, as that in the future God would build up the gates of Jerusalem with gems thirty cubits high and broad, as Reyqa, [e Sanh. 100 a.] with this additional remark, that on one such occasion the look of a Rabbi had immediately turned the unbeliever into a heap of bones!
Again, the opprobrious term 'fool' was by no means of uncommon occurrence among the sages; [f Sotah iii. 4; Shabb. 13 b.] and yet they themselves state, that to give an opprobrious by-name, or to put another openly to shame, was one of the three things which deserved Gehenna, [g Bab. Mez. 58 b, at bottom.] To verse 26 the following is an instructive parallel: 'To one who had defrauded the custom-house, it was said: 'Pay the duty.' He said to them: 'Take all that I have with me.' But the tax-gatherer answered him, 'Thinkest thou, we ask only this one payment of duty? Nay, rather, that duty be paid for all the times in which according to thy wont, thou hast defrauded the custom-house.'' [h Pesiqt. ed. Bub. 164 a.] The mode of swearing mentioned in verse 35 was very frequently adopted, in order to avoid pronouncing the Divine Name. Accordingly, they swore by the Covenant, by the Service of the Temple, or by the Temple. But perhaps the usual mode of swearing, which is attributed even to the Almighty, is 'By thy life' ( ). Lastly, as regards our Lord's admonition, it is mentioned [i In the Midrash on Ruth iii. 18.] as characteristic of the pious, that their 'yea is yea,' and their 'nay nay.'
Passing to St. Matt, vi., we remember, in regard to verse 2, that the boxes for charitable contributions in the Temple were trumpet-shaped, and we can understand the figurative allusion of Christ to demonstrative piety. [1 See 'The Temple, its Ministry and Services,' &c, pp. 26, 27.] The parallelisms in the language of the Lord's Prayer, at least so far as the wording, not the spirit, is concerned, have been frequently shown. If the closing doxology, 'Thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory,' [a ver. 13.] were genuine, it would correspond to the common Jewish ascription, from which, in all probability, it has been derived. In regard to versed 14 and 15, although there are many Jewish parallels concerning the need of forgiving those that have offended us, or else asking forgiveness, we know what meaning Rabbinism attached to the forgiveness of sins. Similarly, it is scarcely necessary to discuss the Jewish views concerning fasting. In regard to verses 25 and 34, we may remark this exact parallel: [b In Sot. 48 b.] 'Every one who has a loaf in his basket, and says, What shall I eat to-morrow? is one of little faith.' But Christianity goes further than this. While the Rabbinic saying only forbids care when there is bread in the basket, our Lord would banish anxious care even if there were no bread in the basket. The expression in verse 34 seems to be a Rabbinic proverb. Thus, [c Sanh. 100 b.] we read: 'Care not for the morrow, for ye know not what a day may bring forth. Perhaps he may not be on the morrow, and so have cared for a world that does not exist for him.' Only here, also, we mark that Christ significantly says not as the Rabbis, but, 'the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself
In chapter vii., verse 2, the saying about having it measured to us with the same measure that we mete, occurs in precisely the same manner in the Talmud, [d Sot. i. 7.] and, indeed, seems to have been a proverbial expression. The illustration in verses 3 and 4, about the mote and the beam, appears thus in Rabbinic literature: [e Arach. 16 b.] 'I wonder if there is any one in this generation who would take reproof. If one said, Take the mote out of thine eye, he would answer, Take the beam from out thine own eye.' On which the additional question is raised, whether any one in that generation were capable of reproving. As it also occurs with only trifiling variations in other passages, [f B. Bath. 15 b; Bekhor. 38 b; Yalk. on Ruth.] we conclude that this also was a proverbial expression. The same may be said of gathering 'grapes of thorns.' [g Pes. 49 a.] Similarly, the designation of'pearls' (verse 6) for the valuable sayings of sages is common. To verse 11 there is a realistic parallel, [h In Ber. R 33.] when it is related, that at a certain fast, on account of drought, a Rabbi admonished the people to good deeds, on which a
