About thirty-five days or periods are mentioned on which fasting , or in some cases even mourning , are forbidden .sx Some of these are well known , such as Passover , the Minor ( or second ) Passover , the Feast of the Dedication ; others are hardly known at all .sx Among the causes for such rejoicing are the Establishment of the Daily Offering ( Nisan I-8 ) , the restoration of offerings of fine flour upon the altar ( Marcheshvan 27 ) , freedom from foreign troops in Jerusalem ( Iyyar 23 ) , and the discontinuance of payment of tribute from Judah and Jerusalem ( Iyyar 27 ) , the removal of publicans from Judah and Jerusalem ( Sivan 15 and 16 ) , the bringing in of wood for the sacrifices ( Ab 15 ) , the dedication of the wall ( Elul 7 ) , the gift of rain in answer to fasting ( Adar 20 ) , and " on the 28th thereof ( Adar ) the glad tidings reached the Jews that they were not to be restrained from the study of the Law .sx It is not permitted to mourn thereon .sx " I have not attempted to indicate the historical occasions to which these notices refer .sx That is no part of our subject .sx Sufficient to point out that the great Festivals of Pentecost and Tabernacles are not named at all , no doubt because they were too well known to require mention .sx Nearly all are what we should call Black Letter feasts , on which fasting and all formal mourning are forbidden .sx One gathers from this little book that though there was fasting , yet these Festivals pressed down ( as the phrase is ) the claims of the fasts and even of mourning .sx Joy before the Lord is greater than sorrow .sx How did the Rabbinic Judaism of our period regard Women ?sx Josephus , in his account of the laws of Marriage , says that the woman is to be given in marriage " by him who hath power to dispose of her , and is fit to give her away by the nearness of his kindred ; for he ( apparently the author of the Pentateuch ) says :sx ` A woman is inferior to a man in all things .sx ' " The saying attributed to Jose ben Jochanan of Jerusalem ( c. 170 B.C. , and there is no reason to think that the rule had ceased during our period ) is well known :sx " Talk not much with a woman .sx He may have meant ` with his wife,' but if so , how much less should one talk with one's companion's wife .sx " This brings us to the question of Divorce .sx Had the Rabbinic Judaism of 4 B.C. to A.D. 70 anything to say on the subject of Divorce ?sx Had it not indeed !sx It was one of the great subjects on which the two Pharisaic parties in the middle of the first century , the School of Shammai and that of Hillel , differed strongly .sx For while the former with its usual strictness allowed Divorce only for sexual sin , the latter thought other reasons were sufficient .sx For , after all , meant Hillel , marriage was intended to bring unity in the household , not discord .sx Therefore anything which promoted discord was sufficient cause for the husband to divorce his wife .sx ( c ) There is , lastly , a third group of subjects in our Sources on which we need not now spend much time , I mean those connected with Eschatology .sx Sadducees denied the Resurrection of the body , and perhaps also the continued existence of one's personality after death .sx Pharisees accepted both .sx The latter also held the doctrine of reward and punishment in that life beyond the grave .sx These depended on the good and the evil committed by anyone .sx And it was not unnatural , once that premiss was granted , to get into the way of reckoning up a man's good and evil actions , for his future would depend on how the balance fell .sx Further , Repentance for ill-doing was necessary .sx It was therefore understood by the thoughtful that mere actions as such were unimportant .sx It was the purpose , the intention , behind them that gave them their weight .sx Conscientiousness did take a very important place in the Rabbinic Judaism of 4 B.C. to A.D. 70 .sx ( iii .sx ) What then is the net result of our very rough investigation of the evidence to that Judaism revealed in our Sources ?sx It was a religion based on obedience to the commands of God written in the Law , as explained by the traditional exegesis - i.e. , the Oral Law , itself systematized , more or less , by Rules .sx Yet mere performance of those commands was insufficient .sx And it was a religion in which Gladness and Joy played a much greater part than Sorrow .sx The Rabbinic Judaism of our period was no gloomy thing ; it was brightness itself .sx There were indeed rules and ordinances - and the more there were the better .sx For each positive command gave a fresh opportunity of doing the will of God , and each negative rule made it easier to avoid breaking some item of His will .sx The Rabbinic Judaism of 4 B.C. to A.D. 70 was thus , according to our available sources as defined at the beginning of this paper , as bright and happy a religion as the world has seen .sx III .sx Having then learned what that early Rabbinic Judaism was , we are in a position to compare with it the Rabbinic Judaism of the second and few following centuries , and to see whether the later is the same as the earlier .sx For our question is :sx Does the Talmudic Literature afford trustworthy evidence to the nature of the Rabbinic Judaism of 4 B.C. to A.D. 70 ?sx ( i. ) What is here meant by " the Talmudic Literature " ?sx It is the Mishna of , say , A.D. 200 , the Tosephta ( c. 250 ) , the two Gemaras ( or " Talmuds " in the strict sense ) , i.e. , Palestinian ( c. 400 ) and Babylonian ( c. 500 ) .sx and the earlier Midrashim ( from perhaps 200 to 500) .sx But for various reasons the Targums , the Cabbalistic books , and also ( of course ) the later Ethical Treatises , are excluded .sx But I must recall what the Talmud ( to use the popular term for Mishna and Gemara combined ) really is .sx It is not a history ; it is not even a clear-cut summary of Jewish practice ; much less is it a scheme of doctrine .sx It is only a series of deductions from the practical part of the Pentateuch , more or less arranged in subject matter ; illustrated in many cases by discussions showing how these deductions became formulated and fixed ; together with side-lights on theological doctrines and religious beliefs .sx Further , as I need hardly say ( except that it is so often forgotten ) , Judaism has never been a strictly static religion .sx Always throughout its long history down to today it has progressed , sometimes downwards , if you will , sometimes upwards , but it has never been fixed .sx So that of no date in its history can you say , This is Judaism in its essence , for earlier times were but a preparation for this , and later times only a wrong , or a right , development .sx It is no doubt true that the Pentateuch has always been the standard of Judaism , but a Code must ever be applied to changing circumstances , and the Rule of Life has always had to be embodied in fresh outward form , now in the Mishna , now in the Talmuds , now in Maimonides' Yad hachazakah ( A.D. 1170-1180 ) , now in Joseph Karo's Shulchan Arukh ( c. A.D. 1565 ) , to which the Orthodox Jew appeals today - and even he will tell you that this requires revision , and adaptation to present needs .sx Judaism then has always been in a state of flux .sx Does this seem strange ?sx Strange to Christians of all people !sx For our glory it is that as the years go on our religion alters , grows , develops , as Christ Himself is better understood , and His thoughts and suggestions are more completely applied to truths of every kind .sx ( ii .sx ) Is then the Talmudic evidence to the Rabbinic Judaism of 4 B.C. to A.D. 70 trustworthy in details or at least in general ?sx Frankly , to expect trustworthiness in details is due , I fear , to ignorance .sx The Talmud is not a history , and is concerned only with problems of its own days .sx And those days were so different from 4 B.C. to A.D. 70 , the angle of vision so altered , that to take , as some writers have strangely done , a Talmudic practice or saying as positive proof that that was a practice or saying current in the earlier period , shows that they misunderstand their subject .sx It should always be remembered that no detail in the Talmudic Literature ought to be so applied without a careful examination whether such application be justifiable or not .sx But the trustworthiness of the evidence to that earlier Judaism in general is a very different matter .sx For the outlook and attitude of Talmudic Judaism is identical with that of Palestinian Rabbinic Judaism of the first century .sx I myself , at least , cannot see any vital difference in it .sx There is the same conception of the written Law as the final revelation of the will of God ; the same belief in its inspiration - with " t's " crossed and " i's " dotted - but that is all ; the same value attributed to traditional explanations , though with rules of exegesis even more elaborate ; the same insistence on Dietary .sx Laws , and on Sabbath , Circumcision , Tithe , Sacrifices ( though these had perforce to be changed into Prayers and acts of self-denial , etc. , until the Temple should be restored ) , on Fasting and Festivals , and on rules with regard to Marriage and Divorce .sx Details differed , and necessarily differed - but principles ?sx No .sx New Rules were made , and more new Rules were made , but always with the intention only of defining the older Rules more fully and more precisely .sx Fresh stakes were set between the stakes that already marked out the Way .sx But the Way was the same , and the older stakes remained .sx Lastly , the evidence of the Talmudic Literature is trustworthy as regards the tone of the earlier Rabbinic Judaism in Palestine .sx The Judaism of the Talmud is as bright and happy as that of the earlier time .sx Rabbinic Judaism was in the first century and in the second , and has been in each succeeding century down to our own day , a bright and happy religion , knowing nothing of the burdens which many ignorant writers , heathen and Christian , have attributed to it .sx The answer then to our first question is , Yes , the Talmudic Literature does afford trustworthy evidence to the general character of the Rabbinic Judaism of 4 B.C. to A.D. 70 .sx CHAPTER III .sx SUBJECT CONTINUED .sx 2 .sx THE WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - ( a ) ST. PAUL , ( b ) OUR LORD .sx IT may now be assumed that the Talmudic Literature does afford trustworthy evidence in general ( though naturally not in details ) to the nature of the Rabbinic Judaism of 4 B.C. to A.D. 70 .sx How then does this affect our study of the New Testament ?sx I propose considering this , first , in relation to St. Paul and his writings , and , secondly , in relation to certain important sayings of our Lord , as recorded in the Gospels .sx ( a ) ST. PAUL .sx Poor St. Paul !sx He catches it all round .sx If he tells the Philippians ( Phil .sx iii .sx 6 ) that " according to the righteousness that was in the Law he was found blameless , " he is said to claim perfection in it .sx So Dr. Easton writes :sx In his time " the Pharisees required their adherents to keep their tradition with substantial completeness .sx It was difficult , but it was within human reach , and there were many first-century Pharisees who could say it with him i.e. , St. Paul .sx In the sixth century nobody could say this .sx The corpus of legislation had swelled to such mammoth dimensions .sx that no one could possibly know it all - still less keep it .sx " On the other hand we are told - and that by the same writer - that " if St. Paul had been converted in the fifth century instead of the first , he would have had less to say about the burden of the Law .sx " The first objection is not very strong .sx The Rabbinic Judaism of the first century and that of the Talmudic period were alike in their burdensomeness and their lightness .sx If a man could keep the Law in the first century he could keep it in the sixth , or even in the twentieth .sx