Rodkinson's Talmud vs Neusner's Talmud

Wyn Laidig said:

Can someone help me understand the difference between Rodkinson's Talmud and Neusner's?  Both are supposed to be translations of the Babylonian Talmud, but they seem to be totally different.  I think I understand Neusner's -  he seems to be doing a direct translation of each of the Folios from the original Hebrew Babylonian Talmud.  But if so, from what is Rodkinson translating?  I don't know where all that information is coming from originally.

From http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

A search for Talmud at Google will turn up hundreds of thousands
of hits, a depressing number of which are to anti-Semitic sites.
However, to our knowledge this is the first extensive
English translation of the Talmud to be posted on the Internet.
The Talmud is a vast collection of Jewish laws and traditions.
Despite the dry subject matter the Talmud makes interesting reading
because it is infused with vigorous intellectual debate,
humor and deep wisdom.
As the saying goes, 'you don't have to be Jewish'
to appreciate this text.
If you put in the hard work required to read
the Talmud, your mind will get a world-class workout.
The process of studying the Talmud has been compared with the
practice of Zen Buddhist Koan meditation, and for good reason.

Rodkinsons' ten-book edition, the only extensive one currently
in the public domain, contains complete translations of the
'Festivals' and 'Jurisprudence' sections of the Talmud.
Rodkinson only finished about a third of the Talmud.
All ten volumes were prepared at Sacred-texts and are available
here in their entirety.

Rodkinson has been widely criticized, both from traditionalist Jews who
feel that translating the Talmud is not an acceptable practice,
as well as from those hostile to the Talmud and Judaism in general.
As often seems to be the case,
the political spectrum seems to be a Mobeius loop.
All of these viewpoints are abundantly represented on the Internet.
Some quote material out of context, or ascribe hostile
intent to innocent passages.
The most hurtful critics are those who claim that Rodkinson deliberately
left out material to conceal an evil Jewish agenda.
After completion of this etext, I can unequivocally state
that this is hogwash.
Rodkinson's Talmud is, by definition, an abridgement for modern readers.
He left out only the sections where the debate spins off into complete
obscurity, and was careful to document where he did so.
Now that this incredible text, lovingly translated, is on the Internet
perhaps these criticisms can finally be put to rest.

Bibliographic note on Rodkinsons' Talmud

Rodkinson's translation went through at least two editions.
The sacred-texts version was prepared from the second edition.
All of these were from the 1918 printing,
with the exception of book 1, which was scanned from a 1903 printing.
The numbering of the volumes changed radically between the first and
second edition; to add to the confusion the second edition was
bound into a ten book set, two volumes per book.
This numbering is consistent, for instance, the second edition
book 1 contains volumes 1 and 2;
book 5 contains volumes 9 and 10, and so on.
However, the volume sequence of the first edition was completely
shuffled in the second edition;
for instance, volumes 9 and 10 of the second edition (in book 5)
correspond to volumes 1 and 2 of the first edition.
This confusion will be evident if you shop the used book market for
individual books of this set (which are fairly abundant at reasonable prices).

$20 in CP versus now $250 as a "New Product"? Wow! I'm glad I got it via CP.

Wyn Laidig said:

I would be appreciate your comments.

OK, I understand now. You're actually looking in the wrong place in Neusner. If you look at your TOC on the left, you'll see you're in chapter 25 "The Structure of the Babylonian Talmud". That's basically an annotated version of extracts of the Talmud, that's supposed to help you make sense of it better. For now, ignore it.

Instead, go back to chapter 10 in the TOC, where you'll see the actual Talmud (in translation), rather than the summary. That should make much more sense. Remember that in Neusner, the Mishnah is printed in bold, whilst in Rodkinson it's printed with a small heading.

Does that make more sense now?