Search Results

This brief chapter contrasts the picture of early monarchal textual developed here with the texts (actual and reconstructed) typically dated to the early monarchy in the earlier twentieth century. In particular, this portion of the book has identified significant portions of the “writings” as among the earliest parts of the Hebrew Bible: (royal) psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs. In addition, I have suggested that certain sub-portions of the present Pentateuch may date (in some written form) to the ninth century, such as an early portion of the Jacob-Joseph section of Genesis and a form of the Moses story which is no longer reconstructable. Nevertheless, it was only over the scope of the Neo-Assyrian to Hellenistic periods that such early materials embedded in the Pentateuch were revised and made into the Torah foundation of the Hebrew Bible, while texts such as Proverbs and Song of Songs were comparatively marginalized.

This chapter examines three passages that associate with the “conservative,” transmission-oriented aspects of Torah study the occupation with the two bodies of knowledge that the rabbis received: the Written Torah (Scripture) and the Oral Torah (rabbinic tradition). These passages are all premised on a dichotomy between the “received” knowledge of Scripture and oral tradition, on the one hand, and the innovative, creative aspects of study on the other. Building on the work of Daniel Boyarin, Jeffrey Rubenstein, and others who showed that the Babylonian Talmud places a high value on dialectic and analysis at the expense of tradition and memorization, the chapter demonstrates the centrality of this preference to the self-perception of the Talmud's creators and situates it within a polemical conversation among Jews in late ancient Mesopotamia.

This chapter considers Hekhalot literature to show that the Sar ha-Torah narrative from this corpus responds to the Talmudic academies‘ ideology of Torah study, presenting an alternative vision for Jewish culture in which retention and recitation are central rather than marginalized. It argues that this response correlates with other Hekhalot texts that recruit powerful images such as heavenly vision, transformation, and angelic liturgy to the project of memorizing and reciting the Oral Torah. It also contends that there is some evidence that the individuals whom the Babylonian Talmud marks as its opponents—the tanna'im—had a role in the shaping of Hekhalot traditions. Finally, the chapter suggests, based on the fact that the Hekhalot texts enter Jewish history as texts transmitted by Babylonian reciters, as well as on other connections between the tanna'im and Hekhalot texts, that the Babylonian reciters took active part in the shaping of Hekhalot traditions.

This chapter examines ancient rabbinic accounts of Roman interference with the practice of Judaism during the first few decades of the 2nd century CE. Sources attributed to Tannaim in the Bavli are compared to those attributed to Tannaim in Palestinian compilations. It is shown that Babylonian portrayals tend to emphasize Roman prohibition of Torah study, while Palestinian portrayals do so only rarely, if at all. This will be the first of many respects in which Babylonian rabbis place greater stress on Torah study than do Palestinian rabbis, which is easily explicable according to the claim that the universe of experience of Babylonian rabbis, more so than of Palestinians, tended not to extend beyond the four walls of the study house.

This chapter further exemplifies the claim regarding the Bavli's tendency to depict the most powerful groups and the major institutions of the distant past as controlled by rabbis, as opposed to the tendency of Palestinian rabbis to acknowledge the prominent role played by nonrabbis. It also supports the claim that the nonrabbinic Jewish world penetrated the walls of the Babylonian rabbinic study house in the form of literary traditions deriving from Roman Palestine, and perhaps from elsewhere in the Roman provincial world. It is shown that the rabbis domesticated these traditions by supplying them with a rabbinic veneer that transformed them into fit objects of Torah study. Several pre- and nonrabbinic traditions have been incorporated into the Tosefta, the Yerushalmi, and the Bavli, and all have been subjected to varying degrees of editorial revision and distortion. Palestinian rabbis emended these stories less radically than Babylonian rabbis, for reasons discussed in the previous chapter. This finding is significant, since it means that if we are able to correct for the distortions, rabbinic literature is a fruitful repository of nonrabbinic thought, belief, behavior, and gossip.

Where Proverbs 1-9 offers specific advice in chapter 3, this involves commendations of proper behaviour towards God and other humans, linked by an association of wisdom and teaching with God. The work also employs terms that strongly evoke the language of Jewish piety, reminding us that this is the religious and literary context from which it emerged. Against this background, the emphasis on instruction can be understood in terms of internalizing the Torah, and so enabling wisdom and fear of God, with the personification of Wisdom further developing the idea of receiving insight into the divine will. This is poetry, however, not precise allegory, and the personification also inhibits clear expression of the theme.

The biopic genre requires that the hero confront hostility and opposition. The Gospels point to a bewildering array of Jewish groups who are hostile to Jesus: scribes, elders, chief priests, Herodians (Mark 3:6), Pharisees, and Sadducees. But during Jesus' ministry, it is the Pharisees who constitute Jesus' most implacable opposition. Were the Pharisees merely another long-gone 1st-century Jewish sect, their portrayal would pose no problem for filmmakers. While the Pharisees are no longer in existence as such, they are nevertheless considered within the Jewish tradition to be the forerunners of the rabbis who shaped Jewish belief and practice as they are still known today. The filmmaker's dilemma arises from this contradiction between the Pharisees' hateful role as Jesus' enemies within the Christian scriptures and their heroic place in Jewish tradition. The danger is that in portraying the Pharisees as Jesus' harsh enemies, filmmakers become vulnerable to the charge of anti-Semitism.

This chapter explains the main categories by which rabbinic documents can be sorted into groups. It introduces thirteen key small forms which make up the bulk of rabbinic literature. Also it presents five main arrangement principles according to which the small forms are put together in extended texts. An artificial synthesis of rabbinic ideas about God, the Torah, and Israel is developed, and why such syntheses have no direct evidence to support them, is also explained.

This chapter examines the fact that many individual statements occurring in rabbinic texts are quoted as direct speech by named rabbis. Speech reports are interpreted as minimal narratives which provide the form, but not the contents, of a ‘history’ of rabbinic texts. Concentrating on the Mishnah, the anonymous voice which does the quoting is distinguished from the named voices which are quoted. Attention is drawn to the importance of disputes, where the two types of voices become mixed.

Rabbinic documents present themselves to some extent as having their root in the oral transmission of information. This chapter attempts to summarize some important aspects of the rabbis' own explanation of this, nowadays treated under the label ‘oral Torah’. It then explores the hermeneutic effect of oral contexts, as well as the constitution of ‘social texts’ in the interaction of several voices in conversation. For the latter, two scenarios are considered: the selective use of an existing text in a discussion setting; and a kind of ‘committee’ meeting in which a record of rabbinic information is created from scratch. The chapter concludes with a critique of the idea that rabbinic texts were shaped by or for oral performance.

The publication of the Samaria papyrus discovered in a Wadi ed-Daliyeh cave north of Jericho and the knowledge of the Samaria coinage help to fix the chronology of the Samaria governors from the second half of the 5th century BCE till Alexander. They reveal the practice of slavery as well as a mostly yahwist population, if one can judge from their personal names and the building of a temple on Mount Garizim. At the same time, they indicate some strong foreign (Aramaean, Phoenician, Babylonian, Persian, Idumaean, North-Arab and Greek) influence. The administration of the Judean province receives now some light from a few ostraca and from numerous seal-impressions as well as the 4th century BCE coinage. These short inscriptions allow us to precise the limited extent of the province while Elephantine papyrus help to fix the chronology of its governors and high priests. Southern Cisjordan was first part of the North-Arab kingdom of Kedar and became an Achaemenid province called ‘Idumaea’ only at the beginning of the 4th century BCE. About 2000 Aramaic ostraca reveal, for this last century, a well organized administration as well as a mixed population with Edomite, North-Arabic, Aramaean, Hebrew and Phoenician names.

The epilogue briefly explores the ontological distinctions drawn in rabbinic culture between Torah in the Mouth as an oral performative reality and the written versions of rabbinic tradition. Rabbinic sages from the Byzantine period on recognized the written texts of the Bible as classical embodiments of the Torah by virtue of their being written records of revelation. They also believed that written texts found neither in the Bible nor in rabbinic tradition had no status as Torah at all. They were simply literature. But the written texts of Torah in the Mouth occupied a peculiar status: they were not Torah until they were absorbed in the memory and delivered in public performance. This public performance, in the midst of the discipleship community, represented a religious reenactment of the moment of Sinaitic revelation.

This chapter asks why modern and haredi (ultra) Orthodox Jews affirm the outmoded traditional belief that the Torah (Pentateuch) was revealed by God to Moses at Sinai (TMS) and refuse to accept the findings of modern biblical scholarship that the Pentateuch is a humanly authored multiple source post‐Mosaic (MSPM) work. It suggests emotional, psychological, and social forces that account for why smart people cling to foolish beliefs, and describes the defenses they use to ward off scholarly and scientific arguments and evidence that threaten cherished beliefs and evoke fear of loss of faith. The chapter analyzes the ArtScroll commentary on the Torah, and responses to his questions addressed to Orthodox Jews: Why do you believe in TMS? Can you imagine any kind evidence that would induce you to give up your belief in TMS? He also points to immoral and unethical teachings of the Pentateuch as evidence for its human authorship.

This overview states the two general goals of the book: (1) to construct a biblical theology of ordination that is embedded in broad reflection on the nature of holiness in biblical literature and (2) to fashion a biblical theology of ordination that is able to serve as a springboard for ecumenical dialogue between different Christian traditions with their divergent views on the nature and function of ordination. This chapter outlines the three methodologies that will guide the study: (1) holiness and the history of religions; (2) the Mosaic office and the history of the composition of the Torah; and (3) canonical criticism and the inter‐biblical interpretation of the Mosaic office.