Search Results

The chapter argues that Edwards’s biblical exegesis does not fit neatly into a simplistic dichotomy of “precritical” versus “critical,” and challenges theologians to explore Edwards’s typological view of reality.

This book set out to demonstrate how sexuality became central to Jewish and Christian notions of holiness and holy community in the postbiblical period. In particular, this study was motivated to determine why sexuality, especially sexual restraint, became a primary demarcation of sacred community boundaries among Jews and Christians in fourth-century Persian-Mesopotamia. To accomplish this task, the book focused on the exegetical underpinnings that link holiness to sexuality in these communities’ emerging hermeneutics of holiness and sexuality. In the fourth-century Mesopotamian context, ascetic practitioners found biblical textual support as compelling as any other outside cultural norm. Sexual asceticism thus finds its rightful place in the formative periods of both religious traditions through the lens of comparative biblical exegesis, social constructs, and the study of the theological developments of the Hebrew biblical notions of holiness.

This introductory chapter begins with a brief discussion of the writings of John Maynard Keynes and how students of Keynes have failed to study his thinking from the perspective of international relations. It then provides an overview of this book, which seeks to explain the thinking about international relations which underlay Keynes’s writings and actions. It does so through a systematic exegesis of Keynes’s thinking on international relations as it evolved from his undergraduate days until his death.

This chapter explains the place that metaphysics holds in Maimonides' thought. It also introduces the question of esotericism in the Guide and scholarship on Maimonides. It explains that the Guide is a multilayered commentary on a multilayered book; it is both exegesis and imitation of the Bible. There are a number of biblical features that it attempts to reproduce, including the variety of messages and the multiple methods of communication aimed at different levels of audience.

This analysis of Saadiah’s reading of Job begins with a brief summary of his discussion of the suffering of the righteous in Beliefs and Opinions, where he lays out the philosophical ideas that are critical for his interpretation of Job. This is followed by a summary of the contents of his commentary on Job. The discussion then proceeds in the order of the three interfaces outlined in the introduction: a discussion of the sources and antecedents of Saadiah’s reading of the Book of Job; an analysis of Saadiah’s reading as an exegetical exercise grappling with the biblical text; and finally revisiting Saadiah’s discussion of the suffering of the righteous in Beliefs and Opinions to determine precisely how his systematic thinking on theodicy relates to his exegesis on Job.

Despite the many difficulties presented by Ibn Tibbon’s discussion of the Book of Job in Ma’amar Yikkavu ha-Mayim, it is argued that with a close reading, his interpretation of Job can be deciphered. This will be the primary challenge of this chapter. Much of the chapter will be spent attempting to discern what Ibn Tibbon says about Job. Only when this is accomplished will it be possible to analyze his reading in accordance with the three interfaces that are the focus of this study. Ibn Tibbon has emerged here as an interpreter who sees himself primarily as a commentator on Maimonides, rather than as an independent thinker in his own right. It is also evident that despite his dependence on Maimonides, Ibn Tibbon sometimes comes up with insights that are very much his own. These include a host of ideas that supplement, but also at times overturn, Maimonides’ understanding of the biblical text. Most significant is Ibn Tibbon’s notion that the Book of Job is designed to teach that providence is to be equated with immortality and that there is no individual providence in this world that guards physical well-being.

This discussion of Zerahiah begins by outlining the contents of Zerahiah’s reading of Job, with special attention given to deciphering its esoteric doctrines. It then examines the three interfaces around which this study has been structured. It is shown that Zerahiah presents a reading of Job that is very much in the spirit of Ibn Tibbon’s exegetical enterprise in that he uses Maimonides’ Guide as a resource to produce a comprehensive commentary on the biblical text. Yet, there is also evidence to suggest that some of Zerahiah’s key insights regarding Job are taken directly from Ibn Tibbon himself. It is possible that Zerahiah may be closer to Ibn Tibbon in philosophical orientation than scholars up to now have appreciated. However, in a number of ways Zerahiah goes beyond Ibn Tibbon. He composes an exposition on the entire Book of Job, and this allows him to develop elements of Maimonides’ reading of Job to a much greater extent than Ibn Tibbon did. The most significant example of this tendency is his fascinating discussion of allegory. In addition, Zerahiah’s commentary displays a greater independence from Maimonides than does that of Ibn Tibbon. Most important in this regard is its elitist emphasis.

This chapter begins with a synopsis of Gersonides’ views on providence in his systematic work for the purpose of getting acquainted with the basic philosophical concepts that underlie his commentary on Job. It then proceeds with an analysis of the commentary on Job in accordance with the three interfaces. The discussion of the third interface returns the to treatment of providence in Gersonides’ The Wars of the Lord and gives an evaluation of its relationship to the commentary on Job. It is shown that Gersonides’ reading of Job represents an important transition in the interpretation of this text in medieval Jewish philosophy. With this reading, Aristotelianism still reigns supreme as the thought system for interpreting Job; yet, a conservative step has been taken away from the most radical type of Aristotelian reading found in Ibn Tibbon.

Because Duran presents his systematic views on providence in his introduction to the commentary on Job, this chapter will deal with Duran’s thinking on this issue as part of the summary of the commentary, rather than in a separate section. The analysis as a whole will be aided by the fact that Duran’s philosophical thought is in many respects a reaction against Maimonides, and he therefore does not adopt esoteric discourse. It is shown that Duran’s commentary on Job presents another rich and original interpretation of the book. While his exposition is dependent on previous philosophical readings of Job — particularly Saadiah’s — Duran’s commentary also betrays the strong influence of non-philosophical sources in rabbinic midrash and Kabbalah, and these influences result in a reading of Job that is very conservative in orientation. The traditional turn initiated by Gersonides is completed in Duran. This provides a reading of Job that is “rationalistic” in the broad sense of the term, but one that has abandoned Aristotelianism and its concomitant radicalism.

This chapter discusses al-Kindī’s main influences from Greek works produced by the translation movement, and how al-Kindī thought the ideas from these works should be put together into a coherent philosophical curriculum. In philosophy, al-Kindī was most influenced by Aristotle and by Neoplatonic works (such as the Liber de Causis and Theology of Aristotle, which are Arabic versions of works by Proclus and Plotinus). His vision of philosophical methodology follows a Greek tradition of dividing philosophy up in terms of the different objects studied in different sciences. Finally, the chapter discusses the role of the Arabic language and Islam in al-Kindī’s thought by surveying texts in which he engages in Koranic exegesis, and by explaining his project of developing a new Arabic terminology in philosophy.

Chapter 3 demonstrates Martin Bucer's use of historical exegesis to provide readings of these eight messianic Psalms in reference to Christ and the church. The author argues that Bucer remains in keeping with the antecedent Christian tradition in the content that he finds in these Psalms (i.e., literal prophecies of Christ and the church), but differs in his method both through his use of historical exegesis and his employment of Jewish exegesis. The author also exhibits Bucer's use of Jewish exegesis to highlight and anchor the new theological themes that he finds in these Psalms, such as election, the beneficence of God, and the cultivation of piety. The chapter concludes with an analysis of Bucer's views on Jews and Jewish exegesis.

In providing a model of allegorical interpretation and in condemning the fabula on several occasions, St Paul laid the foundation for Christian exegesis. During the following generations Christian and Jewish exegesis went separate and mutually opposing ways, the former opting for allegorical exegesis, the latter for ‘mythic’ exegesis. However, it appears that any traditional confessional exegesis has need of these two elements — allegory and myth. Under diverse forms, myth reappears in western Christian thought, during the 12th and 13th centuries — first myths of pagan antiquity, then Jewish agadot. The constant occurrences of the expression Iudei fabulantur in 13th-century exegesis seem to respond to this need. By means of a brief linguistic analysis and an examination of commentaries on the pastoral epistles in which Paul condemns myth, this chapter attempts to lay the groundwork for a broader inquiry to ascertain the place of myth or of fabula in Christian exegesis.

This chapter describes how transcendently mystical readings can coincide with homiletical and halakhic exegesis in the context of late 18th-century Habad Hasidism. It argues that, for the hasidim, or at least for some of them, all roads lead to Jerusalem, that is, to a sense of contact or even union with the Divine, reaching beyond the finite definitions and limitations of the world. The meaning of the text joins with the radiance beyond the text.

The textual commentary treats Augustine's text of John verse by verse, concentrating on variants from the Vulgate. There are a number of occasions on which Augustine has a reading not attested in surviving Latin manuscripts: on some occasions this is shared with other Church Fathers, while others remain unique to him. The distinction between primary and secondary citations is important in determining which readings should be cited in an edition of the Gospel. The form of his mental text is given for a number of verses, with comments on how it may have arisen. Brief details are sometimes given of Augustine's exegesis, with bibliographic references to further studies. Passages of particular interest include John 7:53-8:11 (the Woman taken in Adultery), in which Augustine provides the earliest attestation of several variants in John 8:9. He also has an intriguing treatment of the contested verses John 5:2-4 (the Angel stirring the Waters), and shows evidence for the interpolation at John 3:6. His text of John 21:18 suggests that a Greek variant only preserved in Codex Bezae may underlie the entire Latin tradition.

This chapter gives a new, comprehensive interpretation of Gregory's Christology, focusing on his account of creation, the fall, and final redemption; his seminal doctrine of divinization (theosis); the relationship between soteriology and Christology; the singular identity of Christ as “one and the same” God and Son; the unity of Christ, against longstanding dualistic interpretations of Gregory's Christology; the principles of Christological exegesis; Gregory's vivid sense of the divine suffering in Christ and the centrality of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection; the predominance and unifying effect of Christ's divinity on his humanity; and Gregory's Christological spirituality, whereby the doctrine of Christ is itself the means of the Christian's ascent to God. Attention is also given to Gregory's opposition to the Antiochene Christology of Diodore, in addition to as that of Eunomius and Apollinarius.