DOCSLIB.ORG

The Προσήλυτος in “The LXX”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Προσήλυτος in “The LXX” JBL 132, no. 2 (2013): 333–350 Revisiting the προσήλυτος in “the LXX” matthew thiessen [email protected] Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63108 One of the more heated lexical debates in LXX studies surrounds the meaning of the Greek term προσήλυτος. Yet the only thorough examination of the word in the LXX is W. C. Allen’s 1894 article “On the Meaning of ΠΡΟΣΗΛΥΤΟΣ in the Septuagint,” which argues that the LXX translators distinguish carefully between in the Hebrew Bible: the first is rendered by the Greek גרtwo different uses of word πάροικος and is used in contexts where a convert to Judaism cannot be intended; the second is rendered by the Greek word προσήλυτος and is used in contexts where a convert to Judaism could be intended. Most modern treat- ments of conversion in early Judaism rely heavily on Allen’s conclusions, often indirectly through Karl Georg Kuhn’s TDNT entry on προσήλυτος, without reas- sessing the methodology or evidence Allen used to support his argument. Con- sequently, I provide a criticism of Allen’s methodological assumptions and a -by utilizing recent studies on the signifi גר reassessment of LXX renderings of cance of the varying translation techniques of the LXX translators, concluding that Allen’s methodology, which treats the entirety of the LXX as a translational unity, leads him, and those who rely on him, to misinterpret the evidence of the LXX. In contrast, analyzing the evidence of the individual books of the LXX as discrete translations by different translators demonstrates that Allen anachro- nistically renders προσήλυτος in the LXX as “proselyte,” when in fact it should be translated as “alien.” the Hebrew word that the LXX translators ,גר Most scholars believe that frequently render into Greek as προσήλυτος, did not originally mean a proselyte or convert to Israelite religion; rather, the word referred to an alien, Israelite or non- Israelite, residing in a foreign land.1 At some point in later Jewish literature, I would like to express my gratitude to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their financial support, which enabled me to complete the research for this article. I am also grateful to Joel Marcus, Melvin K. H. Peters, Dirk Büchner, and David M. Moffitt, as well as the participants in the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies program unit of the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting in Atlanta in 2010, for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article. ,as a convert in the Hebrew Bible, see Matty Cohen גר For arguments against seeing the 1 333 This article was published in JBL 132/2 (2013) 333–350, copyright © 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. 334 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 2 (2013) came to designate a convert to Judaism. For instance, Mekilta de-Rabbi גר ,though Ishmael, Nezikin 18, states: It was for their sake that our father Abraham .[הגרים] Beloved are the proselytes was not circumcised until he was ninety-nine years old. Had he been circumcised at twenty or at thirty years of age, only those under the age of thirty could have Therefore God bore with Abraham until he .[להתגייר] become proselytes reached ninety-nine years of age, so as not to close the door to future proselytes 2.[הגרים הבאים] -acquired this new mean גר Consequently, the question arises as to when the word ing. Numerous scholars argue that it is in the LXX’s use of the term προσήλυτος, often considered to be a neologism,3 that we have our earliest evidence of this latter meaning. Yet only W. C. Allen’s 1894 article, entitled “On the Meaning of ΠΡΟΣΗΛΥΤΟΣ in the Septuagint,” has thoroughly examined how the LXX -Allen argues that the LXX translators distinguished care 4.גר translates the term in the Hebrew Bible: the Greek word גר fully between two different uses of πάροικος translates the first meaning and appears in contexts that do not envisage a convert to Judaism; the Greek word προσήλυτος translates the second meaning .and occurs in contexts that can conceivably refer to a convert to Judaism גר of Most modern discussions of προσήλυτος, particularly in NT studies, rely heavily “Le ‘ger’ biblique et son statut socio-religieux,” RHR 207 (1990): 131–58; Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26 (VTSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 63–72; Jacob Milgrom, “Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel,” JBL 101 (1982): 169–76; and idem, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), may be a convert, at least in some strands of pentateuchal גר For arguments that the .1501–1493 law, see Alfred Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden (Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1896), 152–78; Theophile James Meek, “The Translation of Gêr in the Hexateuch and Its Bearing on the Documentary Hypothesis,” JBL 49 (1930): 172–80; Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (Lectures on the History of Religions n.s. 9; New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), 178–82; Christoph Bultmann, Der Fremde im antiken Juda: Eine Untersuchung zum sozialen Typenbegriff ‘ger’ und seinem Bedeutungs- wandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung (FRLANT 153; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992); and Christiana van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law (JSOTSup 107; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). 2 Translation slightly adapted from Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933), 3:140. Even in rabbinic literature distinctions .was. Cf. Bernard J גר צדק was not a Jew, while a גר תושב a :גר exist within the category of the Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (New York: Ktav, 1939), 133–40. 3 As the article of David M. Moffitt and C. Jacob Butera in the preceding issue of JBL demonstrates, it does not appear that the LXX translators coined the term (“P.Duk. inv. 727r: New Evidence for the Meaning and Provenance of the Word προσήλυτος,” JBL 132 [2013]: 159–78). 4 Allen, “On the Meaning of ΠΡΟΣΗΛΥΤΟΣ in the Septuagint,” Expositor IV/10 (1894): 264–75. J. A. Loader (“An Explanation of the term Prosēlutos,” NovT 15 [1973]: 270–77) attempts to draw near”) but provides little explicit“) קרב to relate προσήλυτος to the Hebrew verb argumentation dealing with the evidence of the LXX. This article was published in JBL 132/2 (2013) 333–350, copyright © 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. Thiessen: Revisiting προσήλυτος in “the LXX” 335 on the conclusions of Allen’s article, whether directly or indirectly, through Karl Georg Kuhn’s TDNT entry on προσήλυτος, without reassessing the methodology or evidence Allen used to support his argument.5 Thus, in an appendix to The Alien in Israelite Law, Christiana van Houten discusses the meaning of προσήλυτος in the LXX, stating that her study “is greatly helped by a study of W. C. Allen.”6 At the same time, some recent studies on individual LXX books suggest a growing unease with translating προσήλυτος as proselyte (i.e., convert to Judaism) but do not explicitly rebut Allen’s argument.7 The following pages will provide a critique of Allen’s methodological assumptions in light of recent studies on the significance of the varying translation techniques of the LXX translators. As I will show, Allen’s methodology leads him to misunderstand the evidence of the LXX and, consequently, to conclude wrongfully that in the LXX προσήλυτος is a tech- nical term for a convert to Judaism. I. W. C. Allen’s Argument: A Προσήλυτος Is a Convert in the Septuagint In a helpful summary of the conclusions that he draws from the evidence of the LXX, Allen states: A consideration of the following facts will, I believe, lead to the certain con- clusions (1) that προσήλυτος is not synonymous with πάροικος; (2) that it does ; ֵֵג ר not mean “advena,” “stranger,” “sojourner,” in the sense of the old Hebrew (3) that its original meaning, so far as the extant literature enables us to judge, was “proselyte.”8 As Allen argues, these conclusions suggest that the LXX translators did not in keeping with its original meaning but imported “the later meaning גר translate which it has in the Mishna.”9 5 Kuhn, “προσήλυτος,” TDNT 6:727–44, esp. 727. For a history of scholarly interpretation of the word, see Moffitt and Butera, “P.Duk. inv. 727r,” 161–70. 6 Van Houten, Alien in Israelite Law, 180. See also Emanuel Tov, “Three Dimensions of LXX Words,” RB 83 (1976): 529–44, esp. 537; Neil J. McEleney, “Conversion, Circumcision and the L aw,” NTS 20 (1974): 328–33; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman; 5 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 3/1:170 n. 78; and James Carleton Paget, “Jewish Proselytism at the Time of Christian Origins: Chimera or Reality?” JSNT 62 (1996): 65–103, esp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Christian Understandings of Proselytism David A
    Christian Understandings of Proselytism David A. Kerr ike the chameleon, proselytism displays itself in many who had themselves been strangers (gerim) in Egypt (Deut. L shades of color. The word has different nuances in 10:19). The bulk of Talmudic literature welcomes the proselyte individual languages and among languages. Importantly from into the full fellowship of Israel, subject to the requirements of the point of view of this article, it is used variously among circumcision, baptism, and the offering of sacrifice. Jesus criti­ different sectors of the Christian church. It refers both to the cized what he deemed the Pharisaic tendency of making the transfer of allegiance from one religion to another and to the proselyte a slave to the law (Matt. 23:15). From this it may be transfer of allegiancebetweenchurches. Attitudes to proselytism inferred that the matter of how a proselyte should be incorpo­ are conditioned by political, social, and cultural considerations, rated into Israel was a matter of controversy in Jesus' time. New and responses vary from one church to another, from one culture Testament references to Jewish proselytes among the first Chris­ to another. I attempt here to clarify some of the issues, particu­ tians indicate that they were welcome members of the early larly as they have emerged in Christian thinking through the church (Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43).6 The postbiblical histories of both second half of the twentieth century. I argue tha t the hard-sought Judaism and Christianity continued to honor the proselyte until consensus that has emerged within the ecumenical movement more recent times, when, roughly speaking from the eighteenth needs to extend itself further to include new global realities of century, the term came to have the negative connotations we Christianity.1 have noted in English literary usage.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Full Edition
    Meorot A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse (formerly Edah Journal) Marheshvan 5768 CONTENTS Editor’s Introduction to the Marheshvan 5768 Edition Eugene Korn ARTICLES Farteitcht un Farbessert (On “Correcting” Maimonides) Menachem Kellner Ethics and Warfare Revisited Gerald J. Blidstein Michael J. Broyde Women's Eligibility to Write Sifrei Torah Jen Taylor Friedman Dov Linzer Authority and Validity: Why Tanakh Requires Interpretation, and What Makes an Interpretation Legitimate? Moshe Sokolow REVIEW ESSAY Maimonides Contra Kabbalah: A Review of Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism by Menachem Kellner James A. Diamond Meorot 6:2 Marheshvan 5768 A Publication of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbini cal School © 2007 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE t Meorot: A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse (formerly The Edah Journal) Statement of Purpose Meorot is a forum for discussion of Orthodox Judaism’s engagement with modernity, o published by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School. It is the conviction of Meorot that this discourse is vital to nurturing the spiritual and religious experiences of Modern Orthodox Jews. Committed to the norms of halakhah and Torah, Meorot is dedicated to free inquiry and will be ever mindful that “Truth is the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He.” r Editors Eugene Korn, Editor Nathaniel Helfgot, Associate Editor Joel Linsider, Text Editor o Editorial Board Dov Linzer (YCT Rabbinical School), Chair Michael Berger Moshe Halbertal (Israel) e Naftali Harcsztark Norma Baumel Joseph Simcha Krauss Barry Levy Adam Mintz Tamar Ross (Israel) A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse M Meorot will publish two online editions per year, and will be available periodically in hard- copy editions.
    [Show full text]
  • Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council
    Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council Did they conclude the Torah was not for Gentiles? ------------------------------------------------- Tim Hegg • TorahResource © 2008 TorahResource • All rights reserved • (revised from 2001 edition) “Even the Apostles admitted the Torah was a burden no one could bear!” Such a statement characterizes a common sentiment about the Torah—one based upon an equally common inter- pretation of Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council. But let us look again at Acts 15 and the decision of the Apostolic Council convened in Jerusalem. What was the issue at hand? What had brought about the need for the Council in the first place? And how should the decision of the Apostles be interpreted? What does all of this tell us about the place of the Torah among the early followers of Yeshua? The Core Issue at the Jerusalem Council The opening verses of Acts 15 give us a clear picture of the core issue around which the Jerusalem Council convened: And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circum- cised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.1 The “issue” at hand was whether or not someone who was not a Jew could be saved. To put it another way, how could a Gentile become a covenant member with Israel and share in the bless- ings of the covenant? The prevailing belief of the Judaisms in Paul’s day was that only Jews had a place in the world to come since God had made the covenant of blessing with Israel and no oth- er nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Rereading Paul on Circumcision, Torah, and the Gentiles Asha K
    A Seal of Faith: Rereading Paul on Circumcision, Torah, and the Gentiles Asha K. Moorthy Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2014 © 2014 Asha K. Moorthy All rights reserved ABSTRACT A Seal of Faith: Rereading Paul on Circumcision, Torah, and the Gentiles Asha K. Moorthy It is generally held that the Apostle Paul dismissed the rite of circumcision for Gentiles. This dissertation, however, offers a different perspective. Through examination of relevant sources regarding the role of circumcision in conversion along with consideration of Philo of Alexandria’s depiction of Abraham as an exemplar of and for the proselyte, this project will suggest that Paul, in Rom 4:11‐ 12, uses the example of Abraham in order to explain the value of circumcision for Jews as well as for Gentiles. It will be argued, moreover, that Paul’s objections to circumcision, as found in Romans as well as in Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Corinthians, were not to the rite per se but rather to the notion that circumcision was necessary for entering the Abrahamic covenant, “becoming a Jew,” justification, salvation, spiritual transformation, protection or identity in Christ. A case will be made, moreover, that in Paul’s day there were two competing forms of circumcision and that Paul was opposed to the more radical procedure. Finally, divergences in Paul’s handling of the topic of circumcision in different letters will be explained through attention to particular audience concerns. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Syllabus, Deuterocanonical Books
    The Deuterocanonical Books (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and additions to Daniel & Esther) Caravaggio. Saint Jerome Writing (oil on canvas), c. 1605-1606. Galleria Borghese, Rome. with Dr. Bill Creasy Copyright © 2021 by Logos Educational Corporation. All rights reserved. No part of this course—audio, video, photography, maps, timelines or other media—may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval devices without permission in writing or a licensing agreement from the copyright holder. Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner. 2 The Deuterocanonical Books (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and additions to Daniel & Esther) Traditional Authors: Various Traditional Dates Written: c. 250-100 B.C. Traditional Periods Covered: c. 250-100 B.C. Introduction The Deuterocanonical books are those books of Scripture written (for the most part) in Greek that are accepted by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as inspired, but they are not among the 39 books written in Hebrew accepted by Jews, nor are they accepted as Scripture by most Protestant denominations. The deuterocanonical books include: • Tobit • Judith • 1 Maccabees • 2 Maccabees • Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon) • Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus) • Baruch, (including the Letter of Jeremiah) • Additions to Daniel o “Prayer of Azariah” and the “Song of the Three Holy Children” (Vulgate Daniel 3: 24- 90) o Suzanna (Daniel 13) o Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14) • Additions to Esther Eastern Orthodox churches also include: 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes (which include the “Prayer of Manasseh”) and Psalm 151.
    [Show full text]
  • Exclusion from the Sanctuary and the City of the Sanctuary in the Temple Scroll
    EXCLUSION FROM THE SANCTUARY AND THE CITY OF THE SANCTUARY IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL by LA WREN CE H. SCHIFFMAN New York University, New York, N. Y. 10012 Introduction The discovery and publication of the Temple Scroll (Yadin, 1977, 1983; abbreviated below as 11 QT) opened new vistas for the study of the history of Jewish law in the Second Commonwealth period. Immedi­ ately after the Hebrew edition of the scroll appeared, debate ensued about whether this scroll was to be seen as an integral part of the corpus authored by the Qumran sect, or simply as a part of its library (cf. Schiffman, 1983a, 1985c). This question was, in turn, related to the problem of whether this text reflects generally held beliefs of most Second Temple Jews, or whether its laws and sacrificial procedures represented only the views of its author(s), who were demanding a thor­ oughgoing revision of the sacrificial worship of the Jerusalem Temple, or, finally, whether it reflected the author's eschatological hopes. This question is crucial in regard to the laws pertaining to various classes of individuals who were to be excluded from the Temple, its city (known in the Temple Scroll as cir hammiqdiis, "the city of the sanc­ tuary" or "Temple city") and the other cities of Israel because of various forms of ritual impurity or other disqualifications. The editor of the scroll, Yigael Yadin, maintained that it represented a point of view substantially stricter than that of the somewhat later tannaitic sources, and that the scroll extended all prohibitions of such impurity to the entire city of Jerusalem at least.
    [Show full text]
  • Converts Or Proselytes? the Crisis Over Conversion in the Early Church Andrew F
    Converts or Proselytes? The Crisis over Conversion in the Early Church Andrew F. Walls he word conversion has been used in Christian history period of deep consciousness of personal sin followed by a sense Tin a multitude of ways. There have been at least two of joyous liberation dawning with realization of personal for- broad streams of usage, each with many divisions. In one stream giveness through Christ. Missionaries with this background conversion is spoken of essentially as an external act of religious expected to see a similar pattern of experience in those who came change. In this usage Christian conversion refers to movement to to Christian faith, even in societies where there had been no the Christian faith, individually or collectively, on the part of previous Christian profession. In this way, the distinction be- people previously outside it. By extension, this usage can also tween the two streams of usage—the one relating to externally indicate movement from one branch of Christian profession to recognizable adhesion to the Christian faith and the other relat- another—from Catholic to Protestant, for instance, or vice versa. ing to internal personal change—became blurred. This was not In the second stream of usage, “conversion” denotes critical the first time that such blurring occurred. There had long been internal religious change in persons within the Christian com- confusion within the first stream of usage when referring to such munity, and here the varieties of meaning raise complex issues. celebrated conversions as those of Constantine and Augustine, Sometimes “conversion” refers to subjective experience, some- where “conversion” might be used equally of their identification times to an assumed ontological change, sometimes to both.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Early Biblical Translations
    * * * * * * * Three Early Biblical Translations We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the books that have been included in the Bible. All we have is copies of copies. Most of the original manuscripts of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, although a few chapters of Ezra and Daniel were recorded in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The books of the New Testament were first written in Greek. The first translations of the Bible were of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint (SEP-too-a-jint) was a Greek translation written about three centuries before the birth of Christ. Two other early translations, composed after the birth of Christ, were the Peshitta in Syriac and the Vulgate in Latin. These three translations, the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Vulgate became the official translations of the Old Testament for the Greek-, Syriac-, and Latin-speaking churches respectively. Each also became the basis for other translations of the Bible. The Septuagint The Septuagint (from the Latin word septuaginta meaning seventy) was a Greek version of the Bible created during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ca. 285-246 BCE) in Alexandria, Egypt for Diaspora Jews. Most of Jews living outside of Palestine were Greek-speaking as a result of Alexander the Great's (357-323 BCE) campaign to Hellenize his empire. First verses of Genesis (click for larger picture) At first, the Septuagint (LXX) consisted only of the Pentateuch (Torah, first five books of the Bible). Different books were translated from the Hebrew over a span of two centuries, including the books of the Apocrypha, and were added to the LXX.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewishness, Birth and Giyyur
    1 Zvi Zohar All Jews are Jews by Birth Biblical and Rabbinic Judaism agree, that anyone born to the appropriate Jewish parent – is Jewish. To most Jews, it sounds quite reasonable for Jewishness to derive from birth. However, such a determination is far from self-evident. Consider a counter-example: if a person was born on a kibbutz, and her two parents are members of the kibbutz, she is not automatically a member. Rather, upon reaching a certain age, she must decide if she wishes to apply for membership. If she applies, her application comes up for discussion by the kibbutz assembly, who then decide the matter by a vote. While it is reasonable to assume that a child born and grown on the kibbutz will be accepted for membership if she applies, it is not automatic. The important point (in the current context) is, that her membership is contingent upon at least two decisions: her decision to apply, and the assembly’s decision to accept her. In contrast, Jewishness is not contingent upon any person’s decision, but is regarded by tradition as a ‘fact of birth’. The sources of this self-understanding are very ancient: in the Bible, the Israelites are the “Children of Israel”, i.e., the lineal descendents of the Patriarch Jacob and his twelve sons. In the bible, then, the People of Israel are made up of persons born into a (very) extended family. Some notions accepted in Biblical times were abrogated or modified by the Oral Torah (Torah she- b’al peh); significantly, the concept of the familial nature of Jewishness was not only retained, but also even reinforced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Samaritan Attitude As Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim
    religions Article The Anti‑Samaritan Attitude as Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim Andreas Lehnardt Faculty of Protestant Theology, Johannes Gutenberg‑University Mainz, 55122 Mainz, Germany; lehnardt@uni‑mainz.de Abstract: Samaritans, as a group within the ranges of ancient ‘Judaisms’, are often mentioned in Talmud and Midrash. As comparable social–religious entities, they are regarded ambivalently by the rabbis. First, they were viewed as Jews, but from the end of the Tannaitic times, and especially after the Bar Kokhba revolt, they were perceived as non‑Jews, not reliable about different fields of Halakhic concern. Rabbinic writings reflect on this change in attitude and describe a long ongoing conflict and a growing anti‑Samaritan attitude. This article analyzes several dialogues betweenrab‑ bis and Samaritans transmitted in the Midrash on the book of Genesis, Bereshit Rabbah. In four larger sections, the famous Rabbi Me’ir is depicted as the counterpart of certain Samaritans. The analyses of these discussions try to show how rabbinic texts avoid any direct exegetical dispute over particular verses of the Torah, but point to other hermeneutical levels of discourse and the rejection of Samari‑ tan claims. These texts thus reflect a remarkable understanding of some Samaritan convictions, and they demonstrate how rabbis denounced Samaritanism and refuted their counterparts. The Rabbi Me’ir dialogues thus are an impressive literary witness to the final stages of the parting of ways of these diverging religious streams. Keywords: Samaritans; ancient Judaism; rabbinic literature; Talmud; Midrash Citation: Lehnardt, Andreas. 2021. The Anti‑Samaritan Attitude as 1 Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim. The attitudes towards the Samaritans (or Kutim ) documented in rabbinical literature 2 Religions 12: 584.
    [Show full text]
  • The Apocrypha Donald E
    What are Protestants Missing? The Apocrypha Donald E. Knebel November 27, 2016 Slide 1 1. This is the first in a series of four presentations that will look at Jewish literature written between the end of events in the Old Testament and the writing of the New Testament. 2. These writings help to bridge the large historical and theological gap between the Old and New Testaments. 3. As one author writes: “The fact is that the atmosphere in which the New Testament is written is in large part the product of the period between the testaments, and no amount of study of the Old Testament can solely explain it.” Surburg, Introduction to the Intertestamental Period at 9. 4. Today, we will talk about the Apocrypha, books included in the Bibles of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians but omitted from most Protestant Bibles. 5. Next week we will look at a collection of Jewish writings called Pseudepigrapha, one of which is actually quoted in the New Testament and several of which were relied upon by New Testament writers. 6. In the third week, we will look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have shed enormous light on Jewish beliefs at the time of Jesus and show great similarities to many Christian beliefs. 7. Finally we will look at the writings of Jewish contemporaries of Jesus and the New Testament writers, including Philo and Josephus. 8. Over the course of this series, we will see that the New Testament and Christian teachings draw a lot more on Jewish ideas and Jewish expressions than most Christians realize.
    [Show full text]
  • PERSPECTIVES the MAGAZINE of the ASSOCIATION for JEWISH STUDIES in Memory of Jonathan M
    The Old and New Media Issue SPRING 2018 FORUM: Old Media, New Media: Librarians and Archivists Reflect PERSPECTIVES THE MAGAZINE OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES In memory of Jonathan M. Hess MAY 30, 1965–APRIL 9, 2018 Co-editor of AJS InsidePerspectives Cover , Fall 2015–Spring 2018 יהי זכרון ברוך Table of Contents From the Editors 4 From the President 5 From the Executive Director 6 Old and New Media BETWEEN OLD AND NEW MEDIA Old Media, and Older Media 10 David Stern Let There Be Light: The Word of God in the Jewish Tradition, Past, Present, and Future 14 Gabriel Levy Mediating Moses and Matzah 16 Jodi Eichler-Levine What Becomes of Old Media? 20 Jeffrey Shandler New Media in Old Bottles, or Is It the Other Way Around? 26 Ben Schachter CLASSICAL TEXTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE Scroll Down: Classical Jewish Texts on the Internet 28 Gary A. Rendsburg Freedom on the Tablets: Annotation as Media, from Talmudic Scholarship to the Digital Age 36 Itay Marienberg-Milikowsky The Cairo Geniza and Facebook 38 Moshe Yagur and Oded Zinger THE MODERN MEDIASCAPE Jewish Media Power: Myth and Reality 42 Elana Levine and Michael Z. Newman Jewish Selfie-Fashioning: Gender and Religion in the Digital Age 50 Laura Arnold Leibman The Facebook of Life 54 Ira Wagman The Rise of the Militarized Selfie: Notes from Israel 56 Rebecca L. Stein (with Adi Kuntsman) Forum Old Media, New Media: Librarians and Archivists Reflect 60 Read AJS Perspectives Online at associationforjewishstudies.org AJS Perspectives: President Please direct correspondence to: The Magazine of the Christine Hayes Association for Jewish Studies Association for Jewish Studies Yale University Center for Jewish History 15 West 16th Street New York, NY 10011 Editor Vice President / Program Noam Pianko Laura S.
    [Show full text]