Torah in the Mouth.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE - 400 CE Jaffee, Martin S., Samuel and Althea Stroum Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Washington Print publication date: 2001, Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003 Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-514067-5, doi:10.1093/0195140672.001.0001 skilled professionals beyond the composers and transmitters of literary works. My own position on this question has been shaped by S. Fraade's unpublished paper on the topic, “ ‘They Shall Teach Your Statutes to Jacob’: Priests, Scribes, and Sages in Second Temple Times.” I thank him for sharing it with me. 42. During the Hasmonean and Herodian periods Judea and the Galilee were dotted with Hellenistic poleis, but this urbanization affected few Jews, who remained largely in villages or small towns. The urbanization of Palestinian Jewry, beyond the central city of Jerusalem, is for the most part a phenomenon of the second and third centuries CE, and it occurs not in war-devastated Judea, but in the Galilee. For the nature of Jewish urban administration in general, end p.169 see E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ , vol. 2, pp. 184–198, which offers the opinon that “one town alone in Judaea proper, namely Jerusalem, may have enjoyed the rank of polis in the strict Graeco-Roman sense” (p. 188). The dominance of Jerusalem in the social life of Second Temple Galilee, and the rise of the Galilean towns Sepphoris and Tiberias as centers of Judaic cultural life in the post-bar Kosiva period are conveniently described in Horsely, Galilee, pp. 111–185. For the connection between the development of Hasmonean Jerusalem as an urban cultural center and the rise of literacy in its environs, see A. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era , pp. 143–146. 43. The earliest inscriptional evidence, the Theodotus inscription from first-century CE Jerusalem, specifies the synagogue as a place for “reciting the Torah (nomos) and studying the commandments” among other functions, such as hospitality. First-century literary evidence of the role of textual study in the synagogue setting includes testimonies from Josephus (e.g., Antiquities 16.2.4, Apion 2:17) and the Gospels (Mark 1:21, 6:2; Luke 4:16–22), all of which suggest a ritualized public reading of the text accompanied by brief explanation. For further discussion of these and other sources, see L. Levine, “The Second Temple Synagogue,” esp. pp. 15–19. 44. See D. Goodblatt, “Sources for the Origins of Organized Jewish Education in the Land of Israel,” pp. 83–103. The contrasting view, positing on the basis of primarily rabbinic texts a widespread educational system, is represented in E. Schürer, The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol 2, pp. 417–422. 45. A. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era , pp. 114–136, detects suggestive connections between the extension of literacy beyond professional scribal circles, beginning with the second century BCE, and the creation of conditions leading to sectarian ideologies. 46. M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics , pp. 15–16, refers to the Hebrew Bible as “a cult collection” designed “to tell the worshipers of Yahweh what they should do and to persuade them that they had better do it.” Smith was anticipated in this judgment about the cultic relevance of the canon by the often overlooked study of G. Östborn, Cult and Canon . Östborn attempts to offer a comprehensive explanation of how each of the canonical books served the larger purposes of cultic representation of divine power and activity. 47. Books posing persistent problems for speculation about the ideological coherence of the ultimate Hebrew canon include Ruth, Esther, Job, Qoheleth, and Song of Songs, all of which are in the canon of Ketuvim and all of which have little cultic interest. Solutions to these problems tend to focus on particular models of the scribal groups said to stand behind the development of the canonical tradition. See discussions in M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics , pp. 148–192; J. Sanders, Torah and Canon , pp. 110–116; J. Blenskinsopp, Prophecy and Canon , pp. 124–138; and the following note. 48. A useful general discussion is that of R. T. Beckwith in “Formation of the Hebrew Bible,” pp. 39–86. For recent attempts at reconstructing the process of canon formation that yielded the Hebrew Scriptures, see M. Haran, The Scriptural Collection, esp. pp. 23 –140; and P. R. Davies, Scribes and Schools , pp. 89–151. 49. Cf. T. Levi 8:16–17, in which the descendants of Levi inherit the roles of “high priests, and judges, and scribes.” I follow the translation of H. C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in J. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha , vol. 1, pp. 792–793. Kee's translation is based upon the Greek text of the Bodleian library, edited by R. Charles. 50. I follow the translation of O. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” p. 137, who translates the Ethopic text edited by R. Charles. See A. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era , pp. 117–118, for discussion of these sources. 51. The fullest recent discussion of the theoretical issues in the study of literary pseudonymity in antiquity is that of D. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon , pp. 1–16. M. Fishbane, end p.170 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 257–266, has focused on the particular role of pseudonymity in exegetically extending the authority of the scriptural text to cover the voice of the exegete. See also the recent study of B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, pp. 144–157. 52. Yeshua b. Eliezer b. Sira is the only Second Temple period scribe whose name survives on a literary work of his own creation (see Sira 50:27 and discussions in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ , vol. 3.1, p. 201, and P. Skehan and A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira , pp. 556–558). Characteristically, however, his book concludes with an elaborate literary homage to Israel's ancestors (Sira 44:1–50:24), among whom he numbers such characteristic scribal types as “Sages with their literary discourse, or framers of prophecies and pointed maxims; composers of melodious psalms, or authors with lyric themes” (Sira 44:4–5). PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003 - 2011. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/privacy_policy.html). Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 20 September 2011
Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE - 400 CE Jaffee, Martin S., Samuel and Althea Stroum Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Washington Print publication date: 2001, Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003 Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-514067-5, doi:10.1093/0195140672.001.0001 53. Thus, in summarizing his findings regarding the rhetorical meaning of pseudonymity in Second Temple literature, D. Meade writes: “Therefore, we can conclude that in the prophetic, wisdom, and apocalyptic traditions, literary attribution [to a pseudonymous ancestor] is primarily an assertion of authoritative tradition, not literary origins” (Pseudonymity and Canon , p. 105). 54. I quote from M. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch , vol. 2, p. 187. 55. See D. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch , pp. 125–156, and D. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon , pp. 91 –101, for discussions of the composite character of 1 Enoch in particular and the manner of its being knitted into a coherent “tradition.” Suter is particularly sensitive to the presence of oral-literary tradition in the parables per se and their reconstruction in the final written literary work. I am not aware of other students of the Second Temple visionary tradition who have pursued this line of thought. 56. Wintermute, p. 53. 57. The first line of each testament announces that it is “a copy of the testament” of the appropriate patriarch. 58. B. Metzger, trans., “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” pp. 554–555. The translation is based upon the Latin text published by R. Bensly. 59. Cited from F. H. Colson, trans., Philo 6, p. 467. The story of the inspired origins of the Greek version of the Torah first appears in Aristeas 301–311, from which it makes its way to Philo and Josephus, Antiquities 12:11–18. A rabbinic parody appears at B. Megillah 9a. 60. The number conforms to the assumptions of other first-century authors and the eventual rabbinic canon, suggesting that by the early second century there had emerged a generally acknowledged sense of the range of the scriptural collection. S. Leiman (The Canonization of the Hebrew Scripture, pp. 30–34) regards the 4 Ezra evidence as warranting a canonical collection even prior to the first century CE. 61. A. Klijn, trans., “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” pp. 637–638, following the Syriac text of Bibliotheca Ambrosiana. 2. Performative Reading and Text Interpretation at Qumran 1. Werner Kelber, “Jesus and Tradition,” p. 159. 2. A. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era . See the important predecessor, M. Smith, “The Dead Sea Sect in Relation to Ancient Judaism,” pp. 347–360. 3. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. 4. See, for example, D. J. Harrington, “Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophecies,” pp. 239–257, and D. Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” pp. 379–419. end p.171 5. As an outsider to Qumran scholarship, I hesitate to take a firm stand on the question of the identity of the sectarian community assumed to have been headquarterd at the Qumran site. In this study I follow the view that some sort of self-conscious dissident community, bearing a priestly (i.e., Tzadokite) ideology of its origins and legitimacy, did live a more or less uninterrupted existence at Qumran for most of the Hasmonean period and on through the rebellion of 66 CE. It seems to have referred to itself as the “Yahad” (Community). For the purposes of the present discussion, at any rate, it is immaterial whether the group was Essene, an Essene splinter group, a representative of Enochic Judaism, or a group with Sadducean origins. What matters is that it was thoroughly at home in scribal culture. A convenient collection of all the ancient external sources on the Essenes, with original texts and English translation, has been offered by G. Vermes and M. Goodman, eds., in The Essenes According to the Classical Sources . For a balanced account of the debate concerning the so-called “Essene Hypothesis” from one of its supporters, see J. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today , pp. 71–98. The basic claims of the “Essene Hypothesis” are: (1) the Qumran site was a central headquarters of a larger Essene movement with settlements throughout Palestine, and (2) the movement originated sometime after 152 BCE among a group rejecting the consolidation of the Hasmonean High Priesthood under Jonathan. For a fair-minded critique, see A. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era, pp. 42–80. 6. Most notable among these are N. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? esp. 3–41, and, more moderately, M. Wise et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 20–24. 7. The most important is that ancient authors such as Pliny, Philo, and Josephus represent the Essenes as a monastic community, while the evidence of many of the scrolls and of the Qumran cemetary suggest at least some presence of women and children within the community. Among those scholars who reject the dominant “Essene hypothesis,” there has emerged little consensus regarding the origins or identity of the group. A careful survey of diverse opinions with extensive bibliographical guidance is offered in F. Martinez, “The Origins of the Essene Movement and of the Qumran Sect,” pp. 77–96. J. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era , pp. 81–113, offers a useful account of how the similarities among many Second Temple sectarian communities makes it hazardous to offer a firm identification of the Qumran group on the basis of available evidence. 8. The two partial manuscript copies of the Damascus Covenant were discovered by Solomon Schechter in the storage room of a Cairo Synagogue in 1896 and labeled Text A and Text B. Schechter dated the copies to the tenth and twelfth centuries, but the provenance of the original texts was the subject of much speculation until parallels and additional texts in the identical style showed up in the manuscripts discovered in Qumran Caves 4–6 from 1948. In what follows, citations from the Cairo manuscripts are identified by the PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003 - 2011. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/privacy_policy.html). Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 20 September 2011
Page 1 and 2:
Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Ora
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58: Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Ora
Page 107: Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Ora
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
show all

Torah in the Mouth.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?