Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Commentaries on the Book of Ruth
'In the past the Book of Ruth does not seem to have received a great deal of attention. Scholars usually pass it by as of small value. It is not worth while to squeeze the juice from so small a fruit. The beauty is all on the surface. The outer skin is so transparent that all the seeds can be detected without opening.' Thus wrote W. E. Staples in 1937, in the opening to his paper concerning the biblical Book of Ruth. Of course, he was not in agreement with the scholars he mentions, and the purpose of his work was to show that despite the smallness of the fruit, its juice was well worth squeezing out, and that, below the surface, there lay much worthy of investigation. The Book of Ruth tells a simple story of loss and redemption, set in the time of Israel’s Judges. It mainly focuses on three principal characters: Ruth, Naomi and Boaz. Ruth, a Moabite widow, forsakes her people and land to accompany her mother-in-law, Naomi (an Israelite who lost her husband and two sons when they all went to Moab in the midst of a famine), as she returns to Bethlehem. Boaz, a benevolent landowner from Bethlehem, shows kindness to Ruth and redeems the family’s inheritance. The book closes with the marriage of Ruth and Boaz and the birth of their son, Obed, who would become the grandfather of Israel’s most famous king, David. This secures the small fruit firmly in the canonical orchard of Jewish and Christian scripture, establishing its importance in the messianic heritage of both traditions. The rabbinic and patristic exegetes of Late Antiquity would also have disagreed with Staples’ scholars. The Rabbis wrote a verse-by-verse commentary for the Book of Ruth, the length of which far exceeds the biblical text itself. None of the Church Fathers composed a verse-by-verse commentary, but many from the earliest patristic period onwards have afforded it considerable attention. The Rabbis and Church Fathers wrote much concerning all three principal characters, but they gave special attention to the character of Ruth herself. She attracts this attention because of her piety, faithfulness and selfless concern for her mother-in-law. She is also attractive because she raises the whole issue of proselytism, as the proselyte to Judaism nonpareil. For the Church Fathers she prefigures and represents the Gentile church. However, Ruth is especially attractive because she is an ancestor of the Messiah in both traditions. This is the intrigue of The Book of Ruth – that such a small, seemingly insignificant character in such a small, seemingly insignificant story could have such influence and position in rabbinic and patristic writing. This study seeks to explore whether there was an exegetical dialogue between the rabbinic and patristic commentators on the Book of Ruth in the period of late Antiquity. The rabbinic commentary on Ruth is collected into one anonymous (not necessarily homogeneous) volume: the Ruth Rabbah (written in Hebrew). The patristic commentators, on the other hand, are mostly individually identifiable, but are linguistically and geographically disparate (spanning Greek, Latin and Syriac languages and culture). The linguistic differences between the rabbinic and patristic exegetes create some difficulties: it is uncertain to what extent they were familiar with one another’s languages and whether they had access to either or both the oral and written sources in one another’s traditions. Yet, both groups occupy the same general period in history (approximately the third to sixth century) and it would appear that the development of their writing was contemporaneous. The issues which made the character of Ruth so attractive to the Rabbis and Church Fathers form the themes that will be explored in this study. Firstly, there is the issue of Ruth’s gender – the book presents a biblical heroine in the midst of a realm that is almost exclusively male-dominated. The commentators themselves, on both sides, were exclusively male, so how did they deal with a woman taking the central role? Secondly, there is the issue of Ruth’s ethnicity (her otherness) – she was a Moabitess, and the Moabites were strictly forbidden from entering into the assembly of Israel (see Deuteronomy 23:3). Finally, there is the issue of Ruth’s role as a messianic matriarch and the Messiah’s identity, with regard to the lineage of David. The patristic commentators clearly identified the Messiah in Christological terms, but did this claim influence rabbinic interpretation?
2016, Traditio
2009, Harvard Theological Review 102:3
2019, The Exegetical and the Ethical: The Bible and the Academy in the Public Square. Edited by Hywel Clifford and Megan Daffern. Biblical Interpretation Series. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming
The book of Jonah is not only a treasure trove of theological and literary delights, but also a subject of ongoing controversy. The influence of post-exilic wisdom traditions on this prophetic book is debated by modern scholars aware of an affinity between the book's major themes and concepts attributed to ancient Jewish wisdom circles. However, when the book leaves its original historical and cultural milieu and is reinterpreted by readers belonging to the three major monotheistic religions in late antiquity, the sapiential themes of the book of Jonah become prominent. Exegesis in late antiquity exhibits strong didactic and ethical characteristics. Interpreting biblical books leads to theological reflection, which, in turn, helps an understanding of the mysteries of the universe as well as the role and duties of human beings. For Jews, Christians, and Muslims, the book of Jonah resists the rigid taxonomy of literary genre. A study of representative rabbinic, patristic, and Islamic works shows that their authors allow the wisdom themes of the book to resurface and flourish. The tale of the maverick prophet Jonah becomes the story of an ancient sage.
Introduction to the book, published 2018 by Cambridge University Press
2014
Scripture assigns to Melchizedek the distinguished title of royal priest (Gen. 14:18). Apart from this ascription and a few details related to his encounter with Abraham, the only two references to Melchizedek included in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 14:18-20; Ps. 110) eventually furnished the source for a wide range of speculation about the mysterious priest-king. From the Dead Sea Scrolls through the development of rabbinic midrashim, the relative silence of the Hebrew Bible about Melchizedek gave rise to an array of Melchizedekian roles and images ranging from that of a celestial-eschatological liberator-judge to a would-be priest whose failure to properly honor the most high God resulted in his dismissal from his unique post. The literary depiction of Melchizedek is unequivocally held in high regard prior to the rabbinic period. The combined king-priest office as witnessed during the Hasmonean period may account for the decline in respect shown toward Melchizedek. Further, the endorsement of Christ within the Epistle to the Hebrews as a priest after the pre-Aaronic order of Melchizedek conceivably introduced a challenge to rabbinic religious hegemony. This thesis provides a concise review of all extant Jewish works of the Second Temple period (e.g. Genesis Apocryphon; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice; 11Q13 [11QMelch]; Philo; Josephus; 2 Enoch; also the Pentateuchal Targums [recorded later]), early Christian writings (e.g. the Epistle to the Hebrews; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; Origen, Commentary to the Gospel of John), and rabbinic sources (b. Ned. 32b; Gen. Rab. 43.6; Lev. Rab. 25.6; Num. Rab. 4.8). The notion that Melchizedek lost his priestly role is first witnessed among rabbinic works. The decline in respect for Melchizedek’s priesthood appears to exhibit a response to the measure of dignity attributed to the priest-king in the Epistle to the Hebrews as well as the works of later Patristic writers (e.g. Justin; Origen). According to Hebrews, Melchizedek’s seniority as a priest sustains preeminence over Levitical obligations which were crucial to the maintenance of halakhic obligations. The universality of an uncircumcised Canaanite priest most likely presented further challenges to rabbinic interests. An additional point of contention between the two communities may be attested in the embrace of distinct scriptural renderings of Ps. 110:3. The vocalization of the Masoretic Text suggests a different reading of the verse than construals recorded in the earlier versions of both the Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta. Additional rabbinic works (e.g. y. Berakhot 5; Gen. Rab. 59.9) and an excerpt from Justin’s Dialogue are considered in support of the theory. Thus, the marginalizing of Melchizedek appears to comprise a rabbinic response, perhaps initiated by R. Ishmael, to claims of a Christological priesthood linked to the Melchizedekian order (Ps. 110:4).
The paper shows how Origen's work on the Song of Songs offers new insights about the exegesis and the redaction of Midrash ShirR. Origen's three-levels of interpretation shed light on the various rabbinic sayings. We can find traces of a rich variety of interpretations to the Song of Songs given by Rabbi Yohanan and suggested that, he too, held a threefold sensus of the Scripture: Literal, allegorical and mystical. This opens new considerations regarding organization and sequence, methods and levels of comprehension. Origen's evident concerns for his designated audience reflects upon our understanding of the materials redacted in ShirR and its designated audience. The Midrash was founded mainly upon the allegorical method. This suggests that ShirR was intended for a large and varied audience. Origens work opens new directions of research and suggests fruitful new understandings of the materials included and those that were not included in Midrash ShirR.
This Survey Chart was created for Dr. Andreas Köstenberger and the biblical backgrounds Ph.D. seminar at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary for Second Temple Jewish and Greco-Roman literature. This chart surveys the key literature, historical timeline, and information surrounding the Second Temple period as well as offers a select bibliography for each section for further research. This 234 page survey chart is divided into nine major sections: Second Temple History, Greek OT (LXX), OT Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus, Targums and Rabbinical Literature, NT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and Greco-Roman literature.
Comparative methodologies of literary analysis of rabbinic stories. A brief history of the study of aggada, of rabbinic biography, and feminist studies of rabbinic tales.
2011, Nicolas de Lyre, franciscain du XIVe siècle, exégète et théologien (Collection des études augustiniennes. Série Moyen Age et Temps modernes 48)
This thesis analyzes the portrayal of the matriarch Sarah in the fifth-century Palestinian rabbinic midrash Genesis Rabbah. In the book of Genesis Sarah plays an ancillary role and at times is even portrayed as petty and lacking faith in God. Likewise, the Jewish authors of the second Temple period do not grant the matriarch a central role in their versions of the biblical narrative. Genesis Rabbah, however, breaks with this trend. Not only are a relatively large number of drashot dedicated to the matriarch, but she is repeatedly depicted as a model of personal and religious excellence. In order to account for this dramatic development, I will point to textual and thematic parallels from the world of Christian thought and worship. In the New Testament Sarah is presented as both the spiritual mother of Christianity and a prefiguration of Jesus’ mother Mary. These two themes are continued in the writings of Origen of Alexandria, an influential early Christian author. Additionally, the Virgin Mary gradually gains greater and greater importance in Christian Palestine, culminating with the establishment of a cult of worship dedicated to her. Based on a close analysis of the midrashic material it can be shown that the rabbis of Genesis Rabbah were well aware of these developments. Moreover, it will be demonstrated that they used their portrayal of Sarah to combat the Christian appropriation of the matriarch on the one hand, and to establish her as a Jewish alternative to the Virgin Mary on the other. -- An article based on parts of this thesis has been published as "The Virgin Mother Sarah: The Characterization of the Matriarch in Genesis Rabbah," Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021): 1-41.
Jewish Concepts of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction
2019, The Oral and the Textual in Jewish Tradition and Jewish Education
The article attempts to build a plausible argument accounting for the development of peshat in 11th century northern France. Harris, Robert A. “From “Relgious Truth-Seeking” to Reading: The Twelfth Century Renaissance and the Emergence of Peshat and Ad Litteram as Methods of Accessing the Bible,” In The Oral and the Textual in Jewish Tradition and Jewish Education, edited by Jonathan Cohen, Matt Goldish, and Barry Holtz, 54–89. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Magnes Press, 2019.
2019, To Gaul, to Greece, and Into Noah’s Ark: Essays in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart. Edited by Laura E. Quick, Ekaterina E. Kozlova, Sonja Noll, and Philip Y. Yoo. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 44. Oxford: Oxford University Press
The paper begins with general comments on Jewish and Christian interpretation in late antiquity in order to situate the subject under consideration in the wider context of rabbinic and patristic exegesis. Then I look at selected Jewish and Christian commentaries written between 200 and 500 CE: the Talmudim, Genesis Rabbah, and the exegetical works of Origen, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, and Augustine of Hippo. My intention is to demonstrate that biblical interpretation in late antiquity profoundly shaped the imagination of ancient authors for whom Scripture was the main source of knowledge about the universe. Put briefly, this paper makes three claims. First, it argues that a good grasp of the general principles of rabbinic and patristic exegesis complemented by a study of the reception history of specific biblical passages leads to a better understanding of the historical process of differentiation between Judaism and Christianity. Secondly, and specifically, the paper demonstrates that while Jewish rabbis used Gen. 15:5 to emphasize Abraham’s belief in the One God and his rejection of astrology, their Christian counterparts decided to develop a different reading of this verse despite the fact that most of them also perceived astrology as a real threat to their communities. Thirdly, the paper makes an attempt to explain the differences between the Jewish and Christian interpretation of Gen. 15:5 by analysing the respective theological presuppositions of the interpreters, the canonical context of their exegesis, and their contrasting understanding of the role played by Abraham in tradition.
This article challenges the scholarly opinion that, with regard to inherited guilt, the rabbis conformed to the early Christian position. By examining the rabbinic interpretations to intergenerational punishment (Exodus 20:5) with early Christian interpretations, I show, more generally, that unlike early Christian exegetes who openly valorize the ethical dimension as a hermeneutical-theological tool, the rabbis refuse to grant moral sensibilities explicit significance in their exegetical-theological project. This difference exposes a larger contrast: In early Christianity, the moral hermeneutic is presented as an unchanging exegetical principle; by contrast, for the rabbis, the moral dimension only reaches the level of exegetical impulse.
1996, Medieval Encounters
2010, Medieval Encounters
The literal commentary of Nicholas of Lyra on the Bible (Postilla literalis super totam bibliam) relies frequently and explicitly on Jewish sources, mainly Rashi's interpretations, as well as the Hebrew text of the Bible. This overt use of Jewish sources resulted in scholarly research on the Postilla focusing only on this kind of use of Jewish sources, to the exclusion of other, less explicit uses. This paper presents similarities between interpretations found in the Postilla on Lamentations and the medieval Jewish interpretations of Rashi, R. Joseph Kara and R. Tobias son of Eliezer. These similarities are usually based on the same unique exegetical idea used by both Nicholas and the Jewish exegete. As Nicholas refers explicitly to his Jewish sources when he is aware of them, the affinity between Jewish exegesis and Nicholas' own interpretations may have come out of Jewish exegetical traditions which entered the Christian exegesis before the time of Nicholas. Alternatively, they may be resulted by the same exegetical method used by both Jewish and Christian exegetes seeking the literal sense of Scripture.
Discusses the origins, historical development, and appropriation of the Midrash process in rabbinic literature.
Medieval Encounters 22 (2016), p. 140-164
This study of the Hebrew treatise Kelimat ha-Goyim (" Shame of the Gentiles, " 1397) by Profiat Duran exemplifies the stimulating impact medieval religious polemics exerted on the scholarly construction of Christian religious history.
“Myth, History and Eschatology in a Rabbinic Treatise on Birth.” Talmudic Transgressions: Engaging the Work of Daniel Boyarin. Edited by Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Aharon Shemesh, Moulie Vidas with the collaboration of James Adam Redfield. Leiden: Brill 2017, pp. 243-273. (With Israel Jacob Yuval)
My master thesis focusing on the relation between the Religious Zionism of Rav Kook and the theme of Abraham's blessing in Genesis.
It is commonly asserted that Targum Song of Songs was composed in Palestine in the seventh or eighth century CE. This article surveys the most significant criteria used to posit that assertion (such as language, Jewish education, and messianism), and it argues that these criteria are either inconclusive or point to a different Sitz im Leben for the Targum. The article then adds one element to the discussion, the use of the late Latin term olibanum ‘frankincense’ in 4.11. Ultimately, this article argues that the traditional dating and provenance of Targum Song of Songs’ composition should be adjusted. A tenth or eleventh century time period and a location in either southern Italy or Byzantium better fit the evidence.