但以理和犹太圣经解释的起源

IF 0.2 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE
Seth L. Sanders
{"title":"但以理和犹太圣经解释的起源","authors":"Seth L. Sanders","doi":"10.2979/PROOFTEXTS.37.1.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:It has become a commonplace that by the Hellenistic period Judaism was a \"religion of the book,\" with scriptural interpretation at its heart. As the result of a so-called Interpretive Revolution, reading of the Torah and Prophets had come to provide the warrant for both religious creativity and established practice. This article reexamines a key area of evidence for this assumption: the use of an explicit term for \"interpretation\" (pēšer) in the book of Daniel. None of the cases of explicit interpretation of revelation in Daniel fit the modes we find in Qumran or rabbinic literature. First, except for two words probably cited from Jeremiah in Dan 9, all the revealed material subject to explicit exegesis comes from Aramaic popular culture of the Babylonian and Persian periods or Second Temple historical speculation, not biblical texts. Second, exegesis here never involves reading a text, reflecting on it, then interpreting it. Instead, it is the result of two revelations, with the second providing a revision of and reflection on the first. If an interpretive revolution swept over the Jewish world during this period, it managed to bypass the book of Daniel. What Daniel tells us about Jewish interpretation during the watershed of the second century BCE is that it drew on scriptural language and ideas, but did so in order to interpret a wider world than the \"native\" Jewish patrimony of Scripture typically imagined in scholarship.","PeriodicalId":43444,"journal":{"name":"PROOFTEXTS-A JOURNAL OF JEWISH LITERARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Daniel and the Origins of Jewish Biblical Interpretation\",\"authors\":\"Seth L. Sanders\",\"doi\":\"10.2979/PROOFTEXTS.37.1.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:It has become a commonplace that by the Hellenistic period Judaism was a \\\"religion of the book,\\\" with scriptural interpretation at its heart. As the result of a so-called Interpretive Revolution, reading of the Torah and Prophets had come to provide the warrant for both religious creativity and established practice. This article reexamines a key area of evidence for this assumption: the use of an explicit term for \\\"interpretation\\\" (pēšer) in the book of Daniel. None of the cases of explicit interpretation of revelation in Daniel fit the modes we find in Qumran or rabbinic literature. First, except for two words probably cited from Jeremiah in Dan 9, all the revealed material subject to explicit exegesis comes from Aramaic popular culture of the Babylonian and Persian periods or Second Temple historical speculation, not biblical texts. Second, exegesis here never involves reading a text, reflecting on it, then interpreting it. Instead, it is the result of two revelations, with the second providing a revision of and reflection on the first. If an interpretive revolution swept over the Jewish world during this period, it managed to bypass the book of Daniel. What Daniel tells us about Jewish interpretation during the watershed of the second century BCE is that it drew on scriptural language and ideas, but did so in order to interpret a wider world than the \\\"native\\\" Jewish patrimony of Scripture typically imagined in scholarship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PROOFTEXTS-A JOURNAL OF JEWISH LITERARY HISTORY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PROOFTEXTS-A JOURNAL OF JEWISH LITERARY HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2979/PROOFTEXTS.37.1.01\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROOFTEXTS-A JOURNAL OF JEWISH LITERARY HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2979/PROOFTEXTS.37.1.01","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要:到希腊化时期,犹太教是一种以圣经解释为核心的“书的宗教”,这已经成为一种老生常谈。作为一场所谓的解释革命的结果,阅读《摩西五经》和《先知书》已经成为宗教创造力和既定实践的保证。这篇文章重新审视了这一假设的一个关键证据领域:但以理书中“解释”一词的明确使用(pēšer)。但以理书中对启示的明确解释,都不符合我们在库姆兰或拉比文学中发现的模式。首先,除了《但以理书》第9章可能引用耶利米的两个词外,所有被明确注释的启示材料都来自巴比伦和波斯时期的阿拉姆流行文化,或者第二圣殿的历史推测,而不是圣经文本。第二,这里的释经从来不包括阅读经文,思考经文,然后解释经文。相反,它是两个启示的结果,第二个启示是对第一个启示的修正和反思。如果在这一时期,一场解释革命席卷了犹太世界,它成功地绕过了但以理书。但以理书告诉我们,在公元前二世纪的分水岭时期,犹太人的解释是,他们利用圣经的语言和思想,但这样做是为了解释一个更广阔的世界,而不是学者们通常想象的“本土”犹太人的圣经遗产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Daniel and the Origins of Jewish Biblical Interpretation
Abstract:It has become a commonplace that by the Hellenistic period Judaism was a "religion of the book," with scriptural interpretation at its heart. As the result of a so-called Interpretive Revolution, reading of the Torah and Prophets had come to provide the warrant for both religious creativity and established practice. This article reexamines a key area of evidence for this assumption: the use of an explicit term for "interpretation" (pēšer) in the book of Daniel. None of the cases of explicit interpretation of revelation in Daniel fit the modes we find in Qumran or rabbinic literature. First, except for two words probably cited from Jeremiah in Dan 9, all the revealed material subject to explicit exegesis comes from Aramaic popular culture of the Babylonian and Persian periods or Second Temple historical speculation, not biblical texts. Second, exegesis here never involves reading a text, reflecting on it, then interpreting it. Instead, it is the result of two revelations, with the second providing a revision of and reflection on the first. If an interpretive revolution swept over the Jewish world during this period, it managed to bypass the book of Daniel. What Daniel tells us about Jewish interpretation during the watershed of the second century BCE is that it drew on scriptural language and ideas, but did so in order to interpret a wider world than the "native" Jewish patrimony of Scripture typically imagined in scholarship.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: For sixteen years, Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History has brought to the study of Jewish literature, in its many guises and periods, new methods of study and a new wholeness of approach. A unique exchange has taken place between Israeli and American scholars, as more work from Israelis has appeared in the journal. Prooftexts" thematic issues have made important contributions to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信