The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ

      105 For an analysis of these works in some detail, see Ruderman, “The Intellectual and Spiritual Journey of Stanislaus Hoga.”

      106 Ibid., 9, 10 (in typescript).

      107 Margoliouth studied in the yeshivas of Grodno and Ger before abandoning his family in Poland and migrating to England. He published a book about his trip to Palestine, with much autobiographical information, as A Pilgrimage to the Land of My Fathers in 1850. Cf. Endelman, Leaving the Fold, 242–243.

      108 On Hoga’s critique of Reform, see Lask Abrahams, “Stanislaus Hoga,” 128: “He writes with vigor against the tendency of new-fashioned Jews of our age, and especially of some so-called Rabbis in Germany who wish to not be Jews but Germans.” On Hoga’s return to Judaism, see Shnayer Leiman, “The Baal Teshuva and the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy,” Judaic Studies 1 (1985): 3–26

      109 See Ruderman, “The Intellectual and Spiritual Journey of Stanislaus Hoga,” 14 (in typescript).

      110 Cited in Lask Abrahams, “Stanislaus Hoga,” 128.

      111 On this, see Ismar Schorsch, “From Wolfenbüttel to Wissenschaft,” in idem, From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1994), 233–254.

      112 See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Kings,” chaps. 11–12.

      113 Irving (Yitz) Greenberg, For the Sake of Heaven and Earth (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004), esp. 148–153.

      114 See Byron Sherwin, “Who Do You Say That I Am (Mark 8:29): A New Jewish View of Jesus,” in Jesus Through Jewish Eyes, ed. B. Bruteau (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 31–44.

      115 For a lengthy discussion of this idea, see Maimonides, “Epistle on Resurrection,” in Epistles of Maimonides: Crisis in Leadership, trans. A. Halkin (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 246–280. More generally, see Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006).

      116 This issue was the subject of debate between Samuel David Luzzatto (1800–1865) and Nachman Krochmal (1785–1840), both of whom lived during Soloveitchik’s lifetime. Luzzatto’s critique of Maimonides’ rejection of resurrection is defended by Krochmal in a sharp letter. See Krochmal, More Nevukhei Ha-Zeman (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2010), 427–432.

      117 BT Mo’ed Qaṭan 28a, “Raba sat before Rabbi Naḥman. He saw him going to sleep [dying]…. Raba said to him: “Appear to me, master, in a dream.” He appeared to him. Raba asked him: “Did you, master, suffer pains?” Rabbi Naḥman said to him: “[As little] as taking hair out of a glass of milk [i.e., the separation of the soul from the body is as easy and sweet as that].”

      118 See John G. Gager, Who Made Early Christianity?: The Jewish Lives of the Apostle Paul (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015), 17–52. Others explore similar views. See, e.g., E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983); Krister Stendhal, Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1976); Lloyd Gaston, Paul and Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987); Daniel Langton, The Apostle Paul in the Jewish Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); and Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). Of those mentioned, Gager makes the strongest case of Paul’s affinity with the Pharisees, which dovetails with Soloveitchik’s view.

      119 See Theodor Herzl, “A Solution to the Jewish Question,” repr. in Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics, and Foreign Relations, Pre-1948 to the Present, ed. Jehuda Reinharz and Itamar Rabinowitz (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2008), 16–20. Cf. Herzl, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (Tel Aviv: Herzl Press, 1960), 9–10.

      120 See Peter Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu: The Life Story of Jesus, 2 vols. and database, ed. M. Meerson and trans. Yaakov Deutsch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011).

      121 Qol Qore (London, 1868), 1, 2; and Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 54, 55.

      122 Naphtali Zevi Berlin (Neziv), “Se’ar Yisrael,” first published in his Rinat Yisrael and again as an appendix to Neziv’s commentary to Song of Songs. On the Neziv, see Gil Perl, The Pillar of Volozhin: Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin and the World of Nineteenth-Century Lithuanian Torah Scholarship (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2012). Neziv’s small tract on anti-Semitism was published in English by Howard Joseph, Why Antisemitism?: A Translation of “The Remnant of Israel” (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996).

      123 A few other rabbis in this period exhibited a positive view toward Christianity. One, Jonathan Eybeshutz (1690–1764), was a protagonist with Emden on the question of Sabbateanism but, like Emden, was quite sympathetic to Christianity. Eliezer Fleckeles (1754–1826) was also engaged in the anti-Sabbatean controversy but, like Emden and Eybeshutz, was sympathetic toward Christianity. Of these three figures, Soloveitchik mentions only Emden.

      124 See, e.g., in his preface to the 1870 Paris ed. to the Hebrew Qol Qore.

      125 Much has been written on Emden’s attitude toward Christianity. See, e.g., Harvey Falk, “Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Views on Christianity,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19, no. 1 (1982): 107–111; and, most recently, Jacob J. Schachter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden, Sabbateanism, and Frankism: Attitudes Toward Christianity in the Eighteenth Century,” in New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations: In Honor of David Berger, ed. J. J. Schachter and E. Carlebach (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 360–396; and Pawel Maciejko, Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement: 1755–1816 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 127–157.

      126 This claim by Soloveitchik is not a novum but has precedent among certain Christians as far back as the third or fourth century, most prominently in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which were viewed by people such as Reform theologian Kaufmann Kohler as proof of the symmetry between the two religions. See, e.g., Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 8.6–7, which reads: “Jesus is concealed from the Hebrews, who have taken Moses as their teacher, and Moses is hidden from those who have believed Jesus…. For there is a single teaching by both, God accepts one who has believed either of these.” Others, such as the eighteenth-century Deist John Tolland, in his Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity (London, 1718), make this case as well. Kohler wrote his essays on Christianity after Soloveitchik, and there is no indication that Kohler knew about Qol Qore (even though he studied with Samshon Rafael Hirsch, who we know had a copy of the book!), and it is not at all clear that Soloveitchik had read Pseudo-Clementines or even Graetz’s work published in his lifetime (Graetz also cites Pseudo-Clementines). See Kaufmann Kohler, “Clementina, or Pseudo-Clementine Literature,” in Jewish Encyclopedia 4:114–116; and, more generally, Yaakov Ariel, “Christianity Through Reform Eyes: Kaufmann Kohler’s Scholarship on Christianity,” American Jewish History 89 (2001): 181–191; and Reed, “Secrecy, Suppression, and the Jewishness of the Origins of Christianity.”

      127 Emden, ‘Etz Avot (Amsterdam, 1751), to M Avot 5:22, ‘Etz Avot 58b, cited in Schachter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden,” 366n10.

      128 See, e.g., Schachter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden,” 388.

      129 Qol Qore (London, 1868), 3. Writing for a Christian audience, the prefatory note speaks of “we” with regard to Christians. Either this was СКАЧАТЬ