FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2065648313> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2065648313 endingPage "120" @default.
• W2065648313 startingPage "116" @default.
• W2065648313 abstract "116 SHOFAR Spring 1993 Vol. 11, No.3 n. 23), even though he strictly limits his own inquiry. Also, his analysis is much more sober than some, which find many more redactional levels than he does. However, the question still must be asked as to the ultimate profitability of this approach-even when practiced by as skilled and careful a critic as McKenzie-and as to what its ultimate goal is, whether it is to reconstruct a hypothetical original text at some one level, and then, presumably, to explicate its meaning, or to do so at every pre-existing level, or to do so at the final level. The historical-critical method, unfortunately, has given short shrift to the last of these, and, in the process, a sense of the biblical narrative has been lost, as Frei (The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative) and many others have noted. David M. Howard, Jr. Old Testament and Semitic Languages Trinity Evangelical Divinity School The Mind of the Tahn~d: An Intellectual History of the Tahnud, by David Kraemer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. 217 pp. $32.50. In his book, David Kraemer sets forth the thesis that the rabbinic communities of the Tannaim, the Amoraim, and the Saboraim recognized that divine truth could be approached but never fully obtained. Reason became the primary tool through which limited truth could be ascertained.. Thus, the importance of Scripture as a source of truth, once primary, decreased in significance while the resort to reason increased. Kraemer's theory is based on a methodology which encompasses bO,th statistical analysis and a discussion of specific Talmudic passages. Kraemer covers a history that extends from the composition of the Mishnah from the third through the sixth century when the Bavli was redacted. He divides the six generations of Amoraim into three divisions: early, middle, and late Amoraic. Kraemer builds his argument on a premise first developed by Jacob Neusner. According to this supposition, the editor of the Mishnah, Rabbi Judah HaNasi, constructed his magnum opus of Jewish law independent of Scriptural authority. Kraemer writes: Book Reviews The questions and problems that infonned their [the editors of the . Mishnah1agenda were, rather, wholly their own and, in this sense, their authority-independent of Scripture-was most significant (p. 13). 117 The lack of scriptural citations is evidence that R. Judah HaNasi and his associates sought to establish their own authority as a basis for Jewish tradition. Through a statistical analysis of the Amoraic discourse (which this reviewer is unable to evaluate), Kraemer deduces the existence of a progressive reliance on reason that reaches its climax in the Saboraic period. The early Amoraim clearly admitted the centrality of the Mishnah but supplemented it with their own rulings without reference to Scripture or reason. In the middle Amoraic period, there was a shift in the source of authority from Mishnaic and Scriptural precedents to reason and argumentation, which peaked in the last Amoraic generations. He writes: R. Ashi participates in midrashic debate in a way unmatched by his predecessors. His methods are creative, and he is even willing to favor reason over scripture as a source for law (p. 49). According to Kraemer, reasoning (sevara) actually superseded scriptural proofs as the central criterion for the development ofJewish law. He says. If divine truth could be approached (though never fully realized) only through human endeavor, then human reason, and the process by which it is applied, had to become central; the human effort, even when in error had to be affinned (pp. 121-122). According to Kraemer, Amoraic thought tended to place reason in the center and Scripture at the periphery. He stresses citations in Yevamot 46(b) and Bava Metzia 59(b). Kraemer's work gives the appearance of being thorough and scholarly. But hjs theory is not convincing. First, though the Mishnah and Talmud employ reasoning, both works affirm religiosity. The Oral Law and its explication was not an independent assertion of rabbinic authority. The early Amoraic enterprise did not draw its authority outside of the Scriptural realm. Instead, the Bavti's use of argumentation and reason was to find harmony within Scripture while appending it to the Oral Law..." @default.
• W2065648313 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2065648313 creator A5085934829 @default.
• W2065648313 date "1993-01-01" @default.
• W2065648313 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2065648313 title "<i>The Mind of the Talmud: An Intellectual History of the Talmud</i> (review)" @default.
• W2065648313 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.1993.0064" @default.
• W2065648313 hasPublicationYear "1993" @default.
• W2065648313 type Work @default.
• W2065648313 sameAs 2065648313 @default.
• W2065648313 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2065648313 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2065648313 hasAuthorship W2065648313A5085934829 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C150152722 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C154130900 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C511535766 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C534701709 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C111472728 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C124952713 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C138885662 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C142362112 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C150152722 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C154130900 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C199033989 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C27206212 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C2780876879 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C41895202 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C511535766 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C534701709 @default.
• W2065648313 hasConceptScore W2065648313C95457728 @default.
• W2065648313 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2065648313 hasLocation W20656483131 @default.
• W2065648313 hasOpenAccess W2065648313 @default.
• W2065648313 hasPrimaryLocation W20656483131 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W1824890981 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W1843937446 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W2065648313 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W2129915700 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W2152692479 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W2588695350 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W2897205774 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W2933608806 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W3210532997 @default.
• W2065648313 hasRelatedWork W4297549615 @default.
• W2065648313 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W2065648313 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2065648313 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2065648313 magId "2065648313" @default.
• W2065648313 workType "article" @default.