The study attempts to situate the Talmudic theological discussion of repentance—particularly in its Babylonian representations—within the context of Zoroastrian and East Christian traditions. In this regard, the study seeks to provide a cultural framework, in light of which the Talmudic theology of repentance can be seen in the broader context of the penitential discourses that pervaded the cultures of East Late Antiquity. The study focuses on two issues in particular, which underscore the congruent theological engagement of the rabbis and their East Christian and Zoroastrian interlocutors in penitential theology: 1) the relative status of the penitent as opposed to the perfectly righteous. 2) The relative roles of psychological repentance and objective measures of penance and expiation in the process.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Bilhah Nitzan, “Repentance in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998-1999), 2:145-70 at 167 views repentance as a way of life in Qumran and maintains that, “in the Qumranic philosophy, repentance with faith and wholeness of heart is regarded as the highest virtue a human being can attain.” Lambert has stressed, however, that the Qumranites did not adhere to the idea of repentance in the sense of human self-transformation, as they believed in a more “Calvinistic” notion of external divine intervention in the process; see Lambert, “Topics in the History of Repentance,” 99-101.
See, for example: Richard Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 3-17; Daniel Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 133-40; and Boyarin, “Hellenism in Rabbinic Babylonia,” in The Cambridge Companion to Rabbinic Literature (ed. Charlotte Fonrobert and Martin Jaffee; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 336-63.
See, for instance, J. Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 46-53.
See, for instance, Daniel Boyarin, “Virgins in Brothels: Gender and Religious Ecotypification,” Estudios de Literatura Oral 5 (1999): 195-217.
See, for instance, Michael Satlow, “Beyond Influence: Toward a New Historiographic Paradigm,” in Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Contexts and Intertext (ed. Anita Norich and Yaron Z. Eliav; bjs 349; Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 2008), 37-54.
See especially Michel Foucault, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews (ed. Donald F. Bouchard; trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 139-64; Foucault, “What is Critique?” in The Politics of Truth (ed. S. Lotringer; trans. L. Hochroth; Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 41-82; and Mark Bevir, “What is Genealogy?” Journal of the Philosophy of History 2 (2008): 263-75.
Michal Bar-Asher Siegal, “Shared Worlds: Rabbinic and Monastic Literature,” HTR 105 (2012): 423-56, esp. 423, and Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 214.
On this collection, see: Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: the Alphabetical Collection (rev. ed.; London: Mowbray, 1981); William Harmless, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 183-86; Douglas Burton-Christie, The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early Christian Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); Derwas J. Chitty, The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966); Lucien Regnault, “Les Apophtegmes des pères en Palestine aux Ve-VIe siècles,” Irénikon 54 (1981): 320-30; Graham Gould, The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 9-17; and Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 47-76.
Ernest A. Wallis Budge, The Wit and Wisdom of the Christian Fathers of Egypt: The Syrian Version of the Apophthegmata Patrum by ʻÂnân Îshô of Bêth ʻÂbhê (London: Oxford University Press, 1934), 181-82. See also the comments by Ephrem (Apophthegmata Patrum, Ephrem 15; in Ward, The Sayings, 59), who states: “‘God remits the debts of sinners who are penitent, for example, the sinful woman and the publican, but of the righteous man he even asks interest,’” and by John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent (trans. Colm Luibheid and Norman Russell; cws; New York, Paulist Press, 1982), 128 who comments: “It seems to me that those who have fallen and are penitent are more blessed than those who have never fallen and who do not have to mourn over themselves, because through having fallen, they have pulled themselves up by a more sure resurrection.”
Anderson, Sin, 27-39. An excellent illustration of this bifurcated model can be gained from a comparison of the different versions of the Lord’s Prayer in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew’s version reads: “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt 6:12), which probably derives from the Hebrew חוב or the Aramaic חובא. Luke, however, has: “forgive us our sins” (Luke 11:4). On this issue, see Raymond E. Brown, “The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer,” TS 22 (1961): 175-208, repr. in New Testament Essays (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), 275-320; and Anderson, Sin, 31-32.
Tertullian, Paen. 6.4; translation from William P. Le Saint, Tertullian of Carthage, Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity (ACW 28; Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1959), 24. See also Stroumsa, “From Repentance to Penance,” 167-78 and Horn, “Penitence in Early Christianity,” 158-64.
Anderson, Sin, 95-110. Significantly, self-deprivation and abstention were commonly perceived as forms of penance and satisfaction. Such practices were widespread in the Egyptian, Palestinian, and Syrian deserts.
See especially: E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 42-43 and Anderson, Sin, 105-7. While the rabbinic and Catholic discussions of repentance typically underscore human involvement in the process (as opposed to the notion of undeserved divine grace), this does not mean that the entire penitential discourse is reduced to a technical bond of “indebtedness.”
D. N. MacKenzie, A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), 35 suggests that the verb garzīdan can also mean “confess,” which seems to fit the context of the present passage.
Rav Shmuel ben Hofni, Commentary on Deuteronomy 4:28-41; cf. Greenbaum, “גדרי התשובה,” 106-8 and Moses Zucker, “Fragments of Samuel b. Ḥōfni’s Commentary on Deuteronomy,” Alei Sefer 5 (1978): 5-24, esp. 8-9 [Hebrew].
Ghazālī, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, 4-7; translation in Stern, Al-Ghazzali on Repentance, 31-32.
See Beer, “On Penances and Penitents,” 159-181 and Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 205-7.
Bar-Asher Siegal, “Literary Analogies,” 217-23. The sudden death of the sinner, however, is emphasized in both stories, see ibid., 234-37; Ward, Harlots, 76-84; and Kiel, “Confessing Incest to a Rabbi.”
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 417 | 66 | 19 |
Full Text Views | 250 | 1 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 66 | 5 | 1 |
The study attempts to situate the Talmudic theological discussion of repentance—particularly in its Babylonian representations—within the context of Zoroastrian and East Christian traditions. In this regard, the study seeks to provide a cultural framework, in light of which the Talmudic theology of repentance can be seen in the broader context of the penitential discourses that pervaded the cultures of East Late Antiquity. The study focuses on two issues in particular, which underscore the congruent theological engagement of the rabbis and their East Christian and Zoroastrian interlocutors in penitential theology: 1) the relative status of the penitent as opposed to the perfectly righteous. 2) The relative roles of psychological repentance and objective measures of penance and expiation in the process.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 417 | 66 | 19 |
Full Text Views | 250 | 1 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 66 | 5 | 1 |