Uriel Simon, Reading Prophetic Narratives (trans. Lenn J. Schramm; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), 197.

Uriel Simon, Reading Prophetic Narratives (trans. Lenn J. Schramm; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), 197.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of the Midrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 39-56; Jacob Elbaum, “R. Eleazar Hamodai and R. Joshua on the Amalek Pericope,” Folklore Research Center Studies 7 (1983): 99-116 [Hebrew]; Menahem Kahana, The Two Mekhiltot on the Amalek Portion: The Originality of the Version of the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ishma’el with Respect to the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shim’on ben Yohay (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 288-320 [Hebrew].

See Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of the Midrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 39-56; Jacob Elbaum, “R. Eleazar Hamodai and R. Joshua on the Amalek Pericope,” Folklore Research Center Studies 7 (1983): 99-116 [Hebrew]; Menahem Kahana, The Two Mekhiltot on the Amalek Portion: The Originality of the Version of the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ishma’el with Respect to the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shim’on ben Yohay (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 288-320 [Hebrew].)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Jacob N. Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishna, Tosephta and Halakhic Midrashim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957), 568 [Hebrew]; Kahana, Two Mekhiltot, 338-39; Liora Elias Bar-Levav, The Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai on the Nezikin Portion (ed. Menahem Kahana; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2013), 113, 126 [Hebrew]. I do not go so far as to argue for the existence of a fundamental ideational disagreement between the two schools on this issue, I merely indicate that the unit on respect for royalty is anomalous in its context in Mekilta.

See Jacob N. Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishna, Tosephta and Halakhic Midrashim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957), 568 [Hebrew]; Kahana, Two Mekhiltot, 338-39; Liora Elias Bar-Levav, The Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai on the Nezikin Portion (ed. Menahem Kahana; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2013), 113, 126 [Hebrew]. I do not go so far as to argue for the existence of a fundamental ideational disagreement between the two schools on this issue, I merely indicate that the unit on respect for royalty is anomalous in its context in Mekilta.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

This was noted by Menahem Kister, Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan: Text, Redaction, and Interpretation (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Department of Talmud and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1998), 214 [Hebrew].

This was noted by Menahem Kister, Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan: Text, Redaction, and Interpretation (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Department of Talmud and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1998), 214 [Hebrew].)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Gerson D. Cohen, “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought,” in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ed. Alexander Altmann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), 19-48.

See Gerson D. Cohen, “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought,” in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ed. Alexander Altmann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), 19-48.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Menahem Kahana, “ ‘Marginal Annotations’ of the School of Rabbi in the Halachic Midrashim,” in Studies in Bible and Talmud (ed. Sara Japhet; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1987), 69-85 [Hebrew].

See Menahem Kahana, “ ‘Marginal Annotations’ of the School of Rabbi in the Halachic Midrashim,” in Studies in Bible and Talmud (ed. Sara Japhet; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1987), 69-85 [Hebrew].)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., Moshe David Herr, “The Roman Empire and the Roman Administration in Eretz Israel,” in The History of Eretz Israel: The Roman Byzantine Period, The Mishna and Talmud Period and the Byzantine Rule (70-640) (ed. M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Keter, 1985), 27-29 [Hebrew]; Levin, “Period,” passim.

See, e.g., Moshe David Herr, “The Roman Empire and the Roman Administration in Eretz Israel,” in The History of Eretz Israel: The Roman Byzantine Period, The Mishna and Talmud Period and the Byzantine Rule (70-640) (ed. M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Keter, 1985), 27-29 [Hebrew]; Levin, “Period,” passim.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See what Philip R. Davies, “Daniel in the Lions’ Den,” in Images of Empire (ed. Loveday Alexander; jsotsup 122; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,‎ 1991), 160-78, at 161, writes on the tension in the book of Daniel regarding the empire: “The reader will find within it an unresolved tension between qualified approval and outright condemnation, between obedience and resistance, between co-operation and opposition . . . The ambivalence in this book will have served well (and helped to create?) the attitudes of Jewish subjects to Rome.”‬‬

See what Philip R. Davies, “Daniel in the Lions’ Den,” in Images of Empire (ed. Loveday Alexander; jsotsup 122; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,‎ 1991), 160-78, at 161, writes on the tension in the book of Daniel regarding the empire: “The reader will find within it an unresolved tension between qualified approval and outright condemnation, between obedience and resistance, between co-operation and opposition . . . The ambivalence in this book will have served well (and helped to create?) the attitudes of Jewish subjects to Rome.”‬‬)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

J. Louis Martyn, “We Have Found Elijah,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Culture in Late Antiquity, Essays in Honor of William David Davies (ed. Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 181-219; Morris M. Faierstein, “Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come First,” jbl 100 (1981): 75-86; Markus Ohler, “The Expectation of Elijah and the Presence of the Kingdom of God,” jbl 118 (1999): 461-76; Nir, “The Identity,” 55-78; see also the references in n. 59 below.

J. Louis Martyn, “We Have Found Elijah,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Culture in Late Antiquity, Essays in Honor of William David Davies (ed. Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 181-219; Morris M. Faierstein, “Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come First,” jbl 100 (1981): 75-86; Markus Ohler, “The Expectation of Elijah and the Presence of the Kingdom of God,” jbl 118 (1999): 461-76; Nir, “The Identity,” 55-78; see also the references in n. 59 below.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Philip S. Alexander, “The Rabbis and Messianism,” in Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget; London: T & T Clark, 2009), 227-43, esp. 235. Alexander (pp. 241-42) sees this as an expression of the antimilitaristic orientation that developed following the failure of the Bar Kokhba rebellion, along with other explanations he offers for the marginality of messianism in early rabbinic sources; see also Jacob Neusner, Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 25-44; Neusner, “Mishnah and Messiah,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 265-82. I concur with Alexander and Neusner regarding the existence of ideological orientations in the Tannaitic sources on the question of the attitude to the Roman Empire and the hopes of redemption, including the antimilitaristic direction. I maintain, however, that the Tannaitic sources do not speak in a single voice; the current article is an attempt to listen to the different, and at times opposing, voices that emerge from them. The diversity we find in the rabbinic literature was noted by Urbach, Sages, 649, who wrote: “possibly in this sphere, more than in regard to any other theme, there is evident the independent approach of the Sages, which finds expression in a variety of views and conceptions.” On the struggle between zealots and moderates in the late Second Temple period concerning the interpretation of Scripture, see Kister, Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, 520-24. This ideological battle continues to reverberate in the Tannaitic literature.

See Philip S. Alexander, “The Rabbis and Messianism,” in Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget; London: T & T Clark, 2009), 227-43, esp. 235. Alexander (pp. 241-42) sees this as an expression of the antimilitaristic orientation that developed following the failure of the Bar Kokhba rebellion, along with other explanations he offers for the marginality of messianism in early rabbinic sources; see also Jacob Neusner, Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 25-44; Neusner, “Mishnah and Messiah,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 265-82. I concur with Alexander and Neusner regarding the existence of ideological orientations in the Tannaitic sources on the question of the attitude to the Roman Empire and the hopes of redemption, including the antimilitaristic direction. I maintain, however, that the Tannaitic sources do not speak in a single voice; the current article is an attempt to listen to the different, and at times opposing, voices that emerge from them. The diversity we find in the rabbinic literature was noted by Urbach, Sages, 649, who wrote: “possibly in this sphere, more than in regard to any other theme, there is evident the independent approach of the Sages, which finds expression in a variety of views and conceptions.” On the struggle between zealots and moderates in the late Second Temple period concerning the interpretation of Scripture, see Kister, Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, 520-24. This ideological battle continues to reverberate in the Tannaitic literature.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation