Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 14-35, 65-86. Cf. Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 61-76; Schofer, “Redaction of Desire,” 19-53; van der Horst, “Note on the Evil Inclination,” 59-65.

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 14-35, 65-86. Cf. Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 61-76; Schofer, “Redaction of Desire,” 19-53; van der Horst, “Note on the Evil Inclination,” 59-65.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 105-12. He further argues that the sexualizing of the yeṣer is part of a broader “hyper-sexualized” tendency characterizing Babylonian rabbinic culture. See Rosen-Zvi, “Hyper-Sexualization in the Bavli: An Initial Survey,” in Midrash and the Exegetical Mind, ed. Lieve Teugels and Rivka Ulmer, Judaism in Context 10 (Piscataway, nj: Gorgias, 2010), 181-205.

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 105-12. He further argues that the sexualizing of the yeṣer is part of a broader “hyper-sexualized” tendency characterizing Babylonian rabbinic culture. See Rosen-Zvi, “Hyper-Sexualization in the Bavli: An Initial Survey,” in Midrash and the Exegetical Mind, ed. Lieve Teugels and Rivka Ulmer, Judaism in Context 10 (Piscataway, nj: Gorgias, 2010), 181-205.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

This paradigm is outlined in Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 1-10; Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ, miniyut ve-ʾissure yihud: pereq be-antropologiyah talmudit,” Theory and Criticism 14 (1999): 55-84, esp. 56-64.

This paradigm is outlined in Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 1-10; Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ, miniyut ve-ʾissure yihud: pereq be-antropologiyah talmudit,” Theory and Criticism 14 (1999): 55-84, esp. 56-64.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 110; Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ,” 56-57. Cf. Satlow, “Wasted Seed,” 137-75.

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 110; Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ,” 56-57. Cf. Satlow, “Wasted Seed,” 137-75.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 111-12; Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ,” 68-79.

See Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 111-12; Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ,” 68-79.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 138-40; Satlow, Tasting the Dish, 314-16; Diamond, Holy Men, 42-46; Schremer, Male and Female, 308-10.

See Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 138-40; Satlow, Tasting the Dish, 314-16; Diamond, Holy Men, 42-46; Schremer, Male and Female, 308-10.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 140.

See Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 140.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

This juxtaposition is made in Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 47-48; Biale, Eros and the Jews, 26.

This juxtaposition is made in Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 47-48; Biale, Eros and the Jews, 26.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Diamond, Holy Men, 47. Cf. Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 48 n. 28.

See Diamond, Holy Men, 47. Cf. Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 48 n. 28.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 111-12; Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ,” 68-79.

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 111-12; Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ,” 68-79.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 110; Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ,” 56-57. Compare, however, Satlow, “Wasted Seed,” 137-69. While I agree with Rosen-Zvi that the redactors emphasize the problematic nature of the state of sexual thoughts, this does not seem to contradict the conclusion of Michael Satlow that, in line with Zoroastrian assumptions, the redactors emphasize the distinctive power attached to seminal emission, in contrast to earlier discussions that are primarily concerned with the lack of self-control and the circumvention of procreation. On this issue, see Yishai Kiel, “Creation by Emission.” In other words, there are two issues that come to the fore in the redactorial layer of this sugya: the problematic nature of sexual desire and the power associated with seminal emission.

See Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 110; Rosen-Zvi, “Yeṣer haraʿ,” 56-57. Compare, however, Satlow, “Wasted Seed,” 137-69. While I agree with Rosen-Zvi that the redactors emphasize the problematic nature of the state of sexual thoughts, this does not seem to contradict the conclusion of Michael Satlow that, in line with Zoroastrian assumptions, the redactors emphasize the distinctive power attached to seminal emission, in contrast to earlier discussions that are primarily concerned with the lack of self-control and the circumvention of procreation. On this issue, see Yishai Kiel, “Creation by Emission.” In other words, there are two issues that come to the fore in the redactorial layer of this sugya: the problematic nature of sexual desire and the power associated with seminal emission.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 61-64. See also van der Horst, “Note on the Evil Inclination,” 61.

Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 61-64. See also van der Horst, “Note on the Evil Inclination,” 61.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 119.

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 119.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See the discussion in Schremer, Male and Female, 308-10. While the taming of sexual desire may be one of the main purposes of marriage in Babylonian rabbinic culture, it must be kept in mind that Babylonian rabbis did not necessarily limit sexual activity to marital frameworks. On this point, see Satlow, Tasting the Dish, 224-64.

See the discussion in Schremer, Male and Female, 308-10. While the taming of sexual desire may be one of the main purposes of marriage in Babylonian rabbinic culture, it must be kept in mind that Babylonian rabbis did not necessarily limit sexual activity to marital frameworks. On this point, see Satlow, Tasting the Dish, 224-64.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

On this term see Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 792.

On this term see Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 792.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 5-6, 31-35. Similarly, Schremer, Male and Female, 51-65; Biale, Eros and the Jews, 35-36.

Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 5-6, 31-35. Similarly, Schremer, Male and Female, 51-65; Biale, Eros and the Jews, 35-36.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Koltun-Fromm, Hermeneutics of Holiness, 175-210.

Koltun-Fromm, Hermeneutics of Holiness, 175-210.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Koltun-Fromm, Hermeneutics of Holiness, 3-4. Aphrahat’s attitude towards celibacy can serve as a corrective to the tendency to associate discourses of celibacy solely with dualistic anthropology, as argued by Boyarin. Unlike authors, such as Origen, who were undoubtedly influenced by Platonic teachings about the self and especially the notion of the mind’s escape from the body, Aphrahat reflects a monistic perception of the self and yet was a prominent advocate of celibacy. For Aphrahat, celibacy was not about the escape of the soul from the carnal body, but rather a matter of achieved holiness (in body and spirit) and facilitating a union with God. The distinction between dualistic and monistic strands in eastern Christianity, to be sure, can hardly be mapped onto a dichotomy between Greek and Syriac forms of Christianity, since we see that both strands are current, to varying degrees, among both Greek and Syriac writers. On this issue see recently Jill Gather, Teachings on the Prayer of the Heart in the Greek and Syrian Fathers: The Significance of Body and Community (Piscataway, nj: Gorgias, 2010), 25-44.

Koltun-Fromm, Hermeneutics of Holiness, 3-4. Aphrahat’s attitude towards celibacy can serve as a corrective to the tendency to associate discourses of celibacy solely with dualistic anthropology, as argued by Boyarin. Unlike authors, such as Origen, who were undoubtedly influenced by Platonic teachings about the self and especially the notion of the mind’s escape from the body, Aphrahat reflects a monistic perception of the self and yet was a prominent advocate of celibacy. For Aphrahat, celibacy was not about the escape of the soul from the carnal body, but rather a matter of achieved holiness (in body and spirit) and facilitating a union with God. The distinction between dualistic and monistic strands in eastern Christianity, to be sure, can hardly be mapped onto a dichotomy between Greek and Syriac forms of Christianity, since we see that both strands are current, to varying degrees, among both Greek and Syriac writers. On this issue see recently Jill Gather, Teachings on the Prayer of the Heart in the Greek and Syrian Fathers: The Significance of Body and Community (Piscataway, nj: Gorgias, 2010), 25-44.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., Diamond, Holy Men, 33-54. Also, Steven Fraade, “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 253-88; Michael L. Satlow, “ ‘And On the Earth You Shall Sleep’: Talmud Torah and Rabbinic Asceticism,” jr 83 (2003): 204-22; Yishai Kiel, “Study versus Sustenance: A Rabbinic Dilemma in its Zoroastrian and Manichaean Context,” ajsr 38 (2014): 275-302; Bar-Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature, 64-70.

See, e.g., Diamond, Holy Men, 33-54. Also, Steven Fraade, “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 253-88; Michael L. Satlow, “ ‘And On the Earth You Shall Sleep’: Talmud Torah and Rabbinic Asceticism,” jr 83 (2003): 204-22; Yishai Kiel, “Study versus Sustenance: A Rabbinic Dilemma in its Zoroastrian and Manichaean Context,” ajsr 38 (2014): 275-302; Bar-Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature, 64-70.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 40-41, 46-47.

Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 40-41, 46-47.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor,” in The Fathers of the Second Century, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 207-98, esp. 259-63; John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life, trans. Catherine Roth and David Anderson (Crestwood, ny: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986), 76.

See, e.g., Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor,” in The Fathers of the Second Century, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 207-98, esp. 259-63; John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life, trans. Catherine Roth and David Anderson (Crestwood, ny: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986), 76.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Stephen Gero, Barṣauma of Nisibis and Persian Christianity in the Fifth Century (Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 79-88; P. Bruns, “Barṣauma von Nisibis und die Aufhebung der Klerikerenthaltsamkeit im Gefolge der Synode von Beth-Lapat (484),” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 37 (2005): 1-42. Compare Brown, Body and Society, 294-95, 321-38.

See Stephen Gero, Barṣauma of Nisibis and Persian Christianity in the Fifth Century (Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 79-88; P. Bruns, “Barṣauma von Nisibis und die Aufhebung der Klerikerenthaltsamkeit im Gefolge der Synode von Beth-Lapat (484),” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 37 (2005): 1-42. Compare Brown, Body and Society, 294-95, 321-38.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Martha Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 359-401.

See Martha Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 359-401.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy, 45-46; Ellis, Paul and Ancient Views of Sexual Desire, 1-17; Vincent L. Wimbush, Paul the Worldly Ascetic: Response to the World and Self-Understanding According to 1 Corinthians 7 (Macon, ga: Mercer University Press, 1987), 65-66.

See, e.g., Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy, 45-46; Ellis, Paul and Ancient Views of Sexual Desire, 1-17; Vincent L. Wimbush, Paul the Worldly Ascetic: Response to the World and Self-Understanding According to 1 Corinthians 7 (Macon, ga: Mercer University Press, 1987), 65-66.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See also Yarbrough, “Sexual Gratification in 1 Thess. 4:1-8,” Trinity Journal 20 (1999): 215-32, esp. 226; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 229-30.

See also Yarbrough, “Sexual Gratification in 1 Thess. 4:1-8,” Trinity Journal 20 (1999): 215-32, esp. 226; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 229-30.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy, 49-51.

Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy, 49-51.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.1.4.3. See also Augustine, De agone Christiano 31.33. Needless to say, however, Paul himself does not mention procreation as a justification for marriage and explicitly addresses vv. 8-9, not only to the widows, but also to the unmarried. Others (such as Tertullian, De pudicitia 16.15-16) argued that the “burning” does not even refer to the fire of lust, but rather to the “fire of penalty.” See Clark, Reading Renunciation, 287-89.

See, e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.1.4.3. See also Augustine, De agone Christiano 31.33. Needless to say, however, Paul himself does not mention procreation as a justification for marriage and explicitly addresses vv. 8-9, not only to the widows, but also to the unmarried. Others (such as Tertullian, De pudicitia 16.15-16) argued that the “burning” does not even refer to the fire of lust, but rather to the “fire of penalty.” See Clark, Reading Renunciation, 287-89.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 118.

Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 118.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

On Jeh, see Robert C. Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 183-92; S. K. Mendoza Forrest, Witches, Whores and Sorcerers: The Concept of Evil in Early Iran (Texas: University of Texas Press, 2011), 62-82; Jamsheed K. Choksy, Evil, Good, and Gender: Facets of the Feminine in Zoroastrian Religious History, Toronto Studies in Religion 28 (New York: Lang, 2002), 31-50; Albert de Jong, “Jeh the Primal Whore? Observations on Zoroastrian Misogyny,” in Female Stereotypes in Religious Traditions, ed. Ria Kloppenborg and Wouter J. Hanegraaf, Numen Book Series 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 15-41, esp. 25-31.

On Jeh, see Robert C. Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 183-92; S. K. Mendoza Forrest, Witches, Whores and Sorcerers: The Concept of Evil in Early Iran (Texas: University of Texas Press, 2011), 62-82; Jamsheed K. Choksy, Evil, Good, and Gender: Facets of the Feminine in Zoroastrian Religious History, Toronto Studies in Religion 28 (New York: Lang, 2002), 31-50; Albert de Jong, “Jeh the Primal Whore? Observations on Zoroastrian Misogyny,” in Female Stereotypes in Religious Traditions, ed. Ria Kloppenborg and Wouter J. Hanegraaf, Numen Book Series 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 15-41, esp. 25-31.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Émile Benveniste, “Le témoignage de Théodore bar Kōnay sur le zoroastrisme,” Le monde oriental 26-27 (1932-1935): 170-215, esp. 185-192; Zaehner, Zurvan, 441-42.

See Émile Benveniste, “Le témoignage de Théodore bar Kōnay sur le zoroastrisme,” Le monde oriental 26-27 (1932-1935): 170-215, esp. 185-192; Zaehner, Zurvan, 441-42.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Zaehner, Zurvan, 183-92. Robert Zaehner was often criticized for using the superimposed construct of “Zurvanism” for any element that didn’t seem to fit his idea of “mainstream” or “orthodox” Zoroastrianism. See, e.g., Shaul Shaked, “The Myth of Zurvan: Cosmogony and Eschatology,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser, ed. Ithamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked, and Guy G. Stroumsa, tsaj 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 219-40; de Jong, “Zurvanism,” Encyclopaedia Iranica.

Zaehner, Zurvan, 183-92. Robert Zaehner was often criticized for using the superimposed construct of “Zurvanism” for any element that didn’t seem to fit his idea of “mainstream” or “orthodox” Zoroastrianism. See, e.g., Shaul Shaked, “The Myth of Zurvan: Cosmogony and Eschatology,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser, ed. Ithamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked, and Guy G. Stroumsa, tsaj 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 219-40; de Jong, “Zurvanism,” Encyclopaedia Iranica.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See de Jong, “Jeh,” 41.

See de Jong, “Jeh,” 41.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See especially Sundermann, “The Zoroastrian and the Manichaean Demon Āz,” 328-29; Schmidt, “Von awestischen Dämon Āzi zur manichäischen Āz,” 521.

See especially Sundermann, “The Zoroastrian and the Manichaean Demon Āz,” 328-29; Schmidt, “Von awestischen Dämon Āzi zur manichäischen Āz,” 521.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

M 7984.1 (Manfred Hutter, ed., Manis kosmogonische Šābuhragān Texte, Studies in Oriental Religions 21 [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992], 83-84).

See, e.g., Jason D. Beduhn, The Manichaean Body in Discipline and Ritual (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 61. To be sure, the Manichaean avoidance of procreation (or of sex altogether) was intended, first and foremost, to reduce the harm caused to the Living Soul by further entrapping it in Matter.

See, e.g., Jason D. Beduhn, The Manichaean Body in Discipline and Ritual (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 61. To be sure, the Manichaean avoidance of procreation (or of sex altogether) was intended, first and foremost, to reduce the harm caused to the Living Soul by further entrapping it in Matter.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Zaehner, Zurvan, 179-80.

Zaehner, Zurvan, 179-80.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Shaked, “Paymān,” 217-40.

See Shaked, “Paymān,” 217-40.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See especially Anderson, “Celibacy or Consummation,” 121-148; Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 80-83; Hasan-Rokem, “Erotic Eden.”

See especially Anderson, “Celibacy or Consummation,” 121-148; Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 80-83; Hasan-Rokem, “Erotic Eden.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation