Rabbinic polysemy: a response to Steven Fraade
Much has been written on rabbinic polysemy over the past two decades, and yet the precise nature and dating of this phenomenon remain a matter of controversy. This note, which aims to help clarify the issue, is a response to Steven Fraade's essay, “Rabbinic Polysemy and Pluralism Revisited: Bet...
Subtitles: | Research Article |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
[2014]
|
In: |
AJS review
Year: 2014, Volume: 38, Issue: 1, Pages: 129-141 |
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Rabbinic Judaism
/ Polysemy
/ Fraade, Steven D. 1949-
B Rabbi / Geography / Jewish studies / Divinity / Wisdom / Talmud |
IxTheo Classification: | BH Judaism |
Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | Much has been written on rabbinic polysemy over the past two decades, and yet the precise nature and dating of this phenomenon remain a matter of controversy. This note, which aims to help clarify the issue, is a response to Steven Fraade's essay, “Rabbinic Polysemy and Pluralism Revisited: Between Praxis and Thematization,” published in this journal. Surveys of the history of the polysemy debates are readily available; my present concern is with Fraade's position, and the positions to which he is responding, chief among them Daniel Boyarin's claim that rabbinic polysemy is a relatively late, post-tannaitic, phenomenon. Fraade sets out to refute this claim, and his essay provides a dozen passages that serve as “countertexts to [Boyarin's] arguments” (5). The aim of this response is to show that the rabbinic sources in question are not countertexts, and that polysemy is, in fact, a post-tannaitic phenomenon. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1475-4541 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Association for Jewish Studies, AJS review
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0364009414000063 |