Abstract
In his thoughtful defense of Abraham Schalit, Daniel R. Schwartz presents as the alternatives in the reading of the literary evidences of ancient Jews and Judaism the choice of event or non-event: it really happened or it did not really happen.1 He rightly distinguishes between authors who claim to tell us what really happened, represented by Josephus, and the talmudic and midrashic writings, in which the claim of what actually happened is simply not an issue. To explain why his correct judgment of the character of history and its principal component, event, validly distinguishes one kind of written evidence from another, let me spell out precisely what, in the context of the classical sources of Judaism, authors meant by "event."
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
