Mosaic Law Research Articles

Paul’s view of the law in Romans and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church’s (EOTC) use of the law as həgga ləbbunā, “həgga Orit” and “həgga wangle”

The EOTC’s view of the law of God as Həgga Ləbbunā (the law of heart), “Həgga Orit” (the law of Moses) and “Həgga Wangel” (the law of gospel) could be related to Paul’s view of the law in Romans as the law of Conscience, Torah and the law of the Spirit of life. The three expressions of the EOTC’s view of the law can be mapped with Paul’s view of the law as unwritten law of God (2:14–16), Torah (2:17–29) and the law of the Spirit of life (8:2–4) in Romans. The EOTC’s view of the law as “Həgga Ləbbunā” could shed light to better understand Paul’s view of the law as unwritten law given to all humanity (Rom. 2:12–14). Besides, “Həgga Orit” helps to better understand the law of Moses given to Israel with its universal implication because the Ethiopic tradition claims that Ethiopians have received the Torah through the Queen of Sheba. Further, “Həgga Wangel” helps to better understand the continuity between the Torah and the Gospel because the Ethiopic tradition understands that the law of Gospel is a continuation of the Mosaic law rather than making an antithesis of law and Gospel. Therefore, the EOTC’s view of the law contributes to better understand Paul’s view of the law as an alternative reading from the tradition of Ethiopic perspective.

"Dismiss All Foreign Wives!" The Understanding of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Step towards Exclusive Judaism

ABSTRACT Numerous passages in the prophets and other Old Testament (OT) texts demonstrate connections to the Torah. In many of these cases, there are discussions on the nature of these connections. The main question is whether the Mosaic Law itself was already fixed at this time. However, there is no doubt that the Torah was already in place at the time of the composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, at least in a preliminary stage. The book of Ezra-Nehemiah shows how a later Jewish community interacted with and interpreted certain Old Testament law texts of the Torah. The divorce of foreign wives is the most important topic in this regard. The Mosaic Law itself dos not demand the dismissal of non-Jewish wives. The question therefore arises, how was the dismissal of foreign wives justified by Ezra and Nehemiah? What does this show about their understanding of the Mosaic Law? The article argues that the dismissal of foreign wives can be seen as a step towards the later "fence around the law. " It was a way to secure one's own identity by clearly distinguishing between the "true Israel" and everyone outside. This eventually led to the rigid and exclusive alienation of the non-Jews, as we find in New Testament times and beyond. Keywords: Old Testament, Divorce, Ezra-nehemiah, Mosaic Law, Judaism, Identity Formation, Othering.

Biblia e Inquisición. Criptojudaísmo y alimentación en la España Moderna

Los marranos españoles y portugueses en la época moderna respetaban las leyes de la casherut que figuraban en el Éxodo, el Levítico y el Deuteronomio. Algunos lo hacían por fidelidad a la tradición familiar, otros por costumbre cultural, y otros todavía para seguir los ritos y los preceptos de la ley mosaica. Así renovaban el sello de su elección divina y tenían la impresión de formar parte del pueblo elegido que, desde Noé, había heredado las tres noblezas teologal, natural y civil.

Law and Lawlessness in Early Judaism and Early Christianity

Law and Lawlessness in Early Judaism and Early Christianity

“From Moses to Moses”: Late Medieval Jewish and Christian Interpretation of Moses’s Prophecy

The paper examines how the figure of the biblical Moses was philosophically interpreted in medieval Jewish and Christian writings. It highlights a turning point in a new concept of prophecy and scriptural authority and suggests that this transformation was made complicated for both Jewish and Christian intellectuals by the appearance of Moses Maimonides, who was most influential in promoting the Muslim model of philosophic interpretation of prophecy, and at the same time confusingly emerged as a living manifestation of semi-biblical authority. Against Jewish exclusivist interpretation of Mosaic law as the leading polemical argument to encounter competing revelations, the first part of my paper points out a mechanism of “Jewish successionism”, i.e., the re-interpretation of the biblical Moses as an instrument for rationalizing normative paradigmatic shift. The second, main part of the paper turns to the Latin translation of Maimonides’s Guide of the Perplexed, placing it in the midst of a crucial western Latin turn into a new phase of engagement with Old Testament concept of prophecy. A short comparison between some prominent twelfth century figures and later Scholastic thought demonstrates the central role of the new Arab Aristotelianism in general, and that of Maimonides in particular. Maimonides reception among the schoolman will culminate in the writings of Meister Eckhart, exposing the full potentiality of the double appearance of the Egyptian (Rabbi) Moses.

Exploring the Relationship between the Mosaic Code and the Hammurabi Code

Over the years there has been a growing interest in the connections between the Old Testament and other Ancient Near East literature. The Hammurabi Code, a Babylonian legal document which predates the Mosaic Code by about 300 years, is one of the ancient documents that have featured prominently in such comparative studies. The remarkable similarities between the Hammurabi Code and the Mosaic Code raises questions about the originality of the Mosaic Code. Scholars often ask whether Moses copied and/or revised the Hammurabi Code and gave it to Israel as a divinely inspired Law or whether Moses actually received his Law as an original document from God. If Moses plagiarized the Hammurabi Code, then the inspiration of the Mosaic Code and (by extension) the inspiration of the entire Hebrew Scriptures is in doubt. The relevance of this textual and source issue for Old Testament scholarship has prompted the present study which aims at investigating the relationship between the Mosaic Code and the Hammurabi Code through a comparative study. After a critical assessment of the key similarities and differences between these two ancient documents, the paper suggests keys factors that might have accounted for the similarities and the proceeds to contend for the originality and authenticity of the Mosaic Code. Keywords: Ancient Near East, Hammurabi Code, Mosaic Law, Old Testament, Plagiarism

К вопросу о реконструкции истории идей: отношение Иисуса к Закону Моисееву (On the Reconstruction of the History of Ideas: Jesus' Attitude to the Law of Moses)

Russian Abstract:Основной объект исследования – отношение Иисуса из Назарета к Закону Моисееву. Оно составляет одну из основных задач направления, которое в историографии называется «поиском исторического Иисуса». English Abstract:The main object of research is attitude of Jesus of Nazareth to Mosaic Law. It constitutes one of main tasks of direction, which in historiography is called the search for historical Jesus.

Remembering the Covenants in Song: An Intertextual Study of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants in Psalm 105

Remembering the Covenants in Song: An Intertextual Study of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants in Psalm 105

Paul and Scripture

Paul and Scripture

Thomas Aquinas and Irenaeus on the Divine and Natural Law

Thomas’s account of the natural law owes a large debt to Aristotle and other early Greek philosophers back to Heraclitus. This debt has long been known and discussed. Largely unrecognized, however, are the crucial influences of the early Greek Fathers of the Church who mediated this classical philosophical heritage to the Christian world. They were the first to set out the relationship between the natural law, the Old Law, and grace which would have a decisive influence on Aquinas’s famous “treatise on law” in the Summa of Theology. In this paper, I analyze Thomas’s mature work on the natural law in STh I–II, qq. 90–108 and show how the roots of this view can be traced to the earliest Church, especially in the writings of the second century bishop and martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Of special interest is how Irenaeus transformed the Greek-Aristotelian notion of physis and “natural law” within the context of his discussion of the goodness of creation and the Mosaic Law, contrary to the popular Gnostic views of his day.

Jesus and the Food Laws Revisited

This article challenges the emerging consensus that Jesus was a faithful Jew whose teaching could be understood within the bounds of first-century Jewish legal discussion. It is argued that Mark’s remark, that “Jesus declared all foods clean” (Mk 7:19b), adequately represents the originally intended meaning of an authentic saying regarding ethical and ceremonial purity (Mk 7:15, 18–19 par.). If so, he did not consider all of the stipulations of the Mosaic law to be binding.

Biblical Theology

Biblical Theology Christopher T. Begg and Thomas Hieke ________ 824. [Paul] Bryan Blazosky, The Law’s Universal Condemning and Enslaving Power. Reading Paul, the Old Testament, and Second Temple Jewish Literature (BBRSup 24; University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2019). Pp. xiv + 227. $74.95. ISBN 978-1-57506-979-1. My first and second chapters are a biblical theological study of the OT presentation of the plight of the nations and their relationship to the Mosaic law. Selections from the Torah, Prophets, and Writings are examined in regard to why the nations experience God’s wrath and how the Mosaic law relates to these nations. The third chapter surveys the diverse body of Second Temple Jewish literature in regard to the same issues. Since it is fairly common within Second Temple Judaism to view some or all of the nations as subject to God’s wrath, I examine the reasons given in these writings for why the nations deserve judgment. What is the basis for their condemnation, and specifically, are nations held accountable for breaking the law of Moses? . . . The fourth through sixth chapters are the heart of this monograph. As with any Paul and the law monograph, Romans and Galatians form the backbone of this study. The fourth chapter is, thus, an analysis and synthesis of Galatians on Paul’s view of the human plight, especially with reference to the Mosaic law. The fifth chapter, on Romans, mirrors the chapter on Galatians. In the sixth chapter, five related passages, i.e. 1 Cor 9:19–23; 15:56; Eph 2:13–15; Col 2:8–23; and 1 Tim 1:8–10 are examined and compared with the findings from Galatians and Romans. . . . In my final chapter, my conclusions are drawn together from the Pauline section about what Paul’s view about the question at issue was as well as the logic that holds his view together. Next, I compare Paul’s view with my findings from the OT and Second [End Page 265] Temple Jewish literature. Furthermore, I discuss how my proposal fits within current scholarship. Finally, my work concludes with reflections on the relevance of this study of Gentiles and the Mosaic law for biblical theology, Pauline studies, and the church [pp. 11–12, adapted] Through a comparison of the above texts, B. finds that Paul—in line with the OT and other Second Temple Jewish texts—interprets the Mosaic law as having the power to universally condemn. Despite being gifted to Israel, the law’s ability to curse, condemn, and enslave reaches beyond the covenantal boundaries of Israel. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]. 825. [OT Theology] Konrad Schmid, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neue Theologische Grundrisse; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019). Pp. xviii + 415. Paper €39. ISBN 978-3-160150763-2. S.’s “Old Testament Theology” follows a decidedly historical approach in its seven chapters: (1) Introduction: the relationship between “Old Testament” and “theology”; (2) Reflections on the term “theology” from Plato via Philo, the Church Fathers, and the Reformation to the twentieth century, including Jewish theology; (3) Relevance and relativity of the canon (“Old Testament” vs. “Hebrew Bible” vs. “Tanakh”); (4) Methodology, especially what a theology of the Old Testament does not address; (5) Canonical hermeneutics of existing “Hebrew Bibles” and “Old Testaments” (different selections and arrangements of books and parts); (6) Theologies of the three parts of the Hebrew Bible: Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim; (7) A history of theology vis-à-vis the history of the Old Testament literature (from the late eighth cent. to the era of the Maccabees); (8) Topics of Old Testament Theology (literary genres, ideas about God and God’s name, creation, divine interventions in history, political theology, law and order, cult and sacrifices, state and people, kingdom and theocracy, Zion and Sinai, anthropology, pluralism of theologies vs. “center” of the OT); (9) Jewish theology of the Tanakh (Talmud, halakhah) vs. Christian theology of the OT (reception in the NT, the two-part Christian Bible). The book comes with an index of references and Hebrew and Greek words as well as with a very detailed index of subjects and topics.—T.H. Christopher T. Begg Catholic University...

The peasants of ‘Judaic Faith’ in the Vladimir province: The ‘homegrown sectarianship’ phenomenon in the nineteenth century

«Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Философия и конфликтология» — научно-теоретический рецензируемый журнал, обобщающий результаты исследований ученых всего мира в области традиционных философских дисциплин — онтологии, теории познания, логики, этики, социальной философии, эстетики, истории философии, философии культуры и философии религии, а также актуальные разработки в конфликтологии, философии политики и права.

Reconsidering “Law” in the Letter of James

Amidst various interpretative options about the identities of the author and addressees of the Letter of James, one’s interpretation of the letter’s discourse on the concept of law plays a critical role in the way in which these identities are reconstructed. Two laws or principles form part of the discourse in the Letter of James, namely, the Mosaic law (esp. 2:9–11) and the kingdom-principle of freedom (esp. 1:25; 2:8, 12). It is argued that the kingdom-principle of freedom in Christ is presented to the recipients in contrast with a probable tendency among these Judaean Christ-believers to be torah-orientated, especially involving the judging of people on the basis of the Mosaic law. In this scenario, the author can be identified as James, the half-brother of Christ, who is not fully torah abiding. It is argued that James uses a rhetorical strategy of frankness in terms of the issues in the congregation he addresses together with a strategy of subtlety in respect of his discourse on law. In his rhetorical strategy on law he contextualises his message in such a manner that he identifies with the recipients’ frame of reference of law. By doing so, he attempts to lead them to a different perception on law and present to them a different principle by which they can become whole in their personal and corporative life.

Philo’s Version of the Origin of the Septuagint

Philo’s work On the Life of Moses contains the story of the origin of the Septuagint (section 2.8–65). The scholars have examined this passage from two different perspectives: explaining the connection between Mosaic Law and the law of nature (2.12–14 and 2:45–53) or examining the very process of translation (2.25–44). Even though dealing with the different aspects of the story, both groups of scholars have come to the same conclusion: Philo claims that the Torah has universal significance. The starting point of this paper is that the two approaches, when taken separately, are insufficient. They both raise two essential questions. First, considering that Philo was using the LXX and not the Hebrew Bible, could it be possible that his claim that the Torah is “an excellent copy” of the law of nature also refers to LXX? Second, even though the Torah is finally translated into Greek – the lingua franca of its day – why would its laws be relevant for the people outside the Jewish communities? In this paper, the analysis of Philo’s story on the LXX origin is compared with the LXX origin account in the Letter of Aristeas. The comparison will demonstrate that the changes Philo introduces into the story are indicative of his two major concerns: the universality of Mosaic law and divine intervention in the process of translation. The contribution of this paper is the acknowledgment that the two mentioned aspects – the universality of the Mosaic law and the divine intervention in the translation process are dependent on each other. The latter made the LXX not merely a translation but the same Torah that was once already given to Moses. Consequently, if the Hebrew Torah and the LXX are equal in every regard, that would mean that the LXX also perfectly reflects the natural law, which makes it relevant for all people.

Torah Old and New: Exegesis, Intertextuality, and Hermeneutics

Torah Old and New: Exegesis, Intertextuality, and Hermeneutics

Paul’s ‘Works of the Law’ in the Perspective of Second Century Reception

Over the last four decades, debates over “new” and “old” perspectives on Paul, and the meaning of “Law” and “works of the Law,” have focused on Paul’s texts in Romans and Galatians, at least, the character of first-century Judaism(s), and the theological implications of what all of this entails. Now comes Matthew Thomas’s investigation into the manner in which Paul’s expressions were received by second century interpreters, with two aims: first, he “attempts to identify how the phenomena of works of the law were understood in early patristic sources up to the time of Irenaeus in the late second century” (p. 4). Second, he evaluates “how these second century perspectives relate to the conceptions put forward by the old and new perspectives in New Testament debates” (p. 4).Methodologically, Thomas analyzes second-century writings in which matters of law and works are under discussion and that are similar to Paul’s statements in Romans and Galatians (p. 11). Further, he organizes the evidence under three categories. Under “direct evidence,” he analyzes discussions similar to Paul’s that “demonstrate usage of Romans and/or Galatians” (p. 11). “Supporting evidence” includes discussions that are similar to Paul’s but do not explicitly make reference to “works of the Law” or refer directly to Paul’s texts (p. 12). And “circumstantial evidence” are discussions that are similar to Paul’s but only minimally indicate allusion to Paul’s influence (p. 12).Part 2 of Thomas’s work contains two chapters summarizing the old and new perspectives. He surveys Luther, Calvin, Bultmann, and Moo to demonstrate that they view, with some differences, Paul’s negative statements regarding “works of the Law,” while having the torah immediately in view, as a rejection of works in general. That is, Paul’s target is “human efforts or works in general, with the Mosaic law’s practices representing a subset of a broader category of good works, and the law in question being God’s requirements more generally” (p. 38). Surveying the contributions of Sanders, Dunn, and Wright, Thomas concludes that new-perspective interpreters read Paul as having in view the Jewish torah specifically when writing about “works of the Law,” especially “circumcision, laws regarding food, and the observance of Sabbath,” rather than good works in general (pp. 59–60).In part 3, Thomas analyzes a range of early Christian writers in chronological order and organizes them according to the aforementioned schema. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are the two figures that draw upon Paul’s discussions explicitly, while other sources make less-direct use of Pauline texts and expressions. Thomas finds that these sources consistently have in mind the Jewish torah, the Jewish way of life, and the Mosaic legislation when they argue with reference to the significance of works and law (pp. 215–16).His conclusion is striking. Thomas imagines alternative contemporary discussions among both “old” and “new” perspective interpreters regarding “works” and “works of the Law.” The former discussion stresses the attempt to secure salvation through the pursuit of good works, while the latter refers specifically to Jewish works that indicate identity as a Jew, such as circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath observance. If patristic figures were to overhear each discussion, Thomas claims that they would be mystified by “old” perspective proponents—“perplexed, as if the participants were standing on their heads” (p. 219). What we now call the “new perspective” would be a discussion recognizable to them, while the “viewpoint called the ‘old perspective’ would correspond with an idea that none of them had ever heard of” (p. 220). Because of this, Thomas claims that the “new perspective” is actually quite old, while the “old perspective” “represents a genuine theological novum in relation to early Christian tradition” (p. 226).Thomas’s work on second-century interpreters is a significant contribution to reception or effective-history in general and certainly will have a transformative effect on the character of contemporary interpretation of Paul’s texts.

Hellenism and Christianity: Petros Brailas-Armenis on the Constituents of Modern-Greek Identity

In this paper I examine how Brailas conceives of Modern-Greek identity. After an introduction, I look at Brailian texts where it is emphasized that Hellenism and Christianity are the two components of Greek national identity. Does this mean, though, that for Brailas these two elements express a similar mode of being? There are passages that can support this claim. Still, Brailas’ reader should not suppose that the Corfiote philosopher uncritically assumes a linear transition from Hellenism to Christianity. But if Christianity denotes the emergence of something new in history, how can it be compatible with Hellenism? Brailas’ answer is that as with the Mosaic Law, Christianity did not come to abolish Hellenism, but to fulfill it. Furthermore, the association of Christianity with Hellenism enabled the latter to survive throughout history both in the West and the East. Besides, for Brailas variety has always constituted the “harmony of Hellenism”.

Matthew

Matthew

The Law of Nature, Mosaic Judaism, and Primitive Christianity in John Locke and the English Deists

In their attempts to revive “true religion,” Locke and several English deists, such as Toland, Tindal, Chubb, Morgan, and Annet, focused on the relationship between the Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, and Christ’s teaching. However, Locke and the deists formulated different conceptions of the Law of Nature and its relationship with natural religion, Mosaic Judaism, and primitive Christianity. Locke saw the history of human knowledge of morality and religion as a process of gradual disclosure of divinely given truths—a process culminating in Christian revelation. He argued that the Law of Faith, established by Christ, had complemented the Law of Nature and superseded the Law of Moses. Conversely, the deists maintained that the only true religion was the universal, eternal, necessary, and sufficient religion of nature founded on the Law of Nature. They thought that Jesus had merely reaffirmed the Law of Nature, accessible to natural reason, without adding anything to it. Concerning Mosaic Judaism, there were significant differences between Toland and later deists. Toland considered Mosaic Judaism to be on a par with primitive Christianity, since he viewed both the Law of Moses and Christ’s precepts as essentially grounded in the Law of Nature. Conversely, Tindal and Chubb judged the ritual prescriptions of the Mosaic Law superseded by Christ’s revival of natural religion. Morgan and Annet went even further, for they identified true Christianity with the religion of nature, but criticized Mosaic Judaism as a corruption of natural religion. Briefly, Locke and the English deists aimed to recover true religion from long-lasting distortions. However, their rethinking of the relationship between the Law of Nature, the Mosaic Law, and Christ’s message led to different conceptions, uses, and appropriations of natural religion, Mosaic Judaism, and primitive Christianity in their attempts to restore what they perceived as true religion.