M. Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 25-6.

M. Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 25-6.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Brakke, “Scriptural Practices in Early Christianity,” 269.

Brakke, “Scriptural Practices in Early Christianity,” 269.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Brakke, “Canon Formation”, 415-16. See J. Z. Smith, “Sacred Persistence: Towards a Redescription of a Canon,” in Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 36-52, esp. 49-52.

Brakke, “Canon Formation”, 415-16. See J. Z. Smith, “Sacred Persistence: Towards a Redescription of a Canon,” in Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 36-52, esp. 49-52.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Brakke, “Scriptural Practices,” 4.

Brakke, “Scriptural Practices,” 4.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

H. Graetz, “Der Abschluss des Kanons des Alten Testaments,” MGWJ 35 (1886): 281-98.

H. Graetz, “Der Abschluss des Kanons des Alten Testaments,” MGWJ 35 (1886): 281-98.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden: The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1976), 30.

S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden: The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1976), 30.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See J. L. Kugel, “Early Interpretation: The Common Background of Later Forms of Biblical Exegesis,” in Early Biblical Interpretation (ed. idem and R. A. Greer; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), esp. 13-26 “The Rise of Scripture”; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), esp. 1-41 “The World of Ancient Biblical Interpreters”; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985; repr. 1988). For more recent studies about textualization and writing in Second Temple Judaism see three recent monographs: K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009); D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); and W. M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). See also my two articles, “The Symbolic Significance of Writing,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel(ed. H. Najman and J. H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 139-73 and “Angels at Sinai: Exegesis, Theology and Interpretive Authority,” DSD 7 (2000): 313-33.

See J. L. Kugel, “Early Interpretation: The Common Background of Later Forms of Biblical Exegesis,” in Early Biblical Interpretation (ed. idem and R. A. Greer; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), esp. 13-26 “The Rise of Scripture”; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), esp. 1-41 “The World of Ancient Biblical Interpreters”; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985; repr. 1988). For more recent studies about textualization and writing in Second Temple Judaism see three recent monographs: K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009); D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); and W. M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). See also my two articles, “The Symbolic Significance of Writing,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. H. Najman and J. H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 139-73 and “Angels at Sinai: Exegesis, Theology and Interpretive Authority,” DSD 7 (2000): 313-33.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See T. Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).

See T. Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See D. Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2010).

See D. Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2010).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (New York: Doubleday, 1958). The term “library” to refer to the Qumran collection is still used by scholars. See, e.g., D. Dimant, “Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” in Tigchelaar, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures. See an overview of this debate in E. Tigchelaar, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 163-80. In this essay Tigchelaar writes: “The scrolls were assumed to be the remnants of the library of an Essene, or Essene-like, sectarian community that dwelt at Qumran, composed and copied texts, and hid their manuscripts in various caves before the Romans conquered the site in 68 C.E. At present there are many different modifications of this paradigm. Most importantly, there is a broad recognition that not all the compositions and scrolls can be attributed to this one “sectarian” group, and that many texts may have been composed or written somewhere else, before they were brought to Qumran,” 164. And later on in the same essay: “There is no evidence that before their deposit in the caves all the manuscripts of the corpus were together as a single collection. Nor can one know, for that matter, whether all those manuscripts that were together at a certain time in the same place were actively read and studied or were merely deposited. Even the status of Cave 4—as a library, repository, temporary place of concealment, or perhaps even a genizah—is unclear,” 179. Recently M. Popović said: “Regarding Qumran it may be less clear whether we are dealing with the remains of what was originally one collection or rather the remains of various collections (libraries?) that were perhaps at various moments brought to Qumran and the nearby caves,” July 2012 (unpublished response at International SBL meeting, Amsterdam). See also idem, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse in Times of Crisis? A Comparative Perspective on Judaean Desert Manuscript Collections,” in this issue.

See F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (New York: Doubleday, 1958). The term “library” to refer to the Qumran collection is still used by scholars. See, e.g., D. Dimant, “Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” in Tigchelaar, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures. See an overview of this debate in E. Tigchelaar, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 163-80. In this essay Tigchelaar writes: “The scrolls were assumed to be the remnants of the library of an Essene, or Essene-like, sectarian community that dwelt at Qumran, composed and copied texts, and hid their manuscripts in various caves before the Romans conquered the site in 68 C.E. At present there are many different modifications of this paradigm. Most importantly, there is a broad recognition that not all the compositions and scrolls can be attributed to this one “sectarian” group, and that many texts may have been composed or written somewhere else, before they were brought to Qumran,” 164. And later on in the same essay: “There is no evidence that before their deposit in the caves all the manuscripts of the corpus were together as a single collection. Nor can one know, for that matter, whether all those manuscripts that were together at a certain time in the same place were actively read and studied or were merely deposited. Even the status of Cave 4—as a library, repository, temporary place of concealment, or perhaps even a genizah—is unclear,” 179. Recently M. Popović said: “Regarding Qumran it may be less clear whether we are dealing with the remains of what was originally one collection or rather the remains of various collections (libraries?) that were perhaps at various moments brought to Qumran and the nearby caves,” July 2012 (unpublished response at International SBL meeting, Amsterdam). See also idem, “Qumran as Scroll Storehouse in Times of Crisis? A Comparative Perspective on Judaean Desert Manuscript Collections,” in this issue.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE (Philadelphia, Pa.: Trinity, 1999), 413-51. See also the more recent discussion of “Common Judaism” and the Qumran community in J. J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010).

E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE (Philadelphia, Pa.: Trinity, 1999), 413-51. See also the more recent discussion of “Common Judaism” and the Qumran community in J. J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See M. Foucault, “What is an Author?” in Michael Foucault: Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology (ed. J. D. Faubion; trans. J. V. Harari; modif. by R. Hurley; vol. 2; New York: The New Press, 1998), 218: “When I speak of Marx or Freud as founders of discursivity, I mean that they made possible not only a certain number of analogies but also (and equally important) a certain number of differences. They have created a possibility for something other than their discourse, yet something belonging to what they founded.” Also accessible in P. Rabinow, ed., The Foucault Reader(New York: Pantheon, 1984), 101-20 at 114.

See M. Foucault, “What is an Author?” in Michael Foucault: Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology (ed. J. D. Faubion; trans. J. V. Harari; modif. by R. Hurley; vol. 2; New York: The New Press, 1998), 218: “When I speak of Marx or Freud as founders of discursivity, I mean that they made possible not only a certain number of analogies but also (and equally important) a certain number of differences. They have created a possibility for something other than their discourse, yet something belonging to what they founded.” Also accessible in P. Rabinow, ed., The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon, 1984), 101-20 at 114.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

W. Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator,” in Illuminations: Essays and Reflections (ed. H. Arendt; New York: Schocken, 1968), 70 (translation is modified).

W. Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator,” in Illuminations: Essays and Reflections (ed. H. Arendt; New York: Schocken, 1968), 70 (translation is modified).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

G. Scholem, “Revelation and Tradition as Religious Categories,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken, 1971), 287.

G. Scholem, “Revelation and Tradition as Religious Categories,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken, 1971), 287.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation