-
Roman Empire, Imperial Rome, Roman Historiography, History of Judaism In Antiquity, Bible, Greco-Roman World, and 33 moreQumran, Rabbinic Literature, History of Religions, Early Christianity, Emperor worship and Roman religion, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study In the Humanities and Social Sciences, Ethics, New Testament, Ancient Philosophy, Dead Sea Scrolls (Religion), Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, Josephus, Hasmonaean period, 1 Maccabees; 2 Maccabees, Ancient Historiography, Apologetics, Jewish History, Hellenistic Judaism, Jewish Studies, Philo of Alexandria, Second Temple Judaism, Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha, Rabbinics, Patristics, Biblical Interpretation, Ancient Judaism, Seleucid Empire, Qumranic Studies, Jewish - Christian Relations, Late Antiquity, Hellenistic History, Talmud, and Dead Sea Scrolls edit
International conference in Aix-en-Provence, June 18-20, 2018
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Together with "Athens and Jerusalem," "Jerusalem and Rome" is a beloved topic for historians of Ancient Judaism. Scholars have studied the history of the relationship between Rome and the Jewish people in Antiquity from many angles.... more
Together with "Athens and Jerusalem," "Jerusalem and Rome" is a beloved topic for historians of Ancient Judaism. Scholars have studied the history of the relationship between Rome and the Jewish people in Antiquity from many angles. Traditionally, they have focused mainly on the political and military confrontation between the two, on legal aspects of Jewish life in the Roman empire, and on the image of Rome in Jewish literature. In the last decade, scholarship has turned to a new research agenda less focused on conflict, along two intertwined lines of enquiry: 1) the Romanness of the Jews who lived in the Roman empire, and, in particular, that of the Palestinian Rabbis; 2) the impact of Roman values, norms and institutions upon Judaism, mainly through the study of Jewish literary texts.
The ERC project " Judaism and Rome " builds upon this new trend of scholarship. Its starting point or fundamental hypothesis is that Roman imperialism—and, more specifically, Roman imperial ideology—represented a particular challenge for the Jews, even if the history of Israel was already rich in episodes of imperial domination, from the Assyrian empire to the Hellenistic kingdoms, via the Neo-Babylonian and Persian empires. What made the encounter with Rome special was the paradoxical similarity between Roman and Jewish self-perceptions, which from a Jewish perspective resulted in a sense of rivalry between Israel and Rome, which the rabbis adequately expressed through the identification of Rome with Esau, Israel's twin brother. This identification can be traced back to a period during which Rome was still a " pagan " empire, and is thus not to be interpreted, originally, as a response to Christianity.
The ERC project " Judaism and Rome " examines how, because of this paradoxical similarity, Roman imperialism challenged Judaism —both rabbinic and non-rabbinic—on a political-religious level, and tries to assess how the Jewish encounter with (the pre-Christian) Rome contributed to shaping Judaism itself. This is examined particularly in relation to sensitive issues such as notions of human and divine power, the integration of non-Jews in Jewish society, and the Jews' understanding of Jewish Law (Torah) as a national and/or universal law, in connection with Israel's role in the establishment of a just universal political order. The project focuses in particular on three sub-themes: Power, Law and Citizenship (or membership with a given group), and examines the Jewish responses to the challenge of Rome in these three areas.
However, the project is not limited to the study of Jewish perspectives alone, and does not explore the Judeo-Roman relationship in a vacuum. In order to better comprehend the specificity of the Jewish responses to Rome, we use a comparative approach, comparing the Jewish responses to those of the Greeks and other peoples dominated by Rome, as well as to those of the Christians until the fourth and even the beginning of the fifth century CE. Hence the project employs a multidisciplinary team and engages in multiple collaborations with specialists from different fields.
The ERC project " Judaism and Rome " builds upon this new trend of scholarship. Its starting point or fundamental hypothesis is that Roman imperialism—and, more specifically, Roman imperial ideology—represented a particular challenge for the Jews, even if the history of Israel was already rich in episodes of imperial domination, from the Assyrian empire to the Hellenistic kingdoms, via the Neo-Babylonian and Persian empires. What made the encounter with Rome special was the paradoxical similarity between Roman and Jewish self-perceptions, which from a Jewish perspective resulted in a sense of rivalry between Israel and Rome, which the rabbis adequately expressed through the identification of Rome with Esau, Israel's twin brother. This identification can be traced back to a period during which Rome was still a " pagan " empire, and is thus not to be interpreted, originally, as a response to Christianity.
The ERC project " Judaism and Rome " examines how, because of this paradoxical similarity, Roman imperialism challenged Judaism —both rabbinic and non-rabbinic—on a political-religious level, and tries to assess how the Jewish encounter with (the pre-Christian) Rome contributed to shaping Judaism itself. This is examined particularly in relation to sensitive issues such as notions of human and divine power, the integration of non-Jews in Jewish society, and the Jews' understanding of Jewish Law (Torah) as a national and/or universal law, in connection with Israel's role in the establishment of a just universal political order. The project focuses in particular on three sub-themes: Power, Law and Citizenship (or membership with a given group), and examines the Jewish responses to the challenge of Rome in these three areas.
However, the project is not limited to the study of Jewish perspectives alone, and does not explore the Judeo-Roman relationship in a vacuum. In order to better comprehend the specificity of the Jewish responses to Rome, we use a comparative approach, comparing the Jewish responses to those of the Greeks and other peoples dominated by Rome, as well as to those of the Christians until the fourth and even the beginning of the fifth century CE. Hence the project employs a multidisciplinary team and engages in multiple collaborations with specialists from different fields.
Research Interests:
How encounters with the Roman Empire compelled some Jews in Antiquity to rethink their conceptions of Israel and the Torah. Special offer from Princeton University Press: Visit PUP’s website to order a copy of Jews and Their Roman Rivals... more
How encounters with the Roman Empire compelled some Jews in Antiquity to rethink their conceptions of Israel and the Torah.
Special offer from Princeton University Press: Visit PUP’s website to order a copy of Jews and Their Roman Rivals at a 30% discount. Please use the special offer code BER21 to redeem your offer. Offer available until 31 January 2022.
Special offer from Princeton University Press: Visit PUP’s website to order a copy of Jews and Their Roman Rivals at a 30% discount. Please use the special offer code BER21 to redeem your offer. Offer available until 31 January 2022.
Research Interests:
The Roman empire set law at the center of its very identity. A complex and robust ideology of law and justice is evident not only in the dynamics of imperial administration, but a host of cultural arenas. Citizenship named the privilege... more
The Roman empire set law at the center of its very identity. A complex and robust ideology of law and justice is evident not only in the dynamics of imperial administration, but a host of cultural arenas. Citizenship named the privilege of falling under Roman jurisdiction, legal expertise was cultural capital. A faith in the emperor’s intimate concern for justice was a key component of the voluntary connection binding Romans and provincials to the state.
Even as law was a central mechanism for control and the administration of state violence, it also exerted a magnetic effect on the peoples under its control. Adopting a range of approaches, the essays explore the impact of Roman law, both in the tribunal and in the culture. Unique to this anthology is attention to legal professionals and cultural intermediaries operating at the empire’s periphery. The studies here allow one to see how law operated among a range of populations and provincials—from Gauls and Brittons to Egyptians and Jews—exploring the ways local peoples creatively navigated, and constructed, their legal realities between Roman and local mores. They draw our attention to the space between laws and legal ideas, between ethnic, especially Jewish, life and law and the structures of Roman might; cases in which shared concepts result in diverse ends; the pageantry of the legal tribunal, the imperatives and corruptions of power differentials; and the importance of reading the gaps between depiction of law and its actual workings.
This volume is unusual in bringing Jewish, and especially rabbinic, sources and perspectives together with Roman, Greek or Christian ones. This is the result of its being part of the research program “Judaism and Rome” (ERC Grant Agreement no. 614 424), dedicated to the study of the impact of the Roman empire upon ancient Judaism.
Even as law was a central mechanism for control and the administration of state violence, it also exerted a magnetic effect on the peoples under its control. Adopting a range of approaches, the essays explore the impact of Roman law, both in the tribunal and in the culture. Unique to this anthology is attention to legal professionals and cultural intermediaries operating at the empire’s periphery. The studies here allow one to see how law operated among a range of populations and provincials—from Gauls and Brittons to Egyptians and Jews—exploring the ways local peoples creatively navigated, and constructed, their legal realities between Roman and local mores. They draw our attention to the space between laws and legal ideas, between ethnic, especially Jewish, life and law and the structures of Roman might; cases in which shared concepts result in diverse ends; the pageantry of the legal tribunal, the imperatives and corruptions of power differentials; and the importance of reading the gaps between depiction of law and its actual workings.
This volume is unusual in bringing Jewish, and especially rabbinic, sources and perspectives together with Roman, Greek or Christian ones. This is the result of its being part of the research program “Judaism and Rome” (ERC Grant Agreement no. 614 424), dedicated to the study of the impact of the Roman empire upon ancient Judaism.
Research Interests:
How was the future of Rome, both near and distant in time, imagined by different populations living under the Roman Empire? It emerges from this collection of essays by a distinguished international team of scholars that Romans, Greeks,... more
How was the future of Rome, both near and distant in time, imagined by different populations living under the Roman Empire? It emerges from this collection of essays by a distinguished international team of scholars that Romans, Greeks, Jews and Christians had strikingly different answers to that question, revealing profound differences in their conceptions of history and historical time, the purpose of history, the meaning of written words and oral traditions. It is also argued that practically no one living under Rome's rule, including the Romans themselves, did not think about the question in one form or another.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Among the imperial states of the ancient world, the Roman empire stands out for its geographical extent, its longevity and its might. This collective volume investigates how the many peoples inhabiting Rome’s vast empire perceived,... more
Among the imperial states of the ancient world, the Roman empire stands out for its geographical extent, its longevity and its might. This collective volume investigates how the many peoples inhabiting Rome’s vast empire perceived, experienced, and reacted to both the concrete and the ideological aspects of Roman power. More precisely, it explores how they dealt with Roman might through their religious and political rituals; what they regarded as the empire’s distinctive features, as well as its particular limitations and weaknesses; what forms of criticism they developed towards the way Romans exercised power; and what kind of impact the encounter with Roman power had upon the ways they defined themselves and reflected about power in general.
This volume is unusual in bringing Jewish, and especially rabbinic, sources and perspectives together with Roman, Greek or Christian ones. This is the result of its being part of the research program “Judaism and Rome” (ERC Grant Agreement no. 614424), dedicated to the study of the impact of the Roman empire upon ancient Judaism.
This volume is unusual in bringing Jewish, and especially rabbinic, sources and perspectives together with Roman, Greek or Christian ones. This is the result of its being part of the research program “Judaism and Rome” (ERC Grant Agreement no. 614424), dedicated to the study of the impact of the Roman empire upon ancient Judaism.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
A history of Jerusalem from the very beginnings to the contemporary period, co-written by Katell Berthelot, Vincent Lemire, Julien Loiseau and Yann Potin, edited by Vincent Lemire.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In the section of On the Life of Moses that deals with Moses as lawgiver, Philo praises the Torah as the most excellent legislation ever written and emphasizes its universal popularity among Greeks and barbarians alike. This article... more
In the section of On the Life of Moses that deals with Moses as lawgiver, Philo praises the Torah as the most excellent legislation ever written and emphasizes its universal popularity among Greeks and barbarians alike. This article contends that these two claims are to a great extent novel compared to previous Jewish discourses about the Law. Earlier Jewish authors writing in Greek celebrated the Torah's superior wisdom but did not compare it to other legal systems. Moreover, previous Jewish reflections on the Law's universality emphasized its accordance with the law of nature, while Mos. 2.12-24 introduces a new notion: the universal adoption of some of the Mosaic precepts by non-Jews. This paper argues that Philo's innovative statements in On the Life of Moses, which have parallels in Josephus' Against Apion, are to be understood in the framework of contemporary perceptions of and discourses on Roman law and jurisdiction.
Research Interests:
Please contact me if you want the PDF of this article, for the publisher does not allow its uploading on Academia.
Research Interests:
This paper discusses how early (mainly tannaitic) rabbinic sources viewed Roman jurisdiction, and the possibility that Jews would turn to non-Jewish courts to settle their disputes. It does not aim to describe actual practices, nor to... more
This paper discusses how early (mainly tannaitic) rabbinic sources viewed
Roman jurisdiction, and the possibility that Jews would turn to non-Jewish courts to settle their disputes. It does not aim to describe actual practices, nor to clarify how Jews navigated between non-Jewish and Jewish courts in Palestine, but rather seeks to analyze rabbinic statements about Roman or non-Jewish courts and to understand how the rabbis conceived of their activity as opposed to that of non-Jewish courts. What is at stake is the history of representations, or ideas, rather than legal history. After noting that few tannaitic texts explicitly reject Roman or non-Jewish courts, I examine the well-known case of a Jewish divorce enforced by a non-Jewish tribunal, then proceed to analyze the underlying covenantal rationale for the rejection of Roman courts. I argue that at least some rabbis associated non-Jewish courts with idolatry, thus rejecting the more accommodationist position that seems to characterize most rabbinic literature on the subject, while other texts associate Jewish or more specifically rabbinic jurisdiction or arbitration with God’s holiness.
Roman jurisdiction, and the possibility that Jews would turn to non-Jewish courts to settle their disputes. It does not aim to describe actual practices, nor to clarify how Jews navigated between non-Jewish and Jewish courts in Palestine, but rather seeks to analyze rabbinic statements about Roman or non-Jewish courts and to understand how the rabbis conceived of their activity as opposed to that of non-Jewish courts. What is at stake is the history of representations, or ideas, rather than legal history. After noting that few tannaitic texts explicitly reject Roman or non-Jewish courts, I examine the well-known case of a Jewish divorce enforced by a non-Jewish tribunal, then proceed to analyze the underlying covenantal rationale for the rejection of Roman courts. I argue that at least some rabbis associated non-Jewish courts with idolatry, thus rejecting the more accommodationist position that seems to characterize most rabbinic literature on the subject, while other texts associate Jewish or more specifically rabbinic jurisdiction or arbitration with God’s holiness.
Research Interests:
This article assesses the importance of both lineage and virtue in Josephus’ notions of the Jewish nobility and the Jewish people. Furthermore, it investigates the respective roles of Josephus’ priestly education and his exposition to... more
This article assesses the importance of both lineage and virtue in Josephus’ notions of the Jewish nobility and the Jewish people. Furthermore, it investigates the respective roles of Josephus’ priestly education and his exposition to Roman culture in his use of such concepts. I argue that while Josephus adopted some aspects of Roman or Greco-Roman discourses on nobility, such as the notion that true nobility goes along with virtue, he nevertheless resisted the Roman sociopolitical view of nobility, because he tended to identify Jewish aristocracy with the priesthood and thus stuck to a genealogical model. By contrast, Josephus’ definition of the kinship (oikeiotēs) that unites the members of the Jewish people as based either on birth/common ancestors or on choice (the choice to live under Jewish laws, implicitly characterized as virtuous) in Against Apion reflects the impact on the Judean historian of Roman citizenship grants and the pro-Roman discourses that praised this policy.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
“To Convert or Not to Convert: The Appropriation of Jewish Rituals, Customs and Beliefs by Non-Jews,” in Lived Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Approaching Religious Transformations from Archaeology, History and Classics, ed. by V. Gasparini et al. (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2020), 493-515more
In Antiquity, non-Jews appropriated Jewish rituals, customs and beliefs in a way that defied clear-cut categorization and thus challenged group boundaries. Whereas the scholarly debate has traditionally focused on whether the term... more
In Antiquity, non-Jews appropriated Jewish rituals, customs and beliefs
in a way that defied clear-cut categorization and thus challenged group boundaries. Whereas the scholarly debate has traditionally focused on whether the term “Godfearers” (theosebeis, metuentes) was adequate to describe such individuals, and whether such a category or group existed at all in the ancient world, my aim in this paper is different. I examine how ancient literary and epigraphic sources differentiate between converts (or proselytes) and Judaizers, what kind of ritual practices or beliefs are attributed to these Judaizers, and whether they are described as participating in the life of local Jewish communities. Finally, I look at what rabbinic writings have to say about this phenomenon.
Only some of the sources provide information on Judaizing practices; in
some cases we can merely conclude that certain non-Jews showed devotion toward the God of Israel, without being able to specify how this devotion manifested itself. It is highly probable that Judaizers were sometimes connected with a particular Jewish community, but not all Judaizers were necessarily taking part in synagogal or community activities. Judaizing attitudes belonged first and foremost to the realm of individual religious practices and were not codified by any particular group. As such, they were rejected by the rabbis, who praised the gentiles who venerated the God of Israel and were benevolent towards the Jews, but considered that the commandments of the Torah such as the Sabbath were given to Israel alone, and were not to be observed or imitated by non-Jews.
in a way that defied clear-cut categorization and thus challenged group boundaries. Whereas the scholarly debate has traditionally focused on whether the term “Godfearers” (theosebeis, metuentes) was adequate to describe such individuals, and whether such a category or group existed at all in the ancient world, my aim in this paper is different. I examine how ancient literary and epigraphic sources differentiate between converts (or proselytes) and Judaizers, what kind of ritual practices or beliefs are attributed to these Judaizers, and whether they are described as participating in the life of local Jewish communities. Finally, I look at what rabbinic writings have to say about this phenomenon.
Only some of the sources provide information on Judaizing practices; in
some cases we can merely conclude that certain non-Jews showed devotion toward the God of Israel, without being able to specify how this devotion manifested itself. It is highly probable that Judaizers were sometimes connected with a particular Jewish community, but not all Judaizers were necessarily taking part in synagogal or community activities. Judaizing attitudes belonged first and foremost to the realm of individual religious practices and were not codified by any particular group. As such, they were rejected by the rabbis, who praised the gentiles who venerated the God of Israel and were benevolent towards the Jews, but considered that the commandments of the Torah such as the Sabbath were given to Israel alone, and were not to be observed or imitated by non-Jews.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper explores different aspects of the association made in ancient sources between power and piety, contrasting Roman and Jewish perspectives, and bearing in mind that Romans and Jews each considered themselves to be exceptionally... more
This paper explores different aspects of the association made in ancient sources between power and piety, contrasting Roman and Jewish perspectives, and bearing in mind that Romans and Jews each considered themselves to be exceptionally pious peoples. I examine not only how ancient sources saw Roman power as being based on piety and as potentially threatened by religious negligence, but also how Roman victory was associated in both Roman and Jewish sources with Jewish superstition, impiety, or sin. Conversely, I show how Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant and the commandments could be seen by Jews as a real threat to Roman power that would ultimately lead to Israel’s victory against the empire. Finally, some Jewish sources show that there was yet another way of articulating the relationship between Roman power and Jewish piety – the very existence of Rome was conceived as being dependent upon Jewish prayers and blessings, or the presence of Israel within the Roman Empire.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper examines a group of rabbinic texts pertaining to the translation of the laws of the Torah into seventy languages, which are based on biblical traditions pertaining to the transcription of the Torah on stones after Israel’s... more
This paper examines a group of rabbinic texts pertaining to the translation of the laws of the Torah into seventy languages, which are based on biblical traditions pertaining to the transcription of the Torah on stones after Israel’s entrance into the promised land (Deuteronomy 27:2–8, Joshua 4:1–10 and 8:30–35). After having carefully analyzed the exegetical logic at work in each text, I assess the impact of the Roman context in which the rabbis lived upon this literary tradition, bringing additional rabbinic texts and Roman literary, epigraphic and legal evidence into the conversation. My argument is that, to a great extent, these rabbinic texts interpret the biblical traditions in light of Roman norms concerning the communication of laws and edicts in the empire, a point already briefly hinted at by Saul Lieberman in his book Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. Even more fundamentally, these rabbinic texts reproduce or echo Roman legal reasoning. As a consequence, the universalist perspective at work in these texts can be considered both a mimicry of Roman universalism and an expression of opposition to the Roman model.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article analyzes the discourses held by two Jewish Alexandrian authors from the beginning of the first century CE, Philo and the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, on the polytheist cults of their time. It examines whether these... more
This article analyzes the discourses held by two Jewish Alexandrian authors from the beginning of the first century CE, Philo and the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, on the polytheist cults of their time. It examines whether these writers think about the development of religions in historical terms, how they classify the different cults and establish a hierarchy between them, as well as other issues such as their reflection about images, their use of evhemerist theories, the way they articulate polytheism and atheism, their criticism of mystery cults, and their rejection of divination. The discourses of Philo and of the author of Wisdom are not disconnected from the socio-religious realities of their time, but they are mainly polemical and inspired by the biblical criticism of idolatry.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
"La philanthrôpia, un idéal partagé entre Grecs, Romains, Juifs et chrétiens ?," in L’identité à travers l’éthique. Nouvelles perspectives sur la formation des identités collectives dans le monde gréco-romain, dir. par K. Berthelot, R. Naiweld et D. Stökl Ben Ezra, Turnhout, Brepols, 2015, p. 91-116more
Research Interests:
The Rabbis Write Back! The stakes of the “kinship” between Israel and Rome–Esau–Edom Compared with the mythical kinships found in the Bible as well as in the Hellenistic world, the identification of Rome with Esau or Edom does not... more
The Rabbis Write Back! The stakes of the “kinship” between Israel and Rome–Esau–Edom
Compared with the mythical kinships found in the Bible as well as in the Hellenistic world, the identification of Rome with Esau or Edom does not reflect the invention of a kinship between Romans and Jews, but rather the creation of a typology. The latter is all the more paradoxical as it implies a proximity and even an intimacy between Israel and Rome. According to some historians, this typology makes sense only with the christianization of the empire. However, a close examination of the sources shows that the idea of Israel and Rome as twins and rivals originates in the Jewish defeats against Rome and in the perception by the rabbis of Rome as usurping the concrete and symbolic place of Israel in the world.
Compared with the mythical kinships found in the Bible as well as in the Hellenistic world, the identification of Rome with Esau or Edom does not reflect the invention of a kinship between Romans and Jews, but rather the creation of a typology. The latter is all the more paradoxical as it implies a proximity and even an intimacy between Israel and Rome. According to some historians, this typology makes sense only with the christianization of the empire. However, a close examination of the sources shows that the idea of Israel and Rome as twins and rivals originates in the Jewish defeats against Rome and in the perception by the rabbis of Rome as usurping the concrete and symbolic place of Israel in the world.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The fifth chapter of the First Book of Maccabees recounts a whole range of wars waged by Judas Maccabeus against Judaea’s neighbours, who are depicted as threatening the lives of the Jews living in their midst. The account of these... more
The fifth chapter of the First Book of Maccabees recounts a whole range of wars waged by Judas Maccabeus against Judaea’s neighbours, who are depicted as threatening the lives of the Jews living in their midst. The account of these punitive expeditions contains the only explicit reference found in the book to an anathema (herem) against a foreign people, a reference which has led some scholars to see Judas as re-enacting the biblical prescription of the herem against the Canaanites. In contrast with this interpretation, the present article argues that the description in 1 Maccabees 5 is highly literary and rhetorical, and that it is part of a strategy which aims at presenting Judas as the heir of the first kings of Israel. In particular, a careful literary analysis shows that nearly all the differences between the accounts in 1 and 2 Maccabees can be explained by taking into consideration the project of the author to present Judas's military expeditions in the light of Saul's campaigns, following 1 Samuel 10–15 (especially 14:47-48). Given the indebtedness of 1 Maccabees 5 toward such biblical traditions, the historicity of Judas's wars against Judaea’s neighbours should be re-assessed.
Research Interests:
The First Book of Maccabees (15:28–36) records a diplomatic exchange over disputed cities and territories between Simon, Judas Maccabeus’s brother, and the Seleucid king Antiochus VII. In vv. 33–34, Simon argues that the Jews/Judeans have... more
The First Book of Maccabees (15:28–36) records a diplomatic exchange over disputed cities and territories between Simon, Judas Maccabeus’s brother, and the Seleucid king Antiochus VII. In vv. 33–34, Simon argues that the Jews/Judeans have not seized foreign lands that belonged to others but have simply taken back “the heritage of our fathers.” Many scholars have interpreted Simon’s reply as a self-evident indication that the Hasmonean dynasty saw itself as reconquering the promised land. However, a closer analysis of the text shows that this claim is exaggerated. Moreover, scholars refer to this passage alone in support of such a theory. Through the analysis of the literary construction of the passage and of its connections with biblical traditions, with Seleucid rhetoric as presented in 1 Maccabees itself, and with Hellenistic arguments used in cases of territorial strife, I argue that “the heritage of our fathers” refers to Judea alone, and that
Simon’s discourse cannot be interpreted solely through the lens of biblical intertextuality but rather needs to be compared with the ways of arguing about one’s legitimate right to possess a territory in the Hellenistic world at large.
Simon’s discourse cannot be interpreted solely through the lens of biblical intertextuality but rather needs to be compared with the ways of arguing about one’s legitimate right to possess a territory in the Hellenistic world at large.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Ce colloque international, réunissant des universitaires et des chercheur(e)s européens, américains et australiens, est consacré à la réception de l'oeuvre de Philon d'Alexandrie à l'époque moderne, étape essentielle, et pourtant très peu... more
Ce colloque international, réunissant des universitaires et des chercheur(e)s européens, américains et australiens, est consacré à la réception de l'oeuvre de Philon d'Alexandrie à l'époque moderne, étape essentielle, et pourtant très peu étudiée, dans une longue chaîne qui se déploie de l'époque patristique jusqu'au nouvel essor des études philoniennes des cinquante dernières années. Deux axes de recherche ont été choisis : 1) une première approche concerne la philologie et l'histoire du livre ; 2) une seconde souhaite préciser les usages diversifiés de Philon dans les commentaires exégétiques, les traités théologiques, l'érudition historique, et plus largement les controverses. 1) Avec l'édition princeps des oeuvres de Philon par Adrien Turnèbe en 1552, à Paris, la réception de Philon prend un nouveau souffle à l'ère de l'imprimé et bon nombre de traductions, en latin et en langues vernaculaires voient le jour. Nous mettrons en perspective ces éditions de Philon avec les contextes sociaux des réseaux d'imprimeurs, d'érudits et de patronages prestigieux. 2) Au-delà de la transmission textuelle, quel visage de l'auteur retient-on, quelles sont les facettes de l'oeuvre philonienne qui sont utilisées ? Comment sont-elles mises à contribution et transformées par les débats en cours ? De quelle manière les lectures, directes ou indirectes, de Philon suscitent-elles l'intérêt et des polémiques entre les différents courants philosophiques et religieux aux xvi e-xviii e siècles ? De nombreux sujets intègrent l'apport philonien : plato-nismes de la Renaissance, histoire du monachisme primitif, préfiguration vétérotestamentaire de la Trinité, socinianisme, etc. On s'interrogera égale-ment sur les enjeux de sa « redécouverte » par le judaïsme au xvi e siècle et sur les conséquences de cette redécouverte pour l'histoire philosophique du judaïsme. La tenue à Lyon de ce colloque n'est pas le fait du hasard, l'ancrage lyonnais des études philoniennes étant bien connu dans le monde académique. Le premier colloque sur Philon s'est déroulé en septembre 1966 dans cette ville où se trouve l'Institut des Sources Chrétiennes, au sein duquel ont été éditées ses oeuvres complètes en trente-six volumes de 1961 à 1992.