Recherche – Detailansicht

Ausgabe:

Juni/2021

Spalte:

538–540

Kategorie:

Judaistik

Autor/Hrsg.:

Zanella, Francesco

Titel/Untertitel:

Vergeltungsvorstellungen in der tannaitischen Literatur.

Verlag:

Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2019. XIII, 386 S. = Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 177. Lw. EUR 139,00. ISBN 9783161566707.

Rezensent:

Catherine Hezser

This book is the revised version of Francesco Zanella’s Habilitation thesis, submitted to the University of Hamburg in 2016. Although the declared goal of the study is to examine the origins, development, and social function of concepts of divine retribution in tannaitic literature, the analysis is limited to retribution terminology and the approach is philological only. Each of the thirteen main chapters of the book focuses on a particular Hebrew term. Z. argues that tannaitic retribution terminology served to establish identity in distinction from »otherness«. The alignment of an assumed clear-cut dichotomy between insiders and outsiders with reward and punishment is too rigid, however, and fails to acknowledge the p edagogical and motivational function of the rabbinic notion of retribution, which is primarily directed at other Jews. It is also questionable whether a purely philological approach can answer social-historical questions.
In the past, the topic of divine retribution has mainly interested Christian theologians. Studies of retribution in ancient Judaism were mostly conducted by New Testament scholars, who tended to contrast the alleged focus on God’s righteousness in Jewish texts with God’s grace in the New Testament, especially in the letters of Paul. Z. points to two conflicting strands in rabbinic retribution theory: retribution in accordance with Torah observance and the lack of a causal relationship between individual behaviour and fate. His study builds upon earlier terminological surveys of tannaitic terminology that were published in lexica and dictionaries. He considers his study a first step towards a dictionary of tannaitic literature, similar to the already existing multi-volume works, Theological Dictionary to the Old Testament (ThWAT) and Theological Dictionary to Qumran Texts (ThWQ).
A chapter that traces and emphasizes the significance of the philological approach in Jewish Studies constitutes the basis of Z.’s own semasiological and terminology-historical approach. The goal is to recover the »original« meaning of terms and to trace their de-velopment though the history of their literary use (28). The as­sumption is that linguistics (»Sprache«) and culture, words and meanings are closely linked. Z.’s reference to Bacher’s and Marmorstein’s emphasis on the alleged originality and authenticity of Hebrew terminology (31) stands in contrast to the change and flexibility in meaning that different literary and cultural contexts bring about. Words make sense in particular contexts only and need to be analysed within them. Therefore a lexicographical analysis of retribution terminology must be based on a close analysis of the tannaitic texts in which these terms appear.
Each of the following chapters focuses on one of nine terms that are associated with divine redemption in biblical, post-biblical, and tannaitic sources, such as gamal, chesed, sakhar, cheshbon, onesh, rachamin (Part II) and on terms used for »others« who are said to have been subjected to punishment as a group, namely, Epicureans, outsiders (chizonim), heretics (minim), and Sadducees (Part III). An initial translation is followed by a table that indicates the distri-bution of the respective term in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran writ-ings and other texts from the Judaean Desert, Ben Sira, the Mishnah, Tosefta, Sifra, Sifre Numbers, Sifre Deuteronomy, and the Mekhilta. For some terms, such as the root gml, an almost exclu-sive use in the Hebrew Bible (mostly used as a verb) and Qumran literature (mostly used as a noun) is evident. Z. argues that texts created by the Qumran community mostly used the term in a positive sense for the divine reward and protection that insiders expected to receive from God (58). As such, the use of the term would have cemented group identity.
By contrast, rabbinic texts, and especially the Mishnah and To­sefta, frequently use the term sakhar, »salary«, »reward« to ex­press the hope of divine retribution, whereas this term appears much less often in the Hebrew Bible and Qumran texts. The tannaitic context is mostly halakhic, which suggests that the concept played an im­portant role in motivating Jews to follow rabbinic rules. By promis-ing a reward to those who follow rabbinic halakhah, rabbis may have tried to gain adherents and maintain control over their fellow-Jews’ practices.
Various groups of »others« are threatened with punishment, however. For a divine calculation of punishment and reward in accordance with human behaviour the noun heshbon is frequently used in the Mishnah and Tosefta, but rarely in any other ancient Jewish writings. Again, the contexts are usually halakhic, although references in halakhic Midrashim are scarce. The concept assumes that an agreement between humans and God exists according to which the former are obliged to act in a legally and socially sanc-tioned way. In Qumran texts and tannaitic Midrashim, on the other hand, the term onesh, »fine«, »punishment«, is much more prevalent, a term that is very rare in the Hebrew Bible and the Mishnah and appears infrequently in the Tosefta. In Qumran texts, both the legal meaning of an actual »fine« imposed on community members and divine »punishment« for apostacy are evident. The use of the term serves to ensure internal unity and coherence in practices and beliefs.
Why the study of retribution terminology is supplemented by a treatment of terms used for groups of outsiders in tannaitic sourc-es (Part III) remains unclear, especially since some of these terms have already received much more thorough analyses elsewhere (e. g., the term minim). Z. emphasizes that these terms are rabbinic constructs used to distinguish insiders from various »others«. The discussion of these terms contributes to the notion of »alterity« which Z. identifies in tannaitic literary sources. »Others« are those who fail to observe or who transgress biblical and rabbinic rules, who propagate »heretical« ideas or distribute »prohibited« books (330). What is problematic here is the underlying notion of a homogeneous tannaitic »community« that uses these terms to defend its unity (331), as if tannaitic rabbis were a unified front with an un-animously agreed upon halakhic system. Rather, the use of retribution terminology and terms denoting »others« should be seen as rhetorical and literary strategies that occurred at the various levels of transmission and redaction and served individual, context-relat-ed purposes. The simple opposition between identity and alterity is unable to account for internal rabbinic diversity and permeable boundaries between rabbis and other Jews.
The book provides a good introduction to the distribution and use of retribution terminology in biblical and early post-biblical Jewish writings. It supplements dictionary entries on the respec-tive terms and provides references that can help students and scholars conduct more detailed analyses of the respective texts in the future.