Pub Date : 2020-08-10DOI: 10.1515/9783110677263-005
Though Solomon did not figure in the genealogy of Jesus, he was nonetheless regarded as a prefiguration of the Christian Messiah. Despite Solomon’s negative image as a sinner, the three books attributed to him were a rich source of allegorical readings that treated them as a demonstratio evangelica of both the coming of the Messiah and of the Church itself. Such readings resulted from the Christian view of the Old Testament as a Christian asset, the correct interpretation and true meaning of which only the New Testament could supply.289 This implies that without the Old Testament there is no New Testament. This perception spawned a polemic and a sense of competition concerning the rightful owners, and the true interpreters, of the Bible.290 From a Christian point of view, the historical role of the Jewish people was merely to preserve the Bible for the Christians until they appeared—in other words, to act as custodes librorum nostrorum. Augustine formulated this
{"title":"Chapter Three. Solomon—His Actions and Books: Prefiguration, Typology, and His Teachings","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9783110677263-005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110677263-005","url":null,"abstract":"Though Solomon did not figure in the genealogy of Jesus, he was nonetheless regarded as a prefiguration of the Christian Messiah. Despite Solomon’s negative image as a sinner, the three books attributed to him were a rich source of allegorical readings that treated them as a demonstratio evangelica of both the coming of the Messiah and of the Church itself. Such readings resulted from the Christian view of the Old Testament as a Christian asset, the correct interpretation and true meaning of which only the New Testament could supply.289 This implies that without the Old Testament there is no New Testament. This perception spawned a polemic and a sense of competition concerning the rightful owners, and the true interpreters, of the Bible.290 From a Christian point of view, the historical role of the Jewish people was merely to preserve the Bible for the Christians until they appeared—in other words, to act as custodes librorum nostrorum. Augustine formulated this","PeriodicalId":221982,"journal":{"name":"An Imaginary Trio","volume":"289 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121330255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-10DOI: 10.1515/9783110677263-010
As the thirteenth century saw the rise of Aristotle as a new contender for the role of “the wisest, most learned man of all times, the very personification of all knowledge”, Jewish scholars were faced with a new challenge: how to grapple with Aristotelian rationalist philosophy. One option was to declare it irrelevant, and present Judaism and Aristotelian philosophy as diametrically opposed; another option was to co-opt Aristotelian philosophy by depicting Aristotle as Solomon’s pupil. The result of this latter approach was the emergence of a legendary tradition whose purpose was to legitimize Jews’ study of philosophy, in general, and the influence of Aristotle, in particular. What developed was in many ways a continuation of traditions dating from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. But Jewish-Hellenistic writers,895 and later the Church Fathers, were concerned with the influence of the Jewish patriarchs, Moses, and the biblical prophets on the development of Egyptian and Greek wisdom—particularly that of Plato and Pythagoras. The new legendary tradition that emerged in medieval Jewish apologetics, on the margins of existing polemics between “Aristotelians” and “anti-Aristotelians”, claimed in contrast that Jewish “wisdom”, or Jewish “philosophy”, had been appropriated specifically by Aristotle. Not only was Solomon, then, the wisest of all ancients, a teacher to kings who arrived from all four corners of the earth to hear him; he was also a teacher to that “greatest of all philosophers,” Aristotle, whose teachings, in turn, informed the Christian scholastics.896 Seen through this lens, Aristotelian philosophy was no “Greek wisdom” extrinsic to Judaism, but rather a continuation of Jewish wisdom whose original form had been lost in the throes of history, only to be preserved in Greek garb. Its renewed reception into the bosom of Jewish culture was thus the restoration of what was lost to its former glory and rightful owner. Solomon was chosen for the role of Aristotle’s teacher since no ancient figure in Jewish history more famous than he could better represent lost wisdom. And since Aristotle dealt not only in philosophy but in all spheres of
{"title":"Chapter Eight. Solomon, Aristoteles Judaicus, and the Invention of a Pseudo- Solomonic Library","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9783110677263-010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110677263-010","url":null,"abstract":"As the thirteenth century saw the rise of Aristotle as a new contender for the role of “the wisest, most learned man of all times, the very personification of all knowledge”, Jewish scholars were faced with a new challenge: how to grapple with Aristotelian rationalist philosophy. One option was to declare it irrelevant, and present Judaism and Aristotelian philosophy as diametrically opposed; another option was to co-opt Aristotelian philosophy by depicting Aristotle as Solomon’s pupil. The result of this latter approach was the emergence of a legendary tradition whose purpose was to legitimize Jews’ study of philosophy, in general, and the influence of Aristotle, in particular. What developed was in many ways a continuation of traditions dating from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. But Jewish-Hellenistic writers,895 and later the Church Fathers, were concerned with the influence of the Jewish patriarchs, Moses, and the biblical prophets on the development of Egyptian and Greek wisdom—particularly that of Plato and Pythagoras. The new legendary tradition that emerged in medieval Jewish apologetics, on the margins of existing polemics between “Aristotelians” and “anti-Aristotelians”, claimed in contrast that Jewish “wisdom”, or Jewish “philosophy”, had been appropriated specifically by Aristotle. Not only was Solomon, then, the wisest of all ancients, a teacher to kings who arrived from all four corners of the earth to hear him; he was also a teacher to that “greatest of all philosophers,” Aristotle, whose teachings, in turn, informed the Christian scholastics.896 Seen through this lens, Aristotelian philosophy was no “Greek wisdom” extrinsic to Judaism, but rather a continuation of Jewish wisdom whose original form had been lost in the throes of history, only to be preserved in Greek garb. Its renewed reception into the bosom of Jewish culture was thus the restoration of what was lost to its former glory and rightful owner. Solomon was chosen for the role of Aristotle’s teacher since no ancient figure in Jewish history more famous than he could better represent lost wisdom. And since Aristotle dealt not only in philosophy but in all spheres of","PeriodicalId":221982,"journal":{"name":"An Imaginary Trio","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122804521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-10DOI: 10.1515/9783110677263-007
Did the image of Solomon as a magician appear as an inseparable part of Jewish occultism that developed during the Second Temple period (the Hellenist and Roman), or was it a reaction to Jesus’ reputation as an exorcist and healer in an effort to prove that Solomon was greater than Jesus?492 Or, perhaps, it was the other way around. Namely, when the people refer to Jesus, known for his ability to exorcise demons, as the “son of David”, they do so because during the Second Temple period Solomon was famous as a healer and exorcist, and the authors of the Gospels wished to cite evidence that Jesus was, in this regard, greater than Solomon. Or, perhaps, both traditions emerged separately as an outcome of the extensive presence of magic in all the cultures of the ancient world. However, Solomon does not resemble Jesus and he is not described as having engaged in the practice of magic, namely in exorcising demons, and not as having written magic oaths and texts, or having possessed them. Jesus, on the other hand, is described as having engaged in the practice of magic, namely, in healing people and in exorcising demons, and not as the author of any text whatsoever. At the most, the two “meet” in the few magic texts in which they both appear. Since the terms “magic” and “occultism” appear frequently in the research literature—and will appear in this chapter and in Chapter Seven as well—I will begin by relating the nature of the occult (or esoteric) sciences. The word first
{"title":"Chapter Five. “How is Jesus Greater than Solomon?” Solomon and Jesus as Magicians (Healers and Exorcists)","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9783110677263-007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110677263-007","url":null,"abstract":"Did the image of Solomon as a magician appear as an inseparable part of Jewish occultism that developed during the Second Temple period (the Hellenist and Roman), or was it a reaction to Jesus’ reputation as an exorcist and healer in an effort to prove that Solomon was greater than Jesus?492 Or, perhaps, it was the other way around. Namely, when the people refer to Jesus, known for his ability to exorcise demons, as the “son of David”, they do so because during the Second Temple period Solomon was famous as a healer and exorcist, and the authors of the Gospels wished to cite evidence that Jesus was, in this regard, greater than Solomon. Or, perhaps, both traditions emerged separately as an outcome of the extensive presence of magic in all the cultures of the ancient world. However, Solomon does not resemble Jesus and he is not described as having engaged in the practice of magic, namely in exorcising demons, and not as having written magic oaths and texts, or having possessed them. Jesus, on the other hand, is described as having engaged in the practice of magic, namely, in healing people and in exorcising demons, and not as the author of any text whatsoever. At the most, the two “meet” in the few magic texts in which they both appear. Since the terms “magic” and “occultism” appear frequently in the research literature—and will appear in this chapter and in Chapter Seven as well—I will begin by relating the nature of the occult (or esoteric) sciences. The word first","PeriodicalId":221982,"journal":{"name":"An Imaginary Trio","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124006800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-10DOI: 10.1515/9783110677263-009
Various definitions of “wisdom” appear in the Bible, and the concept continued to accrue new meanings and understandings in post-biblical literature.719 The idea of Solomonic wisdom and knowledge (chokhmah and madda) thus also attracted new interpretations under the influence of Hellenistic culture. The Wisdom of Solomon (WS), a work apparently written in Palestine and Egypt in the second or first century B.C.E., holds that wisdom is “the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness”.720
《圣经》中出现了对“智慧”的各种定义，这个概念在《圣经》之后的文学中继续积累新的含义和理解因此，所罗门的智慧和知识(chokhmah和madda)在希腊文化的影响下也吸引了新的解释。《所罗门的智慧》(The Wisdom of Solomon, WS)显然是公元前二世纪或公元前一世纪在巴勒斯坦和埃及写成的，它认为智慧是“上帝力量的气息，是全能者荣耀的纯净影响:因此任何污秽之物都不能落入其中。”因为她是永恒之光的光辉，是上帝大能的无暇之镜，是上帝良善的形象。
{"title":"Chapter Seven. Solomon’s Wisdom—From Hermes to Aristotle","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9783110677263-009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110677263-009","url":null,"abstract":"Various definitions of “wisdom” appear in the Bible, and the concept continued to accrue new meanings and understandings in post-biblical literature.719 The idea of Solomonic wisdom and knowledge (chokhmah and madda) thus also attracted new interpretations under the influence of Hellenistic culture. The Wisdom of Solomon (WS), a work apparently written in Palestine and Egypt in the second or first century B.C.E., holds that wisdom is “the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness”.720","PeriodicalId":221982,"journal":{"name":"An Imaginary Trio","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121492273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-10DOI: 10.1515/9783110677263-006
“Hic bonis initiis, malos exitus habuit
Solomon is not merely a prefiguration of Jesus, nor simply an ideal king. He is also a king judged by his own misconduct, for his sins against God; and in both Jewish and Christian tradition, his biblical biography occupies a central place in the debate on the nature of crime and punishment, repentance and forgiveness. Nonetheless, Christian literature accorded far more attention to this aspect of Solomon’s biography than did Jewish writers. The correspondence that existed here was not one in which each side responded to the claims of the other, but rather a seemingly shared interest in, or need to address, the biblical account of Solomon’s life. In this chapter, I will present only a few of the many treatments of this subject by Jewish and Christian writers in an attempt to understand the roots of their intensive occupation with the idea of Solomon as a sinner—an occupation that clearly reflects Christianity’s attempt to grapple with the Bible and to do so through exegetical methods. More than one biblical king, after all, was held to account for his sins.
{"title":"Chapter Four. The Divine Presence and a Heavenly Voice Come to Solomon’s Aid—On Sin, Repentance, and Absolution","authors":"“Hic bonis initiis, malos exitus habuit","doi":"10.1515/9783110677263-006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110677263-006","url":null,"abstract":"Solomon is not merely a prefiguration of Jesus, nor simply an ideal king. He is also a king judged by his own misconduct, for his sins against God; and in both Jewish and Christian tradition, his biblical biography occupies a central place in the debate on the nature of crime and punishment, repentance and forgiveness. Nonetheless, Christian literature accorded far more attention to this aspect of Solomon’s biography than did Jewish writers. The correspondence that existed here was not one in which each side responded to the claims of the other, but rather a seemingly shared interest in, or need to address, the biblical account of Solomon’s life. In this chapter, I will present only a few of the many treatments of this subject by Jewish and Christian writers in an attempt to understand the roots of their intensive occupation with the idea of Solomon as a sinner—an occupation that clearly reflects Christianity’s attempt to grapple with the Bible and to do so through exegetical methods. More than one biblical king, after all, was held to account for his sins.","PeriodicalId":221982,"journal":{"name":"An Imaginary Trio","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116524799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-10DOI: 10.1515/9783110677263-004
Filius Patris
Solomon’s presence in the polemic regarding Jesus’ divinity as the Son of God can be traced to a single act of rhetoric in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The authorship of that text, which dates to the second century, was attributed to Paul152 first by Eastern and later by Western Christianity, and this remained a commonly accepted view until the Reformation.153 Some of the Church Fathers addressed the stylistic disparities between that epistle and others attributed to Paul with the explanation that he had composed the former in Hebrew rather than in Greek, or that Paul strove to conceal his authorship for reasons of modesty.154 The fact that many citations from the Bible are found throughout Hebrews has given rise to various hypotheses regarding the identity of its audience, which I
{"title":"Chapter Two. Solomon and Jesus—Two Sons of God, and of David?","authors":"Filius Patris","doi":"10.1515/9783110677263-004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110677263-004","url":null,"abstract":"Solomon’s presence in the polemic regarding Jesus’ divinity as the Son of God can be traced to a single act of rhetoric in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The authorship of that text, which dates to the second century, was attributed to Paul152 first by Eastern and later by Western Christianity, and this remained a commonly accepted view until the Reformation.153 Some of the Church Fathers addressed the stylistic disparities between that epistle and others attributed to Paul with the explanation that he had composed the former in Hebrew rather than in Greek, or that Paul strove to conceal his authorship for reasons of modesty.154 The fact that many citations from the Bible are found throughout Hebrews has given rise to various hypotheses regarding the identity of its audience, which I","PeriodicalId":221982,"journal":{"name":"An Imaginary Trio","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124721186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-10DOI: 10.1515/9783110677263-008
The correspondence between Solomon and Jesus also took place in the spheres of the esoteric and supernatural world of miracles and wondrous acts, even though, at this point, the two parted ways. Solomon did not work miracles or deal in magic, though he is a hero in many tales of wonders, while Jesus did work miracles and the mere mention of his name sufficed to overcome demons621; as a magician, he appears in both pagan and Jewish anti-Christian polemics. In Mendele Mocher Sforim’s622 novel Susati (My Mare), a classic of Yiddish and Hebrew literature, the narrator encounters witches, demons, and the demon king Ashmedai in a forest. A demon, formerly one of King Solomon’s servants, relates his account of ‘What King Solomon Did’: a mix of legends of the Sages and the author’s imagination. Upon finishing his story, the demon informs his listener that “I have many more tales from Solomon’s life; however, since I see in you signs of a non-believer—begging your forgiveness, one who casts doubt on everything, and you do not believe the words of an old demon —I would do well to hold my tongue. And nevertheless, I am not angry at you. For, after all, you are a descendant of the sons of the sons of Solomon...”.623
{"title":"Chapter Six. Miracles and Wonders: Magic, Satan, and Demons","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9783110677263-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110677263-008","url":null,"abstract":"The correspondence between Solomon and Jesus also took place in the spheres of the esoteric and supernatural world of miracles and wondrous acts, even though, at this point, the two parted ways. Solomon did not work miracles or deal in magic, though he is a hero in many tales of wonders, while Jesus did work miracles and the mere mention of his name sufficed to overcome demons621; as a magician, he appears in both pagan and Jewish anti-Christian polemics. In Mendele Mocher Sforim’s622 novel Susati (My Mare), a classic of Yiddish and Hebrew literature, the narrator encounters witches, demons, and the demon king Ashmedai in a forest. A demon, formerly one of King Solomon’s servants, relates his account of ‘What King Solomon Did’: a mix of legends of the Sages and the author’s imagination. Upon finishing his story, the demon informs his listener that “I have many more tales from Solomon’s life; however, since I see in you signs of a non-believer—begging your forgiveness, one who casts doubt on everything, and you do not believe the words of an old demon —I would do well to hold my tongue. And nevertheless, I am not angry at you. For, after all, you are a descendant of the sons of the sons of Solomon...”.623","PeriodicalId":221982,"journal":{"name":"An Imaginary Trio","volume":"221 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115104233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：