Andrea Shatz (ed.), Josephus in Modern Jewish Culture, Brill, Leiden & Boston, 2019
This paper presents the various and, at times, contradictory components of two Orthodox historian... more This paper presents the various and, at times, contradictory components of two Orthodox historians’ approaches to Josephus, noting the ambivalence inherent in the approach of any Orthodox historian to Josephus. This ambivalence provides a glimpse into the world of Orthodoxy, and the world of nationalist Orthodoxy in its embryonic stages at the start of the twentieth century.
Any Orthodox approach to Josephus involves an internal contradiction. On the one hand, Josephus held a place of honor in traditional society, even if this was largely because early commentators identified the book of Josippon with the works of Josephus and cited it frequently. , On the other hand, the actions of Josephus –collaborating with the Romans, publishing books in Greek and becoming an integral part of the Hellenistic-Roman culture – contradict Orthodox values, which eschew cultural collaboration with external elements. Orthodoxy is intensely committed to conserving tradition. The intensity of this commitment, however, is itself an innovation. This is the paradox of Orthodoxy, and the approach of Orthodox historians to Josephus is a signal example of this paradox.
The two historians presented here are Rabbi Isaac HaLevi Rabinovitz (1847-1912) and Ze’ev Ya’avetz (1847-1924). Halevi was one of the most important Orthodox pioneers in the field of historiography in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Ya’avetz, his friend and disciple, was an Orthodox-nationalist historian who published a series of books surveying the history of the people of Israel from the time of the patriarchs until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. His historiographical oeuvre was also part of the Orthodox reaction to the wissenschaft school of historiography. Unlike Halevi, Ya’avetz was distinctive in his identification and cooperation with the nationalist Zionist movement. He was amongst the founders of the “Mizrachi” movement, and was editor of its journal from 1902-1905.
They both exemplify the complexity of the Orthodox historian’s approach to Josephus. Along with what their ambivalence can teach us about the inherent paradoxes of Orthodoxy, an examination of their approaches to Josephus may, as well, contribute to improving our understanding of Josephus himself.
Uploads
Papers by Eliezer Sariel
The Jewish historical tradition of governance demands reform of the judicial reform proposed by the current Israeli government.
Any Orthodox approach to Josephus involves an internal contradiction. On the one hand, Josephus held a place of honor in traditional society, even if this was largely because early commentators identified the book of Josippon with the works of Josephus and cited it frequently. , On the other hand, the actions of Josephus –collaborating with the Romans, publishing books in Greek and becoming an integral part of the Hellenistic-Roman culture – contradict Orthodox values, which eschew cultural collaboration with external elements. Orthodoxy is intensely committed to conserving tradition. The intensity of this commitment, however, is itself an innovation. This is the paradox of Orthodoxy, and the approach of Orthodox historians to Josephus is a signal example of this paradox.
The two historians presented here are Rabbi Isaac HaLevi Rabinovitz (1847-1912) and Ze’ev Ya’avetz (1847-1924). Halevi was one of the most important Orthodox pioneers in the field of historiography in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Ya’avetz, his friend and disciple, was an Orthodox-nationalist historian who published a series of books surveying the history of the people of Israel from the time of the patriarchs until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. His historiographical oeuvre was also part of the Orthodox reaction to the wissenschaft school of historiography. Unlike Halevi, Ya’avetz was distinctive in his identification and cooperation with the nationalist Zionist movement. He was amongst the founders of the “Mizrachi” movement, and was editor of its journal from 1902-1905.
They both exemplify the complexity of the Orthodox historian’s approach to Josephus. Along with what their ambivalence can teach us about the inherent paradoxes of Orthodoxy, an examination of their approaches to Josephus may, as well, contribute to improving our understanding of Josephus himself.
newfound commitment to modern historiographic discipline. This duality opens for us a window to a world of professional Orthodox historiography in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
Books by Eliezer Sariel
The Jewish historical tradition of governance demands reform of the judicial reform proposed by the current Israeli government.
Any Orthodox approach to Josephus involves an internal contradiction. On the one hand, Josephus held a place of honor in traditional society, even if this was largely because early commentators identified the book of Josippon with the works of Josephus and cited it frequently. , On the other hand, the actions of Josephus –collaborating with the Romans, publishing books in Greek and becoming an integral part of the Hellenistic-Roman culture – contradict Orthodox values, which eschew cultural collaboration with external elements. Orthodoxy is intensely committed to conserving tradition. The intensity of this commitment, however, is itself an innovation. This is the paradox of Orthodoxy, and the approach of Orthodox historians to Josephus is a signal example of this paradox.
The two historians presented here are Rabbi Isaac HaLevi Rabinovitz (1847-1912) and Ze’ev Ya’avetz (1847-1924). Halevi was one of the most important Orthodox pioneers in the field of historiography in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Ya’avetz, his friend and disciple, was an Orthodox-nationalist historian who published a series of books surveying the history of the people of Israel from the time of the patriarchs until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. His historiographical oeuvre was also part of the Orthodox reaction to the wissenschaft school of historiography. Unlike Halevi, Ya’avetz was distinctive in his identification and cooperation with the nationalist Zionist movement. He was amongst the founders of the “Mizrachi” movement, and was editor of its journal from 1902-1905.
They both exemplify the complexity of the Orthodox historian’s approach to Josephus. Along with what their ambivalence can teach us about the inherent paradoxes of Orthodoxy, an examination of their approaches to Josephus may, as well, contribute to improving our understanding of Josephus himself.
newfound commitment to modern historiographic discipline. This duality opens for us a window to a world of professional Orthodox historiography in the latter half of the nineteenth century.