In:
AJS Review, Project MUSE, Vol. 38, No. 1 ( 2014-04), p. 129-141
Abstract:
Much has been written on rabbinic polysemy over the past two decades, and yet the precise nature and dating of this phenomenon remain a matter of controversy. This note, which aims to help clarify the issue, is a response to Steven Fraade's essay, “Rabbinic Polysemy and Pluralism Revisited: Between Praxis and Thematization,” published in this journal. Surveys of the history of the polysemy debates are readily available; my present concern is with Fraade's position, and the positions to which he is responding, chief among them Daniel Boyarin's claim that rabbinic polysemy is a relatively late, post-tannaitic, phenomenon. Fraade sets out to refute this claim, and his essay provides a dozen passages that serve as “countertexts to [Boyarin's] arguments” (5). The aim of this response is to show that the rabbinic sources in question are not countertexts, and that polysemy is, in fact, a post-tannaitic phenomenon.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0364-0094
,
1475-4541
DOI:
10.1017/S0364009414000063
Language:
English
Publisher:
Project MUSE
Publication Date:
2014
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2091701-6
SSG:
0
SSG:
1
SSG:
7,7
Permalink