Notre thèse porte sur Qohélet ou מְגיִלּתָ קֹהלֶ֣תֶ (Εκκλησιαστής en grec), en tant que *midrash* de Dt 5,11 à la lumière du אֵל מסִתְּתַּרֵ / *Deus absconditus* (« Dieu caché ») d'Is 45,15. Cette triangularité paradigmatique et syntagmatique entre les trois textes du canon de la Bible hébraïque est une perspective toute nouvelle dans l'histoire des études sur Qohélet, bien que le livre nous enseigne qu'« il n'y a rien de nouveau sous le soleil » (Qo 1,9). Elle a son fondement dans les *Middot* ou règles herméneutiques juives, notamment le *gézéra shawa* ou le « raisonnement par analogie » et le *binyan'av mishne k$^e$tuvim* entendu comme le « raisonnement père de deux Écritures. » Le concept d'*intertextualité midrashique* qui fait également son apparition dans le champ de l'exégèse biblique rend compte de cette double portée midrashique et intertextuelle de notre perspective herméneutique en tant qu'appropriation sémantique d'un texte par analogie à un contexte de référence. Ce triple rapport de coprésence intertextuelle et midrashique entre Qohélet, Dt 5,11 et Is 45,15 nous permet de mettre en exergue la dialectique anthropothéologique inhérente à la dynamique épistémologique de Qohélet moyennant la rhétorique de la déconstruction qui met en crise la doctrine de la rétribution, inscrivant l'œuvre dans une triple tension dialectique et syntagmatique. Qohélet oppose בְניֵ האָדָםָ (« fils d'Adam ») et הָא;ֱהיִ֑ם (« le Dieu »), עַל־האָרָץֶ (« sur la terre ») ou תַּח֥תַ הַשּׁמָֽשֶׁ /ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον (« sous le soleil ») ou תַּח֥תַ הַשּׁמָיָֽםִ /ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν (« sous les cieux ») et בַּשּׁמָיַםִ (« dans les cieux »), הֶבלֶ (« buée ») et יאר (« craindre ») propre à la locution אֶת־האָ;ֱהיִ֖ם יְרָֽא (« crains Dieu » 5,6ss.). Au final, le Dieu de Qohélet apparait, dans son rapport à l'humain et son monde, comme l'*Absolument Autre*, le souverainement transcendant, l'incomparablement inaccessible, dont Dt 5,11/Ex 20,7 récuse la profanation du nom. Ce « Dieu caché » d'Is 45,15, dont le concept semble partagé par l'ensemble des *Megilloth*, est insaisissable et impénétrable depuis la « buée » ( הֶבלֶ ) de l'expérience humaine. Seule, la *sapientialisation* de la crainte que cristallise la racine יאר (3,14; 5,6; 7,18; 8,12-13) donnerait sens à notre existence grâce à la conscience de l'altérité absolue de Dieu : הָאֱ;הִ֤ים בַּשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ וְאַתָּ֣ה עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ (« Dieu est au ciel et toi sur la terre », 5,1b). / The thesis deals with Kohelet or מְגיִלּתָ קֹהלֶ֣תֶ (Εκκλησιαστής in Greek) as a midrash of Dt 5:11 in the light of אֵל מסִתְּתַּרֵ / *Deus absconditus* ("The hidden God") of Is 45:15. This paradigmatic and syntagmatic triangularity between the three texts of the canon of the Hebrew Bible is an entirely new perspective in the history of studies on Kohelet, although the book teaches us that "there is nothing new under the sun" (Eccl 1:9). It is based on the *Middot* that are the Jewish hermeneutical rules, notably the *gezera shawa* that means "the reasoning by analogy" and the *binyan'av mishne ketuvim* understood as the "the reasoning father of two scriptures". The concept of *Midrashic intertextuality*, which is also appearing for the first time in the framework of biblical exegesis, accounts for this double Midrashic and intertextual scope of our hermeneutic perspective as the semantic appropriation of a text analogically to a referential context. This intertextual and Midrashic co-presence between the three texts of Kohelet, Dt 5:11 and Is 45:15 allows us to highlight the anthropotheological dialectic inherent in the epistemological perspective of Kohelet by means of the rhetoric of deconstruction which puts the doctrine of retribution in crisis, inscribing the book in a triple dialectical and syntagmatic opposition between בְניֵ האָדָםָ ("sons of Adam") and הָא;ֱהיִ֑ם ("the God"), עַל־האָרָץֶ ("upon earth") or תַּח֥תַ השַָּׁמֽשֶׁ /ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον ("under the sun") or תַּח֥תַ השַּׁמָָיֽםִ /ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν ("under heaven") and בַּשּׁמָיַםִ ("in heaven"), הֶבלֶ ("mist") and יאר ("to fear") specifically in the phrase אֶת־האָ;ֱהיִ֖ם ירְאָֽ ("fear God" 5:6ff.). After all, Kohelet's God comes to be known, through his relationship to human and his world, as the *Absolutely Other*, the *Supremely transcendent*, the incomparably inaccessible, whose Dt 5:11/Ex 20:7 challenges the profanation of name. This "hidden God" of Is 45:15, whose concept seems to be shared by all the *Megilloth*, is elusive and impenetrable from the "mist" ( הֶבלֶ ) of human condition. Only the *sapientialization* of the fear of God, which does the verbal root יאר reflect (3:14; 5:6; 7:18; 8:12.13), might give sense to our existence by means of the conscience of the absolute otherness of God in accordance with Eccl 5:1b: הָאֱ;הִ֤ים בַּשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ וְאַתָּה֣ עלַ־האָָ֔רֶץ ("God is in heaven, and you are on earth").

The thesis will examine the influence of Biblical literature on some of the novels of George Eliot. In doing so it will consider the following aspects of Eliot criticism: current theoretical debate about the use of midrash; modes of discourse and narrative style; prophetic language and vision; the influence of Judaism and Jewish exegetical methods on Adam Bede, "The Lifted Veil", The Mill on the Floss, Felix Holt, and Daniel Deronda. Literary critics have, for a long time, been interested in the influence of the Bible and Biblical hermeneutics on literature and the extent to which Biblical narratives and themes are used typologically and allegorically in fiction has been well researched. In this regard, the concept of midrash is not a new one in literary theory. It refers both to a genre of writing and to an ancient Rabbinic method of exegesis. It has, however, been given new meaning by literary critics and theoriticians such as Frank Kermode, Harold Bloom, and Jacques Derrida. In The Genesis of Secrecy, Kermode gives a new nuance to the word and demonstrates how it may be used to read not only Biblical stories but secular literature as well. It is an innovative, self-reflexive, and intricate hermeneutic processs which has been used by scholars such as Geoffrey Hartman and Sanford Budick, editors of Midrash and Literature, a seminal work in this thesis. Eliot's interest in Judaism and her fascination with religion, religious writing, and religious characters are closely connected to her understanding of the novelist's role as an interpreter of stories. In this regard, the prophetic figure as poet, seer, and interpreter of the past, present, and future of society is of special significance. The thesis will investigate Eliot's reinterpretation of this important Biblical type as well as her retelling of Biblical stories. It will attempt to establish the extent to which Eliot's work may be called midrash, and enter the current debate on how and why literary works have been and can be interpreted. It will address the questions of why Eliot, who abjures normative religious faith, has such a profound interest in the Bible, how the Bible serves her creative purposes, why she is interested in Judaism, and to what extent the latter informs and permeates her novels.

Cette thèse a cherché à présenter une description des versions de Midrash Séder Eliyahou tout en se polarisant sur la recherche de la version authentique, aussi précise que possible. Cette étude interdisciplinaire tente d'allier les aspects paléographiques des manuscrits, la langue hébraïque ainsi que la littérature comparée. Le corpus de ce Midrash contient six éléments manuscrits. Seul le Codex, BAV, Vat. ebr. 31 est complet et en excellent état. Les trois éditions imprimées complètes, sont celles de : Venise (1598), première édition, copie d'un incunable, Prague (1677) et de Vienne (1901), l'édition critique de Friedman, basée sur BAV, Vat. ebr.31. Nous avons choisi ce dernier comme référent. Nous proposons l'hypothèse suivante : La fidélité est pas uniforme, il y a deux dimensions de fidélité, pouvant sembler contradictoires : paléographique et / ou exégétique. L'étude de sources de la Genizah génère deux cas de figure possibles : Il y aurait soit une seule famille du Midrash Séder Eliyahou, plus ou moins fidèles à la version de BAV, Vat. ebr. 31. Soit il existerait une autre version de SER, inconnue et divergente de celle de Vatican 31, générant une ou plusieurs autres familles de manuscrits. Si la seconde hypothèse se vérifie, il pourrait s'agir d'un Midrash en formation. La version occidentale est entièrement développée et fixée tandis que la version orientale aurait été transmise oralement sans avoir atteint sa forme définitive. / This thesis has sought to present a description of the versions of Midrash Seder Eliyyahu while polarizing on the search for the authentic version, as accurate as possible. This interdisciplinary study tries to use the palaeographic aspects of the manuscripts, the Hebrew language as well as comparative literature. The corpus of this Midrash contains six manuscripts elements. Only the Codex BAV, Vat. ebr. 31 is complete and in excellent condition. The three printed editions complete, are those of: Venice (1598), first edition, copy of incunabula, Prague (1677) and Vienna (1901), the critical edition of Friedman, based on BAV, Vat. ebr.31. This manuscript version was chosen as a referent. We propose the following hypothesis: The fidelity is not uniform, there are two loyalty dimensions, may seem contradictory : paleographic or/and exegetical. The study of the sources from the Genizah generated two possible cases : There would be only one family of the Midrash Seder Eliyyahu, referring to the version of BAV, Vat. ebr. 31. Either exist another version of SER, unknown and divergent from the Vatican 31, which will form one or more other family of manuscripts. If this second assumption proves true, Seder Eliyyahu could be a processing Midrash. The Western version is fully developed and secured while the eastern version be transmitted orally and not having reached its final form.

This dissertation seeks to provide a plausible alternative to the consensus interpretation of Jesus' "do not judge" teaching in Matt 7:1-5. While the overwhelming majority of recent interpreters understand "do not judge" (7:1) and its concurrent sayings such as "take the log out of your own eye" (7:5) to promote a non-judgmental attitude, this monograph seeks to situate this block of teaching within a Jewish second-Temple judicial setting. To this end, an overview of the judicial system during the second Temple era is provided, after which it is argued that Matt 7:1-5 is the Matthean Jesus' halakhic, midrashic comment upon the laws for just legal judging in Lev 19:15-18, 35-36 by which he prophetically criticizes unjust legal judging. Jesus' brother James takes up this teaching in Jas 2:1-13, using it to exhort Jewish Christian leaders who judge cases within Diaspora synagogues/churches. Such an alternative interpretation of Jesus' "do not judge" teaching in Matt 7:1-5 matches well other passages in Matthew which likewise speak of judicial, brotherly conflict such as 5:21-26 and 18:15-35. Some early Christian writers who quote or allude to Matt 7:1-5 reflect a judicial understanding of these verses as well, often relating Matt 7:1-5 to Lev 19:15-18, 35-36 and/or drawing parallels between Matt 7:1-5 and one or more of the NT judicial texts which, this thesis argues, is related to it (Matt 5:21-26, 18:15-35; Jas 2:1-13).

This thesis deals with the fable collection called Mishle Shu'alim, written by the Jewish author Berechiah ben Natronai ha-Nakdan who lived in the 12th/13th century either in France or in England. The aim of this thesis is to introduce the work along with the genre of the fable and its examples in Jewish literature of the Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Bible, Talmud, midrashic literature and a few of medieval scripts). The essential part of the thesis contains information about the author and all his works, characterization and analysis of the collection, and the list of the existing manuscripts, all known editions, and all translations of the collection or those of individual fables. Special attention is being paid to the Prague Jesuit edition of 1661. The thesis furthermore contains a commented translation of three selected fables.

No description available.

Brevard Childs argues for the inner logic of scripture’s textual authority as an historical reality that gives rise to the material condition by which the church apprehends and experiences God in Christ. The church’s use of (or by) scripture thus has a larger interiority: the shaped canon of scripture, Old and New Testaments, is a rule of faith which accrues authority in the church, through the vehicle of the sensus literalis. Childs’ work has been misplaced, however. Part one locates it internationally, attending to the way it has been read in English and German and finding that it has enjoyed a more patient reception in Europe than in Britain or North America. To illustrate, Childs’ definition of biblical theology is contrasted with that of James Barr. Their differences over gesamtbiblische theology involve opposite turns toward and away from Barthian dogma in biblical inquiry. Part two examines Childs on biblical reference, introducing why intertextuality is not midrashic but deictic—pointing to the res. This coincides with an understanding of the formation of biblical literature. Childs’ argument for canonical shaping is juxtaposed with Hermann Gunkel on tradition history, showing “final form” to be a deliberate inversion of form critical principles. Childs’ interest in the Bible as religious literature is then set alongside his studious confrontation of Judaism, with implications for inter-religious dialogue. Barr and Childs are compared again in part three, which frames their respective senses of indirect and direct biblical reference in terms of allegory. Both see allegory at work in the modern world under certain rules (either biblical criticism or the regula fidei). Their rules affect their articulations of trinitarian dogma. Finally, Psalm102 highlights divergences between modern and pre-modern interpreters. If scripture comprehends the present immediately, some postures of the church toward the synagogue may be excluded.

The present dissertation offers a literary profile of the enigmatic Gaonic era work known as Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer (PRE). This profile is based on an approach informed by the methodology theorized in the Manchester-Durham Typology of Anonymous and Pseudepigraphic Jewish Literature, c.200 BCE to c.700 CE, Project (TAPJLA). It is offered as a necessary prolegomenon to further research on contextualising PRE in relation to earlier Jewish tradition (both rabbinic and non-rabbinic), in relation to Jewish literature of the Gaonic period, and in relation to the historical development of Judaism in the early centuries of Islam. Chapter 1 sets out the research question, surveys, and critiques existing work on PRE, and outlines the methodology. Chapter 2 provides necessary background to the study of PRE, setting out the evidence with regard to its manuscripts and editions, its recensional and redactional history, its reception, and its language, content, dating, and provenance. Chapters 3 and 4 are the core of the dissertation and contain the literary profile of PRE. Chapter 3 offers an essentially synchronic text-linguistic description of the work under the following headings: Perspective; PRE as Narrative; PRE as Commentary; PRE as Thematic Discourse; and Coherence. Chapter 4 offers an essentially diachronic discussion of PRE’s intertexts, that is to say, other texts with which it has, or is alleged to have, a relationship. The texts selected for discussion are: the Hebrew Bible, Rabbinic Literature (both the classic rabbinic “canon” and “late midrash”), the Targum, the Pseudepigrapha, Piyyut, and certain Christian and Islamic traditions. Chapter 5 offers conclusions in the form of a discussion of the implications of the literary profile presented in chapters 3-4 for the methodology of the TAPJLA Project, for the problem of the genre of PRE, and for the question of PRE’s literary and historical context. The substantial Appendix is integral to the argument. It sets out much of the raw data on which the argument is based. I have removed this data to an appendix so as not to impede the flow of the discussion in the main text. The Appendix also contains my entry for the TAPJLA database, to help illuminate the discussion of my methodology, and a copy of my published article on the cosmology of PRE, to provide further support for my analysis of this theme in PRE.