Justification by Deed: The Conclusion of "Sanhedrin-Makkot" and Paul's Rejection of Law
Many have noted the coincidence in the last sugya of b.Makkot and the Pauline letters of the idea of law being reducible to a single commandment or principle as well as the citation in the Makkot sugya of Habakkuk 2:4, which is also highlighted in the Pauline letters. In this article, I argue that t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
HUC
2006
|
| In: |
Hebrew Union College annual
Year: 2005, Volume: 76, Pages: 133-187 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Many have noted the coincidence in the last sugya of b.Makkot and the Pauline letters of the idea of law being reducible to a single commandment or principle as well as the citation in the Makkot sugya of Habakkuk 2:4, which is also highlighted in the Pauline letters. In this article, I argue that the parallels between the last sugya in Makkot and the Pauline letters go beyond that. Specifically, both the Pauline letters and this sugya address the problematic asymmetry inherent in a worldview that demands fulfillment of commandments and adherence to prohibitions: violating even a single prohibition constitutes a failure to live the life that God has demanded that a person lead, even if the person has otherwise followed the requirements of God's law nearly all of the time. Since every person, as an imperfect creature, will fail to follow God's law perfectly, how can human beings hope to live before God? Paul's answer to this question is well known. I argue in this article that the extended sugya which concludes Sanhedrin-Makkot addresses this same question — with, not surprisingly, a very different answer, and yet with striking similarities to many of Paul's arguments and with a striking coincidence of verses interpreted in the service of the respective arguments. In addition to comparing the sugya with Paul's arguments, I look at the passage within its literary context and discuss its meaning as the conclusion of Sanhedrin-Makkot and its connection to core ideas in the final chapter of Makkot. Finally, I analyze the sugya from the perspective of legal philosophy and psychology, using the lens of the writings of Herbert Morris on "shame morality" and "guilt morality." |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual
|