Maureen Attali

Between Paradoxography and Aretalogy: The Jewish Scroll of Fasts

Introduction

Between paradoxography and aretalogy: the jewish scroll of fasts. This article analyzes the Jewish Scroll of Fasts (Megillat Taanit) as paradoxography, detailing its complex history, Hasmonean political bias, and rabbinic reinterpretation.

Abstract

This article argues that the Jewish Scroll of Fasts (Megillat Taanit), an Aramaic calendar of 35 auspicious days or periods, is a paradoxographic composition. While its present form probably dates from the early Roman period, the text is likely the product of a long and complex redactional history. Since it is almost entirely devoid of narrative, outside Knowledge is required to understand that a miracle occurred on these days and under what circumstances. The origins of some of the commemorations can be found in earlier Jewish-Greek works that interpreted them as miracles resulting from divine intervention. While similar interpretations were widespread in the Greco-Roman world, the fact that the same potentially innocuous eventswere regarded as miracles by several Jewish authors who did not rely on each other suggests the existence of other, now lost, Jewish miracle compilations. While the Scroll and its Sources are closely related to aretalogy, they show a strong political bias: the Scroll, or one of ist paradoxographic predecessors, was intended as Hasmonean propaganda. Consequently, the miracles that benefited the Jews of the Ptolemaic kingdom and were commemorated annually by them were excluded. The scroll may have been reused by the Herodian rulers. In late antiquity it was appropriated by the rabbis, who altered the etiology of some commemorations by providing them with narrative developments that did not necessarily involve a miracle. Paradoxography had become such a powerful tool that the reuse of the scroll's framework was considered sufficient to confer legitimacy on those claiming authority.

Review

This article presents a compelling and intricately argued re-evaluation of the Jewish Scroll of Fasts (Megillat Taanit), positioning it as a significant example of paradoxographic composition within early Jewish literature. The author adeptly introduces the Scroll as an Aramaic calendar of 35 auspicious days, immediately drawing attention to its peculiar nature—an almost entirely narrative-devoid text that nonetheless necessitates external knowledge to understand the miraculous events it commemorates. The article's foundational premise, that the Scroll, despite its early Roman period form, is the culmination of a protracted and complex redactional history, sets the stage for a sophisticated analysis of its layers of meaning and intent. A core strength of this article lies in its meticulous exploration of the Scroll's relationship to both paradoxography and aretalogy, a distinction crucial for understanding its unique character. The author persuasively traces the origins of many commemorations to earlier Jewish-Greek works, demonstrating how seemingly innocuous events were consistently interpreted as divine interventions, a phenomenon that hints at the existence of now-lost Jewish miracle compilations. Crucially, the article uncovers a strong political bias underlying the Scroll, arguing convincingly that it, or its paradoxographic predecessors, functioned as Hasmonean propaganda. This political agenda explains the deliberate exclusion of miracles benefiting Jews in the Ptolemaic kingdom, thus offering a fresh perspective on the selective memory and historical shaping embedded within the text. Beyond its origins and initial political utility, the article’s exploration of the Scroll's subsequent appropriations is particularly illuminating. It details how the Scroll was potentially reused by Herodian rulers and, later, significantly reinterpreted by the rabbis in late antiquity. The fascinating observation that rabbinic appropriation involved altering etiologies and sometimes even removing the miraculous element, while paradoxography itself remained a powerful tool for conferring legitimacy, underscores the enduring symbolic capital of the Scroll's framework. This trajectory reveals the Scroll not just as a historical artifact, but as a dynamically evolving text whose structure, rather than just its content, played a vital role in asserting authority across different historical epochs.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.