Academic Bio :
Samuel Secunda is a Mandel post-doctoral fellow at The Scholion Center for Interdisciplinary Jewish research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Prior to that he was a Postdoctoral Associate in Judaic Studies at Yale University. He took his Ph.D. from the Yeshiva University studying Talmudic and Zoroastrian Middle Persian texts and their interrelation.
Concise Paper Title :
The Talmudic and Middle Persian Texts in Late Antiquity: Common Challenges and Discourse
Paper Abstract (maximum of 400 words) :
Jews and Persians lived together in Mesopotamia for over a millennium.
The Babylonian Talmud, the central text of medieval and modern
rabbinic Judaism, was composed by Babylonian rabbis between the third
and the sixth or seventh centuries, and during more or less the same
period Zoroastrian literature, at least in its oral form, underwent
significant development. The nature of the relationship between
Judaism and Zoroastrianism is one of the older and more elusive
questions considered by students of comparative religions, and recent
years have seen a renewed interest in the links between the Babylonian
Talmud and Pahlavi literature. Both literatures were composed by
elite, learned, and ritually-minded groups, specifically rabbis and
dastwars, and this constitutes both the greatest point of comparison,
but also a daunting challenge. Because of the specialized nature of
these texts, they often appear to be inwardly focused, self-absorbed
literatures that lie worlds apart from one another. Specifically, the
Talmud is primarily interested in interpreting the Mishnah – a
rabbinic legal work compiled in Roman Palestine around 200 CE – as
well as the Bible, Midrash (classical rabbinic biblical exegesis), and
other works and statements by Palestinian and Babylonian sages. The
majority of Sasanian Zoroastrian literature is closely associated with
the Avesta which it translates, glosses, interprets, arranges,
discusses, and expands. Some scholars have taken the diverse interests
of the two literatures as an indication that historically, rabbis and
dastwars had little to do with one another, yet this is unwarranted.
Still, the problem remains. How can we bridge the gap between Sasanian
rabbinic and Zoroastrian texts so that scholars might responsibly
compare them? This paper will attempt to further clarify the nature of
the problem and then suggest a number of solutions. In particular, I
will show that careful philological analysis of talmudic and Middle
Persian texts can allow for a comparison not just of discrete parts,
but of legal and philosophical/theological trajectories and larger
structures. These comparison will indeed demonstrate that the
Babylonian Talmud and Zoroastrian literature shared a common
challenges, concerns, and ultimately, a common universe of discourse.