The “Kyoto Association of Jewish Thought” was founded in 2008 on the basis of research carried out by three Kyoto teachers: Tetsutaro Ariga, Yoshimori Hiraishi(1912-2006), and Yuzo Morita(1930-2000). Ariga was the first Japanese Doctor of Theology and one of the prominent leaders of the ecumenical movement in Japan. In 1935, Ariga boldly published in his “Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrew” critical opinion of Deutsche Christen. During World War II, at the request of Manchuria Railway Company, Ariga began translating “Das Wesen des Judentums (the Essence of Judaism)” by Leo Baeck. Ariga published his translation right after the War. His intention is clearly described in his preface (See appendix: Ariga's letter to Baeck December, 26, 1947).
After publishing the translation, Ariga managed to have a personal contact with Leo Baeck, who had escaped from Germany to London. The exchange of letters between Baeck and Ariga were presented to an audience during a lecture on historical documents. (See appendix.)
In Japan's postwar dire situation, Ariga's translation of “Das Wesen des Judentums” did not have a large number of Japanese readers. Today, however, Ariga's book is likely to get considerable exposure.

抄録全体を表示

The first aim of this paper is to examine the verb חָרַד in Biblical Hebrew by the semantic componential analysis, and to make comparisons between medieval Jewish interpretations and modern interpretations, including modern Bible translations. And the second aim is to illuminate the differences between Jewish interpretations and modern interpretations. The verb חָרַד belongs to the semantic fields “fear” and “movement”, and the semantic components by which the verb is characterized are as follows:
(S=semantic component, sememe).
S₁ = Feeling of fear S₂ = Agent [God, man, animal, inorganic] S₃ = The cause of fear
S₄ = Strength of fear S₅ = Trembling S₆ = Movement S₇ = Caring
S₈ = Astonishment
For the four syntactic structures examined in this paper, the Jewish commentators regarded S6 as the main semantic component, emphasizing the aspect of spatial movement, whereas modern interpretations regarded all of the three semantic components S1, S5, and S6 to be active in these structures, understanding this verb in terms of fear and trembling.

抄録全体を表示

In the first decades of sixteenth-century France, a new generation of scholars who had acquired a highly developed philological method in Italy began to create a milieu favorable to Bible studies based not only on Greek philology but also on Hebrew. These two sacred languages seemed quite seductive to most of humanist scholars and theologians in search for a more ancient and authentic faith. In Paris, however, the Sorbonne sensitive toward any tendency which could be harmful to their doctrinal authority and the learning of Greek and Hebrew was considered particularly dangerous because it could undermine the authority of traditional Latin Bible which served as the basis for the most conservative medieval doctrinal commentaries and interpretations. The biblical philology in this context was a kind of double-edged sword for humanist scholars. It could benefit a better understanding of the Holy Scripture but in some cases could also cause serious conflicts concerning interpretations of important textual details between eminent humanist scholars and perhaps even destroy their solidarity held against powerful conservatives.
We examine the controversy between Jacques Lefèvre D’Etaples, a representative of early French biblists and Erasmus, “the king of the humanists” and one of the leading Biblical scholars in Europe in 1512. The main issue of this controversy was over the interpretation of a passage cited from the Old Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Based on his highly christological reading and also on the conviction that the New Testament must have been written originally in Hebrew, Lefèvre severely attacked the translation of Erasmus who had a much more critical and moderate point of view about the origin and possibilities of interpretations. Shocked by the harshness of the attack, Erasmus criticized not only his adversary's philological method, but also his uncivil tone of the attack. He felt that this kind of criticism was harmful to the solidarity which humanists must keep to maintain toleration and progress in philological studies. Noel Beda, a theologian at the Sorbonne who was hostile to any new tendency in philological studies of the Bible, made quite an effective use of this conflict between two important humanist scholars in order to officially condemn their writings. Thus, the Lefèvre-Erasmus controversy is one of the exemplary cases caused by a seductive, dangerous, and perhaps even a self destructive aspect of Greek and Hebrew scholarship in France in the early sixteenth century.

抄録全体を表示

Martin Buber is generally regarded as a spiritual Zionist. The distinction of spiritual Zionist derives from his focus on the spiritual/cultural maturation and unification of European Jewry over against the geopolitical components of Herzl's brand of Zionism. Buber viewed diasporic Jewry to be overly　acculturated at the expense of their ethno-religious identity as Jews. He therefore called for a Jewish cultural renaissance along the lines of Italian Humanism. Buber emphasized Hebrew language education and study of the Hebrew Scriptures as means of recapturing the essence of the classical Jewish personality. In Buber's mind, it was essential for the individual to first grasp his own personal origins before realizing his membership in the human family. This self-realization is a necessary precursor to realizing his vision of God's community. Towards that end, Buber taught the Hebrew Scriptures and language at the Jewish Free Institute as well as translated the Hebrew Scriptures into the German vernacular. His intent was to revive awareness of the essence of Jewishness as contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. From the specific awareness of one's personal identity, it would then become possible to expand into a broader, universal awareness of one's membership in universal humanity. To buttress this affirmation, Buber referred to a passage from the Pentateuch in which Jews are commanded to care for the sojourner in their midst. The ultimate goal of his Zionistic philosophy reflected the thought of the prophet Isaiah who foretold of the day when all nations of the earth would be brought together by God to live in peace and justice. In order to realize this idea, Buber worked indefatigably in spearheading a campaign to educate and revive diasporic Jewry.

抄録全体を表示