Abstract: How does “torah” function in postexilic literature? The torah of Moses is mentioned repeatedly in Ezra-Nehemiah. But these books—otherwise brimming with documentary citation—are shy about citing torah directly. In this article, I begin at the two moments of “almost citation” that surface in Ezra 9:11–12 and Neh 8:15 and explain torah’s “absent-presence” as an activating sign of covenant relation after the rupture of exile. I further contend that torah’s productive force depends on its lack of clear “content.” David Lambert has recently argued that torah is a speech act, that is, “an utterance which accomplishes a task.” Mark Lester has theorized that Deuteronomy’s ark of the covenant stands as a “reliquary,” which simultaneously renders the covenant present while protectively obscuring its contents. I put these ideas into conversation, contending that the phrase “the torah of Moses” demonstrates qualities of a discursive reliquary: it is a phrase that generates covenantal presence while partially obscuring its contents. These concealed contents—that is, the lack of overt citation—are the very feature that makes possible the phrase’s generative power.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Laura Carlson Hasler
The Catholic Biblical quarterly
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Laura Carlson Hasler (Wed,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69254f97c0ce034ddc359e8c — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2025.a974779
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: