Explore the vast range of titles available.

The first book which studies politics of memory as a public policy. The first book which draws the history of the title of Righteous among the Nations, of which Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg are maybe the most famous examples. The book critically discusses the reality of the so-called \"global memory\" in the contemporary period.

This paper examines a key passage in the Palestinian Talmud (the Yerushalmi), on mGit 4.8, that presents a salient discussion about the halakhic meaning of gentile ownership of lands in the land of Israel. Two theoretical moves are evident within the amoraic effort to define it. The first is an innovative turn, achieved through a creative reading of Leviticus 25, that interprets Jubilee law as a model by which gentile possession of the Land is portrayed as a lamentable yet temporary form of partial ownership, similar to enslaved Jews in gentile hands, until returning to Jewish control. The second is a conceptual deliberation on select legal categories of ownership, most notably the concept of ususfructus , which may be seen in light of their centrality in Roman property law, especially given the key role that such designations hold in Roman construction of hierarchies and space. I suggest viewing the rabbinic use of these categories as a subversive strategy, either as an adaptation to the Roman definition of Italic land or in opposition to Roman perceptions of provincial lands, that is, in dialogue with the very Roman notions of space and control over subordinate populations that the rabbis themselves were confronting in the land of Israel. This sugya thus provides a unique view of how these Palestinian rabbis perceived the Roman presence in their land and their mindset as a conquered community and, in a broader sense, a valuable source for better understanding provincial perspectives under the Roman Empire.

Seeking to understand how Mosaic Law became a barrier for Christian homosexuals, we completed a quantitative integrative review of N=110 scholastic sources; the results show that the barrier likely arose because 97.3 percent of homonegative exegesis is silent regarding Moses' and NT personal jurisdiction (PJ) statements; that silence results in an overinclusive argument that likely incorrectly implicates Gentile Christian homosexuality. More specifically, homonegative exegesis does four things: (1) 97 percent of exegetes omit citations and discussion of Moses' PJ that limit Moses' Gentile reach to \"resident aliens\" within Israel (e.g., Leviticus 18:2, 26, 20:2), (2) 92 percent of exegetes do not discuss Acts 10; 15:5-29, and 21:25, which reiterate Moses' PJ that exclude Gentiles from homosexual proscriptions, (3), 88.18 percent of scholars employ a different interpretive method to determine whom Romans 1 addresses than employed for the remainder of their analysis, and (4) 88.7 percent of exegetes engage ipse dixit when stating that the Romans 1 audience is Gentile when structural analysis and contextual evidence reflects that Paul addressed a Jewish audience concerning Jewish beliefs. Consequently, this research expatiates relevant PJ from Moses, NT, Didascalia, Halakha, Roman Law, and reflections of American Law, and adds the same to Romans 1 exegesis. The results—though unexpected—support the thesis that when added, Romans 1 forms no scriptural basis for Gentile Christian homonegative doctrine. We discuss the significance of the results.

A powerful remembrance of the lessons and legacy of Jan Karski, who risked his life to share the truth with the world--and a cautionary tale for our times.Richly illustrated with stills from the black-and-white film adaptation of the acclaimed stage play, Remember This: The Lesson of Jan Karski tells the story of World War II hero, Holocaust witness, and Georgetown University professor Jan Karski. A messenger of truth, Karski risked his life to carry his harrowing reports of the Holocaust from war-torn Poland to the Allied nations and, ultimately, the Oval Office, only to be ignored and disbelieved. Despite the West's unwillingness to act, Karski continued to tell others about the atrocities he saw, and, after a period of silence, would do so for the remainder of his life. This play carries forward his legacy of bearing witness so that future generations might be inspired to follow his example and \"shake the conscience of the world.\"Accompanying the text of the stage play in this volume are essays and conversations from leading diplomats, thinkers, artists, and writers who reckon with Karski's legacy, including Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, award-winning author Aminatta Forna, best-selling author Azar Nafisi, President Emeritus of Georgetown Leo J. O'Donovan, SJ, Ambassador Samantha Power, Ambassador Cynthia P. Schneider, historian Timothy Snyder, Academy Award™ nominated actor David Strathairn, and best-selling author Deborah Tannen.

In his Letter to the Galatians, Paul says that Peter ate with [phrase omitted] in Antioch (2:12). In this context, the majority of commentators read the phrase [phrase omitted] as a reference to gentiles who believe in Christ, departing from its predominant usage in Paul's writings. However, this widespread and consequential assumption that Peter ate only with Christ-believing gentiles is not compelling. In fact, such an understanding is mainly based on prior scholarship that assumed that Jews, even in the diaspora, lived in isolated contexts and could not have eaten with non-Jews. In contrast, I argue that there are neither linguistic nor contextual reasons in Gal 2 for limiting the people with whom Peter eats to Christ-believing gentiles. Instead, historical studies suggest that the expression [phrase omitted] refers to Peter eating with different kinds of gentiles, which also includes non-Christ-believing gentiles at everyday occasions such as private dinner gatherings. This changes our understanding of the context of Peter's commensality as well as Peter's position itself.

This research explores the interpretation of nomos in Galatians 2:11–21 within the light of Greco-Roman associations and Palestinian chavurot. As such, it proposes a reading of the text and conflict as a localized issue of conflicting association by-laws between Jews and Gentiles. The members of Jacob’s association in Jerusalem demonstrated Pharisaic behavior in requiring circumcision for membership in the association and requiring the additional observance of purity and tithing regulations as interpreted by the association as crucial elements of its by-laws. Paul chastises Peter for breaking the by-laws of the Jewish assembly when eating with the Gentiles but then “separating himself” from them and requiring the Gentiles to observe the by-laws that he had just broken. Paul then explains how the Jewish association’s by-laws are not required for his Gentile followers and redirects them to the faithfulness of Christ as their means of being set right and the means of acquiring justice.

The paper consists in the study and analysis of political and cultural phenomena, on the one hand, and educational and anthropological phenomena, on the other, that have led to making Giovanni Gentile's grand ideological design into a sort of universal category of education, something that resembles a true educational archetype. This has generally taken hold across Europe, and particularly in Italy, as a distinct [much less than]era[much greater than] that has marked the formation of Nations. An educational era that, beginning with romantic Enlightenment, has traversed contemporary history and the development of capitalist and mass societies, and continues to persist and strengthen to this day, thanks to the digital and informational revolution and the enhanced virality of memes. Keywords. Capture - Phenomenology - Ideology - Unconscious - Meme - Retrotopia, Schooling - School system - Socialization

In Romans 2, Paul uses the Greco-Roman rhetorical technique of diatribe, i.e., a debate with a fictional partner. Reformation interpreters insisted that Paul confronts a hypocritical Jew; this thought remained prominent until the last century and has yielded unintentional anti-Semitic readings of Paul in many Protestant circles to this day. The New Perspective tempered the problem by suggesting that Paul begins the passage opposing a gentile until verse 17 when he has a new, Jewish interlocutor. However, Paul’s language gives no indication of a shift. Scholars of the Radical New Perspective have attempted to solve this language challenge by claiming that Romans 2 contains a single diatribe with a gentile opponent. Although this paper agrees with that basic conclusion, it proposes a new specific identity for that interlocutor that departs from the general consensus of the Radical New Perspective. That consensus identifies the interlocutor as a gentile Judaizer. No scholars, however, have clearly displayed the existence of such people at the time when Paul wrote Romans. On the other hand, Paul’s letter constantly attacks beliefs of gentile supersession, implying that some audience members might entertain such presumptions. This essay, therefore, proposes that Paul debates a single gentile supersessionist.