Zikaron and Saṃskāra: Relational and Dispositional Continuity Across Shared Problem Fields
Keywords:
zikaron, saṃskāra, Hebrew Bible, Classical Yoga, relational continuity, continuity architectures, Structural Position Analysis, comparative hermeneuticsAbstract
Comparative inquiry frequently encounters difficulties when concepts drawn from distinct textual traditions resist lexical equivalence yet address shared human concerns. This article addresses that challenge through a comparison of the Hebrew concept of zikaron and the Yogic concept of saṃskāra. Although these concepts differ in semantic content, textual context, and practical orientation, both occupy pivotal positions within Continuity Architectures through which the past remains operative.
Drawing upon Biblical Hebrew semantic analysis and comparative analysis of Hebrew and Yogic sources, the article reconstructs zikaron as a structure of Relational Continuity grounded in Covenantal Remembrance, Covenantal Participation, Ritual Participation, Narrative Transmission, Pedagogical Instruction, Textual Transmission, and Intergenerational Continuity. In contrast, saṃskāra is reconstructed as a structure of Dispositional Continuity grounded in latent impression, dispositional tendency, causal persistence, and transformative processes operating within citta. The comparison identifies two distinct Continuity Structures: Relational Continuity within the Hebrew tradition and Dispositional Continuity within Classical Yoga. Building upon this analysis, the article proposes a limited form of Structural Position Analysis (SPA), which shifts comparison from lexical equivalence toward the analysis of structural position, Continuity Structures, and Continuity Architectures while remaining grounded in philological and contextual reconstruction. The study further argues that continuity may be approached as one of the Shared Problem Fields through which traditions organize responses to questions concerning persistence, transmission, remembrance, and transformation. The article contributes to Hebrew Studies and comparative hermeneutics by suggesting that meaningful comparison need not depend upon conceptual identity. The comparison indicates that traditions may remain irreducibly distinct while nevertheless becoming mutually intelligible through the analysis of structural positions within broader Continuity Architectures.
Published in: European Hebrew Journal, Volume 1, Issue 2 (2026)
Article Type: Research Article
Peer Review: Double-Blind Peer Review
Academic Editor: Prof. Dr. Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College, USA
Received: 17 June 2026 | Accepted: 1 August 2026 | Published: 17 August 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.67469/EHJ2026.1.2.10
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8279-041X
Corresponding author: Yu-Sung Liao | yusung.kevin@gmail.com
Pages: 225–264
References
Ackroyd, P. R. (1972). The temple vessels: A continuity theme. In Studies in the Religion of
Ancient Israel (pp. 166–181). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004275461_010
Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and
Political Imagination. Cambridge University Press.
Bell, C. (1992). Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford University Press.
Bryant, E. F. (2009). The Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali: A New Edition, Translation, and
Commentary. North Point Press.
Carr, D. M. (2005). Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature.
Oxford University Press.
Childs, B. S. (1962). Memory and Tradition in Israel. SCM Press.
Clooney, F. X. (2010). Comparative Theology: Deep Learning Across Religious Borders.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Dimant, D. (1988). Use and interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. In
M. J. Mulder (Ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible
in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum, Vol. 2, Part 1, pp. 379–419). Van Gorcum; Fortress Press.
European Hebrew Journal | Vol. 1, No. 2 (2026)
Durkheim, E. (1995). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (K. E. Fields, Trans.). Free Press.
(Original work published 1912)
Fishbane, M. (1985). Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford University Press.
Fishbane, M. (2008). Sacred Attunement: A Jewish Theology. University of Chicago Press.
Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and Method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall,
Trans.). Continuum. (Original work published 1960)
Halbwachs, M. (1992). On Collective Memory (L. A. Coser, Ed. and Trans.). University of
Chicago Press.
Hendel, R. (2005). Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew
Bible. Oxford University Press.
Jenni, E., & Westermann, C. (Eds.). (1997). Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Vol. 1).
Hendrickson.
Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon
of the Old Testament (5 vols.). Brill.
Larson, G. J. (2018). Classical Yoga Philosophy and the Legacy of Sāṃkhya. Motilal
Banarsidass.
Levenson, J. D. (1985). Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. Harper & Row.
Mattison, K. (2025). Jewish Identity, Exclusion of Foreigners, and Group Survival: Jubilees’
Recasting of Circumcision for the Hellenistic Age. Vetus Testamentum. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685330-bja10235
National Council of Churches. (2021). The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version
Updated Edition (NRSVue). National Council of Churches.
Olick, J. K. (2007). The Politics of Regret: On Collective Memory and Historical Responsibility.
Routledge.
Pioske, D. (2025). The Hebrew Bible and the Theory of Anachronism. Vetus Testamentum.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685330-bja10223
Ricoeur, P. (2004). Memory, History, Forgetting (K. Blamey & D. Pellauer, Trans.). University of
Chicago Press.
Schaper, J. (2005). Exilic and post-exilic prophecy and the orality/literacy problem. Vetus
Testamentum, 55(3), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568533054359850
Schiffman, L. H. (1994). Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jewish Publication Society.
Schottroff, W. (1964). Gedenken im Alten Testament: Die Wurzel זכר im Alten Testament und
im Alten Orient. Neukirchener Verlag.
Schottroff, W. (1997). זכר zkr. In E. Jenni & C. Westermann (Eds.), Theological Lexicon of the
Old Testament (Vol. 1, pp. 379–388). Hendrickson.
Sommer, B. D. (2009). The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge
University Press.
Stanojević, Ž. (2026a). 4Q175 (Testimonia) in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Scribal memory and
European Hebrew Journal | Vol. 1, No. 2 (2026)
textual recomposition [Unpublished manuscript]. Institute for Hebrew Language and
Literature. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19557658
Stanojević, Ž. (2026b). Wine or grape juice? The use of the noun Yayin in the Old Testament:
A lexical-semantic and exegetical analysis [Unpublished manuscript]. Institute for Hebrew
Language and Literature.
Tov, E. (2004). Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean
Desert. Brill.
Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Aldine.
Ulrich, E. (2015). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Brill.
Vyāsa. (1914). The Yoga-System of Patañjali, or the Ancient Hindu Doctrine of Concentration
of Mind (J. H. Woods, Trans.). Harvard Oriental Series (Vol. 17). Harvard University Press.
Weinfeld, M. (1972). Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford University Press.
Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1982). Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. University of
Washington Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yu-Sung Liao (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the European Hebrew Journal (EHJ) the right of first publication.
All articles published in EHJ are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
EHJ supports immediate open access to published research and does not charge submission fees or Article Processing Charges (APCs).
*Authors retain copyright of their work and grant EHJ the right of first publication. Articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
