A Study in the Application of Rabbinic Exegesis by a Christian Hebraist – R. Gerald Hobbs (slot, pp. 157–163)
Transcriptie naar een scan. De voetnoten staan tussen haken op de plaats van het notencijfer; vertalingen van de Latijnse citaten volgen direct op het citaat. Spelling en interpunctie van het origineel zijn behouden, evidente OCR-fouten stilzwijgend hersteld. Afkorting: BPs = Bucer, Sacrorum Psalmorum libri quinque (zonder jaartal: ed. Basel 1547).
157 [de zin begint op p. 156: „Hence this attempt to turn what is for] the most part rabbinic material to the demonstration of the Christological intent of the psalmist. 55Cf. the polemic technique initiated by the 13th C. Spanish Dominican, Raymond MARTINI, who employed Talmudic materials for his missionary ends. His Pugio Fidei became a basic source for most subsequent polemic literature, as the De arcanis catholicae veritatis (Rome, 1518) of Pietro COLUMNA, or GALATINUS. On MARTINI see ed. K.H. RENGSTORF & S. VON KORTZFLEISCH, Kirche und Synagoge, Stuttgart, 1968-1970, t. 1, pp. 233-235.
If the Massoretic text of this well-known crux interpretum is to be rendered literally : sicut leo manus meas et pedes meos like a lion, my hands and my feet, 56So Bucer’s ad verbum (1532). Christian tradition read the first vocable otherwise. Following the Septuagint’s ὤρυξαν, Jerome retained foderunt they dug, pierced in the Gallican, and rendered finxerunt in his Hebraic Psalter. [Zo in de druk; de kritische edities van het Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos lezen vinxerunt, ‘zij hebben gebonden’.] He was in turn followed by virtually all Christian translators, 57Foderunt : FELIX PRATENSIS ; O. LUSCINIUS (Psalterium Davidis, Augsburg, 1524) ; S. PAGNINUS (Biblia, Lyon, 1528) ; C. PELLICAN, (Psalterium Davidis, Strasbourg, 1527) ; all ad loc. and LUTHER (Psalter of 1524) : « Sie haben meyne hende und fusse durchgraben » (WA 10/1, p. 166). The notable exception is GIUSTINIANI, whose literal rendering reads : « sic ut leo... » like a lion …. in agreement with the traditional application to Christ’s crucifixion. It was a commonplace of Christian polemic to accuse the Jews of deliberate corruption of this text 58The reading usually proposed by Christians, and supposedly original, being כארו, to be read כָּ(א)רוּ from a root כרה, meaning « dig, hollow out ». : so for example Raymond Martini, 59Pugio Fidei, (Leipzig, 1687) 2a pars, cap. 3, No. 9 and passim. Porchetto de Salvaticis 60Victoria supra Iudaeos, ed. A. GIUSTINIANI (Paris, 1520), fol. 38r.b. and Paul of Burgos. 61In his additio 3 to the Postills of LYRA on this psalm.
Already in his 1526 Psalter, Bucer attempted a resolution 158 of this problem. 62Cf. supra n. 23. BUGENHAGEN, commenting upon the Vulgate, passes over the problem without a word, despite the material in FELIX PRATENSIS, whom he is reading (cf. H.H. HOLFELDER, Tentatio et Consolatio..., Berlin-New York, 1974 (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 45), pp. 93-95). The lengthy note in the 1526 Psalter wol verteutscht is certainly from BUCER (fol. XXXV H-XXXVI A). Noting that the Jews mock Christians for their failure to conform to the Hebrew, he sets forth a defence of the traditional rendering on two grounds, the one philological, the other theological. Borrowing heavily from Giustiniani, 63BUCER’s rendering of the « Chaldeisch verdolmetschung » is almost certainly taken from GIUSTINIANI’s seventh column, as his argument reproduces the latter’s note on the constructio defectiva defective, elliptical construction of the Hebrew. he demonstrates on the strength of the Targum that the Hebrew lacks a verb. The Targum supplies « biting » ; one can equally well read « digging through » or « piercing ». In any case, Christians know the true sense of the passage — it must be read in the light of Christ’s experience. 64« Wir die gewisse geschicht für uns haben » (Loc. cit.).
The 1529 treatment differs considerably in detail, albeit proceeding from the same desire to offer a respectable exegesis that does not draw justifiable Jewish contempt. The Targum and Giustiniani’s argument based upon it, do not figure. 65The reading of the Targum is appended to the passage in 1532, but nothing is made of it. If he has no difficulty rebutting the proposal of Kimhi and Ibn Ezra, 66Who attached verse 17c to the previous strophe and argued that it expresses the inability to move induced by terror in the presence of the lion. Bucer is unsatisfied by Christian solutions, notably that propounded by Felix Pratensis. The latter claimed support of a manuscript tradition in favour of the « Christian » reading of the disputed vocable ; and brought proofs from Cabbala as well as from Massoretic marginalia. 67The key portions of FELIX’ text read : « in hoc psalmo iuxta hanc dictionem caari glosa hebrea habet hec verba : Bis tamen in sacra scriptura reperitur hec dictio, scilicet hic atque in praenotato loco [Is 38, 13], et in duplici significato... » in this psalm, at this word caari (כָּאֲרִי), the Hebrew gloss has these words: This word, however, is found twice in Holy Scripture, namely here and in the passage noted above (Is 38:13), and in a twofold meaning …. Since in Isaiah, it means « like a lion », here it must mean something else, namely « they have pierced » ! After arguing that the letter א is superfluous, being in the text « propter aliquod archanum seu misterium nobis incognitum » on account of some secret or mystery unknown to us, he adds his report of a rare Qerê/kethiv : 159 « Memini enim (testor Deum) me vidisse quemdam librum habentem in glosa caru, cui non minorem auctoritatem conferunt quam ipsi textui, quod etiam plurimi iudeorum fatentur. Iuxta id superius dictum caru legitur et caari scribitur » For I remember (God is my witness) having seen a certain book which had caru (כָּרוּ) in the gloss – to which they attribute no less authority than to the text itself, as very many of the Jews also admit. According to what was said above, caru is read and caari is written (op. cit., Sign. D r.-v.).
Bucer weighs his arguments, verifies them against their sources and correctly finds them wanting. 67aTo the cabbalist speculation on the significance of א BUCER gives no space. His respect for the Massoretic text, and the absence of corroboration elsewhere, outweighs the report of a rare variant reading. Most interesting is his handling of FELIX’ first argument. Though he does not locate the latter’s source (in the Massorah marginalis), he rejects what is in fact a misrepresentation of it : through use of his concordance, and a careful reading of his rabbinic sources, he concludes that what FELIX claims for the whole vocable in fact is only applied to the unusual pointing of the first consonant. Hence he proceeds to warn Christian exegetes 68LUTHER, who took FELIX’ claims at face value, is the unnamed object of this warning : cf. WA 5, p. 633. not to make fools of themselves by adducing such faulty arguments in debate. Let the Jews have this passage. 69« Sed tamen cum Iudaeis ob vocabulam [sic] hanc ego nunquam contenderem... Manus et pedes Servatoris perfossos, etiam si hunc locum Iudaeis concesserimus, Evangelistae nobis satis probant » But I for my part would never contend with the Jews over this word … That the Saviour’s hands and feet were pierced, the Evangelists prove sufficiently to us, even if we concede this passage to the Jews (BPs p. 182). The Gospels are quite sufficient to prove that Christ’s hands and feet were pierced ; and the context of this psalm makes clear that it squares with Christ as with none other.
Let the Jews have that passage ! The three loci discussed above demonstrate as clearly as Bucer’s explicit response 70BPs p. 185, ad vers. 20-22. He does not take up in detail all of KIMHI’s arguments, but there are traces passim of exegetical decisions made in awareness of the issues. The question of BUCER’s access to the polemic is unresolved : the 1517 Biblia Rabbinica did not reproduce these elements of K.’s text. They were available however in certain other editions (notably that of Salonika, 1522, and the editio princeps : Bologna, 1477). to the anti-Christian polemic appended by Kimhi to his treatment of the psalm, that the Christian exegete of the literal sense in the early 16th century was conscious of 160 working in the presence of a Jewish interlocutor. 71Cf. the excellent work on polemic in the Renaissance by H.H. Ben-Sasson, « Jewish-Christian disputation in the setting of humanism and Reformation in the German Empire », in Harvard Theological Review 59, 1966, 369-390, esp. 372-385, where much is made of the Alsatian rabbi Johanan Loria and his debates with humanists. For an equally valuable study of the general Jewish response to the Reformation, IDEM, The Reformation in Contemporary Jewish Eyes, Jerusalem, 1970 (The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, IV/12). In the case of Bucer, we have no specific record of actual debate with Jews prior to the tragic affair of the Hessian community 72Primary texts, with introduction and bibliography, in Bucer Deutsche Schriften, t. 7, pp. 319-394. To this add H. EELLS, « Bucer’s plan for the Jews », in Church History 6, 1937, pp. 127-135. ; but there is evidence that at least one Jewish scholar frequented on occasion the biblical lectures of Capito, 73So reports Rabbi Josel of Rosheim in his Trostschrift to the Jews of Hesse : quoted in L. FEILCHENFELD, Rabbi Josel von Rosheim..., Strasbourg, 1898, p. 182. held in the same setting as Bucer’s Psalms. However this may be, readings in Bucer’s commentaries confirm our findings here, namely that the ex-Dominican expounded Scripture with a constant eye on the Jewish rival for the proper sense.
Erwin Rosenthal has observed 74« Antichristian polemic in medieval Bible commentaries », in Journal of Jewish Studies 11, 1960, 115-135. that a fundamental impulse in the rise of the peshat school of interpretation was the need for a more effective polemical tool. In other words, Jewish emphasis upon a literal, historical interpretation of the Psalter made sense in a situation where Christians advanced a prophetic sense, whose fulfilment was in Christ and his Church. If rabbinic peshat was charged with these overtones, how could the Christian exegete make broad use of it, while retaining a Christian Psalter ?
Bucer’s answer, which dominates so thoroughly the exegesis of this psalm, was already anticipated in his exposition of the canon observandus interpretandi Scripturas the rule to be observed in interpreting the Scriptures in his Ephesians commentary of 1527. Taking the example of the 161 promise to David and his posterity in 2 Sm 7, reflected in Psalms 89 and 132, he observes that although the res the things of these texts clearly point to Christ, the verba the words also directly fit Solomon. « Quid igitur facies ? Concedes tam insignem prophetiam Iudaeis ? Absit ! » What then will you do? Will you concede so remarkable a prophecy to the Jews? Far from it! 75Epistola ad Ephesios, [Strasbourg, 1527], f. 101 v. Close examination will show that only some words suit Solomon ; that some far surpass any possible fulfilment in him or his successors. And to make certain that this would be apparent, divine providence saw to it that before the end of his life, Solomon had quite obviously failed to be the fulfilment of these. For this one must look beyond to the coelestis Schlomoh the heavenly Solomon, of which the Old Testament personage is a type and figure.
Bucer returns to the same theme in a systematic exposé, de typicis expositionibus on typological expositions, in 1528. 76In his Enarratio in evangelion Iohannis, Strasbourg, 1528, f. 78 v.-87 v., esp. 83-84. There are of course some open prophecies, sine medio typo without an intervening type ; but many, such as those cited above, operate through the intervening type. In these the interpreter must know how to discern those things proper to the type, and those that exceed the same and are properly of Christ and the Church.
It is this schema, by no means original, 77BUCER’s language and examples recall AQUINAS, In Psalmos, prooemium ; so AUGUSTINE, De Civ. Dei, 17, 8, 2. Cf. DE LUBAC, op. cit., t. 2/2, p. 61 f. that Bucer applies to the Psalter, to hold together his literal interpretations in a Christian setting. « David Christi se typum aperte admodum hoc psalmo exhibet. » In this psalm David shows himself quite openly to be a type of Christ. 78Argumentum Ps 22, BPs p. 176. The ratio temporis the circumstances of the time required that all take place in a figure, which the psalmist saw adumbrated in himself, but of which it was inappropriate to sing openly and directly. 79BPs p. 178. « ... neque conveniret sine involucro aliquo de eo canere... » … nor would it be fitting to sing of him without some veil …. BUCER would defend his allegorizing on the inscription as certae anagogae et translationes sure anagogies and transferred meanings : cf. supra n. 76. One does well to contemplate David in his life-situation, but eyes of faith will also see beyond, that all 162 properly comes together in Christ. 80Loc. cit. The prayer for deliverance from the sword (verses 20-22) should be taken as David’s own — one notes that this comes in the context of rebuttal of Kimhi’s polemic ! Conversely there is much that clearly goes beyond the type and fits Christ alone. 81BPs p. 185. « Non mirum igitur, et hic quaedam sic dicta, ut in Davidem Christi exemplar magis quam in ipsum videantur quadrare. Non desunt autem simul et quae sicut typum aperte excedunt, ita Christo soli competunt... » It is no wonder, then, that here too some things are so said that they seem to fit David, the exemplar of Christ, rather than Christ himself. But at the same time there is no lack of things which, just as they plainly exceed the type, so apply to Christ alone …. And in effect, Bucer characterizes the final verses of the psalm simply as prophecy, making no attempt to maintain his historia.
Within the compass of this paper we have considered the fashion in which a Christian Hebraist of the early 16th century resolves the problems implicit in his confrontation of Jewish interpretation with his Christian purposes. It would be unfortunate if the selection of examples were to leave the impression that rabbinic sources are turned primarily back to an apologetic function vis-à-vis the Jewish community in the hands of exegetes like Bucer. In fact, the principal function of these commentaries is to elucidate the vocables and constructions of the Hebrew text. The preponderant part they play in works like Bucer’s Psalms signals their rising influence upon the mainstream of Christian biblical exegesis.
Yet the problem posed by the application of these materials to Christian ends was a real one. Jew and Christian found themselves in competition on the terrain of the historia. Each attempted to use it to satisfy or outdo the other. On both sides ideological demands required a going beyond, a positing beyond the letter of a prophetic reality. It is again Rosenthal who observes that polemic had more an apologetic than a missionary character : it was designed not so much to convince the opponent as to strengthen the defences of the exegete’s own community. 82« Jüdische Antwort » in : RENGSTORF & KORTZFLEISCH, op. cit., t. 1, p. 322. This the Bucer [sic] would certainly 163 understand who admitted that even if the contested verse 17c did have the « Christian » reading, it would gain no converts among Jews destitute of a capacity for the truth. And, « magis spectans quid recipiant Christiani quam quid possit approbari contentiosis Iudaeis » looking more to what Christians accept than to what could be proved to contentious Jews, 83BPs p. 182. he set foderunt in his translation.