Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T14:58:25.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reevaluation of a Medieval Polemical Manuscript

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Joel E. Rembaum
Joel E. Rembaum
Affiliation:
University of Judaism
Get access

Abstract

Fragment A2 of MS Or. 53 of the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Rome, though only five folios in length, provides the student of medieval Jewish history with fresh insights into the development of Jewish anti-Christian polemics. The manuscript appears to have been written in response to heightened anti-Jewish propaganda that emerged in Northern France as a result of the visit to that area by Paul Christian in 1269. The work is a compilation of arguments against Christianity drawn from the polemical traditions of Northern France, Germany and Provence. It also contains excerpts from the so-called Vikkuaḥ ha-RaMBaN, the Hebrew account of the debate on the Talmud held in Barcelona in 1263. Analysis of the material indicates that the manuscript does not contain the record of a face-to-face disputation between Paul Christian and a Jew named Menaḥem, as has been suggested. Arguments assumed to be related to such a meeting can be traced back to extant literary sources that predate the 1260s. Of particular interest are the passages from fragment A2 that were adapted from the Sefer ha-berit of Joseph Kimḥi, written about 1170, and the so-called Vikkuaḥ ha-RaDaQ, written in the early thirteenth century. MS 53 A2, written in the last third of the thirteenth century, represents the earliest extant evidence for use of the Kimḥi and the pseudo-Kimḥi material in later polemical literature. The appearance of the Provencal Kimḥi arguments in this Northern French manuscript also points to the movement of traditions from the south into the north and sheds new light on the geographic patterns of cultural development in thirteenth century France. Fragment A2 also contains almost verbatim parallels to anti-Christian criticism found in Nizzachon vetus, including traces of German linguistic influence.

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 5 , April 1980 , pp. 81 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Urbach, Ephraim E., “Études sur la littérature polémique au moyen-âge,” Revue des études juives 100 (1935): 49–77.Google Scholar

2. Urbach, , “Études,” p. 51 and passim.Google Scholar

3. Rosenthal, Judah, “Vikkuaḥ dati bein ḥakham be-shem Menaḥem u-vein ha-mumar ve-ha-nazir ha-dominiqani Pablo Kristi'ani,” Hagut ‘ivrit be-’ ameriqa 3 (1974): 61–74 (hereafter, R.).Google Scholar

4. Urbach, , “Études,” p. 56Google Scholar; R., p. 61. See also Rosenthal, Judah, “Sifrut ha-vikkuaḥ ha'anṭi-noṣerit ‘ad sof ha-me'ah ha-shemoneh ‘esreh,” ‘Areshet 2 (1960): 142–44Google Scholar; idem, ed., Sefer Yosef ha-meqanne (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 30Google Scholar (Hebrew) (hereafter, S.Y.).

5. MS Or. 53, Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, fol. 21r, (hereafter, MS 53); R., p. 62.

6. R., p. 62, especially nn. 1–5.

7. See the Nahmanides account in Wagenseil, J. C., Tela ignea satanae (Altdorf, 1681), pp. 23–60Google Scholar, and in Chavel, C. B., ed., Kitvei rabbenu Mosheh ben Naḥman, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1973), 1: 302–20.Google Scholar

8. S.Y., p. 15 and Liber Nizzachon vetus, in Wagenseil, , Tela, pp. 186, 189Google Scholar. (Subsequent references will be to pages in Wagenseil.) On the dates and provenances of these works see S. Y., pp. 16–17 (Hebrew), and see n. 54 below.

9. R., pp. 62–63, and see nn. 5, 8, 9, 11.

10. R., pp. 65, 70.

11. Chavel, , Kitvei, p. 304.Google Scholar

12. Talmage, Frank (Ephraim), ed., Sefer ha-berit u-vikkuḥei RaDaQ ‘im ha-noṣerim (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 35–36Google Scholar. The text of the Sefer ha-berit was first published in the Milḥemet ḥovah (Constantinople, 1710), pp. 18a–38bGoogle Scholar. (Subsequent reference to the Sefer ha-berit and the Vikkuaḥ ha-RaDaQ will be to pages in Talmage, Sefer ha-berit, hereafter S.H.) See, also, Talmage, Frank, ed., The Book of the Covenant of Joseph Kimḥi (Toronto, 1972), pp. 9–19Google Scholar, regarding the date and place of composition of Sefer ha-berit. This argument is also found in a work by Kimḥi's contemporary, Jacob ben Reuben; see Rosenthal, Judah, ed., Milḥamot hashem (Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 50–51, 54–55Google Scholar. See, in general, Posnanski, Adolf, Schiloh. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Messiaslehre (Leipzig, 1904).Google Scholar

13. On Toledot Yeshu, see Krauss, Samuel, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen (Berlin, 1902), pp. 40 (and see n. 21), 70, 183–84, 231–32Google Scholar and passim. Toledot yeshu elements are rarely incorporated into medieval Jewish anti-Christian polemics. The Jewish polemicists preferred to confront Christianity with arguments drawn from authentic Christian traditions. Some examples of this infrequent use of the Toledot yeshu in the polemics are: Vikkuaḥ ha-RaDaQ, in S.H., p. 91Google Scholar; Nizzachon vetus. p. 239Google Scholar; Milḥemet miṣvah of Meir ben Simeon of Narbonne, in MS 2749, Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, fols. 94r 96v-97r, 139v. On the Milḥemel miṣvah see Rembaum, J. E., “The Influence of Sefer Nestor Hakomer on Medieval Jewish Polemics,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 45 (1978): 167–68, n. 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. R., p. 63, n. 8.Google Scholar

15. S. Y., p. 79; Driver, S. R. and Neubauer, Adolf, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, 2 vols., reprint ed. (New York, 1969), 1: 68Google Scholar. The same argument is found in the Milḥemet miṣvah, fols. 112v and 158v; Driver-Neubauer, Fifty-third Chapter, 1:323.

16. R., pp. 64–74.Google Scholar

17. See n. 5 above.

18. MS 53, fols. 24r, 25r, R., pp. 70, 72.

19. MS 53, fol. 22; R., pp. 65–67. Regarding the use of see S. Y., pp. 29, 31, 33, 34, 43, 69 and passim; Nizzachon vetus, pp. 70, 81, 94, 98, 157, 174 and passim. On the use of , see S. Y., pp. 125, 130–32 and passim; Nizzachon vetus, pp. 188, 221, 231, 235 and passim. See also the terms used in the other segments of MS 53, published by Judah Rosenthal: “Biqqoret yehudit shel ha-berit ha-ḥadashah min ha-me'ah ha-shelosh ‘esreh,” in Berlin, Charles, ed., Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev (New York, 1971), Hebrew sec., pp. 123–39Google Scholar; “Pirqei vikkuaḥ,” in Salo W. Baron Jubilee Volume, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1974), 3: 357, 360, 362 and passim.Google Scholar

20. R., p. 64, n. 27.

21. R., p. 65.

22. R., pp. 73–74.

23. MS 53, fol. 22v; R., p. 66.

24. MS 53, fol. 25r; R., p. 72.

25. MS 53, fol. 23v; R., p. 69, n. 53.

26. On the Official family and Rabbi Aaron's quoting Rabbi Nathan Official in his Bible commentaries, see R., p. 61, especially n. 9; S.Y., pp. 16–28 (Hebrew), especially p. 23. Urbach, , “Études,” pp. 58–60Google Scholar, has already noted that A2 was written in France and that the writer was associated with the Officials. However, as noted in the text of the present study, the identification of our writer with Menahem is far from certain.

27. Talmage, , Book of the Covenant, p. 20.Google Scholar

28. In S. Y., p. 30Google Scholar (Hebrew), Rosenthal describes our manuscript in the following words: .

29. R., p. 67. Urbach, , “Études,” p. 66Google Scholar, allows for the possibility that this passage was not from a face-to-face debate.

30. S.H., pp. 25–26.

31. Talmage, , Book of the Covenant, pp. 32–33.Google Scholar

32. S.H., p. 21.

33. MS 53, fol. 22v; R., p. 68, especially n. 47.

34. S.H., pp. 27–29. The Sefer ha-berit does not have the specific term “hermit,” but rather the following description: .

35. MS 53, fol. 23r; R., p. 68.

36. S.H., p. 29.

37. Talmage, , Book of the Covenant, pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

38. Similar arguments are made in the following polemics: Berliner, Abraham, ed., Sefer Nestor ha-komer (Altona, 1875), p. 1Google Scholar; Vikkuaḥ ha-RaDaQ, S.H., pp. 86–87; Nizzachon vetus, pp. 40, 163–64; Milḥemet miṣvah, fols. 26v-27r, 89; Perlmann, Moshe, ed., Ibn Kammūna's Examination of the Three Faiths (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 86–87Google Scholar. An early version of this criticism can be found in Porphyry's Against the Christians (third century); see Anastos, M. V., “Porphyry's Attack on the Bible,” in Wallach, Luitpold, ed., The Classical Tradition (Ithaca, 1966), pp. 436–37Google Scholar. See also Magnes's, Macarius notions on mother's blood and milk in Anastos, “Porphyry,” p. 441.Google Scholar

39. MS 53, fol. 24r; R., p. 70.

40. S.H., pp. 37–38.

41. Talmage, , Book of the Covenant, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

42. On the theories of exegesis see Geiger, Abraham, “Ma'amar ‘al R. Yosef Qimḥi,” in Geiger, Ludwig, ed., Abraham Geigers nachgelassene Schriften (Berlin, 1877), p. 11Google Scholar; idem, “Toledot ha-RaDaQ,” in ‘Oṣar neḥmad, 2 (1857): 157–73Google Scholar, especially p. 168; Finkelstein, Louis, ed., The Commentary of David Kimḥi on Isaiah (New York, 1926), pp. xvii–xcviGoogle Scholar, especially xxiv, where David's use of his father's interpretations is discussed; Baron, S. W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 16 vols. to date (New York, 1952–1976), 6: 280–81, 467–68Google Scholar; Talmage, Frank, David Kimḥi: The Man and the Commentaries (Cambridge, Mass, and London, 1975), pp. 54–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially pp. 118–25. The author of the Milḥemet miṣvah takes this exegetical approach one step further by applying it to the understanding of talmudic passages; see Milḥemet miṣvah, fols. 215v-216v. The method of interpretation differs from the exegesis of the Northern French schools, with their emphasis on the interplay of and ; see Poznanski, Samuel, Perush ‘al yeḥezqe'el u-terei ‘asar le-rabbi ‘Eli'ezer mi-Belgenṣi (Warsaw, 1913), pp. IX–CLXVIGoogle Scholar, especially pp. XX, LXV–LXVI. Even Joseph Bekhor Shor, who criticized the Christian allegorical approach, did not set down guidelines for the correct application of allegory, as did the Southern French commentators; see Poznanski, , Perush, p. LXIX.Google Scholar

43. See Talmage, Frank, “An Hebrew Polemical Treatise, Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodox,” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1967): 323–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Vikkuaḥ was first published in the Milḥemet ḥovah, pp. 13a–18b.

44. R., p. 71.

45. S.H., p. 83.

46. Talmage, , “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” p. 338.Google Scholar

47. S.H., pp. 83–84.

48. MS 53, fol. 22r; R., p. 66.

49. S.H., p. 85.

50. Talmage, , “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” p. 339.Google Scholar

51. See MS 53, fol. 22; R., pp. 65, 66, 67. These passages compare favorably with arguments noted in the Nizzachon vetus; see the discussion below and nn. 54–59.

52. Geiger, , “Toledot ha-RaDaQ,” p. 165Google Scholar, and Talmage, , “Hebrew Polemical Treatise,” pp. 323–26Google Scholar, have raised questions regarding the authorship of the Vikkuaḥ. Others, such as Baron, History, 5:339, n. 38, have accepted the notion that David Kimḥi was involved in its compilation.

53. On the date of the Vikkuaḥ, see the literature cited in n. 52, above.

54. The place of origin and date of the Nizzachon vetus has been the subject of considerable scholarly discussion; see Urbach, , “Études,” pp. 60, 72Google Scholar; Ben-Sasson, H. H., ed., A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), pp. 555–58Google Scholar; Ehrman, Albert, “Confession of Sin to a Priest in the Sefer Nitzaḥon Yashan Noshan,” Journal of Jewish Studies 28 (1977): 194CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Breuer, Mordechai, Sefer niṣṣaḥon yashan (Ramat Gan, 1978), pp. 21–23Google Scholar; Berger, David, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 32–37.Google Scholar The many references to German settings and the many German terms throughout the work would tend to support the suggestion that the work comes from Germany. The same holds true for the material in MS 53–B, almost all of which appears in the Nizzachon; see Urbach, , “Études,” p. 77.Google Scholar

55. R., p. 65.

56. The reader is reminded that pages noted are according to the Wagenseil edition of the Nizzachon; see nn. 7 and 8 above.

57. R., p. 66.

58. R., p. 67.

59. R., p. 67, especially n. 39. See n. 54 above on the German origins of this material. The parallel passages from the Nizzachon and MS 53 have not been included in this study, since the similarity between arguments found in the Nizzachon and in our manuscript has already been pointed out by Urbach, “Études,” passim, and by Rosenthal, R., passim. The parallels with the Sefer ha-berit and the Vikkuaḥ ha-RaDaQ were included because the presence of such material in MS 53 has not heretofore been noted.

60. Urbach, , “Études,” passim; S.Y., p. 15 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

61. Chazan, Robert, Medieval Jewry in Northern France (Baltimore, 1973), pp. 149–53.Google Scholar

62. On the limited use of Sefer ha-berit see Newman, L. I., “Joseph ben Isaac Kimḥi as a Religious Controversialist,” in Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (New York, 1927), p. 370Google Scholar; Talmage, , Book of the Covenant, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

63. On the composite nature of the Nizzachon vetus and the Sefer Yosef ha-meqanne see Urbach, , “Études,” p. 77Google Scholar, and S.Y., pp. 13–15 (Hebrew). See, also, Rembaum, , “Sefer Nestor Hakomer” p. 181, n. 110.Google Scholar

64. There are three additional arguments in A22 that are similar to points raised in Southern French polemics. In MS 53, fol. 23v, (R., p. 69), we read: . This compares with the following from Sefer ha-berit, S.H., p. 24: . Immediately following this passage in A22 the writer argues that Jesus could only bring salvation to Catholics, since Jews, Muslims and Albigensians do not accept the dogmas with regard to Jesus and are, accordingly, doomed. The references to Albigensians and Bougres in this argument allude to the Christian dualists of the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, who were dominant in Southern France and were found scattered throughout Western Europe; see R., p. 69, n. 52. This point is somewhat akin to a criticism of Jesus' messiahship found in the Milḥemet miṣvah. On fol. 42v the author attacks the Christian claim that Jesus is the messiah by arguing that the messiah will bring peace to the world; however, the followers of Jesus wage war, even among themselves. He goes on to say that the messiah is supposed to lead the world to a single belief in God; instead, there are religious disputes between Rome and Byzantium and between Catholics and “heretics,” as well as those holding other beliefs, who are considered lost. The identity of the heretics is clarified by a reference to them (using the same term, ) on fol. 215r, where they are described in these words: Here, too, we have a clear allusion to the Southern French dualists. The third parallel is also with the Milḥemet miṣvah. In A22, fol. 25v, (R., pp. 73–74), the Christians' claim to be the new Israel is challenged with this argument: If they are Israel why did God dissociate them from the Hebrew language and alphabet, through which the world was created, prophecy was given and the word of God was written down? In the Milḥemet miṣvah, fol. 103r, we read: . The similarity of these arguments is not precise enough to determine with certainty if any dependence exists. However, we may have here another indication of an interchange of polemical ideas between Southern and Northern France which warrants further study.

65. See n. 26, above. On the contacts between the Tosafists in France and Germany see Urbach, Ephraim E., Ba'alei ha-tosafot (Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 141–94, 285–99, 401, 410–11Google Scholar, and passim.