Dear listfellows,
Remember we were discussing a difficult point in Abaelard, viz., his
assertion that he had heard a Jewish interpretation on 1 Sam 2:36,
and the kikkar-lehem (loaf of bread) mentioned there. I have had a
number of high-level responses, from Frans van Liere, Otfried
Lieberknecht, Susan Einbinder, and Willis Johnson. While the source
for Abaelard's assertion has remained a mystery, there were three
important points made: (1) Andrew of St. Victor also refers to a
Jewish interpretation for 'torta panis', in the sense of a difference
in quantity rather than form (Frans; Otfried has added helpful
material on "torta" and "brachellos"); (2) Qimhi on 1 Sam 10:3
expains the difference between "kikkar" and "hallah" as one of size,
the first, however, being bigger (Susan); and (3) there may have been
a confusion with "pat lehem" (a fragment of bread), this lead may be
worth following up (Willis).
I have an impression that Abaelard did in fact have contacts with
Jewish exegetes, but that he misunderstood some (or most) of the
things they told him. The other example worth quoting is a reference
to 'Jewish' exegesis in a Commentary on Romans 4.24 by one of
Abaelard's pupils:
"Qui resuscitavit". Quasi dicat: Et merito credidit in eum Abraham,
quia ea promissione, que ei facta est, quod videlicet omnes gentes
benedicerentur in semine eius, frustratus non est, immo iam impleta
est in Christo, qui est semen illius. Judei vero a philosopho sepe
requisiti nullatenus dicunt se istam benedictionem posse assignare
in carnali Ysaac, per quem vel cuius semen gentes potius extirpate
sunt quam benedictionem susceperint.
(Commentarius Cantabrigiensis in Epistolas Pauli e schola Petri
Abaelardi, vol. 1: In Epistolam ad Romanos, ed. A. Landgraf,
Notre Dame 1937, p. 65)
The reference is to Genesis 22:18 (et benedicentur in semine tuo
omnes gentes terrae quia oboedisti voci meae). The Jewish
interpretation given here appears to fly into the face of what the
Targum and Rashi are saying. Rashi does not comment on verse 18, but
on verse 17 (barekh avarekhka) he says, following the Midrash: "One
[blessing] for the father and one for the son". The Targum explicitly
renders "in your semen" as "in your son". Strange, isn't it?
My assumption is that what Abaelard's pupil quotes here is a
defensive interpretation of Gen 22, which was generally held to be
Christological in meaning by Christian exegetes. Here, as in the
other case we discussed, Abaelard does not follow the usual approach
but is genuinely interested in 'historical' explanations. So why did
he get them things so terribly wrong?
Cheers,
Christoph
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
