On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, CLUSE CHRISTOPH wrote:
> 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 did not see Susan Einbinder and Willis Johnson's responses. Perhaps it
would be a good idea to put them on the list as well?
Of course we should keep in mind that Kimhi's commentaries were written
some generations AFTER Abelard, and at least one generation after Andrew
of St Victor's commentary. The irony is, however, that many of the "Jewish
traditions" in Christian authors can also be found in Kimhi. This probably
means Kimhi's commentary gives a good compilation of current
Peshat-exegesis in the twelfth century, and that Christian authors were
familiar with this tradition, before Kimhi wrote it down.
(See my introduction to Andrew's commentary on Samuel and Kings, CCCM
53A)
> but is genuinely interested in 'historical' explanations. So why did
> he get them things so terribly wrong?
Why did Christian authors often misinterpret Jewish exegetes?
I have no idea, but can only say that this seems an all too common
phenomenon. Andrew, sometimes regarded as the most accomplished Hebraist
of the twelfth century, also at times blunders his way through Jewish
exegetical opinions. Could part of the problem be that they had to
converse in a third language, i.e. French, to mediate between Hebrew and
Latin?
-------------------------------------------------------
Frans van Liere
Department of History
College of Charleston 0 Bee Street
Charleston SC 29424 Charleston SC 29403
tel. (803) 953-1354 (803) 723-4051
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|