Christian Arguments for including Targums in Polyglot Bibles

A Jewish Targum in a Christian World Edited by Alberdina Houtman Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman Hans-Martin Kirn LEIDEN | BOSTON This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV Contents About the Contributors vii Glossary x Introduction 1 Alberdina Houtman PART 1 Uses and Functions of Targum in Europe 7 A Variety of Targum Texts 9 Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman The Role of Targum Samuel in European Jewish Liturgy 32 Peter Sh. Lehnardt Initial Observations Concerning the Text of Targum 2 Samuel 22 as Preserved in European Liturgical Manuscripts 63 Hector M. Patmore and Johanna M. Tanja The Role of the Targum in Jewish Education in Medieval Europe 81 Alberdina Houtman Targum Layouts in Ashkenazi Manuscripts. Preliminary Methodological Observations 99 Elodie Attia PART 2 Editing Targums and Their Latin Translations 123 The Latin Versions of the Old Testament from Jerome to the Editio Clementina 125 Geert W. Lorein The Commission of Targum Manuscripts and the Patronage of Christian Hebraism in Sixteenth-Century Castile 146 Jesús de Prado Plumed A Jewish Targum in a Remarkable Paratext. Paratextual Elements in Two Targum Manuscripts of Alfonso de Zamora 166 Johanna M. Tanja and Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman The ‘Jewish’ Rabbinic Bibles versus the ‘Christian’ Polyglot Bibles 185 Hans van Nes and Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV vi contents Christian Arguments for Including Targums in Polyglot Bibles Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman and Johanna M. Tanja PART 3 Targum and Christianity 208 231 The Study of the Aramaic Targum by Christians in Medieval France and England 233 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger The Targum in Christian Scholarship to 1800 250 Stephen G. Burnett Traces of Targum Reception in the Work of Martin Luther 266 Hans-Martin Kirn ‘And Their Laws Are Diverse From All People’. Haman’s Protests against the Jews in Targum Sheni to Esther 289 Yaacov Deutsch Index of Subjects and Names 302 Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources 308 This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV Christian Arguments for Including Targums in Polyglot Bibles Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman and Johanna Tanja Introduction Several scholars and printers in the sixteenth and seventeenth century made plans to produce a polyglot Bible. Some succeeded, others edited a part of the Bible, some only began to assemble manuscripts and made notes on how to accomplish the project. They were all Christians, some of them aided by converted Jews. Nevertheless, most of them included, or planned to include, the Aramaic text of one or more Targums. That choice was not self-evident, because many Christian scholars opposed the dissemination and study of Jewish literature. The leading question of this article is therefore: what arguments did the makers of polyglot Bibles give to include the Targum? To ijind the arguments we examined the introductions of all the polyglot Bibles.1 The editors gave account of their choices and way the material was presented. Two things must be borne in mind. First, these introductions were also meant to please the reader and the censor. The editor mainly provided those arguments that were appropriate to the average user and well understood. Therefore, we also relied on secondary literature. Second, some arguments not 1 The following abbreviations are used: op II = second prologue to the Octaplus Psalterii; op apud Ps. 18 = marginal comments to Psalm 18 in the Octaplus Psalterii; cpb II,1 = ijirst prologue to the second volume of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, etc.; wpb Micah = prologue to the Micah volume of the Wittemberg Polyglot Bible series, etc.; apb I,1 = ijirst prologue to the ijirst volume of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible, etc.; apb I,13 = thirteenth prologue to the apb = ppb XI = eleventh prologue to the ppb, viz. the letter of recommendation by Gisbert(us) Schoock and colleagues; apb II = prologue to the second volume of the apb; apb XIII, title = prologue under the title mentioned in the eighth volume of the apb; npb I = prologue to the Nuremberg Polyglot Bible; Abgad II = second prologue (= ‘Vorrede an die Christliche liebe Jugend’) to Hutter 1597; ppb III = third prologue of the Paris Polyglot Bible, viz. the letter of recommendation by Jean de Bertet and Etienne Moreau; lpb XII,10 = twelfth prologue to the London Polyglot Bible, section 10, etc. ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004267824_012 This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 209 only concern the Targums, but the entire project of the polyglot Bible. We will indicate these circumstances, where necessary. The editors and printers of the polyglot Bibles that were investigated for this article are the following:2 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ Agostino Giustiniani (1470–1536), who published an Octaplus Psalterii (op) in 1516, not only containing the Psalter in ijive languages, but also notes from Midrash Tehillim and Jewish commentaries in the margin (cf. Cevolotto 1992; Grendler 2008, 233–240). Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (1435–1517), who completed the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (cpb) in 1517, although it was not distributed until 1522. The colophons of mss 4 (Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense, Madrid; dated 1517), M1–M3 (Biblioteca General Histórica Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca; dated 1532), and 7542 (Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid; dated 1533), which were produced by Alfonso de Zamora, serve as background information for this polyglot Bible. Johannes Draconites (1494–1564), who edited eight books of the Old Testament in ijive languages in Wittenberg (wpb) in 1563–1565. He adapted the Aramaic text, probably taken from the First Rabbinic Bible, in order to produce his word-for-word polyglot editions. Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598), who edited, and Christophe Plantin (c.1520–1589), who printed the Biblia Regia, or the Antwerp Polyglot Bible (apb), in 1569–1572. Elias Hutter (1553–c.1605), who edited the Nuremberg Polyglot Bible (npb) in 1599. It comprises the books of Genesis through Ruth—according to the Christian order—in ancient and modern languages. Theodore Bibliander’s work on the languages will be used as background information for Hutter’s ideas (Amirav & Kirn 2011). 2 We do not include Giovan Battista Raimundi (1536–1614), director of the Typographia Medicea, who hoped to reprint the Biblia Regia in more languages (Hamilton 2005, 5). He would have called his edition the Biblia Pontiijicia, in honour of Pope Gegory XIII (Hamilton 1985, 83). The plans were not carried out due to lack of funds and the death of his patron. Some polyglot Bibles of these centuries do not contain the Targums at all, e.g., the Heidelberg Polyglot Bible (1586, 1599), probably of Bonaventure Corneille Bertram (1531– 1594); the Hamburg Polyglot Bible (1596) of David Wolder (–1604); Elias Hutter’s Psalter in four languages (1602); and the Leipzig Polyglot Bible (1750–1751) of Christianus Reineccius (1668–1752). This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 210 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja CPB OP Rabb. Bible 1 WPB APB Rabb. Bible 2‒6 NPB PPB figure 1 ‧ ‧ LPB Stemma of Targum text (unbroken arrow) and Latin translation of the Targum text (broken line) in the various polyglot Bibles. The bold polyglot Bibles do not provide a Latin translation. Guy Michel le Jay († 1675), under whose patronage the Paris Polyglot Bible (ppb) was edited, and printed by Antoine Vitré (1595–1674), in 1645. Brian Walton (1600–1661), who edited the London Polyglot Bible (lpb) in 1654–1657. The Targum texts and their accompanying Latin translations relate to each other in the manner indicated in ijigure 1. Counter-Arguments Let us ijirst consider the arguments why Jewish literature, and speciijically the Targum, would not have been ijit for the Christian readership. These objections form the background against which the editors defend themselves in their prologues and letters. In the beginning of the sixteenth century an argument erupted between Johannes Pfefferkorn, a Jewish convert, and Johannes Reuchlin (cf. Price 2011; Kirn 1989). The ijirst wanted to conijiscate and burn all Jewish literature (Price 2011, 98; Shamir 2011, 98), the latter argued that this literature was valuable for Jews, who had their rights too, and also for Christians (Price 2011, 133; Jansen 2002, 15f.; Raz-Krakotzkin 2005, 38–45). Andreas Masius, one of Montano’s This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 211 helpers in the production of the apb, wrote letters to several dignitaries to prevent the destruction of these precious books (Perles 1884, 223–227), whereas Desiderius Erasmus—although sympathetic to Reuchlin (Ménager 2008, 45)—considered all Jewish literature a great danger to Christian society (Jansen 2002, 22). This discussion shows some general arguments for and against the use of Jewish literature. Pfefferkorn stressed that the Talmud posed an obstacle for the Jews to convert. Erasmus expressed another concern, for he was afraid that the study of Jewish literature would lead to a Christianity of ‘rites and ceremonies’, of ‘external forms’, which he called judaismus (Jansen 2002, 15). He even feared ‘a tide’ of judaismus in society and in the Church (Jansen 2002, 28–31). Reuchlin and Masius, however, were convinced of the beneijit of Jewish literature. Reuchlin thought that both Talmud and kabbalah could be used for the conversion of the Jews (Jansen 2002, 20). Masius agreed with him (RazKrakotzkin 2005, 58, cf. 110), but his letter about the matter gives the impression that he was more concerned about his own valuable, recently purchased Talmuds. He therefore hyperbolically claimed that there is no book more apt to convert the Jews than the Talmud (Perles 1884, 223f.). This controversy was one among many events that led to the discussion during the ijifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) about the surveillance of editing and reading. Pope Leo X in the decree Inter sollicitudines (1516) demanded prepublication control, because ‘in different parts of the world, books, some translated into Latin from Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Aramaic, as well as books written in Latin and vernacular languages, contain errors opposed to the faith as well as pernicious views contrary to the Christian religion’ (Text 1; Raz-Krakotzkin 2005, 38f.; italics his; cf. Peters 1988, 95f.).3 The project of the cpb started against this background. Jiménez was very careful not to overstate the importance of the Hebrew or the Aramaic text. He integrated Targum Onkelos in his cpb; not other Targums, as they were ‘corrupt in places and contain tales and trifles from the Talmudists and are therefore unworthy of being published alongside the sacred texts’ (Text 2; cpb II,1; cf. Hall 1990, 33). He further explained that he had put the Vulgate in the central column of the page with the Hebrew and Greek texts at its sides, ‘as if between the Synagogue and the Eastern Church, as if we have placed on the right and left side two robbers, but in the middle Jesus himself, viz. the Latin or Roman Church.’ (Text 3; cpb II,1; cf. Hall 1990, 34). He even disappointed some co-workers by not letting them add a new Latin translation of the Hebrew text 3 All the original wordings can be found in the appendix of this article. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 212 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja nor correct the authoritative Vulgate against the Hebrew original (Hall 1990, 25–29). Even so, the cpb was later accused of undermining the Vulgate and Scholasticism (Hall 1990, 46–48). León de Castro, professor at Salamanca University, made the same accusations against the apb. He discerned judaistic as well as arianistic tendencies, undermining the dogmas of the Church. He entirely opposed the use of Hebrew and Aramaic texts, because these were Jewish and therefore inappropriate for ecclesiastical use (Sabbe 1978, 40). The argument that the Targum contains ‘tales and trifles’ was still used decades later, when apb, ppb, and lpb were produced. Montano explained to have used a censored manuscript for his edition of the Early Prophets, in which ‘superfluous’ phrases were placed in a separate column. He left out all the ‘apocryphal subject matter’ that is ‘not satisfactorily coherent with the rest’ of the text, although he stated that it contained ‘nothing that could offend the reader’ (apb II). Most texts he left out, can be consulted in the last volume of his work, under the title ‘Rejected places from the Aramaic translation, which seem to be superfluous’ (Text 4; apb XIII, Loca). For ppb, Le Jay asked advice from Andres de Leon, professor at Alcalá de Henares, who urged him not to edit the Targum, because it was ‘wrong and corrupt, degenerated from its ijirst zeal and splendour, blemished with Talmudic stories and blasphemous impiety, as all agree’ (Text 5; Jones 1982, 329). The lpb afijirms the free translation style of the later Targums (lpb XII,10), calls some things ‘nonsense’ or ‘fables’ (lpb XII,16), but yet offers the uncensored text (lpb XII,20). The Targums are to be seen as gold ore: one should not throw them away because of the slags, for in that case one would also discard the gold (lpb XII,16). Arguments in Favour of Including the Targums In the end, none of these protests could prevent the making of polyglot Bibles including the Jewish Targums. There were too many wishes and too many arguments in favour of doing so. Besides, the Targums had never appeared in an index of prohibited books (cf. Reusch 1970) like the Talmuds, although—as we have seen—they were accused of containing Talmudic ‘tales and trifles’. We have grouped the arguments in ten categories, which will be discussed in their order of appearance in the introductions or letters of the editors. The conclusion will also review the arguments by country, Christian denomination, and other features. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 213 1 Earning Fortune and Fame Agostino Giustiniani hoped for fame and fortune through his polyglot Psalter edition (Outhuijs 1822, 17). He complained that everyone praised his work, but no one bought it. He barely sold a quarter of it. The arrest in 1516 of Cardinal Sauli, the patron of this pioneering work, frustrated Giustiniani’s ambition and he had to end the project altogether (Burnett 2005, 427). Although Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros could boast that he edited the Old Testament ‘for the ijirst time in several languages’ (Text 6; cpb II,1), he had to pay an immense amount of money to ijinance the project. The makers of both the apb and the npb suffered ijinancially because of their polyglot editions (cf. Burnett 2000, 25, 29). Jiménez was concerned about the fame of Scripture. He established trilingual learning, including Aramaic, and edited the cpb to further ‘the dissemination of the Word of God’ (Hall 1990, 9). He understood by Scripture mainly the Bible as taught by the Catholic Church. The Vulgate was the authoritative translation (cpb II,1), the literal parts of the Targum would only add to its fame. This opinion was shared by Gisbertus Schoock. In his letter of recommendation in the apb and the ppb, he conijirmed that the professors of Louvain justly approved of the apb, because it is ‘very useful to illustrate the text of the common Latin edition’ (Text 7; apb I,13 = ppb XI). Moreau and De Bertet likewise considered the polyglot Bible very useful to the Catholic Church ‘to illustrate and conijirm the common translation of the Church’ (Text 8; ppb III). The printer of the apb, Christophe Plantin, also hoped for fame, but especially for the approval of King Philip II. He had printed Calvinistic pamphlets and feared the reactions from Catholic Spain. He bombarded Gabriel de Çayas, one of the King’s secretaries, with letters stressing his loyalty to the King and the Catholic Church and asking permission and funds from the King for a reprint of the cpb. Fame would be the fate of the King, to whom the apb, also called the Biblia Regia, would be dedicated. Etienne Moreau and Jean de Bertet in their letter of recommendation in the ppb presume that the Paris edition would be even more famous than the Complutensian and the Antwerp prototypes (ppb III). 2 Following Ancient Authorities Several scholars in the sixteenth century appealed to the 1311 Council of Vienne. This council decreed to further the study of Hebrew and Aramaic (cf. Stow 1991, 412; Amirav & Kirn 2011, xxviii). Montano referred to the 1439 Council of Florence that also promoted the study of these languages, partly because they are the original Biblical languages and partly because they help to interpret and explain the originals, at least in his opinion (apb I,1 p. 13). By this formulation he also included the Targum as interpretation of the Hebrew text. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 214 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja Burnett states that ‘By the late ijifteenth century, the Christian case for Targumic study had long been clear’ for polemicists such as Raymond Martini or biblical commentators such as Nicholas of Lyra (Burnett 2005, 423). However, neither Raymond Martini, nor Nicholas of Lyra was mentioned by any editor of a polyglot Bible. The editors refer to other authorities, viz. Origen, Jerome, and even Jesus Christ. Giustiniani is the ijirst to mention Origen as the scholar who had compiled translations into a ‘hexapla’, whereas Giustiniani now made an ‘octapla’ (op II). Cardinal Jiménez also refers to Origen, not to his collected translations, but to his work on the Septuagint. According to Jiménez, Origen wanted to correct the Septuagint, which had pluses and minuses compared to the Hebrew text (Text 9; cpb II,2). These pluses and minuses had destroyed the references to Christian dogmas such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. At the same time Jiménez quotes others stating that Origen had only corrected the translation of Theodotion. This correction work, by adding what was lacking, and cutting superfluous words (Text 10; cpb II,2), would also become his example of how to censor the Targum texts (cf. Van Staalduine-Sulman 2012, 110f.). Moreau and De Bertet also refer to the example of Origen’s work. The fame of the ppb would surpass this most honoured work of Origen (ppb III). At ijirst sight Origen’s example seems to explain the inclusion of the Greek version. However, the fact that Origen had included the Jewish translations of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus in his Hexapla made this argumentation also applicable to the Jewish Targum. This becomes even clearer when considering Jerome’s example: Walton quotes a passage from the prologue of Sebastian Münster’s Bible (1546), stating that Jerome was such a great and world-famous man and yet had not considered learning from the Jews beneath his dignity (Text 11; lpb XII,16). Walton also considered Jesus Christ an example, because Jesus had quoted an Aramaic version of the Bible on the cross and thereby honoured and sanctiijied that translation (Text 12; lpb XII,16). This is a rather new argument here, because tradition had only sanctioned ‘the holy “trilinguitas” of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, legitimized by the titulus of the cross’ (Amirav & Kirn 2011, 102 n.31). 3 Promoting Christian Doctrine The pivotal argumentation for studying ancient sources in the sixteenth century was the promotion of Christian doctrine. This is true for the study of classical texts in the late Middle Ages (Cohen 1991, 323), in kabbalistic circles (O’Malley 1968, 70) and in humanist learning (Jansen 2002, 8, 12), but likewise for the study of Jewish literature (cf. Cohen 1991). Jiménez believed that at those places where the Targums were not corrupted, they miraculously favour This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 215 the Christian religion (Text 13; cpb II,1). Giustiniani had stated almost the same about the Targum of Psalms (Text 14; op apud Ps. 18). The Converso Alfonso de Zamora, who assisted in Jiménez’ project and copied the other Targums with Latin translations afterwards, did this ‘to teach the many true, reliable and convincing mysteries in the Hebrew language to support our holy faith in Jesus the Messiah, the Son of the Living God’ (Text 15; ms Or. 645, fol. 110r, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Leiden). Johannes Draconites edited the ancient versions of those OT books that contained prophecies about the coming of Christ (Kiefer 1938, 44): Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, Micah, Joel, Zechariah and Malachi. His main argument was that they showed Christ through the divine promises, ijigures and visions (Text 16; wpb Micah). He printed in red ink those verses he interpreted as christological, and commented upon them. All the versions had to be studied critically: ‘the false ideas were to be refuted, the ideas which were neutral were to be made to function in the Gospel’s favor, and the ideas which agreed with the Gospel were to be accepted’ (O’Malley 1968, 80). Montano praised the Targum translator Jonathan ben Uzziel, because ‘he openly explains [. . .] the peculiar mysteries of Christ, and he indicates them very clearly’ (Text 17; apb II). Christophe Plantin follows that theological line in the title page of the Pentateuch volume. It consists of a gate through which Old Testament scenes are visible. The text beneath the gate runs Arcani consilii apparatio, ‘the study of (God’s) hidden council’, implying that when the reader would ‘enter’ the study of this polyglot Bible, he would get acquainted with God’s hidden meaning of the Old Testament. The page further refers to 1 Corinth. 10, a New Testament chapter in which the hidden meaning of the Old Testament clearly refers to Jesus Christ and the Church (cf. Rosier 1992, 80). Walton explicitly stated this idea for Targum Jonathan, quoting Johann Buxtorf the younger, ‘that it explains many verses that are not explicitly about the Messiah, in a healthy, Christian manner as about the Messiah’ (Text 18; lpb XII,10). In addition the Targum could be used for the interpretation of the New Testament. The kabbalist Giles of Viterbo had already stated that ‘the Arameans knew why the rites of the New Law were unbloody’ (O’Malley 1968, 79–80). Targum Joel 2:14, although not mentioned by Viterbo, can exemplify this. The Hebrew text speaks about offerings for the Lord, but the Targum renders that the one who repents, will be forgiven and ‘his prayer will be like that of a man who presents offerings and libations in the Sanctuary of the Lord’ (Cathcart and Gordon 1986, 69). This kind of reasoning closely resembles several Christian comments on Joel 2:14 (cf. Van Staalduine-Sulman 2010, 165). This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 216 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja 4 Promoting Apologetics and Mission The interpretation of the Targum was mainly used in an apologetic, or even missionary, way against the Jews. Nicholas of Lyra had already said: ‘In order to disallow falsehood and to declare the truth, one must depend above all on the Aramaic translation which among the Hebrews is called “Targum” and is of such great authority among them that no one has dared to contradict it’ (Cohen 1991, 329). Giustiniani agreed with this reasoning, stating that the Targum of Psalms gave many excellent arguments in favour of the Christian doctrine, ‘with which the Jews can be refuted and convinced’ (Text 19; op apud Ps. 18). Exactly the same reasoning was given by Walton, who ijirst stated that no Jew dares to contradict the Targums (Text 20; lpb XII,16) and then gave many examples of the correct, Christian interpretation of the Hebrew text given in them (lpb XII,18). He claimed that the makers of the Targums had derived their materials from old traditions and expositions of the prophets themselves (Text 21; lpb XII,18). Apologetics against the Jews from their own sources was also a leading issue in German orientalism. Johannes Reuchlin had stated this about the Talmud and the kabbalah (Jansen 2002, 20), and his ideas were repeated by Andreas Masius in his letters (Stow 1991, 417; cf. Perles 1884, 224). Draconites gave the argument of apologetics and mission in the prologue to his Zechariah polyglot (Text 22). Bibliander ‘expected a general conversion of the Jews at the end of time’ (Amirav & Kirn 2011, xxv) and was therefore dedicated to the study of languages, especially the most original one, namely Hebrew. De Bertet and Moreau considered polyglot Bibles suitable for defending the Roman Catholic religion against the Eastern heresies, referring to Eastern Orthodoxy (Text 23; ppb III). In a broader sense, they wanted to employ these Bibles in missionary activities amongst Muslims and Gentiles, especially because their witness came from the mouths of the Church and its enemies, the Jews and Samaritans (Text 24; ppb III)—a formative statement concerning a rising Judeo-Christian world view against other religions. Polyglot Bibles, including the Targum, could thus function as apologetic tools against other religious groups. They could be used ‘to conquer and refute the detrimental versions of heretics’, as De Bertet and Moreau put it (Text 25; ppb III), most probably referring to the Protestants with their vernacular Bible translations, just as Schoock’s Paris colleagues had done after his recommendation to the apb. They claim that the apb could be called forth ‘to oppose the false and impious translations of the heretics, with which they try to fool those who are incompetent in languages’ (Text 26; apb I,13). Bibliander and Hutter shared the missionary aim, but also seem to have taken a speciijic perspective on non-Christian religions and societies. They This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 217 considered Biblical Hebrew as the primordial language (Amirav & Kirn 2011, xxv), of which all other languages are derived. Likewise, Christ the Logos had been originally present in the Hebrew Bible and therefore could and should be ‘discovered outside Christianity’ (Amirav & Kirn 2011, xxxix). Whereas the Roman Catholic editors mainly opposed the Protestant heresy, the German Protestants studied the polyglot Bibles to conquer the unfamiliarity with Scriptures, which to them was the basis of heresy and the kingdom of the Antichrist (Text 27; wpb, Micah). Draconites even considered the Pope himself as the Antichrist (Kiefer 1938, 46). Bibliander encouraged the study of languages ‘to strengthen the Reformation movement’ (Amirav & Kirn 2011, xxii) and also Hutter issued his polyglot Bible to foster the German Protestant churches (npb I). 5 Teaching Languages The 1311 Council of Vienne had decided to stimulate the study of three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. In his zeal to reform the Roman Catholic Church in Spain, Cardinal Jiménez took up this Council’s decree in order to stimulate the education of the Spanish priests. His polyglot Bible was an educational tool, containing a Latin translation of Targum Onkelos, a Latin interlinear translation to the Septuagint, references to the Hebrew roots in the margins, and a grammar and dictionary in the last volume. His team invented a new, simple way of vocalisation for the inexperienced student. In his ijirst prologue he stresses that one can now learn Hebrew and Aramaic without having to consult Jews: ‘When we shrink from the disgust and outpourings of the Hebrews, thus says Saint Jerome, assisted by these tools we do not have to consult their tutors’ (Text 28; cpb II,1). Learning the original languages, in which the holy words are written through the Holy Spirit, would greatly stimulate the knowledge of the divine law and of Christ in it (Text 29; cpb II,2). Montano stressed the details of the various texts, ‘for not only what is said by the Holy Spirit, and his prophets, servants and interpreters, but how it is said has to be observed most preferably’ (Text 30; apb II). Later on in the same introduction he gave an example of what the reader could learn from the exact wording in Hebrew and Aramaic, which was not clear in the Latin version. For that reason, he translated the books of Joshua and Judges more literally (apb II). This argument is not explicitly mentioned by Giustiniani, but can be deduced from his method. He delivered a translation of the Hebrew text, more literal than the Vulgate (latina respondens Hebree), and one of the Aramaic text. Sometimes, when he does not give the most literal translation, he adds a note in the margin: sensum a sensu (e.g. op apud Ps. 40). This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 218 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja 6 Correcting the Vulgate Several scholars had noticed the poor state of the Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible.4 One of them was Giles of Viterbo, who had even proposed to use Jewish Aramaic literature, especially kabbalistic texts, for ‘correction of the errors in the translation’ (O’Malley 1968, 77). A certain ambiguity, however, is discernible in the early sixteenth century Catholic view on the Vulgate: the Vulgate was seen as authoritative, yet not always accurate. For example, Giustiniani provides the Vulgate in his octapla and Jiménez praises Jerome’s translations as very close to the Hebrew wording and the most clear translation (Text 31; cpb II,2). On the other hand, Giustiniani also provides a Latin ‘corresponding to the Hebrew’, thus indicating that the Vulgate did not always do so, and Jiménez referred to the Hebrew manuscripts in cases of corruptions within the Vulgate text (Text 32; cpb II,2). Both editors were therefore adherents of Erasmus’ ‘principle of the original language’, stating that manuscripts with the original languages had to be preferred over manuscripts with translated texts (Bod 2010, 199). After the Council of Trent, the Vulgate was used, praised, and never abandoned by the Roman Catholic editors. The Targums were supposed to illustrate and conijirm the Vulgate’s text (apb I, 13; ppb III). We know, however, that the editors of the apb were fully aware of the Vulgate’s deviations from the Hebrew text. Christophe Plantin, in his original plans, even preferred the new translation by Sanctes Pagnini over the Vulgate. King Philip II interfered and gave explicit orders to use the Vulgate (Rekers 1961, 102). 7 Understanding the Original Text From the twelfth century onward Christian scholars started to learn Hebrew and Aramaic under the guidance of local rabbis or converted Jews, ‘who were themselves placing greater emphasis on the literal meaning of Scripture (peshat) rather than on its homiletic sense (derash)’ (Cohen 1991, 315). In particular, the ofijicial Targums were seen as useful instruments for the understanding of the Hebrew text, then and later on. Montano considered Jonathan ben Uzziel to be ‘a very scholarly man’ (apb II) and his co-worker Franciscus Raphelengius noted that the Targums would greatly support the understanding of the Hebrew text (Text 33; apb VIII, Variae Lectionis). Schoock commented that the Aramaic translations, just like the Latin version of Sanctes 4 See further G.W. Lorein, ‘The Latin Versions of the Old Testament from Jerome to the Editio Clementina’, in this volume. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 219 Pagnini, shed light on the Hebrew text (Text 34; apb I,13). The combination of all these versions together in one polyglot Bible would eventually lead to fresh and beneijicial interpretations of Scripture (Text 35; ppb III). Walton valued the explanatory aspects of the Targums more highly than his predecessors had done, because he assumed that the translators were also familiar with the oral tradition: ‘They shed light on difijicult verses, obscure places and unusual words, for they explain the rites, habits, histories, the real meaning of words and the literal sense, because they were better known to them than to us, for they received them from their forefathers’ (Text 36; lpb XII,19). Walton further referred to Nikolaus Serarius, a Jesuit exegete, who had recommended the Targums for the explanation of certain habits in the synagogue (Text 37; lpb XII,19). Later readers of the lpb prologues presumed therefore that the Targums could also function as background information for the New Testament (e.g. Prideaux 1717–1718, 638; Horne & Ayre 1860, 58). 8 Adding to Previous Polyglots It is striking to see that every polyglot Bible refers to the previous one as its example, but also wants to add something. Montano praised Jiménez’ work mentioning the inclusion of Targum Onkelos (apb II), but he himself included all the Targums. Hutter not only included all the texts of the apb in his npb, but added vernacular translations, such as German. Moreau and De Bertet referred to both the Complutensian and the Antwerp editions (ppb III). The ppb had added two versions, the Syriac and the Arabic. Walton explicitly defended his choice to include the Targums by pointing to both the polyglot and the Rabbinic Bibles (Text 38; lpb XII,20), but gave even more languages. This practice of expanding ijits within the increasing interest in encyclopaedic works (cf. Fischer 1967, 31–37). The projects of the cpb, started by the famous Spanish Cardinal thus established a precedent, even though Cardinal Jiménez refused to edit Targums other than Onkelos. 9 Approaching the Sacred Language of God In kabbalistic circles Hebrew was considered the ‘language in which God spoke to man’. This made it a language set apart from the others and transcendently different from them’ (O’Malley 1968, 78). Its alphabet was no longer believed ‘to be a set of arbitrary symbols but a divinely ordained code for transmitting sacred doctrines’ (idem, 78). For example, the aleph was believed to consist of a vau and two yods. Thus, it was regarded as the symbol for the Trinity. The sacred text in every conceivable way down to the minutest detail—words, word order, structure and position of the letters, etc.—was the bearer of divine This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 220 figure 2 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja Note in the margin of Draconites’ polyglot version of Genesis 1:1, referring to the Trinity (Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Amsterdam). This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 221 truth to men (idem, 79). This kind of reasoning might be the background of De Prato’s remark that the Targums contain many secret and hidden mysteries. He, a Converso, and the Christian Daniel Bomberg, editor and printer of the ijirst Rabbinic Bible, were very interested in kabbalistic literature (Jansen 2002, 9). Although the editor of the apb and his co-workers were neither of them free from kabbalistic ideas (cf. Wilkinson 2007), there is no kabbalistic interpretation of the letters or the symbols of the Hebrew language in the apb. Similar ideas about Hebrew as the primordial language, and Aramaic as very close to it, were popular in German Protestant circles. Hebrew was seen as the mother of all languages, and ‘presumably the eschatological language of the near future’ (Amirav & Kirn 2011, xxv). The idea of Hebrew as the ijirst language was only refuted in 1643 by Johannes de Laet (Bod 2010, 237). The study of languages was ‘a pneumatological experience’ (Amirav & Kirn 2011, xxviii), overcoming the confusion of tongues and directed ‘towards a peaceful uniijication of mankind’ through the ‘harmony of languages’ (idem, xxii). The same enthusiasm was spread by Elias Hutter, who wanted to teach languages to the German youth in order to reverse Satan’s work and the confusion of tongues (Text 39; Abgad II). For that reason he edited his npb, also including the Targums. 10 Establishing the Hebraica Veritas The last category of arguments deals with the original Hebrew text. These arguments are not used in the prologues to the Catholic editions, which mainly stress the value of the Vulgate, but show up in the prologue to the lpb. Walton apologetically argues that the Hebrew text is the original and that the Hebrew text used by him is genuine and not corrupted by the Jews. The reader could check that by comparing the Hebrew text against the ancient versions. Walton speciijically mentions the Jewish translations in this part of his argumentation: Onkelos, Jonathan, but also Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus (lpb XII,17). Jonathan ben Uzziel, the maker of the Targum to the Prophets, was dated by him as a contemporary of Hillel and Shammai, and therefore prior to rabbinic literature that was opposed to Christian theology (lpb XII,10). Those books were not useful for Christians, but Targum Jonathan and Onkelos were, as these translations had been written before the coming of Jesus Christ (Text 40; lpb XII,16). The dating of the Targums was therefore important (cf. Burnett 2005, 422) and had led to the acceptance of the ofijicial Targums, but to doubts about the later Targums to the Writings that were considered too allegorical (lpb This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 222 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja XII,10).5 Nevertheless, all the Targums are included in the lpb. And Walton did not hesitate to strengthen his arguments by quoting from the Targums to the Writings, if necessary! Walton did not give theological arguments as to why the Jews would have so meticulously preserved the Hebrew and Aramaic text. Kabbalists, such as Giles of Viterbo, had pointed to the providence of God, protecting the transmission of the text (O’Malley 1968, 95). This kind of argumentation is still used by modern fundamentalists, namely that the Holy Spirit guides the transmission of the Hebrew text by the Jews in order to provide the Church with the Hebraica veritas (cf. Barr 1984, 145). Arguments Not Used Ten categories of arguments have been discussed above. One could, however, wonder if they reveal all the personal motives. No one, for example, mentioned the fact that making a polyglot Bible was an academic challenge or sprang from the desire to revive Antiquity. No one, not even the editors of the Rabbinic Bibles, mentioned the Jewish market. Raz-Krakotzkin draws attention to the argument of preserving the Hebrew tradition within the Christian world, especially by converted Jews (RazKrakotzkin 2005, 48, 107f.)—an argument absent from the Polyglots’ prologues. It might have played a role in the group of Conversos working in and after the cpb project. Montano mentioned that Cardinal Jiménez had ordered censored Targum texts to be produced and that this censoring project came to a halt due to his death in 1517 (apb II). Afterwards, Alfonso de Zamora, a Converso within the cpb team, had at least three Aramaic-Latin manuscripts copied, including all the extra material that belonged to the Sephardi tradition. He apparently wished to preserve the entire Targum tradition, although he never explicitly said so. In a draft prologue to the Targum of Isaiah, he wished for the Christian reader to ‘trust and ijind joy in reciting these words of the Targum, every one of them in its own place, and keep them in their heart’, alluding to Luke 2:19 (Text 41; ms Or. 645, fol. 110r, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Leiden). The argument that Aramaic is the mother tongue of Jesus or the original language of New Testament writers, is not mentioned at all. The lpb acknowledges that Jesus spoke Aramaic on the cross, but Walton felt compelled to refer to Christoph Helwig (1581–1617; professor of Theology and Hebrew at Giessen) 5 See further the discussion on the ‘ancient Rabbis’ and ‘modern Rabbis’ in H.-M. Kirn, ‘Traces of Targum Reception in the Work of Martin Luther’ in this volume. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 223 and Wolfgang Mayer (1577–1653; professor of Theology at Basel) to prove this point (lpb XII,16), unlike many other statements, which he made without referring to theological authorities. This argument became important in later times (cf. Dilloo 1885; Le Déaut 1982; Schwarz 1985; Chilton 1986 and the literature in Forestell 1979). Summary of the Argumentation Although there were arguments not to investigate and edit the Jewish Targums—especially the presence of Talmudic material in them—several authors and printers found reasons to include them in their polyglot Bibles. The next summary gives conclusions on the argumentation according to place, denomination and time. The inclusion of Targum Onkelos in the cpb became a precedent for the apb. cpb and apb formed the example for the ppb, the npb, and, together with the Rabbinic Bibles, for the lpb. That Cardinal Jiménez was very hesitant about the Targums, was hardly important for the later editors. It is striking to see that the Targums became more important and were considered more reliable in the course of history. The cpb only edited Targum Onkelos and warned against the rabbinic ‘tales and trifles’ in the other books. The apb included a censored Targum, at least to the Former Prophets and Ruth, but supposed that those rabbinic tales were not harming the reader. This text was adopted by both the ppb and the npb. The lpb edited all the Targums entirely, although the censoring of the apb is still visible through the use of brackets. That the Targums could shed light on the literal meaning of Scripture, mainly the Old Testament, was the common opinion among the editors (apb, ppb, lpb). In particular, the lpb elaborates on this point. The Targum as background information for the New Testament is an argument in later centuries. Textual criticism is only mentioned in the lpb. That the Jews had not corrupted the Hebrew text since the coming of Christ, could be proven by the Targums. The dependency of Christian scholars on Jewish tutors for learning Aramaic gradually diminished. Where Jiménez edited his polyglot Bible, with the aid of Conversos, to do away with this dependency, the other editors could produce without Jewish or converted workers in their team. The idea that Hebrew was the mother of all languages was widespread. That had enhanced the interest in Hebrew and other Semitic languages, such as Aramaic. Bibliander and Hutter were deijinitely affected by this idea (npb). This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 224 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja Northern Europe has produced far more polyglot Bibles than southern Europe, which corresponds with the market for printed Christian Hebrew books (cf. Burnett 2000, 15). In most cases they were printed in university towns and under the patronage of ecclesiastic or national authorities (cf. Burnett 2000, 23). For Spain, the cpb was one of the last books containing Hebrew learning for the Christian readership. (cf. Burnett 2000, 16). Conclusions Kenneth Stow has rightly characterized the opinion of sixteenth century Christianity on Jewish literature as a ‘dualistic view’ (Stow 1991). On the one hand, Jewish literature—especially the books composed after the coming of Christ—was seen as erroneous, even dangerous. On the other hand, it was considered as a useful tool for discovering the historical background and the literal meaning of the Bible, both Old and New Testament. These two streams have led to the idea that Jews had to abandon their books in order to convert, yet that they had to read the same books properly, that is, in a Christian manner, for the same purpose. In this sense, the Talmud was both false and true at the same time (Stow 1991, 416). This dualism can be identiijied in the prologues to the polyglot Bibles with regard to the Targum. The Targum sheds light on the meaning of the Hebrew text (apb VIII, Variae Lectionis), especially the ‘literal sense’ (lpb XII,16), and its study would lead to fresh interpretations (ppb III). It would also certainly promote the Christian doctrines concerning the Messiah (apb II) and even conquer the erroneous vision of heretics, Jews and Gentiles (ppb II). Jonathan ben Uzziel was considered a very scholarly man. However, his translation contained a lot of Talmudic allegories that did not deserve to be reproduced (apb II). Or, in the words of Walton, ‘one has to separate the wheat from the chaff, the harmful from the beneijicial, in accordance with the Talmudic saying (Ḥag 15b; cf. Buxtorf 1648, 152): “eat the date, but throw its peelings outside” ’ (Text 42; lpb XII,16). That is exactly what Walton demonstrates in his prologues. The Targums are human products for him, not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the later Targums are full of ‘Jewish fables and nonsense’ (lpb XII,16). Nevertheless, all the Targums, early and late, are selectively quoted to show their usefulness for the Hebrew text, its interpretation and the afijirmation of Christian doctrines. This dualistic view partly originated in the changing deijinition of what was ‘literal’. While earlier medieval scholars considered the entire Targum a literal explanation of the Hebrew Bible, Nicholas of Lyra recognized the difference This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 225 between peshat and derash in the translation (Van Liere 2000, 77). He also broadened the notion of ‘literal sense’: for him, the Christological explanation of the Hebrew Bible belonged to it, since ‘it must have been the intention of the holy prophets to point forward to the coming of Christ’ (Van Liere 2000, 73). Since then, Christian scholars have been searching for a Christological peshat in the Targums—which appeared to be a contradiction in terms. Appendix: Original Texts Text 1: [. . .] in diversis mundi partibus, libros tam Grecae, Hebraicae, Arabicae et Chaldeae linguarum in latinum translatos, quam alios, latino ac vulgari sermone editos, errores in ijide, ac perniciosa dogmata etiam religioni Christianae contraria [. . .] continentes. Text 2: [. . .] nam Chaldaica in caeteris libris praeterquam in Pentateucho corrupta est aliquibus in locis et fabulis merisque Thalmudistarum nugis conspersa, indigna prorsus quae sacris codicibus inseratur. Text 3: [. . .] mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus, tamquam duos hinc et inde latrones medium autem Iesum hoc est Romanam sive latinam Ecclesiam collocantes. Text 4: Loca ex Chaldaica paraphrasi reiecta, quae supervacanea esse videbantur. Text 5: De Paraphrasi Chaldaica, quam Rabbini Thargum appellant, quid loquar? vitiata et corrupta nimis, degenerans ab illo primo nitore et candore; plene Thalmudicis fabulis, impietatibus sacrilegis foedata, in quo conveniunt omnes. Text 6: [. . .] ad lectionem Veteris Testamenti diversis linguis nunc primum impressi sunt [. . .] Text 7: [. . .] eamque ad textum vulgatae editionis Latinae illustrandum perutilem esse . . . asseruerunt. Text 8: [. . .] ad illustrandam et conijirmandam vulgatam Ecclesiae Translationem. Text 9: Unde translatio septuaginta duum quandoque est superflua quandoque diminuta. Text 10: [. . .] supplens diminuta et resecans superflua [. . .] Text 11: Vir tantus et per orbem celebris non dedignatus est rursum ijieri discipulus etiam eorum qui inimici erant crucis Christi et nominis Christiani. Text 12: Imo multum nobilitavit Dominus Targum quod probant haud inijimi Hebraeocritici Helvicus, Mayerus, Schik et alii, dum in cruce pendens verba ex Psal. 22 non secundum textum Heb. sed ex Targum recitavit et sacro ore suo consecravit. Text 13: Verum quia quibusdam in locis ubi integra est littera et incorrupta; mirum in modo favet Christianae religioni [. . .] Text 14: [. . .] et multa adducit ellectissima ac rara in favorem Chrsitiani religionis [. . .] This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 226 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja Text 15: ‫ודא עבד בדיל למידע ולמילף סתרין סגיאין וקשיטין ומהימנין ויציבין דאישתכחו בלישנא‬ .‫דעבראן לסעדא להימנותנא קדישתא דישוע משיחא בר אלהא חיא‬ Text 16: [. . .] nisi ut Christus ipsemet divinis promissionibus, ijiguris, visionibus monstret. Text 17: Is enim præter multa alia, quæ doctißimè exponit, præcipua quoque Christi mysteria et apertè explicat, et valde signiijicanter indicat. Text 18: Hoc etiam in ipso laudandum quod plurimos locos de Messia non ita explicate scriptos, ipse sensu sane Christiano de Messia exponit. Text 19: [. . .] et multa adducit ellectissima ac rara in favorem Christiane religionis ex quibus hebrei redargui et convinci possunt. Text 20: Apud Judaeos aequalem habent cum textu Hebraico auctoritatem, praecipue Onkelosi et Jonathanis Paraphrases; unde nemo audet iis contradicere. Text 21: [. . .] quod ex alio fonte proijicisci non potuit quam quod ea scripserant Paraphrastae quae habuerunt ex antiquis traditionum et expositionum reliquiis quas ex Prophetis hauserunt. Text 22: [. . .] non solum propter Judaeos ad Christum convertendos iuxta prophetiam apostoli, sed etiam propter Christianos iam conversos [. . .] Text 23: [. . .] ad Religionem Catholicam adversus Orientalium haereses propugnandam. Text 24: [. . .] ad Religionis Christianae adversus Ethnicos et Mahumetanos ex tot populorum etiam Iudaeorum et Samaritanorum Christiano nomini infensissimorum hostium suffragio comprobationem et commendationem. Text 25: [. . .] ad revincendas et confutandas plurimis in locis malignas haereticorum versiones. Text 26: [. . .] opponerentur falsis et impiis haereticorum translationibus quibus fucum imperitis linguarum facere conantur. Text 27: [. . .] nam quis non videt totum Antichristi regnum et haereses omnes ex sola ignorantia scripturae et Christi manere? Text 28: [. . .] ut iam his admincilis adiuti Hebreaorum (ut ait beatus Hieronymus) nauseam et ructum fastidientes praeceptores eorum consulere non egeamus. Text 29: Cum his qui divinae legis integram cognitionem ac in ea Christum qui vera sapientia est, pio mentis affectu conquirunt, quam plurimum conferat earum linguarum peritia quibus primaria origine sacra eloquia spiritu sancto dictante conscripta sunt [. . .] Text 30: Neque enim solùm quid à Spiritu sancto, eiusque Prophetis, ministris, ac interpretibus dictum, sed quomodo dictum sit, potißimum observandum est. Text 31: Et ipsius translatio merito caeteris antefertur quia est verborum tenacior et perspicuitate sententiae clarior. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 227 Text 32: Nota quod ubicunque in libris veteris testamenti mendositas reperitur, recurrendum est ad volumina hebraeorum quia vetus testamentum primo in lingua hebraea scriptum est. Text 33: [. . .] quòd Chaldaica Paraphrasis, quae quidem in Complutensibus Bibliis deijideratur, integra huc accessit: nimirum quae ad Hebraici contextus intelligentiam maximum est allatura adiumentum. Text 34: [. . .] ita probarunt ut ad ipsum textum Hebraicum Latinumque plurimis in locis illustrandum utilem iudicarent. Text 35: [. . .] ad eruendas novas et saluberrimas e Scripturae penetralibus interpretationes [. . .] Text 36: [. . .] in textibus difijicilibus, locis obscuris et vocabulis inusitatis multum lucis afferunt, dum ritus, consuetudines, historias, vocabulorum signiijicationem genuinam sensumque literalem explicant, quae ipsis ex maiorum traditione accepta melius quam nobis nota erant [. . .] Text 37: [. . .] unde fatetur Serarius in hoc utiles esse ad Scripturae interpretationem quod ingenii bonitate vel maiorum traditione quaedam ad rituum qui nobis ignoti et in vetere Synagoga usurpati erant, explicationem adferunt. Text 38: His itaque perpensis nemo nobis vitio vertet quod Chaldaeas Paraphr. in Bibliis nostris retinuimus, secuti exempla Editionum celebrium Complutensis, Venetae, Basileensis, Regiae et Parisiensis. Text 39: [. . .] damit Gottes ehre gefördert, des Teufels werck zerstöret, die Babylonische Confusion in euern herzen auffgehaben und das heilige Pijingstfest der Sprachen auch noch in diesen letzten zeiten zum andern mahl wider des teufels danck in euch angefangen, conijirmirt unnd bestettig werden solle und müsse [. . .] Text 40: Non desunt qui omnes Judaeorum libros (ut qui iurati Christi hostes) et hos inter reliquos damnant ut prorsus inutiles, impios et inter Christianos non ferendos. At hoc de omnibus recte non potest afijirmari, cum Jonathan ante Christi adventum scripserit et fortasse Onkelos, ut ex supra dictis probabile est. Text 41: ‫ ויטרון יתהון‬.‫בדיל דיהמנון ויהנון לאיסתכלא הני פיתגמיא דתרגומא כל חד מנהון באתריה‬ .‫בליבהון‬ Text 42: Non tamen omnia in Targum approbanda, sed triticum a Zizaniis, noxium a salutari discernendum, juxta illud Talmudicum “Comede dactylum, sed projice corticem foras”. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 228 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja Bibliography Reference Works before 1800 Buxtorf, J., Florilegium Hebraicum: Continens elegantes sententias, proverbia, apophthegmata, similitudines[. . .], Basel 1648. Hutter, E., Abgad. Alphabeton. Alphabetum: Ein A B C Büchlein, Darauss man die vier Haupt-Sprachen, als Ebräisch, Griechisch, Lateinisch, Deutsch, etc. leicht buchstabieren und lesen lernen kan, Nürnberg 1597. Secondary Literature Amirav, H. & H.-M. Kirn (eds), Theodore Bibliander: De ratione communi omnium linguarum et literarum commentarius (Traveaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 475), Genève 2011. Barr, J., Escaping from Fundamentalism, London 1984. Bod, R., De vergeten wetenschappen: Een geschiedenis van de humaniora, Amsterdam 2010. Burnett, S.G., 2000, ‘Christian Hebrew Printing in the Sixteenth Century: Printers, Humanism and the Impact of Reformation’, Helmantica 51/154: 13–42. ―——, ‘Christian Aramaism: The Birth and Growth of Aramaic Scholarship in the Sixteenth Century’, in: Ronald L. Troxel et al. (eds), Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 421–436, Winona Lake 2005. Cathcart, K.J. & R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible, 14), Edinburgh 1986. Cevolotto, A., Agostino Giustiniani. Un umanista tra Bibbia e Cabala. Un umanista tra Bibbia e Cabala (Collana Dimensione Europa), Genova 1992. Chilton, B., Targumic Approaches to the Gospels: Essays in the Mutual Deijinition of Judaism and Christianity (Studies in Judaism), Lanham etc. 1986. Cohen, J., ‘Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy: The Study and Evaluation of Judaism in European Christendom’, in: J. Cohen (ed.), Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, 310– 341, New York / London 1991. Dilloo, F.W.J., De moedertaal van onzen Heere Jesus Christus en van zijne apostelen, Amsterdam 1885. Fischer, H., ‘Conrad Gessner als Bibliograph’, in: H. Fischer et al., Conrad Gessner 1516– 1565. Universalgelehrter, Naturforscher, Arzt, 31–37, Zürich 1967. Forestell, J.T., Targumic Traditions and the New Testament (SBL Aramaic Studies, 4), Chico 1979. Grendler, P.F., ‘Italian Biblical Humanism and the Papacy, 1515–1535’, in: E. Rummel, Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, 227–267, Leiden 2008. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV christian arguments for including targums 229 Hall, B., Humanists and Protestants 1500–1900, Edinburgh 1990. Horne, Th. H. & J. Ayre, An Introduction to the Criticism of the Old Testament and to Biblical Interpretation, London 1860. Jansen, H., 2002, ‘Het protest van Erasmus tegen de renaissance van Hebreeuwse literatuur’, Getuigen. Tussen geschiedenis en gedachtenis 74/1: 5–40. Jones, J.A., 1982, ‘Las advertencias de Pedro de Valencia y Juan Ramírez acerca de la impresión de la “paraphrasis chaldaica” de la “Biblia Regia”’, Bulletin Hispanique 84: 328–346. Kiefer, E.O., Die Theologie des Johannes Draconites. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Draconites-Forschung und zur Frage der Schriftauslegung im Zeitalter der Reformation, Heidelberg 1938. Kirn, H.-M., Das Bild vom Juden im Deutschland des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts: dargestellt an den Schriften Johannes Pfefferkorns, Tübingen 1989. Le Déaut, R., The Message of the New Testament and the Aramaic Bible (Targum) (Subsidia Biblica, 5), Rome 1982. Liere, F. van, ‘The Literal Sense of the Books of Samuel and Kings; from Andrew of St Victor to Nicholas of Lyra’, in: Ph.D.W. Krey & L. Smith, Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture, 59–81, Leiden 2000. Ménager, D., ‘Erasmus, the Intellectuals, and the Reuchlin Affair,’ in: E. Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, 39–54, Leiden 2008. O’Malley, J.W., Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform, Leiden 1968. Outhuijs, G., Geschiedkundig verslag der voornaamste uitgaven van de Biblia Polyglotta, Franeker 1922. Perles, J., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Hebräischen und Aramäischen Studien, München 1884. Peters, E., Inquisition, New York / London 1988. Price, D.H., Johannes Reuchlin and the Campaign to Destroy Jewish Books, Oxford 2011. Prideaux, H., The Old and New Testaments Connected in the History of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations from the Declensions of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah to the Time of Christ, London [1717–1718] 161808. Raz-Krakotzkin, A., The Censor, the Editor, and the Text: The Catholic Church and the Shaping of the Jewish Canon in the Sixteenth Century, Philadelphia 2005. Rekers, R., Benito Arias Montano 1527–1598. Studie over een groep spiritualistische humanisten in Spanje en de Nederlanden, op grond van hun briefwisseling, Groningen 1961. Reusch, F.H., Die Indices Librorum Prohibitorum des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, Nieuwkoop 1970. Rosier, B., De Nederlandse bijbelillustratie in de zestiende eeuw, I, Amsterdam 1992. Sabbe, M., De meesters van de gulden passer. Christoffel Plantin, Aartsdrukker van Philips II, en zijn opvolgers, de Moretussen, Rotterdam 21978. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 230 van Staalduine-Sulman and Tanja Schwarz, G., “Und Jesus sprach”: Untersuchungen zur aramäischen Urgestalt der Worte Jesu (BWANT, 6/18), Stuttgart etc. 1985. Shamir, A., Christian Conceptions of Jewish Books. The Pfefferkorn Affair, Copenhagen 2011. Staalduine-Sulman, E. van, ‘Oude woorden in nieuwe talen: Joël 2:12–14 in christelijke edities van Targoem Jonathan’, in: K. Spronk et al. (eds), Studies uit de Kamper school opgedragen aan Willem van der Meer, 161–172, Bergambacht 2010. ―——, 2012, ‘Christianized Targums: The Usefulness of the Zamora Manuscripts and the Antwerp Polyglot Bible for an Edition of the Targum of the Former Prophets’, Aramaic Studies 10: 79–114. Stow, K.R., ‘The Burning of the Talmud in 1553, in the Light of Sixteenth-Century Catholic Attitudes toward the Talmud’, in: J. Cohen (ed.), Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, 401–428, New York / London 1991. Wilkinson, R.J., The Kabbalistic Scholars of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible (Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, 138), Leiden 2007. This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV