Home  ›  Biblical Commentary (Judaism)

Biblical Commentary (Judaism)

The exegesis Jewish of the Bible is to explain and apply the Hebrew Bible , that is to say, to elucidate the message and pull the Act. Speaking through various channels, including the midrash ("investigation" of verses) and the Targum (translation, often accompanied by interpretative or paraphrases), it is, at the close of the biblical canon, the major field of intellectual and scientific activity developed by and in Judaism.

It remains so even when the Jews found in other spheres as a result of their contacts with the Greeks and Arabs. They are also often biblical commentaries which contain the first traces of this external influence.
It is indeed the need to achieve a rational exegesis, in agreement with the text and tradition, was born Hebrew philology, and that is the legitimate Jewish philosophy , exemplified in the commentary of Saadia Gaon. The philosophy is subsequently becoming more important in exegesis, even views it develops would go against the grain of traditional Judaism. It is also in the form of biblical commentary that the Kabbalah was popularized with the Zohar.

Parallel to the philological-philosophical exegesis practiced in Spain, developed in France School Rashi , considered the biblical exegete par excellence. Despite the preponderance increasingly marked with time of the study of the Talmud, the Torah study with commentary Rashi is considered the minimum basis of a Jewish education tradition.

Over the centuries of decadence and ignorance, the exposure of the Bible in its various aspects is the most popular activity and most assiduously cultivated in Jewish circles. The major cultural changes are also beginning with innovations in the field of exegesis, including those of Saadia , of Rashi and Moses Mendelssohn , that puts the study of the biblical text in the spotlight.

The traditional Jewish exegesis is violently challenged by Spinoza in his Theological-Political Treatise and relatively neglected by progressive Jews in favor of the radical critique applied to the Bible. Instead, it is fiercely defended by Orthodox Jews , who ignore the radical critique, or attach more rarely overturn its findings. Further attempts of non-Orthodox circles, are conducted to find a way to reconcile tradition and criticism.

Summary

/ / Beginnings of Jewish exegesis

The development of the Torah itself dates back to the prophecy, where individuals, often leading study circles draw upon the images and language of the Torah to remind people to order. However, their interpretations of the biblical message and are regarded by the Pharisees at least, as emanating from God Himself, and can not be subject to investigation. That is why the Talmud teaches that a prophet can not make new halakha (law) and we can not deduce from halakhic rule of the prophets.

Every translation is a form of commentary. The use of the Targum (translation into Aramaic ) back to the time of Ezra the Scribe (-450 CE). Hebrew was supplanted by many in Aramaic, were he in Babylon and Syria, so that, when reading the Torah biweekly prescribed by Ezra, who carried in their original course, an individual handles subtitles simultaneously. This individual is necessarily erudite, well versed in both languages and semantics, in which each word or each letter is loaded, so knowing the Torah in depth. However, beyond the semantic relatedness between languages, there are essential differences in the ideational content conveyed, and any translation is necessarily interpretative. How to make, for example, the idea of hurly-burly, or distinguish between the greatness of man, and the size of the Leviathan, how to make words with no equivalent in another language, and conversely, how avoid words that could lead to a deviation from the original idea? Just as the oral tradition was worked initially in parallel with the written tradition, so the Midrash grows there on the frame of the Targum. The translator is asked to explain the reasons for his choice of translation, then elaborate on this choice, then elaborate on the development. Meanwhile, Tannaim develop the Midrash , referred to homiletics first, the audience is more sensitive to the application of a statutory requirement when it is nicely packaged in aggadah, exegetical and then. The latter was particularly popular in the Land of Israel, not appearing in the Jerusalem Talmud, but in midrashic collections, such as the Midrash Rabbah, the Midrash Tanchuma the DeRabbie Pirke Eliezer, all these works have been built between 400 and 1000 CE.

Summary chronology

Onkelos

Onkelos is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible in the second century CE. Proselyte, that is to say, converted to Judaism, Rabbi Yehoshua and student of Rabbi Eliezer, the two great sages of that time, its translation, made in the Land of Israel, quickly became the standard used in synagogues Babylonian During the era of development and drafting of the Talmud. It is printed in the margin in nearly all modern standard editions. Rashi, Maimonides, and many others, consider this essential to exegesis translation, particularly as it reflects the understanding that the Sages had the scriptures at the time of Onkelos. Many modern scholars dispute the authorship of the text to Onkelos, thinking that she was awarded in the High Middle Ages on the basis of a confusion with a (further) translation of Onkelos the proselyte mentioned in the Talmud. Yet these same critics have been able to offer an alternative to authority Targum.

Saadia Gaon

Rashi

Rabbeinu Shlomo Yitzhaki said the Parshandata, the father of Commentary, is a rabbi Champagne born in 1040, and died in 1105. He spent most of his life in Troyes, but went to study in the academies of Worms , Speyer and Mainz ( Magenza ). Winemaker by trade, Rashi wrote a commentary on the Hebrew Bible, and virtually all the Talmud, completed by his son and grandchildren son. His commentary is so great authority on the Talmud would be considered a sealed book without him, and his biblical commentary was printed alongside the text in virtually all standard editions. He was also the first to press Hebrew text of the story. Commenting on the Tanakh and the Talmud , Rashi does not wish to engage in scholarly discussions or debate issues challenging philosophical or theological, but only render the meaning return to his people how to understand texts written in a language too ancient, speaking much too high, based on outdated notions, and on which they must always be based on a need to continue to perpetuate the traditions of a people who, if he can not in any way add or subtract anything whether the letter, must comply within a constantly changing world.
To do this, he relayed the views of the ancients, the masters of the prophetic tradition and rabbinic, seeking clarity of thought and clarity of style, not hesitating to use the langue d'oil (the language vernacular of northern France of the eleventh century) to further simplify the explanation given.

This search for precision, both in form and in substance from the formulation, is a value typically French, that will not fail to recall Emmanuel Levinas and Leon Ashkenaz. There are more than 130 supercommentaires that of Rashi. Many even believe that any Bible commentary written after Rashi is a supercommentaire to some degree.

Rabbeinu Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra

Born around 1090 in Tudela, in Zaragoza, who died about 1165 in Calahorra, poet, grammarian, translator, commentator, philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, and physician, was one of the most eminent scholars of the Spanish Golden Age.

His Bible commentary is mainly based on the scrutiny of grammar and Hebrew philology, as well as the realities of life in biblical times. He makes several theories about the different meanings that can take a term (not exclusive of each other), with the underlying question of how far he can depart from literal meaning. In his eyes, only Expess containing anthropomorphism to describe God are meant to be taken second.

Abraham ibn Ezra Note distinguishes non-literal exegesis of allegorical exegesis. Indeed, the allegorical interpretation of the Bible is typical of Christianity (for which literal comprehension, particularly chapter 18 of Deuteronomy is unacceptable, since it condemns Jesus ). However, if the literal and non-literal can co-exist, be "both authentic, and if one looks at the body, the other like minds", the first meaning is mandatory, and the second meaning s 'it makes.

Many philosophical punctuate his point. Highly influenced by philosophy, particularly Neoplatonism (the passages where he discusses the soul, especially the rational soul, are invariably think Fons Vitae of Ibn Gvirol ), Ibn Ezra sees no conflict between science and religion since according to him, science and astronomy are the basis of Jewish studies. He advocates a madman rationalism, seeing for instance in the heavens and the earth the first verse of Genesis, the sky and land, which is obviously in contradiction with all other commentators.

Often citing Judah Halevi , it nevertheless represents the opposite view, although some ideas, including that of liberating God who burst into history, not subject to any determinism, has missed the mark.

As Maimonides after him, Ibn Ezra rarely speaks in a clear, seeming to reserve his comment to a certain elite. His style is terse in the extreme, to the point of being enigmatic, requiring supercommentaires the most widespread is that of Rabbeinu Shlomo Hacohen, entitled Avi Ezer.

In doing defender of Judaism Karaite Rabbanite against dissent, it also relies heavily on the teachings of Saadia Gaon, whose work is entirely devoted to this fight.

His method

In the introduction to the two versions of his biblical commentary, Abraham ibn Ezra recounts the history of exegesis of the Bible, the Talmud to the present. Twice, he distinguishes four exegetical methods, plus his own

  • The first is the Geonim , directors Talmudic academies of Babylon. Ibn Ezra, comparing the truth at the center of a circle, located near the center, but in the circle. Their exegeses contain "unnecessary digressions.
  • The second relates to the Karaites , "They think they are within the meaning of the circle, but actually know the location. "They provide contradicting interpretations of tradition, due to their ignorance of philology, but also grammar (even though they were the first to study the Scriptures in a rational way, according to the writing itself), and their challenge to the Hebrew calendar , which depends on the good practice of Judaism.
  • The third Christian exegesis and allegorical in general (see above), is highly contested: it discovers all the mysteries, to interpret allegorically, diverting Scripture from its original meaning. However, Ibn Ezra recognized the merit of their "know that any commandment, large or small, must be weighed in the balance of the heart (seat of intelligence) as discernment there. "
  • The fourth is that of Tannaim and Amoraim : it does not agree with the rules of philology, but contains deep secrets that it is imperative to study.

Having outlined these four forms, Ibn Ezra expresses his own: it is based on a knowledge of Hebrew (which excludes again Christian exegesis which takes place on translations and not the "original". ) In fact, for him, Hebrew is the lashon haqodesh (the holy tongue), back to the first man

References


Leave a Reply

0 vote, average: 0.00 out of 50 vote, average: 0.00 out of 50 vote, average: 0.00 out of 51 vote, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5, rated)
Loading ... Loading ...
Help us improve the wiki Send Your Comments