Biblical Comment (Judaism)

Introduction

As well as the fact of noticing Martin Buber (still that its opinion does not make authority on the matter), when one a fact, either one reports repeats it servilely, or one comments on it. The prophets, while wanting to point out the Law and the regulations contained in the Torah, are ipso facto the first commentators, which had already included/understood Talmud, while teaching that one cannot deduce from halakhic rule starting from the prophets.

Any translation is a form of comment. The use of the Targoum (translation in Araméen) goes up at the time of Ezra the Scribe (- 450 EC.). The Hebrew was supplanted at much by Araméen, was it of Babylon or of Syria, so that, during the twice-weekly reading of the Torah prescribed by Ezra, which is carried out of course in original version, an individual undertakes the subtitles into simultaneous. This individual is necessarily scholar, versed in the two languages and the semantics, with which each word, even each letter, are charged, thus knowing the Torah thoroughly. However, beyond the relationship between the semantic idioms, there exist imperatively differences in the conveyed contents ideic, and any translation becomes necessarily interpretative. How to return, for example, the idea of hurly-burly, or to distinguish between the size from the man, and the size of Léviathan, how to return words not having their equivalent in the other language, and conversely, how to avoid words being able to lead to a diverting of the original idea? Just as the oral tradition was worked out initially in parallel of the written tradition, in the same way Midrash develops it on the framework of Targum. The translator is brought to explain the reasons of his choice of translation, then to work out on this choice, then to work out on the development. In parallel, Tannaïm develop the Midrash, with homiletic aiming first of all, the audience being more sensitive to the application of a legislative regulation when this one is nicely packed in aggadot, and exegetic then. This one was particularly snuffed out of Ground of Israel, not appearing in Talmud of Jerusalem, but in collections midrashic, such as Midrash Rabba, Midrash Tanhouma, Pirke deRabbi Eliezer, all these works having been compiled between 400 and 1000 EC.

Summary chronology

Onkelos

Onkelos is a translator araméen of the Hebraic Bible in IIe century EC. Proselyte, i.e. converted with the Judaism, raises of Rabbi Yehoshoua and Rabbi Eliezer, two larger Wise of this time, his translation, composed out of Ground of Israel, quickly became the standard used in the Babylonian synagogs during the era of development and drafting of Talmud. It is printed in margin of the text in almost all the modern standard editions. Rachi, Maïmonide, and well of others, consider this translation essential to interpretation, because it reflects comprehension particularly well that the Wise ones had Writings at the time of Onkelos. Many modern scholars dispute the paternity of the text with Onkelos, thinking that it was allotted to him in the Early middle ages on the basis of confusion with one (other) translation of Onkelos the Proselyte mentioned in Talmud. Nevertheless these same criticisms could not propose alternative authority in Targum.

Saadia Gaon

Rachi

Rabbenou Shlomo Yitzhaki, known as Parshandata, the father of the Comment, is a Champagne rabbi born in 1040, and deceased in 1105. It passed most of its life to Troyes, but went to study in the academies of Worms, Spire and Mainz. Vine grower of its state, Rachi wrote a comment on the Hebraic Bible, and practically all Talmud, completed by his son-in-law and his grandsons. Its comment makes a so great authority on the matter that Talmud would be regarded as a book sealed without him, and its biblical comment is printed in margin of the text in almost all the standard editions. It was moreover the first Hebraic text put under press of the history. By commenting on the Tanakh and the Talmud, Rachi wishes neither to launch out in erudite discussions, neither to discuss philosophical or theological questions difficult, but to only return, with the direction to restore, its people the means of including/understanding these texts written in a too ancient language, speaking about too high things, basing too old concepts, and on which they must however base in an essential way to continue to perpetuate the traditions of people which, if it cannot in no case to add nor to cut off anything with the letter, must conform to it in a world in perpetual change.
With this intention, it has retransmis the opinions of Old, the Masters of the prophetic tradition, then rabbinical, by seeking the clearness of thought, and the clearness of style, not hesitating to resort to the language of oil (the vernacular language of France of the North of XIe century) in order to simplify even more the explanation suggested.

This research of the concision, so much in the form than in the content of the formulation, is a typically French value, which will not fail to point out Emmanuel Levinas or Leon Askénazi. One counts more than 130 supercommentaires on that of Rachi. Many even estimates that any biblical comment written after Rachi in is a supercommentaire with a certain degree.

Rabbenou Abraham Ben Meir Ibn Ezra

Born about 1090 in Tudèle, in Saragossa, deceased about 1165 with Calahorra, poet, grammairien, translator, commentator, philosophical, mathematician, astronomer, and doctor, was one of the most eminent scholars of the Spanish golden age.

Its biblical comment is mainly based on the meticulous examination of Hebraic grammar and philology, like on realities of the life at the time biblical. It emits several theories on the various directions which a term can take on (nonexclusive from/to each other), with the subjacent question to know up to what point it is possible to move away from the literal direction. In its eyes, only the expessions containing of the anthropomorphisms to describe the divine one are to be taken with the direction second.

It should be noted that Abraham ibn Ezra distinguishes not-literal interpretation from allegorical interpretation. Indeed, the allegorical interpretation of the Bible is typical Christianity (for which literal comprehension, in particular of chapter 18 of the Deutéronome is unacceptable, since she condemns Jesus). Nevertheless, if literal and not-literal direction can coexist, to be " both authentic, and if one resembles the body, the other resembles the esprit" , the direction first is obligatory, and it direction second is subordinated to it.

Many philosophical considerations enamel its matter. Very influenced by philosophy, Néoplatonisme in particular (the passages where it treats heart, especially of the rational heart, inevitably make think of the Fons Vitae of Ibn Gvirol), Ibn Ezra does not see any conflict between science and religion, since, according to him, science and astronomy are the base of the Juives studies. It is in favor of an exaggerated rationalism, indicator for example in the skies and the ground of the first verse of the Genesis, the sky and the dry land, which is of course in contradiction with all the other commentators.

Often quoting Juda Halevi, it represents nevertheless the opposed point of view, although certain ideas, in particular that of God liberator having made irruption in the History, by no means subjected to any determinism, did not fail to mark it.

Like Maïmonide after him, Ibn Ezra is seldom expressed in a clear way, pretense to hold its comment with a certain elite. Its style is laconic to the extreme, at the point to become enigmatic about it, requiring supercommentaires of which most widespread is that of Rabbenou Shlomo haCohen, entitled Avi Ezer.

Being made defender of the Judaism rabbanite against dissidence karaïte, it is also strongly based on the lesson of Saadia Gaon, whose work very whole is dedicated to this fight.

Its method

In the introduction to the two versions of its biblical comment, Abraham ibn Ezra recalls the history of the biblical Exégèse, of the Talmud until our days. Twice, it distinguishes four methods of exégèes, plus his clean

  • the first is that of the Guéonim, directors of the talmudic academies of Babylon. Ibn Ezra, comparing the truth with the center of a circle, locates them far from the center, but in the circle. Their interpretations contain " digressions inutiles".

  • the second door on the Karaïte S: " they think of being within the meaning of the circle, but are unaware of of it actually the emplacement". They provide interpretations contradicting the tradition, due to their ignorance of philology, but also of grammar (whereas they were the first studied the Writings in a rational way, according to the writing itself), as their questioning of the Hebraic Calendrier, whose the good practice depends on the Judaism.
  • the third, Christian, and allegorical interpretation in general (cf supra), is descended out of arrows: she discovers mysteries everywhere, to interpret allegorically, diverting the Writing of her direction first. Nevertheless, ibn Ezra recognizes this merit of " to them; to know that any command, small or large, must be weighed on the balance of the heart ( seat of the intelligence ), because the understanding there trouve"
  • the fourth is that of the Tannaïm and Amoraïm: it does not subscribe to the rules of philology, but contains deep secrecies which it is impratif to study.

Having exposed these four forms, ibn Ezra announces his: it is based on a good knowledge of the Hebrew (what once again excludes the Christian interpretation which are practiced on translations and not l'" original".) Indeed, the Hebrew is the lashon haqodesh , the holy language, going up with the first man

Notes and references of the article

Random links:Close Gerard | Cocina alemana | Private stamp | Park Layered branches | Breathe (song) | How that it is | JOINT_(chiffre)