Quaestiones on the Book of Samuel (Studia Post Biblica - Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism , No 26) 9004041958, 9789004041950

Citation preview

STUDIA POST-BIBLICA VOLUMEN VICESIMUM SEXTUM

STUDIA POST-BIBLICA INSTITUTA AP. A.H. DE BOER

ADIUVANTIBUS

T. JANSMA

ET ].

SMIT SIBINGA

ED ID IT

J. C. H. LEBRAM VOLUMEN VJCESIMUM SEXTUM

LEIDEN

E.

J.

BRILL 1975

PSEUDO-JEROME

QUAESTIONES ON THE BOOK OF SAMUEL EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION

BY

AVROM SALTMAN

LEIDEN

E.

J. BRILL 1975

ISBN 90 04 04195 8 Copyright 1975 by E. /. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands All rights reserved, No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

TO ILSE

CONTENTS Acknowledgments . . . List of Abbreviations and Sigla .

IX

x

INTRODUCTION I. Hebrew Scholarship in the Carolingian Renaissance II. The later history of the Pseudo-HieronymianQuaestiones .

3 30

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE In Librum I Samuelis . In Librum II Samuelis .

65 107

I. Biblical References . . . . . . . . . . II. Jewish Sources and Comparable Exegetical Material . . . III. The Quaestiones on Samuel in Medieval Christian Exegesis IV. List of Quaestiones with E)G readings and Scholia. V. List of Etymologies in theQuaestiones . . . . . .

151 155

Index to Introduction Index to the Text . .

157 162 162 163 168

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I should like to express my gratitude to the Research Committee of Bar Ilan University which made a generous grant for this research project and to the Institut de Recherche et Histoire des Textes and Mme H. Le Goff who put at my disposal photocopies of the early MSS of Pseudo-Jerome. A.S.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA Berger BV (Benedictine Vulgate) G Ginzberg

Jerome's Etymologies

NT 0 OT PL Ps.-J. R Rahmer

EJG

v

Wutz

S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant !es premiers siecles du mQYen dge (Paris, 1893). Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem . ... cura .... monachorum Sancti Benedicti edita (Rome, 1926-). St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 672. L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenviitern I Die Haggada in den Pseudo-Hieronymianischen Quaestiones (Amsterdam 1899). S. Hierorrymi presbyteri opera, pars I, Opera Exegetica 1. Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina vol. lxxii (Turnhout, 1959), p. 59 sqq. New Testament. Orleans, Bibliotheque Municipale MS 38. Old Testament. J. P. Migne, Patrologiae curms completus . . . series Latina. Pseudo-Jerome. Rheims, Bibliotheque de la Ville MS 118. M. Rahmer, "Haggadische Analekten aus den Pseudo-Hieronymianischen Quaestiones", fubelschrift Graetz (Breslau, 1887), p. 314 sqq. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. MS 11937. Vulgate. Fr. Wutz, Onomastica Sacra. Untersuchungen zum Liber interpretationis nominum hebraicorum des hi. Hieronymus, I-II, (Leipzig, 1914-15). Texte und Untersuchungen, III, ii.

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE Charlemagne, as Professor Ullmann rightly points out, did not order a new text of the Bible to be drawn up, nor did he encourage Biblical exegesis per se. What he did was to create conditions favourable for the multiplication of copies of the Bible and for the pursuit of Biblical studies in general.1 He and his counsellors saw in the Bible the complete guide to all aspects of public and private life and the key to the spiritual and temporal felicity of the Frankish people. Charlemagne's ideology inevitably enhanced the importance of the Old Testament, especially in its literal meaning and historical setting. We have here a marked reversal of previous attitudes to the OT, based on allegorical and tropological considerations, tending to rob it of its intrinsic value and subordinate it to the NT. In this new climate of opinion, the Franks were regarded as the modern representatives of ancient Israel. Anointed king by the grace of God like his Biblical counterparts, Charlemagne encouraged his close associates to call him David, and indeed the two rulers had a good deal in common, Einhard's involvement of Charles with Augustus being both superfluous and misleading. At any rate the success of the Carolingian monarchy under Pepin and Charlemagne and Charlemagne's self-identification with David must have restored to popularity the books of Samuel and Kings which had not ranked very high for a long time, at any rate since Ulf1.las was said to have refused to translate them into Gothic. Even the legal provisions of the Pentateuch received a new lease of life when they were embodied in the royal Capitularies, again reversing the tendency to interpret the OT legislation in a figurative or allegorical sense. As for the Jews, they would appear to have derived some marked benefit from the OT revival. Charlemagne's tolerant and even sympathetic policy towards them provides a distinct -::ontrast to the persecutions of his Merovingian predecessors and their Visigothic contemporaries. In Carolingian representations of the 1

W. Ullmann, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (1969), p. 19.

4

INTRODUCTION

Synagogue and the Church, both symbolic figures are standing almost on an equal level beneath the Cross, distinguished only by different emblems 2 • This equilibrium was of course only a temporary phenomenon. ALCUIN AND THEODULF

The sound and pedestrian Alcuin of York has always dominated the Carolingian Biblical scene and a number of important Bibles were edited under his auspices. His connexion with Charlemagne was mainly based on his headship of the Palace School (which led some scholars to call him "the Minister of Education") from 782 until his appointment to the abbacy of St. Martin's at Tours in 796, where he died in 804. His final years at Tours can in no sense be described as a retirement. At this recognised Holy Place, his influence was substantial and his Biblical activities provided ample work for the great scriptorium which he directed. The Alcuin Bibles 3 provided a normative text and can safely be identified with the Medieval "Vulgate". Alcuin was deservedly fortunate in his pupils to whom he was deeply devoted. The most influential of them was undoubtedly Rabanus Maurus who in some respects surpassed his master. It is almost unnecessary to add that Alcuin knew no Hebrew and showed no special interest in Jewish scholarship. Indeed, when editing the OT, he preferred the so-called Gallican Psalter to Jerome's own final version of the Psalms juxta Hebraeos. The other great figure of the Carolingian Biblical recensions was Theodulf, bishop of Orleans. Of Visigothic origin, he was born about 760, some 25 to 30 years after Alcuin, and died in 821. His official career under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious was somewhat chequered, but his reputation as a scholar and author rides high, especially since it is now generally accepted that he and not Alcuin was the ghostwriter of the famous Libri Carolini. 4 B. Fischer has established the chronological order of the principal Theodulfine Bibles known by the siglum 0. 5 See W. Seiferth, Synagoge und Kirche im Mitte!alter (1964). E. K. Rand "A Preliminary Study of Alcuin's Bible", Harvard Theological Review, vol. 24, (1931), pp. 323-96. In the Vulgate editions the Alcuin Bibles are known by the siglum @. 4 Ullmann, op. cit., p. 18; A. Freeman in Speculum vol. 40 (1965), pp. 203ff. 6 B. Fischer, "Bibelausgaben des Friihen Mittelalters" in La Bibbia nel!' alto Medioevo (Centro Italiano di Studi sull'alto Medioevo), Spoleto 1963, p. 594. 2

3

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

5

Stuttgart HB. ii. 16 (Constance, es). London BM Additional 24142 (St. Hubert, 0H). Le Puy, Chapter Library (0A). Paris, BN lat. 9380 (Orleans, @M). Paris, BN lat. 11937 (St. Germain, @G). Copenhagen, N.K.S. 1 (Carcassonne). 6

J. Gribomont dates E)HAMG all c. 800.7 The Theodulf Bible MSS are by no means identical. They may all have been copied at Orleans or Fleury from a master-text which was undergoing constant revision and improvement as a result of collation with fresh MSS. The Theodulfine format was influenced by Spanish exemplars but the content was largely based on Italian versions. Unlike Alcuin, Theodulf preferred Jerome's Psalter juxta Hebraeos and showed some interest in the text of the Hebrew Bible. The order of the books in Theodulf's OT is closer to the Hebrew traditions than Alcuin's. It is now generally held that Theodulf produced a more scholarly if less popular and practical Bible than Alcuin. The improvement in the Hebrew content of the successive Theodulfine MSS is also noteworthy. E. Power examined the corrections from the Hebrew in these MSS with respect to the Psalter only. 8 We may note his striking remark ... "a new light is thrown on the critical value of the early MSS of the Vulgate and on the civilisation of the Dark Ages by the incontestable fact that the Hebrew Psalter at all events was separately corrected from the original in quite a number of MSS at so early a period". 9 THE @G BIBLE AND ITS MARGINAL ScHOLIA

The fragmentary nature of the Carcassonne Bible naturally diverts more attention to its immediate predecessor, the St. Germain recension (0G). 10 This Bible tao is unfortunately incomplete but at 6 E. Power, The Lost Ninth Century Bible of Carcassonne in Bib!ica, vol. 5 (1924), pp. 197-201. Unfortunately only a small portion of this Bible has survived, but the marginal annotations and textual corrections from the Hebrew are superior to those of the St. Germain MS (@G) to be discussed below. At the end of the Psalter the number of verses, 2527, is given in accordance with the Jewish computation. Pseudo-Jerome on III Reg. iv, 32 (PL 23, 1430A) gives 915 verses for Proverbs and see also Berger p. 365 under heading "Psaumes". 7 La Bibbia etc., p. 606. 8 Bib!ica vol. 5, pp. 233-58. 9 Ibid., p. 238. 1 ° Formerly known as Ge. p.

6

INTRODUCTION

any rate it extends from Genesis xviii, 20 (Sodomorum et Gomorraeorum) to Psalms xcii, 5 (testimonia tua fidelia facta sunt nimis), thus containing the Heptateuch, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, J eremiah, Baruch, Lamentations (imperfect), the remaining Prophets, Job and Psalms. 11 For our purpose the most regrettable feature is the absence of the book of Chronicles. The marginal scholia from the Hebrew, to the number of 2000 approximately, cover the books of Genesis to Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Job and Psalms. 12 Some of these books, such as Genesis, Ruth, Job and Psalms are comparatively lightly glossed; others such as Exodus to Deuteronomy, Samuel and Kings much more substantially. The text itself has also undergone correction by the marginal annotator. For example in the books of Samuel the earlier Theodulfine recensions included numerous and sometimes lengthy interpolations derived from the Septuagint (to a far greater extent than the Alcuinian recensions ), either as an integral part of the text or in the form of marginal annotations. It almost seems as if Theodulf was planning a kind of Latin Hexapla. The St. Germain Bible, however, more resembles a battleground between Jew and Greek, as a determined effort is made to erase or delete these interpolations, presumably in defence of the Hebraica veritas. 13 This physical attack on the Septuagint readings seems to have been the work of the Hebraic annotator who would appear to have received the St. Germain Bible shortly after it was written. With the help of a Hebrew Bible, how or where obtained it is not known, he tried to achieve two objectives, in the first place as has been seen to restore an uncorrupted Latin text firmly based on the Hebrew and secondly, for the benefit of Biblical scholars, to give a literal rendering of the Hebrew by the side of Jerome's literary translation. Apart from the marginal scholia, there is some evidence that the basic ea text was susceptible to some Hebraic influence. For instance in Jerome's prologue to Samuel (known as the Prologus Galeatus), in effect a general preface to the OT, the transliterations from the Hebrew are distinctly more "Hebraic" in ea. 11 L. Delisle, Bibliotheque de !'Ecole des Charles, vol. 40 (1879), pp. 28ff. gives a good description of the St. Germain Bible, the importance of which outweighs its unattractive appearance. 12 First printed by Martianay in his great edition of Jerome and most easily accessible in the Migne edition of the Vulgate (PL 28-9). The Scholia are also printed in the apparatus of BV, whose editors are compelled to rely on Martianay in numerous cases where the margins of §G were subsequently trimmed. 13 For details see Delisle, op. cit., pp. 32-41.

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE HEBREW

BENEDICTINE VULGATE

li'!VN.,:J. lii~TV i11:iN

C".,.:J.ii1 ( i11:iN) i1.,,li

.,w:11-.,.,n

n1:i;ip(;i) .,.,:ii

C'~'i1

Bresith Hellesmoth Addabarim Thorath Thareasra Accoeleth Dabreiamin

7

@G

Beresith Elesmoth Elleaddabarim Tora Treazra Coeleth Dibreaiamim

Turning to the actual text of Samuel, we find that the improvement in transliteration from the Hebrew is generally the work of the annotator, in the form of marginal notes or by correction of the text itself. There remain, however, quite a number of examples of closer approximation to the Hebrew in the integral text of @G, as for instance towards the end of II Samuel: HEBREW

xxiii, xxiii, xxiii, xxiii,

25. 26. 27. 29.

.,,.,n;i y1:in '3.:J.~ li:11:J.l~

BEN. VULGATE

@G

de Arari Helas Mobonnai de Gebeeth

de Arodi Heles Mobunnai de Gabaath

But all this is as nothing compared with the activity of the Hebraist. The following examples of improved transliteration of names of persons and places in the book of Samuel are worth comparing with the standard Vulgate readings and illustrate the fidelity of the Hebrew transliterator. Corrections made in the text are indicated by an asterisk, the rest being marginal annotations: Abigal (II. xvii, 25); Abiner (I. xiv, 50); Absai (II. x, 10); Adoram (II. xx, 24); Adullam (L xxii, 1); *Aia (IL xxi, 10); Aminon (IL xiii, 20); Ammiel (II. ix, 4); Assuri (II. ii, 9); *Banaiau (II. xx.iii, 30); *Berothai (IL viii, 8); Bichri (IL xx, 1); Dammim (L xvii, 1); *Gezri (L xxvii, 8); *Harari (II. xxiii, 33); *Heleb (II. xxiii, 29); *Hierobeseth (II. xi, 21); Israhelitis (IL xvii, 25); Mahnaim (IL ii, 8 etc.); Merab (L xviii, 17 etc.); Michal (L xviii, 20 etc.); Rabba (II. xii, 27); *Rohobh (IL viii, 3); *Sibbachai (II. xxi, 18); Thalmai (IL xiii, 37); *Thoi (IL viii, 9 etc.).

But the principal task of the annotator was not to correct the Vulgate text and it is very doubtful if he was engaged for that purpose. In employing him, Theodulf was trying to provide a valuable service for Bible scholars who were presumably ignorant of the Hebrew

8

INTRODUCTION

text. At least they should know what was written there. They should realise that Jerome's Vulgate was primarily a liturgic and literary work and not meant to be a literal or scientific translation. This leads us to a new issue. Biblical Hebrew is notoriously concise and often needs expanding to be made intelligible in Wes tern languages. The device of printing such additions in italics, adopted in editions of the Authorized Version, was not available to Jerome, even had he thought such a procedure necessary or advisable. Our Hebraist was therefore making a valuable contribution to Bible studies when he frequently notes in the margin h. non habet to indicate extensions not to be found in the Hebrew. This note occurs about 80 times in Samuel. It can hardly be contended that the Hebraist would have wanted in every case to emend the Latin text in accordance with his reiterated non habet and so all too frequently make nonsense of it. 14 On the other hand omissions of Hebrew words in the Latin text, while perhaps equally justifiable for stylistic reasons seem to have been regarded more seriously by the Hebraist, who sometimes leaves his margin and invades the text itself, 15 although at times he is content with his usual annotations. 16 Some of his corrections have in fact been adopted in the modern editions of the Vulgate. 17 The Hebraist is very keen on a consistent terminology in order that the scholar should know that the same word is being repeated in the Hebrew text. A good example of his activity in this field occurs in II Sam. c. xii in the story of the unnamed firstborn son of David and Bathsheba. The child is almost invariably referred to in Hebrew as il:i•l"!. In order to break the monotony Jerome uses indifferently the terms infans, infantulus, puer, to the accompaniment of the persistent marginal retort h. parvulus. Had the unfortunate child survived, he would in due course have become a i:11l, which Jerome variously translates adulescens, juvenis or even socius, 18 standardized by the Hebraist as puer. 19 Later still he would have graduated to the status of r:i1:i:11, translated by Jerome as puer, but rendered by the Hebraist 14 On one occasion (II Sam. vii, 25) his non habet appears to be unjustified (h. non habet Deus) by reference to the printed Massoretic edition, but perhaps his Hebrew text unlike Jerome's and ours did not contain the word Cl'l"l'?N. 16 II Sam. xv, 26 adds mihi ('l:i). Cf. II Sam. xxi, 21; xxiii, 1; xxiv, 23. 16 II Sam. xii, 14, omission of Cll. II Sam. xiv, 32, omission of l"!Tl:l7t

E.g. the number of 18000 in II Sam. viii, 13. I Sam. xiv, 1, 6; II Sam. i, 5, 6; ii, 21. ]uvenis - I Sam. xxv, 5; II Sam. xviii, 15. Socius- II Sam. xx, 11. 19 Except II Sam. xii, 16 - parvulus. He obviously had i'?•l"I in his mind if not in his text. 17 18

Adulescens -

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

9

adulescens. 20 The expression ;ii,•i,n is consistently rendered absit by the Hebraist, while Jerome sometimes uses nefas or propitius. 21 Our Hebraist generally insists on giving literal renderings of Hebrew idioms or metaphors. For instance, 'l'~!l is almost always noted as in oculis as opposed to Jerome's entirely reasonable coram or in conspectu, while 'l!:> i,~ of course becomes super faciem. 22 Another aspect of the Hebraist's activity was an attempt to find more accurate, or at any rate more literal, Latin equivalents for Hebrew terms. Where he felt really strongly in the matter, he would even correct the Latin text, 23 but he was usually satisfied to make marginal annotations. Typical examples are: ni,!V - V. dimitto; h. mitto. N3' - V. recedo; h. exeo. !llD' - V. remaneo; h. habito. 1Ni,~ - V. satellita, lictor; h. missus. c~ - V. turba, multitudo; h. populus. The annotator distinguishes CiN (homo) from IZ>"N (vir), a distinction which is not always observed by Jerome. On the whole it can be said that our Hebraist mostly succeeds in his aim of providing a more accurate or literal rendering of the Hebrew. Although without question unique in his day, our Hebraist was far from being infallible. Superfluous or false corrections of the Latin, owing to misunderstanding of the Hebrew can be found at II Samuel xv, 25, 27, xix, 9 and xxiii, 1. It is, however, possible that some of these apparent errors were caused by variant readings in his copy of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, he is not always consistent in his corrections, thus falling short of the standard he sets for others. 24 One of his stranger contributions is his rendering of C'N~::i (II Samuel v, 23-4) as flentium. At first sight, this rendering would appear to be a pleasant homiletic conceit without any discoverable basis, either Jewish or Christian. It is, however, the standard Septuagint reading and the Septuagint was a rare commodity in the Carolingian Empire. Who was our Hebraist and what were his qualifications ? According to two of the greatest authorities on the Vulgate, Martianay and Berger, he should be identified with the author of the PseudoHieronymian Quaestiones Hebraicae in Libros Begum et Paralipomenon. This question will be discussed later and it would appear that MarI Sam. xvii, 56. Nefas - I Sam. xiv, 45. Propitius - I Sam. xxiv, 7; xx vi, 11; II Sam. xxiii, 17. 22 Cf. II Sam. xv, 36 Ci'.:i - V. per eos; h. per manus eorum. 23 E.g. I Sam. ii, 6 i,iNW inferos corr. to infernum (also in other versions). 24 For aquam,fluvium and]ordanem see II Sam. xvii, 21, 22 and xix, 31. See also II Sam. xiv, 20-21 (illil i::iiil repeated but with differing annotations). 20 21

10

INTRODUCTION

tianay and Berger are almost certainly right. But even if the identification is proved correct, it will not help us very much, for all we are told about the latter gentleman is that he was "an erudite Hebrew of modern times". I imagine our Hebraist as a Jewish convert to Christianity brought by Theodulf from Narbonne, where there was a respectable Jewish community, to Orleans or Fleury to help him in his Biblical projects. Theodulf undoubtedly had good contacts in the former Visigothic province of Septimania, recently incorporated into the Frankish kingdom. Before his conversion, he must have been something of a scholar, probably of some distinction, as measured by the inferior standards of Western Jewry of that time. Cut off from his natural milieu, his learning may possibly have deteriorated 25 and in any case he would have been deprived of access to even a modest library of Jewish books which would have been of assistance to him in his textual criticism. As a Christian he naturally refers to the MSS of the Latin Bible as nostri (codices) 26 and his relation to the Hebrew Bible is of necessity ambivalent. One solitary word written in Hebrew appears in the whole @G MS. This is l1'1bR (sic) - "incense" at Exodus xxx, 7. As far as I can judge it was most probably written by our Hebraist, perhaps in a passing moment of nostalgia. Other Hebrew words, given in transliteration, are nearly always names of persons, names of places, weights and measures, but the following may be noted - Lazazel (Lev. xvi, 10); ad Azazel (Lev. xvi, 26); pf?ylacteria grece, hebraice totafoth (Deut. xi, 18). His annotations are often indebted to Jewish exegetical traditions. A noteworthy example is his rendering of i1:l1V i1l1N: i1N:iii1 - V. o videns revertere; h. si videtur tibi revertere (II Sam. xv, 27), which subsequently appears in the standard Medieval Jewish commentaries of Rashi and Kimhi. In some cases, perhaps relying on memory, he accepts the Massoretic kre tradition, as against the plain reading (ktib) of the Hebrew text. Thus at II Sam. xxiii, 20 the ktib is •n-iv•N: but according to the kre it should be read ,,n-iv•N:. Our Hebraist deliberately inserts the transliteration ishagil as if to stress his adhesion to the kre. 27 25 His strange annotation to II Kings xv, 10 in Cablaam derived from the Septuagint, seems to indicate ignorance of a well-known Aramaism, unusual in an educated Jew. Cf. the absurd Musabot Sem at Num. xxxii, 38, correctly translated by Jerome versis nominibus. 26 Num., xvii, 6; II Sam. xx, 8. 27 For other examples see II Sam. xii, 20, 22, 30; xiii, 37 and xx, 25. Note also his acceptance of Massoretic vocalization in II Sam. xiv, 17 - i1tJ~~7 and not

i1tJ~~7.

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

11

There are, however, some places where he follows the ktib, notably Arania (II Sam., xxiv, 18). But it does seem somewhat strange that he renders 'il 'li~ as Dominus Dominus or Domine Domine instead of the Dominus Deus of Jerome and the Jewish Massoretic tradition. 28 But his general adherence to Jewish tradition can be shown by his "restoration" of place-names. Thus he consistently treats C'lM~ as a place-name and rejects the Vulgate castra. The enigmatic Ml1:il::i (I Sam. x, 2), translated by Jerome in meridie, is rendered by our Hebraist in Zelza quod interpretatur in umbra (clara). In view of this last comment it should be said that the work •of our Hebraist is almost purely textual, but on a few occasions he cannot resist a tendency to broaden into exegesis, which however is brief and "literal" by contemporary Christian standards. 29 It would be tempting to contend that our Hebraist also knew Greek and could thus be acclaimed as the sole trilingual scholar of the Carolingian age. The evidence, however, while not unfavourable, is somewhat exiguous. His reference to phylacteria grece (Deut. xi, 18) proves little as this kind of information must have been part of the Greek flotsam and jetsam current at all times in the West. Much more to the point are his annotations based on the Septuagint, flentium at II Sam. v, 23-4 and in Cablaam at II Kings xv, 10. In neither case does he say that he derived the annotations from the Septuagint, but there seems no other possible source. At the moment it does not seem profitable to pursue this intriguing question. But whether or not our Hebraist knew Greek and whether or not he can be identified with "Pseudo-Jerome", sufficient has been said to demonstrate his outstanding importance in the history of the Carolingian Bible and to atone for the neglect which has even deprived him of a solitary mention in the Cambridge History of the Bible. 30 THE PsEuno-HIERONYMIAN Quaestiones

A considerable portion of the scholia to MS EJG is embodied in the so-called Quaestiones Hebraicae in Libros Regum. 31 (The companion There are several examples in II Sam. c. vii, Exod. xxxiii, 19; N um. iii, 38; xi, 32; xiii, 18; Josh. xi, 8; I Sam. xii, 5; II Sam. xiii, 20; xvii, 13. 30 He has also been neglected as a witness to the condition of the Hebrew Bible at this period, where even the slightest piece of evidence must have great intrinsic value. 31 TheQuaestiones are printed in the standard editions of the collected works of St. Jerome, e.g. Sancti Hieronymi Operum etc., ed. J. Martianay (1693-1706), vol. 28

29

12

INTRODUCTION

Quaestiones in Para!ipomenon 32 contains none of this material. Presumably the E)G MS originally included Chronicles, but it is not likely to have been glossed to any extent by our Hebraist). The scholia are either incorporated into the lemmatic text-headings of the Quaestiones in place of the normal Vulgate readings or more commonly introduced as an integral part of the commentary itself. If all the E)G scholia were to be removed from the Quaestiones we would still be left with a substantial amount of Jewish exegesis, derived in part from the Talmud and cognate Jewish sources. The Quaestiones, therefore, provide additional material for our discussion on Hebrew scholarship in the Carolingian Renaissance. Before examining the evidence in favour of identifying the author of the Quaestiones ("Pseudo-Jerome") with the Hebraist of E)G and other theories as to his identity, it would be as well to sum up what is known as to the dating of the Quaestiones. The terminus ad quem is the year 829, when Rabanus Maurus issued his dedicatory preface to his commentary on Samuel-Kings. 33 Among the various sources of his commentary which Rabanus lists in his preface is "the opinion of a certain Hebrew of modern times" .34 As will be shown later there can be no doubt that this "opinion" is in fact the Quaestiones themselves. The terminus a quo cannot be much earlier than 800, depending on the dating of the scholia to MS E)Gwhich are found in such profusion in theQuaestiones. It would probably not be too far wrong to suggest the second decade of the ninth century as the most probable time for the compilation of the Quaestiones. Unfortunately there is not a great deal of evidence as to the identity of the anonymous author of the Quaestiones. Rabanus Maurus, as we have seen, describes him in 829 as "a certain Hebrew of modern times more than adequately - non ignobi!iter- learned in the knowledge of the Law". 35 His younger follower Angelo mus of Luxeuil, ii, pt. ii. The most accessible edition is the reprint in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 23. In the 1845 edn. they begin at col. 1329 and in the 1883 edn. at col. 1391. 32 Printed as above. In my article "Rabanus Maurus and the Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones Hebraicae in Libros Regum et Paralipomenon" (Harvard Theological Review Jan. 1973). I have tried to show that Rabanus made use of the original and fuller text of the Quaestiones on Chronicles, which in the surviving MSS and in the printed texts appear only too often in the form of a disorderly abstract. 33 Rabanus ep. 14 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistola Karolini Aevi, vol. 5, p. 403). 34 For an explanation of the meaning of "modern times" in the early Middle Ages, see M.L. W. Laistner, The Intellectual Heritage of the Barb Middle Ages (1957), 35 See a,bove, n. 33, p. 184f.

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

13

who made extensive independent use of the Quaestiones a generation later, does not refer to the author at all but speaks more generally of the opinio or traditio of the Jews, or even of their deliramenta, when quoting theQuaestiones. 36 The incipit to the oldest surviving MS of the Quaestiones, roughly contempo1ary with Angelomus, calls the author il!e judaeus. 37 This attribution was recopied in a MS of about the turn of the tenth century. 38 The other early MSS are silent as to the identity of the author. From the eleventh century onwards there are over thirty MSS extant which nearly always attribute the Quaestiones to Jerome (hence Pseudo-Jerome), thus accounting for the remarkable popularity of the commentary and illustrating the lack of critical capacity of medieval scholarship at its height. Even Erasmus perpetuated this error and the Quaestiones were duly printed amongst the works of Jerome. It was not until the great Maurist scholar Martianay brought out his edition of Jerome at the end of the seventeenth century that the apocryphal nature of the Quaestiones was established. The mistaken Hieronymian attribution must have arisen from the superficial similarity of our Quaestiones to the Hebraicae Quaestiones in !ibro Geneseos, indisputably the work of Jerome. 39 The external evidence as to the author of our Quaestiones is therefore limited to the ninth century and he is described as a Hebrew or a Jew. While "Jew" is clear enough there is some ambiguity about "Hebrew". A Hebrew may simply be a Jew described euphemistically, but conceivably he could be a Christian of Jewish origin. A Hebrew Christian is possible but a Christian Jew seems self-contradictory. What can we learn about the author from his own writings ? As might be expected they do not reveal any personal details, but they do sometimes give indications of a certain mental attitude. At any rate Pseudo-Jerome himself makes no distinction between Hebrew and Jew. 40 His personal attitude to the Jews is reserved and detached, neither friendly nor hostile. 41 There is certainly no religious polemic of any kind. Although by no means ignorant of extra-OT sources, he 36 PL 115, col. 250B, 265C, 288CD, 292B, 327A, 332B, 339B (in cujusdam disputatione), 347D etc.

37

38 39

Rheims MS. 118 f. 38a. Paris MS. B.N. 2384 f. 117a1 •

Corpus Cbristianorum Series Latina vol. 72 (1959), p. 1; PL 23 col. 935 or 983.

° Cf.

Judaei hunc locum ita intellegunt ..... Quam quaestionem Hebrei solventes (on I Sam. ii, 5). 41 Juxta morem illius gentis (I. Sam. i, 4); usum illius gentis fuisse ferunt (I Sam. xvii, 18). 4

14

INTRODUCTION

makes use of them very sparingly, and hardly at all in the Quaestiones on Samuel. There is one reference to Tobit and two or three to the Gospels. 42 Apart from the Septuagint reading taken over from the Hebraist of E)G, 43 he cites the Septuagint on one occasion. 44 Josephus makes an appearance 45 and Pseudo-] erome also demonstrates some knowledge of Classical antiquity. 46 He sometimes attacks the veracity of Latin Biblical codices and contrasts them with the Hebraica veritas. 47 On the other hand he does not hesitate to refer to a defectus in the Hebrew. 48 He rejects Christian literal exegesis, 49 but generally ignores it as irrelevant to his purpose. All the same he was influenced by Christian theology as witness his gratuitous introduction of original sin and the "ladder of penance". 50 To begin with he tends to cite OT books by their Hebrew names but later abandons this practice in favour of the Latin or Greek forms. 51 As far as his Jewish interests are concerned, he shows a great preoccupation with the question of the observance of the Law (Torah) in the post-Pentateuchal books of the OT.52 As Ginzberg has shown, he had a substantial if at times inaccurate knowledge of the Targumim, Talmud and other Rabbinic works. 53 He understood some of the principles of Rabbinic exegesis. 54 It is not unlikely that, to satisfy the curiosity of his Christian audience and to justify his reputation as an expert on Jewish exegesis, he made use of these principles in order to fabricate a goodly number of "Hebrew tra42 Tobit I Chron. v, 26 (in Rabanus, see n. 32 above). Gospels - I Sam. xxi, 5; I Chron. ix, 20; and II Chron. xxiv, 17 (in Rabanus; from Acts or Josephus). 43 II Sam. v, 23 "flentium". 44 I Sam. ii, 5. 45 I Chron. xxviii, 1. 46 I Chron. ii, 9; II Chron. i, 16. 4 7 II Sam. viii, 13; xiv, 26; xv, 7. 48 II Sam. ix, 11. 49 I Sam. xiii, 1. 5 ° II Sam. xvii, 25 ; xxiii, 1. 51 Elesmoth, Vagecra I Sam. ii, 27 ; Malachim - I Sam. ii, 32. 52 The following is a selection: contra !egis preceptum (I Sam. i, 24); in !ege preceptum est (I Sam. xxi, 5); secundum !egem (II Sam. xii, 30 and xiii, 37); sermo !egis (II Sam. xx, 18); i!!icitum era/ (I Chron. xx, 2 in Rabanus); !egis prohibitione (I Chron. xxviii, 1); in Levitico scribitur (II Chron., xxvi, 21); contra morem (II Chron. xxix, 21); mos era/ (II Chron. xxix, 34). 53 L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenviitern I Die Haggada in den Ps.-Hier. Quaestiones (Amsterdam, 1899). 54 On I Sam. ii, 28 Quad vero ait Venit vir Dei ad He!i et cetera quae secuntur ante tempus Elchanae dicta fuisse arbitrantur, sed hie ob gloriam Samuelis interposita dicuntur. The principle involved is that there is no chronological order in Scripture (Bab. Talmud Pesahim 6b - ;iiin:i iniN~i cipi~ T~N).

HEBREW SCHOLARSHil> IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

15

ditions" which were to bedevil Christian exegesis throughout the Middle Ages. 55 This possible solution to the problem of at least some of the "unbekannten Haggadoth" was not suggested by Ginzberg, who on the whole took Pseudo-Jerome far too seriously. 56 There are one or two vague signs of a Jewish background. His citation of Numbers xxix, 1-6 in Qu. 6 reflects the Jewish New Year order of Service. His reference to the eighth day of Passover, if indeed that is what he meant, 57 can only apply to the Jewish Diaspora of his day, as this festival day was unknown in Biblical times. It is best to assess his knowledge of Hebrew from the content of the Quaestiones on Chronicles, as matters of Hebrew language in Samuel are mainly derived from the annotator of E)G. IfPseudo-Jerome is not to be identified with the Hebraist, we must rely on Chronicles. Six letters of the Hebrew alphabet are named. 58 There is a reference to Hebrew idiom. 59 Other passages show a reasonable acquaintance with Hebrew. 60 The possibility thus arises that there were two Hebrew scholars at large at the end of Charlemagne's reign, but as we shall see there is a strong probability that our Hebraist and Pseudo-Jerome were one and the same. It may be added that there are other, smaller, pieces of exegesis, which have been linked with Pseudo-Jerome and which are almost certainly to be attributed to him, although they do not appear in the oldest MSS of the Quaestiones and were apparently unknown to Rabanus. The fragmentary Quaestiones on I Kings make use of the scholia to E)G 61 as does the commentary on Deuteronomy i, 1 (Decem Tentationes). 62 The commentary on the Song of Deborah (Judges v) belongs to this group, but there are no scholia to the book of Judges. 63 Vrnws

AS

To THE IDENTITY OF PsEuDo-JEROME

I have discussed this basically insoluble problem at length

64

and

See below pp. 19, 29 and chapter 2 passim. See below p. 23. 57 II Chron. vii, 9. From the context the feast of Pentecost seems to be indicated. 58 I Chron. i, 36; ii, 26; ix, 19. 5 9 II Chron. xxix, 3. 60 I Chron. x, 10; xi, 27 (Ploni); xv, 19; xxiii, 29 bis; II Chron. xxiv, 27; xxviii, 27. 61 I Kings i, 6; ii, 22. 62 This is a perfect Midrash and, exceptionally, follows the Quaestiones in 0. 63 Ginzberg, op. cit., p. Sff. gives sources for this compilation. 64 Pseudo-Jerome and Biblical Exegesis in the Ninth Century (not yet published). 55

56

16

INTRODUCTION

there seems little point in covering the ground again. Consultation of the early MSS of the Quaestiones has, however, necessitated a reconsideration of some aspects of the problem. The main theories hitherto propounded are that Pseudo-] erome was either a converted Jew or a Christian scholar who consulted Jews. While opposing the latter theory, I did think there were good grounds for suggesting that the text of the Quaestiones as we have it today, particularly Chronicles, may well have been a co-operative work for which the raw material was provided by a converted Jew. This material was then worked up and cast into shape by the Christian collaborator(s) after the style of the genuine HieronymianQuaestiones in Genesim. As to the relationship between the Quaestiones and the Hebraist of @G, I feel that further research has greatly strengthened the case for common authorship. My main contention in favour of a separate identity for the two sources depended on the text-headings of the Quaestiones which to all appearance differed materially in numerous cases from the readings of the @G MS and the annotations of the Hebraist, while the body of the commentary contained nearly all the relevant @G annotations. This conclusion was based on the apparatus criticus of the Benedictine Vulgate edition of Samuel, 65 which notes the textual variations in Pseudo-Jerome. However, a consultation of the oldest MSS of Pseudo-Jerome 66 shows clearly that most of the divergences from @G mentioned in the BV are non-existent. They are taken from the printed edition of the works of Jerome edited by Martianay-Vallarsi, subsequently reprinted in Migne's Patrologia Latina. This edition in turn is based on inferior Pseudo-] erome MSS of the later Middle Ages. 67 The original text-headings had meanwhile undergone a process of normalization towards the accepted Vulgate text as well as accidental changes in the course of copying, recopying and editing. The effect of this process was to blur the relationship between Pseudo-Jerome's Latin Bible text and the @G MS. This process must have already been at work, although of course at a much earlier stage, in the oldest MSS of the Quaestiones which themselves are removed by two generations or more from the original BV, Liber Samuhelis (Rome, 1944). Rheims MS 118, Orleans MS 38 and St. Gall MS 672 (R, 0 and G). 67 Although not clearly stated in PL, one text used seems to have beenRouen MS 450, a twelfth century MS of Jumieges. Variations are also given from the fifteenth century Milan MS Ambros. D 88. 65

61

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

17

MS of the Quaestiones, now apparently lost. However, in the Rheims MS which has been taken as the basis of the present edition of the Quaestiones, the great majority of the text-headings do correspond to the readings of @G and to the corrections of the annotator made in the text itself. They even include at times the marginal annotations of the Hebraist. As has been said, even the Rheims MS already shows signs of degeneration, as witness the unskilful abbreviation of theQuaestiones on Chronicles, of which Rabanus possessed the original and fuller version. 68 The remaining variations from @G in the text headings of the Rheims MS can therefore satisfactorily be accounted for. With the removal of this stumbling-block it can be asserted with confidence that our Hebraist of @G and the author of the Quaestiones are one and the same person, thus confirming the view instinctively adopted by Martianay and Berger. THE JEWISH SOURCES OF PSEUDO-JEROME

In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In his capacity as an annotator of the Vulgate, Pseudo-] erome deserves some respect, but as a transmitter of Jewish tradition he is very much a broken vessel. Yet precisely in this latter field was he to score his greatest success. The annotations to @G were almost immediately neglected and forgotten and the very MS partially destroyed. Only those few annotations preserved in the Quaestiones were eventually utilized under the name of Jerome in the thirteenth century revisions of the Vulgate. But theQuaestiones- the alleged Jewish tradition - enjoyed a surprising popularity during the Middle Ages. This can be illustrated by the large number of surviving MSS and by the extensive use made of them by a long line of commentators and other scholars, not to mention the Gloss itself. Of course he was lucky to be "adopted" by Jerome, but at any rate he was accepted by Rabanus and Angelomus entirely on his own merits. Undoubtedly the Quaestiones supplied an exegetical need. Original Christian literal interpretation of the historical books of the Bible was practically non-existent at the time and the Jews were regarded as experts in this field as long as theological issues were not directly involved. As we have seen, the intellectual atmosphere of the Carolingian period was favourable to studies on the Hebrew monarchy. To supply this demand, the Quaestiones were to hand. What a wasted opportunity! 68

See above n. 32. 2

18

INTRODUCTION

With the development of the Wissenschaftdes]udentums movement in nineteenth century Germany and the growing demand for Rabbis furnished with doctoral diplomas, Pseudo-Jerome enjoyed a modest revival in Jewish studies after the Christian side had long lost interest in him. 69 The main object of Jewish scholars was to track down his Rabbinic sources and in their default to discover "lost Aggadoth", i.e. Jewish Midrashic traditions not incorporated in the surviving Rabbinic treatises. The most successful practitioner in this field was Louis Ginzberg (1872-1953) and his doctoral dissertation Die Haggada bei den Kirchenviitern, published in 1899, deals mainly with the Jewish sources of Pseudo-Jerome. Ginzberg, who later became one of the greatest Rabbinic scholars of this century, held that Pseudo-Jerome was a Christian who consulted Jewish experts and who very often muddled or misunderstood the information they provided. 70 Although Delisle's important article mentioned above had appeared some twenty years previously, 71 Ginzberg does not seem to have realised the connexion between Pseudo-Jerome and the Theodulf Bibles. The Jewish research of that period did in fact show considerable interest in the Church Fathers and in early Medieval Christian Biblical exegesis but understandably far less in the textual history of the Vulgate. Ginzberg has remained almost the last Jewish word on Pseudo-Jerome, although the boom in Dead Sea studies did not altogether pass him by. 7 2 Ginzberg tacitly assumes that the Jew or Jews who supplied Pseudo-. Jerome with his Aggadic material were men of learning who not only had the Targumim, Talmud (Babylonian and Jerusalem) and Midrashic compilations at their fingertips, but even had a wide acquaintanceship with a floating corpus of Aggadic source-material never previously or subsequently edited, but now partially available, admittedly often in a garbled or distorted form, in the Christian Quaestiones. 69 The Quaestiones are used frequently in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (1860), still a very useful work of reference. 70 See his preface p.v, with references to the body of the monograph. According to Ginzberg, therefore, Pseudo-Jerome could not have been "the erudite Hebrew" of Rabanus. This gives rise to the theory that Rabanus himself consulted the erudite Hebrew in the course of writing his own commentary. I have tried to disprove the theory, most recently put forward by S. W. Baron, in my article cited above n. 64. 71 See above n. 11. 72 H. Avenary, "Pseudo-Jerome Writings and Qumran Tradition," Revue deQumran (Jan. 1963).

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

19

Against this view I would suggest that we are not dealing here with learned Jews and ignorant Christians. A picture more in conformity with the facts is that of a man, brought up as a Jew, but not in one of the greater centres of Jewish scholarship. 73 Obviously he knew Hebrew and he had probably absorbed a fair amount of Rabbinic exegesis naturally current in the local Jewish community. By the same token he must have been perfectly aware of Jewish laws and customs as practised in his own society. Then he converts to Christianity, an unusual but hardly exceptional step. Cut off from his family, community and trade, the obvious thing for him to do was to become a monk. In view of his special knowledge Theodulf brings him to Orleans or Fleury to help him with his Biblical revisions. For Theodulf and his colleagues, he represents the quintessence of Hebraica veritas and Hebrew tradition together with the added advantage of unimpeachable Christian orthodoxy, an Israelite in whom was no guile. He has with him his codex of the Hebrew Bible and continues happily (and by the standards of his time successfully) to annotate and correct the later Theodulfine Bibles. 74 With all this, he and his superiors should have been well content. But he was encouraged to go further, to compile Hebrew traditions, to propound and solve "Quaestiones". He alone knew how pitifully inadequate was his scholarly equipment, that he had no written sources, that he had to rely on his already clouded memory of his elementary studies and Jewish background. Everybody else thought he was the repository of all Jewish knowledge. How could he let them down ? He had to satisfy them somehow and was not above inventing plausible Jewish "traditions" and stories. And of course he got away with it. Who was there to expose him? Even if there were any learned Jews at large in the Northern part of the Frankish kingdom, which is most unlikely, they would not have been seen dead with his Latin Quaestiones, THE ORIGINALITY OF PSEUDO-JEROME

Let us examine the first few Quaestiones on Samuel in the light of this theory. It will be seen from this sampling that there is some justification for the ninth century monition ubi lector cautus esse debet. 76 Pseudo73 Narbonne, where there was a well-established Jewish community, would also fit in well with Theodulf's connexions. 74 @G and the Carcassonne Bible. For another possible text see Berger, p. 75 R., f. 53a. 179 n. 1.

20

INTRODUCTION

Jerome is often compelled to produce original exegesis, not always of the highest standard. But original exegesis is so rare at this period that it deserves attention and even respect.

1. (I Sam. i, 1). Pseudo-Jerome gives an apparently new interpretation of de Ramathaim Sophim de monte Ephraim. He makes de Ramathaim Sophim refer to Elkanah's tribal descent and lineage and de monte Ephraim to his location and residence. He had sufficient knowledge of Hebrew to recognise the dual form Ramathaim, which leads to the comment that Elkanah's parents were descended from two separate tribes. The etymology Sophim = Speculatores = prophets is also to be found in Jewish Aggadic material as Ginzberg points out, but Pseudo-Jerome more probably simply took it from Ezekiel iii, 17, available to him both in Hebrew and Latin. On the general question of Pseudo-] erome' s use of Rabbinic source-material, it might be worth comparing the following two quotations: (1) Samuel also said: I am as familiar with the paths of heaven as with the streets of Nehardea. 76 (2) Marlowe knew the sky... as well as he knew the streets and avenues of Pasadena. 77 It is possible that Hoyle, who is perhaps more distinguished as an astronomer than as a writer of science-fiction, came across the remark of Mar Samuel in some work on the history of astronomy and it stuck in his mind. But it is far more likely that this figure of speech would occur to any practising astronomer at any time during the last three or four thousand years. 2. (I Sam. i, 3). Ginzberg points out a possible Aggadic source of Pseudo-Jerome in the Jerusalem Talmud which was overlooked by M. Rahmer and Kellermann, his predecessors in Pseudo-Hieronymian research. It is stated there that Elkanah led the Israelites to the sanctuary on the three pilgrim feasts. I feel, however, that PseudoJ erome was more likely to have shared the ignorance of Rahmer and Kellermann rather than the all-embracing Aggadic knowledge of Ginzberg. It would, of course, be equally as ungrateful as untrue to say that such knowledge is a positive disadvantage in trying to understand Pseudo-Jerome. Pseudo-Jerome, who does not even hint at Elkanah's leading role in the pilgrimage, more probably used his Biblical knowledge and the common exegetical principle of :iiw :ii~Tl (verbal congruities) which he must have learned as a child. 76 77

Babylonian Talmud Berakot 58b. F. Hoyle, The Black Cloud (Penguin edn., 1960), p. 19.

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

21

Exodus xiii, 10, referring to the Passover uses the same expression ;"'!~·~· c•~·~ as is found in our text here. 78 As has already been pointed out, Pseudo-Jerome is always anxious to stress the observance or non-observance of the Pentateuchal laws in later Biblical times. 3. (I Sam. i, 4) The Hebrew rm~, translated partes is here interpreted by Pseudo-Jerome (against Biblical usage and Jewish exegesis)79 as a customary distribution of new clothing by Jews to their wives, children and dependants on the three pilgrim festivals. To support Pseudo-Jerome, Rahmer and Ginzberg quote the operative part of the following text from Bab. Talmud Pesahim 109a: "Our Rabbis taught: A man is in duty bound to make his children and his household rejoice on a festival for it is said And thou shalt refoice in tly feast (Deut. xvi, 14). Wherewith does he make them rejoice? With wine. R. Judah said: Men with what is suitable for them, and women with what is suitable for them. "Men with what is suitable for them" - with wine. And women with what ? R. Joseph recited: In Babylonia, with coloured garments, in Bretz Yisrael, with ironed linen garments. It was taught, R. Judah b. Bathyra said: When the Temple was in existence there could be no rejoicing save with meat.... " Although the duty or obligation to give women garments on festivals (at any rate subsequent to the destruction of the Temple) does provide some sort of basis for the Pseudo-Hieronymian exegesis, is it necessary to assume that he took his comment from this kind of material, changing the "duty bound" of the Talmud to a mere custom and extending the gift of garments from women only to all and sundry ? Indeed had he been at all familiar with this text PseudoJerome would probably have approved the more appropriate dictum of R. Judah b. Bathyra, as far as Elkanah and his household were concerned. It is more natural to assume that Pseudo-Jerome was drawing on his own youthful experience when as a child he received new clothes for the holidays ("according to the custom of that people(!)") as Jewish children still do to this day, or at any rate down to my own childhood. At this point G quotes in addition Exodus xxiii, 14 and Deut. xvi, 16. Cf. Leviticus viii, 29 - Tulitque pectusculum elevans illud coram Domino de ariete consecrationis in partem suam (:"ll~':i :"l':"I :"l!Z!~':i). The Hebraist notes correctly in the margin of @G h. in partem suam Moses. The obvious meaning of pars is a portion of food from the sacrifices. 78 79

22

INTRODUCTION

4. (I Sam. i, 5). This is based on Pseudo-Jerome's own corrected reading of the Vulgate text and is in accordance with Jewish tradition. 5. (I Sam. i, 16). The word Belia/ appears nearly thirty times in the OT and this seems to be the sole occasion where it is explicitly associated with inebriation. Ginzberg knows of no Aggadic basis for this sweeping generalization and it may thus be taken as an original if inept comment. 6. (I Sam., i, 24). See notes to the text of the Quaestio. It may be pointed out that nine "tenths" do not make up an epha. 7. (I Sam. ii, 1) As in no. 5 above (Belia!), this seems to be very much a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc - a personal contribution of Pseudo-Jerome. 8. (I Sam. ii, 3). The so-called "Hebrew" reading depends on the Vulgate vetera (i''l"l:P for pn:P) which was unknown to traditional Jewish exegesis. Pseudo-Jerome's comment, therefore, while eminently reasonable in its Latin context, is entirely his own. 9. (I Sam. ii, 4). Pseudo-Jerome does not claim here to be citing a "Hebrew tradition", there is no known Jewish source and so there is no reason why we should not give the full credit to him. In any case authentic Jewish exegesis would probably tend to interpret the passage in terms of prophecy rather than as past history. 10. (I Sam. ii, 5). Here he is unquestionably acquainted with Jewish tradition and we can accept his acknowledgment of his sources (Judaei intellegunt, Hebrei solventes) as a statement of the truth. Ginzberg shows that he has combined two disparate Aggadoth with unfortunate consequences. He could well have been relying on his memory. The Jewish exegetical principle C'l;!::> c:-i ''1:-t C'l:l 'l:l (sons of sons are to be treated as sons) employed here for the first time by Pseudo] erome is later worked to death in the Quaestiones. 11. (I Sam. ii, 8). It is just conceivable that this Quaestio is based to some extent on Jewish tradition despite the forced Hebrew reading. But pauperes spiritu seems to indicate NT influence (e.g. Matt. v, 3). This latter view was certainly adopted by Rupert of Deutz, who utilizes this Qttaestio in his exegesis - Domini enim sunt cardines, id est affiicti, terrae et posuit super eos orbem. Cui consonans evangelica veritas pauperes spiritu in fundamento beatitudinis collocat dum octo beatitudines connumeraturus sic incipit: Beati pauperes spiritu. (PL 167/1068A). 12. (I Sam. ii, 10). As in no. 9, Ps.-J. searches for a precedent, whereas the natural trend of Jewish exegesis would be to look for a prophetic interpretation.

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

23

13. (I Sam. ii, 22). He is obviously aware of the Jewish tradition

(dicunt Hebraei) which seeks to palliate this scandalous sin of the sons

of Eli. But deprived of both written sources and living Jewish tradition, he can only present the Jewish exegesis in a garbled form. He further confuses matters by establishing a connexion between the behaviour of the sons of Eli on this occasion and the previous Biblical account of their extortions from those coming to the sanctuary to offer sacrifices. One could proceed on these lines to discuss the remaining Quaestiones, but it is very unlikely that such a full analysis would essentially alter the general picture as given above. It only remains to add that

Ginzberg incorporated the whole of the Pseudo-Jerome "Aggadic" material in his monumental work The Legends of the Jews (1909-38), treating it as authentic Jewish material, if to some extent corrupted by the Christian author. The harm caused is somewhat less than might have been expected- on many occasions Pseudo-Jerome is relegated to the volume of notes in a supporting role. All the same there remain quite a number of cases where Pseudo-Jerome's valueless and pointless inventions are the sole source for a "legend" and he then makes the grade in the narrative part of the work. 80 Pseudo-Jerome is thus very much of a force to be reckoned with in contemporary Jewish "Wissensrhaft".

PSEUDO-JEROME IN THE COMMENTARIES OF RABANUS MAURUS

Theodulf was very much of an individualist and much of his Biblical enterprise died with him. In particular the E)G MS remained unexploited for more than eight hundred years and with it went the largest part of the evidence for Hebrew scholarship in the Carolingian period. 81 But Alcuin, a born pedagogue, whose warm love for his pupils was generally reciprocated, had better fortune. His Bible (or Bibles) edited on conservative lines were received as the normative Vulgate text. Thus Tours vanquished Orleans as in former years it had crushed the pretensions of Poitiers. The Alcuinian tradition 80 Vol. vi contains the notes to the text of vol. iv. See vol. vi pp. 55, 225 (I Sam. vii, 6), p. 222 (I Sam. ii, 27 & xxi, 1), p. 231 (I Sam. ix, 20), p. 232 (I Sam. x, 6 & xiv, 34), p. 233 (I Sam. xv, 12), etc. and see the text in vol. iv to these notes. 81 Martianay seems to have been the first scholar to make use of the MS. Apart from, him, Delisle (see above n. 11) and the editors of BV gave considerable attention to this MS, which is also mentioned in Berger. It is ignored by The Cambridge History of the Bible,

24

INTRODUCTION

was continued by his most famous pupil Rabanus, a man after his own heart. With unerring instinct Alcuin dignified Rabanus with the appellation "Maurus", after the leading disciple of St. Benedict. Rabanus had been sent to Tours shortly after 800 by his abbot, Ratgar of Fulda, to sit at the feet of Alcuin and to study the arts in general, the science of metric and Scripture. Eventually Rabanus surpassed his master in the sheer bulk of his compilations, if not in the originality of his work, which is recognized to be solid rather than brilliant. Of course in this latter respect he was loyally following the Alcuinian tradition. During Rabanus's long tenure of the abbacy from 822-42 82 Fulda became an important intellectual centre and he himself was universally acknowledged as "the preceptor of Germany". Like his other great model Isidore of Seville, Rabanus played a notable part in ecclesiastical and secular politics and as archbishop of Mainz (847-56) rounded off his career in a blaze of glory. The concurrent rapid decline of the Carolingian polity had not as yet affected the intellectual life of the Western Empire and may even have worked for a time as some kind of a stimulus. In view of his acknowledged conservatism, Rabanus's substantial use of Pseudo-Jerome (called by him Hebraeus) seems at first sight not a little surprising. He does not inform us how the Quaestiones came into his hands. It would seem, however, that the monastic scriptoria had not been idle and that a copy of the Quaestiones was available in the Fulda library. This copy contained the Quaestiones on Samuel, much as we have them today, but not the fragmentary Quaestiones on Kings - there is otherwise no reason why Rabanus should have ignored them. On the other hand the Quaestiones on Chronicles were available to him in their full form and not in the clumsy abridgment which is all we have of them in the surviving MSS. I have discussed in another place the various aspects of Rabanus' use of the Quaestiones 83 and it is not necessary to go over this ground in detail. The following are the main points to be noted: 1. In his preface to the commentary on Samuel-Kings (I-IV Kings) written in 829, he lists his conventional sources, namely Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, Isidore and Bede. He then adds the 82 83

Compare Alcuin's eight years as abbot of Tours (796-804). Art. cit. above n. 32.

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

25

following, which appears with some variations in his preface to the commentary on Chronicles Moreover, I have inserted in a number of places together with the citation (nota) of his name, the opinion of a certain Hebrew of modern times, more than adequately (non ignobiliter) learned in the knowledge of the Law, which he puts forward as the Hebrew tradition in the chapters of this book. Without any intention of forcing him on anybody as an authority, I have simply set down what I have found written, leaving the decision of his authenticity to the judgment of the reader. 84

It may be suggested that the incorporation of the little-known and dubiously orthodox Pseudo-Jerome in Rabanus's commentary by the side of the venerable and reputable Patristic sources resulted from the pressing need for historical or literal exegetical material which was woefully lacking for these books. Practically anything of Jewish origin could pass for historical or literal exegesis, apart from the works of mysticism attacked by Agobard for their superstition. As we have seen there was a revival of interest in the Carolingian period in the literal exegesis of the OT and Pseudo-] erome was providentially available to fill the gap. On the whole, Rabanus treats him with respect, if not with the unquestioning adulation reserved for the Church Fathers. 2. Rabanus copies wholly or partially well over half the Quaestiones on Samuel and slightly under half the Quaestiones on Chronicles. At times, in the absence of all other available material, be it historical, allegorical or moral, Pseudo-Jerome takes over the entire burden of the commentary, as for instance in II Samuel xii-xvii. It is true that other historical material is taken from Josephus (especially in Chronicles), Jerome, Augustine and Bede, but the bulk is provided by Pseudo-Jerome who is the backbone of Rabanus's literal and historical exegesis. 3. Rabanus gained for Pseudo-] erome admittance to the standard Gloss, thus bringing a fair number of the Quaestiones to the attention of the generality of students of scripture in the Middle Ages. ANGELOMUS OF LUXEUIL

Angelomus wrote his commentary on Samuel-Kings (I-IV Kings) about 850 at the request of his fellow-monks and it subsequently 84 The best edition is Rabanus ep. 14, cited in n. 33 above. The parallel introduction to Chronicles (834-8) is ep. 18 (ibid., p. 423).

26

INTRODUCTION

proved to be the most popular of his commentaries. 85 According to Laistner, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the commentary is copied almost word for word from Bede and Rabanus. 86 It is therefore most significant that his use of Pseudo-Jerome is by no means restricted to the Quaestiones already copied out by Rabanus. In fact as I have shown, Angelomus gives a further 33 Quaestiones not used by Rabanus and a fuller text of five others which Rabanus had abridged. 87 It is therefore clear that a copy of the Quaestiones had reached Luxeuil before the middle of the ninth century. Laistner suggests the possibility that this Luxeuil MS containing the Quaestiones was borrowed by the Rheims chapter library for copying and that the resultant copy is now Rheims MS 118 (donated by Hincmar), the oldest surviving text of the Quaestiones. 88 If this is so, the Luxeuil MS, unlike that of Fulda (now lost), would not have contained the fuller version of the Quaestiones on Chronicles. As, however, Angelomus did not comment on Chronicles, there is no way of testing the hypothesis. The following are the main points which emerge from the study of the use of Pseudo-Jerome by Angelomus: 1. It has already been noted that he made extensive independent use of the Quaestiones on Samuel and incorporates considerably more of them into his commentary than did Rabanus. Like Rabanus, he seems to have no knowledge of the fragmentary Quaestiones on Kings, nor does he make any independent use of the Quaestiones on Chronicles. 2. Although he knew perfectly well that the Quaestiones were the work of the "learned Hebrew" as stated in Rabanus's introduction, Angelomus completely ignores his existence and tries to create the impression that he is familiar with a wide variety of Jewish sources. In quoting the Quaestiones he rings the changes on Judaei, 89 opinio 85 Enarrationes in Libros Regum (PL vol. 115 col. 243sqq.); M. L. W. Laistner, "Some Early Medieval Commentaries on the Old Testament" in The Intellectual Heritage of the early Middle Ages (1957), pp. 181-201, reprinted from Harvard Theological Review, 46 (1953), 27-46, and see especially p. 184. 86 Ibid., p. 191. 87 See my article cited inn. 32. Laistner op. cit. p. 193 and n. 29 was the first to point out the independent use by Angelomus of Pseudo-Jerome. 88 Ibid., p. 199. 89 PL 115 col. 265C, 269D, etc.

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

27

Judaeorum, 90 Hebraeorum traditio, 91 tradunt Hebraei 92 or ut iidem Hebraei ferunt. 93 Better still, Pseudo-Jerome appears under the guise of "certain codices", 94 "a certain volume" 95 and "a certain disputation". 96 He did not learn such deceitful practices from Rabanus, who was scrupulous in acknowledging the contribution of the Hebrew, and who cannot be held responsible for the carelessness of scribes and editors. It can be argued, however, that this was an artless literary device of Angelomus, who had no intention to deceive. But it seems more reasonable to assume that in the first place he was anxious to conceal his considerable dependence on a recent source of dubious authority and secondarily to boost his reputation as an original Biblical researcher. Finally there is no question that he was anxious to appropriate some of the best Quaestiones and pass them off as his own. He does not always refer to the Jewish origin of the Quaestiones. Sometimes they appear as opinio a!iquorum or nonnulli intelligi volunt, 97 which is common enough in Medieval exegetes citing contemporaries or near contemporaries. More often the Pseudo-Jerome exegesis appears in his commentary without any reference or citation at all and on at least two occasions he presents it as his own work - mihi videtur ita posse intelligi and sicut nobis videtur. 98 3. Rabanus had inserted a general admonition in the prefaces to his commentaries that the Jewish exegesis is not to be regarded as authoritative. Indeed he may even have had some lurking suspicion of the bona fides of the erudite Hebrew, unless I am reading too much into his words. In the body of the commentaries, however, Rabanus treats Pseudo-Jerome with unwonted sympathy and respect, possibly more than the latter deserved. 99 Angelomus does not list his sources and authorities in the preface to his commentary, electing instead to elaborate his fanciful sevenfold system of exe250B. 288C. 92 368A. (sicut a quibusdam didici). 93 368A. 94 288C. 95 332B, 347D, 379D, 385B. 96 339B. 97 315A & 385C. 98 318A & 368B. 99 On one occasion only, at I Chron. vii, 20-22, does he depart from his usual urbanity - Super hoc capitulo Hebraei hujusmodi defingunt fabulam, followed by the legend cited by Pseudo-Jerome. 00

91

28

INTRODUCTION

gesis. 100 The body of the commentary is in fact twofold (as in Rabanus from which it is mostly copied), literal and allegorical-moral. He does however reiterate throughout the commentary that the literal exegesis is much the inferior form. Thus the Pseudo-Jerome material shares the double disadvantage of being literal and Jewish, and Angelomus on occasion does not hesitate to express his doubts as to its reliability in the strongest terms. For example on I Samuel ii, 5 (no. 10) Rabanus quoting Pseudo-Jerome has Judaei hunc locum ita intelligunt, but Angelomus opens strongly unde Judaei deliramenta fingunt and closes sed quia stare non potest praetermittimus et ad intellectum altiorem properabimus, turning with obvious relief to the higher and Christian forms of exegesis. 101 We thus have the paradoxical situation that Angelomus, while making much greater use of Pseudo-Jerome than Rabanus ever did, adopts a hostile attitude to the Jewish exegesis cognate with the anti-Jewish campaign currently being waged by the Lyons school of Agobard and Amulo. It is only right to add that the approach of Angelomus, rather than that of Rabanus, is much more typical of medieval Christian exegesis. Rabanus's uncharacteristic lenity was almost certainly prompted by his knowledge that Pseudo-Jerome was a loyal Christian who had served Theodulf well, but it is less likely that Angelomus knew anything about the author of the Quaestiones, probably described in the MS that he used as ille Judaeus. 102 Why then did Angelomus use Pseudo-Jerome so extensively ? There are two or three possible reasons. Rabanus had already given his nihil obstat, cautiously in theory but almost enthusiastically in practice. Moreover. a respected teacher of Angelomus had used some of the material and had approved of it. 103 Angelomus himself was not above plagiarizing, as we have seen. In brief, Pseudo-Jerome unquestionably filled an important gap in the "historical" exegesis of Samuel and Angelomus may even have been pleased to make use of this new, if not entirely reputable material. 4. It is, however, greatly to the credit of Angelomus that he did not swallow all the Pseudo-Hieronymian exegesis and fabrications. An outstanding example is his trenchant treatment of the Quaestio on I 100 PL 115 col. 245f. At the end of the preface he claims only to treat the text literally, allegorically and morally. 101 265C. 102 If Laistner's theory is correct. See text to n. 88 and the Incipit of R. 103 In quo etiam intellectu vir quidam doctus in scripturis et solers in amore sapientiae, qui me in sacris litteris erudire consuevit, consentire videtur (385C). This could be a reference to Rabanus, who makes use of the same Quaestio at this point.

HEBREW SCHOLARSHIP IN THE CAROLINGIAN RENAISSANCE

29

Samuel vii, 4-6 where Pseudo-Jerome gratuitously assimilates the proceedings of Samuel to the administration of the ordeal to a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers v, 11 ff.) or to the action of Moses against the calf-worshippers (Exodus xxxii, 20), again a form of judicial ordeal. Angelomus gives this opinion (illorum deliramenta) but dismisses it as a mere surmise. 104 Angelomus is content to sum up that Samuel was undoubtedly carrying out his normal functions as a judge of Israel and does not pretend to account for the unusual ceremony of pouring out water, described in the Biblical text, which had exercised Pseudo-Jerome's imagination. I have already discussed at length Qu. 3 on I Samuel i, 4 (partes). 105 Angelomus, too, was far from happy about the Pseudo-Jerome exegesis here, which had in fact been ignored by Rabanus. Although Angelomus does quote it, he prefers the obvious explanation of partes, i.e. portions of a sacrificial meal. He has no doubt that the explanation "changes of clothing" is the authorized Jewish interpretation, which of course it was not. Despite Angelomus, the baneful influence of Pseudo-Jerome (this time disguised as Jerome) affected the artistic representation of scripture in the twelfth century, with a picture of Elkanah distributing clothes. 1 0 6 There are a fair number of other examples of Angelomus exercising his critical faculties to good purpose and taking issue with Pseudo-] erome, but the majority of theQuaestiones used by Angelomus are incorporated in his commentary without discussion. 107 With Angelomus we close the survey of the Carolingian period. In summary it may be said that the most valuable piece of work executed by Pseudo-Jerome was his annotation and correction of the @G MS. This, however, was speedily consigned to oblivion in the library of the monastery of St. Germain. The Quaestiones, partly based on Jewish tradition and partly on the ingenuity of their author, enjoyed a modest circulation in their own right. 108 By good fortune they were adopted by Rabanus Maurus, the leading Biblical scholar of the second generation, and they enjoyed a further lease of life in the third generation thanks to Angelomus, who used them even more extensively than Rabanus. 288D. See above, p. 21. PL 115 col. 250B. 106 B. Smalley in Entretien.r sur la Renaissance du 12e .riecle, ed. M. de Gandillac et E. Jeauneau (1968), pp. 278f. 107 Angelomus's critical approach is illustrated at cols. 274C, 275A (bis), 292C, 29SD-296A, 304B, etc. 108 E.g. the anonymous abridgment of our Quaestiones in the 10th cent. Barcelona Catedral MS 64, ff. 64-8. 104

105

CHAPTER TWO

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

If ever there was a Dark Age in the history of biblical exegesis, the tenth and early eleventh centuries would fall into this category. When we emerge again into the light of day in the later eleventh century, a remarkable change can be noted in the subject of our research. The Jew 1 has disappeared and the former explanatio kJstoriae, 2 expositiuncula 3 or annotationes 4 have now become Hebraicae Quaestiones. 5 Furthermore the Quaestiones are now grouped together with a miscellaneous collection of OT exegesis, beginning with Jerome's genuine Hebraicae Quaestiones in libro Geneseos. 6 The opuscu!a are arranged in accordance with the order of the (Alcuinian) Vulgate. The whole collection is attributed to Jerome with the general heading Sofronii Eusebii Jeronimi in libris Hebraicarum Questionum. The first part of the Berkeley MS contains the following:

1. Genesis Quaestiones (f. 1b). 2. Explanatio of the Ten Temptations in the desert (Deuteronomy) (f. 18b). 3. Abbreviation of the preceding (f. 19b). 4. Explanatio of the Song of Deborah (Judges) (f. 19b). 5. I Samuel Quaestiones (f. 21 b). 6. II Samuel Quaestiones (f. 26b). 7. I KingsQuaestiones (f. 32b). 8. I Chronicles Quaestiones (f. 33b). 9. II Chronicles Quaestiones (f. 40a). 10. Habakkuk commentary (f. 44b). 11. Disputatio on the Fast Days (Zechariah) (f. 45a). Of these items only the first is definitely the work of St. Jerome and Rheims MS 118 f. 38a; Paris Bibi. Nat. MS lat. 2384 f. 117a. Ibid. 3 St. Gall MS. 672 p. 138. 4 Orleans MS 38 p. 1. 5 Berkeley Univ. of California MS UCB 17 f. 21b and later MSS. (The Berkeley MS was formerly Phillipps MS 391 from St. Matthias Trier, written in the second half of the 11th cent.). 6 Ibid. The arrangement of the opuscula varies in some of the MSS. 1

2

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE l>SEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

31

nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9 are definitely the work of our Hebraist ("PseudoJ erome"). The rest are not dissimilar in their format and style to the work of our Hebraist and some if not all of them may well have been written by him. At any rate both the commentary on the Ten Temptations (no. 2) and the Quaestiones on I Kings (no. 7) make use of the E)G text and annotations. The Deborah commentary (no. 4) is identical in form to our Quaestiones and was used by Ginzberg as a matter of course in his work on Pseudo-Jerome. 7 It should, however, be pointed out that in the E)G MS there are no annotations by our Hebraist to the book of Judges. The Habakkuk commentary (no. 10) is Jewish in tone, but of no great distinction. The Zechariah so-called disputatio (no. 11) is a feeble affair and the less said about it the better. Henceforward the Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones on Samuel and Chronicles are generally to be found in this setting or something very similar both in the manuscripts and in the various printed editions of the works of Jerome. 8 But even if in some of the later MSS the Quaestiones are found alone, they are still invariably attributed to Jerome. The heading to the Rheims MS and its copy was either neglected or forgotten and certainly had no influence against the prevailing Hieronymian ascription. What is more, the extensive material assembled from the Quaestiones by Rabanus Maurus and attributed by him to the "Hebrew" both in his introductions and in the body of his commentaries does not seem to have been linked in any way with the original Quaestiones, now attributed to Jerome. The link was only re-established by Martianay at the end of the seventeenth century. The same applies to theQuaestiones taken from Rabanus by Angelomus or thoseQuaestiones independently incorporated by him into his commentary on Samuel-Kings. This is less surprising as we have seen that Angelomus did his best to disguise the true origin of the Quaestiones for reasons of his own. The process of the "canonization" of the Quaestiones shows up the innate weakness of medieval critical faculties which encouraged the proliferation of forgery and pseudepigraphy which was to run its course unchecked for centuries. Of course, compared with the harm caused by the Donation of Constantine, the False Decretals or Pseudo-Dionysius, the attribution to Jerome of our Quaestiones is a minor affair, but all the same it had significant results in its own microcosm. 7 8

Ginzberg, pp. 5-11. See list of Contents of PL 23.

32

INTRODUCTION

1. The popularity of the Quaestiones during the rest of the Middle Ages is attested by the large number of surviving MSS, entirely due to the Hieronymian ascription. 9 This popularity became more and more undeserved with the genuine advance in Hebrew and Jewish scholarship in the Christian world from the twelfth century onewards. 2. The Quaestiones which in part are completely spurious, in that they are not based on any Jewish or Christian tradition but derive from the inventive capacity of a mediocrity and where authentic are generally garbled and misunderstood, now receive the imprimatur and authority of one of the greatest of the Fathers of the Church and certainly of the greatest Latin Biblical authority. 3. The Quaestiones achieve an entirely disproportionate prominence in the Glossa Ordinaria on Samuel and Chronicles. 4. They are accepted bona fide by such leading twelfth century scholars as Andrew of St. Victor in his commentary on Samuel and Peter Comestor in his Historia Scholastica, with injurious effect on their own and on subsequent exegesis. 5. The annotations to the E)G MS preserved in the Quaestiones were used by the authors of the thirteenth century Vulgate correctoria, who naturally regarded them as the readings of Jerome. In view of the real progress made in Hebrew studies in the thirteenth century, the annotations might well have been ignored (and would by then not have been a great loss) were it not for the Hieronymian attribution. It is true, however, that the authors of the correctoria sometimes voice their disagreement with "Jerome". PSEUDO-JEROME IN LORRAINE AND THE RHINELAND

As we have seen, the earliest extant MSS which attribute our Quaestiones to St. Jerome originated in Trier and Mainz. The first commentator to make use of the Pseudo-Hieronymian material seems to be Albert, a monk of Siegburg (c. 1100). Only the preface to Albert's commentary, which is really a collection of glosses on the books of the OT and NT devoted to the elucidation of technical terms, natural phenomena, realia, weights and measures etc., has been printed. 10 The only sources he names are the opuscula of Jerome, See List of MSS below pp. 61-2. Note also the Mainz MS of the same period. Siegburg (near Bonn) was founded in 1064. Ego namque Albertus utinam ultimus monachorum sancti Michaelis ex infinitis glosariis et vetus et novum Testamentum jussus excerpsi et nota quaedam ac superflua vel iterata resecans ex opusculis sancti Jeronimi et Ysidori et Bedae et de omnibus libris idoneis quae deerant defloravi. Studioso quoque satisfacere cupiens lectori voces et naturas 9

10

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

33

Isidore and Bede. Turning to the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, we find that he makes considerable use of the Quaestiones, which he regarded as the work of Jerome and so we may regard him as the first post-Pseudo-Hieronymian exegete. On II Samuel i, 18 (no. 93) he even introduces the Quaestio with the formula Jeronimus in libro Hebraicarum Quaestionum. 11 The commentary of Albert of Siegburg is a very scrappy and exiguous compilation and was not at all influential. The same cannot be said of the monumental edifice laboriously constructed by Rupert abbot of Deutz - De Sancta Trinitate et operibus o/us -which contains a full-scale Biblical commentary in the best Benedictine tradition.12 Rupert's knowledge of Pseudo-Jerome was acquired in his youth when he was a monk at St. Lawrence, Liege, which was a flourishing cultural and educational centre, at any rate down to the end of the 11th century. His earliest work, the Liber de Divinis Officiis (1111 ), contains numerous references to Jerome, two of which are in fact taken from ourQuaestiones. 13 In his exposition of the Easter Office and the Beatitudes he makes good use of no. 11 (afflicti terrae = pauperes spiritu). Trinity Sunday, celebrated on the Octave of Pentecost (especially at Liege) gives Rupert the opportunity of quoting no. 141, again cited in the name of Jerome. 14 We thus have evidence of the existence of one of the new Pseudo-Jerome MSS at Liege. Before becoming abbot of Deutz in 1120, Rupert had taught for some time at Siegburg and must have been familiar with the work of Albert. In his De Trinitate Rupert refrains from citing any authorities for his commentary, but this is not surprising from a scholar "who had God alone for his master". 15 The divine inspiration, however, led him to ransack the Pseudo-Hieronymian material with comanimalium et volucrum et arborum et gemmarum pondera atque mensuras addidi. Legant qui volunt: abiciant qui volunt. Except for the last sentence, the above is printed in Revue Benedictine, 1910, p. 118. I have used Oxford Bodleian MS Laud Latin 14. 11 MS Laud Latin 14 f. 7a1. 12 Printed PL 167. A critical edition by H. Haacke is now being published in Corpus Christianorum (Continuatio Mediaeua!is). 13 Ruperti Tuitiensis, Liber de Divinis Offtciis, ed. H. Haacke (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis vii, Turnhout 1967), p. 444£. TheQuaestiones are on pp. 276, 369. 14 Ibid., p. 369. The editor, while correctly citing the genuine Jerome etymology from the Liber interp. hebr. nom., has overlooked the Pseudo-Jerome quotation given here in extenso. 15 B. Smalley, The Stuqy of the Bible etc., p. 125. 3

34

INTRODUCTION

mendable assiduity. The whole exposition on the Song of Deborah is included in his commentary. 16 Rupert shows a marked technical advance on his predecessors in his handling of the Quaestiones. It is true that Rabanus had shuttled Quaestiones between Samuel and Chronicles, but he did not use them at all in his commentaries on other Biblical books on which there are no Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones. Angelomus, who was an exegete of somewhat greater originality than Rabanus, makes no use of the Quaestiones in his commentary on Genesis, although a number of the Quaestiones on Chronicles would have served his purpose. But Rupert breaks new ground in his use of the Quaestiones when dealing with the subject-matter of Exodus and Deuteronomy.17 Although he does not devote a specific commentary to the book of Chronicles, he makes a limited use of the Chronicles Quaestiones in his comments on other books. 18 In all, Rupert makes use of about a third of the Samuel Quaestiones in his De Trinitate. Many of them are copied unaltered. As is natural, the great majority are to be found in the historical or literal sections of the commentary. But now that theQuaestiones had been "canonized" as the work of Jerome and could no longer be viewed with suspicion as in the Carolingian period, there could be no objection in principle to including them where appropriate in the higher forms of moral and allegorical exegesis. We have already seen this development in Rupert's use of nos. 11 and 141 in the De Divinis Offtciis. Good examples in the De Trinitate are provided by his use of nos. 9 and 56. 19 Rupert's interest in the Quaestiones Hebraicae may have led him to take an active part in the Christian-Jewish polemic of the period. 20 Shortly before his death in 1129 he succeeded in undermining the Jewish faith of Judah ben David Ha-Levi of Cologne. Under his Christian name Hermannus, Judah subsequently enjoyed a fairly distinguished career in the Premonstratensian Order. 21 16 PL 167/1027-31. The heading to the chapter, probably not the work of Rupert, reads ex beato Hieronymo litteraliter. Furthermore the Decem Tentationes are abridged by Rupert at 918-19. For the fragmentary Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones on Kings see col. 1162 where the Quaestio on Hiram is used. 17 Ibid. coll. 669B, 928B, 956A. On 928B see H. de Lubac, Exegese MMieva!e: Les quatre sens de I' Ecriture, vol. i (1959), p. 303. 18 PL 167/1058-60, 1126C, 1127C, 1133B; PL 168/12-13. 19 PL 167/1065D, 1096A. 20 PL 170/559ff. 21 Hermannus quondam ]udaeus opusculum de conversione sua, ed. G. Niemeyer (Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters iv, Weimar 1963), pp. 76ff.

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

35

ABELARD

In answer to a query by Heloise on the meaning of statutis diebus in I Samuel i, 3, Abelard cites Quaestio no. 2 from Rabanus ex sententia ctfiusdam Hebraei. 22 Apart from illustrating the breadth of Abelard's knowledge and the exactitude of his scholarship, the citation from Rabanus may indicate that the new Pseudo-] erome MSS from Germany were as yet unknown to Abelard. In this connexion it may be worth mentioning that Honorius Augustodunensis gives a lengthy list of the works of Jerome (PL 172/211 f), which does not contain any of the pseudepigraphic material discussed in this chapter. THE GLOSS

For obvious reasons the Gloss was the most powerful vehicle for conveying the contents of our Quaestiones to medieval Biblical scholars and students from the 12th century onwards. In view of the notorious inadequacy of thePatro!ogia edition or editions of the Gloss, I have examined what appear to be reliable 12th century MSS of the Gloss on Samuel-Kings 23 and Chronicles, 24 although ideally a large number of MSS should have been consulted. Nevertheless even this cursory survey has produced remarkable results. No less than two-thirds of the Quaestiones on Samuel appear in the Gloss, either quoted in full or abridged. As might be expected, many of the SamuelQuaestiones are derived from Rabanus, whose name is nowhere mentioned. (The latest authority cited is Bede; the most frequently occurring is Gregory, followed by Isidore). The dependence of the Gloss on Rabanus's commentary and his version of the Quaestiones can most easily be shown where Rabanus changed the wording of Pseudo-Jerome or made some rearrangement or combined the Quaestio intimately with other material. If any of these conditions obtain in the Gloss, then clearly the use of Rabanus can be proved. There are about a dozen incontrovertible examples of this nature. 25 PL 178/714C. Oxford Bodleian MS Auct. D. 3.15 (2208). 24 Oxford Bodleian MS Auct. D. 3.13 (2118). 25 No. 14 Rabanus and Gloss contra proximum; no. 38 - R and G transfer Quaestio to c. xiii; no. 41 - Rand G fortissimus; no. 43 - R and G refer to Saul's "tyranny"; no. 63 - R and G quote si introibunt etc.; no. 71 - R and G omit NT reference; no. 75 - R and G sicut et rationale and have variant reading ofQuaestio; no. 93 - Rand G join Quaestio and Bede; no. 94 - R and G sunt tamen qui dicunt; no. 101 - Rand G omit Egla etymology; no. 141 - Rand G ut volunt Hebrei; no. 173 - Rand G omit identification with Zara; no. 180 22

23

36

INTRODUCTION

But undoubtedly many other Quaestiones were copied or abridged from Rabanus. But even if we assume that all the Quaestiones to be found both in Rabanus and the Gloss were derived by the latter from the former, which is by no means certain, we are still left with 23 Quaestiones in the Gloss still to be accounted for. 26 To this list we may add the solitary attribution to Jerome in the Samuel Gloss (no. 155), which will be discussed later. Of these 23 Quaestiones, 16 appear in the commentary of Angelomus. 27 It would appear likely therefore that the Glossator made use of this commentary too. If we adopt the same system for Angelomus as we previously did for Rabanus there seem to be two clear cases of the derivation of Quaestiones from Angelomus. 28 Presumably several of the remaining Samuel Quaestiones to be found in Angelomus may have been used by the Glossator, but we have no definite proof. But there can be little doubt that the seven remaining Quaestiones not to be found in either Rabanus or Angelomus 29 must have been taken from "Jerome". Fortunately we have one case where "Jerome" is cited directly and expressly-curiously enough no. 155 appears in both Rabanus and Angelomus. This establishes beyond doubt that the Glossator made use of the new Pseudo-Jerome MSS. It is highly unlikely that his use of this material would have been restricted to a solitary Quaestio (in fact only part of it) or even to the seven others mentioned above. It is, however, at the moment not possible to establish what proportion of the Quaestiones were derived directly from Pseudo-Jerome. It would not be unfair to say that the Quaestiones are the most important single constituent of the literal exegesis of the Samuel Gloss, Josephus being the only serious rival. In II Samuel the Quaestiones achieve a dominant, at times even an exclusive role, on the literal side. This predominance goes a long way to explain the content of the R and G join Quaestio with Bede and Josephus and call author of Quaestio "Hebreus". 26 Nos. 1, 3, 15, 30, 31, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 74, 76, 87, 88, 100, 102, 103, 109, 110, 116, 152, 162, 165. 27 Nos. 1, 3, 15, 30, 31, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 100, 102, 109, 110, 116, 152. 28 In no. 1 (section omitted by Rabanus) the form Armathia or Arimathia (in Quaestio "Ramathaim"), the clause ex quibus extitit pater ejus et mater and the expression fortassis occur in Angelomus and Gloss. Similarly in no. 67 the text of the Gloss is closer to Angelomus than to the original Ps.-J text. 29 Nos. 74, 76, 87, 88, 103, 162, 165.

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

37

subsequent exegesis of Andrew of St. Victor, Peter Comestor and Stephen Langton. In his treatment of the Quaestiones the Glossator shows a notable intellectual advance on his predecessors, despite the handicap of the Hieronymian attribution. The very Quaestio indisputably assigned to Jerome demonstrates this maturity. The Quaestio (155) contains one of the more foolish and fantastic remarks of our Hebraist, who identifies Shimei with Nebat, the father of Jeroboam, king of Israel. The Glossator appends a reasoned disclaimer: Sed Semei ut superius legitur de cognatione Saul fuit. Saul vero de Beniamin. In Hester Semei filius Cis legitur, quia et Cis et Gera vocabatur pater ejus. Filius Gemini id est Beniamin hie legitur. Sed de tribu Ioseph primus venisse dicitur quia in tribu Ioseph habitavit.

He is not arguing with Jerome, but with the Hebrew tradition reported by him. It is worth giving two further examples of the Glossator differing from so-called the Hebrew tradition. It is true that Angelomus before him was often unhappy about the material of the Quaestiones, but there was no attempt at rebuttal, merely vulgar abuse. In no. 153 after giving the textual emendation of Pseudo-Jerome in accordance with the Hebrew Massoretic text (as in the ea MS) and the suppporting arguments, the Glossator puts forward an alternative view in favour of the Vulgate text and criticizing the Pseudo-Hieronymian exegesis : Duobus annis mansit in Ierusalem et regem non vidit. Tercio introductus est coram rege. Quarto fecit sibi currus et equites. Quo transacto expulit patrem de regno. Nee pro seductione et interfectione sacerdotum efectus est de regno, sed pro adulterio et homicidio, Nathan cuncta predicente.

The italicized words are a direct rejoinder to Pseudo-Jerome. Similarly in no. 164 the Glossator makes a considerable advance on Rabanus-Angelomus: Bestie scilicet que in saltu erant vel ipse saltus asperitate.

It is worth noting that this reasonable alternative was ignored by both Andrew of St. Victor and Peter Comestor, but accepted by Stephen Langton. 30 The Glossator is also distinguished by a considerable amount of editorial activity. He tends to abbreviate wherever possible or convenient, sometimes ruthlessly, which often enables the Quaestiones to be interlineated. 31 There are frequent changes of wording, perhaps 3

° Cambridge Peterhouse MS 112 f.

a1 Cf. nos. 30, 74, 102.

134d.

38

INTRODUCTION

on stylistic grounds. 32 On at least one occasion he develops or improves the Pseudo-Hieronymian thesis 33 and utilizes a single Quaestio in two widely-separated places. 34 It should be noted that on three occasions the Glossator regrettably attributes Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones to Bede. 35 Turning to the Gloss on Chronicles, we can recognise more clearly the importance of Rabanus as the main source for the Quaestiones. This can be proved by the fact that Rabanus alone gives the full text of the Quaestiones on Chronicles. In the Gloss, many Quaestiones appear in the full form and not in the abridged and often barelyintelligible version of the Pseudo-Jerome MSS. All the same the MS of the Gloss on Chronicles gives three Quaestiones prefixed by '']er." These Quaestiones could not have been taken from Rabanus as they were not used by Rabanus at all. They must therefore have been copied from the new Pseudo-Jerome MSS. It would seem that at these points Rabanus's commentary was considered inadequate by the Glossator and so he turned to Pseudo-Jerome to fill the gap. 36 It is clear that the Glossator, like all his medieval successors, had no idea that "Rabanus" and "Jerome" were identical. 0RDERICUS VITALIS

Pseudo-Jerome now invades the field of history books. Ordericus Vitalis, a monk of St. Evroult at Ouche in Normandy, was born in 1075. He began to write his great work, the Ecclesiastical History, about 1123 and discontinued it in 1141, worn out by old age and persistent ill-health. Orderic was very much at home in the historical books of the OT and is fond of citing exempla from them, especially in the speeches he puts in the mouths of the various protagonists. 32 Cf. no. 116 in Gloss: Et benedixit in fecunditate prolis scilicet et multiplicatione pecorum, que eo tempore gemellos fetus habuisse creduntur. Also no. 169 ad fin.: Et quod ait, "cuncta accipiat postquam reversus est dominus meus in domum suam pacifice", indignando et verba obliquando protulit contra Altissimum. 33 No. 61 in Gloss: Pu ta bat ideo tumorem propter Samuelis unctionem quasi ex ea audatiam sumpsisset et timebat ne si congrederetur cum Philisteo interftceretur etc. 34 No. 82 is used on I Sam., xxv, 44 and on II Sam., iii, 15-16. Similarly no. 68 is used on I Sam., xv, 35 and xix, 24. 36 Nos. 87, 88, 103. 3 6 MS Auct. D. 3. 13 (1) f. 73a2 Jer. Iste Jerimuth nee in Regum nee in primo Paralipomenon numeratur in filiis David quia de concubina fuit (II Chron. xi, 18). (2) Ibid. Jer. Iste (Absalon) non fuit filius David (II Chron, xi, 20). (3) f. 75a1 Jer. Pactum salis pro lege poni solet que omnium condimentum est. Hie autem pro domo David qui condivit Jerusalem (II Chron. xiii, 5).

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

39

On at least two occasions he gives, as it were unconsciously, the Pseudo-Hieronymian version of OT history. In 1077 or 1078 Robert Curthose quarrelled with his father King William I and Orderic makes William deliver a kind of lecture or sermon 37 in which he warned Robert of the fate of Rehoboam who forsook the counsel of Benaiah and other wise men - Roboam qui Banaiae a!iorumque sapientum monita sprevit. 38 The Biblical texts in Kings and Chronicles do not mention Benaiah in this connexion. He must have been dead years before these events and his introduction is a pure figment of PseudoJ erome' s imagination. 39 Later on in the thirteenth book of his History, Orderic records the death of Urraca, queen of Leon and Castile, in the year 1126 - tandem divino nutu sicut Egla uxor Davidpost diutinam caedem difficultate partus periit. 40 This recondite reference is based on our Quaestiones in Samuel nos. 101 and 117 where Pseudo-Jerome, this time in complete accordance with Jewish tradition, identifies Egla with another wife of David, Michal daughter of King Saul, who again in accordance with Jewish tradition died in childbirth. 41 Although both Benaiah and Egla appear in the Gloss, taken from Rabanus, it is more likely that Orderic derived the Quaestiones from a MS containing Pseudo-Jerome which was to be found in his library at St. Evroult. 42 ANDREW OF ST. VICTOR Andrew's commentary on Kings (I & II Samuel and I & II Kings) was compiled by the year 1147.43 It is probably not to be regarded 37 M. Chibnall (ed. & trans.), The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vita/is, vol. iii (1972), p. 98 (Book 5, c. 10). Robert complained he had heard more than enough (ad nausiam) of these lectures from his schoolmasters, but in the end he had ample time to meditate on them. 38 Cf. II Chron. x, 6 and I Kings xii, 6. 39 The Quaestio is ignored by Ginzberg. 40 A. Le Prevost (ed.), Orderici Vita/is .... historiae ecclesiasticae libri tredecim vol. v (1855), p. 15. In a footnote Le Prevost acknowledges that he cannot trace the source of Orderic's allusion. 41 The Rabbinic exegesis is based on an analysis of II Sam. iii, 5 and vi, 23. 42 Now Alen~on MS 2. 43 B. Smalley, Study of the Bible etc., p. 112. As is well known, Miss Smalley has broken new ground in her study of Andrew, especially as a Hebraist and literal exegete. Until her pioneering work Andrew was practically unknown. I have used the following MSS: - (1) Cambridge Corpus Christi College MS. 30. Where no other indications are given, references are made to this MS. (2) Cambridge Corpus Christi College MS 217. (3) Cambridge Trinity College MS BI 29 (27). (4) Oxford Bodleian MS Laud Latin 105. (5) Paris Bibi. Nat. MS Lat. 14803. (6) Vatican MS Latin 1053. This section is a condensation of my article 'Pseudo-Jerome in the commentary of Andrew of St. Victor on Samuel' in Harvard Theological Rev. (1974).

40

INTRODUCTION

as an example of his best exegetical work. While technically complete, the commentary falls off considerably by the time he reaches II Samuel and thereafter gives a scrappy and unoriginal impression. It is true that the text of I Samuel is about a hundred verses longer than II Samuel. These proportions are reflected perfectly in the length of Rabanus's commentary and somewhat less so in Angelomus. 44 By contrast Andrew devotes about four times as much space to I Samuel than he does to II Samuel. 45 Chiefly lacking in II Samuel are his personal comments and arguments, which were all the more necessary in view of the dearth of literal exegesis on this book. Rabanus and Angelomus were forced virtually to turn over the literal branch to Pseudo-Jerome and Josephus, and Andrew had practically virgin soil to operate on if he chose. The following table illustrates Andrew's use of Pseudo-Jerome. He has no commentary worthy of the name on Chronicles. I Samuel

II Samuel

Total

All the Quaestiones Andrew uses

90 38

94 31

184 69

Copied verbatim or almost Abridged or reworded Some verbal agreement Other evidence of use

9 10

16 11

3 1

25 21 13 10

2

3

Quaestiones from Chronicles

10

9

It will be seen that although Andrew maintains his use of PseudoJerome more or less constantly throughout, the Quaestiones are proportionately a more significant source in the second book, bearing in mind the substantial reduction in the scale of the commentary. Furthermore, his use of Pseudo-Jerome becomes progressively more mechanical and less discriminating. More than half the Quaestiones he uses in the second book are simply copied out as they first appeared over three centuries earlier and most of the others are abridged or summarised, presumably to save space. Andrew of St. Victor has a justified reputation as an exponent of literal exegesis, but the use of the sources in his commentary on Samuel-Kings is essentially conservative. Its overall appearance 44 Rabanus on I Samuel is slightly longer. Angelomus has a ratio of about 3: 2 in favour of I Samuel. 45 In the Corpus MS 30, I Samuel is covered in 13 folios and II Samuel in less than 4.

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

41

differs little from the literal portions of Rabanus and Angelomus. The lapse of time and the progress of Biblical studies had less effect than might have been thought. Much of his commentary is taken from Rabanus and Angelomus. As we have seen, Angelomus's exegesis is largely derived from Rabanus, who in turn bases himself in the literal sections of his commentary mainly on Josephus, Jerome, Isidore, Bede and Pseudo-Jerome. The inclusion of the last-named was the outstanding novelty of Rabanus's commentary. It is true that Andrew does add remarks of his own and we feel the impress of his personality much more than in the case of his predecessors, but all the same he bases himself solidly on the accepted sources. In the matter of citing these sources he is less extreme than Rupert of Deutz, but falls far short of Rabanus. Thus in his use of Pseudo-] erome, Andrew generally copies him out or summarises him without any acknowledgment whatever. If he cites Pseudo-Jerome as an alternative explanation, the material is sometimes introduced by vel or vel ita. 46 If he wishes to signify some reservation or disagreement he tends to use introductory formulae such as Putant quidam, Ut quidam asserunt, Quidam exponunt, Putatur or Dicunt. 47 It should be stressed that in this connexion he in no way discriminates against Pseudo-Jerome and other sources are treated in the same way - Bede figures as alii dicunt. 48 On the other hand the expressions In Hebraeo or Tradunt Hebraei which sometimes preface Andrew's use of the Quaestiones are not Andrew's own words but an integral part of the Quaestiones themselves, although the reader of Andrew not familiar with the Quaestiones might be misled into thinking otherwise.4 9 A closer examination of the MSS of Andrew's commentary 50 reveals that he derived his knowledge of the Quaestiones from the new MSS of Pseudo-] erome as well as from the traditional commentaries of Rabanus and Angelomus. On I Sam. iii, 2 he introduces his comment by the explicit phrase vel sic secundum Jeronimum, followed by the complete text ofQuaestio no. 20. 51 TheQuaestio could not have been taken Contrast Smalley op. cit., p. 128. Cf. Quaestiones nos. 10, 30, 109, 150, 158. Quaestiones nos. 3, 4, 13, 16, 27 etc. 4 8 I Sam. vii, 2 (f. 57a) PL 91/718. 49 This problem is not of course unique to Andrew and affects many of the medieval commentators. 50 Although the activities of pupils or editors may be responsible for the differences between the MSS, it is more probable that they represent revisions by Andrew himself. 51 The section copied from Pseudo-Jerome is omitted from the Trinity, Laud and Paris MSS. 46 47

42

INTRODUCTION

from Rabanus, who although he had used it, had worked it up to form an integral part of his own exegesis. 52 Again, on II Sam. iii, 8,Quaestio no. 102 was copied directly from Pseudo-Jerome into two of the Andrew MSS. It appears as an alternative solution and is introduced by the same connecting phrase. 53 The most striking acknowledgment of "Jerome" is to be found in Andrew's comment on I Sam. vi, 18. 54 Here, after summarising the material of Quaestio no. 27 as found in Rabanus-Angelomus, he continues withjeronimus dicit and quotes the Quaestio directly from Pseudo-Jerome. It may have been that the MS of Pseudo-Jerome came into his hands at a late stage in the compilation of his commentary and this might explain why not all the MSS of Andrew contain these Quaestiones. Be that as it may, the fact remains that he assembled the materials for his commentary in a rather mechanical manner and did not realise that he was using the same source twice over. Had he been at all of a critical bent, he should have realised that" Jerome" of the Quaestiones and the "Hebrew" of Rabanus were identical. Like the Glossators before him, he lost the opportunity of exploding the myth of Pseudo-Jerome. I am sure Abelard would not have fallen into this trap. A further opportunity was offered to Andrew at II Samuel xxiii, 20-21 (Quaestio 180). Here he uses the expressions Hebraeus suspicatur, Hebraeus intelligit etc., which he copies from Rabanus. 55 He never seems to have asked himself who this "Hebraeus" was supposed to be and he probably never even bothered to read Rabanus's introduction to his commentary. Even after reading Pseudo-Jerome he had no idea that from the mistaken twelfth century point of view Rabanus had "Judaized" Jerome. This is all very surprising in view of Andrew's concentration on literal exegesis, which should have encouraged a more critical approach. Naturally he made great use of Rabanus's "Hebrew" source, but it can hardly be said that he displayed much intelligence PL 109/25B. Corpus MS 30 and Vatican MS. 54 The possibility has been considered that he could have been referring to some genuine work of Jerome, but nothing of relevance can be found either in the Liber de nominibus Hebraicis or in the De situ et nominibus !ocorum Hebraicorum. The text in Andrew reads - Quidam putant quod Abel in hoc loco proprium nomen sit civitatis cujusdam que in terminis Israel et Philistinorum sita sit et quod magnum ad differentiam civitatis alterius eodem nomine participantis appositum sit. Jeronimus dicit quod eadem civitas est Abel que et Bethsames quo archa perlata est. Magnum autem appositum dicit ad differentiam illius civitatis de qua sapiens mulier clamavit ad Joab dicens Qui interrogant interrogent in Abela (f. 56b). 55 See Rabanus PL 109/116-20 on Quaestio no. 180. 52

53

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

43

in the process. Under such circumstances he could hardly be expected to realise the valueless nature of a substantial portion of the Quaestiones. It is not easy to grasp the principles behind Andrew's selection of those Quaestiones which he decided to incorporate in his commentary. Obviously his use in one way or another of some three-eights of the Quaestiones shows the value he attached to this source. On the other hand he falls short of the 106 Quaestiones used by Rabanus and the even greater number used by Angelomus in their admittedly more elaborate commentaries. It may possibly be that this reduction was due in part to a realisation by Andrew that not all "Hebrew traditions" were ipso facto material for literal exegesis. Against this, it may be pointed out that there are many apparently useful Quaestiones offering unexceptionable literal exegetical material of which Andrew does not avail himself. Contrariwise, he includes others of dubious literal significance. A good example of the latter tendency is Andrew's use of Quaestio no. 30 on I Sam. vii, 4-6. It is instructive to contrast Andrew's passive acceptance of this legend (admittedly as an alternative explanation) with the healthier attitude of Angelomus noted above. 56 Again, when Samuel told Saul: "I will tell thee all that is in thy heart", Andrew does not hesitate to quote verbatim the so-called Hebrew tradition as reported by Pseudo-Jerome. 57 This was that Saul had had a prophetic vision in which he was sitting on top of a palm-tree. The vision indicated to Saul that he was destined to reign over Israel and Samuel had divined its content by means of his own prophetic powers. In contrast, Andrew hardly avails himself of the fifty or more textual emendations taken from the EJG MS which were incorporated in the Quaestiones. He occasionally even excises them from the text of theQuaestiones which he does use. 58 It does seem that at any rate at this stage in his exegetical career he did not appreciate the importance of these annotations, which were at least as valuable for the literal interpretation as anything else written by Pseudo-Jerome. Andrew sets his face against the Hebrew etymologies of personal and place names, which traditionally pointed the way to moral and allegorical interpretations. These etymologies are very frequent in PL 115/288D. See above p. 29. I Sam. ix, 19; Qu. no. 33. 58 Cf. his omission of textual note in his citation of Quaestiones 48 and 173. The note to 173 is, however, to be found in the Paris MS. 56 57

44

INTRODUCTION

Pseudo-Jerome and Andrew generally omits them. On RamathaimZophim (I Sam i, 1) he does indeed give the Latin equivalents in accordance with Pseudo-Jerome, but does not use the dependent Pseudo-Jerome exegesis. 59 His treatment of the place-name Abel Magnum in Quaestio no. 27 has already been alluded to. 60 Despite his duplication of Pseudo-Jerome, taken from both Rabanus-Angelomus and the original "Jerome", he omits the phrase sive propter luctum super viris Bethsamitibus ibiJactum given as a possible explanation of the derivation of the name Abel. Here we have to decide whether Andrew omitted this comment because it smacked of etymology or because he failed altogether together to understand its point. The Hebrew 1:i:iN, here represented by Abel, can certainly be rendered luctus, and on this occasion at least Pseudo-Jerome's intentions were honourably literal. He obviously had in mind the funeral obsequies of Jacob. 61 The parallel is self-evident if the keyword 1:i:iN (Abel) is borne in mind. Certainly there must have been great mourning at Beth Shemesh after the catastrophic death of 50000 (!) men. Unfortunately Andrew could not have been helped in the least by the Vulgate text of the passage in Genesis. 62 It would seem that at this stage in his career he was ignorant of Hebrew and did not enjoy the assistance of Jews or converted Jews. Nor did the genuine Jerome come to his assistance in the Quaestiones on Genesis. This is not the only occasion where his ignorance of elementary Hebrew is revealed. In his discussion of the difficult text Et percussit de populo septuaginta viros et quinquaginta milia plebis, 63 he accepts the @G marginal reading viros for piebis, in accordance with Pseudo-Jerome. He takes issue, however, with the ensuing interpretation of PseudoJ erome that the 70 are placed on a parity with the 50000 and can be identified with the 70 judges of the people. Andrew contends that 59 Quaestio no. 1. Here at any rate Andrew's neglect of the Pseudo-Jerome etymology pays off. He shows that Zophim is a participle, "overlooking", depending on Ramathaim which alone is the place-name. 60 See above p. 42 and n. 54. 61 "And they came to the threshing-floor of Atad which is beyond the Jordan and there they wailed with a very great and sore wailing, and he made a mourninJ; for his father seven days. And when the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning in the threshing-floor of Atad they said: This is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians. Wherefore the name of it was called Abe/-Mizraim, which is beyond the Jordan (Genesis I, 10-11). The italicized words are all rendered in Hebrew 1:i:iN (Abel). 62 Dixerunt: Planctus magnus est iste Aegyptiis. Et idcirco vocatum est nomen loci illius Planctus Aegyptii. 63 Quaestio no. 28 (I Samuel vi, 19).

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUpO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

45

"it is the custom of the Hebrews to put the smaller number before the larger". Therefore, he concludes, there is nothing unusual about the number as given here and so there is no need to look for any special interpretation of the text. To support his contention he quotes as an example "from the Hebrew" decem et centum annis vixit Joseph. 64 Unfortunately the Hebrew text uncompromisingly reads "a hundred and ten years". 65 The truth is that there seems to be no standard Hebrew practice in the matter and there are any number of examples in the form that Andrew desires. 66 There is a distinct possibility here that he was misled by one of his Jewish informants. Another opportunity of displaying elementary Hebrew knowledge and at the same time clearing up a chronic misunderstanding was provided at I Samuel xiii, 1, but Andrew's failure must again be recorded. This text is rendered in the Vulgate Filius unius anni erat Saul cum regnare coepisset; duobus autem annis regnavit super Israel. The Hebrew may be literally translated "Saul was a year old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel" 67 • Obviously the text is extremely difficult. It is perfectly clear, however, that the Vulgate Filius is a Hebraism, a literal translation of 7:i denoting age. Although this Hebraism occurs again at II Samuel v, 4 - Filius triginta annorum erat David, it is normally omitted, as for instance Viginti quinque annorum erat (II Kings xiv, 2). It is bad enough that the text of I Samuel xiii, 1 is obviously corrupt, but the insertion of the completely superfluous filius creates even wilder confusion. Pseudo-Jerome had been confronted with the standard Christian literal interpretation that the king in question was not Saul but his son (filius) Ishbosheth, who was a year old when Saul began his reign and who, after the death of Saul, reigned over Israel for two years (II Samuel ii, 10). The Jewish exegetic tradition - even in the hands 64 Septuaginta viros qui separatim ponuntur putant quidam septuaginta populi judices fuisse cum quibus percussa sunt quinquaginta milia plebis. Porro quod septuaginta primum ponuntur non cogit quod alii a plebe intelligantur. Consuetudo namque Hebreorum est minorem numeri summam majori preponere ut decem et centum annis vixit Joseph. Tam iste quam precedens versus planior est in Hebreo. In precedenti versu non est que nee in isto plebis (f. 57a). 65 t:l'l!V .,Wlii ilN~ "Jt:li' 'M'i (Genesis 1, 22). Again on v. 26 the years of Joseph are given in the same form - t:l'l!V .,!Vli1 ilN~-7:i "Jt:li' 1'1~'i 66 In Genesis ch. v, the years of Adam and his descendants are given in accordance with Andrew's dictum, with only one exception. The same applies to Jacob (ch. xlvii, 28). On the other hand the years of Sarah, Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac are given in the same form as Joseph. 67 The Hebrew reads 1:iN.,IV'-1:ili ,,~ t:l'l!V '1'1!Z.'i i::il;i~:i 1:iiNtv mw-7:i

46

INTRODUCTION

of its feeblest exponent - never had to cope with fi!ius, and so PseudoJ erome brushes this interpretation aside - Non de lsboseth filio Saul sed de eodem Sau!e dictum est hoc. 68 • The standard Jewish interpretation is then given, namely that when Saul began his reign he was as innocent as a year-old infant and that he continued in the same state for two years. It should be noted that the Ishbosheth theory, whatever its defects, at least tries to give a literal interpretation of the passage. Rabanus, normally a docile follower of Pseudo-Jerome in the literal field, will not abandon the Ishbosheth theory, but it involves him in chronological difficulties, as Ishbosheth was aged 40 when he began to reign (II Samuel ii, 10). This would have given Saul an impossibly long reign of 39 years or thereabouts. He therefore ante-dates the beginning of Saul's reign to the death of Eli, rather like Charles II officially beginning to reign in 1649. In view of this problem, he cannot ignore the exegesis of Pseudo-Jerome to which he prefixes Sunt qui volunt de ipso Sau!e dictum accipere. He then copies out the text of Pseudo-Jerome but ends in his own words: Sed postquam per inobedientiam a Deo desertus est et spiritus ejus ab eo recessit, licet potestatem tenuerit, jam non regimen impendere sed magis tyrannicam vi tam ducere visus est. 69

This final remark seems to be a valuable contribution to Medieval political thought. Angelomus is less positive than Rabanus. He gives the Pseudo-Jerome interpretation first p1ace in his commentary and afterwards puts forward the Ishbosheth theory, leaving it to the candid reader to make up his mind which is the better solution. 70 Turning now to Andrew, we find that he gives an abridged version of Pseudo-Jerome in the first place and following Rabanus adds Toto autem re!iquo tempore magis ryrannus quam rex extitit. He then goes on to discuss the Ishbosheth theory, taken from Rabanus. Apart from the difficulties of chronology, which he even amplifies, Andrew quite rightly finds the introduction of Ishbosheth at this point of the narrative completely irrelevant and so is led to favour the Jewish solution of Pseudo-] erome. The influence of Rabanus on Andrew here has clearly been shown, even if Andrew does not follow his line. But one or two disturbing questions cannot be avoided. Why does Andrew ignore the parallel passage in II Samuel v, 4 which could equally well have given rise to a "Solomon theory" even more disastrous than that of Ishbosheth ? How could he swallow fi!ius so 68

?o

Quaestio no. 43.

PL 115/295D-296A.

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUpO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

47

easily ? Where is his knowledge of Hebrew, or at least where are his Jews ? And above all - is this really the best in the way of literal exegesis that could be accomplished in the middle of the twelfth century ? 71 Like his predecessors, Andrew tends to follow Pseudo-Jerome to the detriment of the understanding of the plain sense of Scripture, and in this connexion it is of little importance whether or not Pseudo] erome is faithful to the Jewish tradition. On II Samuel xx, 18 (Quaestio no. 173) he unquestioningly accepts Pseudo-Jerome's faulty understanding of the laws of war as set out in Deuteronomy. According to Pseudo-Jerome the argument of the wise woman of Abel is based on the Jewish exegetical principleQa/ wa-l;omer (a fortiori). If aliens who sue for peace are made tributary but their lives are spared, how much more should this apply to us, who are Israelites. 72 But this argument, superficially attractive, is really untenable. The law relating to the sparing of aliens applies only to those cities "which are very far off from thee", not to the Canaanite peoples of the Promised Land. 73 71 Filius unius anni etc. Hane litteram sic quidam exponunt. Saul erat filius unius anni cum regnare cepisset, id est humilis et innocens sicut puer parvulus et lactens erat Saul cum primum cepit regnare. Et duobus annis regnavit super Israel. Etsi plus temporis vixit in regno, duobus tarnen solummodo annis quibus juste regnavit regnasse dicitur. Toto autem reliquo tempore magis tyrannus quam rex extitit. Alii dicunt per anticip2tionem de Isboseth filio Saul hoc dictum (esse) de quo loquitur in sequentibus: Quadraginta annorum erat Ysboseth cum regnare cepisset super Israel et duobus annis regnavit. Si igitur Ysboseth filius Saul unius tantum anni fuit cum Saul cepit regnare et post mortem patris cum regnare cepisset quadraginta erat annorum, xi vel xxxix annis regnavit Saul, quod ratio temporum pad non potest sicut Judei asseverant. Set illi qui hanc tenent sententiam quia a morte Hely usque ad mortem Saulis non inveniuntur nisi xi anni, totum tempus quo Samuel post Hely populum judicavit usque ad regnum Saul regno Saulis annumerant. Qua autem ratione Saulem viginti annis priusquam regnaverit regnare cepisse dicant vel quid ad rem attineat hie (de) Hisboseth dicere quot annis regnaverit cum hoc in suo loco !iber dicturus sit, ipsi viderint. Preterea consuetudo hujus scripture est quanta tempore singuli reges regnaverint quamvis nisi per unum mensem aliquis eorum in regno non steterit annotare ..... (f. 59b). A generation later Peter Comestor came to the rescue - Superabundat filius idiomate Hebraeo (PL 198/1328B). 72 Sermo (inquit) dicebatur in veteri proverbio etc. Iste est sermo legis in qua jubetur ut filii Israel ingressi terram Chanaan prius pacem offerant et eos qui pacem susceperunt tributarios faciant. Eos vero qui non susceperunt deleant. Ideo mulier sapiens exclamasse dicitur: Nonne ego sum que respondeo veritatem in Israel ? Quasi - Cur destruis hanc civitatem antequam offeras pacem secundum legem ? Cur non servas legem in Israelitis que servata est in alienigenis ? Tu queris evertere matrem in Israel - id est dignam et principalem civitatem. (f. 66a). 73 Deuteronomy xx, 15. It is true that the Jewish exegesis softens this legislation and is fairly reflected by Pseudo-Jerome. But the point at issue here is whether Andrew is giving a literal interpretation of Scripture, which as a Christian he is free to do.

48

INTRODUCTION

Had Abel in fact been inhabited by aliens, their lives would have been forfeit and therefore the alleged argument of the wise woman is invalid. If it is contended that these laws are set out obscurely, both Pseudo-] erome and Andrew could easily have recalled the example of the Gibeonites, who in order to make peace had to pretend that they came from a distant land. 74 Although, as we have seen, Andrew generally derives his PseudoJerome material from Rabanus or Angelomus or both, he sometimes does better on his own. I Samuel i, 5 has always been regarded as a difficult text and Andrew handles it very well. 75 The Vulgate reads Annae autem dedit partem unam tristis, 76 quia Annam diligebat. Pseudo] erome gives the E)G Hebrew marginal annotation duplicem for tristis. 77 There is no reference to this in Rabanus or Angelomus. In his comment, Andrew first explains the sense of tristis in accordance with the Vulgate reading. Turning now to Pseudo-Jerome, he points out that secundum quosdam the Hebrew reading is dupplex. He adds, however, that this reading is by no means certain as quite a few Jews hold that the Hebrew can in fact be rendered tristis. In this he is perfectly correct and his cautious approach is amply justified. It may be mentioned that although the current American-Jewish OT translation gives "a double portion", this is not the view held by the standard Medieval commentators Rashi and Kimhi, the latter being closer to Andrew. Like Rupert of Deutz before him, Andrew transfers the Quaestio on Absalom's ancestry 78 to a more appropriate place, but his discussion of a possible legal basis for a marriage between Amnon and Tamar, based on Pseudo-Jerome, is not very convincing. 79 Joshua ix, 9ff. Anne autem non dedit nisi partem unam quia nullam prolem habebat que partem suam acciperet. Fenenna tot putatur partes accepisse quot habuit liberos. Quod in nostris codicibus invenitur tristis et exponitur quod tristis dabat illi unam partem quia dolebat illam non habere liberos pro quibus et in quibus plures acciperet partes. In Hebreo invenitur secundum quosdam dupplex et est sensus secundum eos - Anne dedit partem unam duplicem, id est partem unam equipollentem duabus aliis partibus quas aliis dabat. Non nulli tamen Hebreorum quod Hebraicum verbum ibi positum etiam tristem significet asserunt (f. 51b). 76 ea text has tristi. 77 Quaestio no. 4. 78 For Rupert, see PL 167/928B whereQuaestio no. 143 is transferred from II Samuel xiii, 37 to Deuteronomy xxi, 10-14. Andrew transfers it to II Samuel xiii, 13. 79 "Non negabit me tibi". Quidam putant quod evadere volens de manibus ejus mendaciter voluerit fratri persuadere quod in uxorem sibi rex earn concederet. Alii dicunt quod licite poterat earn ducere uxorem. Soror enim ejus erat ex patre et matre gentili. Mater enim illius et Absalon fuit Maacha filia Tholomei 74

75

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEU~O-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

49

It is more than probable that Andrew never really completed his commentary on Samuel-Kings. Support for this idea comes from both the state of the various MSS of the commentary and from the glaring disproportion in the amount of the commentary allocated to the two books of Samuel. It would therefore be unfair to Andrew to make any general judgment on the quality of his exegesis on the basis of his treatment of Pseudo-Jerome. It can only be said that as far as the book of Samuel is concerned he has maintained and often improved the level of the Carolingian exegetes. Even so, he has hardly done justice to himself, certainly not to his great reputation as an exponent of literal exegesis and as a Hebraist. On the other hand it is not without interest to see the Quaestiones maintaining themselves as an indispensable source despite the progress in Christian exegesis and the appearance in the eleventh and twelfth centuries of genuine Jewish commentaries. so JOHN OF SALISBURY

Although he would undoubtedly have found portions of PseudoJ erome useful to him in the compilation of the Policraticus (1159), there does not seem to be any evidence that John of Salisbury used the Quaestiones on that occasion. But some eight years later when writing a letter in commendation of the generous hospitality of King Louis VII of France to Becket and his fami!ia, he draws on Biblical exempla which have a distinctly Pseudo-Hieronymian flavour. The reference to Huldah the prophetess is certainly derived from Pseudo-Jerome and the reference to Obed-edom probably so. 81 There is no need to regis Gethsur quam David in prelio dicitur cepisse et cesarie et unguibus precisis secundum legem sibi in uxorem sociasse. Lex autem que interdicit concubitum sororis ex patre subintelligendum relinquit et ex tali que ejusdem gentis sit femina (f. 65b). 80 Mrs G. Hadfield, who has completed a doctoral dissertation at Oxford University under the supervision of Miss Smalley on the Hebrew sources of Andrew of St. Victor, with particular reference to the commentaries on Exodus and Isaiah, informs me that my conclusions are in line with her assessment of Andrew's Hebrew scholarship. 81 Sicut Obededom Gethaeus, area Domini recepta, in ancillarum foecunditate et gregum, et totius possessionis multiplicatione, divinae benedictionis expertus est fructum; et Holda per ejusdem arcae receptionem, quando earn impius Achaz ejecerat a templo Domini, assecuta est in silentio pontificum et sacerdotum gratiam prophetiae: sic rex Christianissimus etc. (Materials for the History of Thomas Becket (Rolls Series), ed. ]. C. Robertson, vol. vi (1882), p. 195f.). For Obed-edom, see Qu. 116 and Ps.-J on I Chron., xxvi, 15. For Huldah see Ps.-J. on II Chron., xxxv, 3 - Tempore enim Achaz, quando simulachra in templo missa sunt, elata inde et ducta in domum Sellum viri Olde avunculi Hieremiae ubi permansit usque ad tempus J osiae etc. 4

50

INTRODUCTION

assume that John of Salisbury studied the original Quaestiones and this would appear to be a standard case of the successful absorption of the Gloss and its application to contemporary events. 82 PETER CoMESTOR

With Peter Comestor, a generation later than Andrew, we are already well into the second half of the twelfth century. His Historia S cholastica is one of the great text-books of the Middle Ages. 83 It displays both wide erudition and a superior capacity for organising a vast corpus of Biblical and extra-Biblical material. In his treatment of OT history Peter makes use of a large number of "Hebrew traditions". This has given rise to the theory that he consulted Jewish scholars and was acquainted with the commentaries of Jewish exegetes from Rashi (?1030-1105) down to his own day. 84 I would not like to deny that there is any truth at all in this theory, but it seems fairly obvious that the bulk of his Hebrew traditions were derived from Christian sources and Josephus. Miss Smalley has pointed out that the Hebraei and a/ii of the Historia S cholastica are often derived from Andrew of St. Victor 85 and there are indeed many parallels between Andrew's commentary on Samuel-Kings and the Comestor's historical survey of these books. 86 However, it is not to be thought that the omnivorous Comestor would be content to rely on twelfth century scholarship alone. For Genesis, he ransacked Jerome's Quaestiones and, regrettably, he did not for a moment doubt that the Quaestiones on Samuel and Chronicles were also the work of Jerome. In the section devoted to the history of the book of Samuel he expressly cites "Jerome" on eight occasions. 87 In fact, he makes use of 77 Quaestiones on Samuel, several more than Andrew incorporated in his commentary. Nor did he derive all these Quaestiones from 82 The Huldah Quaestio on II Chron. xxxv, 3 is to be found in the Gloss on Chronicles. 83 Printed PL vol. 198. 84 This theory has been most recently put forward by E. Shereshevsky, "Hebrew Traditions in Peter Comestor's Historia Scholastica. I. Genesis'', Jewish Quarterly Review (1968-9) vol. !ix, pp. 268-89. Shereshevsky did not realise that the vast majority of the Hebrew traditions he cites from Peter Comestor to prove the latter's contact with Jews were in fact derived from Jerome's (genuine)Quaestiones Hebraicae in libro Geneseos. 85 Study of the Bible etc., p. 179. 86 See Table III for the large number of Quaestiones they have in common. 87 Mostly in the form of Hieronymus dicit or ail -1313C, 1316A, 1317C, 1322C, 1344C and 1345C; but also tradit -1320D - and corrigit- 1331B.

'THE LATER HIS'TORY OF THE PSEU:OO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

51

Andrew and other intermediary sources. If the citation of "Jerome" is not enough to prove his use of the original text of the Quaestiones, there remain two Quaestiones which nobody had quoted before and of which he was the :first person to make any use at all. 88 Moreover in the Samuel section he makes use of Quaestiones on Chronicles on at least two occasions. 89 His freedom in the use of the Quaestiones can be illustrated by his transference of Quaestio no. 175 from II Samuel xxi to vi. Pseudo-Jerome is now ensconced :firmly in the heartland of medieval Bible history. It is true that Peter himself, like Angelomus before him, does not always take the "Hebrew traditions" too seriously. The fact that "Jerome" reported them was not to be taken as a guarantee of their truth. Peter quotes the absurd genealogy of Jeroboam with the prefatory admonition fabulantur Hebraei. 90 The Jews are thus made responsible for the maunderings of Pseudo-Jerome. But the authority of Jerome as an authentic transmitter of Hebrew traditions carried all before it and gained currency for this and other absurdities which were silently accepted by the Comestor and found a place in his Histories. STEPHEN LANG'TON

Langton's commentaries or lectures on the various books of the Bible draw on a wide variety of sources and it would have been most surprising if he had not utilized the Pseudo-Hieronymian material to its fullest extent. 91 An analysis of the Peterhouse MS 112 which contains the exposition on Samuel-Kings (probably compiled in the late 1180's) shows that Langton makes use of 140 Quaestiones fully or partially, that is to say over three-quarters of the total number. He thus surpasses quantitatively all his predecessors. This total does not take into account his use of theQuaestiones on Chronicles imported into the Samuel commentary. 92 Furthermore, as can be seen from Table III, Langton was the :first to make use of a fair number of Quaestiones hitherto neglected or ignored, which proves his independent Nos. 77, 136. 1309AB on Ner and Cis (I Chron. ix, 36). 1318C on Nabal (I Chron. ii, 46). 90 1338A. See Quaestio no. 155. 91 For Langton's commentaries, see G. Lacombe, B. Smalley, A. L. Gregory, "Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton", Archives d' histoire doctrinale et litteraire du moyen age, vol. v (1930); B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible etc., pp. 196-263. 92 Peterhouse MS 112 ff. 129c (I Chron. ii, 46), 131b (ix, 39), 132a (xiii, 9), 136c (xi, 17). The last Quaestio is used for tropological exegesis. 88

89

52

INTRODUCTION

use of this source. On the other hand it should be stressed that owing to the voluminous nature of Langton's commentary, Pseudo-Jerome does not attain the same prominence or even pre-eminence here as he did earlier in the exegesis of Rabanus and Angelomus. Although a large number of Quaestiones are cited or quoted by him without any indication of their source or prefaced by such familiar phrases as Hebrei habent, dicunt quidam or secundum alios, 93 Langton is outstanding by his comparatively frequent references to "Jerome" or the more specific fer. in libro de Hebraicis questionibus. 94 It should be made clear that for Langton the aforesaid fiber de Hebraicis questionibus represents the whole corpus of Hieronymian and Pseudo-Hieronymian material appearing in the 11 cent. and later MSS, as outlined at the beginning of this chapter. 9 5 There are, however, other forms of citation employed by Langton. fer. in Clo. 96 apparently refers to Quaestiones appearing in the Gloss and attributed there to Jerome. It seems to be purely fortuitous whether Langton cites "Jerome" directly from the so-called fiber de Hebraicis questionibus or indirectly via the Gloss. The ascriptions Clo. et fer. 97 and fer. et Rabanus 98 most probably indicate that Langton thought he was dealing with independent commentaries which happened to be in agreement, but it is obvious to us that in these cases the Gloss and Rabanus had copied or derived their exegesis from Pseudo-] erome. On one occasion Langton goes so far as to contrast the alleged opposing views of "Jerome" and the Gloss, but again it is obvious that both comments were taken from the same Quaestio as Langton could have verified for himself in his copy of the fiber de Hebraicis questionibus. 99 Finally it should be noted that the erroneous attribution of aQuaestio to Josephus can hardly be blamed on Langton, but should rather be regarded as a mistake of the student "reporter" .100 93 Cf. nos. 26, 28, 36, 41, 47, 71, 74, 98 etc. References may be obtained from Table III. 94 Nos. 13, 20, 30, 32, 52, 56, 92, 94, 103, 136, 148, 155, 156, 162, 165, 179. 95 Cf. f. 124b on Metari; f. 132a on Obededom, from Liber lnterp. Hebr. Nom. 96 Nos. 153, 162. 97 Nos. 147, 170, 181. 9B Nos. 36, 39, 180. 99 Et vocavit nomen ejus a Deo (sic). In Hebreo Y dida. In Glo. legitur quod is fuerit mancer (sic). Sed aliter dicit Jer. cum utique misericordia indignus existent (sic) de quo tamen constabat quod mancer (sic) esset etc. (no. 139). The text of the Gloss, obviously derived from Ps.-J, reads as follows: Amabilis in Hebreo Idida, id est dilectus, scilicet propter gratuitam misericordiam qua eum diligere dignatus 100 No. 107. est, quamvis manzer esset.

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

53

It is probable that Langton derived some of his Pseudo-] erome material from sources posterior to the Gloss, especially Andrew of St. Victor and Peter Comestor. The latter is not infrequently cited by Langton as the author of the "Histories" and even Andrew receives an occasional mention despite the general medieval reluctance to quote contemporary or near-contemporary authorities. Unfortunately neither are mentioned in connexion with the Pseudo-] erome material in Langton, but there are a few cases where it can be shown that Langton employs expressions similar to those of Andrew and Peter when using the Quaestiones.101 Summing-up at this point, we may contend that there is no basic difference between Langton and his predecessors in their critical approach (or lack of it) to the Quaestiones. But it must be said that in Langton there is a much greater precision and sense of responsibility in the citation of sources and texts, reflecting the marked development of Biblical studies in the schools, for which so much credit must go to Langton himself. Turning to Langton's treatment of the material of the Quaestiones, we may notice that he allows himself a considerable degree of freedom in criticizing "Jerome'', and is apparently in no way overawed by the authority of this ostensible Father of the Church. Does Langton's attitude conflict with the accepted theory of the great respect for authority evinced in the Middle Ages? Or was he influenced to any extent by the marked independence of Andrew of St. Victor? The answer seems to be that Langton tries to draw some distinction between the ipsissima verba of "Jerome", regarded as authoritative, and what "Jerome" reports in the name of the "Hebrews". The latter comments may be treated on their own merits, although the fact that "Jerome" thought them worthy of mention inevitably gives them added weight. Where "Jerome" had specifically stated Hebrei tradunt, dicunt etc., Langton's task is comparatively easy. The real test comes when "Jerome" remains silent on this point. In such a case, if Langton is clearly dissatisfied with the Pseudo-Jerome exegesis, he tends to assume it is derived from a Jewish source. A good example is no. 153 where Langton decides - ideo dicendum quodforte Jero. !oquitur secundum opinionem Judeorum et ii/am recital, and thus is enabled to conclude against "Jerome" - dicimus quod littera que habet quattuor annos vera est. This dual approach allows Langton in practice to treat the Quae101

Cf. nos. 43, 177.

54

INTRODUCTION

stiones with a good deal of freedom without in any way impugning the authority of the Church Fathers. In the "literal" sections of his commentary Langton very often develops or elaborates Pseudo-Jerome in a manner unequalled by his predecessors. The following examples may illustrate the general trend of his exegesis : In no. 84 the purpose of the Quaestio is not at all clear, but Langton brilliantly succeeds in giving it relevance and a meaningful content. Sed nonne David fuit proditor? Videtur enim male fecisse. Solutio: fer. excusat eum dicens quod hi (p )agi non erant sub potestate Achis, quia si essent non fecisset hoc David. On the identification of Michal with Egla (nos. 101, 117) Langton decided, clearly after much cogitation, that this was the genuine opinion of Jerome, not merely a Jewish tradition. But he realises the difficulties caused by this identification and devotes a good deal of space to buttressing the identification against contrary arguments, including the statement in the Gloss that Michal was condemned to "perpetual sterility". 102 With the help of Peter Comestor, Langton was able to pronounce in favour of the "Hebrews" on the Saul-Ishbosheth controversy in no. 43, rejecting the alternative theory of Rabanus. 103 Here we have a clear 102 De Egla uxore David. Hee est Micol que sola uxor dicitur quia soli ei sollempniter nupsit vel quia plus diligebatur sicut Rachel proprie dicebatur uxor Iacob quia earn magis diligebat. Hee in partu obiisse dicitur. Infra enim dicetur quod Michal non est natus filius usque ad mortem (no. 101). Non est natus filius usque in die mortis. Jer. dicit quod in partu mortua est. Capitulo iii dicitur quod in Ebron natus est David Getran de Egla id est de Micol. Ergo in Ebron mortua fuit ergo non venit (?)in Jerlm. ergo falsum est quod hie dicitur in textu. Propterea Glo. dicit quod perpetua sterilitate dampnata est. Sed quomodo ergo prolem habuerit ?Ad hoc postquam did nisi J er. exponeret sic quod in Ebron natus est Getraan et post non est natus ei usque in diem mortis et hoc videtur velle textus secundum Jer. dicendum quod illud quod premissum est anticipatio fuit. Michal enim prius venit Jerlm. et irrisit David ut hie dicitur et post venit in Ebron et ibi in partu Getran mortua est. Glo. enim dicit(?) quod sterilitate dampnata est, quia non habuit nisi unum. 103 Filius unius anni erat Saul. Id est parvulus et lactens. Sic exponit Jere. de ipso scilicet Saule et non de filio ejus, quasi diceret humilis erat tanquam parvulus quando cepit regnare. Duobus autem annis regnavit. Juste scilicet. In aliis autem annis fuit quasi tyrannus non quasi rex. Rabanus vero istud exponit de Isboseth filio Saulis. (Quotes Andrew of St. Victor without acknowledgment). Ideo dicendum est sicut dicunt Hebrei filius Saul erat unius anni id est per annum regnavit et est modus loquendi (as in Peter Comestor). Simile infra in ii Reg. capitulo v: Filius xxx annorum erat David cum regnare cepisset, lxxx (sic) annis regnavit. Duobus autem annis regnavit juste, in aliis autem annis fuit quasi tyrannus et istud est interpositio (no. 43). Filius xxx annorum. Id est xxx annorum erat - modus est loquendi. Simile - filius unius anni erat Saul etc. (f. l31c).

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

55

advance on the inept treatment by Andrew of St. Victor of this issue. 104 • Of equal interest is the integration of a significant part of the Quaestiones in the "moral" section of the commentary. Although it cannot be said that Langton was an innovator in this field - Rupert of Deutz had already used some Quaestiones for non-literal exegesis he was probably responsible for the use of Pseudo-Jerome in the preaching of sermons as can be seen from the following examples: 1. Excelsa duo per quod notantur duo que in prelatis esse debent, scilicet celsitudo vite et celsitudo scientie. 57. Tales sunt hodie multi qui inimicos laudant ut eos decipiant. 72. Hoc potest dici contra illos qui vacant oracionibus et tamen dolum pro Christo machinantur. 177. Gob interpretatur lacus et significat illum lacum de quo for con was misread as o. 126 He also seems to have had difficulty with the abbreviation ide for idem which he gives as id est. 127 Despite some reservations it has been decided to make R the basic text of this edition. Not only is it the closest in time to Pseudo-Jerome, the dating suggested being 845-882, 128 but also it is the closest in spirit. The incipit speaks of explanatio f.o;storiae secundum judaicam traditionem and calls the author ille Judaeus. The commentaries on Samuel and Chronicles are not associated in R with any of the other Pseudo-Hieronymian opusculi, 129 nor are they attributed to Jerome. No other MS seems to be closer to the original than R. Laistner suggested that R was copied from various Luxeuil MSS used by Angelomus in the compilation of his commentary. 13 0 The following is a list of the contents of R, which consists of 140 folios: f. 1 Bede on Psalms. Commentary on Samuel. Commentary on Chronicles. 67 Bede, 30 Quaestiones in Regum. 79 Bede, de locis in Apostolorum Actibus. 81 Gregory. f. 103 Alcuin. f. 124 Commentary on Psalms. 1a1 f. f. f. f. f.

38

53

See nos. 14, 26, 38, 91, 107. See no. 26 which gives occiderunt for conciderunt. 127 See nos. 82, 144. 128 F. M. Carey, "The Scriptorium of Rheims", Studies in honor of E. K. Rand (1938), p. 52f, 57f. 129 See above, p. 30. 130 The Inte!!ectua! Heritage of the Ear(y Middle Ages, ed. Chester G. Starr (1957), p. 199. & n. 44. 131 Catalogue General, 38 (Manuscrits de la Bibliotheque de Reims), pp. 109ff. 12 5

126

60

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary annotations in R inform us that the MS was given by Hincmar the deacon to Stephen who in turn gave it to the Rheims Cathedral Library. TheQuaestiones of R were copied into the St Denis MS now Paris Bihl. Nat MS latin 2384, written about the year 900. As in R, the Pseudo-Jerome material is preceded and followed by Bede. G was written towards the end of the ninth century. The Pseudo] erome material was copied by a variety of hands between 888 and 892. 1a2 The MS is divided into two parts: pp. 6-135

The Latin version of the canons and anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553). pp. 138-252 Pseudo-Jerome on Samuel and Chronicles. The Chronicles section is incomplete, ending at I Chron. xi, 15 (Descenderunt autem tres).

At the beginning of the Pseudo-Jerome material in G there is not a little confusion and the first few pages are a conflation of PseudoJ erome, Bede and Rabanus. Not until Quaestio no. 5 do we come to the unadulterated Pseudo-Jerome. Even later, at Quaestio no. 69, a substantial chunk of Bede is incorporated without any indication of his authorship. The standard of copying in G is middling to poor and some of the scribes seem to have been completely unfitted for this work. One of their worst offences was the persistent commission of homoeoteleuton on no less than 18 occasions.133 Apart from this, we may note a number of serious omissions, 134 dittography l35 and absurd or impossible readings.136 0 makes a much more favourable impression. It comes from Fleury, presumed to be one of Pseudo-Jerome's favoured haunts. 137 This MS contains the (Pseudo-Hieronymian) Annotationes on the books of Samuel and Chronicles (pp. 1-151), followed by the Pseudo-Hieronymian "Ten Temptations" commentary on Deut. i, 1 (pp. 151-65). The rest of the MS consists of the sermons of John Chrysostom (pp. 165-250). The MS cannot at all be dated closely and is assigned to 132 Ab hinc vero per quinque annos a quinto Bernhardi usque ad quartum Salomonis hoc totum est in commune patratum (G., p. 65). 133 See nos. 10, 28, 51, 67, 69, 71, 81, 108, 130, 133, 144, 152, 155, 158, 165, 167, 171, 180. 134 See nos. 47, 68, 72. 135 No. 88. 136 See nos. 73, 131. 137 See above, p. 10.

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE PSEUDO-HIERONYMIAN QUAESTIONES

61

the tenth century. 138 On the whole 0 seems to be the most intelligently written of all the early MSS. A good example is at Quaestio no. 134 where 0 is the only MS to succeed in giving the correct rendering. Again, in no. 104, 0 alone preserves the original E)G reading. Nevertheless, 0 too has its drawbacks. The omission of a whole section without any break in the MS suggests 0 was copied from a defective archetype. 139 There are six cases of homoeoteleuton, 140 two of which occur in G, 141 and an important omission (no. 71). While none of these MSS, R, G and 0 are very satisfactory, they all contribute something towards the establishment of the text. I have also made use of the printed edition of Rabanus's commentary on Kings (Samuel), as well as the Berkeley MS UCB 17, the earliest of the "Jerome" MSS. It is difficult to make out which MSS were used in the editions of the Quaestiones printed by Martianay and Vallarsi in their editions of Jerome and subsequently reprinted in the Patrologia Latina. It is, however, certain, that none of the early MSS - R, G and 0 - were used. A Jumieges MS is mentioned, now apparently Rouen MS. 450. Some variant readings are given from Rabanus and from the Milan MS Ambros. D 88, which was written in the 15th century. In his Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi at no. 3418, Stegmiiller gives a very incomplete list of MSS containing the Quaestiones. He has omitted the early MSS R and G, and R's place is usurped by its copy, the Paris 2384 MS. He does, however, list the important MS 0. The following list, which does not pretend to be at all complete - it is derived from catalogues of MSS in the London University Palaeography Library - seems to show that a good medieval library had a fair chance of possessing a copy of the Quaestiones. The false attribution to Jerome, which became prevalent in the twelfth century, naturally boosted the copying and circulation of the Quaestiones.142 LIST OF

MSS

1. Rheims 118, f. 38 (?845-82).

2. St. Gall Stiftsbibl. 672, p. 138 (888-92). Cat. Gen. (Bib!. d'Orleans), p. 23. The omission occurs between Quaestiones nos. 116-123. 14o See nos. 20, 44, 59, 69, 157, 171. 141 Nos. 69, 171. 142 At the time of writing this, Dom Bernard Lambert has yet to publish the volume of his Bib!iotheca Hieronymiana Manuscripta, which will deal with these MSS. 138 189

62

INTRODUCTION

3. Paris Bihl. Nat. 2384, f. 117 (c. 900), from St. Denis. 4. Orleans 38, p. 1 (10th cent.), from Fleury. 5. Berkeley, Univ. of California UCB 17 (Phillipps 391), f. 21 (second half of 11th cent.), from Trier, St Matthias. 6. Phillipps 398 (sold Sotheby's 22 May 1913, lot 822 and whereabouts unknown - 11th-12th cent.), from Mainz, St. Jakob. 7. Cambridge, Emmanuel Coll. 57, f. 76(early12th cent.). 8. Cambridge, Trinity Coll. 77, f. 117 (early 12th cent.), from Canterbury. 9. Cambridge, Trinity Coll. 1238, f. 112(early12th cent.), from Rochester, contents identical with those of preceding MS. 10. Oxford, Balliol Coll. 147, f. 32 (mid-12th cent). 11. Alens:on 2, f. 57 (12th cent.), from St. Evroult, perhaps consulted by Ordericus. 12. Avranches 67, f. 29 (12th cent.). 13. Berlin Konig!. Bible. 289, f. 25 (12th cent.). 14. Berlin Preuss. Staatsbibl. Gorres 113, f. 35 (12th cent.), from Trier. 15. Cambridge U.L. Kk. iv. 6, f. 64 (12th cent.), from Worcester. 16. Engelberg Stiftsbibl. 49, f. 25 (12th cent.). 17. Oxford Bodi., Bodley 808, f. 43 (12th cent.). 18. Oxford Bodi., Fairfax 5, f. 80 (12th cent.), from Sweetheart. 19. Paris Bibi. Mazarine 559, f. 131 (12th cent.). 20. Paris Bibi. Nat., lat. 12149, f. 20 (12th cent.), from St Germain. 21. Rouen 450, f. 111 (12th cent.), from Jumieges. 22. Durham Cathedral B.2.11 (end of 12th cent.). 23. Oxford, Balliol Coll. 229, f. 145 (early 13th cent.), from Buildwas. 24. London Lambeth 356, f. 127 (13th cent.), from Llanthony. 25. Madrid Bibi. Nat. 91, f. 64 (13th cent.). 26. Oxford, Balliol Coll. 177, f. 146 (13th cent.). 27. Paris Bihl. Nat., lat. 345, f. 61 (13th cent,), from Bonport. 28. Phillipps 3721 (said to be 13th cent.). 29. Wolfenbiittel 1205, f. 58 (13th cent.). 30. London Brit. Mus. Royal 5.D.x, f. 175 (mid-13th cent.) from Ramsey, consulted by Grosseteste. 31. Madrid Escorial R. iii. 19, f. 76 (early 14th cent.). 32. Paris Bihl. Nat., lat. 1827, f. 201 (14th cent.). 33. York Minster XVI. 1.8 (14th-15th cent.). 34. Milan Ambros. D. 88, f. 105 (15th cent.). 35. Prague 651, f. 42 (15th cent.). 36. Vienna Nat. Bibi. 4602, f. 33 (15th cent.). 37. Nuremberg Theol. 277, f. 1 (1500). 38. Paris Bihl. Nat., lat. 14797, f. 34 (12th cent.). 39. Paris Bihl. Nat. lat., 16284, f. 20. 40. Prague Kapitel 48, f. 32. 41. Salzburg St. Peter, a IX. 9. f. 76. 42. Vienna Nat. Bibi. 720, f. 238 (12th cent.). 43. Vienna Nat. Bihl. 726, f. 21.

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

INCIPIT

R In Dei nomine brevis explanatio hystoriae primi libri Regum se- R f. 38a cundum Judaicam traditionem incipit, sed curiosus lector qui haec discere studet consideret si ille J udaeus qui praefatum lib rum ita exposuit ab ecclesiastica doctrina in aliquibus discordat sententiis.

0 5

Incipiunt annotationes in volumine Regum. Lege felix ut felicior 0 p. 1 inveniaris. Amen. G In Christi nomine incipit expositiuncula authentica in libros Regum. G p. 138 1. (I Sam., c. i, 1) Fuit vir unus de Ramathaim Sophim de monte Ephraim G p. 139 et nomen ejus Elcana ftlius leroam ft/ii E!iu ft/ii Thou ft/ii Suph ephratheus.

Ramathaim interpretatur "excelsa duo", et haec excelsa duo duae intellegentur tribus, regia videlicet et sacerdotalis. Quod pater 5 Elcanae de tribu fuerit Levi, liber Paralypomenon plenissime docet, in quo series genealogiae illius usque ad Levi perducitur. Matrem quoque ejus de tribu Juda extitisse monstratur, in eo quod effratheus vocatur. Effratheus ab Ephratha uxore Caleph, quam constat fuisse de tribu Juda, dictus est. Et si quern movet quod ab Ephra10 im, non ab Ephratha, ephratheus vocetur, videat in subsequentibus qualiter David ft!ius viri ephrathei vocetur, cum liquido pateat eundem Isai non de Ephraim sed de tribu Juda extitisse, et probet eundem O p. 2 Elcana] Elchana 2 et nomen ... Suph] usque G 1 Ramathaim] Ramatha G 3 interephratheus] epharatheus O; ephrateus G Thou] Thau 0 0 5 Elcanae] Elchane + id 4 regia] regalis G pretatur] interpretantur OG monstratur] 7 de] ex G est Geroam inter/in. 2a manu O; Elchanae G Caleph] 8 effratheus (bis)] ephrateus O; ephratheus G monstatur G* 11 ephrathei] ephratei 0 9 dictus] dictum 0 Chaleb O; Chaleph G Ieroam] Eroam @G; VULGATA 2 Elcana] Helchana @G; Helcana BV 5 liber Par.] I Thou] cum @G; Thau BV Ieroboam ea c 2; Hieroam BV 10 in subsequentibus] 8 Ephratha] I Par. ii, 19, 50 Par. vi, 27, 34-43 infra, xvii, 12 HEBREW C"l'l~iil] dual form - "the two heights" (Wutz, p. 772) 5

66

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

Elcanan ephrateum ab Ephrata, non ab Ephraim, dici. Sophint "speculatores" interpretantur. "Speculatores" hie prophetae intelleguntur, quorum filius Elcana fuit. De monte Ephraim. De monte 15 vero Ephraim fuisse dicitur, quia ibi erat ejus habitatio. Intra cunctas namque tribus habitationem levitarum fuisse non dubium est. 13 Elcanan] Elchanan OG Ephrata] Ephratha 0 dici] + Hie inter medios cives Effrem sortis existens Ramath Sophim civitatem. inhabitabat. Est enim civitas ipsa in regione Thamnitica juxta Diospolim uncle fuit Ioseph qui in evangelio ab Arimathia fuisse describitur. G 15 Elcana] Elchana 0; Helchana G 16 vero] inter/in. O; om. G intra] infra G 17 namque] enim G tribus] tribu R. VULGATA 16/17 intra ... tribus] cf. Num. xxxv, 2-3; Deut. xii, 12 etc. NOTES Rahmer (pp. 315£) and Ginzberg (pp. 12£), correcting Rahmer, give Aggadic material and background. Jerome's etymologies: Ramathaim - excelsa eorum; Sophim - specula vel scopulus.

2. RO (c. i, 3) Et ascendebat vir ille de civitate sua statutis diebus.

Tribus festivitatibus: Pascha videlicet, Pentecosten et sollemnitate tabernaculorum ascendebat in domum Domini.

G G p. 140

Et habuit uxores duas usque Annae autem non erant liberi. Sterilitas Annae memoratur ut partus celebrior et gratior habeatur sicut Sarae, 5 Rebeccae, Elysabeth. Et ascendebat vir ille usque in Silo. Silo civitas est in tribu Ephraim in quo loco area testamenti et tabernaculum Domini fuit a diebus Iosue usque ad tempora Samuelis. In quo loco etiam terra repromissionis distributa est. Est autem in nonagesimo miliario Neaspoleos in regione Acrapitena. Sed et Iudae patriarchae filius 10 Selon appellatus est. Ad hanc urbem ascendit Elchana cum domo sua statutis diebus, Pasca videlicet, Pentecoste et solemnitate tabernaculorum. Sic quippe preceptum est in lege: Tribus vicibus per annum mihi festa celebrabitis; et Apparebit omne masculinum tuum coram Deo in loco quem elegerit. Hie Elchana cum esset ipse levita post oblatas vie- 15 timas cum uxoribus et filiis secundum legem pariter vescebatur. 2 sollemnitate] sollempnitate 0 VULGATA 13 in lege] cf. Exod. xxiii, 14; Deut. xvi, 16 NOTES Rahmer (p. 317) and Ginzberg (pp. 13£), correcting Rahmer, give Aggadic sources. For MS G., see above p. 60.

67

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

3. (c. i, 4) Deditque Fenennae uxori suae et cunctis filiis efus et filiabus partes.

Hae partes vestes intelleguntur, quae in eisdem tribus festivitatibus, juxta morem illius gentis, uxoribus ac liberis et famulis tribuebantur. 1 Fenennae] Fenenae 0 ejus] om. G 2 intelleguntur ... festivitatibus] intelliguntur secundum quosdam quae in festivitatibus praedictis G 3 ac ... famulis] et liberis ac famulis OG tribuebantur] + Non absurde tamen partes hostiarum intelliguntur quae familiis levitarum a lege concessae sunt. G NOTES

Rahmer (p. 317) and Ginzberg (p. 14) give Aggadic source.

4. (c. i, 5) Annae autem dedit partem unam tristi. In Hebraeo autem ita legitur: "Anne autem dedit partem unam duplicem quia Annam diligebat". G p. 141 2 autem (1°)] om. OG 3 diligebat] + Quod autem apud nos legitur Annae autem dedit partem unam tristis, ideo unam quia filios non habuit. Idcirco autem ille tristis quia et illam ob sterilitatem et emulae suae affiictionem tristem esse cognovit. G.

VULGATA 1 partem ... tristi] h. partem unam duplicem cum @G; tristis BV

E)G

marg.

tristi]

HEBREW C,!:ll-t] very difficult, apparently dual form, giving rise to the idea of a double portion. NOTES

Rahmer (pp. 317f) and Ginzberg (pp. 14f) give Aggadic sources.

5. (c. i, 16) Ne reputes ancillam tuam quasi unam ex filiabus Belia! quia ex multitudine meroris et doloris mei locuta sum usque in presens. R f. 38b

Belia! enim interpretatur absque Jugo. Et notandum quod omnes qui 0 p. 3 aebrietatem sectantur filii Belia! vocentur. 4 vocentur] vocantur G VULGATA 1 ex (1°)] de BV 3 absque jugo] Iud., xix, 22. HEBREW p. 772). NOTES

1nr1?~1

= 1?:!7

2 meroris et doloris] doloris et meroris BV 4 filii Belia!] ibid.

,,~ = "absque jugo", homiletic etymology (Wutz,

Rahmer (pp. 318f) and Ginzberg (p. 116 n. 1) give Aggadic sources.

68

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

6.

(c. i, 24) Et adduxit eum secum postquam ablactaverat in vitulis tribus et tribus modiis farinae et amfora vini et adduxit eum in domum Domini in Sylo. In Hebreo non tribus modiis farinae sed "modio farinae" legitur, quern locum apud Latinos scriptorum vitio constat esse depravatum. Si enim cum vitulis tribus tres modios farinae obtulit, contra legis prae- 5 ceptum fecit. In lege itaque ita praecipitur: Mensis septimi prima dies venerabilis et sancta erit vobis omne opus servile non facietis dies clangoris est et tubarum offeretisque holocaustum in odorem suavissimum Domino G p. 142 vitulum de armento unum arietem unum agnos anniculos inmaculatos septem et in sacrijiciis eorum simile oleo consperse tres decimas per singulos vitulos 10 duas decimas per arietem unam decimam per agnum. Haec vero decima, decima pars erat oephi. Uncle datur intellegi quod Elcana non ob0 p. 4 tulerit tres modios farinae cum tribus vitulis sed novem decimas quibus secundum Hebraicam mensuram unus efficitur oephi. 2 amfora] amphora OG Sylo] Silo OG 5/6 legis praeceptum] preceptum legis G 11 vero decima] decima vero 0 12 Elcana] Elchana O; Helchana G 13 vitulis] + decimas oephi G 14 oephi] om. G VULGATA 2 tribus modiis] modio ea in domum] cum quibusdam codd.; in domo ea; ad domum BV 6 In lege] Num., xxix, 1-4 Mensis] + etiam BV 7 facietis] + in ea quia BV; h. non habet in ea quia ea marg. 7/8 dies ... tubarum] h. dies clangoris erit vobis ea marg. HEBREW '!'he measure il!:l"N (epha) is inconsistently translated in the Vulgate, e.g. modius (Deut. =v, 15), modii Ires (Is. v, 10), ephi (Ez. xiv, 24) and mensura (Am. viii, 5). NOTES This is a good example of the frequent preoccupation of PseudoJ erome with the question of the observance of the Law by the ancient Hebrews. The lengthy quotation is only one of the many proof-texts available. It seems to have been chosen deliberately, with an eye to contemporary Jewish practice, familiar to our Hebraist. Num. =ix, 1-6 together with I Sam. i, 1-ii, 10 make up the additional reading from the Law and Prophets on New Year's day.

7. (c. ii, 1) Exultavit cor meum in Domino exaltatum est cornu meum in Domino. Cornu filium vocat, quia quando sine filio erat, absque cornu

videbatur sibi esse.

1 Domino] + et G 2 Domino] Deo + meo G VULGA'I'A 1 Domino] +et ea 2 Domino] Deo + meo NOTES

ea

Rahmer (pp. 319f) gives alleged Aggadic background.

c 2

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

69

8. (c. ii, 3) Recedant vetera de ore 'vestro. In Hebreo ita habetur: "Exeant vetera". Et est sensus: Exeant humilia de ore vestro, de quo antea grandia et superba exiebant. Quibus verbis Fenennam et filios ejus increpat, quae ob fecunditatem sibi 5 concessam contra Annam elevabatur. 2 Exeant (2°)] exheant 0 4/5 quae ... elevabatur] om. 0 VULGATA 1 Recedant] h. exeant EJG marg. HEBREW

The verb

N~'

is usually translated in the Vulgate by parts of the verb

egredior. Our Hebraist would have done better to turn his attention to the rendering of j?1'1l7 (vetera), presumably derived from j?'1'1l7 (cf. I Par. iv, 22; Dan. vii, 9 etc.). A parallel passage in Ps. lxxiv, 6 is translated nolite loqui adversus Deum iniquitatem, but strangely enough the Hebrew Psalter, as in EJG, has loquentes in vertice veteri.

NOTES There appears to be no Jewish source for vetera and the consequent exegesis. The genuine Jewish Aggadic material on this verse in not used.

9. (c. ii, 4) Amts fortium superatus est et inftrmi accincti sunt robore. Arcus Aegyptiorum, id est fortitudo et potentia, superata est, et inftrmi, scilicet Israhelite confortati sunt. Aliter: Arcus, id est superbia et fortitudo Fenennae qua in filiis 5 gloriabatur superata est, et Anna, quae ob sterelitatem inftrma erat, G p. 143 accincta est robore filiorum. 2 Aegyptiorum] Aegiptiorum 0 4 Fenennae] Fenente O* qua] quae G 5 sterelitatem] sterilitatem G NOTES Ginzberg (p. 116) treats the Quaestio as unknown Aggadic material and quotes the Targum referring to the victory of the Maccabees, which seems irrelevant.

10. (c. ii, 5) Donec sterelis peperit plurimos quae multos habebat ftlios inftrmata est.

In Hebreo et in Septuaginta translatione non plurimi sed "septem" leguntur. Judaei hunc locum ita intellegunt quod nato Samuele 1 sterelis] sterilis OG plurimos] + et G VULGATA plurimos] h. septem EJG marg.; +et BV omn. codd. HEBREW ill7:ltv (seven), and a parallel passage ini:ltvil riil;i• i1l;il;i~N (Jer. xv, 9) duly appears in the Vulgate as infirmata est quae peperit septem.

70

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

O p. 5 mortuus sit filius primogenitus Fenennae, et singulis Anne filiis 5

nascentibus singuli Fenennae mortui sint filii. Sed quaerendum est quomodo hoc stare possit cum Fenenna septem, Anna autem non plus quam quinque filios habuerit. Quam quaestionem Hebrei solventes, duos filios Samuelis cum filiis Annae adnumerant. 5/6 et ... Fenennae] om. G 6 singuli] singulis R filii] filie O* NOTES Rahmer (pp. 320f) and Ginzberg (pp. 15f), correcting Rahmer, give Aggadic sources. Ginzberg shows how Pseudo-Jerome combines and misunderstands two separate Midrashim. He does not, however, make it clear that according to Jewish tradition Fenenna had ten sons (cf. I Sam. i, 8).

11. Rf. 39a

(c. ii, 8) Domini emm sunt cardines terre et posuit super eos orbem. In Hebreo ita habetur: "Domini enim sunt adflicti terrae". "Adflictos terrae" Hebraei pauperes spiritu et humiles corde intellegunt, super quos Dominum orbem posuisse dicunt, quia eorum meritis terram 5 stare autumant. 1/5 deest G VULGATA

2/3 adflictos] affiictos 0 1 Domini ... terre] h. Domini enim sunt affiicti terrae @G marg.

HEBREW f"1N ~p~~] perhaps metal pillars or columns supporting the Earth. Pseudo-Jerome has in mind the verb pi~ and its derivatives (Deut. xxviii, 53, I Sam. xxii, 2, Ps. cxviii, 143 etc.), generally rendered angustia in the Vulgate. NOTES Ginzberg (p. 16) gives a Talmudic source, allegedly reproduced by Pseudo-Jerome. He seems to overlook the obvious NT influence of pauperes spiritu et humiles corde. In his liturgical work De Divinis Ofjiciis (viii, 6), Rupert of Deutz makes appropriate use of this Q11aestio in the section on the Beatitudes, naturally citing "Jerome".

12. (c. ii, 10) Dominum formidabunt adversarii efus super ipsos in caelis tonabit. Super adversarios suos Dominus in caelis tonabit sicut est illud in libro Josue: Cumque fugerent a facie Israhel et essent in descensu Bethoron Dominus misit super eos lapides magnos de caelo usque ad Azecha et mortui sunt multo plures lapidibus grandinis quam quos gladio percusserant ftlii Israhel. 5 1 ejus] + et Samuel G VULGATA BV 4 ad]

G 2 Super ... tonabit] om. R., sed add. ad fin. pag. 3 Iosue] 4 ad] om. G Azecha] Zecha 0. 3 Iosue] Ios. x, 11 3 a facie Israhel] cum §G marg.; filios Israhel om. BV Azecha] cum @G c 1; Azeca BV, @G*

NOTES There does not seem to be any (other) Jewish source which brings together these two texts.

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

71

13. (c. ii, 22) Eli autem senex erat 17a/de et audivit omnia quae faciebant ft/ii O p. 6 sui universo lsraheli et quomodo dormiebant cum mulieribus quae observabant G p. 144 ad ostium tabernaculi.

Dormisse eos dicunt Hebrei cum mulieribus, eo quod post menstrui

5 tempus aut partus, non impleto secundum legis preceptum sacrificio,

suadebant eas ad viros suos redire eisque commisceri, et dormire ideo dicuntur, quia eas dormire cum viris suis contra legis praeceptum faciebant. Uncle idem Eli post paululum ait: Non est enim bona Jama quam ego audio ut transgredi faciatis populum Domini. Transgressionem 10 ergo populus faciebat, quia, sacrificio non rite peracto, uxoribus suis jungebantur. Sicut enim vi extorquebant carnes ab immolante, ita etiam extorquebant sacrificium ab offerente, et idcirco, sicut in auferendis carnibus faciebant homines detrahere sacrificio Domini, ita quoque nihilominus in conjungendis uxoribus transgredi faciebant 15 populum Domini. O p. 7 4 eo quod] eorum G 6 suos] + ad viros suos R 3 ostium] hostium G 8 Eli] om. R 11 jungebantur] jun7 legis praeceptum] preceptum legis G gebatur OG vi] viri 0 c 2; om. G 12/13 auferendis] auferentis R; offerendis Angelomus 13 detrahere] detraere G 14 nihilominus] nihilhominus G VULGATA 1 senex erat] erat senex BV omn. codd. est enim] cum E)G; enim est BV

8 post paululum] v. 24

NOTES Rahmer (pp. 321ff) and Ginzberg (pp. 17f), correcting Rahmer, give Aggadic sources. The equation of post menstrui tempus (Lev. xv, 19-24) and partus (Lev. c. xii) in respect of sacrifices is inaccurate, as in the former case no sacrifice was prescribed.

14.

(c. ii, 25) Si peccaverit vir in virum placare ei potest Deus. Quia, placato sibi viro in quern peccavit, placabilem sibi facit Deum cui in viro peccavit.

Si autem in Deum peccaverit vir quis orabit pro eo ? 5

Non igitur eo modo in virum quo in Deum peccatur, quia in vi- Gp. 145 rum peccare peccatum qualecumque est (contra proximum factum) 1 potest] potens O* 4 autem] hoc R (vide lntrod. p. 59) orabit] oravit RG* 5-6 quia ... peccare] qui in virum peccaverit G 6 (contra ... factum) ]Rabanus VULGATA 1 placare] cum E)G*; placari BV Mign.) 4 Deum] cum @G; Domino BV

ei potest] sic (BV utitur editione

72

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

leviorque remissio. In Deum vero peccare, id est ab - ejus cultu recedere, impietatis peccatum est difficiliorque rem1ss10. Et quoniam cum in virum quis peccat, placato sibi viro facit sibi Deum placabilem, in Deum autem cum quis peccat, quis orabit pro eo? Ac 10 si dicatur: Per quern sibi Deum in quern peccavit propitium facere poterit? 7/8 id ... recedere] om. 0 9 cum] om. G in]+ solum G 10 orabit] oravit R 11 sibi Deum] Deum sibi OG.

sibi (2°)] om. G

NOTES Ignored by Ginzberg. He might have referred to Bab. Talmud Yoma 87a, where this verse is used for defining the relative gravity of sins against God and man, although a somewhat different conclusion is arrived at from that of Pseudo-Jerome. Both sources agree, however, that in the case of a sin against one's fellow-man, it is necessary to do him justice before it is possible to gain the forgiveness of God.

15. (c. ii, 27-8) Venit autem vir Dei ad He!i et ait ad eum haec dicit Dominus numquid non aperte reve!atus sum domui patris tui cum esset in ./Egypto in domo Pharaonis et e!egi eum ex omnibus tribubus lsrahe! mihi in sacerdotem et cetera.

Hunc virum Dei Judaei Finees dicunt, quern et Heliam autumant. 5 Revelatus vero Dominus fuisse dicitur domui patris ejus, id est O p. 8 Aaron, in eo loco ubi ait: Dixit enim Dominus ad Aaron vade in occursum Mqysi in deserto et cetera. In hoc loco primum Dominus ei R f. 39b reve!atus dicitur. In sacerdotem vero e!ectus est ex omnibus tribubus lsrahel G p. 146 sicut habes in Elesmoth et in Vagecra. Quad vero ait: Venit vir Dei ad 10 He!i et cetera quae secuntur, ante tempus Elchanae dicta fuisse arbitrantur, sed hie ob gloriam Samuelis interposita dicuntur. 1 autem] enim G ait] dixit G 2 numquid] numquit R tui] sui O* 3 tribubus] tribus R 8 deserto] desto 0 9 tribubus] tribus RG 10 Elesmoth] Ellesmoth G 11 Elchanae] Helchanae G 12 interposita] interpositam R VULGATA 2 esset] cum EJG; essent BV autem BV 8 Moysi] cum ea; Mosi BV xxix Vagecra] Lev. vii, 34, c. viii etc.

7 ubi ait] Exod. iv, 27 enim] 10 Elesmoth] Exod. cc. xxviii,

NOTES Ginzberg (pp. 19f, 80) gives Aggadic sources and reference to Peter Damiani's use of this Quaestio. It may be worth adding that Pseudo-Jerome makes use here of the Jewish exegetical principle that there is no chronological order in Scripture (Bab. Talmud Pesahim 6b).

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

73

16A.

(c. ii, 31) Ecce dies veniunt et precidam brachium tuum et brachium domus patris tui. Brachium arcam vocat et dignitatem sacerdotii. 1 domus] domum G 3 arcam] arcum R; archam G VULGATA 1 veniunt] sic (BV utitur editione Mign.) HEBREW :>7iT (brachium) is taken to be a metaphor for strength and cf. Ps. (x), 15 NOTES

There seems to be no confirmatory or parallel Jewish source.

16B.

(ibid.) Ut non sit senex in domu tua. Senem sacerdotem magnum dicit. 1 domu] domo OG VULGATA 1 domu] cum a!iquibus codd.; domo BV NOTES

Ginzberg (p. 19) gives an Aggadic source.

17. (c. ii, 32) Et videbis aemu!um tuum in temp!o in universis prosperis lsrahe!. Emu/us domus Heli Sadoc sacerdos extitit qui, ejecta Abiathar a Salomone, sacerdotium suscepit sicut in Malachim legitur: Projecitque Salomon Abiathar ne esset sacerdos Domini ut imp!eretur verbum Domini 5 quod locutus est super domum He!i. 1 et videbis] ut videbitis 0 VULGATA 3 Malachim] I, ii, 27 ut + non BV verbum] sermo BV

Projecitque] eiecit + ergo BV 5 quod] quern BV

4 ne]

18. (c. ii, 33) Verumtamen non auferam penitus virum ex te ab a!tari meo ut deftciant ocu!i tui et tabescat anima tua. 1 Verumtamen] Veruntamen G

VULGATA 1meo] + sedBV; h.nonhabetGJGmarg. HEBREW Inv. 33 there is no equivalent to sed and in v. 36 GJG marg. gives a more literal rendering.

74

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

Ideo Dominus se non penitus ablaturum ex domo Eli virum ab altari suo elicit, ut semper de domo Heli esset in domo Domini vir qui in dignitate sacerdotii alium substitutum videret, et se eadem dignitate 5 G p. 147 privatum videns, oculi ~/us dejicerent et anima tabesceret. Uncle et in subsequentibus dicitur: Veniat ut adoret eum, id est sacerdotemmagnum, et accipiat ab eo nummum argenteum et tortam panis dicatque dimitte me obsecro ad unam partem sacerdotalem ut comedam bucellam panis. O p. 9

3 non] inter/in. G

7 ut] et G*

6 tabesceret] tabescerent G*

ablaturum] adlaturum R

9 bucellam] buccellam OG

VULGATA 6/7 in subsequentibus] v. 36 veniat ut oretur pro eo et offerat BV BV

marg.;

7/8 Veniat ... accipiat] cum ea 9 bucellam] cum GG; buccellam

19. (c. iii, 1) Et sermo Domini erat preciosus in diebus ii/is. Preciosus dicitur quia perrarus erat. Omne enim quod rarum est preciosum est. Non eratvisio manifesta. Quia prophetia non plene manifestabatur.

5

2 perrarus] perrarius R NOTES

Possibly derived from Is. xiii, 12.

20. (c. iii, 2) Factum est ergo in die quadam Eli jacebat in loco suo et oculi qus caligaverant nee poterat videre. Hie enim distinguendum est et postea inferendum Et antequam lucerna Dei extingueretur Samuel autem dormiebat in templo Domini ubi 0 p. 10 erat area Dei. Intellegi autem hoc modo debet - "Et antequam lu- 5 1 loco] lecto G 2 caligaverant] caligavert O*; caligaverunt G poterat] 3 distinguendum] distingendum G* poterant O* 4 autem] om. R VULGATA 3 postea] v. 3 3/4 Et ... extingueretur] cum na(m) Dei antequam extingueretur BV

ea marg.;

lucer-

HEBREW The apparent difficulty felt by Pseudo-Jerome is caused by a series of circumstantial clauses in verses 2, 3, providing a background to v. 4. Ps.-J., however, stops short at v. 3 and so his solution is incomplete.

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

75

cerna Dei extingueretur in templo Domini ubi erat area Dei, Samuel dormiebat". Quod vero ait anteqµam lucerna Dei extingueretur, intellegi oportet antequam lux diurna fieret, quando eadem extinguenda erat G p. 148 lucerna. Sic enim a Domino per Moysen jussum erat ut eadem lucerna 10 luceret usque mane, sicut est in libro. Precipe ait Dominus ftliis Israhel ut adjerant tibi oleum de arboribus olivarum purissimum piloque contusum ut ardeat lucerna semper in tabernaculo Domini et conlocabunt eam Aaron et ftlii rjus ut usque mane luceat coram Domino. 7/8 antequam ... oportet] om. 0 8/9 extinguenda ... lucerna] lucerna extinguenda erat G 9 per] pre R erat] est G 10 mane] manae G est] + illud 0 libro] + illud G; + Exodi Rabanus 11 contusum] contU11sum G ut] et 0 13 ut] om. G. coram] coyam R VULG ATA

10 in Iibro] Exod. xxvii, 20-1

12 Domini] testimonii BV

21. (c. iii, 7) Porro Samuel necdum sciebat Dominum. Nescire Dominum dicitur, quia per prophetiae mysterium necdum ei revelatus fuerat sermo Domini. 2 per] om. G fuerat] furat G* VULGATA NOTES

mysterium] misterium OG sermo] om. G

3 revelatus] revelatum G

1 necdum] nondum EJG*

Accords with Targum and general Jewish exegesis.

22. (c. iii, 11) Dixit Do minus ad Samuel ecce ego facio verbum in Israhel quod quicumque audierit tinnient ambae aures ejus. Hoc in loco comminatio Dei est super Eli et super domum ejus, eo quod in peccato filiorum Heli archa Dei caperetur et Israhel rueret R f. 40a 5 et ejus filii interirent et domus Eli sacerdotio domus Domini privaretur et ob id factum audientum aures tinnirent stupore vehementi. 0 p. 11 2 audierit] audierint R

6 factum]

+ ut inter/in. 0

audientum J audientium G

NOTES The accepted Jewish interpretation of this verse as given in Rashi and Kimhi ad !oc. is that the impending capture of the Ark by the Philistines is being foretold.

76

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

23. (c. iii, 15) Aperuitque ostia domus Domini et Samuel timebat visionem indicare Eli. G p. 149

Non est intellegendum quod Samuel aperuerit ostia domus Domini, sed sacerdos. 2 indicare] iudicare G VULGATA

3 quod] quia R

1/2 visionem indicare] indicare visionem BV

NOTES Ginzberg (p. 116 n. 3) uses this Quaestio as a proof of the Christ~an authorship of the Quaestiones. He points out that in the Mishna (Middoth i, 1) it is clearly stated that the Levites acted as gatekeepers at the Temple. As Samuel was a Levite, there is no reason why he should not have opened the doors of the Sanctuary as part of his normal duties. This argument assumes that all Christians were ignorant of Jewish tradition and all Jews were sufficiently acquainted with it. In fact, Pseudo-Jerome, as a half-educated Jew, was aware that the Levites were restricted in their access to parts of the Temple-cf. Midrash Bemidbar Rabba iv, 12 ("The priests guard from within and the Levites from without").

24. (c. iii, 19) Et non cecidit ex omnibus verbis Samuel in terram. Non cecidisse ex omnibus verbis ~ius in terram dicitur, quia quicquid prophetabat rebus gestis demonstrabatur. 2 terram] terra G VULGATA

1 Samuel] ejus BV omn. eodd.

NOTES That is, even when he prophesied as it were independently, without the sanction of the divine spirit of prophecy (cf. Kimhi ad foe.). For a similar example, see below no. 118, but on that occasion the words of the prophet did "fall to the ground".

25. (c. iii, 21) Et evenit sermo Samuelis universo Israheli. Sermo ejus fuit ad universum lsrahel quod percutiendi essent a Philisteis propter peccata filiorum Eli, quern sermonem eventus rei postea probavit. 1 evenit] eveniat 0 NOTES

2 percutiendi] percutit R *

Rashi ad foe. makes a similar comment.

essent] esset RO*

QUAES'I'IONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

77

26.

(c. vi, 14) Brat autem ibi !apis magnus et conciderunt !igna plaustri Lapidem istum Hebrei aram ab Abraham aedificatam intellegunt. 1 autem] om. R conciderunt] occiderunt R 2 ab] om. R NOTES There seems to be no basis whatever for this alleged "Hebrew tradition" which may confidently be attributed to Pseudo-Jerome's inventive genius. Some doubt, however, was felt as to the propriety or legitimacy of this sacrifice (Kimhi ad foe.; Bab. Talmud Aboda Zara 25b) and if the "great stone" had originally been consecrated by Abraham as an altar (cf. Gen. xii, 7-8; xiii, 4), it might have been thought by Pseudo-Jerome to confer an air of respectability on the proceedings.

27. (c. vi, 17) Hi sunt autem ani aurei quos reddiderunt Filistiim pro de!icto Domino Azotus unum Gaza unum Asca!on unum Ge th unum Accharon unum.

Quinque anos et quinque mures hae quinque civitates dederunt. Relique autem civitates provintiarum et villae quae erant absque muro O p. 12 5 mures tantum dederunt. Idcirco dicitur ab urbe murata usque ad vi/lam quae erat absque muro. Quod autem sequitur et usque ad Abel magnum super quem posuerunt archam Dei. Abel magnum civitas est in termino Israhel. Abel magnum idcirco vocatur, cum antea Bethsamis vocitata G p. 150 sit, sive propter luctum super viris Bethsamitibus ibi factum, sive 10 propter distinctionem civitatis Abel Bethmaca, de qua exclamavit mulier sapiens ad Joab dicens: Qui interrogant interrogent in Abela. Sic itaque intellegendum est quod ab urbe murata usque ad villam que erat absque muro et usque ad Abel Magnum, dederint mures. Super quem, id est super luctum, posuerunt arcam Dominique erat usque in 15 ii/am diem in agro Josue Bethsamitis. Fuit igitur in agro illius donec in Cariathiarim ducta est. 2 Accharon] Acharon G 4 autem] om. G 6 autem] om. R usque] + sequitur R 7 super] sub R Dei] Domini G 8 vocitata] vocata G 10 distinctionem] ditionem G 11 in Abela] iebela G 15 agro] aero 0 VULGATA 1 Hi] cum EJG; Hii BV 2 Accharon] Accaron BV 5 dicitur] v. 18 7 Dei] Domini BV 11 dicens] II Sam. xx, 18 15 illam diem] sic in Quaestionibus (BV utitur editione Mign.); illa die BV NOTES Unable to profit from modern textual criticism which has solved some of the difficulties here by emending 1:i:ix to l!lX, Pseudo-} erome does his best with the text as it stands. He is aware that the Hebrew 1:i:ix can be translated "mourning" and links the place-name with the catastrophe of v. 19 (cf. Abel-mizraim in Gen. 50, 11, rendered in the Vulgate P!amtus Aegypti). Ginzberg (p. 117 n. 1) refers to Kimhi and Rashi ad foe.

78

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

28.

(c. vi, 19) Et percussit de popuio septuaginta viros et quinquaginta miiia pie bis. O p. 13

In Hebreo ita habetur: "Et percussit de populo septuaginta viros quinquaginta milia viros". Hos septuaginta viros judices septuaginta Hebrei intellegunt, quorum merito et gloriae quinquaginta miiia viri 5 conparabantur, sicut et de David dicitur: Quia ftt unus pro decem milibus computaris. 4 quinquaginta ... viros (2°)] 07ll. G 5 gloriae] gloria G 6 de] ad G VULGATA 1/2 septuaginta ... plebis] h. septuaginta viros quinquaginta milia viros EJG 7Jlarg. 6 dicitur] II Sam. xviii, 3 HEBREW !V'N ~l;iN l:J'!V~n !V'N C':s7!l!V] rendered literally by Pseudo-Jerome NOTES exegesis.

Ginzberg (pp. 20f.) suggests probable Aggadic sources for the Ps.-J.

29.

(c. vii, 2) Et factum est ex qua die mansit archa Domini in Cariathiarim muitiplicati sun! dies. Id est viginti anni. Vicesimo peracto anno, translata est eadem archa a Samuele in Masfath et de Masphat transtulerunt earn Samuel G p. 151 et Saul in Galgala. Incle translata est a Saule in Nobe. De Nobe in 5 R f. 40b Gabaa. De Gabaa translata est a David in domum Obededom. De domo Obededom transtulit earn David in Sion. De Sion transtulit earn Salomon in sancta sanctorum. Et requievit omnis lsrahei post Dominum. Requievisse post Dominum dicuntur quia, abjectis idolorum sordibus, Domino se ad serviendum toto corde tradiderunt, quod 10 et in subsequentibus dicitur: Abstuierunt ft/ii lsrahei Baaiim et Astharoth et servierunt Domino soli. 1 Domini] 07ll. G phat] Masfath 0 Oboededom G

3 Vicesimo] vigesimo 0 4 Masfath] Masphat G Mas6 a] ad G Obededom] Oboededom G 7 Obededom] 11 Astharoth] Astaroth OG

VULGATA 1 Domini] cu7Jl EJG*; 07ll. BV 8 omnis] + domus BV 07lln. codd. 11 dicitur] v. 4 Abstulerunt] +ergo BV NOTES Ginzberg (p. 117 n. 2) points out that Pseudo-Jerome is at variance with the accepted Jewish tradition (Seder Ola7ll Rabba c. xiii) to the effect that the ark remained for 20 years in Cariathiarim (identified with Gabaa) and was then removed by David to Jerusalem via the house of Obededom. Pseudo-Jerome assumes that the ark was housed in all the various sanctuaries mentioned in the book of Samuel. For texts, see I Sam. vii, 1, 2, 5; xi, 15; xxi, 1; II Sam. vi, 3-4, 10, 17.

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

79

30. (c. vii, 6) Et convenerunt in Mqsphat hauseruntque aquam et effuderunt in O p. 14 conspectu Domini. Hebrei tradunt quad coram Domino in eandem aquam maledicta congesta sint, et sicut in lege mulier zelotipica hausta aqua probabatur, 5 ita et hie idolatre hac aqua probati sunt, hi videlicet qui se idola coluisse penitus denegabant. Tradunt etiam quad quicumque idolatra hanc aquam gustasset labia ejus ita sibi adhererent, ut nequaquam earn ab invicem idolatra separare posset. Hoc indicio idolatra deprehendebatur et interficiebatur. Quad et sequentia demonstrant in eo quad ait: G p. 152 10 judicavitque Samuel filios lsrahel in Masphat. Judicare in hoc loco idolatras secundum legem morti tradere intellegendum est. Dicunt etiam quad hoc modo Moyses idolatras qui sibi vitulum fecerant probaverit quando arripuit vitulum et combussit et contrivit usque ad pulverem et sparsit in aquam et dedit ex eo potum filiis Israhel. 1 Masphat] Masfath 0 3 eandem] eundem G aquam] quam OG 4 congesta sint] congessit G probabatur] probatur R * 5 sunt] sint 0 6 denegabant] negabant G 7 gustasset] gustastent O* adhererent] abhererent G 8 separare] separe O* 10 Masphat] Masfath 0 12 Moyses] Moses O* probaverit] probaverint R* VULGATA

13 arripuit] cf. Exod. xxxii, 20

NOTES Ginzberg (pp. 21ff) discusses the Aggadic background to the Quaestio and shows that in Jewish exegesis there is some connexion between the conduct of Moses in Exodus xxxii and the ordeal administered to the woman suspected of adultery (Num. v, 11-31). Pseudo-Jerome's rendering of this material is not a little garbled. It is, however, impossible to establish an Aggadic connexion between either of these cases and the pouring out of water at Masphat. The Jewish exegetic tradition is best represented by the Targum ad. Joe: "they poured out their heart in penitence as water before the Lord". We may again credit Ps.-J. with the manufacture of an "unknown Aggada".

31.

(c. ix, 7) Dixitque Saul ad puerum suum ecce ibimus quid feremus ad

virum.

Non enim putabat Saul sibi asinas a Samuele aliter indicari nisi Op. 15 pretio divinationis. Idea ait: Quid feremus ad virum. VULGATA NOTES

2 virum]

+ Dei

E)G

c 2

Similar to Jewish exegesis in Rashi and Kimhi ad Joe.

80

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

32.

(c. ix, 12) Festina nunc hodie enim venit in civitatem quia sacriftcium est hodie populo in excelso. Sacriftcium in hoc loco prandium intellegitur quod preparaverat Samuel populo in kalendis. 3 preparaverat] prepaverat G VULGATA 1 civitatem] cum @Get muftis codd.; civitate BV populi BV

2 populo] cum

@G;

NOTES Targttm ad foe. renders il~:l:l as N?'1i"1nON 11':l~, i.e. "place of feasting". But the occasion of the New Moon seems to be an original idea of Pseudo-Jerome, probably derived from c. xx below, from which it appears that Saul may have held regular banquets on this feast.

33.

(c. ix, 19-20) Et dimittam te mane et omnia quae sunt in corde tuo indicabo

tibi. Et de asinis quas perdidisti nudiustertius ne sollicitus sis quia inventae sunt. G p. 153

Brat in corde Saul, sicut Hebraei tradunt, quod rex futurus esset, quia viderat per visum se in vertice arboris palmae conlocari, quae visio 5 signum regale erat. 2 asinis] asinas O* VULGA TA

1 dimittam] h. mittam

@G

marg.

NOTES Sicut Hebraei tradunt is probably false, especially as Ginzberg (p. 117) can find no Aggadic source for this Quaestio.

34. (c. x, 3) Cumque abieris inde et ultra transieris et veneris ad quercum Tabor

invenient te ibi tres viri ascendentes ad Deum in Bethel.

Hii viri causa orationis ibant Bethel ubi Iacob lapidem erexerat. 1 veneris] venes O*; venies 0 c 2 2 invenient] invenien G* Dominum R Bethel] Betel R 3 Hii] Hi OG VULGATA NOTES

Deum]

1 Tabor] Thabor BV

Kimhi ad foe. also refers to Jacob at Bethel (Gen. xxviii, 18-19).

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

81

35. (c. x, 5) Post haec venies ad col/em Dei. Collis Dei locus erat ubi prophetae habitabant. VULGATA HEBREW

1 ad] in BV omn. codd. C'il,Nil Tll1:Jl]

=

Dei] cum EJG c 2; Domini EJG*, BV

collis Dei

NOTES The standard Jewish exegesis naturally identifies C'il,Nil Tll1:Jl with Gabaa or Cariathiarim (see above no. 29n), where the Ark was deposited. The occurence of statio Philistinorum both here and in c. xiii, 4 below, makes the identification with Gabaa almost certainly correct.

36.

(c. x, 6) Et insiliet in te spiritus Domini et prophetabis cum eis.

Prophetasse eum ibi Judaei dicunt de futuro saeculo, de Gog et Magog et de premiis justorum et poena impiorum. 1 Domini] Dei G

3 de] om. G

NOTES Ginzberg (p. 117 n. 3) suggests a possible confusion by Ps.-J. with the earlier prophecies of Eldad and Medad (Num. xi, 26-9), who, according to Jewish tradition prophesied on these subjects. It may well be that Ps.-J. was turned in this direction by the use of the reflexive participle C'N:Jln~ both here (v. 5) and in the case of Eldad and Medad. This word gives the sense of a prophetic frenzy, as it were "acting the prophet".

37. (c. x, 7) Quando ergo venerint signa haec omnia tibi Jae quaecumque invenerit 0 p. 16 manus tua quia Deus tecum est.

Ac si diceret: His signis nosse poteris quia Deus te regem fore voluit, R f. 41a et idcirco ad omnia quae tibi agenda sunt regaliter age quia Deus 5 tecum est. 1 ergo] ego R *

VULGATA EJG*, BV

1 venerint] cum EJG; evenerint BV

2 Deus] cum EJG c 2; Dominus

NOTES The Targum and Rashi ad Joe. equally see in this verse an allusion to the future kingship of Saul. 6

82

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

38/46.

(c. x, 8) Et descendes ante me in Ga/gala ego quippe descendam ad te ut offeras oblationem et immoles victimas pacificas septem diebus expectabis donec veniam ad te et ostendam tibi quae facias. Videtur quibusdam inculpabiliter Saul obtulisse holocaustum cum Samuel ab eo expectatus juxta placitum septem dierum non venerit. 5 Quod qui hunc locum bene distinxerit, inveniet eum non inmerito culpatum fuisse et inoboedientiae redargutum. Locus autem hie apud Hebreos ita distinguitur: Et descendes ante me in Ga/gala, ego quippe descendam ad te. Et postea infertur: ad offerendas oblationes et immolandas victimas pacificas septem diebus. Expectabis donec veniam ad te et ostendam 10 0 p. 17 tibi quae facias. Non ergo Samuel suum praestolari adventum Sauli septem dierum tempore praecepit, sed ad offerendas oblationes et immolandas victimas pacificas se ab eo eisdem septem diebus voluit expectari. Quod ille nequaquam fecit et ideo merito culpatur et stultitiae eologio denotatur. 15

G p. 154

1 descendam] decendam O* ad] a R 2 immoles] ymmoles 0 pacificas] om. G 5 dierum] om. G 6 distinxerit] distincxerit R inveniet] invenerit G 7 autem] om. R 9 infertur] subinfertur G 11 Sauli] Saul G 12/ 13 immolandas] oblationes G 14 eologio] eulogio G

+

VULGATA 1/2 ut ... pacificas] h. ad offerendas (oblationes) et immolandas victimas pacificas @G marg. NOTES This Quaestio should be read in conjunction with c. xiii, 13-stulte egisti-and in fact Rabanus and other medieval exegetes who make use of it transfer the Quaestio to c. xiii, 9, where the question of Samuel's apparent delay in arriving can be more appropriately dealt with. There does not seem to be any trace of this interpretation in Jewish exegesis, but as a result of the reception of Pseudo-Jerome, it was commonly accepted in Christian circles as the standard Jewish "literal" interpretation.

39. (c. x, 12) Responditque alter ad alterum dicens et quis pater eorum. G p. 155

Ac si diceret: et quis major illo in dignitate et in sapientia? Optime enim potest inter prophetas versari et pater eorum, id est magister, vocari qui tam doctus et sapiens est. Pater magister vocatur sicut Heliseus Heliam patrem, id est magistrum, vocat - Pater mi pater mi 5 2 optime] obtime 0 VULGATA

1 alter] cum @G c 2; alius @G*, BV

5 Heliseus] II Kings, ii, 12

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

83

currus lsrahe! et auriga ijus. Et in libro lob, Eliu Eliphaz patrem, id est magistrum, vocat hoc modo - Pater mi probetur lob usque ad finem. 6 Eliphaz] Elifaz 0

7 ad] in 0

VULGATA 6 lob] c. xxxiv, 36 NOTES Ginzberg (p. 117) classifies this as an "unknown Aggada". In the MSS, no. 43 follows immediately.

40. (c. x, 25) Locutus est autem Samuel ad popu!um !egem regni.

Hebreus: "judicium regni". Et reposuit coram Domino. Coram Domino, id est coram archa Domini quae erat in Masfa. 2 judicium] indicium 0 VULGATA

regni] om. R

1 legem] h. judicium

E)G

3 est] om. G

Masfa] Masphat G

marg.

NOTES Pseudo-Jerome, in his capacity as Hebraist to Theodulf, makes a not unworthy effort to standardize Biblical legal terminology. The following are taken from his marginal annotations to MS E)G: :1'1i1'1 lex (Num. xix, 2) 'O!:l!Zn-' = judicium (Num. xxvii, 11, 21; Deut. iv, 5; I Sam. x, 25) :ipn = legitimum (Lev. xxvi, 15, 43; Num. xv, 15, xix, 10, xxvii, 11) 1'1'17-'!Z.'~ = custodia (Lev. xxii, 9). For the alleged location of the Ark, see above no. 29n.

41. (c. xii, 11) Et misit Do minus Gerobaa! et Bedan et leptha et S amue! et eruit vos de manu inimicorum vestrorum per circuitum. lerobaa! ipse est Gedeon, et Bedan ipse est Sampson. 1 Bedan] Badan G Ieptha] Iepthae 0 0 Sampson] Samson OG VULGATA

1 Gerobaal] Hierobaal BV,

2 vos] eos RG

3 Gedeon] Iedeon

E)G

NOTES Ginzberg (p. 117) classifies this Quaestio as an "unknown Aggada". But there is nothing new in these identifications, the former being actually of Biblical origin-Jgitur Ierobaal qui et Gedeon (Iud. vii, 1). The Hebrew li~ can be translated "in Dan" or be regarded as a contraction of li l ~. "son of Dan". As Bedan does not occur in any other place he was identified with Samson, a member of the tribe of Dan (see the Targum, Rashi and Kimhi ad foe.). The Septuagint reading Barac(h), which infiltrated into many of the Vulgate MSS as an alternative to Bedan, does not occur in the Theodulfine MSS and would appear to be unknown to Pseudo-Jerome.

0 p.18

84

QUAESTIONES HEBRAICAE IN LIBRUM I SAMUELIS

42.

(c. xii, 14) Si timueritis Dominum et servieritis et et audieritis vocem tjus et non exasperaveritis os Domini. G p. 156

Os Domini