Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:14:43.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Hebrew Polemical Treatise*: Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Frank Talmage
Frank Talmage
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Milḥemet Ḥobah (Obligatory War), a collection of polemical treatises published at Constantinople in 1710, contains a tract entitled “Disputation of Rabbi David Kimhi” (Wikuaḥ ha-Ra-DaḲ). The ascription of this work to Kimhi has been a subject of some discussion. J. D. Eisenstein, who published the text in his anthology, Oẓar Wikuḥim, and Salo Baron have apparently accepted it as genuine without reservations. Suler in his article in the Encyclopedia Judaica considered it to be basically the work of Kimhi with interpolations. On the other hand, A. Geiger and L. Finkelstein have completely rejected the possibility of Kimhi's authorship. None of these authorities has brought support for his conclusions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , July 1967 , pp. 323 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (New York, 1928), 78–81.

2 A Social and Religious History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1957), V, 339, n.38Google Scholar.

3 IX, 1237.

4 Proben Jued. Verteidigung gegen christliche Angriffe, Deutscher Volkskalendar und Jahrbuch (1851), 44–51.

5 The Commentary of David Kimhi on Isaiah (New York, 1926), xx, n.3Google Scholar.

6 MḤ, 18b, trans., line 352.

7 On the authorship of the Sefer ha-Berit, see Ersch and Gruber, sec. II, XXVII, 410, n.33; Levy, A., Die Exegese bei den Französischen Israeliten von 10 bis 14 Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1873), 74Google Scholar; Rosenthal, J. (ed.), Milḥamot ha-Shem (Jerusalem, 1963), xxiiGoogle Scholar.

8 Trans., lines 1–61.

9 Trans., lines 72–101.

10 Trans., lines 102–372.

11 Trans., lines 62–71.

12 The critical editions are: Esterson, S. I. (ed.), The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Psalms (Cincinnati, 1935)Google Scholar; Bosniak, J. (ed.), The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on the Fifth Book of the Psalms (New York, 1951)Google Scholar; Schiller-Szinnesy, S. M., The First Book of the Psalms with the Longer Commentary of R. David Qimchi (Cambridge, 1883)Google Scholar.

13 Printed with the Sefer ha-Niẓaḥon of R. Yom Tob Lippmann Muelhausen (1542), 196–201.

14 Cf. Saadiah ben Joseph Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions, VIII. 8; Alain de l'Isle, De Fide Catholica, III. 11f., PL CCX, 4101.; Jacob b. Reuben, Milḥamot ha-Shem (ed. Rosenthal), 158ff.; Disputation of Nahmanides in Eisenstein, Oẓar, 90, 92; Martini, R., Pugio Fidei (Leipzig, 1667), IIGoogle Scholar; Lopez, A. Pacios, La Disputa de Tortosa (Barcelona, 1957), I, 241ffGoogle Scholar.

15 The arguments concerning Jesus' divinity, lines 268–82, 353–72; Lucifer, trans., lines 200–06, 331–51; redemption after fifty-five hundred years, trans., lines 283–90, 312–27; the virgin birth, trans., lines 234–67, 328–30.

16 Trans., lines 352ff.

16a Cf. the remark of Innocent III concerning the heretics: “non solum ab orthodoxae fidei veritate, verum etiam a naturalis rationis judicio est penitus alienum … Non solum evangelicam veritatem impugnat, verum etiam philosophicam doctrinam evertit, quae tradit, unum esse universorum, tam visibilium quam invisibilium creatorem” (Epis. X, 54, PL CCXV, 1147). Cf. C. Schmidt, Histoire, ii, 4f. Priests felt themselves on safer grounds in arguments ad literam and encouraged their flocks not to involve themselves in rational arguments. Cf. Güdemann, Ha-Torah we-ha-Ḥayyim, II, 31; cf. also Martène-Durand, , Thes. Nov. Anec. (Paris, 1717), V, 1567Google Scholar; Hist. Litt. de la France, XIII, 365.

17 The transliterations are consistent with North Italian laʻazim (vernacular terms cited in Hebrew texts), such as those found in the Maḳre Dardeḳe, a fourteenth-century Hebrew-Italian-Arabic lexicon. (Cf. Schwab, M., Le Maqré Dardeqé, Revue des Etudes Juives XVI (1888), 253–68Google Scholar; XVII (1888), 111–24; 285–95; XVIII (1889), 108–17.) Thus ce, ci, and z are represented by ẓade, (וליצ caelo; יציא ecce; ינויצירוק corruzione) and ti by samek (היםארג gratia; cf. Maqré Dardeqé, אייסנילוביכיב). Italian terms employed are ינויציריק (corruzione), יזיל ארוטאנ (legge natura[?]), אטירקםיאניא יזיל (legge in[e]scritta), אקילגנביא יזיל (legge evangelica), וליצניא ים יאוק ירטשונ ירטפ (Patre nostre che sêi in cielo). The representation of intervocalic g by zain is also characteristically Italian. The Italian Jews pronounced initial or strengthened yod like soft g but intervocalic yod was usually elided. Thus יייל would be a misreading while יגיל with the gimel would imply a hard g. Consequently, the zain was employed. In the Maḳre Dardeḳe, all three possibilities are found. (ויופא appoggio; יריגנויא aggiungere; יריליגא agilire; יגיל legge, יריזיל leggiere). Use of zain for intervocalic g is attested elsewhere in Judeo-Italian. (Cf. Schwab, , REJ XVIII (1889), 115Google Scholar). In אקיליגנביא, the gimel is retained under the influence of the n (Maḳre Dardeḳe: יריגניטא attingere; יריגנארפא afrangere). Two of the words (ינויצירוק, שאטנילוו) represent u by yod, an indication of umlaut which was a feature of North Italian speech. Cf. Maḳre Dardeḳe, אגינמ manuga, אטיפש sputo, ילובאריט turibile. The transliteration of the s in Dominus by taw is probably a scribal error. In no Judeo-Romance dialect did spirantized taw have the value of s. (Could the typesetter at Constantinople have been an Ashkenazic Jew?) It may be noted further that s is represented by sin or samek indiscriminately as in most Judeo-Romance dialects. David Kimhi himself, who was raised in the Hispano-Arabic tradition, recognized the distinction between shin and samek. (Cf. Comm. to Judges, 12.6).

18 See below, trans., lines 156ff., and note.

19 Biblical exegetes especially knew the Vulgate and criticized its “corruptions.” Cf. Comm. of R. Samuel b. Meir, Ex. 20.13, Lev. 19.19; Comm. of David Kimhi, Isa. 2.22, Ps. 2.6, 22.17, 110.1, 110.3. Curious is the report of the Book of the Pious (Sefer ha-Ḥasidim) (ed. R. Margoliot [Jerusalem, 1956–57], 200) that Jews would learn Latin psalms in order to pass as Christians. Jacob B. Reuben, the twelfthcentury polemicist, made extensive use of the Vulgate and was the first Jew to compose a formal critique of the Gospels. Cf. Milḥamot ha-Shem, xv, 62, 131f., 141–56. See further M. Stern, A Disputation on Moneylending between Jews and Gentiles in Meir b. Simeon's Milhemeth Miṣwah, JJS X (1959), 48f.

20 Borst, A., Die Katharer (Stuttgart, 1953)Google Scholar.

21 Schmidt, C., Histoire et Doctrine des Cathares ou Albigeois (Geneva, 1849)Google Scholar.

22 Trans., lines 102–13.

23 Trans., lines 110ff.

24 On Gen. of Animals, III. 6.5.

25 The notion was applied in these works to the weasel. Cf. M. Wellmann, Der Physiologus, Philologus, Supp. XXII (1930), 27f. Hadas, M., Aristeas to Philocrates (New York, 1951), 164Google Scholar; Hadas observes that this motif reappeared in Rabelais and Molière.

26 Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia Dogmatica, PG CXXX, 1301f.; The Vision of Isaiah (ed. D. Roché), Cahiers des Etudes Cathares XXXIII (1958), 41; Runciman, S., The Medieval Manichee (New York, 1961), 76Google Scholar; C. Schmidt, Histoire, II, 41f.; A. Borst, Katharer, 163; Obolensky, D., The Bogomils (Cambridge, 1948), 211Google Scholar.

27 Schmidt, Histoire, II, 41f.

28 See above, n.26. In Manichaean docetism, the earth conceived and brought forth Jesus. Augustine, Contra Faustum, XX, CSEL, 548f. Cf. T. H. Baxter, St. Maximus Contra Judaeos: Parallels in Earlier Writers, Journal of Theological Studies XXI (1920), 176.

29 D. Obolensky, Bogomils, 228.

30 Benoist, J., Histoire des Albigeois et des Vaudois (Paris, 1961), I, 290Google Scholar.

31 Trans., lines 125–52.

32 Borst, Katharer, 164f.; Schmidt, Histoire, II, 241.

33 Alain de l'Isle, De Fide Catholica, I.21f., PL CCX, 323f.; Moneta, , Adversus Catharos et Valdenses (ed. Richinius, T. A.; Rome, 1743), 257ffGoogle Scholar.

34 Bab. Tal., Niddah, 9a. Arist., Hist. Anim., VII, 3, 21; Galen, Opera (ed. Kuhn), XV, 393f., XVIIA, 454f.; Albertus Magnus, De Animalibus, III.ii.9 (ed. Borgenet, 1891), IX, 255; Avicenna, I, 709, 908; Abbas, Ibn, Trois Traités d'anatomie Arabes (ed. Koning, ; Leiden, 1890), 419Google Scholar; Moses ben Maimon, Pirḳe Mosheh, CCXI; cf. Fasbender, H., Geschichte der Geburtshilfe (Jena, 1906), 23Google Scholar, 52; Preuss, J., Biblisch Talmudisch Medizin (Berlin, 1911), 470fGoogle Scholar.

35 Trans., lines 283–90, 312–27.

36 Ch. xix.

37 Vita Adae et Evae, xlii; cf. the Ethiopic Adam Book in Ewald's Jahrbücher der Biblischen Wissenschaft V (1852–53), 14.

38 Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia, PG CXXX, coll. 1293, 1301; Runciman, Manichee, 74.

39 Clement, Stromata, I.21; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, III.28.

40 Ginzberg, L., Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1947), V, 82Google Scholar.

41 Disputation of Nahmanides in Eisenstein, Oẓar, 92f.; Lorki, Controversy, ibid., 99; Yom Tob Lippmann Muelhausen, Sefer ha-Niẓaḥon, VIII. On the other hand, certain Syriac Mss. of the N.T. relate Jesus' birth to Joseph, thereby countering the Virgin Birth. Cf. Williams, A. L., Adversus Judaeos (Cambridge, 1935), 70Google Scholar.

42 Moneta, Adversus Catharos, 233; St. Ambrose, Expositio Evang. Sec. Luc., III, PL XV, 1590; cf. St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, XXIII, CSEL XXV, 713ff. Compare the statement of Jacob ben Reuben (Milḥamot ha-Shem, ed. Rosenthal, 143): “Every woman may pass from her father's tribe to another except one who inherits a legacy. Since this legacy cannot pass to another tribe, who can prove that she was of the family of David, for she could have married into one of the other families of Judah?”

43 Moneta, ibid., 250: “Istum articulum multipliciter impugnat Haereticus: dicit enim quod non est de ea ut matre in veritate, sed putative; Sicut enim scriptura dicit Mariam Christi Matrem ita et Joseph ejus patrem appellat, et tamen Joseph non erat ejus Pater, sed putabatur.”

44 Faustus of Mileve, Capitula de Christiana Fide et Veritate, ed. P. Monceaux, in Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres XLIII (1933), 47f.

45 Schmidt, Histoire, II, 40f.; Borst, Katharer, 164.

46 Trans., lines 153–72, 193–99.

47 PL XXVI, 88f. Cf. Martini, Pugio Fidei, III, 17, 873ff.

48 Obolensky, Bogomils, 210. Alain de l'Isle was apparently uncertain about the Cathar viewpoint on this doctrine: “Forsitan dicent, Joannem non super hoc dubitasse, sed utrum Christus esset ille mittendus ad redimendum genus humanum.” De Fide Catholica I.16, PL CCX, 320.

49 De Fide Catholica, I.15, PL CCX, 319f. Cf. Moneta, Adversus Catharos, 381f.

50 Borst, Katharer, 147.

51 Trans., lines 207–27.

52 Comm. to Matt., PL XXVI, 72: “Et est sensus; manda mihi, quia ad inferna descensurus sum, utrum te et inferis debeam nuntiare, qui nuntiavi superis? An non conveniat Filio Dei, ut gustet mortem, et alium ad haec sacramenta missurus es?” Cf. Alain de l'Isle, De Fide Catholica, I.16, PL CCX, 320: “vel Joannes sub forma dubitationis, expressit affectum pietatis et compassionis, cum ait, ‘Tu es qui venturus es?’ quasi dicat: ‘Tu qui talis ac tantus es, jam te humiliasti, ut nostram infirmitatem assumeres, et ad inferos descensurus es!’ Manifestum est ergo Christum ad inferos descendisse et animas sanctorum ab inferis liberasse.”

53 Jerome, ibid.; Gospel of Nicodemus, II.

54 Obolensky, Bogomils, 228, 239; Borst, Katharer, 59ff.

55 Borst, ibid.

56 Moneta, Adversus Catharos, 229f. Cf. Ebrardus, Liber Antihaeresis, XIII, MBVP XXIV, 1554f.

57 Interesting is the attempt of Yom Tob Lippmann Muelhausen (15th c.) to show that Hebrew ʻalma does not mean “virgin” but that Latin virgo does not have that meaning either. J. Kaufmann, Rabi Yom Tob Lippmann Muelhausen (New York, 1926/7), 55. Cf. Tertullian's connection of virga (Isa.9.1) with virgo, Williams, Adversus Judaeos, 70.

58 Trans., lines 234–67, 328–30.

59 The history of this question is presented in Graef, H., Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion (London, 1963), 14ffGoogle Scholar. et passim. Cf. St. Leo, Sermo XXI, PL LIV, 192; S. Paschasius Radbertus, De Partu Virginis, PL CCX, 1367; Martini, Pugio Fidei, III.8.6ff., 759ff. Cf. Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, IX, 2(1927), 2375. A similar argument appears in Leon de Modena, Magen wa-Ḥereb, IV.2.

60 Martène-Durand, Thes. Nov. Anec., V, 1732ff.

61 Trans., lines 268–82, 353–72.

62 Cf. Simon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran, Controversy, in Eisenstein, Oẓar, 122; Comm., of David Ḳimḥi, ps. 2, end; Rosenthal (ed.), Milḥamot, 64f.

63 Moneta, Adversus Catharos, 238.

64 Schmidt, Histoire, II, 31ff.; Moneta, Adv. Cath., 237ff. The Syriac father Aphraates came dangerously close to this view. “So also we call the Christ the Son of God for through him we have gained the knowledge of God even as he called Israel ‘My first born son,’ and as he said concerning Solomon, ‘He shall be to me a son.’ And we call Him God, even He surnamed Moses by his own name.” Taḥwiṯa deʻal meshiḥa da-ḇreh we-d'alahah (Demon. XVII.4), PS I, 789ff.; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., XIII, 387f.

65 Trans., lines 291–311.

66 Cf. Romans, 6–8; M. W. Bloomfield, Joachim of Flora, Traditio XIII (1957), 275, and the literature there cited. Cf. also St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, II.I. Q.106, art. 3. This is not to be confused with the historical ages of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as conceived by Joachim of Flora and the Brethren of the Free Spirit.

67 Schmidt, Histoire, II, 20ff.; Borst, Katharer, 156ff.

68 Cf. Augustine, Contra Faustum VI, CSEL XXV, 285: “quod ergo obicis, tibi mecum commune est, sive crimen putandum seu recte factum, uterque enim nostrum vetus respuit testamentum. Ergo si quod intersit inter meam fidem quaeris et tuam, hoc, quia tibi mentiri libet et inliberaliter agere, ut quod mente oderis, verbo conlaudes, ego fallere non didici, quod sentio, loquor, tam turpium odisse me fateor praeceptores quam ipsa praecepta.”

69 Apparently unique in normative Christianity is the position of Ibn Al-Maḥruma, a fourteenth-century Christian Arab polemicist, who in his arguments against Judaism completely rejected and vilified the Mosaic Law. Cf. M. Perlmann, Ibn Al-Maḥruma: A Christian Opponent of Kammuna, Ibn, in Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1965), 642–65Google Scholar.

70 Alain de l'Isle, De Fide Catholica, III.6, PL CCX, 407. “Intendunt etiam probare legem Mosaicam non esse abolitam sed adhuc esse observandam in hunc modum: si lex bona est, et a Deo data est, observanda est; nullum enim alias decretum observandum, si Dei mandatum non observandum. Quod si partem Christiani excipiunt, et aliam observandam esse dicunt, dent nobis consilium quomodo illud effugiemus maledictum: ‘Maledictus homo qui non permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunt in lege’ (Deut. 27). Legislator nihil excipit, sed universaliter omnia mandata observari praecipit; Christiani autem ad suum arbitrium legis et mandatorum observantiam determinant.” His reply is (ch. 7) “ea vero divino intellectu intelligenda erant, quae si ad litteram accipimus multa sibi repugnantia videmus.” Cf. the treatment of this question in Hugonis Archiepiscopi Rotomagensis Dialogum, V.8 (ed. Martène, 954f.); Ebrardus, Liber Antihaeresis, XXIV, MBVP XXIV, 1570f.

71 Alain de l'Isle, De Fide Catholica, I.36, PL CCX, 337f.; Ebrardus, Liber Antihaeresis, If., MBVP XXIV, 1526ff.

72 Cf. Lods, A., La Chute des Anges, Rev. d'hist. et de phil. rel. VII(1927), 275–315Google Scholar; Jung, L., Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian, and Mohammedan Literature, JQR XV(1924–25), 499fGoogle Scholar.

73 Döllinger, I. v., Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters (Munich, 1890), 845ff.Google Scholar; Borst, Katharer, 144f.; Moneta, Adversus Catharos, 57ff.; Alain de l'Isle, De Fide Catholica, PL CCX, 316; Obolensky, Bogomils, 208f.; Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia, PG CXXX, 1296.

74 Alain de l'Isle, De Fide, I.13f., PL CCX, 318f.: “Quibus auctoritatibus probatur, quod aliqui spiritus angelici remanserint in coelo. Quod autem aliqui spiritus angelici remanserint in coelo, insinuat Joannes in Apocalypsi dicens, quod draco traxit secum tertiam partem stellarum (Apoc. xii). Draconem vocat Luciferum; stellas, angelos in empyreo coelo creatos. Non autem omnes traxit, sed tertiam partem. Fuerunt enim inter angelos quidam superbientes ut Lucifer et alii quidam majores; alii, pravae eorum voluntati consentientes; alii non contradicentes, et omnes istos Lucifer traxit ad se ipsum, per pravum consensum.

Dominus etiam in Evangelio de parvulis loquens, ait quod: Angeli eorum in coelis, semper vident faciem Patris vestri qui in coelis est (Matth. xviii). Hoc de malis angelis intelligi non potest, videre enim faciem Patris, est divina visione perfrui, quod malis angelis convenire non potest; de bonis ergo intelligendum est. Sed ubi sunt qui vident faciem Patris nisi in coelo? ergo aliqui spiritus sunt in coelo….

Eadem ratione sic probatur: Angeli omnes a Deo creati fuerunt in coelo; si ergo omnes per peccatum lapsi essent de coelo injustitiae posset redargui Dominus vel impietatis si sciens omnes angelos esse lapsuros, eos creasset. Opportunum fuit, ut sicut in aversis apparuit Dei justitia, ita appareret in conversis Dei misericordia.

Sed forte obicient adversarii: Si plures angeli remanserunt in coelo, non videtur homo esse factus ad supplendum numerum angelorum.

Ad quod dicimus: Etiamsi angelus non cecidisset, tamen homo creatus fuisset quia plures salvabuntur homines, quam sint angeli qui ceciderunt, et ita non propter supplendam ruinam tantum, sed potius ad coelestem Hierusalem exornandam, et ex diversorum graduum civibus, quasi ex diversis parietibus, componendam, homo creatus est. Decens enim fuit, ut tam corporea quam incorporea natura divinae bonitatis particeps fieret, et ea frueretur, et feliciter viveret. Forsitan dicent, quod quidam angeli boni sunt, sed de coelo cum aliis lapsi sunt; sed quomodo passi sunt lapsum; qui non sunt lapsi in peccatum.” For another approach, see Gregory of Florence, Disputatio inter Catholicum et Paterinum Haereticorum, Thes. Nov. Anec., V. 1724ff.

75 Trans., lines 200–06, 331–51.

76 Ginzberg, Legends, V, 84ff.; Jung, L., JQR XV(1924–25), 499ffGoogle Scholar. A late midrash stressed that angels were created without the ability to rebel. Cf. Isaac or Corbeille, Sefer ha-Miẓwot ha-Ḳaṭan, liiii; Tanḥuma (ed. Buber), Introd. 76b.

77 S. Baron, History, V, 132; J. Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews.

78 Gustave Saige, historian of Provençal Jewry, noted that “There should be in the works of the Rabbis which must be investigated, more certain traces. Here is an unexplored field for the scholar versed in Rabbinical studies,” cited in Newman, L. I., Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925), 140Google Scholar.

79 Obolensky, Bogomils, 241. Repeatedly, Papal decretals and statements of the Inquisition condemned Jew and heretic. Cf. S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century (Philadelphia, 1933), 304f.; J. Vaissette, Histoire Générale de Languedoc (Toulouse, 1872–92), VI, 674. Physical persecution of the heretics carried with it similar treatment for the Jews. Judah Ibn Verga testified that, when the Albigensian crusade reached Beziers in 1209, two hundred Jews were massacred along with the heretics — an event by no means isolated. (Cf. Shebet Yehudah, ed. Wiener, 113.) The symbolic fusion of Jew with heretic in the mind of the Catholics was represented in both word and deed. In Cologne, for example, heretics were appropriately burnt outside the Jewish cemetery. (Borst, Katharer, 94.) However, despite their common sufferings, ideology took precedence over convenience, and no alliance was forthcoming. The heretics on more than one occasion took pleasure in condemning the Jews to hell. (Borst, Katharer, 141, 173.) The reaction of the Jews to the heretics, if one may judge from our text, was no more favorable. On the relations between the Cathari and the Waldensians, see Lea, H. C., A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (New York, 1922), I, 82Google Scholar.

80 Rosenthal (ed.), Milḥamot ha-Shem, xix; Baron, History, V, 112.‥ ….

81 H. C. Lea, History of the Inquisition, I, 118ff.

82 Thus do we find the thirteenth-century Christian controversialist, Lucas of Tuy, complaining: “Liberius tanquam Judaei haereses seminant, qui primo verbum haeresis dicere non audebant. Audiunt seculi princeps ac iudices urbium doctrinam haeresum a Judaeis quos familiares sibi annumerant ac amicos. Si aliquis ducatus zelo legis Dei aliquem horum exasperauit, punitur quasi qui tangit pupillam oculi iudicis ciuitatis. Hi docent alios Judaeos suas blasphemias contra Christianos proponere, ut sic fidem Catholicam pervertere possint.” De Altera Vita Fideique Controversiis Adversus Albigensium Errores, MBVP XXV, 241; Guibert of Nogent openly ascribed the origin of the Christian heresies to the Jews. Cf. Guibert of Nogent, Hist. Vit. Suae, PL CLVI, 903f., 949; B. Monod, Juifs, Sorciers, et Hérétiques au Moyen Age, REJ XLVI (1903), 244f.

83 C. Schmidt, Histoire, I, 150, 162ff.; Another Italian Jewish writer, Jacob Anatoli, was acquainted with the Italian Cathari or Paterini. Cf. Malmad ha-Talmidim (Lyck, 1866), 98.

84 Numbers in brackets refer to page of manuscript. Numbers at the bottom of the following pages refer to lines in this translation as printed.

2. Ps. 22.22.

4. Ps. 22.1.

1–29. Cf. Comm. of David Ḳimḥi to Psalms, ps. 22, end.

30–45. Ibid., ps. 2, end.

31. Ps. 2.8.

46–61. Ibid., ps. 2, end; ps. 72, end.

47. Ps. 2.9.

48. Ps. 72.8.

53. Ps. 72.11.

65. Num. 2.2.

72. Heb. eḥad me-ḥakme hạ-ẓʻirim. In commenting upon this passage, Goldstein, M. (Jesus in the Jewish Tradition [New York, 1950], 86Google Scholar) erroneously remarked, “He carries on a debate with a young Christian scholar.” Ẓeʻirim was the Hebrew designation for the Franciscans or Friars Minor. Cf. Ḳimḥi's second letter to Alfakar, Judah, Ḳobeẓ Teshubot Ha-RaMBaM (Leipzig, 1859), 4bGoogle Scholar.

83. Isa. 11.12.

87. Ez. 28.25f., 37–35, ch. 40ff.; Zach. 6.12; Isa. 28.16, 54.2.

91. Isa. 9.6.

94. Ps. 72.1

97. Ps. 72.11, 8.

101. Cf. Isa. 2.4, Mic. 4.3.

117. Cf. Lev. 15.19ff.

152. Prov. 9.9.

156. Ps. 24.7.

158. The author is apparently referring to a reading found in the Psalterium Mediolanense sen Ambrosianum, edited by Weber, R. in Le Psautier Romain (Rome, 1953)Google Scholar. The text there reads, “Tollite portas principis vestri,” an apparently erroneous variant for “Tollite portas principes vestri,” a reading found in other translations which follow the Hebrew. The Vulgate, following the Septuagint, reads: “Attollite portas principes vestras.”

171. Job 7.9f.

197. Dan. 12.12.

210. Cf. Matt. 17.20.

212. Cf. Matt. 3.3.

215. Cf. John 1.29.

217. Recadores is a corruption of Rex Herodes.

220. Luke 7.18.

221. Cf. Luke 7.22.

222. A form of gambling. Cf. Mishnah Sanhedrin III.3.

233. Cf. John 5.31, 8.13. “Pharisei” is misplaced from the beginning of John 8.13.

250. Matt. 1.1.

251. Matt. 1.16.

258. Matt. 2.13.

261. Cf. Luke 2.22.

277. II Sam. 7.14f.

290. Ps. 90.4.

301. Deut. 4.2.

302. Deut. 13.1.

303. Ps. 18.9.

308. Matt. 5.17.

318. Ps. 103.8f.

320. Ps. 103.17.

325. Sanhedrin 97a.

339. Isa. 14.12ff.

346. Job 20.2.

350. Ps. 103.19ff.

360. Ex. 4.22, Deut. 14.1.

361. II Sam. 7.14.

363. Ps. 82.6.

368. Deut. 32.1, 6; Job 38.7.