Rabbi David Kimhi of Narbonne - 1160-1235

The thesis topic was arrived at before knowing what fund of information was available, without any kind of collegiality I can remember (some of that came later) - without having discussed it with anyone in official position to tell me whether that was a good, or adequate, or possible dissertation topic for the University of Tübingen. All I knew is that I was committed to it - I was intrigued by it, and in fear and trembling I was committing myself to doing it. I had been in Germany 6 months, and officially in the University a little over 2 months.

I picked my dissertation topic by myself, in isolation. The most dramatic aspect of my isolation was my lack of the German language, which was gradually being overcome. Building a sense of collegiality was a slow process and contained more obstacles than I have could have imagined.

Taking the Sonderzug to Nuremberg

In my seminar on Nuremberg, there was a gradual thawing of relationship when a number of us took the Sonderzug (special train) to the Kriskringlemarkt in Nuremberg. I was the only non-German in the class, which was more or less always the case. This special train was scheduled especially for the annual Christmas Fair in Nuremberg. A number of us used this trip to wander the streets of Nuremberg and visit some of the cathedrals of the Reformation, and various other buildings, including a former monastery.

The 'sub-theme' of the trip for me was to get to know my classmates a little better, and to practise my German, which was getting more fluent, particularly with some good German wine. 'Better' is a relative term. Fluency for me meant throwing the niceties of German grammar to the wind, and simply launching into long discussions in my German language, which sounded atrocious to those around me who had pride in their German language. But I could make myself understood.

Johannes Reuchlin of Pforzheim - 1455-1522

My trip to Pforzheim, the birthplace of Johannes Reuchlin, was instigated by a classmate who wanted some furniture moved and asked me to help with my van. On the way we visited the Reuchlin Library in Pforzheim, the birthplace of Johannes Reuchlin, which was not far from Tübingen.

Johannes Reuchlin concluded his teaching career teaching Hebrew in Tübingen, before he died in 1522. The story of Johannes Reuchlin, the humanist who provided the tools for so many of the Reformers to study the Hebrew language, was filled with many interesting twists and ironies for me. I love the twists and ironies of history! They reveal the characters as real people!

Reuchlin never left the Roman Catholic Church. He was at enmity with Martin Luther, who had sent the occasional letter to him. He was also the uncle of Philip Melanchthon, and was against Philip going to Wittenberg to join Luther. Melanchthon remained in Wittenberg as the successor of Luther in his aspect of the Reformation.

de Rudimentis Hebraicis

One of the legacies for me from Johannes Reuchlin was de Rudimentis Hebraicis (Pforzheim: Thomas Anselm, 1506). I was able to handle original copies of this most fascinating book. Before I left Germany I had ordered a full microfilm of this book, which is 620 pages long.

Some of the amazing aspects of this book:

1. It is written mainly in Latin, but with about 10% of its content in Hebrew.

2. When you open it you are greeted with a verse in Latin which tells you that you are beginning at the wrong end, because, you must know, the Hebrew language is written from the other end and right to left. So even though the book is in Latin, which runs left to right, front to back, just as English does, this book is written in "Hebrew word order". But only in the fact that it starts at the other end, there was no way of making Latin run right to left. The Hebrew examples do!

3. It is a beautifully printed book, by any standards. More the remarkable because it is only 50 years since the Gutenberg Bible was printed - "modern" printing was only 50 years old!

4. It was not the only Hebrew grammar for Christians or even the earliest. It was, for many reasons, the best. Konrad Pellican had produced a primer in 1504, but in comparison with de Rudimentis Hebraicis Pellican's grammar was primitive and rude. Reuchlin's was a fine document with sufficient explanation for a person working on his own to become proficient in Hebrew to a fairly advanced level, using mainly the universal fluency of intellectuals in the Latin language.

Martin Luther taught himself the Hebrew language from this book. This fact is proven in this way: The great collection of the works of Martin Luther is called the "Weimar" edition. The whole Weimar collection was sitting in the Sonderlesesaal in the University of Tübingen and also in various other places within the University. And in the Weimar edition there is a section devoted to Luther's marginal notes on the Latin Vulgate Bible and these include references to words in de Rudimentis Hebraicis.

Exploring Judaica at the University of Tübingen.

My work began to centre around various places on the campus (which is intermingled with stores and ordinary houses in Tübingen). Some of my classes were in the building called the Theologicum. My seminar on Nuremberg was not in a classroom setting at all, but was in a seminar room of one of the many Institutes in Tübingen. This Institute is called:
Das Institut für Spätmittelalter und Reformationsgeschichte.

At the same time I was taking an exegetical course in Hebrew. I asked my instructor about David Kimhi. He said he knew nothing about Kimhi, but I might consider asking a certain lecturer in Church History who had published a book in this area.

This lecturer and author had focused his attention on Martin Luther's lectures on the psalms beginning in 1513 and continuing successively to 1521. His work was done chronologically, showing the progressively greater use by Luther of references to the Hebrew Scriptures each time Luther renewed his study of the Psalms. He was interested in my topic, and began to help me in many ways with my work.

Early Hebrew Grammars

The scope of my topic was growing at an increasing rate. I was interested in a lot of other aspects which were being turned up by my search. For example I wondered which other Hebrew grammars and lexicons were available to Christian Scholars in the early 16th Century. I wanted not only to know the names and authorship of those grammars but also to lay eyes on them myself. So one of the many 'sub-themes' of my Quest was to compile as complete a list of Hebrew grammars as was possible and to note on that list whether or not I had seen the book itself.

There were a few Hebrew grammars in use in the late 1400's in manuscript form. With the advent of moveable-type printing and as the Renaissance took hold in the early 1500's a few more Hebrew Grammars were published. With the advent of the Reformation a flood of Hebrew grammars appeared. Reuchlin's de Rudimentis Hebraicis stands out from the approximately two dozen Hebrew grammars for Christians before the year 1520.

By 1519 some Christian scholars were interested enough to want to see actual Hebrew grammars in Hebrew. For my work the most interesting of these was the publishing in 1519 and 1520 of the introductory grammar - in Hebrew - of Moses Kimhi, the brother of David Kimhi.

It should be noted that the key work during this period for me was Reuchlin's de Rudimentis Hebraicis. The work which I considered Reuchlin's work to be based upon was Sefer Miklol by David Kimhi. I came to this opinion from my own observations and comparisons, but also noted the opinion of the biographer of Reuchlin, Ludwig Geiger, and also William Gesenius (the 'father' of the great Hebrew lexicons used today).

There is this similarity to the Sefer Miklol of David Kimhi and de Rudimentis Hebraicis of Johannes Reuchlin: Each of them seemed to render other books unnecessary. They were so comprehensive in their time that the reader needed only that book. So it was not on the basis of their originality that they took prominence, but on the basis of their comprehensive overview of the topic.

Sefer Miklol was found often in the form of two books. The Lexical portion was separated off and had a separate existence as Sefer Hashorashim - the book of roots. The grammar was usually called Sefer Miklol - and contained only the grammar portion.

David Kimhi was not the first Hebrew grammarian by any means. He drew on Spanish sources from previous centuries. But by producing such a comprehensive book, he made the reference to his predecessors unnecessary.

David Kimhi and Johannes Reuchlin

I became interested in how manuscripts written by David Kimhi - a Jewish Rabbi in Narbonne, France in the early 1200's - could be circulated and printed, and how they would get into the hands of Johannes Reuchlin as a source for his 1506 work. So I searched reference books for many European libraries for manuscripts and early printings of Miklol and Hashorashim. Many references turned up. Later I visited many of the libraries on the continent and searched their catalogues myself.

Johannes Reuchlin had collected manuscripts in Rome and by 1498 had a number of works of David and Moses Kimhi in manuscript form. There had also been some Jewish printings of the Kimhi works in Hebrew beginning in the 1470's.

I was beginning to assemble my own collection of Kimhi works and references to those works. My next task was to try to read, assess and understand these works.

On February 4, 1974 I presented my first paper to a seminar - it was my paper on Andreas Osiander and it was presented in the Seminar Room of the Institut für Spätmittelalter und Reformationsgeschichte. I had help, not with the content of the paper, but with the flow of the German it was presented in. I wrote in my journal the next day,

"My speaking was O.K considering the natural nervousness. I understood all the questions and my hesitations were to do with considering the problems. Altogether a very good experience."

One way of describing the feeling of being an Auslander (foreigner) is that you have lost all your power. It sometimes feels as if you have lost more than that - I felt like I had lost my sense of humour as well. I also felt I had lost a sense of intelligence - I had "become as a child" but not in any positive way. And this mostly relates to the lack of fluency in the language and a naiveté about the culture.

Note from my journal April 4, 1974:

"The essence of speaking in someone else's language is vulnerability."

I realized that a number of the people with me in the advanced seminar on reformation also worked as researchers in the Institut für Spätmittelalter und Reformationsgeschichte.

It is amazing to me the extent and detail of the work which is going on today regarding the works of Martin Luther. It is now some 450 years since the nailing of the 95 Theses, yet the scholarship and interest in Luther continues unabated - not only by Protestants but also by Catholics. Some of my colleagues were working on a new edition of Luther's Operationes in Psalmos from 1519-21.

I discovered a special Judaica reading room in the Theologicum, and was thrilled to study at times in that small room, which was surrounded by wonderful Judaica materials.

I now had a quite good collection of references to materials about Kimhi - but I needed also to begin delving into the content.

I was discovering many fascinating aspects of the Kimhis - they were not only involved in grammars and lexicons, but also in exegetical works. These works were available for some of the prophetic books, and some of the historical books of the Old Testament.

Peshat - the Plain Meaning of Scripture

And there was an appealing style to the works. They mainly followed the Peshat method of interpretation - the "Plain Meaning" of scripture. When David Kimhi interpreted a passage of scripture he tended to derive its meaning from its historical situation and in context of the whole Old Testament. As much as I could read of them, I found them fascinating.

Some of the reformers, especially Martin Bucer, quoted from David Kimhi, because his spare style of interpretation made it helpful for the reformers.

Paradoxically, David Kimhi was often providing, in his exegesis, arguments for Jews against Christian interpretations. He would say:

"Here is how Christians interpret these passages, and here is how you should interpret them, and here are some answers to the Christians. When they say this, you say....

For the Reformers it was no problem to deal with what they read as "anti-Christian" materials. It was usually at the end of the regular interpretation and could simply be excised, ignored or edited out!

I was led to choose one particular Psalm to concentrate my attention on: Psalm 110.

Rabbinic Hebrew

In discussion with a lecturer from whom I asked advice I realized I needed to be able to read David Kimhi's words for myself. They were in Rabbinic Hebrew and my advisor was not familiar with Rabbinic Hebrew. He knew of only one person who was, and he was a very high ranking Faculty member from whom I happened to be taking a course in Hebrew.

I found this Professor to be interested in my project and wonderfully supportive. He volunteered to give me one hour per week one-on-one of special study of Rabbinic Hebrew.

In my first hour with of this tutorial I translated maybe one sentence We were translating Psalm 110 by David Kimhi. And I loved it. I needed guidance, not only in the actual Rabbinic Hebrew, but also in understanding the background in the Hebrew culture to give significance to what we were reading.

Psalm 110 by David Kimhi

I would like to give you some of the flavour of David Kimhi's exegesis of psalm 110.

My own comments are marked in square brackets ( ).

ABOUT DAVID A PSALM, THE LORD SAID UNTO MY LORD - SIT THOU AT MY RIGHT HAND UNTIL I MAKE THINE ENEMIES THY FOOTSTOOL

Kimhi:

This psalm our Teachers of blessed memory explained as referring to Abraham our Father as he went out to battle against the four kings (he goes on to explain why)---

But the right way, according to the peshat, is to interpret the psalm as referring to David. One of the psalmists said it about him, and the Lamed in 'ledawid' its interpretation is "about", like the Lamed in (here he is talking about the Hebrew letter Lamed, which is usually translated "for" but can also be translated "about" he gives two biblical references for this, Genesis 20:13, Psalm 20: 1,2 - in fact he gives only the text of the reference, expecting his readers to know chapters and verse)

And the wise Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra interpreted that this psalm was composed in the beginning of his reign when the Philistines hear that David was anointed a king and all the Philistines went up to seek after David, and God, blessed be He, assure him that He would give them into his hand, and He gave them into his hand at Baalperazim and in the valley of Rephaim. (it goes on)

So he goes on, verse by verse through the ten verses of this psalm. But then comes the comments for Jews against Christian interpretation:

And the Christians interpret this psalm as referring to Jesus. And they say that in the first verse there is explained the Father and the Son. For they read THE LORD SAID TO THE LORD with the Nun in Qames. And they say how will the Lord speak to the Lord except that they are two and the Spirit is the third. And furthermore there is another mistake: they read in this psalm: WITH THEE WILLING with the Ayin in Hireq. And they are saying: IN ADORNMENTS OF THE HOLY ONE, that is the Holy One Who is born from the womb.

And you shall tell them about the mistake of their reading. Jerome, their translator, made a mistake. For 'ladoni' has the Nun in Hireq. And it is said about David, as we interpreted it. And how are they able to hold onto the mistake of one man against many? For from the rising of the sun even to its setting it is found in all the writings with the Nun in Hireq.

--- My Comment: OK there is a small sample. There are five Hebrew letters named in the above, Lamed - the Hebrew "L" Nun - the Hebrew "N" Ayin - a non-sounded letter which takes a vowel - and two vocalizations Qames - an "aw" sound, and Hireq - an "ee" sound.

Hebrew comes both in its consonantal form, without the vocalizations which are put over and below the consonantal forms. The consonantal versions without vocalization are more ancient. And how a person vocalizes the text can make tremendous difference to the meaning.

Kimhi is saying that the Church Father Jerome (400 ad) - who was also called Hieronymus and who made the translation for the Church from the Hebrew, tinkered with the text by altering the vocalization to support a view that this is a Christological psalm, which also infers the Trinity. Kimhi argues that by the peshat (Plain Meaning) the psalm refers to King David, not Abraham, as his tradition had taught.

Now that I was getting a flavour of the content of David Kimhi, I was wondering in what ways his commentaries were getting into the hands of the Reformers.

My greatest hope was, of course, that Martin Luther had read the commentaries of David Kimhi, and in my wildest dreams, Luther had made some mention of them as being influential in his own interpretation and translation work. This was not so, at least not in way which is easily proven, and also is probably an incorrect supposition.

In the next chapter I will describe a thrilling experience in the Sonderlesesaal of the University Library in Munich.

If you would like to continue to the next section of this story:
The First Rabbinic Bible - 1517