JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ible
basis for Cassuto’s philologic-aesthetic approach. In addition
to his monumental work Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Yisre’elit, Y.
*Kaufmann also engaged, toward the end of his life, in interpreting
the books of Joshua (1959, 19632), and Judges (1962),
which actually only served to complete and consolidate the
foundations of his theories, both on the history of Israelite
religion and on the antiquity of the writing and editing of
the books. In these outstanding analytical interpretations
Kaufmann inveighs strongly against the German school of
biblical analysis of Wellhausen and his circle. In his comprehensive
introductions, both to the two commentaries as a
whole and to the various chapters, he presents a knowledgeable
discussion of the Bible and its research. He attempted to
prove that his own method was correct and was the one to
be preferred. In his commentaries he demonstrated that the
method of omitting a verse or dividing it into various sources
and different editions is not always essential. The need for a
Hebrew multi-volume critical commentary is finally being
met by Mikra le-Yisrael (1990– ).
Bibliography: M. Soloveitchik and S. Rubashov, Toledot
Bikkoret ha-Mikra (1925), 126–61; P. Sendler, Ha-Be’ur la-Torah shel
Moshe Mendelssohn ve-Si’ato (1941); H. Sheli, Meḥkar ha-Mikra be-
Sifrut ha-Haskalah (1942); M.Z. Segal, Parshanut ha-Mikra (1944),
109–26; M. Diman (Haran), in: Bitzaron, 21 (1950), 110–4, 174–8,
256–62; 22 (1951), 189–96; 23 (1952), 38–41, 115–26, 187–93; M. Haran,
Biblical Research in Hebrew (1970); idem, in: Molad, 26 (1970), 97–106;
HM Orlinsky, in: JQR, 45 (1954/55), 374–412.
[Isaac Avishur]
bible research and criticism
“Research and criticism” of the Bible is, in one sense, as old as,
if not older than, the traditional Bible. Some modern scholars
have devoted great efforts to the attempt to trace the details of
the process whereby the older semi-canonical materials which
went into the final shaping of the canon itself were reapplied
and made relevant to their day. After the closing of the canon,
quite similar methods continued to be used for centuries (see
above, Canon). That is to say, from a purely literary or external
(as distinguished from a religious or theological) viewpoint,
the distinction between canonical and non-canonical
literature is artificial.
Increasing attention has been devoted to the study of
the history of the interpretation of the Bible as methods and
schools have proliferated. It may be observed that, mutatis
mutandis, the problem has always been how to be both historically
faithful to the text’s original significance as well as
adequately to convey its meaning and relevance to the contemporary
situation. Furthermore, it may be asserted that,
in general, the precise methods used in this task at any given
time tend, up to a point, to be quite similar in both Judaism
and Christianity. Thus a certain common influence exerted
by the prevailing philosophy of the time is often noticeable:
the strong Platonic influences of the early Common Era: the
mystical and Aristotelian influences of the Middle Ages: the
philosophical impetus provided by the Renaissance: and the
rationalism, historicism, existentialism and most recently,
post-modernism. Correspondingly, the precise methods in
the two communities also often have much in common: the
multiple (and often fourfold) senses ascribed to a text in the
Middle Ages as well as the specific types of literary and historical
investigation employed in modern times.
Nor is it surprising to note a fair amount of interaction
and cross-fertilization: developments within Christianity
tended to set the general cultural tone and atmosphere, while
there was always much in Judaism’s retention of the grammatical
text (even when interpreted allegorically) which Christianity,
especially with its early preference for the Septuagint, was
always in danger of forgetting. Jewish influence on Christian
interpretation is especially clear in the case of the dependence
of the Antiochene school and of Jerome on the rabbis, and the
influence especially of Rashi via Nicholas of Lyra and Reuchlin
upon Luther, not to speak of the many contributions by modern
Jewish scholars. These generalizations begin to hold true
as soon as the two streams diverge. It has long been realized
that New Testament principles of interpretation had much in
common with that of the mainstream of rabbinism (classically
in H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922–56, and J. Bonsirven,
Exégèse rabbinique et exégèse paulinienne, 1939). More recently,
it has become clear from Qumran that the specific apocalyptic
motifs of the Essenic stream of Jewish thought were also
very influential in early Christianity (see F.F. Bruce, Biblical
Exegesis in the Qumran Texts, 1959).
Early Moves Toward Critical Study
Much of the intellectual endeavor of both Judaism and Christianity,
until well after the Reformation, was directed to Bible
study. In retrospect, various individuals and schools seem
to stand out as precursors of modern biblical study. Among
these must be noted: the Christian school of Antioch and especially
Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. c. 428); the philological
emphasis of Saadiah Gaon, especially under the influence of
the Aristotelian revival in the Muslim world; its sequel in a
sense when Aristotelianism conquered the West in the rationalism
of Maimonides and somewhat related manifestations
in Rashi, David Kimḥi, and Abraham Ibn Ezra within Judaism,
and the 12th-century Victorine School, and Nicholas of Lyra in
the 13th century among the Christian expositors.
With the Reformation came a tremendous upsurge of
emphasis upon literal, “grammatical” exegesis. “Allegory” and
multiple interpretations were indignantly rejected – although,
by most modern definitions, sometimes retained under a different
title. Simultaneously, the Renaissance and its resurgent
humanism were placing great stress upon early sources
and plain meanings; in comparison with the ecclesiastical
revolution it was sometimes hard to say what was cause and
what effect. Most significant, however, in terms of future developments,
were the extra-ecclesiastic philosophies which
began to appear and slowly gained momentum to usher in
the “modern” era. The fundamentally new situation which
648 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3