Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T00:29:15.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rabanus Maurus and the Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones Hebraicae in Libros Regum et Paralipomenon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

A. Saltman
A. Saltman
Affiliation:
Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The object of this study is to illustrate and to attempt to modify in favour of Rabanus Maurus the judgment of de Ghellinck — “Sa prose pratique le plagiat sans vergogne, mais en général il choisit bien les passages qui lui servent d'extraits.” Although much has been written about the identity of the so-called Hebraeus moderni temporis whose exegetical work was extensively used by Rabanus in his commentaries on the books of Samuel and Chronicles and about the Jewish sources of this material, little or no attention has been paid so far to the motives of Rabanus in availing himself of these Quaestiones or to the principles, if any, he employed in the selection of his material. A further problem which deserves to be elucidated is whether Rabanus had access to a better text of the Quaestiones on Chronicles than that which has come down to us.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , January 1973 , pp. 43 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1973

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 de Ghellinck, J., Littérature latine an moyen âge (1939), I, 103Google Scholar.

2 The Quaestiones are printed in Migne, Patrologia Latina (PL), 23, col. 1329 sqq. The Quaestiones are arranged by chapter and verse, and so it is unnecessary to give the column references. Quotations here from the Quaestiones are taken from MS. Rheims 118, the oldest surviving text of the Quaestiones. The commentaries of Rabanus Maurus on Samuel and Chronicles are printed in PL, 109. An excellent survey of the bibliography on the Hebraeus is given by Blumenkranz, B., Les auteurs Chrétiens Latins du Moyen Age sur les Juifs et le Judaïsme (1963), 174nGoogle Scholar. My article Pseudo-Jerome and Biblical Exegesis in the Ninth Century is to appear in a collection of essays in memory of Dr. I. Epstein, late Principal of Jews' College, London.

3 Smalley, B., The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (1952), 37fGoogle Scholar.

4 In the 9th and 10th century MSS., the Quaestiones are attributed to an anonymous Judaeus or Hebraeus or remain completely anonymous. The MSS. from the late 11th century onwards attribute the Quaestiones to Jerome and they are generally to be found amongst various Hieronymian and Pseudo-Hieronymian opuscula. The Gloss, 12th-century exegetes, and the 13th-century Vulgate Correctoria give further currency to the false attribution to St. Jerome.

5 The best edition is Rabanus, ep. 14, in MGH., Ep.v, 403. The parallel introduction to Chronicles (834–38) is Rabanus, ep. 18, ibid., 423.

6 I have in mind the annotations to the Bible MS. Paris, Bibl. Nat. Latin 11937 (known as ΘG) which were used in the Quaestiones, and similar material noted by Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Age (1893), 178fGoogle Scholar., all of which illustrate a modest revival of Hebrew knowledge or interest in Hebrew at this period.

7 See above, n.2.

8 (1) Rheims 118, ff.38–67 (845–82). (2) St. Gall 672, pp. 138–252 (end of 9c). (3) Paris, Bibl. Nat. Latin 2384, ff. 117–34 (9–10cc). (4) Orléans 38, pp. 1–150 (10c).

9 For Angelomus (PL, 115) see Laistner, M. L. W., Some Early Medieval Commentaries on the Old Testament, in Harvard Theological Review 46 (1953), 27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In order to complement Laistner's article, I have given full details of Angelomus's independent use of Pseudo-Jerome in Appendix I.

10 See Quaestiones on Samuel (Appendix I) nos. 1, 24, 28, 29, 69 (important), 114, 115, 180.

11 Nos. 13, 109, 110, 180.

12 Nos. 1, 30.

13 Nos. 53, 87.

14 For Origen and Bede, cf. Smalley, op. cit., 9&n., 36.

15 See App. I, no. 10.

16 App. I, nos. 3, 4, 15, 48, 60, 134, 155(?), 160, 178(?), 182.

17 Cf. no. 141 — quippe non nomen proprium est etc.

18 Cf. no. 180h — nee praetereundum etc.

19 No. 146 — putatur autem ab Hebraeis. No. 168— ut Hebraei tradunt.

20 No. 2.

21 No. 38.

22 There is no certain way of dividing the material into individual Quaestiones, and the classification given here is more or less arbitrary.

23 For full details see Appendix II.

24 Such formulae occur on 36 occasions. See Appendix II.

25 But even for Samuel, there are indications that Rabanus had a fuller text. Cf. Appendix I, nos. 63, 177.

26 These Quaestiones appear only in the later MSS. of Pseudo-Jerome and PL.

27 Carey, F. M., The Scriptorium of Rheims, in Studies in honor of E. K. Rand (1938), 57fGoogle Scholar.

28 Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. LXXII (1959) has superseded PL, 23.

29 See Babylonian Talmud, Megilla 13a.

30 Rabanus prefers Pseudo-Jerome in nos. 4, 10, 14, 49, 65, 71. He prefers Jerome in nos. 1, 2. He uses both in nos. 4, 51, 125. Nos. 6, 7, 12 are absent from Jerome, and so naturally Pseudo-Jerome is used. See also no. 115.

31 Smalley, op. cit., 156–72.

32 Liber de situ et nominibus locorum Hebraeorum (PL, 23).

33 Super hoc capitulo Hebraei hujusmodi defingunt fabulam. (No. 98). For abusiveness of Angelomus see PL, 115, 265C, 288CD.

34 Cf. nos. 14, 38, 45, 47, 54, 95, 113, 123, 133, 162, 176, 192, 193, 197, 227, 241, 286, 317, 344, 354.

35 No. 131.