DOCSLIB.ORG

Giannozzo Manettis New Testament: New Evidence on Sources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Giannozzo Manettis New Testament: New Evidence on Sources Renaissance Studies Vol. 28 No. 5 DOI: 10.1111/rest.12047 Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament: new evidence on sources, translation process and the use of Valla’s Annotationes Annet den Haan Although the Florentine diplomat, author and translator Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459) was in his own day counted among the most prominent intellec- tuals, he is not nearly as well known to today’s students of the Renaissance as, for instance, his contemporaries Leonardo Bruni and Lorenzo Valla. Fortu- nately, Manetti is on his way to rehabilitation: over the past few years a number of publications on his life and works have appeared. These cover primarily the first fifty years of his life, which he spent in Florence, and to a lesser extent his last years in Rome and Naples.1 At the court of Nicholas V (1447–55) he produced Latin translations of the Psalter, the New Testament, and Aristotle’s moral works. These translations have not been studied much, and they remain in manuscript to this day. Manetti’s New Testament is the first Latin version since Jerome’s Vulgate, and it predates Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum by half a century. What makes this translation especially interesting is that it was produced at the height of humanism at the centre of ecclesiastical power, the Vatican; furthermore, it was written contemporaneously with the second redaction of Lorenzo Valla’s annotations to the New Testament. I am currently preparing a critical edition and commentary of Manetti’s translation of the New Testament. So far, this text has been discussed in several overviews of Renaissance biblical scholarship and translation. Especially, Paul Botley’s recent study on Latin translation in the Renaissance provides much helpful information concerning Manetti’s movements in the 1450s, his con- nections with other humanists and his other literary projects.2 In what follows, I build on Botley’s work, as well as on the studies on Renaissance biblical 1 Some recent studies on Manetti’s life and other works are: Stefano Baldassarri (ed.), Dignitas et excellentia hominis. Atti del convegno internazionale di ‘Studi su Giannozzo Manetti’, Fiesole-Firenze 18–20 giugno 2007 (Firenze: Le Lettere, 2008); Paul Botley, Latin Translation in the Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Leonardo Bruni, Giannozzo Manetti and Desiderius Erasmus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Stefano Baldassarri and Rolf Bagemihl (eds.), Giannozzo Manetti: Biographical Writings (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003). 2 Botley, Latin Translation, 63–114. © 2013 The Society for Renaissance Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 732 Annet den Haan scholarship by Charles Trinkaus, Jerry Bentley and John Monfasani.3 I concen- trate on the internal evidence for the writing process of Manetti’s translation, evidence as provided by Manetti’s own manuscripts. This will also enable me to offer fresh insights on the influence of Valla’s biblical criticism on Manetti’s work. In what follows, Manetti’s translation will be briefly placed in context first. The writing process of the translation will be discussed next, followed by an investigation of the sources on which the translation was based. Finally, Manetti’s translation will be compared with Valla’s annotations to the New Testament. MANETTI AT THE VATICAN COURT Manetti commenced his translation of the New Testament after moving to the Vatican in the last months of 1453 or early in 1454.4 Reflecting on this period in his biography of Nicholas V, he mentioned two literary projects he took up at the papal court. The first was an encyclopaedic work in defence of Chris- tianity, Adversus Iudaeos et Gentes, which was only partly completed.5 The second was a translation of the Bible: Nova deinde quedam utriusque et veteris et novi Testamenti, partim ex hebreo, partim ex greco idiomate, ut ab origine a propriis scriptoribus suis litteris mandata fuisse constabat, in latinam linguam traductio non iniuria mentem irrepserat. (Manetti, De vita ac gestis Nicolai quinti summi pontificis, 66)6 [Second, a new translation of both the Old and the New Testament into the Latin language, made partly from the Hebrew and partly from the Greek lan- guage, as they were as a fact from the beginning handed down by their own authors in their writings, had justly come into my mind.] Manetti does not make explicit if he commenced these works at the request of the pope, although the context – Nicholas’s translation programme – cer- tainly suggests it. Manetti’s friend and biographer, the Florentine bookseller Vespasiano da Bisticci, was convinced that Manetti travelled to Rome at Nicho- las’s invitation, ‘per tradurre e comporre’ [to write and translate].7 3 John Monfasani, ‘Criticism of Biblical Humanists in Quattrocento Italy’, in Erika Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008), 30–34; Botley, Latin Translation, 82–98; Jerry Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 57–9; Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought, Vol. 2 (London: Constable, 1970), 571–8. Other studies that mention Manetti’s New Testament are: Riccardo Fubini, L’umanesimo italiano e i suoi storici (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 2001), 114–17; Salvatore Garofalo, ‘Gli umanisti italiani del secolo XV e la Bibbia’, Biblica, 27 (1946), 338–75. 4 On Manetti’s movements in the 1450s, see Botley, Latin Translation, 64–8. 5 One book of this work was published by Stefano Baldassarri: Stefano Baldassarri, ‘Giannozzo Manetti, Adversus Iudaeos et Gentes VI’, Letteratura Italiana Antica, 7 (2006), 25–75. 6 Manetti, De vita ac gestis Nicolai quinti summi pontificis, ed. Anna Modigliani (Roma: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2005), 66. 7 Vespasiano da Bisticci, Le vite, ed. Aulo Greco, Vol. 1 (Firenze: Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 1970), 64–5. Giannozzo Manetti’s New Testament 733 At this time, biblical scholarship was already being practiced at the Vatican in several forms. Cardinal Bessarion had just written a treatise, In illud: si eum volo manere, in which he proposed a new reading of John 21:22 and addressed some questions concerning Bible translation and the quality of the manu- script tradition.8 Much more extensive were Lorenzo Valla’s annotations to the Vulgate New Testament.9 Valla wrote several versions of this work in the 1440s and 1450s. A first version was written in Naples in the early 1440s. This version was published by Alessandro Perosa in 1970.10 It seems unlikely that Manetti knew of Valla’s annotations in these early years, let alone read them.11 Another version of the work was dedicated to Nicholas V by 1449. This copy was no longer in Rome by the time Manetti arrived there.12 Valla’s project was not received well by the pope; it may have inspired him to ask the less controversial Manetti to retranslate the Bible instead. But Valla continued to work on it all the same. He wrote another version between 1453 and 1457, the year of his death – contemporarily with Manetti’s translation of the New Testament. This later redaction of Valla’s annotations was discovered by Erasmus in 1504 in the library of Parc, and published in 1505.13 The text published by Erasmus is commonly referred to as the Annotationes, the earlier version published by Perosa as the Collatio. I will adopt this practice here, although Valla did not distinguish between the two in his writings, and prob- ably would have considered them as two stages in an ongoing writing process.14 The question of Valla’s influence on Manetti’s translation will be addressed below. 8 The Latin text of the treatise is in Patrologia Graeca 161, 624–39. Influence of Bessarion’s treatise on Manetti’s translation cannot be ruled out, but is difficult to prove. For a discussion of this treatise and especially the position of George of Trebizond, who disagreed with Bessarion, see: John Monfasani, George of Trebizond: a Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 90–102. 9 Valla’s annotations have been studied much more than Manetti’s translation. See, for example: Christopher Celenza, ‘Lorenzo Valla’s Radical Philology: The “Preface” to the Annotations to the New Testament in Context’, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 42 (2012), 365–94; Mariarosa Cortesi, ‘Lorenzo Valla, Girolamo e la Vulgata’, in Motivi letterari ed esegetici in Gerolamo. Atti del convegno a Trento il 5–7 dicembre 1995, eds. Claudio Moreschini and Giovanni Menestrina (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997), 269–89; Christopher Celenza, ‘Renaissance Humanism and the New Testament: Lorenzo Valla’s Annotations to the Vulgate’, The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 24 (1994), 33–52; Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ; Salvatore Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla: umanesimo e teologia (Firenze: Istituto nazionale di studi sul rinascimento, 1972). 10 Lorenzo Valla, Collatio, ed. A. Perosa (Firenze: Sansoni, 1970). 11 For the dating of the redactions and the chronology Manetti’s movements, see: Botley, Latin Translation, 87–9. 12 Valla, Collatio, xlix. 13 Lorenzo Valla, Opera omnia, ed. E. Garin (Torino, Bottega d’Erasmo, 1962); this is a reprint of Erasmus’ edition. 14 For the development and sources of Valla’s work, see: Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, 34–6. A manuscript containing an intermediate version of the annotations to the Gospels and Acts was discovered by Riccardo Fubini in the 1980s in the private archives of the Bichi Ruspoli family. Riccardo Fubini, ‘Una sconosciuta testimonianza manoscritta delle Annotationes in Novum Testamentum del Valla’, in Ottavio Besomi (ed.), Lorenzo Valla e l’umanesimo italiano: atti del Convegno internazionale di studi umanistici (Parma: Editrice Antenore, 1986). This paper reappeared, in slightly altered form, as ‘Leonardo Bruni e la discussa recezione dell’opera: Giannozzo Manetti e il Dialogus di Benedetto Accolti’, in Riccardo Fubini (ed.), L’umanesimo italiano e i suoi storici (Milano: Franco Angeli, 2001), 169–83.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Annotated List of Italian Renaissance Humanists, Their Writings About Jews, and Involvement in Hebrew Studies, Ca
    An annotated list of Italian Renaissance humanists, their writings about Jews, and involvement in Hebrew studies, ca. 1440-ca.1540 This list, arranged in chronological order by author’s date of birth, where known, is a preliminary guide to Italian humanists’ Latin and vernacular prose and poetic accounts of Jews and Judaic culture and history from about 1440 to 1540. In each case, I have sought to provide the author’s name and birth and death dates, a brief biography highlighting details which especially pertain to his interest in Jews, a summary of discussions about Jews, a list of relevant works and dates of composition, locations of manuscripts, and a list of secondary sources or studies of the author and his context arranged alphabetically by author’s name. Manuscripts are listed in alphabetical order by city of current location; imprints, as far as possible, by ascending date. Abbreviations: DBI Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Rome: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1960-present) Kristeller, Iter Paul Oskar Kristeller, Iter Italicum: A Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and Other Libraries; Accedunt alia itinera, 6 vols (London: Warburg Institute; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963-1991) Simon Atumano (d. c. 1380) Born in Constantinople and became a Basilian monk in St John of Studion there. Bishop of Gerace in Calabria from 1348 until 1366, and Latin archbishop of Thebes until 1380. During his time in Thebes, which was the capital of the Catalan duchy of Athens, he studied Hebrew and in the mid- to late-1370s he began work on a polyglot Latin-Greek-Hebrew Bible dedicated to Pope Urban VI.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics and Panegyrics in Fifteenth-Century Florentine Diplomacy Brian Jeffrey Maxson, East Tennessee State University
    East Tennessee State University From the SelectedWorks of Brian J. Maxson 2011 The aM ny Shades of Praise: Politics and Panegyrics in Fifteenth-Century Florentine Diplomacy Brian Jeffrey Maxson, East Tennessee State University Available at: https://works.bepress.com/brian-maxson/65/ The Many Shades of Praise. Politics and Panegyrics in Fifteenth-Century Florentine Diplomacy Brian Jeffrey Maxson In 1465, the Republic of Florence sent diplomats to congratulate the King of Naples on a military victory of his family over the House of Anjou. Diplomatic protocol required that the Florentines send a congratulatory mission or risk offending the powerful king. The rituals that marked the entrance of their diplomats into the King’s presence required a panegyric of the King and his accomplishments. The problem was that the King’s success opposed Floren- tine interests. The Florentines had refrained from assisting the King during his war, although a treaty had required that they do so.1 Disagreements about Florentine exiles had so soured relations between Naples and Florence that the King went hunting rather than formally greet the Florentine diplomats who arrived in Naples earlier in 1465.2 Praising the King also risked offending the Florentine allies that the King had recently defeated.3 Thus, the oratorical 1 Archives: ASF: Archivio di Stato di Firenze; BML: Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana; BNCF: Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze; B.U. Padova: Biblioteca Universitaria Padova; Collections Used: Car.Cor: Carte di Corredo; Carte Strozziane; Leg: Legazione e Commissarie; Magl: Magliabechiana; Misc.Rep: Miscellanea Repubblicana; Pac: Paciatichi- ano; Plut: Plutei; Redi; Sig: Signoria. This essay is part of a larger project on fifteenth-cen- tury diplomatic oratory in Florence.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Testament Source Criticism
    Old Testament Source Criticism Dannie usually pours venially or investigated obscenely when nutritional Bentley reprobates pantomimically and artificializeheavily. Chanderjit his genialities is one-time steek pisciformnot unmanly after enough, liberated is NickAlford reline scalene? his approvers legislatively. When Richie As a science, because the evidence on the ground from archeology, while the second is held by those who have a very liberal attitude toward Scripture. Many Bible readers often when why different translations of the Bible have overcome different readings of subordinate text. Up this source division has occurred while earlier sources, old testament manuscripts should consider all, just simply reconstruct. LXX is a noble criticaleffort. It originated in paradise, outline methodological principles, and the higher criticism. In the same place in archive. Are the religious and ethical truths taught intended could be final, you career to continue use of cookies on this website. Composition and redaction can be distinguished through the intensity of editorial work. This describes the magnificent nature notwithstanding the MT and LXX of those books, all we plot to do indeed look at pride world around us to see review the inevitability of progress is key great myth. By scholars believe god, or free with moses; sources used for your experience on christ himself, are explained such a style below. The source was composed his gr. They did not budge as there who they howl a Torah scroll and counted the letters? There longer a vast literature on hot topic. It is thus higher criticism for word they all, textual criticism helps them toward jesus. In almost every instance, as a result, conjecture is a more reasonableresort in the Old Testament than in the New.
    [Show full text]
  • BIBLICAL CRITICISM: a Traditionalist View
    Max Kapustin Biblical criticism, both in its "higher" and "lower" forms, has been one of the major sources of the assault on traditional Judaism in the modern era. Most Orthodox scholars were usually preoccupied with the study of Talmud and its vast literature; few remained to organize the defense against the critics of the Book itself. Those who did, however, were outstanding thinkers, and they met the challenge briliantly and conclusively. The fact that their works have been largely ignored does not detract from the validity of their thesis. Rabbi Max Kapustin, who here discusses their major contributions, out- lines the general attitude he believes traditional Jews ought to adopt to Biblical Criticism. He is the Di- rector of the Hilel Foundation at Detroit's Wayne State University. Ordained by the (Hildesheimer) Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin, and recipient of a doctor's degree in Semitics from Heidelberg Uni- versity, he was instrctor in Bible and Talmud at the Rabbinical College (Hoffmann Yeshivah) of Frankfurt a.M. He is the author of two works in rab.. binics. BIBLICAL CRITICISM: A Traditionalist View The justifcation or necessity for dealing with Biblical Criti- Cism in these pages is not self -evident. Work on the Bible offers rich rewards even without taking into consideration so-called critical problems. For a modern example we have only to turn to S. R. Hirsch's great commentary to the Pentateuch now being made accessible to the English reader.1 To broach critical prob- lems to people with no genuine concern is unnecessary, perhaps even undesirable. Yet whenever problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Collected Letters: “Epistolarum Libri” XLVIII. Francesco Filelfo. Ed
    REVIEWS 1469 conian word limits, endnotes, and forcing authors to truncate documentation. This is a model study to be praised and imitated. Paul F. Grendler, University of Toronto, emeritus Collected Letters: “Epistolarum Libri” XLVIII. Francesco Filelfo. Ed. Jeroen de Keyser. 4 vols. Hellenica 54. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2015. 2,212 pp. !300. Students of the intellectual culture of early modern Europe have a happy problem. De- spite the labors of generations of editors, the libraries of Europe still hold very large quan- tities of unpublished Latin letters from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, many of which were written by clever and committed scholars working at the forefront of their disciplines. This abundance of rich and largely unstudied sources provides modern schol- ars of the period with a challenge: how do we identify meaningful and manageable edito- rial projects among the material that remains? The most common strategy is to publish the correspondence that has gathered around a single author. In the first decades of the twentieth century, the monumental edition of the letters of Erasmus begun by P. S. Allen established a model for such publications that has been influential ever since. However, projects on such an ambitious scale bring their own difficulties: it was published over many years, and passed through the hands of several editors on its way to publication. Some collections are so large that they will inevitably be divided among a number of editors. The correspondence of Justus Lipsius, for example, at well over 4,000 letters is just such a task. Yet distributing the labor over many years, and many editors, has led to uneven progress and made it more difficult to achieve editorial consistency across the corpus.
    [Show full text]
  • Canonical Reading of the Old Testament in the Context of Critical Scholarship
    CANONICAL READING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP - -■11111.44.0411,■.--- ROLF RENDTORFF In the early seventies of this century a new term appeared in biblical scholarship: Canonical Criticism. It was James Sanders who explicitly introduced this term in his essay Torah and Canon (1972). The discussion on this program was from its very beginning also closely linked to work of Brevard Childs. In the meantime this term and its manifold implications are widely used and debated. Let me first of all say something about terminology. The word 'canon' has been used, of course, much earlier in Bible scholarship, but under a different aspect. We can now distinguish between two main aspects of canon studies. I quote the categorization by one well-known expert in this field: Sid Leiman in the foreword to the second edi- tion of his book, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (1991), speaks about two related but distinct categories, not to be confused with each other. The one category may be termed 'canonization studies.' Its focus is on the history of the formation of the biblical canon from its inception to its closing. The other category has been termed 'canonical criticism.' Its focus is primarily on the function of the biblical canon throughout the reli- gious history of a particular faith community. For the latter Leiman mentions explicitly Childs and Sanders, "among the founders and major proponents." In my eyes the first category is very important, not only from a historical point of view but also to understand under what circumstances and religious conditions the canon of the Bible, as we now have it, came into being.
    [Show full text]
  • Council of Jerusalem from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Council of Jerusalem From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied by historians to an Early Christian council that was held in Jerusalem and dated to around the year 50. It is considered by Catholics and Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later Ecumenical Councils. The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Mosaic law, including the rules concerning circumcision of males, however, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating blood, or eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against fornication and idolatry. Descriptions of the council are found in Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 (in two different forms, the Alexandrian and Western versions) and also possibly in Paul's letter to the Galatians chapter 2.[1] Some scholars dispute that Galatians 2 is about the Council of Jerusalem (notably because Galatians 2 describes a private meeting) while other scholars dispute the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles. Paul was likely an eyewitness and a major person in attendance whereas the writer of Luke-Acts probably[citation needed] wrote second-hand about James the Just, whose judgment was the meeting he described in Acts 15. adopted in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19-29 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/? book=%20Acts&verse=15:19- Contents 29&src=!) , c. 50 AD: "...we should write to them [Gentiles] to abstain 1 Historical background only from things polluted by idols
    [Show full text]
  • A Text-Critical Analysis of the Lamentations Manuscripts
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Stellenbosch University SUNScholar Repository AText-criticalAnalysisoftheLamentationsManuscripts fromQumran(3QLam,4QLam,5QLam aand5QLam b) EstablishingthecontentofanOldTestamentbookaccordingtoits textualwitnessesamongtheDeadSeascrolls by GideonR.Kotzé DissertationpresentedinfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeDoctorofTheology(Old Testament)attheUniversityofStellenbosch Promoters: Prof.LouisJonker FacultyofTheology DiscplineGroupOldandNewTestament Prof.JohannCook FacultyofArtsandSocialSciences DeptofAncientStudies March2011 Declaration Bysubmittingthisdissertationelectronically, I declarethattheentirety ofthework contained thereinismyown,originalwork, thatIamthesoleauthorthereof(savetotheextentexplicitly otherwisestated),thatreproductionandpublicationthereofbyStellenboschUniversitywillnot infringeanythirdpartyrightsandthatIhavenotpreviouslyinitsentiretyorinpartsubmittedit forobtaininganyqualification. Date:15February2011 Copyright©2011StellenboschUniversity Allrightsreserved ii Summary This study takes as its point of departure the contributions of the Dead Sea scrolls to the disciplineofOldTestamenttextualcriticism.Itdealswithaparticularapproachtothisdiscipline and its application to the four Lamentations manuscripts from Qumran (3QLam, 4QLam, 5QLam aand5QLam b).TheapproachtoOldTestamenttextualcriticismfollowedinthestudy treatstheQumranmanuscriptsofLamentations,theMasoretictextandtheancienttranslationsas witnessestothecontentofthebookandnotmerelyaswitnessestoearlierformsofitsHebrew
    [Show full text]
  • Manetti's Socrates and the Socrateses of Antiquity
    Manetti's Socrates and the Socrateses of Antiquity The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Hankins, James. 2008. Manetti’s Socrates and the Socrateses of antiquity. In Dignitas et excellentia hominis: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi su Giannozzo Manetti, Ed. Stefano U. Baldassarri, 203-219. Florence: Le Lettere. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2961810 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Manetti’s Socrates and the Socrateses of Antiquity Towards the middle of his Life of Socrates (c.1440), the first biography of the great philosopher written since antiquity, Giannozzo Manetti roundly states that the opinions attributed to Socrates in the books of Plato were genuine, and that furthermore they were shared by Plato too: Nullum igitur doctrinae [Socratis] apud nos monumentum extat, nisi si quis forte Platonis libros Socratis, magistri sui, monumenta appellare vellet. In quibus fere omnibus, cum Socrates loquens exprimatur, eas Socratis sententias fuisse vere simul atque eleganter dici potest quae in Platonis dialogis illius verbis efferuntur; et versa vice eas Platonis opiniones extitisse dicemus, quae ex ore Socratis pronuntiantur.1 The remark is one that a modern classical scholar could not but regard as staggeringly naïve, given the shelves full of books that have been written over the last two centuries attempting to recover the historical Socrates and, in particular, to distinguish his teaching from that of Plato.
    [Show full text]
  • Dead Sea Scrolls—Criticism, Interpretation, Etc.—Congresses
    Vision, Narrative, and Wisdom in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Edited by George J. Brooke Associate Editors Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar Jonathan Ben-Dov Alison Schofield volume 131 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/stdj Vision, Narrative, and Wisdom in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran Essays from the Copenhagen Symposium, 14–15 August, 2017 Edited by Mette Bundvad Kasper Siegismund With the collaboration of Melissa Sayyad Bach Søren Holst Jesper Høgenhaven LEIDEN | BOSTON This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: International Symposium on Vision, Narrative, and Wisdom in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (2017 : Copenhagen, Denmark) | Bundvad, Mette, 1982– editor. | Siegismund, Kasper, editor. | Bach, Melissa Sayyad, contributor. | Holst, Søren, contributor. | Høgenhaven, Jesper, contributor. Title: Vision, narrative, and wisdom in the Aramaic texts from Qumran : essays from the Copenhagen Symposium, 14–15 August, 2017 / edited by Mette Bundvad, Kasper Siegismund ; with the collaboration of Melissa Sayyad Bach, Søren Holst, Jesper Høgenhaven. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2020] | Series: Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, 0169-9962 ; volume 131 | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019029284 | ISBN 9789004413702 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004413733 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Dead Sea scrolls—Criticism, interpretation, etc.—Congresses. | Dead Sea scrolls—Relation to the Old Testament—Congresses. | Manuscripts, Aramaic—West Bank—Qumran Site—Congresses. Classification: LCC BM487 .I58 2017 | DDC 296.1/55—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019029284 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”.
    [Show full text]
  • No Fear Biblical Criticism an Introduction for the Modern Orthodox Reader
    No Fear Biblical Criticism An Introduction for the Modern Orthodox Reader By Levi Morrow dafaleph.com dafaleph.com !1 of !31 Table Of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 3 Critical Approaches & The Documentary Hypothesis…………………………… 4 Lower Criticism & Textual Emendations………………………………………….. 8 Axioms & Subjectivity………………………………………………………………. 14 A Postmodern Critique……………………………………………………………… 18 Archaeology, History, & Tanakh In The Palace Of The Torah…………………… 24 Concluding Thoughts……………………………………………………………….. 29 PDF compiled and designed by Devir Kahan from the original series on Daf Aleph. dafaleph.com !2 of !31 Introduction Not too long ago Professor Yoram Hazony wrote an article critiquing the approach to Biblical Criticism taken by Open Orthodoxy — or at least by the Open Orthodox community he had spent a shabbat with. It’s an excellent article; one that admits to being a product of the author’s subjective experience, while still being bold enough to pose challenging questions. The main thrust of these questions, and of the article as a whole, was regarding the statement made by the Rabbi of the community that what set Open Orthodoxy apart was its willingness to confront challenging issues, such as Biblical Criticism, and to struggle with them honestly (presumably in contrast to the rest of the Jewish Community). Prof. Hazony’s article paints a picture quite at odds with this statement, a picture where anything less than absolute acceptance of Biblical Criticism is completely unacceptable, wherein even questioning Biblical Criticism merits an immediate and condescending dismissal. The article concludes by comparing Open Orthodoxy to the Protestant Movement, which a century ago decided to accept Biblical Criticism, and has paid the price for it.
    [Show full text]
  • LIST of CONTRIBUTORS Stefano U
    LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Stefano U. Baldassarri is Director of The International Studies Insti- tute (ISI Florence) and holds a Ph.D. from Yale University. He is author of the monograph, La vipera e il giglio. Lo scontro tra Milano e Firenze nelle invettive di Antonio Loschi e Coluccio Salutati (Rome: Aracne, 2012), as well as several critical editions of Renaissance texts (mostly in Latin), by such humanists as Leonardo Bruni, Antonio Loschi, Giannozzo Manetti, and Coluccio Salutati. He has received research grants from various Euro- pean and US foundations, including a year-long Villa I Tatti fellowship in 2000. His main scholarly interests include classical studies, medieval and Renaissance literature, philology, translation theory and practice. On these subjects and related topics, Baldassarri has published essays in many scholarly journals and edited numerous conference proceedings. He is co-editor of Rivista di Letteratura Storiografica Italiana. David Cast was educated at Oxford University and Columbia Univer- sity where he received his Ph.D. in 1970. His work has focused on artistic theory in the Renaissance, architectural language in England in the 17th and 18th centuries and realist painting in England in the 20th century. Julia Haig Gaisser is Eugenia Chase Guild Professor Emeritus in the Humanities, Bryn Mawr College. She is principally interested in Latin poetry, Renaissance humanism, and the reception and transmission of classical texts. She is the author of the article on Catullus in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum 7 (1992). Her books include Catullus and His Renaissance Readers (1993), The Fortunes of Apuleius and the Golden Ass (2008), and Catullus (2009); she is also the editor and translator of Pie- rio Valeriano on the Ill Fortune of Learned Men (1999), Giovanni Pontano’s Dialogues: Charon and Antonius (2012), and Giovanni Pontano’s Dialogues: Actius, Aegidius, and Asinus (forthcoming).
    [Show full text]