Cohen, David Eliezer (2015) The Biblical exegesis of Don Isaac Abrabanel. PhD thesis. SOAS University of London. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/22803/ Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. THE BIBLICAL EXEGESIS OF DON ISAAC ABRABANEL DAVID ELIEZER COHEN Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD 2015 Department of the Study of Religions, SOAS, University of London 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages 3-35 INTRODUCTION Pages 36-94 CHAPTER 1: BIOGRAPHICAL OUTLINE OF DON ISAAC ABRABANEL (1437-1508) Pages 95-154 CHAPTER 2: ABRABANEL’S BIBLICAL EXEGESIS: ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE, METHODOLOGY, STYLE AND CONTENT Pages 155-188 CHAPTER 3: ABRABANEL’S EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 1: DETAILED ANALYSIS Pages 189-225 CHAPTER 4: RELIGION AND POLITICS: A SURVEY OF ABRABANEL’S POLITICAL VIEWS AS EXPRESSED IN HIS BIBLICAL EXEGESIS Pages 226-270 CHAPTER 5: ABRABANEL’S STANCE TOWARDS CHRISTIANITY Pages 271-313 CHAPTER 6: ABRABANEL AND THE KARAITES Pages 314-351 CHAPTER 7: RACE AND ETHNICITY IN ABRABANEL’S BIBLICAL EXEGESIS Pages 352-389 CHAPTER 8: THE RECEPTION HISTORY OF ABRABANEL’S COMMENTARIES Pages 390-408 CHAPTER 9: OVERALL CONCLUSIONS Pages 409-424 BIBLIOGRAPHY Pages 425-453 APPENDIX 2 I. Introduction 1. The Subject of my Dissertation The subject of this dissertation is a study of Don Isaac ben Judah Abrabanel (also variously referred to as ‘Abarbanel’ or ‘Abravanel’ (1437-1508), insofar as his contribution to biblical exegesis is concerned. My study will also necessarily touch upon Abrabanel’s thought as Philosopher and Theologian, since (in common with many other biblical commentators) his philosophical and theological perspective heavily permeates his exegetical writings. My study commences with an introductory biographical outline of the salient facts relating to Abrabanel’s lineage, the religious and cultural milieu in which he was reared, his early religious and secular education, his particular gifts and talents, the personal, intellectual and social contacts forged by him, his appointment to high state office in various countries, achievements as Jewish communal leader, and enforced migrations throughout southern Europe as a result of supervening political events. It will also contain information on the elements of education of Jews of the late medieval and Renaissance eras. All these matters need to be mentioned as backdrop to Abrabanel’s exegetical and theological compositions, since, as expected, and as will presently be demonstrated, they heavily influenced the direction of his thinking, and hence the contents of his exegesis. However, this biographical chapter will be subordinated to the primary focus of my study, a detailed analysis of Abrabanel’s exegetical structure, methodology and 3 literary style, and of the substantive content of his commentaries. My study will extend over the full range of the biblical commentaries, so as to present a rounded and balanced picture. It will, wherever possible, include comparisons and contrasts with the exegesis of Abrabanel’s predecessors and contemporaries, and a survey of the considerable impact made by him upon subsequent theological and exegetical scholarship. Finally, there will be a number of specialised thematic chapters devoted to selected topics of particular interest. 1.2 Review of Existing Literature The ensuing discussion of previous relevant scholarship in the field will be both descriptive and analytical. Much secondary literature is available in relation to Abrabanel as biblical exegete. Whilst it is not feasible to refer to every author who has written on the subject, I shall refer to the views of those I regard as having made the most significant and useful contributions, and such views will, in turn, be subjected to detailed critical analysis to determine their validity in light of all available evidence from primary sources. For practical reasons, preference will be accorded to secondary literature composed in English or Hebrew (languages in which I am fluent), and in which most of the major literature is written; but it would be misleading to omit altogether references to scholarly contributions in German, French or Spanish where these clearly contribute to a profounder understanding of the subject. In such instances, I shall perforce rely, wherever possible, upon such English-language summaries of the main themes of the books, or articles, in question as are appended thereto, or on summaries contained in other secondary literature composed in English. I do, however, possess a working knowledge of French and Latin, which has enabled 4 me to read and/or translate unaided some important literary material in those languages. 1.2.1 Primary Sources The primary sources for the study of Abrabanel’s biblical exegesis are, naturally, the commentaries themselves, composed variously by him, in Hebrew, in Portugal, Spain, Naples and Venice between the mid-1460s and 1508, the year of his death. He wrote on the entire Pentateuch, the Former and Latter Prophets, and the Book of Daniel in the Hagiographa. There are other commentaries and chronicles, too; namely, the exegetical works of Abrabanel’s Jewish predecessors regularly cited by him. The most prominent of these are the commentaries of Rashi (N. France, 11th/12th cent.), R. Abraham ibn Ezra (Spain/Italy 11th/12th cent.), R. David Kimhi (‘Radak’) (S. France, 12th/13th cent.), Nahmanides (Spain/Palestine-12th/13th cent.), R. Levi b. Gershon [Gersonides] (S. France, 13th/14th cent.), the ‘D’rashot’ of R. Nissim Gerondi (‘Ran’) (Spain, 13th/14th cent.), and Maimonides’(12th/13th cents.) Guide for the Perplexed. Besides these, Abrabanel occasionally refers to the commentaries of Saadia Gaon (Egypt/Babylonia, 9th/10th cent.), the Gaon Samuel b. Hofni (Babylonia, 10th/11th cent.) and Joseph Ibn Kaspi (S. France/ Spain, 13th/14th cent.), and to the historical chronicles of the medieval historian Joseph (‘Josippon’) b. Gorion (S. Italy, 10th cent.), who produced an abridged, Hebrew version of the works of the ancient Jewish historian Josephus. For non-Jewish writings, a convenient sub-division may be made between, on the one hand, citations from pagan, classical writers, such as Plato, Aristotle and Seneca, 5 some of whose views Abrabanel paraphrases in the philosophical sections of his commentaries, and on the other, citations or paraphrases of extracts from the works of previous Christian theologians and Church Fathers, notably Jerome (Palestine, 4th/5th cent.), Augustine (N. Africa,4th/5th cent.), Aquinas (Cologne/Paris/Naples,13th cent.), Nicholas de Lyra (France/Burgundy, 13th/14th cent.) and Paul of Burgos (formerly Solomon ha-Levi, a celebrated 14th century convert to Christianity). Reference will be made in due course to a significant number of such primary sources in my discussion of Abrabanel’s own stance on the validity of the views of the various authors cited in his exegesis. 1.2.2 Secondary Literature. This again may conveniently be sub-divided into two distinct categories. The first comprises the works of Jewish and Christian biblical commentators writing during the period between Abrabanel’s death and the early 20th century, mainly of a sacred character, who cite Abrabanel’s commentaries either approvingly or disparagingly (as the case may be), within their own works. The names of many such exegetes will be provided in a subsequent ‘Reception History’ chapter. However, we may appropriately single out here some particularly eminent commentators throughout the ages who were manifestly influenced by Abrabanel. On the Jewish side, there are Solomon Ephraim Luntschitz (Poland, 16th/17th cent), author of the homiletical commentary ‘Kli Yakar’ on the Pentateuch, Menasseh ben Israel (Netherlands,17th cent.), David Altschuler (Poland, 18th cent.), author of the classic ‘Metzudot’, commentaries on the Prophets and Hagiographa, an admirer, Meir Malbim (Eastern Europe/ Prussia,19th cent.), another ardent admirer, with occasional reservations, 6 Samuel David Luzzatto (19th cent.), the renowned Italian scholar (‘Shadal’), and David Z. Hoffmann (Germany,19th/20th cent.). On the Christian side, it has been noted that as many as thirty biblical commentators have either translated parts of Abrabanel’s works into Latin or cited him, either approvingly or otherwise. Amongst the most famous of these are Johannes Buxtorf the Younger (Switzerland, 17th cent.), the early international jurist and biblical scholar Hugo Grotius (Netherlands, 17th cent.), and the Jesuit Oratorian, Richard Simon (France, 17th/18th cent.), regarded by some as the father of modern biblical criticism. The second category of secondary literature comprises the modern academic (non- sacred) work of historians, philosophers, biographers, and exponents of ‘Judische Wissenschaft’ on Abrabanel as a biblical exegete. The term ‘modern’ utilised here is intended to denote the period extending from the second third of the 19th century to date. In fact, virtually nothing of importance belonging to this genre was written about Abrabanel until the earlier half of that century, when several ‘Haskalah’ scholars addressed themselves to the issue of alleged plagiarism in his writings – an issue originally raised by his near-contemporaries Meir Arama (son of Isaac Arama, author of ‘Aqedat Yishaq’) and David Messer Leon in the early 16th century but long-since forgotten. An article on this theme appeared in a Judeo-German publication, ‘Israelitische Annalen’, in 1839, by E. Carmoly.1 This was followed the very next year by a similar type of article in the same journal by S.