{"title":"《Peshat的规则:圣经直白意义的犹太人构造及其基督教和穆斯林语境》,900-1270年,莫迪凯·z·科恩著;《中世纪欧洲的拉希、圣经解释和拉丁语学习:一场训诂学革命的新视角》,莫迪凯·z·科恩著(评论)","authors":"Robert A. Harris","doi":"10.1353/ajs.2023.a911536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reviewed by: The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900–1270 by Mordechai Z. Cohen, and: Rashi, Biblical Interpretation, and Latin Learning in Medieval Europe: A New Perspective on an Exegetical Revolution by Mordechai Z. Cohen Robert A. Harris Mordechai Z. Cohen. The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900–1270. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020. 496 pp. [End Page 456] Mordechai Z. Cohen. Rashi, Biblical Interpretation, and Latin Learning in Medieval Europe: A New Perspective on an Exegetical Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 350 pp. With these two publications, Mordechai Cohen has managed to break new ground and, particularly with The Rule of Peshat, has provided most useful studies for anyone interested in the history of medieval biblical exegesis. The “rule” that Cohen addresses in The Rule of Peshat is that “a (Scriptural) verse never escapes from the hands of its plain meaning,” an ancient rabbinic dictum1 but one that the medievals applied in a range of meanings that the book investigates. The words “plain meaning” render the elusive ancient rabbinic term פשוטו, which, like its medieval successor, פשט, was never defined either in antiquity or the medieval period.2 Cohen has written eight chapters in The Rule of Peshat, each devoted to an individual exegete or school, and in each of them he analyzes the degree to which those commentators have incorporated the rule in their exegesis. Following an introduction in which he traces the emergence of peshat from its antecedents in ancient midrash, Cohen includes chapters on Geonim and Karaites; the Andalusian school; Rashi; R. Joseph Kara and Rashbam; the Byzantine tradition; Abraham Ibn Ezra; Maimonides; and Naḥmanides. In The Rule of Peshat, Cohen distinguishes his approach from the older scholarly view that finds a “continuous peshat-derash dichotomy from antiquity to the modern era”; instead, he argues for a dynamic view of peshat that each peshat exegete developed on his own and/or in light of exegetes who preceded him. Briefly, Cohen examines the means through which medieval exegetes transformed an ancient, barely recognized observation into the fundamental rule for much of their biblical exegesis. Cohen points out that for early pashtanim such as Saʿadiah, the rule was firm—but yielded to rabbinic devotion to Oral Torah that was determinant in case of conflict between peshat and Halakhah. However, later exegetes strengthened the rule, which led to peshat being considered of coequal value with midrash, even with respect to biblical verses that nominally addressed matters of Halakhah. Ultimately, Cohen claims that for some exegetes, the rule requires the exegete to recognize peshat as the “exclusive hermeneutical authority,” even with the attendant problems to which this claim might lead.3 This is not the place to consider the degree to which Rashi ought be regarded as a pashtan. The undeniable truth that the vast preponderance of Rashi’s Torah commentary is rooted in midrash notwithstanding, Cohen treats Rashi’s engagement [End Page 457] with the concept of peshuto shel mikraʾ in both books. While it is patently obvious to this reviewer that Rashi clearly articulates his commitment to both peshat and derash in service of the explication of Scripture’s language,4 Cohen provides a fairly level-headed discussion of the issues. Minimally, Cohen illustrates the means through which Rashi related to the rule in accounting for the sequence and arrangement of the biblical text, and does so within the context of Rashi’s contemporary Christian world.5 Among the northern French exegetes who followed Rashi, Cohen devotes a chapter to R. Joseph Kara and Rashbam.6 However, most of the rest of the book is devoted to exegetes who operated in the Mediterranean world, from Byzantium to Spain, in particular R. Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, and Naḥmanides. Unfortunately, despite thorough discussions throughout, the volume suddenly ends without a summary chapter in which the author might have offered a general reflection about the “rise and fall” of peshat in the medieval world. Nonetheless, Cohen’s study will prove to be an indispensable tool for anyone interested in the study of medieval...","PeriodicalId":54106,"journal":{"name":"AJS Review-The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies","volume":"23 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900–1270 by Mordechai Z. Cohen, and: Rashi, Biblical Interpretation, and Latin Learning in Medieval Europe: A New Perspective on an Exegetical Revolution by Mordechai Z. Cohen (review)\",\"authors\":\"Robert A. Harris\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ajs.2023.a911536\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reviewed by: The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900–1270 by Mordechai Z. Cohen, and: Rashi, Biblical Interpretation, and Latin Learning in Medieval Europe: A New Perspective on an Exegetical Revolution by Mordechai Z. Cohen Robert A. Harris Mordechai Z. Cohen. The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900–1270. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020. 496 pp. [End Page 456] Mordechai Z. Cohen. Rashi, Biblical Interpretation, and Latin Learning in Medieval Europe: A New Perspective on an Exegetical Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 350 pp. With these two publications, Mordechai Cohen has managed to break new ground and, particularly with The Rule of Peshat, has provided most useful studies for anyone interested in the history of medieval biblical exegesis. The “rule” that Cohen addresses in The Rule of Peshat is that “a (Scriptural) verse never escapes from the hands of its plain meaning,” an ancient rabbinic dictum1 but one that the medievals applied in a range of meanings that the book investigates. The words “plain meaning” render the elusive ancient rabbinic term פשוטו, which, like its medieval successor, פשט, was never defined either in antiquity or the medieval period.2 Cohen has written eight chapters in The Rule of Peshat, each devoted to an individual exegete or school, and in each of them he analyzes the degree to which those commentators have incorporated the rule in their exegesis. Following an introduction in which he traces the emergence of peshat from its antecedents in ancient midrash, Cohen includes chapters on Geonim and Karaites; the Andalusian school; Rashi; R. Joseph Kara and Rashbam; the Byzantine tradition; Abraham Ibn Ezra; Maimonides; and Naḥmanides. In The Rule of Peshat, Cohen distinguishes his approach from the older scholarly view that finds a “continuous peshat-derash dichotomy from antiquity to the modern era”; instead, he argues for a dynamic view of peshat that each peshat exegete developed on his own and/or in light of exegetes who preceded him. Briefly, Cohen examines the means through which medieval exegetes transformed an ancient, barely recognized observation into the fundamental rule for much of their biblical exegesis. Cohen points out that for early pashtanim such as Saʿadiah, the rule was firm—but yielded to rabbinic devotion to Oral Torah that was determinant in case of conflict between peshat and Halakhah. However, later exegetes strengthened the rule, which led to peshat being considered of coequal value with midrash, even with respect to biblical verses that nominally addressed matters of Halakhah. Ultimately, Cohen claims that for some exegetes, the rule requires the exegete to recognize peshat as the “exclusive hermeneutical authority,” even with the attendant problems to which this claim might lead.3 This is not the place to consider the degree to which Rashi ought be regarded as a pashtan. The undeniable truth that the vast preponderance of Rashi’s Torah commentary is rooted in midrash notwithstanding, Cohen treats Rashi’s engagement [End Page 457] with the concept of peshuto shel mikraʾ in both books. While it is patently obvious to this reviewer that Rashi clearly articulates his commitment to both peshat and derash in service of the explication of Scripture’s language,4 Cohen provides a fairly level-headed discussion of the issues. Minimally, Cohen illustrates the means through which Rashi related to the rule in accounting for the sequence and arrangement of the biblical text, and does so within the context of Rashi’s contemporary Christian world.5 Among the northern French exegetes who followed Rashi, Cohen devotes a chapter to R. Joseph Kara and Rashbam.6 However, most of the rest of the book is devoted to exegetes who operated in the Mediterranean world, from Byzantium to Spain, in particular R. Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, and Naḥmanides. Unfortunately, despite thorough discussions throughout, the volume suddenly ends without a summary chapter in which the author might have offered a general reflection about the “rise and fall” of peshat in the medieval world. Nonetheless, Cohen’s study will prove to be an indispensable tool for anyone interested in the study of medieval...\",\"PeriodicalId\":54106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJS Review-The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies\",\"volume\":\"23 9\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJS Review-The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ajs.2023.a911536\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJS Review-The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ajs.2023.a911536","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
由Mordechai Z. Cohen的《Peshat的规则:圣经的明显意义的犹太人结构及其基督教和穆斯林背景》(900-1270)和Mordechai Z. Cohen的《中世纪欧洲的Rashi,圣经解释和拉丁语学习:一场训诂学革命的新视角》(Robert A. Harris Mordechai Z. Cohen)审阅。Peshat的规则:犹太人对圣经的理解及其基督教和穆斯林语境,900-1270。费城:宾夕法尼亚大学出版社,2020。[End Page 456] Mordechai Z. Cohen。《圣经解释与中世纪欧洲的拉丁语学习:一场训诂学革命的新视角》。剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2021。有了这两本出版物,Mordechai Cohen成功地开辟了新的领域,尤其是《Peshat的规则》,为任何对中世纪圣经注释史感兴趣的人提供了最有用的研究。科恩在《Peshat的规则》中提到的“规则”是:“(圣经)经文永远不会脱离其简单含义的掌控。”这是古代拉比的格言,但在书中研究的是中世纪的一系列含义。单词“plain meaning”是古拉比语中难以理解的术语“- - -”的意思,这个词和它在中世纪的后继词“-”一样,在古代和中世纪都没有定义科恩在《Peshat的规则》中写了八章,每一章都专门讨论一个注释者或学派,在每一章中,他都分析了这些注释者在他们的注释中融入规则的程度。在介绍中,他追溯了peshat在古代米德拉什的前身的出现,科恩包括了关于Geonim和Karaites的章节;安达卢西亚学派;Rashi;R.约瑟夫,卡拉和拉什巴姆;拜占庭传统;亚伯拉罕·伊本·以斯拉;迈蒙尼德;和Naḥmanides。在《Peshat的规则》一书中,科恩将他的方法与旧的学术观点区分开来,后者发现了“从古代到现代持续的Peshat -derash二分法”;相反,他主张一种动态的peshat观点,每个peshat注释者都是根据自己和/或根据他之前的注释者发展起来的。简而言之,科恩考察了中世纪注释者如何将一个古老的、几乎不为人所知的观察转化为圣经注释的基本规则。科恩指出,对于早期的普什塔尼教徒,比如萨·迪亚,这条规则是坚定的,但在peshat和哈拉卡之间发生冲突时,拉比对口述律法的忠诚是决定性的。然而,后来的注释者加强了这一规则,这导致peshat被认为与midrash具有同等的价值,即使是在名义上涉及哈拉卡问题的圣经经文方面。最后,科恩声称,对于一些注释者来说,这个规则要求注释者承认peshat是“唯一的解释学权威”,即使伴随着这种说法可能导致的问题这里不是讨论拉什在多大程度上应该被视为普什坦人的地方。不可否认的事实是,尽管Rashi的Torah评论的巨大优势植根于米德拉什,但Cohen在两本书中都将Rashi的参与(End Page 457)与peshuto shel mikra - n的概念联系起来。对于这个评论家来说,很明显,拉什清楚地表达了他对peshat和derash的承诺,以服务于对圣经语言的解释,4科恩提供了一个相当冷静的问题讨论。最低限度地,科恩说明了拉希在解释圣经文本的顺序和排列时与规则相关的方法,并在拉希的当代基督教世界的背景下这样做在跟随Rashi的法国北部注释家中,Cohen用了一章来描述R. Joseph Kara和rashham .6然而,书中其余的大部分内容都致力于在地中海世界(从拜占庭到西班牙)工作的注释家,特别是R. Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides和Naḥmanides。不幸的是,尽管经过了深入的讨论,这本书突然结束了,没有一个总结章,作者本可以提供一个关于中世纪世界peshat的“兴衰”的一般性反思。尽管如此,科恩的研究将被证明是对中世纪研究感兴趣的人不可或缺的工具。
The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900–1270 by Mordechai Z. Cohen, and: Rashi, Biblical Interpretation, and Latin Learning in Medieval Europe: A New Perspective on an Exegetical Revolution by Mordechai Z. Cohen (review)
Reviewed by: The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900–1270 by Mordechai Z. Cohen, and: Rashi, Biblical Interpretation, and Latin Learning in Medieval Europe: A New Perspective on an Exegetical Revolution by Mordechai Z. Cohen Robert A. Harris Mordechai Z. Cohen. The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900–1270. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020. 496 pp. [End Page 456] Mordechai Z. Cohen. Rashi, Biblical Interpretation, and Latin Learning in Medieval Europe: A New Perspective on an Exegetical Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 350 pp. With these two publications, Mordechai Cohen has managed to break new ground and, particularly with The Rule of Peshat, has provided most useful studies for anyone interested in the history of medieval biblical exegesis. The “rule” that Cohen addresses in The Rule of Peshat is that “a (Scriptural) verse never escapes from the hands of its plain meaning,” an ancient rabbinic dictum1 but one that the medievals applied in a range of meanings that the book investigates. The words “plain meaning” render the elusive ancient rabbinic term פשוטו, which, like its medieval successor, פשט, was never defined either in antiquity or the medieval period.2 Cohen has written eight chapters in The Rule of Peshat, each devoted to an individual exegete or school, and in each of them he analyzes the degree to which those commentators have incorporated the rule in their exegesis. Following an introduction in which he traces the emergence of peshat from its antecedents in ancient midrash, Cohen includes chapters on Geonim and Karaites; the Andalusian school; Rashi; R. Joseph Kara and Rashbam; the Byzantine tradition; Abraham Ibn Ezra; Maimonides; and Naḥmanides. In The Rule of Peshat, Cohen distinguishes his approach from the older scholarly view that finds a “continuous peshat-derash dichotomy from antiquity to the modern era”; instead, he argues for a dynamic view of peshat that each peshat exegete developed on his own and/or in light of exegetes who preceded him. Briefly, Cohen examines the means through which medieval exegetes transformed an ancient, barely recognized observation into the fundamental rule for much of their biblical exegesis. Cohen points out that for early pashtanim such as Saʿadiah, the rule was firm—but yielded to rabbinic devotion to Oral Torah that was determinant in case of conflict between peshat and Halakhah. However, later exegetes strengthened the rule, which led to peshat being considered of coequal value with midrash, even with respect to biblical verses that nominally addressed matters of Halakhah. Ultimately, Cohen claims that for some exegetes, the rule requires the exegete to recognize peshat as the “exclusive hermeneutical authority,” even with the attendant problems to which this claim might lead.3 This is not the place to consider the degree to which Rashi ought be regarded as a pashtan. The undeniable truth that the vast preponderance of Rashi’s Torah commentary is rooted in midrash notwithstanding, Cohen treats Rashi’s engagement [End Page 457] with the concept of peshuto shel mikraʾ in both books. While it is patently obvious to this reviewer that Rashi clearly articulates his commitment to both peshat and derash in service of the explication of Scripture’s language,4 Cohen provides a fairly level-headed discussion of the issues. Minimally, Cohen illustrates the means through which Rashi related to the rule in accounting for the sequence and arrangement of the biblical text, and does so within the context of Rashi’s contemporary Christian world.5 Among the northern French exegetes who followed Rashi, Cohen devotes a chapter to R. Joseph Kara and Rashbam.6 However, most of the rest of the book is devoted to exegetes who operated in the Mediterranean world, from Byzantium to Spain, in particular R. Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, and Naḥmanides. Unfortunately, despite thorough discussions throughout, the volume suddenly ends without a summary chapter in which the author might have offered a general reflection about the “rise and fall” of peshat in the medieval world. Nonetheless, Cohen’s study will prove to be an indispensable tool for anyone interested in the study of medieval...