Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T03:48:42.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Christian Hebraism in Twelfth-Century Rome: A Philologist's Correction of the Latin Bible through Dialogue with Jewish Scholars and their Hebrew Texts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2017

Marie Thérèse Champagne
Marie Thérèse Champagne*
Affiliation:
University of West Florida
*
*Department of History, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514, USA. E-mail: mchampagne@uwf.edu.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In mid-twelfth-century Rome, one clerical scholar, Nicolaus Maniacutius, honed his philological skills as he endeavoured to return the text of the Psalter to the original. Maniacutius met the challenge of editing Scripture in an unusual manner as a Christian Hebraist, consulting with Jewish scholars to compare the Vulgate Book of Psalms with the Jews’ Hebrew text. In doing so, he followed the example set by his scholarly predecessor, St Jerome, centuries earlier, as well as his contemporary, Hugh of St Victor. While scholars have acknowledged that Maniacutius consulted with Jews and learned Hebrew, the identity of the one or more Jewish scholar(s) remains obscure. The Sephardic scholar Abraham ibn Ezra lived in Rome c.1140–1143, and while there wrote a commentary on the Psalms. Nicolaus also revised the Psalter and wrote of a ‘learned Spanish Jew’. This article explores the phenomenon of Christian Hebraism in mid-twelfth-century Rome through the life and work of Maniacutius, and presents evidence that supports Cornelia Linde's suggestion that Abraham ibn Ezra was the ‘learned Spanish Jew’ with whom Maniacutius worked. In addition, textual evidence supports Maniacutius's work within an informal, cross-confessional discourse community of Jewish and Christian scholars.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 53: TRANSLATING CHRISTIANITY , June 2017 , pp. 71 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 2017 

Near the middle of the twelfth century, a Roman deacon wrote about his efforts to return biblical texts to their original form, while serving at the church of San Lorenzo in Damaso. He followed a practice, highly unusual in that era, of consulting Jewish scholars and comparing their sacred Hebrew texts with the Latin translations used by Christians, particularly the Book of Psalms, to determine the original wording and eliminate errors. Referring to one such encounter, he wrote of a ‘certain Spanish Jew learned in the writings of several languages’.Footnote 1 Nicolaus Maniacutius (Maniacoria)Footnote 2 who served as a deacon, Lateran canon and Cistercian monk (fl. c.1130s–1160s), filled a unique role in Rome as a Christian Hebraist.Footnote 3 This article explores the historical phenomenon of Christian Hebraism in mid-twelfth-century Rome through the lens of Nicolaus Maniacutius's life and work, as revealed in his own words.Footnote 4 Passages in his extant texts suggest that his Jewish contact in Rome was Rabbi Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra (d. 1167), a Sephardic scholar who lived in Rome during the early 1140s. Linde first proposed that ibn Ezra may have been the ‘Spanish Jew’ that Maniacutius consulted, although she acknowledged that this cannot be conclusively proved.Footnote 5 Ibn Ezra holds an important position among the medieval Jewish scholars from Muslim Spain (Al-Andalus): ‘He stands at a crossroads: behind him the flourishing era of Andalusian linguistics . . . before him, with his move to Italy, his transfer [of] the linguistic heritage of his Spanish ancestors to central Europe.’Footnote 6 Among the many texts ibn Ezra composed in different genres was a commentary on the Psalms, written while he was in Rome (c.1140–1143) or Lucca (c.1143–1145).Footnote 7 Maniacutius also undertook a revision of the Latin Psalter that had been translated by Jerome (d. 420) from the Hebrew text, apparently within the same time-frame as ibn Ezra.Footnote 8

This article will delve more deeply into the evidence for Jewish scholars in Rome, and particularly Abraham ibn Ezra's presence and work, presenting additional correlations between the approaches to language skills, accuracy and concern for the sacred texts taken by Maniacutius and ibn Ezra, which further substantiate the possible relationship suggested by Linde.Footnote 9 In addition, it will argue that the evi- dence indicates the existence of a discourse community of Christian and Jewish scholars in mid-twelfth-century Rome, which extended to Monte Cassino; scholars from both religions circulated copies of scriptural texts and discussed them. Such cross-religious cooperation and consultation, which has been demonstrated among Parisian and northern French Christian and Jewish scholars from the early twelfth century, has not hitherto been noted in Rome.Footnote 10

There is substantial overlap in the scriptural texts regarded by Christians and Jews as authoritative: the books known to Christians as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh, which Jews divide into the Torah or Pentateuch, the Nevi'im or Prophets and the Ketuvim or Writings.Footnote 11 Since all Western texts before the mid-fifteenth century were handwritten, scribal errors, omissions and additions gradually altered the texts over centuries of copying. For Christians, the steady circulation of manuscripts between abbots, bishops, monasteries, churches and cathedrals added to the complexity by producing many copies of the same text, with slight variations between them. Even though the version of the Scriptures that Jerome had produced in the late fourth and early fifth centuries was the authoritative Latin text in the Christian West, hand-copying and the resultant numerous copies in circulation introduced variations in that text.Footnote 12

In the era in which Maniacutius and ibn Ezra lived, the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanakh was the Masoretic Text. In addition to it, another body of texts used by both men, although not considered sacred, were the Targums, paraphrased Aramaic translations of the books of the Tanakh with accompanying exegesis.Footnote 13 The Targums were known among the Jewish scholarly community in Rome; an early twelfth-century Roman scholar, Rabbi Natan ben Yehi'el (c.1101) referred to Targum Job in his influential Talmudic encyclopedia, the ‘Arukh.Footnote 14

In both Christian and Jewish communities, a profound reverence for the Word of God underlay exegesis; within a renewed interest in the liberal arts, exegesis flourished during the High Middle Ages in Al-Andalus and Christendom among Jewish and Christian scholars alike.Footnote 15 As Signer has shown, from the eleventh century an increased emphasis on education prevailed among both Jewish and Christian students.Footnote 16 From the 1130s to the 1160s, the city of Rome was the setting for Maniacutius's endeavours to correct the Old Testament texts in order to arrive at the original texts and understand them more accurately. From the early fifth century to the early twelfth, Christian scholars rarely followed the methodology that Jerome had used in his translation, correction and exegesis of the Old Testament; Jerome had learned Hebrew as well as Aramaic, consulted Jewish scholars and compared the Latin text with the Hebrew.Footnote 17 Jerome also knew and used the Aramaic Targums in his exegesis.Footnote 18

Jerome's approach did, however, find some followers in the early twelfth century in northern France, where two Christian Hebraists, Stephen Harding (d. 1134),Footnote 19 third abbot of the Cistercian abbey of Cîteaux, and Hugh (d. 1141), abbot of St Victor in Paris, used elements of his method: each met with Jewish scholars and compared the Latin text with the Hebrew Bible.Footnote 20 Maniacutius and Hugh of St Victor were contemporaries, but while ample evidence exists for Hugh's Hebraism in Paris, the evidence suggests that Maniacutius was unique in pursuing Hebraism in Rome.Footnote 21 By the later 1160s, after Maniacutius's active scholarly period, the practices of consulting Jews, learning Hebrew and comparing the Hebrew and Latin texts became more common, as seen in the work of scholars such as Andrew of St. Victor (d. 1175) and Herbert of Bosham (d. c.1194). Stephen Harding, Hugh of St Victor, Andrew of St Victor and Herbert of Bosham all consulted Jewish scholars in northern France or England, where a rich tradition of contemporary Jewish exegesis continued.Footnote 22 They perceived their Jewish counterparts as valuable resources; as Smalley suggested, ‘the Jew appealed to [the medieval scholar] as a kind of telephone to the Old Testament’.Footnote 23 To that end, some medieval scholars also learned Hebrew and participated in a ‘discourse community’ that crossed confessional lines.Footnote 24

While unique and significant for his time and place, Maniacutius's Hebraism is only part of his intriguing life story and oeuvre. Ten of his texts are still extant. They include hagiographic works, adulations (of the papacy), methodological treatises and revisions of the Psalter.Footnote 25 In these works Maniacutius demonstrated his familiarity, not only with a broad range of Christian texts, but also with the works of ibn Ezra and Rabbi Solomon bar Isaac, commonly known as Rashi (d. 1105).Footnote 26

In his revisions of the Psalter, Maniacutius followed Jerome's example, correcting different versions of the Psalter that had originated with him. Over seven centuries earlier, Jerome had produced three different Latin translations. The Psalterium Romanum or ‘Roman Psalter’ was Jerome's earliest revision of the Old Latin text, translated from the Septuagint into Latin c.383.Footnote 27 He produced a second version, the Psalterium Gallicanum or ‘Gallican Psalter’ (c.387) by using Origen's Hexapla to assist in translating the Septuagint into Latin.Footnote 28 Between 391 and 405, Jerome then translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew text, thus producing a third version of the Psalter, the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos.Footnote 29

Maniacutius knew of Jerome's three different versions of the Psalter. He revised the Psalterium Romanum and the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos, to which he gained access through the efforts of a Jewish scholar who knew of a copy at Monte Cassino.Footnote 30 He also revised a third version, the only other variation of the Psalter by Maniacutius that is still extant, which has been described as an intermediate text between the Hebrew, Gallican and Roman.Footnote 31 As a Roman cleric, he was familiar with the Psalterium Romanum in common use in the city; he also knew the Psalterium Gallicanum from its wider circulation in Europe at that time.Footnote 32 Differences between the Psalters based on the Septuagint (Psalterium Romanum), the Hexapla (Psalterium Gallicanum) and the Hebrew text (Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos) appear in the division of individual psalms and in the wording.Footnote 33 Translating the Psalms through multiple languages, such as Jerome's translation into Latin from the Septuagint, which itself was translated from the Hebrew original, had changed the text. Comparing the result of that process with a more direct translation from Hebrew to Latin, as Jerome later did, demonstrated variations in the wording.Footnote 34

Maniacutius's motivation for following Jerome's example derived from a deeper reason than methodology. In his vita of Jerome, Maniacutius expressed his personal devotion to the saint, which was probably influenced by his mother's own devotion to Jerome. Maniacutius explained that when pregnant with him, his mother had prayed for Jerome's intercession for the safe delivery of her baby.Footnote 35 Undoubtedly Maniacutius was also influenced by scholarly motives, but where and when he received his education, learned of Jerome's approach, and decided to follow it, is unclear.

In another text, Libellus de corruptione et de correptione psalmorum et aliarum quarundam scripturarum, Maniacutius discussed his work in correcting the biblical text. He began by addressing his patron, Abbot Dominic, and in so doing revealed that he had acquired a scholarly reputation amongst the Roman clergy.

Wishing to emend your psalter as you had asked, Abbot Dominic, according to our version, that is, that of the Cistercian Order, I discovered this one to be more corrupted than yours. What shall I do? For if I carry it out, I have not lessened corruptions, but rather increased them; if not, however, I shall perhaps incur suspicion of laziness, while you can suppose that what I claim is false. So that I can avoid this suspicion, therefore, I shall undertake a labour greater than that which you are demanding and no less useful to us ourselves than to you, unless perhaps it should fall into the hands of those despisers who, embracing custom alone, prefer naked lies to the truth.Footnote 36

As Maniacutius gained expertise with exegesis and the mechanics of the Latin language, and recited the psalms day after day, he grew increasingly concerned about out-of-place words and phrases, and the differences between copies of what were supposedly the same version of the Psalter.Footnote 37 His words also indicate his frustration with others who did not value an accurate translation as much as he did.Footnote 38

Maniacutius's texts also reveal a greater degree of familiarity, not only with Jewish texts but also with Jewish practices and traditions, than would be expected in Christian clergy at that time, suggesting that he had first-hand knowledge of rabbinic and scribal practices. His decades-long activity within the Roman clergy in different roles also indicates familiarity with the city and its people, including its Jews.Footnote 39 As Maniacutius wrote in his Libellus, again to Abbot Dominic:

You will answer, ‘And from what [source] will I distinguish a lie from the truth?’ I will say, ‘From the Hebrew source.’ . . . Therefore, when you discover clashing versions, have recourse to the language from which they were translated and, from the volumes varying among themselves, believe that one which you will find to harmonize with the language from which it was taken. . . . You will say, however, ‘Perhaps the codices of the Jews have been falsified.’ I will answer, ‘I will not neglect the counsel of wise men for the sake of that doubt of yours.’ Still you will add, ‘I myself believe that they have been falsified.’ . . . Nevertheless, incline your ear and hear how they cannot easily be violated. Their whole zeal is given to the Old Testament, and among them it has not been altered by any translators (so that one translation can be mixed up with another). Furthermore, an old copy, written out with the utmost zeal, is guarded with great diligence in the reliquary of the synagogue.Footnote 40

Somewhat surprisingly, this passage suggests that Maniacutius had personal knowledge of Jewish scribal practices, particularly within the synagogue. He also knew of the ‘niche’ in which the Torah scroll was kept in the synagogue.Footnote 41 In the middle decades of the twelfth century, Christian clergy who had personal knowledge of Jewish practices and traditions were usually converts from Judaism. There is no evidence, however, that Maniacutius was a convert. His confident statement reveals very specific knowledge, gained either first-hand or from his Jewish counterparts, that supported his belief in the accuracy of the Hebrew text.

In the Libellus Maniacutius also referred directly to his personal study of Hebrew:

For indeed I have decided to carefully mark all the passages corrupted either by the carelessness of scribes or by the presumption of any others, and to uncover the cause of each corruption with as much care as I can, having employed aids for this purpose from all sides, and especially the source of Hebrew truth, from which you know that I have tasted (even if only a little), but also the new translation of blessed Jerome and the Roman translation, and also other translations, when I can, so that from the collection of many considerations the truth may more easily begin to shine.Footnote 42

Although he wrote that he had only ‘tasted (. . . a little)’ of the Heb- raica veritas, Maniacutius's texts indicate otherwise.Footnote 43 The numerous correlations between his corrections to the Old Testament in his Suffraganeus bibliothece and works by Rashi and Abraham ibn Ezra stand as evidence.Footnote 44 In addition, Maniacutius occasionally wrote Hebrew letters within his Latin texts to demonstrate a particular point in his translation.Footnote 45 In the Suffraganeus, he only commented on corrections to the books of Christian Scripture that were in the Hebrew Bible, and not in contention between Jewish and Christian scholars. It is clearly apparent that Maniacutius valued the Hebrew source as the most accurate.Footnote 46 Again, from the Libellus:

Meanwhile, I do not cease to wonder that this translation of Jerome according to Hebrew truth is not obliged to be included in his Bibles. For even if, at the request of Pope Damasus, it is read that he first translated it [the Old Testament] from the Greek and afterwards corrected it again and again, as he says to Paula and her daughter Julia Eustochium in a certain prologue, nevertheless none of those editions so expresses the truth as this one does. I suppose, however, that, annoyed now by so many revisions, the Church made provision neither to include this one (though truer than all) in Bibles nor to chant it in churches. Thus, up to these times, his [juxta Hebraicum] version could scarcely be discovered.Footnote 47

While recent scholarship, particularly within Cistercian studies, has continued to acknowledge Maniacutius's Hebraism, scholars have not focused specifically or extensively on his communications with Jews or his use of their sacred texts. Nor have they discussed his personal goal of learning Hebrew, also expressed in his Libellus:

For even I would perhaps not have it unless a certain Hebrew, arguing with me and claiming that almost everything that I was objecting to him from the Psalms was otherwise, had indicated that it had been brought from Monte Cassino in the possession of a certain priest. It was then that I first aspired to the knowledge of the Hebrew language.Footnote 48

The information provided by the ‘certain Hebrew’ indicates communication between that individual and a priest, and particular knowledge of the origin of ‘it’ (the Psalms text), the Benedictine abbey of Monte Cassino. These intriguing points indicate that in this case, Jewish and Christian scholars were comparing texts and discussing the meaning of the Psalms in Rome; however, they also indicate that communication within this ‘discourse community’ extended to the circulation of texts beyond Rome to Monte Cassino, if not further.Footnote 49

The significance of Maniacutius's Roman origin, long service in the local church, and communication with Jewish scholars is especially notable in light of the make-up of the Roman Jewish community, whose roots extended back to at least the second century BCE.Footnote 50 It had a long-standing relationship with the bishop of Rome, and at times had acted as intermediary between Jews elsewhere in Christendom and the papacy.Footnote 51 In twelfth-century Rome, an active and vibrant community of Jews continued to practise their faith and traditions. Despite separation from Christians in many aspects of their lives, these Jews thought of the city of Rome as their home. They interacted with Christians in the marketplace and participated, along with the Christian population, in the acclamation of a newly elected pope as one of the seventeen Roman scholae, civic groups of craftsmen.Footnote 52 One prominent Jew seems to have served Pope Alexander III as his papal steward. According to Benjamin of Tudela, ‘R. Yehiel, a minister of the Pope . . . is a handsome young man, intelligent and wise, and has access to the residence of the pope, serving as the steward of his household and all of his property. He is a grandson of R. Nathan, who composed the Sefer ha-‘arukh and its commentaries.’Footnote 53 These Jews participated in the discourse about the history of their city, holding many of the same beliefs in ancient legends, but also the same misconceptions about local sites and historic objects. For Jews as well as Christians, Rome was a dense landscape of cultural memories.Footnote 54

A respected tradition of Rabbinic studies continued within the Roman Jewish community through the Middle Ages; from the tenth century, that community supplied legal advice in response to the needs of Ashkenazic communities in northern Europe. Roman Jewish scholars, particularly the Qualonymos family, served as the main channel for Jewish thought and ritual to Jewish communities elsewhere, at first in Lucca, and later to others in northern cities such as Mainz.Footnote 55 This scholarly role of the Roman Jewish community meant that rabbinic scholars were present and active in Rome during the era in which Maniacutius was consulting Jews. The existence of such a learned element in the Jewish community could explain why Abraham ibn Ezra, after leaving Al-Andalus c.1140, first travelled to Rome and resided with that community for several years.Footnote 56 As Linde has argued, his expertise added to the collective skills of that community, and communications with him would have benefitted Maniacutius.Footnote 57 Perhaps Maniacutius's motivation for consulting the Spanish scholar lay also in the reputation for accuracy that Spanish Hebrew Bibles had within Christendom.Footnote 58 Maniacutius's respect for the highest scholarly standards, evident in his texts and in his standing within the Roman community, make the respected Sephardic scholar ibn Ezra a likely consultant.Footnote 59

Abraham ibn Ezra was clearly one of the most influential medieval Jewish scholars.Footnote 60 After leaving his homeland, he spent the rest of his life as a wandering scholar. He lived in Rome from c.1140 until c.1143, when he journeyed to Lucca where he remained until c.1145. He then moved to France and thence to England; when he died c.1167, ibn Ezra probably was residing in London.Footnote 61 His written works included biblical commentaries, grammatical analyses, poetry, theological treatises, scientific texts and a comprehensive collection of astrological textbooks.Footnote 62

Ibn Ezra revered Hebrew as the first language and the language of God, but he also believed it could be used successfully to express contemporary concepts, even if they would have been unknown to ancient writers.Footnote 63 In many cases he found that terms within the biblical text already carried a scientific meaning; in other treatises, as he translated from Arabic into Hebrew, he introduced a new use for a Hebrew term.Footnote 64 The reverence in which later Jews held ibn Ezra is apparent in references to him in the works of Maimonides (1135–1204) and Nachmanides (1194–1270), both highly influential Sephardic exegetes and philosophers, as well as their successors.Footnote 65

While ibn Ezra studied and wrote in a range of fields, his work on Hebrew grammar significantly influenced his writings in other areas. Thus in his commentaries he stressed the importance of grammatical analysis in discerning the meaning of words.Footnote 66 He advocated an exegetical method which began with close examination of the grammar of each word, before moving on to discerning its meaning.Footnote 67 In his Commentary on the Pentateuch, ibn Ezra explained his preference for this particular method: ‘It appears to me to be correct in the presence of God whom alone I fear. I will not show favouritism to anyone when it comes to interpreting the Torah. I will, to the utmost of my ability, try to understand grammatically every word, and then do my best to explain it.’Footnote 68

Of the sixty-two extant texts by Ibn Ezra, five focus on Hebrew grammar.Footnote 69 It is known that he studied the grammar of biblical Hebrew, rather than the spoken Hebrew of his day, holding that the diaspora and consequent adoption of different languages by Jews living in many cultures had corrupted their spoken Hebrew.Footnote 70 It is also known that Maniacutius communicated with the ‘Spanish Jew’ about the Hebrew Scriptures.Footnote 71 His perspective makes ibn Ezra the perfect Jewish biblical scholar for Maniacutius to consult.

Other correlations between Maniacutius's methods and skills and those of ibn Ezra make consultations between the two even more likely.Footnote 72 In his commentaries, ibn Ezra used the Targum, the paraphrased Aramaic translation of the Tanakh and associated commentary.Footnote 73 Maniacutius also made use of the Targum.Footnote 74 Ibn Ezra apparently knew some Latin and may have assisted in producing the Latin translation of some of his texts; Maniacutius knew both Latin and Hebrew.Footnote 75 While much is circumstantial, the evidence increasingly supports Linde's theory that Abraham ibn Ezra was indeed the ‘Spanish Jew’ of whom Maniacutius wrote.

Similarities also exist between the views on textual correction held by ibn Ezra and those of Maniacutius, and specifically in their caustic reactions to incorrect methods. In the Libellus, Maniacutius complained of a reckless scribe he had encountered in the scriptorium of San Martino in Monte, who was incorrectly combining all variants from different copies of the Psalter into his new version.Footnote 76 Ibn Ezra similarly criticized the Masoretes for the way they explained inconsistencies in spellings within the Hebrew Bible: ‘Since the Massorites claim to be able to explain the reasons for full and defective spellings, let them tell us what spelling the scribes should have used in writing Scripture. . . . Actually, the reason[s] given by the Massorites for the different spellings of the same word are for children.’Footnote 77

Circumstantial evidence supports Linde's thesis that Maniacutius and Abraham ibn Ezra consulted each other about their methods of analysis and correction of Scripture.Footnote 78 Both men had tremendous respect and reverence for sacred Scripture; their interests intersected in the value they both placed on the original Hebrew text. Both men worked on the text of the Book of Psalms, and analysed the grammar and meaning of the ‘biblical Hebrew’ words. Maniacutius's work focused on grammatical dissection and he urged careful analysis. In his treatises, not only those that focused on grammatical theory and analysis, ibn Ezra promoted the careful study of grammar.Footnote 79 Both men lived and worked in Rome at the same time, and could have met in consultation over the Hebrew texts. Maniacutius's linguistic skills included Hebrew; he conducted his work within an inter-confessional discourse community of scholars in Rome and outside it; he reported receiving a text from a Jew; and he also referred to a ‘learned Spanish Jew’, indicating that he was acquainted with the Jewish community. Moreover, Maniacutius's detailed knowledge of Jewish scribal traditions also indicates direct familiarity with those traditions. Whether or not ibn Ezra can be proved definitively to be the ‘Spanish Jew’ that Maniacutius consulted, at this point he is, as Linde has argued, the most likely candidate. Perhaps most importantly, the intersection of Jewish and Christian scholars in Rome made possible Maniacutius's innovative methodology, which still intrigues us today.

Footnotes

I wish to thank Michael Aaron Champagne and Steve Schoenig for their generous assistance with Latin translations.

References

1 ‘Hebraeus quidam Hispanus diversarum linguarum litteris eruditus’: CChr.CM 262, 141; Linde's introduction to this volume, which is entitled Nicolai Maniacoria: Suffraganeus bibliothece, was extremely helpful to this study, and I am grateful for her generous communications with me. See also Linde, Cornelia, ‘Basic Instruction and Hebrew Learning: Nicolaus Maniacoria's Suffraganeus bibliothece’, RTAM 80 (2013), 1–16Google Scholar, at 11–12; eadem, ‘Some Observations on Nicola Maniacutia's Suffraganeus Bibliothece’, in Dolezalova, Lucie and Visi, Tamas, eds, Retelling the Bible: Literary, Historical, and Social Contexts (Frankfurt am Main, 2011), 159–68Google Scholar; eadem, How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura? Textual Criticism of the Latin Bible between the Twelfth and Fifteenth Century, Medium Ævum Monographs 29 (Oxford, 2012). Signer, Michael, in ‘Polemic and Exegesis: the Varieties of Twelfth-Century Hebraism’, in Coudert, Allison P. and Shoulson, Jeffrey S., eds, Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe (Philadelphia, PA, 2004), 21–32Google Scholar, at 24, also notes that Maniacutius had mentioned a ‘Spanish Jew’ in his Libellus de corruptione et de correptione psalmorum et aliarum quarundam scripturarum, the text of which is found in only one codex: Montpellier, Bibliothèque de l'École de Médecine, MS H294, fols 144r–159v; Peri, Vittorio published a transcription in ‘Correctores immo corruptores. Un saggio di critica testuale nella Roma del XII secolo’, Italia medioevale e umanistica 20 (1977), 19–125Google Scholar, at 88–125.

2 Over the centuries, his surname has been recorded in at least twenty-eight different spellings. In this article, Maniacoria and Maniacutius denote the same individual.

3 The sequence in which Maniacutius moved between these three roles is not certain. Most scholars have claimed that Maniacutius had joined the Cistercians by early 1145; however, I firmly support a position first proposed by Linde, that he probably joined that order in his later years (c.1160s), after having served as a deacon and then as an Augustinian canon regular. For a thorough discussion of the problems inherent in determining Maniacutius's chronology, see CChr.CM 262, vii–xv.

4 Maniacutius's works have been extensively studied from Heinrich Denifle in the late nineteenth century onwards. For a recent study, see Guglielmetti, Rossana, ‘Nicola Maniacutia, “Corruzione e correzione dei testi”’, Ecdotica 5 (2008), 267–98Google Scholar.

5 CChr.CM 262, xxxiv; Linde, ‘Basic Instruction’, 10–12; see also Sela, Shlomo, Abraham Ibn Ezra and the Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science (Leiden, 2003), 10Google Scholar; Signer, Michael, ‘Rabbi and Magister: Overlapping Intellectual Models of the Twelfth-Century Renaissance’, Jewish History 22 (2008), 115–37, at 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Charlap, Luba R., ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra's Viewpoint regarding the Hebrew Language and the Biblical Text in the Context of the Medieval Environment’, Folia linguistica historica 26 (2006–7), 1–11, at 1Google Scholar.

7 Sela, Shlomo and Freudenthal, Gad, ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra's Scholarly Writings: A Chronological Listing’, Aleph 6 (2006), 13–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 18, 26–7. Sela and Freudenthal point out that in 1156 ibn Ezra wrote another commentary on the Psalms while in Rouen: ibid. 21.

8 Weber, Robert, ‘Un Nouveau manuscrit de la révision du psautier «Iuxta Hebraeos» due à Nicolas Maniacoria’, RB 85 (1975), 402–4Google Scholar; Linde, ‘Observations’, 160–1. Grabois, Aryeh claims that Maniacutius was the first Christian scholar to focus on the Psalms in that century: ‘The Hebraica Veritas and Jewish-Christian Intellectual Relations in the Twelfth Century’, Speculum 50 (1975), 613–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 628–9.

9 CChr.CM 262, xxxiv; Linde, ‘Basic Instruction’, 10–12.

10 See Linde, ‘Basic Instruction’, 13–15, for Maniacutius's place among known Christian Hebraists of that century.

11 Stein, David E. Sulomm, ‘Preface’, The JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA, 1999), xv–xxiGoogle Scholar.

12 Linde, ‘Observations’, 159.

13 CChr.CM 262, xxxiii–xxxv, 178; Charlap, ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra's Viewpoint’, 8; Ezra, Abraham ibn, Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis (Bereshit), ed. and transl. Strickman, H. Norman and Silver, Arthur M. (New York, 1985), 17–18Google Scholar; Signer, ‘Rabbi and magister’, 131. Levine, Étan, ‘The Biography of the Aramaic Bible’, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982), 353–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 374, explains: ‘despite its didactic importance and element of sanctity, the Targum was not regarded as “sacred”, and the distinction was zealously maintained’.

14 McNamara, Martin, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI, 2010), 318Google Scholar. For a discussion of the ‘Arukh, see Cuomo, Luisa Ferretti, ‘Le Glosse Volgari nell'Arukh di R. Natan ben Yehi'el da Roma’, Medioevo Romanzo 22 (1998), 232–83Google Scholar.

15 Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd edn (Notre Dame, IN, 1978), xxxiiGoogle Scholar; eadem, ‘Andrew of St Victor, Abbot of Wigmore: A Twelfth-Century Hebraist’, RTAM 10 (1938), 358–73.

16 Signer, ‘Rabbi and magister’, 116–17.

17 See Brown, Dennis, Vir Trilinguis: A Study on the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome (Kampen, 1992)Google Scholar; Kelly, J. N. D., Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies, 2nd edn (Peabody, MA, 1998)Google Scholar; Kraus, Matthew, ‘Hebraisms in the Old Latin Version of the Bible’, Vetus Testamentum 53 (2003), 487–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hayward, Robert, in Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity (Leiden, 2010), 281–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, determined that Jerome was skilled in Aramaic and Syriac as well as Hebrew.

18 Hayward, Targums, 301–4, 315–17.

19 Fiesoli, G., ‘La “lectio divina” Cisterciense da Stefano Harding a Nicolò Maniacutia’, Medioevo e Rinascimento. Annuario del Dipartimento di studi sul Medioevo e il Rinascimento dell'Università di Firenze 25 (2011), 161–97Google Scholar. Harding's complete Bible is in Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale, MSS 12–15. He also wrote of his work with Jewish scholars in the Monitum (c.1109): PL 166, 1373–6.

20 Berndt, Rainer, ‘The School of St. Victor in Paris’, in Sæbø, Magne, ed., Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, 2 vols (Göttingen, 2000), 1/ii, 486–9Google Scholar; Smalley, Study, 83–106.

21 See Smalley, Study, 77–82, 97–111, for a discussion of Hugh's predecessors and followers who also consulted learned Jews in Paris and elsewhere from as early as c.1070. This article presents the current state of knowledge regarding Christian Hebraism in mid-twelfth-century Rome; at this point there is only evidence for Maniacutius working as a Christian Hebraist in the city at that time.

22 Smalley, Study, 112–95; Goodwin, Deborah, ‘Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew:’ Herbert of Bosham's Christian Hebraism (Leiden, 2006), 73–94Google Scholar.

23 Smalley, Study, 362.

24 On the concept of the ‘discourse community’, see Borg, Erik, ‘Discourse Community’, ELT Journal 57 (2003), 398–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Porter, James E., ‘Intertextuality and the Discourse Community’, Rhetoric Review 5 (1986), 34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the setting of mid-twelfth-century Rome, this informal group of scholars discussed common texts, and also circulated texts among themselves. The number of participants is uncertain; however, Maniacutius's Libellus clearly indicates communication and sharing of texts between Jewish and Christian scholars: see the excerpt from it at n. 48 below.

25 Vita beatae Constantidae virginis; Vita beatarum Praxedis et Pudentianae; Vita Sancti Hieronymi; Ad incorrupta pontificum nomina conservanda; Tractatus Nicolai Maniacutii de imagine SS. Salvatoris in Lateranensi palatio (also known as Historia imaginis Salvatoris and De sacra imagine); Libellus de corruptione et de correptione psalmorum et aliarum quarundam scripturarum; Suffraganeus bibliothece; revisions of the Psalter ad Romanum and Psalter iuxta Hebraeos (Jerome's Gallican Psalter), and a third revised Psalter that apparently has elements of all three versions; in addition, each revised Psalter has a preface.

26 CChr.CM 262, xxxii, 147–207. Linde notes numerous instances in Maniacutius's Suffraganeus bibliothece in which he used the works of Jewish scholars such as Abraham ibn Ezra and Rashi, but also Church Fathers and Christian scholars, including Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, Hugh of St Victor and Gregory the Great. Maniacutius's other texts also indicate his familiarity with specifically Roman ecclesiastical texts, e.g. Descriptio Lateranensis ecclesiae (c.1073–1105): see Wolf, Gerhard, ‘Laetare filia sion. Ecce ego venio et habitabo in medio tui: Images of Christ transferred to Rome from Jerusalem’, Jewish Art 23–24 (1997–8), 419–29Google Scholar, at 422–3. For further information on Rashi and his position within Jewish and Christian exegesis, see Kalman, Jason, ‘Medieval Jewish Biblical Commentaries and the State of Parshanut Studies’, Religion Compass 2/5 (2008), 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hailperin, Herman, ‘Christian Acquaintance with the Works of Rashi, 1125–1300’, in idem, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh, PA, 1963), 103–34Google Scholar; Schoenfeld, Deborah, Isaac on Jewish and Christian Altars: Polemic and Exegesis in Rashi and the Glossa Ordinaria (New York, 2013)Google Scholar; Stern, David, ‘The Hebrew Bible in Europe in the Middle Ages’, Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 11 (2012), 235–322, at 301Google Scholar.

27 For a brief history of the Septuagint, see Eaton, John, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary, with an Introduction and New Translation (London, 2005), 43–4Google Scholar.

28 Kelly, Jerome, 12–18. The Hexapla, compiled by Origen in the 230s, was a comparison of six different versions of the Christian Old Testament: the Hebrew text, the ‘Greek transliteration of the Hebrew’, the ancient Septuagint, and three Jewish revisions of the Septuagint then in circulation, by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion: Law, T. M., ‘Origen's Parallel Bible: Textual Criticism, Apologetics, or exegesis?’ JThS 59 (2008), 3–9Google Scholar.

29 The Gallican version of the Psalms, which Jerome had translated earlier from the Septuagint with the help of the Hexapla, was more familiar in most of Christian Europe, and was generally inserted into the Old Testament instead of a translation from the Hebrew. In the sixteenth century, the authoritative text became known as the Vulgate Bible: see Eaton, Psalms, 44. For a summary of these different translations and historical issues, see Kelly, Jerome, 89, 158, 283–6.

30 Maniacutius, Libellus, fol. 145r, col. B (Peri, ‘Correctores immo corruptores’, 91). His revision of the Psalterium Romanum is found today in only one manuscript: Rome, Archivio Capitolare Lateranense, S.M. in Trastevere, Arm. I, litt. A, num. 2, in capsa ferrea. The manuscript was examined in the archive of Santa Maria in Trastevere in 1953, but was moved to the archive in the Lateran basilica complex at a later date: Robert Weber, ‘Deux Préfaces au psautier dues à Nicolas Maniacoria’, RB 63 (1953), 3–17Google Scholar, at 4–5 n. 4.

31 The ‘intermediate version’ is referenced in the online catalogue entry for London, BL, MS Egerton 2908, fols 169r–185v, at: http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS032-002249251, accessed 27 August 2016. Linde noted Maniacutius's revisions of the Psalterium Romanum and the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos: CChr.CM 262, xv–xvii, xxii–xxiv.

32 Brown, Vir Trilinguis, 101–2.

33 Holladay, William L., The Psalms through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses (Minneapolis, MN, 1993), 4Google Scholar.

34 Rice, Eugene F. Jr, Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore, MD, 1985), 15–18Google Scholar.

35 Weber, ‘Deux Préfaces’, 3–17; CChr.CM 262, xv–xxv; see also PL 22, cols 183–202, at 185.

36 ‘Volens psalterium tuum sicut petieras, abba Dominice, ad exemplar nostrum, id est Cisterciensis Ordinis, emendare, amplius hoc quam tuum deprehendi corruptum. Quid faciam? Si enim hoc egero, non diminui corruptiones, quin potius augmentavi; sin autem, suspicionem pigritiae forsan incurram, dum putare potes falsum esse quod assero. Ut igitur hanc suspicionem valeam evitare, laborem aggrediar eo grandiorem quem exigis et nobis ipsis non minus quam tibi utilem, nisi forte in eorum manus incidat contemptorum, qui solam consuetudinem amplectentes nuda mendacia praeferunt veritati’: Maniacutius, Libellus, fol. 144r, col. A (Peri, ‘Correctores immo corruptores’, 88).

37 Lectio divina had been prescribed for the entire clergy by Augustine of Hippo (d. 430) and for monastics by Benedict of Nursia (d. 547): Lawrence, C. H., Medieval Monasticism, 3rd edn (Harlow, 2001), 30–4, 111–14, 142Google Scholar; Augustine, On Christian Doctrine (De doctrina Christiana), NPNF I 2, 476–7; Benedict, The Rule of St. Benedict, ed. Bruce L. Benarde, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 6 (Harvard, MA, 2011).

38 On Maniacutius's attention to accuracy, see Boyle, Leonard, ‘Tonic Accent, Codicology, and Literacy’, in The Centre and its Compass: Studies in Medieval Literature in Honor of Professor John Leyerle, ed. Taylor, Robert A. et al. (Kalamazoo, MI, 1993), 1–10Google Scholar, at 3.

39 A definitive chronology of Maniacutius's life is still not established, therefore any correlation of his works with each clerical role he undertook remains insecure.

40 ‘Respondebis: et unde mendacium a veritate discernam? Ex Hebraico, inquam, fonte. . . . Cum ergo discordantia repereris exemplaria, ad linguam recurre unde translata sunt et de variantibus inter se voluminibus illi crede quem linguae de qua sumptum est invenies concordare. . . . Dices autem: forsan falsati sunt codices Iudaeorum. Respondebo: pro dubitatione ista tua non negligam sapientium consilium. Adhuc subiunges: Ego eos credo falsatos esse. . . . Et tamen aurem accommoda et audi quomodo nequeant facile violari. Penes Vetus Testamentum est totum eorum studium et hoc apud eos nullis est translatoribus variatum, ut una translatio possit cum alia commisceri. Praeterea vetus exemplar summo studio exaratum in synagogae loculo magna diligentia custoditur’: Maniacutius, Libellus, fol. 146r, cols A–B (Peri, ‘Correctores immo corruptores’, 92). Linde explains why Maniacutius turned to the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos to correct the Latin Psalter versions, and why he believed the Hebrew was actually a more reliable guide to the original text: CChr.CM 262, xxxvii.

41 The translation of loculo is rather uncertain. According to Niermeyer, J. F. and Van de Kieft, C., Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, 2 vols (Leiden, 2002), 1: 808Google Scholar, loculus could mean a coffin, reliquary or grave. It is unclear how the Torah scroll would have been stored in a twelfth-century Roman synagogue, as compared to the Ashkenazic or Sephardic traditions, but it definitely would have been in a reverent and secure location within the synagogue; therefore ‘reliquary’ seems appropriate. In addition, that meaning would have been a familiar concept to Maniacutius: see also Stow, Kenneth R., Alienated Minority: The Jews of Medieval Latin Europe (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 69Google Scholar. This reference by Maniacutius to a loculus will be studied further in the context of the Roman Italo-Ashkenazic synagogue traditions. For an explanation of how the Torah was covered and protected in the synagogues of Rome in the early modern and modern eras, see Castro, Daniela, ed., Treasures of the Jewish Museum of Rome: Guide to the Museum and Its Collection, transl. Rosenberg, Lenore (Rome, 2010)Google Scholar.

42 ‘Decrevi nanque cuncta loca, vel scriptorum incuria vel quorumlibet aliorum praesumptione corrupta, curiose notare et occasiones singularum corruptionum quanta possum cura detegere, adhibitis michi [sic] ad hoc undecunque suffragiis et maxime fonte veritatis Hebraicae, de quo me scis etsi modicum degustasse, sed et nova beati Ieronimi ac Romana translatione, aliis quoque, si possum, probationibus, ut ex multarum rationum collegio veritas facilius elucescat’: Maniacutius, Libellus, fol. 144r, col. A (Peri, ‘Correctores immo corruptores’, 88). Maniacutius's phrase fonte veritatis Hebraicae refers, apparently, to the Hebrew text.

43 Linde posits that Maniacutius's statement near the beginning of the Libellus regarding the ‘Hebrew truth, from which you know that I have tasted (even if a little)’, reflects a ‘humility-topos’: CChr.CM 262, xl.

44 See CChr.CM 262, 178, 206–7, for a listing of twenty-six instances identified by Linde in Maniacutius's Suffraganeus bibliothece that correlate with Abraham ibn Ezra's commentaries, and twenty-seven correlations with Rashi's texts.

45 CChr.CM 262, xvii n. 34; Weber, ‘Deux Préfaces’, 6–8.

46 Linde, ‘Basic Instruction’, 4.

47 ‘Interim mirari non desino quod haec Ieronimi iuxta Hebraicam veritatem translatio bibliothecis eius non habeatur inserta. Nam et si petente papa Damaso de Graeco prius transtulisse legatur et postea iterum atque iterum correxisse, ut ad Paulam et filiam eius Iuliam Eustochium in quodam prologo loquitur, nulla tamen earum editionum ita exprimit veritatem ut ista. Puto autem quod tam multis renovationibus iam ecclesia fastidita hanc, licet omnibus veriorem, nec bibliothecis inserere nec cantare in ecclesiis procuravit. Unde usque ad haec tempora exemplar eius reperiri vix poterat’: Maniacutius, Libellus, fol. 145r, col. B (Peri, ‘Correctores immo corruptores’, 90–1).

48 ‘Nam et ego illud forsitan non haberem, nisi quidam Hebraeus, mecum disputans et paene singula quae ei opponebam de psalmis aliter habere se asserens, hoc de Monte Cassino allatum esse penes quendam praesbyterum indicasset. Tunc primum ad Hebraeae linguae scientiam aspiravi’: Maniacutius, Libellus, fol. 145r, col. B (Peri, ‘Correctores immo corruptores’, 91).

49 Both Weber (‘Deux Préfaces’, 14–15) and Linde (CChr.CM 262, xv–xvii) indicate that copies of Maniacutius's Psalter iuxta Hebraeos are bound in two other codices: Montecassino MSS 434, 467.

50 Champagne, Marie Thérèse and Boustan, Ra'anan, ‘Walking in the Shadows of the Past: The Jewish Experience of Rome in the Twelfth Century’, Medieval Encounters 17 (2011), 464–94Google Scholar.

51 Simonsohn, Shlomo, ed., The Apostolic See and the Jews, Documents: 490–1404 (Toronto, ON, 1988), 15 (no. 19)Google Scholar.

52 Twyman, Susan, Papal Ceremonial at Rome in the Twelfth Century (London, 2002), 201–6Google Scholar; Cencius, Liber Censuum, in Fabre, Paul and Duchesne, Louis, eds, Le Liber Censuum de l’église romaine, 3 vols (Paris, 1889–1952), 1:304–6Google Scholar, paragraphs [42]–[56]). For a discussion of medieval Ashkenazic Jewish life in northern European societies, see Baumgarten, Elisheva, ‘Daily Commodities and Religious Identity in the Medieval Jewish Communities of Northern Europe’, in Doran, John, Methuen, Charlotte and Walsham, Alexandra, eds, Religion and the Household, SCH 50 (Woodbridge, 2014), 97–121Google Scholar.

53 Benjamin of Tudela, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Travels in the Middle Ages, ed. and transl. Adler, Marcus Nathan (Malibu, CA, 1983), 63Google Scholar; Champagne and Boustan, ‘Walking’, 468–70.

54 Champagne and Boustan, ‘Walking’, 487.

55 Ibid. 472; Cuomo, ‘Le Glosse Volgari’, 232–83; see also Linde, ‘Basic Instruction’, 14; Grabois, Aryeh, ‘Écoles et structures sociales des communautés juives dans l'Occident aux IXe–XIIe siècles’, Gli Ebrei nell'alto Medioevo 2 (1980), 937–62, at 952Google Scholar.

56 Sela, Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science, 6–7.

57 CChr.CM 262, xxxiii. Linde states that ibn Ezra ‘brought the local Jewish community to intellectual flowering’.

58 Stern, ‘Hebrew Bible’, 248 n. 23; Sarna, Nahum M., ‘Ibn Ezra as an Exegete’, in Twersky, Isadore and Harris, Jay M., eds, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 1–21, at 7–8Google Scholar.

59 CChr.CM 262, xxvii–xxx.

60 Grabois, ‘Écoles et structures’, 954–5.

61 Sela, Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science, 2.

62 Sela, Shlomo, Abraham Ibn Ezra on Nativities and a Continuous Horoscopy, Études sur le judaïsme médiéval 59 (Leiden, 2013), 4Google Scholar; Sela and Freudenthal, ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra's Scholarly Writings’, 18–48.

63 Sela, Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science, 106.

64 Ibid. 104–43.

65 Silver, Preface to ibn Ezra, Commentary on Genesis, ed. and transl. Strickman and Silver, vii.

66 Aranda, Mariano Gómez, ‘Grammatical Remarks in The Commentary of Abraham Ibn Ezra on Qohelet’, Sefarad 56 (1996), 61–82, at 61, 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Signer, ‘Rabbi and magister’, 131.

68 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Genesis, ed. and transl. Strickman and Silver, 17.

69 Sela and Freudenthal, ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra's Scholarly Writings’, 18–22; Greenspahn, Frederick E., ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra and the Origin of some Medieval Grammatical Terms’, Jewish Quarterly Review 76 (1986), 217–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Charlap, ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra's Viewpoint’, 4.

71 Ibid. 6; Stern, ‘Hebrew Bible’, 235–322.

72 CChr.CM 262, xxxiii–xxxv.

73 Charlap, ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra's Viewpoint’, 8; Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Genesis, ed. and transl. Strickman and Silver, 17–18; Signer, ‘Rabbi and magister’, 131; cf. CChr.CM 262, 178. While the Targum was used by several notable Jewish scholars of this era, including Rashi, it was not always consulted. Some eleventh-century Jewish scholars had advised that study of it be stopped, but this was not generally implemented except in the northern provinces of Spain under Christian rule: see n. 14 above, and Houtman, Alberdina, ‘The Role of the Targum in Jewish Education in Medieval Europe’, in eadem, von Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline and Kirn, Hans-Martin, eds, A Jewish Targum in a Christian World (Leiden, 2014), 81–98, at 88, 91–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 This raises the question of whether Maniacutius knew Aramaic too. In addition to numerous instances in which he utilized the texts of Rashi and ibn Ezra in his Suffraganeus bibliothece, Maniacutius also used the Targum: CChr.CM 262, 207.

75 Sela, Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science, 23; Maniacutius, Libellus, fol 145r, col. B (Peri, ‘Correctores immo corruptores’, 91). The question of Maniacutius's actual fluency in Hebrew is still unanswered; however, on the basis of evidence in the Suffraganeus bibliothece, Linde suggested that his skill was ‘between cultural and lexical Hebraism’ (CChr.CM 262, xli), terms that Michael Signer introduced in ‘Polemic and Exegesis’, 21–32. In other words, Maniacutius could not read Hebrew completely independently, but he was able to deal with Hebrew texts with the help of his Hebrew consultants.

76 Maniacutius, Libellus, fol 158r, col. A (Peri, ‘Correctores immo corruptores’, 121).

77 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Genesis, ed. and transl. Strickman and Silver, 18.

78 CChr.CM 262, xxxiii–xxxv.

79 Sela, Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science, 328–9.