Sep 10, 2012 By: jtaubes


- Professor Bar-Asher and Prof. Robert Gleave (University of Exeter) presented papers on Qur’an 3, 7, a verse that implies that God’s word—as expressed in Sacred Scripture—must be understood literally. Their presentation explored how this verse was understood by Muslim commentators, and how it led to the value Islam placed on arriving at singular clarity in understanding the intention of God (murād allāh). By contrast, which emerged from the ensuing discussion, Christian interpreters in all ages tended to regard the Bible as multivalent and avidly sought hidden meanings in Scripture.
- In his paper, Professor Cohen proposed a new theory for assessing Rashi’s plain sense (peshat) exegesis in light of his intellectual milieu in northern France, specifically the distinctive literary interpretive mode of his older contemporary St. Bruno the Carthusian, an influential master at the Cathedral school at Rheims, just 70 miles from Rashi’s native Troyes. Cohen’s theory was inspired by the chapter of the group volume contributed by Andrew Kraebel (Yale University), which discusses the pivotal role that Bruno’s Psalms commentary played within the eleventh-century Cathedral school at Rheims.
- Prof. Rita Copeland (University of Pennsylvania) presented a paper explicating how classical rhetoric, a discipline originally designed as a guide to oratory, was appropriated within the Christian interpretive tradition—from Late Antiquity to the Late Middle Ages—as a tool for interpreting Sacred Scripture. Copeland then pointed to a dramatic application of this very method by the Italian Renaissance Jewish scholar Judah Messer Leon. This opened the door for the two prepared responses that explored earlier Jewish applications of rhetoric to interpret the Hebrew Bible, one in the Jerusalem Karaite school by Prof. Meira Polliack (Tel-Aviv University), the other, by Professor Cohen, on the Andalusian Rabbanite tradition (Moses Ibn Ezra and Radak).
- Professor Bar-Asher opened the next session with a summary of the views in Islam on the permissibility of translating the Qur’an, the subject of his chapter in the joint volume of the group. As he noted, the general Muslim belief is that he very language of the Qur’an is essential to its sublimity and spiritual power, and therefore cannot be captured by translation into any other language. Three prepared responses were then presented for comparison. Professor Copeland discussed objections in fourteenth-century England to translating the Vulgate into English—but these focused on the danger of misrepresenting Christian doctrine (and thereby promoting heresy), rather than concern for tarnishing the Bible’s stylistic excellence. In sharp contrast, as Prof. Stephen Prickett (University of Kent) discussed, the translation of the Bible into multiple languages was welcomed in post-Reformation Europe as a means of bringing out the manifold potential meanings of the word of God. Finally, Professor Berlin explored how modern scholars, working with a different set of concerns, seek to overcome the challenges of Bible translation, from issues of accuracy to those of stylistic felicity.
- The final session of the conference was chaired by Prof. James Kugel (Bar-Ilan University), a world-renowned scholar of ancient Bible interpretation. It opened with a presentation by Prof. Sidney Griffith (The Catholic University of America) on Syriac typological interpretation, as exemplified in the madrashe (homilies) of Jacob of Serug (451-521). As he showed, the Syriac fathers sought to fathom the pelatha (mysteries; compare the term nifla’ot in Ps 119:18) of the Old Testament through the Gospel narratives, for example, by viewing the sacrifice of Isaac as a prefiguration of the crucifixion. Prof. Jon Whitman (Hebrew University) then provided reflections on the relationship between typological and allegorical interpretation in the Christian West from antiquity to the modern period—when these hermeneutical conceptions substantially influenced modern literary theory.
