You are on page 1of 34

THIS IS NOT THE FINAL VERSION

Quotations, Translations, and Uses of Jewish Texts in Ramon Marts Pugio Fidei
Philippe Bobichon
Institut de Recherche et dHistoire des Textes, CNRS, Paris

1. Introduction
Ramon Marts discourse in the Pugio Fidei is replete with quotations, often
unacknowledged and sometimes very extensive, which contribute to the works function
and are revealing of its authors method. These quotations come from a variety of fields
(Greek and Latin classical literature, Arabic literature, the Bible, Christian literature,
rabbinical literature) and are very often given in the original language before being
translated. They are so intricately interwoven that setting them apart distorts their
function to some extent; it is nevertheless necessary in order to identify them.
A survey of the Arabic quotations has been undertaken by Miguel Asn Palacios,
ngel Cortabarra, and now by Ryan Szpiech and Damien Traveletti; 1 I have recently
published a study on Martis Latin sources. 2 Hebrew quotations have occasioned some
in-depth studies, which are sometimes very controversial, yet limited to one aspect of
Marts work.
An exhaustive study of Jewish sources is, of course, out of the question in the
present paper. Such a study should be based on a complete edition of the Pugio Fidei,
taking into account the entire manuscript tradition. At this stage of our common
research, this article aims at providing an overview of the sources and describing their
1

See the sources cited in Ryan Szpiech, Citas rabes en caracteres hebreos en el Pugio fidei del

Dominico Ramon Mart: Entre la autenticidad y la autoridad, Al-Qantara 32, no. 1 (2011): 81, note 31.
2

Philippe Bobichon, La bibliothque de Raymond Martin au couvent Sainte-Catherine de Barcelone:

Sources antiques et chrtiennes du Pugio fidei (ca 1278), in Entre stabilit et itinrance: Livres et
culture des ordres mendiants, XIIIeXVe sicle, ed. Nicole Briou, Martin Morard and Donatella NebbiaiDalla Guarda, Bibliologia 37 (Brepols: Turnhout, 2014).

treatment. It will conclude with a comparison with other sources employed by Mart,
which will allow us to determine whether the elements that are constantly interwoven in
his discourse are treated differently in his argumentative strategy.

2. The Pugio Fidei


Composed by a former fellow student of Thomas Aquinas and completed in
1278, the Pugio Fidei (The Dagger of Faith) is a veritable summa intended to be used
for preaching and polemical debate. It was conceived as part of the Dominican effort to
convert Jews and Muslims. Beginning in the middle of the thirteenth century, this effort
had been bolstered by the foundation of the Studia Linguarum, in which the clergy
being trained for missionary service were taught Arabic and Hebrew language and
culture.
We are dealing with a vast work: the text of the Leipzig edition 3 amounts to 641
pages, and the manuscript in Paris, Bibliothque Sainte-Genevive, MS 1405
(hereinafter the BSG manuscript)the oldest and most completehas 428 folios and
851 pages (excluding the guard leaves). Following a prologue in which the author
introduces the circumstances of the works composition and his intentions, the body of
the Pugio Fidei is divided into three parts of unequal length:
A first part (Prima pars), made up of 26 chapters and dedicated to the
refutation of the opinions of the philosophers (as well as those of certain Christian
heretics) on theological questions (such as Gods existence, the supreme good, the
immortality of the soul, the eternity of the world, divine providence and the knowledge
of particulars, the resurrection of the dead, etc.)

Raymundi Martini Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos hebraice et latine cum observationibus

Josephi de Voisin et introductione J. B. Carpzovii, qui simul appendicis loco Hermanni Judaei opusculum
de sua conversione ex manuscripto Bibliothecae Paulinae Academiae Lipsiensis recensuit (Leipzig:
sumptibus haeredum Friderici Lanckisi, typis viduae Johannis Wittigav, 1687), reprinted in facsimile
(Farnborough: Gregg, 1967).

A second part (Secunda pars), made up of 15 chapters and dedicated to the


tribes of Israel and to the different Jewish sects in Jesuss time (chapters 1 and 2), then
to questions related to the Messianic advent (chapters 3 to 15).
A third part (Tertia pars), made up of 43 chapters subdivided into 3
distinctiones. This last part, which is less clearly structured than the first two, deals with
different issues related to Christian theology or the articles of the Creed: divine unity,
the Trinity, original sin or the theology of Redemption; the double nature of the
Messiah, the creation of man in Gods image, the different stages of the Christological
mission; the status of the Jews and of the commandments after Christs coming.
None of the surviving manuscripts nor those used for the edition has a
conclusion. The numbering of the three parts, of the distinctiones, and of the chapters
was present from the genesis of the work, since it is mentioned both in the prologue and
in the introduction written by the copyist of the manuscript in the Bibliothque SainteFoix de Toulouse, 4 and it is already present in the BSG manuscript (the numbering of
the first part of this manuscript also shows visible signs of correction).
The big questions addressed in this work (the Messiah, divine unity, the Trinity,
and the status of Israel) are the same ones that structure (to different degrees) most
polemical texts, whether Jewish or Christian. The order adopted in this case reflects the
relative importance of the issues at the historical moment in which the Pugio Fidei was
written: the lawwhich had been a priority during the early centuries of Christianity
is confined to the last chapters and receives cursory treatment, whereas one of the
distinctiones is dedicated entirely to the theology of Redemptiona theme hardly ever
mentioned in older polemical texts but which would occupy a central position in the
Jewish-Christian debates of the thirteenth century.

This manuscript is lost, but a copy, now in Paris, Bibliothque Mazarine, MS 796 (2138), was made in

the seventeenth century for Joseph de Voisins edition of the Pugio FideiRaymundi Martini Pugio fidei
adversus Mauros et Judaeos hebraice et latine cum observationibus Josephi de Voisin (Paris: Matth. et
Jean Henault, 1651).

In the manuscripts, 5 as well as in the existing editions, numerous and precise


cross-references are imbedded in the structure of the text. This suggests that Ramon
Mart had a clear-cut idea as to the works organization even as he was writing it.

3. Method for the Study of Jewish Sources


The study of Jewish sources is based mainly on the Leipzig edition, but I have
also consulted the BSG manuscript, which is, to this day, the richest and oldest copy of
the Pugio Fidei. In a more complete version, my research will include all the quotations
present in this manuscript (mainly in the margins or on appended folios) and absent
from the manuscripts on which the edition is based. Moreover, it would not be
impossible to find in other manuscripts elements that are absent from the manuscripts
used for the edition.
The description of the following corpus is accompanied by precise figures
representing the number of quotations for each category of texts. The accounting has
been done with as much precision as possible, but it goes without saying that it cannot
be exact. What can be interpreted as a quotation in the Pugio Fidei and in medieval
literature generallydepends on how one defines quotation: explicit and clearly
delimited quotations; implicit quotations; paraphrases; summaries; allusions;
fragmented quotations alternating with heterogeneous elements or commentaries;
repetitions of previously quoted fragments; very long quotations (sometimes extending
over several pages) or quotations comprising only a few words, etc. For Jewish (or
Hebrew) sources, only the explicit quotations have been taken into consideration, since
this gives us an exact idea of their number and importance. Moreover, Hebrew
quotations tend to be clearly delimitedand even identifiedin Ramon Marts
discourse, which is already an indication of their function. For the Latin sources, such a
method would have been inappropriate, because the Christian quotations (and those
borrowed from ancient Greek and Latin literature by Christian authors) are usually
5

On manuscripts and editions, see: Szpiech, Citas rabes, 7680; Grge K. Hasselhoff, Towards an

Edition of Ramon Marts Pugio Fidei, Bulletin de philosophie mdivale 55 (2013): 4556; Raimundus
Martini, Texte zur Gotteslehre. Pugio fidei I-III, 1-6. Lateinisch Hebrisch / Aramisch Deutsch, ed.
and trans. Grge K. Hasselhoff, HBPhMA Bd. 31 (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2014), 3438 and 4042.

implicit. Even though Jewish, Arabic, and Latin sources are constantly interwoven in
the Pugio Fidei, they do not all have the same function: only those clearly identified and
presented as quotations by the author can be considered as part of his argumentative
strategy. The others, meant solely for the reader capable of identifying them, have no
specific function in this strategy.
The issue of the authenticity of some midrashic quotations cannot be addressed
here. It has not been demonstrated (as yet) whether the concerned passages are the result
of a forgery, and in any case, they are not singled out as such by the author. 6 This means
that they were invested with the same function as all the other passages reproduced in
this manner.
6

On the question of Marts alleged forgeries, the bibliography is extensive. See: Leopold Zunz, Die

Gottesdienstlichen Vortrge der Juden (Berlin: Asher, 1832), 28793; Samuel Rolles Driver, Adolf
Neubauer, and Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish
Interpreters (Oxford: J. Parker, 1877); Adolf Neubauer, ed., The Book of Tobit: A Chaldee Text from a
Unique Ms. in the Bodleian Library, with Other Rabbinical Texts, English Translation and the Itala
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1878), viix and xxxxv; Salomon M. Schiller-Szinessy, The Pugio Fidei,
Cambridge Journal of Philology 16 (1887): 13152; Adolf Neubauer, Jewish Controversy and the Pugio
fidei, The Expositor 7 (1888): 81106 and 17997; Abraham Epstein, Bereschit-rabbati (Handschrift
der Prager jd. Gemeinde). Dessen Verhltniss zu Rabba-rabbati, Moses ha-Darschan und Pugio Fidei,
Magazin fr die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 15 (1888): 6569; Isral Levi, review of Bereschit Rabbati,
dessen Verhltniss zu Rabba Rabbati, Moses ha-Darschan und Pugio Fidei, by Abraham Epstein, Revue
des Etudes Juives 17 (1888): 31317; Saul Liebermann, Shkiin: A Few Words on Some Jewish Legends,
Customs, and Literary Sources Found in Karaite and Christian Works (Including an Index of the Jewish
Books Cited in Pugio Fidei of Raymund Martini) [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Bamberger and Wahrmann,
1939); Yitzhak Baer, The Forged Midrashim of Raymond Martini and Their Place in the Religious
Controversies in the Middle Ages [Hebrew], in Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein
(Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ. Press Association, 1942), 2849; Saul Liebermann, Raymund Martini and His
Alleged Forgeries, Historia Judaica 5 (1943): 87102; Alejandro Dez Macho, Acerca de los midrasim
falsificados de R. Mart, Sefarad 9 (1949): 16596; Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: The
Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1982), 135 and notes 1213; Domingo
Muoz Len, Targum, Midrash y Talmud en la obra Pugio Fidei de Raimundo Mart: los nombres y
atributos divinos del Nio-Hijo de Is. 9:56, in Biblia, exgesis y cultura: estudios en honor del Prof. D.
Jos Mara Casciaro, ed. Gonzalo Aranda, Claudio Basevi, and Juan Chapa (Pamplona: EUNSA, 1994),
44762; Ursula Ragacs, The Forged Midrashim of Raymond Martini Reconsidered, Henoch 19, no. 1
(1997), 5968.

Among the Jewish quotations, some could not be identified with certainty
(admitting that it is possible to identify them with certainty). Nevertheless, this does not
affect their treatment, since the author himself does not distinguish them.

4. General Description of the Corpus


The quotations identified according to these principles can be classified as
follows:
1395 biblical quotations, of which 1272 are from the Old Testament and 123
from the New Testament (94 quotations from the Gospels, of which 10 are in Hebrew; 7
one quotation from Acts; 28 quotations from the Epistles).
1 quotation from the Masorah (according to Aaron ben Asher).
225 quotations from the Targum Onkelos or Targum Jonathan (the two are
not always clearly differentiated).
276 quotations from biblical commentators: 237 from Rashi; 35 from
Abraham ibn Ezra; 4 from David Kimhi.
43 quotations from grammarians: 2 from Jonah ibn Janahs Sefer hashorashim; and 41 from David Kimhis Mikhlol.
475 quotations from different midrashim; the most massively quoted are the
Genesis Rabbah (150 quotations) and the Psalms Rabbah (143 quotations).
261 quotations from the Mishnah or the Talmud, not always clearly
differentiated. Maimonidess Mishne torah is quoted 5 times in the edition and at least 6
times in the BSG manuscript.
17 quotations from historiographical works: 15 from the Seder olam, 2 from
Joseph ben Gurions Sefer yosippon.
7

See Judah Rosenthal, Early Hebrew Translations of the Gospels [Hebrew], Tarbiz 32 (196263): 48

66; Pinchas E. Lapide, Hebrew in the Church: The Foundations of Jewish-Christian Dialogue (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 1316; Ryan Szpiech, The Aura of an Alphabet: Interpreting the Hebrew
Gospels in Ramon Marts Dagger of Faith (1278), Numen: International Review for the History of
Religions (2014): 33463.

Maimonidess Guide for the Perplexed is quoted or mentioned 14 times in


the edition and at least 15 times in the BSG manuscript.
Nahmanidess Sefer ha-geullah (Book of Redemption) is quoted twice; the
Toldot yeshu, twice.
The Jewish sources used in the Pugio Fidei are extremely diverse and cover
almost all fields related to the study of the Bible and the interpretation of the history of
the Jewish people: tradition and translations of the Bible, halakhic, midrashic and
grammatical commentaries, historiography, philosophy, and theology. Within each
category, the texts are equally diverse: at least ten different midrashim, Rashis
commentaries on almost every book of the Bible, 8 and Talmudic quotations from
twenty-eight different tractates (out of sixty-three). Excepting the introductory chapters,
these miscellaneous quotations are equally distributed in the Pugio Fidei and always
integrated into composite ensembles. This means that their sources were constantly
used, in one manner or another, during the twenty years that it took for this work to be
completed. During the preparatory stages or during the entire writing process, Ramon
Mart must have had at his disposal at least one manuscript copy of each of these texts.
The number of manuscripts is considerably augmented if we take into account the fact
that for the Talmud, for instance, different tractates were always copied separately
during the Middle Ages.

5. Detailed Analysis
5.1 Biblical Quotations
The identification of biblical quotations takes into account exclusively those
presented as such by Mart; those incorporated into Christian or rabbinical quotations
are only retained when they are commented upon by the author at the conclusion of the
quotations. The references given in the edition are always incomplete, since whenever
several consecutive (or non-consecutive but belonging to the same passage) verses are
8

With the exception of Leviticus, for the Pentateuch.

being quoted, only the first verse is cited. The same phenomenon can be observed in the
BSG manuscript, where only the number of the chapter is indicated. 9 Both in the edition
and the manuscripts, allusions to previously mentioned biblical quotations (very
numerous) are never referenced.
Besides the Pentateuch, the most often quoted biblical books are Isaiah (300
quotations), Jeremiah (121), and the book of Psalms (225). Among the evangelists,
Matthew is the most often quoted (42 times); Mark, Luke, and John are sometimes
quoted in Hebrew. 10 Baruch, Esther, the Apocalypse, as well as some of the Epistles are
never quoted. The most frequently cited verses are those which are traditionally a source
of controversy between Jews and Christians: for instance, Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah
5253 (on the suffering servant); and Proverbs 8:22.
In accordance with the method explained in his introduction, Ramon Mart gives
priority to the Hebrew text, quoted almost systematically before proposing a translation
different from that of Jerome, which is, according to Mart, contested by the Jews. In the
passage of the introduction concerning this issue, 11 Mart employs the future tense
(non septuaginta sequar). It should be understood, therefore, as a declaration of
intention that preceded and was decisive for the composition of the text.
Hebrew quotations are almost always vocalized in the BSG manuscript, and,
except for some details, the vocalization is identical for different occurrences of the
same verse. In this manuscript, the quotations are often accompanied by cantillation
signs and masoretic indications (for instance, the number of occurrences of a word in
the Bible or the qere and ketiv: the read form as it differs from the written form). These

For instance, Exod. 20:3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17: Pugio fidei (1687), 77475; BSG, MS 1405, fol.

299r.
10
11

Some of these Hebrew quotations may be found only in manuscripts.


Caeterum, inducendo authoritatem textus ubicumque ab Hebraico fuerit desumptum, non septuaginta

sequar, nec interpretem alium, et quod majoris praesumptionis videbitur, non ipsum etiam in hoc
reverebor Hieronymum, nec tolerabilem linguae Latinae vitabo improprietatem, ut eorum quae apud
Hebraeos sunt, ex verbo in verbo quotiescumque servari hoc potuit/poterit transferam veritatem. Per hoc
enim Judaeis falsiloquis lata valde spatiosaque subterfugiendi praecluditur via, et minime poterunt dicere
non sic haberi apud eos, ut a nostris contra ipsos me interprete, veritas inducetur. Pugio fidei (1687),
Prooemium, X: 4.

notations are all the more remarkable as they appear very erratically and are never taken
into consideration in the argumentation. They are the result either of a non-critical use
of various Bible manuscripts or of the scribes peculiarities. They do not appear in the
manuscript in Coimbra, Biblioteca Geral da Universidade, MS 720, from the fourteenth
or the fifteenth century.
In all the cases examined, the length of the quotations and the proposed Latin
translation vary according to the context. Ramon Mart quotes only that which is
necessary to the argumentation in a given context. The translation itself is never
identical for the same verse used in different contexts, and it can even vary significantly
from one context to another. The passages are translated each time anew and this
phenomenon cannot be explained by the editing process (based on several manuscripts),
since it is already present in the BSG manuscript, as shown in the appendix. The
pervasiveness of alternative translations for the same word or expression is another
proof that the Latin translation is the work of the author of the Pugio Fidei and that the
text preserves the traces of its composition.
Since the Hebrew text itself is never perfectly identical, the hypothesis of
quotations written from memory should not be totally dismissed. In any case, it is
obvious that Ramon Mart does not follow faithfully one single copy of the Hebrew
text. The form taken by the biblical quotations in the Pugio Fidei proves that its author
mastered the details of the Hebrew Bible sufficiently to free himself from its letter and
from a univocal interpretation.

5.2 The Tradition of the Biblical Text


The main explicit reference to the Masorah (III, iii, 21, 1) 12 is accompanied by
considerations on Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, punctuators of the biblical text; it
concerns one passage (Hos. 9:12) whose punctuation is interpreted as an attempted
occultation of the prophecy of the incarnation. The allusions to the corrections of the
scribes (tiqqune soferim: correctiones scribarum) are quite abundant in the Pugio

12

Pugio fidei (1687), 895.

Fidei 13 and are generally associated with the Masorah. The most important among
thema series of instances of forged scripturesare found in II, 3, 9. 14 In this
instance, Mart reveals his sources: different midrashim, the Diqduqe ha-teamim (a
treatise on the masoretic text of the Bible that was established by Ben Asher of the
Tiberian school of Masoretes, around 930). Mart does not clearly distinguish the
Masorah, which concern the entire biblical text, from the scribal corrections (tiqqune
soferim), which are limited in number and served mainly to remove potentially
blasphemous elements from the text. It is impossible to know whether this confusion is
involuntary or deliberate.
The 225 references to ancient Aramaic translations of the Bible (Targum) are
generally precise enough for the author or the translated passage (Psalms, Song of
Songs, Lamentations) to be mentioned in the introductory formula (these formulae are
quite diverse). Nevertheless, the exceptions are numerous: in the edition, eleven of these
references are simply preceded by formulae such as Targum or in the Targum. The
Targum Onkelos (for the Pentateuch), the Targum Jonathan (ben Uzziel) (for the
Prophets), and that of Pseudo Jonathan, Targum Yerushalmi (for the Pentateuch) are not
always clearly differentiated. In some instances, Onkelos is even identified as the author
of the Aramaic translation of the Psalms, both in the BSG manuscript and in the
edition. 15
The Targum Onkelos is presented in a few lines when discussing Genesis
37:35 16 and Genesis 49:10; 17 that of Jonathan filius Uzielis, with more details, when

13
14
15
16

Ibid., 27779, 610, 695, 859.


Ibid., 27779.
Ibid., 955; BSG, MS 1405, fol. 456v.
Cuius falsitatem, omniumque eius sequacium evidenter refellit Onkelos interpretes apud eos totius

Pentateuchi Chaldaicus, qui hunc locum de Hebraico in Chaldaicum ita interpretatus est. Pugio fidei
(1687), 610.
17

ostenditur per Targum, id est translationem Chaldaicam a quodam proselyte sapiente nomine

Encalos de toto Pentateucho longe ante adventum Salvatoris factam, quae inter Judaeos tantam
auctoritatem obtinet, quod a nullo eorum praesumitur contraduci. (Ibid., 312).

10

discussing Hillel the Elder, 18 Jonathans teacher, according to the tradition he


reproduces (TB Baba Bathra). For the same verse, the Aramaic text is generally quoted
only for the first occurrence. However, for the Targum on Isaiah 42:1, the Aramaic text
is quoted three times (in a slightly different way for the two first quotations). 19
The accusation of forging the Scriptures is a topos of the argumentation in
Judeo-Christian polemical literature. It is a very ancient one, since it is already observed
in the second century, and from the beginning it was reciprocal. 20 In the Pugio Fidei,
the quotations from the Targum aim explicitly at underlining the fact that the veritas
hebraica can only be fully rendered in the Christian interpretation of the Scriptures.
This is why Ramon Mart repeatedly emphasizes the authority of these Aramaic
versions in the Jewish tradition. 21
Some of the quotations introduced as targumic could not be identified. A few of
them are only Hebrew paraphrases of the verse previously quoted. The text the author
labels, in three passages (Cant. 8:1 and 8:2; Lam. 2:22; Eccles. 1:11), 22 as the Targum
Hierosolomytanum, which is associated with an editio vulgata in the last of these
occurrences, 23 are still to be identified.

18

Nota quod iste transtulit de Hebraico in Chaldaicum totum vetus Testamentum praeter Pentateuchum,

quem ante eum transtulerat Onkelos proselytus, et haec translationes dicuntur Targumim. Minor vero
omnium Rabba, Jochanan ben Zaccai, de quo dixerunt quod non dimisit scire Scripturam, et Talmud, sive
Mischnam et Traditiones, et Agadot, Decisiones legis, Decisiones scribarum, argumenta a majori ad
minus, etc., parabolas vulpium, narrationes daemonum, narrationes palmarum, et narrationes angelorum
administratoriorum, etc. Si igitur ise minor erat ita magnus sapiens, quanto magis alii ?, de Jchanan filio
Uzielis dixerunt quod illa hora qua ipse studebat in lege, quodcunque volabat super eum
exurabatur. (Ibid., 317; see also 698).
19
20

Ibid., 66061, 672, 889.


For instance, in Justin Martyrs Dialogue with Trypho, trans. and ed. Philippe Bobichon (Fribourg:

Academic Press Fribourg, 2003), 1:7173 and 37985, 2:76572.


21
22
23

For instance, Targum, cui apud Judaeos nefas est contradicere. Pugio fidei (1687), 539.
Ibid., 663, 651, and 780, respectively.
Et nota quod hoc Targum Hierosolymitanum est illud forte quod a nostris dicitur editio vulgata, cujus

autor ignotus ad utilitatem simplicium exponentis modum magis quam interpretis dignoscitur habuisse.
(Ibid., 780)

11

If we can prove that Pseudo Jonathans Targum is quoted in the Pugio Fidei, we
would have an exceptional document, since it is generally accepted that this text is
posterior to Rashis commentary (who doesnt mention it) and since the only extant
manuscript was probably copied in the sixteenth century. 24
As for Onkelos translation, Ramon Mart may have used a French or German
Bible, since the Sephardi Bibles did not include it. 25 Generally speaking, a thorough
examination should allow us to identify with precision the targumic manuscripts Ramon
Mart had at his disposal.

5.3 Biblical Commentaries


Only three Bible commentaries are quoted in the Pugio Fidei: Rashi (237
occurrences), Abraham ibn Ezra (35 occurrences) and David Kimhi (4 occurrences).
Rashis commentary is pervasive and covers most of the books of the Bible; that of
Abraham ibn Ezra is quoted much less frequently and irregularly and solely with
reference to the Psalms and the Prophets (the Sefer ha-yashar, a very popular
commentary on the Pentateuch, is never quoted).
The quotations from Rashi are generally quite long; those from Abraham ibn
Ezra are shorter. In many cases, different commentaries on the same verse are quoted
together and mixed with Talmudic and midrashic passages. In such cases, we are
dealing with genuine exegetical chains assembled around one verse, and it is
implausible that Mart could have found them already united as such in a document.
They must be his work, and in any case, it is certain that he used different manuscripts.

24

Among the 67 translations of verses from the Prophets attributed to Jonathan (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea,

Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Zephaniah, Habacuc, Zecharia, Malachi), only 8 are attributed to Jonathan ben
Uziel; the 59 others are attributed to Jonathan. It is only the Targum on the Prophets that is attributed
to Jonathan ben Uzziel, yet six other translations of verses from the Psalms and a verse from Samuel (!)
are attributed to Jonathan, which corresponds to what is stated at p. 317. The formulas used in this
context are not different from those introducing other translations of the Prophets.
25

Even so, there are some Sephardi manuscripts with the text of the Targum only; for example, the

manuscript in Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, BH MS 6, a Sephardi codex


from the thirteenth or fourteenth century containing the Targum Onkelos.

12

Because the Hebrew text of the same passage is never perfectly homogeneous in these
different occurrences (see, for instance, the commentaries on Isa. 11:3 and Mal. 2:15,
tables 1 and 2), the hypotheses of a diverse documentation (at least two distinct copies)
or of quotation from memory are quite plausible. It is worth mentioning that in these
two examples, the Latin translation takes into account the Hebrew variants, meaning
that, in this case as well, Mart translated each quotation afresh.
The introductory formulae are typical enough (Glossa R. Salomonis [Jarchi];
Dixit r. Abraham Aben Esra in expositione sua super ; Aben Esra sic exponit;
glossa r. David Kimhi) and generally neutral. It is noteworthy that quotations from
Abraham ibn Ezra are preceded by praise, 26 whereas Rashi and David Kimhi are not
favored with the same treatment. 27 Ramon Mart was probably not ignorant of the fact
that David Kimhi had authored anti-Christian treatises (Teshuvot la-notsrim; Vikkuah
ha-RaDaK) and that his exegesis, condemned by the Inquisition, was often a response to
the Christian exegesis. It is also possible that the author of the Pugio Fidei might not
have been totally indifferent to Abraham ibn Ezras Spanish origins.
In any case, the mention of the three commentators aims at emphasizing
elements interpreted as a confirmation of Christian exegesis (in particular, admitting the
Messianic connotations of some verses is tantamount to acknowledging Christ himself).
Rashi and Abraham ibn Ezra are mistaken for one another at least once, in a
curious introductory formula, also present in the BSG manuscript: Dixit Rabbi Selomo
et Rabbi Abraham Aben Azraa (Mal. 2:15, second quotation). 28
These different commentaries and the passages they refer to were probably
copied from different manuscripts. Javier del Barco, whom I consulted on this subject,
is not aware of the existence of any Bible including the commentaries of Rashi and Ibn
Ezra copied in Sepharad during the thirteenth century (this phenomenon begins to
26

On Mal. 1:1011, Qualiter autem hoc totum sit intelligendum ostendit eleganter R. Abraham abec

Esra in sua expositione in hunc modum (Ibid., 816); on Isa. 2:2, Et hoc quidem multo clarius R.
Abraham Aben Esra super Michaeam exponendo ait (Ibid., 43334).
27

Sciendum, quod r. Salomoh, unus de modernis versipellis (non modicum, exponit istud sic, ... (Ibid.,

537).
28

Ibid., 758; BSG, MS 1405, fol. 286v.

13

spread during the fourteenth century, under the influence of Nicholas of Lyras
Postilla).

5.4 Grammar

Concerning grammar, Ramon Mart must have had at his disposal at least one
copy each of the Heleq ha-diqduq, the first part of David Kimhis Mikhlol (quoted
twice), and the Sefer ha-shorashim, the second part of this work (quoted 39 times).
These quotations are scattered throughout the entire Pugio Fidei. As for the Sefer hashorashim (The Book of Roots), the 34 adduced words or roots cover the whole
alphabet. The book must have been regularly used, in a complete version, throughout
the composition of the Pugio Fidei. The introductory formula used twice for two
different quotations from the Mikhlol 29 (in Michlol parte prima quae dicitur Dikduc
[sive Grammatica]) demonstrates that Mart was familiar with the subdivision of this
work.
Mart must have also had at his disposal a copy of the Hebrew translation
(prepared in Lunel by Judah ibn Tibbon) of the work of the andalusi grammarian and
lexicographer Jonah ibn Janah (ca. 990ca. 1050). This work is quoted only twice, but
the quotationsalluding to explanations actually found in Ibn Janahs bookmay be
first hand. This is probably also true of the quotations from David Kimhis Sefer hashorashim.
In order to explain the word beushim (spinae) from Isaiah 5:2, Mart resorts to
Ibn Janah and David Kimhi. 30 Since David Kimhi does not mention Ibn Janah when
discussing this word (as he does quite often for other roots), the association of the two
interpretations should be attributed to the Pugio Fideis author.
The use of these grammatical references is analogous to that of all the other
rabbinic sources: it aims at confirming the Christian interpretation of the verse in
question. For instance, the explanation of the word lehem (bread, flesh, sacrifice)
reinforces the Eucharistic significance given to Leviticus 21:8: Et sanctificabis eum,
29
30

Ibid., 378 and 460.


Ibid., 851.

14

quia carnem Dei tui (lehem elohekha) ipse erit sacrificans (III, iii, 15, 8). 31 The
argument, based on grammatical and lexicographical considerations, is always
interwoven with other kinds of arguments (Rashis commentaries, Aramaic translation,
midrashic commentary, etc.). In this case as well, when the same explanation is quoted
several times, the Hebrew text is identical, but there are always some variations in the
Latin translation.
According to the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the National
Library of Israel, only six manuscripts of the Sefer ha-riqmah (the first part of Ibn
Janahs work in Judah ibn Tibbons Hebrew translation) have been preserved and they
were all copied after 1300; nine manuscripts of the Sefer ha-shorashim (Judah ibn
Tibbons translation of the second part of Kimhis work) were copied before 1286; only
one manuscript of the Mikhlol might have been copied before 1300 (Oxford, Bodleian
Library, MS Laud. 293).

5.5 Midrash
The examination of the midrashic sources in the Pugio Fidei raises specific
problems, such as the authenticity of some of them, and particularly of those attributed
to Moses ha-Darshan, or the identification of Rabbi Rachmon. 32 As I mentioned in
the Introduction, these complex questions cannot be discussed here. Besides, whatever
the answers to these questions, all the midrashic quotations have the same status and the
same use in the Pugio Fidei. From the point of view that concerns us here, there are no
differences among them.
The midrashic quotations are very abundant in the Pugio Fidei: at least 475
(according to the edition), from various sources and of varying lengths. They have a
central role in Marts argumentation.
Thus, we can count 150 midrashic quotations on Genesis, 8 on Exodus, 10 on
Leviticus, 4 on Numbers, 7 on Deuteronomy. Other midrashim are explicitly quoted: the
midrash on the book of Ruth (8 times), that on Song of Songs (47 times), that on
31
32

Ibid., 839.
See the bibliography, above, note 6.

15

Lamentations (29 times), that on Ecclesiastes (30 times) and that on the Psalms (143
times); the Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy (4 times); the Midrash tanhuma (9
times); and the Mekhilta of Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai (19 times). The quotations from
the same midrash are never limited to one of its parts and, as with the quotations from
grammarians, they are distributed all over the Pugio Fidei. This proves that Mart had at
his disposal at least one copy of each of these texts or of their subdivisions (in the case
of subdivisions copied separately).
The midrashim on the Pentateuch cover all the books, but first and foremost the
book of Genesis. Mart refers to the midrashim on Genesis in many different ways: in
Bereschit Rabba minori, in Bereschit Rabba, in Bereschit ketanna, in Bereschit
Rabah R. Moseh haddarschan, in Bereschit minori, in Bereschit Rabba majore, &
minore, in Bereschit Ketanna, sive Glossa minori, in Bereschit Rabba Ketannah,
in Bereschit Rabba, seu Glossa majore, In Bereschit Rabah priore id est in
Bereschit Rabah R. Mosis Hadarsan, in Bereschit Rabba Kethana, ugedolah, id est
minori, & majori, in magna Bereschit Rabba, in magna expositione R. Moseh
haddarschan, in antiqua Bereschit Raba.
Some of these different denominations introduce a quotation of the same text, as
for instance that of Genesis 19:34: in Bereschit ketanna, id est minore expositione
Geneseos; 33 in Bereschit Rabba taliter scriptum est super illud Genes. 19 vers.
34. 34 Other very similar formulae seem to introduce different texts: for example on
Genesis 46:28: in Bereschit Rabba, ubi R. Moseh haddarschan sic dicit super illud
quod dicitur Gen. 46 v. 28; 35 in Bereschit Rabba super illud Genes. 46. vers. 28. 36
What is identified as the Midrasch Vajikra, sive Glossa, super Levit (or the
equivalents) seems to correspond to different sources: the quotations on pages 55355,
for instance, correspond only partially (the first 12 lines) to Midrash rabba on Leviticus,
the rest of the fragment being taken from Midrash tehilim. Certain quotations
introduced as passages from Midrash tanhuma could not be found in the edition of this
33
34
35
36

Pugio fidei (1687), 354.


Ibid., 71415.
Ibid., 599.
Ibid., 768.

16

text, but in the Yalqut shimoni. The association (or the confusion?) of different
midrashim is a phenomenon noticeable in many passages of the Pugio Fidei. Mart
might have used anthologies which were not preserved; he might also have compiled
the texts himself (as he does with certain Latin sources). Only a thorough examination
would allow us to provide a definite answer.
Only some references to the midrash on Genesis are seemingly more precise; but
when compared, they prove to be equally ambiguous: the same midrash on Genesis 1:1
2, for instance, is twice introduced by the formula in Bereschit Rabba minori,
Paraschah 2 37 and once by the formula in Bereschit Rabba majore, & minore in
Parascha 2. 38 In the original, it is the same parashah, but the passages are not always
identical. It is obvious, nevertheless, that Mart had at his disposal a copy of this
midrash with a division of the parashiyyot.
As with other sources, different quotations of the same midrashic passage (very
numerous in the Pugio Fidei for this category of texts) are not always of the same
length and their Latin translations, which are never identical, can differ in significant
ways. In this case as well, the quotation and its translation have been adapted to
different contexts. The hypothesis of a documentation made up of index cards
invariably reproduced is invalidated by this observation.
The references to parallel passages, very frequent in the Pugio Fidei, also prove
that Mart had direct access to the sources. The following details are given, for
instance, in reference to passages in close proximity: Ex Talmud Hierosolomytano in
libro Taanith, distinctione Bischloscha peraqim et in Echa Rabati, id est Glossa magna
super lamentationes Jeremiae super illud; 39 Hucusque verba Talmud ? Et nota quod
hoc idem habetur apud eos in Echa Rabati super illud Threnorum primo; 40 in libro
Taanit Ierosolymitano et in Echa Rabbati et in Midrasch koheleth. 41

37
38
39
40
41

Ibid., 383.
Ibid., 545.
Ibid., 325.
Ibid., 349.
Ibid., 89899.

17

The use of midrashic texts does not differ from that of other rabbinic sources: it
aims at confirming the Christian interpretation of the Scriptures (or of history), in
particular of the verses bearing Messianic connotations. For example, on the theme of
the Messiah as a rock, Mart advances different biblical verses, such as Isaiah 28:16
(even bohan, cornerstone), while quoting as a confirmation of his Christological
interpretation Rashis commentary, the Targum, and the Midrash shir ha-shirim on
Song of Songs 1:34 ( : thou shall be our delight and joy). The ending line
of this midrash runs: /( thou shall be our delight and joy: in
you, i.e., in your redemption/in the fear of you). Only is retained and the
translation proposed for this word is in te, id est in Jesu vel in salutari tuo. The edition
I consulted (Responsa) reads: , , . In the Pugio Fidei, the cases
of Christianization of the midrash, at least through translation, are abundant.
The fact that they can be easily Christianized explains the importance of
midrashic quotations in this treatise. Mart is aware that, in the Jewish tradition, the
authority of the midrash and the haggadic passages (of the Talmud) is inferior to that of
the halakhic commentaries, 42 but (unlike some of his successors) he does not take into
P41F

account these distinctions when constructing his argumentation.


The identification of the midrashic sources used in the Pugio is theoretically
vital for an analysis of this work and for its indexing. If ever undertaken, such an
enterprise would demand a considerable effort.
5.6 Mishnah, Talmud

42

Ramon Mart uses the books accepted by the Jewish scriptural canon, the Talmud and all the books

considered as authentic by the Jews, the midrashim and the rabbinical commentaries (glosae): vel
etiam de Talmud ac reliquis scriptis suis apus eos authenticis (Prooemium, III, 2). These traditions are
not rejected, but rather wilfully accepted, since nothing is more appropriate to convince the audience of
his writings and to refute their errors: Non ergo respuamus traditiones ejusmodi, sed potius
amplectamur, tum propter ea quae dicta sunt, tum quod nihil tam validum ad confutandam Judaeorum
impudentiam reperitur, nihil ad eorum convincendam nequitiam tam efficax invenitur (Prooemium, IX,
34). But he mentions elsewhere that these traditions have to be considered and used with proper
judgment (see below).

18

In the case of the halakhah, the edition of the Pugio Fidei contains 261 Talmudic
quotations: 237 from the Babylonian Talmud and 24 from the Jerusalem Talmud. The
Jerusalem Talmud is always identified by introductory formulae such as: in libro
Beracot Jerosolymitano, in distinctione Maimatai korin. The Babylonian one is not
systematically introduced as such: for instance, for a quotation from Yoma 21a, 43 the
introductory formula is: in Talmud Babylonico in libro Joma distinctione quae incipit
Scheba Jamim. Everywhere else, in the case of quotations from the Babylonian
Talmud, only the tractate and the chapter are mentioned; for instance, in the
presentation of an extract from Sanhedrin 37a: in libro Sanhedrin, in distinctione quae
incipit Dine mamonoth.
For the Babylonian Talmud, these quotations are taken from twenty-eight
different tractates, as well as from the Pirqe avot. Most of the tractates quoted belong to
the orders Moed (11 quoted out of a total of 12 tractates), Nashim (5 out of 6) and
Neziqin (7 out of 10). Two tractates are quoted from the order Zeraim, three from
Qodashin, none from Tohorot. The most frequently quoted tractates are Sanhedrin (79
quotations, most of them from the chapter Heleq), Avoda Zara (13), Baba Bathra (12),
Berakhot (8), Hagiga (9), Shabbat (12), Yoma (20). This distribution is similar to that
found in most of the polemical literature that makes use of Talmudic sources.
A similarly typical distribution can be found in the quotations from the
Jerusalem Talmud, from which only the tractates Avoda Zara, Berakhot, Bikkurim,
Makot, Sanhedrin, Shabbat, Taanit and Yoma are cited.
Since these tractates were usually copied separately during the Middle Ages,
Mart must have had at his disposal (and maybe he had compiled himself) at least one
manuscript copy of each.
The introductory formulae are very typical, but some of them contain details that
can be interpreted as signs of a direct contact with the source: this one, for instance,
introducing a quotation from Sanhedrin 38b: in Masseschet Sanhedrin distinctione
Echad dine Mamonoth circa finem. 44 Nevertheless, such a degree of precision is rather
rare.
43
44

Pugio fidei (1687), 371.


Ibid., 485.

19

Mart doesnt clearly distinguish between the Mishnah and the Talmud. We can
even find the formula Mishnae, id est Talmud. 45 But it is the Talmud that is generally
quoted.
The quotations from the Talmud are often very lengthy, as are those from the
midrash, but the forms are diverse. Most of the time, they are reproduced in an
extensive manner; but they can also be summarized or abridged according to different
procedures, such as when they take the form (continuous or not) of a series of elements
originating in the same passage but interspersed with interruptions. Extracts from the
same page of the Talmud are not always grouped together, and when they are, they are
not always given in the original order. Quite frequently, two consecutive parts from the
same Talmudic passage are reproduced in two ways in different contexts: 1) by clearly
delimiting them; 2) by superposing some elements of the end of the first passage or the
beginning of the second one.
In all the cases examined, the length and the details of the quotation are adapted
to the context. Mart quotes only what is necessary for his argument. This
methodological choice becomes particularly evident when comparing different
quotations of the same Talmudic passage (accompanied by their translations). The
parallel passages are frequently signaled and sometimes reproduced. Mart must have
consulted the texts several times and he clearly mastered their contents. Thus he is free
not to found his argumentation exclusively on the quoted passages. For example, in
relation to the chapter Heleq from the tractate Sanhedrin he writes: scriptum est igitur
in libro Sanhedrin, distinctione quae incipit Chelek, ubi multa valde alia de Messia
dicuntur (III, i, 10, 1). 46
These different operations can only proceed from an intelligent process of
selection, based on a constant rereading of the texts (or on their being quoted from
memory). This result could not have been achieved using only second-hand
documentation.
The phenomenon of Christianization, another form of conscious interference
with the contents of the text, is quite frequent when it comes to the Talmud as well. For
45
46

Ibid., 320; BSG, MS 1405, fol. 50v.


Ibid., 534.

20

example, in the BSG manuscript but not in the edition, a quotation from Sanhedrin 17a
ends up in Hebrew and in Latin with an explicit reference to Jesus: sic Yeshu Nori et
Yesus Nazarenus. 47 Another one, from Sota, containsin the edition (but not in the
BSG manuscript)among other examples of Christianization, the translation of
yetser ha-ra (lit.: the evil penchant) as peccatum originale and the substitution of
only child (yahid) with first-born (bekhor). 48
The question of Rashis commentaries inserted in different places in lengthy
Talmudic quotations (a very frequent phenomenon) is very complex. In most of the
cases, these quotations concern the verses brought up in the Talmudic passage (and not
the Talmudic commentary itself). Mart could not have had at his disposal a copy of the
Talmud presenting things in this way. This means that he authored (in one way or
another) this form of alternation with the objective of confirming his argumentation.
The use made of Talmudic quotations is analogous to that of all the other
rabbinic sources, with which they are constantly interwoven. However, the judgments
of the haggadic parts of the Talmud are sometimes very polemical. For example, Mart
cites a passage from the tractate Avoda Zara to state that the Talmud encourages the
murder of Christians (III, iii, 22, 22), 49 and in the same line of argument, 50 he introduces
several haggadot which he considers insanities (insaniae), absurdities
(absurditates), and lies (mendacia): such is the case of the passage stating that, at
the end of the day, God plays with the Leviathan (Ps. 104:26); likewise for the one
stating that Mosess stature was ten cubits (4.5 m), and that of Og, king of Basan, was
30 cubits (13.5 m). The author concludes by saying that he should stop staining the
parchment with these insanities (nolui plus de pergamino talibus insaniis
denigrare). 51 The question of the relation between these lines of argument and the
extractions from the Talmud, which can be found elsewhere in thirteenth-century
Christian literature, is to be examined.

47
48
49
50
51

BSG, MS 1405, fol. 47v, l. 38. The corresponding quotation in the 1687 edition is on page 315.
Pugio fidei (1687), 855; BSG, MS 1405, fol. 357r.
Pugio fidei (1687), 936.
Ibid., 930.
Ibid., 940.

21

5.7 Historiography

Two treatises of Jewish historiography are quoted in the Pugio Fidei: the Seder
olam (rabba), a biblical and Jewish chronology from the second century; and the Sefer
yosippon, a chronicle attributed to Joseph ben Gurion, dated to the tenth century and
covering a period from Adam to Titus.
The Seder olam is quoted fifteen times; these quotations are taken from
throughout the book, but they are sometimes grouped or linked in the Pugio Fidei.
Quotations from the same book are not necessarily from the same passage. Moreover, as
in the case of the Talmud or other writings, extracts from the same passage are not
always preserved in their original order; as elsewhere, the occurrences reproduce an
almost identical text (there are two such examples), but the translations are notably
different. The references to the original are sometimes accompanied by details
indicating direct access to the text: in fine libri; capitulo quod incipit Verba
Nehemiae estque ultimum. The Seder olam is often quoted in the Talmud, and some
of Marts quotations might have used this intermediary text (this hypothesis has not
been systematically verified as yet), but everything indicates that most of the time if
not all the timethey are firsthand.
The two quotations from the Sefer yosippon are very lengthy: a range of
passages covering 44 pages in David Flussers edition. Had their original order been
perfectly respected, the last passage should have been placed between the first and the
second. The Latin translations of the Sefer yosippon date to the 16th century; 52 the
translation proposed by Mart is therefore an original, like all the other Latin
translations of Jewish sources in the Pugio Fidei. He explicitly acknowledges this on
page 324 of the edition, specifying that the manuscripts used had only a Hebrew version
in their margins. This may mean that these manuscripts bore the Latin version of
Flavius Josephuss Jewish War, and, in the margins, the corresponding passages in
Joseph ben Gurion.
52

See Mortiz Steinschneider, Die Geschichtsliteratur der Juden in Druckwerken und Handschriften

(Frankfurt: Kauffmann, 1905), 2833.

22

5.8 Philosophy and Theology

I wont insist here on the references to and quotations from Maimonidesand


more specifically on the Guide for the Perplexed (14)since they have already been
studied by Grge K. Hasselhoff. 53 It is sufficient to mention several featuresoften
shared with the other Jewish quotationsin the Pugio Fidei: the fidelity of the
translation; the pervasiveness of alternatives for the same word or expression; the fact
that quotations are taken from all over the book, are sometimes rearranged, and are of
different lengths and concerning different topics (God, the Messiah, the law); the
vocalization of Hebrew texts.
The Guide for the Perplexed is quoted in the Arabic original in Hebrew
characters (a specifically Jewish practice), and in Samuel ibn Tibbons and Judah alHarizis Hebrew translations (both produced in the thirteenth century, several years after
Maimonidess death). This means that Mart must have had at his disposal at least three
different copies of this treatise. Concerning the three quotations from Al-Harizis
translation, the text in the Pugio differs significantly from the only extant copy of this
version (Paris, Bibliothque nationale de France, Hbreu 682), a manuscript copied in
Italy at the end of the thirteenth century. 54
The 1687 edition of the Pugio Fidei also contains five quotations from the
Mishne torah, with at least one more quotation from this work present in the BSG
manuscript.

53

See Grge K. Hasselhoff, The Reception of Maimonides in the Latin World: The Evidence of the

Latin Translations in the 13th15th Centuries, Materia Giudaica 6, no. 2 (2001): 25880; idem, Some
Remarks on Raymond Martinis (c. 1215/30c.1284/94) Use of Moses Maimonides, Trumah 12
(2002): 13348; idem, Dicit Rabbi Moyses: Studien zum Bild von Moses Maimonides im lateinischen
Westen vom 13. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert (Wrzburg: Knigshausen & Neumann, 2004).
54

For a description of this manuscript, see: Philippe Bobichon, Bibliothque nationale de France. Hbreu

669 703. Manuscrits de thologie. Catalogues des manuscrits en caractres hbreux conservs dans les
bibliothques de France (CMCH) I (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), 15360.

23

We should mention as well two quotations from Nahmanidess Sefer ha-geulah


(on the arrival of the Messiah) and (at least?) one from the Toldot yeshu. 55 The
quotations from philosophical works is a topic that remains to be studied in more depth.

5.9 Differences from the Latin Sources


In contrast with many Latin sources, quotations taken from the Jewish tradition
are always presented as such; they are constitutive of the discourse but are always
carefully distinguished from it and reduced to the function of arguments. They are
addressed to readers who are not familiar with this tradition and this explains the
pervasiveness of second-degree introductory formulae. The numerous Latin
(especially Christian) quotations are not always identified by similar formulae.
Nevertheless, the Pugios author has an in-depth knowledge of the Jewish
sources he uses and this knowledge is not merely the result of study, but also of long
practice. The different treatment of Latin and Jewish sources in the Pugio Fidei does not
necessarily reflect the authors greater intimacy with the one or the other. It only reflects
their different function within this work.
The function of Jewish sources is ambiguous, as they are used both negatively
(to critique of Judaism) and positively (in defense of Christianity). In his introduction,
Ramon Mart defines Jewish texts as pearls on a huge heap of dung (tamquam
margaritas de maximo fimario).

6. Summary and Conclusions


The analysis of Jewish sources and their treatment in the Pugio Fidei provides
precious clues as to the authors documentation and method. Concerning the method,
these clues are consistent with the conclusions reached through the analysis of Latin
sources:

55

Pugio fidei (1687), 36264 and possibly 87172.

24

1. The Jewish sources are very wide-ranging. We can conclude therefore that
Mart had at his disposal, in one form or another, a considerable number of Jewish
documents.

2. Jewish sources are constantly interwoven, according to various modes of


composition, with quotations from all manner of sources (ancient Greek and Latin
authors, Christian authors, New Testament, etc.). In this extremely heterogeneous
ensemble, there is absolutely no sign of hierarchy. Only the biblical quotations,
common to both Judaism and Christianity and considered as revelation in both
traditions, escape this lack of differentiation. But Mart quotes the New Testament as he
quotes the Old Testament and he seems not to ask the question whether the two have the
same persuasive value for the audience (direct or indirect) of his writings.
3. Regardless of the nature of the texts cited, the quotations vary in length (some
of them extend to several pages), even when they are a repetition of the same passage in
the source. In the BSG manuscript, the textual additionswhich are almost exclusively
additional quotationsare copied on partial folios inserted into the quires when the
space in the margins was insufficient.

4. In all the cases examined, the extent of the quotation, the form in which it is
given, and often even the wording of the text correspond exactly to their function given
the context. This feature becomes clear by comparing several quotations of the same
passage.

5. The Hebrew (or Aramaic) is almost systematically given with the first
occurrence of a quote, and it is frequently repeated in subsequent occurrences. When it
is not repeated, the commentary is based solely on the Latin text, but this is the case
almost exclusively for the biblical quotations. It is one more piece of evidence in
support of Marts mastery of the text, since the Hebrew is repeated only when he
considers it necessary.

25

6. In the BSG manuscript (as well as in that from Coimbra mentioned above),
the Hebrew is almost always vocalized, which is very surprising since, among Jewish
sources, only biblical text is vocalized in medieval manuscripts, and then only
sometimes. This vocalization should constitute the object of a specific analysis, since it
might reveal important aspects of the text and its composition. The scribe of the BSG
manuscript vocalized the texts after having copied them, which suggests that he did not
rely on them to understand the text as he was copying it. And, more important, he
couldnt have had at his disposal a vocalized copy for each text. In conclusion, the
vocalization can and should be attributed to him. All the more so since, in some
instances, the same passage presents significant differences which could only be
explained otherwise by the use of more than one vocalized model for each text,
something thoroughly impossible. And one is justified in concluding that this
vocalizationundoubtedly intended for the Pugio Fideis readersis proof of an indepth knowledge of Hebrew grammar rules.
7. The numerous variants in the quotation of the same passage (in all the
categories of texts quoted) prove that the quotation is never the servile copy of the same
model. In some of the cases we looked at, they correspond to different forms of
intervention in the text. And because, in all probability, Mart (or his team/school) could
not have preserved, consulted, indexed, and copied several copies of each text, the
hypothesis of quotations from memory should not be systematically rejected. The
adaptation to the context, which seems to be systematic in the Pugio Fidei, could be
easily explained by this hypothesis; it becomes far more difficult to explain if we stick
to the written sources (or to the anthology) hypothesis.
8. As Ramon Mart explicitly states in his introduction, the Latin translations are
entirely his work, and in all the cases examined, they correspond to the original text as it
has just been quoted. Therefore, they are translated each time and as required by the
context.
9. Most of the observations made during this study indicate that the texts were
directly consulted, either in the manuscript or from the authors memory, and that the
26

Pugio Fidei is not therefore the result of a preliminary work done by others. It is not
impossible that Ramon Mart may have had collaborators, but the characteristics
emerging from the study of the Jewish (and Christian) sources are those of a personal
enterprise.

10. The sum of these observations, alongside those which can be drawn from the
study of the BSG manuscript 56 (undoubtedly autograph, in both Latin and Hebrew) lead
to the following conclusion: Ramon Mart could not have acquired the whole of his
knowledge and skills set at work in the copy, translation, and multifarious use of Jewish
sources in his Pugio Fidei during his adult years only (even if this included many years
of study). These skills and this knowledge must have been acquired much earlier. The
Dominicans work has to be approached in the light of this conclusion resulting from
the codicological, paleographical, and textual analyses of the Pugio Fidei.57

Appendix
Table 1
Commentary on Malachi 2:15
''

II, 9, 7: fol. 70v

56
57

Glossa Rabbi Selomo:


Quidam exponunt hoc
secundum narrationem qua dicitur
quod venerunt ad prophetam
quidam qui duxerant alienigenas,
dixeruntque illi:
Nonne Abraham fecit sic,

A thorough description of this manuscript by the author of this contribution is to be published soon.
Ramon Marts Jewish origins were sometimes presumed in older scholarship, but this theory has been

lately ruled out or forgotten (it was based exclusively on his exceptional knowledge of Jewish sources,
while the way they are used has never been studied; the data provided by the BSG manuscriptnot used
in the editionhave not been taken into account either).

27

qui ducit Agar super uxorem


suam?
Dixit eis:
Alius spiritus erat illi;

non fuit intentio sua ut intentio

vestra: nequaquam dedit oculos

suos in eam,
aliam intentionem habuit quam
vos. Dixerunt ei:
Et quid unus? Id est Abraham fuit
quaerens? Et quam intentionem
habuit?
Ait eis:
ut esset ei semen Dei
vel semen Deus,
Ps. 105. v. 6: Semen Abraham
servi sui, filiorum Jacob
electorum ejus, ipsorum Dominus
Deus noster.

III, III, 8, 4: fol.


286v

Dixit Rabbi Selomo et Rabbi












28

Abraham Aben Aazra [sic!]:


Magistri nostri exposuerunt hoc
secundum relationem qua dictum
est
quod venerunt conjuges
alenigenarum ad prophetam,
et dixerunt ei:
Et nonne Abraham fecit sit,
qui duxit Agar super uxorem

suam?
Ait eis propheta:
Alius spiritus erat ei;
non erat intentio ejus sicut
intentio vestra, non enim dedit
oculos suos in eam. Dixerunt: Et
quid ipse unus erat quaerens,
quae fuit intentio ejus?
Ait eis:
ut esset ei zera elohim, id est
semen Dei, vel semen Deus.

Table 2
Commentary on Isaiah 11:3

II, 12, 18: fol.


100v


''

Non ad visionem oculorum


suorum judicabit:
Rex Messias,
sed cum sapientia Dei sancti et
benedicti,

quae in medio ejus erit

et sciet et intelliget


'


29

quis fuerit culpabilis, vel reus, et


quis innocens.
Et arguet in aequitate:
id est cum lingua quieta et tenera.
Et percutiet terram in virga oris
sui:

istud intelligendum est secundum


suum Targum,
id est translationem, quae talis est:
Et delebit reos terrae cum verbo
oris sui
Et in spiritu labiorum suorum,
etc.
Et in sermone labiorum ipsius erit
mortuus impius. Et erit justitia
cingulum lumborum ejus et erunt
justi circumcirca ei: id est,
adhaerentes ei sicut lumbare, vel
cingulum.
Haec R. Salomo
III, III, 9, 5: fol.
295r

''



'

Non ad visionem oculorum


suorum judicabit:
in sapientia enim Dei sancti et
benedicti,
quae erit in medio ejus,
cognoscet et intelliget
reum et innocentem.
Et arguet in aequitate humilibus
terrae:
id est cum lingua tranquilla et
tenera:
Et percutiet terram:
hoc est exponendum secundum
Targum:
Et delebit peccatores, vel

30

culpabiles terrae cum verbo oris


sui.
Et cum sermone labiorum ejus erit
mortuus impius.
Et erit justitia, etc.:
Et erunt justi circumquaque ei, id
est conjuncti cum eo, et
adhaerentes ei ut cinctorium.
Haec R. Salomoh.

Bibliography
Manuscripts

Coimbra, Biblioteca Geral da Universidade, MS 720.


Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, BH MS 6.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud. 293.
Paris, Bibliothque Mazarine, MS 796 (2138).
Paris, Bibliothque nationale de France, Hbreu 682.
Paris, Bibliothque Sainte-Genevive, MS 1405.
Primary sources

Flusser, David, ed. The Josippon, or, Josephus Gorionides [Hebrew]. 2 vols. Jerusalem:
Bialik Institute, 1978.
Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Trypho. Translated and edited by Philippe Bobichon. 2
vols. Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2003.
Mart, Ramon. Raimundus Martini, Texte zur Gotteslehre. Pugio fidei I-III, 1-6.
Lateinisch Hebrisch / Aramisch Deutsch. Translated and edited by Grge
K. Hasselhoff. HBPhMA Bd. 31. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2014.

31

. Raymundi Martini Pugio Fidei Adversus Mauros et Judaeos Hebraice et Latine


cum Observationibus Josephi de Voisin et Introductione J. B. Carpzovii, Qui
Simul Appendicis Loco Hermanni Judaei Opusculum de sua Conversione ex
Manuscripto Bibliothecae Paulinae Academiae Lipsiensis Recensuit. Leipzig:
sumptibus haeredum Friderici Lanckisi, typis viduae Johannis Wittigav, 1687.
Facsimile reprint, Farnborough: Gregg, 1967.
. Raymundi Martini Pugio Fidei Adversus Mauros et Judaeos Hebraice et Latine
cum Observationibus Josephi de Voisin. Paris: Matth. et Jean Henault, 1651.
Neubauer, Adolf, ed. The Book of Tobit: A Chaldee Text from a Unique Ms. in the
Bodleian Library, with Other Rabbinical Texts, English Translation and the
Itala. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1878.

Secondary literature

Baer, Yitzhak. The Forged Midrashim of Raymond Martini and Their Place in the
Religious Controversies in the Middle Ages [Hebrew]. In Studies in Memory of
Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein, 2849. Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ. Press
Association, 1942.
Bobichon, Philippe. La bibliothque de Raymond Martin au couvent Sainte-Catherine
de Barcelone : sources antiques et chrtiennes du Pugio fidei (ca 1278). In
Entre stabilit et itinrance. Livres et culture des ordres mendiants, XIIIeXVe
sicle, edited by Nicole Briou, Martin Morard and Donatella Nebbiai-Dalla
Guarda, 329366. Bibliologia 37. Brepols: Turnhout, 2014.
. Bibliothque Nationale de France. Hbreu 669 703. Manuscrits de thologie.
Catalogues des manuscrits en caractres hbreu conservs dans les bibliothques
de France (CMCH) I. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008.
Cohen, Jeremy. The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism.
Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1982.
Dez Macho, Alejandro. Acerca de los midrasim falsificados de R. Mart. Sefarad 9
(1949): 16596.
Driver, Samuel Rolles, Adolf Neubauer, and Edward Bouverie Pusey. The Fifty-Third
Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters. Oxford: J. Parker, 1877.
32

Epstein, Abraham. Bereschit-rabbati (Handschrift der Prager jd. Gemeinde). Dessen


Verhltniss zu Rabba-rabbati, Moses ha-Darschan und Pugio Fidei. Magazin
fr die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 15 (1888): 5699. Reprinted as book,
Bereschit Rabbati, dessen Verhltniss zu Rabba Rabbati, Moses ha-Darschan
und Pugio Fidei. Berlin: Julius Benzian, 1888.
Hasselhoff, Grge K. Towards an Edition of Ramon Marts Pugio Fidei. Bulletin de
philosophie mdivale 55 (2013): 4556.
. The Reception of Maimonides in the Latin World: The Evidence of the Latin
Translations in the 13th15th Centuries. Materia Giudaica 6, no. 2 (2001): 258
80.
. Some Remarks on Raymond Martinis (c. 1215/30c.1284/94) Use of Moses
Maimonides. Trumah, 12 (2002): 13348.
. Dicit Rabbi Moyses: Studien zum Bild von Moses Maimonides im lateinischen
Westen vom 13. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert. Wrzburg: Knigshausen & Neumann,
2004.
Lapide, Pinchas E. Hebrew in the Church: The Foundations of Jewish-Christian
Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984.
Levi, Isral. Review of Bereschit Rabbati, dessen Verhltniss zu Rabba Rabbati, Moses
ha-Darschan und Pugio Fidei, by Abraham Epstein. Revue des tudes Juives 17
(1888): 31317.
Liebermann, Saul. Shkiin: A Few Words on Some Jewish Legends, Customs, and
Literary Sources Found in Karaite and Christian Works (Including an Index of
the Jewish Books Cited in Pugio Fidei of Raymund Martini) [Hebrew].
Jerusalem: Bamberger and Wahrmann, 1939.
. Raymund Martini and His Alleged Forgeries. Historia Judaica 5 (1943):
87102. Reprinted in Text and Studies, 285300. New York: Ktav, 1974.
Muoz Len, Domingo. Targum, Midrash y Talmud en la obra Pugio Fidei de
Raimundo Mart: los nombres y atributos divinos del Nio-Hijo de Is. 9:56. In
Biblia, exgesis y cultura: estudios en honor del Prof. D. Jos Mara Casciaro,
edited by Gonzalo Aranda, Claudio Basevi, and Juan Chapa, 44762. Pamplona:
EUNSA, 1994.
33

Neubauer, Adolf. Jewish Controversy and the Pugio Fidei. The Expositor 7 (1888),
81106 and 17997.
Ragacs, Ursula. The Forged Midrashim of Raymond Martini Reconsidered. Henoch
19, no. 1 (1997): 5968.
Rosenthal, Judah M. Early Hebrew Translations of the Gospels [Hebrew] Tarbiz 32
(196263): 4866.
Schiller-Szinessy, Salomon M. The Pugio Fidei. Cambridge Journal of Philology 16
(1888): 13152.
Steinschneider, Moritz. Die Geschichtsliteratur der Juden in Druckwerken und
Handschriften. Frankfurt: Kauffmann, 1905.
Szpiech, Ryan. The Aura of an Alphabet: Interpreting the Hebrew Gospels in Ramon
Marts Dagger of Faith (1278). Numen: International Review for the History
of Religions (2014): 334363.
. Citas rabes en carcteres hebreos en el Pugio Fidei del dominico Ramon
Mart: Entre la autenticidad y la autoridad. Al-Qantara 32, no. 1 (2011): 71
107.
Zunz, Leopold. Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrge der Juden. Berlin: Asher, 1832.

34