A Valley Between Two Mountains

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Ibn Ezra: the first bible critic

Abraham Ibn Ezra’s biblical commentary is couched in esotericism. His cryptic liturgy is difficult to analyse and caused certain scholars like Nahamandies to assert he was a Kabbalist. Though this is technically possible, his alignment with Andalusian rationalism disassociated him from that world. Still, he was indebted to Rashi’s peshat revolution. Ibn Ezra like Rashbam were willing to read texts literally away from traditional rabbinic interpretations. Ibn Ezra did hold back on the halakhic hermeneutics remaining loyal to his Andalusian heritage. His unorthodox views link to his peshat indulgence. 

Brandes wrote that the rabbis were the first bible critics but this is incorrect. The method of rabbinic interpretation is the opposite of the French school. The former begins with the law and seeks an interpretation in the text. The latter begins with the biblical text and seeks the law thereof. A good example is Rashbam’s  insistence that the borrower is absolved of the animal damages when the own is with him is based in a semantic reading of the text. The Talmud rules that the owner’s place nor the location of the injury matters for damages. The oral law either initially cared and then the rabbis exegetically innovated or it never mattered and the text is just a source. The extra few words are not superfluous but a semantic reading unconscious of oral semiology. The Talmudic synchronic parallels refute the textual addition (Rav Hamnunah’s view can be seen as an earlier rendition of the peshat revolution but he sources a law and its not to the extent that the French Tosafists tailored their commentaries).  

Ibn Ezra combined his peshat reading with his scientific measures. Like Maimonides concerning science, he began with philosophy and moved to fit them into the biblical text but preempting Spinoza he read according to the plain meaning of the text. He promoted Ptolemaic science that of astrology into his biblical commentary. His criticism of French peshat is explicit in his introduction but his journeys demonstrated a linkage between Rashbam and himself. It is important to note that peshat does not mean a standard literal reading but a grammatically analysed one. Yet this does not match the rabbinic enterprise who interpreted based on linguistic orality. 

Ibn Ezra’s reverence for Rashi and the departure from his Andalusian heritage in rabbinic exegesis prompts his own bias in his travels. His own singular narrative partly departing form his heritage and partly embracing the French model, paints him an intriguing mix of ideals. Ibn Ezra formulated a scientific approach that mirrors Spinoza’s undertaking a few centuries later. His maimonidean like mindset could not cease applying scientific standards to the text. In a sense similar to Halevi and Ibn Tibbon later on, reason and science do not contradict scripture. Though he applied his scientific theory differently with his passion of astrology, he emerged with a similar conclusion of the eternity of the world. He synthesised his rationalism with his simplicity. 

The dichotomy presented between meaning and truth demonstrates the divide of peshat deductions and talmudic exegesis. The grammatical obsession seemingly noted the inconsistencies between tradition and linguistic harmony. Before inquiring his most radical approach, it is necessary to equate his grammatical vocabulary with supernatural phenomena ie miracles. His Andalusian mind promoted science as a model for understanding scripture. It is this science that is clouded in esotericism. His astrology and prophecy are aligned with reason. The secret is a logically complex syllogism similar to Maimonides. Ibn Ezra is explicit that only those trained in his art can understand his commentary something Maimonides affirms as well. His rejection of miracles is conceded by Gersonides. He demythologised allegories especially the maaseh merkavah associating it with incorporeality and the supernal intellect. Religious naturalisation of sorts is the backbone of the Andalusian legacy. 

Yet it is his peshat method, his philological approach, that questioned the authorship of the Torah. The most complex and extreme positions is the concept of post-mosaic texts. There are two things to note concerning this position as it relates to the former opinion on miracles. Along with prophecy as they confer to the Andalusian scientific-naturalist position. Firstly, post-mosaic authorship is strictly tooled in his exegetical method and it is non-scientific. Although he does refer to it as a “secret” it does not entail a sensus comminus identity. The reason for this is his dual leadership to Andalusia and peshat. Andalusia operated in the esoteric frame but kept to a singular oral theology when aligned with the applied sciences but textual aspects were absent. Ibn Ezra’s inclusion of these points in his rendition demonstrate close ties with the French position. Ironically the two other advocates of post-mosaic authorship are ashkenazim: rabbis Yehudah HaChasid and Avigdor Katz. Rashbam is associated with the post-mosaic style. Even Nahmanides is accused of this trend by Abarbanel which may yield in its peshat influence even into the Sephardi—anti maimonidean world. It is entirely an ashkenazi grammatical point. 

Given the secretive nature of this it is possible to resonate in the Andalusian camp. Even amongst Maimonides but he does not mention this issue because his Andalusian heritage was only concerned with science not linguistics. Maimonides stuck to naturalistic foci of religiosity instead of postulating the textuality of the book. Though Maimonides did hide views in an oral formulation, mosaic authorship was not one of them. Furthermore, mosaic authorship fits into his philosophical association. Thus it is only the ashkenazi interpreters and not the maimonidean successors who question authorship (though for Maimonides the law beyond even Moses is the most important factor).            

It is Ibn Ezra’s combination that opens the door for biblical criticism to emerge. Ibn Ezra may have remained traditional himself but Spinoza weaponised his positions and sought to destroy the bible’s legitimacy. The textual foundation erupted a grammatical messianism to procure a truthful presentation. The text is the beginning and the end. The bible is understood via the text and only the text. At least the Kabbalists foundation deepens a connection with derash. Ibn Ezra retained the simple meaning as the sole method of comprehension. 

Ibn Ezra was a complex character caught between two different worlds. He figured the tradition alongside his exegetical formula. This did arouse some radical positions but there is a difference between them. The scientific conclusions fit into the Andalusian paradigm while the philological deductions are French moulded. Ironically, Ibn Ezra’s two extreme positions the eternity of matter and post mosaic authorship are backed by both schools of thought. The man who threaded both worlds exposed both options.