contents i

Reading the Rabbis

ii contents

Commentaria

Sacred Texts and Their Commentaries:

Jewish, Christian and Islamic

Founding Editors
Grover A. Zinn
Michael A. Signer (ob.)

Editors
Frans van Liere
Lesley Smith
E. Ann Matter
Thomas E. Burman
Robert A. Harris
Walid Saleh

VOLUME 5

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/comm

 contents iii

Reading the Rabbis

Christian Hebraism in the Works of Herbert of Bosham

By

Eva De Visscher

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2014
 iv contents

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Visscher, Eva De.

Reading the rabbis : Christian Hebraism in the works of Herbert of Bosham / by Eva De Visscher.
pages cm. -- (Commentaria, ISSN 1874-8236 ; Volume 5)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-25468-8 (hardback : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-90-04-25573-9 (e-book) 1. Herbert, of
Bosham, active 12th century--Knowledge--Judaism. 2. Christian Hebraists--England--History--12th
century. 3. Christianity and other religions--Relations--Judaism--History--12th century. 4. Judaism--
Relations--Christianity--History--12th century. I. Title.

PR2065.V57 2013
296.092--dc23

2013021640

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1874-8236
ISBN 978-90-04-25468-8 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-25573-9 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

 contents v

For my parents, Jacques De Visscher and Kristine Duthoit

vi contents
Contents

Acknowledgments ix
List of Abbreviations xi
Notes on Translations and Transliterations xiii
List of Illustrations xv
Introduction 1
1. Herbert of Bosham’s Life and Works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
2. Christian Hebraisms 6
3. The Hebraist Commentaries: The Magna Glosatura and the Psalterium Cum Commento. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 23
1. Transliteration of Hebrew Words 23
2. Knowledge of Hebrew Grammar 30
3. Lexical Changes: The Problems of Literal Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Hebrew Learning Tools 55
1. Jerome 55
2. Hebrew-Latin Psalters and the Eadwine Psalter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3. Hebraico-French Glosses—Le‘azim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
4. Hebrew-Hebraico-French Glossaries and Proto-dictionaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
The Use of Rabbinic Sources 79
1. Magister and Litterator 80
2. Rashi 81
2. Midrash Tehillim 106
4. The Talmud/Gamaliel 113
5. The Targums 120
6. Menahem ben Saruq and Dunash ibn Labrat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
7. Oral Sources 130
Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
1. Paul’s Neutralising Influence 138
2. Paul as Christianising Force 144
3. Paul versus the Litteratores 151
4. Herbert on the Fence? 154
The Practice of Literal Exegesis 161
1. Hebraist, Exegete and Polemicist 161
2. Littera and Peshat 177
3. Caro and Spiritus 185

Epilogue 193
Lists of Hebrew and French Words 199
Hebrew Words and Phrases 199
Anglo-Norman or French Words 201
Plates of London St Paul’s Cathedral Library, MS 2, reproduced by permission of the Chapter of
St Paul's Cathedral 203

Bibliography 207
Manuscripts 207
Primary Sources 207
Secondary Sources 210

Index 219
 contents vii

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ix
List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xi
Notes on Translations and Transliterations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xiii
List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1
1. Herbert of Bosham’s Life and Works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1
2. Christian Hebraisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
3. The Hebraist Commentaries: The Magna Glosatura and the
Psalterium Cum Commento. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

I.  How Much Hebrew did Herbert Know? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

1.  Transliteration of Hebrew Words. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
2.  Knowledge of Hebrew Grammar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
3.  Lexical Changes: The Problems of Literal Translation . . . . . . .  45

II.  Hebrew Learning Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55

1.  Jerome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
2.  Hebrew-Latin Psalters and the Eadwine Psalter . . . . . . . . . . . .  62
3.  Hebraico-French Glosses—Le‘azim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
4.  Hebrew-Hebraico-French Glossaries and Proto-dictionaries   . 74

III. The Use of Rabbinic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79

1. Magister and Litterator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
2.  Rashi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  81
2.  Midrash Tehillim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  106
4.  The Talmud/Gamaliel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  113
5.  The Targums. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  120
6.  Menahem ben Saruq and Dunash ibn Labrat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  126
7.  Oral Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  130

IV. Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  137

1.  Paul’s Neutralising Influence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  138
2.  Paul as Christianising Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  144
3.  Paul versus the Litteratores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  151
viii contents
4.  Herbert on the Fence?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  154

V. The Practice of Literal Exegesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  161

1.  Hebraist, Exegete and Polemicist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  161
2.  Littera and Peshat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  177
3. Caro and Spiritus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  185

Epilogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  193

Appendix 1. Lists of Hebrew and French Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  199

Appendix 2. Plates of London, St Paul s Cathedral Library, MS 2 . . .  203

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  207
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  219
 contents ix

Acknowledgments

This book is based upon my doctoral dissertation at the University of Leeds

and a post-doctoral project carried out at the University of Oxford. Many
people and several institutions helped it along the way: the Arts and
Humanities Research Board and the British Academy; the University of
Leeds Postgraduate Research Fund; the Royal Historical Society; the E.U.-
funded Historica Judaica project and Oriel College, Oxford. I am grateful
in particular to the following research libraries and their librarians:
Jo Wisdom at the St Paul’s Cathedral Library, and the staff at the Guild-
hall Library and Lambeth Palace Library in London; Joanne Ball at the
Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge; Dr Michael Kaufman at the
Bodleian Library, Dr Piet van Boxel at the Oriental Studies Library, and the
staff at Corpus Christi Library, Oxford. Thank you also to those who offered
accommodation during my research trips on a tight budget: Tom and Jenny
L’Estrange, Alan and Sasha Shaw, and Dr Amanda Power. Great feelings of
appreciation and gratitude go to my doctoral supervisors at Leeds: Dr
William Flynn, Dr James Ginther, Prof. Hugh Pyper, and post-doctoral
mentors at Oxford: Prof. John Barton, and, in particular, Dr Lesley Smith.
I would further like to thank Dr Anna Sapir Abulafia and Prof. Judith
Olszowy-Schlanger, Dr Deborah Goodwin, Dr Frans van Liere and Dr
Robert Harris for their kind and critical advice; Kate Andréo, Dr Kathryne
Beebe, Dr Hilary Brown, Dr Rhiannon Daniels, Jeff Dubberley, Chloe
Griffiths and Dr Elizabeth L’Estrange have been invaluable friends in the
course of writing this book. Most of all I would like to thank my partner
Geert for his unfailing practical and moral support, and his love, and my
daughters Hannah and Clara for the wonderful, sometimes frustrating, but
often much-needed, distraction they provided.
x contents
 contents xi

List of Abbreviations

Brepolis LLT-A Brepolis Library of Latin Texts Series A (Turnhout; Brepols,

2010) clt.brepolis.net/llta/
CCCM Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis (Turnhout:
Brepols)
CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout: Brepols)
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Turnhout:
Brepols)
CNRS Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique
DMF Dictionnaire du Moyen Français, www.atilf.fr/Les-grands-
projets/DMF/Le-dictionnaire
DMLBS Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, ed. David
Howlett et al. (London: OUP, for the British Academy)
PL Patrologia Latina
REJ Revue des études juives
RTAM Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale
TJHSE Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England

Bible Translations
KJ21 King James Version, 21st Century
NIV New International Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
xii contents
 contents xiii

Notes on Translations and Transliterations

Translations from Latin and Hebrew are mine, unless otherwise stated.
Biblical verses are translated using the Revised Standard Version or New
International Version, unless otherwise stated. When transliterating
Hebrew I have opted for a phonetic system of transliteration based upon
the one used by Kirsten Fudeman in Vernacular Voices: Lan­guage and
Identity in Medieval Jewish Communities (Philadelphia, 2010), where ts
stands for tsade, and sh for shin, w, o or u for waw, as appropriate, and where
vowel-length is not indicated. When citing other scholars’ transliterations,
however, I have retained their spelling.
xiv contents
 contents xv

List of Illustrations

London, St Paul’s Cathedral Library, MS 2

1. Fol. 26v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  203
2. Fol. 102v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  204
3. Fol. 132r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  205
xvi contents
 introduction 1

Introduction

Western Europe in the twelfth century is traditionally described in terms

of expansion, cultural renaissance and economic revival. It witnessed the
continuation of Church reform, the emergence of new religious move-
ments, impressive monastic and ecclesiastical building projects, extensive
manuscript production, a revival of classical literature and of language-
learning, and a consolidation of secular and religious administrative pow-
ers.1 It also saw two crusades which attempted, but failed, to recapture
Jerusalem from Muslim rule, and the accomplishment of the first Latin
translation of the Qur’an. Crusader fever had spilled over into mob violence
against Jewish communities in 1096, and did so again. Towards the end of
the twelfth century, a greater interest in, and sometimes harsher attitude
towards, Jews and Judaism becomes noticeable in religious as well as sec-
ular literature, amid growing concern about the dividing lines between
orthodox and non-orthodox, between believers and what are perceived to
be unbelievers.2 This book explores the way in which one Christian schol-
ar’s interest in Judaism, rabbinic thought and the Hebrew language led him
to offer a different dimension to the Christian understanding of the Bible,
and of Jewish-Christian relations, at the time.

1. Herbert of Bosham’s Life and Works

Herbert of Bosham (c. 1120-c. 1194) was a figure of several lives and many
contradictions. Born in Bosham, an estuary town on the South-English
coast in what is now West Sussex, he studied theology at the schools of
Paris and there gained the title of Master (magister). Peter Lombard, who
taught at the school of Notre Dame from 1142 or before to 1159, and possibly
Andrew of St Victor, residing in Paris during most of the 1140s and from
1154-55 to 1161, were his teachers. In 1157 he appeared at Henry II’s court
and in the service of Thomas Becket, who was then royal chancellor and,
from 1162, Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1164 Bosham followed his patron

1 For an extensive discussion, see Collin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western
Church from 1050-1250 (Oxford, 1991), 182-286.
2 Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity
(Berkeley, 1999), 147-270.
2 introduction
into exile to France as his secretary, divinity teacher or “master of the holy
page”, and close friend. He was in France at the time of the murder of Becket
in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170, and remained there afterwards as one of
Henry II’s personae non gratae, devoting his life to writing and to keeping
alive his former patron’s memory. The late 1180s saw him back in England,
where he died c. 1194.3 Like other twelfth-century English intellectuals,
such as his close contemporary and fellow clerk at the ecclesiastical house-
hold, John of Salisbury,4 Bosham combined a turbulent career in church
and court politics with one as a scholar, and in doing so defies easy profes-
sional categorisation. His works reflect this versatility. He left a collection
of letters which provide a candid view of his activities as clerk lobbying on
behalf of Thomas Becket. His unrelenting loyalty to the Archbishop found
shape in two hagiographical biographies of Becket, titled Vita Sancti
Thomae and Liber Melorum (“Book of Songs”). However, it is as a biblical
scholar that he is truly remarkable, and it is this role with which the fol-
lowing chapters are concerned.
Herbert of Bosham was one of the few medieval Christians north of the
Alps to devote himself to Hebrew scholarship and the reception of Jewish
exegesis. His achievements have come down to us in two biblical com-
mentaries. One is an arrangement of Peter Lombard’s Great Gloss (Magna
Glosatura) on the Psalms and the Pauline Epistles, completed in the years
after Becket’s death, and one a literal exposition and revision of the Psalms
in Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew (versio iuxta hebraicam), com-
posed some fifteen years later and simply titled “Psalter with Commentary”,
Psalterium cum commento.5 Both commentaries still await publication.

3 For a more detailed description of Bosham’s life, see Beryl Smalley, “A Commentary
on the Hebraica by Herbert of Bosham”, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 18
(1951): 33-35; eadem, The Becket Conflict and the Schools: A Study of Intellectuals in Politics
(Oxford, 1973), 59-86 ; Frank Barlow, Thomas Becket (London, 1986; London, 2000), passim;
Deborah Goodwin, Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew: Herbert of Bosham’s Christian Hebraism
(Leiden, 2006), 1-50.
4 On John of Salisbury, see Smalley, Becket Conflict, 87-108; Michael Wilks, The World
of John of Salisbury, Studies in Church History: Subsidia 3 (Oxford, 1984), in particular 427-
38.
5 Herbert of Bosham, Epistulae in persona S. Thomae Cantuariensis et aliorum scriptae,
PL 190: 1422-1474; Herberti de Boseham, S. Thomae Cantuariensis clerici a secretis, opera quae
extant omnia, ed. by I. A. Giles, 2 vols (Oxford, 1845-46); idem, Materials for the History of
Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, vol. 3: Vita Sancti Thomae and Liber Melorum, ed.
by J. C. Robertson, Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores 67 (London, 1877); idem,
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, vol. 7: Epistles DXXI-
DCCCVIII, ed. by J. B. Sheppard, Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores 67 (London,
1885); Magna Glosatura, Cambridge, Trinity College Library, MSS B.5.4, B.5.6 and B.5.7 and
 introduction 3
While the first commentary shows a budding interest in textual criticism,
with marginal annotations relating to Hebrew and rabbinical sources, the
second one has Hebrew scholarship and the integration of Jewish exegesis
into the Christian tradition at its heart. This second work consists of a revi-
sion of Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew Psalms, the Hebraica, in a period
when the Gallicana, his translation from the Greek Septuagint, would have
been more commonly used north of the Alps. Accompanying this revision
is a commentary according to the literal sense of scripture, and not to the
allegorical sense(s), as would be expected at the time. Extant in only one
manuscript, it is the earliest surviving, and possibly even the first, literal
exegesis of the Hebraica text of the Psalms.
Bosham’s versatility leads us into several areas of modern research. In
him the histories of medieval church and state politics, and of the saint’s
cult surrounding Thomas Becket, meet those of biblical scholarship and
medieval Jewish-Christian relations. The focus of this book will be on his
role in those latter two areas: as Christian Hebraist and literal exegete, as
interpreter of rabbinic texts, occasional polemicist, and negotiator between
the Jewish and the Christian intellectual spheres. The most revealing pri-
mary source on the extent of Herbert’s scholarship is the Psalterium cum
commento, which I had the chance to transcribe and study in its entirety,
and of which selected passages will be published here. All transcriptions
are mine, unless otherwise stated.
The first modern scholar to discover Bosham as a Hebraist was Beryl
Smalley in the late 1940s. Following up Neil Ker’s find at St Paul’s Cathedral
Library of a previously mis-shelved and mis-dated manuscript, which con-
tained a work titled Psalterium cum commento, allegedly by Herbert of
Bosham, she was able to establish its authorship. Her pioneering research
on its context and content changed the way in which not just the figure of
Herbert of Bosham but also the concepts of medieval Christian Hebraism
and literal exegesis were understood. In her 1951 article and chapter in The
Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (1952) Smalley concentrates on the
Psalterium cum commento, with sideway glances at the arrangement of the
Magna Glosatura, while her chapter in The Becket Conflict and the Schools
(1973) pieces together the different facets of Herbert’s life. For an evaluation
of Bosham’s Hebraism she enlisted the help of Raphael Loewe who pub-
lished a lengthy in-depth article on the subject (1953), followed by a

Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. E. inf. 6; Psalterium cum commento, London, Saint Paul’s
Cathedral Library, MS 2.
4 introduction
r­ e-assessment of medieval Christian Hebraists in the light of his new-found
evidence.6
Research on Herbert then lay dormant, with the exception of mention
in passing by Jeremy Cohen and Gilbert Dahan, until recent work by
Deborah Goodwin and Eva De Visscher.7 The intervening decades had seen
a flourishing of the study of Jewish and Christian exegesis, Ashkenazi
Jewish-Christian relations, and Hebrew scholarship in the medieval period,
and it had become clear that in this more brightly illuminated landscape
the figure of Herbert of Bosham needed to be re-integrated and given more
attention.
Goodwin has been the first to devote a full monograph to Herbert’s life
and Hebraist writings, with particular emphasis on the Psalterium cum
commento. It is her skillful integration of Herbert within his intellectual
milieu, and within the broader context of the history of Christian Hebraism
and literal exegesis, which has opened up new avenues of research on his
role as biblical scholar. Continuing Smalley’s and, to some extent, Loewe’s
work she provides additional examples of Bosham’s knowledge of Hebrew,
and offers the first comprehensive assessment of his hermeneutics of the
literal sense of scripture and stance towards Jews and Judaism. This stance,
she argues, was markedly less anti-Jewish than that of most of his Christian
peers and includes a vision of Jews and Christians sharing one eschato-

6 Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd edn (Notre Dame, 1978), 186-95;
Raphael Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary on Jerome’s Hebrew Psalter”, Biblica
34 (1953): 44-77; 159-92; and 275-98; idem, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England:
Herbert of Bosham and Earlier Scholars”, Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of
England 17 (1953): 225-49.
7 Jeremy Cohen, “Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy: The Study
and Evaluation of Judaism in European Christendom”, in Essential Papers on Judaism and
Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, ed. by Jeremy Cohen (New
York and London, 1991), 310-41: 320-21; Gilbert Dahan, Les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs
au moyen âge (Paris, 1990), 229-70; Deborah Goodwin, “A Study of Herbert of Bosham’s
Psalms Commentary (c. 1190)”, (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Notre Dame, 2001);
eadem, “Herbert of Bosham and the Horizons of Twelfth-Century Exegesis”, Traditio 58
(2003): 133-73; eadem, Take Hold …; Eva De Visscher, “The Jewish-Christian Dialogue in
Twelfth-Century Western Europe: Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary on the Psalms”, (unpub-
lished PhD thesis, University of Leeds, 2004); eadem, “Putting Theory into Practice? Hugh
of Saint Victor’s Influence on Herbert of Bosham’s Psalterium cum commento”, in Bibel und
Exegese in der Abtei Saint-Victor zu Paris: Form und Funktion eines Grundtextes im
europäischen Rahmen, ed. Rainer Berndt, Corpus Victorinum, vol. 3. Instrumenta (Münster,
2009), 491-502; eadem, “‘Closer to the Hebrew’: Herbert of Bosham’s Interpretation of Literal
Exegesis”, in The Multiple Meaning of Scripture: The Role of Exegesis in Early-Christian and
Medieval Culture, ed. by Ineke van‘t Spijker (Leiden, 2009), 249-72; eadem, “Cross-Religious
Learning and Teaching”, in Crossing Borders: Hebrew Manuscripts as a Meeting Place of
Cultures, ed. by Piet van Boxel and Sabine Arndt (Oxford, 2009), 123-32.
 introduction 5
logical future. In a recent article Goodwin applies post-colonial discourse
analysis to the phenomenon of twelfth-century Christian Hebraism in
general, and to the Psalterium in particular. She argues convincingly that,
in order to understand the apparent contradictions in Christian thinking
about the Jewish Other, we need to break down the oppositional pairing
of polemics versus exegesis and be sensitive to the dialogue ensuing from
Jews’ responses to Christian objectification of them.8
This present study differs from previous publications on three fronts.
Being the first one to work from a transcription of the entire Psalterium,
and to take account of the Magna Glosatura to a substantial degree, it
moves beyond the now well-established fact that Herbert of Bosham knew
at least some Hebrew, and investigates how much Hebrew he knew. It
analyses his range of vocabulary, grasp of grammar and idiom, awarenenss
of issues of textual criticism, and methodology of translation.
On a second front, this exploration leads to a re-assessment of what is
known about Bosham’s use of Jewish sources and of other Christian
Hebraist texts circulating at the time. In the last fifteen years Gilbert Dahan
and Judith Olszowy-Schlanger have continued along another inroad made
by Smalley and Loewe into the field of medieval Christian Hebraism. They
have studied a group of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Hebrew-Latin or
Hebrew-Latin-vernacular manuscripts of either English provenance or
circulating in England, which include glossed biblical books, a Rashi com-
mentary, a Hebrew grammar, and a proto-dictionary. Dahan and Olszowy-
Schlanger argue that the glossed biblical books, as well as the grammar and
dictionary, were used as learning tools by Christian Hebraists.9 I will show

8 Goodwin, “Nothing in Our Histories: A Postcolonial Perspective on Twelfth-Century

Christian Hebraism”, Medieval Encounters 15.1 (2009): 35-65.
9 Smalley, “Hebrew Scholarship among Christians in Thirteenth-Century England as
Illustrated by Some Hebrew-Latin Psalters”, Society for Old Testament Study, Lectio 6 (1939):
1-18; Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: The Superscriptio Lincolniensis”,
Hebrew Union College Annual 28 (1957): 205-52; Gilbert Dahan, “Deux psautiers hébraïques
glosés en latin”, Revue des Études Juives 158 (1999): 61-87; Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, “The
Knowledge and Practice of Hebrew Grammar among Christian Scholars in Pre-Expulsion
England: The Evidence of “Bilingual” Hebrew-Latin Manuscripts”, in Hebrew Scholarship
and the Medieval World, ed. by Nicholas de Lange (Cambridge, 2001), 107-28; eadem, Les
Manuscrits hébreux dans l’Angleterre médiévale: étude historique et paléographique, Collec-
tion de la Revue des Études juives (Paris and Leuven, 2003); eadem et al., eds., Dictionnaire
hébreu-latin-français de la Bible hébraïque de l’abbaye de Ramsey (XIIIe siècle), CCCM.
Lexica latina medii aevi, Nouveau recueil des lexiques latin-français du Moyen Âge 4 (Turn-
hout, 2008); eadem, “Christian Hebraism in Thirteenth-century England: The Evidence of
Hebrew-Latin Manuscripts”, in Crossing Borders, 115-22; De Visscher, “An Ave Maria in
Hebrew: the Transmission of Hebrew Learning from Jewish to Christian Scholars in Medi-
6 introduction
how the Psalterium contains textual links with members of this group of
learning tools, and with Jewish and other Christian Hebraist sources,
among which is the so-called Eadwine or Canterbury Psalter. This enables
us to gain an insight into the types of text to which Herbert had access, and
brings into focus the constellation, or should we say knotted web, of inter-
connected Hebraist texts used during that period, with Canterbury as a
potential centre of textual criticism and Hebrew scholarship. It helps us
form a better idea of a twelfth-century Hebraist’s learning environment,
including his learning methods and relationship with contemporary Jewish
teachers.
On a third front this book explores Herbert’s hermeneutics and influence
from Christian authors, notably his debt to the Epistles of Paul, and the
School of St Victor. It also looks at the way in which Herbert positions
himself in relation to his Jewish and Christian authorities, particularly when
negotiating exegetical discrepancies between them. Building upon Smalley
and Goodwin it re-addresses, and offers an alternative view to, Bosham’s
perceptions of Jews and Judaism, and his overall purpose with a work such
as the Psalterium cum commento. This study concludes with a contextu-
alisation of the figure of Herbert of Bosham against the landscape of medi-
eval Christian Hebraism.

2. Christian Hebraisms

What does ‘Christian Hebraism’ mean? Providing a watertight definition

of the term is not a straightforward task. Loewe understands it as ranging
between two poles. On the one end of the spectrum we find Hebraist schol-
ars who have achieved a reasonable level of proficiency in reading the
Hebrew Bible and whose works betray a familiarity with and interest in
Judaism and Jewish sources. At the other end we encounter people who
might not know Hebrew themselves but who, in some way or other, pre-
serve or encourage the tradition of Hebrew studies among Christians, for
example by the commissioning or ownership of books reflecting Hebraist
activity. In both cases the ‘Hebraist’ is a non-Jew who supports Hebrew
scholarship in whatever way for its own sake and not merely as tool for the
study of other disciplines.10 I take the term to cover the study of Hebrew

eval England”, in Christians and Jews in Medieval England: Narratives and Contexts for the
York 1190 Massacre, ed. Sarah Rees Jones and Sethina Watson (Woodbridge, 2013).
10 Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bosham and
Earlier Scholars”, 225-26.
 introduction 7
or the consultation of Jewish scholars by Christians with the aim of gaining
deeper understanding of the Bible. Defined as such, the phenomenon is
inherent in the history of Christianity itself.
A pioneer in the study of Hebrew and one whose authority and influence
can be hardly overstated is Jerome. He was born sometime between 330
and 345 at Stridon in Dalmatia (now Croatia), to a family of wealthy
Christians, and studied in Rome, Trier and Aquilea. Attracted by a life of
asceticism, he left Aquilea for the Greek-speaking East around 370 and
joined a community of hermits in the desert of Chalcis near Antioch.
During this period, which lasted only two years, he not only intensively
studied the Greek Bible but also started learning Hebrew, an enterprise
which would change his, and the western world’s, attitude towards the
Scriptures forever.11
From Chalcis, Jerome went to Antioch and Constantinople, returning
to Rome in 382, where he served for about three years as a secretary to Pope
Damasus. It was Damasus who gave him the most important commission
of his life, namely the task of revising the Old Latin version of the Bible
against the (Greek) Septuagint from which it had been translated originally.
When, after the revision of the New Testament, he embarked on the Old
Testament, he apparently found the Septuagint, which was itself a transla-
tion from the Hebrew, unsatisfactory and decided to translate directly from
the Hebrew Bible.12 He did not fully realise that the Septuagint, which he
rightly found incongruent with the Masoretic Hebrew text used in his time,
was in fact translated from a different textual tradition.13 Jerome’s enter-
prise was entirely unique at the time and elicited protest from different
sides. The most notable criticism came from Augustine, although he seems
to have objected not so much to Hebrew learning in itself, as to have feared
that multiple Latin translations would cause division in the Church.14
Jerome died in 420 in Bethlehem, in a monastic community of his own
foundation. Apart from the translation of almost the entire Bible and of
numerous ecclesiastical works, he left a collection of letters, many of them

11 Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaes-
tiones hebraica in Genesim (Oxford, 1993), 1-3; J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings and
Controversies (London, 1975), 337-40.
12 W. H. Semple, “St Jerome as a Biblical Translator”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
45 (1965): 227-43, at 227-28.
13 Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, Assen and Maas-
tricht, 1992), 134-48.
14 Carolinne White, transl., The Correspondence (384-419) between Jerome and Augustine
of Hippo (Lewiston, NY, 1990); Goodwin, Take Hold …, 83n39, 84-85.
8 introduction
polemical, in which he vehemently defends his views and attacks his oppo-
nents in an often vitriolic way. In the early 390s he also compiled three
philological treatises on different aspects of the Hebrew Bible. His Book on
the Interpretation of Hebrew Names (Liber de interpretationibus nominum
Hebraicorum) is an etymological dictionary of biblical proper names, the
Book on the Location and Names of Hebrew Places (Liber de situ et nominibus
locorum Hebraicorum) a gazetteer of biblical places and the third one, titled
Hebrew Questions on Genesis (Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim), a com-
mentary on difficult passages in Genesis.15 Since in this last work Jerome
provides literal explanations based on a close reading of the Masoretic text
and the aid of Jewish written and oral sources, the Quaestiones Hebraicae
in Genesim can be seen to some extent as a methodological precedent of
Herbert’s Psalterium.
Jerome was indebted to Origen’s Hexapla for the development of his
text-critical skills and altogether seems to have considered the Greek Father
to be outstanding as a textual critic but deeply suspicious as a theologian.16
Concerning the divine status of the Septuagint, Jerome probably did not
believe the legend alleging that seventy two scribes independently man-
aged to translate the Hebrew Bible in identical fashion.17 Yet it is unclear
at what point in his career he became convinced of the necessity of return-
ing to the Hebrew text and, consequently, how this ‘conversion’ to the
priority of the Hebrew influenced his attitude towards the Septuagint.
While some see this conversion as a linear process which became complete
with his decision in 390 to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew,18
others claim that he never entirely discarded the Septuagint in favour of
the Masoretic text.19 The latter view seems to be the more likely, since
Jerome’s writings do not reflect a clearly defined change of attitude towards
the Septuagint. They rather suggest that Jerome gave priority to the Hebrew
because, as a textual scholar, he believed in its precedence. He uses strong
and influential images to prove this point, calling the Hebrew text the

15 Dennis Brown, Vir Trilinguis: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome (Kampen,
1992), 11; Semple, “Jerome”, 230-37.
16 Kelly, Jerome, 218.
17 Jerome, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, Cl. 0583, praefatio, Brepolis Library of Latin
Texts-Series A (Turnhout, 2010), clt.brepolis.net/llta/pages/Toc. aspx?ctx=865804; Prologus
in Pentateucho, Cl 0591 0 (M), 3, Brepolis LLT-A.
18 Ludwig Schade, Die Inspirationslehre des heiligen Hieronymus: eine biblisch-geschicht­
liche Studie (Freiburg im Bresgau, 1910), 142-44; Werner Schwarz, Principles and Problems
of Biblical Translation: Some Reformation Controversies and their Background (Cambridge,
1955), 28-30; Kelly, Jerome, 150.
19 Kamesar, Jerome, 55.
 introduction 9
“source-spring of truth” (“fons veritatis”) and the Greek and Latin transla-
tions the “rivulets of conjecture” (“rivuli opinionum”)20 and describing the
Old Latin version as “poured into the third jar” (“in tertium vas transfusa”).21
As an ecclesiastic, however, he continued to use the Septuagint because it
was the text on which theological and exegetical discussion was founded.22
Familiarising himself well enough with the Hebrew scriptures in order to
translate them faithfully into Latin was a mammoth task, even more so
since in the fourth century the Masoretic text had not yet been vowel-
pointed, and systematic dictionaries, concordances or grammar books were
lacking.23 What Jerome perceived as another difficulty was that, as he did
not know any other Christian whose Hebrew was as good as his, he could
only ask Jewish scholars for help and they, he feared, might distort Scripture
“out of hatred for Christ” (“propter odium Christi”).24
Later Christian Hebraists tend to rely heavily on Jerome’s achievements.
Loewe mentions as the first Hebraist work after Jerome Isidore of Seville’s
twenty books of Origins or Etymologies, compiled in the seventh century
and based upon a mixture of earlier patristic and Hellenistic sources. He
also draws attention to a seventh-century revision of and commentary on
the Psalms according to the Hebraica Veritas by the Irish saint Caimin (d.
653). However, Mario Esposito, who has studied the work concerned, places
it around 1100 and has not been able to find any evidence of an older ver-
sion underlying this work. The manuscript consists of six folios containing
Psalm 118 (119): 1-16 and 33-116 of the Hebraica. I have not found any sig-
nificant similarities between the revisions made in this Psalter and those
in Herbert’s Psalterium.25 Other Hebraists in the wider sense of the word
were Bede (672/3-735) and Alcuin (b. 735), who both probably knew only
a little Hebrew gleaned from Jerome.26

20 Jerome, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, Brepolis LLT-A, Cl. 0583, praefatio.

21 Jerome, Prologus in libris Salomonis de hebraeo translatis, Brepolis LLT-A, Cl. 0591 T
(M), 957.
22 E.g., on Genesis 8: 4 in his Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim Jerome bases his literal
interpretation of the text on the Hebrew and his spiritual interpretation on the Septuagint,
Brepolis, LLT-A, Cl 0580, 13-14 ; Brown, Vir Trilinguis, 61.
23 Brown, Vir Trilinguis, 23-24.
24 Jerome, Epistula 32, Ad Marcellam, Brepolis LLT-A, vol 54, par. 1, 252; Brown, Vir
Trilinguis, 64.
25 Mario Esposito, “On the So-Called Psalter of St Caimin”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy 32C (1914-16): 78-88, at 82-87.
26 Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bosham and
Earlier Scholars”, 227-28.
10 introduction
The Carolingian period seems to have sparked a renewed interest in
both the quality of the biblical text and in the study of the historical books
of the Bible. During that time two revisions of the Vulgate appeared. One
was produced by Alcuin and constituted an attempt to reconcile multiple
versions of Jerome’s text with one another but without sufficiently testing
those versions against the Hebrew. Under the commission of Theodulf
(750-821), bishop of Orleans, and with the help of a Jewish convert, a more
thorough revision was compiled against the Masoretic text. Avrom Saltman
believes that the same Jewish convert was responsible for the writing of a
set of Quaestiones Hebraicae, attributed to Jerome, on the Books of Samuel
and Chronicles.27 Hrabanus Maurus (c. 776-856), a pupil of Alcuin, extracted
material from this work into his own commentaries, which were later
abridged by his pupil Walafrid Strabo (c. 808-849). While Smalley consid-
ers Hrabanus to be an author of little originality who borrowed Pseudo-
Hieronymian quaestiones in an uncritical and largely mechanical fashion,
Saltman convincingly argues against this view. He believes instead that
Maurus was a tolerant Hebraist who made intelligent use of his material
and who tested his findings against the opinion of oral Jewish sources. He
compares him favourably with Andrew of Saint Victor in the sense that he
is able to distinguish between Jerome and Pseudo-Jerome, while Andrew
fails to do so.28 In the early twelfth century some quotations from Strabo’s
compilation were absorbed into the Glossa Ordinaria.29
The bulk of Christian Hebraist material originated with Jerome and had
over time, because of its transmission in often freely quoted or paraphrased
form, accumulated countless inaccuracies. Yet, as Christians continued to
consult Jewish scholars about biblical problems, a small proportion of
‘fresh’ information resulting from those contacts flowed into that Jerome-
centred mainstream and enriched it. Smalley, Cohen and others have
pointed out that the trust Christians invested in the validity of their Jewish
contacts was to some extent built upon the belief that Judaism was a reli-
gion frozen in time, which had not developed since it became obsolete at
the beginning of the Christian era. Therefore, textual or historical informa-

27 Quaestiones on the Book of Samuel, ed. and introd. by Avrom Saltman (Leiden, 1975),
iii-xxix.
28 Saltman, “Rabanus Maurus and the Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones Hebraicae in
Libros Regum et Paralipomenon”, Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 43-75, at 44; idem,
“Pseudo-Jerome in the Commentary of Andrew of St Victor on Samuel”, Harvard Theologi-
cal Review 67 (1974): 195-253, at 198-200; and Smalley, Study of the Bible, 56-57.
29 Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bosham and
Earlier Scholars”, 228-29.
 introduction 11
tion on the Bible gained from a Jew would by necessity reflect the Old
Testament truth.30
A second wave of medieval Hebraist interest occurred in the eleventh
and twelfth centuries and seems to have evolved largely but not exclusively
around monastic communities. Smalley draws attention to a Benedictine
monk teaching at Metz around 1070, Sigebert of Gembloux, who allegedly
had a reputation for Hebrew learning and for discussing with Jews.31 In the
early twelfth century one of the founders of the Cistercian order, Stephen
Harding, sought to establish a corrected Vulgate text for use at Cistercian
houses. He therefore consulted several Jewish scholars who translated
passages for him into French from the Masoretic text and the Targums.32
A contemporary and compatriot of Harding, Gerhard, archbishop of York,
allegedly owned several Hebrew Psalters. Some time after his death these
books were studied and partly copied out by Maurice, prior of the
Augustinian house at Kirkham.33 These records, in combination with the
evidence we possess about the existence of Hebrew Psalters with Latin
glosses and/or translations in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, suggests
that, while the ability to read and translate the Hebrew Bible was probably
not widespread in Christian circles, there was a sustained interest in it.34
As a prophetic book so central to Christian liturgy and exegesis, the Psalter
would be an obvious choice of study for Hebraists from monastic and
scholastic environments. From a didactic point of view it might also be the
best work from which to start one’s Hebrew studies, since it was equally
well known and important to Christians as to Jews. For this reason Hebrew
Psalters might have been easier to obtain than other Hebrew books in
which Christians would be interested, and shared Jewish-Christian schol-
arship might have developed more spontaneously around the Psalms than
around any other biblical book.
Another Cistercian monk who set out to test Jerome’s Hebraica version
against the Masoretic text was Nicolas Manjacoria. Nicolas belonged, at

30 Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, 189-91, 219-38 and 392-96; Smalley, Lectio, 1.
31 Smalley, Study of the Bible, 79.
32 Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bosham and
Earlier Scholars”, 233.
33 M. R. James, “The Salomites”, The Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1934), 287-97: 289:
“Quia vero Ebraice lingue et litteris adiscendis ego emulatus Jeronimum quondam adoles-
centulus sub tribus annis studium impendi et de psalterio Ebraico iuxta exemplaria domini
Gerardi quondam Eboracensis archiepiscopi (d. 1108) xl psalmos manu mea scripsi, Judeis
quoque ipsis litterarum eleganciam admirantibus”.
34 Smalley, Lectio, 8-10; eadem, Study of the Bible, 78-80; Olszowy-Schlanger, Hebrew
Scholarship, 112 and 127.
12 introduction
least by the end of his life in c. 1145, to the Italian abbey of St Anastasius of
Tre Fontane. He included not just the Hebraica but also the Gallicana and
probably the Romana versions in his project of revision, and consulted a
Jew who introduced him to the works of Rashi.35 In the preface to his cor-
rection of the Hebraica he describes how the study of an early witness to
the Hebraica, kept at Monte Cassino, prompted him to learn Hebrew in
order to follow in Jerome’s footsteps and be able to test the existing Latin
versions of the Bible against the Hebrew Truth. This decision led to the
production of Suffraganeus bibliothecae, a body of corrections to the Latin
Bible, including a revision of the Hebraica.36 His correction of the Gallicana,
which was written separately from that of the Hebraica, contains an addi-
tional treatise on textual criticism of the Psalms. In this work, which is
titled Booklet on the corruption and diminishing of the Psalms and certain
other biblical books (Libellus de corruptione et correptione psalmorum et
aliarum quarundam scripturarum), Nicolas points out common mistakes
caused by ignorant scribes, who misplace the Hebrew letters of alpha-
betical psalms. He also draws attention to the discrepancies between the
tituli of the Gallicana and those of the Hebraica, an aspect which also con-
cerned Herbert in his Psalterium. In his preface to the Gallicana Nicolas
mentions he has already corrected the Romana version. Robert Weber
claims to have found a copy of this third revision of Nicolas in a thirteenth-
century manuscript now held in Rome. The work’s preface, as well as the
methodology of correction of the Psalter, strongly suggests that its author
is indeed Nicolas.37 While the Libellus and the prefaces to his revised
Psalters have been edited, the Psalter itself unfortunately still exists in
manuscript form only.
A twelfth-century French environment which was particularly renowned
for its study of biblical exegesis and to some extent for Hebrew scholarship
is that of the abbey of regular canons at St Victor in Paris. By Herbert’s time
the school had built up a magnificent library and had acquired interna-
tional fame. Its most influential master was Hugh, who taught at the school
from 1125 until his death in 1141. Hugh’s attitude to the learning of Hebrew

35 Smalley, Study of the Bible, 80.

36 J. van den Gheyn, “Nicolas Maniacoria, correcteur de la Bible”, Revue biblique 8 (1899):
289-95; A. Wilmart, “Nicolas Manjacoria, Cistercien à Trois Fontaines”, Revue Bénédictine
33 (1921): 136-38; Cornelia Linde, “Some Observations on Nicola Maniacutia’s Suffragenus
Bibliothece”, in Retelling the Bible: Literary, Historical and Social Contexts, ed. by Lucie
Doležalová and Tamás Visi (Frankfurt am Main, 2011).
37 Robert Weber, “Deux préfaces au psautier dues à Nicolas Maniacoria”, Revue Béné-
dictine 63 (1953): 3-17, at 2-4.
 introduction 13
was very much related to his approach to divine reading in general. As he
set out in his Didascalicon, the student should follow a well-rounded edu-
cational programme which starts with the study of the secular arts. If he
has mastered those, he is ready to read the Scriptures. When reading the
Scriptures he should first seek to understand the literal/historical sense
before immersing himself in the allegorical and tropological senses. Loewe
states that
this shift of emphasis, which joined the “lowly” letter to allegory instead of
contrasting it to the spiritual senses, and which consequently gave it a pro-
portionately greater stress relative to them, was of far-reaching consequence;
it greatly enhanced the historical sense of the Bible, and as a corollary pos-
tulated a thorough-going study of the plain meaning instead of the supreme
disregard for it that was the heritage of the writing and teaching of Gregory
the Great.38
Hugh’s interpretation of the literal sense seems to overlap with the rabbinic
view that “no word can be deprived of its plain sense (peshat)”.39 Hugh’s
works display some knowledge of Hebrew. They contain Hebrew words in
transliteration and references to Jewish sources such as Rashi and Hugh’s
contemporaries Joseph Kara and Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir of Ramerupt),
and make mention of oral consultations with Jews.40 Two of Hugh’s pupils
and fellow canons regular, Andrew and Richard, built upon their master’s
legacy but went each into different directions. While Richard produced
mystical writings, Andrew felt himself more attracted to the exposition of
the literal sense. Both consulted Jewish scholars.41 Andrew commented
upon the Heptateuch, the Prophets, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes and includes
a range of Jewish sources, such as Rashi, Rashbam, Joseph Kimhi and Joseph
Bekhor Shor, into his work. Although he has traditionally been accredited
with a great proficiency in Hebrew, modern scholarship has contested this.
William McKane and, more recently, Frans van Liere have demonstrated
that Andrew probably did not use the Masoretic text directly and borrowed
most of his interpretation of Hebrew words or Jewish exegeses from Jerome

38 Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bosham and

Earlier Scholars”, 236; and Smalley, Study of the Bible, 85-105.
39 Benjamin J. Gelles, Peshat and Derash in the Exegesis of Rashi, Études sur le judaïsme
médiéval 9 (Leiden, 1981), 5; David Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied
Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis (New York and Oxford, 1991), 25; I will return to Hugh’s assess-
ment of the literal sense in Chapter Five.
40 Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bosham and
Earlier Scholars”, 236; and Smalley, Study of the Bible, 103-04.
41 Smalley, Study of the Bible, 126; and Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of
England: Herbert of Bosham and Earlier Scholars”, 237.
14 introduction
and from oral interlocuters.42 Yet, since Herbert shares Andrew’s interest
in the literal sense of Scripture, since his prologue to his commentary on
the Psalms betrays knowledge of Andrew’s commentaries on the Prophets,
and since there is the possibility that he followed lessons at Saint Victor
during his time in France, we should not underestimate Andrew’s influence
on Herbert’s Hebraist learning process. Hugh’s more all-encompassing
mark on Herbert will be discussed in Chapter Five.
Two Hebraists who might also have been acquainted with Herbert him-
self are a certain Odo, author of a theological and partly polemical treatise
dating from the mid-twelfth century, and Ralph Niger, an Anglo-Norman
clergyman and correspondent of John of Salisbury. The identity of Odo is
shady. His treatise in three parts, titled Ysagoge in Theologiam, contains a
dedication to his magister Gilbert Foliot (1107-1187), who briefly taught at
Paris, and then lived as prior at Cluny and Abbeville before becoming abbot
of the Benedictine abbey at Gloucester in 1139 and later bishop of Hereford.43
Artur Landgraf suggests that the author of the Ysagoge might be the same
Odo who was master of theology at Paris before becoming abbot at
Ourscamp Abbey from 1167 to 1170. Although Herbert did not take up resi-
dence at Ourscamp before the mid-1180s it is possible that their paths
crossed before then. Alternatively, the author could have been a certain
magister Odo, addressee of a letter of John of Salisbury concerning the
interpretation of Old Testament problems, in which case Herbert might
have known him as well.44
While Landgraf places the treatise firmly in the orbit of the Abelardian
school, David Luscombe and Anna Sapir Abulafia have demonstrated that

42 William McKane, Selected Christian Hebraists (Cambridge, 1989), 42-75; Andreae de

Sancto Victore Opera, vol. 2: Expositio hystorica in librum regum, ed. and introd. by Frans
van Liere, CCCM 53A (Turnhout, 1997), 20-24; for a dissenting view, see Rainer Berndt, “The
School of St Victor in Paris”, in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation,
vol. I/2: The Middle Ages, ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen, 2000), 486-87.
43 Anna Sapir Abulafia, “Jewish Carnality in Twelfth-Century Renaissance Thought”, in
Christianity and Judaism: Papers Read at the 1991 Summer Meeting and the 1992 Winter Meet-
ing of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. by Diana Wood, Studies in Church History 29
(1992): 59-75, at 61.
44 Ysagoge in Theologiam, ed. by Artur Landgraf in Écrits Théologiques de l’École
d’Abélard, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 14 (Louvain, 1934), xl-lv (introduction) and 63-285
(edition of the text). The letter concerned is no 271, in Millor and Brooke, John of Salisbury,
II, 548-52; D. E. Luscombe, “The Authorship of the Ysagoge in Theologiam”, Archives d’histoire
doctrinale et littéraire du moyen-âge 43 (1968): 7-16; H. G. von Mutius, Die Hebräischen
Bibelzitate beim Englischen Scholastiker Odo, Judentum und Umwelt (Frankfurt am Main,
2006).
 introduction 15
it also displays strong Victorine influence.45 The work falls into three parts.
The first deals with the creation, the branches of knowledge, the virtues,
and sin. The second book focuses on the redemption of humanity through
Christ and contains a long discussion about the relevance of the Law of
Moses in the light of Christ’s Incarnation. The last book sets out the natures
of God, the Trinity and the angels. The most interesting aspect of the
Ysagoge for our purpose is the inclusion of Hebrew and Aramaic passages
of the Masoretic text in Hebrew characters in the second and third parts
of the work, followed by a word-for-word Latin translation and, in some
places, by a transliteration.46 The Hebrew consonants of those quotes are
written accurately, but untidily, and the vowel system is a simplified ver-
sion of the Tiberian system, in vogue among Christian Hebrew learners at
that time.47 His intention with this discussion of biblical passages in
Hebrew, Odo states, is to give its Christian readers the means to refute the
Jews on their own terrain and, ultimately, to convert them.48 Apart from
giving proof of some level of Hebrew proficiency of one Christian scholar,
the occurrence of a polemical work such as the Ysagoge also suggests that
there must have been a Christian audience, however small, which would
have been interested in such a treatise as well as capable of reading it.
Ralph Niger (1140s-c. 1199) is a less obscure figure than Odo. From John
of Salisbury’s letters, in which he is addressed as magister, we can deduce
that he studied theology at Paris in the 1160s.49 He was no great sympathi-
ser of Henry II and sided with Thomas Becket during the latter’s conflict
with the king. Because of his support for Henry’s sons in their rebellion
against their father in 1173, he was forced to spend the rest of his life in exile
in France. Apart from a set of devotional texts on the Virgin Mary, his works
seem to revolve around an interest in history and etymology. He com-
mented upon the historical books of the Old Testament, produced two
chronicles on contemporary history and, with the help of a Jewish convert
called Philip, revised Jerome’s Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum.
He titles the work Philippicus after his teacher. The Philippicus is partly a
text-critical correction of different versions of Jerome’s treatise, partly an

45 Abulafia, “Jewish Carnality”, 61-63; Luscombe, “Authorship”, 8-12.

46 Ysagoge in Theologiam, Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.14.33, fols 36v-40r. Landgraf,
128-133.
47 Olszowy-Schlanger, “A Christian Tradition of Hebrew Vocalization in Medieval
England”, in G. Khan, ed., Semitic Studies in Honour of Edward Ullendorf (Leiden, 2005),
126-46.
48 Abulafia, “Jewish Carnality”, 63-65; Landgraf, Écrits Théologiques, 126-27.
49 Letters 181 and 182, Millor and Brooke, John of Salisbury, II, 198-209.
16 introduction
addition to it.50 His revision includes references to Jewish sources which
he refers to as Gamaliel, a term to be discussed below, and possibly to
Menahem ben Saruq’s lexical work, the Mahberet (transliterated as
Machvere), and Nathan of Rome’s Arukh (transliterated as Aruch). However,
since he always mentions ‘Machvere’ in conjunction with ‘Aruch’ this might
indicate that he is not referring to Menahem and Nathan’s lexicons but to
another work by his contemporary Solomon Parhhon of Salerno titled
Mahberet Arukh.51 Nothing of his exegetical oeuvre has been edited in full.
The same is true for Alexander Neckam or Nequam (1157-1217), a theo-
logian of British origin who studied at Paris, taught at Oxford, and who
ended his life as abbot of the Augustinian house at Cirencester. At the turn
of the thirteenth century he wrote a Gloss on the Psalms, based on the
Magna Glosatura, followed by a commentary on the Song of Songs in which
he possibly includes independent Jewish material, but since these works
have not been edited we cannot assess the extent of his Hebraism.52 In
their short monograph on him Richard Hunt and Margaret Gibson offer
intriguing glimpses of Alexander’s consultations with Jews in his commen-
tary on the Song. In one passage, concerning Leviticus 23: 40, “And you
shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of the most beautiful tree”,
(sumetis vobis die primo fructus arboris pulcherime), Alexander comments
that the Jews consider this fructus to be a citrus fruit (pomum citrinum)
while he believes it to be referring to an apple.53 Interestingly, Herbert’s
Psalterium contains an almost identical comment on Psalm 117 (118): 27,
where a marginal gloss also mentions Leviticus 23: 40, adding: “[the fruits]
which the Jews understand to be lemons” (fol. 136v: [fructus] quos Hebrei
interpretantur pomacitrina). Although this could be an indication of influ-
ence from the Psalterium on Nequam’s Commentary on the Song of Songs,
it could equally be the result of the independent consultation of a Jewish
source which reflects the same tradition as Herbert’s.
This brief overview of patristic and medieval Christian Hebraism sug-
gests that Herbert belongs to a tradition, albeit a rather meagre one, of

50 G. B. Flahiff, “Ralph Niger: an Introduction to his Life and Works”, Mediaeval Studies
2 (1940): 104-36.
51 Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bosham and
Earlier Scholars”, 247.
52 R. W. Hunt, The Schools and the Cloister: The Life and Writings of Alexander Nequam
(1157-1217), ed. and rev. by Margaret Gibson (Oxford, 1984), 1-19, 26-27 and 125-38; Loewe,
“Alexander Neckam’s Knowledge of Hebrew”, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 4 (1958):
17-34.
53 Hunt, Alexander Nequam, 109.
 introduction 17
textual criticism of Jerome’s biblical text in general, and of the Hebraica in
particular. He seems to stand at a crossroads between two strands. On the
one hand he is to be found in a context of Hebrew-Latin scholarship sur-
rounding the Psalms, which seems to have been modestly flourishing at
the time; however, other revisions of the Psalms do not include a com-
mentary. On the other hand he is part of a movement of renewed interest
in the literal and historical sense of Scripture; yet his fellow exegetes, as far
as we know, have not commented on the Psalms. Thus, while Herbert’s
project is not an isolated one in its subject matter or in its exegetical
approach, his decision to apply a literal exposition to Jerome’s Hebraica
could well prove to be unique.
Herbert may have started learning Hebrew in England, since Chichester,
near Bosham, had a Jewish settlement at the time; his role as member of
Becket’s household possibly allowed him to use the libraries at the
Benedictine houses of St Augustine’s or Christ Church, Canterbury.54 Paris,
which boasted one of the largest Jewish communities in twelfth-century
Ashkenaz, certainly offered the opportunity to consult Jewish scholars.
Jews and Christians in England and the French territories spoke French to
each other, although some knowledge of Latin among learned Jews seems
to have been common too.55 We know that Herbert and Thomas Becket
read scripture together during their exile in France. The two men stayed
together for most of the period of exile, first at the Cistercian abbeys of
Claimarais and St Bertin, then, after a brief visit to St Victor, at Pontigny.56
Pontigny’s medieval catalogue dating between 1165 and 1175 reveals that
around fifty years after its foundation the abbey could boast a library of
some 150 books.57 The library seems to have particularly increased in size
from the 1140s onwards under the rule of Guichard, who was still abbot
there during Becket’s stay. It would have been the ideal place for Herbert
to further pursue his theological interests.

54 Martin Gilbert, The Routledge Atlas of Jewish History: From 2000BC to the Present Day
(London, 1995, 2010), 41.
55 Philip Slavin, “Hebrew Went Latin: Reflections of Latin Diplomatic Formulae and
Terminology in Hebrew Private Deeds from Thirteenth-Century England”, Journal of Medi-
eval Latin 18 (2008): 306-25.
56 Barlow, Becket, 119-20; for a full account of their whereabouts during the years 1164-70,
see 117-97.
57 Monique Peyrafort-Huin, La bibliothèque médiévale de l’abbaye de Pontigny (XIIe-XIX
siècles): histoire, inventaires anciens, manuscrits (Paris, 2001), 17; Hans H. Glunz, History of
the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon (Cambridge, 1933), 343.
18 introduction
Becket, who had briefly studied canon law at Paris, seems to have taken
this study up again in order to build up his defence against Henry II. A let-
ter from John of Salisbury to the archbishop reproaches him for this proud
and worldly occupation and advises Becket to tend to the improvement of
his soul instead by meditating on the Psalms and the Pauline Epistles.58
Herbert later describes in his Vita on Becket how during his exile the arch-
bishop, with the undefatigable aid of his protégé, underwent a complete
spiritual transformation. Life in the cloister and repeated meditation on
Scripture gradually turned him from a man who loved power, luxury and
outward splendour into a vir apostolicus, who was, more than any of his
companions, devoted to the study of the Psalms and the Pauline Epistles.59
One reason for drawing attention to their joint reading of these books might
be Herbert’s desire to promote his own exegetical works through his hagi-
ographic ones.
Although literary topoi and hagiographical propaganda are never far
away in Herbert’s accounts of his beloved patron, the two men probably
did study the Psalms and the Pauline Epistles together. It was in all likeli-
hood at Pontigny that Herbert started the preliminary work on what would
later become his arrangement of Lombard’s Magna Glosatura. The abbey
would have been able to provide most of necessary materials as at the time
of Herbert’s stay it possessed several glossed Psalters, patristic commentar-
ies on the Psalms, and arrangements of the Gloss on Psalms and on the
Epistles of Paul.60 The inventory mentions also a number of aids for the
study of Hebrew: it held Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis and Book of
the Interpretation of Hebrew Names, Pseudo-Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on
the Book of Kings (Quaestiones Hebraicae in Librum Regum) and Hebrew
Questions on Chronicles (Quaestiones Hebraicae in Paralipomenon).61
An undated letter from Alexander III to Richard, archbishop of
Canterbury and papal legate, contains the order to allot ‘Master Herbert
of Bosham’ his revenues for three years in order to enable him to teach

58 Millor and Brooke, John of Salisbury, II, 31-37, letter 144.

59 Robertson, Materials, III, 379; Smalley, Becket Conflict, 81; for a more extensive discus-
sion see Goodwin, Take Hold …, 28-29.
60 Works included Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos, Jerome’s Commentarioli in
Psalmos, Origen’s Homiliae in Psalmos in Rufinus’ translation, Cassiodorus’ Explanatio in
Psalmos, the Gloss on the Psalms by Gilbert de la Porrée, the Gloss on the Psalms by Peter
Lombard; Peyafort-Huin, Pontigny, 246-85.
61 Peyrafort-Huin, Pontigny, 256 and 263.
 introduction 19
theology at Paris.62 It is Smalley’s opinion that Herbert planned to open a
school of theology with the money. There is, however, no record of him as
a theology teacher. If Herbert ever intended to set up a school of theology,
he probably did not succeed.63 He might, however, have lived in or near
Paris: he visited the abbey of St Denis near Paris between 1172-3 and 1186
and could have continued his Hebrew studies there.64 During his exile with
Becket he had worked for Henry the Liberal, Count of Champagne. It is
possible that either the count or his brother, William “of the White hands”,
bishop of Sens, took him on as a protégé. Both men acted as patrons of
scholars and had supported Becket against Henry II.65

3. The Hebraist Commentaries: The Magna Glosatura and the

Psalterium Cum Commento

Peter Lombard’s Gloss on the Bible was itself an elaboration of Anselm

of Laon’s Glosa Ordinaria and bore the title of Magna Glosatura, “Great
Gloss”. Herbert arranged this work, which takes up four volumes, over a
period of several years, c. 1173-77 according to Christopher De Hamel,66
c. 1170-76 according to Stegmüller.67 The plan to edit the Great Gloss
dated from before this time. As Herbert describes in the prologue, it was
Becket who commissioned him for this task.68 The books are dedicated to
William “of the White Hands”.69 Only one manuscript of this commentary
is extant and there may only ever have been one. Two striking features are
its wonderfully vibrant illuminations, and the occurrence of emendations
and marginal notes which suggest that it was edited under the close
supervision of Herbert himself, perhaps even corrected by him. It is

62 Epistolae pontificum romanorum ineditae, ed. by Samuel Loewenfeld (Graz, 1959),

207, no. 347.
63 Smalley, Becket Conflict, 71.
64 Glunz, Vulgate, 246-47.
65 Sheppard, Materials, VII, 512; Smalley, Becket Conflict, 71.
66 Christopher F. R. De Hamel, “Manuscripts of Herbert of Bosham”, in Manuscripts at
Oxford: an Exhibition in Memory of Richard Willam Hunt (1908-1979), ed. by A. C. de la Mare
and B. C. Barker-Benfield, (Oxford, 1980), 39; Lesley Smith, Masters of the Sacred Page:
Manuscripts of Theology in the Latin West to 1274, Medieval Book Series 2 (Notre Dame, 2001),
45-48.
67 Friedrich Stegmüller, ed., Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, 11 vols (Madrid, 1940- 77),
vol. VIII: Supplementum (1976), 108-09.
68 Glunz, Vulgate, 342.
69 John R. Williams, “William of the White Hands and Men of Letters”, in Anniversary
Essays in Medieval History Presented to Charles H. Haskins, ed. by C. H. Taylor (Boston and
New York, 1929), 265-66; Smalley, Becket Conflict, 70-71; Goodwin, Take Hold …, 41.
20 introduction
possible that it was produced at Sens.70 The actual volumes are now
divided between Trinity College, Cambridge (MS B.5.4, B.5.6 and B.5.7)
and the Bodleian Library in Oxford (MS. Auct. E. inf. 6).
Herbert seems to have almost withdrawn from public life in the early
1180s and it is in this decade that he produced his most original writings.
He retired to Ourscamp Abbey, a Cistercian house in the very south of
Flanders, about fifty miles from Paris, but never became a monk. Strict
asceticism probably did not appeal to his character, as Smalley suggests.71
Bishop Peter of Arras, who was a former abbot of Pontigny and Cîteaux
and whom Herbert saw as his spiritual director, had given Herbert three
options: entering the Order, teaching, or writing.72 Herbert chose the last
alternative. His two hagiographies of Becket and the Psalterium are the
result. Henry II allowed Herbert to return to England in the late 1180s. The
latter visited Canterbury in 1187 and was on that occasion described by
Gervase of Canterbury.73 In or before 1189 Herbert entered the patronage
of William de Longchamp, bishop of Ely. It is William who provides us with
additional evidence for the authorship and dating of the Psalterium cum
commento. In a letter dating between June 1190 and March 1191 he expresses
the hope Herbert would soon finish his little work (“opusculum”) on the
Hebraica so he would be able to come over for a visit.74
The manuscript found by Neil Ker appears to be the only extant exem-
plar of the work. The types of scribal errors found suggest it is a copy and
not an autograph: the scribe has made several eye skips or has confused
two words which start with the same preposition; haplographies and dit-
tographies also frequently occur. The transliteration of some Hebrew and
Greek words is rather dubious as well, which again points in the direction
of corruption of the text as it was copied out. It is unclear when and where
the manuscript was produced. Smalley believes it is French and dates to
between the 1190s and the first quarter of the thirteenth century. She bases
her terminus ante quem on two pieces of internal evidence. The first one

70 De Hamel, “Manuscripts”, 40; Patricia Stirnemann, online review of Smith’s Masters
of the Sacred Page, The Medieval Review, November 2002; De Visscher, Crossing Borders,
124-26.
71 Smalley, “A Commentary”, 35.
72 Smalley, Study of the Bible, 186.
73 The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. by William Stubbs, 2 vols, Rerum
Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores 73 (London: Longman, 1879-80), I (1879), 393-94:
“Herebertus etiam de Boseham, gloriosi pontificis et martyris Thomae magister et clericus,
quasi ex speciali dilectione, Cantuariam accessit [ …]”.
74 Herbert of Bosham, Epistulae, PL 190: 1474; Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebra-
ists of England: Herbert of Bosham and Earlier Scholars”, 245; Smalley, Becket Conflict, 73-74.
 introduction 21
concerns the numbering of biblical chapters occurring in the cross-refer-
ences. The manuscript follows a numbering system which was in vogue in
the first decade of the thirteenth century and which had almost disap-
peared by 1225. The second one is a thirteenth-century donor inscription
on the first parchment flyleaf of the manuscript, reading “Hic liber est
ecclesie sancti Pauli London de dono beate memorie Henrici de Cornhell’
eiusdem ecclesie decani”. Henry of Cornhill became chancellor of St Paul’s
in 1217 and dean in 1243. He died in 1254.75 Richard Gameson judges the
manuscript to be produced in France c. 1220 and possibly commissioned
by Henry of Cornhill.76 The volume is not very large in size: 31.5 × 21.5 cm
(12.5 × 8.5 in.) and consists of 2 modern paper flyleaves followed by 2 parch-
ment ones, 159 foliated leaves and 2 modern paper flyleaves.
The text is written in double columns of 19 × 5 cm each (7.75 × 1.75 in.),
leaving wide outer margins. The work starts with a letter of dedication to
Peter, bishop of Arras. The Psalm text begins on fol. 2vb and follows the
layout of many glossed Psalters at the time: the Psalms appear in clusters
of one or more verses, in a script larger than that of the commentary.77 Both
Psalm text and commentary respect the margins of the columns. The work
includes all individual Psalms, apart from Psalm 50 (51): 11-21, the whole of
51 (52) and 52 (53): 1-2. The verses at Psalms 24 (25): 22, 49 (50): 9 and 108
(109): 5 are also wanting. One quire, containing Psalms 71 (72) to 73 (74),
appears in the wrong order, a mistake which happened before the work
was foliated, as the foliation disregards the order of the Psalms and runs
on undisturbed. Most pages contain a number of marginal notes, mostly
biblical cross-references, in probably the same hand as the main text.
Unfortunately, since the margins have been trimmed, some of these notes
are partly or totally lost. The manuscript has only sparse decorations in red
and blue.
It is perhaps not surprising that a manuscript of such unassuming
appearance spent centuries in mis-dated obscurity. However, considered
from the perspective of Jewish-Christian relations Smalley was not far
wrong when she proclaimed it “a find every medievalist dreams of but
seldom gets”.78

75 Smalley, “A Commentary”, 30.

76 Goodwin, Take Hold …, 65.
77 De Hamel, The Book: A History of the Bible (London, 2001), 92-139.
78 Smalley. Study of the Bible, 186.
22 introduction
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 23

Chapter One

How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know?

1. Transliteration of Hebrew Words

Compared with Hebrew-Latin psalters from the twelfth and thirteenth

centuries or with the polyglot Bibles from the early modern period, our
copy of the Psalterium seems, at first glance, disappointing. Not a single
Hebrew character can be found in the manuscript. Yet the work contains
more than a hundred Hebrew words, all of which appear in Latin translit-
eration. As Dahan shows in his overview of medieval Latin texts dealing
with the Hebrew language, this is not at all unusual during the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries. Anti-Jewish polemical works such as William of
Bourges’ Liber bellorum Domini incorporate transliterated Hebrew into
their argumentation for the purpose of providing Christians who were
unable to read the Hebrew alphabet with ammunition in their disputations
against the Jews.1 The biblical commentaries of Andrew of St Victor,
Herbert’s contemporary, also include Hebrew words in transliteration only.
This total absence of Hebrew characters in his works has been one of the
factors which led some scholars to conclude that Andrew knew only the
rudiments of the Hebrew alphabet and grammar.2 While this assessment
of Andrew’s grasp of the language seems correct, it is unclear whether
medieval Hebraists in general used transliterations instead of Hebrew
characters out of necessity or out of choice. In a time when knowledge of
Hebrew (and Greek) among Christian theologians in the West was rare,
the inclusion of non-Latin characters could severely limit a work’s reader-
ship. Not only did it render the work less accessible for those who were
unable to read non-Latin scripts but it also made a text more prone to
copyists’ errors, which diminished its value even for readers who could
have understood the Hebrew (or Greek) it contained. Beryl Smalley, con-
vinced that Herbert’s motive for using transliterated Hebrew was not igno-
rance of the Hebrew alphabet but rather concern for his readership, calls
it “a wise precaution”.3

1 Dahan, Intellectuels chrétiens, 250-51.

2 Olszowy-Schlanger, Hebrew Scholarship, 108n5.
3 Smalley, “A Commentary”, 47; see also Dahan, Intellectuels chrétiens, 251.
24 chapter one
The lack of Hebrew script in the Psalterium makes it impossible to judge
Herbert’s knowledge of Hebrew orthography directly, but, intriguingly, the
spelling system used in his transliterations gives us some idea of his grasp
of the language and may also indicate, to some extent, how Hebrew was
pronounced in Western Europe at the time. Yet before we treat Herbert’s
transliterations as accurate reflections of contemporary Hebrew phonetics
or as direct proof of Herbert’s linguistic abilities, we have to consider two
factors. First, since the only extant manuscript of the Psalterium is not an
autograph, it is possible that some transliterations, looking unfamiliar to
a Christian scribe, were corrupted in the copying process. Second, Hebraists
of the twelfth century, including Herbert, heavily relied on the translitera-
tions, spellings and etymologies of Hebrew words found in the works of
earlier ecclesiastical authors. Jerome’s treatises on the Hebrew Scriptures,
dating from the fourth century, and Pseudo-Jerome’s commentaries on the
Old Testament, dating from the ninth, were among the most influential.
Even more than is the case with the spelling of Latin, the manuscript’s
transliteration of Hebrew is not consistent: we find eloym (58v) and eloim
(97r) for ‫ֹלהים‬
ִ ‫א‬/’elohim
ֱ (“God”); minha (88r) and minaha (40v) for ‫מנְ ָחה‬/ ִ
minḥah (“gift”, “sacrifice”); hetz (112r) and hez (112r) for ‫חץ‬/ḥets
ֵ (“arrow”),
to name only a few examples. Whether this variation occurs because of the
lack of standardisation in Latin orthography, or because of hesitation on
Herbert’s part about the correct spelling, is unclear. Certain is, that when
he spells out a Hebrew word using the names for the Hebrew letters con-
cerned, he is usually correct. He explains ‫( ֵחץ‬ḥets: “arrow”) this way in
Psalm 90 (91): 5:
[it] is the name of a demon, here “Arrow”. In Hebrew one says [space] which
is written with two letters, namely het and zazi, and it means “arrow”.4
A marginal gloss on the same line as the space reads hetz.5 In the Ysagoge
in theologiam Odo transliterates ‫( ח‬ḥ: ḥeth) and ‫( צ‬ts: tsade/ṣade) as hez
and tadi respectively.6

4 [ …] est nomen demonis. Sagitta hic; Hebraice dictus [space] quod scribitur per duas
litteras, scilicet het et zazi, et sonat sagitta.
5 While it is possible that the open space in this sentence was meant to be filled later
with a rendering of the word in Hebrew characters, it seems more likely that it was supposed
to contain a Latin transliteration in red ink. This procedure of transliterations in differently
coloured ink occurs also with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet in alphabetical Psalms 110,
111, and 126. All of these contain marginal glosses of the transliterated letters as well.
6 Landgraf, Écrits théologiques, 128-29.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 25
It is possible that both Jerome and Herbert were influenced by Greek
orthography and pronunciation in their transliteration of Hebrew. The
transliterations of some Hebrew letters such as l/‫ל‬, m/‫מ‬, n/‫ נ‬and r/‫ ר‬create
no difficulties for Herbert because a perfect equivalent in Latin exists for
them and their sound is unambiguous. Two types of consonants for which
transliteration is not as straightforward are the so-called Beghadhkephath
letters beth (b/‫)ב‬, gimel (g/‫)ג‬, dalet (d/‫ )ד‬kaph (k/‫)כ‬, pe (p/‫ )פ‬and tav (t/‫)ת‬,
which can be pronounced as fricatives v, gh, dh, kh, ph and th (written
without dagesh, or dot, in the middle of the letter) or as plosives b, g, d, k,
p, t (written with dagesh, or dot) depending on their position within the
sentence, and the gutturals ’aleph ( ’/‫)א‬, he (h/‫)ה‬, ḥeth (ḥ/‫ )ח‬and ‘ayin (‘/‫)ע‬.
Overall, the transliterations in the Psalterium seem to reflect pronunciation
rather than original Hebrew orthography.

a. Beghadhkephath Letters
Herbert transliterates the letter beth as b or v: bayit/‫“( ַּביִ ת‬house”) is trans-
literated as bet (103v) but zevaḥ/‫“( זֶ ַבח‬sacrifice”) as zevach (40v), whereas
the Superscriptio Lincolniensis generally transliterates b.7 Interestingly,
Herbert’s younger contemporary Ralph Niger does the opposite and refers
to the lexicographical work Maḥberet, which is pronounced with a b, as
machvere.8
Similarly, we find kaph expressed as k in ki (134v) for ki/‫“( ִּכי‬that”,
“because”) but as ch in goiecha (126v) for goyekha/‫“( ּגֹויֶ ָך‬your people”).
However, this is no clear rule of Herbert’s because in Psalm 87 (88) he
transliterates maskil/‫מ ְׂש ִּכיל‬,ַ a musical term, which has a fricative kaph, as
macechil (103r). For mishpaḥat/‫“( ִמ ְׁש ַּפ ַחת‬clan of”, “tribe of”) we find mispa-
haz (143r) with a plosive pe. Its fricative counterpart is written as f or ph in
rafaim (104r) and raphaim (104r), for rapha’ im ‫“( ְר ָפ ִאים‬giants”). The letter
tav tends to occur as t or th when plosive, in for example nazacheti (3v) for
nasakhti/‫“( נָ ַס ְכ ִּתי‬I have anointed”) or mechtham (17r) for mikhtam/‫מ ְכ ָּתם‬,ִ
a musical term, and as th or z when fricative, in for example mahebereth
(8r) and maberez (102v) for Maḥberet/‫מחברת‬. Herbert does not distinguish
systematically between the fricative or plosive position of dalet. In Psalm
38 (39): 1 yidiythun/‫ יִ ִדּיתּון‬appears as ydithun and dever/‫“( ֶּד ֶבר‬pestilence”)
in Psalm 90 (91): 6 as dever. Yet, todah/‫ּתֹודה‬ ָ (“thanksgiving”) appears as

7 Dahan, Intellectuels chrétiens, 251-52; Loewe, ‘Superscriptio Lincolniensis’, 205-52.

8 Loewe, ‘Superscriptio Lincolniensis’, 247.
26 chapter one
zoza (135r). Plosive gimel is written as g but I have not been able to find a
fricative counterpart in the Psalterium. According to Dahan’s study, no
systematic difference was observed in contemporary Latin transliterations
between both types of gimel and dalet.9

b. Gutturals
Herbert does not indicate the silent gutturals ’aleph (‫ )א‬and ‘ayin (‫ )ע‬in his
transliterations but shows awareness of the use of ‘ayin in a reference to
the Hebrew spelling of the name Jesus (‫)יׁשע‬: “Note that the name Jesus has
three letters: ioth, sin and ‘ayin”.10
He usually renders both he (h/‫ )ה‬and ḥeth (ḥ/‫ )ח‬as h or not at all. The
transliteration of ruakh/‫רּוח‬ ַ (“wind”, “spirit”) is therefore rua (122r) and
lamənaṣeaḥ/‫“( ַל ְמנַ ֵּצ ַח‬for the director/music-master”) becomes lamanascea
(5r). As mentioned before, ’elohim/‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬is written as eloim/eloym and
ḥets/‫ ֵחץ‬as hez/hetz. Only rarely does the final ḥeth appear (e.g., in zevach,
see above). The unsystematic transliteration of he and ḥeth can cause
confusion and, following Jerome, Herbert is eager to point this out in an
exegesis concerning a difference in translation between the Hebraica and
the Gallicana (called “alia edicio”). In Psalm 86 (87): 4, “I will record Rahab
and Babylon among those who acknowledge me. Philistia too, and Tyre,
along with Cush, this one was born there [i.e., in Zion]”, the Hebrew rahav/
‫ר ַהב‬,ַ appears in the Gallicana as the name “Raab”, in the Hebraica as “pride”
(“superbia”). Herbert follows the Hebraica’s reading and points out the
discrepancy between the two versions and, consequently, the different and
in his eyes erroneous interpretation of the verse in the Eastern Church:
And note that where we have “pride” here, the Hebrew has rahave, written
with three letters: res, he, beth, and meaning “pride”. [ …] Thus what is writ-
ten in the other edition [i.e., the Gallicana], which is in use in the Eastern
Church, namely “I will remember Raab and Babylon”, so that Raab there
stands for the name of that woman from Jericho, seems a blatant error. The
Hebrews write the name of that woman with three letters, res, heth, beth,
and it means “width”. What a clear difference there is in writing between
the word “pride” and the name of the woman, because in the word “pride”
the second letter is he, whereas in the name of the woman it is heth.11

9 Dahan, Intellectuels chrétiens, 251-52.

10 Psalterium, fol. 100r: Et nota quod in nomine ihesus tres sunt littere: ioth sin ain.
11 Psalterium, fol. 101v: Et nota quod ubi nos habemus hic “superbie”, in Hebreo est
rahave, et scribitur per tres litteras: res, he, beth. Et idem sonat quod “superbia” [ …] Quod
ergo in edicione alia qua hec occidentalis ecclesia magis utitur scriptum est: Memor ero
Raab et Babilonis, ut sit ibi Raab nomen mulieris illius Iurichontine, error videtur ­manifestus.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 27
The same distinction between Rahab/‫ ַר ַחב‬and rahav/‫ ַר ַהב‬already crops
up in a lengthy marginal gloss in Herbert’s earlier work, the Magna
Glosatura. Yet, a marginal gloss, by his own or a later hand, anxious not to
be seen to impose this interpretation upon the reader, hurries to say: “let
the reader see and judge”.12

c.  Sibilants
A third group of letters that causes confusion is that of the sibilants samekh,
sin and šin (s/‫ס‬, s/‫ׂש‬, sh, š/‫)ׁש‬. Herbert transliterates all three of them as s
or c, or as z when at the end of a word. In line with the Sephardic type of
pronunciation, he does not distinguish between sin, pronounced s, and šin,
now usually pronounced, and here transliterated as, sh in biblical Hebrew.
He writes sepher/‫“( ֵס ֶפר‬book”) as cefer (2r), shalish/‫“( ָׁש ִליׁש‬three times”)
as salis (96r) and, as said before, maskil/‫מ ְׂש ִּכיל‬,ַ a musical term, as macechil
(103r). He does, however, draw attention to a matter of textual criticism in
Psalm 7 (8): 1, already discussed in Jerome and Pseudo-Jerome, involving
the difference between samekh (s) and šin (sh) in kush/‫ּכּוׁש‬:
Where we have cusi and read “of the Ethiopian”, the Hebrew has chus. It is
a blatant error of those who put cusi, which is understood to mean “silence”,
instead of chus, which means “Ethiopian”. Moreover, it stands in the way of
ignorance that the word chusi is written with a samech, but the word chuz
with a sin.13
Again, he addresses the same issue in a marginal gloss in his edition of the
Magna Glosatura.14

d. Vowels
Herbert takes pains to transliterate the vowels unambiguously most of the
time. He seems aware that vowels in Hebrew often play a crucial role in

Nomen quippe mulieris apud Hebreos scribitur per litteras tres: res, heth, beth. Et idem
sonat quod “latitudo”. Et ita quantum ad scripturam differencia manifesta est inter nomen
superbie et nomen mulieris. Nam in nomine superbie secunda nominis littera est he. In
nomine vero mulieris secunda nominis littera est heth. See Jerome, Liber de interpreta-
tionibus hebraicorum nominum, CCSL 72 (Turnhout, 1959), 62.
12 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. E. inf. 6, fol. 29va: “videat lector et iudicet”; see
also, briefly, Smalley, “A Commentary”, 45.
13 Psalterium, fol. 9v: ‘Cusi ubi nos, in Hebreo habetur chus; et nos Ethiopis legimus:
error manifestus ponencium cusi, quod interpretatur “silencium”, pro chus quod “Ethiops”
interpretatur. Preterea obviat quod nomen chusi per samech, sed nomen chuz per sin scri-
bitur ignoracionibus’. See Jerome, Lib. int. heb. nom., 63.
14 Cambridge, Trinity College Library, MS B.5.4, fol. 22vb.
28 chapter one
differentiating between the syntactical functions of a noun or the nuances
of a verb. For example, further to Psalm 86 (87): 4a, “I will record (’azkir/
‫)אזְ ִּכיר‬
ַ Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me”, he points
out that the Hebraica translation “commemorabor” does not do justice to
the meaning of the verb in Hebrew. “Where we have ‘I shall remember’,
the Hebrew has azechir, which means ‘I bring in remembrance’ or ‘I
remind’”, he comments. “For ezechor, which means ‘I shall remember’, is
in Hebrew another verb”.15 In this way he distinguishes between a hifil
stem, which gives a verb a causative meaning, and a qal, which expresses
the verb’s active voice.
In Psalm 104 (105): 1, while discussing the vocalisation of the Tetragram­
maton, he describes the vowel dots as “puncta”:
Those four Hebrew letters are vocalised in the Hebrew manner with dots:
iohava which means “he was” or iahove which means “he will be”. And so
from four is compiled the following, with different vocalisation: “he was he
is he will be”.16
Patah (short /ă/) and qamets (long /ā/) occur both as a, in for example
mazai for māthăy/‫“( ָמ ַתי‬when?”) (119v). Segol (short /ĕ/) and sere (long /ē/)
are both e, as in mahberet (see above) and kece for keseh/‫“( ֶּכ ֶסה‬full moon”)
(97va). Hireq (short and long /i/) usually appears as i, in azechir (see above)
or ei in, for example, heiza (51vb), for ḥidah/‫“( ִח ָידה‬riddle”). Holem (long
/ō/) is usually o, in, e.g., nohar for no‘ar/‫“( נ ַֹער‬youth”) (104va), and ezechor
(see above). I have not been able to find an example for qamets ḥatup (short
/ŏ/), or qibbuts (short /ŭ/). Šureq (long /ū/) appears as u, e.g., rua “wind,
breath, spirit” (see above). Waw, when in the position of half-vowel, is
written as u standing for v in, for example, celave (125v), for səlaw/‫ְׂש ָלו‬
(“quail”). The half-vowel iod, now pronounced as the y of ‘yacht’, is trans-
literated as g at the beginning of a word or when doubled, e.g. gipol (113ra)
for yippol/‫יִ ּפֹל‬, (“he will fall”) and agelez (25r) for ’ayeleth/‫“( ַאּיֶ ֶלת‬doe”). This
is not exceptional, since we find iod (y) transliterated the same way in the
Extractiones de Talmud, dating from the beginning of the thirteenth

15 Psalterium, fol. 101 v: Ubi nos “commemorabor”, Hebreus habet azechir, quod sonat
“faciam commemorari” vel “faciam reminisce”. Aliud vero verbum est Hebreum scilicet
ezechor, quod idem est quod “commemorabor”. See also Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Com-
mentary”, 54.
16 Psalterium, fol. 124r: Quod si eciam quatuor ille Hebree littere Hebreo more per puncta
vocalentur. Sonabit iohava quod sonat “fuit”, aut iahove quod sonat “erit”. Et ita ex quatuor
vario modo vocalans colligitur hoc scilicet “fuit, est, erit”.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 29
c­ entury.17 Again, the pronunciation of contemporary French and Latin
probably influenced the rendering of Hebrew and it is possible that y/‫ י‬was
pronounced as a French j.
Herbert is not systematic in his rendering of so-called silent sheva ( ְ ),
which is not pronounced at all. He sometimes transliterates it but not
always, which explains a few of the variant spellings appearing in the
Psalterium, such as minha/minaha and maberez/mahebereth (see above).
Vocal sheva ( ְ ), which is pronounced as a light ‘u’ (ə), or composite sheva
( ֳ , ֱ , ֲ ), pronounced as a light a, e or o respectively, are normally expressed
with e or a in, for example, celave and azechir/ezechor (see above).
During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Christian Hebraists, when
writing Hebrew in Hebrew characters, sometimes made use of a system of
vowel pointing that was in essence a simplified version of the so-called
Tiberian method developed by the Masoretes. One of the features of this
simplified system is that it represents the long /ā/ (qameṣ) and /ē/ (sere)
vowels as short ones (pataḥ and segol respectively). It is possible that
Herbert’s lack of differentiation between long and short vowels in general
may to some extent reflect this.18
Although a wider study of the pronunciation and spelling of Hebrew
within the framework of medieval Jewish-Christian relations is lacking, it
is still possible to draw some conclusions about Herbert’s use of Hebrew
words in transliteration. As far as quantity of Hebrew is concerned, the
Psalterium surpasses similar works by other Christian Hebraists of the
period, such as the commentaries of Andrew of St Victor. Overall, when
addressing the spelling or interpretation of Hebrew words, Herbert is heav-
ily indebted to works by and attributed to Jerome. However, in more than
half of the cases his discussions of Hebrew words, as far as we know, do not
have a Latin precedent at all. They might therefore be a reflection of either
his own proficiency in the language or of the help he received from Hebrew
teachers, or both. In general, his system of transliteration resembles that
of other Hebraists or Jewish converts of the High Middle Ages although it
seems more closely related to that of Andrew’s commentaries than to that
of the Superscriptio Lincolniensis.
The question remains whether Herbert’s adherence to the pronuncia-
tion rather than to the orthography of Hebrew in his transliterations could
be a reflection of the method by which he had learnt the language. On
Psalm 88 (89) he comments upon an exegesis of which the words “were

17 Dahan, Intellectuels chrétiens, 253.

18 Olszowy-Schlanger, “A Christian Tradition of Hebrew Vocalization”, 126-46.
30 chapter one
translated faithfully from Hebrew into Latin by my loquacious [teacher?]”.19
We do not know who this ‘loquacious’ person is, but if his learning was
based upon regular contacts with a teacher who would read and translate
Hebrew with him, he would be more likely to follow the contemporary
Hebrew pronunciation than if he mainly worked with written Jewish and
ecclesiastical sources.

2. Knowledge of Hebrew Grammar

Instead of discussing Hebrew grammar extensively or systematically,

Herbert tends to provide small chunks of information where he finds this
necessary. He describes aspects of Hebrew grammar in order to support
his modifications to Jerome’s text or, when not actually interfering with
the Hebraica in his rendering of the Psalms, to offer a more literal alterna-
tive to Jerome’s translation in his commentary.

a. Hebrew Roots
It is unclear to what extent Herbert was aware of the root-based structure
of the Hebrew language. In the course of his Psalterium he mentions the
name of the tenth-century Sephardic scholar Menahem ben Saruq, whose
work Mahbereth, meaning “lexicon”, was highly influential among
Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews throughout the Middle Ages. Menahem
categorises Hebrew words according to their roots, which he considers to
be built out of two letters. His later contemporary and pupil Judah ben
Hayyuj advocated a theory of tri-literal roots. However, as Judah wrote in
Arabic, while Menahem wrote in Hebrew, it was the latter’s grammatical
system which became accepted in the Ashkenazi schools.20
Since Herbert very rarely spells out words in his Psalterium, it is difficult
to ascertain which system, if any, he favoured. In Psalm 4: 1 he explains the
meaning and structure of ‫ל ְמנַ ֵּצ ַח‬/lamənatseaḥ,
ַ a musical term typical for
the titles of individual Psalms and Canticles. As the piel (intensive) parti-
ciple of the root ntsḥ/‫נצח‬, meaning “to excel”, to “super-intend”, with the
inseparable preposition ‫ל‬/l attached, lamənatseaḥ/ ‫ ַל ְמנַ ֵּצ ַח‬is usually

19 Psalterium, fol. 109v: “et ipsa eciam explanationis verba que ab Hebreo in Latinum
per loquacem meum fide [ …] translata sunt”; see also Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Com-
mentary”, 54.
20 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 57.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 31
t­ ranslated as “to the music-master”. In the Hebraica Psalter, it normally
occurs as victori. Transcribing it as lamanascea Herbert points out:
Three letters we find here, namely nun, sade, heth, preceded by la, a particle.
These three letters, however, joined together according to a variety of vow-
els, can express many meanings if they are joined with these vowels.21
The translation he seems to find most apt is cantor, precantor or prepositus
(“singer”, “lead singer”, or “superintender”), “because the music-master as
it were superintends the others playing instruments and singing”.22 There
may be an echo here of Rashi, Herbert’s main Jewish authority, who briefly
explains the term as “those who take charge of an enterprise”.23
Interestingly, in his analysis of the term Herbert draws attention to the
three root-letters nun, ṣade/tsade and ḥeth as the central elements of the
word. Whereas he realises la is an additional ‘particle’, he does not mention
the mem (m/‫ )מ‬as prefix of the piel participle, nor does he describe the
word as a participle at all.
Although Herbert shows himself capable of recognising the three root-
letters in lamənatseaḥ /‫ל ְמנַ ֵּצ ַח‬,ַ this does not indicate that he consciously
follows the tri-literal grammatical system. In Psalm 87 (88): 11, “Do you show
wonder at the dead? Do those who are dead rise up against you?”, for
example, he combines the meanings of two different roots for exegetical
purposes. The Hebrew rapha’im/‫ר ָפ ִאים‬,ְ translated in the New International
Version as “dead” appears in the Hebraica and the Psalterium as “gigantes”,
“giants”, but Herbert gives as additional translations “vel medici vel remissi”,
“or physicians, or negligent ones”:
Do the giants rise up: note what the Hebrew word is, namely raphaim, which
has three meanings. It can mean “giants”, as we have here. It means also
“physicians”, which is why some of our authors have put “physicians” where
we have “giants”. Sometimes it even means the same as “slack ones”. The
more skilful of the Jews expound it according to this last meaning as follows:
“or the negligent”, referring to those who attend to God’s work in a slack
and negligent way.24

21 Psalterium, fol. 5r: Tres enim littere sunt hic posite, scilicet nun, sade, heth. Quod
enim la preponitur: articulus est. Iste vero tres littere simul iuncte secundum varietatem
vocalium si ipsis adiungantur, multa significare possunt.
22 Psalterium, fol. 5r: Siquidem victoris nomine in psalmorum titulis: ‘cantor’ seu pocius
‘precentor’ vel ‘prepositus’ intelligitur. Eo quod quasi victor in organis musicorum et can-
cionibus presit aliis.
23 Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms , ed. and transl. by Mayer I. Gruber (Leiden, 2004 and
Philadelphia, 2007), 185 (English), 812 (Hebrew): ‫למתחזקים בעבודה‬.
24 Psalterium, fol. 104r : Aut gigantes surgent: nota quod est verbum Hebreum scilicet
raphaim quod tria significat. Potest enim significare “gygantes”, sicut nos hic habemus.
32 chapter one
The first two interpretations are derived from the proper name Rapha/
‫ ָר ָפא‬, father of the race of giants, and the root rph’/‫רפא‬, “to heal”, respec-
tively. The third meaning understands rapha’im/‫ ְר ָפ ִאים‬as a form of rphh/
‫רפה‬, (“to sink”, “to relax”). Herbert reconciles his three translations with
one another by stating that the meanings “giants” and “slack ones” overlap,
since they refer to those who glorify in their strength, believing themselves
to be something while in fact they are nothing (“cum nichil sint”). As for
the third meaning, this also fits in perfectly with the previous two: physi-
cians tend to be arrogant, and promise health to others while in the end
failing to cure them. (“superbe et arroganter promittunt salutem aliis, cum
tamen salvare nequeant”).
The reading gygantes, the race of giants who were often interpreted as
symbols of pride and blasphemy, is the traditional one among the ecclesi-
astical authors.25 Jerome offers “medici” as an alternative translation.26
“Remissum” only occurs once in Jerome.27 However, Herbert attributes the
exposition of this particular translation to “the more skilful of the Jews” (“a
Iudeorum pericioribus”) and not to any Christian authority. He might have
borrowed from Rashi the element of negligence in carrying out God’s work.
Rashi reads rapha’im/‫ ְר ָפ ִאים‬as a metaphor for the gentiles who are “neg-
ligent with respect to God’s service”.28
It remains unclear whether with “the more able of the Jews” Herbert
refers to textual or to contemporary oral sources, or specifically to the
Hebrew sources underlying Pseudo-Jerome. The fact that Herbert associ-
ates the roots rph’/‫ רפא‬and rphh/‫ רפה‬with each other is reminiscent of
Menahem ben Saruq’s bi-literal system of categorisation. Loewe comes to
a similar conclusion after his examination of Herbert’s exegesis of nascu
bar (nashəqu var/‫קּו־בר‬ ַ ‫נַ ְּׁש‬/“kiss the son”) in Psalm 2: 12. According to
Herbert, nashqu/‫ נַ ְּׁשקּו‬can mean “love”, “desire”, “run” and “kiss”.29 These
translations cover the roots nshq/‫“ נׁשק‬to kiss”, shwq/‫“ ׁשוק‬to long for” and

Significat et “medicis”. Unde et nostrorum aliqui ubi nos habemus hic “gigantes” posuerunt
“medici”. Interdum eciam significat idem quod “remissi”. Et secundum hanc significacionem
ultimam a Iudeorum pericioribus exponitur sic “aut remissi”, id est illi qui remisse et negli­
genter faciunt opus Dei.
25 A few examples are: Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX, Cl. 1186,
lib. 11, cap. 3, Brepolis LLT-A; Hrabanus Maurus, Commentarius in Genesim, PL 107: 538.
26 Jerome, Lib. int. heb. nom., 83, 97.
27 Jerome, Lib. int. heb. nom., 83, 97.
28 Gruber, Rashi, 564 (English), 844 (Hebrew): ‫ׁשריפו ידיהם מעבודתך‬.
29 Psalterium, fol. 4r: “commune est, ad amorem, ad desiderium, ad cursum et ad oscu-
lum”; I thank Jessica Weiss for the emendation of “morem” to “amorem”.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 33
shqq/‫“ ׁשקק‬to run” and are a selection of the roots which Menaham assem-
bled under the bi-literal root of shq/‫ׁשק‬.30

b. Cases and Prepositions

Herbert does not devote much time to the explanation of Hebrew grammar,
nor does he overly seek to mould Hebrew idiom into Latin morphological
and syntactical categories. However, he does touch on the fact that Hebrew
lacks declensions. In the course of his commentary on Psalm 81 (80) he
explains that:
since the Hebrews lack the oblique cases [i.e. the accusative, genitive, dative
and ablative cases when not preceded by a preposition], they distinguish
between the different cases solely through ‘particles’. With this procedure
the error can easily arise that one case is mistakenly put for another one.31
As Herbert states, since the accusative, genitive, dative and ablative cases
are absent in Hebrew, these functions are expressed through articuli, “par-
ticles”. Whenever he mentions the word articulus he seems to refer to a
preposition. For example, in the titulus of Psalm 9: 1 he transliterates
‘almuth labben/‫ע ְלמּות ַל ֵּבן‬,ַ which is obscure but can be translated as
“according to/about the death of the son”, as almuth laben and adds: “al is
a particle; almuth ‘for’ or ‘about death’”.32
We have already seen that he describes the preposition l/‫ ל‬as an articu-
lus in Psalm 4: 1. Since I have not been able to find any other instances
where he uses this term, it remains unclear whether Herbert recognised
these “particles” as Hebrew prepositions and, if he did, why he did not call
them “praepositiones”. One reason for this might be that for him the rather
vague term articulus covers not just prepositions but also other particles
for which the Latin equivalent would be an oblique case. This would then
include the object-marker ’eth/‫את־‬, which in Latin is expressed by the
accusative ending.
In her pioneering article on twelfth- and thirteenth-century bilingual
Hebrew-Latin manuscripts, Olszowy-Schlanger provides evidence to sup-
port a more inclusive use of this term. She found that a large number of
the manuscripts she studied use the abbreviation ar for articulus to denote

30 Loewe, “Herbert Bosham’s Commentary”, 57-58.

31 Psalterium, fol. 98r: et nota quod Hebrei cum careant obliquis, distinguunt varietates
casuum solum per articulos. In quo error facilis suboriri potest, in eronee ponatur casus
pro casu.
32 Psalterium, fol. 11v: al articulus est; almuth ‘pro’ vel ‘super morte’.
34 chapter one

the definite article h/‫ה‬, the object-marker ’eth/‫ את־‬or the preposition
l/‫ל‬.33 Unlike these, the Psalterium does not translate the definite article or
the object-marker. Another thirteenth-century work, a Hebrew grammar
generally attributed to Roger Bacon, provides a description of the differ-
ences between Hebrew and Latin morphology:
They [the Hebrews] also have articles; ‫ ה‬is the article of the nominative and
genitive, ‫ ל‬of the dative, ‫ את‬of the accusative, often ‫את ה‬. Whenever ‫את ה‬
is found in the Hebrew text, the accusative case always follows.34
Bacon then proceeds to describe the ablative as expressed by the (separate)
preposition min/‫מן‬,ִ meaning [from]. Olszowy-Schlanger concludes:
Thus both articulus in its broad sense [i.e. including enclitic prepositions
as well as ‫ ה‬and ‫ ]את‬and [separate] prepositions are presented by Bacon
as markers of the Hebrew declension. This somewhat constrained identifi-
cation is well in line with the thirteenth-century idea that there is in reality
only one universal grammar which underlies different linguistic realities:
Grammatica una et eadem est secundum substantiam in omnibus linguis licet
accidentaliter varietur.35
These findings suggest that a word-for-word analysis of the Hebrew text of
the Psalms, as occurs in the group of bilingual Psalters mentioned, and the
attempt to explain Hebrew grammar through Latin as recorded in Bacon’s
treatise, only fully took off during the thirteenth century. If we accept this,
how do we assess Herbert’s place in this development of Hebrew learning
by Christians? Was he a solitary figure, half a century ahead of his time or
should we read his work as testimony to a growing interest in Hebrew
among the Christian intelligentsia during the latter half of the twelfth
century? An examination of his knowledge of Hebrew and use of the
Masoretic text may go some way to providing an answer to these questions.
In his statement on the absence of a case system in Hebrew, Herbert
fails to make mention of the grammatical phenomenon of the construct
state of Hebrew nouns. This change to a noun’s consonantal and/or vowel
structure indicates that it is the possession of something or someone else.
A passage in which Herbert does transliterate a word group containing a

33 Olszowy-Schlanger, Hebrew Scholarship, 116.

34 The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon and a Fragment of his Hebrew Grammar, ed. by
Edmond Nolan and S. A. Hirsch (Cambridge, 1902), 204: “Habent [ …] et articulos ut ha est
articulus nominativi et genitivi, la dativi, eth accusativi et multociens etha, unde quando-
cunque in textu hebreo invenitur etha semper sequitur accusativus casus”. Translation by
Olszowy-Schlanger, Hebrew Scholarship, 116.
35 Olszowy-Schlanger, Hebrew Scholarship, 117.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 35
construct chain can be found in an aside on Psalm 87 (88): 4-5, “I am a man
who has no strength, like one forsaken among the dead [ …]”:
What we call a cemetery the Hebrews call bet hachaverot, which is under-
stood as “house of graves”. For bet is “house”; chaveroth, what we call “of
calvary”, is “graves”. Hence Mount Calvary means Mount of Graves.36
Although his translation of bet hachaveroth (beyt haqəvaroth/‫)ּבית ַה ְק ָברֹות‬
ֵ
is correct and suggests that he recognises the phrase as expressing posses-
sion, it is unclear whether or not he has any understanding of its underly-
ing grammatical structure.
On the whole, when drawing attention to a case or preposition, Herbert
tends to offer literal translations followed by a statement that this expres-
sion is idiomatic in Hebrew. For example on Psalm 26 (27): 8, “My heart
said to You: ‘Seek my face’. Your face, O Lord I will seek”, he comments on
the meaning of ləkhah/‫“( ְלָך‬to you”):
“To You”, that is “before You” [ …] And it is the idiom of the Hebrew language
to render the dative in this way, i.e., “for”, namely, “in your place”.37
His work anticipates the grammar attributed to Bacon in his association
of the preposition ‫ ִמן‬with the Latin ablative, and in one instance offers a
word-for-word translation even though the Hebrew in this case uses ‫ ִמן‬in
an idiomatic comparative construction which is difficult to reflect in Latin
in this way. For example, the first phrase of Psalm 138 (139): 6, pəli’ayh da‘ath
mimmenni/‫“( ְּפ ִל ָאיה ַד ַעת ִמ ֶּמּנִ י‬Such knowledge is too wonderful for me”),
appears in the Hebraica as “super me est scientia” (“the knowledge is above
me”). Herbert has “Mirabilior est scientia a me”, (“the knowledge is more
wonderful than me”, using the preposition “a” followed by an ablative,
which suggests distance, and of which the basic meaning lies close to that
of min/‫מן‬.ִ
His penchant for a literal, even rigid, translation comes to the fore in his
reflection of the preposition ‫ּב‬. While the word covers a wide range of
meanings, including “in”, “with”, “by”, “to” and “from”, Herbert prefers “in”.
On Psalm 67(68): 19, “When you ascended on high, you led captives in your
train; you received gifts from men [ …]”, he explains his own translation of
ba’adam/‫ּב ָא ָדם‬,ָ (“from men”) as “in homine” with the comment: “It is cus-

36 Psalterium fol. 103v: Quam nos cimiterium Hebrei vocant bet hachaveroth, quod
interpretatur “domus fossarum”. Bet enim “domus”; chaveroth quod nos “calvaria” dicimus,
“fosse”. Unde dicitur mons calvarie: mons fossarum.
37 Psalterium, fol. 28v: Tibi, id est “pro te” [ …] Et est idioma Hebreorum lingue sic
dativum ponere. Id est “pro”, scilicet “loco tui”.
36 chapter one
tomary in Hebrew to put ‘in’ instead of ‘by means of’”.38 He applies the
same method in his translation of bə‘eyneykha/‫“ ְּב ֵעינֶ יָך‬before your eyes” in
Psalm 50 (51): 6. Jerome usually translates this with the more literary “coram
oculis tuis”, “before your eyes”, but Herbert duly sticks to “in oculis tuis”.39
A more literal translation occasionally leads to a tropological observa-
tion. In the previous verse of the same Psalm he supplies two translations
for the preposition neged/‫ נֶ גֶ ד‬which can mean either “in front of” or “oppo-
site”, namely Jerome’s reading “contra” and a variant, “coram”. The inter-
pretation of the verse can thus be “For I know my transgressions and my
sin is ever before/against me”. He comments:
It is idiomatic in Hebrew to put the words “against” and “before” interchange-
ably. “Against” therefore means, as it were, “in my way”, and “before” means,
as it were, “in my way”. Thus “against” can be written here instead of “before”.
It is truly a feature of the penitent to remember his sin continuously so that,
realising the magnitude of his guilt, he may knock at forgiveness’ door all
the more humbly and devoutly.40

c.  Nouns and Pronouns

It is a common stylistic feature in biblical Hebrew for nouns to appear in
the singular where Latin (and English) would expect a plural. On several
occasions, Herbert prefers a literal translation of such a Hebrew noun to a
more elegant one according to Latin idiom. With the scrupulous translation
of ba’adam/‫“ ָּב ָא ָדם‬from/by means of men” as the singular “in homine”
Herbert differs from both the Hebraica and the Gallicana versions which
have the plural “in hominibus”. Another verse where his reading reflects
the Hebrew number more literally than Jerome is Psalm 37 (38): 17, “For I
said: ‘Do not let them gloat or exalt themselves over me when my foot
slips’”. Ragli/‫“ ַרגְ ִלי‬my foot” appears in Jerome’s translations as the plural
“pedes mei”. Herbert corrects this to the singular “pes meus”.
Similarly, commenting on Psalm 62 (63): 4, “Because your love is better
than life, my lips will glorify you”, he follows Jerome in his translation of
ḥayyim/‫“( ַחּיִ ים‬life”) with the plural “vitae”. He explains that in Hebrew

38 Psalterium, fol. 73r: Et est Hebree lingue familiare “in” pro “per” ponere.
39 Similar examples of a literal translation of b/‫ ּב‬can be found on Psalms 16 (17): 6 and
26 (27): 13.
40 Psalterium, fol. 54v: Idioma Hebreum est dictiones has “contra” et “coram” indiffe­
renter ponere. Quod enim “contra me” est quasi “obvium michi”; hoc “coram me” est quasi
“obvium michi”. Sic igitur ponitur hic “contra” pro “coram”. Est autem vere penitentis: pec-
cati sui iugiter recordari ut cernens magnitudinem culpe, eo humilius et devocius pulset
ad ianuam venie.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 37
“vita” is always plural, giving extra weight to this example of Hebrew idiom
by relating it to the different modi vivendi in medieval society:
[The Psalmist] says “lives” in the plural, according to Hebrew idiom in which
the word life is always plural, never singular. And he calls “lives” the various
ways of life presently existing among men. Which is why some are clergy,
others laymen, some soldiers, others farmers.41
Herbert seems to consider ḥayyim/‫ ַח ּיִ ים‬as a noun throughout the
Psalterium, even when it is used (and appearing in the Hebraica) as an
adjective, such as in verse 20 of Psalm 37 (38), “Many are those who are my
vigorous (ḥayyim/‫)חּיִ ים‬
ַ enemies; those who hate me without reason, are
numerous”. The Hebraica translates the phrase as “my vigorous enemies”
(“inimici mei viventes”) while the Gallicana has “my enemies live/are vig-
orous” (“inimici mei vivent”). Herbert rigorously chooses for the noun “vita”
in the ablative instead and comments “my enemies have become strong
in life, that is, in peace and in all necessities of human life”.42 He repeats
this technique in Psalm 68 (69): 29.
An exegesis reminiscent of Rashi occurs in Psalm 75 (76): 9, “From
heaven (shamayim/‫)ׁש ַמיִ ם‬ ָ you pronounced judgment; earth feared and
was quiet”. Herbert interferes with Jerome’s translation and replaces the
Latin for “heaven” in the singular, “celo”, by its plural “celis”:
It should be noted that in Hebrew “heaven” is not singular but always plu-
ral. The reason for this is, as they claim, that it consists of opposites, namely
of fire and water. Therefore one says sabaim in Hebrew.43
Again he finds an explanation for the number of shamayim/‫ׁש ַמיִ ם‬,ָ this time
in the popular etymology, provided by Rashi in his commentary on Genesis
1: 1, that shamayim/‫ ָׁש ַמיִ ם‬is a compound of the words esh/‫“ ֵאׁש‬fire, light-
ning” and mayim/‫“ ַמיִ ם‬water” because the heavens were originally created
from fire and water.44

41 Psalterium, fol. 65v: Pluraliter dicit vitas: iuxta Hebreum idioma in quo vite nomen
semper plurale est, singulare numquam. Et vocat vitas: varios vivendi modos qui inter
homines sunt in presenti. Unde alii clerici, alii laici, alii milites, alii agricole sunt.
42 Psalterium, fol. 39r: inimici mei vita, id est, pace et omnibus vite humane necessariis
confortati et cetera.
43 Psalterium, fol. 89r: notandum quod in Hebreo non singulare sed semper plurale est
celi. Eo scilicet quod sicut aiunt ex contrariis sit, id est ex igne et ex aqua. Unde est Hebraice
sabaim dicitur.
44 Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s
Commentary, ed. and transl. by M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann, 5 vols (London, 1929-
34), vol. 1: Genesis (1929), 3.
38 chapter one
Herbert does not discuss the absence of a neuter gender in Hebrew
nouns, nor does he comment upon the formation of plurals or the agree-
ment between nouns and adjectives. There is one passage where he draws
attention to the meaning of iesuah (“Jesus/saviour”), and its function as
both a proper and a common noun. In Psalm 78 (79): 9a, “Help us, God our
saviour, for the glory of your name”, the Hebraica and the Psalterium trans-
late yish‘enu/‫“( יִ ְׁש ֵענּו‬our saviour”) as “Ihesus”. Not without satisfaction
Herbert comments:
Jesus, for which the Hebrew says iesuah. It is sometimes a proper name,
sometimes a common one, and means “saviour”. One should note that wher-
ever the Hebrews put the word “salvation”, they write it always with the
three letters of the name of Jesus, namely ioth sin and ain, so that the Jew
cannot ask for salvation but in the name of Jesus, whether he wants it or
not.45
The terminological distinction made here between “Hebrei”, as sources of
linguistic and exegetical knowledge, and “Iudei”, as Jews in a polemical
context, will be discussed below.
In his commentary on Psalm 23 (24): 1-2 (see figure 1) Herbert remarks
on the difference in gender between Hebrew nouns and their Latin trans-
lation, and on the impact that has on the interpretation of pronouns refer-
ring to these nouns. The passage reads:
1. The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness of it, the world and those who
live in it; 2. For he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the
rivers.
Both “earth” (’arets/‫)א ֵרץ‬
ָ and “world” (tevel/‫)ּת ֵבל‬
ֵ are feminine in Hebrew.
Consequently, the “it” in verse two, which the Hebrew expresses by hh/‫ּה‬,
a feminine singular pronominal suffix to the main verbs “founded” and
“established”, could refer to either noun. In Latin, “earth” (“terra”) is femi-
nine but “world” occurs as the masculine “orbis”. The feminine suffix
hh/‫ ּה‬is rendered as the masculine “eum” and “illum”, thereby suggesting
that it refers to “orbis/world” only.46 Herbert points out this difference and
concludes: “But my Hebrew teacher/literal exegete (‘litterator meus’) has

45 Psalterium, fol. 94r: Ihesus: pro quo Hebreus dicit iesuah. Et est aliquando nomen
proprium, aliquando appellativum, idem sonans quod “salvator”. Et hoc notandum quod
ubicumque apud Hebreos nomen salutis ponitur, per tres litteras nominis Ihesu semper
scribitur, scilicet ioth sin et ain. Ut velit nolit Iudeus salutem semper in nomine Iesu ipsum
postulare oporteat.
46 See also Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 60; Smalley, “A Commentary”,
48-49.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 39
traced it back to ‘earth’”. A marginal gloss referring to “litterator” reads
“Salomon”.47 As Loewe and Smalley have already mentioned, this is one of
the rare passages where Rashi appears to be mentioned by name.
It is in the translation of pronouns that Herbert most clearly sacrifices
the rules of Latin grammar in favour of a close reflection of Hebrew idiom.
For example, in Psalm 73 (74): 2, “Remember the people you purchased of
old, the tribe of your inheritance, whom you redeemed, Mount Zion where
you dwelt”, the last phrase of the verse appears in Hebrew as har tsiyyon
zeh shakhanta bo/‫ר־צּיֹון זֶ ה ָׁש ַכנְ ָּת ּבֹו‬
ִ ‫( ַה‬literally: “Mount Zion, this you have
dwelt on it”). In the Psalterium we find a word-for-word translation of this
as “montem Syon istum (‘that’) habitasti in eo (‘on it’)”, in contrast to the
Hebraica and Gallicana which have “montem Syon in quo habitasti”, and
“montem Syon in quo habitasti in eo” respectively. Herbert could have
borrowed “in eo” from the Gallicana version but neither version has “istum”.
He states in his commentary that underlying his choice of translation is
the wish to reflect the Psalmist’s intention. By using a demonstrative,
instead of a relative, pronoun the Psalmist seeks to distinguish Mount Syon
from other mountains. Herbert makes a cross-reference to Psalm 30 (31):
5a, of which a literal translation is: “Bring me out of the net that they hid
for me”. Here also the Hebrew uses a demonstrative pronoun ( zu/‫ )זּו‬rather
than, as one would expect, a relative one. However, Herbert’s translation
of this verse earlier on in the Psalterium somewhat inconsistently does not
reflect this comment, but simply follows Jerome’s more literary Latin.48
A similar adherence to Hebrew idiom occurs in Psalm 58 (59): 14,
“Consume them in wrath, consume them that they are no more; in order
that they know in the ends of the earth that God rules over Jacob- selah”.
Wəeynemo/‫( וְ ֵאינֵ מֹו‬literally: “and they not”) appears in the Hebraica as “ut
non subsistant”, “so that they do not exist”. Herbert has “ut non illi”, “so
that they not”.

47 Psalterium, fol. 26v: Nota quod in Hebreo et terra et orbis femina sunt. Et pronomen
quod subsequenti versu ponitur, pro quo nos habemus masculina, et eum et illum, similiter
apud Hebreos referri sive ad terram sive ad orbem. Utrumque enim apud eos femininum
est et pronomen similiter quod in versu subsequenti ponitur: femininum; attamen littera-
tor meus ad terram retulit. A marginal gloss explains “litterator meus” as “Salomon”.
48 Psalterium, fol. 85r: Quod dicit “istum” pro nomine utens demonstrativo. Sicut alibi
in psalmo in reci isto quod absconderunt [Psalm 30 (31): 5]: modus est loquendi Hebree longue
familiaris. Et ponitur hic “istum” discretive ad commendacionem. Quasi istum scilicet cui
mons alius seu eciam habitacio aliqua non est similiter quia tu habitasti in eo. Psalm 30
(31): 5a: Educes me de rete quod absconderunt mihi.
40 chapter one
Only once does Herbert analyse the use of a pronoun at greater length.
In Psalm 67 (68): 24, “That you may plunge your feet in the blood of your
foes, while the tongues of your dogs have their share”. The last word of the
verse minnehu/‫מּנֵ הּו‬,ִ “[their share] from him/it”, can refer to either “blood”
or “foe”. It appears in the Hebraica as the emphatic “a temet ipso” (“from
yourself”), which the Psalterium modifies to “a semet ipso” (“from him/
itself”). Herbert then explains the meaning of this pronominal suffix hu/‫הּו‬
(“him/it”) by relating it to the personal pronoun hu’/‫“ הּוא‬he”, which he
transliterates as hv. As Deborah Goodwin has already pointed out he asso-
ciates an impersonal hv with one of the divine names; he clearly has other
biblical passages in mind where hu’/‫הּוא‬, sometimes combined with a verb
expressing a force of nature, refers to God.49 It is unclear on which textual
source Herbert relies. Rashi interprets minehu/‫ ִמּנֵ הּו‬as “his portion”, refer-
ring to the dog’s tongues. Goodwin draws attention to the correlation
between the Hebrew hu’/‫ הּוא‬, consisting of the Hebrew letters he, waw,
aleph and Herbert’s unusual transliteration of the letter waw as v and not
as u, which would be what one would expect in a twelfth- or thirteenth-
century Latin text where the letters ‘u’ and ‘v’ are usually written as u.50
On one occasion, Herbert discusses the meaning of the interrogative
pronoun mathay/‫“ ָמ ַתי‬when?” in Psalm 100 (101): 2, “I will be careful to lead
a blameless life—when will you come to me? I will walk in my house with
a blameless heart”. On “when will you come to me?” (mathay tavo’ ’elay/
‫)מ ַתי ָּתבֹוא ֵא ָלי‬
ָ Herbert comments:
When will you come to me: when (“quando”) is interrogative, nor could it be
here anything but interrogative according to Hebrew idiom. For here the
Hebrew word mazai occurs, which can never occur in their [sources] except
when interrogative. Mazai is namely derived from ma, which is “what”. For
this reason, when the first manna came down, they kept saying man in
admiration, i.e. “what’s this”. But later this was given up and they said man.51

49 Psalterium, fol. 74v: Et dicit hic a semet ipso quemadmodum in exceptis actionibus
solet dici “ipse pluit”, “ipse tonat”, “ipse choruscat”. Nec est que querat quis ipse: de solo
quippe Deo intelligitur, qui solus in talibus per hoc pronomen significatur sic. In quibus
ponit Hebreus unum de Dei nominibus proprius, scilicet hv, quod sonat “ipse” apud nos
tanquam si iuxta Hebreum dicatur. “hv tonat”, “hv choruscat”, ubi nos “ipse tonat”, “ipse
choruscat”. [ …] Hic vero in psalmo ubi habemus a semet ipso, Hebreus habet hv, tanquam
si dicatur apud nos a semet hv, ex quo iuxta Hebrei sermonis proprietatem determinatur.
Quod dicitur hic a semet ipso: ad solum Deum referendum. For equivalent biblical examples
see Psalm 9: 9; Psalm 23 (24): 2; Psalm 61 (62): 7, and Psalm 94 (95): 5.
50 Gruber, Rashi, 450 (English), 834-35 (Hebrew); Goodwin, Take Hold …, 241-42.
51 Psalterium, fol. 119v: quando venies ad me: interrogative: quando. Nec enim secundum
Hebree lingue idioma potest hic esse nisi interrogativum. Ponitur enim hic verbum Hebreum
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 41
Again, Herbert draws on Rashi’s commentaries on the Torah/Pentateuch
in his inclusion of popular etymology, this time to explain the origin of the
word manna.52

d. A Noun for a Noun, a Verb for a Verb

Throughout his revision of the Hebraica Herbert makes an effort to find
Latin equivalents for Hebrew morphological and syntactic categories. For
example, in Psalm 9: 8 “The Lord reigns forever; he has established his
throne for judgment” the Hebraica translates these last words as “ad iudi-
candum” (“in order to judge”). Herbert replaces “ad iudicandum” with “ad
iudicium” (“for judgment”). The Hebrew has a noun as well: lammishpat/
‫ל ִּמ ְׁש ָּפט‬,ַ (literally: “for (the purpose of) the judgment”). The reading “ad
iudicium” might have been influenced by the Gallicana version, which has
“in iudicio”. However, it is likely that the reason why Herbert here opted
for a noun is that he sought to translate mishpat/‫ ִמ ְׁש ָּפט‬with a word of the
same category, preceded by “ad” to reflect the preposition l/‫ל‬, which
expresses purpose.
A similar modification occurs in Psalm 16 (17): 11, “They have tracked me
down (literally: “[They have hemmed in] our steps”), they now surround
me, with eyes alert, to throw me to the ground”. Herbert has “gressus nos-
tri”, a literal translation of ’ashureynu/‫“( ַא ֻּׁש ֵרינּו‬our steps”), against the
Hebraica’s “incedentes” (“they who are proceeding”). Again the Psalterium’s
translation remains faithful to the grammatical category of the Hebrew
word and has here the added advantage of being able to express the pro-
nominal suffix nu/‫“( נּו‬our”).
In Psalm 7: 12 we find: “God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses
his wrath every day”. The Hebraica has “iudex iustus” for shophet tsaddiq/
‫ׁשֹופט ַצ ִּדיק‬,ֵ (“a righteous judge”). Herbert renders this as “iudicans iustus”,
keeping in mind that shophet/‫ׁשֹופט‬ ֵ (“judge”, literally: “judging”) is in fact
an active participle of shpht/‫“( ׁשפט‬to judge”), here used as a noun.
In Psalm 26 (27): 13, “Still, I am confident to see/look on the goodness of
the Lord in the land of the living”, the revision is quite drastic, and it is
worth giving the verse and its translations in their entirety. The Hebrew

mazai quod numquam apud eos poni potest preterquam interrogative. Mazai enim quasi
dirivatur a ma, quod est “quid”. Unde et ad primam manne descensum: admirando dicebant:
man, id est “quod hoc” absque vero. Sed postea addicta est enim et dixerunt man.
52 Rashi on Exodus 16: 15, which references the Babylonian Talmud, sukkah 32b, Rosen-
baum and Silbermann, Exodus, 83-84.
42 chapter one
reads: lule’i he’emanti lirə’oth bətuv adonay bə’erets ḥayyim/‫לּול ִא ֶה ֱא ַמנְ ִּתי‬ ֵ
‫ל ְראֹות ְּבטּוב־יְ הוָ ה ְּב ֶא ֶרץ ַחּיִ ים‬,ִ which can be translated literally as “Unless
I had believed to look on the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living”.
The Hebraica has: “Ego autem credo quod videam bona Domini in terra
vivencium” (“I however believe that I may see the goodness of the Lord in
the land of the living”). Herbert translates: “Nisi quia credidi ad videndum
in bonis Domini in terra vivencium” (“Unless I had believed to look upon
the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living”). He does give the
Hebraica’s translation as a variant, thereby excluding the possibility that
he does not have access to a wholly uncorrupted reading from Jerome, but
adds that it reflects the Hebrew less well (“Quod tamen minus Hebreo
consonat”). Not only does he substitute “nisi quia” for “autem” as a more
literal rendering of lule’i/‫לּול ִא‬, ֵ “unless”, he also scrupulously takes over the
perfect tense of he’emanti/‫ה ֱא ַמנְ ִּתי‬,ֶ “I have believed”, and translates the
preposition b/‫ ּב‬as “in”, which the Latin sentence structure here does not
need. For lirə’oth/‫ל ְראֹות‬,ִ “to look upon”, which is an infinitive preceded by
the preposition l/‫ל‬, he supplies the gerund “ad videndum”. A Latin gerund
in the accusative with “ad” forms a perfect equivalent for this type of
Hebrew infinitive (usually referred to as infinitive contruct, because it is
often found constructed with a preposition). Both are verbal nouns pre-
ceded by a preposition that expresses purpose.53
Herbert manages to cleverly tie in a reflection of Hebrew grammatical
categories with Latin idiom in Psalm 126 (127): 2, “In vain you rise early and
stay up late, toiling for food to eat, for he grants sleep to those he loves”.
The phrase mashkimey qum mə’aharey sheveth/‫י־ׁש ֶבת‬ ֶ ‫ימי קּום ְמ ַא ֲח ֵר‬
ֵ ‫ַמ ְׁש ִּכ‬
means literally “[you] being early to rise and late to sit”. The Hebraica
translates this as “qui de mane consurgere postquam sederitis” (“[you] who
sit late after rising early”) which Herbert changes to “qui intermanicatis ad
surgendum, qui tardacis ad sedendum” (“[you] who are early to rise, who
are late to sit”). The two infinitives construct in this verse, qum/‫“( קּום‬rise”)
and sheveth/‫“( ֶׁש ֶבת‬sit”) without the preposition l/‫ל‬, do not express a pur-
pose. They are each the second part of a construct chain as the object of
mashkimey/‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫“( ַמ ְׁש ִּכ‬being early of”) and mə’aharey/‫“( ְמ ַא ֲח ֵרי‬being late

53 The same procedure is followed in Psalm 48 (49): 15: “Like sheep they are destined
for the grave/Sheol, and death will feed on them. The upright will rule over them in the
morning; their forms will decay in the grave, far from their princely mansions”.
Here wəṣiram ləvaloth/‫( וְ ִצ ָירם ְל ַבּלֹות‬literally: “and their form (left) to rot”) is aptly trans-
lated in the Psalterium as “et figura eorum ad putrifaciendum” (“and their form (left) to
rot”), against the Hebraica’s “conteretur” (“will go to waste”).
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 43
of”) respectively. However, by using the construction “manicabo” (“to be
early”)/“tardo” (“to be late”) with “ad” followed by a gerund, Herbert is able
to provide a more literal translation than Jerome without too much sacri-
fice of Latin style.

e. Verbs
It is unlikely that Herbert has a full concept of the different stems of the
Hebrew verb, and their nuances of active or passive voice, and intensive,
reflexive and causative notions. As has been mentioned before in the dis-
cussion of his transliteration and translation of ’azkir/‫ ַאזְ ִּכיר‬in Psalm 86
(87): 4, Herbert does seem aware that some vowel changes to a verb indi-
cate that it has a causative meaning. In Psalm 28 (29): 6, “He makes Lebanon
skip like a calf, Sirion like a young wild ox”, Herbert renders the causative
active (hifil) wayarqidem/‫“ וַ ּיַ ְר ִק ֵידם‬and he made them skip” accurately as
“Et subsilire eas faciet” against the Hebraica, which reads “disperget quasi
vitulum” (“he will scatter [it/them] like a calf”). Here again, the Psalterium
shows resemblance to the group of Hebrew-Latin Psalters studied by
Olszowy-Schlanger, where the construction facio + infinitive serves as a
characteristic translation of hifil verbs.54
In Psalm 61 (62): 7, “He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my
fortress, I will not be shaken”, the Hebraica and Gallicana versions translate
lo’ ’emot/‫“( לֹא ֶאּמֹוט‬I will not be shaken”), as “non timebo” (“I will not fear”)
and “non emigrabo” (“I will not leave”) respectively. Herbert has “non move-
bor” (“I will not be shaken”), thereby translating ’emot/‫ ֶאּמֹוט‬accurately as
a nifal (passive). This reading is also consistent with his own translation
and that of the Hebraica of the same verb in verse 3. He repeats this trans-
lation for the nifal of the same verb in Psalm 124 (125): 1, where he adopts
the Gallicana and replaces Jerome’s “inmobilis” (“unmoved”) by “non com-
movebitur” (“it [i.e., Mount Zion] will not be shaken”) as the translation of
lo’ yimot/‫לֹא־יִ ּמֹוט‬, “it will not be shaken”.
Other types of revision of the Hebraica version of the Psalms concern
the verb mode, tense, person, number or gender. For example, in Psalm 48
(49): 10, “That he should live on forever and not see decay”, the verbs wiḥi/
‫יחי‬
ִ ִ‫ ו‬and yirə’eh/‫ יִ ְר ֶאה‬are usually interpreted as jussives but, since their
consonantal structure is identical to that of the incomplete (imperfect)
tense, it could be read as a simple future. The Hebraica has “Et vivet ultra
in sempiternum et non videbit interitum” (“And he will live forever and

54 Olszowy-Schlanger, Hebrew Scholarship, 116.

44 chapter one
not see decay”). However, the Psalterium replaces the future tenses with
the present subjunctives “vivat” (“that he may/should live”) and “non
videat” (“that he may/should not see”).
An example concerning the number of a verb is found in Psalm 90 (91):
7, “A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but
it (= pestilence) will not come near you”. Yippol/‫“( יִ ּפֹל‬may fall”) is singular
but appears in the Hebraica and the Psalterium as the plural “cadent”. While
agreeing with Jerome’s reading in his main translation, in his commentary,
Herbert points out the difference in number between the Hebrew and the
Latin:
The Hebrew verb, gipol, which is put here, has two meanings: “to fall” and
“to rest”, and it appears to conform most to the following sense: “[a thousand]
will rest”. [ …] Note, however, that in Hebrew the number is not plural but
singular: “will fall” or “will rest”. Consequently it reads thus: “From your side
a thousand will fall” or “rest”. That is, a commander of a thousand angels,
or whoever is in charge of a thousand, or a millenary, and as we said earlier:
a certain number is accepted instead of an uncertain multitude.55
It is in his readings of the verb tenses that he often differs from the Hebraica
in favour of borrowings from the Gallicana. In Psalm 64 (65): 10,
You care for/visit the land and water it; you enrich it abundantly. The streams
of God are filled with water to provide the people with grain, for so you
have ordained/prepared it,
the changes concern the verbs paqadəta/‫“( ָּפ ַק ְד ָּת‬you have visited”), and
ta‘əshrenah/‫“( ַּת ְע ְׁש ֶרּנָ ה‬you enrich it”). The Hebraica translates those as the
present imperatives “visita” (“visit”) and “dita” (“enrich”). Herbert changes
these into perfect tenses. His use of tenses mirrors that of the Gallicana. A
comparison with the same verse in Herbert’s arrangement of Lombard’s
Gloss suggests this conflation of the Hebraica and the Gallicana in the
Psalterium did not happen unconsciously or by scribal error. Whereas the
main Hebraica version in the Gloss shows no modifications, a marginal
gloss amends the imperatives to indicatives perfect.56

55 Psalterium, fol. 113r: verbum enim hebreum, scilicet gipol, quod ponitur hic, duo
significat: et “cadere” et “requiescere”, et hoc sensui magis consonare videtur. Et est “requi-
escent” [ …] Nota tamen quod in Hebreo non pluraliter sed singulari numero dicitur. “Cadet”
vel “requiescet”. Et tunc legitur sic: “A latere tuo cadet” vel “requiescet mille”. Id est: mil-
lenarius angelorum. Vel quisquis de mille seu millenario fuerit et accipitur sicut et supra:
numerus certus pro multitudine incerta.
56 Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.5.4, fol. 117v.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 45
There is one instance where Herbert remarks on the Hebrew phenom-
enon of masculine and feminine verb forms. On Psalm 41 (42): 2, “As the
deer pants for streams of water, so does my soul pant for you, God”, he first
comments that, while the Hebraica reads “areola” (“doe”) as female, he has
chosen the translation “cervus” (“deer” following the Gallicana) because
the Hebrew ‫ ַאּיָ ל‬can apply to a male or female deer. He then comments
upon the verb ta‘arog/‫“( ַּת ֲער ֹג‬she pants”):
The word which follows for which we say “s/he will pant” is such according
to Hebrew idiom that it applies to does only, not to male deer, to females,
not to males. For, just like nouns, the Hebrews have also certain verbs which,
after a change by way of an addition or subtraction of letters, can be inter-
preted as only applying to males, or only to females.57

3. Lexical Changes: The Problems of Literal Translation

By far the most revisions made to the Hebraica are lexical. As demonstrated
above in the discussion of his treatment of Hebrew grammar, Herbert
shows himself anxious to adhere closely to Hebrew idiom and to offer a
literal, often word-for-word translation. He applies a similar strategy in his
rendering of the lexical connotation of Hebrew words. In this section dif-
ferent types of changes to Jerome’s text will come to the fore. Some of these
concern Herbert’s interpretation of Hebrew, others his vocabulary as a
twelfth-century educated Anglo-Norman. Still other revisions are directly
related to text-critical problems of the Masoretic text.
An example in which he shares a reading with Rashi is Psalm 32 (33): 7.
The Masoretic text has kones kanned mey hayyam nothen bə’otsaroth
təhomoth/‫“( ּכֹנֵ ס ַּכּנֵ ד ֵמי ַהּיָ ם נ ֵֹתן ְּבא ָֹצרֹות ְּתהֹומֹות‬He gathers the waters of
the sea together as a wall; he puts the deep in storehouses”). Instead of
kaned/‫“( ַּכנֵ ד‬as a wall”), some readings give kəno(’ )d/‫“( ְּכנֹ(א)ד‬as a bottle”).
The Hebraica translates “quasi in utre” (“as in a bottle”) according to the
latter reading. The Psalterium, however, has “quasi in murum” (“as a wall”).
Herbert does not mention his source in this passage nor does he explain
the reason behind his preference for kaned/‫ ַּכנֵ ד‬rather than kəno(’)d/

57 Psalterium, fol. 43r: verbum quod subsequitur pro quo nos dicimus mugiet tale est
iuxta Hebraicum ydioma quod ad solas cervas pertineat, non ad cervos; ad feminas, non
ad masculos. Habent enim Hebrei sicut nomina ita et verba quedam in quibus aliqua
mutacione facta ex aliqua scilicet litterarum addicione seu substractio ne mox intelligitur
an ad mares an ad feminas verba illa pertineant.
46 chapter one
‫ ְּכנֹ(א)ד‬but it is probable that his choice was prompted by Rashi’s comment
on the same verse:
Like a mound. [The work ned ‘mound’ is] an expression referring to height.
Accordingly, Onkelos rendered “they stood like a ned ‘mound’” (Exodus 15:
8) into Aramaic as [follows]: qemo kesur “they stood like a wall” and thus
did Menahem interpret it. [The word] ned and [the word] no’d “bottle” are
not the same.58
He may also have chosen this reading in order to remain consistent with
Jerome’s translation of kəmo ned/‫“( ְּכמֹו־נֵ ד‬like a wall”) as “acervum” and
Rashi’s emphasis that the word does mean “wall” in Psalm 77 (78): 13.59 A
second variant reading of a different type occurs in Psalm 21 (22): 17: Ki
səvavuni kəlavim ‘adath məre‘im hiqqiphuni ka’ari yaday vəraglay/
‫“( ִּכי ְס ָבבּונִ י ְּכ ָל ִבים ֲע ַדת ְמ ֵר ִעים ִה ִּקיפּונִ י ָּכ ֲא ִרי יָ ַדי וְ ַרגְ ָלי‬Dogs have surrounded
me; a band of very evil men have encircled me, they have bound/as a lion
my hands and feet”).
Both ‫“( ָּכ ֲא ִרי‬like a lion”) and a variant reading ‫“( ָּכ(א)רּו‬they have bound”)
are part of the Masoretic tradition, although the modern critical edition of
the Hebrew Bible, the Biblia Stuttgartentia, prefers the former. The
Hebraica’s reading, on the other hand, is ka(’)ru/‫ ָּכ(א)רּו‬, which appears as
“vinxerunt”. Herbert chooses ka’ari/‫“( ָּכ ֲא ִרי‬like a lion”) and offers the trans-
lation “quasi leo” instead. He comments that the correct reading is not karu
but kari, which appears with the same meaning in Isaiah 38:15, “Like a lion
thus did he shatter all my bones”, and continues:
However, as many Hebrews accept, karu which, as we have said before,
means “they have pierced” or “they have bound”, is what is written. But it
should be pronounced and interpreted, as they say, as kari. One thing is
written and in its place something different is pronounced and expounded.60
Again Herbert follows Rashi here, who also associates this verse with Isaiah
38: 15.61 As far as we know Herbert is the only Christian scholar at the time
to recognise and describe this standard method in Masoretic scholarship
for dealing with scribal errors. According to this procedure, which is usually

58 Gruber, Rashi, 301 (English), 822 (Hebrew).

59 Gruber, Rashi, 517 (English), 840 (Hebrew).
60 Psalterium, fol. 25v: Non enim ponitur ut aiunt karu quod sonat foderunt vel vinxerunt,
sed kari, quod sonat quasi leo. Idem nunc verbum ponitur quod ibi: quasi leo sic contriuit
omnia ossa mea [Isaiah 38: 15]. Et idem sensus [ …] Verum ut a nonnullis Hebreorum
­accepitur, scribitur karu. Quod ut diximus foderunt vel vinxerunt sonat. Sed pronunciari et
exponi debet ut aiunt, kari. [ …] Unum scribitur, et pro aliud pronunciatur et exponitur.
61 Gruber, Rashi, 257 (English), 819 (Hebrew).
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 47
referred to as kethib qere, the erroneous, and often unpronounceable, word
or phrase (the kethib) is kept in the main text, and an amended reading
(the qere) is offered in the margin. It is this qere which is read out and
interpreted. A marginal note in a thirteenth-century Psalter held at Longleat
House mentions the reading ka’ari/‫ּכ ֲא ִרי‬,ָ but dismisses it as a “corruption
of the Jews” (“nota corrupcionem Iudeorum”).62 Herbert points out another
kethib qere in Psalm 101 (102): 24, “In the course of my life he broke my
strength, he cut short my days”, where the kethib kohw/‫ ּכֹחו‬has the qere
kehi/‫“( כחי‬my strength”).63
When Herbert faces a choice between different layers of meaning in a
Hebrew word ranging from the literal to the figurative, he tends to favour
the more basic one. For example he reads Psalm 25 (26): 4, “I do not sit with
deceitful men, nor do I consort with hypocrites”. Na‘alamim/‫נַ ֲע ָל ִמים‬
­(“hypocrites”) appears in the Hebraica as “superbis” (“proud/arrogant
ones”). Herbert changes this to “absconditis” (“hidden ones”), and adds:
He says “hidden ones”, about whom the Master [Paul]: “For it is shameful
even to speak about the things done by them in secret”. These are all hypo-
crites and whoever are like this are hypocrites.64
By changing “superbis” into “absconditis” Herbert brings out the basic
meaning of ‘lm/‫“( עלם‬to conceal”). On a second level, he is then able to link
his translation with Paul’s description in Ephesians 5: 12 of hypocrites who
conceal the sins they commit.
Similarly, in Psalm 14 (15): 5, “He lends his money without usury and
does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will
never be shaken”, bəneshekh/‫“( ְּבנֶ ֶׁשְך‬usury”) is found in the Hebraica as
“usuram” (“usury”). Herbert substitutes this translation for “morsuram”
(“bite”), as a literal translation of the root nshkh/‫“( נׁשך‬to bite”). The use of
“morsuram” in this verse could be inspired by Rashi’s exegesis on Exodus
22: 24:
If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be
like a money-lender; charge him no interest/usury (‫ נׁשך‬.”)‫ נֶ ֶׁשְך‬is what is

62 Psalter, Warminster, Longleat House, MS 21, fol. 177v. I am grateful to Judith Olszowy-
Schlanger for providing me with the reference.
63 Psalterium, fol. 121r: Nota hanc litteram duplicem suam vel meam, secundum quod
ibi est suam loquitur psalmigraphus de afflictione israelis. Si vero est ibi mea ipse israel de
se loquitur abbrevavit dies meos pre miseria. ‫ ּכֹחו‬is interpreted in some traditions, such as
that reflected in the late-fifteenth-century Sephardic Kennicott Bible, as ‫“( כֹחֹו‬his strength”).
64 Psalterium, fol. 28r: Absconditos dicit illas de quibus magister: Que in occulto fiunt ab
ipsis, turpe est eciam dicere [Ephesians 5: 12]. Quales sunt omnes ypocrite et quicumque
tales: hypocrite sunt.
48 chapter one
called ‫ רבית‬in Rabbinical Hebrew (from ‫“ רבה‬to increase”). It is called ‫נׁשך‬
“biting”, because it resembles the bite of a snake.65
Like his etymological explanation of shamayim/‫“( ָׁש ַמיִ ם‬heaven”) as consist-
ing of fire and water in Psalm 75 (76): 9, Herbert’s treatment of the text
suggests that his knowledge of Rashi went beyond the latter’s commentary
on the Psalms. Perhaps he had access to Rashi’s commentaries on the
Pentateuch as well as the Psalms. Another possibility is that these refer-
ences to Rashi on the Pentateuch, which would be well-known to a Jewish
scholar, give us a glimpse of the mind of Herbert’s anonymous Jewish
interpreter. In that case, Herbert studied Rashi’s exegesis not just by writ-
ten but by a combination of written and oral sources, and dependent upon
his Jewish teacher’s mental map of cross-references. These two possibilities
will be further explored below.
In Psalm 26 (27): 12, “Deliver me not over unto the will of my enemies:
for false witnesses are risen up against me, breathing out violence”, Jerome
renders wipheaḥ ḥamas/‫יפ ַח ָח ָמס‬ ֵ ִ‫“( ו‬breathing out violence”, literally: “the
puffer of violence”) as “apertum mendacium” (“open deceit”). Herbert
replaces this with “sufflatorium iniquitatis” (“the bellows of injustice”),
explaining that his translation adheres more closely to the Hebrew. Again
he seeks to reconcile his reading with that of the Hebraica by drawing a
link between the visible and audible puffs of the “bellowers” (“sufflatores”)
and the open deceit of David’s persecutors, to whom the verse is believed
to refer.66 His choice of “sufflatorium” to convey the meaning of the root
yphḥ/‫ יפח‬is consistent with his translation of yaphiyaḥ/‫ יָ ִפ ַיח‬as “exsufflat”
in Psalm 9: 26 (10: 5), which will be discussed below in the section on learn-
ing tools.
Overall, as is the case with his translations of grammatical categories,
Herbert’s method of rendering the meaning of Hebrew words remains
faithful to his intention to stick to the literal sense of the Hebrew text. In
Psalm 67 (68): 19a, “When you ascended on high, you led captives in your
train; you received gifts from men”, the Hebraica translates shavitha
shshevi/‫ית ֶּׁש ִבי‬
ָ ‫( ָׁש ִב‬literally: “you took captivity captive”) as “captivum dux-
isti” (“you led a captive”). Herbert changes this to “captivasti captivitatem”
(“you took captivity captive”); not only is “captivitatem” a more literal

65 Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Exodus, 121.

66 Psalterium, fol. 29r: Sufflatorium iniquitatis vel apertum mendacium. Quod tamen in
Hebreo minus consonat. Et est idem sensus. Nam sufflatores iniquitatis: palam et in auditu
flatum emittunt. Et hii sunt aperte mendices: quales crebro persecucionis sue tempore
sustinuit David.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 49
reflection of the Hebrew, but the translation also brings out the double use
of the root shvh/‫“( ׁשבה‬to take captive”) in the verb shavitha/‫ית‬ ָ ‫ ָׁש ִב‬as well
as in its internal object shevi/‫ּׁש ִבי‬.
ֶ
Some of Herbert’s changes to Jerome’s text seem to originate from the
idea that one Hebrew word should be transferred into one Latin equivalent,
not more. For example, in Psalm 19 (20): 6(a), nərannənah bishu‘athekha
ubəshem ’eloheynu nidgol/‫ֹלהינּו נִ ְדּגֹל‬
ֵ ‫ם־א‬
ֱ ‫ּוב ֵׁש‬
ְ ‫יׁשּוע ֶתָך‬
ָ ‫“( נְ ַרּנְ נָ ה ִּב‬We will shout
for joy at your victory and in the name of our God we will lift banners”).
Nidgol/‫“( נִ ְדּגֹל‬we will lift banners”) appears in the Hebraica as “ducemus
choros” (“we will lead a band of singers/dancers”) which Herbert modifies
to “vexillabimus”, adding:
That is, after victory has been declared we will erect banners, as is the vic-
tors’ custom. Or in the name of our God we will lead a band of singers/danc-
ers, that is, we will rejoice like those who do.67
The medieval verb “vexillare” forms a perfect translation for the Hebrew
dgl/‫דגל‬, which means “to lift a banner”. This translation, with reference to
this verse, also appears in the only manuscript extant of what is, as far as
we know, the very first Hebrew dictionary for non-Jews. Produced around
1250-75 it postdates the composition of the Psalterium; its possible relation-
ship with the Psalterium will be discussed below in the section on learning
tools.68 Another translation in common with the dictionary can be found
on Psalm 103 (104): 3, “He lays the beams of his upper chamber on their
waters; he makes the clouds their chariot and rides on the wings of the
wind”. While Jerome translates haməqareh/‫(“ ַה ְמ ָק ֶרה‬the one) laying beams”
rather unspecifically as “qui tegis” (“he who covers”), Herbert has “trabea-
vit”, a denominative verb from “trabes” (“beam”). The same Hebrew-Latin
dictionary mentioned above includes the translation “trabesce” alongside
“tege” under the entry qrh/‫קרה‬.69
The deviation from the Hebraica we know can be rather drastic. In Psalm
34 (35): 16, “Like the ungodly circle of mockers they gnashed their teeth at
me”, the Hebraica has “In simulacione verborum fictorum frendebant

67 Psalterium, fol. 24r: Et in nomine Dei nostri vexillabimus, id est, data victoria vexilla
erigemus, sicut victorum mos est. Vel in nomine Dei nostri deducemus choros, id est, gau­
debimus sicut hii qui choros ducunt.
68 Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus; lexique latin médiéval-français/anglais; a Medieval
Latin-French/English Dictionary, ed. by Jan Frederik Niermeyer and C. van de Kieft (Leiden,
2002), 1414, vexillum; Olszowy-Schlanger, Dictionnaire , 12; it is also found, with the same
meaning, in the Leipzig Glossary as gonfaniromës/‫ירֹומׂש‬ֵ ִ‫גֹונְ ַפנ‬, see , Le Glossaire the Leipzig,
ed. and ann. by M. Banitt, 3 vols, (Jerusalem, 2001), vol.3, 1054-55,
69 Olszowy-Schlanger, Dictionnaire, 70.
50 chapter one
c­ ontra me dentibus suis” (“With the insincerity of untrue words they
gnashed their teeth at me”). Herbert changes the first half of the verse
entirely, to “In assentacione appetitus turtelli”. “Assentacio” means “flat-
tery” or “insincerity”. “Appetitus” is usually associated with greed. His most
striking difference from the Hebraica is the interpretation of ma‘og/‫מעֹוג‬,ָ
which has the connotation of “circle” or “cake” as “turtellum”.
“Tortellus/a” is a Medieval Latin word, which means “pie” and is related
to the French “tarte” and the Modern English “tart”. In an echo of Rashi
Herbert explains that the word stands for food (“pro modico edulio quod
turtellum hic significat”) and adds that his reading reflects the Hebrew
more closely than the “alia littera” of the Hebraica.70 Interestingly, the
thirteenth-century Hebrew dictionary contains the entry ‘ugah/‫עּוגָ ה‬,
derived from the same root as ma‘og/‫מעֹוג‬,ָ and the translations “tortellus”,
“tortella”, “gallice: torteu” (“torteu in French”) and “ebreus dicit tortellum”
(“the Hebrew says tortellum”).71
It is not always clear why Herbert takes pains to modify certain readings
of the Hebraica. An attempt to bring Jerome’s language more up to date
with twelfth-century Latin idiom could be one of the reasons. Loewe has
already drawn attention to a contemporary “solecism from England” occur-
ring in Herbert’s reading of Psalm 89 (90): 5. The Hebraica has “Percutiente
te eos somnium erunt” (“While you sweep them away they are (as) a sleep”).
In the Psalterium “percutiente” is replaced by “impetente”, related to the
twelfth-century Anglo-Norman meaning of “impetus” as “current, stream
of a river”.72
Another modification which combines a systematisation with a mod-
ernisation of Jerome’s vocabulary can be seen in Psalm 103 (104): 2, “He
wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like
a (tent) curtain”. While Jerome translates kayri‘am/‫יעם‬ ָ ‫ ַּכיְ ִר‬as “in pellem”
(“like a skin/tent”), Herbert supplies “in cortinam”. In Medieval Latin the
word has the notion of “cauldron” as well as “curtain”, and Jerome uses it
to describe the curtains of the tabernacle in Exodus 26: 2-3 and 36: 11.73
Herbert often shows a certain consistency in his choice of a particular

70 Psalterium, fol. 35r: In assentacione appetitus turcelli, id est pro modico edulio quod
turtellum hic significat, quoque exhibebat eos Saul: frendebant contra me et cetera. Solet
esse hic alia littera scilicet in simulacione verborum fictorum frendebant et cetera. Sed littera
quam posuimus Hebreo plus consonat. Gruber, Rashi, 307 (English), 823 (Hebrew).
71 Olszowy-Schlanger, Dictionnaire, 153; see also tortayl/‫טֹור ַטיְיל‬
ְ in Le Glossaire de Leipzig,
vol.3, 1072-73.
72 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 50.
73 Niermeyer, Lexicon, 363-64.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 51
translation. This is the case with his translation of kəlayoth/‫“( ְּכ ָליֹות‬kid-
neys”) as “renunculi” instead of “renes”.74 Another example is the rendering
of məqor/‫“( ְמקֹור‬spring”, “fountain”), which is found in Psalms 35 (36): 10
and 67 (68): 27. On both occasions, the Hebraica and the Gallicana have a
form of “fons”, but in the Psalterium we find “ductus”. His explanation of
both verses is the same: “ductus” is the “origin of the spring/source” (“origo
fontis”). In Psalm 35 (36): 10, “For with you is the fountain of life; in your
light we see light”, he interprets “ductus” (“fountain”) as God the Father
from whom two springs are conducted.75
Psalm 67 (68): 27 he translates as “In ecclesiis benedicite Deum:
Dominum de ductibus Israel” (“Bless God in the congregations; the Lord
from the fountain/source of Israel”). In his commentary he repeats that
“ductus” refers to “origines foncium” (“the fountains’ sources”), which here
stand for the fathers of the twelve patriarchs.76 His exegesis of “ductus” as
a synonym for uterus is reminiscent of Midrash Tehillim and Rashi’s com-
mentary, which both interpret məqor/‫ ְמקֹור‬in this sense.77
Sometimes Herbert translates a Hebrew word differently according to
its nuance in the sentence. For example, ’ayen/‫איֶ ן‬,ָ meaning “sorrow” but
also “idolatry, nothing-(ness)” occurs as “vanitas” in Psalm 54 (55): 11 and
again in 55 (56): 8. In Psalms 7: 15, 9: 24 and 35 (36): 5 it is translated as
“labor” or “iniquitas”, which fits the context better.
On other occasions, it is unclear why he revises the translation of a word
a few times and then does not carry this modification through systemati-
cally. For example, in Psalm 19 (20): 2, “May the Lord answer you when you
are in distress; may the name of the God of Jacob protect you”, appears in
the Hebraica as “Exaudiet tibi Dominus in die tribulacionis: protegat te
nomen Dei Iacob” (“The Lord will listen to you in the day of distress; may
the name of the God of Jacob protect you”). Herbert amends “exaudiet” to
“respondeat” (“may [the Lord] answer”) and comments: “Note that instead

74 Jerome translates kəlayoth/‫ ְּכ ָליֹות‬as “renunculi” once in Leviticus 3: 4; Herbert uses
“renunculi” as a translation for kəlayoth/‫ ְּכ ָליֹות‬in Psalms 7: 10; 15 (16): 7; 25 (26): 2 and 72
(73): 21 . Only in 138 (139): 13 does he keep Jerome’s translation “renes”.
75 Psalterium, 36v: Ductus dicitur ‘origo fontis’ unde dicitur ‘fons’. In quo significatur
Deus Pater a quo duo velud fontes ducuntur.
76 Psalterium, 75r: Et hoc est quod dicetur hic de ductibus Israel adeo gloriosus ductus:
quod eciam infantes in matrum uteris ut Hebrei tradunt pro ductu hoc divinas Domino
laudes personarent. Vel aliter. Et dicuntur ductus: origines foncium. Sicut nos supra in alio
psalmo dixisse meminimus. Sunt ergo ductus foncium: patres duodecim patriarcharum a
quibus velud foncium ductibus: tribus duodecim descenderunt de Abraham, scilicet Ysaac
et Iacob. Et de hiis ductibus, id est de his precipue patribus.
77 Gruber, Rashi, 451, 459 n.88 (English), 835 (Hebrew).
52 chapter one
of the verb ‘to listen to’ the Hebrew has everywhere the verb ‘to answer’”.78
“Respondere” is a closer translation of the verb ‘nh/‫“( ענה‬to answer”) than
“exaudire” but Jerome uses both in his Hebraica version. Herbert changes
Jerome’s readings of “exaudire” into forms of “respondere” several times
but lets other verses stand as they are, possibly because he did not think
“exaudire” was too far off the mark to be corrected everywhere.79
Similarly, Herbert explains twice in his commentary that in most cases
where the Latin reads “fides” (“faith”, “faithfulness”), the Hebrew has “ver-
itas” (“truth”). He refers thereby to ’emunah/‫אמּונָ ה‬,ֱ which means “firmness”,
“faithfulness”, “fidelity”. In the Psalms it often occurs as a divine attribute
or is associated with God’s mercy (ḥesed/‫)ח ֶסד‬. ֶ On Psalm 35 (36): 6 he fol-
lows the Hebraica in his translation “Domine in celis misericordia tua: et
fides tua usque ad nubes” (“Your love/mercy, O Lord, reaches to the heav-
ens, your faithfulness to the skies/clouds”) but comments that “fides” here
really stands for “veritas”, and refers to God’s mercy.80
The Psalterium follows Jerome’s reading “fides” on two occasions, and
offers “veritas” in superscript above “fides” on four.81 In all other passages
containing ’emunah/‫אמּונָ ה‬,ֱ the Hebraica already reads “veritas”, as is the
case with the translation of the verb ‘nh/‫ ענה‬which occurs in the Hebraica
as both “respondere” and “exaudire”. Since Herbert probably associates
’emonah/‫ ֱאמּונָ ה‬with other words derived from the same root, such as the
noun ’emeth/‫“( ֱא ֶמת‬truth”) and adverbs such as ’amen/‫ ָא ֵמן‬and ’amənah/
‫“( ָא ְמנָ ה‬truly”), he considers “veritas” the better translation of the two, even
though he does not entirely disagree with “fides”.
Herbert’s emendations of “exaudire” to “respondere” and of “fides” to
“veritas” can be interpreted as an attempt at rendering Jerome’s language
more uniform. For readers with a grasp of the Hebrew language, the
repeated translation of the same Hebrew word by the same Latin one would
give an indication of which Hebrew root is used where. In this respect,
Herbert’s inductive translation techniques could facilitate access to the

78 Psalterium, fol. 23v: Et nota quod pro verbo exaudicionis: Hebreus ubique habet
verbum responsionis.
79 “Respondere” occurs in Psalms 4: 1; 19 (20): 1; 21 (22): 21 and 142 (143): 1; “exaudire” in
Psalms 12 (13): 3; 19: 9; 21: 2; 90: 15, and in 107: 6.
80 Psalterium, fol. 36r: [E]t fides, id est veritas [ …] Et dicit veritatem iustis scilicet
premissam et redditam graciam. Que Dominus fidei nomine designatur. Dicitur enim fides
eo quod fiant dicta in quo veritas. Unde et merito fere ubicumque nos fides: veritatem
Hebreus habet. A similar comment can be found on Psalm 91 (92): 3.
81 “Fides” stands on its own in Psalms 32: 4 and 39 (40): 11; a superscript form of “veritas”
occurs in Psalms 36 (37): 3, 91 (91): 3, 95 (96): 13 and 99 (100): 5.
 How Much Hebrew Did Herbert Know? 53
Hebrew Bible, and the Psalterium, although it lacks the Hebrew text itself,
could serve as a learning aid.
For three frequently used words, Herbert more or less consistently sup-
plies a translation which differs from that of the Hebraica. These words are:
“sanctus” (“holy”), for which Herbert has “misericors” (“compassionate”,
“merciful”); “amicus” (“friend”), which becomes “sodalis” (“friend”, “com-
rade”); and “canere” (“to sing”), which occurs as “psallere” (“to sing”). The
last modification can be easily traced since Herbert borrowed it from the
Gallicana. His preference for “psallere” instead of “canere” might, again,
originate from the wish to provide a consistent translation for different
Hebrew words derived from the same root. Mizəmor/‫“( ִמזְ מו ֺר‬melody”),
which forms part of the title of many psalms, is traditionally rendered in
Latin as “psalmus”. It then seems only logical to translate zmr/‫זמר‬, the verb
to which ‫ ִמזְ מֹור‬is related, in a similar fashion as “psallere”. Herbert even
reads “psallere” for zmr/‫ זמר‬in Psalm 70 (71): 23 when the Gallicana does
not.
Herbert does not explain his reasons for systematically preferring “soda-
lis” to “amicus”. The meaning of the Hebrew word concerned, re‘a/‫ר ַע‬,ֵ
derived from r‘h/‫“( רעה‬to associate with”), ranges from “friend, companion”
to “fellow” or “another person”. Hence, it is probable that Herbert consid-
ered “amicus” to suggest a stronger attachment than is often implied in the
Hebrew. Further support for this hypothesis occurs in Psalm 11 (12): 3, in
which Herbert leaves Jerome’s translation of re‘a/‫ ֵר ַע‬as “proximum” (“neigh-
bour”, literally: “nearest”) unchanged while on all other occasions, we find
a form of “sodalis” where the Hebraica uses “amicus”.
Since Herbert offers no explanation for the two emendations just men-
tioned it could be argued that these were not a conscious decision of his
but simply reflected a variance in readings in the manuscripts to which he
had access. He does, however, comment on the use of “misericors” instead
of “sanctus” on Psalm 88 (89): 20, “Once you spoke in a vision, to your faith-
ful/holy people you said: ‘I have bestowed strength on a warrior; I have
exalted a young man from among the people’”:
And pay attention to what is written in particular of the Psalm: [the psalm-
ist] often calls the prophets and the just of the present time “merciful”, not
“holy”, using a more moderate noun because “holy” is grander than “merci-
ful”. But he says “merciful” because, among other things, that [is] proof of
sanctity; how very great the works of mercy are.82

82 Psalterium, fol. 107r: Et attende quod scriptum est maxime psalmi: prophetas et
iustos presentis temporis “misericordes” crebro vocat, non “sanctos”; temperanciori utens
54 chapter one
Again, Herbert’s choice of translation seems partly steered by his insight
into the etymological relationship between words derived from the same
Hebrew root. The adjective ḥasiyd/‫“( ַח ִסיד‬kind”, “pious”) is related to the
noun ḥesed/‫“( ֶח ֶסד‬goodness”, “kindness”, “mercy”), which the Hebraica and
Herbert himself read as “misericordia”. As he approves of this translation
of ḥesed/‫ ֶח ֶסד‬for tropological reasons, he interprets ḥasid/‫ ַח ִסיד‬in the same
vein.
Interestingly, the same alternative readings to “amicus” and “sanctus”
occur, albeit not consistently, in several of the group of Hebrew-Latin
Psalters of English provenance discussed by Olszowy-Schlanger, and in the
Canterbury or Eadwine Psalter. The Longleat Dictionary, mentioned before,
also offers “sodalis” and “misericors” as alternative translations for re‘a/‫ֵר ַע‬
and ḥasiyd/‫ ַח ִסיד‬respectively. Apart from these patterns of revision to the
Hebraica, the Psalterium shares numerous specific, one-off readings with
one or more of these Psalters.83
This set of similarities raises the question what sort of relationship exists
between these works in general, and between the Psalterium, the Eadwine
Psalter, produced c. 1155-60, and the intriguing group of twelfth- and thir-
teenth-century Hebrew-Latin Psalters in particular. On a wider scale, con-
sidering Herbert’s engagement with the Hebrew Scriptures and clear
influence from Rashi’s commentaries, we need to examine in greater detail
which sources provided him with grammatical and lexical aid.

nomine cum amplius sit sanctum quam misericordem esse. Sed misericordes dicit eo quod
inter cetera sanctitatis argumentum quam maximum sint misericordie opera.
83 Olszowy-Schlanger, Dictionnaire, 73.52 and 113.112. See also Dahan, “Deux psautiers
hébraïques”, 72, who notices that London, Lambeth Palace MS 435 has the modification
“responde mihi” for “exaudi me” in Psalm 4: 2; Sarah Larratt Keefer and David R. Burrows,
“Hebrew and the Hebraicum in late Anglo-Saxon England”, Anglo-Saxon England 19 (1990),
61-71: 73.
 Hebrew Learning Tools 55

Chapter Two

Hebrew Learning Tools

1. Jerome

The works of Jerome (including those attributed to but not composed by

him) would be the first to which a twelfth-century Christian Hebraist
turned for help with the language. For Herbert, Jerome was the starting
point on several levels. Not only had he written three tracts on Hebrew,
which helped Herbert build up basic vocabulary and translation skills, he
also provided Herbert with the ground text from which to develop the
latter’s own reading of the Hebrew Psalms. Third, Jerome laid the founda-
tion of a methodological framework for reconsidering the existing versions
of the Latin Bible against the Masoretic text. His endeavours to integrate
the Hebrew Bible into Christian exegesis sparked off scholarship by later
Christian Hebraists or Jewish converts, some of which appeared under his
name.
We know, for example, that by 1175 and possibly earlier, the library at
Pontigny held Jerome’s Liber de nominibus Hebraicis and a Pseudo-
hieronymian treatise on the Hebrew alphabet.1 Herbert lived at Pontigny
with Becket during the years 1166-67 and might have returned there in the
1170s after Becket’s death. Both Glunz and Smalley believe that he started
the preliminary work for his edition of Lombard’s Magna Glosatura there.
That Jerome (and possibly Pseudo-Jerome) was Herbert’s primary source
is suggested by marginal glosses in the Magna Glosatura which already
show signs of budding Hebraism.
In his prologue to the Psalterium Herbert calls Jerome “that modern
alumnus of the synagogue, foundation of all learning, father Jerome” (“mod-
ernus ille synagoge alumpnus, tocius litterature fundamentum, pater
Ieronimus”) and in his comment on Psalm 4: 1 he describes the Church
Father as “the most learned examiner of the Hebrew language” (“Hebraice
lingue doctissimus inquisitor pater Ieronimus”). Since Herbert and his
contemporaries attributed to him also writings which are now believed to

1 Peyrafort-Huin, La bibliothèque médiévale, 17.

56 chapter two
be inauthentic, the authentic and the inauthentic works will be considered
together.

a. The Hebraica
Jerome seems to have had access to a version of the Masoretic text of which
the consonantal framework was by and large identical to the one Herbert
used, and which is highly similar to the one we possess now.2 Yet as far as
Herbert’s translation of the Psalms is concerned, differences from Weber’s
modern edition of the Hebraica occur frequently. In fact, Herbert’s two
editions of the Psalms and the Hebrew-Latin psalters offer abundant proof
that by the twelfth century the Hebraica had accumulated a body of variant
readings and had been subjected to additional revisions according to the
Masorah. In the absence of comprehensive studies on the transmission of
the Psalter versions and the Gloss in the Middle Ages, against which the
Psalterium could be compared, I will provide a sample of occurrences of
such textual variants in Herbert’s works.3
Throughout the Psalterium Herbert often mentions that he has con-
sulted several versions of a particular verse before deciding upon his own
preferred reading. He thereby shows awareness not just of the difference
between the Gallicana on the one hand and the Hebraica on the other, but
also of the variants within both versions, and he applies text-critical meth-
ods in his comparison of incongruent translations. He tends to call the
Gallicana “edicio alia”, whereas he usually refers to a Hebraica reading
differing from his own as “alia littera”. According to Loewe, Herbert was
influenced by three translations of the Psalter. He used, first, Theodulf’s
recension (Θ), compiled in the late eighth-early ninth century. In spite of
the fact that it displays Spanish ornamental elements, which can be
explained by Theodulf’s Spanish origin, it is essentially based on Italian
Psalters and shows signs of revision according to the Masoretic text.
Another recension from which Herbert worked was that of Alcuin (Φ),
which dates from the late eighth century and usually includes only the
Gallicana. In the third place he draws upon a later Parisian text (Ω), which
was also the text followed by the earlier Wycliffite Version ΩS.4 What Loewe

2  Tov, Textual Criticism, 27.

3 Glunz, Vulgate, 4 and 200- 258; Olszowy-Schlanger, Hebrew Scholarship, 118-20; see
also De Visscher, “Closer to the Hebrew”, 259-60.
4 Raphael Loewe, “Mediaeval History of the Latin Vulgate”, in The Cambridge History
of the Bible, vol. 2: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, ed. by G. W. H. Lampe
(Cambridge, 1969), 102-54, fig. 1.
 Hebrew Learning Tools 57
does not mention is that Herbert incorporates in his text several of the
hebraized glosses of the Theodulf recension which are evident, too, in the
Hebraica version of the Eadwine Psalter (Cambridge, Trinity College Library
R. 17.1 (987)) and in several Hebrew-Latin psalters circulating in England
during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. These connections will be
further explored below.
In several psalms Herbert follows readings from those traditions and
from Theodulf’s recension in particular. For example, in Psalm 12 (13): 4,
which the modern edition of the Hebraica renders as:
Convertere exaudi me Domine Deus meus illumina oculos meos ne umquam
obdormiam in mortem.
Turn back, hear me, O Lord, my God. Enlighten my eyes, that I never sleep
in death.
Herbert has:
Respice et exaudi me Domine Deus meus: illumina oculos meos ne umquam
obdormiam in morte
Look back/Consider and hear me Lord my God …
Both the additional “et” before “exaudi” and the ablative “morte” instead
of “mortem” are variants to be found in versions Σ (a mixed text containing
pre-Hieronymian elements), C (a Spanish type dependent upon Σ), and
Theodulf (Θ). The majority of his modifications which are not borrowed
from the Gallicana, result from a careful comparison of several manu-
scripts.5 In Psalm 86 (87): 7 he corrects a text-critical error. The Psalterium
has
[superscript] vel organiste
Et cantores quasi in choris: omnes fontes mei in te

The singers say as in chorus, “All my springs/musicians are in you”.
while the Hebraica renders “cantabunt” instead of “cantores”. Already in
Herbert’s edition of the Magna Glosatura, the original reading “cantabunt”
is amended in the margin to “cantores”. However, in the Psalterium his
main concern is “fontes”. He comments:
Most [books] have “fortes” but in Hebrew it says “fontes”. And the scribe
can easily make a mistake by putting “fortes”  instead of “fontes”. But it is

5 For a discussion and examples, see De Visscher, “Closer to the Hebrew”, 254-58.
58 chapter two
“fontes”, that is, my nearest and neighbours who were born from the same
fathers and close by, not strangers.6
This passage gives us an interesting glimpse of Herbert’s efforts to achieve
the best text. It shows how, by combining text-critical skills with knowledge
of Hebrew, he is able to successfully defend a translation which differs from
the majority of manuscript readings at his disposal. On a broader level
Herbert’s comment can be seen as an example of the scholarly activity
present at the time, which aimed to preserve Jerome’s Hebraica in a state
as uncorrupted as possible.
Herbert frequently points out that his translation of preference goes
against the majority reading but conforms to the Hebraica veritas. For
example, he supplies Psalm 60 (61): 3 as:
De novissimo terre ad te clamabo in spasmate cordis mei in petra exaltata
super me tu eris ductor meus
To you have I cried from the ends of the earth, in the anguish of my heart,
on a rock exalted over me. You will be my guide.
while the Hebraica translates the italicized part of the verse as
cum triste fuerit cor meum cum fortis elevabitur adversum me
when my heart will have been sad when the strong will be elevated against
me
He comments, again, that most books contain the Hebraica reading, but
that his variant reflects the Hebrew more closely.7
Herbert’s references to what he considers to be less correct readings
from a majority group of manuscripts raise the question how we should
assess the originality of his final choices of translation in such passages.
Are these translations his own, directly based upon the Masoretic text with
perhaps some guidance from Jewish sources? Or does his use of “plerique”
imply that, as opposed to the majority group whose readings he rejects, he
is drawing upon a minority group of manuscripts, also belonging to the

6 Psalterium, fol. 102v: Plerique habent fortes sed in Hebreo fontes. Et potuit facile scrip-
tor errare fortes pro fontes ponendo. Et est fontes, id est proximi et convicanei mei qui de
eisdem patribus et loco imo nati, non alieni.
7 Psalterium, fol. 63v: plerique hunc: de novissimo terre ad te clamabo cum triste fuerit
cor meum cum fortis elevabitur adversum me; tu eris ductor meus. Et patet. Sed prior littera
Hebreo plus consonat
Other examples where he rejects the reading of the majority (“plerique”) of his sources
can be found in his commentary on Psalms 73 (74): 14 and 79 (80): 16 (folios 86r and 94v
respectively).
 Hebrew Learning Tools 59
Hebraica tradition, which supply him with the translations he prefers? If
we accept the latter view, we have to see the Psalterium in the context of
a larger Christian tradition in Western Europe at the time of revising the
biblical text against the Masorah. Below, we will attempt to identify the
source of this minority group.

b. (Pseudo-) Jerome’s Reference Works on Hebrew

During the Middle Ages Jerome was believed to be the author of several
treatises about various aspects of the Hebrew language. Apart from the
three titles Book on the Meanings of Hebrew Names, Book on the Location
and Names of Hebrew Places and Hebrew Questions on Genesis, which are
considered to be authentic, other writings were falsely attributed to him,
such as an early medieval tract on the Hebrew alphabet and the Breviarium
in Psalmos. Next to these reference works Jerome’s prologues to the Vulgate
and his letters, in particular number 25 to Marcella concerning the various
names for God, which was probably elaborated upon by one or more anon-
ymous authors later on, served as sources of information on Hebrew. As
many of Jerome’s interpretations of Hebrew words were later integrated
into the writings of others, such as Cassiodorus, Isidore, Peter Lombard
and Hugh and Andrew of Saint Victor, we have to allow for direct as well
as indirect influence on Herbert.
Several passages of the Psalterium are clearly reminiscent of Jerome,
predominantly those containing translations of individual Hebrew names.
Most prominent are Herbert’s explanations of the names for God, which
he repeats several times throughout the Psalterium. Yet we have to take
into account that, whereas Jerome was probably the first source which
taught Herbert the meaning of key words in the Hebrew Bible, by the time
he composed the Psalterium other aids such as Rashi’s commentary on the
Psalms, Hebrew-Latin psalters, a set of hebraized glosses of the Theodulf
recension, and possibly a dictionary and Hebrew-Hebraico-French glos-
saries had become more central to his exegesis. A comparison between the
Psalterium and the Magna Glosatura is particularly illuminating in this
respect. Although the Magna Glosatura concentrates mainly on the
Christian allegorical tradition according to the Gallicana, a number of
additional marginalia show some interest in and knowledge of Hebrew. In
the large majority of cases the source of these marginal glosses is identifi-
able as Jerome or Pseudo-Jerome. Most of this group of marginalia are
concerned with the accurate spelling and translation of Hebrew words and
are based on Jerome’s Book of Hebrew Names. For example, on Psalm 67
60 chapter two
(68): 23 Herbert adds to the interpretation of the name Bashan, which in
the Magna Glosatura is given as “confusio”:
Sed quomodo Basan confusio, siquidem Ieronimus sic: Babilon—confusio,
Basan—pinguis?8
But how can Bashan mean “confusion”, while Jerome has: Babylon—confu-
sion, Bashan—fat?
He does not seem to be aware of or does not pay any attention to the fact
that further down in the same work Jerome does translate Bashan as
“confusio”.9 As has been mentioned above, Herbert’s lengthy explanations
in the Psalterium of lamənatseaḥ/‫ל ְמנַ ֵּצ ַח‬/victori
ַ (“for the director”) in Psalm
4, of Cush in 7: 1, of Ethan 73 (74) and 88 (89) and of Rahab in Psalm 86 (87):
4, which are also borrowed from Jerome, appear as marginalia in the Magna
Glosatura. On one occasion he points out a difference in translation within
the works he attributes to Jerome. In a marginal gloss on 73 (74): 3 he
compares Jerome’s reading in the Hebraica with that of the Breviarium:
In his own exegesis Jerome has the following: “Mount Zion on which you
live on it” [ …]. However, in the Psalter which he translated according to
the Hebrew Truth he put “Mount” without “it”.10
This text-critical inconsistency clearly kept him occupied, since in the
Psalterium he develops this marginal gloss into a detailed grammatical
analysis of the underlying Hebrew text of the verse, integrated into the
main body of his commentary. Apart from serving as an illustration of
Herbert’s budding interest in the tradition of translating the Psalms from
the Hebrew, this gloss also seems to confirm the suggestion that Jerome
was Herbert’s first authority on this area of scholarship.
A theme on which Herbert engages with Jerome’s works, and in par-
ticular with his Epistle 25 to Marcella, is that of the Divine Name.11 Again,
it is interesting to note that the Magna Glosatura already contains a prec-
edent of some of his thoughts on the topic found on Psalm 90 (91): 1-2:

8 Magna Glosatura, B.5.4, fol. 164r; Jerome, Lib. int. heb. nom, 62.
9 Jerome, Lib. int. heb. nom., 79.
10 Magna Glosatura, MS B.5.4, fol. 180v: “Ieronimus in explanacione sua sic: Mons Syon
in quo habitasti in eo [ …] In psalterio vero suo quod transtulit secundum veritatem Hebrai-
cam posuit montem sine eo” [italics mine]. Pseudo-Jerome, Breviarium in Psalmos, PL: 26:
1033.
11 Saint Jérôme: Lettres, trans. and ed. by Jérôme Labourt (Paris, 1951), tome 2; PL 22:429.
See Goodwin’s more extensive discussion on the Divine Name in the Psalterium, Take Hold
…, 244-52.
 Hebrew Learning Tools 61
He who dwells in the obscurity of the most High, will rest in the shadow of
the Almighty. I will say of the Lord: “He is my refuge and my fortress, my
God, in whom I trust”.

It concerns the Divine Names ‫“( ֶע ְליֹון‬most High”) and ‫“( ַׁש ַדי‬the Almighty”),
which Herbert transliterates as helyon and saday, and translates as “excelsi”
(“most High”) and “domini”/“omnipotens” (“Lord”/“Almighty”) respective-
ly.12 Verse 2 contains the Divine Names ladonay/‫[“( ַליהוָ ה‬of/to the] Lord”)
and ’elohay/‫ֹלהי‬ ַ ‫“( ֱא‬my God”) which occur elsewhere in the Psalterium as
adonay/“dominus” and elohay/“deus meus”.
The Magna Glosatura already provides four interlinear glosses in the
same hand as the main body text which read elyon above “excelsi”, saday
above “Domini”, adonay above “Domino” and elohay above “Deus meus”.
This demonstrates that by the time Herbert edited the Magna Glosatura
he was already familiar enough with these Divine Names to apply them to
the right passages in the psalm text. It may also suggest that at that stage
he already had access to, and had the ability to use, a Hebrew-Latin psalter
as reference.
Other references to Jerome’s work on Hebrew names include explana-
tions of Adam (68rb), Belial (17ra) and Raphaim (104ra).13 A passage famil-
iar with Jerome’s procedure in Hebrew Questions on Genesis is Psalm 90
(91): 7. Herbert follows the Hebraica in his translation of yippol mitsidəkha
’eleph urəvavah miminekha ’eleykha lo’ yiggash/‫ימינֶ ָך‬ ִ ‫יִ ּפֹל ִמ ִּצ ְּדָך ֶא ֶלף ְּור ָב ָבה ִמ‬
‫“( ֵא ֶליָך לֹא יִ ּגָ ׁש‬A thousand will fall at your side, ten thousand at your right
hand, but [pestilence] will not come near you”): Cadent a latere tuo mille
et decem milia a dextris tuis ad te autem non appropinquabit. He does
point out in his commentary that the Masoretic text differs from Jerome’s:
The Hebrew word gipol which appears here, has two meanings: “to fall” and
“to rest” and seems to conform best to the former meaning [ …] Note that
in the Hebrew the number is the singular, not the plural: “will fall” or “will
rest”.14

12 Psalterium, fol. 112r: Excelsi, Hebraice helyon unum de Dei nominibus et sonat excel-
sus [ …] Et nota quod ubi nos Domini in Hebreo est saday, unum item de Dei nominibus
et sonat omnipotens.
13 Jerome, CCSL 72: 60, 70, 86-87.
14 Psalterium, fol. 112r: verbum enim Hebreum, scilicet gipol, quod ponitur hic, duo
significat: et “cadere” et “requiescere” et hoc sensui magis consonare videtur. [ …] Nota
tamen quod in Hebreo non pluraliter sed singulari numero dicitur: Cadet vel requiescet.
62 chapter two
This method of leaving the accepted reading intact in his rendering of the
verse, while modifying it in his commentary, mirrors Jerome’s similar treat-
ment of the then prevalent version, the Vetus Latina, in his Hebrew
Questions, such as on Genesis 6: 4, “Now giants were upon the earth in
those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and
they brought forth children”. Jerome’s comment focuses on the meaning
of “gigantes”, nəphilim/‫ ּנְ ִפ ִלים‬in Hebrew, which literally means “falling
ones”:
These were people who were called giants at the time. In Hebrew we find
the following: “In those days the falling ones were on the earth, that is,
ANNAPHILIM”.15
We see an interesting parallel here with the way in which Herbert engages
with Rashi. Rather than following Jerome slavishly, the Psalterium uses
Jerome’s own methodology of textual criticism and literal exegesis to chal-
lenge him.

2. Hebrew-Latin Psalters and the Eadwine Psalter

Olszowy-Schlanger argues convincingly that, since grammatical and lexi-

cographical works that suited their purpose were in short supply, or even
impossible to find, Christian exegetes used Hebrew-Latin psalters as learn-
ing tools instead.16 Dahan, Olszowy-Schlanger and Smalley have each stud-
ied groups of such psalters and, so far, I have found only one manuscript
where the composition date precedes that of the Psalterium.17
This manuscript, Codex Orientalis 4725 at the Scaliger bequest at Leiden
University Library (hereafter referred to as Scaliger 8), consists of a Hebrew
psalter with Latin glosses, dating from the middle of the twelfth century.
According to Lieftinck, it was written by a Christian hand, but Malachi
Beit-Arié believes the scribe might have been a Jew. Both agree that its
provenance is England.18 John of Sturrey, possibly a precentor at St

15 Jerome, Quaest.hebr.in Gen., CCSL 72, 10: “Illi erant gigantes a saeculo homines
nominati. In Hebraeo ita habet: Cadentes erant in terra in diebus illis, id est, Niphilim”.
16 Olszowy-Schlanger, Hebrew Scholarship, 109-12; Goodwin suggests that Herbert may
have worked from one such psalter, Take Hold …, 162.
17 Dahan, “Deux psautiers hébreux”, 61-87; Olszowy-Schlanger, Hebrew Scholarship,
116-22, and Les manuscrits hébreux; Smalley, “Hebrew Scholarship among Christians”, 1-18.
18 Olszowy-Schlanger, Les manuscrits hébreux, 205-11; G. I. Lieftinck, “The Psalterium
Hebraycum from St Augustine’s Canterbury Rediscovered in the Scaliger Bequest at Leyden”,
Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 2 (1955): 97-104; Malachi Beit-Arié,
 Hebrew Learning Tools 63
Augustine’s, Canterbury, during the second half of the thirteenth century,
donated it to the monastic library. The manuscript remained there until
well into the fifteenth century when it ended up at King’s College,
Cambridge. Who owned it before it was bequeathed to St Augustine’s is
unclear. The psalter contains two types of glosses: a highly abbreviated
Latin translation of the Hebrew in the inner margins and a more elaborate
spiritual gloss in the outer margins. Both are reminiscent of Jerome: the
translation in the inner margins is based on the Hebraica, albeit with a
substantial number of modifications, whereas the gloss in the outer margins
draws on Pseudo-Jerome’s Breviarium. Unfortunately, the gloss only runs
until Psalm 16 (17) and briefly reappears for Psalms 65 (66) and 146 (147).
Was it used by a Christian Hebraist only interested in studying the Hebrew
of certain Psalms in detail? We can but speculate.
Three other Hebrew-Latin Psalters are of importance here. They all date
from the early to mid-thirteenth century. The earliest one, Oxford, Corpus
Christi College, MS 10, formed part of John Claymond’s donation to the
college in the sixteenth century. Where it was before is unknown. It is large
(330 × 250 mm) and well-made, and contains both the Gallicana and
Hebraica versions in parallel translation to the Hebrew, as well as a so-
called Latin superscriptio, an interlinear word-for-word translation of the
Hebrew. From the layout and the direction of reading, i.e., the book opens
in the Christian way, and the Hebrew Psalms follow the pages from left to
right, it is clear that the manuscript was produced for the use of Christian
readers. 19
The Longleat Psalter, which forms part of Warminster, Longleat House,
MS 21, does not have a parallel translation but its superscriptio is accom-
panied by numerous marginal glosses. Superscriptio and glosses were added
by the same Christian scribe, probably a university student, shortly after
the Hebrew text was produced. The work ended up at Ramsey Abbey in
Cambridgeshire, in a volume with five other codicological units, one of
which is the Hebrew-Latin-French dictionary already mentioned, and a
Hebrew grammar for non-Jews.20
London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 435 has, like the Longleat Psalter,
a superscriptio and a whole wealth of marginal glosses, here not only in

The Only Dated Anglo-Hebrew Manuscript Written in England (1189) (London, 1985), 7-9; see
also Margaret T. Gibson, The Bible in the Latin West, Medieval Book Series 1 (Notre Dame,
IN, 1993), 66-67.
19 Olszowy-Schlanger, Les manuscrits hébreux, 157-61.
20 Ibid., 188-92.
64 chapter two
Latin but also in Anglo-Norman. It even contains a few words in English,
and six flyleaves with grammatical notes, including an alphabet, in a dif-
ferent hand from the one who added the Latin glosses. The Hebrew script
is from the same Jewish scribe who was also involved in the copying of at
least four other Hebrew biblical books, the manuscripts of which were used
by Christian Hebraists.21
Apart from these four Hebrew-Latin psalters there is a fifth text which
shares Hebraica reading variants with the Psalterium: the Eadwine Psalter,
produced at Christ Church, Canterbury, c. 1155-60. Taking its name from
the monk Eadwine who was mainly responsible for its organisation and
design, this wonderfully illuminated work of art contains five translations
of the Psalms: the Romana, Gallicana and Hebraica versions, and Anglo-
Saxon and Anglo-Norman glosses.22 In a pioneering article on the Hebraica
in the Eadwine Psalter Sarah Larratt Keefer and David R. Burrows demon-
strate that its source is likely to be a continental Theodulfian recension
with glosses which translate the Hebrew more closely than the Theodulfian
body text. A copy of this recension circulated in Kent by the mid-tenth
century and in the Eadwine Psalter a reduced number of these hebraized
glosses are contained in the main text rather than in the margins. 23
An exhaustive analysis of the overlap between readings of these psalters
and the Psalterium lies beyond the scope of this work but it would be use-
ful to illustrate their common ground with the following examples. Psalm
2: 12a, nashqu var pen ie’enaph/‫קּו־בר ֶּפן יֶ ֱאנַ ף‬
ַ ‫“( נַ ְּׁש‬Kiss the son, lest he be
angry”), appears in the Hebraica as “adorate pure ne forte irascatur” (“wor-
ship purely, lest he be angry”), while the Gallicana has “adprehendite dis-
ciplinam” (“take hold of/understand instruction/doctrine”). As Herbert
explains in his commentary, nashqu var/‫קּו־בר‬ ַ ‫ נַ ְּׁש‬means “diligite vel desid-
erate filium vel currite ad filium vel osculemini filium” (“‘love’ or ‘desire
the son’, or ‘run to the son’ or ‘kiss the son’”). MS Scaliger 8 retains more of
the Hebraica than Herbert does but shares with him the translation of ‫ַבר‬
as “filium”: “adorate filium vel adorate pure”. Herbert’s edition of the Gloss
has kept the Hebraica’s “adorate pure” but a marginal gloss in the Magna
Glosatura explains: “In the Hebrew we read nescubar which can be under-
stood as ‘worship the son’”.24

21 Ibid., 220-22.
22 The Eadwine Psalter: Text, Image, and Monastic Culture in Twelfth-Century Canterbury,
ed. by Margaret Gibson, T.A. Heslop, and Richard W. Pfaff (London, 1992), 193, 209.
23 For a discussion of the Hebraica in the Eadwine Psalter, see Larratt Keefer and
­Burrows, “Hebrew and the Hebraicum in late Anglo-Saxon England”, 67-73.
24 In Hebreo legitur nescubar quod interpretari potest “adorate filium”. (13va).
 Hebrew Learning Tools 65
In Psalm 4: 4, “Know that the Lord has set apart the godly (ḥasid/‫)ח ִסיד‬ ַ
for himself; the Lord will hear when I call to him”, the Hebraica’s translation
of ḥasid/‫ ַח ִסיד‬as “sanctum” appears as “misericordem” in the Psalterium,
the Eadwine Psalter, Scaliger 8, CCC10 and Lambeth 435, with, in the
Lambeth Psalter, the gloss “gallice meselicorde” (“in French meselicorde”).25
This translation of ḥasid/‫ ַח ִסיד‬into a form of “misericors” is relatively con-
sistent throughout the psalters concerned here. It seems to find its source
in the hebraized Theodulfian recension of the Hebraica.26
In Psalm 4: 8, “You have filled my heart with greater joy than when their
grain and new wine abound”, the Hebraica translates yəthirosham/‫ירֹוׁשם‬ ַ ‫יְ ִת‬
(“their new wine”) as “vinum eorum”. The Psalterium has “mustum” in its
main text, and Herbert’s arrangement of the Magna Glosatura has it as a
marginal gloss. The same reading can be found in the superscriptio of CCC10
and in a marginal gloss in Lambeth 435.
Psalm 9 holds a number of shared modifications to the Hebraica. One
that occurs repeatedly concerns the translation of ‘ani/‫“( ָענִ י‬poor”, “hum-
ble”), which we find in verses 13, 30, 33 and 38. The Hebraica as well as the
Gallicana translate this as “pauper” (“poor”) throughout. In verse 19, where
the synonym (and almost homonym) ‘anaw/‫ ָענָ ו‬is used, Jerome reads
“humilis” (“humble”). Herbert and the Scaliger author change verses 13, 33
and 38 to have a form of “humilis” but leave “pauper” in verse 30 as it is.
They seem to interpret ‘ani/‫ ָענִ י‬as “poor” and ‘anaw/‫ ָענָ ו‬as “humble”, and
read verses 13, 19, 33 and 38 as containing a form of ‘anaw/‫ענָ ו‬,ָ not ‘ani/‫ענִ י‬.ָ
Lambeth 435 and another thirteenth-century Psalter of English provenance,
Paris, BnF, MS. hébr. 113 read verse 38 in the same vein.27
As has been shown above, Herbert’s arrangement of the Magna
Glosatura shares with the Psalterium, the Eadwine Psalter and certain
Hebrew-Latin psalters several revised readings of the Hebraica, such as the
reading “misericors” instead of “sanctus”. What distinguishes the Magna
Glosatura from the other works, however, is that its variants occur as cor-
rections, usually in the margins, to the traditional Hebraica text.28 The
script of the corrections seems to be late twelfth-century. However, as a
more expert palaeographical analysis of these corrections is lacking it

25 See also Dahan’s mention of this revision in Lambeth 435 in “Deux psautiers hébreux”,
72.
26 Larratt Keefer and Burrows, “Hebrew and the Hebraicum in late Anglo-Saxon Eng-
land”, 67-68.
27 Dahan, “Deux psautiers hébreux”, 66; for a description of the MS., see Olszowy-
Schlanger, Les manuscrits hébreux, 181-87.
28 For example, in Psalms 2, 9, 15 (16), 63 (64), 130 (131), 131 (132).
66 chapter two
remains unclear whether they were made by the same hand as that of the
main text or not, and if not, how much that different hand postdates the
production of the manuscript. If we accept that these corrections were
made by Herbert, or under his supervision, before the composition of the
Psalterium we can assume that they foreshadow Herbert’s second work. If
they appeared afterwards, or if they were not made under Herbert’s super-
vision, the person responsible must have compared the text of the Magna
Glosatura with either the Psalterium itself, or with another text predating
c. 1191 which reflects the tradition to which the Psalterium belongs.
The resemblances indicated above between the Psalterium and the other
psalters are too numerous and too specific to be coincidental. Considering
the date and provenance of both Scaliger 8 and the Eadwine Psalter, it is
possible that Herbert relied on them as a translation aid. If he did, however,
it is unlikely that Scaliger 8 was his only Hebrew-Latin source of reference
of the sort, since most of it lacks a glossed Latin translation. What the read-
ings in the Psalterium, as a late twelfth-century commentary, do suggest,
is that Scaliger 8 was not a unicum for its time, and that at least one other
Hebrew-Latin glossed psalter of a type and completeness akin to CCC10 or
Lambeth 435 may have been available to Herbert. The Eadwine Psalter,
with its complete Hebraica version in the hebraized Theodulfian recension,
presents itself as a more likely source for the Psalterium and perhaps the
arrangement of the Magna Glosatura. Herbert could have gleaned from it
at Christ Church, either before accompanying the Archbishop to France
in 1164, or when visiting in the late 1180s to hand over his edition of the
Magna Glosatura.
A comparison of variant readings shared by the Psalterium, the arrange-
ment of the Magna Glosatura, the Eadwine Psalter and the group of
Hebrew-Latin psalters has revealed two things. First, it has become clear
that these readings belong to a common tradition of text-critical revision
of the Hebraica based upon a ninth-century Theodulfian recension with
hebraized glosses which circulated in Kent from the late tenth century
onwards. Second, these findings solidify the claim, made only hypothet-
hically up till now, that Christian exegetes of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries used multilingual psalters as learning aids for the study of Hebrew
at both an elementary and a more advanced level.
 Hebrew Learning Tools 67
3. Hebraico-French Glosses—Le‘azim

Herbert does not follow his Latin sources slavishly. Next to critically assess-
ing his variant Latin readings on an internal basis, he also compares the
Latin with the Masoretic text and and with its interpretation by his main
Jewish authority, Rashi. There is one aspect of Rashi’s exegesis which gives
yet another dimension to Herbert’s use of language in his translations. In
Psalm 6: 8, “My eye is weak with sorrow; it fails/it is frail because of all my
enemies”, the Hebraica translates ‘ashəshah/‫“( ָע ְׁש ָׁשה‬is weak”) as “caligavit”
(“wastes away”, “is misty”). Herbert translates it as “lanternavit” (“has
become glassy”) and comments:
“Is misty”, etc. But what we put here, less usual, is “lanternavit”, to express
the meaning of the Hebrew verb used here. For this verb is used according
to the Hebrew so as to convey that the person whose eye-sight is misty sees
as it were through a lamp, with the light shut in.29
As Goodwin has already shown, this passage is a paraphrase of Rashi’s
exegesis on the same verse:30
‘asesah It becomes glassy is a cognate of [the noun] ‘asasit [which means]
lanterne in O.F. [The psalmist speaks of] an eye, whose perception of light
is weak so that is seems to him [the person whose eye is here described]
that he is looking through [foggy] glass, which is [placed] before his eye.31
A juxtaposition of these passages reveals that Herbert not only integrates
Rashi’s explanation of ‘ashəshah/‫ ָע ְׁש ָׁשה‬in his commentary, he also takes
pains to preserve the Rabbi’s Old French translation of the verb into his
own Latin rendering of the verse.
Throughout his commentaries on the Bible and the Talmud, Rashi reg-
ularily clarifies the meaning of more obscure Hebrew words by translating
them into Old French. These translations, which are written in Hebrew
characters, were intended for a scholarly, French-speaking, Jewish audi-
ence, and were called le‘azim (‫)לעזים‬.32 In the Rabbinic period the noun

29 Psalterium, fol. 8r: Caligavit, et cetera. Quod vero minus usitate ponimus hic: lanter-
navit ad Hebrei verbi hic positi proprietatem exprimendam factum est. Hic enim iuxta
Hebreum tale ponitur verbum, quo notatur quod hic is cuius oculi caligat visus sic est quasi
videat per lucernam, igne incluso.
30 Goodwin, Take Hold …, 237-38.
31 Gruber, Rashi, 191 (English), 812-13 (Hebrew); in Psalm 30 (31): 10, however, where the
same verb occurs, Herbert follows the Hebraica and translates “caligavit” instead of “lan-
ternavit”.
32 One of the reasons for this might be that the Talmud forbids the use of the Latin
alphabet; see the discussion by Ben Zion Wacholder, “Cases of Proselytizing in the Tosafist
68 chapter two
la‘az covered any language into which the Bible was translated, including
Latin. Later in the Latin West, the term was increasingly used to denote
Romance languages. In the High Middle Ages the meaning of la‘az came
to include not just “vernacular language” but also “vernacular gloss”.33
Rashi’s procedure of incorporating le‘azim into his commentaries was
not unique. Menahim Banitt argues that Rashi relied on a tradition of
glossing and translating the Hebrew Bible that was already well established
in Jewish schools at the time. With the translation of the Bible into the
vernacular, Jewish children took the second step in their education, after
they had learnt to read and write. The teachers involved at this intermedi-
ate level were called poterim (‫פתרים‬, “translators, interpreters”) because
of the role they played in translating and explaining the biblical text. Rashi
occasionally refers to them in his commentaries as the source of a particu-
lar la‘az. Next to material provided by anonymous poterim, Rashi also
borrows Old French translations from his older contemporary and teacher
Rabbenu Gershom. This suggests, according to Banitt, that the use of ver-
nacular glosses was already integrated into rabbinic teaching in the first
half of the eleventh century. However, M. Ahrend remains sceptical of a
widespread tradition of vernacular biblical translation prior to the thir-
teenth century.34
Whereas vernacular translation is only secondary in Rashi’s commentar-
ies, it forms the central element of several other high and later medieval
Ashkenazi works. Banitt mentions six Hebrew-French glossaries that are
more or less complete, fragments of nine more glossaries and three dic-
tionaries, all dating from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The
le‘azim occurring in the commentaries of Rashi and in the independent
glossaries have proved to be an invaluable source of information; from a
linguistic point of view they have greatly enriched our knowledge of medi-
eval French vocabulary and grammar, and from a socio-historical perspec-
tive they serve as evidence that, next to Hebrew, the vernacular also

Responsa”, Jewish Quarterly Review 51 (1960): 188-315, at 302-304; Goodwin, Take Hold …,
237-38.
33 Menahem Banitt, “The La’azim of Rashi and of the French Biblical Glossaries”, in
World History of the Jewish People: The Dark Ages 711-1096, ed. by Cecil Roth (New Brunswick,
NJ, 1966), 291-96, at 291.
34 Banitt, World History, 292-93; idem, “Les poterim”, REJ 125 (1966), 21-33; Gruber, Rashi,
204n3; 460n104; 489n46; see also Goodwin, Take Hold …, 157-59; M. Ahrend, “Rashi’s Method
in Explaining Words” (in Hebrew), in Sepher Rashi, ed. Z. A. Steinfeld (Ramit-Gan, 1993),
cited in Avraham Grossman, “The School of Literal Jewish Exegesis in Northern France”, in
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, vol. I/2: The Middle Ages, ed.
Magne Sæbø (Göttingen, 2000), 338.
 Hebrew Learning Tools 69
occupied a significant place within the Jewish education system of the
period, not only at intermediate but also, as Rashi’s commentaries dem-
onstrate, at a higher level.35
Rashi’s manuscripts of the Psalms contain over fifty different le‘azim, of
which Herbert includes at least twelve in his Psalterium. Since he absorbs
these le‘azim into his work in a variety of ways, it would be useful to men-
tion all those I have found, and to elaborate on a few which are particularly
telling.
In Psalm 16 (17): 14:
O Lord, by your hand save me from such men, from men in this world whose
reward is in this life. You still the hunger of those you cherish; their sons
have plenty and they store up wealth for their children
the Hebraica translates miməthim/‫“( ִמ ְמ ִתים‬from men”) as “a viris” and
meḥeled/‫“( ֵמ ֶח ֶלד‬in/of the world”) as “in profundo” (“in the abyss”). Herbert
modifies this to “a mortuis” (“from the dead”) and “in rubigine” (literally:
“in rust”). Herbert associates məthid/‫ ְמ ִתים‬with the root mwt/‫“( מות‬to die”)
and therefore understands the word as “dead ones”, even though he appears
to be aware that məthim/‫ ְמ ִתים‬usually means “men”. His source for this
exegesis is Rashi, who applies the verse to two different groups of people:
those who die “by your hand”, i.e., suddenly, and those who die “in the
world”, i.e., of old age:
mimetim: your hand [i.e.], among those who die [min hammetim] by your
hand upon their beds. I prefer to be mimetim … meheled [i.e.], among those
who die in old age after having been afflicted with a skin rash [i.e.], roilie
in Old French and among the virtuous, whose share is in life.36
Possibly drawing on Esther Rabbah 3: 8 Rashi links ḥeled/‫ח ֶלד‬,ֶ (“duration”,
“world”), here to the Rabbinical Hebrew word ḥelodah/‫חלודה‬, which means
“rust” but also “skin disease”. He translates it as ‫רודייל‬, “rodiyyl”, an Old
French form related to the modern French “rouille”.37
Herbert incorporates the meaning “rust” as “rubigo” in his Latin transla-
tion but seems hesitant to follow Rashi in his interpretation of the “men/
dead of the world” as the virtuous who die of old age. Instead he tries to
reconcile his preference for “in rubigine” with the Hebraica reading “in

35 Banitt, “La’azim”, 295-96.

36 Les gloses françaises de Raschi dans la Bible, ed. by Arsène Darmesteter, Louis ­Brandin
and Julien Weill (Paris, 1909), 107; Gruber, Rashi, 234 (English), 817 (Hebrew); I have not
included variant spellings.
37 Gruber, Rashi, 236n25.
70 chapter two
profundo” by considering these men as having died in vice.38 However, he
adds the traditional Jewish Midrash almost as an afterthought to his com-
mentary on Psalm 16 (17). “Several of the Hebrew masters” interpret the
verse as about the just and those who complete the number of their days
in peace. “In rust” does not refer to vice but to the many defects which old
age usually brings. “Remember the days of your youth”, the then septuage-
narian Herbert admonishes, with Ecclesiastes 12: 1-2.39
In 39 (40): 3, “He lifted me up from the pit of slime, from the mud of mire;
he set my feet on a rock and gave me a firm place to stand”, the Hebraica
has “et eduxit me de lacu famoso”. Herbert follows a reading from Theodulf’s
version (Θ) and has de lacu sonitus instead. This choice echoes Rashi, who
comments:
Out of the pit of tumult [i.e.] out of the imprisonment of Egypt and out of the
tumult of their roaring. The slimy clay [i.e.] from the Reed Sea. [The word]
hayyawen, “slime” is a synonym of repeš “mire”; [it means] fanjos “mud” in
O.F.40
Herbert includes both Rashi’s explanation of sha’on/‫“( ָׁשאֹון‬roar”, “din”) as
“sonitus”, and of hayyawen/‫“( ַהּיָ וֵ ן‬mud”) as “lutum”, into his commentary
and translates the la‘az “fanjos” (‫ )פניוש‬into Latin as “fenum”.41

38 Psalterium, fol. 19v: a mortuis manus tue; id est ab illis impiis quos tu solus sicut vis
et quando vis per mortem perdere potes [ …] Vel potest eciam iuxta Hebreum legi hic: a
viris manus tue. Et vocat viros manus Domini: illos quorum sicut corda et corpora in manu
Dei solius sunt. Eosdem sicut quos dixerat prius mortuos manus Domini, de quibus perse-
quitur. Qui mortui sunt in rubigine viciorum vel in profundo. Et rubiginis nomen hic Hebreo
plus consonat, quorum scilicet mortuorum manus Domini vel mortuorum in rubigine
viciorum qui idem ipsi sunt: pars est in vita, scilicet presenti, nulla vero in futura.
39 Psalterium, fol. 20r: Verum hunc psalmi versiculum A mortuis manus tue Domine
[Psalm 16 (17):14] et cetera quem nos iuxta psalmi consequenciam interpretati sumus de
quadam impiorum specie, id est, de potentibus impiis, Hebreorum litteratorum nonnulli
de iustis et hiis qui annorum suorum numerum in pace complent interpretantur, dicentes
mortuos manus Domini: qui dierum suorum terminum pro ut eis constituit Dominus pera-
gunt; morte non illata sed naturali decedentes. Et tales sicut in psalmo adicitur mortuos
dicunt in rubigine: non viciorum sed multorum defectuum quos secum senectus afferre
solet. Unde et admonet sapiens: ut memor sis creatoris tui in diebus iuventutis tue; antequam
veniat temporis afflictionis et appropinquent anni de quibus dicas: non michi placent; ante-
quam tenebrescat sol et cetera [Ecclesiastes 12: 1-2]. Ubi multi infirmi et rubiginosi senectutis
comites comnumerantur.
The same translation of ḥeled/‫ ֶח ֶלד‬as rubigo occurs in Psalms 38 (39): 6 and 48 (49): 2,
on both occasions inspired by Rashi’s translation rodiyyl or rodile in the same verse.
40 Gruber, Rashi, 328 (English), 825 (Hebrew).
41 Psalterium, fol. 40r: De lacu vel puteo sonitus, id est de carcere Egypti terribili quo me
instanter ad operandum urgebant. Et de luto ceni, hoc tangit quod inperando lutum vel
fenum, scilicet paleam commiscebant.
 Hebrew Learning Tools 71
In Psalm 49 (50): 11, “I know every bird in the mountains; and the crea-
tures in the field are mine”, the Hebraica translates “the creatures in the
field are mine” as “universitas agri mecum est”. Herbert comes up with
“motus agrorum meorum mecum est” (literally: “the herd of my fields is
mine”). His translation of ziz/‫ זִ יז‬as “motus” relies on Rashi’s explanation of
the word:
The creatures [ziz] of the field, [i.e.], the creeping things of the field. [They
are called ziz] because they move [zazim] from place to place. [i.e., ziz is
the semantic equivalent of] esmouvement in O.F.42
Herbert reflects the meaning of ‫אישמובמנט‬, “esmouvement”, in the use of
“motus”, and of “movencia” in his commentary: “Movement, namely of
creeping things of the fields, serpents and the like which move”.43
Two obvious borrowings from Rashi are found in the following verses.
In Psalm 55 (56): 2 “Have mercy upon me, God, because man persecutes
me; all day long he has pressed his attack”, ki shə’aphani ’enosh/‫י־ׁש ָא ַפנִ י‬ ְ ‫ִכ‬
‫“( ֱאנֹוׁש‬because man persecutes me”) appears in the Hebraica as “quoniam
conculcavit me homo” (“because man tramples me”). Herbert replaces this
by “quoniam gulosauit me homo” (“because man devours me”) and adds:
“He says ‘devours me’: by the opening of his throat, and by his appetite, this
is, he seeks to devour me”.44 “Gulosare” (“to devour”) is again based upon
a la’az by Rashi, who has “Men persecute me [se’apani ’enos], they seek to
swallow me: goloser, “desire passionately” in O.F”.45
In Psalm 57 (58): 9, “Like a slug melting away as it moves along, like a
stillborn child of woman, may they not see the sun”, the Hebraica reads
nephel ’esheth/‫“( נֵ ֶפל ֵא ֶׁשת‬a fall of a woman”, i.e., a stillbirth or miscarriage)
as “abortivum mulieris”. Rather startlingly, this is modified in the Psalterium
to “talpa” (“mole”). Rashi understands the noun nephel/‫נֵ ֶפל‬, in its most
basic sense as “a fall”, and explains ’esheth/‫ ֵא ֶׁשת‬as
The falling of an ‘eset, [which is called] in O.F. talpe “mole”, which has no
eyes. It is [the biblical Hebrew] tinsemet “mole” (Leviticus 20: 12), which we
render into Aram. ‘asuta’ “mole”; so did our Rabbis interpret it [‘eset], but
some interpret it “a woman’s stillbirth”.46

42 Gruber, Rashi, 381 (English), 828 (Hebrew).

43 Psalterium, fol. 53v: Motus scilicet reptilia agrorum serpencia et huiusmodi se
­movencia.
44 Psalterium, fol. 58r: Gulosauit dicit: ab hiatu gule et appetitu, hoc est ad degluciendum
me querit.
45 Gruber, Rashi, 403 (English), 830 (Hebrew).
46 Gruber, Rashi, 410 (English), 831 (Hebrew).
72 chapter two
In Psalm 74 (75): 9, “In the hand of the Lord is a cup full of foaming wine
mixed with spices; he pours it out and all the wicked of the earth drink it
down to its very dregs”, the meaning of wəyayin ḥamar male’ mesekh/‫וְ יַ יִ ן‬
‫ ָח ַמר ָמ ֵלא ֶמ ֶסְך‬is considered problematic by both Rashi and Herbert.
A substantial part of Herbert’s commentary on this verse is devoted to
the meaning of wəyayin ḥamar/‫“( וְ יַ יִ ן ָח ַמר‬and the wine foams/is strong”),
which appears in the Hebraica and in the Psalterium as “vino meraco”
(“unmixed wine”). Rashi interprets the phrase as “strong wine”, thereby
associating ḥamar/‫ ָח ַמר‬with the Rabbinical Hebrew adjective meaning
“strong”. His Old French translation is ‫וינוש‬, “vinose”, meaning of high
quality.47 An echo of this can be found in Herbert’s clarification of “vino
meraco”:
And it does not say here mixed from a mixture, as if different liquids were
mixed together in that chalice of the Lord. For it was full of “unmixed wine”,
that is fine (“vinoso”) and pure [wine].48
In Psalm 82 (83): 14, “Make them [i.e., Your enemies] like whirling dust/
tumbleweed (‫)ּגַ ְלּגַ ל‬, o my God, like chaff before the wind”, the Hebraica
translates galgal/‫ ּגַ לּגַ ל‬literally as “wheel” (“rota”). Rashi reads it as “thistle-
down” and comments:
Now what is thistledown [galgal]? It is the tops of thistles of the field, which
are called cardons “thistles” in O.F. When the winter arrives they become
detached and removed automatically, and they open up slowly so that the
part which is detached assumes the appearance of the rim of the wheel of
a wagon, and the wind carries it away.49
Whereas Herbert keeps the Hebraica reading entirely in his main transla-
tion, he incorporates the Latin equivalent of “cardons” in his commentary:
According to the letter he prays that they may fall like the heads of thistles
(“carduorum”) which, dried-up, are whirled around by the blowing of the
wind, like wheels or small wheels/cogs (?), over the surface of the fields.50
A perhaps less obvious integration of one of Rashi’s le‘azim occurs in
Herbert’s main translation of Psalm 88 (89): 18, “For you are their glory and
strength, and by your favour you exalt our horn”. He reflects uvirtsonəkha/

47 Gruber, Rashi, 500-501, 503n21-22 (English), 840 (Hebrew).

48 Psalterium, fol. 88r: Et non dicitur hic mixtus a mixtura, quasi diversi liquores in
calice isto Domini sint commixti. Nam vino meraco, id est vinoso et puro, plenus erat.
49 Gruber, Rashi, 547 (English), 843 (Hebrew).
50 Psalterium, fol. 99r: Ad litteram precatur ut decidant tanquam capita carduorum,
que exsiccata; venti impulsu volvuntur instar rote vel rotelle per agrorum planiciem.
 Hebrew Learning Tools 73
‫ּוב ְרצֹנְ ָך‬
ִ (“and by your favour”) as “et in placacione tua” (“and in appeasing
you”), and not, like the Hebraica’s, as “et in misericordia tua” (“and in your
mercy”). He explains further “this is, if you have been appeased” (“si placa-
tus fueris”).51 He bases himself on Rashi’s interpretation:
Through your favour [i.e.], when You are pleased with them [i.e., Israel].
[The noun rason “favour” means] apaiement “appeasement” in Old French.52
A possible borrowing of another one of Rashi’s le‘azim occurs in Psalm 108
(109): 8, “May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership”.
Herbert translates pəkuddatho/‫ ְּפ ֻק ָּדתֹו‬as “preposituram” (“provostship”,
general role of authority) instead of the Hebraica’s “episcopatum” (“epis-
copate”, general role of ecclesiastical authority), arguing that it goes against
the Hebraica veritas as nowhere in the Old Testament does “episcopatus”
occur.53 His translation “preposituram” is reminiscent of Rashi’s la’az
‫פרוושטיאה‬, “provostie”, which means “exalted (administrative) status”.54
Finally, in Psalm 148: 8, “lightning and hail (barad/‫)ב ָרד‬, ָ snow and
clouds/smoke (qitor/‫)קיטֹור‬,
ִ stormy winds that do his bidding”, the Hebraica
has “hail” (“grando”) and “ice” (“glacies”), which, the Psalterium argues,
should be “ice” (“glacies”) and “fog” (the manuscript reading could be either
“bruma” or “bruina”). “Bruma” is usually understood as “winter solstice,
winter time”, “mid-winter”, and “brumesco” as “to grow foggy”,55 but here,
possibly influenced by contemporary French usage, it seems to mean “fog”:
And it says “fog” (“bruma/bruina”), in particular a very thick cloud, just as
is accepted here, but earlier on by the noun “hail” he generally understands
“ice” (“glaciem”).56
This appears to be directly lifted from Rashi, who comments:
Fire and hail; glace in O.F. and smoke, a dark cloud, which is called bruïne
“fog” [in O.F.].57

51 Psalterium, fol. 107r.

52 Gruber, Rashi, 569 (English), 845 (Hebrew).
53 Psalterium, fol. 130r: Secundum Hebreum preposituram non episcopatum dicit.
Nusquam enim in veteri testamento secundum veritatem Hebraicam nomen episcipati seu
episcopatus invenitur.
54 Gruber, Rashi, 640 (English), 850 (Hebrew).
55  Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources, with Supplement,
prepared by R.E. Latham, (London, 1999), 57; Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British
Sources, prepared by R.E.Latham (London: 1975), 219-220.
56 Psalterium, fol. 158r: Et dicitur bruma/bruina proprie, spississima nebula qualiter hic
accipitur; supra vero nomine grandinis generaliter glaciem intellexit.
57 Gruber, Rashi, 760 (English), 860 (Hebrew).
74 chapter two
4. Hebrew-Hebraico-French Glossaries and Proto-dictionaries

The examples above demonstrate that Herbert’s techniques and choices

of translation are founded upon the work of two figures, who each represent
a different religious tradition and who, within that tradition, fulfil a power-
fully authoritative role. Jerome, as main Christian source, provides both
the core translation of the Psalms from which Herbert builds up his exege-
sis and a methodology of revising the Latin text of the Bible with the aid
of Rabbinic thought. For Herbert, Rashi’s commentary on the Psalms very
much serves as work of reference which enables him to modify, and update
the language of, the Latin text.
Herbert’s integration of several of Rashi’s le‘azim shows that the use of
the vernacular, as the only language common in equal measures to both
Christians and Ashkenazi Jews at the time, was not restricted to the world
of commerce or day-to-day speech. In Herbert’s case, Old French was the
only language in which he and his Jewish interpreter(s) felt comfortable
discussing matters of exegesis with each other. For Jews, and for the few
Christians who had advanced that far in their study of Hebrew, it facilitated
understanding of the Masorah and of Rashi’s commentaries. In his article
on this topic Banitt mentions the existence of independent Hebrew-
Hebraico-French glossaries on the Bible. Although the manuscripts in
which these glossaries have survived all postdate the twelfth century, they
contain variants which may go back to a long and independent tradition.58
It is interesting to note that several Hebraico-French translations in two
of these thirteenth-century glossaries, Paris, Bn,F MS héb. n° 302 and
Leipzig, Univerzitätsbibliothek, MS Vollers 1099, the so-called Leipzig
Glossary, resemble changes made by Herbert in the Psalterium which are
independent of Rashi.
For example, in Psalm 9: 17, “The Lord is known by his justice; the wicked
are ensnared by the work of their hands. Higgaion selah” the words “hig-
gaion selah” (‫)הּגָ יֹון ֶס ָלה‬
ִ occur in the Psalterium as “sermone sempiterno”
(“with everlasting speech”) instead of the Hebraica’s reading “sonitu sem-
piterno” (“with everlasting sound/noise”). This choice mirrors the reading
“parole”, meaning “speech”, in the glossary tradition.59

58 Le glossaire de Leipzig, ed. and ann. by Banitt; Glossaire Hébreu-Français du XIIIe
siècle, ed. by Mayer Lambert and Louis Brandin (Paris, 1905); Marc Kiwitt, “Les glossaires
hébreu-français du XIIIe siècle et la culture juive en France du nord”, in Cultures et Lexicogra­
phie. Actes des “Troisièmes Journées allemandes des dictionnaires” en l’honneur d’Alain Rey,
Klingenberg, 4.-6. Juli 2008, edited by Michaela Heinz. (Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2010), 113-25.
59 Lambert and Brandin, Glossaire, 168.
 Hebrew Learning Tools 75
In verse 26 of the same psalm (Psalm 10: 5), “His ways are always pros-
perous; he is haughty and your laws are far from him; he sneers at all his
enemies”, Herbert translates yaphiaḥ/‫“( יָ ִפ ַיח‬he sneers”), as “exsufflat”
(literally: “he puffs out [smoke]”) and not as “dispicit” (“he looks down
upon”) according to the Hebraica. The Hebraico-French glossary tradition
supplies “suflera”.60 The similarity between the Psalterium and the glossary
is not consistent, however, because in Psalm 26 (27): 12, where Herbert
translates the noun wipheaḥ/ ‫יפ ַח‬ ֵ ִ‫ ו‬as “sufflatorium”, the glossary has
“parlont”.61
In Psalm 14 (15): 3, “Who does not slander with his tongue; who does his
fellow man no wrong and casts no slur on his neighbour/nearest”, Herbert
translates lo’ ragal/‫א־רגַ ל‬
ָ ֹ ‫ל‬, which is of uncertain meaning, as “Qui non
accusat” (“Who does not accuse”). His reading differs from the Hebraica
which has “qui non est facilis” (“who is not easy/garrulous”) instead.
Similarly to Herbert, the thirteenth-century glossary reads “ankuza”
(“accused”/“denounced”).62
Goodwin has identified another possible similarity in Psalm 73 (74): 3.
The Masoretic text has: harimah phə‘ameykha/‫ימה ְפ ָע ֶמיָך‬ ָ ‫“( ָה ִר‬Lift high
your steps”). Herbert modifies the Hebraica’s “pedum tuorum” (“your feet”)
to “pavorem tuum” (“your trembling”). Lambert and Brandin’s, and Banitt’s,
editions supply the translation “trezalemonz”/‫ט ְרזַ ְל ַמנְ ץ‬,ֵ from the verb tres-
saillir which means “leap” or, occasionally, “tremble”.63
Finally, in Psalm 128 (129): 6, “May they be like grass on the housetops,
which withers before it is pulled up”, the glossary tradition translates the
phrase sheqadəmath shalaph yavesh/‫( ֶׁש ַּק ְד ַמת ָׁש ַלף יָ ֵבׁש‬literally “before it
is pulled up, it dries up”) as “ke éynzoys ke déchalzét sécha”.64 “Déchalzer”,
also spelled “déschalcier” or “deschaucer”, means “to take off (horse) shoes”,
“to expose roots of a plant”.65 Whereas the Hebraica has “statim ut viruerit
arescet” (“as soon as it shoots it will dry up”), Herbert’s reading resembles
that of the glossary: “priusquam discalcietur arescit”. The medieval Latin
verb “discalciare” has a meaning similar to its Old French counterpart and

60 Lambert and Brandin, Glossaire, 168; Banitt, Le glossaire de Leipzig, 1036-37.

61 Lambert and Brandin, Glossaire, 171.
62 Lambert and Brandin, Glossaire, 169; Banitt, Le glossaire de Leipzig, 1042-43.
63 Goodwin, Take Hold …, 243; Lambert and Brandin, Glossaire, 181; Banitt, Le glossaire
de Leipzig, 1128-29.
64 Lambert and Brandin, Glossaire, 188; Banitt, Le glossaire de Leipzig, 1190-91.
65 Dictionnaire du Moyen Français, (Atilf-CNRS & Université de Lorraine, version 2012)
http://www.atilf.fr/dmf, entry “déchausser”.
76 chapter two
means “unshoe”, while “discalciare” as alternative spelling of “discalaciare”
means “to clear (vineyard) of vine-stakes”.66
What conclusions can be drawn from this analysis of Herbert’s methods
of transliteration and translation, his grasp of the Hebrew language, and
use of reference tools? The collection of Hebrew words occurring in the
Psalterium seems to greatly outnumber that of similar Hebraist works of
the time, such as Hugh’s and Andrew’s commentaries. Yet it stays in line
with those contemporary works in the sense that Hebrew words only ever
appear in transliterated form, apparently for the reason of facilitating read-
ership and copying by non-Hebraists. Although his spelling of Hebrew
words in transliteration is inconsistent, which might be partly due to scribal
errors, and to the general inconsistency of the spelling in Latin and French
at the time, his interpretations of these words are usually accurate and only
a minority of those words can be found in earlier, usually Hieronymian
sources.
Herbert’s method of translation seems to be geared towards one goal,
which is inherently linked with his larger exegetical programme of
expounding the literal sense. He aims to clarify the meaning of the indi-
vidual words of the Psalms in their context by modifying faulty translations
and by explaining possibly misleading ones. He therefore follows three
rules, albeit not systematically. His first strategy is to translate Hebrew
lexica as literally as possible, even if a more figurative meaning has been
used by Jerome. To do this he makes a particular effort to translate words
from the same Hebrew roots with equivalents from the same Latin roots.
Second, he seems to honour the principle that any one Hebrew word should
be rendered by the same Latin one, which should preferably come from
the same grammatical category as the Hebrew original. This ‘a noun for a
noun, a verb for a verb’ procedure yields several highly apt and inventive
readings but also results sometimes in a violation of Latin syntax. Yet it is
not implemented as rigorously as in some of the Hebrew-Latin psalters
discussed by Olszowy-Schlanger, where even particles such as the Hebrew
definite article and the object marker are given a Latin translation. A third
aspect of Herbert’s translation method lies in his attempts, which are spo-
radic rather than systematic, to update Jerome’s language.
On a second level, Herbert seems to have some awareness of text-criti-
cal problems surrounding the Masoretic text; this is noticeable in his choice
of text in Psalm 32 (33): 7 and in his reference to a kethib qere in Psalm

66 DMLBS, 675.
 Hebrew Learning Tools 77
21: 17. His knowledge of Hebrew grammar and vocabulary is better attested
and seems to be larger than that of any other Christian Hebraist of his time.
However, his aim is to comment on the Psalms, not to provide a grammar
book and therefore, in contrast to the Hebrew grammar attributed to Roger
Bacon and the Longleat grammar, Herbert only explains Hebrew gram-
matical rules and idiom when he deems it necessary, and concentrates on
clarifying specific usages in their context rather than on supplying general
rules.
His influences and reference tools are of both Christian and Jewish
origin. His first source of reference is Jerome, whose works provide the
ground text for his Psalterium and set a methodological precedent for
Herbert’s revision of that ground text. He supplements this lexical aid
offered by Jerome with readings from the main Jewish authority on literal
biblical exegesis at the time, Rashi. Herbert’s resourceful absorption of a
collection of Rashi’s le‘azim proves to be, as far as we know, unique for a
Christian exegete. In addition to those le‘azim the Psalterium also reveals
similarities with at least two thirteenth-century Hebrew-Hebraico-French
glossaries, which adds weight to Banitt’s claim that these glossaries are the
result of a longer established tradition. Earlier copies of the Leipzig Glossary,
which was composed in Rouen, Normandy, may have found their way
across the channel as Norman Jews settled in England.67
On the Christian side, the Psalterium shows remarkably strong resem-
blance to a mid-twelfth-century, and several early to mid-thirteenth-cen-
tury, Hebrew-Latin Psalters of English provenance. While it has been
suggested that these psalters were used by Christians as learning aids and
reference tools, solid evidence for this has up till now been wanting.
Although the intertextuality between the Psalterium and the only psalter
that predates it (Scaliger 8) does not prove that Herbert used this particu-
lar psalter, it does show that both works are part of the same underlying
tradition of Hebrew learning and of textual criticism of the Psalms. This
tradition is also represented in the overlaps that exist between some revi-
sions in the Psalterium, in the group of Hebrew-Latin Psalters mentioned,
and in certain entries and cross references in the mid- to late-thirteenth-
century Hebrew-Latin-French dictionary contained in the Longleat MS 21.
Our study has traced these similarities back to the ninth-century hebraized

67 Joseph Hillaby, “Jewish Colonisation in the Twelfth Century”, in Jews in Medieval

Britain: Historical, Literary and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. by Patricia Skinner (Wood-
bridge, 2003), 15-40, 16.
78 chapter two
glosses of the Theodulfian recension, as reflected in the mid-twelfth-cen-
tury Eadwine Psalter.
It is not out of the question that Herbert used an earlier version of the
Longleat Dictionary, and quite possible that he worked from a Hebrew-
Latin psalter more complete than Scaliger 8; that the Eadwine Psalter, or
an examplar of its Hebraica, served as foundation for Herbert’s own revision
is highly probable.
A further source for Herbert’s Psalterium was at least one contemporary
tutor who provided translations from the Masoretic text and from Rashi,
and who possibly offered cross references. This last source, in combination
with the ones previously mentioned, suggests that there existed at the time
in French and English intellectual circles a framework which enabled Jews
and Christians to exchange exegetical and text-critical knowledge and
ideas, and which was more intense and better established than previously
assumed. Herbert’s method of translating le‘azim into Latin, together with
other evidence we possess, such as the use of French glosses in the Longleat
dictionary, demonstrates that the language through which scholars con-
ducted this cross-religious exchange, whether in England or France, was
French.68

68 See also Olszowy-Schlanger, “Christian Hebraism in Thirteenth-Century England”,

115-22; De Visscher, “Cross- religious Learning and Teaching”, 123-32; a recent and compre-
hensive analysis of the subject in medieval France is Kirsten A. Fudeman, Vernacular Voices:
Language and Identity in Medieval French Jewish Communities (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2010).
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 79

Chapter Three

The Use of Rabbinic Sources

As has become clear in the previous chapter, two Jewish texts intensively
used by Herbert are Rashi’s commentary on the Psalms and the anonymous
Hebrew-Hebraico-French glossary tradition. The Psalterium further reflects
influence from the Talmud, a compendium of Jewish law, history and
custom, composed in late antiquity, which in mainstream Judaism is con-
sidered a central text next to the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures); the Targums,
which are translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures into
Aramaic, written down in the early centuries ce; and the Midrash to Psalms
(Midrash Tehillim or Agadat Tehillim), an homiletic commentary on
Psalms 1-118 compiled before the eleventh century. Two Sephardic gram-
marians feature too: Menahem ben Saruq (c. 920-c. 970), whose work
Mahberet (“Lexicon” or “Notebook”) constitutes the first lexical treatment
of the Hebrew biblical vocabulary, and Dunash ben Labrat (920-990), who
critiqued the Mahberet.1
What remains unclear is to what extent Herbert made use of these
sources, and how. Was he aware of which one was which? Did he consult
each one independently, or rather through the medium of those texts which
were within easiest reach, such as Rashi or the glossary tradition? We
should not forget either that yet another, more elusive, influence shaped
Herbert’s access to and interpretation of rabbinic material: his contempo-
rary teacher(s). While not straightforward to gauge, the expertise and reli-
gious background of his teacher(s), whether Jew, Jewish apostate or fellow
Christian Hebraist, not to mention the degree to which a personal relation-
ship developed between teacher(s) and pupil, left its imprint on the
Psalterium as well.
In Psalm 88(89): 52b Herbert translates ḥerəphu ‘iqəvot məshiḥekha/
ֶ ‫“( ֵח ְרפּו ִע ְּקבֹות ְמ ִׁש‬they mocked the steps of your anointed one”) as
‫יחָך‬
“exprobraverunt vestigia christi tui” (“they mocked the steps of your
anointed one/Christ). He uses Rashi’s exegesis on this verse and mentions
that it was “translated faithfully from Hebrew into Latin by my talkative

1 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 46-69; Goodwin, Take Hold …, 235-75.

80 chapter three
[one]”.2 Although it is admittedly more difficult to trace the influence of
an oral source than of a written one, it is essential that we keep reminding
ourselves of the existence of one or more mediators in the shadows who
helped Herbert negotiate his texts.

1. Magister and Litterator

As Loewe has already mentioned, Herbert tends to refer to his Jewish

sources as either magistri or litteratores. In her analysis of the latter term,
Goodwin states that it was an unusual way of addressing Jewish authorities,
which was only shared in this sense by Herbert’s later contemporary and
fellow Hebraist Alexander Nequam. Traditionally a litterator has the mean-
ing of “grammarian” or “philologist”, an occupation which was not always
held in high esteem. However, the revival of interest in grammar and in
the emphasis on the literal sense (littera) of scripture in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries put the role of a litterator in a more favourable light, at
least in some circles.3 As is the case with the term magister, which can refer
to a primary school teacher as well as to a scholar with a licentia docendi,
litterator also seems to cover a wide range of educational levels in Herbert’s
time. An interesting aside is the mention of the verb litterari in the
Psalterium’s discussion of Halleluyah in Psalm 104 (105): 1 Herbert explains
yah as the first half of the Tetragrammaton and adds:
And the Hebrews say that religious reverence forbids anyone to expound
either that great name of the Lord, whether in its entirety or half of it, or to
spell it out (litterari), as happens in children’s primary education.4
A note in the margin clarifies litterari as “to be accustomed to joining letter
to letter” (“solere litteram ad litteram adiungere”). Herbert’s further com-
ment that the Tetragrammaton can be written but not read as it is written
(“tum eciam quia sicut scribitur legi non potest” (124r)) may suggest that

2 Psalterium, fol. 109r: et ipsa eciam explanationis verba secundum quod ab Hebreo in
Latinum per loquacem meum fide, ni fallor, translata sunt.
I am emendating Loewe’s reading fallår to fallor, as a close look at the manuscript shows
the superscript ‘o’ to be a copyist’s emendation of the ‘a’, which has a corrective dot under-
neath; I also prefer Loewe’s reading of per loquacem (54), meaning “by [my] talkative one”,
to Loewe’s (68) and Goodwin’s perloquacem, “a very talkative one”; see Loewe, “Herbert of
Bosham’s Commentary”, 54 and 68, Goodwin, Take Hold …, 67.
3 For a more detailed discussion on the subject, see Goodwin, Take Hold …, 68-69.
4 Psalterium, fol. 124r: Et tradunt Hebrei quod magnum illud nomen Domini sive dimid-
iatum sive integrum propter reverenciam nominis nec interpretari quis debeat, nec ut in
primis puerorum rudimentis sit litterari.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 81
with litterari he means not so much the writing down but the spelling of a
word letter by letter.
Litterator in the singular is found far more frequently than the plural
litteratores (over a hundred occurrences versus sixty one) with a strong
emphasis on the first two thirds of the Psalter. From Psalm 100 onwards
the terms are only rarely mentioned. This is in line with the fact that
Herbert devotes most of his attention to the first hundred Psalms at the
cost of the last third of the Psalter, with the exception of Psalms 117 (118),
118 (119) and 132 (133). Nowhere in his commentary does Herbert use the
term litteratores to refer to Christian scholars. Magister, on the either hand,
can be either a Jew or a Christian. When used in the singular, magister
always means St Paul. When occurring in the plural we usually find an
attribute to specify whether it concerns Jewish (magistri Hebreorum) or
Christian (magistri scolarum) sources. Magistri never includes Rashi. It
seems that with magistri Herbert refers to the accepted allegorical tradition
of either Christianity or Judaism, while litterator stands for a Jewish source
explaining the peshat, the “plain” sense of scripture, which is probably the
main reason why Herbert is interested in that source in the first place.
When the term appears in the singular, it often stands for Rashi; when it
appears in the plural it seems to encompass a rabbinic interpretation of
which the source is not always clear, but which is accepted as peshat,
among contemporary Jewish scholars. With littera being the closest Latin
equivalent of peshat it is more than probable that litteratores is the Latin
translation of pashtanim, the school of eleventh- and twelfth-century
Ashkenazi scholars, spearheaded by Rashi, who expounded according to
the peshat.5

2. Rashi

Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes) lived from c. 1040 to 1105 and
produced extensive commentaries on most biblical and Talmudic books.
In addition to this, he also wrote a large collection of Responsa, written
rulings given as answer to questions concerning biblical, ethical and legal
matters, and instructed his disciples in the composition of several works
on religious law. The main intention in his commentaries is to expound

5 Goodwin, Take Hold …, 69, suggests that it may be the Latin translation of poterim,
i.e. Jewish elementary teachers, or of pashtanim. In most cases, if not all, the term pashtanim
covers the notion of litteratores best.
82 chapter three
the peshat, the plain sense of scripture, which deals with the clarification
of obscure words and stylistic and syntactic aspects of the Hebrew lan-
guage. However, he frequently includes traditional midrashic interpreta-
tions among his comments when he finds the plain meaning to be
inadequate. His writing style is proverbial for its clarity and brevity and he
is still considered to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Jewish exe-
getes.6
His work on the Psalms was written towards the end of his life and some
scholars believe he died before being able to finish it.7 One argument sup-
porting this claim is that most of the earliest manuscripts we possess of the
commentary, which date from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, do
not comment on Psalms 120 (121), 127 (128) and 133 (134), and that many
omit Psalm 66 (67), thereby leaving the work incomplete.8 In later manu-
scripts, and in early printed editions of Rashi’s commentary, discussions
of these Psalms do occur but these are generally considered inauthentic. 9
Rashi’s commentaries on the Bible and the Talmud were an instant
success among Ashkenazi communities and had spread to the Iberian
Peninsula by the beginning of the thirteenth century.10 His popularity with
Christian authors of that period, however, needs further study.11 Herbert
wrote his commentary on the Psalms less than a century after Rashi’s death.
Our manuscript of Herbert’s Psalterium cum commento, which dates from
the first quarter of the thirteenth century, therefore seems to coincide with
the earliest known full copies of Rashi’s commentary on the Psalms.
There are two modern editions of Rashi’s commentary. Isaac Maarsen’s
Parshandatha, published in the 1930s, is based upon Oxford, Bodleian
Library, MS Opp. 34 and five other thirteenth- and fourteenth-century
manuscripts reflecting the same tradition.12 Mayer Gruber’s edition and

6 For a more detailed discussion of Rashi’s life and works see Herman Hailperin, Rashi
and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh, 1963); Rashi 1040-1105, hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach,
Congrès européen des études juives, ed. by Gabrielle Sed-Rajna (Paris, 1993); Gruber, Rashi,
1-135.
7 Gruber, Rashi, 1-10.
8 D. S. Blondheim, “Liste des manuscrits des commentaires bibliques de Raschi”, Revue
des études juives 91 (1931): 70-101, mentions more than sixty manuscripts dating from the
thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. Most are of Ashkenazi provenance, a minority
originates from Sepharad or Italy.
9 Gelles, Peshat and Derash, 138-39; Gruber, Rashi, 4 and 38-39.
10 Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars, 103-07.
11 Hailperin, Ibidem, 103-34.
12 Parshandata: the Commentary of Raschi on the Prophets and Hagiographs, ed. by I.
Maarsen, 3 vols (Amsterdam and Jerusalem, 1930-36), III (1936).
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 83
translation of the Psalms, which appeared in full in 2004, takes the thir-
teenth- or fourteenth-century manuscript Austrian State Library Heb. MS.
220 (hereafter referred to as Vienna 220) as ground text, but regularly
includes Maarsen’s readings in his text-critical discussions. Since it is
beyond the scope of this book to study the manuscript tradition of Rashi’s
commentary on the Psalms in detail, I will rely on the results of these exist-
ing published editions.

a. Paraphrasing Rashi
Although Herbert in general does not acknowledge Rashi in his ample use
of the rabbi’s commentaries, the Psalterium follows Rashi’s text so closely
at times that detecting the source is a giveaway. Two striking examples of
this are found in Psalm 30 and in the titulus of Psalm 69.
In Psalm 30 (31): 24, “Love the Lord, all his saints! The Lord preserves the
faithful, but the proud he pays back in full”, Herbert changes the Hebraica
reading “satis” (“in full”) to “super nervum” (literally: “upon the sinew”;
“upon the cord”). This translation of the Hebrew ‘al yether/‫ ַעל־יֶ ֶתר‬is bor-
rowed from Rashi, who comments on the latter half of this verse:
Upon the cord [is an idiomatic meaning] “measure for measure”; [this idiom
refers to the fact that the punishment] is directed toward him [the guilty
party] like an arrow upon the cord of the bow. Alternatively, one can inter-
pret upon the cord [as standing for the cliché] “rope for rope, line for line”13
Herbert takes over Rashi’s comment but elaborates on his source’s highly
succinct style:
Upon the sinew, this is, the cord. The distinction is the following. He refers
to an archer who lays the arrow upon the cord of the bow in a straight line,
so as not to thwart the arrow’s release. Thus will the Lord deal with the
proud. In aiming an arrow that will cause a fatal wound straight at them,
he will not miss. Or understand his reading “upon the sinew”, i.e., “cord”, in
this way : it means “in a straight line”, justly and in measure to the degree
of proud behaviour, to these more, to those less. Straight and according to
measure just as a line is to measure, and straight.14

13 Gruber, Rashi, 294 (English), 822 (Hebrew).

14 Psalterium, fol. 32 r-v: Super nervum dicit, id est cordam; hec est discrecio. Et sagittanti
alludit qui directo sagittam super arcus nervum ponit, ut sagitte non frustretur emissio. Ita
faciet superbis Dominus. Letalis vulneris sagittam ad eos directam dirigens non fraudabitur;
aut quod dicit super nervum, id est cordam, sic intellige: id est ad lineam; id est recte et ad
mensuram pro superbiendi modo, hiis plus, minus illis; recte et ad mensuram sicut linea
ad mensurandum est et recta.
84 chapter three
His clarification of the Hebrew idiom goes far beyond the existing transla-
tions of “satis” (Hebraica) or “abundanter” (Gallicana). The integration of
Rashi’s peshat into his own comment enables him to sketch a tropological
image of God as archer who punishes the proud according to the severity
of their sins.
Another example where Herbert’s commentary betrays almost verbatim
influence of Rashi is Psalm 69 (70): 1 “For the director of music. Of David.
A petition” (lamənatseaḥ lədawid ləhazkir/‫)ל ְמנַ ֶּצ ַח ְל ָדוִ ד ְל ַהזְ ִּכיר׃‬.
ַ In order
to demonstrate to what extent Herbert borrows from Rashi it is necessary
to give the exegesis of both of them on this verse almost in full. Rashi has:
For the leader. Of David. Lĕhazkīr[ …] I read in Midrash Tillim [sic] [that
David may be] compared to a king who became angry at his flock so that
he tore down the sheepfold, and he turned out the flock and the shepherd.
Some time later he brought back the flock, and he rebuilt the sheepfold,
but he did not remember [lō’hizkîr] the shepherd. The shepherd said, “Look!
The flock has been returned, and the sheepfold has been rebuilt, but as for
me, I am not remembered [lō mûzkār]”. In the same way it is stated above
[in the previous psalm], For God will deliver Zion (Psalm 69: 36a), and those
who cherish His name shall dwell there (Psalm 69: 37b). Look! The sheepfold
has been rebuilt, and the flock has been gathered in, but the shepherd has
not been remembered [lō nizkar]. Therefore, it is stated (here in Psalm
70: 1-2), to remind [lĕhazkīr] (verse 1) God (verse 2) Of David (verse 1) that
he should save me (verse 2).15
The Psalterium reads:
It is narrated by a parable which according to the Hebrews is read, inserted
in a certain commentary on Tillim/the Psalms, where it relates about a cer-
tain king that he had become angry with his sheep flock. And for that rea-
son he destroyed the sheepfold and threw out the flock. After a long time
the king remembered the flock; he brought back the flock and had the fold
repaired, but the shepherd he did not remember. This is what David said
in this Psalm alluding to the parable “Because God will deliver Zion” etc.
[Psalm 68 (69): 36a]. But the king, having returned the flock and repaired
the fold, did not remember the shepherd; eventually the shepherd prays
that the king may remember him. And this is what is said here in the title
Of David, to remind.16

15 Gruber, Rashi, 467 (English), 836 (Hebrew).

16 Psalterium, fol. 78v: tractum est a parabola que secundum Hebreos in explanacione
quadam super tillim inserta legitur. Ubi de quodam rege refertur quod iratus fuerit ovicule
sue. Et ideo ovile obstruxit et oviculam eiecit. Post multum vero tempus rex ovicule recor-
datur; oviculam reduxit et ovile reparavit. Et pastoris recordatus non fuit. Hoc est quod in
presenti psalmo huius alludens parabole dixit Dauid: Quia Deus saluabit Syon et cetera
[Psalm 68(69): 36a]. Verum que rex ovicula reducta et ovili reparato pastoris recordatus
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 85
Not only does Herbert follow Rashi’s comment almost sentence for sen-
tence, including one of the latter’s cross-references, his use of the words
“parabola …in explanacione super tillim” is a literal translation of Rashi’s
terminology. Rashi writes here “and in the midrash on Psalms I have read
a parable”. Midrash/‫ מדרש‬means “explanation, exposition”, which is how
Herbert translates it; tilim/‫ תילים‬or tehilim/‫תהילים‬, meaning “Psalms”, is
transliterated as tillim. Finally, the noun masal/‫ מׂשל‬indicating “proverb”
or “parable” occurs here as “parabola”, which is in line with Herbert’s trans-
lation of the same Hebrew word in Psalms 43 (44): 15 (differing from
Jerome), 48 (49): 5 and 77 (78): 2.

b. A Medieval Christian Witness to the Rashi Manuscript Tradition

We get a glimpse of the type of Rashi manuscript Herbert could have used
in his comment on Psalm 88 (89): 39 “But you have rejected and you have
spurned, you have been angry against your anointed one/your Christ”. For
this both the Hebraica and Herbert’s version have “Tu autem reppulisti et
proiecisti: iratus es adversus christum tuum”. Rashi’s commentary reads:
Yet you have rejected. You dealt strictly with his [King David’s] descendants,
taking account of their iniquity, with respect to which you rejected them,
and You spurned them in the reign of Zedekiah.17
Gruber remarks that his preferred manuscript of Rashi’s commentary on
the Psalms, Vienna 220, originally read ‫( הזקּיה‬Hezekiah) but has been
corrected to ‫( צדקּיה‬Zedekiah) by the writing of a ‫ צ‬above the initial ‫ ה‬and
a ‫ ד‬above the second letter ‫ז‬. He states that Rashi refers here to the events
surrounding Zedekiah, the last king of Judah (2 Kings 24: 12 –25: 7) and not
to the earlier reign of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18-20).18 Interestingly,
Herbert’s interpretation conforms to the initial reading in Gruber’s manu-
script; he not only treats this verse as a reference to Hezekiah but also adds
a lengthy exegesis arguing his case. The rejection and scorn (“repulsio et
proiectio”) is directed at the descendants of David, i.e., the Kings of Judah.
It is David who is meant by “your anointed one” (“christum tuum”).
Hezekiah in particular causes the “repulsio et proiectio” when showing off
the riches in his storehouses to the foreign and uncircumcised (“alienigenis

non fuit; orat postremo pastor ut sui recordetur rex. Et hoc est quod hic in titulo dicitur
David ad recordandum.
17 Gruber, Rashi, 569-70 (English), 845 (Hebrew).
18 Gruber, Rashi, 570n25.
86 chapter three
et incircumcisis”) Babylonian royal delegation, after which the prophet
Isaiah foretells the Babylonian exile:
The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your
fathers have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing
will be left, says the Lord.
 And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood that will be
born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the pal-
ace of the king of Babylon [2 Kings 20: 17-18].
Herbert concedes that Hezekiah was generally considered a righteous king.
In fact, many thought that under his reign the temple of David would be
completed. To this relates the verse “There was no one like him among all
the kings of Judah, either before him or after him” (2 Kings 18: 5) and the
promise that there would be peace in the land as long as he was alive. It is
the disappointment at the unmet expectations of so promising a king which
has unleashed God’s repulsion for him and his descendants, and Herbert
seems in no doubt that Hezekiah is referred to here.19
Thus, Herbert’s source was possibly a Rashi manuscript from the same
tradition as Vienna 220, on which Gruber’s edition is based. The length of
this particular exegesis raises questions about its transmission. Did Herbert
just happen to make use of a manuscript containing “Hezekiah” rather than
“Zedekiah” or was “Hezekiah” the agreed reading among the Jewish schol-
ars Herbert consulted? If “Hezekiah” was the agreed reading—and Herbert
does not suggest otherwise—then Herbert’s elaborate justification of the
relationship between Psalm 89: 39ff and 2 Kings 18-20 might not be his own
finding but could be the reflection of an already established Jewish exege-
sis.
Another passage where Herbert’s commentary throws new light on
contemporary interpretations of Rashi is Psalm 54 (55): 20, “God, who is
enthroned in the east/forever (qedem/‫)ק ֶדם‬,
ֶ will hear (yishəma’/‫ )יִ ְׁש ַמע‬them
and answer/afflict them (wəya‘anem/‫)וְ יַ ֲענֵ ם‬, selah; men who never change
their ways and have no fear of God”. Rashi explains as follows:
God hears the prayer of those [aforementioned (in v. 19)] multitudes, and
the King, who is enthroned in the east answered them. Because there are no
passings for them, [i.e.], for those [aforementioned] wicked people, who are
pursuing me [the psalmist]. [There are no passings for them means that]
they do not think of the day of their passing [i.e.], they are not in awe of
the day of death.20

19 Psalterium, fol. 108r.

20 Gruber, Rashi, 397 (English), 830 (Hebrew).
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 87
Modern commentators see two problems in Rashi’s exegesis of this verse.
The first one concerns the meaning of qedem/‫ק ֶדם‬,ֶ which can have the
notion of either “beginning” or “east”. Gruber translates it as “east” but
points out that it remains unclear whether or not Rashi understands it as
such.21 The second problem revolves around the claim that in this verse
Rashi fails to take note of the parallel sentence structure (parallellismus
membrorum), which requires that both parts of the sentence mirror one
another in structure and in general gist; he interprets the first main verb
yishəma’/‫“( יִ ְׁש ַמע‬he will hear”) in a positive and the second one wəya‘anem/
‫“( וְ יַ ֲענֵ ם‬he will answer them”) in a pejorative sense as “he will afflict them”.22
Gruber disputes this and argues instead that Rashi does treat both phrases
as parallel and synonymous. Both verbs should therefore be interpreted in
a positive sense and yəyoshev qedem/‫“( יְ י ֵֹׁשב ֶק ֶדם‬enthroned in the east/
forever”) should be considered as a synonym for el/‫“( ֵאל‬God”).
The Psalterium confirms Gruber’s reading on both fronts. Herbert not
only translates qedem/‫ ֶק ֶדם‬as “east” and wəya‘anem/‫ וְ יַ ֲענֵ ם‬as “he will
answer”, but also explains the object of the verb as “the prayers of the
multitude who are in my favour and who love me”.23 He does however
differ from Gruber in his clarification of qedem/‫ק ֶדם‬.ֶ Whereas Gruber con-
siders this to be Jerusalem, Herbert explains it as the Tabernacle, an exege-
sis which gives the verse a more specific historical perspective.
In Psalm 66 (67): 2: “May God be gracious to us and bless us and make
his face shine upon us” the Psalterium helps to settle a matter of disputed
authorship. Gruber’s edition of Rashi has: “May he make his face shine by
exhibiting a smiling face by giving dew and rain”. Exegeses from Rashi on
this psalm are wanting in several of the ‘best’ thirteenth- and fourteenth-
century manuscripts, but do occur in most of the early printed editions.
This has led some modern scholars to believe that the commentary on
Psalm 66 (67) is an addition, possibly inserted by the editors of those
printed editions.24 Herbert, however, refers to it:

21 Gruber, Rashi, 401n30.

22 Gruber, Ibid.
23 Psalterium, fol. 78v: Exaudi Deus et responde eis habitans in oriente. Non enim mutan-
tur: neque timent Deum. Exaudi scilicet preces multorum pro me et diligencium me. Et
responde eis pro me orantibus tu rex habitans in oriente id est in tentorio quod ad archam
tegendam David tetenderat, oracioni deputatum, et versus orientem erat. Vel in oriente in
illis scilicet qui relictis peccatorum tenebris luce gracie preventi oriuntur tibi et cetera
necesse.
24 Gruber, Rashi, 443 (English), 833 (Hebrew); Gruber refers to Oxford, Bodleian Library,
MS Canon Or. 60, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Opp. Add. Fol 24, Oxford, Bodleian Library,
Opp. Add. 4to 52.
88 chapter three
Always “May he bless us” by giving a blessing this is an abundance of good
weather and “may he make his face shine” to give dew and rain.25
Although the inclusion of this particular comment does not prove that it
originates with Rashi, it does demonstrate that there already existed an
exegesis on this verse which was considered part of the Rashi tradition less
than a century after the rabbi’s death.

c.  Rashi as Gateway to Other Rabbinic Sources

On several occasions Herbert refers to rabbinic sources or includes the
translation of certain words from Arabic or Aramaic. This has led Loewe
to suggest that Herbert made independent use of the Talmud, Midrash
Tehillim and the Targums, and that he had, as he calls it “a tame arabist”
among his teachers.26 While Herbert seems to have accessed his sources
independently from Rashi in some instances (see below), in the majority
of cases these elements of wider rabbinic material are borrowed from Rashi
only. For example, Psalm 44 (45): 2 “My heart is stirred (raḥash/‫ ָ)ר ַחׁש‬by a
noble theme as I recite my verses for the king; my tongue is the pen of a
skillful (mahir/‫)מ ִהיר‬ָ writer”. The Hebraica translates these words as “eruc-
tavit” (“cast forth”) and “velocis” (“speedy”). Herbert modifies “eructavit”
to “titillat vel serpit” (“tickles or creeps”), which is a more literal translation
of the root rḥsh ‫“( רחׁש‬to keep moving”, “to stir”) and which is inspired by
Rashi. On the last phrase of the verse Herbert comments: “My tongue will
be the pen of a skilful scribe, for which the Arabic language has ‘true’”.27
This is a reflection of Rashi’s:
My tongue is glib with songs like the pen of an expert scribe.
 I read in R. Moses the Interpreter’s book [that the word] mahîr “ready”
[means] “expert” in Arabic. 28
As an alternate explanation for mahir/‫“( ָמ ִהיר‬ready, skillful”), Rashi gives
bqi/‫“( בקי‬expert”). Herbert translates this as “verax” (“true”).
In Psalm 28 (29): 8, “The voice of the Lord shakes the desert, the Lord
shakes the desert of Kadesh”, Herbert modifies the Hebraica’s “vox Domini
parturire faciens desertum Cades” to “vox Domini parcurire faciens deser-

25 Psalterium, fol. 69r: Semper Benedicat nobis. Dando benedictionem id est copiam
bonorum temporalium et illustret faciem suam ad rorem dandum et pluviam.
26 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 53.
27 Psalterium, fol. 46r: Et hoc est. lingua mea erit stilus scribe velocis pro quo in sermone
Arabico est: veracis”.
28 Gruber, Rashi, 349 (English), 826 (Hebrew).
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 89
tum: parcurire faciet Dominus desertum Cades” to include the repetition
in Hebrew of yaḥil adonay midbar/‫[ יָ ִחיל יְ הוָ ה ִמ ְד ַּבר‬the Lord shakes the
desert]. He comments:
Desert, he says, and that desert he defines shortly afterwards, namely the
Desert of Kades. This desert is the same as the one on which the Law was
given, for as the ancient sages of the Hebrews relate, the Synai Desert has
five names : namely the Synai Desert, the Desert of Sin, of Kademoth, of
Paran, and of Kades. And as we have omitted [to mention] about other
things because it is not the place for them, the Synai Desert is called Kades
through the root of its meaning, for Kades means “consecration/sancifica-
tion”. The sons of Israel were consecrated there, as is written “Go to the
people and consecrate (NIV)/sanctify (KJ21) them” [Exodus 19 :10].29
In this passage Herbert mentions his source as “the Hebrew learned men
of old” (Hebreorum antiqui doctores). The etymology of the five names for
Sinai is indeed discussed in full in the Babylonian Talmud in a midrash
attributed to Rabbi Jose, son of Rabbi Hanina.30 However, Rashi adapts
this midrash in his commentary on the same verse in a highly similar way:
The Lord convulses the wilderness of Kadesh. It [the wilderness of Kadesh] is
the wilderness of Sinai just as our rabbis said in [BT] Tractate Shabbat [89a],
Five names are applied to it: the wilderness of Sinai, the wilderness of Zin, the
wilderness of Kadesh, the wilderness of Kedemoth, the wilderness of Paran. [It
was called] the wilderness of Kadesh because therein [the people of] Israel
were sanctified.31
This suggests that, whereas Herbert might have consulted the Talmud,
possibly with the help of a Hebrew teacher, he does not mention anything
in this exegesis that is not already found in Rashi. He further explains
“desertum” as a metonymy for desert peoples, which is reminiscent of the
Gloss.32

29 Psalterium, fol. 30r: Desertum dicit: et quod desertum mox determinat scilicet deser-
tum Cades. Hoc desertum Cades idem est quod desertum Synai in quo lex data. Quinque
enim nominibus ut Hebreorum antiqui doctores tradiderunt desertum Synai vocatum est,
scilicet desertum Synai, desertum Sin, Cademoth, Pharan, Cades. Et ut de aliis omittamus
quod huiusce modi locus non est; desertum illud Synai racione interpretacionis Cades
dictum est. Cades enim interpretatur sanctificacione. Et ibi sanctificati sunt filii Israel. Sicut
scriptum est. Vade ad populum et sacrifica illos [Exodus 19: 10].
30 The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation 2: Tractate Shabbat C, transl. by
Jacob Neusner (Chico, CA, 1992), 87; Jerome interprets Cades as “sancta”, “mutata” or “sanc-
titudo”, Lib. nom. heb., CCSL 72, 81.
31 Gruber, Rashi, 285 (English), 821 (Hebrew); see also 288n27.
32 Psalterium, fol. 30r: Et hoc quidem desertum Cades sive Synai Domini vox legem
dantis: parcurire fecit, id est parcurientis more tremere et dolere id est illius deserti tunc
habitatores, scilicet gentes. Et est figura methonimica. Potest eciam pro ipso populo Israel
90 chapter three
The Psalterium tends to reflect Rashi ad locum but occasionally it applies
or summarises Rashi’s exegeses from elsewhere in the Psalms. One recur-
rent example is the interpretation of the wording “your hand” (yadəda/‫)יָ ְדָך‬
in Psalms 20 (21): 8 (9), 31 (32): 4, 38 (39): 12 (11), 79 (80): 18 and 87 (88): 8.
Herbert is guided by Rashi in understanding this expression as negative
throughout the Psalter, even though the latter does not provide extensive
comments on every occurrence of the word.
On Psalms 20 (21): 9, “Your hand will lay hold on all your enemies; your
right hand will seize your foes”, Psalm 38 (39): 11, “Remove your scourge
from me; I am overcome by the blow of your hand”, and Psalm 87 (88): 6,
“and by your hand they are cut off”, Rashi interprets ‫ יָ ְדָך‬as a metaphor for
“plague”.33 While not commenting on Psalm 87 (88): 6, Herbert follows
Rashi in the other two instances and interprets the “plagues” referred to as
God’s vengeance against his enemies and war (“contencio” or “guerra”)
respectively.34
On Psalm 31 (32): 4, “For day and night, your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer”, both Rashi and Herbert
explain the verse as referring to God’s (decrees of) punishment following
David’s affair with Bathsheba.35
On Psalm 79 (80): 18, “Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand,
the son of man you have raised up for yourself”, where yadəda/‫ יָ ְדָך‬could
be understood as a symbol of God’s protection, Rashi comments:
May your hand be upon your right hand man [i.e.] upon Esau, who is about
to collect payment from him [i.e. Israel].36
Herbert follows Rashi’s exegesis of Esau as “the man” in question:
He prays that the Lord’s hand, that is, his revenge, may come upon the man,
namely Esau. And which hand, well, the right hand, in order that the Lord’s

deinde esse. Vox Domini parcurire faciens desertum et cetera. Nam sicut scriptum est:
Timuit populus qui erat in castris [Exodus 19: 16]. See PL 113: 882.
33 Gruber, Rashi, 253 (English), 819 (Hebrew): “May your hand find all your enemies.
Whatever plague of Your hand that You can bring, bring upon Your enemies”; 324 (English),
824 (Hebrew): “From the fear of Your hand, [i.e.] from the fear of Your plagues”; 563 (English),
844 (Hebrew): “And cut off by Your hand [i.e.] by means of Your plagues they were cut of
from the world”.
34 Psalterium, fol. 24v: Manus tua id est vindicta et prosequitur generaliter de omnibus
inimicis; and fol. 40r: manus tue consumptus sum. Et quod expressius in Hebreo est vocat
contencionem tanquam si vulgariter dicerem: guerram. id est “a guerra manus tue”.
35 Gruber, Rashi, 297 (English) and 822 (Hebrew): For night and day the fear of Your
hand, i.e., Your decrees (‫)וגזרותיך‬, was heavy upon me; Psalterium, fol. 32v: Et addit de
vindicte Domini plagis: conversa est et cetera”.
36 Gruber, 534 (English), 842 (Hebrew).
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 91
revenge upon the man is serious and heavy. It should be noted through the
words “right hand” that one hits more forcefully with it than with the left
hand.37
This comment deviates strongly from the traditional ecclesiastical inter-
pretation of “the man” in this verse as referring to Christ.38 It is possible
that for this reason the Psalterium contains a marginal note, in the same
hand as the main text, clarifying the Hebrew idiom yadəda ‘al/ ‫ יָ ְדָך ַעל‬:
He says that when we read thus “may his hand come upon this or that
person”, what is recorded according to Hebrew idiom, is always accepted
as being pejorative. As is written earlier “For your arrows” [Psalm 37: 3] till
the end, and “The Lord’s hand was heavy upon us” [1 Samuel 5: 7], and “If I
have raised my hand against the fatherless” [Job 31: 21]. Therefore what is
said here “May your hand” etc. is not at all according to Hebrew idiom cor-
rectly accepted to be about Christ or about whoever just.39
Herbert’s consistent treatment of the meaning of “Your hand” in the Psalms
in line with Rashi’s interpretation throughout the Psalms shows that he
does not just dip into Rashi on an isolated basis, to retrieve information on
specific verses only. On the contrary, he does seem to have an overview of
the whole work, or receives help from someone who does.

d. Rashi on Other Biblical Books

It is difficult to determine to what extent Herbert is familiar with Rashi on
other biblical books. An interesting explanation occurs at length in Psalm
9: 8, “The Lord reigns forever; he has established his throne (kisə’o/‫)ּכ ְסאֹו‬
ִ
for judgment”, and is briefly hinted at in Psalm 46 (47): 9, “God reigns over
the nations; God is seated on his holy throne (kise’ qadəsho/‫”)ּכ ֵסא ָק ְדׁשֹו‬.
ִ
The exegesis concerns wadonay ’elohim/‫וַ יהוָ ה‬/‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫“( ֱא‬Yahweh”/“God”)
and cise’/‫“( ִכ ֵסא‬throne”), which appear in full in those verses, but are writ-
ten defectively as yahh/‫ יָ ּה‬and kes/‫ ֵּכס‬in Exodus 17: 16.

37 Psalterium, Rashi, fol. 96v: Hoc orat ut fiat Domini manus, id est ultio, super virum
scilicet Esau. Et que manus, scilicet manus dextera, hoc est ut ultio Domini super virum
fortis et gravis fit; quod notatur nomine dextere qua forcius percutitur quam sinistra.
38 For a further discussion of the theological implications of this verse, see Goodwin,
Take Hold …, 186-87.
39 Psalterium: fol. 96v: Dicit enim quod quando dicitur sic “fiat manus super hunc vel
super istum” inscriptum secundum Hebreum idioma in malo semper accipi solet. Ut supra
Quoniam sagitte [Psalm 37: 3] contra finem. Et Quoniam dura est manus super nos [1 Samuel
5: 7]. Et Si levavi super pupillum [Job 31: 21] Quod igitur dicitur hic fiat manus tuus et cetera
nequaquam secundum Hebreum idioma: de Christo seu de quo vis eciam iusto congrue
accipitur.
92 chapter three
Herbert interprets the Psalm verses in the light of the events related in
Exodus 17, namely Joshua’s defeat of Amalek. On 9: 8 he comments that
the word “Lord” (“Dominus”) in Hebrew is written here as the full
Tetragrammaton yod, heth (sic!), waw and he, and pronounced adonay. The
word for “throne” also appears in full, transliterated in the Psalterium as
kisce and spelled as caph, samekh, aleph. This full spelling signifies the
completion of the prophecy expressed in the Psalm, of the total destruction
of the Amelekites. In contrast, Exodus 17: 16 gives only half of the divine
name, namely yod and he, and two of the letters for “throne”, namely caph
and samekh, because the destruction of the Amalekites was not yet com-
plete.40
His comment on Psalm 46 (47): 9 is very similar but in addition includes
the traditional eschatological interpretation of the verse as a description
of the Church’s triumph.41 Rashi writes much less extensively on each of
those verses. On Psalm 9: 8 we find:
His name will be whole and his throne will be whole as is suggested by [the
expression] his throne (verse 8b). However, before he [Amalek] will have
been blotted out it is written in the Bible, For the hand [of Amalek] is against

40 Psalterium, fol. 12r: Et attendendum quod hic ubi nos habemus Dominus in Hebreo
nomen Dei integrum scriptum est, quod est tetragramaton. Id est quatuor litterarum scili-
cet Ioth, heth, vav, he. Et dico nomen hoc integrum: respectu cuiusdam alterius nominis
Dei, quod non est nisi velud medietas huius nominis quod est quatuor litterarum. Constat
enim illud nomen dimidium tantum ex duabus litteris istius nominis pleni et integri, scili-
cet Ioth, he et dicitur ya. Integrum vero Domini quod est tetragramaton cuius illud, scilicet
ya non nisi medietas est [ …]
Restituto igitur Israele et iuxta promissum Domini sicut hic in psalmo dicitur Amalech
penitus deleto iustum fuit ut hiis completis consequenter nomen Domini velut victoris et
iudicis plenum poneretur, quod est tetragramaton pro quo Hebreus dicit adonay. Unde et
hic ponitur non semiplenum vel dimidum eius, quod est ya. Istud enim dimidium nominis
integri, scilicet ya, alibi positum est; ibi videlicet ubi iure iurando deleto enim comminatur
Dominus Amalechitis quod delens deleret memoriam eorum de sub celo [Exodus 17: 14].
Ubi subditur. Et dixit. Quia manus sua per sedem ya. Ubi nos habemus sic dicens quia manus
solius Dei et cetera [Exodus 17: 16]. Et ita dimidium nominis Domini, scilicet ya, ponitur in
comminacione; sed integrum ponitur comminacione Amalechitis. Sedis Domini nomen
dimidium ponitur quod est Hebraice kez per duas tantum litteras, scilicet caph et samech.
Verum hic in psalmo postquam certissime prophetata est quod est ac si sit iam completa
Amalechitarum plena delecio; nomen sedis Domini plenum et integrum ponitur. Quod est
Hebraice kizce per tres litteras, scilicet caph et samech, aleph.
41 Psalterium, fol. 50r: Tunc recte Deus regnare et sedere dicetur cum sicut in se et in
corpere suo quod est ecclesia triumphaverit. Nil de cetero patens sicut nec in se nec in suis
omni tunc dominacione evacuata et contradicione cessante. Quando regnum eius plenum
erit et sedes integra quomodo non nisi tanquam semiplena est cum quiescat in hiis pacia-
tur in illis. Iuxta quod Saulo dictum est. Saule Saule quid me persequeris de hac tum Domini
sede supra nos plenius dixisse meminimus.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 93
the thron’ of the Lor’ (Exodus 17: 16) [which is to say that] the thron’ is defec-
tive and the name [of God] is defective.42
His comment of Psalm 46 (47): 9 is a brief repetition of 9: 8.43 When com-
paring the Psalterium’s detailed exposition with Rashi’s much briefer one
on 9: 8 it seems unlikely that Herbert would have been able to deduce from
Rashi here the full exegesis behind the relationship between Psalm 9: 8
and Exodus 17: 16: “He said: ‘For hands were lifted up to the throne (kes/
‫(ּכס‬ ֵ of Yah (yahh/‫)יָ ּה‬, the Lord will be at war with the Amalekites from
generation to generation’”. His spelling of the second letter of the
Tetragrammaton as heth seems influenced by the pronunciation of yahh/
‫ יָ ּה‬in this verse, and his lengthy comment is reminiscent of Rashi here too:
The hand of the holy one, blessed be He, is raised to swear by His throne
that He will have war and enmity against Amalek to all eternity. And what
is the force of kes/‫ּכס‬-
ֵ why does it not say as usual kise’/‫?ּכ ֵסא‬ִ And the Divine
Name, also, is divided into half (yahh/‫ יָ ּה‬is only half of the Tetragramm’aton)!
The Holy One, blessed be He, swears that His Name will not be perfect nor
His throne perfect until the name of Amalek be entirely blotted out. But
when his name is blotted out then will His (God’s) Name be perfect and his
throne perfect.44
Another possibility, and one that is supported by Goodwin, is that Herbert
based himself on Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 9.45
Herbert possibly borrows from Rashi on Isaiah in Psalm 72 (73): 3, “For
I envied the arrogant (baholəlim/‫הֹול ִלים‬
ְ ‫)ּב‬ַ when I saw the prosperity of the
wicked”. The Hebraica translates as “iniquos” (“the unjust”), which Herbert
changes to “mixtoribus” or, in superscript, “malignantibus” (“the mali-
cious”). He comments: “He calls certain faithless and treacherous people
‘mixers’ (‘mixtoribus’)”. Then follows a description of corrupt tradesmen
who tamper with weights and who cut up or dilute their wares with inferior
material, together with a cross-reference to Isaiah 1: 22: “Your silver has
become dross, your choice wine is weakened with water”, or in a variant
reading “Your petty tradesmen mix wine with water”.46

42 Gruber, Rashi, 201 (English), 814 (Hebrew).

43 Gruber, Rashi, 362 (English), 827 (Hebrew).
44 M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann, Rashi, Exodus (1930), 91.
45 The Midrash on the Psalms, transl. by William G. Braude, 2 vols, Yale Judaica Series
13 (New Haven, 1959), I, 141-42; Goodwin, Take Hold …, 246-47.
46 Psalterium, fol. 82v: Mixtores vocat: perfidos quosdam et dolosos. Penes quos solet
pondus esse et pondus in ensura et mensura qui in his que vendunt fraudem pondus solent
committere et emptorem decipere. Eaque vendunt quibusdam admixtionibus corrumpen-
tes ut si venditor in emptoris fraudem tritico puro non purum admiceat seu in quiuis alia
94 chapter three
The Hebrew holəlim/‫הֹול ִלים‬,
ְ as the piel (intensive) participle of hll/‫הלל‬
(“to be boastful, to be arrogant”) is explained in Rashi as “those who are
disturbed (m‘rvvy/‫ )מערבבי‬in their behaviour”.47 Herbert’s comparison of
“mixtoribus” with fraudulent tradesmen can be traced directly to this syn-
onym, which is derived from the root ‘rb/‫ערב‬, meaning “to mix, to take on
pledge, to exchange”. The Hebrew word translated as “weakened” in Isaiah
1: 22 is mahul/‫מהּול‬,ָ which originates from a rare root mhl/‫“ מהל‬to weaken,
to circumcise”. In his commentary on Isaiah 1: 22 Rashi treats the roots mhl/
‫“ מהל‬to weaken” and hll/‫ הלל‬in the piel “to be boastful” as one and the same
and links mahul/‫ ָמהּול‬in Isaiah 1: 22 to another word derived from the root
hll/‫הלל‬, namely məholal/‫הֹולל‬ ָ ‫“ ְמ‬foolish, boastful” in Ecclesiastes 2: 2:
“Laughter, I said, is foolish/boastful. And what does pleasure accomplish?”.48
By integrating Rashi’s exegesis on Isaiah 1: 22 in his commentary on Psalm
72 (73): 3, Herbert is able to draw in a new metaphor of “the arrogant” as
crooks who corrupt quality goods by mixing them with substandard ones,
and who prosper as a result.
Interestingly, Andrew of Saint Victor mentions in his commentary on
Isaiah 1: 22 the same variant translation “Caupones tui miscent vinum
aqua”, which he also attributes to the Hebrew. In fact, the phrase already
occurs in Jerome and is a literal translation of the Septuagint. It is easily
possible that it was Andrew’s (or Jerome’s) reference which triggered the
Psalterium’s exegesis here.49 True to his method of translation, Herbert is
consistent when encountering the same word, or words derived from the
same root, elsewhere. In Psalm 74 (75): 5, “I have said to the arrogant/cor-
ruptors (laholəlim/‫הֹול ִלים‬
ְ ‫)ל‬:
ַ boast/corrupt no more (’al taholu/‫ל־ּתהֹּלּו‬
ָ ‫;)א‬
ַ
and to the wicked: do not lift up your horns”, he has “mixtoribus” and
“misceatis” respectively.

sive in materia sicca sive liquida contra fidem dolose agatur sic. De qualibus in improprium
Ierusalem scriptum est: Vinum tuum mixtum esse aqua [Isaiah 1: 22] pro quo in Hebreo:
Caupones tui vino aquam miscent. Et tales vocat psalmus hic mixtores per dolos et malig-
nantes hos generaliter malignantes accipiens.
47 Gruber, Rashi, 482 (English), 837 (Hebrew).
48 Gruber, Rashi, 486n3.
49 Jerome, Commentarii in Isaiam, CCSL 73, lib. 1, cap. 1, par. 22, Brepolis LLT-A; Andrew
of Saint Victor, Commentary on Isaiah, Cambridge, Pembroke College Library, MS 45, fol.
6a quoted by McKane, Selected Christian Hebraists, 56-57 and 220, n. 95.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 95
e. An Annotated Commentary or Interpreter?
The previous examples, which suggest that Herbert made use of Rashi on
the Pentateuch and on the Prophets, raise the question to what extent he
consulted these secondary sources directly and on his own account. Since
his resort to Rashi on biblical books beside the Psalms is not systematic,
Herbert’s tutor might have either directed him towards these other pas-
sages or cited them from memory. Alternatively, Herbert might have used
a copy of Rashi on the Psalms which included cross references, annotations
or even additional French glosses. For example in Psalm 74 (75): 9:
In the hand of the Lord is a cup full of foaming/strong wine mixed with spices
(wəyayin ḥamar male’ mesekh/‫ ;)וְ יַ יִ ן ָח ַמר ָמ ֵלא ֶמ ֶסְך‬he pours it out, and all
the wicked of the earth drink it down to its very dregs.
Herbert launches into a long and detailed explanation, which goes far
beyond Rashi’s comment on the same verse. Kos [ …] wəyayin ḥamar male’
mesekh/‫“( כֹוס …וְ יַ יִ ן ָח ַמר ָמ ֵלא ֶמ ֶסְך‬a cup [ …] and the wine foams, it is fully
mixed”) appears in the Hebraica as “Calix [ …] vino meraco usque ad ple-
num mixtus” (“a cup [ …] mixed to the brim with undiluted wine”). Herbert
replaces “usque ad plenum mixtus” with “plenus libamento” (“full of drink-
offering”); he also adds an extra verb “distillabunt” (“they will drink”) in the
second half of the verse, and ends up with:
Quia calix in manu Domini est et vino meraco plenus libamento et propinabit
ex eo verumtamen feces eius distillabunt potabunt bibentes omnes impii
terrae.
A number of superscript glosses clarify Herbert’s interpretation of the
structure of the verse. He contrasts God’s act of pouring out (“propinabit”)
undiluted wine (“vino meraco”) in the first half of the verse to the fate of
the wicked (“impii”) who will drink (“potabunt”) dross (“feces”) in the
second half. The undiluted wine is distributed to the righteous, indicated
with a superscript “iustis” above “propinabit”. The dross is explained as
“turbidum” (“whirling, unclear”) and by inserting a superscript “ex turbido”
to “potabunt” Herbert stresses this is the drink reserved for the wicked.
He then expounds the image of the cup held by God: the cup represents
God’s power to judge, which is “full”, and not “half-full”, as is the case with
junior judges.50 The cup of wine as a metaphor for God’s judgment is hinted
at in Rashi on this verse:

50 Psalterium fol. 88r: Quia calix, id est iudicandi potestas est in manu eius, id est penes
eum est. Et non est hec ut initiorum iudicum semiplena potestas, sed plena.
96 chapter three
There is a cup of debilitation in his hand. And the wine hamar [i.e.], hazaq
“is strong”; [it means] vinose in Old French. Full of mixed wine. [I.e.], the cup
is full of mixed wine for pouring, i.e., for giving all nations to drink. From
this he pours. From this cup He will pour and distribute drink for them. [The
verb wayyager “he poured”] is a cognate of [the participle muggarim “poured
out” in] poured down a slope (Micha 1: 4).51
The phrase “giving all nations to drink” refers to, among other verses,
Jeremiah 25: 15:
This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand
this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the nations to whom
I send you drink it”.
Herbert acknowledges this at the end of his discussion on Psalm 74 (75):
9,52 but in his interpretation of the content of the cup of judgment he
gives a wider scope to the verse than Rashi. Unlike Rashi he considers the
cup as containing not just punishment for the wicked but also reward for
the righteous. He starts off with a literal exegesis on his main modification
to the Hebraica, the words “plenus libamento” (“full of libation”)
And therefore he adds “full of drink-offering”. The Hebrew word put here
is the same, with the same vowels, as in Exodus 30: 9 “Do not offer on this
altar any other incense or any burnt offering or grain offering, and do not
pour a drink-offering on it.”, and in Leviticus 23: 13 “[ …] and its drink-
offering of a quarter of a hin of wine” because it concerns sacrifice. Accord-
ing to the Hebrew Truth this same word “drink-offering” should follow and
be put here in the Psalm so as to read “full of drink-offering”.53
The Hebrew root msk/‫ מסך‬usually means “mix”, which is how the
Hebraica translates it (“mixtus”). However, by drawing attention to the
use of msk/‫ מסך‬in Exodus 30: 9 and in Leviticus 23: 13, where the root
appears in Latin as “libabitis libamenta” and “libamenta” respectively,
Herbert demonstrates that msk/‫ מסך‬can also have the notion of “pouring
a drink-offering”. While the basis of this reading comes from Rashi (see

51 Gruber, Rashi, 500-501 (English), 839 (Hebrew).

52 Psalterium, fol. 88r: Sicut et alibi de calici hoc scriptum est: dicente Domino per
prophetam: Sume calicem vini furoris eius de manu mea: et propinabis de illo cunctis gentibus
[Jeremiah 25: 15].
53 Psalterium, fol. 88r: Et ideo addit: plenus libamento Idem enim in Hebreo et cum
eisdem vocalibus verbum ponitur hic quod cum de sacrificiis agitur ut in Exodo [30: 9]. Non
offeretis super eo thuniama. Non offeret composicionis alterius, nec oblacionem et victimam
nec libabitis libamenta. Et in Levitico [23: 13]. Et libamenta offerentur cum eo. Hoc ipsum
libamenti verbum secundum Hebraicum veritatem sequatur et hic in psalmo ponendum
est ut legitur sic: plenus libamento.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 97
above), Herbert has developed it further and refined it. By understanding
“the cup of judgment” as full of a libation of pure wine he avoids a more
problematic and contradictory image of pure wine (yayin ḥamar/‫יַ יִ ן ָח ַמר‬/
“vino meraco”) being somehow mixed (mesekh/‫)מ ֶסְך‬ ֶ with another
substance.
He then proceeds to a discussion of this “vino meraco”: this is not any
wine, but clear and pure stuff (“praeclaro et puro”). He supports his earlier
interpretation of mesekh/‫ ֶמ ֶסְך‬as drink-offering with a matter of textual
criticism occurring in Numbers 28: 7, where the Vulgate does not translate
the full verse in Hebrew:
‫יעת ַה ִהין ַל ֶּכ ֶבׂש ָה ֶא ָחד ַּבּק ֶֹדׂש ַה ֵּסְך נֶ ֶסְך שֵׁ ָכר ַליהוָ ה ׃‬
ִ ‫וְ נִ ְסּכֹו ְר ִב‬
wənisko rəvi‘ith hahin lakeves ha’eḥad baqqodes hassekh nesekh shekhar
ladonay
The drink offering is to be a fourth of a hin of fermented drink with each
lamb. Pour out the drink offering to the Lord at the sanctuary
The phrase important to him, but which the Vulgate does not include, is
hassekh nesekh shekhar ‫“( ַה ֵּסְך נֶ ֶסְך שֵׁ ָכר‬pour out the drink offering of pure
wine”) where the root msk/‫“( מסך‬pour”) and shkr/‫“( שֵׁ ָכר‬pure wine”) appear
together.54 He then highlights exceptions to the rule, such as the drink-
offering at the Feast of the Tabernacles, and points out the difference
between an oblation (minəkha/‫)מנְ ָכה‬, ִ which contains a mixture, and a
libation, which usually does not.55 The word “mixed” (“mixtus”) in the
Hebraica should therefore be interpreted as a reference not to a mixture
of different substances, but to a measure of undiluted wine, of high quality
and pure (“vinoso et puro”).56

54 Psalterium, fol. 88r: Et quo determinat scilicet vino et non quolibet vino sed vino
meraco, id est preclaro et puro. Nam ut absque veritatis preiudicio loquar et sine doctoribus
me nota minime intelligendum est quod in isto de quo nunc in psalmo agitur. Domini calice
mixtura aliqua fuerit preter vinum solum et illud purum, adeo eciam quod cum sacrificiis
vini adhiberetur libacio; purum erat et absque omni mixtura vinum. Unde et in Numeri
scriptum est. Et libabitis vinum quartam partem hin [Numbers 28: 7] quod si vinum purum
non esset sed mixtum iam non esset vini quarta pars hin. Et mox sequitur in Numeri: liba
libamentum ebrietatis Domino. Quod tamen cum in Hebreo sit nostris deest codicibus.
55 Psalterium, fol. 88r: Ecce libamentum ebrietatis quod si vinum mixtum esset non sic
vocaret. Et infra hyrcum quoque et liba eius immaculata offeretis omnia cum libacionibus
suis. Ecce quod omnia erant absque macula sicut oblacio et libacio. Et ita sine mixtura
preter quam in sacrificiis scenofegie ut Hebrei tradunt sed de hoc alias. Propter quod forte
legitur quod vinum quod Deo in sacrificium offerebitur aqua mixtum erat. [marginal gloss:
scilicet sacrificium decime simile oleo consperse, Leviticus 23: 13; Ebraice minha].
56 Psalterium, fol. 88r: Vel secundum aliam litteram. Ad plenum mixtus. Quasi calix ille
ad plenum mixtus est, id est totus plenus est, id est omnino integra et plena potestas penes
98 chapter three
His description of the vino meraco as vinoso et puro can be traced to
Rashi on the Psalms (see above) and on the last phrase of Deuteronomy
32: 14: ədam ‘enav tishteh ḥamar/‫ה־ח ֶמר‬
ָ ‫ם־ענָ ב ִּת ְׁש ֶּת‬
ֵ ‫“( וְ ַד‬and you shall drink
the foaming blood of the grape”). Both passages contain the la‘az “vinos(e)”/
‫וינוש‬. Rashi comments on this phrase in his commentary on Deuteronomy:
‫[ ָח ֶמר‬ḥamar] This word means wine in general in the Aramaic language but
this (the word ‫[ ָח ֶמר‬ḥamar] in our verse) is not a noun but it means excel-
lent in taste, vinos in O.F.57
The Psalterium also contains a marginal gloss explaining “mixtus” as “mei-
suz” in French (fol. 88v). I have not been able to find this word in a diction-
ary of Medieval French or Anglo-Norman. After defining the key words of
the verse, Herbert finally explains the difference in judgments received by
the just and the wicked. Both drink from the same cup, but whereas the
just are allowed the quality wine, the wicked are left with the dross at the
bottom of the cup.58 A second marginal gloss explains spissius vinum as
“Quod Gallici lingua sua bufeth vocant” (“What the French call ‘bufeth’ in
their language”). Bufeth is understood as as inferior wine or the wine from
the bottom of the barrel.59
This remarkable, well-constructed piece of exegesis shows use of differ-
ent types of Jewish sources. Whereas its backbone is Rashi on the Psalms
and on Deuteronomy, the cross- references to passages in Leviticus and
Numbers as well as the Old French marginal glosses are additional, and
suggest the aid of an annotated commentary or a Hebrew teacher, or both.

Deum iudicem quod non apud iudicem alium. Et non dicitur hic mixtus a mixtura, quasi
diversi liquores in calice isto Domini sint commixti. Nam vino meraco, id est vinoso et puro,
plenus erat; quod manifeste exprimitur cum dicitur hic et vino meraco. Igitur calix iste
Domini non igitur mixto sed vino meraco plenus erat.
57 Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Deuteronomy, 161.
58 Psalterium, fol. 88v: Et hoc per iustorum contrarium, id est per impios quos quasi
seorsum ponens adversative dicit verumptamen feces eius et cetera. Quasi ita propinabit
Dominus iustis de preclaro vino et puro sed de vino turbido, quod de fece vini illius preclari
et vinosi distillavit, potabunt impii terre. Et hoc est verumptamen feces eius scilicet feces
vini boni et preclari distillabunt vinum turbidum et insipidum. Et inde potabunt et cetera.
Et quidem solet fieri sic: post vinum purum extractum feces vini residue ponuntur in fos-
siculum et suspenduntur donec totus ex inde vini emanaverit liquor. Et est hoc turbacius
et spissius vinum. Et mos iste in psalmo hic tangitur cum dicit Verumptamen et cetera. Et
quemadmodum meracum vinum metaphorice dixit prius super iustos iudicia Domini
iocunda; ita vinum spissum et turbidum dicit nunc super impios iudicia Domini terribilia.
59 Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch vol. 1, ed. by Walther von Wartburg (Bonn:
1928; and Tübingen, 1948), 598; Dictionnaire du Moyen Français, www.atilf.fr/Les-grands-
projets/DMF/Le-dictionnaire, entry “buffet2”.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 99
Another passage where the use of a cross-reference system seems likely
is Psalm 86 (87): 5, “Indeed, of Zion it will be said, ‘This one and that one
(’ish wə’ish/‫)איׂש וְ ִאיׂש‬
ִ were born in her, and the Most High himself will
establish her’”. Herbert concentrates his exegesis on the idiom ’ish wə’ish/
‫( ִאיׂש וְ ִאיׂש‬literally man and man), which he translates literally as “vir et
vir” and defines:
For it is an idiom of the Hebrew language saying the following, that in
Hebrew “is is” or “is and is”, that is “man and man”, is said instead of “any
one”. As is written: “Is is who has an emission of semen”, that is “Anyone
who has an emission” etc. [Leviticus 15: 16]. Where we have “A man who
has an emission of semen”. Similarly, we find there Is is about the home, is
if he kills an oxen, that is any one man or human being. Where we have
clearly: “any one man”.60
Then follow other cross-references from Leviticus (17: 13) and Esther (1: 8).
He must have gathered these biblical examples from a source other than
Rashi, who only mentions the idiom and offers one synonym as translation:
Every man was born there [ …] to Zion it shall be said concerning each one
(kl ’ḥd w’ḥd/‫)כל־אחד ואחד‬.61
In the following example Herbert discusses an interpretation by Rashi and
manages to tackle a number of exegetical problems in greater detail than
the Rashi commentary supplies. Psalm 50 (51): 6 (4):
Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight
(bə‘eyneykha/‫)ּב ֵעינֶ יָך‬
ְ so that/because (ləma‘an/‫)ל ַמ ַען‬
ְ you are proved right
when you speak and justified when you judge (vəsaphətekha/‫(ב ָׂש ְפ ֶטָך‬.ְ
Herbert’s first step is to interpret the phrase “against you only have I sinned”
as relating to David’s status as king who is answerable to God alone.62 He
then states in an alternative interpretation, sourced from Rashi, that David
sinned against God only and not against Uriah. In fact, Uriah deserved to
die because he showed disrespect to his king by disobeying David’s com-
mand to go home:

60 Psalterium, fol. 102r: Nam idioma est Hebree lingue, loqui sic: ut dicatur Hebraice is
is vel is et is, id est vir et vir, pro unusquisque. Sicut scriptum est: Is is qui patitur fluxum
seminis, id est unusquisque qui patitur fluxum et cetera [Leviticus 15: 16]. Ubi nos habimus:
Vir qui patitur fluxum seminis. Similiter et ibi. Is is de domo, is si occiderit bovem, id est vir
vel homo quilibet. Ubi nos expressim habemus: homo quilibet.
61 Gruber, Rashi, 385 (English), 829 (Hebrew).
62 Psalterium, fol. 55r.
100 chapter three
The grammarian/literal exegete has a different opinion. He says that by
killing Uriah David did not sin in the least against him, because Uriah defied
the king’s commands. He told him to enter his house but he refused to enter
it [2 Samuel 11: 6-14]. And therefore [David] is right in saying “Against you
only have I sinned” with regard to the death of Uriah.63
Herbert then explains “ut iustificeris” (“so that/in order that you are
proved right”) in the light of a wish allegedly made by David and
expressed in Psalm 26: 2, for God to test him. The test came in the form of
the temptation to commit adultery and murder, and David subsequently
failed it. He was allowed to sin (“peccare permissus sum”) in order that
God alone was proved right (“ut tu solus iustificeris”).64
Rashi already suggests that David could have resisted the desire to com-
mit adultery but instead submitted to temptation in order to comply with
God’s will, as expressed in Psalm 26: 2.65 Yet, it is difficult to understand
from Rashi alone the underlying reason for David’s wish to be put to the
test. An additional source for Herbert could have been the Talmud
Sanhedrin:
Said R. Judah said Rab, “One should never put himself to the test, for lo,
David, king of Israel, put himself to the test and he stumbled. He said before
him, ‘Lord of the world, on what account do people say, ‘God of Abraham,
God of Isaac, and God of Jacob’, but they do not say, ‘God of David’?’ He
said to him, ‘They endured a test for me, while you have not endured a test
for me’. He said before hem, ‘Lord of the world, here I am. Test me’. For it
is said, ‘Examine me, O Lord and try me’” (Psalm 26: 1)”.66
Whether he consulted this passage himself, had a body of cross-references
at his disposal, or learnt about it from one of his teachers is impossible to

63 Psalterium, fol. 55r: Litterator vero aliter. Et dicit Dauid nequaquam occidendo Uriam
in Uriam peccasse. Eo quod Urias mandate regis contemptor fuerit. Cui rex precepit ut
domum suam intraret sed intrare contempsit [2 Samuel 11: 6-14]. Et ideo bene dicit: tibi soli
peccavi in morte Urie.
64 Psalterium, fol. 55r: Ut iustificeris et cetera. Quasi ideo peccavi, id est ideo peccare
permissus sum ut tu solus iustificeris, id est iustus appareas in sermonibus tuis universis non
ego qui dixeram: proba me Domine et tempta me. Nam in facto illo Urie tu quidem me
probasti tanquam vas aliquid probari solet sed confractus sum minime repertus integer
sicut de me presumens prius dixeram [Psalm 26: 2] proba me et tempta me. Ex quo apparet
solum Deum in omni verbo suo veracem cum ille rex et propheta. Cui et ipse Samuel tantum
prius peribuerat testimonium ut pro eo diceret Dominum virum secundum cor suum
invenisse verbo suo extam profano Urie facto contrarius repertus sit, quo velut presump-
tuose ante dixerat. Proba me Domine et tempta me.
65 Gruber, Rashi, 273 (English), 820 (Hebrew).
66 The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation, 23: Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapters
9-11, transl. by Jacob Neusner (Atlanta, GA, 1985), 187.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 101
tell, but it is clear from his interpretation of David’s sins as serving to prove
God right that his knowledge of rabbinic exegesis on this front is larger
than Rashi only. Interestingly, this interpretation allows to him arrive at
Paul’s reference to this verse in Romans 3: 4:
Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be
proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge”.
and to mention eagerly the overlap between the Christian and the rabbinic
tradition: “And it is that explanation of the grammarian which aligns in
part with the sense of the apostle who introduces the passage of this verse
so in his letter: ‘Let God be true and every man a liar’ [ …]”.67

f. Christianising Rashi
As has become apparent in the previous example, one aspect of Herbert’s
exegetical methodology is to justify a reading from the Masoretic text by
embedding it within a Christian framework or by attempting to harmonise
midrashic elements with New Testament exegesis. For example in Psalm
26 (27): 4:
One thing I ask of the Lord, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house
of the Lord all the days of my life; to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and
to seek him in/to come in the morning to (uləvaqqer b/‫)ּול ַב ֵּקר ּב‬
ְ his temple.
Herbert changes the Hebraica’s “attendo” (“I await”) to “manicabo” (“I will
come in the morning”). The word for “morning” consists of the same con-
sonants as the root ‫“ בקר‬to seek”. Dunash ibn Labrat states that uləvaqqer/
‫ּול ַב ֵּקר‬
ְ here is no form of bqr/‫“ בקר‬to seek” but is instead a denominative
verb derived from boqer/‫“ ּב ֶֹקר‬morning”. Rashi follows Dunash on this
verse.68 Herbert, without referring to either source, probably borrowed this
reading from Rashi. He then cleverly ties it in with Luke 21, which describes
the weeks before the Last Supper when every morning the people hastened
their way to the temple to hear Christ speak.

67 Psalterium, fol. 55r: Et ista litteratoris explanacio est que eciam sensui apostolico ex
parte congruit qui hanc versiculi pericopen in epistula sua inducit sic: Est autem Deus verax
omnis autem homo mendax. [Romans 3: 4] sicut scriptum est. Ut iustificeris in sermonibus
tuis et vincum iudicaris vincas cum iudicatus fueris. Quod est. ideo peccavi, id est ideo pec-
care permissus sum, dicit David, ut tu Domino vincas, id est omnes homines super cum
fueris indicatus, id est aliis hominibus in iusticia et sanctitate collatus.
68 Gruber, Rashi, 276 (English), 820 (Hebrew).
102 chapter three
I shall come to his temple in the morning, that is, I shall hurry to the tem-
ple in the morning to pray. Of what kind is that: “and all the people came
early in the morning to hear him at the temple” [Luke 21: 38].69
On Psalm 22 (23): 1 Herbert follows Rashi in a midrash on the difference
between Psalm titles lədavid mizəmor/‫“( ְל ָדוִ ד ִמזְ מֹור‬to David; a psalm”) and
mizəmor lədawid/‫“( ִמזְ מֹור ְל ָדוִ ד‬a psalm of David”):
A psalm of David. Our rabbis said, “Wherever it is stated [in the titles of the
psalms] ‘a psalm of David’ [it means that] he [David] plays the harp and
thereafter Shekinah rests upon him.” [The purpose of the] music [mizmor]
was to bring divine inspiration to David. “Moreover,” [our rabbis said], “every
one [of the psalm titles] wherein it is stated, ‘to David a psalm’ [means that]
Shekinah rested upon him, and afterwards he composed a song”.70
He then harmonises it with the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit. In the
first case the Spirit rests upon him as a result of the sweetness of his song
and the strength of his faith, in the second case he is prompted by the Holy
Spirit to compose a song.71
In the following example Herbert mentions a midrash supplied by Rashi,
which he defends by minimising the difference between the Jewish and
the Christian reading. On Psalm 68 (69): 32: “This [i.e., a song] will please
the Lord more than an ox, more than a bull with its horns and hoofs” he
focuses on the Hebrew phrase maqərin maphəris/‫מ ְק ִרן ַמ ְפ ִריס‬,ַ which, con-
sisting of two participles, literally means “horned and hoofed”. He follows
the Gallicana in his translation of the phrase as “producing horns and hoofs”
(“cornua producentem et ungulas”), and comments: “In Hebrew it is as if
one would say in Latin ‘horning and hooving’”.72
He then draws attention to the reason behind the word order of “cornua
producentem et ungulas”. Borrowing a midrash found in Rashi, he explains

69 Psalterium, fol. 28r-v: Manicabo in templum eius, id est mane accelerabo ad templum
ad orandum. Quale est et illud. Et omnis populus manicabant ad eum in templo. Mane
accelerabo ad templum: quia merito devocionis huius [Luke 21: 38].
70 Gruber, Rashi, 263 (English), 819 (Hebrew).
71 Psalterium, fol. 26r: In titulo in quibus nomen psalmi precedit hoc notatur quod prius
tangebat citharam David ut sic ex cithare dulcedine et cordis devocione spiritus sancti
graciam ad se quasi attrahet. Et post prophecie spiritus in eum descendit. Et ita spiritus
sancti inspiracione psalmum edidit.
In illis vero titulis in quibus nomen David precedit sicut in titulo psalmi subsequentis
hoc notatur quod David sancto spiritum inspirante psalmum edidit et post quasi gracias
agens ad Dei laudem citharam tetigit.
72 Psalterium, fol. 78r: cornua producentem et ungulas. In Hebreo est tanquam si Latine
diceretur “cornans et ungulans”. Quod quia minus Latine dicitur pro eo posuimus sicut in
alia edicione habetur cornua producentem et ungulas.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 103
that the very first cattle emerged from the earth in an upright position, so
that their horns appeared before their hooves.73 As in the previous exam-
ple, he seems visibly pleased that the literal exegesis which Herbert’s lit-
terator has provided for him supports an already existing Christian
interpretation.
This explanation of the verse according to the literal sense agrees with the
ecclesiastical one, just like several other things which the grammarian has
explained about this Psalm. The prudent and diligent reader will realise this
without being prompted by me.74
However, when Rashi offers several interpretations, Herbert does not
always agree with the reading on which his authority finally settles. In
Psalm 67 (68): 17:
Why gaze in envy, O rugged mountains, at the mountain where God chooses
to reign, where the Lord himself will dwell forever?
Herbert’s main modifications are the rendering of təratsədun/‫ ְּת ַר ְּצדּון‬as
“insidiamini” (“lie in ambush”) instead of the Hebraica’s “contenditis”
(“compete with, compare, envy”) and of gavənunnim/‫“( ּגַ ְבנֻ ּנִ ים‬peaked,
pointed”) as “acuti” (“pointed”) instead of the Hebraica’s “excelsi” (“raised”):
Quare insidiamini montes acuti monti quem diligit Deus ut habitaret in eo:
 siquidem Dominus habitabit in sempiternum.
Why do the pointed mountains lie in ambush of the mount which God loves,
 where he lives; the Lord will live there forever.
Rashi interprets gavənunnim/‫“( ּגַ ְבנֻ ּנִ ים‬peaked”) as a synonym for “moun-
tains” (harim/‫)ה ִרים‬
ָ in general, as opposed to “the mountain” (hahar/‫)ה ָהר‬ָ
in the singular, which refers to Mount Sinai or Mount Bashan, God’s
­dwel­ling place. He then gives two explanations for the verb təratsədun/
‫ּת ַר ְּצדּון‬:ְ
terassedun. I read in the work by R. Moses the Interpreter [that the verbal
root] rsd means meareb “lie in ambush” in Arabic. Menahem, however,
interpreted [the verb] terassedun as a cognate of tirqedun “you dance” [Psalm

73 Gruber, Rashi, 463 (English), 835 (Hebrew); Psalterium, fol. 78r-v: Et rectus ordo: prius
cornua ponit post ungulas. Bove quippe nascente: prius cum capite egrediuntur cornua,
post cum pedibus ungule. Accedit eciam huic quod ut Hebreorum tradicio est quando bos
primo de terra formatus est. Abscondita nature lege et iusta sicut videtur primo egressum
est capud cum cornibus et deinde pedes et ungule.
74 Psalterium, fol. 78v: Et quidem hec super versiculum hunc explanacio iuxta litteram
sensui ecclesiastico congruit sicut et non nulla alia que secundum litteratorem super psal-
mum hunc sunt explanata. Que prudens lector et diligens absque meo nutu mox discernet.
104 chapter three
113 (114): 6]. The latter etymology is congruent with this [i.e., our aforemen-
tioned] interpretation of the text.75
In his lengthy comment of the verse Herbert first of all points out the con-
trast between the “montes acuti” and the “monti quem diligit Deus”. The
latter is Mount Sinai, incomparable to and envied by other mountains
because it was the spot where God gave the Law to Israel; the former are
the infamous Gilboa range where, as described in 2 Samuel 1, Saul and
Jonathan fell in battle against the Philistines.76
Herbert then proceeds to the alternate reading of təratsədun/‫ ְּת ַר ְּצדּון‬as
“to dance”. He misinterprets Rashi here (or misunderstands his Hebrew
teacher) and considers the verb to come from the Arabic. He seems to
associate təratsədun/‫ ְּת ַר ְּצדּון‬with two emotions. In Psalm 113: 4, “The moun-
tains skipped like rams, the little hills like lambs”, the mountains’ skipping/
dancing is usually interpreted as proof of God’s presence in nature. His
phrase “you exalt yourselves against the mountain” (“vos erigitis adversum
montem”), however, suggests that the mountains are exalting themselves
over God’s Mount and that their joy (“tripudium”) is at the Mount’s
expense.77
From this statement Herbert moves on to a different interpretation and
focuses on the two types of mountains as metaphors for the kings of verse
14, the virtuous on the one hand, and the proud and idolatrous unbelievers
on the other.78 Via this double metaphor Herbert arrives at the image of

75 Gruber, Rashi, 448 (English), 834 (Hebrew).

76 Psalterium, fol. 72v: Adhuc ad maiorem propositi montis Dei commendacionem de
aliis qui per terras diffusi sunt montibus inducit velut increpans eos quod monti huic con-
ferre se audeant [ …] Unde et idem iste psalmista David sicut hic Dei montem Sinai in quo
lex data fuit commendat ita et montes Gelboe ex infortunio quod ibi ex strage virorum
forcium Israel contigit; maledicendo increpat sic: Montes Gelboe, nec ros nec pluvia veniant
super vos [2 Samuel 1:21]. Igitur sicut ibi montem Gelboe ex infortunio quod in eo accidit
maledixit sic versavice ex eo quod in hoc monte bene benedixit huic.
77 Psalterium, fol. 72v: vel secundum quod in Arabico est. “Quare tripudiatis montes
acuti adversum montes” et cetera. Ita et cur simile alibi: Montes tripudiaverunt quasi arietes
[Psalm 113 (114): 4]. Et est : vos montes acuti quare tripudiaverunt id est cum gaudio vos eri-
gitis adversum montem et cetera. Tripudium est gaudium cordis intensum quod et aliqua
corporis gestificacione exterius demonstratur.
78 Psalterium, fol. 72v: Et ut methaphoram prosequamur postea alios increpat montes,
quod monti huic basan insidientur vel contendant adversum ipsum subdens. Quare
in­sidiamini et cetera. Et vocat hoc secundarios montes inimicas gencium potestates. Mon-
tes: propter dignitates sublimitatem bene eciam montes: propter mentis tumidam elacio-
nem. Et acuti propter doli et malicie machinacionem subtilem. Unde et benedicit hic sed
sub interrogacione quod hee potestates. Huic monti Dei insidientur. Et revera insidiaban-
tur semper et infecti erant. Semper enim insidie et virgia semper inter principes Israelitarum.
Quasi inter aversores et fideles. Nulla enim unquam inter discolos unitas.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 105
the leaders of Israel who embody the synagogue, as the mount which God
loves, but which because of its lack of internal unity is an object of mockery
for the “pointed mountains”, i.e. the pagan philosophers.79 Herbert’s exege-
sis culminates in Paul’s warnings against the fallacy of intellectualism and
pagan scepticism in Colossians 2: 4 and 2: 8:
4: I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments
[ …] 8: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive
philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of
this world rather than on Christ,
which he illustrates by Horace’s quote: “The Jew may believe, Apellas, but
I do not”.80 The question remains to what extent the use of synagoga here
is restricted to the Christian concept of the faithful synagogue (fidelis syn-
agoga) only or also includes the Jews against the common enemy of pagan-
ism. The lack of unity within the “synagogue” might thus be interpreted as
the rift between Christianity and Judaism, with the Christians as “fideles”
and the Jews as “aversores”, or with the Christians and messianic Jews as
“fideles” and the anti-messianic ones as “aversores”. Alternatively, it could
reflect discord between Christians internally.
Herbert’s disapproval of hair-cleaving argumentation also might contain
an echo of anti-scholasticism with its tradition of disputation and its
renewed interest in classical philosophy. The role of the fidelis synagoga,
and of Paul, in the context of Herbert’s modifications to the Psalms, will
be explored in the next chapters.

79 Psalterium, fol. 72v: Vel vocat hic montes acutos insidiantes monti quem dilexit Deus,
id est regibus synagoge: philosophos gencium doctoribus synagoge in legis doctrina iugiter
obviantes et quibusdam argumentorum munitiis ipsis in lege velut quibusdam in via ten-
dicula ponentes spes insidias. Et bene philosophi gencium et montes dicuntur et acuti.
Montes propter sermonis sublinitatem et acuti propter argumentorum et minuciarum
quarumdam adinvencionem subtilem.
80 Psalterium, fol. 73r: Quos magister precanendos monens scribit sic. Hec autem dico:
ut nemo vos decipiat in sublinitate sermonum [Colossians 2: 4]. Et idem. Videte ne quis vos
decipiat per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam [Colossians 2: 8]. Isti sunt philosophi qui statu
legis littere fidelis synagoge spem deridebant et fidem. Iuxta quod in derisum ipsorum unus:
Credat Iudeus Appella, [non ego] [Horace, Satires I, 5: 100].
Post vero sub lege gracie regis nostri messie fidem quibus poterant impungnabant
multos secundum mundi elementa fallentes et retrahentes a fide. Cum fidos Christi qua in
Christiano per Christum triumphante racio spontanee cedit mox et succumbit donec fidei
succedat visio et in visionem transeat racio. Verum montibus acutis monti Dei insidiantibus
quocumque modo montes accipiantur omissis de monte Dei prosequitur subdens.
106 chapter three
3. Midrash Tehillim

As has become clear from Herbert’s comment on Psalm 69 (70), in which

he refers to “a certain commentary on Tillim”, the existence of this source
was known to him. This does not necessarily imply that he consulted the
work directly or independently, however. He mentions Midrash Tehillim
four times in total, in the titles of Psalms 5, and 69 (70), and in 40 (41): 4
and 43 (44): 2. In each of these passages his references to Midrash Tehillim
bear some link with Rashi. He also seems unsure about the form this
midrashic work takes and writes about it as if he has never actually seen it.
For example, on Psalm 40 (41): 4, “The Lord will sustain him on his sick-
bed; you will turn over his whole bed during his of illness”, Rashi writes:
On his sickbed. When he [the one who guards the sick in verse 3] too gets
sick, he will sustain him. Now what is the meaning of on his sickbed? It means
a patient’s seventh day [of illness] when he is extremely sick. Thus it is
explained in Aggadath Tehillim.81
In fact, Midrash Tehillim (as we have it now) mentions not the seventh but
the fourth day as explanation for ‘al ‘eres dəvay/‫ל־ע ֶרׂש ְּדוָ י‬
ֶ ‫“( ַע‬on his
sickbed”).82 Herbert comments:
And the Hebrew say that he calls it “the sick-bed” when the whole bed of
the ill person is turned so, as we have said turned over, on the seventh day
of illness, when even according to physicians the illness usually becomes
much worse. And that here in the illness of the turned bed the seventh day
of illness must be understood, this, one literal exegete [Rashi] says, he has
read in a certain old letter published in the genre of an explanation on the
Psalms.83
Herbert’s adherence to Rashi’s reading of “the seventh” instead of “the
fourth” day and the phrasing of his remark on Midrash Tehillim make it
clear that his debt to this work is at second hand. His reference to Rashi as
“unus litterator” suggests that litterator in the singular should be taken in
a generic sense and is not restricted to Rashi only. In Psalm 43 (44), which
is attributed to the sons of Korah, Rashi comments on verse 2: “O God, we

81 Gruber, Rashi, 332 (English), 826 (Hebrew).

82 Braude, Midrash, I, 438.
83 Psalterium, fol. 42r: Et dicunt Hebrei quod vocat hic lectum infirmitatis. Quando
scilicet totum egroti stratum vertitur sic ut diximus reversatur diem infirmitatis septimum,
quando eciam iuxta phisicos acrius solet aggravari infirmitas. Et quod strati hic in infirmi-
tate versati nomine septimus infirmitatis dies intelligi debeat, dicit unus litterator se hoc
legisse in quadam veteri epistula in modum explanacionis super tillim edita.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 107
have heard with our ears, our fathers have told us, what work you did in
their days, in the times of old”.
With our ears we have heard. Here you learn that the sons of Korah [ …]
were speaking on behalf of these generations, who come after them, for
were [it] on their own behalf [that they spoke], it would not have been
appropriate for them to say our fathers have told us for in fact they [the sons
of Korah] themselves saw the miracles of the wilderness, of the [crossing
of the] Jordan [River on dry land], and the wars of Joshua. Thus is it [our
verse] explained in Aggadath Tillim [sic].84
Herbert paraphrases Rashi here and adds:
And a/the literal exegete says that he has found this as such in a certain
exegetical letter on Tillim.85
thereby stating Rashi and not Midrash Tehillim as his direct source.
However, we are offered a different picture in his discussion of the title of
Psalm 5: “For the director of music. For nehiloth. A psalm of David”. Herbert
discusses several translations in existence for nəḥiloth/‫( ּנְ ִחילֹות‬nehiloth),
two of which are “torrents” and “inheritance”:
And one should take note that a certain letter which is found among the
books of Gamaliel, on the Book of Psalms, and published in the form of a
small commentary, explains the meaning of this Hebrew word nehiloth as
“torrents” or “inheritance”.86
He seems to consider Midrash Tehillim to be part of a larger rabbinic work
(“inter Gamalielis libros reperitur”) and calls it “a small commentary”
(“commentarioli”) as well as a “letter” (“epistola”). What is interesting in
this verse is that Rashi does not mention “torrent” as a possibility here but
that Midrash Tehillim does.87 In the light of Herbert’s apparent ignorance
about Midrash Tehillim displayed in the previous examples, this raises the
question through what channel Herbert could have accessed this work, if
not through Rashi.

84 Gruber, Rashi, 346 (English), 826 (Hebrew).

85 Psalterium, fol. 45r: Et dixit litterator se reperisse sic in quadam epistula explanato-
ria super tillim.
86 Psalterium, fol. 7r: Et attendendum quod epistola quedam que inter Gamalielis libros
reperitur super psalterii librum in modo commentarioli edita: explanavit vim huius Hebrei
uerbi nehiloth pro torrentibus vel hereditatibus.
87 Gruber, Rashi, 188 (English), 812 (Hebrew); Braude, Midrash, I, 81; Goodwin, Take
Hold …, 258-59; Herbert was probably strenghtened in his belief that “torrent” was a correct
translation for naḥəlah/‫ נַ ְח ָלה‬by the Hebraica’s translation of this word in Psalm 123 (124):
4 as torrens.
108 chapter three
In order to throw light on this problem it is necessary to examine three
other passages. One is his treatment of Psalm 54 (55): 13, “If an enemy were
insulting me, I could endure it (wə’esa’/‫ ;)וְ ֶא ָׂשא‬if a foe were raising himself
against me, I could hide from him”. Rashi only mentions in 54 (55): 4 that
the Psalm concerns the betrayal of David on two accounts, first by Doeg
the Edomite, and later by his own learned counsellor Ahitophel. On verse
13 he offers a short comment:
So long as I live I can bear my revilement with which you revile me for you
are a person who is great in [knowledge of] the Torah.88
Rashi’s brief remark on Ahitophel’s alleged knowledge of the Torah is based
on a longer exegesis in Midrash Tehillim:
What is meant by the words according to my order? [verse 14] According to
R. Joshua ben Levi, David meant: “Ahitophel was my orderer, that is to say,
it was he who arranged laws in their proper order”; by the words my guide
[verse 14], David meant: “Ahitophel was my master who instructed me in
Torah,” for the next verse says We took sweet counsel together [verse 15].89
Herbert’s comment, which he attributes to the “Hebreorum litteratores”,
is reminiscent more of Midrash Tehillim than of Rashi:
He says as it were: I win from Ahitophel and from Doech, but mostly from
Ahitophel, and not undeservedly. For, as the Hebrew exegetes relate, he was
a confidant of David who had instructed him even in several cases of the
law. Hence his hostile insults against David. Whether this tradition about
David and Ahitophel is true [ …] the literal exegete must see. 90
However, Herbert accepts that, according to the Christian tradition this
passage prophesies Christ.
It remains unclear whether “Hebreorum litteratores” in this passage is
Herbert’s term for the rabbinic tradition underlying the Midrash on Psalms,
in which case he would demonstrate he is aware of the source of his exege-
sis, or whether it should be taken to mean contemporary Jewish exegetes,

88 Gruber, Rashi, 396 (English), 830 (Hebrew).

89 Braude, Midrash, I, 492.
90 Psalterium, fol. 57r: Quasi dicat. Conqueror ad Achitofel et de Doech et maxime de
Achitofel, nec inmerito. Fuit enim ut tradunt Hebreorum litteratores familiaris David qui
eciam Dauid de nonnullis in lege instruxerat. Unde et eius adversum David detestabiliores
inimicicie. Unde si vera est tradicio hec super David et Achitofel [ …]: litterator videat.
Verumptamen caveat ne propter sequens littere psalmi angusticias in regem, scilicet
nostrum messiam et psalmo tollat hoc fingat. Quicquid vero fingat de rege nostro messia
et proditore suo Iuda psalmus manifeste prophetat. Et maxime cum dicit. Et tu homo
­unanimis et cetera. Nos vero salvo sensu ecclesiastico secundum tradicionem Hebreorum
iam dictam psalmi littera prosequamur.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 109
or (non-allegorical) Jewish exegesis in general. Alternatively, it could refer
to contemporary Jewish grammarians who explained this verse to him.
This in turn raises the question whether or not “litterator” here denotes
Rashi or is again used in a generic sense.
In Psalm 56 (57): 9, “Awake (‘urah/‫)עּורה‬, ָ my glory, awake, harp and lyre
(hannevel wəkhinnor/‫!)הּנֵ ֶבל וְ ִכּנֹור‬
ַ I will awaken the dawn”, Herbert com-
ments that “my glory” refers to God who, awakened and praised with harp
and lyre, will deliver the Psalmist from his enemies.91 Herbert then offers
an alternative exegesis (“aliter tamen litterator”) based on Rashi, who draws
upon Midrash Tehillim. This explains the “glory” as David’s musical instru-
ments which were hung above his bed and, touched by the wind, would
wake him up at night and call him to sacred reading and and prayer (“lec-
tioni et oracioni”). 92
“Litterator” here seems to refer to Rashi, whereas the phrase “tradunt
Hebrei” denotes the rabbinic tradition. In the following step of his exegesis
Herbert moves beyond Rashi’s commentary. He mentions Psalm 118 (119):
62 “At midnight I will rise to give thanks to you because of your righteous
judgments”, which is not found in Rashi but does occur as a cross reference
in Midrash Tehillim.93 This Jewish exposition can then easily be used as a
support for a Christian comparison of David’s night time prayer with the
vigils sung as part of contemporary monastic office
And this is what another Psalm says: “At midnight I will rise to give thanks
to you because of your righteous judgments”. There was in David’s house
an observance of religious services [regulated] by instruments which in
religious houses nowadays is [regulated] by clocks […] I will awaken the
dawn: that is, I will as it were rouse from its sleep the dawn, namely, the

91 Psalterium, fol. 59r: Scilicet tu Domine Deus meus qui gloria mea es expergiscere;
expergiscere inquam ut liberes servum et perdas inimicum omnes adversantes michi sine
causa. Et ad expergiscendum Dominum adicit quod laudabit Dominum in nablo et cythara.
Et hoc est quod dicit ad instrumenta ipsa convertendo sermonem. Expergiscere nablum et
psalterium et cythara. Ac si dicat: “Ut expergiscatur Dominus tangam nablum scilicet psal-
terium et cytharam”, id est psallam et cytharizabo que cum non sonant quasi dormiunt. Ac
tunc expergiscuntur cum pulsantur ut sonent et hoc est: expergiscere et cetera.
92 Gruber, Rashi, 408 (English), 830 (Hebrew); Psalterium, fol. 59r: Aliter tamen littera-
tor. Expergiscere gloria et cetera. Et vocat David hunc gloriam suam: instrumenta sua,
scilicet nablum et cytharam, in quibus Deum gloriose laudare consueverat. Et que eciam
ipsum ad Dei laudem excitabant. Tradunt enim Hebrei quod hec duo instrumenta ad supra
lectum David penderent ad aperturam quandam in pariete. Unde et flavit venti noctis
medio subintrans pulsabat instrumenta ad quorum sonitum mox excitabatur David. Et ex
tunc excitatus sic lectioni et oracioni vocabat noctis scilicet medio.
93 Braude, Midrash, I, 502; The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation 1: Tractate
Berakhot, transl. by Jacob Neusner (Chico, CA, 1984), 42.
110 chapter three
early morning hour. He who anticipates vigils as it were rouses the early
morning hour. The Hebrew idiom demands that it is explained thus.94
The phrase “anticipare vigilias”, which can be interpreted as “to be awake
before the watches” is also a reference to Psalm 76 (77): 5, “My eyes were
awake before the watches” (“Anticipaverunt vigilias oculi mei”). Whereas
Herbert could have been aware of this cross-reference in Midrash Tehillim,
it is equally feasible that he came by it via an annotated Rashi commentary
or a contemporary Jewish scholar.
A similar example is Psalm 67 (68): 23, “The Lord said: ‘I will retrieve
(’ashiv/‫)א ִׁשיב‬
ָ from Bashan (mibbashan/‫;)מ ָּב ָׁשן‬
ִ I will retrieve from the
depths of the sea’”. Herbert comments:
The psalm speaks from the persona of Israel that our God is the God of
salvation. It shows now how he has decreed to save Israel from hostile nations.
He retrieves them from everywhere and returns them from the lands of the
gentiles and from the depths of the sea, that is from the islands of the sea
to which they had been dispersed from various cities. In order to show this
he chooses one from among the other names of lands and cities and the
name of that one city is Basan, partly because Og, the famous king of the
gentiles, used to reign there, partly because of the interpretation of its root.
For basan means “confusion”, “fat”, or “thirst”.95
Herbert’s translation of the word Basan as “confusion” (“confusio”) or
“drought” (“siccitas”) originates with Jerome.96 Rashi’s commentary here
consists of two cross references (Psalm 21 (22): 13 and Isaiah 11:11), which
Herbert does not mention. His discussion of this verse in the light of Israel’s
battle against its enemies and against Og, king of Bashan, in particular, is
reminiscent of Midrash Tehillim:
[the verse means that] even as the Holy One, blessed be He, requited Og,
the king of Bashan, and requited Pharaoh and the Egyptians at the Red Sea,

94 Psalterium, fol. 59r: Et hoc est quod in alio psalmo dicit: Media nocte surgebam ad
confitendum tibi [Psalm 118 (119): 32]. Et erat tunc in domo David instrumentorum officium
quod est nunc religiosis domibus orologiorum. [ …] expergiscar mane. Quod est excitabo
quasi a sompno ipsum mane horam scilicet matutinam. Ille vero horam matutinam quasi
excitat qui vigilias anticipat. Et ut ita explanetur exigit idioma Hebreum.
95 Psalterium, fol. 74r: Dixit psalmus ex Israelis persona quod Deus noster Deus sit
salutis. Nunc vero quomodo ab inimicis nacionibus Israelem salvare decreverit, indicit.
Convertet enim eos circumquaque et reducet de regionibus gencium et de maris profundis,
id de insulis maris ad quas ex civitatibus variis dispersi fuerant. Ad quod significandum per
ceteris regionum et civitatum nominibus: elegit unum et unius dumtaxat civitatis nomen
scilicet Basan. Tum quia regnavit prius in ea famosus ille rex gencium Og tum interpreta-
cionis racione. Sonat enim Basan confusio, vel pinguis, vel siccitas.
96 Jerome, Lib. int. heb. nom., CCSL 72, 62, 79.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 111
so will the Holy One, blessed be He, requite the mighty men of wicked
Edom.97
On verses 31b-32 of the same Psalm, “Scatter the nations who delight in
war. Envoys will come from Egypt; Kush will submit herself to God”, Herbert
translates:
Dispersit populos bella volunt: offerent velociter ex Egypto. Ethiopia curret
dare manus suas Deo.
Literally: He has scattered the peoples who want war. They will swiftly pres-
ent an offering from Egypt. Ethiopia will come running to reach out its hands
to God.
This subject of the verse, Herbert explains, continues to be the “beast of
the reed” (“bestia calami”), mentioned in verse 30, which stands for the
descendants of Esau; the “people” (“populi”) are a reference to the Israelites.
The “swift running” of representatives from Egypt and Ethiopia prophesies
the conversion of the gentiles at the coming of the Messiah, in particular
since the verb offere can have the meaning of “celebrating mass”. This
exegesis reflects the traditional Jewish explanation of this verse and is, just
as the messianic reference, borrowed directly from Rashi. 98
Herbert then proceeds to an explanation of the word ḥashəmannim/
‫“( ַח ְׁש ַמּנִ ים‬envoys, tribute-bearers”) and it is in this passage that he gives an
interpretation mentioned in Midrash Tehillim but not in Rashi:
And note that where we have here “swiftly”, in Hebrew it says hasmannin
which means speedy gifts. As if we said “they will offer speedy gifts from
Egypt”. Some of the literal exegetes claim that hasmannin is the name of a

97 Braude, Midrash, I, 546.

98 Psalterium, fol. 76r: Adhuc de bestia calami [verse 30] psalmus persequitur. Post mala
ostensa que bestia via habet in se describens eciam mala que aliis intulit et precipue tribu-
bus Israelis. Et hoc est: Dispersit, scilicet bestia illa calami prenominata, scilicet semen Esau.
Populos id est filios Israel qui eciam alibi populi vocantur ibi Dilexit populos [Deuteronomy
33: 3]. Nec mirum si bestia illa dispersit quare bella volunt [ …].
Et quod dicitur hic velociter et curret, hoc est quod ibi dicitur in audicione auris. Per
Egyptum itaque et Ethiopiam gencium duo regna precipua gencium ad fidem introitus
significatur hic. Aperte rotum. Completus sicut hodie cernimus in regi nostri messie adventu
quando iam iuxta hunc psalmi locum propheticum semen carnale Esau, semen Iacob
carnale Israeliticum, scilicet populum iam non impugnat. Dicit itaque offerent et cetera.
Quasi hec bestia calami bella volunt sed secus erit quando subaudi: offerent velociter ex
Egypto scilicet Egypcii et extrema gencium Ethiopia curret vel festinabit et cetera hoc est
quando gentes ad fidem converse fuerunt. Gruber, Rashi, 452 (English), 835 (Hebrew).
112 chapter three
certaim city, namely, a city in Egypt which is referred to with the name
Hasmona.99
Whereas Rashi’s commentary contains the notion, borrowed from
Menahem, of ḥashəmannim/‫ ַח ְׁש ַמּנִ ים‬as the name of a country, it does not
provide a basis for Herbert’s translation of the word as “festina munera”.100
Midrash Tehillim divides ḥashəmannim/‫ ַח ְׁש ַמּנִ ים‬into a form of ḥush/‫חּוׁש‬
(“to hasten”) and manim/‫( ָמנִ ים‬the currency minas), which could have
influenced Herbert’s reading here.101 Alternatively, an annotated Rashi
commentary or a teacher could have led him to this etymology just as well.
Considered together, the above examples demonstrate two things: first,
that Herbert knew of the existence of Midrash Tehillim; second, that his
commentary contains elements which are found in Midrash Tehillim but
not in Rashi. Yet an analysis of the quantity and nature of references to
Midrash Tehillim and of the degree of textual similarity between Midrash
Tehillim and the Psalterium do not provide any solid evidence for direct or
systematic use of this source by Herbert. A further argument supporting
this conclusion is that Midrash Tehillim, with its overall messianic view
and frequent etymological interpretations, would have formed an excellent
starting point for Herbert’s own exegeses. Moreover, it would have given
him more refined ammunition with which to attack Rashi’s anti-messianic
statements. It seems therefore unlikely that Herbert would have left such
an opportunity deliberately unused. A possibility which has been suggested
by Loewe is that Herbert had access to a larger commentary on the Psalms
by Rashi than we have now, or that he consulted a glossed Rashi commen-
tary.102 The vagueness of his descriptions of the shape and content of
Midrash Tehillim suggests to me that he had not read it directly but rather
knew part of it via annotations and cross-references, or through discussions
with his teacher(s).

99 Psalterium, fol. 76r: Et nota quod ubi nos habemus hic velociter in Hebreo est hasman-
nin quod sonat eciam festina munera. Ut si dicamus offerent festina munera ex Egypto.
Dicunt tamen litteratorum nonnulli quod hasmannin nomen civitatensium sit cuiusdam,
scilicet civitatis Egypti que proprio nomine notata est hasmona.
100 Gruber, Rashi, 452 (English), 835 (Hebrew).
101 Braude, Midrash, I, 549.
102 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 65.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 113
4. The Talmud/Gamaliel

a. Herbert’s References to Gamaliel

Herbert knew of the existence of a body of rabbinic literature other than
Rashi and Midrash Tehillim. In concordance with his Christian contem-
poraries, he calls this work “Gamaliel”.103 The word “Gamaliel” occurs in
five places in the Psalterium, i.e., 5: 1, 44 (45): 9, 71 (72): 1, 88 (89): 52 and 110
(111): 6. In all of these instances except one, Rashi seems to have been the
initial source of reference.
Intertwined with the mention of three other Jewish sources we find the
word in a comment on the title of Psalm 5: “For the director of music. For
nehiloth. A psalm of David”. First of all, Herbert explains, there are the
ancient Hebrew masters, the tenth-century scholar Menahem ben Saruq
among them, who consider nehiloth (‫ )נְ ִחילֹות‬as a reference to a musical
instrument. The litteratores, however, “say that they have read in the books
of Gamaliel” that the word means “swarm [of bees]”. A third and fourth
meaning, that of “torrents” or “inheritance”, are offered in “a certain letter
found among the books of Gamaliel about the Book of Psalms and pub-
lished in the form of a small commentary”, i.e., Midrash Tehillim.104 This
passage is particulary illuminating when juxtaposed with Rashi’s com-
mentary:
On nehiloth. Menahem [b. Jacob Ibn Saruq] explained that all of the terms
nehiloth, alamoth (Psalm 46: 1), gittith (Psalms 8: 1, 81: 1, and 84: 1) and Jedut-
hun (Psalms 39: 1, 62: 1, and 77: 1) are names of musical instruments and
that the melody for the psalm was made appropriate to the musical char-
acteristic of the particular instrument named in the title of the particular
psalm. An aggadic midrash on the Book [of Psalms] interpreted nehiloth as
a synonym of nahalah “inheritance”, but this is not the meaning of the word.
Moreover, the subject matter of the psalm does not refer to inheritance. It

103 Frans van Liere, “Twelfth-Century Christian Scholars and the Attribution of the
Talmud,” Medieval Perspectives 17 (2002): 93-104; Goodwin, Take Hold …, 146, n65.
104 Psalterium, fol. 6v: Nonnulli de antiquioribus Hebreorum magistris [marg. gloss: ut
Menaem]: ubicumque in psalmorum titulis ponitur neiloth, sive almuz, sive getiz, sive
ydithun instrumentorum genera interpretati sunt. Nehilot vero cum sit instrumenti nomen
idem sonat quod adunacio [ …] Interpretatur enim ut super iam diximus nehiloth adunacio
quasi muscarum pro quo dicunt Hebreorum litteratores sic in libris Gamalielis legere: nehil
sel devorim quod est adunacio muscarum scilicet apum [marg. gloss: Circumdederunt me
sicut apes (Psalm 117: 12)]. [ …] Et attendendum quod epistola quedam que inter Gamalielis
libros reperitur super psalterii librum in modo commentarioli edita; explanavit vim huius
Hebrei verbi nehiloth pro torrentibus vel hereditatibus. See also Goodwin’s transcription
and discussion, Take Hold …, 257.
114 chapter three
is possible to interpret nehiloth as a synonym of gayyasôt “military troops”
as is suggested by the expression nahil sel deborim “swarm of bees”. [Thus
our psalm could be understood as] a prayer referring to enemy troops who
attack Israel. The poet has composed this psalm on behalf of all Israel.105
In his discussion of nehiloth Herbert uses Rashi as a framework within
which to build his own, more elaborate, exegesis. He closely follows Rashi’s
references to source material and their respective interpretations. His
remark on Menahem is probably copied from Rashi, since Menahem’s
statement on Psalm titles is only to be found in the Mahberet Menahem as
a general point and not with specific regard to nehiloth.106
Interestingly, by interpreting the term as “swarm of bees” Herbert does
not just borrow from Rashi but also acknowledges Rashi’s midrashic refer-
ence (to Mishnah Bava Qama 10: 2). His definition of Midrash Tehillim as
part of the books of Gamaliel suggests that for him the title “Gamaliel”
encompasses a wider range of rabbinic literature than the material con-
tained in the Talmud only.
A similar problem occurs in Psalm 44 (45): 9
All your robes (kol bigədotheykha/‫ל־ּבגְ ד ֶֹתיָך‬
ִ ‫)ּכ‬
ָ are fragrant with myrrh and
aloes and cassia; from palaces adorned with ivory the music of the strings
makes you glad.
Herbert explains “robes” (“vestimenta”) as a reference to good works, which
give off a sweet smell. However, he adds, according to one Jewish source
(“litterator unus”) they include not only good and holy but also evil works
which “after true and fruitful penitence” are transformed into a fragrant
sweetness.107 This exegesis is reminiscent of Rashi on this verse:
[The assertion, All your robes are myrrh … means], “All your garments
[begadêka] give off a fragrance like the fragrance of spices”. A midrash based
upon it is “All bigadêka, i.e., Your sins [sêrhônêka] are wiped away so that
they give off a sweet fragrance”.108

105 Gruber, Rashi, 188 (English), 812 (Hebrew).

106 Gruber, Rashi, 189n1.
107 Psalterium, fol. 48r: Pro vestimenta hic illorum qui bene presunt; intelliguntur opera
que speciebus aromaticis nominatis hic bene comparantur quia suavem Deo et proximo
odorem spirant. Coram Deo ad meritum et coram proxima ad exemplum. Dicit ergo lit-
terator unus quod hec appellacio scilicet in cunctis vestimentis tuis generaliter omnia opera
conprehendat non solum bona et sancta opera ut iam diximus sed eciam opera mala. Que
omnia post veram et fructosam penitenciam Deo in odorem suavitatis convertuntur. Et
hoc est quod hic generaliter dicitur in cunctis vestimentis tuis.
108 Gruber, Rashi, 351 (English), 827 (Hebrew).
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 115
Since the Psalterium’s treatment of this verse faithfully reflects Rashi’s
comment and since, as we have seen, there already seems to be a precedent
in Psalm 40 (41): 4 for using the phrase “unus litterator” as a reference to
Rashi, it would be logical to understand the words here in the same way.
However, a marginal gloss in the same hand as the body of the text, explains
“litterator unus” as Gamaliel. The midrash attributed to this “litterator
unus”, which is found in Rashi as well, allegedly originates with Rabbi
Jonathan ben Napha in the Targum Jonathan Pe’ah 1: 1. Bigədotheykha/
‫ ִּבגְ ד ֶֹתיָך‬is treated there as a defective spelling of begaydtheykha/‫בגידתיָך‬,
meaning “your treacheries”, which can be set right through repentance.109
If we do not consider this marginal gloss to be a mistake by either
Herbert or a later annotator, we can interpret it in combination with the
phrase “litterator unus” in two ways. It could either denote “Rashi”, the
gloss being an added acknowledgment that Rashi has based his exegesis
on Gamaliel; or it could directly refer to the author of the midrash in the
Targum Jonathan, although Herbert might not have known that this lit-
terator in question was R. Jonathan ben Napha. Either possibility leads to
the conclusion that Gamaliel was thought to include not just the Talmud
(and possibly Midrash Tehillim) but also the Targums. This overlaps with
the claim by Olszowy-Schlanger that Gamaliel covered a Talmudic anthol-
ogy.110
In his introduction to Psalm 71 (72), “Of Solomon. Endow the king with
your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness”, Herbert points
to the difference in interpretation between the “older of Hebrew learned
men” (“Hebreorum antiquiores doctores”) who, like the authors of the
Christian tradition, favour a messianic reading of this psalm, and the more
recent literal exegetes (“litteratores moderni”) who explain it as a prophecy
of David about Solomon.111 A marginal gloss on the phrase “Hebreorum
antiquiores doctores”, in what looks like the same hand as the main text,
supplies: “Gamaliel”. It is clear that by the “litteratores moderni” Herbert
means Rashi and his school of peshat exposition, who firmly interpret this
psalm as David’s prophecy about his son. The specific work he refers to by

109 Gruber, Rashi, 356n 44.

110 Olszowy-Schlanger, “Christian Hebraism in Thirteenth-Century England”, in Cross-
ing Borders, 121.
111 Psalterium, fol. 80r: Et est psalmus iste ab ecclesiasticis de rege nomen Messia dili-
genter satis expositus; quem similiter et Hebreorum antiquiores doctores et maiores de
Messia interpretati sunt. Verum litteratores moderni psalmum hunc sicut et plerosque de
superdictis, quos et supra notavimus, ut sensui ecclesiastico obvient et nostrum Messiam
et scripturis amoveant, super Salomone illo David et Bethsabee filio explanare conati sunt.
116 chapter three
Gamaliel is more difficult to identify. It could be a reference to the Talmud,
in which one of the explanations for this Psalm is messianic. It could also
be based on Midrash Tehillim, which gives a messianic reading of verses 4,
8 and 17.112
Psalm 88 (89): 52, “[The taunts] with which your enemies have mocked,
O Lord, they have mocked the footprints/heels of (‘iqqəvoth/‫)ע ְּקבֹות‬ ִ your
anointed one (məshiḥekha/‫יחָך‬ ֶ ‫”)מ ִׁש‬
ְ Herbert interprets historically as a
reference to David’s suffering at the hands of his various enemies. Then
follows a messianic explanation drawn from Rashi:
“[The taunts] with which they have mocked” etc. should rather be understood
as about the Messiah himself. I know that even the more skillful of the Jew-
ish literal exegetes agree about this in their writings. So that the sense is
“with which”, namely, “taunts”; “they have mocked the footsteps of your
anointed one”, that is, the end of the king Messiah. This is the explanation
of the literal exegete and, if I am not mistaken, according to this the very
words of the explanation have been faithfully translated from Hebrew into
Latin by my talkative [teacher]. And he adds in his explanation of this pas-
sage of the psalm, about Gamaliel, that, speaking about the Messiah, he uses
a similar word as the one put here at the end of the psalm, saying that “in
the footsteps of the Messiah” a cruel judgment will grow, calling “the foot-
steps of the Messiah” “the end of the Messiah”.113
This passage offers a unique insight into the layers of source material used
and assessed by Herbert. He mentions three types of sources: an “explana-
cio litteratoris”, a contemporary interpreter described as “loquacem meum”,
and Gamaliel. He remarks that the litterator quotes Gamaliel (“Et addit in
explanacione sua super hunc psalmi locum de Gamaliele …”). This leads
us straight to Rashi who interprets ‘iqqəvoth/‫“( ִע ְּקבֹות‬footprints/heels”)
as a metaphor for “time”.114 Rashi then explains ‘iqqəvoth məshiḥekha/
‫יחָך‬
ֶ ‫“( ִע ְּקבֹות ְמ ִׁש‬the footprints of your anointed one”) as “the time of the

112 Braude, Midrash, I, 561-63; Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, see Seder Nezikin in
Four Volumes, ed. by I. Epstein (London, 1935), III, 667-68; Gruber, Rashi, 472-76, 479 n.37
(English); 836-37 (Hebrew).
113 Psalterium, fol. 109v: quibus exprobraverunt et cetera, pocius de ipso Messia intelli-
gendum in quo eciam periciores Iudeorum litteratores scriptis suis scio consensisse. Ut
videlicet versiculi istius finis super Messia explanetur. Ut sit sensus quibus, scilicet obpro-
briis; exprobraverunt vestigia christi tui, id est finem regis Messie, hec est litteratoris explan-
acio et ipsa eciam explanationis verba secundum quod ab Hebreo in Latinum per loquacem
meum fide ni fallor translata sunt.
Et addit in explanacione sua super hunc psalmi locum de Gamaliele, qui de Messia
loquens istius quod hic in fine psalmi ponitur simile verbum ponit dicens quod in vestigiis
Messie iudicium crudele crescet vestigia Messie vocans: Messie finem.
114 Gruber, Rashi, 571 (English), 845 (Hebrew).
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 117
King Messiah” (sophey melekh haməshiaḥ/‫)סופי מלך המשיח‬, adding a
Talmudic reference:
Now it [the use of the expression ‘iqqebôt, lit. “heels of” to mean “time of”]
is [typically] Mishnaic Hebrew [as is exemplified by the apothegm], “On
the heels of the messiah arrogance will increase” (Mishnah Sotah 9: 15).115
Rashi, who often declares himself opposed to the messianic interpretations
by his predecessors elsewhere in the Psalms, here shows a rare agreement
with the rabbinic tradition on that front. 116 Herbert, in turn, does not waste
this opportunity to use a unanimous Jewish messianic stance for Christian
apologetic purposes. He interprets Rashi’s explanation sophey melekh
haməshiaḥ/‫ סופי מלך המשיח‬not as “the time of the King Messiah” but rather
as “the end of the King Messiah” (“finem regis messie”) and seems anxious
to convince his reader that this is exactly how his interpreter has translated
it for him from the Hebrew. Since the noun soph/‫ סֹוף‬does indeed mean
“end” in biblical Hebrew, an association with Christ’s death seems only a
natural step further. He subsequently emphasises the unity of thought
between the rabbinic and the ecclesiastical tradition, while at the same
time lamenting the Jews’ topical lack of deeper understanding of their own
scriptures:
So, just like the ecclesiastical author, the Jewish literal exegete interprets
what is said here about the Messiah, i.e., “the footsteps of your anointed
one” as “the end of your King Messiah”. But this “end of the King Messiah”
which Gamaliel puts here unclearly, the orthodox believer (catholicus) under-
stands as “the death of the King Messiah”, and a disgraceful death at that,
a death on the cross. If only the ecclesiastic and the Jew could accept this.117
Although Gamaliel is mentioned here twice and in relative detail, it remains
unclear whether, as Loewe believes, Herbert’s comment reflects first-hand
use of the Talmud.118 It is equally possible that Herbert followed Rashi and
relied on additional glosses or on his “loquax” to provide the necessary
background information.

115 Gruber, Rashi, 571, 574 n.43 (English), 845 (Hebrew).

116 See, for example, his commentary on Psalms 2: 1, 9: 1, 20 (21): 1, 39 (40): 7, 79 (80): 16,
87 (88): 1, 97 (98): 8, 104 (105): 1 and 117 (118): 22.
117 Psalterium, fol. 109v: Igitur litterator Iudeus sicut ecclesiasticus quod hic dicitur super
Messia interpretatur dicens vestigia videlicet christi tui: finem regis Messie. Sed finem hunc
regis Messie quem Gamaliel indistincte sic ponit, intelligit catholicus: regis Messie mortem,
mortem vero ignominiosam, mortem crucis. Quod utinam sicut ecclesiasticus et Iudeus
acceptaret.
118 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 69.
118 chapter three
On Psalm 110 (111): 6, “He has shown his people the power of his works,
giving them the lands of the gentiles”, Herbert comments that this refers
to God’s power to perform miracles, and relates directly to the standing
still of sun and moon during Joshua’s siege of Jericho, and the Israelites’
subsequent victory.119 He then proceeds to another interpretation, which
a marginal gloss attributes to Gamaliel:
Or otherwise: The Lord has announced to his people the power of his works
by speaking; this was when through the teaching of Moses he showed the
people the creation of the world which is divided in the work of six days.
And he did this In order to give, that is, in order to show that he will give to
them the inheritance of the gentiles rightly because he is the creator of all
things. This he has taught through Moses, and he shows that as Lord he is
allowed to transfer the lands of all to whomever people he wants.120
Rashi relates this verse to the Creation narrative and to the giving of the
“inheritance of the nations” (the Land of Israel) to the Israelites. He adds:
Moreover, Midrash Tanhuma [states]: “He [God] wrote for Israel the Book
of Genesis in order to inform them that the land [of Israel] is His and that
He has the authority to settle in it whomever He wishes and to uproot them
and to settle others [in it]. Hence the gentiles should not be able to say to
Israel “You are robbers for you took away the land of the seven nations”.121
He does not mention Psalm 23 (24): 1-2, but his exposition of this verse and
of 110 (111): 6 refer to the same subject matter. Here again we find an exam-
ple of Gamaliel used to denote a non-talmudic work. The authorised version
of the Midrash Tanhuma, which discusses Psalm 110 (111): 6 on both Genesis
1: 1 and Genesis 22, is substantially different from both Rashi’s and Herbert’s
comments. This suggests that Herbert has paraphrased Rashi rather than
cited the Midrash Tanhuma.122
Overall, Gamaliel seems to function as an umbrella term, covering a
wide range of midrashic and Talmudic material. It is questionable that
Herbert was fully aware of the differences between the individual collec-

119 Psalterium, fol. 132r.

120 Psalterium, fol. 132r: Vel aliter. Annunciavit Dominus populo suo fortitudinem
operum suorum loquendo hoc fuit quando per doctrinam Moysi manifestavit populo super
mundi creacionem que per opera sex dierum distincta est. Et hoc fecit. Ut det id est ut
ostenderet se licite daturum eis hereditatem gencium. Eo enim quo creator omnium est
quod per Moysen docuit, ostendit licere sibi tanquam vero omnium Domino regna ad
quamcumque voluerit gentem transferre.
121 Gruber, Rashi, 655 (English), 851 (Hebrew).
122 Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Recension), vol. I: Genesis, transl. by John T. Townsend
(Hoboken, NJ, 1989), 7, 131.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 119
tions, let alone worked from them directly. It confirms the theory offered
above that for him (and probably for his peers as well) Gamaliel refers to
the traditional corpus of rabbinical literature.

b. Other Possible Talmudic References

Although in the previous examples Herbert’s references to Gamaliel seem
to have been borrowed from Rashi, there are a number of passages, mainly
dealing with Jewish festivals, where the Talmud might have been of some
influence. For instance on Psalm 65 (66): 1, “Shout with joy to God, all of
the earth”, Herbert explains that “shout with joy” (hari‘u/‫)ה ִריעּו‬
ָ refers to
the sounding of the shofar (ram’s horn). He further puts the verb in its
liturgical context by providing background information on the sounding
of the shofar at Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah).123
Another verse referring to the sounding of the shofar is Psalm 80 (81): 4,
“Sound the ram’s horn at new moon and at full moon, on the day of our
Feast”. Herbert comments on tiqə‘u shophar/‫ׁשֹופר‬
ָ ‫“( ִּת ְקעּו‬Sound the ram’s
horn”) which in Latin can be translated, according the Hebraica as “clan-
gite cornu” (“sound the horn”) or, according to the Gallicana as “clangite
bucina” (“sound the trumpet”):
The horn, i.e., of a ram, which was allowed on that day and on no other in
remembrance of the freeing of Isaac. He was not sacrificed, because a ram
was substituted and sacrificed in his place. And “sound the trumpet”, under-
stand this “at full moon”, namely on Sukkot. Then they used to sound the
trumpet, not the horn. And note that not just in the Psalms but nearly
everywhere where we have “trumpet”, the Hebrew has “horn”, even though
sometimes it was allowed to use the first one when the second one was not
available and vice versa. Hence also with “trumpet” one should often accept
“horn”.124

123 Psalterium, fol. 68r: Dicebatur iubilus ad litteram quidam clangendi modus in cornu
subtilis crebro et intercise per cornu flatu emisso. Et erat precipue sollempnitatis signum
et exultacionis eximie. Unde et in prima septembris qui secundum Hebreos capud anni est,
fiebat iubilus. Ex eo ritu verbum iubilacionis tractum in scripturis positum pro mentis
exultacione vehementer intensa. Unde et dicitur hic. Iubilet Deo Litterator tamen et hic et
alibi in scriptura solum illum iubilum accipit qui cornu arietino fit. Et quod dicitur hic
omnis terra ad solam sed ad omnem Iudeam refert ut sola et tota synagoga. Deo iubilet, id
est exultans ad Dei iubilum qui statu legis cornu fiebat devote intendat.
124 Psalterium, fol. 97v: Cornu scilicet arietino quod ea die et alio non licebat in memo-
riam liberacionis Ysaac ne immolaretur ariete substituto et immolato pro eo. Et clangite
bucina subaudi in medio mense, scilicet in cenofegia. Tunc enim clangebant bucina, non
cornu. Et nota quod non solum in psalmis sed ubicumque fere nos habemus bucina, in
Hebreo est cornu cum tamen interdum liceret uti hac quando non illo et ediverso. Unde et
sepe per bucinam cornu accipiendum est.
120 chapter three
In these two passages, Herbert explains both the dates of Rosh Hashanah
and of the Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkot (scenofegia), which fall on the first
and on the fifteenth of Tishri respectively. He also refers to the biblical
event lying behind the celebration of New Year and points out the differ-
ence between the sounding of the ram’s horn (cornu) at Rosh Hashanah
and of the trumpet (bucina) at Sukkot. Interestingly, in understanding 80:
4a and 4b as concerning different festivals, he goes against BT, Mo‘ed, 8a-b
and Midrash Tehillim.125 Still, part of Herbert’s comments is reminiscent
of the discussion of these feasts in BT, tractate Mo‘ed:
R. Abbahu said: Why do we blow on a ram’s horn? The Holy One, blessed
be He, said: Sound before Me a ram’s horn so that I may remember on your
behalf the binding of Isaac the son of Abraham, and account it to you as if
you had bound yourselves before Me (Rosh Hashanah, 16a).126
Another source to which Herbert could have resorted is Rashi on Levi­ticus.
Since the latter refers to the connection between the sounding of the ram’s
horn and the binding of Isaac in his comment on Leviticus 23: 24, this work
could equally have served as basis for Herbert’s exegesis.127 Whatever the
Jewish source, it is likely that a Hebrew teacher directed him to it or para-
phrased it for him. There might also be an echo of the Breviarium present,
which mentions the Jewish tradition of playing the trumpet (tuba) “in
Pascha, Pentecoste, et Scenopegia”.128
When assessing Herbert’s alleged reliance on Talmudic sources, a simi-
lar picture arises to that of his consultation of Midrash Tehillim. There
seem to be influences of some sort but, compared with the colossal imprint
made by Rashi’s commentary on the Psalms, these other influences appear
vague and indirect. They could be echoes of explanations given by his
teacher(s) or could be borrowed from a glossary on the Hebrew Psalms or
on Rashi’s commentary.

5. The Targums

Influence from the Targum Onkelos and the Targum Jonathan, which are
the official translations into Aramaic of the Pentateuch and the Hagiographa
respectively, appear in the Psalterium on Psalms 2: 12, 7: 1, 41 (42): 9, 67 (68):

125 The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed in Four Volumes, transl. by I. Epstein (London,
1935), IV, 30; Braude, Midrash, I, 56.
126 Epstein, Mo‘ed, IV, 60-61.
127 Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Leviticus, 106-07.
128 Pseudo-Jerome, Breviarium in Psalmos, PL 23: 1059.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 121
5 and 28, 77 (78): 13, 79 (80): 17 and 131 (132): 6). In the first two instances
Herbert seems to have consulted the Targums directly, probably with the
help of a teacher, or relied on a glossed Rashi on the Psalms. In the other
six, his mediating source is, again, Rashi.129
A passage which suggests first-hand use of the Targum Jonathan is Psalm
2: 12a, “Kiss the son, lest he be angry” (nashshəqu var pen ye’enaph/‫קּו־בר‬
ַ ‫נַ ְּׁש‬
‫)ּפן־יֶ ֱאנַ ף‬130.
ֶ Herbert adds as one of his variant readings:
In Aramaic this is “submit to the law lest he perhaps becomes angry”, etc.
With which also our edition (i.e., the Gallicana) agrees: Embrace discipline
etc. 131
By highlighing the similarity between the Aramaic translation and the
Gallicana he is able to integrate this Targumic reading within Christian
exegesis.
Another example concerns the title of Psalm 7, “A shiggaion of David,
which he sang to the Lord concerning Kush (kush/‫)כּוׁש‬, a Benjaminite)”.
Kush (‫ )כּוׁש‬is generally interpreted as “Ethiopian”, and since Kish (‫)קיׁש‬,
ִ
a near-homophon, is said to be the father of Saul and a Benjaminite (see
1 Samuel 9: 3-21), Saul is compared with an Ethiopian in rabbinic exegesis:
[on Psalm 7: 1] But was Kush the name of that Benjaminite? Was it not Saul?
But just as a Kushite [Ethiopian] has a skin that is different/dark, so Saul
did deeds that were distinguished/dark.132
This association is reflected explicitly in the Targum Jonathan, which trans-
lates “Kush the Benjaminite” as “Saul, son of Kish from the tribe of Benjamin”
(‫)דׁשאּול ּבר קיׁש דמן ׁשבט ּבנימן‬. Herbert translates as “the Ethiopian” with
a gloss in superscript, “in Aramaic: Saul” (“Ethiopis”, “in Caldeo Saulis”).
Since Rashi’s commentary does not mention the link to Aramaic at this

129 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 65; This in itself is an important conclu-

sion, since it was believed until then that Rashi did not know the Targum Jonathan. As a
result, a number of passages in Rashi’s commentary on the Psalms which seem to betray
influence from the Targum Jonathan were considered to be later additions. Modern schol-
ars now generally assume that Rashi had access to the Targum Jonathan, at least in some
form: see Gruber, Rashi, 129n6.
130 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 65.
131 Psalterium, fol. 2r: In Caldeo “suscipite legem ne forte irascatur” et cetera. Cui et
nostra edicio consonat: Apprehendite disciplinam et cetera.
132 Braude, Midrash, I, 104; Gruber, Rashi, 193-94 (English), 196n7-8; The Talmud of
Babylonia: An American Translation 11: Tractate Mo‘ed Qatan. Translated by Jacob Neusner
(Atlanta, Georgia, 1992).
122 chapter three
verse this is another instance where Herbert, possibly with the aid of a
teacher, may have borrowed from the Targums directly.133
In the other passages Rashi appears to have been his primary source.
For example, on Psalm 41 (42): 9, “The Lord will command His lovingkind-
ness (ḥasədo/‫)ח ְסּדֹו‬
ַ in the daytime, And in the night His song (qere: shiro/
‫;ׁשרֹו‬
ִ kethib: shirahh ‫)ׁש ָרּה‬
ִ shall be with me—A prayer to the God of my
life”. Herbert translates and expounds:
Or what is put here, “song”, can in Aramaic mean the same as “rest”. And
at night, he says, his rest is with me. As it were, when I am outwardly afflicted,
the Lord rests in me because he comforts me and loves me all the more. Or
it can be understood in this way: the verb is read as a past tense, namely,
“he has commanded”, just as it was understood as a future tense earlier on.
And it relates to what the Lord instructed through Moses to the sons of
Israel about the observance of Pesach, which takes place during the day,
that is, on the evening of the day [ …] And at night, led out of Egypt, Israel
sang songs of praise to the Lord.134
His observation that ‫ ִׁש ָרּה‬can be understood in Hebrew as “song” but in
Aramaic means “rest” is indebted to Rashi, as is his association between
this verse and the Pesach rituals of sacrifice and prayer.135
In Psalm 67 (68) a reference to Aramaic occurs in verses 5 and 28. Loewe
claims that Herbert uses the Targums independently here.136 Whereas I
agree with Loewe that on both accounts Herbert’s comments clearly show
influence from the Targums, I believe that he relied predominantly on
Rashi in retrieving his information. His comment on verse 5 concerns the
phrase bəyahh shəmo/‫“( ְּביָ ּה ְׁשמֹו‬his name is the Lord/Yah”). Herbert
explains bəyahh shəmo/‫ ְּביָ ּה ְׁשמֹו‬as:
Ya is as it were the name of the one who rises above the skies or the fields.
It means “strong” or “judge” [ …] One should note that instead of the Hebrew
word Ya the Aramaic puts the name of the Lord which contains the notion
“fear”. As in that verse of the song [Exodus 15: 2/Psalms 117 (118): 14]: “The
Lord is my strength and my song/praise”. Where we have “Lord”, the Hebrew
has Ya, but the Aramaean has such a name for “Lord” which stands for “fear”.

133 Mikra’ot Gedolot: Psalms and Proverbs (Tel Aviv, 1954), ‫ד‬.

134 Psalterium, fol. 44v: Vel quod ponitur hic canticum, secundum Chaldeum idem
sonare potest quod requies. Et in nocte inquit requies eius mecum. Quasi cum ego exterius
affligor, in me Dominus requiescit quia eo plus consolatur et diligit. Vel ita. Et legitur verbum
preteriti temporis, scilicet mandavit sicut prius futuri. Et tangit illud quod precepit Domi-
nus per Moysen filiis Israel de paschali observancia in die facienda, id est in vespera diei.[
…] Nocte enim de Egypto eductus Domino cecinit Israel laudaciones et alleluiatica cantica.
135 Gruber, Rashi, 337-38 (English), 826 (Hebrew).
136 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 66-67.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 123
According to which it is perhaps written that “[ …] Jacob took an oath in
the name of the Fear of his father Isaac” assuming that name of God in his
oath which according to the Aramaic carries the notion of “fear” and means
that God has to be feared above all other things. In the same passage also
Jacob invokes “the fear of his father Isaac”, saying “If the God of my father,
the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would
surely have sent me away empty-handed”.137
The first part of his exegesis is based on Jerome and on Rashi’s exposition
of yahh/‫יָ ּה‬.138 Rashi then refers to the same translation for yahh/‫ יָ ּה‬in the
Targum Onkelos on Exodus 17: 16 and in the Targum Jonathan on Isaiah
26: 4. Herbert does not follow these cross references but instead offers two
examples from Genesis which Rashi does not mention: Genesis 31: 42 and
31: 53. This leads Loewe to believe that Herbert consulted the Targum on
Genesis of his own accord and realised that its translation for “fear” was
derived from the same root as the translation of ‫ יָ ּה‬in Exodus 15: 2/Psalm
117 (118): 14 found in Rashi’s commentary.139
However, it is not certain that Herbert was searching for the lexical
relationship between these references requiring knowledge of the Targum
on Genesis. In order to prove his point to a Christian audience, the use of
a synonym for “fear” in the Hebrew and a corresponding Latin translation
would be just as effective. In both Genesis 31: 42 and 31: 53 the word “fear”
as a reference to God appears unambiguously in the Masoretic (paḥad/
‫)פ ַחד‬
ַ and in the Vulgate versions (timor) and had been expounded as such
in the patristic tradition.140 The reason why Herbert included these quota-

137 Psalterium, fol. 69r-v: Quasi dicat nomen istius ascendentis super celos vel campana
est Ya. Que sonat “fortis” vel “iudex” [ …] Hoc vero notandum quod pro hoc Hebreo nomine
Ya in Caldeo ponitur hic tale Domini nomen quod “timorem” designat. Sicut et in illo
cantici versiculo [Exodus 15: 2/Psalms 117 (118): 14]: fortitudo mea et laus mea Dominus. Ubi
nos Dominus Hebreus habet Ya. Chaldeus vero tale Domini nomen quod timorem denotat.
Iuxta quod forte scriptum est quod iuraverit Iacob: per timorem patris sui Ysaac [Genesis
31:53] illud Dei nomen in iuramento assumens quod secundum Chaldeum timorem desig-
nat et super omnia timendum Deum notat. Quem et Iacob ibidem timorem patris sui Ysaac
vocat, dicens nisi Deus patris mei Abraham et timor Ysaac affuisset michi: forsitan modo
nudum me dimisisses [Genesis 31: 42].
138 Jerome, Commentarioli in psalmos, psalm 146, l. 3, Brepolis LLT-A; and Gruber, 445
(English), 834 (Hebrew): “by His name, which is Yah, a name referring to fear [Yir’ah] in
accord with the way in which we render it into Aramaic [in Targum Onkelos at Exodus 15:2
where we employ Aram.] dehila ,‘fear’ [in translating into Aramaic the Yah in the phrase]
‘my might and praise of Yah’”.
139 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 67.
140 Augustine, Quaestionum in heptateuchum libri septem, Cl. 0270, lib. 2, Quaest. Exodi,
quaestio 35, Brepolis LLT-A; followed by Hrabanus Maurus, Commentarius in Genesim,
PL 107: 608, and Walafrid Strabo, Commentarius in Exodum, PL 113: 213.
124 chapter three
tions in his exegesis, instead of following Rashi throughout, might be that
the former would be familiar and intelligible to his Christian readers, and
would ultimately render his whole discussion of the verse more convincing.
In verse 28: “There is the little [tribe of] Benjamin leading them, there
Judah’s princes in their purple/in a great throng/stoning them and there
the princes of Zabulon and of Naphtali” (which has been discussed above),
Herbert expounds binyamin tsa‘ir rodem/‫“( ִּבנְ יָ ִמן ָצ ִעיר ר ֵֹדם‬the tribe of
Benjamin leading them”) according to the Aramaic as:
And the Aramaic expresses more clearly that Benjamin was considered to
be the first to enter the sea. For it is written in Aramaic as follows “the tribe
of Benjamin which entered the sea at the head of all other tribes”.141
According to Loewe, the first translation, “quod Beniamin mare primus
intravit”, corresponds to the Targum Jonathan on this verse, whereas the
second one, “tribus Beniamin que intravit mare …”, is based on Rashi.142
Although this could be true, it seems just as likely, if not more so, that
Herbert follows Rashi on both occasions, since the first phrase shows equal
similarity with Rashi’s comment “because he was the first to descend into
the [Reed] Sea”.143
Another passage where he relies on Rashi in his translation is Psalm 77
(78): 13, “He divided the sea and let them through; he made the water stand
firm like a wall (kəmo ned/‫”)ּכמֹו־נֵ ד‬.ְ The noun ned/‫ נֵ ד‬means “heap” in
Hebrew and the Psalterium, in concordance with the Hebraica, translates
kəmo ned/‫ ְּכמֹו־נֵ ד‬literally as “quasi acervum” (“like a heap”). Yet Herbert
comments briefly: “In Aramaic: like a wall” (“In Caldeo: quasi murum”, fol.
91v). Since Rashi mentions the Aramaic translation “wall”, borrowed from
the Targum Onkelos on Exodus 15: 8 in his commentary on this verse, it is
likely that Herbert’s direct source is Rashi rather than the Targum on
Exodus.
Similarly, in Psalm 79 (80): 17, “[Your vine] is cut down (kəsuḥah/‫סּוחה‬
ָ ‫)ּכ‬,
ְ
it is burned with fire; at your rebuke [your people] perish”, Herbert com-
ments on the verb kəsuḥah/‫סּוחה‬ ָ ‫([ ְּכ‬passive participle) cut down]:
As it were: Lord, go to see this vine, namely the house of Jacob, now burned
with fire by Esau and cut down; or debranched. According to the Aramaic,
however: pruned, the sons of Esau frequently laid waste to the vine of the

141 Psalterium, fol. 75v: et ex Caldeo habetur expressius quod Beniamin mare primus
intravit. Sic enim in Caldeo scriptum est “tribus Beniamin que intravit mare in capite
omnium reliquarum tribuum”.
142 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 67.
143 Gruber, Rashi, 451 (English), 835 (Hebrew): ‫לפי שירד תחילה בים‬.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 125
house of Jacob in such a way, either doing it themselves or helping others
to do it as such.144
Again this exposition is reminiscent of Rashi, who defines kəsuḥah/‫סּוחה‬
ָ ‫ְּכ‬
as
the semantic equivalent of [the verb zamar “prune” in] lo tizmôr: You shall
not prune (Leviticus 25: 4), [which Targum Onkelos renders into Aramaic
by] la’tiksah: You shall not cut down.145
Rashi’s comment on Leviticus 25: 4 mentions the Targum more explicitly
than is the case in his treatment of the psalm verse above.146 It is possible
that Herbert consulted both commentaries. The fact that his translation
“putatam” (“pruned”) seems closer to the Hebrew lo’ thizəmor/‫לֹא ִתזְ מֹר‬
(“you shall not prune”) than to the Aramaic l’ tksḥ/‫“( לא תכסח‬you will cut”)
might be the result of a misreading by Herbert of Rashi’s commentary and
could therefore be an indication that Herbert copied Rashi here without
verifying the actual text of the Targum.
Finally, in Psalm 131 (132): 6, “We heard it in Ephrathah (bə’ephrathah/
‫)ב ֶא ְפ ָר ָתה‬,
ְ we came upon it in the fields of Jaar”, Herbert comments that
“Ephrathah” has a different meaning in Hebrew and in Aramaic. In Hebrew
it is simply a place name, whereas in Aramaic it conveys the notion of
“vigorous” or “agreeable”.147 Whereas Rashi does not explicitly state the
difference between the Hebrew and the Aramaic meaning of Ephrata, he
does mention that it indicates “a beautiful place”.148
As is the case with the Psalterium’s references to Midrash Tehillim and
the Talmud, those to the Targums also seem to be filtered through the lens
of Rashi and of one or more unknown contemporary teachers.

144 Psalterium, fol. 96v: Quasi: visita Domine vineam hanc, scilicet domum Iacob modo
per Esau succensam igni et conculcatam. Vel deramatam. Secundum Caldeum vero: puta-
tam, huiuscemodi vastacio vinee domus Iacob sepe facta est per filios Esau, aut sic facien-
tes per se, aut ferentes opem facientibus sic.
145 Gruber, Rashi, 534 (English), 842 (Hebrew).
146 Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Leviticus, 113.
147 Psalterium, fol. 147v: Et attende quod Ephrata dicitur a Caldeo quam ab Hebreo.
Nam si nomen Ephrata iuxta Hebree lingue idioma poneretur hic, nomen esset loci scilicet
Bethleem. Sicut Iacob loquitur ad Ioseph de loco ubi Rachel mortua est dicens, Mortua est
Rachel et sepelivi eam iuxta viam Ephrate: que alio nomine appellatur Bethleem [Genesis 35:
19]. Non igitur Ephratha hic nomen. Loci est sed pocius iuxta Chaldeum significatur hic per
Effratha: loci qualitas scilicet eminencia amenitas et gracia. Ostendens quod locus in quo
templum edificari debuerat foret eminens amenus et graciosus. Quem admodum Helcana
pater Samuelis dicitur effratithes: secundum Caldee lingue idioma scilicet strenuus et
graciosus.
148 Maarsen, Parshandata, III, 117.
126 chapter three
6. Menahem ben Saruq and Dunash ibn Labrat

The Psalterium contains three references to the Mahberet Menahem (in

Psalms 5: 1, 6: 8 and 86 (87): 7) and one to Dunash ibn Labrat (Psalm 67
(68): 14). In his comment on the title of Psalm 5, Herbert mentions
Menahem’s interpretation of the word nehiloth as the name for a musical
instrument. He attributes this explanation to “nonnulli de antiquitoribus
Hebreorum magistris”, which a marginal gloss clarifies as “ut Menaem”.149
Yet, as said before, this exegesis is more likely to originate from Rashi than
from Menahem himself since the latter does not comment on nehiloth
specifically and since the structure of Herbert’s whole discussion of 5: 1
closely follows Rashi’s.
The following examples, however, suggest access to Menahem indepen-
dently from Rashi. On Psalm 6: 8, “My eye is weak (‘ashəshah/‫)ע ְׁש ָׁשה‬ ָ with
sorrow; it is frail because of all my enemies”, Herbert translates the verb
‘ashəshah/‫ ָע ְׁש ָׁשה‬as “lanternavit”. In his commentary he offers the alterna-
tive reading “demolitus est” (“is cast down”) and explains:
or here is another reading, namely “my eye is destroyed”. It comes from a
book that circulates among the Hebrews which they call Mahbereth, mean-
ing “addition”. And so the penitent says that his eye is destroyed through
anger and bitterness. To destroy is to take out of its structure, which is to
tear down. And through anger and bitterness this person’s eyes are as it
were taken out of their structure, that is, outside their position because of
anger and bitterness, so much are they troubled.150
Herbert’s first interpretation of ‘ashəshah/‫ ָע ְׁש ָׁשה‬as “(my eye) is weak” is
taken from Rashi who associates the verb with the root ‘shh/‫“( עׁשה‬to be
foggy, to be glassy”). His subsequent integration of one of Rashi’s le‘azim
on this verse has already been discussed in the previous chapter. Herbert’s
second interpretation of ‘ashəshah/‫ ָע ְׁש ָׁשה‬as “my eye has been destroyed”,
the source of which he clearly states as the Mahberet, does not occur in
Rashi. He seems to understand the word as derived from ‘shsh/‫“( עׁשׁש‬to
waste away”). It has been recorded by Menahem under the root ‘sh/‫עׁש‬.151

149 See the discussion by Goodwin, Take Hold …, 237-38.

150 Psalterium, fol. 8r-v: Vel est hic alia littera, scilicet demolitus est oculus meus que
habetur ex libro qui apud Hebreos est et ab eis mahebereth dicitur quod sonat addicio. Dicit
itaque penitens hic oculum suum pre ira et amaritudine demolitum. Demoliri est extra
molem facere quodquod est deicere. Et huius quidem oculi pre amaritudine et ira quasi
extra molem, id est, extra statum suum sunt facti pre amaritudine et ira adeo turbati.
151 Menahem ben Saruq, Mahberet, ed. by Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Grenada, 1986), 293*.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 127
Herbert’s translation addicio for Mahberet is a correct one, as the root
‫ חבר‬means “to unite”.152 In his discussion on Psalm 86 (87): 7, “As they
make music they will sing ‘All my fountains are in you’”, he gives a more
elaborate definition of Menahem’s work. He offers two translations for
ma‘əyanay/‫“( ַמ ְעיָ נַ י‬fountains”), namely “fontes” and “organiste”. The latter
explanation, he comments, originates with Menahem (see also App. 2,
fig. 2):
And the psalmist says “fountains”, I say, “in me”. They are singers, that is,
they will have the task of singing, as in choirs, that is, as on those instru-
ments which are said to be choir-instruments. “In you, oh city of God [Psalm
86 (87): 3]”, Jerusalem, or so that it is not “fountains” in this verse but “musi-
cians”. This comes from a certain book of the Hebrew, which they call
Maberez, and which mean “addition” because it distinguishes different mean-
ings of words and joins meanings to one another.153
He then links the word “organiste” with the notion of singing from Exodus
32: 18, “Moses replied: ‘It is not the sound of victory, it is not the sound of
defeat; it is the sound of singing that I hear’”, and he laments the Jewish
tendency, as he sees it, of interpreting the verse “carnally”, as about an
actual return to the Holy Land, rather than spiritually, as about the heav-
enly Jerusalem.154 His definition of the Mahberet as a book which distin-
guishes lexica from as well as relating lexica to one another is accurate and
well put. As Loewe has already pointed out, Herbert’s exegesis does rely
here on the Mahberet Menahem without having Rashi as a mediating
source. Menahem categorises ma‘əyanay/‫ ַמ ְעיָ נַ י‬under the biliteral root ‘n/
‫ ען‬of which one of the subdivisions is ‘nah/‫“( ענה‬to sing”). He gives two

152 See also Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 62.

153 Psalterium, fol. 102v: Et loquitur psalmista fontes inquam mei. Cantores erunt, id est
officium cantandi habebunt quasi in choris, id est quasi in instrumentis illis [emendated
from ‘illi’] que chori dicuntur. In te o civitas Dei Ierusalem vel ita ut non sit in hoc versu
fontes sed organiste. Quod habetur ex libro quodam Hebreorum, qui ab eis dicitur maberez.
Quod sonat “addicio” eo quod varias verborum significationes distinguens significacionem
significationi adiungat.
154 Psalterium, ibid. : Secundum hoc itaque talis est littera: Omnes organiste mei in te.
Nam idem verbum ponitur hic quod ibi ubi Iosue loquiter ad Moysen. Non est clamor
adhortancium ad pugnam neque vociferacio compellencium ad fugam sed vocem cantancium
ego audio [Exodus 32: 18] pro cantancium in Hebreo organistarum.
Et attende quod secundum psalmi huius exposicionem litteralem hic sicut et alibi per
varia scripture loca et in prophetis maxime Israelis in terram suam reductio prophetatur.
Quam quidem in Ierusalem reductionem et in ipsa sive in Iudea nativitatem. Iudeus car-
naliter, ecclesiasticus vero spiritualiter accipit.
128 chapter three
biblical examples of this subdivision: Exodus 32: 18, which Herbert copies
from him, and this psalm verse.155
Herbert’s descriptions of the genre of the Mahberet are strikingly spe-
cific. This awareness of the genre and purpose, in addition to the fact that
he did not access the work via Rashi, suggests he used it first-hand with the
help of a teacher, or learnt it from a teacher who knew it well enough to
cite from it. If this is the case it lends more weight to the claim that Herbert
was aware of Menahem’s theory of biliteral roots, and applied this knowl-
edge in his translations.
For example, in Psalm 48 (49): 13, “But man, despite his riches, does not
endure; he is like the beasts that perish”, he gives two translations for
nidəmu/‫“( נִ ְדמּו‬they perish”): “exequatus” (“perished”) according to the
Hebraica, and “silebitur” (“[it] will be silent”). He comments that the
Hebrew word holds both meanings (“Verbum enim Hebreum hic positum
utrumque sonat”, fol. 52v).
In verse 21 of the same Psalm the same verb nidəmu/‫ נִ ְדמּו‬appears in the
Hebraica as “silebitur” which must have triggered off Herbert’s exegesis
here. In fact, both translations find their origin in different roots: nidəmu/
‫ נִ ְדמּו‬is the nifal (i.e., passive) impf. 3rd pl. derived from dmh/‫“( דמה‬to
cease”) whereas the root dmm/‫ דמם‬means (“to be dumb/silent”). Rashi
offers no explanation of this verb form in either verse. Again this could be
influence from Menahem, who classifies dmh/‫ דמה‬as well as dmm/‫דמם‬
under the root dm/‫דם‬.156
Whether he was directly influenced by Dunash ibn Labrat is more dubi-
ous. Labrat’s name, corrupted in the copying process, appears in a marginal
gloss to Herbert’s commentary on 67 (68):14, “Even while you sleep among
the campfires, the wings of the dove are sheathed with silver, its feathers
with pale/greenish gold”. In his discussion of biraqəraq ḥaruts/‫ִּב ַיר ְק ַרק ָחרּוץ‬
(“with pale/greenish gold”) he concentrates on an exegesis attributed in
the text to “non nulli litteratores”:
And where we have with green or pale gold here, in Hebrew we find a
Hebrew word denoting a very precious kind of gold. This, as some of the
Jewish literal exegetes have related, does not come from Ophir [i.e., South-
ern Arabia] but is exported more dearly, until now, from the land of Evilach
and Ethiopia. It is not entirely red nor entirely green but pale green and

155 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 62.

156 Sáenz-Badillos, Mahberet, 126*-27*.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 129
greenish pale in a certain way, that is, slightly pale. Hence our books have
variant readings: some define the type of gold as pale, other ones as green.157
A marginal gloss on “non nulli litteratores” reads “Dones” or “Dunes filius
Leward in parcario (?) suo”. Whereas “parcario” (which could equally be
“pariario” or “panario”) does not seem to make any sense, it is possible to
trace “Leward” back to “Labrat” if we allow for the possible confusion
between a small hand gothic br or bb and a small hand gothic w.
This passage is strongly reminiscent of the Dunash Teshubot, which also
appears almost verbatim in Rashi on this verse. Dunash defines biraqəraq
ḥaruts/‫ ִּב ַיר ְק ַרק ָחרּוץ‬as a particularly precious type of gold imported into
Israel from Havilah and Ethiopia. He explains the grammatical structure
of yəraqəraq/‫ יְ ַר ְק ַרק‬as a form of yereq/‫“( יֶ   ֶ רק‬green”) of which the final syl-
lable has been reduplicated in the same way as the adjective ’adamdam/
‫“( ֲא ַד ְמ ָּדם‬pink, pale red”) is the reduplicated form of ’adom/‫“( ָאד ֹם‬red”) in
Leviticus 13: 42. The reduplicated forms are supposed to describe a paler
version of the colour expressed by their originals.158 Herbert follows this
exegesis closely in his translation of biraqəraq/‫ ִּב ַיר ְק ַרק‬as “pallor” (“pallor,
paleness”) and his description of its meaning as “pallice virens et viride
pallens, id est subpallidum”. He also refers to Leviticus but, instead of 13:
42, has aptly chosen 14: 37-38 which mentions the words for pale green and
pale red together: “He is to examine the mildew on the walls, and if it has
greenish (yəraqəraqqoth/‫ )יְ ַר ְק ַרּקֹת‬or reddish (’adamdammoth/‫)א ַד ְמ ַּדּמֹת‬ ֲ
depressions that appear to be deeper than the surface of the wall, the priest
shall go out the doorway of the house and close it up for seven days”.159
This resourceful adaptation of Dunash’s exegesis for his own purpose
would require a serious familiarity with the Masoretic text of Leviticus and

157 Psalterium, fol. 71v: Et ubi nos habemus hic in virore vel pallore auri, in Hebreo
verbum Hebraicum ponitur preciosissimum auri genus designans. Quod ut non nulli lit-
teratorum tradiderunt: non de Ophir sed quod adhuc carius de terra Evilach et Ethiopia
defertur, nec penitus rubeum nec penitus viride, sed quodam modo pallice virens et viride
pallens, id est subpallidum. Unde et codices nostri varie habent: alii in pallore, alii in virore
auri quo tale auri genus designetur.
158 Tesubot de Dunas ben Labrat, ed. by Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Grenada, 1980), 41-42;
Gruber, Rashi, 456 n.44, 447-48 (English), 834 (Hebrew).
159 Psalterium, fol. 71v: Et in Hebreo idem Hebreum verbum ad talis auri designacionem
ponitur hic quod ibi: cum de lepra agitur ubi dicitur. Et cum viderit in pariecibus illius val-
liculas pallore sive rubore deformes [Leviticus 14: 37]. Ubi nos pallore, Hebreus habet hoc
ipsum verbum hic positum quod est. Cherach cherach. Et est hoc unum de septem nomi-
nibus [marginal gloss: ut dicitur Gallice verdaz] quibus aurum apud Hebreos appellatur ad
diversa ipsius auri genera designanda [marginal gloss: Jeremiah 10: 8 pariter insipientes et
fatui probabuntur doctrina vanitatis eorum lignum est].
130 chapter three
suggests the help of a Jewish scholar. It is unclear whether Herbert has
consulted the Teshubot here directly. While this possibility of course exists,
the fact that Dunash’s treatment of this phrase is so faithfully included in
Rashi’s commentary renders it more likely that he and not Dunash was
Herbert’s first-hand source.160 I have not been able to find any other
instances where Herbert might have followed Dunash independently of
Rashi.

7. Oral Sources

Loewe gives two passages where he believes Rashi to be mentioned by

name: Psalms 23 (24): 1-2 and 71 (72): 17. In the former example, discussed
earlier, Herbert attributes an exegesis borrowed from Rashi to “litterator
meus”. A marginal gloss clarifies this title as “Salomon”, which is Rashi’s
first name.
Psalm 71 (72) is traditionally considered among Christian exegetes to be
a prophecy of Christ, while the Jewish tradition understands it as a proph-
ecy about both the reign of Solomon and the Messianic era.161 Rashi, argu-
ing his case on mainly philological grounds, interprets it as concerning the
reign of Solomon only, and Herbert acknowledges the “Hebrew truth” of
some of his explanations.162 However, on verse 17:
May his name endure forever; may it continue as long as the sun. All nations
will be blessed through him/will bless themselves in him and they will call
him blessed,
Herbert argues that by limiting the exegesis of this verse to a relationship
with the patriarchs and Salomon only, the “faithless Jewish interpreter”
(“infidus interpres”) does not do justice to the text, and fails to properly
acknowledge its reference to God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22-28
“that all nations will be blessed through him”.163

160 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 61.

161 Braude, Midrash, I, 557-63; Gruber, Rashi, 479n37-38.
162 Gruber, Rashi, 475 (English), 837 (Hebrew).
163 Psalterium, fol. 83v: Quod minime sicut nec illud supra et ab iniquitate redimet
animam eorum: Salomon illi sed pocius nostro congruit. Quemadmodum illud in Genesi
tribus promissum patriarchis. In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes terre. [Genesis 22:
18, 26: 4 and 28: 14] Quod magnificum amplum et gloriosum promissum: infidus interpres
interpretando adnullat sic: In semine tamen benedicentur omnes gentes terre, id est quisquis
de gentibus alii benedicere volens semen tuum in exemplum adducet ut dicat. Sic benedi-
caris ut semen Abraham vel Yaac vel Iacob: es benedictum. Iuxta quod ipse Iacob benedicens
duobus filiis Ioseph: dixit. In te benedicetur [Genesis 48: 20] Israel atque dicetur: faciat tibi
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 131
A marginal gloss to “infidus interpres” contains the word “litterator”
followed by “s”. Loewe interprets the word as “Salomon”. But since every-
where else in the Psalterium an individual “s” means “scilicet”, it seems
more likely to me that that is how it should be read here as well. Whichever
reading is correct, there is no doubt that Herbert is referring in this passage
to Rashi’s interpretation of God’s blessing to Abraham in Genesis 12: 2-3.164
A little later the same description, “infidus interpres”, crops up a second
time and is explained by a gloss supplying “litterator scl”, which also seems
to be an abbreviation for “scilicet”. The passage again refers to Rashi’s anti-
messianic view.165 Similar, negative descriptions appear in other psalms
where Rashi offers an anti-messianic interpretation. In Psalms 63 (64): 1,
68 (69): 1 and 117 (118): 22 Herbert, in his attack on Rashi’s exegeses, refers
to him as “litterator interpres infidus”.
Since litterator in the singular, sometimes joined to adjectives such as
“modernus” or “unus”, is so often used to denote Rashi, it is tempting to
read every mention of the word as a direct reference to Rashi’s works. The
passage on Psalm 23 (24): 1-2 in particular, which associates “litterator
meus” with the name “Salomon” in the margin, could lead to the idea that
litterator is as good as synonymous with Rashi. The possessive pronoun
meus would then suggest that Rashi plays the role of Herbert’s personal
guide on the Psalms. Yet, as has been shown above, litterator covers a larger
area of Jewish material than is found in Rashi’s commentaries. In Psalm 44
(45): 9 it refers to Gamaliel (in this case the Targum Jonathan Pe’ah 1: 1.)
and in Psalms 35 (36): 1, 36 (37): 1, 44 (45): 18; 49: 18; 68 (69): 38, and 88 (89):
52, to name only a few instances, it seems to refer to the Jewish (literal)
exegetical tradition rather than to a specific source.
A second passage where “litterator meus” occurs is in Herbert’s lengthy
comment on Psalm 67 (68): 14: “Even while you sleep among the campfires,
the wings of the dove are sheathed with silver, its feathers with pale/green-
ish gold”. He disagrees with Rashi’s interpretation of this verse of kanəphey/
‫ ַּכנְ ֵפי‬as “wings” and wə’evərotheyah/‫יה‬ָ ‫רֹות‬
ֶ ‫ וְ ֶא ְב‬as “pinions” and translates

Deus sicut Ephraim. Ita dicetur in gentibus: faciat tibi Deus sicut Abraham sive Ysaac sive
Iacob et semini eorum.
Verum secundum interpretacionem hanc ad patriarchas tres facta iam evacuata est et
extinuatur promissio. Nec est enim modo in gentibus qui alii bona in precans. Benedicat
sic. Aut si est, vix est; nescio eciam si unquam inter genus talis benedictionis usus fuerit.
164 Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Genesis, 49.
165 For a discussion of the relationship between the marginalia and body of the text of
the Psalterium, see Smalley, “A Commentary”, 49.
132 chapter three
the words as “pinnule”, which he explains as “the wing endings” (“sum-
mitates pennarum”), and “penne” (“wings”) respectively:
And he [i.e., the Psalmist] calls the protruding tips of the wings “pinions”,
for the Hebrew used here does not refer to wings or feathers but rather to
the wing endings; these are like small feathers which stick out from the
wings. The Hebrews refer to them with one word, for which we have
“pinions”.166
As has already been demonstrated in the previous chapter, Herbert’s exe-
gesis of kanəphey/‫ ַּכנְ ֵפי‬is based upon another nuance of the noun kanaph/
‫ּכנָ ף‬,ָ which can refer to “wing” as well as “extremity”. Interestingly, he attri-
butes this explanation to “his” exegete/grammar teacher:
But my exegete/grammar teacher used to say that the Hebrew word put
here refers more to the wing endings, which we call “pinions”, than to feath-
ers.167
Unless Rashi’s comment on this verse has been totally misunderstood by
Herbert, the “litterator” mentioned here cannot be him, since Herbert has
already dismissed Rashi’s exegesis on this point. Moreover, the imperfect
tense in “dicebat” suggests Herbert is not talking about a written source,
which is usually cited as “dicit” or “dixit”, but to an oral one who used to
tell him (repeatedly) how the passage should be interpreted. If this is the
case, the word “meus” can be seen as a reflection of Herbert’s personal
relationship with a contemporary Hebrew teacher rather than as homage
to his main Jewish authority.
If we accept this view, the term litterator gains yet another meaning,
encompassing not just Rashi or the Jewish tradition, but also Herbert’s
contemporary interpreters. It also raises the question how we should inter-
pret the litterator meus at the beginning of Psalm 23 (24). Apart from its
basic clarifications of Hebrew grammar, the passage concerned undoubt-
edly draws on Rashi and, unless we allow for the coincidence of Herbert’s
interpreter sharing his first name with his main written Jewish authority,
the gloss Salomon is a further indication that Rashi is identified as the
source of the exegesis. One solution for this apparent contradiction would
be to assume that litterator meus was meant to refer to Herbert’s oral source

166 Psalterium, fol. 71r: Et vocat pennulas pennarum summitates prominentes. Hebreum

enim positum hic nec pennas, nec plumas sed pennarum pocius designat summitates;
quasdam videlicet quasi pennulas que pennis prominent quas Hebrei uno significant verbo,
pro quo nos posuimus pinnulas.
167 Psalterium, fol. 72r: Sed litterator meus dicebat verbum Hebreum hic positum magis
significare pennarum summitates quas pinnulas dicimus quam plumas.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 133
for the grammatical explanations of the verse and that the gloss Salomon
is a later addition by someone who recognised part of the exegesis as bor-
rowed from Rashi; another possibility is that Herbert could have used lit-
terator meus as a reference to more than one source.
One area in which Herbert would most likely have required the help of
a contemporary Jew is that of Jewish liturgy. As has already become clear
in the discussion of possible Talmudic influence in the Psalterium, Herbert
shows himself interested in references made in the Psalms to Jewish Holy
days and festivals. On Psalm 80 (81), for example, he points out that the
Gallicana’s title quinta sabbati (on the fifth Sabbath) should not be consid-
ered to be part of the psalm itself but is a note for synagogue practice. The
same is true for Psalm 92 (93) and 93 (94) which contain the additional
phrase “on the day before the Sabbath” and “on the fourth Sabbath” respec-
tively. It reflects the Jewish custom of marking which Psalms are to be sung
at which subsequent Sabbath service.168
In another example, on Psalm 103 (104): 19, “The moon marks off the
seasons and the sun knows when to go down”, Herbert explains the Jewish
method of reckoning time by the moon.
This the Jews do foremost, as they calculate the seasons according to the
moon only, just as the year, the months of the year, the beginning and end
of the year and the times of their festivals which happen around the begin-
ning and the end of the year. Therefore, according to those who follow the
lunar calendar, the year does not have more than three hundred and fifty-
four days. In a month there are alternatingly twenty-nine or thirty days,
except for October and November, which are different.169

168 Psalterium, fol. 97r: Quod autem hic secundum edicionem aliam in titulo additum
est “quinta sabbati”, error manifestus est. Similiter et talis eciam addicio in plerisque aliorum
psalmorum titulis reperitur. Ut infra in tituli psalmi nonagesimi secundi ubi additum est
“in die ante sabbatum”. Similiter et psalmus nonagesimus tertius titulum habet: psalmus
David quarta sabbati. Cum tamen utrique psalmi isti secundum Hebreum omnino titulo
careant.
Verumptamen quod in huius psalmi titulo erronee adiectum est quinta sabbati; sump-
tum est de consuetudinario Hebreorum qui solent signare psalmos quos cantabant in
sinagoga per ebdomodam. Istum vero psalmum statu legis levite cantare solebant quinta
sabbati sicut nonagesimum secundum, scilicet Dominus regnavit die ante sabbatum. Et
nonagesimum tertium, scilicet Deus ultionum Dominus quarta sabbati. Vicesimum vero
tertium, scilicet. Dominus est terra prima sabbati. Quadragesimum septimum, scilicet.
Magnus Dominus secundi sabbati. Octogesimum primum scilicet, Deus stetit in synagoga
tercia sabbati.
169 Psalterium, fol. 123r: hoc maxime Iudei faciunt qui tempora solum secundum lunam
computant. Sicut annum anni menses terminos anni et festivitatum suarum tempora que
fiebant circa inicia et fines anni. Unde et annus secundum eos qui lunam secuntur non
134 chapter three
He then describes the calculation of the original Jewish festivals and their
later additions, such as Hanukah and Purim, according to the lunar calen-
dar 170
To conclude, Herbert’s use of Jewish sources overall is unique for his
time. He interprets the text of Rashi’s commentary on the Psalms frequently
and often verbally, but never slavishly, discussing some of its finer points
with insight and sensitivity. On two occasions his comments provide us
with new insights into the Rashi tradition. On Psalm 66 (67) his inclusion
of what has previously been considered by some scholars to be a fifteenth-
century addition to Rashi’s commentary has strengthened the counter
claim that the commentary on that psalm does originate from Rashi. On
Psalm 88 (89): 39 his lengthy discussion of the verse in the context of
Hezekiah’s reign corresponds with the reading in the Rashi manuscript
used by Gruber. Since the latter states that this reading was later emen-
dated, in his view correctly, to denote the reign of Zedekiah, Herbert’s
comment either indicates that he used a Rashi text from the same tradition
as Gruber’s, containing the same error, or that Hezekiah is what Rashi
intended in the first place and that the later emendation is wrong.
However strongly Rashi’s commentary on the Psalms has influenced
Herbert, his knowledge of other rabbinic works, including Rashi’s other
commentaries, seems to be rather fragmented. Yet there are indications
that he had access to a body of cross-references to passages from Rashi and
other rabbinic texts. Within the non-Rashi material the most substantial
influence seems to come from Midrash Tehillim and Menahem, which he
probably consulted independently from Rashi but with the help of a
Hebrew scholar. His use of Menahem possibly resulted in some grasp of
the theory of biliteral roots. There are indications that Herbert also used
the Targums independently of Rashi and that he had some notion of the

habet nisi trecentos quinquaginta quatuor dies. Mensis nunc viginti novem nunc dies
triginta alternatum preterquam in octobri et novembri ibi variat.
170 Psalterium, fol. 123r: Inicia vero festivitatum semper similiter secundum lunam. Ut
phase mense Nisa luna xiiiia ad vesperum et terminabitur luna xxiia ad vesperum. Et a
phase quinquagesimo die: luna xvia mense tercio. Luna via semper fiebat Pentecostes. Et
eodem die secundum legem terminabatur ad vesperum.
Prima vero die septembris quando neomenia fiebat festum tubarum. Et eodem die
secundum legem terminabatur ad vesperum. Decima vero die eiusdem mensis fiebat festum
expiacionis vel purefacionis. Et eodem die terminabatur ad vesperum. Quintagesima vero
die eiusdem mensis fiebit festum Scenophegie. Et terminabatur luna xxiia ad vesperum. In
crastino vero fiebat festum collecte et eodem die terminabatur ad vesperum. Et fiebatur
dies collecte vel quod Hebreo plus consonat dies recencionis. Sic enim in Hebreo est recen-
cionis ille ubi nos habemus. Est enim cetus atque collecte.
 The Use of Rabbinic Sources 135
Talmud and of Dunash’s Tesubot. However, Rashi’s commentary on the
Psalms is the only source which Herbert consulted consistently and sys-
tematically, and also probably the only Jewish text, apart from the Bible,
from which he worked directly. Behind all of Herbert’s Hebrew sources
stands the mediating presence of one or more contemporary Jewish (and/
or Jewish apostate) scholars who helped translate and contextualise the
Psalms and Rashi’s commentary, and who, perhaps complemented by
annotations in the Rashi text, provided additional liturgical information
as well as cross-references to other biblical and Talmudic comments.
With his Hebrew teacher(s), referred to as loquax meus and probably
also as litterator meus, Herbert seems to have had a relationship which was
collaborative and amiable enough to allow him to progress further in the
knowledge of Hebrew and of rabbinic sources than any of his peers.
136 chapter three
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 137

Chapter Four

Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities

It is not always clear to which Christian sources Herbert was indebted, and
how. Throughout the Psalterium he generally omits traditional Christian
exegeses, often stating that these have already been sufficiently explained
by the ecclesiastical authors. One example is Psalm 21 (22), “Deus meus
Deus meus quare dereliquisti me (My God my God why have you forsaken
me)”, where Herbert comments on verses 1-16: “the exegeses by the Christian
authors about the king our Messiah are clear”. There is no doubt for him
that this Psalm refers to Christ’s crucifixion.1 The only Church Fathers
Herbert mentions by name are Origen and Augustine, who are referred to
once in the commentary on Psalm 4, together with Jerome. Both sources
are invoked for their interpretation of the term sela/diapsalma. Herbert
quietly disagrees with Augustine and follows Jerome’s opinion that sela
differs from diapsalma in connotation and frequency of use, the former
being the “continuation of the Holy Spirit” (“continuacionem spiritus
sancti”), the latter meaning “semper” (“forever”). Two types of Christian
authors stand out when studying the Psalterium. First, there are Hebraist
role models, such as Jerome and, to a minor extent, the anonymous glos-
sators of the Hebrew-Latin-(vernacular) Bibles and reference works, whose
influence is predominantly methodological and linguistic. The second
category consists of those who shaped Bosham’s hermeneutics: the
Victorines, Hugh in particular, who will be discussed in chapter five, and
St. Paul, who is referred to as magister throughout the Psalterium and who
lends a fascinating tropological dimension to Herbert’s programme of lit-
eral exegesis.
Since Herbert’s edition of Lombard’s Magna Glosatura includes not just
the Psalms but also the Pauline Epistles, it is not surprising that in the
Psalterium a strong link with Paul remains. In fact, Paul is the Christian
source whose authority Herbert most frequently invokes. While he calls
Jerome “modernus alumpnus synagoge”, Paul is for him “that great ­erstwhile
pupil of the synagogue, most adamant emulator among Jewish scholars of
the Law.” (“magnus ille synagoge alumpnus quondam inter litteratores

1 Psalterium, fol. 25v: De rege nostro Messia ab ecclesiasticis exposita patent.

138 chapter four
legis emulator vehementissimus”, fol. 48r). He is quoted more than fifty
times over a total of thirty-nine psalms. Of those fifty-one references to
Paul, over thirty originate from Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians. In order
to analyse the relationship between Herbert’s translation of the Psalms
and his use of Paul, and between Pauline theology and Jewish exegesis as
reflected in the Psalterium, I will examine the function covered by refer-
ences to the Epistles in a selection of passages.

1. Paul’s Neutralising Influence

In a number of instances Paul seems to provide Herbert with a justifiable

means to integrate his borrowings from Jewish sources into the Christian
domain. For example, he revises Psalm 14 (15): 3, which occurs in the
Hebraica as:
Qui non est facilis in lingua sua neque fecit amico suo malum; et obprobrium
non sustinuit super vicino suum
He who is not easy with his tongue; nor has done evil to his friend; nor taken
up a reproach against his neighbour
to:
Qui non accusat in lingua sua neque fecit sodali suo malum; et obprobrium
non sustinuit super proximum suum
He who does not accuse with his tongue, nor has done evil to his companion,
nor taken up a reproach against his nearest/neighbour
Whereas the modifications of “amico” to “sodali” and of “vicino” to “proxi-
mum” have Christian precedents in the hebraized version of the Theodulf
recension and in the Gallicana respectively, “accusat” does not. Herbert
translated it from the Masoretic reading ragal/‫“( ָרגַ ל‬slander”, “go about”).
As we have seen before, since ragal/‫ ָרגַ ל‬occurs as “ankuza” in two of the
thirteenth-century Hebrew-Hebraico-French glossaries on this psalm, it is
possible that Herbert also used a similar Jewish aid to obtain his translation.
In his commentary he interprets Psalm 14 (15): 3 as a warning against
­making easy and unfounded accusations against others (“de facili et ex
lingue lubrico crimen improperare”) and supports his reading by relating
it to 1 Corinthians 4: 5: 2

2 Psalterium, fol. 16v: In lingua accusare: est de facili et ex lingue lubrico crimen impro­
perare. Unde in edicione alia: Qui non est facilis in lingua sua scilicet ad accusandum. Idem
sensus. Sunt quidam de quibus propter speciem vivendi non bonam non bene suspicamur
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 139
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes.
He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives
of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
With the interpretation of ragal ‘al ləshon/‫ל־לׁש ֹן‬
ְ ‫ ָרגַ ל ַע‬as “the making of a
verbal accusation” (“accusacio que in lingua est”) Herbert gives a more
narrow definition of the phrase than Jerome has done with “lingua est
facilis”, which could be understood as deceit or lack of discretion in general.
Reading “accusat”, which as he points out still shares its sensus with the
Hebraica (“Unde in edicione alia: Qui non est facilis in lingua sua scilicet ad
accusandum. Idem sensus.”) and then relating it to Paul’s verse, enables
him to reconcile the Hebrew Truth and the philological layer of literal
exegesis with Christian tropology. Through Paul, Herbert also widens the
scope of his literal translation by giving Psalm 14 (15): 8 not just tropologi-
cal but also eschatological significance.
A similar transition from the literal to the tropological via Paul occurs
in Herbert’s comment on Psalm 25 (26): 4. He supplies the verse as
Non sedi cum viris vanitatis et cum absconditis non ingrediar
I have not sat with men of vanity and neither will I go in with hypocrites/
hidden ones
whereas the Hebraica has:
Non sedi cum viris vanitatis et cum superbis non ingrediar
I have not sat with men of vanity and neither will I go in with the proud
“Absconditis” is a closer rendering of the Masoretic reading na‘alamim/
‫“( נַ ֲע ָל ִמים‬hypocrites”, literally: “hidden ones”) than Jerome’s “superbis”. In
his commentary Herbert relates this modification to Paul’s warning against
the corrupting influence of hypocrites in Ephesians 5:12:
He says “hidden ones” concerning those things about which the Master: “For
it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret”. Such
people are all hypocrites and all who are like that are hypocrites. And that
is why he says “I will not enter”, with my mind that is, or with agreement

sed male. Et hos quidem interdum accusare solemus non in lingua hoc enim illicitum sed
solum in consciencia de talibus minime conscienciam hominibus bonam. Et quidem talis
forte suspicio humane temptacionis species est. Et sepe aut nullum aut si peccatum est,
veniale est; solum caveatur ne talis suspicio prosiliat ad humane temeritatis iudicium, hoc
nunc dampnabile. Unde magister. Nolite ante tempus iudicare [1 Corinthians 4: 5]. Non igitur
talis accusacio apud proximum que in sola consistit consciencia nec illa qua interdum quis
zelo iusticie ad accusandum criminosum armatur sed solum illa accusacio que in lingua
est inhibetur hic.
140 chapter four
from the physical senses, and clearly he would not talk to such people who
have entered, for they are hidden.3
Since Psalm 25 (26) and Ephesians 5 share the same subject matter, namely
a description of the moral profile of a true believer, Herbert’s reference to
Paul in this verse is not in itself far fetched. However, through his literal
translation of na‘alamim/‫ נַ ֲע ָל ִמים‬as “absconditis” he has created a seman-
tic link with “in occulto” (“in secret”) in Ephesians 5: 12 which allows him
to build a much more solid and convincing ‘exegetical bridge’ between the
two texts.
A passage where Herbert shows himself particularly adept in his choice
of translation is Psalm 11 (12): 6. The Hebraica reads:
Propter vastitatem inopum et gemitum pauperum nunc consurgam dicit
Dominus; ponam in salutari auxilium eorum.
By reason of the misery of the needy, and the groans of the poor, now will
I arise, says the Lord. I will set their help in safety
Herbert amends the final words “auxilium eorum” to “loquetur pro eis” (“he
will say on their behalf”/“testify to them”), which is a more correct transla-
tion of the Masoretic ‫“( יָ ִפ ַיח ִלֹו‬he will utter to him/breathe against him”).
His translation and subsequent historical exegesis are partly borrowed
from Rashi who defines yaphiaḥ/‫ יָ ִפ ַיח‬here as a verb expressing speech
(verbum dicendi/‫)לשון דבור‬. Gruber translates it as “he testifies to him”.
Yaphiaḥ/‫ יָ ִפ ַיח‬is derived from the root pwḥ/‫“( פוח‬breathe”, “snort”, “utter”),
which occurs also in Psalm 9: 26 (10: 5). Yet there it appears as “exsufflat”,
a translation based on Rashi and reminiscent of the Old French “suflera”
contained in the Hebrew-Hebraico-French glossary tradition. Since Herbert
tends to translate the same Hebrew words by the same Latin equivalents
elsewhere in the Psalterium,4 his incorporation of Rashi’s exegesis of
yaphiaḥ/‫ יָ ִפ ַיח‬as a verbum dicendi in this verse should not be taken as an
automatic procedure.
The litterator, Herbert comments, tries to make this passage fit the
mould of the David narrative and interprets the verse as reflecting a prom-
ise by God to rescue David and his supporters from the hands of Saul.5 In

3 Psalterium, fol. 28r: Absconditos dicit illas de quibus magister: Que in occulto fiunt ab
ipsis: turpe est eciam dicere [Ephesians 5: 12]. Quales sunt omnes ypocrite et quicumque tales
hypocrite sunt. Et quod dicit non ingrediar animo scilicet vel consensu de corporali enim
et manifesto cum talibus ingressis non loqueretur. Absconditi enim sunt.
4 Gruber, Rashi, 210 (English), 814 (Hebrew).
5 Gruber, Rashi, 218 (English), 815 (Hebrew); Psalterium, fol. 14v: Litterator sicut psalmi
inicium ita et hunc psalmi locum David adaptare conatur. Et vocat secundum eos David
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 141
the second half of his comment Herbert relates the reading “loquitur pro
eis” to Paul’s letter to the Hebrews 12: 24.6
And I shall place in safety. And what the Lord will be placing in safety he
links soon with this, namely, he will testify to them, as if he says “to keep him
safe”, that is, the work itself of safety he testifies to them. According to what
the Master says: “[but you have come] to Jesus the mediator of a new cov-
enant and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood
of Abel”. And with the work itself I shall save the aforementioned needy
and poor, namely, David and his men and the blood of the priests I shall
vindicate.7
While Herbert follows Rashi’s literal explanation of yaphiaḥ/‫ יָ ִפ ַיח‬and
is willing to reflect his historical interpretation, he does not accept the
rabbi’s avoidance of Messianism in the latter half of the verse. By tying
in Paul’s verse Herbert both justifies his literal reading of ‫ יָ ִפ ַיח‬and adds a
prophetic Christian dimension to Rashi’s historical exegesis.
Another example where the authority of Paul is used in his assessment
of Jewish sources is Psalm 87 (88): 16. The Hebraica has
Pauper ego et aerumnosus ab adulescentia; portavi furorem tuum et con-
turbatus sum
I am poor, and wretched from my youth; I have suffered your anger and am
troubled
Herbert replaces “aerumnosus” (“wretched”, “miserable”) by “obiens”
(“dying”) and, after providing a grammatical explanation of the verb form,
comments that its meaning is closer to the Hebrew. He supports his read-
ing with four cross-references from Genesis in which the same word
occurs.8

inopes et pauperes se et suos et qui propter ipsum crucidati sunt sacerdotes Nobe. Quibus
prophetice per ipsum promittit auxilium Dominus dicens: nunc consurgam scilicet contra
Saulem et satellites suos persecutores David.
6 Paul’s authorship of Hebrews is not questioned in the Psalterium. I will therefore refer
to the work as Paul’s.
7 Psalterium, fol. 14v: Et ponam in salutari. Et quid Dominus in salutari positurus sit mox
subiungit hoc, scilicet Loquetur pro eis, quasi dicat: “Ipsum salutare”, id est ipsum opus
salutis loquetur pro eis. Iuxta quod magister dicit aspersionem sanguinis Ihesus Christus
melius loquentem quam Abel [Hebrews 12: 24]. Et est ipso opere dictos inopes et pauperes
salvabo. David scilicet et suos et sanguinem sacerdotum vindicabo. Vel ponem in salutari
auxilium eorum. Quod planum est sed Hebreo minus consonat. Et hec salus a Domino
promissa certissima est dicit David.
8 Psalterium, fol. 104r: Obiens a verbo quod est obio, obis unde et obitus. Simile enim
verbum illi quod in morte Abraham et hic positum est. In Genesi enim ubi nos habemus
de Abraham: et deficiens mortuus est in senectute bona [Genesis 25: 8]. Similiter de Ismahele:
142 chapter four
In a second exegetical step he suggests the alternate reading “ex sub-
mersione” (“from immersion”) for “ab adolescentia” and supports this
modification with a cross-reference to Paul’s description of his unwavering
faith in the face of adversity in 2 Corinthians 11: 26.
From there he adds Dying, I say, from my youth. And note that the Hebrew
word nohar has two different meanings on this occasion: “childhood” or
“youth”, obviously, a tender age, just as our writers have translated here:
“from my youth”. Some, however, read “immersion”, which would be in
water. Hence, where we have “youth”, most of the litteratores put and explain
“immersion”, reading as follows: “Dying from immersion”, as if [the Psalmist]
says with the Master: “[I have been] in danger from rivers [ …], in danger
at sea” [2 Corinthians 11: 26]. Next to which he had also well sent in advance
[i.e., as prophecy] the verse “you have overwhelmed me with all your waves”
[Psalm 87 (88): 8]. And you, see, even if the litterator does not.9
Herbert’s translation of no‘ar/‫ ּנ ַֹער‬in Psalm 87 (88): 16 as both “adolescen-
tia” and “submersio” is correct. The word can be interpreted either as the
noun no‘ar/‫ּנ ַֹער‬, meaning “youth”, or as the gerund of a different, hom-
onymic root, meaning “to shake”, “to sweep (out/off)”. His influence seems
to have been Rashi who understands no‘ar/‫ ּנ ַֹער‬in the latter sense and
relates it to the verb form wayna‘er/‫ וַ יְ נַ ֵער‬in Exodus 14: 27 “[ …] and the
Lord swept [the Egyptians] into the sea”.10
As is the case with Psalm 25 (26) and Ephesians 5, Psalm 87 (88): 16 and
2 Corinthians 11 also show similarity in their subject matter. By associating
the translation “submersio” with verse 8 “you have overwhelmed me with
all your waves” and with 2 Corinthians 11: 26, Herbert has opened up new
exegetical possibilities for this verse. On a semantic level he has forged

et obiit et mortuus est [Genesis 25: 17]. Sic eciam et de Ysaac ubi nos habemus consumptusque
etate mortuus est [Genesis 35: 29] in Hebreo est. Et obiit Ysaac et mortuus est.
Cum igitur crebro scriptura dicat et obiit et mortuus est claret quod aliud est obire, aliud
mori vel mortuum esse. In hoc enim verbo obire eciam secundum Latine lingue non solum
Hebree significatur transitus quidam e vita presenti sed bonus velut quidam occursus Deo
venienti ad se. [ …] Plerique habent: erompnosus, sic pauper ego et erumpnosus. Sed Hebreus
habet obiens, id est transiens, sicut ab hac vita et cotidie quasi Deo occurrens per mala que
pacienter et devotus semper Deo continue patitur Israel.
9 Psalterium, fol. 104r-v: Unde addit obiens dico: ab adolescencia mea. Et nota verbum
Hebreum nohar: duo significare aliquando: infanciam seu adolescenciam etatem videlicet
teneram. Sicut et nostri transtulerunt hoc ab adolescencia mea. Aliqui vero submersionem
que in aquis sit. Unde eciam plerique litteratorum, ubi nos hic habemus adolescenciam,
ponunt et exponunt submersionem legentes sic: obiens ex submersione. ac si dicat cum
magistro. Periculis in fluminibus, periculis in mari [2 Corinthians 11: 26]. Iuxta quod et bene
premiserat: et cunctis fluctibus tuis afflixisti me [Psalm 87 (88): 8] Et vide tu etsi litterator
non videat.
10 Gruber, Rashi, 564 (English), 844 (Hebrew).
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 143
links between the words “fluctibus” (verse 8), “submersio” (verse 16) and
“fluminibus” (2 Corinthians 11: 26), which together evoke the image of
immersion in water as a punishment or humbling test from God. In the
mind of his Christian audience this image could be taken to refer to baptism
(as described by Paul in Ephesians 5: 26 or Hebrews 10:22) or to well-known
New Testament passages such as the trial of the Apostles’ faith on the Lake
of Genesaret (Matthew 8: 23-27; Mark 4: 35-41; Luke 8: 22-25).
Thus Herbert integrates a reading drawn from the Hebrew and favoured
by Jewish scholars (“plerique litteratorum”) into a Christian framework.
His final remark on the blindness of the Jews, in combination with his
previous reliance on Jewish authority, reflects the Christian topos that Jews,
while unable to see the true significance of scripture for themselves, can
nevertheless provide textual knowledge which, if used correctly, confirms
the validity of the Christian faith.11
A passage where Paul’s authority is applied to an aspect of Hebrew
grammar occurs in Psalm 26 (27): 8, which Herbert translates as:
Tibi dixit cor meum querite faciem meam; faciem tuam Domine et
requiram.
My heart has said to you: seek my face; your face, O Lord, will I (still) seek.
Having first explained that the Hebrew equivalent for tibi means both “to
you” and “on your behalf/loco tui”, which in this verse refers to God on
whose behalf David is speaking,12 he compares David with religious
Christian authorities who act on behalf of Christ and refers thereby to 2
Corinthians 13: 3 and 2:10:
Since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is
not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you.
Now whomever you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have
forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence
of Christ.13

11 E.g., Augustine, De fide rerum invisibilium, Cl. 0292, par. 6-7, Brepolis LLT-A; Bernard
of Clairvaux, The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. by Bruno Scott James (Stroud,
1998), 460-63, letter 391; see also Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, 219-70.
12 The interpretation of ləkha/‫ ְלָך‬as “on your behalf” is also found in Rashi on this verse,
see Gruber, Rashi, 276 (English) and 821 (Hebrew).
13 Psalterium, fol. 28r: Dixit cor et cetera. Quemadmodum et prelati Domini in terris
vice fungentes multa ex persona Domini in presenti ecclesia agunt. Et ipsius Domini vocem
plerumque suscipiunt. Iuxta quod magister. An experimentum queritis eius qui in me loqui-
tur Christus [2 Corinthians 13: 3]. Et alibi. Nam et ego quod donavi siquid donavi: propter vos
in persona Christi [2 Corinthians 2: 10].
144 chapter four
“My heart” is a term of endearment for Israel, which is admonished to seek
God’s face in this verse and in Psalm 104 (105): 4: “[Look to the Lord and his
strength]; seek his face always”. In a similar vein the reader is encouraged
to keep longing for God’s presence in a mystical search which will only end
when the faithful can touch Him, and this only the “book of experience”
can teach.14 By establishing an analogy between David’s request on behalf
of God in Psalm 26: 8 and Paul’s embodiment of the will of Christ in 2
Corinthians, Herbert manages to tie in a Jewish literal exposition with the
Christian tradition. In a similar fashion to his comments on Psalms 8: 3
and 87 (88): 16, discussed previously, he links the figures of David and Paul
to one another through clever juxtaposition of verses with overlapping
subject matter.

2. Paul as Christianising Force

Herbert’s method of justifying the use of Jewish sources through Paul on

the one hand and strengthening Christian (Pauline) theology through
the use of Jewish sources on the other is not restricted to passages with
textual modifications. On several occasions where he follows the Hebraica
entirely, Herbert’s aim seems to be to enlarge the body of Christian Psalms
exegesis by allowing it to absorb selected elements from the rabbinical
tradition. For example, a verse where Herbert manages to introduce a
variant translation based on Rashi while at the same time elaborating on
the course of exegesis already outlined by Cassiodorus and included in
the Glossa Ordinaria, is Psalm 8:3. Herbert maintains the Hebraica text:
Ex ore infancium et lactencium perfecisti laudem [propter] adversarios tuos
ut quiescat inimicus et ultor.
Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings you have perfected praise,
because of your enemies, that you may destroy the enemy and the avenger.

14 Psalterium, fol. 28r: Vel ita tibi, id est, ad honorem et laudem tuam dicit David Deo,
dicit cor meum, scilicet Israeli hoc querite faciem meam, id est, querite faciem illam que
mea est, dicit David, scilicet faciem Dei. Quam David dicit suam quia eam querere non
cessabat. Unde subdit: faciem tuam Domine requiram. Quasi quod alios facere moneo: ego
facio super et faciam ad quod ipsum et in alio psalmo monet Querite faciem eius iugiter
[Psalm 104 (105): 4]. Semper enim Dei facies, id est presencia inquirenda, hic per fidem, in
futuro per speciem. Nec est enim quod inquisicionem invencio finiat. Quin pocius amore
crescente crescet et inquisicio infiniti. Sed solum de hoc tetigisse sufficiat de quo solum
experiencie liber docere nos poterit.
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 145
but offers “sordencium” (“of filthy ones”) as an alternative to “infancium”
(“of infants”). He comments that the Hebrew word eholerim (‘oləlim/‫)עֹול ִלים‬
ְ
covers both meanings, of which the sensus is the same: nursing infants are
filthy. This is a close reading of Rashi who has:
From the mouths of [children]: the Levites and the priests, who are people
who have grown up in filth, and nursing babes [ …] With reference to filth,
children are called ‘olelim.15
The Gloss relates this verse to 1 Corinthans 1. Herbert does not mention
Cassiodorus nor the Gloss here but a marginal gloss on the phrase “levitas
et sacerdotes” (“levites and priests”) in his commentary provides a cross
reference to 1 Corinthians 1: 26: “For you see your calling, brethren, that not
many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are
called”. 16 By using both Rashi and 1 Corinthians 1: 26 on this verse Herbert
establishes an Old Testament parallel to the portrayal of the humble origins
of the first Christians and enriches the already existing exegetical relation-
ship between this verse and 1 Corinthians 1. In Psalm 88 (89): 33 he takes
over the Hebraica’s translation unchanged:
Visitabo in virga scelera eorum: et in plagis iniquitatem eorum
I will visit their iniquities with a rod and their sins with blows.
While he uses Rashi as basis for his exegesis, he pushes the latter’s comment
in a different direction. Rashi relates this verse to God’s promise to David
about Solomon in 2 Samuel 7: 14:
I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will
chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.
He further interprets “rod” ( shevet/‫ׁש ֶבט‬/“virga”)
ֵ as a metaphor for Rezon,
one of Solomon’s major adversaries in 1 Kings 11: 23, and takes “plagues”
(nəga‘im/‫נְ גָ ִעים‬/“plagis”) as a synonym for “demons”, whom he equates with

15 Gruber, Rashi, 198 (English), 813 (Hebrew).

16 Cassiodorus, In Psalterium Expositio, PL 70: 75; Glossa Ordinaria, PL 113: 856. Psalte-
rium, fol. 10v: Ex ore sordencium et cetera. Verbum enim Ebraicum hic positum scilicet
eholerim: commune est et ad infantem et ad sordentem et est idem sensus. Dicuntur enim
hic sordes: sordes infancie, hoc ab ecclesiasticis explanatum et a Messia nostro sicut in
evangelio legitur contra legis peritos inductum patet. Litterator vero infantes hic et lactentes
vocat levitas et sacerdotes qui, cum primitus fuissent, in infancie sordibus et lacte mamil-
larum enutriti ad hoc tandem divino munere perducti sunt, ut quasi ore divino divinas
personent laudes in quo claret Domini perfecta laus; quod videlicet de prius talibus tales
fecit qui eius laudes ore divino personarent. Et hoc est: Ex ore infancium. Vel sordencium et
lactencium, id est, ex ore illorum qui primum erant in infancie sordibus et lacte mamillarum
educati.
146 chapter four
“the sons of men” from 2 Samuel 7: 14.17 Herbert reflects Rashi’s comment
and links the notion of demons with Paul in 2 Corinthians 12: 7: “Therefore,
to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a mes-
senger of Satan to torment me”.18
In addition to Rashi, Herbert clarifies the expression “sons of men” as
an euphemism for “(nightly) demons” in correlation with the well-known
phrase “the sons of God” in Genesis 6: 2 which is understood in a similar
way.19 In fact, Rashi refers here to a number of midrashim relating how
during the hundred and thirty years between the death of Abel and the
conception of Seth Adam refused to have intercourse with Eve. He subse-
quently had wet dreams, which impregnated nightly spirits and made him
unwittingly father a race of demons. Therefore, the expression “sons of
man” should be read as “sons of Adam”, and denotes demons.20 If Herbert
was aware of the midrashim underlying Rashi’s reference he glosses over
them. He explains the verse according to the literal and historical sense
and arrives at the interpretation of “plagis” (Psalm 88: 33) and “filii homi-
num” (2 Samuel 7: 14) as “demons”. In a next step he uses Paul on 2
Corinthians to lift this notion of Solomon’s torment by demons into the
tropological domain and extend its meaning to include a warning against
boastfulness and temptation, and a reminder that strength is to be found
in human weakness.
Herbert returns to 2 Corinthians in Psalm 90 (91) which, interestingly,
is also understood as dealing with the works of demons. On verses 5-6: “his
truth shall compass you with a shield; you shall not be afraid of the terror
(paḥar/‫)ּפ ַחר‬
ַ of the night; of the arrow (meḥets/‫)מ ֵחץ‬
ֵ that flies in the day,

17 Gruber, Rashi, 569 (English), 845 (Hebrew).

18 Psalterium, fol. 107v: Et est Hebreorum tradicio plage virga graviores post peccatum
illate fuerunt Salomoni per regem demonum Assemedai et per ministros eius malignos
spiritus qui Salomonem post peccatum plagis variis affecerunt. Et hee fuerunt ille de quibus
in regum dicitur: plage filiorum hominum [2 Samuel 7: 14], id est demonum. Quemadmodum
et magister dicit de se: quod ne magnitudo revelacionum extolleret eum, datus sit ei stimulus
carnis angelus Sathane qui eum colaphizaret [2 Corinthians 12: 7]. Qui eciam ob delicta non
nullos excommunicando tradidit Sathane in interitum carnis. Ut ita in carne vexari a
Sathana sicut nonnulli doctorum tradiderunt cicius resipiscerent.
19 Psalterium, fol. 107v: Credibile itaque et tale quid in Salomone factum. Fuit igitur
argutus Salomon et in virga virorum scilicet per Adad Ydumeum et per Ramzam filium
Eliadam. Et quod adhuc gravius cesus fuit plagis filiorum hominum, id est secundum
Hebreorum tradicionem molestiis et vexacionibus demonum. Utpote excomitatus a Deo.
Qui demones secundum eos benedicuntur filii hominum. Iuxta illud ut inducunt Cumque
vidissent filii Dei filias hominum [Genesis 6: 2] et cetera filios Dei dicunt demones incubos.
20 See Midrash Tanhuma, 19; The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation 3:
Tractate Erubin, transl. by Jacob Neusner (Atlanta, GA, 1992), 83; and Gruber, Rashi, 573n22.
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 147
of the pestilence (dever/‫ ֶ)ּד ֶבר‬that walks about in the dark: of the destruc-
tion (qetev/‫)ק ֶטב‬
ֶ that comes at noonday”, he follows both the Jewish and
the Christian traditions in his interpretation of “terror”, “arrow”, “pestilence”
and “destruction” as demons and contrasts these with the angels men-
tioned in verse 11. Weaving together cross-references from 1 Peter 5:8, to
Hebrews 1, Job 1 and 2, and 2 Corinthians 10, he states that both the Old
and the New Testament contain ample evidence that demons are as much
commissioned with tasks as good angels.21 He further expounds on the
nature of these four demons by comparing them with the four animals
mentioned in verse 13: “You shall walk upon the asp and the basilisk and
you shall trample under foot the lion and the dragon”. “Morsus insanientis”,
which finds its equivalent in “draco” (“dragon”), he interprets as “fallacia”
(“deceit”) or unintentional sin. Via Paul’s remark on ignorance in
1 Corinthians 14: 38, “But if any man know not, he shall not be known”, he
goes on to explain the procedure of sin offering described in Leviticus 4.
Herbert seems to understand “filiis Adam” not according to the rabbinic
tradition as demons only but widens its meaning to include human beings
who are possessed by them. This fits in with Paul’s typology of Christ as the
new Adam, who delivers humankind from sin. Herbert’s reference to
2 Corinthians 2: 11, “lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not
ignorant of his devices”, is also reminiscent of Psalm 26 (27): 8 in which he
supports his interpretation that David is speaking on behalf of God by cit-
ing the previous verse: “Now whomever you forgive anything, I also forgive.

21 Psalterium, fol. 113r: Nec miretur quis quatuor nos in huius psalmi serie nunc distin­
xisse demonia. Hec et enim suos sequens psalmi littera palam et quasi ex nomine metha-
phorice exprimit dicens et ad iustum loquens: super aspidem et cetera sicut nos ibi
demonstrabimus et ex tocius instrumenti veteris testimoniis consonis hec que de angelis
temptatoribus dicimus conprobantur. Ubi angelorum bonorum et malorum et diversa
officia et malorum varie distinguntur immissiones. Et post vetus ad novum instrumentum
recurrendum ubi et in evangeliis et apostolicis scriptiis angelorum tam horum quam illorum
disperciuntur officia. Interque et illud scriptum est. Sobrii estote et vigilate quia adversa
vester diabolus [tamquam leo rugiens circuit quaerens quem devoret; 1 Peter. 5: 8] et cetera.
Et illud de angelis loquentis magistri. Nonne inquit omnes administratorii spiritus in
ministerium missi propter eos qui hereditatem capiunt salutis [Hebrews 1: 14]. Et quidem hoc
de angelis bonis ex quo datur intelligi quod et mali similiter in ministerium mittantur
propter eos qui hereditabunt regnum perdicionis. Qualis fuit angelus ille Iob qui dicit se
circuisse terram et perambulasse eam [Job 1: 7; 2: 2]. Et magister ut non circumveniamur a
sathana [2 Corinthians 2: 10-11]. Ista vero de angelis quisquis plenius et planius nosse desi­
derat a beati Iohannis Apocalipsi non discendat.
148 chapter four
For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your
sakes in the presence of Christ”. 22
Another passage in which he further develops well-known Christian
exegetical connections with Paul is Psalm 39 (40): 7-9. The Hebraica reads:
Victimam et oblacionem noluisti; aures fodisti mihi holocaustum et pro
peccato non petisti
(Animal) sacrifice and oblation you did not desire; you have pierced ears
for me. Burnt offering and sin offering you did not require.
In accordance with, among other sources, Cassiodorus and the Gloss, he
refers to the inclusion of those verses in Hebrews 10:5-6:
5. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sa­cri­fice (‘hostiam’)
and offering (‘oblacionem’) you did not desire, but a body you prepared for
me;
6. with burnt offerings (‘holocaustomata’) and sin offerings (‘pro peccato’)
you were not pleased”.
Drawing on Leviticus 4 Herbert then defines at length these different types
of Hebrew sacrifice: “victima”, or “hostia” as it is called in Hebrews, concerns
animal sacrifice; according to the Jewish tradition its name derives from
“host” (aspirated “hostis”), because its “host” would take the animal first
home, and then to the temple, or, according to the gentile tradition, from
“enemy” (non-aspirated “hostis”) referring to the sacrifice of conquered
enemies. Zevach in Hebrew, it means “tearing to pieces” (“laceracio”).
“Oblacio”, somewhat more dignified than “victima”, involves dry matter
(“materia sicca”) and is minaha, i.e., “gift”, in Hebrew.23

22 Psalterium, fol. 113r: fallacia [ …] putatur bonum esse quod malum est aut quod malum
est minus malum esse quam sit. Quod est peccatum ignorancie, de quo magister: Ignorans
ignorabitur[1 Corinthians 14: 38]. Quod quidem in filiis Adam dum in presenti seculi tenebris
agunt creberrimum est. Unde et in Levitico [Leviticus 4] ad expianda huiuscemodi igno-
rancie peccata cuique tam sedulo sacrificiorum medicina adhibetur. Sive peccaverit anima,
sive turba filiorum Israel, sive princeps vel sacerdos Et hinc manifeste colligitur quod cum
supra dixit: Non timebis a timore nocturno [Psalm 90: 5] et cetera. Magis quam temptacionum
temptancium vel temptatorum diversitas numerando distinxerit.
23 Psalterium, fol. 40v: Hunc et duos qui subsequuntur psalmi versiculos magister in
Epistula ad Hebreos super reprobacione sacrificiorum legalium in regis et salvatoris nostri
Messie adventu interpretatur. Magister enim de Messia loquens versiculos istos inducit sic:
Ideo ingrediens mundum dicit hostiam et oblacionem [Hebrews 10: 5] et cetera. Quod hic
victima, ibi dicitur hostia. Et distinguntur in hac psalmi serie quatuor sacrificiorum genera,
scilicet: Victima vel hostia, oblacionem, holocaustum et pro peccato.
Et est victima sive hostia de animatis. Quod ipsum nomen victime indicat. Nam a con-
suetudine Hebreorum victima a vinciendo dicitur. Quia vinctum adducebatur animal primo
ad hostium atrii, post ad hostium templi. Unde hostia dicitur sine aspiracione sicut et
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 149
Having pointed out that, to some, “victima” here is not a generic term
for live sacrifice but is restricted to the notion of peace or mercy offering,
he reflects the Christian tradition that, under the New Covenant, ritual
sacrifice has become irrelevant. He underscores the crucial significance of
Christ’s passion as the ultimate sacrifice by drawing attention to the inter-
nal hierarchy between the four kinds of sacrifice mentioned, with burnt
offerings being more dignified than oblations but less so than sin offerings.
His final quote of 2 Corinthians 5: 21: “For He made him who knew no sin
to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him”,
forms the culmination of an exegesis which covers an almost self-explan-
atory intertextual link. Yet, by including a semantic definition of “victima”,
“oblacio”, “holocaustum” and “pro peccato”, partly based on the Hebrew,
and by placing these words in a wider ritual context, Herbert roots that
link in the littera of the verse. In this way he reaffirms and sophisticates
the relationship between Psalm 39 (40): 7 and Paul (including “Paul” on
Hebrews).24
Two overlapping themes recurrent in Herbert’s borrowings from Paul
are those of vanity and idolatry. For example, earlier in Psalm 39 (40) we
find verse 5: “Blessed is the man who makes the Lord his trust, who does
not look to the proud, to those who turn aside to false gods” as: “Beatus vir
qui posuit Dei confidenciam suam et non est aversus declinans mendacium”
while the Hebraica has “ad superbias pompasque mendacii” (“to the pride

victima. Secundum gentiles vero hostia cum aspiracione ab hostibus victiis dicitur quam
tunc offerebant quam eciam et a victis victimam appellabant. Secundum quod eciam
Hebraice dicitur zevach, quod sonat laniacio. Est igitur hostia sive victima: de animatis;
oblacio: de aliis, scilicet de materia sicca. Ut de simila, pane, thure. Et hec proprie dicebatur
oblacio vel munus. Hebraice vero: minaha, quod sonat munus. Et erat victima oblacio
dignior.
24 Psalterium, fol. 40v: Notandum vero quod cum nomen victime vel hostie ad omne
sacrificium de animalibus generale sit, hic tamen restringitur. Ut vocet nunc victimam
talem, scilicet victimam que fiebat pro pace seu pro graciarum actione propterea quia
sequitur holocaustum et pro peccato non petisti [ …]. Et ita victime et oblacionis nomine
omne quod Domino offerri solet sive de animatis intelligit. Et ea in Messie adventu ab ipso
reprobata dicit. Omne inquam quod offerebatur preter holocaustum et pro peccato de
quibus mox adicit quod eciam ipsa licet in lege maiora et digniora non curaverit.
Hoc enim attendendum quod enumerans quatuor sacrificiorum genera gradatim ascen-
dat. Prius ponens quod minus dignum. Ut victimam inde quod maius, scilicet oblacionem;
post quod adhuc maius, scilicet holocaustum. Demum vero quod maximum et peccatori
plus omnibus necessarium, scilicet pro peccato. Ac si dicat psalmista Domino. Nec qui
minora in lege erant sacrificia voluisti, nec que maiora. Ita quod eciam illud homini tam
necessarium pro peccato sacrificium non postulaveris, eo ipso significante Domino quod
ipsemet qui venerat, mundo pro peccato postea futurus erat. Secundum quod scriptum est:
Eum qui non noverat peccatum: pro nobis peccatum fecit [2 Corinthians 5: 21].
150 chapter four
and pomp of falsehood”) instead of “declinans mendacium” (“turning aside
to falsehood”).
Both the Jewish and the Christian exegetical tradition interpret this
verse as a warning against idolatry. In his modification of “ad superbias
pompasque” to “declinans” Herbert follows Rashi’s on wəsatey khazav/‫וְ ָׂש ֵטי‬
‫“( ָכזָ ב‬and the followers of falsehood”): “those who turn aside from the path
of virtue to the falsehood of idolatry”.25
Herbert comments:
Deviating, namely from the right path and, understand, following falsehood,
that is, idols and false worldly goods. There are certain [sources] which have
to the pride and pomp of falsehood, that is, who has not turned away so that
he follows the pride and pomp of falsehood, that is, idols made arrogantly
and ostentatiously. The noun “falsehood” often refers to that which is noth-
ing. Hence they are called elil in Hebrew, which means “nothing”, and hence
the Master [writes] “an idol is nothing”.26
He correctly mentions that the Hebrew noun ’elil/‫“( ֱא ִליל‬worthlessness”,
“nothingness”) is often used in the context of idolatry; it occurs in that sense
in Psalm 96 (97):7, and is given in the Hebraica and the Psalterium as “idola”.
By first establishing the relationship between “mendacii”, “elil” and
“nichil”, his reference to Paul on 1 Corinthians (“Therefore concerning the
eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the
world, and that there is no other God but one”) is only a logical transition.
In a procedure similar to that on verse 7 of this psalm, demonstrated above,
Herbert has here created a link which lends validity to the Hebrew reading
elil within Christian exegesis and which adds a literal dimension to Paul’s
statement. On a text-critical level, Herbert’s remark about the Hebraica’s
reading “sunt quidam qui habent ad superbias pompasque”, suggests that
it was not the only accepted interpretation, and that he was not the first
or the only Christian scholar to suggest a variant translation of this phrase.27

25 Gruber, Rashi, 328 (English), 825 (Hebrew).

26 Psalterium, fol. 40v: [ …] declinans, scilicet a via recta et sequens subaudi mendacium,
id est ydola et falsa mundi bona. Sunt quidam qui habent ad superbias pompasque menda-
cii, id est qui non est aversus ita ut sequiretur superbias et pompas mendacii, id est ydola
superbe facta et pompose. Que nomine mendacii frequenter significantur ea quae nichil
sint. Unde et Hebraice dicuntur elil quod sonat nichil. Unde magister ydolum nichil est
(1 Corinthians 8: 4; 10: 19).
27 Another verse with vanity and idolatry as its subject matter, and treated in a similar
way, is Psalm 138 (139): 20 (fol. 153r). Herbert relates it to Romans 1: 23: “And they changed
the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and
of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things”.
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 151
3. Paul versus the Litteratores

Herbert does not only refer to Paul to justify or complement Jewish exege-
sis; he also occasionally uses him as ammunition against rabbinic inter-
pretations. One example is Psalm 42 (43): 3, which Herbert translates as:
“Mitte lucam tuam et veritatem tuam; ipsa deducent me et introducent ad
montem sanctum tuum et ad tabernacula tua”/“Send forth your light and
your truth; they have conducted me, and brought me unto your holy hill,
and into your tabernacles”.
Within Christian exegesis this verse is taken as a prophecy of either
Christ or the Church. Midrash Tehillim interprets “light” and “truth” as
metaphors for the prophet Elijah and the Messiah respectively, whereas
Rashi understands these images the other way around.28 Herbert contests
the rabbinic view of this verse containing a reference to Elijah and disagrees
with two aspects of the rabbinic exposition of this verse: first, that “light”
and “truth” here apply to two different figures and, second, that one of those
figures would be a mere prophet (Elijah). Through his quotation of Hebrews
1:3: “He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature,
upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purifica-
tion for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”, he draws
attention to the variety of names and virtues used to denote Christ, thereby
demonstrating that it is he who is meant by both “light” and “truth”. Since
the verse is part of a longer passage describing Christ’s superiority over the
angels and prophets, it also serves to unhinge the exclusive nature of the
link between these words and Elijah. Herbert ends angrily:
If, according to the litterator, Elijah is understood here, then it is necessary
according to the consistency of the letter of the verse that he pronounces
Elijah to be God’s light and the truth. Which cannot be said about a mere
human being, unless [it is meant] emphatically, or rather, apostatically.29
Another psalm on which Herbert disputes the Jewish tradition with Paul
is 104 (105): 15

28 Gruber, Rashi, 344 (English), 345n5; 826 (Hebrew).

29 Psalterium, fol. 45r: Quasi ut redimar mitte lucem tuam, scilicet Messiam qui bene
luci comparatur sicut supra scriptum est: Quam apud te est ductus vite et in lumine tuo
videmus lumen [Psalm 35 (36): 10]. Et magister: Qui cum splendor glorie. Et veritatem tuam,
hoc idem de Messia patens per quem missum Dei promissa sunt completa. Unde et Dei
veritas dicitur ipsa, scilicet lux tua et veritas tua que tum in subsistenti unum sint; unus
scilicet Christus propter appellacionum tamen diversitatem pluraliter dicit: ipsa. Et quia
ipse appellaciones varie et si non in subsistenti tamen in effectibus varient. Ex alio enim
competit regi Messie nomen lucis et ex alio nomen veritatis sicut ipse Deus ex alio dicitur
152 chapter four
Nolite tangere christos meos et prophetas meos nolite affligere
Touch not my anointed and do no evil to my prophets
After explaining according to the historical sense that these are the words
God spoke to Pharaoh and Abimelech in Genesis 12: 17 and 20: 18,30 he
argues that məshiḥay/‫יחי‬ָ ‫“( ְמ ִׁש‬my anointed ones”/“christos meos”) should
be understood as both “anointed” and as “Christians”.31
As an example of someone who was anointed with invisible oil he points
to Cyrus, who in Isaiah 45:1 is also referred to as christus because he deliv-
ered the Israelites from captivity. He then elaborates on the Pauline con-
cept of the spiritual law, which includes spiritual anointing, already
foreshadowed in the Old Testament practice of physical anointing as “vis-
ible sacrament” of the crowning of a king. Referring to Romans 7: 14: “We
know that the law is spiritual; [but I am unspiritual (‘carnalis’), sold as a
slave to sin]” he makes the connection with the Jewish literal exegetes who
drive him towards the carnal/unspiritual while the spiritual and the carnal
cannot live without one another.32

iustus et ex alio misericors. Cum tum in subiacenti, id est in ipsa Dei natura, idem sit ius-
ticia quod misericordia et misericordia quod iusticia idem. Sed de hoc alias.
Hebreorum vero litteratores hoc de Helie missione quem expectant interpretantur.
Iuxta quod Israeli per prophetam promittit Dominus dicens: Ecce ego mittam nobis Heliam
prophetam antequam veniat dies Domini magnus et cetera [Malachi 4: 5]. Verum si secundum
litteratorem Helias hic intelligitur, necesse est secundum littere versus consequenciam ut
Helyam fateatur Dei lucem et Dei veritatem. Quod nisi emphatice quin pocius nisi apos-
tatice de homine paro dici potest.
30 These cross references also occur in Midrash Tehillim; see Braude, Midrash, I, 181-82.
31 Psalterium, fol. 125r: Quod vero dicit christos meos pretereundum non est. Iam enim
ante Christum: Abraham, Ysaac, Iacob et si qui eorum similes ne dicam Christiani sed et
christi erant. Uncti sicut et Christus noster oleo non visibili sed invisibili. De quo supra:
Dilexisti iusticiam et cetera [Psalm 44 (45): 8]. Uncti igitur erant isti oleo invisibili, id est
graciarum plenitudine repleti. Unde et bene christi dicuntur. Sed quia pro modo perfectio-
nis humane ita graciarum plenitudine repleti sunt quod de plenitudine acceperunt, datum
est enim eis ad mensuram; conferit quod sic fuerint christi quod eciam Christiani.
Et ita velit nolit litterator fatebitur, nisi hic littere proprietati renunciet, quod et ante
Christi nostri adventum Christiani tunc fuerint. Christus vero noster non de plenitudine
sed ipsam graciarum accipiens plenitudinem nequaquam secundum verbi proprietatem
Christianus dici debet sed ipse Christus. Reliqui vero ita christi quod et Christiani.
32 Psalterium, fol. 125r: Cum apud gracias reges faceret sola imposicio diadematis que-
madmodum apud Hebreos visibile sacramentum unctionis. Ex hiis igitur que prophete
locuti sunt manifeste habemus quod in Iudeis et eciam in gentibus illa qua reges spirituales
invisibiliter inunguntur: unctio invisibilis et spiritualis est. Pariter secundum consequenciam
circumcisio erit spiritualiter, sabbatum spirituale, sacrificia spiritualia. Et ita singulis enu-
meratis: lex tota spiritualis. Unde et magister. Scimus inquit quod lex spiritualis est [Romans
7: 14]. Necesse igitur et ex hiis ut legis observator spiritualis sit. Contra carnalem legis
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 153
In this passage Herbert includes both the literal interpretation of
Christus/‫ ָמ ִׁש ַיח‬as unctus (“anointed”) and the rabbinic one of mashiaḥ/
‫ ָמ ִׁש ַיח‬as a reference to the patriarchs, denoting here greatness rather than
anointment.33 Whereas he follows the rabbinic exposition of mashiḥay/
‫יחי‬ָ ‫ ְמ ִׁש‬as referring to the patriarchs, he dismisses their understanding of
the word as “magnos meos” (“my great ones”), considering it to be a delib-
erate move to avoid a messianic interpretation. The starting point of his
exegesis is the literal interpretation of mashiaḥ/‫ ָמ ִׁש ַיח‬as “anointed”. Via
the translation of mashiaḥ/‫ ָמ ִׁש ַיח‬as Christus he claims that the word should
cover the notion christianus as well, in which case it includes all those who
lived under the spiritual law whether before or after Christ. This argument
is founded upon Paul’s theory in Romans on Christ’s new, spiritual law, as
opposed to the Jews’ old “carnal” law, which has rendered sacraments such
as animal sacrifice, physical circumcision and traditional observance of
the Sabbath irrelevant.34
Herbert’s two references to Jewish grammarians, which could be aimed
at written as well as oral sources, namely, “and so the grammarian will
admit [this] willy-nilly, unless he renounces here the proper meaning of
the letter” and “I speak here against the carnal/unspiritual grammarian of
the law who drives me from the spirit to carnal matters of the law since
the spirit cannot live without the flesh and the flesh not without the spirit”,
shows that he felt challenged by their views. His quotation of Paul in
Romans 7: 14 seems to serve as both an admission of and a defence against
this challenge. Yet his strongest argument against these Jewish sources is
his allegation that, by denying the word mashiaḥ/‫מ ִׁש ַיח‬,ָ its meaning of
“anointed”, they are stripping it of its literal sense and are thus themselves
distorting Hebrew scripture.35 I will return to this passage in the next
chapter.

l­ itteratorem hec loquor qui de spiritu ad legis carnalia me conpellit cum spiritus sine carne
et sine spiritu caro vivere non potest.
33 Braude, Midrash, II, 182; Rashi, Parshandata, III, 98.
34 Psalterium, fol. 125r: Et hoc pretereundum non est quod istum hic in psalmo Chris-
torum, id est unctorum, locum Hebreorum litteratores tanquam iniuncti aride nimis
exponant, nulla hic expressim nec invisibilis nec visibilis unctionis mericionem facientes.
Sed sic Nolite tangere christos meos, id est, meos magnos quos magnos reputo dicit Dominus.
Dicunt enim quod unctionis nomen magnitudinem in scriptura et Dominum notet.
35 This is reminiscent of the early rabbinic saying that “no text can be deprived of its
peshat”, with peshat understood as “context”; see Gelles, Peshat and Derash, 5; Halivni,
Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning, 25.
154 chapter four
4. Herbert on the Fence?

There are two passages in which the Hebrew/Jewish tradition and Paul
lead in diametrically opposed directions. One is Psalm 67 (68): 19, already
discussed above, “When you ascended on high, you led captives in your
train; you received (laqaḥətha/‫)ל ַק ְח ָת‬
ָ gifts from/for men, even from the
rebellious, that Lord God might dwell there” which also occurs in Paul in
Ephesians 4:8 in a slightly altered form. The stumbling block is “you
received” which appears in Ephesians as “he gave” (΄έδωκεν).36 According
to the Jewish as well as the Christian tradition this verse describes a central
event in their respective religious histories. Midrash Tehillim and Rashi
understand it as a reference to Moses’ reception of the Torah on Mount
Sinai, and its later distribution to the people.37 Paul re-interprets the verse
as a reference to Christ’s ascension and his bestowal of grace among the
people. Herbert explains this version first in the context of Paul’s theory of
natural law, which he believes to have been practised among monotheists
before a written law code emerged. With his quotation of Galatians 3:19:
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgres-
sions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was
appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.38
Herbert stresses that the Old Law revealed to Abraham and Moses lacked
the notion of grace and could be but temporary. This leads him to a literal
explanation of the Psalm verse according to the Gallicana, which here more
closely reflects the Masoretic text, in a comment based on Rashi:39
Or differently according to the reading which is found in the Gallicana: “you
have ascended on high”, etc. And according to the litterator the Psalm spe-
aks to Moses just as earlier on [it spoke] to God about Moses, about whom
we clearly read that he ascended on the mountain to God. As is written:
“Then Moses went up to God” [Exodus 19: 3]. To which the Psalm adds “you
have led captives in your trail, you have accepted gifts”, etc. This should be
understood as also about Moses, not because he himself did it but because

36 This is due to adherence to a non-masoretic tradition: hlk/‫ הלך‬instead of lqḥ/‫לקח‬.

37 Braude, Midrash, I, 545-46; Gruber, Rashi, 449 (English), 834 (Hebrew).
38 Psalterium, fol. 73v: Videtur autem de hiis presertim hic loqui psalmus quod ante
legem littere sub lege nature: Dei unius cultores erant; sed lege data ad ipsam sine gracia
perficiendam invalide sine qua lex sicut magister docet iram operatur. Quam et propter
transgressionem posita perhibet. De hiis igitur ante legem veris Dei cultoribus loquitur:
maxime cum distinguendo subiungat [marginal gloss: Galatians 3: 19 Quid igitur lex].
39 Gruber, Rashi, 449 (English), 834 (Hebrew).
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 155
through him God made it happen, as has been explained in the previous
reading.40
When both exegeses have been set out he tackles the problem of Paul’s
apparent deviation from the Hebrew Truth.
We should, however, not pass by the fact that the ecclesiastical tradition
relates that psalm verse to the ascension of our king the Messiah. Hence
the Master conveys it thus, and says about it: “ascending on high he led
captivity captive; he gave gifts to men” [Ephesians 4: 8]. But with apostolic
authority—as has been said before—the Master changes the words, in order
to prove that he intends them differently than they are in Hebrew. In par-
ticular, where he says “he gave”, when according to the Hebrew Truth one
should read “he received”, unless as has already been shown above, the
deeper meaning (sententia) of both words here can be the same. Thus, the
ecclesiastical interpretation here and in other passages should be safe. What
we have accepted from the Hebrew literal exegetes or from the blessings of
others, just as even God sometimes has revealed to yours truly, what belongs
to the literal sense of the Psalms, this I communicate to others, aside from
the precedent of the ecclesiatical interpretation.41
Although Herbert states clearly that Paul possessed the authority to change
the meaning of the verse, he also concedes that the littera of the text should
be respected. He reconciles the two versions by interpreting their sententia
as the same, explaining that Christ has accepted gifts from God in order to
distribute them among humankind (literally “among the hearts of
men”).42

40 Psalterium, fol. 73v: [ …] Vel aliter iuxta litteram que in alia habetur edicione:
Ascendisti in altum et cetera. Et loquitur secundum litteratorem psalmus ad Moysen sicut
prius ad Deum de Moyse de quo manifeste habetur quod in montem ad Deum ascendit.
Sicut scriptum est. Moyses autem ascendit ad Deum [Exodus 19: 3]. Quod vero psalmus adicit
captivasti captivitatem accepisti dona et cetera. De Moyse itidem intelligendum non quia
ipse fecerit sed quia per ipsum a Domino factum sit ut in lectionem precedenti expositum
est. Transcription from “Et loquitur [ …]” by Smalley, “A Commentary”, 53-54.
41 Psalterium, fol. 73v: Minime tamen pretereundum quod iste psalmi versiculus ab
ecclesiasticis ad regis nostri Messie ascensionem referatur. Unde et a magistro inducitur
sic. Propter quod dicit: Ascendens in altum captivam duxit capitvitatem; dedit dona homini-
bus [Ephesians 4: 8]. Verum magister ad probandum quod intendit verba aliter quam in
Hebreo sint appostolica ut iam predictum est auctoritate commutat. Maxime in eo quod
dicit: dedit, cum iuxta veritatem Hebraicam: accepit legendum sit, nisi quod sicut iam supra
ostensum est, eadem hic utriusque verbi potest esse sentencia. Salva igitur sit, sicut hic et
in aliis ecclesiastica interpretacio. Quod nos ab Hebreorum litteratoribus seu aliorum
benedictis accepimus sicut eciam sedenti michi interdum revelaverit Dominus, quod ad
psalmorum sensum pertineat litteralem, hoc absque ecclesiastice interpretacionis preiu-
dicio aliis communico. Transcription by Smalley, “A Commentary”, 53-54, 60.
42 Psalterium, fol. 73v: Accepisti in qua dona tua de sursum in homine distribuenda
subaudi ut videlicet post legem datam dona tua celestia interius, scilicet in cordibus
156 chapter four
A second example of divergence of opinion between Paul and Herbert’s
litteratores concerns the authorship of Psalms 89 (90) to 100 (101). While
the rabbinic tradition usually attributes this group to Moses, Hebrews 4:7,
discussing the Sabbath rest, treats Psalm 94 (95) as composed by David:
It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had
the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.
Therefore, God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time
later he spoke through David, as was said before: ‘Today, if you hear his
voice, do not harden your hearts.’ [Psalm 94 (95): 7-8].
This issue could prove problematic for Herbert, since elsewhere in the
Psalterium he explicitly supports the theory, favoured by the Jewish tradi-
tion and by Jerome, of multiple authorship of the Psalms.43 However, as is
the case in the previous example, he seeks to harmonise the opposing views
here. Having explained the situation in his commentary he then stresses
that Paul’s authority, which naturally supersedes that of the litterator,
demands respect.44 The Psalms should therefore be considered to be
davidic, even if some were not actually composed by David:
[ …] that psalm is by David and will deservedly carry a title in the name of
David, unless perhaps someone who agrees with the assertion of the Hebrews
about the author of these eleven Psalms would say that the Master attributes
the ninety-fourth Psalm to David, not because David is its author but because
of particular authority. Because as I remember having said from the begin-
ning, all Psalms are attributed to David, whoever their author was. Hence

hominum divideres.
43 He explains his view in Psalm 71 (72): 19-20 (fol. 82r): Si vero dixerimus complete, id
est “finite sunt oraciones David” secundum quod in Hebreo una est dictio, scilicet colu,
necesse ut dicamus psalmos quorum auctor fuit ipse David non simul nec ex ordine in
psalmi volumine digestos sed dispersim et vage, aliis interpositis quorum ipse auctor non
fuit. See also Loewe, “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bohsam
and Earlier Scholars”, 243.
44 Psalterium, fol. 109v: Undecim psalmi isti qui sunt usque ad centesimum, scilicet
misericordiam et iudicium secundum Hebreorum litteratores sunt psalmi Moysi ab ipso
Moyse editi. Quod sicut Dominus ex hoc habetur quia nullus eorum prescribitur vel nomine
David, vel nomine Asaph seu alicuius aliorum. Unde et tradunt quod ille cuius nomen in
hoc titulo ponitur, scilicet Moyses auctor fuit omnium.
Et quidem posset ista eorum credi assercio nisi quia magister ad probandum quod
intendit in Epistula ad Hebreos de nonagesimo quarto psalmo testimonium adducens
testimonii auctoritatem de psalmo illo sumptam non alii attribuit quam David, dicens sic:
Quam ergo super est quosdam introire in illam et hii quibus prioribus annunciatum est non
introierunt propter incredulitatem: iterum terminat diem quamdam hodie in David dicendo
post tantum temporis [Hebrews 4: 7-8].
 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 157
also all hundred and fifty Psalms are said to be davidic. But the Psalm which
is now before us is allegedly by Moses.45
In the light of his overall stance on the authorship of the Psalms it would
be inconsistent of Herbert to reject the Jewish opinion on Psalm 94 (95).
The final paragraph of his comment shows that, on the contrary, he cau-
tiously agrees with it. Yet, at the same time he diminishes the importance
of the actual identity of the author of the Psalms by stating that, whoever
their author is, the Psalms are generally, and with apostolic authority,
attributed to David.
In her first article on the Psalterium Smalley points out that Herbert,
when highlighting contradicting views between Jewish and Christian
sources, often does not reach a final conclusion. One of her examples,
which also includes a reference to Paul, is Psalm 115 (116), which Herbert,
following Rashi, interprets historically as relating to David’s flight from
Absalom and encounter with Mephibosheth’s servant Siba (2 Samuel 15-16).
On the final verses “I will pay my vows to the Lord in the sight of all his
people. In the courts of the house of the Lord, in the midst of you, O
Jerusalem. Hallelujah”, Herbert comments:
We have followed the literal sense of the Psalm. However, the Master teaches
clearly that that Psalm relates spiritually to the confession of faith. Introduc-
ing the first verse of Psalms as such, he says: “[It is written: ‘I believed;
therefore I have spoken.’] With that same spirit of faith we also believe and
therefore speak” [2 Corinthians 3: 13, Psalm 115 (116): 10]. And note that
according to the Hebrews alleluia comes at the end in this Psalms and is
not the title of the next one.46
With his inclusion of Paul on 2 Corinthians he seems to want to remind
the reader of the Psalm’s spiritual interpretation, or at least point out that
he is aware of Paul’s understanding of the verse as spiritual. Smalley counts

45 Psalterium, fol. 110r: [ …] quod psalmus ille sit David merito et titulum habebit David
nomine prescriptum, nisi forte quis Hebreorum assercioni super horum undecim psalmo-
rum auctore assenciens dicat nonagesimum quartum psalmum a magistro atribui David,
non quod David eius auctor fuerit sed ob auctoritatem precipuam. Qua sicut nos iam ab
inicio dixisse meminimus omnes psalmi quorumcumque auctorum fuerunt attribuuntur
David. Unde et omnes simul centum quinquaginta psalmi dicuntur esse davitici. Iste vero
psalmus qui nunc pre manibus est secundum assercionem Moysi est.
46 Psalterium, fol. 135r: Nos sensum psalmi prosecuti sumus litteralem. Verumptamen
psalmum illum ad fidei confessionem spiritualiter pertinere manifeste magister docet,
primum psalmi versiculum inducens et dicens sic: habentes autem eundem spiritum fidei
sicut scriptum est: Credidi propter quod locutus sum [2 Corinthians 4: 13; Psalm 115 (116): 10].
Et nota quod secundum Hebreos in hoc psalmo alleluia psalmi finis sit, non titulus subse-
quentis.
158 chapter four
this passage among a number of examples, including that of Psalm 67 (68):
19 discussed above, demonstrating Herbert’s confusion and indecisiveness
when confronted with contradictions between the two traditions. What
she believes to be the ambiguity here and in Psalm 67 (68) is Herbert’s
failure to state his preference for either the Jewish literal or the Christian
spiritual exposition.47
Whereas I agree with her that he tends to be cautious in his introduction
of Jewish exegetical material which could be read as undermining ecclesi-
astical authority, I do not believe that this is the result of confusion on
Herbert’s part. Throughout the Psalterium, Herbert focuses mainly on the
literal sense of scripture as explained in Hebrew sources. However, rather
than treating the literal sense as a means for exposing ecclesiastical errors,
his main aim seems to be to clarify the Psalms text itself and to enrich its
existing body of Christian interpretation by highlighting its much-over-
looked foundational layer, the littera.
Thus, when referring to Paul’s apparently contrasting exegeses on
Psalms 67 (68): 19 and 115 (116): 18-19, Herbert is not shying away from mak-
ing a daring decision but instead believes he has found in both passages a
meaning which is internally consistent on different levels. In Psalm 67 (68):
19 he considers the sententia of the verse and of Paul’s variant translation
to be the same, even though he deems the Hebraica reading to be the cor-
rect one according to the Hebrew truth. In Psalm 115 (116) he seems to
regard Rashi’s historical and Paul’s spiritual interpretation to be comple-
mentary. Yet, since his interest in Jewish exegesis seems to be focused on
retrieving the literal sense of scripture (littera), and since his references to
Paul mainly concern christological and moral statements, Smalley’s views
raise the question how he establishes the connection not just between
these two religious traditions but also between these two levels of inter-
pretation. On a wider scale we need to further explore Herbert’s definition
of the literal and other senses of scripture, his method of exegesis and his
assessment of the relationship between Jewish and Christian strategies for
categorising the different layers of scriptural interpretation.
Herbert appeals to Paul’s authority either to justify the inclusion of closer
readings of the Masoretic text into the Christian domain or to reject a
Jewish interpretation. Importantly, this building of exegetical bridges
between modified translations from the Hebrew and passages from Paul
results in a strengthening of ties between the Psalms and Paul’s Epistles
which, in turn, feeds the validity of Paul’s theology. It is interesting to follow

47 Smalley, “A Commentary”, 58-60.

 Negotiating Christian and Jewish Authorities 159
Herbert’s reasoning when he is convinced that Paul’s view differs from the
Hebraica veritas, and cautiously disagrees with his magister. Overall we
can conclude that, by using Paul to support and validate his commentary
on the Psalms according to the Hebraica veritas, Herbert seeks to prove
that his interpretations not only conform to Christian orthodoxy but also
confirm it.
160 chapter four
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 161

Chapter Five

The Practice of Literal Exegesis

1. Hebraist, Exegete and Polemicist

The previous chapters have made clear that Herbert of Bosham’s Psalterium
cum commento, while part of an already existing tradition in its choice of
biblical text for revision (Jerome’s Hebraica) and in its exegetical approach
(a literal exposition of scripture), is unique in its combination of those two
strands of scholarship. Three fundamental aspects underlying Herbert’s
successful application of the literal sense of scripture to the Psalms are his
extraordinary proficiency in Hebrew, his intelligent use of other Christian
Hebraist material, and his unusual familiarity with rabbinic works in gen-
eral and with Rashi in particular.
We now know that his grasp of the language extends over Hebrew gram-
mar, vocabulary, some lexicology based upon the Mahberet Menahem and
the Tesubot Dunash, and elements of textual criticism of the Masoretic text
such as variant readings and kethib qere. Yet we should be careful not to
judge Herbert’s linguistic skills by modern standards. Compared with
twenty-first-century students of Hebrew, Herbert’s grasp of the language
might seem patchy. On the one hand he is perfectly able to explain the
difference between the causative (hifil) and the ‘plain’ (qal) active verb
form of zkr/‫ זכר‬in Psalm 86 (87): 4, to translate Hebrew verbal nouns by
their closest Latin equivalents, namely gerunds, or to identify variant inter-
pretations of the adverb ləma‘an/‫ ְל ַמ ַען‬in Psalm 50 (51); on the other hand
it is questionable whether he has, for example, a full notion of the basic
Hebrew idiom of the so-called construct-chain or could systematically
conjugate a Hebrew verb. Similarly, it is likely that his lexical horizon was
defined by the vocabulary he needed in order to read the Psalms and to
consult Rashi with the help of an interpreter.
On a second level it would be contrived to try and divorce the extent of
Herbert’s Hebrew knowledge from the type of learning tools he used and
from the help he received from his teacher(s). In the Psalterium we possess
an, at the moment, unique case study of a twelfth-century Hebraist revising
the Psalms with a variety of reference aids from both Christian and Jewish
origin. Herbert is the only high-medieval exegete we know whose work
162 chapter five
bears the undeniable influence of a body of revised readings of the Hebraica
which are also present in several Hebrew-Latin psalters and in the Longleat
Hebrew-Latin-French dictionary. Herbert is also our only attestated
Christian scholar at the time who quotes Rashi verbally with such fre-
quency, refers to the Mahberet or to Dunash, or absorbs le‘azim from Rashi
and from Hebrew-French glossaries into his own translations.
Herbert’s rather functional knowledge of Hebrew, which seems to be so
defined by his reference tools and by the directions of his teacher(s), raises
the question to what extent we can call his individual revisions of the Psalm
text ‘independent’ or ‘original’. He probably borrowed some of the vocab-
ulary and translation techniques from studying one or more multi-lingual
psalters, and his comments on text-critical aspects of the Hebraica reveal
that he was familiar with an already existing body of variant readings on
Jerome’s text which were, at least in part, derived from the hebraized
glosses of the Theodulf recension. His choice of translations borrowed from
rabbinic sources seems to have been guided by directions from his ‘loqua-
cious’, and sadly anonymous, interpreter.
However, Herbert shows impressive resourcefulness in complementing
text-critical skills with his knowledge of Hebrew. By purposefully selecting
readings from a variety of Latin witnesses to the Hebraica, and combining
them with translations and interpretations from the Masoretic text by Rashi
and other Jewish sources, including at least one oral one, he has produced
a revision of the Psalms which, as a whole, is truly original. As a result,
instead of marking Herbert as an isolated figure on a lonely mission, we
should consider him as standing at the crossroads of several contemporary
movements, such as interest in the literal sense of scripture and in Christian
Hebraism, and an already-established scholarly tradition, namely the revi-
sion of the Vulgate text, which to some extent had always included reliance
on Jewish or Christian Hebraist sources. Within these different intellectual
strands he stands out not so much as an innovator but as a scholar who,
being more linguistically advanced than his fellow Hebraists, was not just
able to continue the work of colleagues such as Andrew of Saint Victor, but
could also improve it.
Although Herbert seems to have immersed himself more deeply in the
study of Hebrew than any of his known peers, he shows but little interest
in the theoretical aspects of the language. He hardly ever refers to Hebrew
grammar rules and, unlike some of his contemporaries, never expresses a
value judgment on Hebrew as a language. John of Salisbury calls Hebrew
“more natural than the other [languages]” (“naturalior ceteris”) in the first
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 163
book of his Metalogicon, and an anonymous Tractatus de philosophia con-
siders Hebrew to be “the only language in which a child expresses itself
naturally without any instruction”.1 Ralph Niger offers a different opinion
in his elaboration of Jerome’s Book of Hebrew Names: frustrated about the
difficulties encountered while learning Hebrew, he admits in his section
on Chronicles that even with the help of Jewish interpreters and in spite
of having access to dictionaries, he saw the meaning of many Hebrew
names “not at all clearly [ …] but as it were through a glass, darkly” (“non
omnino clare [ …] sed tanquam per speculum in enigmate”).2 Herbert, in
contrast, does offer personal comments on his Hebrew learning process
and shows more interest in the practice of Hebrew than in theories sur-
rounding it.
Concerning his use of Jewish sources, it has become clear that Herbert
consulted Rashi on the Psalms directly and was influenced by Rashi on
other biblical books through an annotated commentary or a teacher. This
teacher probably also directed him to Midrash Tehillim, to the Talmud, to
the Targums and to Menahem ben Saruq, although Herbert must have
accessed these works through Rashi as well. His attribution of certain
exegeses to Gamaliel demonstrates that the term applies not just to a
Talmudic anthology, as has been suggested, but extends also to other rab-
binical literature, such as Midrash Tanhuma and Midrash Tehillim.3 An
analysis of Herbert’s use of the terms litterator and litteratores has revealed
that these always denote Jewish sources, never Christian ones, and may be
a translation of pashtanim (“exegetes of the plain sense”). Since Rashi is by
far Herbert’s most pervasively used authority, the singular litterator often,
but not in every case, refers to him. “Litterator meus”, for example, should
be understood as a reference to a personal tutor.
When discussing a particular peshat reading Herbert is usually eager to
point out agreement between the litteratores and the Christian tradition.4
For example, in Psalm 21 (22): 30, “All the fat ones of the earth have eaten
and have adored: all they that go down to the earth shall fall before him”,

1 J. B. Hall, Ioannis Saresberiensis Metalogicon. CCCM 48 (Turnhout, 1991), 25; Gilbert
Dahan, “Une introduction à la philosophie au XIIe siècle: le Tractatus quidam de philosophia
et partibus eius”, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 57 (1982): 155-93, at
189. 
2 Flahiff, “Ralph Niger”, 121.
3 Loewe, “Alexander Neckham”, 214n40; Hunt, The Schools and the Cloister, 109; Good-
win, Take Hold …, 139; Olszowy-Schlanger, “Christian Hebraism in Thirteenth-Century
England”, 121.
4 Smalley, Bible, 193; Goodwin, Take Hold …, 140.
164 chapter five
he comments that authorities on both religious sides interpret this verse
as about the Messiah.5 On other Psalms he remarks that Christian and
Jewish texts in fact carry the same message, even though the Jews of his
time do not recognise it. On the title of Psalm 71 (72), Solomoni, he writes:
The ecclesiastical tradition has explained this Psalm accurately enough as
about our king the Messiah, and the older, greater and more learned of the
Jews have offered a similar interpretation. The modern litteratores on the
other hand have tried to explain it (and most of the aforementioned psalms
to which we have drawn attention before) as about Solomon son of David
and Bathsheba in order to obstruct the ecclesiastical sense and remove our
Messiah from Scripture. But since the ecclesiastical interpretation of this
psalm is clear to us, let us follow the error of the litteratores if only to add
a few things which according to the literal sense do not at all stand in the
ecclesiastical sense’s way but rather help it along. The judicious and careful
reader will soon understand.6
His argument is a clever one. It allows him to incorporate Rashi’s (non-
messianic) exposition of this psalm into his own commentary while trans-
ferring the responsibility for its correct interpretation onto the shoulders
of the reader. It also ties in with the Christian view, based on Augustine,
that the Jews in their scriptures blindly preserve the prophecy of Christ
and are therefore witnesses to a truth which they themselves do not under-
stand.7
This Augustinian concept surfaces more explicitly on verse 17, “and all
nations will be blessed in him” (“et benedicentur in eo omnes gentes”).
While the ecclesiastical writers see this phrase as a clear christological
prophecy, Rashi firmly expounds it as about King Solomon. “It can be
accepted as referring to Solomon”, Herbert comments, “not to that [his-
torical] Solomon but to the one whose blessing is now experienced daily
by the enlightened church of gentiles, while the blind synagogue of Jews
experiences its curse”. He argues that while much of the psalm applies to

5 Psalterium, fol. 26r: comederent hoc tempore redempcionis sub Messia, in quo et
Hebrei assenciunt
6 Psalterium, fol. 80r: Et est psalmus iste ab ecclesiasticis de rege nostro Messia diligenter
satis expositus, quem similiter et Hebreorum antiquiores doctores et maiores de Messia
interpretati sunt. Verum litteratores moderni psalmum hunc sicut et plerosque de super-
dictis, quos et supra notavimus ut sensui ecclesiastico obvient et nostrum Messiam et
scripturis amoveant, super Salomone illo David et Bethsabee filio explanare conati sunt.
Et quia nobis ecclesiastica explanacio super psalmum hunc patens est, litteratorum erro-
neam prosequemur nisi quod non nulla interseremus que iuxta sensum litteralem ecclesi-
astico sensui nequaquam obvient sed pocius iuvent que prudens et diligens lector mox
discernet.
7 Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, 23-65.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 165
the historical Solomon it nevertheless offers scope for additions (“non nulla
interseruntur”), and concludes:8
whether the untrustworthy interpreter [i.e., Rashi] wants it or not, these
additions soon lift up the judicious and careful reader, through his study of
scripture, to a higher understanding so that even in the plain and commu-
nal sense a unity with a yet higher sense can be sought.
Herbert is eager to point out common ground between Rashi’s school and
the ecclesiastical tradition: the psalm does indeed concern the historical
Solomon. Yet to stop there, as the modern Jewish scholars do, would be
restrictive.
This frustration with the anti-messianic stance of the litteratores,
expressed in traditional anti-Jewish rhetoric, comes to the fore in other
psalms too. In Psalm 68 (69): 1 Herbert uses the Jewish explanation as a
negative example, inviting his audience to follow him in his discussion of
Rashi’s ‘error’ in order to make them realise just how sound the ecclesias-
tical (messianic) interpretation is.9 “Let us follow the chain of thought
according to the Hebrew litteratores”, he writes again on Psalm 109 (110),
“so that the Church may see and hear to the same degree as the blind and
deaf Synagogue of our time looks but does not see and hears but does not
listen” [after Matthew 13: 13].10 He makes it clear that the blindness of the
pashtanim does not lie in their interpretation of the letter as such but in
what he perceives to be their unwillingness or inability to follow the correct
letter’s logical progression towards a higher plane. In presenting the correct
reading of the letter as a necessary prerequisite for a sound sprititual under-
standing, the Psalterium offers a practical application of Hugh of Saint

8 Psalterium, fol. 82r: Et quod dicitur hic: et benedicentur in eo omnes gentes, de Salomone
quidem accipiatur, sed non illo sed isto cuius benedictionem cotidie nunc experitur illu-
minata ecclesia gencium, maledictionem vero synagoga excecata Iudeorum. Multa quidem
psalmi huius Salomoni illi aptari possunt. Verum sicut scripture mox in prohetis maxime
et in psalmis non nulla crebro interseruntur que velit nolit infidus interpres prudentem et
diligentem ad sublimiorem mox intelligenciam elevant, scriptura informante lectorem sic
ut eciam in sensu litterali et communi sensus adhuc sublimioris singularitas requiratur.
9 Psalterium, fol. 76v: Salva et cetera Psalmus iste de regis nostri Messie passione ab
ecclesiasticis expositus patet. Quem litterator interpres infidus Messie odio de populi
Israeletici persecutione explanare conatur. Iuxta cuius explanacionem erroneam et nos
psalmi dicta prosequamus. Ut ecclesiasticus eo plus sensu ecclesiastico sapiat quo de insulso
infidelitatis errore quod degustaverit.
10 Psalterium, fol. 139r: Psalmi seriem secundum Hebreorum litteratores prosequemur.
Ut videat et audiat ecclesia qualiter videns non videat et audiens non audiat nostri tempo-
ris sinagoga excecata et surda.
166 chapter five
Victor’s theory of exegesis in which the literal sense forms the foundation
to the other senses.
A certain ambiguity becomes noticeable when, without any apparent
exegetical purpose at all, Herbert includes midrashic material in his com-
mentary. For example, in Psalm 49 (50): 10, “For every beast of the forest is
mine, the cattle on a thousand hills”, Herbert translates ‫“( ְב ֵהמֹות‬cattle” or
“Behemoth”) as “behemoth”. He then relates the classic midrash of the
mythical Behemoth, a creature of gigantic proportions which grazes off a
thousand hills a day and which will be offered to God’s faithful to eat at
the end of time.11 He does not have a high opinion of what the litteratores
“tell” or “make up” (“fabulantur”) and adds rather dismissively, with a pun
on Horace, that, while a Jew might believe this, a Christian does not at all.
It seems ironic to Herbert that this fervent follower of the letter (“littere
sectator vehemens”), whether standing for ‘the Jew’ in general or for Rashi
and his school alone, would find such fables congruent with his exegetical
outlook.
Another such “fabula”, or midrash, from Midrash Tehillim but also men-
tioned in Rashi, holds more relevance for him. On Psalm 22 (23): 2-3, “He
makes me lie down in green pastures”, Herbert explains that David sang
this Psalm in the forest of Hereth (when fleeing Saul, 1 Samuel 22: 5). Named
Hereth (‫)ה ֶרת‬,
ֶ meaning “clay, pottery” (“testa”), because of its dryness, the
forest soon became lush again.12 Again he treats the etymology of this pas-
sage as an additional “story” (“fabula”), yet does not dismiss it altogether
(“quod si vera est Iudeorum fabula”). Since these two passages are not
essential to Herbert’s exposition of the Psalms and do not provide strong
arguments for Christian apologetic or polemical purposes, we may ask why
he included them at all. Although part of the reason may have been the

11 Psalterium, fols. 53v-54a: Behemoth bestia infinite magnitudinis. […] Fabulantur hinc
montes vero Hebreorum litteratores quod sicut psalmi littera sonare videtur hic cotidie
pascat in montibus mille. Et adiciunt quod eciam cotidie depascat eos. Et adhuc quod diebus
singulis miraculose quidem herbarum pascua ipsi ad pascendum renovemur. Et dicunt
quod in ultima Israhelis redempcione istum Behemoth parabit Deus in convivium omnibus
amicis suis ut de eo epulentur et exultent in conspectu Domini. Hec et huiuscemodi littere
sectator vehemens credat Iudeus, Appella [Horace 1 Satires 5: 100], Christianus minime.
12 Psalterium, fol. 26r: Et cecinit David ut tradunt Hebrei psalmum hunc iahar harez,
id est in nemore teste. Iahar enim Hebraice: nemus; harez: testa. Et dicebatur nemus teste:
eo quod esset siccum. Et propter aque penurias herba carens. Verum sicut fabulantur nescio
tamen si vera fabula dicto psalmo hoc nemus mox herba vestrum est. Unde et hic dicit In
pascuis herbarum et cetera. Attamen de hoc nemore teste in historiis nostris expressi
quicquam non habemus […] Quod si vera est Iudeorum fabula de nemore teste, patet
sensus litteralis.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 167
wish to display his knowledge of Jewish eschatology and exegetical etymol-
ogy, underlying this seems to be a genuine, if at times baffled, interest in
rabbinic exegesis and Jewish thought. It also suggests a definition of the
literal sense of scripture which, in overlap with Rashi, exceeds the strictly
literal.
Although Herbert’s general stance towards Jewish exegesis is one of
integration into and reconciliation with the Christian tradition, there are
several instances where he lashes out at what he perceives to be the inabil-
ity or unwillingness of his Jewish authorities to understand their own scrip-
tures. His frustration comes to the surface most clearly in those psalms
which Herbert, in congruence with his own as well as with the midrashic
tradition, understands as inherently christological while the explanation
offered by Rashi is non-messianic. His response to Rashi is most striking
on Psalms 2, 15 (16) and 20 (21).13 On Psalm 2, “Why do the nations conspire
(NIV)/rage (KJ21)?”, Rashi comments:
Our rabbis interpreted the subject of the chapter as a reference to the King
Messiah. However, according to its basic meaning and for a refutation of
the Christians it is correct to interpret it as a reference to David himself in
consonance with what is stated in the Bible “When the Philistines heard
that Israel had annointed David as king over them” (2 Samuel 5: 17), “the
Philistines gathered their troops” (1 Samuel 28: 4).14
This elicits from Herbert a furious reply:
Even the modern Hebrew litteratores say that that Psalm “Why are [the
nations] in disorder etc.” has been explained by their ancient masters as
about the Messiah. But as they themselves state in their silly little exposi-
tions, these days they prefer to interpret it as about King David because
they say “Why do [the nations] rage” in order to disagree with the ecclesi-
astical explanation.15
Their zeal to stick to a strictly historical explanation is so strong, Herbert
implies, that they prefer ragəshu/‫ ָרגְ ׁשּו‬to have the notion of “rage”, “com-
plain loudly” (“fremuerunt”) rather than “be in disorder” (“turbate”) so that
it seems a more fitting description of the Philistines than of the nations in
a messianic context. Their view is one of “foolish and stubborn hatred of

13 Smalley, “A Commentary”, 57; Goodwin, Take Hold …, 175. See also Psalms 7: 8, 39(40):
8, 45 (46), 63 (64): 1, 68 (69): 1, 71 (72): 1 and 109 (100): 1.
14 Gruber, Rashi, 177 (English), 801 (Hebrew).
15 Psalterium, fol. 3v: Dicunt eciam moderni Hebreorum litteratores quod ista psalmi
quare turbate et cetera ab antiquis magistris suis super Messia sint explanata. Verum ut
ipsimet in fatuis suis expositiunculis peribent malunt his diebus super rege David inter­
pretari, quod dicitur Quare fremuerunt et cetera ne ecclesiastice explanacioni assenciant.
168 chapter five
the truth” (“fatuum et pertinax odium veritatis”) by “a vicious and perverse
generation” (“generacionis prave et perverse”), Herbert continues,
which prefers to disagree with its own masters and authority of its elders
and to pervert scripture knowingly and with premeditation rather than
adhere to the ecclesiastical sense which their own ancient masters actually
held.16
A similar attack from Herbert on Rashi occurs in Psalm 20 (21): 1a, “Lord,
the king rejoices in your strength”, where Rashi has:
Our rabbis interpreted it as a reference to the King Messiah, but it is correct
to interpret it as a reference to David himself as a retort to the Christians
who found in it support for their erroneous beliefs.17
Herbert again reacts angrily against the pashtanim who deviate from their
own rabbinic tradition and “try” (“conantur”) to distort scripture, fuelled
by a “stubborn and blind envy of the truth”.18 As Cohen, Goodwin and oth-
ers have highlighted before, Herbert touches here upon a religious problem
which is starting to preoccupy Christians towards the end of the twelfth
century. Up to that time Christian authors generally assume Judaism to be
a stagnant belief which had lost its relevance with the coming of Christ.
During the latter half of the twelfth century, however, possibly aided by
intensified contacts with Jewish scholars, they become increasingly aware
of developments within Judaism and of the discrepancies between what
they understand as ‘biblical Judaism’ and its contemporary, rabbinical
counterpart. In Herbert’s view the split runs between an older, messianic,
rabbinic tradition and the anti-messianic, more polemically orientated
school of literal exegesis developed by Rashi and subsequent pashtanim.19
His judgement on Rashi and his followers, including accusations of stub-
borness, conscious distortion of scripture and belligerence, reveals that he

16 Psalterium, fol. 3v: Qui malunt a propriis magistris suis et auctoritate suorum veterum
dissentire et scientes et prudentes scripturas pervertere nec sensum ecclesiasticum teneant
quem tamen antiqui ipsorum magistri tenuerunt. This translation is based on the one by
Cohen, Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, 320-21; see also Smalley, “A
Commentary”, 57.
17 Gruber, Rashi, 253 (English), 819 (Hebrew).
18 Psalterium, fol. 24r: Psalmum ab antiquis sinagoge magistris super Messia interpre-
tatum fuisse sicut ecclesia interpretatur nunc; moderni Hebreorum litteratores contestan-
tur. Verum ipsi odio regis viri Messie et ut perhibent disputacionis causam super David
interpretari conantur. Revera pertinax et ceca invidia veritatis odio manifeste in scripturis
sacrilegam falsitatem videns ut et se et post se multos in infidelitatis errorem mittat.
19 Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, in particular chapters 5 to 7; Goodwin, Take Hold …,
99-101.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 169
considers them as positively unwilling to see what, to him, is the obvious
truth. It also shows that he was familiar enough with the prevailing ideas
within Franco-German and English Ashkenazi communities to be able to
identify this very real Jewish shift away from messianic interpretation.
When Herbert wrote those words the northern-French school of literal
exegesis was already in decline. As Izhak Baer, Grossman and Eleazar
Touitou have noted, the nature of contemporary Jewish-Christian relations
and the cultural revival of twelfth-century Western Europe played a large
role in the development of this school, and the waning of its appeal seems
to have gone hand-in-hand with the deteriorating status of the Ashkenazi
Jewry and a return to rabbinic Midrash and to homiletic works. One symp-
tom of the decline, as described by Grossman, was the inclination “to
abstruse, hair-splitting constructions revolving around specific subjects”.20
It is unclear whether Herbert knew the work of Joseph Kara (1050-1125),
Rashbam (1080-1160) or of his contemporary Joseph Bekor Shor (1130-1200).
The Psalterium’s criticism of the narrowness of the litteratores’ interpreta-
tion of peshat and, implicitly, of their anti-Christian polemical stance,
suggest that he may have done.21
Herbert’s familiarity with Jewish texts and awareness of developments
within rabbinic thought, aided by his rapport with contemporary Jewish
teachers, may explain another striking element in the Psalterium—its
absence of attacks on Jews ad hominem. Herbert criticises Rashi on theo-
logical points which constitute crucial differences between Christian and
Jewish opinion at the time, just as Rashi openly disputed the christological
interpretations of the same psalms a century earlier. In effect, instead of
treating these anti-Jewish remarks in Herbert’s work as downright con-
demnations of the Jewish people and as part and parcel of the general
contra Iudeos sentiment of the time, it would make more sense to consider
them in the context of Herbert’s wider discussion of Jewish sources.
Throughout his commentary Herbert eagerly and respectfully absorbs
Rashi’s linguistic and historical interpretations into his own work without,
as some of his contemporaries do, dismissing Jewish thought as irrational,

20 I. Baer, “Rashi and the Historical Reality of His Time” (in Hebrew), in Sefer Rashi, ed.
by Y. L. Maimon (Jerusalem, 1941,1956), 230-42 ; Grossman, “The School of Literal Jewish
Exegesis in Northern France”, 324-25, and 371; Eleazer Touitou, “Rashbam’s Exegetical
Method on the Background of the Historical Reality of His Time” (in Hebrew), in Studies in
Rabbinic Literature, Bible and Jewish History, ed. by Y. D. Gilat, et al. (Ramat-Gan, 1982),
48-74, at 52-59 and 70-74 .
21 Grossman, “The School of Literal Jewish Exegesis in Northern France”, 346-69.
170 chapter five
evil or steeped in black arts.22 Where he inevitably and viciously disagrees
with Rashi, his attacks focus on the argument rather than on the Jewishness
of Rashi, since he often does agree with Rashi’s predecessors, the “older
masters of the Hebrews”. To some extent his discussions can be seen as
one half of an inter-religious debate, of which Rashi is providing the other
half. Herbert’s tackling of the views of a real Jewish scholar forms an inter-
esting counterbalance to the genre of inter-religious disputation, such as
Gilbert Grispin’s Disputation between a Jew and a Christian and Peter
Abelard’s Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew and a Christian, in which the
member(s) of the ‘other’ religion(s) are imaginary characters whose argu-
ments show themselves to be untenable against those of the advocated
faith.23
A second interesting feature of the Psalterium’s views on Jews and
Judaism is the mixed nature of its rhetoric. The Augustinian concept of the
misguided, blind Jewish witness, which has been mentioned above on
Psalms 20 (21), 68 (69) and 100 (101), alternates and in some instances
appears together with the notion of the Jew as knowingly distorting scrip-
ture. While Herbert’s assessment of the “ancient Jewish masters” falls into
the first category, his perception of the pashtanim is less straightforward.
He finds them guilty of conscious deviation from their own masters in a
small number of instances, yet trusts their judgement on matters of Hebrew
language and literal exegesis in many more. In a final example, on Psalm
15 (16): 10, “because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let
your holy one see decay”, Herbert responds angrily to Rashi’s interpretation
of shaḥath/‫“( ַׁש ַחת‬pit”, “(part of) Sheol”, “decay”). Anxious to avoid the
connotation “decay”, which could lead to an interpretation of Christ’s res-
urrection, Rashi restricts its meaning to “(part of) Sheol” (“infernum”) only
and applies the verse historically to David in the context of his relationship
with Bathsheba. What Herbert seems to find particularly galling is that,

22 Peter the Venerable, Adversus Iudeorum inveteratam duritiem, cap. 4-5, Brepolis
LLT-A; Peter of Blois, Contra perfidium Iudeorum, PL 207: 870; see also Robert Chazan,
“Twelfth-Century Perceptions of the Jews: A Case Study of Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter
the Venerable”, in From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian
Thought, ed. by Jeremy Cohen, Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien 11 (Wiesbaden, 1996),
187-201; Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, 245-54.
23 Gilbert Crispin, Disputatio Iudei et Christiani et anonymi auctoris disputationis Iudei
et Christiani continuatio, ed. by Bernard Blumenkranz, Stomata Patristica et Mediaevalia 3
(Utrecht, 1956); The Works of Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster, ed. by Anna Sapir Abu-
lafia and G. R. Evans, Auctores Britannici medii aevi 8 (Oxford, 1986); Peter Abelard, A
Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew and a Christian, transl. by Pierre J. Payer, Medieval
Sources in Translation 20 (Toronto, 1979).
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 171
although the semantic field of the Hebrew word in question includes both
meanings (“Cum tamen verbum Hebreum hic positum commune sit et ad
corrupcionem et ad infernum”), anti-Christian sentiment prompts the
pashtanim to refuse to acknowledge one of them.24 In contrast to their
ancestors whose interpretations, to Herbert, offer scope for reconciliation
with Christian exegesis, these ‘modern’ Hebrew scholars must seem a bewil-
dering amalgam of witness and traitor; of solid expertise in the Hebrew
language on the one hand and a conscious betrayal of that expertise on the
other. In a period where theological perceptions of Jews were gradually
hardening, the Psalterium’s anti-Jewish rhetoric reflects part of that uneasy
transition between the Augustinian concept of the blind, misguided Jew
and the later stereotype of deliberately evil character. However, as will be
discussed later, Herbert’s focus is not on Jews per se but on both religions’
interpretation of the biblical text, and his views on Jews and Judaism are
profoundly determined by his definition of the literal sense and by the
purpose he believes the littera ought to serve within the exegetical order.

More than once Herbert expresses the wish that his Jewish authorities
would understand a verse the way the ecclesiastical writers do. Two pas-
sages demonstrate this attitude in particular. On the title of Psalm 87 (88),
“A Song. A Psalm of the Sons of Korah. To the choirmaster: according to
Mahalath Leannoth. A Maskil of Heman the Ezrahite”, Herbert explains
that according to the rabbinic tradition this psalm is sung on behalf of the
faithful pining away of love for God. While these faithful used to be the
synagogue, now they are the Church. Eman dictated this psalm to the sons
of Korah, who taught it to the Synagogue; from there it was transmitted to
the Church (“Et ita psalmus iste per Eman primo devenit ad filios chore ad
synagogam: sicut et nunc per synagogam ad ecclesiam”). If only the
Synagogue, like the Church, would understand Eman’s wisdom. Eman’s
ability to explain the mysteries of this psalm concerns the concept of cap-

24 Psalterium, fol. 18r: Sciendum vero quod veritatis inimici Hebreorum litteratores non
explanant corrupcionem sed “infernum”, ut sit littera talis “nec dabis sanctum tuum videre
infernum”. Si enim nomen corrupcionis legeretur, hoc David sive Habraam convertire non
posset quorum corpus in corrupcionem descendit. Cum tamen verbum Hebreum hic
positum commune sit et ad corrupcionem et ad infernum. Sed litteratores alterie legunt,
scilicet nomen inferni ut ad sensum suum versiculi particulam trahant. Et ne, si nomen
corrupcionis legeretur, ad Messie resurrectionem astruendam cogerentur inviti. Sed quid
verbum Hebreum ad duo illa equivocum magis pro corrupcione quam pro fovea vel inferno
accipi debeat ex sequenti probatur. [ …] Quod illi postea super quod Christi sanguis inter-
pretatus odio Christi usque ad hos dies perverterunt. Hoc sicut et alia multa.
172 chapter five
tivity on two levels: first, the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites and,
second, the captivity of all human beings in sin. While the Jewish and
Christian authors agree on the first, historical, level, Herbert argues that
the Synagogue fails to grasp the deeper mysteries of faith which the Church
does understand.25
On Psalm 88 (89): 6, “The heavens shall confess your wonders, O Lord:
and your truth in the church of the saints”, Herbert, having explained the
verse as about Christ, laments:
And this is the wisdom of Ethan according to the literal sense. If only the
litterator, who in his exposition passes by this passage as if it did not contain
the previous notions of the Psalm, understood so that Synagogue and Church
would be of one mind (“in uno sensu”).26
He has already set out in his exposition of the title that this psalm is com-
posed on behalf of the Faithful Synagogue. The notion of the Faithful
Synagogue (“synagoga fidelis”) has been elaborated upon throughout
Christian literature and is generally interpreted on three levels. The term
refers, first, to the part of historical Israel which remained true to God. On
a historical-allegorical level it includes figures such as Abraham and Moses,
who, though living before Christ, are nevertheless considered to be ‘proto-
Christians’ because their virtues and belief in Christ’s coming are foreshad-
owing Christianity. Also allegorically, the term incorporates the Church
which has eclipsed the old Synagogue as object of God’s love. On an ana-
gogical level the term refers to the righteous believers at the End of Days.27
As it is Herbert’s intention to concentrate on the literal sense of scripture,
it seems natural for him to interpret the term “fidelis synagoga” in its literal-
historical context, namely, as faithful Israel.
In her discussion on Herbert’s treatment of the Asaph psalms, which
include Psalms 87 (88) and 88 (89), Deborah Goodwin has argued that for

25 Psalterium, fol. 103r: Et ex ipso psalmo eciam alii eruditi sunt: primo filii Chore alii,
scilicet tota sinagoga, nunc vero ecclesia [ …] Quod utinam cum littera sicut ecclesia et
sinagoga intelligeret. Nec enim istius que nunc pre manibus est, seu huiuscemodi psalmo-
rum sive de captivitate populi sive de cuius vis hominis peccatoris miseri calamitate,
exposicio litteralis tante ignorancie nostre tenebras sapiencie sue luce illuminat ut digne
propter hoc in psalmi titulo poni mereretur erudicio Eman vel Ethan et istorum vel illorum
nisi grande et occultum in eis latens insinuaretur misterium.
26 Psalterium, fol. 106r: Et est hic secundum sensum litteralem erudicio Ethan quam
utinam litterator, qui locum hunc quasi superioribus psalmi non choerentem in expositum
preterit, intelligeret ut essent in uno sensu synagoga et ecclesia.
27 See, for example, Cassiodorus, Expositio Psalmorum, CCSL 97, Cl. 0900, Psalm 49,
Brepolis LLT-A; Hugh of Saint Victor, De Scripturis et scripturibus sacris, Cap. 12, PL 175: 20;
Peter Lombard, Commentarium in Psalmos, col. 697-724, Psalms 74, 75, 77, Brepolis LLT-A.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 173
Herbert the term “fidelis synagoga”, while at the present applying to
Christians only, will at the End of Time include Jews as well. She states that
Herbert’s rejection of the Jews at present is not final but that he “seems to
suspend judgment on the Jews until the end-time”,28 and she concludes
that Herbert’s attitude towards the Jews is remarkably lenient since he
allows for the possibility that God’s chosen people might, at the End of
Days, consist of Jews and Christians, and that redemption by “our King
Messiah (as Herbert generally calls Jesus Christ) is a work in progress,
awaiting the twilight of the world”.29 She supports her thesis with two main
examples, Psalm 44 (45) and Psalm 79 (80), where Herbert’s commentary
does not focus on the Christian tradition but elaborates on Rashi instead.
Psalm 44 (45), with its title, “For Lilies”, and exegetical link to the lilies
mentioned in Canticles 2: 1-2, 5: 13 and 7: 3, is usually interpreted by eccle-
siastics as a love song between God as bridegroom and the Church as bride.
Herbert discusses at length the Midrashic interpretation found in
“Gamaliel”, and incorporated in Rashi, of the lilies as metaphor for Torah
scholars.30 He further borrows from Rashi in his interpretation of the “maid-
ens” (“virgins”) as a reference to the Gentiles in verse 15: “She shall be
brought to the King in his embroidered robes; the virgins will follow her,
her companions will be brought to you”, and takes over Rashi’s cross-ref-
erence here to Zachariah 8: 23 on the Gentiles’ submission to God, “They
will take hold of a Jew’s garment [ …] saying ‘Let us go with you, for we
have heard God is with you’”.31 However, where Rashi leaves the door open
to an interpretation of the “gentiles” here as Christians, Herbert posits a
different exegesis. In verse 11b of the same Psalm, in which is said to the
bride: “and forget your people and the house of your father”, he too under-
stands “populum tuum” (“your people”), as the Gentiles, but defines them
strictly historically as the polytheistic ancestors of Abraham who should
not be imitated.32

28 Goodwin, Take Hold …, 223.

29 Goodwin, Take Hold …, 224.
30 Tanhuma B, p.2b, n.8, see Gruber, Rashi, 353n2; and see Chapter Three above, 135-36.
31 Gruber, Rashi, 352 (English), 827 (Hebrew).
32 Psalterium, fol. 48r-v: obliviscere populum tuum scilicet gentilem cum quo longo
tempore educata; obliviscere: non imitando. Et domum patris tui: paternos, scilicet mores
et ritus. Et dicit maxime hoc propter ydola quibus patres filie huius scilicet synagoge aliquo
tempore servierunt. Sicut scriptum est. Trans fluvium habitaverunt patres vestri ab inicio.
Thare pater a trans fluvium Abraham et pater Nachor servierunt diis alienis [Josiah 24: 2]. De
Visscher, “The Jewish-Christian Dialogue in Twelfth-Century Western Europe” (unpublished
PhD thesis, 2003/4), 237-38.
174 chapter five
By partly following Rashi’s comment, yet giving a different interpretation
to it, Herbert kills two birds with one stone. His exposition, first, allows
him to keep Rashi’s basic notion of the “maidens” as Gentiles, including
Rashi’s cross-reference to Zachariah 8: 23. Second, by shifting Rashi’s dicho-
tymy between Jews and Gentiles away from the contemporary polemical
to the historical domain, understanding it as the contrast between his-
torical Israel and the ancient idol-worshipping Gentiles, he leaves open
the possibility of a Christological eschatological exposition of the maidens
in verse 15 as unbelievers in general, who will be converted at the End of
Time. In this way he cleverly manages to honour both the literal-historical
sense of the verse and what he perceives to be the Christian truth.
A further indication that Herbert does not favour Rashi’s interpretation
of this psalm in general is his view, posited in verse 3, that he needs to set
certain things right which the litterator has “perverted”,33 including the
latter’s non-messianic exposition,34 and his statement at the end that he
has given the Jewish view in order for it to be interpreted in so far as it
conforms to the Christian tradition:
Look, the explanation of the litterator about this love song—the ecclesias-
tical reader will approve, that is choose, if anything in it chimes with the
ecclesiastical sense. And for this reason I have followed the sense of the
litterator.35
According to the Jewish tradition, Psalm 79 (80) expresses a lament about
the Jews’ oppression by various peoples. Rashi expounds it as concerning
the oppression of the Jews by the Babylonians, Greeks, and the descendants
of Esau, the Edomites, meaning Rome before and during the Christian era.
Herbert takes over this exegesis but stops short of including Christian Rome

33 Psalterium, fol. 46r-v: Hoc solum nobis restat ut qualiter hebreorum litterator non
nulla in hoc amoris cantico posita intervertat: faciamus advertere.
34 For example, he writes on verse 8 (fol. 47v): Verum in hoc amoris cantico excecate
et misere synagoge compaciens satis nequeo odium admirari. Que regis nostri messie odio
scripturam quasi evangelicam vertit sic et intervertit. Aut quia nolunt nostro suo messie
quem adhuc regem magnum et sanctum venturum expectant hanc tam manifestam
­scripturam cur non adaptant: O livor pertinax semper sancta persequens. Messie regi
nostre amoris hoc canticum dare nolunt et suo adimunt.
On verse 12 (fol. 48v): non excecatus Iudeus sed intelligens ecclesiasticus videat. [ …] De
rege vero nostro manifestum hoc qui filie sue ecclesie decorem concupiscit quia ipse est
sicut pater: Et sponsus et Dominus et quia Dominus ab ea est adorandus. Goodwin, Take
Hold …, 180-82.
35 Psalterium, fol. 49r: Ecce super hoc amoris canticum litteratoris explanacio, lectoris
vero ecclesiastici erit probare, id est eligere, siquid in ea est quid sensui ecclesiastico con-
sonet. Et quia est litteratoris sensum sum persecutus.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 175
among the interpretations for “Edomites”. As Goodwin points out, he does
venture into an unheard of exposition of verses 9, 16 and 20. On verse 9,
“You have brought the vine from Egypt, you have cast out the nations and
planted it”, he avoids the established christological interpretation of the
vine as a metaphor for the Church.36 The same happens for verse 16, “And
the vineyard which your right hand has planted, and about the son you
have confirmed for yourself”. While the ecclesiastical tradition understands
this as a prophecy of Christ, Herbert takes it as a historical reference to
Esau. This to him ties in with the phrase “manus tua” in verse 18, which he
interprets, as shown before, as always pejorative and so impossible to relate
to Christ.37 Herbert ends his comment on verse 20, “Lord, God of hosts,
convert us; let your face shine and we shall be saved”, as follows:
Because this captivity [is/was] worse than the other ones the conversion of
Israel, which has to be dispersed until the twilight of the world, is here
prayed for three times and with ever increasing force of the names of God.38
Goodwin suggests that, since Herbert follows Rashi in his interpretation
of the vine as Israel and of its worst oppressors as the Edomites, he could
be implying that the Jews’ suffering at the hand of Christian Rome, and of
contemporary Christendom, is the most vicious. She also concludes from
the comment on verse 20 that Herbert interprets the verse as if spoken by
the Jews: “The ‘conversio’ or change is prayed for by the Jews who are pres-
ently experiencing their worst captivity. They pray to be re-gathered from
their dispersion”.39 This interpretation seems to be the result of a misun-
derstanding of the Latin, however. The word “differenda”, as a gerundive
(not a past participle) congruant with “conversio” (and not with “israelis”),

36 Psalterium, fol. 96r: Ad terciam deinceps que ceteris gravior quia sceleracior erat
Israelis captivitatem seu pocius persecucionem accedit. Ex odio fraterno orta que inter
Iacob est Esau fuerat. Et loquitur de Israel sub methafora vinee dicens quomodo vinea illa
de Egypto translata et eiectis gentibus quasi aspersis et perniciosis germinibus extyrpatis
in terra promissionis plantata fuerit. Et postea qualiter propagata creverit.
37 See Chapter Three, 90-91; De Visscher, “The Jewish-Christian Dialogue in Twelfth-
Century Western Europe”, 124-26, 239; Goodwin, Take Hold …, 187.
38 Psalterium, fol. 97r: Psalmus eciam iste secundum quod et ab ecclesiasticis interpre-
tatus est de unica illa et ultima vinee vastacione que per Vaspasianum et Titum facta est
accipitur, quorum uterque aper silve vocari potest; qui de gentilitate venientes feri et superbi
erant. Que captivitas quia ceteris gravior triplicer hic et semper cum augmento Dei nomi-
num Israelis hic oratur conversio usque ad mundi vesperam differenda.
As Herbert has explained earlier, the threefold appeal to God “with increasing force” in
this verse refers to: “God, convert” (“deus converte”), followed by “God of hosts, convert”
(“deus exercituum converte”), followed by “Lord God of hosts, convert us” (“domine deus
excercituum converte nos”).
39 Goodwin, Take Hold …, 195-96.
176 chapter five
meaning “[the conversion/change] which has to be dispersed”, and the
re-iteration of “nos” earlier in the comment without further specification,
indicate something else: they suggest that, ad litteram, the psalmist speaks
on behalf of historical Israel and, eschatologically, of spiritual Israel,
namely, the Christian world, which is praying for conversion to be dis-
persed until the fulfilment of its purpose at the end of time.
I agree with Goodwin that Herbert is innovative in understanding these
verses as entirely non-messianic. In that respect this psalm forms part of
a group which, expounded as messianic in the Christian allegorical tradi-
tion, is judged by Herbert not to be so according to its letter. It is also not
impossible that the contemporary persecution of Ashkenazi Jews was on
Herbert’s mind when writing on this psalm. Yet it is striking how little he
refers in the Psalterium to the status of contemporary Jewry. Their role in
Christian eschatology, when mentioned, also seems to be confirming the
orthodox Christian tradition, in line with the Augustinian view of the Jews’
conversion at the Second Coming. The notion that Jews should be left in
peace because they will be converted at the End of Time is a topos through-
out Christian literature and was used as an argument against the persecu-
tion of Jews in the wake of the Crusades.40 A most notable inspiration for
Herbert here was possibly Paul on Romans 11: 25-28.41 His eschatological
view is profoundly christological, as the following passage on Psalm 105
(106): 3, “Remember me, O Lord, with the favour [you have] toward your
people; visit me with your salvation”, shows:
The prophet-psalmist seems to look towards the End Time when one flock
will emerge from Jews and gentiles and the shepherd will be alive and the

40 Sancti Bernardi opera: Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, ed. by J. Leclercq, C. H.

Talbot and H. M. Rochais, 2 vols (Rome, 1957), II, 76-77, 275; Petri Abaelardi Opera Theo-
logica: Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ed. by E. M. Buytaert, CCCM, 11 (Turn-
hout, 1969), 265 and 307-17; Peter Lombard, Collectanea in omnes Pauli apostoli Epistulas,
PL 191, ad Romanos, cap. 9, col. 1455, Brepolis LLT-A; both Abelard and Lombard seem to
interpret “omne Israel” as consisting of only a part of the Jews; Goodwin, Take Hold …, 193-
96.
41 “For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you
should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the
fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The
Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is
my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.’ Concerning the gospel they are
enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the
fathers”. See also Goodwin, Take Hold …, 198.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 177
re-propitiation of God’s people, which happens through Jesus, will be fulfilled.
This is why he says “visit me with your salvation”, this is, with your Jesus.42
As the examination of Herbert’s translation techniques and use of sources
in previous chapters indicates, his foremost concerns, which he also
explains in his prologue, lie with the production of a revised translation of
the Hebraica according to the Masoretic text and of a literal exposition of
the Psalms, in order to make a correct spiritual interpretation possible.
Rather than being the focus or over-arching theme of his work, his non-
extreme assessment of Jews and Judaism seems an interesting by-product
of this double programme of textual criticism and biblical exegesis based
on intensive use of Jewish sources. His method of employing these sources
indicates that they serve first of all to inform Christian readers of the cor-
rect translation(s) of the Psalms and to instruct them in the literal inter-
pretation of scripture which should be inevitably congruent with the
‘Christian truth’.

2. Littera and Peshat43

Herbert uses the word littera to refer to a particular Latin reading of the
biblical text. When faced with variant plausible readings he carries out a
text-critical assessment, methodically not unlike that of Jerome in his
Hebrew Questions on Genesis, in order to establish which of those “chime
more, or less, with the Hebrew” (“hebreo plus/minus consonant”).44
A psalm can have multiple acceptable readings which all lead to one
sensus. For example, in Psalm 67 (68): 31, “Rebuke the beasts that dwell
among the reeds, the herd of bulls with the calves of the peoples. Trample
under foot those who lust after tribute; scatter those who delight in war”
(RSV), the problem is the obscure phrase mithərapes bəratsey khaseph/
‫י־כ ֶסף‬
ָ ‫מ ְת ַר ֵּפס ְּב ַר ֵּצ‬,ִ which has been taken to mean “trampling pieces/wheels
of silver” or “pleased with favours of silver”. Herbert offers three transla-
tions. The first one is “complacantur nisi in complacione argenti” which

42 Psalterium, fol. 16v: Videtur propheta psalmigraphus ad ultima respicere tempora:

quando ex Iudeis et ex gentibus unum fiet ovile et vivus erit pastor et plena erit repropi-
ciacio populi Dei quae fiet per Iehsum. Unde dicit. visita me in salutari tuo, id est in ihesu
tuo.
43 See also a discussion of these concepts in De Visscher, “Putting Theory into Practice”,
405-07.
44 For a few only examples, see Psalms 1: 3 (fol. 3r), 2: 11 (fol. 4r), 26 (27): 12 (fol. 29r); 34
(35): 16 (fol. 35r).
178 chapter five
he explains as “they [i.e., the sons of Esau] do not submit unless with the
placation of silver”. The second one is “complacantur in rotis argenteis”
and is found in the majority of texts (“plerique habent”). The association
of “in rotis argenteis” (“silver wheels/pieces of silver”) with money is clear,
Herbert argues. The third “littera, calcitrancium contra rotas argenteas”
(“of those who trample silver wheels/pieces of silver”) holds a comparison
with unbridled horses trampling whatever lies in their way. He concludes:
“And of the threefold letter which we have offered the sense is the same.
But the one we have offered first conforms to the Hebrew Truth above the
others”.45
The above example is not the only one where Herbert uses Jerome’s
concept of the Hebraica Veritas to argue his case, although it has to be
noted that he is not consistent in this technique. While he often concedes
that more than one “littera” of a verse can be correct, the “littera” which
conforms most closely to the Hebraica Veritas is the one which should be
preferred. For example, he translates Psalm 2: 12a, “love the son lest he
become angry”, as “diligite filium ne forte irascatur”, commenting that other
readings found in the Hebraica (“nostra edicio”), the Gallicana (“edicio
alia”) and the Targums (“in caldeo”) are less in line with the Hebrew truth.46

45 Psalterium, fol. 75v-76r: complacantur nisi in complacione argenti. Sicut supra filio
Esau notavit pingues seu forces et feroces ita et hic designat cupidos non componentes nec
pacem cum aliquibus habentes nisi in acceptione argenti. Et hoc est complacantur et cetera,
id est non complacantur nisi in complacacione argenti.
Plerique habent: complacantur in rotis argenteis. Et vocat rotas propter masse argentee
seu pocius propter monete rotunditatem. Sic enim moneta cuditur in rotundum. Vel rotas
argenteas dicit quod argentum semper quasi in cursu sit varii humanarum rerum assidue
emergentibus necessitatibus transiens ab hoc ad illum. Unde et bene per rotas argenteas
argentum intelligitur.
Sunt vero qui habent calcitrancium contra argenteas rotas. Et dicit calcitrancium quasi
applaudencium. Qualiter equi cum nullius vinculi retinacula senciant calcitrare solent quasi
reddire sibi liberati applaudentes. Ita et applaudent hii contra rotas argenteas, hoc est quod
ex quacumque causa argentee eis rote obvenerint. Et triplicis littere quam eam posuimus
idem est sensus. Sed ea quam primo posuimus Hebraice veritati pre ceteris consonat.
46 Psalterium, fol. 4r-v: et de quo nunc in psalmi fine dicitur: diligite vel desiderate filium
vel currite ad filium vel osculemini fillium. Iuxta illud: Osculetur me osculo oris sui [Canticles
1: 1]. Quod autem hic bar pro filio accipi debeat. Sequens littera manifestat cum mox sub-
ditur: Ne forte irascatur. Scilicet filius de quo proxime dixerat. Nec eciam iuxta veritatem
Hebraicam supponitur hic nomen Domini ut dicatur ne forte irascatur Dominus quod in
alia edicione est. Sed simpliciter et absolute sic ne forte irascatur. Quod autem omnes aut
fere omnes libri solent sic habere: adorate pure ne forte irascatur et cetera Hebreo non
consonat. Et quidem Hebrea dictio bar significare potest, ut iam diximus, purum seu
­mundum. Sed sepe iam dictum nomen Hebreum scilicet nascu iuxta ydeoma Hebreum
adoracionem nullo modo ut ab Hebreis sedulo inquisivi significat. In Caldeo: suscipite legem
ne forte irascatur et cetera. Cui et nostra edicio consonat: Apprehendite disciplinam et cetera.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 179
If the hieronymian notion of Hebraica Veritas is one concept underlying
Herbert’s exegetical method, Hugh of St Victor’s exegetical theory is
another. Hugh famously compares the literal sense of scripture with the
foundations of a building and warns against the neglect of literal exposition
in several of his works.47 In a passage from De Scripturis et scripturibus
sacris, translated by Smalley, he writes:
If, as they say, we ought to leap straight from the letter to its spiritual mean-
ing, then the metaphors and similes, which educate us spiritually, would
have been included in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit in vain. As the
Apostle says: “That was first which is fleshly, afterwards that which is spir-
itual” [1 Corinthians 15: 46]. Do not despise what is lowly in God’s word, for
by lowliness you will be enlightened to divinity. The outward form of God’s
word seems to you, perhaps, like dirt, so you trample it underfoot, like dirt,
and despise what the letter tells you was done physically and visibly. But
hear! That dirt, which you trample, opened the eyes of the blind. Read Scrip-
ture then, and first learn carefully what it tells you was done in the flesh.48
In De Meditatione Hugh again makes a three-fold distinction between the
senses of scripture but this time equates the sensus litteralis to the sensus
historialis:
In our reading a triple kind of research is undertaken, in accord, namely
with the dictates of history, allegory and tropology. This research can be
considered historical, when we see or marvel at an explanation for the things
that have happened, in terms of their own time and space. An explanation
like this is perfectly suitable in its own way.
He then defines allegorical interpretation as a “reflection [which] attends
to the significance of what will happen in the future which fits together in
a marvelously providential scheme” (“meditatio [ …] futurorum significa-
tionem attendens mira ratione et providentia coaptam”). Tropology is
geared towards an “investigation into what these sayings recommend as
needing to be done” (“meditatio [ …] quem fructum dicta afferant exquirens
quid faciendum insinuent”).49

See also Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 56-57; a similar exposition occurs in
6: 11 and 73 (74): 14.
47 Hugh of Saint Victor, Didascalicon de studio legendi, lib. 3, pg. 58; lib. 6, Brepolis
LLT-A.
48 Hugh of Saint Victor, De Scripturis et scripturibus sacris, 5: 13-15, PL 175: 13; Smalley,
Bible, 93-94.
49 Hugh of Saint Victor, De Meditatione, cap. 2, pag. 48, Brepolis, LLT-A; translation by
Mark Sebanc, in Henri S. J. de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, vol. 1: The Four Senses of Scripture
(Grand Rapids, MI, 1998), 100.
180 chapter five
Herbert’s description of his own approach to the Psalms in the prologue
to the Psalterium is strongly reminiscent of Hugh’s imagery of the littera
as the foundational layer of a building, or as dirt:
I do not lean upon the elevated [or arduous] spiritual understanding of the
senses but as it were with the creeping animals on the ground I cling to the
ground, pursuing only the lowest sense of the letter of the psalms. Above
this [sense], when as it were a foundation is built first, a solid structure is
then erected by a spiritual master-builder of a spiritual understanding. It is
sufficient for me at present to put the rougher stones in the foundation;
may I be equal (“sufficerem”) to this task.50
The topoi of humility, aimed at winning the reader’s favour, are cleverly
interwoven with a well-crafted statement of purpose contrasting the
high and the low forms of exegesis, and their interconnection. The
grand master-exegete only succeeds in a sound construction of his
elevated spiritual building because the lowly, animal-like exegete of the
littera has laid the foundation first. Admittedly, the work of the latter is
unsophisticated and dirtier, but it forms a necessary prerequisite for a
solid spiritual understanding. The passage is replete with references to
building, extending even to his use of the verb “sufficere” which, apart
from “to be enough” also holds the meaning “to lay a foundation”.
Throughout the Psalms Herbert repeatedly announces that a psalm,
which has already been treated extensively by the allegorical tradition,
needs a second glance “because of its sensus litteralis”. In each of these he
briefly provides the Christian allegorical interpretation and then justifies
his decision to comment on this particular psalm by pointing out that the
differences among the editions of the Psalms and his programme of literal
exposition demand it.51 This demonstrates that for him, textual criticism
of the Psalms and literal exegesis, first, are inherently linked with one
another and, second, form the central purpose of his project, as he has
already explained in his introduction.52 Since he concentrates on the

50 Psalterium, fol. 1r: non ad arduam spiritualem sensuum intelligantiam nitor, sed
velud cum animalibus gressibilibus super terram terre hereo, solum littere psalmorum
sensum infimum prosequens; super quem, velud primum positum fundamentum, deinceps
a spirituali architecto spiritualis intelligentie structura solida erigatur. Michi in presentia
rerum [emendated from Smalley’s “presentiarum”] sufficit in fundamento ponere grossiora.
Transcription by Smalley, “A Commentary”, 32; see also the translation by Goodwin,
Take Hold …, 58, and her apt assessment “what seems like self-deprecation is, however, a
veiled claim for mastery”.
51 See the beginning of Psalms 16 (17), 47 (48), 49 (50), 94 (95) and 98 (99).
52 Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary”, 71-72; Smalley, “A Commentary”, 31-33.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 181
e­ xposition of the literal sense it would only be expected for him to limit
himself to covering historia only when it is part of the littera. For example,
on Psalm 77 (78): 1 he seems to group historia with littera:
An instruction of Asaph. When he says “instruction” he hints that in that
psalm which is entirely historical the spirit hides under the veil of the let-
ter.53
For Herbert, literal exposition seems to include not only the placing of a
verse in its historical context but also covers the clarification of obscure
words and the supply of background information about Old Testament
places, rituals and customs. One of many examples is Psalm 65 (66): 1,
“Make a joyful noise to God all the earth! (RSV)”, in which he explains the
meaning of the word “iubilus” (“a joyful noise” and places it in its historical
and liturgical liturgical context:
He said “make a joyful noise”, literally: a certain way of sounding the horn,
frequently and interruptedly with a snorting horn blast. And it was pre-
dominantly a sign of celebration and great exultation. Hence also on the
first day of the seventh month [i.e. Tishrei], which among Jews marks the
beginning of the year, a “joyful noise” is usually made. From this ritual the
word “jubilation” has been transmitted in scripture and stands for a very
intense exultation of the mind.54
In accordance with the ecclesiastical tradition and as set out by Bede in
his De schematibus et tropis, to Herbert figures of speech such as metaphor,
metonymy and comparison can be part of the littera as well as the allego-
ria.55 Mostly, however, he mentions metaphors which he considers to
belong to the littera. A clear example is his commentary on Psalm 90 (91):
5-6. In these verses the psalmist invokes God’s protection against four types
of harm that can befall humankind, namely, fear, pestilence, death and

53 Psalterium, fol. 91r: Erudicio Asaph. Cum dicit erudicio: notat quod in psalmo isto qui
totus historialis sub littere velamento tegatur spiritus. Aut eciam que alibi minus dicta hic
suppleat: asculta et cetera. Loquitur in hoc psalmo Asaph in persona Domini sive Dominus
per hos Asaph, populum suum Israelem ad ascultandum. See also Goodwin, Take Hold …,
220.
54 Psalterium, fol. 70r: Dicebatur iubilus ad litteram: quidam clangendi modus in cornu,
subtilis crebro et intercise per cornu flatu emisso. Et erat principue sollempnitatis signum
et exultacionis eximie. Unde et in prima septembris qui secundum Hebreos capud anni est
fiebat iubilus. Ex eo ritu verbum iubilacionis tractum in scripturis ponitur pro mentis exul-
tacione vehementer intensa.
55  Bede, Beda Venerabilis Opera, 152-53 ; Smalley, “A Commentary”, 63; Goodwin,
“Herbert of Bosham and the Horizons of Twelfth-Century Exegesis”, 133-73.
182 chapter five
insanity. These, Herbert explains, should be interpreted metaphorically as
demons or as good and evil angels.56
In some instances a figurative interpretation is necessary in order for
the psalm verse in question to make sense. For example, on Psalm 80 (81):
17, which Herbert translates as “He fed them with the finest of wheat; and
with honey from the rock he satisfied them” (“Cibavit eos ex adipe frumenti
et de petra melle saturavit eos”), he comments upon the at first glance
unrealistic description of a rock producing honey:
Literally a rock in the desert does not produce honey but water. Thus by
the phrase here “with honey from a rock etc. ”, he means according to the
literal sense the abundance of everything; or with honey, that is, water from
a rock, sweet as honey, especially to those who are thirsty and humbled
before such favour.57
Yet by interpreting “melle” as a metaphor for sweet water, the littera makes
sense.
The concept of metonymy helps Herbert to solve an apparent logical
problem in Psalm 132 (133): 3, “It is like the dew of Hermon, descending
upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the bless-
ing—Life forevermore”. Herbert points out that a narrowly literal inter-
pretation of the first half of the verse is geographically impossible. How
can the dew of one mountain descend on another one, in particular one
from a different mountain range? Probably under influence of Jerome’s
brief description of Hermon (“Ermon”) as a high mountain, his answer is
to understand them as a metonymy for high (“Hermon”) and lower (“Syon”)
ranges in general. Explained in this way the simile between anointing with
oil in the previous verse and the flowing of dew here makes more sense,

56 Psalterium, fol. 112v: Nec miretur quod quatuor nos in huius psalmi serie nunc dis-
tinxisse demonia; hec et enim suos sequens psalmi littera palam et quasi ex nomine
methaphorice exprimit, dicens et ad iustum loquens: super aspidem et cetera sicut nos ibi
demonstrabimus et ex tocius testamenti veteris testimoniis consonis hec que de angelis
temptatoribus dicimus conprobantur. Ubi angelorum bonorum et malorum et diversa
officia et malorum varie distinguntur immissiones. Et post vetus ad novum testamentum
recurrendum ubi et in evangeliis et apostolicis scriptus angelorum tam horum quam illorum
disperciuntur officia.
57 Psalterium, fol. 98r: Ad litteram in Heremo de petra non mel sed aqua producta est.
Dicens igitur hic: de petra melle et cetera ad sensum litteralem omnium rerum copiam
denotat; vel melle, id est aqua de petra producta ut dulce mel, maxime sitibundis et tante
obnoxiis gracie.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 183
and is more congruent with the idea that those with greater religious
authority anoint those hierarchically ranked below them.58
However, Herbert is aware of the danger of attributing all metaphorical
interpretations automatically to the domain of the literal-historical sense.
On Psalm 117 (118): 22, “The stone which the builders rejected, has become
the cornerstone”, he exclaims in the first part of the comment how appro-
priate it would be for this verse, which has been used so fruitfully in the
New Testament to denote Christ, to contain a messianic prophecy.59 In the
second part he distinguishes cautiously between the historia of the verse,
which does not contain a messianic element, and its interpretation
achieved via the use of ‘metaphorical history’:
One usually asks if any historical narrative is referred to when it says “the
stone which [the builders] rejected” etc. But not wanting to turn a blind eye
to certain fabrications but rather as it were wishing to bypass the fancyful,
I say that these words do not refer to history, but that a prophecy is made
about the Messiah through a historical methaphor. And it considers here
historically the Messiah as a stone just as elsewhere in a psalm the people
of Israel historically through a metaphor are called a vine. You have brought
a vine out of Egypt [Psalm 79 (80): 9].60

58 Psalterium, fol. 149r-v: Ad idem inducit aliud simile. Sicut enim ros rigat primo supe-
riorum moncium cacumina: Et post inferiorum montana et tandem infima: sic est fraterne
cohabitacionis unitas. Vel pocius in ipso fraterne cohabitacionis unitate: sic fit. Primo et
precipue rore gracie celestis debent rigari summi post: de rore illo medii, per summos ad
ultimum de hoc ipso rore: infimi per medios. [ …] Igitur ut littera stare possit non est intel-
ligendum quod psalmigraphus dixit unum penitus et eundem rorem ab uno moncium
descendere in alterum sed est relacio simplex cum dicit qui descendit. Ut sit sensus: de celis
desuper cadens ros primo venit super cacumina moncium superiorum. Et postea descendit
super montana inferiorum moncium et sic tandem ad infima. Non est enim intelligendum
quod Ermon specialiter hic montem illum significet qui transiordanem fuit et alibi dictus
mons Syon dictus mons Seon per Ermon qui inter montes unus suppremorum erat accipi-
untur quorum libet magnorum moncium superiora. Similiter per Syon qui mons inferior
erat quorunlibet moncium inferiorum montana.  
59 Psalterium, fol. 136v: Quam sit insulsa quam distuta ista quam prosecuti sumus super
psalmum istum secundum Hebreos exposicio in qua Messias tollitur, eciam trado mani-
festum. Quam vero sapida quam consona quam aperta sit si Messias interseratur prophecia:
psalmi maxime ultima indicant. Ubi dicit. Lapis quem reprobat et cetera huius profecto
lapidis virtutem melius quam phariseus in lege edoctus: piscator simplex sensit et ennara-
vit dicens: Ad quem cedentes lapidem vivum ab hominibus quidem reprobatum a Deo autem
electum et honorificatum [1 Peter 2: 4]. Et infra: Vobis igitur credentibus honor. Non credenti-
bus autem. Lapis quem repprobaverunt edificantes hic factus est in caput anguli [1 Peter 2: 7].
60 Psalterium, fol. 136r: Solet queri si qua tangatur hystoria cum dicitur lapidem quem
reprobaverunt et cetera. Ego vero, nolens ad invencionum quorundam venias scribere sed
pocius velut fabulosa preterire, dico non hiis verbis historiam tangi sed per hystoricam
methaphoricam de Messia sic prophetatum esse. Et dicitur hic historice Messias lapis sicut
184 chapter five
It is unclear whether in this passage he considers this “hystoricam
methaphoricam” to be part of the allegorical historical sense or a sub-
category within the littera which is still different from the literal historical
sense, or as a transitional stage between letter and allegory.
Prophecy, messianic or not, can fall within the boundaries of the littera
too.61 His comment at the beginning of his exposition of Psalm 98 (99)
corroborates this:
The Lord reigns etc. A Psalm of David. In this psalm as in the previous one
David speaks. And according to the letter it is about our king the Messiah
about whom also the orthodox authors have explained according to the
other version (i.e., the Gallicana).62
Yet prophecy does not equal messianism, as the following passage on
Psalm 71 (72): 19 demonstrates:
And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and may his glory fill the whole
earth; amen and amen.
 According to the letter the psalm refers here prophetically to the fact that
during the dedication of the temple, when Solomon as founder had fulfilled
his prayers, fire descended from heaven and the Lord’s greatness filled the
house. But also all sons of Israel saw the descending fire and glory of the
Lord upon the house. And this is what is said here: may the whole earth be
filled with his glory, namely, Judea or even the other nations of the earth
who hear this and who because of this glorify the Lord more keenly.63
It is Smalley’s view that in his definition of the literal sense Herbert “cannot
quite free himself from an inheritance of confused terminology”.64 This is
certainly correct in that he does not express a theory of the boundaries
between the letter and the extra-literal but rather seems to make decisions
on a case-by-case basis. In order to know whether there is a pattern to his
inclusion of figures of speech and prophecy in the literal sense in some

alibi in psalmo populus Israel hystorice per methaforam vinea appellatur ibi. Vineam de
Egypto transtulisti [Psalm 79 (80): 9] Et vinea mea domus Israel est.
61 Smalley, “A Commentary”, 63; Goodwin, Take Hold …, 209.
62 Psalterium, fol. 118r: Dominus regnavit et cetera. Psalmus David. In hoc psalmo sicut
in precedenti loquitur David. Et agit ad litteram de rege nostro Messia super quo et ab
orthodoxis iuxta edicionem aliam explanatus est.
63 Psalterium, fol. 82r: Psalmus ad litteram prophetice tangit hic quod in dedicatione
templi cum complesset Salomon fundens preces, ignis descendit de celo et maiestas Domini
implevit domum Sed et omnes filii Israel videbant descendentem ignem et gloriam Domini
super domum Et hoc est quod dicitur hic implebitur gloria eius universa terra tota scilicet
Iudea aut alie eciam terrarum naciones hoc audientes et ex hoc Domini attencius glorifi-
cantes.
64 Smalley, Bible, 193.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 185
psalms we need to investigate the relationship between Herbert’s littera
and Rashi’s peshat.

3. Caro and Spiritus

To what extent has Rashi’s use of the peshat shaped Herbert’s interpreta-
tion of the sensus litteralis? Goodwin has already suggested that Herbert’s
take on the literal sense shows similarities with the peshat.65 As Benjamin
Gelles points out in his study of peshat and derash in Rashi’s commentar-
ies, Rashi concentrates on the peshat but regularly includes allegorical
explanations (derashim), effectively arriving at a ‘partnership’ between the
two modes of exegesis.66 He also states repeatedly about a verse that,
whereas the rabbis have already explained it, he wants to settle it accord-
ing to its plain sense (tsel pəshuto/‫)צל פׁשוטו‬.67 It is possible that this type
of justification inspired Herbert in his various statements about the need
for literal exegesis in addition to the well-established allegorical ecclesias-
tical tradition of a particular psalm.
Herbert also incorporates some of Rashi’s midrashim, sometimes, as has
been shown above, out of disbelief. More often, however, he takes over a
midrash when he thinks it ties in particularly well with the littera. One
example mentioned earlier is the parable (‫ )מׁשל‬on the title of Psalm 69
(70), “ad recordandum”, about the king who became angry at his flock and
tore down the sheepfold.68 Another can be found on Psalm 23 (24): 9, “Lift
up your heads, O you gates and be lifted up, you everlasting doors! And the
King of glory shall come in”:
The ecclesiastical authors have expounded these [words] clearly in various
ways. I shall not omit what the litterator observes (“senciat”) about them,
however. As the story goes, it touches upon the littera, that at the construc-
tion of the temple, when Solomon wanted the ark to be brought in, all of a
sudden, miraculously, the doors would not open, as if they were spontane-
ously blocked. And immediately the king turned to prayer. And after twenty-
four songs had been sung to ward off [this evil] he finally turned to such a
form of prayer: “Do not reject your anointed one. Remember the great love
promised to David your servant” [Psalm 131 (132): 10; 2 Chronicles 6: 42], and

65 Goodwin, Take Hold …, 170.

66 Gelles, Peshat and Derash, 34-35.
67 Gelles, Peshat and Derash, 10-11.
68 See Chapter Three, 116.
186 chapter five
immediately the doors opened. Therefore, David, foreseeing the future in
his mind, prays here: “Lift up”, etc. 69
This comment is found in Rashi and based upon a midrash in BT Shabbat
30a.70 If we understand the Latin “fabula” (“story”) to be Herbert’s equiva-
lent for midrash, as is the case in his paraphrase of Rashi on Psalm 69 (70),
his use of “sicut fabulatur” here indicates that he is conscious of having
used a midrash here. His phrasing “ad litteram tangit” demonstrates that
to him this “fabula” “touches upon”, “adheres to”, the letter. It does not
contradict or distort, but rather is supported by it and contextualises it in
return. Since Rashi refers to it without qualms we may assume that to
Herbert this midrash, while not part of the littera in the strict sense, can
be incorporated into it as a kind of littera-by-extension.
Michael Signer argues that the narrative concept in Rashi’s commentar-
ies is shaped by a correlation of biblical narrative and rabbinic tradition.
Rather than approaching Rashi’s role as narrator via the dialectic of peshat
and derash, it makes more sense to consider its description holistically.71
Herbert’s comments chime in with this view and, as we shall see below,
his exegetical method reflects it. He states explicitly that the Jews are
capable of expounding scripture allegorically. On Psalm 73 (74): 16, “The
day is yours, the night also is yours; you have prepared the light and the
sun”, he remarks that “the litterator, having changed (“conversus”) from a
literal into an allegorical interpreter”, understands “day” as a metaphor for
a time of prosperity for Israel, “night” as a time of adversity, but does not
pursue the allegory for the remainder of the verse.72 It is unclear whether
or not he regrets that Rashi does not continue with his allegorical exposi-
tion. There is in any case no sign of disagreement with Rashi’s exegesis. On

69 Psalterium, fol. 27r: Ab ecclesiasticis varie exposita patent. Verumptamen quid lit-
terator super hiis senciat non omittam. Illud sicut fabulatur ad litteram tangit quod edificato
templo cum vellet Salomon archam introducere mox miraculose ne ingrederetur fores quasi
sponte sunt obstructe. Et statim rex ad oracionem se convertit. Et post cantus viginti quar-
tus ad deprecandum editos tandem ad talem oracionis formam se convertit orans sic:
Domine Deus ne avertas faciem christi tui. Memento misericordiarum David servi tui [2
Chronicles 6: 42] et continuo fores aperte sunt. Quod et David in spiritum futurum providens
orat hic: levate et cetera.
70 Gruber, Rashi, 269n8.
71 Michael Signer, “Rashi as narrator”, in Raschi et la culture juive en France du Nord au
moyen âge, ed. G. Nahon and C. Touati (Paris and Louvain, 1997), 106.
72 Psalterium, fol. 84r-v: Litterator vero de litterali in allegoricum conversus interpretem
hic: legit sic. Tuus dies id est Israel tecum est: tempus prosperitatis. Et tua nox idem eciam
tempus adversitatis tecum Israel. Et ita Israel semper tecum sive cedant prospera: seu
occurrant adversa. Verum quod sequitur. Tu ordinasti et cettera: litterator allegorice non
persequitur.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 187
Psalm 121 (122): 3, “Jerusalem is built as a city that is joined with him [i.e.,
God]”, Herbert explicitly states that his Jewish contemporaries are capable
of reaching beyond the carnal.73 The Christian tradition interprets
Jerusalem as the heavenly Jerusalem, to which the pashtanim agree. “They
likewise expound spiritually”, he concludes.74
More often, however, Herbert accuses the Jews of expounding “carnally/
unspiritually” (“carnaliter”) while the ecclesiastics expound “spiritually”
(“spiritualiter”). One example occurs at Psalm 86 (87): 6-7, “The Lord
records as he registers the peoples, ‘This one was born there’ Selah. Singers
and dancers alike say, ‘All my springs are in you’”. (RSV) On the first verse
he comments: “Only he who was born in Jerusalem or Judea will be counted
and inscribed in the book of life. This, the Jews believe carnally, but the
ecclesiastical authors believe it in a spiritual way.”75 He repeats the com-
ment at the next verse.76 To a large extent Herbert is forced to dismiss the
Jewish interpretations here as ‘carnal’ in order to transfer the meaning of
Judea, Jerusalem and Israel from denoting the Jewish people to denoting
the Church. In this sense labelling the Jewish exposition as ‘carnal’ is a
condition for the ecclesiastical (Pauline) interpretation to stand. Yet it
raises the question what the relationship is between a literal understanding
of scripture and a carnal one. Herbert gladly acknowledges that the literal
interpretation of both Jews and Christians on the psalms is often in agree-
ment. He also mentions that his Jewish authorities are capable of justified
spiritual and allegorical exposition and he seems to wish that this would
happen more often.
A very interesting and thought-provoking comment, in which Herbert
takes issue with Rashi’s ‘carnal interpretation’, occurs on Psalm 104 (105):
15: “Touch ye not my anointed and do no evil to my prophets”, which has

73 This is also noted in Goodwin, Take Hold …, 213.

74 Psalterium, fol. 142v: Possumus quidem hec ab inicio psalmi iuxta sacraciorem intel-
ligenciam de superna Ierusalem interpretari quemadmodum et ab ecclesiasticis interpre-
tatum est. Cui interpretationi et Hebreorum litteratores assenciunt qui et similiter
spiritualiter exponunt.
This Jewish exegesis appears in Rashi who sources it from a midrash attributed to R.
Johanan b. Napha at BT Ta‘anit 5a, see Gruber, Rashi, 705n8; see also Braude, Midrash, II,
300.
75 Psalterium, fol. 102v: Iste natus est in ea, in Ierusalem videlicet vel Iudea. Ac si dicat.
Solus is numerabitur et in libro vite scribetur qui de Ierusalem vel Iudea natus fuerit. Quos
quidem Iudei carnaliter, ecclessiastici vero spiritualiter credunt.
76 Psalterium, fol. 102v: Et attende quod secundum psalmi huius exposicionem lit-
teralem: hic sicut et alibi per varia scripture loca et in prophetis maxime Israelis in terram
suam reductio prophetatur. Quam quidem in Ierusalem reductionem et in ipsa sive in Iudea
nativitatem Iudeus carnaliter ecclesiasticus vero spiritualiter accipit.
188 chapter five
already been discussed above.77 As pointed out before, Herbert argues here
that məshiḥay/‫יחי‬ָ ‫“( ְמ ִׁש‬my anointed ones”/“christos meos”) should be
understood as both “anointed” and as “(proto)-Christians”. Giving the
example of Cyrus, who in Isaiah 45: 1 is also called christus, he expands on
the notions of invisible, i.e., spiritual, against visible anointing. He thereby
dismisses the rabbinical understanding of the word as a metaphor for
greatness, and claims that also the litterator should admit this, unless it is
his intention to distort the letter of scripture:
And so whether he wants it or not, unless he renounces here the proper
meaning of the letter, the litterator will acknowledge that Christians existed
even before the coming of our Christ.
He continues:
From this follows necessarily that the observer of the law is spiritual. I say
these things against the carnal interpreter (litterator) of the law who drives
me from the spirit towards carnal matters since the spirit cannot live with-
out the flesh and the flesh not without the spirit. And we should not pass
by the fact that the Hebrew litteratores, shackled as it were, expound this
passage here in the psalm of Christians, that is, anointed ones, all too bar-
renly, making no explicit mention at all of visible or invisible anointing.78
Although Herbert speaks out in clear terms against the Jewish tradition
(“contra carnalem legis litteratorem hec loquor”), its interpretation of this
verse unsettles him and drives him (“conpellit”) towards this ‘carnal’ inter-
pretation. Telling is his quotation of the first half of Romans 7: 14 (“We know
that the law is spiritual”), the second half, unquoted but certainly under-
stood to be thought of by the reader (“but I am carnal, sold under sin”),
seems to be a personal expression of his stance here. He admits that the
Jewish non-christological interpretation of məshiḥay/‫יחי‬ ָ ‫ ְמ ִׁש‬is ­compelling

77 See Chapter Four, 193-94

78 Psalterium, fol. 125r: Et ita velit nolit litterator fatebitur, nisi hic littere proprietati
renunciet, quod et ante Christi nostri adventum Christiani tunc fuerint, cum apud gracias
reges faceret sola imposicio diadematis quemadmodum apud Hebreos visibile sacramentum
unctionis. Ex hiis igitur que prophete locuti sunt manifeste habemus quod in Iudeis et
eciam in gentibus illa qua reges spirituales invisibiliter inunguntur: unctio invisibilis et
spiritualis est. Pariter secundum consequenciam circumcisio erit spiritualiter, sabbatum
spirituale, sacrificia spiritualia. Et ita singulis enumeratis: lex tota spiritualis. Unde et
magister: Scimus inquit quia lex spiritualis est [Romans 7: 14]. Necesse igitur et ex hiis ut
legis observator spiritualis sit. Contra carnalem legis litteratorem hec loquor qui de spiritu
ad legis carnalia me conpellit cum spiritus sine carne et sine spiritu caro vivere non potest.
Et hoc pretereundum non est quod istum hic in psalmo Christorum, id est unctorum, locum
Hebreorum litteratores tanquam invincti aride nimis exponant, nullam hic expressim nec
invisibilis nec visibilis unctionis mencionem facientes.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 189
because spirit and flesh need each other (“cum spiritus sine carne et sine
spiritu caro vivere non potest”). Yet he still rejects this ‘carnal’ exposition
in itself because, without its spiritual counterpart it is “barren” (“aride”)
and does not lead anywhere.
This discussion suggests that to Herbert a literal interpretation should
be fertile, in the sense that it leads to a spiritual understanding of the text,
even if he is not the one who will expound it as such. A ‘carnal’ interpreta-
tion is one that blocks a further spiritual understanding and is therefore
‘infertile’. If we accept this distinction, which combines Paul’s concept of
carnal versus spiritual law with Hugh’s theory of the senses of scripture,
we get a picture of Herbert as an exegete who, while being deeply interested
in literal exegesis, did not believe in literal interpretation as an end in itself.
It may be illuminating to compare his hermeneutics on this point with
those of the Franciscan Nicholas of Lyra (d.1349) and the Dominican George
Naddi of Siena (d.1398). Nicholas, like Herbert, accepted many of Rashi’s
peshat readings in his Postilla. In a corrective to Nicholas’ Quaestio de
adventu Christi, which in manuscripts frequently appears as an appendix
to the Postilla, George explains that Old Testament prophecy can be inter-
preted christologically according to the literal sense. In fact only the
Christian tradition conveys the true literal sense. The Jewish tradition he
dubs merely ‘carnal’.79 Although ‘carnality’ is one of Herbert’s accusations
against the pashtanim he differs from George of Siena on two fronts. First,
rather than dismissing Jewish exegesis in general, he distinguishes between
the midrashic exegetical school, Rashi, and the pashtanim, with Rashi as
an exegete incorporating both traditions. Second, he criticises the
pashtanim, including Rashi, on a case-by-case basis and does not define
the littera as exclusively Christian property.
In addition to his procedure of legitimising his Hebrew readings through
Paul and, in turn, strengthening Paul’s exegeses by rooting them in the
littera of the psalms text, Herbert also directs the reader to a further, spir-
itual interpretation. This spiritual interpretation is often tropological and
is presented as a logical, spontaneous progression from the literal sense.
For example, on Psalm 87 (88): 16a, “From my youth I have been afflicted
and close to death”, Herbert suggests the alternate reading “ex submer-
sione” (“from immersion”) for “ab adolescentia” (“from youth”). He supports
this modification with a cross-reference to 2 Corinthians 11: 26, “in journeys
often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own country-

79 Deeana Klepper, The Insight of Unbelievers: Nicholas of Lyra and Christian Readings
of Jewish Text in the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 2007), 114-15.
190 chapter five
men, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness,
in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren”. As argued in Chapter
Four, Herbert’s association of the translation “submersio” with Paul’s
description of all the dangers suffered in 2 Corinthians 11: 26 has opened
up new exegetical possibilities for this verse. By forging links between the
words “fluctibus” (verse 8), “submersio” (verse 16) and “fluminibus”
(2 Corinthians 11: 26), he evokes the tropological image of immersion in
water as a punishment for the sinner or as a test of faith from God.80
From a modern purist’s point of view, Herbert’s exegeses in the
Psalterium sometimes exceed the boundaries of the strictly literal. Like
Rashi, he incorporates spiritual (which in his case mainly means tropo-
logical) elements into his commentary, with the intention of harmonising
scripture and Christian tradition. On some occasions he even includes
midrashim, although we cannot be sure to what extent he considers these
to be outside territory of littera. In spite of this inclusiveness of allegorical,
tropological and anagogical elements in his work, an examination of his
assessment and use of the literal sense has shown that he makes clear
distinctions between what in his view belongs to the littera and what does
not. While Jerome’s Hebraism clearly forms a shining example, it is Rashi’s
influence which pushes him towards exegetical innovation. Apart from
being the first Christian to rely on the rabbi’s exegeses to such an extent,
he also appropriates and moulds Rashi’s holistic exegetical method to make
it fit for use in the Christian realm. Therefore I would argue that the claim
that “Herbert’s exegetical methods were largely derivative from time-hon-
oured Christian precedents”81 needs to be revised.
Concerning his evaluation of Jewish sources it has become clear that,
although Herbert regularly ventilates his frustration with the “litteratores
Hebreorum”, this anger is directed more towards the tendency of the high-
medieval Jewish literal school to avoid messianic interpretations in the
Psalms than to the Jewish people or Judaism in general. Overall, he appears
to have used Jewish exegesis far more frequently and, in the case of the
earlier messianic rabbinic literature, in a much more positive way than any
of his peers. Since he refers to the older tradition several times as Gamaliel,
this raises the question whether his consistent reliance on Paul has not yet
another function. As Paul is traditionally assumed to have studied under
Rabbi Gamaliel, while at the same time holding a position of unquestion-
able authority on Christian doctrine, he would be the ideal source of legit-

80 Other examples are Psalm 14 (15): 3 and 25 (26): 4.

81 Goodwin, “Herbert of Bosham and the Horizons of Twelfth-Century Exegesis”, 147.
 The Practice of Literal Exegesis 191
imation for Jewish exegesis in general and for the books of his own teacher
in particular.
Finally, although Herbert clearly identifies literal exegesis on the basis
of the Hebraica Veritas as an overlooked aspect of biblical exegesis, it is his
intention not to downplay the importance of the allegorical senses but to
demonstrate that the correct littera leads to the orthodox spiritus. His
contribution to psalm exegesis lies in the creation of a method of Christian
literal exegesis equivalent to Rashi’s peshat and underpinned by a for-his-
time remarkable knowledge of Hebrew, use of other Christian Hebraist
and Hebraico-French sources, and critical assessment of Jewish exegesis.
Providing an application of Hugh of St Victor’s theory, the commentary
clarifies scripture at its basic level. It reveals as it were the bare foundation
stones of the littera to the Christian exegete in a way that Andrew of St
Victor, with his focus on the historical sense, did not. In doing so, Herbert
demonstrates how these foundation stones are not just relevant, but cru-
cial, to further interpretation by a “master-builder of spiritual understand-
ing” (“architecto spiritualis intelligentie”, prologue, 1rb).
192 chapter five
 epilogue 193

Epilogue

Herbert of Bosham composed his Psalterium cum commento at a time when

Jews of his native country and country of exile experienced violence and
expulsion. They had been expelled from the French royal domains since
1182, and would not be allowed to return until some seventeen years later.
Riots in English towns in the wake of Richard I’s coronation and departure
on Crusade in 1189, included attacks on Jewish neigbourhoods in London,
Lincoln, Bury St Edmunds, King’s Lynn and Stamford. In the case of York,
1190 saw a massacre which seriously diminished the Jewish population.
Tallages levied upon the English Jews had started to squeeze them finan-
cially, and would further impoverish Jewish communities in the decades
to come.1
It fell to William of Longchamp, bishop of Ely and then chancellor to
Richard I, to administer justice to the culprits of the 1190 attacks. Having
just entered de Longchamp’s patronage at that time it is inconceivable that
Herbert was unaware of these events. Nevertheless, his views on the polit-
ical and social status of his Jewish contemporaries remain obscure. Whilst
his scholarly interactions with them have been proven to be real and appar-
ently amicable, his sentiments about them as a people are more difficult
to tease out of the text and do not seem to leave the theological realm. True
to the Augustinian tradition he shows some commiseration with the Jews
about their diaspora and expresses the hopeful confidence that they will
be converted at the Time of Redemption. Yet his explicit condemnation of
the pashtanim’s anti-messianism and, in his view, barren literalism as a
deliberate attempt to distort scripture, reflects to some extent the intensi-
fied polemical climate in Jewish-Christian intellectual relations at the time.
Whether or not his general attitude towards contemporary Jews as human
beings was aligned to his hermeneutical or teleological stance is never
explicitly stated. What can be noted is an undercurrent of genuine respect
for his Jewish sources and tolerance towards Jews in general.

1 Joe Hillaby, “Prelude and Postscript to the York Massacre: Attacks in East Anglia and
Lincolnshire 1190”, in English Society and the Jews in the Middle Ages: the York massacre of
1190 in context, edited by Sarah Rees Jones et al. (Woodbridge, 2013); Dahan, Intellectuels
chrétiens, 53-55; William Chester Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip
Augustus to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989), 30-37.
194 epilogue
In the course of this book we have seen the emergence of a network
linking the Psalterium with a staggering number of Jewish and Christian
texts, some virtually unresearched, some very well-known indeed. Apart
from Jerome we find, on the Christian side, many of the hebraized glosses
of Theodulf’s recension of the Hebraica. This Carolingian recension circu-
lated in Kent no later than the mid-tenth century and was copied into the
Eadwine Psalter, which, produced at Christ Church, Canterbury, pre-dates
the Psalterium by twenty to thirty years. Since Herbert visited the town in
the early 1180s, it is not impossible that he consulted the Eadwine Psalter
for his own scholarship on the Psalms. Sharing variant readings with the
Hebraica of the Eadwine Psalter and the Psalterium, and indebted to the
same hebraized Theodulfian recension, are at least four Hebrew-Latin
glossed psalters from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and Gregory of
Huntingdon’s Hebrew-Latin-French dictionary, copied at Ramsey Abbey
c. 1250-75. As well as using the Eadwine Psalter, Herbert may have had
access to a glossed psalter of the same type as the Hebrew-Latin psalters
still extant, and to an earlier version of the Ramsey dictionary.
The discovery that this hebraized Theodulfian recension not just under-
lies the Eadwine Psalter, but also influenced at least seven Christian
Hebraist works of either English provenance (in the case of the Hebrew-
Latin psalters and dictionary), or English authorship (in the case of the
arrangement of the Magna Glosatura and the Psalterium), forces us to
rethink the traditional view of Paris as the closest centre of Christian hebra-
ist activity for scholars from the British Isles. Canterbury now comes to the
fore as a possible seat of Hebrew scholarship, and its tradition may go back
to late Anglo-Saxon times. Glosses feature heavily, too, among the Jewish
sources Herbert consulted. He absorbed into the Psalterium several of
Rashi’s le‘azim, as well as glosses also present in two thirteenth-century
Hebrew-Hebraico-French glossaries, one of which, the so-called Leipzig
Glossary, was probably produced in Rouen. While Paris seems the obvious
place where Herbert would have familiarised himself with the works of
Rashi and the Hebraico-French glossary tradition we have to consider the
possibility that a twelfth-century version of the Leipzig Glossary, brought
along by Norman Jews, could have been available to him in England.
Herbert’s careful and selective adoption of glosses is but one illustration
of his text-critical awarenenss, evident in the Psalterium’s discussions of
majority and minority readings in the Latin recensions, and in the identi-
fication of kethib qere in the Masoretic text.
 epilogue 195
No other Christian before the fourteenth century engages as thoroughly
with Rashi as Herbert does. Rashi is his guide to the understanding of
Hebrew words and idiom in their plain as well as historical context. He is
Herbert’s gateway to other texts of the rabbinical tradition and serves as a
formidable polemical opponent whose attacks on the Christian messianic
interpretation of certain Psalms need to be refuted in the strongest terms.
Herbert’s most severe criticism is reserved for what he considers, in some
instances, the “carnal” exegesis of the pashtanim, which leaves no room for
any form of sound allegorical interpretation. He finds a response to their
“carnality” through Paul. The clever intertwining of verses of the Psalms
with passages from Paul’s Epistles forges a passage between the literal and
the tropological realm, and in doing so creates another link between the
Psalterium and the Magna Glosatura, which comments on precisely these
two books. It also connects the Herbert of the early 1190s with his former
self a quarter of a century earlier, the Herbert in exile, who read the Psalms
and the Epistles with his patron. Thus indirectly, the Psalterium can be
considered as joining the Magna Glosatura and Herbert’s two hagiograph-
ical works as tributes to Thomas Becket.
In terms of Herbert’s programme of literal exegesis we can conclude
that Hugh of St Victor presides over its theoretical framework, while Rashi
features as practical guide, respected, relied upon, yet never entirely
trusted. This mixture of respect, dependence and suspicion applies also to
his contemporary Jewish teacher(s) in the Psalterium whose influence
seems pivotal, but who remain(s) frustratingly elusive. As has been men-
tioned before, Herbert refers to one contemporary source as “litterator
meus”, in a passage where he favours this scholar’s interpretation to Rashi’s.
Beyond the connotation of “meus” as suggestive of a well-established
teacher-student relationship between him and Herbert, not much can be
deduced. Who was this shadowy figure? Was he the same person as the
Hebrew-to-Latin translator of Rashi whom Herbert consulted on Psalm 88
(89) and affectionately describes as “my talkative one” (“loquacem meum”)?
Or should we understand them to be two different people, since litterator
in the context of the Psalterium indicates a Jewish literal exegete, whereas
the ability to translate into Latin may point to a Christian Hebraist, pos-
sibly a Jewish apostate, identity? It stands to reason that Herbert’s industri-
ous use of Jewish as well as Christian Hebraist sources extended to people
as well as texts, and that he therefore sought advice from Jewish as well as
Christian Hebraist contemporary teachers.
196 epilogue
A further question relates to how we take scholarship on Herbert for-
ward. In general, we need to chart the territory of the different senses of
scripture in the context of their practice and not just their theory. It still
remains unclear how the definition and application of terminology such
as littera, historia and allegoria develop during the central Middle Ages.
While modern scholars tend to focus on Hugh and Andrew of Saint Victor,
it would be illuminating to include also scholars who focus on history, such
as Ralph Niger, or exegetes who do not provide theoretical background to
their commentaries, such as Herbert, in order to obtain a fuller picture of
the role of and the distinction between the senses in twelfth-century exe-
gesis.
While Herbert might be one of the most advanced Christian Hebraist
of the central Middle Ages, a comparative study including him and con-
temporaries such as Nicolas Manjacoria, Alexander Nequam and Ralph
Niger would dispel much of the fog surrounding the field of medieval
Christian Hebraism. On a wider scale, a systematic analysis of Hebrew
scholarship by Christians in the central Middle Ages and of Jewish Christian
intellectual relations in general, and of the influence of Hebrew learning
tools, such as Hebrew-Latin psalters and perhaps Hebrew-vernacular glos-
saries, would greatly contribute to our knowledge of multilingualism and
translation studies in this area. They would, in addition, substantially
facilitate research on both the literal sense and on textual criticism of the
Bible during that time.
Over the past decade international efforts have highlighted the need for
interdisciplinary links between the academic sub-fields of exegesis, his-
torical Jewish-Christian relations, and language and linguistics, and to
arrive at a cross-fertilisation of findings. Jewish influence on medieval
biblical commentary and Christian exegesis in general has been the focus
of excellent studies by Rainer Berndt, Gilbert Dahan, Frans van Liere,
Cornelia Linde, and Lesley Smith. Scholarship on that other great medieval
Hebraist, Nicholas of Lyra, has benefited enormously from the work of
Lesley Smith and Deeana Klepper. On Hebrew palaeography and codicol-
ogy, and the phenomenon of multilingualism in Jewish-Christian relations,
Judith Olszowy-Schlanger and her expert team have been invaluable.
Further on the linguistic front, research by Kirsten Fudeman, Marc Kiwitt,
and Philip Slavin stands out. Anna Sapir Abulafia, Robert Chazan, Jeremy
Cohen and Susan Einbinder have treated the interplay between text and
history in their wonderful books on Jewish-Christian relations in general,
and on disputation and the Jewish martyrological accounts. Michael
 epilogue 197
Staunton, with his interest in the many facets of Herbert of Bosham, has
made the effort to try and bring together those scholars working on his
different ‘lives’ and remind us of the three-dimensional person that he was.2

2 Berndt, Bibel und Exegese; Dahan, Lire la Bible au Moyen Âge: essais d’herméneutique
médiévale (Genève, 2009); Commentary on Samuel and Kings: followed by the remaining
deeds of the kings of Israel and Judah; on the concordance of the reigns of the kings of Israel
and Judah. Introduction, translation and notes by Frans van Liere, CCCM 53A, Corpus
Christianorum in translation 3, 2009; J. Cornelia Linde, “Some Obeservations on Nicola
Maniacutia’s Suffragenus Bibliothece”, in Retelling the Bible: Literary, Historical and Social
Contexts, edited by Lucie Doležalová and Tamás Visi (Frankfurt am Main, 2011); eadem,
How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura? Textual Criticism of the Latin Bible between the Twelfth
and the Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 2012) Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medi-
eval Bible Commentary, Commentaria 3 (Leiden, 2009); Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of
Scripture, ed. Lesley Smith and Philip D. Krey (Leiden, 2000); Deeana C. Klepper, op. cit.;
Olszowy-Schlanger, op. cit.; Fudeman, op. cit.; Marc Kiwitt, “Hébreu, français et ‘judéo-
français’ dans les commentaires bibliques des Paštanim”, in Langue de l’autre, langue de
l’auteur. Affirmation d’une identité linguistique et littéraire au XIIe et XVIe siècles [= Actes du
colloque tenu à la Bibliothèque Louis Aragon, Amiens, du 6 au 8 juin 2007], edited by Marie-
Sophie Masse and Anne-Pascale Pouey-Mounou. Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance
489 (Paris, 2012); idem, “Les glossaires hébreu-français du XIIIe siècle et la culture juive en
France du nord”, in Cultures et Lexicographie. Actes des “Troisièmes Journées allemandes des
dictionnaires” en l’honneur d’Alain Rey, Klingenberg, 4.-6. Juli 2008, edited by Michaela Heinz
(Berlin, 2010); Slavin, op. cit.; Anna Abulafia, Jewish-Christian Relations 1000-1300: Jews in the
Service of Medieval Christendom, Medieval World Series (Harlow, 2011); R. Chazan, Reas-
sessing Jewish Life in Medieval Europe (Cambridge and New York, 2010); idem, God, Human-
ity and History: The Hebrew First Crusade Narratives (Berkeley, 2000); J. Cohen, Sanctifying
the Name of God: Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First Crusade (Philadelphia,
2004); Susan Einbinder, Beautiful Death: Jewish Poetry and Martyrdom in Medieval France
(Princeton, 2002).
198 epilogue
 Lists of Hebrew and French Words 199

Appendix one

Lists of Hebrew and French Words

(With reference to the folio location in the Psalterium cum commento)

Hebrew Words and Phrases

adam (68rb) ’adam/‫ָא ָדם‬

adonay (10va, 53rb, 58va + …) ’adonay/‫ֲאד ֹנַ י‬
agelez asaar (25ra) ’ayyeleth hashaḥar/‫ַאּיֶ ֶלת ַה ַּׁש ַחר‬
almuth laben (11va) ‘aləmuth labben/‫ַע ְלמּות ַל ֵּבן‬
am, amin (135rb) ‘am, ‘ammim/‫ ַע ִּמים‬,‫ַעם‬
azechir, ezechor (101vb) ’azkir, ’ezkor/‫ ֶאזְ ּכֹר‬,‫ַאזְ ִּכיר‬
babma (140rb) bamah/‫ָּב ָמה‬
basan (72rb) bashan/‫ָּב ָׁשן‬
bet hachaveroth (103vb) bayit ḥaqvarot/‫ַּביִת ַה ְק ָברֹות‬
celave (125vb) səlaw/‫ְׂש ָלו‬
cefer (2rb) sepher/‫ֵס ֶפר‬
cherach (71va) ḥaruts/‫ָחרּוץ‬
chetve (112va) qetev//‫ֶק ֶטב‬
chus, chuz (9vb) kush/‫ּכּוׁש‬
colu (82rb) calu/‫ָּכלּו‬
dever (112rb) dever//‫ֶּד ֶבר‬
eholerim (10vb) ‘oləlim/‫עֹול ִלים‬ ְ
el (53rb) el/‫ֵאל‬
elil (40va) ’elil/‫ֱא ִליל‬
eloim, eloym (12vb, 53rb, 58va) ’elohim/‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ֱא‬
ephot (85vb) ’ephod/‫ֵאפֹד‬
geionim (143vb) g’eyyonim/‫גאייונִ ים‬
getiz, gitim (10rb, 97ra) gitith/‫ּגִ ִּתית‬
gipol (113ra) yippol/‫יִ ּפֹל‬
goiecha (126vb) goyekha/‫ּגֹויֶ ָך‬
goim (135rb) goyim/‫ּגֹויִם‬
harez (26rb) ḥeresh/‫ֶח ֶרׁש‬
hasmannin, hasmona (76rb) ḥashmonah /‫ַ ח ְׁשמֹנָ ה‬
ḥashmannim/‫ַח ְׁש ַמּנִ ים‬
heiza, (51vb) ḥidah/‫ִח ָידה‬
helyon (112ra) ‘eləyon/‫ֶע ְליֹון‬
hetz/hez (112rb) ḥets/‫ֵחץ‬
horma, hermoniim (44ra) harəmah/‫ָח ְר ָמה‬
hermonim/‫ֶח ְרמֹונִ ים‬
200 appendix one
hv (74vb) hu’/‫הּוא‬
iahar (26rb) ya‘ar/‫יַ ַער‬
ieshuah (100ra) yishə‘enu/‫יִ ְׁש ֵענו‬
is (102rb) ’ish/‫ִאיׁש‬
ka (134va) koh/‫ּכֹה‬
karu, kari (25va) ka’ari, k(’)aru/‫ּכ ֲא ִרי‬,ָ ‫ָּכ(א)רּו‬
kece, hakece (97va) keseh/‫ֶּכ ֶסה‬
kez, kizce (12ra/b) kise’, kes/‫ ֵּכס‬,‫ִּכ ֵסא‬
ki (134va) ki/‫ִּכי‬
lamanascea (5rb) lamənatseaḥ/‫ַל ְמנַ ֵּצ ַח‬
lannod (103ra) lə‘annoth/‫ְל ַעּנֹות‬
macechil (103ra) maskil/‫ַמ ְׂש ִּכיל‬
mahebereth (8rb. 102vb) maḥberet/‫מחברת‬
mahelat (103ra) maḥalath/‫ָמ ֲח ַלת‬
ma, mazai mah, mathay/‫מ ַתי‬,ָ ‫ָמה‬
man (119vb, 120ra) man/‫ָמן‬
mechtam (17ra, 59va) mikhtam/‫ִמ ְכ ָּתם‬
mehita (108va) məḥitah/‫ְמ ִח ָּתה‬
minaha, minha (40rb, 88ra) minḥah/‫ִמנְ ָחה‬
missaa (148vb) mashaḥ/‫ָמ ַׁשח‬
nahaloth (7ra) nəḥiloth/‫נְ ִחילֹות‬
nascu bar (4rb) nashqu var/‫קּו־בר‬ ַ ‫נַ ְּׁש‬
nazacheti (3vb) nasakhti/‫נָ ַס ְכ ִּתי‬
nehila, nehiloth, neiloth (7ra) nəḥiloth, nəḥilah/‫ נְ ִח ָילה‬,‫נְ ִחילֹות‬
nehil seldevorum (7ra) naḥil sel devorim/‫נחיל של‬
 ‫דבורים‬
nisan (70rb) nisan/‫יסן‬ ָ ִ‫נ‬
nohar (104va) no‘ar/‫נ ַֹער‬
ophir (24va, 71va) ’ophir/‫אֹופיר‬ ִ
pi (148vb) pi/‫ִּפי‬
rafaim, raphaim (104ra) rəpha’im/‫ְר ָפ ִאים‬
rahave, raab (106vb) rahav, raḥav/‫ר ַחב‬,ַ ‫ַר ַהב‬
rohebame (111ra) roḥbam/‫ָר ְח ָּבם‬
ros (154va) ro’sh/‫רֹאׁש‬
rua (122ra) ruaḥ/‫רּוח‬ַ
ruven mispahaz haruveni (143ra/b) rə’uven mishpaḥath harə’uveni/
 ‫אּובנִ י‬
ֵ ‫אּובן ִמ ְׁש ַּפ ַחת ָה ְר‬
ֵ ‫ְר‬
sabaim (89ra) shamayim/‫ָׁש ַמיִם‬
sabbatum, sabbath (84va) shabbath/‫ַׁש ָּבת‬
 Lists of Hebrew and French Words 201
sabbezai (84va) shabbəthay/‫ ׁש ְּב ַתי‬ ַ
saday (112ra) shadday/‫ַׁש ַּדי‬
salis (96ra) shalish/‫ָׁש ִליׁש‬
sela (4vb) selah/‫ֶס ָלה‬
selmon (72ra) shemen/‫ֶׁש ֶמן‬
semehn (148vb) shemen/‫ֶׁש ֶמן‬
seol (51va) shə’ol/‫ְׁשאֹול‬
seminiz (8ra) shəminith/‫ְׁש ִמינִ ית‬
sorerai (7va) shorəray/‫ׁשֹור ָרי‬ ְ
sulaim (149ra) shulayim/‫)?( ׁשּוליִם‬ַ
teraphin (85vb) təraphim/‫ְּת ָר ִפים‬
themam (92ra) teyman/‫ימן‬ ָ ‫ֵּת‬
tillim (78vb) tillim, təhilllim/
 ‫ּת ִה ִּלים‬/‫ים‬
ְ ‫ִּת ִיּל‬
tohegor (89rb) taḥgor/‫ַּת ְחּגֹר‬
ydithun (39ra) yidithun/‫יִ ִדּיתּון‬
zevach (40vb) zevaḥ/‫זֶ ַבח‬
zimmrath (135vb zimrath/‫זִ ְמ ָרת‬
zoza (135ra) todah/‫ּתֹודה‬ָ

Anglo-Norman or French Words

amanue (?) (120ra)

bufeth (88rb)
chastum (?) (48vb)
meisuz (88ra)
verdaz (71va)
202 appendix one
 Plates of London St Paul’s Cathedral Library, MS 2 203

appendix two

Plates of London St Paul’s Cathedral Library, MS 2,

reproduced by permission of the Chapter of
St Paul's Cathedral

Plate 1. Detail of fol. 26v

This detail shows Herbert’s discussion of the gender of ‘earth’ and ‘world’ in
Hebrew in Psalm 23 (24) v.1-2. He attributes this exegesis to ‘litterator meus’
(penultimate line) which is explained in the margin as ‘Salomon’ and is possibly
a reference to Rashi. See also Chapter Three, pp. 81ff.
204 appendix two

Plate 2. Fol. 102v. Psalm 86(87)

This page contains one of Herbert’s references to Menahem ben Saruq’s Mahberet,
which is translated as ‘addicio’ (second column, 19th line from the bottom). See
Chapter Three, pp. 126ff.
 Plates of London St Paul’s Cathedral Library, MS 2 205

Plate 3. Fol. 132r. Detail of Psalm 110 (111): 6

This psalm contains an anonymous reference to Midrash Tanhuma on Genesis
1, which is referred to in a marginal gloss as Gamaliel. See Chapter Three,
pp. 113ff.
206 appendix two
 bibliography 207

Bibliography

Manuscripts

Cambridge, Trinity College Library, MS B.5.4

MS B.5. 6
MS B.5.7
MS B.14.33
MS R.17.1 (987)
Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Codex 4725 (Scaliger 8)
London, Lambeth Palace, MS 435
 Saint Paul’s Cathedral Library, MS 2
Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. E. inf. 6
 Corpus Christi College, MS 10
Warminster, Longleat House, MS 21

Primary Sources
Andrew of Saint Victor. Andreae de Sancto Victore Opera, vol. 1: Expositio super Heptateuchum.
Edited by C. Lohr and R. Berndt. CCCM 53. Turnhout: Brepols, 1986.
____. Andreae de Sancto Victore Opera, vol. 2: Expositio hystorica in librum regum. Edited and
introduced by Frans van Liere. CCCM 53A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997.
____, Commentary on Samuel and Kings: followed by the remaining deeds of the kings of
Israel and Judah ; on the concordance of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah.
Introduction, translation and notes by Frans van Liere, CCCM 53A, Corpus Christianorum
in translation 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009.
____. Andreae de Sancto Victore Opera, vol. 3: Expositiones historicas in libros Salomonis.
Edited by R. Berndt. CCCM 53B. Turnhout: Brepols, 1991.
____. Andreae de Sancto Victore Opera, vol. 6: Expositio in Ezechielem. Edited by Michael A.
Signer. CCCM 53E. Turnthout: Brepols, 1991.
____. Andreae de Sancto Victore Opera, vol. 7: Expositio in Danielem. Edited by Mark Zier.
CCCM 53F. Turnhout: Brepols, 1990.
Augustine. Quaestionum in heptateuchum libri septem, Brepolis Library of Latin Texts-Series
A. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
____. De fide rerum invisibilium, Brepolis Library of Latin Texts-Series A. Turnhout: Brepols,
2010.
____, The Correspondence (384-419) between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo. Translated by
Carolinne White. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990.
Bede. Beda Venerabilis opera, vol 6: opera didascalica 1. Edited by C. W. Jones. CCSL 123.
Turnhout: Brepols, 1975.
____. Libri Quattuor in principium Genesis usque ad nativitatem Isaac et eiectionem Ismahelis
adnotationum (sive Hexaemeron), Brepolis Library of Latin Texts- Series A. Turnhout:
Brepols, 2010.
Bernard of Clairvaux. The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux. Translated by Bruno Scott James.
Stroud: Sutton, 1998.
____. Sancti Bernardi opera: Sermones super Cantica Canticorum. Edited by J. Leclercq et al.
2 vols. Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957.
208 bibliography
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 4th edn. Edited by Rudolf Kittel. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1990.
Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem iussu Pii pp. XI. Edited by
Aidan Gasquet. 11 vols. Rome: Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1926-95.
Biblia Sacra: iuxta Vulgatam versionem. 2 vols. Edited by Bonifatius Fischer and R. Weber.
Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969.
Cassiodorus. Explanatio in Psalmos, CCSL 97. Turnhout: Brepols, 1958; Brepolis, Library of
Latin Texts. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
Dictionnaire hébreu-latin-français de la Bible hébraïque de l’abbaye de Ramsey (XIIIe siècle).
Edited by Judith Olszowy-Schlanger and Anne Grondeux. CCCM. Lexica latina medii
aevi. Nouveau recueil des lexiques latin-français du Moyen Âge 4, 2008.
Tesubot de Dunas ben Labrat. Edited by Ángel Sáenz-Badillos. Granada: Universidad de
Granada, 1980.
Epistolae pontificum romanorum ineditae, edited by Samuel Loewenfeld. Graz: Akademische
Druck U.-Verlaganstalt, 1959.
Gervase of Canterbury. The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury. Edited by William
Stubbs. 2 vols. Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores 73. London: Longman, 1879-
80.
Gilbert Crispin. Disputatio Iudei et Christiani et anonymi auctoris disputationis Iudei et
Christiani continuatio. Edited by Bernard Blumenkranz. Stomata Patristica et Mediae­
valia, fasc. 3. Utrecht: Spectrum, 1956.
____. The Works of Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster. Edited by Anna Sapir Abulafia and
G.R. Evans. Auctores Britannici medii aevi 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Glossa Ordinaria. PL 113.
Le glossaire de Leipzig. Edited and annotated by Menahim Banitt. 3 vols. Jerusalem:
Académie nationale des sciences et des lettres d’Israël, 1995.
Glossaire Hébreu-Français du XIIIe siècle: recueil de mots hébreux biblique avec traduction
française: manuscrit de la Bibliothèque Nationale, n° 302. Edited by Mayer Lambert and
Louis Brandin. Paris: Leroux, 1905.
Herbert of Bosham. Herberti de Boseham, S. Thomae Cantuariensis clerici a secretis, opera
quae extant omnia. Edited by I.A. Giles. 2 vols. Oxford: Parker, 1845-46.
____. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, vol. 3: Vita Sancti
Thomae and Liber Melorum. Edited by J.C. Robertson. Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi
scriptores 67. London: Longman, 1877.
____. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, vol 7: Epistles
DXXI-DCCCVIII. Edited by J.B. Sheppard, Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores
67. London: Longman, 1885.
____. Epistulae in persona S. Thomae Cantuariensis et aliorum scriptae. PL 190: 1422-1474.
Hrabanus Maurus. Commentarius in Genesim. PL 107: 439-670.
____. De universo. PL 111: 9-614.
Hugh of Saint Victor. De scripturis et scripturibus sacris, PL 175: 9-28.
____. Didascalicon de studio legendi, Brepolis Library of Latin Texts- Series A. Turnhout:
Brepols, 2010.
____. De meditatione. Brepolis Library of Latin Texts- Series A. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
____. The Didascalicon of Hugh of Saint Victor: A Medieval Guide to the Arts. Trans. and introd.
by Jerome Taylor. Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies 64. New York and London:
Columbia University Press, 1961.
Isidore of Seville. Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX. Brepolis: Library of Latin Texts-
Series A. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
Jerome. Saint Jérôme: Lettres. Trans. and ed. by Jérôme Labourt. 8 tomes Paris: Société
d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres”, 1949-63.
____. Liber de interpretationibus hebraicorum nominum, CCSL 72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959.
 bibliography 209
____. Liber de situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum, CCSL 72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959.
____. Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim, CCSL 72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959.
____. Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, CCSL 72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959.
____. Saint Jerome’s Hebrew questions on Genesis. Translated and introduced by Charles T.R.
Hayward. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
____. The Correspondence (384-419) between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo. Edited by
Carolinne White. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1990.
John of Salisbury. Ioannis Saresberiensis Metalogicon. Edited by J.B. Hall. CCCM 48, 1991.
____. The Metalogicon: A Twelfth-Century Defence of the Verbal and Logical Arts of the Trivium.
Translated by Daniel McGarry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962.
____. The Letters of John of Salisbury, vol. 2: The Later Letters (1163-1180). Edited by W.J. Millor
and C.N.L. Brooke. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
Menahem ben Saruq. Mahberet. Edited by Angel Sáenz-Badillos. Granada and Salamanca:
Universidad de Granada and Universidad Ponificia de Salamanca, 1986.
The Midrash on Psalms. Translated by William G. Braude. 2 vols. Yale Judaica Series 13. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.
Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Recension), vol. 1: Genesis. Translated and introduced by John
T. Townsend. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989.
Mikra’ot Gedolot: Psalms and Proverbs. Tel Aviv: Pardes, 1954.
Odo. Écrits théologiques de l’École d’Abélard. Edited by Arthur Landgraf, Spicilegium Sacrum
Lovaniense 14. Louvain: Gembloux, 1934.
Peter Abelard. Petri Abaelardi Opera Theologica: Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad
Romanos. Ed. E.M. Buytaert. CCCM 11. Turnhout: Brepols, 1969.
____. A Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew and a Christian. Translated by Pierre J. Payer.
Medieval Sources in Translation 20. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
1979.
Peter of Blois. Contra perfidium Iudeorum, PL 207: 870.
Peter Lombard. Commentarius in psalmos, Brepolis Library of Latin Texts- Series A.
Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
____. Collectanea in omnes Pauli apostoli Epistulas, Brepolis Library of Latin Texts- Series A.
Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
Peter the Venerable. Adversus Iudeorum inveteratam duritiem, Brepolis Library of Latin
Texts-Series A. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones on the Book of Samuel. Edited and introduced by Avrom
Saltman. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
____. Quaestiones in libros Regum et Peralipomenon. PL 23: 1327-1402.
____. Breviarium in Psalmos. PL 26: 821-1278.
Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, 11 vols. Madrid, 1940- 77. Vol. VIII: Supplementum (1976),
edited by Friedrich Stegmüller.
Rashi (Rabbi Salomon ben Isaac/Shlomo Yitsaki). Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos,
Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary. Translated and annotated
by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann. 5 vols. London: Shapiro, 1929-34.
____. Parshandata: the Commentary of Raschi on the Prophets and Hagiographs. Edited by
I. Maarsen. 3 vols. Amsterdam and Jerusalem: Hertzberger and Central Press, 1930-36.
____. Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms. Edited and translated by Mayer I. Gruber. Leiden: Brill,
2004; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2007.
Les gloses françaises de Raschi dans la Bible. Edited by Louis Brandin and introd. by Julien
Weill. Paris: Durbacher, 1909.
Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi. Edited by Friedrich Stegmüller. 11 vols. Madrid: Instituto
Francisco Súarez, 1940-1977. VIII: Supplementum, 1976.
Roger Bacon. The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon and a Fragment of his Hebrew Grammar.
Edited by Edmond Nolan and S.A. Hirsch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902.
210 bibliography
Sefer ha-pitronot mi-Bazel. Le glossaire de Bâle. Ed. and ann. by Menahem Banitt. 2 vols.
Jerusalem: Académie nationale des sciences et des lettres d’Israël, 1972.
The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed in Four Volumes. Translated and annotated by I.
Epstein. London: Soncino Press, 1938.
The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin in Four Volumes. Translated and annotated by I.
Epstein. London: Soncino Press, 1935.
The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation 1: Tractate Berakhot. Translated by Jacob
Neusner. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984.
The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation 2: Tractate Shabbat C. Translated by
Jacob Neusner. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1992.
The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation 3: Tractate Erubin. Translated by Jacob
Neusner. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992.
The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation 11: Tractate Mo‘ed Qatan. Translated by
Jacob Neusner. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992.
The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation 23: Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapters 9- 11.
Translated by Jacob Neusner. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985.
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Le commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaumes (I-LXXX).
Edited by Robert Devreesse, Studie Testi 93. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,
1939.
____. Theodori Mopsuesteni Expositionis in Psalmos Iuliano Aeclanensi interprete in latinum
versae quae supersunt. Edited by Lucas de Coninck and Maria Josepha d’Hont. CCSL
88A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1977.
William FitzStephen. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury,
vol. 3: Vita Sancti Thomae. Edited by J.C. Robertson, Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi
scriptores 67. London: Longman, 1877.

Secondary Sources

Abulafia, Anna Sapir. Jewish-Christian Relations 1000-1300: Jews in the Service of Medieval
Christendom. Medieval World Series. Harlow: Longman, 2011.
____. “Twelfth-Century Renaissance Theology and the Jews”. In From Witness to Witchcraft:
Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought, edited by Jeremy Cohen, Wolfenbütteler
Mittelalter-Studien, 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996, 125-39.
____. Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance. New York and London:
Routledge, 1995.
____. “Jewish Carnality in Twelfth-Century Renaissance Thought”. In Christianity and
Judaism: Papers Read at the 1991 Summer Meeting and the 1992 Winter Meeting of the
Ecclesiastical History Society, edited by Diana Wood, Studies in Church History 29 (1992).
____. “Jewish-Christian Disputations and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance”. Journal of
Medieval History 15 (1989): 105-25.
Ahrend, M. “Rashi’s Method in Explaining Words” (Heb.). In Sepher Rashi, edited by
Z.A.Steinfeld. Ramit-Gan, 1993.
Baer, I. “Rashi and the Historical Reality of His Time.” (Heb.). In Sefer Rashi, edited by Y.L.
Maimon. Jerusalem: Kuk, 1941,1956.
Baldwin, John W. “Masters at Paris from 1179 to 1215: A Social Perspective”. In Renaissance
and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, edited by Robert L. Benson et al. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1982.
Banitt, Menahem. “The La’azim of Rashi and of the French Biblical Glossaries”. In World
History of the Jewish People 11: The Dark Ages, Jews in Christian Europe (711-1096), edited
by Cecil Roth and I.H. Levine. London: Allen, 1966.
 bibliography 211
____. “Les poterim”, REJ 125 (1966): 21-33.
Baron, Salo Wittmayer. A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 2nd edn. 18 vols. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1957-83. III-VIII (1957-1958): High Middle Ages 500-1200.
Barlow, Frank. Thomas Becket. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1986.
Barrow, Julia. “Education and the Recruitment of Cathedral Canons in England and Germany
1100-1225”. Viator 20 (1989): 117-37.
Bautier, Robert-Henri. “Les premières relations entre le monastère de Pontigny et la royauté
Anglaise”. In Thomas Becket: Actes du colloque international de Sédières, 19-24 août 1973,
edited by Raymonde Foreville. Paris: Beauchesne, 1975, 41-48.
____. “Les origines et les premiers développements de l’abbaye Saint-Victor de Paris”. In
L’abbaye parisienne de Saint Victor au Moyen Âge: communications présentées au 13e
Colloque d’humanisme médiéval de Paris (1986-88), edited by Jean Longère, Bibliotheca
Victorina, 1. Paris and Turnhout: Brepols, 1991, 23-52.
Bedos-Rezak, Brigitte. “The Confrontation of Orality and Textuality: Jewish and Christian
Literacy in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Northern France”. In Rashi 1040-1990:hom-
mage à Ephraim E. Urbach, Congrès européen des études juives, edited by Gabrielle Sed-
Rajna. Patrimoines: Judaïsme. Paris: Cerf, 1993, 541-58.
Beit-Arié, Malachi. The Only Dated Anglo-Hebrew Manuscript Written in England (1189) and
the Problem of Pre-Expulsion Anglo-Hebrew Manuscripts. London: Valmadonna Trust
Library, 1985.
Berndt, Rainer. “The School of St Victor in Paris”, in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History
of Its Interpretation, vol. I/2: The Middle Ages, edited by Magne Sæbø. Göttingen, 2000.
____. “La pratique exégétique d’André de Saint-Victor: Tradition victorine et influence rab-
binique”. In L’abbaye parisienne de Saint Victor au Moyen Âge: communications présen-
tées au 13e Colloque d’humanisme médiéval de Paris (1986-88), edited by Jean Longère.
Bibliotheca Victorina, 1. Paris and Turnhout: Brepols, 1991, 271-90.
____. André de S. Victor (d. 1175): Exégète et théologien, Bibliotheca Victorina, 2 Paris and
Turnhout: Brepols, 1991.
Blondheim, D.S. “Liste des manuscrits des commentaires bibliques de Raschi”, REJ
91-92(1931): 70-101, 155-74.
Brooke, C.N.L. “Gregorian Reform in Action: Clerical Marriage in England, 1050-1200”.
Cambridge Historical Journal 12 (1956): 1-21.
Brown, Dennis. Vir Trilinguis: A Study in he Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome. Kampen: Kok
Pharos, 1992.
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
OldTestament: with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Based on the Lexicon
of William Gesenius as Translated by Edward Robinson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Châtillon, Jean. “Thomas Becket et les Victorins”. In Thomas Becket: Actes du colloque inter-
national de Sédières, 19-24 août 1973, edited by Raymonde Foreville. Paris: Beauchesne,
1975, 89-101.
Chazan, Robert. Reassessing Jewish Life in Medieval Europe. Cambridge and New York: CUP,
2010.
____. God, Humanity and History: The Hebrew First Crusade Narratives. Berkeley CA:
University of California Press, 2000.
____. European Jewry and the First Crusade. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
____. Medieval Jewry in Northern France: A Political and Social History. Baltimore and London:
John Hopkins University Press, 1973.
____. “Twelfth-Century Perceptions of the Jews: A Case Study of Bernard of Clairvaux and
Peter the Venerable”. In From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval
Christian Thought, edited by Jeremy Cohen. Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien, 11.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996, 187-201.
212 bibliography
Cheney, Mary. “William FitzStephen and his Life of Archbishop Becket”, in Church and
Government in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to C.R. Cheney on his 70th Birthday,
edited by C.N.L. Brooke et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976, 139-56.
Chenu, Marie-Dominique. La théologie au douzième siècle. 2nd edn. Études de philosophie
médiévale, 45. Paris: Vrin, 1966.
Cohen, Jeremy. Sanctifying the Name of God: Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First
Crusade. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
____. Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity. Berkeley, Cal. and
London: University of California Press, 1999.
____. “Scholarship and Intolerance in the Medieval Academy: The Study and Evaluation of
Judaism in European Christendom”, in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in
Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, edited by Jeremy Cohen. New York and
London: New York University Press, 1991, 310-41
____. The Friars and the Jews. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982.
Colish, Marcia L. “Psalterium Scholasticorum. Peter Lombard and the Emergence of
Scholastic Psalms Exegesis”. Speculum 67 (1992): 531-48.
____. Peter Lombard. 2 vols. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1994.
Congar, Yves M.-J. “‘Gentilis’ et ‘Iudaeus’ au Moyen Âge”, RTAM 36 (1969): 222-25.
Constable, Giles. The Reformation of the Twelfth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
Dahan, Gilbert. Lire la Bible au Moyen Âge: essais d’herméneutique médiévale . Genève: Droz,
2009.
____. “Deux psautiers hébraïques glosés en latin”, REJ 158 (1999): 61-87.
____, L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval XII-XIVe siècle. Paris: Cerf, 1999.
____. Les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge. Paris: Cerf, 1990.
____. “L’exégèse de l’histoire de Caïn et Abel du XIIe au XIVe siècle en Occident”. RTAM 49
(1982): 21-89 and 50 (1983): 5-68.
____. “Une introduction à la philosophie au XIIe siècle: le Tractatus quidam de philosophia
et partibus eius”. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 57 (1982): 155-93.
____. “L’article Iudei de la Summa Abel de Pierre le Chantre”. Revue des études augustiennes
27 (1981): 105-26.
De Bruyne, Donatien. “Le problème du psautier romain”. Revue Bénédictine 42 (1930): 101-26.
De Hamel, Christopher F.R. “Manuscripts of Herbert of Bosham”. In Manuscripts at Oxford:
an Exhibition in Memory of Richard Willam Hunt (1908-1979), edited by A.C. de la Mare
and B.C. Barker-Benfield. Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1980, 38-41.
____. The Book: A History of the Bible. London: Phaidon, 2001.
Delhaye, Philippe. “L’organisation scolaire au XIIe siècle”. Traditio, 5 (1947): 211-68.
De Visscher, Eva. “Hebrew, Latin, French, English: Multilingualism in Jewish-Christian
Encounters”, in Multilingualism in Medieval Britain: Texts and Sources, edited by Judith
Jefferson and Ad Putter. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013.
____. “An Ave Maria in Hebrew: the Transmission of Hebrew Learning from Jewish to
Christian Scholars in Medieval England”. In English Society and the Jews in the Middle
Ages: the York massacre of 1190 in context, edited by Sarah Rees Jones and Sethina Watson.
Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2013.
____. “Cross-Religious Learning and Teaching”. In Crossing Borders: Hebrew Manuscripts as
a Meeting Place of Cultures, edited by Piet van Boxel and Sabine Arndt. Oxford: Bodleian
Library, 2009, 123-132.
____. “‘Closer to the Hebrew’: Herbert of Bosham’s Interpretation of Literal Exegesis”. In The
Multiple Meaning of Scripture: The Role of Exegesis in Early-Christian and Medieval
Culture, edited by Ineke van‘t Spijker. Leiden: Brill, 2009, 249-72
____. “Putting Theory into Practice? Hugh of Saint Victor’s Influence on Herbert of Bosham’s
Psalterium cum commento”. In Bibel und Exegese in der Abtei Saint-Victor zu Paris: Form
 bibliography 213
und Funktion eines Grundtextes im europäischen Rahmen, edited by Rainer Berndt.
Corpus Victorinum 3. Instrumenta. Münster: Aschendorff, 2009, 491-502.
____. “The Jewish-Christian Dialogue in Twelfth-Century Western Europe: Herbert of
Bosham’s Commentary on the Psalms”. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Leeds,
2003/4.
Einbinder, Susan L. Beautiful Death: Jewish Poetry and Martyrdom in Medieval France.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Esposito, Mario. “On the So-Called Psalter of St Caimin”. Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy 32C (1914-16): 78-88.
Ferruolo, Stephen C. The Origins of the University: the Schools of Paris and their Critics, 1100-
1215. Stanford, CAL: Stanford University Press, 1985.
Flahiff, G.B. “Ralph Niger: an Introduction to his Life and Works”. Mediaeval Studies 2(1940):
104-36.
Fudeman, Kirsten A. Vernacular Voices: Language and Identity in Medieval French Jewish
Communities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010.
Gelles, Benjamin J. Peshat and Derash in the Exegesis of Rashi, Études sur le judaïsme
médiéval, 9. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Gheyn, J. van den. “Nicolas Maniacoria, correcteur de la Bible”. Revue biblique 8 (1899):
289-95.
Gibson, Margaret T. The Bible in the Latin West. Medieval Book Series, 1. Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1993.
____. et al, eds. The Eadwine Psalter: Text, Image and Monastic Culture in Twelfth-Century
Canterbury. London and University Park: MHRA and Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1992.
Gilbert, Martin. The Routledge Atlas of Jewish History: From 2000BC to the Present Day.
London: Routledge, 1995, repr. 2010.
Glunz, Hans H. History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1933.
Goodwin, Deborah. “Nothing in Our Histories: A Postcolonial Perspective on Twelfth-
Century Christian Hebraism”, Medieval Encounters, 15.1 (2009): 35-65.
____. Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew: Herbert of Bosham’s Christian Hebraism. Leiden: Brill,
2006.
____. “Herbert of Bosham and the Horizons of Twelfth-Century Exegesis”. Traditio 58 (2003):
133-73.
____. “A Study of Herbert of Bosham’s Psalm Commentary (c. 1190)”. Unpublished PhD diss.,
University of Notre Dame, 2001.
Grossman, Avraham. “The School of Literal Jewish Exegesis in Northern France”. In Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, vol. I/2: The Middle Ages, edited by
Magne Sæbø (Göttingen, 2000).
Hailperin, Herman. Rashi and the Christian Scholars. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
Press, 1963.
Halivni, David Weiss. Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis.
New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Hillaby, Joseph. “Prelude and Postscript to the York Massacre: Attacks in East Anglia and
Lincolnshire 1190”. In English Society and the Jews in the Middle Ages: the York massacre
of 1190 in context, edited by Sarah Rees Jones and Sethina Watson. Woodbridge: Boydell
and Brewer, 2013.
____. “Jewish Colonisation in the Twelfth Century”. In Jews in Medieval Britain: Historical,
Literary and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Patricia Skinner. Woodbridge: Boydell
and Brewer, 2003.
Hunt, Richard W. The Schools and the Cloister: The Life and Writings of Alexander Nequam
(1157-1217), edited and revised by Margaret Gibson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.
214 bibliography
James, M.R. “The Salomites”. The Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1934): 287-97.
Jordan, William Chester, The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip Augustus to the
Last Capetians. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989.
Kamesar, Adam. Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones
hebraicae in Genesim. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Kanarfogel, Ephraim. Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1992.
Kelly, John N.D. Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies. London: Duckworth, 1975.
Ker, N.R. and A.J. Piper. Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries. 3rd edn. 4 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1969-92.
Kiwitt, Marc. “Hébreu, français et ‘judéo-français’ dans les commentaires bibliques des
Paštanim”. In Langue de l’autre, langue de l’auteur. Affirmation d’une identité linguistique
et littéraire au XIIe et XVIe siècles [= Actes du colloque tenu à la Bibliothèque Louis
Aragon, Amiens, du 6 au 8 juin 2007], edited by Marie-Sophie Masse and Anne-Pascale
Pouey-Mounou. Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 489. Paris: Droz, 2012.
____. “Les glossaires hébreu-français du XIIIe siècle et la culture juive en France du nord”.
In Cultures et Lexicographie. Actes des “Troisièmes Journées allemandes des dictionnaires”
en l’honneur d’Alain Rey, Klingenberg, 4.-6. Juli 2008, edited by Michaela Heinz. Berlin:
Frank & Timme, 2010.
Klepper, Deeana C. The Insight of Unbelievers: Nicholas of Lyra and Christian Reading of
Jewish Text in the Later Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.
Knowles, David. Episcopal Colleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1951.
Larratt Keefer, Sarah and Burrows, David R. “Hebrew and the Hebraicum in late Anglo-Saxon
England”, Anglo-Saxon England 19 (1990), 61-71.
Latham, R.E., ed. Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources, with
Supplement. London: Oxford University Press, 1999.
____, ed. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources. London: Oxford University Press,
1975.
Leclercq, Jean. Monks and Love in Twelfth-Century France: Psycho-Historical Essays. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1979.
Lieftinck, G.I. “The Psalterium Hebraycum from St Augustine’s Canterbury Rediscovered in
the Scaliger Bequest at Leyden”. In Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society,
vol. 2 (1954-1958), edited by Bruce Dickins and A.N.L. Munby. London: Bowes and Bowes,
1958, 97-104.
Liere, Frans van. “Twelth-Century Christian Scholars and the Attribution of the Talmud”.
Medieval Perspectives 17:2 (2002), 93-104.
____. “Andrew of Saint Victor (d. 1175): Scholar between Cloister and School”. In Centres of
Learning: Learning and Location in Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East, edited by Jan
Willem Drijvers and Alasdair A. McDonald. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 61.
Leiden: Brill, 1995.
____. “Andrew of St Victor’s Commentary on Samuel and Kings: Edited with a Study of
Sources and Methods”. PhD diss., Groningen, 1995.
Linde, J. Cornelia. How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura? Textual Criticism of the Latin Bible
between the Twelfth and the Fifteenth Century. Oxford: Society for the Study of Medieval
Languages and Literature, 2012.
____. “Some Obeservations on Nicola Maniacutia’s Suffragenus Bibliothece”. In Retelling the
Bible: Literary, Historical and Social Contexts, edited by Lucie Doležalová and Tamás
Visi. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
Loewe, Raphael. “The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate”. In The Cambridge History of
the Bible, vol. 2: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, edited by G.W.H. Lampe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969, 102-154.
 bibliography 215
____. “Alexander Neckam’s Knowledge of Hebrew”. Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 4
(1958): 17-34.
____. “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: The Superscriptio Lincolniensis”.
Hebrew Union College Annual 28 (1957): 205-252.
____. “The Mediaeval Christian Hebraists of England: Herbert of Bosham and Earlier
Scholars”. Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England 17 (1953): 225-49.
____. “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary on Jerome’s Hebrew Psalter”. Biblica 34 (1953):
44-77, 159-92, 275-98.
Lubac, Henri de. Exégèse médiéval. 4 vols. Paris: Aubier, 1959-62.
____. Medieval Exegesis, vol. 1: The Four Senses of Scripture. Grands Rapids, MI and Edinburgh:
Eerdmans and T&T Clark, 1998.
Luscombe, D.E. “The Authorship of the Ysagoge in Theologiam”. Archives d’histoire doctrinale
et littéraire du Moyen-Âge 43 (1968): 7-16.
Mc Loughlin, John. “Amicitia in Practice: John of Salisbury (c. 1120-1180) and his Circle”. In
England in the Twelfth Century: Proceedings of the 1988 Harlaxton Symposium, edited by
Daniel Williams. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 1990.
McKane, William. Selected Christian Hebraists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989.
Morris, Collin. The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050-1250. Oxford: Clarendon,
1991.
Mutius, H.G. von. Die Hebräischen Bibelzitate beim Englischen Scholastiker Odo, Judentum
und Umwelt. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006.
Niermeyer, Jan Frederik, and C. van de Kieft, eds. Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus; lexique
latin médiéval-français/anglais; a Medieval Latin-French/English Dictionary. 2 vols. 2nd
edition. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith. “Christian Hebraism in Thirteenth-century England: The
Evidence of Hebrew-Latin Manuscripts”. In Crossing Borders: Hebrew Manuscripts as a
Meeting- place of Cultures. Oxford: Bodleian Library, 2009.
____. “A Christian Tradition of Hebrew Vocalisation in Medieval England”. In Semitic Studies
in Honour of Edward Ullendorf, edited by Geoffrey Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
____. Les Manuscrits hébreux dans l’Angleterre médiévale: étude historique et paléographique.
Collection de la Revue des Études juives. Paris-Leuven: Peeters, 2003.
____. “The Knowledge and Practice of Hebrew Grammar among Christian Scholars in Pre-
Expulsion England: The Evidence of ‘Bilingual’ Hebrew-Latin Manuscripts”. In Hebrew
Scholarship and the Medieval World, edited by Nicholas de Lange. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001.
Orme, Nicolas. Education and Society in Medieval and Renaissance England. London:
Hambledon, 1989.
Peri, Vittorio. “Correctores immo corruptores: Un Saggio di Critica Testuale nella Roma del
XII Secolo”. Italia Mediovale et Umanistica 20 (1977): 19-125.
Peyrafort-Huin, Monique. La bibliothèque médiévale de l’abbaye de Pontigny (XIIe-XIX siè-
cles): histoire, inventaires anciens, manuscrits. Paris: CNRS, 2001.
Richardson, Henry G. The English Jewry under Angevin Kings. London: Methuen, 1960.
Robins, R.H. A Short History of Linguistics London: Longmans, 1967.
Roth, Cecil. A History of the Jews in England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941.
Sæbø, Magne, ed. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. I/2: The
Middle Ages. Göttingen: Vandenhoek, 2000.
Saltman, Avrom. “Supplemental Notes on Ralph Niger”. In Bar-Ilan Studies in History, edited
by Pinhas Artzi. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1978.
____. “Pseudo-Jerome in the Commentary of Andrew of St Victor on Samuel”. Harvard
Theological Review 67.3 (1974): 195-253.
216 bibliography
____. “Rabanus Maurus and the Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones Hebraicae in Libros Regum
et Paralipomenon”. Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 43- 75.
Schade, Ludwig. Die Inspirationslehre des heiligen Hieronymus: eine biblisch-geschichliche
Studie. Freiburg im Bresgau: Herder, 1910.
Schwarz, Werner. Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation: Some Reformation
Controversies and their Background. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.
Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle, ed. Rashi 1040-1105: hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach, Congrès européen
des études juives. Patrimoines: Judaisme. Paris: Cerf, 1993.
Semple, W.H. “St Jerome as a Biblical Translator”. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library,
Manchester 45 (1965): 227-43.
Signer, Michael A., and John van Engen, eds. Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe.
Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2001.
____. “Rashi as narrator”. In Raschi et la culture juive en France du Nord au moyen Âge, edited
by G. Nahon and C. Touati. Paris and Louvain: Peeters, 1997.
____. “King/Messiah: Rashi’s Exegesis of Psalm 2”. Prooftexts 3 (1983): 273-84.
Simpson, W. Sparrow. A Catalogue of Bibles, Rituals and Rare Books, Works Relating to
London, and Especially to St Paul’s Cathedral. London: Stock, 1893.
Sirat, Colette. Du scribe au livre: les manuscrits hébreux au Moyen Âge. Paris: CNRS, 1994.
Slavin, Philip. “Hebrew Went Latin: Reflections of Latin Diplomatic Formulae and
Terminology in Hebrew Private Deeds from Thirteenth-Century England”, Journal of
Medieval Latin 18 (2008): 306-25.
Smalley, Beryl. The Becket Conflict and the Schools: A Study of Intellectuals in Politics Oxford:
Blackwell, 1973.
____. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. 3rd edn. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1978.
____. “A Commentary on the Hebraica by Herbert of Bosham”, RTAM 18 (1951): 29- 65.
____. “Hebrew Scholarship among Christians in Thirteenth-Century England as Illustrated
by Some Hebrew-Latin Psalters”, Society for Old Testament Study, Lectio 6 (1939): 1-18.
Smith, Lesley. The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary. Com­
mentaria 3. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
____. Masters of the Sacred Page: Manuscripts of Theology in the Latin West to 1274. Medieval
Book Series, 2. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001.
____- and Krey, Philip K., Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Southern, R.W. Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell,
1995-2000.
____. “The Schools of Paris and the Schools of Chartres”. In Renaissance and Renewal in
Twelfth-Century Europe, edited by Robert L. Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol D.
Lanham. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982: 113-137.
Stirnemann, Patricia. Online review of Lesley Smith’s Masters of the Sacred Page. The
Medieval Review, 3 November 2002.
Touitou, Eleazer. “Rashbam’s Exegetical Method on the Background of the Historical Reality
of His Time”. (Heb). In Studies in Rabbinic Literature, Bible and Jewish History, edited by
Y.D. Gilat et al. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1982 .
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press and Assen:
Van Gorcum, 1992, 2nd rev. ed. 2001.
Wacholder, Ben Zion. “Cases of Proselytizing in the Tosafist Responsa”. Jewish Quarterly
Review, new series, 51 (1960-61): 288-315.
Weber, Robert. “Deux préfaces au Psautier Dues à Nicolas Maniacoria”. Revue Bénédictine
63 (1953): 3-17.
Wilks, Michael, ed. The World of John of Salisbury. Studies in Church History: Subsidia 3.
Oxford: Blackwell, 1984.
 bibliography 217
Williams, John R. “William of the White Hands and Men of Letters”. In Anniversary Essays
in Mediaeval History: by Students of Charles Homer Haskins, edited by C.H. Taylor. Boston
and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1929: 365-387.
Wilmart, A. “Nicolas Manjacoria, Cistercien à Trois Fontaines”. Revue Bénédictine 33 (1921):
136-143.
218 bibliography
 index 219

Index

Abelard, Peter (see Peter Abelard) Divine Names (see also Tetragramma-
Abulafia, Anna Sapir 14, 196 ton) 40, 60-61, 92-93
Alcuin `9-10, 56 Dunash ibn Labrat 79, 101, 126, 128-130,
Alexander III, Pope 18 135, 161-162
Alexander Neckam or Nequam 16, 80, 196
Allegorical sense of scripture or Eadwine Psalter 6, 54, 57, 62-66, 78, 194
allegoria 3, 13, 59, 81, 109, 172, 176, Einbinder, Susan 196
179-186, 190, 196 Eschatology 167, 173-174, 176
Andrew of Saint Victor 1, 10, 13-14, 24, 29, Esposito, Mario 9
59, 93-94, 162, 191, 196 Etymology 15, 37, 41, 89, 104, 112, 166-167
Anglo-Norman (see also French) 14, 45, Exegesis
50, 63-64, 98, 201 Christian (see also literal sense of
Anglo-Saxon 64-65, 194 scripture, historical sense,
Anti- Christian 169-171 tropological sense of scripture) 1-5,
Arabic 30, 88, 103-104 11-12, 29, 37, 55, 59-60, 62, 65, 67, 74,
Aramaic 15, 46, 79, 88, 98, 120-125 96, 105, 111-114, 120-123, 128-129, 133,
Augustine, Saint (354-430) 7, 17, 63, 137 138, 144-145, 149, 161-191
On the concept of the Jewish Jewish (see also derash, peshat and
witness 164-165, 170, 176, 193 midrash) 2-4, 37, 47-48, 67, 77,
Authorship of the Psalms 156-157 84-94, 101, 108, 121, 126, 129-132,
138-141, 151-155, 158, 167-170, 190-191
Baer, Izhak 169 French (see also Anglo-Norman)
Banitt, Menahem 68-69, 74-75 17, 29, 67-78, 95, 98, 169, 183, 199
Becket, Thomas (see Thomas Becket) Fudeman, Kirsten 196
Bede the Venerable 181
Beghadhkephath letters 25-26 Gamaliel
Beit-Arié, Malachi 62 Rabbinic source (see also
Berndt, Rainer 196 Talmud) 16, 107, 113-120, 131, 163,
Breviarium in Psalmos 59-60 63, 120 173, 190
Burrows, David R. 64 Rabbi Gamaliel  190
Gameson, Richard 21
Canterbury 2,, 6, 20, 194 George Naddi of Siena 189
Canterbury Psalter (see Eadwine Gervase of Canterbury 20
Psalter) Gibson, Margaret 16
Christ Church, Canterbury 17, 64, 66, 194 Gilbert Crispin 170
St Augustine’s, Canterbury 17, 63 Gilbert Foliot 14
Cassiodorus 59, 144-145, 148 Gloss 56, 144-145, 148
Chazan, Robert 196 Glossa Ordinaria 10, 89, 144-145
Christian Hebraism (see Hebraism) Great Gloss (see Magna Glosatura)
Cohen, Jeremy 4, 10, 168, 196 Glossed Psalters (see also Superscripto
Crusades 1, 176, 193 lincolniensis) 62, 194
Marginal glosses 95, 117, 133
Dahan, Gilbert 4-5, 23, 26, 62, 196 (see also Le‘azim)
De Hamel, Christopher 19 Goodwin, Deborah 4-6, 40, 67, 75, 80, 93,
Derash 185-186 168, 172-173, 175-176, 185
220 index
Gregory of Huntingdon 194 Apostates or Converts 29, 55, 79, 135,
Grossman, Avraham 169 195
Gruber, Mayer 82, 85-87, 134, 140 Difference between Hebrei and
Iudei 38
Hanukah 134 Persecution of 1, 176, 193
Hebraica version of the Psalms (see John of Salisbury 2, 14-15, 18, 162
Psalter) Joseph Bekhor Shor 13, 169
Hebraism 3-19, 55, 63, 79, 137, 161-162, Joseph Kara 13, 169
190-191, 194-195 Joseph Kimhi 13
Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Scriptures or Judah ben Hayyuj 30
Tanakh 6-9, 24, 46, 53-55, 68, 79 Judaism 1-2, 4, 6, 10, 81, 105, 168, 170-171,
Hebrew grammar 5, 24, 30-45, 63, 77, 132, 177, 190
143, 161
Longleat grammar 77 Ker, Neil 3, 20
(see also Roger Bacon) Kethib qere 64, 76, 161, 194
Hebrew-Hebraico-French glossaries (see Kiwitt, Marc 196
also Le ‘azim) 59, 67-78, 79, 138, 140, Klepper, Deeana 196
162, 194, 196
Leipzig Glossary 74, 77, 194 Landgraf, Artur 14-15
Hebrew-Latin Psalters 23, 33, 43, 47, Larratt Keefer, Sarah 64
54-59, 61-66, 76, 77, 162, 194-196 Le‘azim (Hebraico-French
Hebrew-Latin-French dictionary or glosses) 67-74, 77-78, 126, 162, 194
Longleat Dictionary 49-50, 54, 63, Leipzig Glossary (see Hebrew-Hebraico-
78, 162, 194
French Glossaries)
Hebrew Truth (Hebraica veritas) 9, 58, 73,
Liber Melorum 2
155, 159, 178-179, 191
Liere, Frans van 13, 196
Henry II, King of England 1-2, 15, 18-20
Linde, Cornelia 196
Henry of Cornhill 21
Hrabanus Maurus 10 Literal sense of scripture or littera 3-4,
Historical sense of scripture or historia 17, 13-14, 48, 76, 80, 103, 139, 146, 153-158,
146, 179-183, 196 161-164, 171, 176-181, 184-191, 195-196
Hugh of Saint Victor 12-14, 59, 76, 137, Litterator 38-39, 80-81, 106-107, 114-115,
165-166, 179-180, 189, 191, 195-196 131-132, 135, 140, 156, 163, 174, 186-188,
Hunt, Richard 16 195
Litteratores 81, 108, 113,115, 156, 163-167,
Idolatry 149-150 169, 190
Isidore of Seville  9, 59 Loewe, Raphael 3-6, 9, 13, 32, 39, 50, 56,
Israel 51, 73, 89, 96, 100, 104-105, 110-111, 114, 80, 88, 112, 117, 122-124, 127, 130-131
118, 122, 129, 172, 174-176, 187 Lombard, Peter (see Peter Lombard)
Israelites 111, 118, 152, 172
Maarsen, Isaac 82-83
Jerome, Saint (c.345-420) (see also Psalms) Magister (see also Paul) 1, 14-15, 80-81, 137,
 2-13, 15, 17-18, 24-30, 32, 36, 39, 42-50, 159
52-53, 55-63, 65, 74, 76-77, 85, 93-94, Magna Glosatura 2-5, 16-18, 27, 44, 55-61,
110, 123, 137, 139, 156, 161-163, 177-178, 65-66, 137, 194-195
182, 190, 193 Mahbereth (see also Menahem ben
Jerusalem 1, 85, 127, 157, 187 Sa­ruq) 25, 30, 79, 126-128, 161-162
Heavenly Jerusalem 127, 187 Mahberet Arukh 16
Jews 17, 74-79, 105, 117, 161-162, 169, 173-177, Masoretic Text 7-11, 13-15, 34, 45-46, 55-58,
186-188, 190, 194 61, 67, 74-76, 78, 101, 123, 129, 140,
Anti-Jewish rhetoric 143, 153, 164-166, 154, 158, 161-162, 177, 194
169-171 Masoretes 29
 index 221
Menahm ben Saruq 16, 30, 32, 79, 113-114, Gallicana version 3, 12, 26, 36-37, 39, 41,
126-128, 134, 163 43-45, 51, 53, 56-57, 59, 63-65, 84,
Messiah 111, 116-117, 137, 151-153, 164, 102, 119, 121, 133, 138, 154, 178, 184
167-168, 173, 183-184 Hebraica version 3, 9, 12, 17, 26, 28, 31,
Messianism 105, 112, 130, 141, 167-169, 37-46, 48-52, 56-60, 63-65, 67, 73, 75,
183-184, 190, 195 84, 96-97, 119, 144, 148-150, 158,
Anti-messianism 105, 131, 165, 168, 174, 161-162, 177-178, 194
193 Romana version 12, 64
Midrash 70, 82, 89, 102, 114-115, 146, 169, Purim 134
185
Midrashic 101, 114, 166 Rabbinic
Midrash on Psalms  51, 79, 85, 88, 93, Period 67
106-114, 120, 125, 134, 151, 154, 163, 166 Sources 3, 13, 48, 79-131, 135, 161-162
Midrash Tanhuma 118, 146, 163 Tradition 1, 74, 151, 168-169, 186, 195
Midrash Tehillim (see Midrash on Psalms) Ralph Niger 14-15, 25, 163, 196
Rashbam (Rabbi Solomon ben Meir) 13,
Nicholas of Lyra 189, 196 169
Nicolas Manjacoria 11-12, 196 Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of
Troyes)
Odo, author of Ysagoge in theologiam  As exegete 5, 12-13, 31-32, 37-41, 45-46,
14-15, 24 48, 51, 54, 59, 62, 77, 79-114, 120-122,
Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith 5, 33-34, 43, 54, 125-135, 140-141, 144-146, 154, 157-158,
62, 76, 115, 196 161-166, 173, 175, 185-186, 190-191,
194-195
Oral sources 8, 10, 13-14, 32, 48, 80, 130-135,
As polemical opponent 131-132, 167-170
153, 162, 195
Le‘azim of 67-73, 77
Origen (c.185-c.254) 8, 137
Richard I, King of England 193
Ourscamp Abbey 14, 20
Richard of Saint Victor 13-14
Roger Bacon 34-35, 77
Paris  1, 12-20, 194 Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) 119-120
Parisian recension of the Psalms 56 Rouen 77, 194
Pashtanim 81, 163, 165, 168, 170-171, 187,
189, 193, 195 Sabbath 133
Paul, St 81, 137-159, 195 Saint Victor (Abbey or School of) 6, 12, 14,
Epistles 2, 6, 18, 47, 101, 105, 137-159 17
Pentateuch (see Torah) Saint Victor, Andrew of (see Andrew of
Pesach 122 Saint Victor)
Peshat 13, 81-82, 84, 115, 163, 169, 177, Saint Victor, Hugh of (see Hugh of Saint
185-186, 189, 191 Victor)
Peter Abelard 170 Saint Victor, Richard of (see Richard of
Peter, bishop of Arras 20-21 Saint Victor)
Peter Lombard 1-2, 19, 59 (see also Magna Saltman, Avrom 10
Glosatura) Sententia 155, 158
Plain meaning (see peshat) Septuagint 3, 7-9, 93
Polemic 14-15, 23, 38, 161, 166-169, 174, Signer, Michael 186
193-195 Slavin, Philip 196
Pontigny 17-18, 20, 55 Smalley, Beryl 3-6, 10-11, 19-21, 24, 55, 62,
Poterim 68, 81n5 157-158, 179, 184
Prophets 95, 151-152, 187 Smith, Lesley 19n66, 196
Prophecy 92, 130, 142, 151, 164, 175, 183-184, Solomon Parhon of Salerno 16
189 Staunton, Michael 197
Psalms Stephen Harding 11
222 index
Sukkot (Jewish Feast of the Thomas Becket 1-3, 15, 17, 19-20, 195
Tabernacles) 120 Torah  41, 108, 154, 173
Superscriptio 63, 65 Touitou, Eleazer 169
Superscriptio lincolniensis 25, 29 Transliteration of Hebrew words 23-30
Synagogue 55, 105, 133, 137, 164-165, 171-173 Tropological sense of scripture 13, 36,
Synagoga fidelis or Faithful 54,84, 137, 139, 146, 189-190, 195
Synagogue 105, 171-172 Typology 147

Talmud 28, 67, 79, 88-89, 100, 113-120, 125, Vetus Latina 62

133, 135, 163, 186 Victorines (see also Saint Victor) 15, 137
Targums 11, 79, 88, 115, 120-125, 134, 163, Vita Sancti Thomae 2
178
Tetragrammaton (see also Divine Walafrid Strabo 10
Names) 28, 80 Weiss, Jessica, 32n29
Textual criticism 3, 5-6, 12, 17, 27, 62, William de Longchamp, bishop of Ely 20,
76-77, 97, 150, 161-162, 177, 180, 196 193
Theodulf, bishop of Orleans 10 William, bishop of Sens 19
Theodulfian recension of the William of Bourges 24
Psalms 56-57, 59, 64-66, 70, 77-78,
138, 162, 194 York Massacre  193