THE POWER OF (HEBREW) LANGUAGE:

GRAMMAR, CABBALAH, MAGIC AND THE EMERGING

PROTESTANT IDENTITY

Johannes Thon

Abstract

The concept of the power of language is a modern one in linguistic studies. But
ancient Biblical and cognate traditions show similar insights reflecting the speaking
of men as real acts. The reception and interpretation of this idea is often connected
with magical traditions and in many cases authors had to face charges of dealing in
magic. The Hebrew language in particular has been associated with power as well as
with magic, and the Christian Hebraists thus showed a very ambivalent attitude to
their fascinating subject.

Keywords
Hebrew grammar, Speech act, Magic, Cabbalah, Reformation

1. The Power of Language

The concept that language is connected with powerwhich will be

exemplified in different (but nevertheless connected) historical cases in
this contributionis not a homogeneous one, but can be described as
very different phenomena.1
First there is the insight that men act with and through speech, and
in this context language is naturally connected with power. In the
framework of practical reflections on language, as for instance con-
temporary communication training,2 or in a more historical context
of rhetorical considerations, this has always been clear.3 But in the

1
This paper is connected with my research within the project on language concep-
tions in the OT and the first Hebrew grammarians in Halle, funded by the German
Research Foundation (DFG).
2
Cf. Gerd Antos, Laien-Linguistik. Studien zu Sprach- und Kommunikationsproblemen im
Alltag. Am Beispiel von Sprachratgebern und Kommunikationstrainings (Tbingen: Niemeyer,
1996), Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 146.
3
Ingwer Paul, Praktische Sprachreflexion (Tbingen: Niemeyer, 1999), Konzepte der
Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 61, 18.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 EJJS 6.1
Also available online brill.nl/ejjs DOI: 10.1163/187247112X637579
106 johannes thon

context of scientific linguistic theory, at least in the European tradition,

it has been a methodological axiom that language has to be decon-
textualised to be correctly analysed.4 Especially from this perspective,
where language is conceptualised as a conventional set of signs, it must
be surprising that speech appears immediately as a real event.
A second concept of the power of language refers to the semantic
appropriateness of utterances, especially lexemes, to the described
reality. The well-known statement on translation in the preface of
the Greek Ben Sira, that words in different languages are not of the
same power ( [Sir Prologue 21]), can be understood in
this sense.5 We find this concept in many languages, as for instance
the notion that words are penetrative in English or treffend in
German, or in the context of Arabic Quran exegesis, with expressions
like qawl/ma na qawy powerful word or meaning.6 Behind this
imagery of fighting or hunting one can also discover the concept first
mentioned above, of speech as action. If human beings act by speak-
ing, they have to do this according to the situation. To find the fitting
words is one important aspect necessary to pay attention to.
If scholars want to describe the strong connection between speech
and action, they tend to use a third concept, namely magic. Or if
they avoid using this problematic term, they speak of the self-efficacy
of speech. Especially regarding Biblical texts, it is often stated that
this seems to be the predominant concept of the Biblical authors to
describe language.7 I wish here to point to two problems connected
with this concept. First, for the ancient authors as well, it was clear

4
Antos (as in n. 2), 209221, 269281. Jochen Rehbein and Shinichi Kameyama,
Pragmatik/Pragmatics, in Soziolinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft
von Sprache und Gesellschaft, ed. Ulrich Ammon et al., 2nd ed. (Berlin, New York: Walter
de Gruyter, 2004), vol. 1: 556560.
5
Cf. Stefan Schorch, The Pre-Eminence of the Hebrew Language and the
Emerging Concept of the Ideal Text in Late Second Temple Judaism, in Studies in
the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books,
Shimeon Centre, Ppa, Hungary, 1820 May, 2006, eds. Gza G. Xeravits and Jszef
Zsengellr (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008), Supplements to the Journal for the Study of
Judaism 127, 4951.
6
Many thanks to Antje Seeger for pointing this out.
7
Cf. for example Stefan Schorch, Between Science and Magic. The Function
and Roots of Paronomasia in the Prophetic Books of the Hebrew Bible, in Puns
and Pundits. Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature, Ed. Scott
B. Noegel (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2000), 206; Martin Leuenberger, Segen
und Segenstheologien im alten Israel. Untersuchungen zu ihren religions- und theologiegeschichtlichen
Konstellationen und Transformationen, (Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008), Abhandlungen
zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 90, 282285.
 the power of (hebrew) language 107

that magic is a category in its own right (and even a forbidden one!).
So they distinguished it from everyday speech. Comparable phenom-
ena like blessing, cursing and uttering an oath work in an analogous
way: all these speech acts show a special quality of power, but this
linked with well-defined circumstances. Second, all these phenomena
are explained in recent anthropological studies (focusing on religion,
ethnicity or language) by adapting speech act theory. Magic is an
operation among others with words which works in a special and well-
defined setting.8 But if we have now found a way to describe magic as
a speech act, it might be possible again to compare it with other forms
of this category and to inquire into the mutual operative influences.9
Nevertheless, as the following pages seek to show, there is a ten-
dency in the history of Biblical interpretation to understand the word
of God, and thus the text of the Biblical revelation itself, as a powerful
tool which can also be described as magic, even if this often might be
a misinterpretation.

2. The Ambivalence of Christian Hebraism

From the very beginning, Christian Hebraists had to face strong

charges that they were Jews, cryptic Jews, intent on Judaizing the
Christian tradition10 and of dealing with Cabbalah, a term which was
understood as secret knowledge of magical practices.11 Although these
scholars aimed to show they had a position at odds with this accusation,12

8
Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, Magic, science, religion, and the scope of rationality,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 7380; Rdiger Schmitt, Magie im
Alten Testament, (Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004), Alter Orient und Altes Testament 313,
90 f.; Giuseppe Veltri, Magie und Halakha. Anstze zu einem empirischen Wissenschaftsbegriff im
sptantiken und frhmittelalterlichen Judentum, (Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1997), Tbinger
Studien zum Antiken Judentum 62, 286293.
9
Cf. Schorch, Science and Magic, 221 f.; Antos, Laien-Linguistik, 169, who
speaks of weak magics.
10
Ludwig Geiger, Das Studium der hebrischen Sprache in Deutschland vom Ende des XV.
bis zur Mitte des XVI. Jahrhunderts (Breslau: Schletter, 1870), 15.
11
Jerome Friedman, The Most Ancient Testimony. Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica in
the Age of Renaissance Nostalgia, (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1983), 182.
12
Thomas Willi, Basel und die Kontroverse um die Veritas Hebraica, Theologische
Zeitschrift, 53 (1997), 195; Stephen G. Burnett, Reassessing the Basel-Wittenberg
Conflict: Dimensions of the Reformation-Era Discussion of Hebrew Scholarship,
in Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, Ed.
Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S. Shoulson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2004), Jewish Culture and Contexts, esp. 186195.
108 johannes thon

right from the outset of Christian Hebraica with Reuchlin, a very

strong connection was made between Hebrew studies and Cabbalah,
even if this form of Cabbalah was above all a Christian interpretation
of the Jewish mystical traditions.13 Especially the idea that the word
of God was the tool for creation encountered the Christological topos
that Jesus Christ was this creative word.
But this was not the central motive for Renaissance Christians to
acquire a knowledge of Hebrew. The fascination with this language
was not so much a magical one, but much more the hope of general
humanist studies, to explore hidden ancient human wisdom by the
study of old or classical languages. Jerome Friedman has stated that
this kind of nostalgia, if combined with theological or religious inter-
ests, provided a more spiritual dimension of these efforts.14 This has
often been expressed with Jeromes term of the hebraica veritas.15 But
already herein the fourth and fifth centurieswe can observe that
a Christian who used Jewish sources to explain the Christian Bible was
likely to be accused of being a Judaizer.16
As an extreme example of this charge, we can take the case of
Luther in his later years. Although he had based his own work of
translation on the knowledge of the Hebrew Old Testament, at the
end of his life he saw mainly the danger coming from dealing with
thesein his viewdiabolic Jewish sources. Among his three quite
terrible anti-Jewish tractates, his work Vom Schem Hamphoras posited a
nearly direct connection between the Hebrew studies which were en
vogue in the 1540s and the magical use of the name of God as it was
described in the popular Jewish polemical narrative on the life of Jesus
(Toledot Yeshu). Luther described the idea of the 72 names of God, as
it is known from Jewish mystical tradition:
WA 53, 592
Aber die rasenden Jden geben dem Schem Hamphoras die Gttliche
krafft, als den blossen, ledigen Buchstaben, on alle verheissung oder
Gebot Gottes, Denn sie sprechen alhie, das auch die Gottlosen und

13
Cf. Karl E. Grzinger, Reuchlin und die Kabbala, in Reuchlin und die Juden, eds.
Arno Herzig and Julius H. Schoeps (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1993) 175187;
Joseph Dan, The Kabbalah of Johannes Reuchlin and its Historical Significance, in
The Christian Kabbalah. Jewish Mystical Books & their Christian Interpreters, Ed. Joseph Dan
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard College Library, 1997).
14
Friedman, Most Ancient Testimony, 256 f.
15
Eugene F. Rice, Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1985), 1214. 116136.
16
Cf. Stefan Rebenich, Jerome: the vir trilinguis and the hebraica veritas,
Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993). Cf. Rice (as in n. 15), 12.
 the power of (hebrew) language 109

Verfrer durch diese Buchstaben viel wunder und Gttliche werck thun
knnen
But the mad Jews give the Schem Hamphoras the divine power, as the
only, sole letter, without any promise or commandment from God. For
they all say that even the godless and seducers can do many miracles
and divine works through these letters.17
But Luther compares this description of Jewish superstition with com-
parable phenomena by Roman Catholics or Muslims. So he must
swiftly make an important distinction: the Lutheran doctrine of the
sacraments should not be seen as the same thing, while the Roman
Catholic interpretation of sacraments in Luthers view should.
But regarding the Jews he goes further: he makes a much stronger
call for persecution of the Jews because he connects these magical
practices with witchcraft. Therefore he can demand the same punish-
ment for Jews as for witches.
In this text, Luther explicitly addresses Christians who want to
convert to Judaism. If at the end of the tractate he refers to Christian
Hebraists and even speaks to them, it becomes clear that he considers
them obvious candidates for such conversion. And although he con-
cedes that many of them are aware of the danger of Judaization, he
attacks their extensive use of rabbinic sources.
WA 53, 646
Wenn nu uber solch urteil vnd verdamnis der Jden ein Christ wil bei
den Jden verstand jnn der Schrifft suchen, was thut der anders, denn
der bey einem Blinden das gesicht [. . .] sucht. [. . .] Das man die Sprache
und Grammatica von jhnen lernet, das ist fein vnd wol gethan [. . .]
Darum solten vnser Ebreisten (Darumb ich sie auch hiermit wil vmb
Gottes willen gebeten haben) lassen jhn diese erbeit befohlen vnd ange-
legen sein [. . .] Wo sie die punct, distinction, coniugadion, construction,
signification und was mehr die Grammatica hat, kundten endern und
von der Jden verstand wenden, das sichs zum vnd mit dem newen
Testament reimet.
If a Christian seeks understanding in the scriptures from Jews despite
such damnation and judgement, what else does he do but that he seeks
the sight of a blind man. [. . .] Therefore we too should learn the lan-
guage from them [. . .]
That is why our Hebraists (I have therefore pleaded with them about
this for the sake of God) if this work is recommended or important to
them [. . .] They could have altered the points, distinctions, cunjugations,

17
Translation according to Gerhard Falk, The Jew in Christian Theology, ( Jefferson,
N. C./London: McFarland, 1992), 175.
110 johannes thon

constructions, significance and whatever else the grammar has and devi-
ate from the interpretation of the Jews so that it agrees with the New
Testament.18

The above description of Cabbalistic superstitions by Luther is

focussed on the use of linguistic elements for witchcraft. If now
Christian Hebraists are warned not to get involved in these things,
the close connection of grammar and wizardry seems to be assumed.
In this paper, I thus wish to ask whether there is indeed such a close
connection. It could function through an idea, possibly continuing
from Biblical texts to Christian Cabbalah: namely that the power of
the word of God could be used by men mediated by linguistic knowl-
edge of Hebrew. It might be objected that this question seems highly
artificial. And we will see that the problem is more complicated. But
the suspicions against Hebraists insinuate the presence of a supersti-
tious interpretation of a Biblical idea.

3. The Biblical Idea

The idea that the word of God implies its own power as much as it
could be seen as a central instrument of creation is not so strange to
the Biblical tradition. The first account of creation in Gen 1 shows
clearly this creative power of the divine order. And in the NT, the pro-
logue of the Gospel of John refers to this text, identifying this word of
God with Jesus Christ. In the Hebrew Bible, the classical locus where
this is expressed explicitly is Ps 33:6:




By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all their host by
the breath of his mouth.19
But the interpretation of this hymnic statement is strongly debated
among Biblical scholars. In comparison with Egyptian and Mesopo-
tamian texts, the power of the word could be seen as a mythical entity.
Yet OT scholars have often stressed that in Old Testament texts, the
idea appears in a much more rational formespecially if one consid-

18
Translation (with one correction) according to Falk, Jew, 222.
19
Translations of Biblical passages are based on the Revised Standard Version.
 the power of (hebrew) language 111

ers that Gen 1 shows a programme for the deconstruction of myth.20

The psalm itself tries to determine the meaning of the aforementioned
statement saying (v. 9):



For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
I want to contextualize this Biblical statement on the creative power
of the word of God with concepts of the wisdom literature to describe
human speech. Here too we find the insight that speech is powerful
act. A strong expression of this idea is shown in Prov 18:21:




Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it
will eat its fruits.
The first part of this verse is reminiscent of the aforementioned utter-
ance about the power of God. It is the responsibility of God to decide
about death and life. But if we look at the second part of the verse
and delve into its context, it becomes clear that this statement is to
be understood in the sense of the connection between act and con-
sequence (Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang). Speech is a special and very
powerful mode of human action and the wisdom literature highlights
repeatedly that every action will have its consequences for the acting
person himself.21 On the one hand, statements on speech acts are
therefore part of this general religious world view. On the other, these
statements represent a pre-linguistic concept of language22 which we
can compare with contemporary discourses on pragmatic aspects of
language like the theory of communication.23
Wisdom sayings reflect speech as strategies. It is a powerful instru-
ment to achieve a result.


20
Cf. Otto Kaiser, Die Schpfungsmacht des Wortes Gottes, Internationale katho-
lische Zeitschrift Communio 30 (2001): 611.
21
Klaus Koch, dq gemeinschaftstreu/heilvoll sein, Theologisches Handwrterbuch
zum Alten Testament II (1984); Bernd Janowski, Die Tat kehrt zum Tter zurck.
Offene Fragen im Umkreis des Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhangs, Zeitschrift fr
Theologie und Kirche 91 (1994); Martin Rsel, Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang, NBL
III (2001).
22
Cf. E. Herbert Brekle, La linguistique populaire, in Histoire des idees linguistiques,
I: La naissance des mtalangages en Orient et en Occident, Ed. Sylvain Auroux (LigeBrssel:
Pierre Mardaga, 1989); Paul (as in n. 3).
23
As studied by Antos, Laien-Linguistik.
112 johannes thon

Prov 25:15 With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue
will break a bone.
But of course, the strategy of a speech act can fail. And then too, one
has to face the powerful consequences:


Prov 13:3 He who guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens
wide his lips comes to ruin.
This represents the general tenor of wisdom literature: the possible
consequences of speech are so strong and dangerous that humans are
advised to use it very carefully.
I wish to argue here that the link between the human and the divine
modes of speech power is that of the king. To illustrate this I will cite
a passage of the Aramaic wisdom sayings of Ahikar (column 6). Here
we find comparable warnings to be cautious with speech:
][ ]?[
[ ...] ]?[
Your mouth be guarded and shall not be their booty more than every
guard keep watch over your mouth and about that which you heard [?]
make hard your heart! [. . .] The trap of the mouth is stronger than the
trap of the war.24
We can see here that speech is seen as a very central mode of human
behaviour. And it is especially the danger of mistakes which makes
speech acts so powerful: if you fail to make an utterance according to
the rules of the context, then the consequences for you will be very
seriousespecially if you stand before the king:
][ /
[ ]?[ ][...] [ ]

Do not cover the word of the king it shall be healing for your heart! Soft
is the word of the king but it is more thin and sharp than a sword with
two blades[. . .] Soft is the tongue [of the king?] but it breaks the bones
of the dragon like death which is not seen.

24
Herbert Niehr, Aramischer A iqar (Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verl.-Haus, 2007),
Jdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit 2.2, 42 f.; Porten, Bezalel and Ada
Yardeni, eds., Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. III: Literature, accounts, lists
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 36.
 the power of (hebrew) language 113

On the one hand, the power of the kings speech is described in a way
similar to that of human beings in general. On the other, the degree
of power is much greater and associated with mythical images. So it
comes near to the power of a god. The reason is clear: the king has
more power and therefore his word is also conceptualized as more
powerful. So the power of speech is based on the dynamics of interper-
sonal interactions. Depending on the constellations of communication,
speech is characterized as more or less powerful and dangerous.
The model to describe the relationship between Gods word and
His Creation is the order of a king. Of course, his words come true
because everybody and everything obeys him. Human speech implies
a power like a kingly deed. The model of a king is thus only the link
between the human and the divine level.

4. Post-Biblical Material: Sefer Yezirah and Its Interpretation

In post-biblical material, we find a significant development of this idea:

the typical Biblical syntax which often speaks of the word as a gram-
matical subject leads to hypostatizing the word of God as an inde-
pendent entity. In this literature, we also encounter another relevant
development: the identification of the holy language as Hebrew. If
Hebrew was the only one language before the Tower of Babel, it also
had to be the language of the angels, of revelation and of Creation.
Now it was also possible to ask about the grammar of this known
language of God.
So let us look at the Sefer Yezirah, where the familiar motif of the
special role of letters is combined with the beginning of Hebrew gram-
mar. As Giuseppe Veltri has pointed out, the interpretation of this
book is connected (indeed already from its pre-history) with the ques-
tion as to whether speculations about the creative power of Hebrew
language and script should be characterized as magical.25
Sefer Yezirah 17a
The Twenty-two letters: they are hewn out in the air, carved out by the
voice, fixed in the mouth in five position: , ", ", ","
"

25
Veltri, Magie, 4043, 286 f.
114 johannes thon

19
Twenty-two letters: he carved them out, he hewed them, he weighed
them, he exchanged them, he combined them and formed with them the
life of all Creation and the life of all that would be formed.26
Joseph Dan has stated that this little book was the first Jewish book
to state that language is rule-bound, it has a system of rules by which
it works.27 Composed as an elementary book for learning numbers
and letters, it explains these as basic elements of the world and pres-
ents a system of anthropological and cosmological speculations. It
is often assumed that here we see the adaptation of neo-Platonic or
neo-Pythagorean thinking into Hebrew literature. But it is very likely
that this reception occurred much later, in the early Islamic era.28
Pico della Mirandola and Reuchlin used Platonic and Pythagorean
elements for their interpretation of the Jewish mystical tradition.29 In
any case, we find the reception of classical science in the form of
grammatical traditions. The division of consonants according to their
place of articulation (gutturals, labials, velars, dentals and fricatives)
shows influence from the Greek and Arabic grammatical traditions.
Because of this obvious Arabic influence, this passage is often declared
as secondary. The grouping of bgdkp(r)t is a Massoretic element, and
the cosmological interpretation of grammatical elements could be an
influence from the Indian grammatical tradition.30
I wish to stress here that this little book combines the idea of
the creative word of God with grammatical thinking. We have to

26
A. Peter Hayman, Sefer Yeira. Edition, Translation and Text-Critical Commentary
(Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2004), 93, 100.
27
Joseph Dan, The Language of Creation and Its Grammar, in Jewish Mysticism,
ed. Joseph Dan. Vol. I Late Antiquity (Northvale, N. J.: Jason Aronson, 1998), 137.
28
Nehemia Allony, Zeman ibbr l sepr ye rh, Temirin, 2 (1981); Steven M.
Wasserstrom, Sefer Ye ira and Early Islam: A Reappraisal, Journal of Jewish Thought
and Philosophy 3 (1993); Steven M. Wasserstrom, Further Thoughts on the Origin of
Sefer ye irah, Aleph 2 (2002). A very early dating (first century CE) in contrast propose
Yehuda Liebes, trat hayye rh l sepr ye rh (Tel Aviv: Schocken-Verlag, 2000), 229;
Giulio Busi, The grammatical classification of Hebrew letters as a mystical tool, in
Indigenous Grammar Across Cultures, ed. Hannes Kniffka (Frankfurt am Main u. a.: Peter
Lang, 2001).
29
Heinz Scheible, Reuchlins Einflu auf Melanchthon, in Reuchlin und die Juden,
eds. Arno Herzig and Julius H. Schoeps (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1993), 142;
Grzinger (as in n. 13), 187 f.
30
Dan, Language, 153; David Shulman, Is There an Indian Connection to
Sefer ye irah? Aleph 2 (2002). But cf. Vivien Law, Indian Influence on Early Arab
Phoneticsor Coincidence? in The early Islamic grammatical tradition, ed. Ramzi Baalbaki
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), The formation of the classical Islamic world 36.
 the power of (hebrew) language 115

bear in mind that Sefer Yezirah was a widely received basic text for
Jewish science as well as for the mystical tradition. Saadiah, the first
known commentator of the Sefer Yezirah, represents the rationalistic/
Aristotelian tendency of interpretation.31 In his opinion, Creation by
the word is likely a mechanical process: because speech would be an
anthropomorphic imagination of God, his speaking is explained as a
creation of words in the aira second, spiritual air.32 The power
coming from these forms has an effect on the other elements. With
Giulio Busi, one could speak here of a form of magical realism.33 So
we have a quasi-materialistic explanation of the spiritual sphere. But,
as Jospe emphasizes, Saadiah takes the concept of the book primarily
as the plan for Creation.34 Of course, there is a relationship between
the essence of a thing and its name: Saadiah probably refers to
Aristotle, de Interpretatione 1, and explains the three forms of s-f-r in SJ
1,1 with four aspects of a word: essence, writing, thinking (expressed
as counting)35 and speech. Essence is not mentioned explicitly, because
it is (or seems?) self-evident.36
From the thirteenth century onwards, another theosophic-theurgic
tendency of interpretation of the Sefer Yezirah developed, especially
among the Hassidic Ashkenazim. Here we find the idea that humans
could imitate Creation, e.g. by making a Golem, through the use
of the divine letters.37 If we remember the polemical accusations of
Luther, it was these Jewish magical traditions he had in mind. But, as
Joseph Dan has highlighted, the Christian view on the Jewish tradi-
tion is infused with a deep misunderstanding. While the Jewish tradi-
tions for the interpretation of texts naturally deal with the semantic
as well as with the non-semantic elements of the text (like the form
or numerical value of a letter), Christians were too much focused on

31
Raphael Jospe, Early Philosophical Commentaries on the Sefer Ye irah: Some
Comments, Revue des tudes juives, 159 (1990), 370380; Klaus Herrmann, ed., Sefer
Je ira. Buch der Schpfung (Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig: Verlag der Weltreligionen,
2008), 138.
32
Jacob Guttmann, Die Religionsphilosophie des Saadia (Hildesheim [u.a.]: Olms,
1981), 119; Jospe (as in n. 29), 380a concept which he abandoned later (Karl Erich
Grzinger, Jdisches Denken. TheologiePhilosophieMystik, Vol. I. Vom Gott Abrahams
zum Gott des Aristoteles [Frankfurt u. a.: Campus-Verl., 2004], 341).
33
Busi, Grammatical classification, 351.
34
Jospe, Early philosophical, 379.
35
Jospe, ibid., 390.
36
Jospe, ibid., 389 f.
37
Herrmann, Sefer Jezira, 142145.
116 johannes thon

the semantic elementsso they would naturally perceive a practice of

dealing with non-semantic elements as superstition.
As Karl Grzinger has pointed out, Reuchlin did not so much pur-
sue the theurgic-mystical tradition, rather, he explored with greater
intensity another branch which developed from the Aristotelian notion
of the intellect.38 So we see that despite Reuchlins reference to the
wonder-working word, a magical interpretation is not in his focus.
Nevertheless in de arte cabalistica he referred to the 72 names of God39
about which Luther had spoken in his tractate Vom Schem Hamphoras.
Of course, during the manifold receptions of Jewish mystical tradi-
tions in Christian Cabbalah, this theurgic aspect was strongly associ-
ated with it. Joseph Dan comments on the relationship of Christian
Hebraists and Cabbalah:
The Christian kabbalah served as both a continuation of, and as a
new impetus for, the Hebraist movement, which reached its peak in
subsequent centuries. But the concept of Hebrew is different in the two
closely related groups. For the Hebraists, Hebrew was a communica-
tive language, governed by grammatical laws, which, if mastered, could
assist in establishing the true meaning of scripture. For the Christian
kabbalists, Hebrew was the instrument by which esoteric texts could be
approachedtexts which included great non-semantic mysteriesusing
a group of methods which could reveal hidden secrets.40

5. Rabbinical Commentaries

As already noted, Saadiah rejected the idea that God could speak like
a man and explained Biblical speech of God as the creation of forms in
a spiritual material. Speaking must therefore be the same as plan-
ning and doing. The Biblical commentators following him opposed
this view and highlighted the literal meaning of the text ( pshat). Thus,
Ibn Ezra explained that in Gen 1,3 (the first creating utterance of
God)in accordance with Ps 33:6it is explicitly the act of speaking
through which God creates the light.

38
Grzinger (as in n. 13), 177 f.
39
Cf. Dan, Reuchlin, 77.
40
Dan, Reuchlin, 71/72.
 the power of (hebrew) language 117

.
. . .
.
and he spoke. The Gaon said that is like , but if it were
so it had to be predestinated to be light. But it is like the literal sense
(cf. Ps 33:6.9). And this is an expression for a work without effort. And
with a simile: A king and his servants [. . .]
So by this insistence on the literal meaning of the text, a possibly
mythical motif could be conserved. But Ibn Ezra refers to the above-
mentioned model: the word of God works like the order of a king.
I wish to argue that the alternative of mythical vs. rational inter-
pretation seems to be too simple: while Saadiah in his rationalistic
interpretation described the power of the word of God in a very
mechanistic modeland thus constructed a mythical pictureIbn
Ezra insisted, in a literal reading of Gen 1.3, that the effectiveness of
divine speech can be understood in a rather human picture.

6. Luther and Sebastian Mnster

This text genre of rabbinical Bible commentaries constituted an obvi-

ous problem for the Protestant reformers in the sixteenth century: On
the one hand, some of these commentaries were so strongly orientated
toward the literal meaning of the text that they would be the best
instrument for humanist scholars interested in the historical mean-
ing of the sources. On the other, these commentaries represented
another religious group with an opposing truth. Hence, while literal
interpretation fits well for the own programme of Bible interpretation,
midrashic and mystical elements must become stumbling blocks for
these Christian interpreters, although of course along with their own
dogmatic suppositions.
For Luther, this problem was mediated (as cited above) by the Bible
edition of Sebastian Mnster. Stephen Burnett has described these
discussions at length.41 In Luthers Tischgesprche, he spoke about him:
WA TR 4, 608
De Munsteri biblia. Ego hodie huius laborem laudo. Et multa a nobis
mutuatus est, sed rabinizat valde, ut est Iudaicae religionis, nec intelligit

41
Burnett, Reassessing, 188191.
118 johannes thon

nostram fidem et reprehendit nos in aliquot locis et studio dissentit a

nobis et saepe addit sua somnia.
Of Mnsters Bible. I praise today his great effort. And he borrowed
much from us. But he rabbinizes very much, according to Jewish reli-
gion, and does not understand our faith, and refutes us in some places,
and endeavors much to dissent from us, and often adds his dreams.
On the one hand, Luther needed this work for his own translation
project; on the other, Mnster used the rabbinical commentaries in
a form which was close to that of Jewish approaches. Mnster, who
defended the use of rabbinical commentaries, defended himself by
pointing out his missionary anti-Jewish position. In the Hebrew pro-
logue to his Bible edition42, he wrote:







[...]
The Jews pray morning and evening with all their prayers that the
Messiah and redeemer should be sent to them [. . .]




But they do not believe in him. Therefore they do not Gd forbid have
part atonement. And they are thrown into darkness and the vale of dark-
ness. And they will be wandering/declining till they will come back and
confess faith in Him.
And in the Latin prologue he writes:43
[. . .] aliud non deprompserim, quam quod Heb[raicum] textum habere
deprehendi, testibus Rabinorum commentariis. [. . .] Nec protinus omnia,
qu apud illos inveni, more aliquorum pro oraculis habui, sed cum indi-
cio, ut par erat, legi. Non enim ignoro, quibus Cabalisticis delyramentis
sint addicti, et quam extortas nonnunquam adferant expositiones, [. . .]
nec cessant usque in hunc diem torquere ad sua placita divinas litteras,
quo suos tueant errores:
[ In the Bible edition I ] present nothing else than what can be achieved
from the Hebrew text as testified by the commentaries of the rabbis.
[. . .] But not all that I have found in them did I consider (like others)
to be true. But I read in an appropriate manner in keeping with the

42
Munsterus, Sebastian, ed., Miqda . . . Hebraica Biblia Latina Planeqve Nova Sebast.
Mvnsteri tralatione, post omneis omnium hactenus ubiuis gentium aeditiones euulgata, & quoad fieri
potuit, hebraicae ueritati conformata (Basileae: Isengrin, 1534).
43
I am indebted to Dr. Anne Friedrich from the University of Halle-Wittenberg
for her help to translate these passages.
 the power of (hebrew) language 119

circumstantial evidence. So I did not ignore their attention to Cabbalistic

nonsense, a practice which forced the explanations they on occasion pro-
vide. [. . .] They continue down to the present to distortas is their wont
and pleasurethe divine letters, defending their errors.
Explaining how they nevertheless could do such good work, he refers
to the Biblical figure Bileam:
Certe ego id ex eis didici, ut spe monitores sint veritatis, etiam si
interim in tenebris et erroribus versentur. Sicut et Bileam filiis Isral
benedixit, et prospera ex spiritu dei prophetavit, errorem aut suum aut
futuram interfectionem prvidere non potuit.
Surely I have learned from them that they are often monitors of the
truth, even if they walk in darkness and errors. Just as Bileam blessed
the Children of Israel and prophesied prosperity from the Holy Spirit,
and did not foresee his errors nor his death.
Mnster used the term Cabbalah to differentiate between useful
Jewish traditions and those that are not. He who insisted on the use
of rabbinical commentaries needed it as negative counterpart for the
useful material. If we compare the late Luther and, following his view,
the Wittenberg Hebraist Forster on the one hand with Mnster on the
other, the difference is not Cabbalistic material. The difference is the
question as to whether Christians have to use the Jewish knowledge
at all.
120 johannes thon

In the copy of Mnsters Bible in the Library of Halle/Saale

(Universitts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt), there are many
marginal notes by different hands which reflect the ambivalent rela-
tionship of these users to their subject. One note on the reverse of the
title page tells a story about the fate of these two volumeswhich, by
the way, carry the Ex libris of Wilhelm Gesenius. I wish to give here
a preliminary reading:44
Protestatio
His libris nulla adhibenda fides, carbone enim sunt notati ab imperatoria
maiestate et venerandis dominis et mj meis jm (?) sacre theologie pro-
fessoribus in academia Lovainensi quorum sententiam plusquam
apollinis oracula merito estimo.
Protestation
Do not believe these books. They are marked in black (as objectionable)
by the Imperial Majesty and by the venerable lords and my (. . .?), of the
holy theology professors at the academy of Leuven, whose sentence I
take rightly as divine truth more than the oracles of Apollo.
A second hand deleted this passage and added to the headings:
Absurda protestatio imperiti hominis ac superstitione dementati
Absurd protestation of an ignorant man, confused by superstition
Not everything in reading and understanding this note is clear. But
it would appear that the book at least once passed over the confes-
sional border. The first writer belonged obviously to the Roman party
and felt attracted to the University of Leuven. Now the volumes are
in Halle, they once belonged to Wilhelm Gesenius and the second
writer takes the opposite position. So it is not clear if the problem of
this protestation is that Mnsters Bible was a Protestant book, or if it
is the Jewish sources used by Mnster that are objectionable. Maybe
both are mixed because one accusation against the reformers was their
using of the Hebrew Bible. But this was a general conflict which arose
likewise in Leuven itself.45

44
Printed with permission of the Library. Many thanks to Alexander Loose for his
help to decifer this note.
45
Siegfried Reader, Reuchlin, Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart VII (2004),
467; Ingmar Ahl, Humanistische Politik zwischen Reformation und Gegenreformation. Der
Frstenspiegel des Jakob Omphalius (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2004), Frankfurter historische
Abhandlungen 44, 4851.
 the power of (hebrew) language 121

7. Reuchlin, Servetus and Fagius

Jerome Friedman has tried to typify the Christian use of Hebraica and
Rabbinica taking Reuchlin, Servetus and Fagius as clearly different
types of scholars. The aforementioned statements by Luther would
place him in a fourth group: those who refuse to make use of Judaica
at all (except for the pure Hebrew consonantal Bible text). Friedman
describes Mnster as being in close affinity to Fagius.
According to Friedman, 46 for Johannes Reuchlin Cabbalistic
mysticism provided the very best expression of what he sought in the
ancient theology, a reliable method for understanding God and the
world. Michael Servetus saw Jewish monotheism in accordance with
scripture and he destructed Christian dogma, especially the dogma of
trinity, in order to reconstruct the true Christianity. The third model
for Christian reception of Judaica according to Friedman was that of
Paul Fagius. He took the rabbinical sources as historical documents,
illuminating the context of the New Testament. So he observed the
rite of qiddush and explained with it the accounts of the last supper.
Friedman termed this third way orthodox, because one could deal
with it without clashing with the prevailing dogmatic system. In the
seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, Cabbalistic texts could also be
read in this way even in Lutheran universities.

8. Conclusion

In the sixteenth century, for Lutheran and Reformed Hebraists,

Cabbalah remained a negative notion from which one could distance
oneself in view of the old tradition of accusations that anyone who deals
with Hebrew or other Jewish sources tends to Judaize the Christian
faith, whatever that means. From this springs a great ambivalence
in references to these sources. The critics speak of magical practices
and equate it with Cabbalah. Without any dogmatic evaluation, one
can see a connection to Biblical passages in the idea of the power of
speech. But of course this depends on the interpretation of what magic
is considered to be. Modern research has described it as a special form
of speech acts. But normally the term is used pejoratively in the sense
of superstition.

46
Friedman (as in n. 11), 99 f.
122 johannes thon

The rabbinical commentaries, while under suspicion, offered the

possibility of a historical understanding of the text through which the
Christian studies of Hebraica could be integrated into the Christian
scholarly efforts. Nevertheless, beneath this surface, both suspicion and
fascination remain integral elements in dealing with Hebraica and
Judaica down to the present.

Johannes Thon, 19992003, research associate at the Institute of Bib-

lical Sciences in Halle; 2005 PhD (Dr. theol.), University of Halle-
Wittenberg; since 2006, research associate at the Institute of Biblical
Sciences in Halle; from 2009, engaged in the DFG research proj-
ect Language conceptions. Selected publications: The Claim of
Truth in Religious Contexts (Halle/Saale 2009, editor), Sprache und
Identittskonstruktion (ZAW 121 [2009], 557576).