34

Reformation Exegesis Encountering

the Jewish Legacy: Luther and
Calvin Reading Genesis 4:1
1. Prolegomena
LutherS* and Calvins*2 1hermeneutics and exegesis have been
1 Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther and the Old Testament, trans. Eric w. Gritsch
and Ruth c. Gritsch, ed. Victor I. Gruhn (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969),-
Gottlob WilhelmMeyer, Ge5c/z/ck der Schrifterklärungseit der Wiederherstellung
der Wissenschaften, vol. 2 (Göttingen: ROwer, 1802), 176-186 [I, IV, I, Martin
Luther]) Ibidem, 346-378 [I, IV, I, Luther]) Jaroslav Pelikan, (Luther - The
Expositor: IntroductiontotheReformerSExegeticalWritings‫؛‬inMartin Luther,
Works, Companion Volume (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), 5-134 [1]) Siegfried
Raeder,DieBenutzungdesmasoretischen Textes beiLutherin derZeitzwischen der
erstenundzweitenPsalmenvorlesunglSlS-lSlS (Tübingen: Mohr, 1967)) Idem,
Grammatica theological Studien zu Luthers Operationes in Psalmos (Tubingen:
Mohr, 1977)) Idem, Das Hebräische bei Luther untersucht bis zum Ende der ersten
Psalmenvorlesung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1961)) Arnold Schleiff, (geologisch-
exegetische Einleitung‫ ؛‬in Martin Luther, Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Die
Deutsche Bibel), vol. 9.1 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1939), ix-xx^ii.
2 Alexandre Ganoczy and Stefan Scheid, Die Hermeneutik Calvins:
Geistesgeschichtliche Voraussetzungen und Grundzüge (Wiesbaden: Steiner,
1983),-Joseph Haroutunian, Calvin: Commentaries (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1958)) Meyer, Geschichte der Schrifterklärung, vol. 2, 4462‫־‬48‫[ ־‬I, IV, I,
Johann Calvin]) Peter Opitz, Calvins theologische Hermeneutik (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1994)) G. Sujin Pak, I Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-
Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms (Oxford: OUP, 2010)) Aromas
Henry Louis Parker, Calvins Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: Clark,
1986)) David L. Puckett,‫ل‬0‫ ط‬Calvins Exegesis ofthe Old Testament (Louisville:
Westminster John KnoxPress, 1995)) Philip Schaff, Calvin as a Commentator‫؛‬
I Presbyterian and Reformed Review 3 (1892)) August Tholuck, ‘Calvin as
an Interpreter of the Holy Scriptures‫ ؛‬in John Calvin, Commentaries on the
Book ofjoshua, ed. Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society,
1854), 339-375) Thomas Forsyth Torrance, I Hermeneutics ofjohn Calvin
(Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988).
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 35

meticulously examined yet the grammatical dimension of their study of

the Hebrew Bible, particularly in relation to the Jewish legacy still awaits
further scrutiny.^ Reformers’ exegetical work, and the diverse forms
thereof (such as commentaries, lectures, treatises, Bible translations,
sermons, etc.), is immense. The task of juxtaposing both Reformers in
the light of the Jewish exegetical tradition accessible to them needs to
be carried out by surveying those passages of the Hebrew Bible in which
unique and permanent features of their Tanakh reading come to light.
Gen 4:1 is a passage that aroused the Reformers’ curiosity,
albeit nowadays we seldom realise that the history of its reception
(Wirkungsgeschichte) is complex and controversial. Is, reading the
Scripture in the NIV or CUV (۴٥٥^), we are prone to lose sight of
the historical challenge of that passage. The present contribution is
entirely devoted to Gen 4:1 (specifically to the phrase ‫יהוה‬-‫)את‬, and
does not venture to deal with the vastness of Reformation hermeneutics
and exegesis throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. Further, the scope of
the paper does not permit elaboration upon the origin and evolution
of Luther’s anti-Semitism,4 unless his state of mind emerges from
his exposition of Gen 4:1. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to mention
Luther’s profound distrust both of the Masoretic text and of the Hebrew
scholarship treasured in the Jewish tradition¿.
In contrast to most scholars,¿ it is asserted that Luther never changed1 * * 4 5 6
1 owe Mr. MarekMrozowski, Μ.Α., a friend ofmine, a debt of gratitude for his
gracious and patient explanation of those pieces of the extra-biblical Hebrew
literature, which challenged my command of the sacred language.
4 Luther, ‘Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (1543)’, Werke: Kritische
Gesamtausgabe, vol. 53 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1920), 412-552) Idem, ‘Von den
letzten Worten Davids (1543)’, Werke, vol. 54 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1928), 28-
100) Idem, ‘Vom Schern Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (1543)’,
like, vol. 53, 573-648.
5 As typified by Martin Luther, ‘Summarien Uber die Psalmen und Ursachen des
Dolmetschens (1531-1533)’, Werke, vol. 38 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1912), 9-69.
6 Martin H. Bertram, ‘Introduction (On the Jews and their Lies)‫״‬, in Luther,
Works, vol. 47, ed.jaroslavjan Pelikanetal. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999),
121-136) Walther Bienert, Martin Luther und die Juden: Ein Quellenbuch mit
zeitgenössischen Illustrationen, mit Einführungen und Erläuterungen (Frankfurt
am Main: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1982)) Imas Kaufmann, Luthers
3>6 Reformation Exegesis Encountering tEe Jewish Legacy

his general attitude to the Jews and Judaism, but only altered his tone.
Even his treatise, latjesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523),? was based on
the supposition that if Christians tempered their persecution ofjews, the
latter would be more amenable to conversion. Luther was incapable of
recognisingjudaism in its own right, andhis appeal to the Jewish ancestry
ofjesus was meant to convert the Jews to Christianity.
While Luther was constantly referring to Gen 4:1 to make the same
p0int,8 Calvin took a stance on the interpretation of the passage only
once, but thoroughly and modestly.‫ ؟‬Furthermore, Luther maintained

Judenschriften: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer historischen Kontextualisierung (Tübingen:

Mohr Siebeck, 2011)) Heinz Kremers, ed., Diejuden undMartin LutherMartin
Luther und diejuden: Geschichte, Wirkungsweise, Herausforderung (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985)) Bernhard Lohse, Luthers leologie in ihrer
historischen Entwicklung und in ihrem systematischen Zusammenhang (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 356-367 [III, 16].
7 Martin Luther, ،Dass Jesus Christus ein geborener Jude sei (1523)‫ ؛‬Werke, vol.
11 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1900), 307-336.
8 Treatises: Luther, ‘Von den letzten Worten Davids (1543)75-71 ‫ )؛‬Idem,
‘Wider das Papstum zu Rom vom Teufel gestiftet (1545)‫ ؛‬in Werke, vol. 54,
247-248) Lectures: Idem, ‘Vorlesungen Uber 1. Mose von 1535-1545‫ ؛‬Werke,
vol. 42 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1911), 144 [Genesis 3:15]) Ibidem, 179-183
[Genesis 4:1-2]) Ibidem, 202-211 [Genesis 4:9]) Ibidem, 214-218 [Genesis
4:11-12]) Ibidem, 260 [Genesis 5:28-31]) Ibidem, 393 [Genesis 9:27]) Idem,
‘Vorlesungen Uber 1. Mose von 1535-1545‫ ؛‬Werke, vol. 43 (Weimar: BOhlau,
1912), 405 [Genesis 25:24-26]) Idem, ‘Vorlesungen Uber 1. Mose von 1535-
1545‫ ؛‬Werke, vol. 44 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1915), 200 [Genesis 35:17]) Ibidem
756 [Genesis 49:10]) Idem, ‘Scholia in librum Genesios (1519-1521)‫ ؛‬Werke,
vol. 9 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1893), 337 [Genesis 4:1]) Idem, ‘Annotationes in
Ecclesiasten (1532)‫ ؛‬Werke, vol. 20 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1898), 29 [Ecclesiastes
1:13]) Sermons: Idem, ‘Evangelium am Sonntag nach dem Christtag Lukas
2,33-40 (Kirchenpostille 1522)‫ ؛‬Werke, vol. 10/1/1 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1910),
417-419) Idem, ‘Predigten Uber das erste Buch Mose gehalten 1523/24 (26.
Mai 1523)‫ ؛‬Werke, vol. 14 (Weimar‫ ؛‬BOhlau, 1895), 155-158 [Genesis 4:1])
Idem, ‘In Genesin Declamationes (1527)‫ ؛‬Werke, vol. 24 (Weimar‫ ؛‬BOhlau,
1900), 121-126 [Genesis 4:1]) Table Talk: Idem, Werke (Tischreden), vol. 5
(Weimar‫ ؛‬BOhlau, 1919), 199-200 [No. 5505]) Idem, Werke (Tischreden), vol.
6 (Weimar‫ ؛‬BOhlau, 1921), 43 [No. 6563].
‫ و‬John Calvin, ‘Commentarius in Genesin‫ ؛‬Opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April 201 s) 37

his peculiar views on Gen 4:1 in his German Bible from its outset™,
through all the revisions,** until its final form.*
*2 Similarly, he drew on his
understanding of Gen 4:1 when supervising the Wittenberg revision of
the Vulgate.™
To ensure that the analysis made here is rooted in the historical
context of the Reformers, the following are to be consulted: Targumim;
Midrashim,. the most authoritative Jewish commentaries circulating at
that time (primarily those collected in the epoch-making Rabbinic Bible
of 1524); Christian patristic, medieval and 16*h‫־‬century expositions of
the Book of Genesis,. German translations of the Bible (i. e. Luther’s
German Bible and the Zurich Bible),. Protestant revisions of the Vulgate
(i. e. the Wittenberg Vulgate and Zurich Vulgate),- and Hebrew grammars
and lexica.

2. The Study of Hebrew ¡n the Reformers’ Lifetime

As far as Greek and Latin are concerned, it appears that the academic
study of those languages was inherent in the cultures related to them,
while the didactic method of teaching those languages arose from the
plights that they were facing throughout the course of history, .us, the
first Latin grammars, in the contemporary sense of the term, emerged
in the twilight of Imperium Romanum (cf Donatus, Priscian), and the
early Greek grammars emerged in the declining years of the Byzantine
Empire (cf Manuel Moschopulus). The ubiquity of grammatical
disquisitions found in Greco-Roman antiquity should not be confosed
Reformatorum), vol. 51 (23), ed. Wilhelm Baum, Edouard Cunitz and Eduard
Reuss (Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1882), 81-83 ‫؛‬Genesis 4:1].
*٥ Martin Luther, (Bibel 1523‫ ؛‬Werke (Die Deutsche Bibel), vol. 8 (Weimar:
BOhlau, 1934), 46 [Genesis 4:1]; Idem, trans. and ed., Biblia: Altes und Neuen
Testament (Frankfurt am Main: Egenolph, 1534), [sine pagina] [Genesis 4:1].
*Text der Bibelrevisionsprotokolle 1539-4undhandschriftliche Eintragungen
Luthers in sein Altes Testament, Druck von 1539-38 (Handexemplar)‫ ؛‬in
Martin Luther, Werke (Die Deutsche Bibel), vol. 3 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1911),
173-175 [Genesis 4:1].
12 Martin Luther, (ßibel 1545‫ ؛‬in Werke (Die Deutsche Bibel), vol. 8,47 [Genesis
4:1].
‫‘ وإ‬Text der Vulgata-Revision von 1529‫ ؛‬in Martin Luther, Werke (Die Deutsche
Bibel), vol. 5 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1914), 16 [Genesis 4:1].
38 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

with the grammar in didactic terms. The latter came into being when the

communities was at stake.

^e origins ofHebrew scholarship can be traced back to the grammat-
ical reflexion (predominantly touching etymology and vocalisation) that
was registered in the Talmud and in some Midrashim.*4 Furthermore,
the Masoretic project necessitated significant scrutiny of the Hebrew to
which was added vowel notation, the qere-ketiv (‫כתיב‬-‫ )קרי‬distinction,
and the system of cantillation (accentuation). ٠e ancient church fathers
did not contribute to the development of Hebrew scholarship, because
they except for Origen and Jerome,!¿ were not familiar with Hebrew, and
were ill-disposed towards the sacred language and towards the tradents
thereof.
٠e first manuals of Hebrew grammar in Hebrew were produced by
the Kimhi family (David, Joseph and Moses), while the first Hebrew
lexicon in Hebrew was composed by Menahem ben Saruq. Earlier,
Hebrew scholarship flourished in Arabic,!8 in which language Jonah ibn14 15 16 * 1

14 Wilhelm Bacher, (Grammar, Hebrew‫ ؛‬le Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 6, ed.

Isidore Singer (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1904), 67-80.
15 Jacob ben Ha^im ibn Adonijah, Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, ed.
and trans. Christian D. Ginsburg (London: Longmans, 1867),- Christian D.
Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible
(London: Trinitarian Bible Society 1897); Page H. Kelley Daniel s. Mynatt
and Timothy G. Crawford, I Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia:
Introduction andAnnotated Glossary (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans,
1998)) Elia Levita, le Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, ed. and trans. Christian D.
Ginsburg (London: Longmans, 1867).
16 Louis Ginzberg, ‘Die Haggada in den pseudo-hieronymianischen

>Quaestiones<،, inDieHaggada bei den Kirchenvätern, vol. 1 (Amsterdam: [sine

nomine], 1899).
Jacob Tauber, Standpunkt und Leistung des R. David Kimchi als Grammatiker
mit Berücksichtigung seiner Vorgänger und Nachfolger (Breslau: Brockhaus,
1867).
18 Morris Jastrow, Abu Zakarijja Jahja ben Dawud Hajjug und seine zwei
grammatischen Schriften über die Verben mit schwachen Buchstaben und die Verben
mitDoppelbuchstaben (Giessen: Keller, 1885),* LeopoldRosenak, Die Fortschritte
der hebräischen Sprachwissenschaft von Jehuda Chajjug bis David Kimchi: X. bis
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April 201 5) 39

Janah prepared a dictionary of Hebrew roots.19 From the 13th century

onwards, Hebrew scholarship in Hebrew was continually thriving, and
grammatical theory was advanced^ and refined (cf Profiat Duran^!).
Since the early 16th century the Christian Hebraists were relentlessly
fortifying the edifice of Hebraica veritaS) irrespective of their theological
attitude towards the Judaism.22 On that account, the literature on Jewish
XIII. Jahrhundert (Bremen: DiercksenandWichlein, 1898).
‫ وإ‬Jonah ibn Janah, I Book of Hebrew Roots, ed. Adolf Neubauer (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1875).
20 Wilhelm Bacher, Abraham ibnEsra als Grammatiker: EinBeitragzur Geschichte
der hebräischen Sprachwissenschaft (Strasbourg and London: TrUbner, 1882))
Idem, Die Anfänge der hebräischen Grammatik (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1895))
Idem, Die hebräische Sprachwissenschaft vom 10. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert (Trier:
Mayer, 1892)) Michael Friedländer, Ibn Ezra Literature: Essays on the Writings
ofAbraham ibn Ezra (London: Society of Hebrew Literature, 1877)) Ludwig
Geiger, Das Studium der hebräischen Sprache in Deutschland vom Ende des E
biszurMittedesXVI. Jahrhunderts (Breslau: Schletter, 1870)) WilliamHorbury,
ed., Hebrew Studyfrom Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Edinburgh: Clark, 1999)) Nicholas
De Lange, ed., Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World (Cambridge: CUP,
2001).
21 Profiat Duran, Maase Efod: Einleitung in das Studium und Grammatik der
hebräischen Sprache, ed. Jonathan Friedländer, Jacob Kohn and Samuel David
Luzzatto (Wien: Holzwarth, 1865).
22 Stephen G. Burnett, Christian Hebraism in the Reformation Era 1500-1660:
Authors, Books and the Transmission of Jewish Learning (Leiden and Boston:
Brill, 2012): Idem, From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf
(1564-1629) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century (Leiden: Brill,
1996)) Allison p. Coudert andjeffrey s. Shoulson, ed., Hebraica Veritas? Christian
Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004)) Jerome Friedman, I Most Ancient
Testimony: Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica in the Age of Renaissance
Nostalgia (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1983)) G.LloydJones, I Discoveryof
HebrewinTudorEngland:AlirdLanguage(Mmchester:MmchesterOniversity
Press, 1983)) Debra Kaplan, Beyond Expulsion: Jews, Christians and Reformation
Strasbourg (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011)) Emil Silberstein, Conrad
Pellicanus: Ein Beitragzur Geschichte des Studiums der hebräischen Sprache in der
ersten Hälfte des XVI. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1900)) Giuseppe
Veltri and Gerold Necker, ed., Gottes Sprache in der philologischen Werkstatt:
Hebraistik vom 15. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
40 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

and Christian research on the sacred language is immense23 24

and25well-
26 * 28
documented.2*
Contrary to Lutheris assertion that the Jews lost their proficiency in
Hebrew due to the (unbelief) that he imputed to them,‫ دد‬Hebrew studies
could be revived in the Age of the Renaissance and Reformation solely
on the basis of the Hebrew scholarship enshrined in and transmitted by
the Jewish community. Needless to say the most comprehensive lexica2^
and grammars2? of the early 16* century were based on the legacy of the
Jewish luminary David Kimhi.

3. Luther’s and Calvin’s Personal Encounter with the Biblical

Languages
In 1506, Luther acquired his first manual of Hebrew,^ plausibly
23Shimeon Brisman, A History and Guide toJudaicDictionaries and Concordances
(Hoboken: KTAV, 2000),- Franz Delitzsch, Isagoge in grammaticam et
lexicographiam linguae Hebraicae (Grimma: Gebhardt, 1838)) Ludwig Diestel,
Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche (Jena: Mauke,
1869),- Wilhelm Gesenius, Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift: Eine
philologisch-historische Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wörterbücher der
hebräischen Sprache (Leipzig: Vogel, 1815)) Magne Sæbo et al., ed., Hebrew
Bible, Old Testament, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008).
24 Hermann Friedrich Koecher, ed.. Nova Bibliotheca Hebraica secundum

ordinem bibliothecae Hebraicae b. Jo. Christoph. Wolfii disposita analecta literaria

huius operis sistens, vol. 1-2 (Jena: Cuno, 1783-1784)) Mss. codices Hebraici
Biblioth. I. B. De-Rossi, vol. 1-3 (Parma: Ex Publico Typographeo, 1803))
Giovanni Bernardo De Rossi, Annales Hebraeo-typographici sec. XV (Parma: Ex
Regio Typographeo, 1795)) Idem, Annales Hebraeo-typographici ab an. MDI
ad MDE (Parma: Ex Regio Typographeo, 1799)) Moritz Steinschneider,
ed.. Bibliographisches Handbuch über die theoretische undpraktische Literaturfür
hebräische Sprachkunde (Leipzig: Vogel, 1859).
25 Luther, (Von den letzten Worten Davids (1543)), 28-31.
26 Sebastian Münster, ed., Dictionarium Hebraicum ultimo recognitum et ex
Rabinis praesertim ex Radicibus David Kimhi auctum et locupletatum (Basel:
Froben, 1564)) Editio princeps: 1539. Sante Pagnini, ed., 7hesaurus linguae
sanctae (Lyons: Gryphius, 1529).
22 David Kimhi, Hebraicarum institutionum libri IV, ed. and trans. Sante Pagnini

(Paris: Stephanus, 1549)) Editio princeps: 1520.

28 Martin Luther, An Johann Lang (Wittenberg, 29. Mai 1522)‫ ؛‬Werke
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 41

Reuchlins grammar,29 *which

31 was actually patterned after a lexicon and
occasionally referred to as a lexicon. Later, the lexical core of Reuchlifts
grammarwas expanded and released asaseparate dictionary ‫ ﻫﺔ‬Moreover,
during his stay in Rome, Luther was tutored in Hebrew by a Jew. In
his formative years, Luther came across very rudimentary courses in
Hebrew, written by Matthäus Adriani,3! Johannes Cellarius,32 and
Konrad Pelikan.33 Undoubtedly, Luther was familiar34 35 with
36 the editio
princeps of CapitoS textbook (1516),‫ دو‬which was subsequently enlarged
and refined,3^ and he owned a copy thereof.37 In38 1519, Luther obtained^
a Hebrew edition of the grammar by Moses Kimhi,39 *which in 1531 his
colleague, Sebastian Münster, translated into Latin.4٥

(Briefwechsel), vol. 2 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1931), 547-548,* Wilhelm Walther,

Luthers Deutsche Bibel (Berlin: Mittler, 1918), 39-43 [2, B, 1], 214.
29 Johann Reuchlin, Principium libri: De rudimentis Hebraicis (Pforzheim:
Anshelm, 1506).
3٥ Johann Reuchlin, ed.. Lexicon Hebraicum (Basel: Petri, 1537).
31 Matthäus Adriani, Introductio utilissima Hebraice discere cupientibus (Basel:
Froben, 1518). Editio princeps: 1501.
32 Johannes Cellarius, Isagogicon in Hebraeas literas (Hagenau: Anshelm,
1518).
33 Konrad Pellikan, De modo legendi et intelligendi Hebraeum (Strasbourg: [sine
nomine], 1504).
34 Martin Luther, An Johann Lang (18. Februar 1518)‫ ؛‬Briefe, Sendschreiben
und Bedenken, vol. 3, ed. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (Berlin: Reimer,
1827), 93-94.
35 Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, Institutiuncula in Hebraeam linguam (Basel:
Froben, 1516).
36 Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, Institutionum Hebraicarum libri duo (Strasbourg:
KOpfel, 1525).
37 Georg Buchwald, Randbemerkungen Luthers‫ ؛‬Luther, Werke, vol. 9, 115;
Rossi, Annales Hebraeo-typographici ab an. MDI ad MDE, 13 [No. 64 (s. V.
MDXVI)].
38 Martin Luther, An Johann Lang (13. April 1519)‫ ؛‬Briefe, Sendschreiben und
Bedenken, vol. 3,256.
39 Moses Kimhi, In introductorio grammaticae, ed. Aromas Anshelm (Hagenau:
Anshelm, 1519).
4٥ Moses Kimhi, Grammatica, ed. and trans. Sebastian Münster (Basel:
Cratander, 1531).
42 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

Over the years, Luther’s command of the sacred language was

improving. Under the patronage of Luther and Melanchthon, Johann
BOschenstein«! and Matthaeus Aurogallus^ published their manuals
of Hebrew in Wittenberg, ^e former textbook appears to be basic,
while the latter is a thorough presentation. Labouring on the revision
of his German Bible, Luther relied on the expertise of the Wittenberg
Hebraists, Aurogallus, Johann Forster and Bernhard Ziegler.43 Although
Melanchthon promoted the study of Hebrew,44 and mastered the sacred
language under the auspices of Reuchlin, who was his great-uncle,
the Praeceptor Germaniae (Teacher of Germany) seldom contributed
to Hebrew scholarship. Nonetheless, Luther appreciated his aid in
translating the Book of Job into German.45 Finally, both Luther and
Melanchthon were seeking the best possible Hebraists for the University
of Wittenberg, and were able to establish Flebrew studies firmly at
Leucorea (the University).
Calvin was fortunate enough to have splendid teachers of the
biblical languages. In Greek, he was instructed by Melchior Wolmar,46
who edited and prefaced Moschopulus’ textb00k.47 Calvin dedicated
his commentary on Second Corinthians to Wolmar, 48 expressing his41 42 43 44 45

41 Johann BOschenstein, Hebraicae grammaticae institutiones studiosis sanctae

linguae (Wittenberg: Grunenberg, 1518).
42 Matthaeus Aurogallus, Compendium Hebraeae Chaldeae quae grammatices
(Wittenberg: Klug, 1525).
43 Philipp Melanchthon, ،De Casp. Crucigero (1549)’, Opera quae supersunt
omnia (Corpus Reformatorum), vol. 11, ed. Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider (Halle:
Schwetschke, 1843), 836.
44 Philipp Melanchthon, ‘De lingua Hebraica (1546)‫ ؛‬Opera quae supersunt
omnia, vol. 11,708-715.
45 Martin Luther, ‘SendbriefvomDolmetschen (1530)‫ ؛‬Werke, vol. 30 (Weimar:
BOhlau, 1909), 636.
46 ^leodore Beza, ‘Vita Calvini‫ ؛‬in John Calvin, opera quae supersunt omnia, vol.
49 (21), ed. Wilhelm Baum, Edouard Cunitz and Eduard Reuss (Brunswick:
Schwetschke, 1879), 122.
47 Manuel Moschopulus, Grammaticae artis graecae methodus, ed. Melchior
Wolmar (Basel: Walder: 1540).
48 John Calvin, ‘Epistola ad Corinthios II‫ ؛‬In Novum Testamentum commentarii,
vol. 5.1, ed. August Tholuck (Berlin: Eichler, 1834), 473-474 [Epistola
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April 2015) 43

gratitude for the instruction in Greek. At least once, Calvin himself

privately taught another person Greek.49 Later, Calvin mastered Hebrew
under the guidance of Capito,*٥ who was famous forhis Hebrew grammar.
Further, Calvin succeeded in employing Antoine Rodolphe Chevallier
as professor of Hebrew at the newly founded Genevan Academy.*! In
1560, Chevalier published his manual of Hebrew,*2 which was diligently
designed and well received.

4. The Approach of Hellenistic Judaism to Genesis 4:1

Hellenistic Judaism and the Septuagint (LXX) were correlative, since
the former gave rise to the latter, and the latter conserved the former until
the emergence of Christianity as distinct from the Synagogue. Philo of
Alexandria, whose writings are indispensable for exploring Hellenistic
Judaism, approached the Tanakh solely bymeans oftheLXX, andit seems
that his exegesis ofGen4:lwas not informed by the Hebrew text.
According to extant textual evidence,** the LXX translated the phrase,
‫את־יהוה‬, in Gen 4:1, as su του Θ60ΰ (Brenton:‘through God>*4), while
Symmachus’ version, as cited by Anastasius Sinaita,** interpreted it
as συν κυρίω (،in company with the Lord) a similar rendition, ξύν
τω Οντωτη [σύν τω οντι in standard Greek] is attested in Graecus49 * 51 52
dedicatoria].
49 Felix Bungener, Calvin: His Life, his Labours and his Writings (Edinburgh:
Clark, 1863),32 [Ι,χ].
*٥ Beza, ،Vita Calvini124 ‫؛‬.
51 bornas H. Dyer, le Life of John Calvin (London: Murray, 1850), 467
‫؛‬XIII].
52 Antoine Rodolphe Chevallier, Rudimenta Hebraicae linguae (Geneva:
Stephanus, 1567); Editio princeps: 1560.
53 Henry Barclay Swete, ed., I Old Testament in Greek according to the
Septuagint, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1887), 6 [Genesis
4:1]; Constantin von Tischendorf, ed., Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX
interpretes, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1869), 4 [Genesis 4:1].
*4 Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, trans., I Septuagint Version of the Old

Testament with an English Translation (London: Bagster, 1879), 5 [Genesis

4:1].
** Anastasius Sinaita, ‘In Hexaemeron’, in Patrologiae cursus completas: Series
Graeca, vol. 89, ed.J.-P. Migne (Paris: Migne, 1865), 1069-1072 [XII, 31].
Venetus,$6 a late medieval Jewish translation into vernacular Greek,
which was independent of the Septuagint, and which reflected the
salient insights ofjewish exegesis as illuminated in Rashfs commentary,
‫؛‬erefore, it seems that in Gen 4:1, Graecus Venetus simply implemented
Rashfs interpretation of ‫ את‬as ‫‘( עם‬with), corresponding to the Greek
preposition, συν (،with’).56
57 58 59 60
The reconstructed Hexapla^ provides another variant, έν θεω,
which appears to be a t^ical Semitism equal to διά του θεοΰ. In the
New Testament, for instance, the preposition, έν, is often expressive of
agency in the same way as διά with the genitive. Besides this, Anastasius
Sinaita mentioned a different Greek interpretation, άνθρωπον κύριον
([I acquired] the man namely the Lord), not specifying the source
thereof On that account, it is not clear whether the version quoted
by him originated from Jewish or Christian circles. Since Anastasius
adduced both Symmachus) version (σύν κυρ٤ω) and the said
unnamed translation (άνθρωπον κύριον) as proof of the Chalcedonian
christological definition, and his theology bore the mark of anti-
Semitism,^ we have resolved to discuss the aforementioned version as
pertinent to patristic exegesis. Among the ancient translations, only the
Peshitta٥Q and the Coptic Bible61 followed the LXX, while most of the
other versions sided with the proposition of the Targum Onkelos, which
is to be analysed subsequently as part of the Jewish exegetical tradition

56 Oscar Gebhardt, ed., Graecus Venetus (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1875), 7 ‫؛‬Genesis

4:1].
57 Rashi, ‘Bereschit’, in Der Pentateuch: Die FünfBiicher Mosche mit worttreuer
deutscher ijbersetzung nebst dem Raschi-Kommentar, trans. and ed. Julius
Dessauer (Budapest: Schlesinger, 1905), 30-31 [Genesis 4:1].
58 Frederick Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt: sive veterum
interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta, vol. 1 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1875), 17 [Genesis 4:1].
59 Anastasius Sinaita, ‘Disputatio adversus Judaeos’, in Patrologiae cursus
completas: Series Graeca, vol. 89,1203-1282) Johann Baptista Kumpfmüller, De
Anastasio Sinaita dissertatio (Würzburg‫؛ ؛‬ein, 1865),pas5fm.
60 ‘Versio Syriaca cum interpretatione Latina’, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, vol. 1, ed.
Brian Walton (London‫ ؛‬Roycroft, 1657), 14 [Genesis 41‫]؛‬.
61 David Wilkins, ed. and trans., Quinque libri Moysisprophetae in linguaAegyptia
(London: Bovver, 1731), 8 [Genesis 4:1].
le Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 45

in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Speaking of Gen 4:1 and the Septuagint, it should be noted that
the LXX generally discerned accurately from context the distinction
between ‫ את‬as the mark of the direct object (nota accusativi) and ‫את‬
as the preposition. Nevertheless, in Ecclesiastes, the LXX at times ran
counter to the Hebrew syntax. For instance, in Eccl 1:14, ‫ את‬must be
construed as the mark of the direct object, in the light of the syntax and
the authoritative Targum (with the Aramaic mark,‫)ית‬, but the LXX still
reads σύν.
With regard to the phrase,‫יהוה‬-‫את‬, from Gen 4:1, Philo ofAlexandria
commented explicitly and his remarks were later utilised by the church
father, Procopius of Gaza,63 whose explanation was embedded in the
Philonian heritage. Philo felt embarrassed by the LXX interpretation of
the passage, and his uneasy feeling was caused by philosophical rigour.
In Philo's opinion. Eve’s statement, διά του θεού (LXX), might imply
that God was not the cause (ή αίτία) of her fertility, but rather the
instrument (οργανον) by which Eve was impregnated. Furthermore,
Philo described the Aristotelian system of four causes (τΟ ύφ’ ου [τΟ
αίτιον, ‫ ة‬δημιουργό‫]؟‬, τΟ εξ 0‫[ ة‬ή ύλη], τΟ δι’ ου [τΟ έρλαγεΐον],
τΟ δι’ 0[ή αίτία] ),٥4 and maintained that God was the cause (ή αίτία)
of Eve’s acquisition of Cain in the same sense that He is the cause of
all existence. Philo did not propose a new translation of the passage,
but his preference would be for διά τού θεόν (because of God),62 65 as
63 *
62 Philo Alexandrinus, De Cherubim‫ ؛‬in Opera quae supersunt‫ ו‬vol. 1, ed.
Leopold Cohn and Paul Wendland (Berlin: Reimer, 1896), 199-201 [35,124-
129],* Idem, (philonis ^laestionum et solutionum quae in Genesi: Sermo 1‫؛‬
Paralipomena Amena, ed. Joannes Baptista Aucher (Venice: Lazari, 1826), 41
[L^II].
63 Procopius Gazaeus, Commentarius in Genesin‫ ؛‬Patrologiae cursus completus:
Series Graeca, vol. 87.1, ed.J.-P.Migne (Paris: Migne, 1865), 233-234 [Genesis
4:1].
٥4٤By whom/which [agency] [perpetrator], Out of which [matter], ٤by means
ofwhich [instrument], (because ofwhich [cause].
65 Among the ancient versions, only the Ethiopie translation corroborates the
causal denotation. Georg Christian BUrcklin, ed. and trans.. Quatuor prima
capita Geneseos Aethiopice et Latine (Frankfurt am Main: Wirst, 1696), 15
[Genesis 4:1].
46 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

consistent with the causal signification (το δι’ δ [ή αίτία]). Philo

raised the same objection to the LXX interpretation of Gen 40:8 (διά
τοΰ 0‫ع‬0‫ د)ة‬and notwithstanding his logical acumen, it transpires that he
could not understand that real languages are not governed by the laws of
mathematical logic.
Procopius recapitulated Philo’s argumentation, including the
reference to Gen 40:8, but added that the phrase could also be explained
as^apd τοΰ θοΰ (from God), w٠ hich accords with the position of those
Jewish commentators who in Gen 4:1 construed ‫ את‬as ‘from’ (‫ מאת‬or
‫)מץ‬. He surmised that the original text denoted τω Θ6ω (to God), in
place of έν τω 0£ω (by God٥٥), although he was absolutely ignorant of
the sacred language. In his view. Eve ascribed a newborn creature to God
(τω θείο è™‫׳‬ypd(J)e), as a token ofher gratitude to the Creator for a gift
of life bestowed upon her.

5. Patristic and Medieval Exposition of Gen 4:1 in the Chris-

tian Tradition
Relying on the LXX, the ancient church fathers, except Procopius,
who was influenced by Philo’s comments, did not sense any difficulty
as far as Gen 4:1 is concerned. Chrysostom emphasised that by the
aforementioned statement. Eve expressed her gratitude to the Creator
for the child given to her not by nature but by grace from above.67 Thus,
she attributed her son to God (τω 0€tp λογίζεται). In this respect,
Chrysostom’s explanation coincides with Procopius:
The exposition of Gen 4:1 by Anastasius Sinaita is relevant,^ not
only due to the textual variants provided there, but also because of his
original and highly allegorical interpretation. This resembled Luther’s66 * 68

66 The context of Procopius' discourse favours a Semitic way of translating έν.

61 Joannes Chrysostomus, Homilia XVIII in Genesin‫ ؛‬Patrologiae cursus
completus: Series Graeca, vol. 53, ed.J.-P. Migne (Paris: Migne, 1862), 153-154
4‫( ؛‬Gen 4:1)].
68 A fragmentary interpretation by Ephrem the Syrian is noteworthy, too,
because he alleged that Cain, as a foetus, was formed in EveS uterus solely by
God's action, to the complete exclusion ofAdam. Ephraem Syrus, Explanatio in
Genesim‫؛‬C0‫״‬ec£10‫־‬selectass. ecclesiaepatrum complectens exquisitissima opera, vol.
34, ed. Armand Benjamin Caillau (Paris: Cardon, 1832), 68 [Genesis 4:1].
I Reformed leological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 47

interpretation, yet to the best knowledge of the author of the present

paper, no printed edition ofAnastasius existed in Luther’s lifetime.
Anastasius) allegorical characterisation is far from coherent. On the
one hand, he identified Eve acquiring Cain as a type (i.e. prefiguration)
of the church (the assembly of saints) obtaining a child, which was said
to represent humankind, and which was perceived as Christ, by virtue
of the action of God, who was simultaneously identical with Christ.
Further, he claimed that Symmachus’ version (συν κυρίψ) indicated
that the man, who was acquired by Eve—the church—was united with
the Lord (ήνωμένον τω κυρίω), in the sense that he, namely Christ,
was simultaneously God and man. To amplify his doctrinal argument,
Anastasius announced that there was also another unnamed translation
that stipulated that Eve ‘acquired the man namely the Lord, to wit, God‫؛‬
which accords with bornas’ confession as recorded in John 20:28 (‘My
Lord and my God!)).
In the Middle Ages, Nicolaus de Lyra,‫ وة‬whose commentaryupon the
Hebrew Bible inspired Luther,™ limited himself to paraphrasing one of
Rashi’s remarks on Gen 4:1, and affirmed that although Eve contributed
nothing to her own formation, she took part in Cain’s conception.
Actually Rashi’s reflection was deeper, and touched both Adam and
Eve. Therefore, the author of the present paper ventures to say that
Lyra did not make the best use of Rashi’s commentary on Gen 4:1. In
fact, Lyra’s interpretation of the personal pronoun, ‫הוא‬, in Gen 3:15, as
‘ipsa’ (she), allegedly denoting Mary as a co-redemptrix, is indicative of
his ineptitude with Hebrew and his ignorance of the LXX.*71 70 72
Thus, his
knowledge of the Jewish exegetical tradition seems to be superficial and
ideologically manipulated. Prior to Lyra, Hugh of Saint-Cher, to whom
Luther referred on another occasion,72 genuinely encapsulated Rashi’s

‫ وة‬Nicolaus de Lyra, Ad Genesin‫ ؛‬in Nicolaus de Lyra, Paul of Burgos and

Matthias DOring, Biblia sacra cum glossis interlineari et ordinaria, vol. 1 (Lyons:
Vincent, 1545), 45r [Genesis 4:1 (b)].
70 Carl Siegfried, (Raschfs Einfluss auf Nicolaus von Lira und Luther in der
Auslegung der Genesis‫ ؛‬Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten
Testamentes, 1.4 (1869): 428-456 and 2.1 (1871): 39-65.
71 Nicolaus de Lyra, Ad Genesin42 ‫؛‬v [Genesis 3:15 (g)].
72 Luther, (Vorlesungen Uber 1. Mose von 1535-1545‫ ؛‬Werke, vol. 42, 567
48 Reformation Exegesis Encountering tEe Jewish Legacy

comment on Gen 4:1.73

6. Genesis 4:1 ‫؛‬n View of the Jewish Exegetical Tradition in

Hebrew and Aramaic
The Masoretic text of the phrase ‫ את־יהוה‬in Gen 4:1 is well-
established, and no variants are known to US.74 This text was printed
both in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible75 and in the Rabbinic Bible
(1524).7‫ ؤ‬However, the Complutensian Polyglot was bereft of the
Masoretic accents, .ese editions also contained the pointed text of
Targum Onkelos, which was the Babylonian (Eastern) Targum to the
Torah, and which was considered to be the only authoritative Targum
to the Pentateuch. The Complutensian Polyglot provided the text of
the Septuagint and the Latin translation of Targum Onkelos, while the
Rabbinic Bible added to Targum Onkelos the commentaries of Rashi
and Abraham ibn Ezra upon the Pentateuch.
In Targum Onkelos, the phrase ‫יהוה‬-‫ את‬was interpreted either as
‫( מן קדם יי‬from before the Lord) or as ‫ יי‬٥٦p(bef0re ‫؛‬in front of] the
Lord). ٠e former text is attested in the Rabbinic Bible, while the latter,
in the Complutensian Polyglot, .ese convergent propositions concur
with the Arabic77 and Persians versions.* 73 * * * 77 78

‫؛‬Genesis 15:7].
73 Hugh of Saint-Cher, ‘Liber Geneseos‫ ؛‬Opera omnia in Universum Vetus etNo-
vum Testamentum, vol. 1 (Venice: Pezzana, 1703), 7r [Genesis 4:1 (a)].
7.ChristianD. Ginsburg, ed., ‫( עשרים וארבעה ספרי הקדש‬London: TrinitarianBible
Society, 1894), 6 [Gen4:l],*GiovanniBernardo De Rossi, VariaelectionesVeteris
Testamenti,vol. 1 (Parma: ExRegioTypographeo, 1784),5 [Gen4],-Idem, Scholia
critica in V. T. libros: Seu supplementa ad varias sacri textus lectiones (Parma:
Ex Regio Typographeo, 1798), 3 [Gen 4] ‫ ًا‬Benjamin Blayne, ed., Pentateuchus
Hebraeo-Samaritanus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1790), 8 [Gen4:1].
73 Vetus Testamentum I (Alcala: In Academia Complutensi, 1520), sinepagina]
[.

[Gen 4:1].
73 Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, ed.,‫מקראות גדולות‬, vol. 1 (Venice: Bomberg,
1524), [sinepagina [Gen4:1].
]

77 ‘Versio Arabica cum interpretatione Latina‫ ؛‬in Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, vol. 1,
15 [Gen 4:1]. This translation was attributed to Saadia Gaon.
78 ‘Versio Persica cum interpretatione Latina‫ ؛‬in Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, vol. 4
(London: Roycroft, 1657), 7 [Gen 4:1].
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April) 201 s) 49

Non-authoritative Targumim^ to the Pentateuch to wit the Samaritan

Targum*٥andtheTagumPseudoJonathan,8CaimingtobethePalestinian
(Western) Targum to the Torah, offer a different perspective on Gen 4:1.
According to the Samaritan Targum, Eve’s statement meant, ‘I came to
rule over a man [given to me] from [by] the Lord) (‫)מלכת גבר מיי‬. A
similar approach is found in the Midrash Genesis Rabbah,82 which stated
that by acquiring Adam’s offspring. Eve acquired her husband with the
aidoftheLoR^ (‫)קנה בעלי בידיי‬. Surprisingly the interpretation that
by giving birth to Cain, Eve took or secured control of Adam, occurs in
modern commentaries,^ yet in the modern commentaries it is related
neither to the Samaritan Targum, which was unknown in the Age of the
Reformation, nor to the Genesis Rabbah.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan was never elevated to the status of
the authoritative Targum.84 The pointed text thereof was printed in
1590. Previously, this Targum circulated in manuscript, but most
HebraistsS(including Luther^) were acquainted with it. In this Targum,
the translation of Gen 4:1 must be read in connection with that of Gen79 80 * 82
79Targum Neofiti was not consulted, because it was inaccessible to the
Reformers, while the fragmentary Targum labelled as ofjerusalem (‫ )ירושלמי‬in
Parenzo’s edition did not cover Gen 4:1.
80 Adolf Brüll, ed.. Das samaritanische Targum zum Pentateuch (Frankfort am
Main: Erras, 1875), 4 [Gen 4:1].
8‫יונתן‘ ؛‬,’ in ‫חמשה חומשי תורה‬, vol. 1, ed. Asher ben Jacob Parenzo (Venice: Gara,
1590), 13r [Gen4:1].
82 Julius Teodor, ed., Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar:
Parascha I-XLVÏÏ (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1912), 206 [XII (Gen 4:1)].
83 As summarised by Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, trans.

JohnJ. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 291 [Gen

4:1].
84William Henry Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament: I Text
(New York: Scribner, 1899), 102-111 [VI, ^e Targums],- Wilhelm Bacher,
،Targum/I Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 12 (New York and London: Funk and
Wagnalls, 1906), 57-63.
83 Targum Pseudo jonathan on Gen 4:1 was cited by Menahem Recanati in

the early 14Century. Menahem Recanati,‫( ביאורעל התורה‬Venice: Giustiniani,

1545),31r-31v [Gen 4:1].
86 As typified by Martin Luther, ‘Rationis Latomianae confotatio (1521)‫؛‬

Werke, vol. 8 (Weimar: BOhlau, 1889), 84.

50 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

5:3, otherwise the purpose thereof would be vague.

According to Pseudo Jonathan, although Adam indeed ،knew’ (‫)ידע‬
Eve, namely had sexual intercourse with her, she was really inseminated
by an angel and thus conceived Cain. Consequently, Eve called Cain ‘an
angel of the Lord‫ ؛‬because he was not Adam’s but an angel’s offspring,
and he did not resemble Adam, who was not his biological father,
^erefore. Eve declared, ‘I acquired an angel of the Lord for [my] man
[i.e. for Adam]’ (‫)קניתי לגבר ית מלאכא דיי‬.
The above idea was alluded to in 4 Macc 18:8, recorded in the
Babylonian Talmud,87 and subsequently adopted and explicated in the
major Midrashim88(except the highly esteemed Genesis Rabbah89) and
in the Zohar,9٥ which can be viewed as a cabbalistic Midrash on the
Pentateuch, .is lore was opposed by the church fathers,9* inclusive of
Anastasius Sinaita.87
92 In88the
* *aforementioned
* midrashicliterature, the story

87 The tracts ‫( שבת‬XXII, no. I46a),‫( יבמות‬XII, no. I03b) and ‫( עבודה זרה‬II, no.
22b).
88 ‫( פרקי רבי אליעזר‬Warsaw:1874 ,‫)בדפוס‬, I9r-21v [ΧΧΙ-ΧΧΙΙ])٤‫בראשית‬,
‫( ספר ילקוט שמעוני‬zhovfora: Lorje andMatfes, 1858), 18ν [Gen4:1]‫ إ‬Solomon
Schechter, ed.. Midrash Hag-gadol Forming a Collection of Ancient Rabbinic
Homilies to the Pentateuch: Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1902), 105 [Gen4:1].
8‫ و‬The Midrashim ‫ מדרש לקח טוב‬and ‫ מדרש תדשא‬were silent about this thread,
being focused on different issues.
‫ ؛פקודי‘ﻫﻮ‬in ‫זהר על התורה‬, vol. 2.2 (Izmir: Roditi, 1862), 461-463 [Exod 38:21 -
40:38 (no. 231)]. Moreover, in his cabbalistic commentary, Menahem Recanati
referred to ‫( מדרש רות‬a part of the Zohar), and combined two separate quotes
from the Zohar, adding a piece, which, to the best knowledge of the author
of the present paper, could not be found in the extant text thereof Menahem
Recanati,‫ביאור על התורה‬. Cf. Midrash Ruth:‘‫ספר זהר חדש^؛מדרש רות‬, vol. 19
(Jerusalem: [sine nomine]) 1961), 83-85. Cf. combined quotations:‘‫؛אדרא רבא‬
in ‫ספר הזהר על חמשה חומשי תורה‬, vol. 13 (Jerusalem: [sine nomine], 1961),
188-189andtHCD‫؛‬iniïTm ‫ספר הזהר על חמשה חומשי‬, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: [sine
nomine], 1961), 337-338.
‫ او‬As summarised by Epiphanius Constantiensis, ،Adversus haereses‫ ؛‬in
Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Graeca, vol. 41, ed.J.P. Migne (Paris: Migne,
1863), 339-340 [Ι,ΙΙ, XXVI, V].Hn, 641-686 [Ι,ΙΠ,ΧΧΧΥΙΙΙ].
92 Anastasius Sinaita, ‘In Hexaemeron:
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 51

became more specific. Consequently, the evil angel, Samael, incarnated in

or disguised as a serpent, impregnated Eve with its venom, thus infusing
her with a sinful lust.93 According to the lore, the statement that Adam
knew Eve (Gen 4:1), implies that he just realised that Samael made her
pregnant. Further., Eve's declaration (‫יי‬-‫ )קניתי איש את‬was looked upon
as a sort of prophecy by means of which she recognised that Cain was to
reflect thesupermundaneandsupernal origin ofhis father Samael. Simply,
Cain was called ،an angel of the Lord; because the angel's offspring must
be angelic too. .erefore, most Midrashim4‫و‬explained‫( את־יהוה‬Gen4:l)
either as ‫؛( איש יי‬I acquired] a man of the Lord) or as ‫[ יי‬or ‫איש מאת ]מן‬
([I acquired] a man from the Lord), granted that Cain was supposed
to originate from Samael who was said to be the Lord's agent. Is, it
was assumed that Cain’s imminent immorality arose from his real father,
an evil angel. In this regard, the lore approximates an etiological myth
aimed at explaining an outbreak of evil on earth.
Neither the representative Jew٠ ish commentaries nor the respectable
Midrash Genesis Rabbah belonging to a series of great’ (‫ )רבה‬Midrashim
espoused the interpretation of Gen 4:1 perpetuated in Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan and in most midrashic literature. According to Genesis
Rabbah,95 Cain was sired by Adam and born of Eve, who, by providing
their child, strengthened Adam’s attachment to her. Further, it was
argued that in Gen 4:1, ‫ את‬is absolutely necessary, because without it
the text would mean ،[I acquired] a man of the Lord’ (‫)איש יי‬. Such
an interpretation was clearly rejected in Genesis Rabbah. Consequently,
the said Midrash emphasised that both Adam and Eve were created in
the image of the Creator (cf. Gen 1:26-27) to be united with each other
and to enjoy together the divine presence (‫ )שכינה‬within them. Another
Midrash (9‫)מדרש לקח טוב‬٥ perceived the ability to procreate, with which93 * 95 96
93 Louis Ginzberg, I Legends of the Jews, vol. 1, trans. Henrietta Szold
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913), 105-107 [III,
The Birth of Cain]. Ibidem, vol. 5 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1925), 133-135 [III, I Birth of Cain].
94SeetheoverviewinMenachemMendelKasher,ed.,TrafeShelemah (Complete
Torah): Talmudic-Midrashic Encyclopedia of the Pentateuch,vol 2 ([sine nomine]:
[sine nomine], [sine anno]), 302-304 [Gen 4:1].
95 lodor, ed., BereschitRabba, 204-206 [XII (Gen 4:1)].
96 ‘‫ ;ספר בראשית‬in ‫מדרש לקחטח טוב‬, ed. Salomon Buber (Vilnius:1880 ,‫)בדפוס‬,
humankind was endowed in the act of creation, as a sign of God's eternal
benevolence, referring to Ps 89:3.
^e illustrious Jewish expositors of the Book of Genesis, both
Rabbinic (Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra,97 98 Kimhi,9^
99 100 Nahmanides,"
101 * 103 Saadia
Ga0n1٥٥and Abrabanepoi) andKaraitic (AaronbenElijahio),maintained
that Gen 4:1 treats of the gift of a new life, which comes true by means
of human sexuality created by the Lord prior to Adam's and Eve’s fall.
٠e Jewish literati noticed that by Cain’s conception and birth, Adam
and Eve became partners with the Lord in his continual creation of the
universe, because to their own origin they could contribute nothing, but
Cain they brought into existence in company with the Lord (‫)עם יי‬.
Additionally, Abraham ibn Ezraio expounded on the appearance of
God's very Name (‫יי‬-‫ )את‬in the context of Gen 4:1, arguing that the very
Name was evoked instead of the generic ‫אלהים‬, in order to highlight the
prolific activity referred to, granted that the root oftheveryName,onthe
one hand, stems from the verb to exist’ (‫)היה‬, and on the other hand, it
is cognate of the verb to live’ (‫)חיה‬.
Kimhi considered Eve’s statement in Gen 4:1 as demonstrative of
human creative capacity, asserting that by bringing a man (i.e. Cain) into
existence, she was firlfilling God’s explicit command (cf Gen 1:26-27),
and thus she was participating in the LoRD’screative activity in theworld.
Kimhi compared the creative activity of Eve, in whose uterus the foetus
(Cain-to-be) was formed (acquired [the root: ‫)]קנה‬, to the activity of
29 [Gen4:1].
‫ و‬Abraham ibn Ezra,‘‫ ؛בראשית‬in ‫מקראות גדולות‬, vol. 1, [sinepagina] [Gen 4:1].
98 David Kimhi, Kommentar zur Genesis‫ ן‬ed. Abraham Ginzburg (Presburg:

Schmid, 1842), 17ν [Gen 4:1].

99 Nahmanides,‫ על התורה‬٦٦R3(Venice: Giustiniani, 1545), 7ν [Gen 4:1].
100 Saadia Gaon,‫^^ על התורה‬٦٦١٥(London: [sine nomine], 1960), 10 [Gen 4:1].
Saadia Gaon made an assertion that Eve meant to say ‘I was blessed with a man
by God (‫)התברכתי באיש מאת אלוהים‬.
101 Isaac Abrabanel,‫( פירוש על התורה‬Jerusalem: [sine nomine], 1960), 122 [Gen

4:1].
1٥2 Aaron ben Elijah,‘‫ ؛ספר בראשית‬in ‫( ספר כתר תורה‬Eupatoria: 1866 ,‫)בדפוס‬,
29r-29v [Gen 4:1].
103 Abraham ibn Ezra, ‫( ספר יסוד מורא וסוד תורה‬Prague: Landau, 1833), 42ν.
Similarly David Kimhi, Kommentar zur Genesis, 17ν [Gen 4:1].
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 53

God pictured as ،the one who is acquiring (٠) heaven and earth’ in
Gen 14:22. In other words, by conceiving Cain, Eve continued the divine
process of creation. Moreover, as Eve started celebrating her fertility, the
edifice of the universe was complete, because by virtue of the Lord’s
institution, the creatures began to create by themselves, which was
inherent in the God-given structure of the world. According to Kimhi,
the idea of the continual creation had already been envisaged in Gen 2:3,
where, in his view, the infinitive construct (‫ )לעשות‬was not pleonastic
(KJV: ٤...God created and made’), but gave purpose, in the sense that
God created the universe in order that it might keep on creating itself by
means of propagation.
To illustrate the fimction of ‫ את‬as ،in company with’ (‫ )עם‬or towards’
(‫)אל‬, Nahmanides appealed to the following passages: Gen 5:22,. 5:24)
6:9,. Lev 13:49 and 1 Sam 30:21. While his reference to Lev 13:49 is
dubious, from the contemporary perspective,™, other loci are accurate
and duly demonstrate the prepositional fimction of ‫את‬.
Displaying the aforementioned function, Aaron ben Elijah resorted
to Lev 13:49, in which he construed ‫ את‬as ‘towards’ (‫)אל‬, and to Ruth
4:10, in which ‫ את‬was interpreted by him as ‘frona’ (‫)מאת‬. From our point
of view, the former claim (Lev 13:49) is highly debatable, ™5 whereas the
latter (Ruth 4:10) isfallacious.io Nonetheless, Aaron ben Elijah deduced
that in Gen 4:1, the word ‫ את‬indicated the cooperation between Eve and
the Lord, because she acquired a man (i.e. Cain) with the aid of the
Creator.
Regardless of whether a particular Jewish commentator construed ‫את‬
in Gen 4:1 as synonymous with ‫( עם‬in company with),‫( מץ‬from) or ‫מאת‬
(from), the Jewish exegetical tradition unanimously agreed that in this
passage, ‫ את‬fonctions as the preposition in accord with one of its basic
denotations (nota accusativi versus the preposition), and modifies the
verb, ‘I acquired’ (‫)קניתי‬, not the noun, ‘man’ (106 105 104 .(‫* איש‬

104 Wilhelm Gesenius, Students Hebrew Grammar, ed. Emil Roediger, trans.

Benjamin Davies (London: Asher, 1869), 306-307 [s 143,1, a].

105 Ibidem.
106 In Ruth 4:10,‫ את‬must be viewed as the mark of the direct object, in light of

the syntax, because ‫ רות‬is the direct object oftheverb,‫קניתי‬, which is supported
by the Septuagint and the authoritative Targum.
54 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

7. The Origin of Luther’s Idiosyncratic Exegesis of Genesis 4:1

Luther’s idiosyncratic exegesis of Gen 4:1 bore the imprint of a single
text published by Johann Reuchlin in 1517.!٥7 In this writing, Reuchlin
alleged that according to cabalistic lore, after Adam’s and Eve’s fall a good
angel, Raziel, comforted desperate Adam, promising him that his seed
would become the Redeemer, a man of the Lord. Consequently, since
Adam and Eve did not know more about the identity of the promised
Saviour, they imagined that their first-born, Cain, was the folfilment of
Raziel’s promise, .erefore, rejoicing at the coming restoration of the
lost tranquillity. Eve announced Ί acquired a man of the Lord’. Further,
because Cain proved to be a murderer instead of the Saviour, Adam and
Eve looked forward to their other children, in terms of the fulfilment of
the promise.
The above tale became extremely popular,!, though Reuchlin never
disclosed the source thereof.!٥9 To the best of my knowledge knowledge
of the present paper, no source of the tale, except for Reuchlin’s reference,
was ever identified, and Jewish scholarship did not mention it as a Jewish
story.!!٥ Peter Lambeck suggested that Reuchlin took it from the esoteric
Book of Raziel.!!‫ ؛‬However, the extant Hebrew text of LiberRazielis does
not substantiate such a claim, albeit that the Book of Raziel speculates
about a mystery of Cain and Abel in regard to a magical use of God’s very
Name.!!** 109 110 * *

!٥* Johann Reuchlin, De arte cabalística libri tres (Hagenau: Anshelm, 1517),
9r-10v[I].
8‫ ﻫﺈ‬John Peter Stehelin, RabinicalLiteratureortheTraditionsoftheJewsContained
in their Talmud and OtherMystical Writings, vol. 1 (London: Robinson, 1748),
153-154 [An Account of the Cabala, Numb. III].
109 AboutReuchlinssources:Ludwig Geiger, JohannReuchlin: Sein Leben undseine
Werke (Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1871), 172-184 [II, Der Philosoph].
110 Ginzberg, I Legends ofthejews, vol. 1, 105-107 [III, The Birth of Cain].
Ibidem, vol. 5,133-135 [III, The Birth of Cain].
!‫ !؛‬Peter Lambeck, Prodromus historiae literariae (Leipzig and Frankfurt:
Liebezeit, 1710), 49-50 [Ι,νΐ].
!!* ‫ רזיאל המלאך‬asine nomine]: ‫בבית‬, [sine anno]), 45r. Nevertheless, it should
be admitted that there are various Hebrew manuscripts of Liber Razielis, and
Latin adaptations thereof, which may differ from the Hebrew edition consulted
in the present paper.
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 201 s) 55

Unlike Reuchlin, the Jewish tradition did not assume that Eve's
statement in Gen 4:1 was illustrative of her misconception about the
identity of the Messiah, because Jewish expositors did not approach
Gen 3:15 from the perspective of the New Testament.!!^ For instance,
Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan Ha-Bavli remarked that in Gen 4:1, Eve
rejoiced, knowing that her first-born son would (restore her life‫ ؛‬namely
to provide for her (cf Ruth 4:15).!!4 Thus, from the Lord she acquired
Cain as a provider in her old age. Only in Midrash Genesis RabbaJUs
there a vague comment that conceiving Seth, Eve realised that the semen
impregnating her was of unknown origin, and therefore concluded
that Seth might be a messianic king. Nevertheless, this was an isolated
statement about Seth, not about Cain.

8. Luther Commenting upon Genesis 4:1

On the ground of Reuchlifrs unsubstantiated tale, Luther built his
exposition of Gen 4:1. Chronologically, it transpires that the earliest
disclosure of Luther's idiosyncratic exegesis of Gen 4:1 might be traced
back to 1519 or 1521, when he contended*!¿ that in Hebrew (iuxta
Hebraicam veritatcm), the words ‫יי‬-‫ איש את‬denoted the man according
to God (secundum Deum)), namely the Saviour of the universe who was
promised to Adam and Eve in Gen 3:15, granted that the Redeemer as
the perfect substitute must be in line with God.
Inl522, Luther advanced his interpretation,!!^ arguing thatinGen4:l,
Eve misidentified Cain as the Seed destined to conquer the serpent (i.e.
Satan) according to Gen 3:15. In his opinion, EveS declaration stemmed
from her sincere faith in the awaited Messiah, yet her identification
thereof proved to be premature.!!^113 114 * * 117 118

113 As
exemplified by Rashi,‘Bereschit27 ‫[ ؛‬Gen 3:15].
Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan Ha-Bavli, ‫( צפנת פענח‬Johannesburg: ‫קאיאר‬,
114

1965), 24 [Gen4:1].
‫ ؤاا‬Teodor, ed., BereschitRabba, 226 [XXIII (Gen 4:25)].
lio Luther, Scholia in librum Genesios (1519-1521):
117 Luther, ‘Evangelium am Sonntag nach dem Christtag Lukas 2,33-40
(Kirchenpostille 1522): Similarly Idem, ‘Predigten Uber das erste Buch Mose
gehalten 1523/24 (26. Mai 1523):
118 Luther, ‘Annotationes in Ecclesiasten (1532):
6‫ة‬ Reformation Exegesis Encountering tEe Jewish Legacy

In his German Bible of 1523, Luther decided to translate ‫יי‬-‫איש את‬

‫ קניתי‬as Ί acquired the man of the Lord (den Mann des HERRN)‫ ؛‬and
to annotate Gen 4:1 as follows: 'Cain means >to grasp< or >to acquire(
because Eve assumed that he should be the Seed crushing the serpent’s
head as it was promised by the Lord’119. 120
Such121a rendition
*** was adopted in
the Zurich Bible,12٥ upheld in the process of revising the Luther German
Bible,!21 endorsed in the final version thereof,*22 and applied to the
Wittenberg revision of the Vulgate (hominem DOMINI)123.
In his sermon of 1527, Luther advocated his position, yet he
approved another translation: ،[I acquired] the man with God (mit
Gott124‫ )ץ‬on condition that ‘the man with God’ was understood as ‘the
man united with God: Is, Luther insisted that even if ‫ את‬is translated
as the preposition, ‘with‫ ؛‬it must modify the noun, ‘man‫ ؛‬not the verb
‘I acquired: Therefore, he could easily equate the genitive, ‘the man of
the Lord‫ ؛‬with the preposition, ‘the man with God‫ ؛‬The latter rendition
in itself is ambiguous, because such a prepositional phrase in Latin
(cum) or in German (mit) may modify either the verb (by the Lord I
acquired a man), or the noun (1 acquired the man who is with the Lord),
depending on the context. On the contrary, in Hebrew,‫את‬, acting as the
preposition, always modifies the verb. I Latin form (cum DOMINO)

119 Luther, (Bibel 1523‫ ؛‬For no apparent reason, LutherS German Bible of 1534
retained his previous translation of Gen 4:1, but omitted his note. Idem) trans.
and ed., Biblia: Altes und Neuen Testament, [sinepagina] [Gen 4:1].
120 Ulrich Zwingli, trans. and ed., Bibel Deutsch (Zurich: Froschauer, 1534),
[sinepagina] [Gen4:1].
121 ‘Text der Bibelrevisionsprotokolle 1539-4undhandschriftliche Eintragungen
Luthers in sein Altes Testament, Druck von 1539-38 (Handexemplar)‫ ؛‬These
documents clarify that in Luther’s view. Eve misidentified Cain as the promised
Seed, to wit, Gods Son and the incarnated Lord.
22‫ إ‬Luther, ‘Bibel 1545‫ ؛‬In this final edition, Luther unequivocally stipulated
that Eve hoped that she acquired the promised Saviour who was the Lord and
man at the same time (cf the Chalcedonian definition of faith).
*2Text der Vulgata-Revision von 1529‫ ؛‬I Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (per
Deum) conformed to LXX (διάτου θεού). Antoine Vitre, ed., Biblia sacra
Vulgatae editionis Sixti V. et Clem. VIIL pont max. auctoritate recognita (Venice:
Pezzana, 1754), 3 [Gen4:1].
Luther, ‘In GenesinDeclamationes (1527)124 ‫[ ؛‬Gen4:1].
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 57

was adopted in the Zurich revision of the Vulgate,!2^ probably intending

Luther’s sense.
Lecturing on the Book of Genesis (1535-1545), Luther espoused
and fortified his previous exposition of Gen 4:1. In addition, he utilised
the translation ‘the man from the Lord’ (virum a Domino), alleging that
‘the man from the Lord’ must signify the Lord himself as the Messiah,
namely as the one who was appointed by the Lord to defeat the serpent
and to restore the righteousness lost by humankind. Later, Luther dared
to interpret Gen 4:1 as follows: ‘I acquired the man namely the Lord
(den Mann‫ י‬den HERRN))!26 albeit that such a rendition was never
mirrored in his German Bible.
Adhering to the above translation, Luther pondered over Gen
4:1 in his treatise. On the Last Words of David (1543), defending
his own interpretation and passing strictures on voices dissenting
from it. Certainly Luther could derive satisfaction from the fact that
prominent Hebraists (Fagius,125
127 MUnster^and
128
126* 130 * * Pelikan^) and exegetes
(Melanchth0n,13٥ Oecolampadius^i and Zwingli^2) took note of
his idiosyncratic exposition of Gen 4:1, though neither Münster nor

125 Leo Jud et al., ed., Biblia sacrosancta Testamenti Veteris et Novi (Zurich:
Froschauer, 1543), 2r [Gen4:1].
126 Luther, ‘Wider das Papstum zu Rom vom Teufel gestiftet (1545)248-247 ‫؛‬.
Idem, Werke (Tischreden), vol. 6,43 [no. 6563].
27‫ إ‬Paul Fagius, Exegesis sive expositio dictionum Hebraicarum literalis et simplex
in quatuor capita Geneseos pro studiosis linguae Hebraicae (Isny: [sine nomine],
1542), 118-119 [Gen4:1].
128 Sebastian Münster, ed. and trans.. Hebraica Biblia, vol. 1 (Basel: Isingrin and
Petri, 1546), 10-11 [Gen 4:1].
‫ا‬2‫ و‬Konrad Pelikan, Commentaria bibliorum, vol. 1 (Zurich: Froschauer, 1536),
7v [Gen4:1].
130 Philipp Melanchthon, ‘Commentarius in Genesin‫ ؛‬in Opera quae supersunt
omnia, vol. 13, ed. Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider (Halle: Schwetschke, 1846),
783-784 [Gen4:1].
3Johannes Oecolampadius,!« Genesim enarratio (Basel: Bebel, 1536), 59r-59v
[Gen 4:1].
32‫ إ‬Huldrych Zwingli, ‘Farrago annotationum in Genesin‫ ؛‬in Opera, vol. 5, ed.
Melchior Schuler and Johannes Schulthess (Zurich: Schulthess, 1835), 19-20
[Gen 4:1].
58 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

Pellikan133applied
* 135 136
it to their original Latin translations of the Hebrew
Bible. Only Catholic Hebraist Sante Pagnini, completely ignored
Luther's disquisitions3‫*؛‬.
Luther realised that his exposition of Gen 4:1 did not supersede
other interpretations, and noticed that those eminent Hebraists (cf
Fagius, Münster, Pagnini and Pellikan), whom he personally admired,
were still recapitulating the standard Jewish exegesis of Gen 4:1 in their
commentaries or in their annotated translations of the Hebrew Bible.33‫؛‬
Since Luther was determined to impose his views on Gen 4:1 upon
Protestant theology, which he himself admitted in his treatise. On the
Last Words ofDavid, he decided to intensify the campaign against the
Jewish exegetical tradition, in order to confront Judaism and in order to
admonish Christian Hebraists for their ‘Judaising:
To begin with, Luther explained why in Gen 4:1, Eve misidentified
Cain as the awaited Saviour, stating that despite her genuine piety and
firm faith in the promised Seed, she did not understand that in Gen3:15,
the Seed was defined as her offspring, not as her and Adam’s offspring.
Is, knowing that Adam sired Cain, Eve should reach a conclusion that
her first-born child was not destined to be the promised Redeemer.
Further, Luther avowed that although his interpretation of Gen 4:1
was unprecedented,3‫ ¿؛‬and was not adopted by contemporary Hebraists,
he was pleased with it, being convinced that dissenting voices were
propelled by the Jews who Crucified Christ’ and were accustomed to
'crucifying cats’ in place of Christ. In Luther’s view, the Jews, due to
their ‘unbelief‫ ؛‬not only lost command of Hebrew, but also forged
Hebrew lexica and grammars, and tampered with the vocalisation of the
Hebrew Bible, in order to obscure the Messianic message thereof Luther
claimed that since the Jews were ‘the most evil people in the world‫ ؛‬no

133 Pellikan vacillated, therefore he put ،per in brackets: ،Possendi hominem (per)
dominumWith (per) his translation was identical with the Vulgate, whereas
without (per) it conformed to Luther's interpretation.
3‫ *؛‬Sante Pagnini, ed. and trans., Biblia (Leiden: Ry 1528), lr [Gen 4:1].
135 For instance, Münster and Fagius quoted Nahmanides* pristine comment on
Gen 4:1, while Pellikan cited the Targum Onkelos.
136 Luther never admitted that his exegesis of Gen 4:1 originated fromReuchliffs
De arte cabalística.
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 59

evidence associated with them could lend credence to any exegetical

argumentation.
Consequently Luther dismissed the renditions, ،in company with
the Lord’ (‫)עמיי‬, or, ،from the Lord’ (‫ מןיי‬or ‫)מאתיי‬, preferred by the
Christian Hebraists of the early lbCentury, affirming that the word,‫את‬,
must always function as the mark of the direct object. Therefore, in his
view,‫יי‬-‫ את‬must be perceived as appositive to ‫איש‬, which is the direct
object of the verb,‫קניתי‬.
Nevertheless, Luther was aware that one of the most comprehensive
grammars of Hebrew, based on David Kimhi’s manual and available in
Latin,137 stipulated that ‫ את‬might function either as nota accusativi or
as the preposition, denoting primarily ‘towards’ (ad [‫)]אל‬, ‘from’ (de
[‫ מן‬or ‫ )]מאת‬or ‘in company with’ (cum [‫)]עם‬. This standard textbook
provided many passages to illustrate respective prepositional functions
of ‫את‬٠ From the contemporary perspective, most of those references
are accurate. Obviously, in Hebrew, ‫את‬, is predominantly used either
as the mark of the direct object or as the preposition, granted that the
vocalisation of the suffixed forms reveal their function. For instance,‫&תי‬
denotes ‘me’, whereas ‫אתי‬, ‘with me’.138 With regard to the unsuffixed
form of ‫את‬, the syntactic context is critical to the proper interpretation,
which we can sense in Gen 17:21: ‘But my covenant [‫ ]ואת בריתי‬will
I establish with [‫ ]את‬Isaac...’ (Kjv). The former ‫ את‬is nota, while the
latter is the preposition, which is supported by Targum Onkelos and the
Septuagint.
The Hebrew dictionaries accessible to Luther in Latin3* (cf

137 Kimhi, Hebraicarum institutionum, 421-427 [IV, De praepositione]. Cf

Luther, (Von den letzten Worten Davids (1543)74 ‫؛‬: Denn auf die Exempel,
die sie fuhren aus Rabbi Kimhi...’
138 .e Jewish grammarians observed that the vocalisation of the suffixed forms
seldom contravenes the context, calling for the opposite form. For instance,
in the Jeremiah 20:11, the MT contains the form,‫תי‬١‫( א‬nota accusativi), albeit
that the Septuagint and the authoritative Targum interpret it as the preposition
(‫)אתי‬. David Kimhi, Radicum liber sive Hebraeum bibliorum lexicon, ed. Johann
Heinrich Raphael Biesenthal and FUrchtegott Lebrecht (Berlin: Bethge, 1847),
30-31 [s. V..[‫את‬
‫ا‬3‫ و‬In fact, the Hebrew lexicon by Menahem ben Saruq, which was at that time
60 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

Reuchlin,14٥ Complutensian Polyglot,141 Münster٤42 and Pagnini43‫)؛‬

adduced many solid passages (cf. Gen 14:2) 21:20) 37:2) 49:25) Exod
1:1) Judg 19:18) 2 Sam 15:11) 1 Kgs 18:32) Job 26:4) Ps 78:8 [LXX: Ps
77:8]) Isa 28:15) 28:18) 40:14 and Ezek 20:16) 21:25)144 as proof of the
prepositional function of ‫את‬, yet Luther resolved to focus on Gen 5:22)
6:9) 39:2) 44:4 and Exod 9:29, debunking the use of the other passages.
Luther was right in saying that in Gen 44:4 and Exod 9:29, ‫ את‬was
used as the mark of the direct object, because we observe that the verb,
‘to leave' (‫)יצא‬, frequently occurs with the direct object, and does not
have to be accompanied by the preposition, ‘from' (‫)מץ‬. Similarly, in
English we say ‘to leave the city', not ‘to leave from the city:
However, Luther could not tackle Gen 5:22) 6:9 and 39:2, where
the syntactic context, the Septuagint, and Targum Onkelos, support the
prepositional interpretation of ‫את‬. Regardless of the evidences, Luther
argued that ‫ את‬always functions as nota accusativi, admitting that he had
no idea how to translate the aforementioned passages into German if ‫את‬
was to be construed as the mark of the direct object. Luther also referred
to certainNewTestamentpassages (Rom6:10) Gal 1:20) 2:20) 1 Pet 42‫)ذ‬
and to a Latin phrase from Juvenal's Satires (II, 3), but in grammatical
terms it is unclear what point he attempted to make, because it is
inadmissible to shift from Greek or Latin (Indo-European languages) to
Hebrew (a Semitic language), as far as the case system is concerned.
Finally, claiming that all Jewish and Christian textbooks of that age
circulating in manuscript, contained even more irrefutable evidences. Idem,
‫מחברת מנחם‬, ed. Herschell Filipowski (London: Hebrew Antiquarian Society,
1854). The same is true of the Hebrew original of David Kimhfs dictionary.
140 Reuchlin, Principium libri, 71-72 [s. V.‫]את‬. An expanded version: Idem, ed..
Lexicon Hebraicum, 93 [s. V.‫]את‬.
141 Vocabularium Hebraicum atque chaldaicum totius veteris testamenti (Alcala: In

Academia Complutensi, 1515), llr [s.v.‫]את‬.

142 Münster,ed .,Dictionarium, F4r-F4v[s.vl]. Idem, Institutionesgrammaticae

in Hebraeam linguam (Basel: Froben, 1524), E3v‫־‬E4r [De syllabis servilibus (s.
vl)].
143Pagnini,ed., Isaurus, 154-156 [s.vl].Kimhi,Hebraicaruminstitutionum,
421-427 [IV‫ ؛‬Depraepositione].
144 All of them were consonant with the Septuagint and with the authoritative
Targumim.
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 61

recognised ‫ את‬only as the mark of the direct object, Luther departed

from the truth, because the major Hebrew grammars (cf Aurogallus,14s
Caligny,146 Elijah Levita, 147 Fagius,148 Münster,149 Uranius,15٥ and
Zamorensisisi) that were published in Latin prior to 1543 clearly
acknowledged two basic functions thereof Among them, there was
Aurogallus’ textbook, with which Luther was acquainted.

9. Calvin Examines the Passage and Evaluates Luther’s In-

terpretatlon
Examining Gen 4:1, Calvin immediately distinguished three standard
interpretations of the phrase,‫יי‬-‫את‬, and one non-standard. Further, he
summarised all the interpretations and expressed his own opinion.
According to the first standard interpretation, the phrase denotes
With the Lord’ (cum Domino), in the sense that the acquisition of the
first-born son by Eve took place by God’s grace (per Dei gratiam), and
was a token of God’s favour (Dei beneficio) towards her and towards
humankind. Is, in response to the blessing of the offspring that she
acquired, she praised the Lord for His gift, in line with Psalm 127:3.
According to the second standard interpretation. Eve acquired Cain
،from the Lord’ (a Domino), because the Lord is the sole giver of life.
Calvin stated that the third standard interpretation embodied in the* 146 147

‫ا‬4‫ ذ‬Aurogallus, Compendium, EVr [.Depraepositione].

146 Alain Restauld de Caligny, Institutiones Hebraicae (Paris: Wechel, 1545), 48
[1De praepositione]! Editio princeps: 1541.
147 Elijah Levita, Grammatica Hebraea, ed. and trans. Sebastian Münster (Basel:
Froben, 1543), N3v [De aliis consignificativis dictionibus]. Editioprinceps: 1532.
Idem, Opus grammaticum consummatum, ed. and trans. Sebastian Münster
(Basel: Petri, 1549), 289 [III, Cataloguspraepositionum]. Editio princeps: 1541.
148 Paul Fagius, Compendiarla isagoge in linguam Hebraeam (Constance:
Ranivora, 1543), Xlr [.Praepositiones].
149 Münster, Institutiones grammaticae in Hebraeam linguam, M5v [De
praepositionibus].
150 Henricus Uranius, Compendium Hebraeae grammatices (Basel: Henricpetri,
1568), 100 [Depraepositione]. Editio princeps: 1541.
‫ اؤل‬Alfonso Castro Zamorensis, Introductiones artisgrammaticeHebraice (Alcala:
In Academia Complutensi, 1526), [125] [1,12,2 ].Ibidem, [241] [s.vl].
62 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

Vulgate (perDominum)¡52 is akin to the second one.

In Calvin’s view, these three standard expositions were emphasising
Eve’s gratitude to the Lord for His favour, favour which neither she
nor Adam deserved due to their fall into sin. Consequently, instead
of eradicating the human race, the Lord has graciously secured the
proliferation thereof.
The non-standard interpretation was depicted by Calvin as ‘subtle’,
whichinlightofthehistorical context, mightsoundironic.^eproponents
thereof presumed that Eve misidentified Cain as the Saviour promised
in Gen 315‫؛‬, which demonstrated her faith in the divine promise of the
redemption. Indeed, this was Luther’s position.
Ultimately, Calvin took a stance on the issue, distancing himself from
Luther’s exegesis. Calvin did not deny three standard interpretations, but
rather tried to specify the sense of Eve’s gratitude to the Lord. In his
opinion, rejoicing in her acquisition. Eve offered Cain to the Lord as
the first fruits of the human race that began multiplying itself. On that
account, Calvin proposed a translation (...Domino virum (‫؛‬I acquired] a
man for the Lord). Further, he explained why in Gen 4:1, Eve’s first-born
was described as ‘man’ (‫)איש‬, which is a generic term, and not necessarily
adequate for an infant.153 In his view, the appellation, ‘man’, highlighted
the fact that this infant represented humankind as spiritually desolate
because of Adam and Eve’s fall, yet graciously sustained and renewed by
the Lord by means of procreation, as initiated by Cain’s birth. Calvin’s
interpretation coincided with Procopius’ and Chrysostom’s insights, and
it was not far from Nahmanides’ commentary: ،This very son will be my
[scilicet Eve’s] possession for the Lord’ (‫)הבן הזה יהיה לי קין ליי‬.

10. Conclusion
The early history of the interpretation of our passage^reveals that152 153 154
152 Actually, the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate read, ‘by God’ (per Deum), but it is
irrelevant to the argument.
153 This is raised as an objection by some modern commentators. Westermann,
Genesis 1-11: A Commentary.
154 A history of the reception since the Age of the Reformation until 1717
was summarised byFranciscus Fabricius. Idem, ‘Dissertatio V ad Genesin 4:1
qua agitur de impositione nominis Caini,’ in Christus unicum ac perpetuum
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April) 2015) 63

Luther did not open up the Reformation exposition ofthe Hebrew Bible
to the Jewish exegetical tradition, but rather disseminated anti-Semitic
allegations. On the one hand, Luther learned Hebrew, was cognisant of
Hebrew scholarship, and lauded Pagnini and Münster.155 On the other
hand, in the same treatise, he presupposed that the Christian Hebraists
were beguiled by the ‘wicked’ Rabbis, who, in his view, devoted their
life to concealing the Messianic loci in the Hebrew Bible. Luther could
never accept that the Messianic concept of Rabbinic Judaism did not
correspond to that of the New Testament.
In 1543, Luther enunciated the idea of‘new’ Hebrew studies purged of
‘Jewish elements’, among which he reckoned the Masoretic vocalisation
and the grammatical scholarship treasured by the Jewish community,
forgetting that apart from the Jews, the original text of the Hebrew
Bible and the knowledge of Hebrew would have been completely lost.
Therefore, it is no surprise that his colleague, Johann Forster, in the title
of his dictionary,155 assured the audience that his lexicon was not based
on the Rabbinic legacy and was not related to the ‘stupid’ imitation of
the Christian Hebraists, ‘deceived’ by the Rabbis. Naturally, Forster’s
work was entirely dependent on David Kimhi and on the lexica of other
Christian Hebraists, which all originated from the masterpiece of ‫רד״ק‬
(Kimhi).
On the contrary, Calvin was well-disposed towards the Jewish
exegetical tradition. Therefore, those proponents of Lutheran orthodoxy
who carried onLuther’santi-Semitism, denounced Calvin as ajudaiser.*15?
Commenting upon the Hebrew Bible, Calvin diligently researched
Jewish commentaries, especially those contained in the Rabbinic Bible
of 1524, and those written by David Kimhi. He was also well-versed
in the authoritative Targumim, and was not afraid to give due merit to
the Jewish scholars in his commentaries and lectures. Unlike Luther,

fundamentum ecclesiae (Leiden: Luchtmans, 1717), 260-283.

155 Luther, ،Vom Sehern Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (1543),’ 646-
648.
156 Johann Forster, ed., Dictionarium Hebraicum novum non ex rabinorum
commentis nec nostratium doctorum stulta imitatione descriptum (Basel: Froben,
1557).
15? Aegidius Hunnius, Calvinus ludaizans (Wittenberg: Welack, 1593).
64 Reformation Exegesis Encountering the Jewish Legacy

Calvin regarded the Masoretic text as reliable, and described those who
contested the credibility thereof as destitute of all discernment and
reasoff.158 At the same time, he did not discredit the Septuagint, which
he valued as relevant testimony to the ancient Jewish reception of the
Hebrew Bible and to the transmission of the text thereof
Calvin's way of handling Gen 4:1 was characteristic of his exegesis.
Firstly, he identified the subject of dispute. Secondly, he recapitulated
major interpretations of the passage, and thirdly he evaluated them,
expressing his own opinion. On principle, Calvin preferred to discuss
bare propositions rather than to name their partisans.
Luther’s interpretation of Gen 4:1 breaches the hermeneutical
principles of any decent exegesis, and even a very rudimentary literary
analysis*^ renders it untenable, because inthelight ofthe literary context.
Eve's statement, ،1 acquired a man ‫ את‬the Lord’, appears to be appositive
to the previous narrative, ‫؛‬..she conceived and bore Cain‫ ؛‬which is free of
any Messianic allusions.
Undoubtedly the Book of Genesis presents the words attributed to
Eve not as expressive of her disappointed hope that Cain was to be the
promised Saviour, but rather as a statement of fact, that with the aid of
the Lord she acquired her first-born child-a statement of her gratitude
to the Lord for His marvellous gift. Accordingly, in response to the
LordS favour, which neither Eve nor Adam could merit or deserve, she
offered the first fruits of the human race to the very Creator and Preserver
thereof. Biswas captured by Calvin, who dared to follow in the footsteps
of the Hebrew divines, contrary to the prevailing anti-Semitism of that

158 John Calvin, ،In Zachariam,’ in Opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 72 (44), ed.
Wilhelm Baum, Edouard Cunitz and Eduard Reuss (Brunswick: Schwetschke,
1890),306 [Zechll:7].
159 Additionally, Dillmann argued that in Gen 4:1, the Masoretic accents
separated ‫ איש‬from ‫יי‬-‫את‬. August Dillmann, Genesis Critically and Exegetically
Expounded, vol. 1, trans. William Black Stevenson (Edinburgh: Clark, 1897),
183-184 ‫؛‬Gen 4:1]. Nonetheless, in that passage, the Masoretic accents
(‫ מירכא‬and ‫ טפחא‬respectively) bracketed ‫ איש‬and ‫ קניתי‬together, which did not
determine the relationship between ‫ קניתי איש‬and ‫אתי הרה‬. William Wickes, A
Treatise on the Accentuation ofthe Twenty-One So-Called Prose Books ofthe Old
Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1887), 91 [IX, I].
I Reformed lological Review 74:1 (April, 2015) 65

age, which was unfortunately not alien to other Reformers, regardless of

their confessional loyalties.
Mateusz (Matthew) Oseka
Kowloon, HongKong
 YXcewse Äwd Ve٣m١ss\b\e Vise UcAXce

Tese mate٢ials a٢e provided to you by the American ً‫ا‬heo logical Library Association (AT LA) in
acco٢dance with the te٢ms of ATLA'S ag٢eements with the copyright holde٢ o٢ authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holde٢ of these materials.

You may download, print, and sha٢e these materials fo٢ you٢ individual use as may be pe٢mitted by the
applicable ag٢eements among the copyright holder distributors۶ licenso٢s, licensees, and use٢s of these
materials (including, fo٢ example, any ag٢eements ente٢ed into by the institution o٢ othe٢ o٢ganization
from which you obtained these materials) and in acco٢dance with the fair use principles of United States
and interoational copyright and othe٢ applicable laws. You may not, fo٢ example, copy o٢ email these
materials to multiple web sites o٢ publicly post, distribute fo٢ commeroial pu٢poses, modify, o٢ c٢eate
derivative wo٢ks of these materials without the copyright holderis exp٢ess prior written pe٢mission.

Please contact the copyright holde٢ if you would like to ٢equest pe٢mission to use these materials, o٢
any pa٢t of these materials, in any manne٢ o٢ fo٢ any use not pe٢mitted by the ag٢eements described
above o٢ the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and othe٢ applicable laws.
Fo٢ info٢mation ٢ega٢d¡ng the identity of the copyright holder refer to the copyright info٢mation in
these materials, if available, o٢ contact ATIA at products@atla.com.

Except as othe٢wise specified. Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.