The Rabbinic Bible, the
Miqra'ot Gedolot, prefaces its commentary with statements from Ibn Ezra on the nature of proper interpretation of the seminal text. At first he claims: "
I treat God alone with awe, and will show no favor to the Torah, seeking the correct meaning of each and every word with all my might. Then I will interpret each verse as best I am able." -----He's seemingly appealing to something like the tradition Rabbi Hirsch expounded concerning the multivocality, the plasticity of divine language, as associated with the concept that two people could read the original tablets at the same time: one from the back, and one from the front. He will be guided by the fiery spirit of God ---the words of fire will support his interpretation, and not the material tablets alone (he will show no favor to natural, blind materialistic compulsion, so far as interpretation of the holy text is concerned).
But then he addresses the problem of where his own interpretation diverges from numerous Christian interpretations; but where the material letters, the blind compulsion of the clear and literal text, supports both, or all interpretations equally, or, godforbid, supports the Christian version more perfectly than his (say Psalms 2:6)?
In the introduction to the
Miqra'ot Gedolot, Ibn Ezra is made to address the problem of the multivocality, the numerous voices/interpretation made possible by the polysemous nature of the original revelation, such that in mid-stream, his foundational approach to proper exegesis and interpretation takes a 180 degree turn parallel to the 180 degree turn Rabbi Hirsch's interpretation took whereby though he knows the literal text says Israel made Moses their dictatorial mediator, and of their own freewill (not wanting the frightening responsibility of letting the fiery letters land on them as it did the poor souls in the upper room ---most of whom were later martyred for their troubles), they nevertheless are somehow endowed with the discourse associated with the upper room events in Acts chapter 2?
Caught with his hand stuck in the cookie jar of interpretative fidelity, Ibn Ezra changes his tune dramatically, and in such a manner as to reflect the true nature of the happenings at Horeb:
To be sure, when it comes to the laws, if we find two possible meanings, we will follow the one handed down by our righteous Sages. We can rely perfectly on them. . . Our Sages were true; all their words are true. May the true God guide His servants on the true path.
So much for awe of God, and relying exclusively on his spirit, his fiery words, written on the heart more deeply than in the stone tablets (Ezekiel 11:19). No, it's Jewish men, Moses, the Chazal, the Jewish Sages, who are the dictators and mediators of the true path, the true interpretation, the slavery of all the minor Jews of orthodox Judaism. Let the Christians believe they have the law written on their heart so that they can individually interpret the text. We have Moses and the Chazal. You think you have God, the spirit, freedom; well we have our glorious dictator and slave-driver Moses who lashes us down with the weight of the law, strikes us with the yoke of the law, precisely as we begged him.
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Ezekiel 11:19–20.
John