An Erasmian Jewish Convert in 16th Century Vienna? Christian Concord and Jewish Sources in the Work of Paulus Weidner

Abstract

This article aims to shed new light on the work of the humanist and Jewish convert Paulus Weidner (1522–1585) by focusing on his use of postbiblical Jewish sources to defend, illustrate, and spread a non-confessional Christian faith both among Jews and among the divided Christians of the Habsburg Monarchy. As such, Weidner was a major figure of the Christian via media promoted at the Habsburg court in Vienna around the mid-16th century. Yet, he retained, at the same time, a profound originality, for his contribution was largely based on the Mishnah. Indeed, Weidner not only proposed Christian interpretations of the Talmud, which he argued could lead to Christian faith but also claimed that the Pirkei Avot could serve as a source of Christian ethics and, as such, ought be added to the Biblical and classical heritage promoted and revered by scholars of his time.

1. Introduction

“We, too, as a Christian emperor, would graciously like to see that the unbelieving Jews were converted to the Christian faith and saved from the ruin of their souls”1.

(Bondy and Dworsky 1906, p. 458)

With these words addressed in March 1561 from Vienna to his son Ferdinand (1529–1595) in Prague, the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I (1503–1564) was, in fact, affirming his goal of achieving a two-fold religious unity. On the one hand, the emperor was explicitly hoping for the conversion of Bohemian Jews to Christianity, an initiative which had received a new impetus from Rome since the burning of the Talmud was ordered by the Inquisition (1553) and the bull Cum sicut nuper (1554) (Stow 1972; Boxel 2011). On the other hand, the same wish implicitly reflected the emperor’s main concern since the Peace of Augsburg (1555) to promote Christian reconciliation and reconstitute the unity that had been gradually exploding into rival confessions since the Reformation (1517). Indeed, Ferdinand I considered the Peace of Augsburg to be a temporary solution until the definitive settlement of religious discord (Michaud 2013; Kohler 2003; Leeb 2003; Constant 1923).

The humanist and neophyte Paulus Weidner (1522–1585) (Diamant 1933; Diemling 2007, 2012) endeavoured to achieve this double imperial vision of spreading and illustrating a Christian via media among the Jews as well as among the divided Christians of the Habsburg Monarchy. Converted from Judaism to Christianity upon his arrival in Vienna in 1558, Weidner rapidly became a major figure of the Erasmian spirit at work at the court of Ferdinand I in the 1550s. Like other humanists joining the imperial court during this decade (Heer 1960; Louthan 1997; Almási 2009), Weidner was committed to finding a pathway between confessional extremes to restore Christian unity. Yet, he retained, at the same time, a profound originality, for his contribution was largely based on postbiblical Jewish religious literature. Weidner not only proposed to use rabbinic literature to demonstrate Christianity to Jews and Christians but also claimed that the Pirkei Avot could serve as a source of Christian ethics and, as such, ought be used in the Erasmian quest for Christian compromise.

To this end, I will first shed light on the stakes of Weidner’s conversion in Vienna. Second, I will consider his contribution to Christian moral improvement, which was a pillar of the Erasmian via media promoted at the imperial court since at least the 1550s.

2. Paulus Weidner in Vienna: A Convert to the Erasmian via media?

2.1. Historiographic Perspective on Paulus Weidner and the Erasmian via media

A well-known figure of sixteenth century Vienna since Paul Diamant’s pioneering article (Diamant 1933), Paulus Weidner is by no means a forgotten Jewish convert from the Early Modern Holy Roman Empire. Yet, although he is mentioned in important research on the rise of Christian Hebraism in the Reformation Era (Burnett 2012, pp. 27, 132, 252) and Jewish converts in Early Modern Germany (Carlebach 2001, p. 123), rapid allusions to Weidner are far more common than any sustained investigation. Accordingly, no detailed analysis of his work has ever been published, and the specific background of his conversion has sparked very little, if any, interest. In the few detailed studies dedicated to his life and conversion, Paulus Weidner has been mainly analysed in the historiography as a successful convert from Judaism to Christianity and a devout Catholic, if not a representative of the Catholic confessionalisation at work in the second half of the century (Polleross 2003, p. 460). This double feature was induced by the work of Paul Diamant himself, whose seminal research emphasised Weidner’s rapid social climbing, the ruler’s favour, and his material wealth after his conversion while describing him as “a demonstrative confessor of Catholic doctrine”2 (Diamant 1933, p. 57). Although a seminal and masterful work on Paulus Weidner, in both the scope and variety of primary sources on which it is based, as well as the detailed account of Weidner’s life and posterity it provides, Paul Diamant’s contribution only gives a general overview of Paulus Weidner’s work. It specifically dealt with neither the content of his work nor the specificity of the Christian humanist milieu or even the precise background in which his conversion occurred. More recent articles by Maria Diemling (Diemling 2007; Diemling 2012) did not focus on Weidner’s thinking either. They integrate Weidner in comparative studies of Jewish converts in perspective of studies of conversions (Konversionsforschung) (Diemling 2007, p. 41) to analyse the difficulties and opportunities encountered by neophytes from Judaism in the Early Modern Times, as well as missionary strategies developed by Christians to use their spiritual itineraries as examples for their former coreligionists (Diemling 2012, p. 164).

In 1999, however, Heribert Smolinsky opened a new perspective on Paulus Weidner in his analysis of the confessional choice faced by Jewish converts in the sixteenth century after the rise of the Reformation. Choosing Weidner as one of the case studies for his demonstration, Heribert Smolinsky engaged with Weidner’s first book, the Loca praecipua fidei Christianae, that is, The main points of Christian faith, (Smolinsky 1999, pp. 160–62), which was first published in 1559 in the wake of his conversion to Christianity and, once out of print, republished in an extended version in 1562. Heribert Smolinsky came to the conclusion that “The findings on both versions of the Loca are surprising: there is no evidence of religious confessionalisation”3 (Smolinsky 1999, p. 161). This article argues that Heribert Smolinsky’s stimulating analysis ceased to be surprising once properly contextualised. Indeed, this article argues that Paulus Weidner should be considered as one of the main figures of the Habsburg religious via media (middle way) characterising the Viennese court between the 1550s and the 1560s. As I will demonstrate, Weidner’s conversion occurred in a period marked by the “quest for compromise” (Louthan 1997) analysed by Howard Louthan in his seminal work on the “Peacemakers in Counter-Reformation Vienna”. Therefore, this research tends to shed new light on Paulus Weidner by interpreting him as an Erasmian Christian who took an active part in illustrating and encouraging the Christian reconciliation for which Ferdinand I and his son, Maximilian, wished. As such, this article proposes to not only nuance or revise Weidner’s description as a mere “Catholic” (Burnett 2012, p. 132) based on his work but also integrate two of his main books from the perspective of transconfessionality (Kaufmann 2003). Thomas Kaufmann defines transconfessionality as “a deliberate overcoming of respective confessional ‘boundaries’, which can have different causes and can be expressed in different forms: the relativisation of what separates, recourse to the common pre-confessional heritage, and enlargement to the supra-confessional linker, to the common Christian fund”4 (Kaufmann 2003, pp. 14–15). Thus, this research aims to contribute to highlight the diversity of the Christian via media then in the making at the Habsburg court. To do so, it appears necessary to shed more light on the background in which Weidner turned to Christianity by highlighting some characteristics of the Viennese court in the 1550s as well as by defining what is understood here by the Erasmian via media.

Indeed, when Paulus Weidner arrived in Vienna in 1558, the city was experiencing a cultural revival under the auspices of the newly crowned Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand I (Almási 2009, pp. 127–31). The newcomer Weidner quickly took part in this revival by making a significant contribution to then-flourishing oriental studies (Wilkinson 2007; Roche 2021) and the Christian via media. A Jewish physician from Italy, Weidner was familiar with university studies as well as the Hebrew language. Born in Udine, Asher (Jehudah?) ben Nathan Aschkenasi studied medicine, probably in Padua, before practicing it in his hometown and then in Venice. In the early 1550s, the estates of Carinthia offered him a position as a Landesphysicus, although Jews were theoretically prohibited from settling in this region (Diamant 1933). After six years in Carinthia, Weidner came to Vienna, which was then emerging from a period of slow decline triggered by the religious, economic, and military turmoil that struck the city in the 1520s (Vocelka and Traninger 2003). In contrast, the 1550s witnessed a significant urban renovation and intellectual flourishing initiated by Ferdinand I, eager to secure prestige worthy of his new imperial title (Vocelka 2003; Louthan 1997; Almási 2009). During this latter decade, the imperial crown passed from Charles V (1500–1558) to his younger brother, who endeavoured to raise the cultural profile of Vienna. His principal residence (Residenzstadt) since 1533, the city simultaneously became the focal point of the Christian conciliation, for which the emperor hoped, in the Holy Roman Empire or, at least, in the Habsburg Monarchy. Since the early 1520s, Reformation ideas had encountered considerable success in Hereditary Lands (Erblande), especially in Vienna (Leeb 2003; Vocelka and Traninger 2003; Leeb et al. 2017; Winkelbauer 2003). A “centre of Catholic reform” (Louthan 1997, p. 2) with the presence of Jesuits (Vocelka 2009), Vienna was, at the same time, marked by an “Erasmian dynamic” (Louthan 1997, p. 2) in the later years of Ferdinand’s reign. What Friedrich Heer described as the “third force” (dritte Kraft) at the Viennese court (Heer 1960, pp. 429–33) was summarised by Howard Louthan as “an adiaphoristic or tolerant spirit that eschewed confessional extremes“ (Louthan 1997, p. 3). The naming of moderate figures in the Habsburg court around the 1560s has occasioned much thought since at least the second half of the nineteenth century. The concept of compromise Catholicism (Kompromißkatholizismus), coined by Felix Stiege and developed by Otto Helmut Hopfen in his book on Maximilian II (Hopfen 1895), did not attain broad currency owing to his definition, which was judged unsatisfactory. According to Otto Helmut Hopfen, Maximilian and his immediate entourage belonged to a group that rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church on several points without belonging to one of the Churches resulting from the Reformation. In the 1960s, Friedrich Heer revived the idea of a third way, a dritte Kraft, that of humanism, which was a middle way (Mittelweg) between Catholics and Protestants. Howard Louthan himself preferred the neologism “irenicism”, which he defines as “a peaceful attempt to reconcile theological differences between various confessional parties”, before adding that “its roots can be found in the Christian humanism of Erasmus” (Louthan 1997, p. 9). At the end of his study of four critical figures of the Austrian middle way, which he describes as a “survey of the Habsburg via media” (Louthan 1997, p. 163), Louthan deals with “the wider circle of irenicism” (pp. 163–66) in which he lists some of the other figures who would merit further attention for a fuller understanding of the Austrian middle way. It seems noteworthy that Paulus Weidner does not appear among humanists mentioned by Howard Louthan, although another Hebraist, Johann Albrecht Widmanstetter (1506–1557), finds his place among the names suggested for further research. In a more recent study of two major protagonists of humanism at the Habsburg court, Johannes Sambucus (1531–1584) and Adreas Dudith (1533–1589) (Almási 2009), in which he also deals with the Habsburg via media (Almási 2009, pp. 104–7) and relationship between humanism and confessionalism (Almási 2009, pp. 104–7), Gábor Almási underlines the significance of the later years of Ferdinand’s rule for the cultural flourishing of the later courts of Maximilian in Vienna and Rudolf in Prague. While mentioning Paulus Weidner among “famous court physicians” (Almási 2009, p. 127), he does not say more about him.

Howard Louthan justified his use of the neologism “irenicism” by the “somewhat fuzzy contours of the Austrian via media” (Louthan 1997, p. 9). He also refers to Erasmus’s (1466–1536) influence on the work of the courtiers who committed to this Christian middle way, which lies at the core of this article. Therefore, it seems necessary to explain what we understand by the Erasmian via media. Analysed by several scholars who tend to include it in a history of “tolerance” (Lecler [1955] 1994, pp. 133–49) or “toleration” (Forst 2013, pp. 96–137), the Erasmian via media is summarised herein by a few features for which we intend to confront two of Paulus Weidner’s works, the Loca praecipua (Weidner 1559, 1562b) as well as the Sententiae hebraicae, that is, the Hebrew Maxims (Weidner 1563). Rather than a detailed introduction to Erasmus’s views on Christian reconciliation, these few features should help us shed new light on Weidner’s work. These characteristics relied on the work of Erasmus, whose significance for a whole generation of humanists was recalled by Rainer Forst, who claimed that “the justification of toleration which is most typical of Christian humanism as a whole is to be found in the work of Erasmus of Rotterdam, the most highly regarded scholar of his time (…), although it is scattered throughout his writings” (Forst 2013, p. 103). Published in 1955, the seminal work of Joseph Lecler on the Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme (Toleration and the Reformation) still constitutes one of the major syntheses of the main aspects of Erasmus’s thinking on Christian unity. According to Joseph Lecler, “Erasmus’s plans for the restoration of Christian unity”5 relied on three basic pillars: first, the primacy of charity (Lecler [1955] 1994, pp. 139–42); second, the focus on a few articles of faith on which divided Christians still agreed (Lecler [1955] 1994, pp. 142–45); third, the priority given to the Christian way of life and Christian morals, as opposed to theological matters, in the definition of Christianity (Lecler [1955] 1994, pp. 145–46)6. Central to Christ’s teachings, injunctions of charity, gentleness, and leniency seem, in Erasmus’s work, as His most (and only) important command, which led Erasmus to claim that “the essence of our religion is peace and unanimity”7 (Erasmus, Letter to Jean Carondelet, 5 January 1523, cited by Lecler [1955] 1994, p. 140). In the context of religious discord, charity seemed, to Erasmus, all the more essential to restore Christian harmony. Only mutual benevolence, rather than force or violent repression, could serve as the basis for dialogue between divided Christians. A proponent of moderation, Erasmus advocated leniency, patience, and mildness towards dissidents in the hope of bringing them back to the right path. As Rainer Forster put it, “for Erasmus, the goal of love is to overcome differences between human beings, which foster discord, and to lead them to unity in God’s truth” (Forst 2013, p. 106). Guided by fraternal charity, Christians should then be able to find common ground on which to reconcile. Erasmus supported the return to a simple faith, which would consist of a brief but substantial summary of the Christian faith. Once having built a consensus on a few essential articles of faith, Christians could leave inessential matters open for discussion. It seems that Erasmus considered that the Apostles’ Creed encompassed the essential articles of faith. This is at least what is suggested by one of Erasmus’s colloquy (colloquium), the Inquisitio de Fide, that is, the Investigation on Faith (1524), in which a Lutheran and a Catholic ended up agreeing on the Apostles’ Creed. The emphasis on essential matters proved to have two main corollaries. The first was Erasmus’s reprobation of vain theological debates as well as the tendency of theologians to impose as a truth of faith any theological speculations. The second consequence is the very broad concept of inessential matters, or adiaphora, which implied the narrowing of the definition of heresy (Forst 2013, p. 105). Finally, it should be stressed that for Erasmus, the essential teaching of Christ was encapsulated in the patristic idea of the Philosophy of Christ or heavenly philosophy, which he refers to as Philosophia Christi or Philosophia Christiana, and appears mainly concerned with the ethical conduct of life. Thus, Erasmus called for a biblical theology relying on the Gospels and providing an impetus to live and act as Christians. As Joseph Lecler put it “finally, for Erasmus, understanding between Christians will be facilitated if we remember that Christianity is not only a faith, but a life; that it does not consist only in believing well, but, above all, in living well. The identity of Christian mores necessarily brings together those whom more or less divergent opinions risk dividing”8 (Lecler [1955] 1994, p. 145). The significance of Christian orthopraxy in Erasmus’s thinking, which designates the right action or proper Christian behaviour, which mainly means the imitation of Christ, has been often pointed out in historiography. In contrast to the historical variability of dogmas, which constitute the orthodoxy or correct creeds, true Christian behaviour, that is, the practice of Evangelical virtues, remained unchanged and atemporal. By focusing on two of Weidner’s major works, the Loca praecipua and the Sententiae hebraicae, this study aims to analyse Weidner in an Erasmian light and, thus, uncover the extent to which he made an original contribution to the humanist via media promoted at the Habsburg court in Vienna. As this article hopes to demonstrate, Weidner could be considered as a key figure of the humanist and Erasmian renewal, initiated from the court and university, through his example as a convert from Judaism to Christianity, who illustrated the Habsburg religious via media.

2.2. Loca Praecipua and Erasmian via media

A public event, Weidner’s conversion was soon publicised to serve the religious vision promoted at Ferdinand’s court. Indeed, one year after his baptism, Weidner related his spiritual experience in a book, the Loca praecipua fidei Christianae (1559) to promote “the main principles of Christian faith” not only among Jews but also among Christians. Weidner explicitly targeted this double audience, which he states towards the end of his preface to the reader. The Loca praecipua, however, constituted a demonstration of Christianity based on Biblical and postbiblical Jewish religious literature to convince Jews of the Christian truth from their own books. Hoping that his work would convince his readership, Weidner specifically hoped “that it may fall into the hands of Christians and, at the same time, of Jews with advantage and profit: Therefore, I pray with all my heart to the Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He may fulfil the hearts of readers of His spirit, that Christians may be more strengthened in the true faith. May the Jews, aided by one of my works, be able to seek, with more application and zeal, the Messiah whom God has promised them through the Patriarchs and Prophets, and may they finally arrive (…) to the true knowledge of God”9 (Weidner 1559, pp. 14–15). Weidner himself was showing them the way: the Loca praecipua opened with a family portrait depicting the Weidners gazing up the cross at Golgotha. By pointing to Jesus, Weidner was thus designating the Messiah for his wife and children as well as his intended Christian and Jewish readers. The fact that the same portrait was reused a few years later in a placard claiming that Jesus was the Messiah based on various biblical quotations in three languages—Hebrew, Latin, and German—underlines the significance of this picture for Christian proselytising towards the Jews (Contrafactur 1559). Although the placard is undated, the presence of two children “born after the conversion to Christianity” proves that it was released after 1559, possibly in the context of Weidner’s mission to the Jews in Prague in 1561. Although clearly meant to be a demonstration of Christianity directed towards the Jews, the Loca praecipua could also be interpreted, as this article argues, as the epitome of the Erasmian via media for them and Christians of the Habsburg Monarchy. Indeed, some pieces of evidence tend to confirm that with the Loca praecipua, Weidner was proposing his own version of the Erasmian via media based on Biblical and postbiblical Jewish religious literature.

First, the short spiritual biography that opens the Loca praecipua gives at least one noteworthy indication about the Christian milieu that Weidner joined through his conversion. Shortly after his move to Vienna with his family, as Weidner explained at the beginning of the book, he was christened along with his wife and four children in St. Stephen’s Cathedral, on 21 August 1558. According to him, a large crowd of a few thousand people attended the ceremony performed by the Bishop of Gurk, Urban Sagstetter (1529–1573) (Weidner 1559, p. 4). The very mention of Sagstetter proves very interesting. A court preacher (Hofprediger) and Imperial Councillor (kaiserlicher Rat) of Ferdinand I since 1556, Sagstetter was a fervent proponent of the Austrian middle way (Gigler 2000; Roche 2016). A representative of the religious moderation that marked the Viennese court in the 1550s, he famously eschewed confessional themes in his preaching, instead highlighting the common ground Christians still shared regardless of their particular confessional inclination. In effect, he chose to address non-confessional topics to which any Christian could relate, emphasising the common religious heritage accepted by all. As suggested by Paul Diamant, Weidner’s connection to Ferdinand’s court preacher certainly facilitated his access to the imperial service (Diamant 1933, p. 57). Although explicitly written for Christians and Jews alike, the Loca praecipua were, in fact, intended for an exclusive readership of learned scholars. The use of the Latin language tends to indicate that Weidner’s first book was aimed at the elite audience of Christian humanists and Latin-wise Jewry. By dedicating the Loca praecipua to Emperor Ferdinand and his son, Maximilian, Weidner immediately recommended himself as a talented humanist, a first-class Hebraist well versed in the Hebrew Bible and Judaic literature at large. His desire to become a part of the Habsburg court could have been a real motivation to conform to the moderate, if not transconfessional spirit, which then characterised Ferdinand’s court. In any case, the Loca praecipua arguably aimed to demonstrate that Weidner proved to be a scholar worthy of the cosmopolitan court of a ruler who was then surrounding himself with some of the most prestigious humanists and artists of the time, regardless of their confessional views. The front page of the 1562 edition of the Loca praecipua (Weidner 1562b) hinted at Weidner’s successful carrier at the university by describing him as not only a “Doctor of Philosophy and Medicine” but also a “Professor of Sacred Languages at the Imperial University in Vienna”10. Indeed, Weidner’s baptism and his connection to Sagstetter proved instrumental in his rapid and successful integration into court and university life. Along with his connection to the court preacher, his conversion allowed him to enter the service of the emperor, who held him in high regard for his skills in medicine and Hebrew. Soon becoming Ferdinand’s physician (Hofarzt) and member of the University of Vienna, where he was elected Rector three times and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine six times, Weidner quickly found his place at court (Denk 2022). In 1560, Ferdinand I ennobled him. A paragon of humanist scholars who circulated between court and university, Weidner made a name for himself as a Christian Hebraist. Weidner also treated courtiers, such as Lazarus von Schwendi (1522–1583) (Diamant 1933, p. 62), and, thus, became very much immersed in the curial world. The adoption of a moderate attitude characteristic of the Austrian middle way would have been advisable for any newcomer to the humanist milieu of the Viennese court; it does not mean, however, that Weidner necessarily tried to meet this expectation. It is indeed noteworthy that the irenic spirit analysed by Howard Louthan for the court was not the only Christian orientation promoted in Vienna. In contrast, the Jesuits illustrated the path to a strict Catholic confessionalisation, which would have displeased some courtiers—even if there were, by no means, any watertight boundaries between the court and Jesuits installed in Vienna. By contrast, Weidner’s conversion was inextricably linked to the Viennese court and its religious specificity. In addition, it also seems interesting that three years after publishing the first edition of the Loca praecipua, Weidner proposed an extended version of it. Far from denying his first book, a well-integrated Weidner chose to expand it. This choice tends to show that Weidner did not regret the directions given to his first work, which, therefore, probably fitted in Christian circles in which he had been moving.

Indeed, this article argues that Weidner contributed to the formulation of a Christian compromise that was then in the making. Even though Weidner’s conversion occurred within the Catholic Church, in St. Stephen’s Cathedral, and at the hands of a bishop who retained his allegiance to Rome, several elements of the Loca praecipua tend to indicate that it mirrored the irenic spirit that was then present in Vienna (Louthan 1997). Indeed, it was probably no coincidence that Weidner, like other humanists from Ferdinand’s court, kept referring to the Christian religion, the Religio Christiana, after his christening. Although the Reformation had made Jews’ conversion to Christianity more complex, Weidner avoided mentioning any confessional affiliation in his book. Not alluding to any confessional Church, the title Loca praecipua appeared programmatic. The purpose of the book was seemingly to introduce Jews to the “main points” of Christian faith without any confessional orientation. In his dedication to Ferdinand and Maximilian, Weidner claimed to have embraced Religio Christiana and that his book would show them “his view on God and the true doctrine”11 (Weidner 1559, fol. *2). The fact that Weidner dedicated his book to not only Ferdinand but also Maximilian proves to be very meaningful. During this time, indeed, Maximilian had “equivocal religious convictions” (Louthan 1997, p. 3), for which ambiguity he famously expressed in 1560 to Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (1504–1579), the then nuncio at the court of Ferdinand by declaring that he considered himself neither a Protestant nor a Catholic but a Christian (Bibl 1929, p. 98). His religious ambivalence was well-known in his time and has been thoroughly investigated and debated ever since by historians (Birkenmeier 2008). References to the Religio Christiana thus pervade the Loca praecipua, even though the term Catholic, catholicus, is used as well, although to a far lesser extent, and can be understood in not a confessional way but an original meaning that referred to the universality of the Church. One could argue, however, that the very title of Jesuit Peter Canisius’s (1521–1597) catechism, Summa doctrinae Christianae, that is, the Sum of Christian Doctrine, which was published in 1555 in Vienna under the auspices of Ferdinand, also referred rather neutrally to the “Christian doctrine”. According to Philippe Büttgen, though, the silent polemic against Protestants could be perceived, for instance, in passages dealing with the sacraments (Büttgen 2004).

The content of the Loca praecipua tends to confirm its transconfessional, if not Erasmian, inspiration. As already mentioned, Heribert Smolinsky, in his brief analysis of both versions of the Loca praecipua, was the first to point out their lack of a confessional marker. Heribert Smolinsky presented different pieces of evidence, which led him to this statement. Thus, he alluded to Weidner’s consensual definition of the Church as well as his tendency to prefer his own translation from the Hebrew Bible rather that quoting the Vulgate (Weidner 1559, pp. 9–10)12. According to Heribert Smolinsky, “Weidner speaks of the Christian faith in a way as if there were no inner-Christian disputes about the true form of religion. Even with the question Quid sit Ecclesia? the concretely existing institution plays no role”13 (Smolinsky 1999, pp. 161–62). Thus, Heribert Smolinsky paved the way for further research on the Christian content in the Loca praecipua. To further investigate this, it appears worthwhile, first, to analyse specifically Weidner’s definition of the Church; second, to focus on the main points of Christian faith that he decided to highlight, before finally considering which work(s) could have possibly inspired him in writing his book. Weidner’s definition of the Christian Church proves, indeed, to be very interesting. He described it as “the multitude or gathering of the faithful united by the faith, charity, and unity that Christ prayed for in James, 17: “Father, I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one, as you are in me, and this Church, indeed, is not idle but does its utmost to please Christ, that is, to imitate him”14 (Weidner 1559, p. 172). This definition of the Church, which emphasised its calling towards unity, underlined how necessary it was by the late 1550s to settle confessional disagreements. It also highlighted the Erasmian belief that any attempt at reconciliation should be based on the imitation of Christ as well as on a doctrinal consensus. The stress put on charity and Christian action following the example set by Jesus Christ somewhat echoed the idea of Philosophia Christi, as advocated by Erasmus. The necessary unity in faith was, of course, also recalled by Weidner. The chapters of the Loca praecipua provide an opportunity to learn on which pillars Weidner was proposing to base Christian faith. Both editions of his book (Weidner 1559, 1562b) summarised Christian faith in eight points dedicated to the Trinity (I), Divinity and Humanity of Christ (II), Coming of Christ (III), Evangelical Law (IV), Christ’s Passion and Death (V), Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension (VI), the Cross (VII), and the Sabbath and Day of the Lord (VIII). Before dealing with these eight topics, however, Weidner underlined the special significance of the first three because they constituted, according to him, the fundamental pillars of Christian faith. Thus, he started his demonstration with an introduction “On the three principal foundations of Christian faith”15 (Weidner 1559, p. 45), in which he explained that “although the faith of Christians (...) has been shaped and firmly established by the most certain foundations (...) since the world was founded, I have, nevertheless, decided in my mind that three main foundations should be considered in order, by which many articles of Christian faith necessary for salvation are joined and connected together, as if by an indissoluble link”16 (Weidner 1559, p. 45). Weidner then summarised these three pillars as follows: “The first foundation is that in the unity of the divine essence, there is plurality, and that plurality is trinity, and that trinity is unity. The second foundation is that in the person of the Son, human and divine nature are united so that Christ himself is both the true God and true man. The third foundation is that this event (that is, the incarnation of the Son of God) is of the past and is not to be expected of the future”17 (Weidner 1559, p. 45). One can argue that even if the Trinity undoubtedly remained one of the most controversial dogmas in Christian history, including during the Reformation era, with the revival of antitrinitarianism, it constituted, nevertheless, an important part of the Apostles’ Creed. Therefore, it should be recalled that Reformers considered the Apostles’ Creed to be a good summary of apostolic doctrine. Luther admired the conciseness and correctness of these articles of faith, while Calvin defined it as “a compendium and, thus, a kind of epitome of faith”18. The Creed of the Apostles preceded, in 1530, the articles of the Augsburg Confession and was, of course, still kept by Christians who were faithful to Rome. Thus, it seems possible to say that the three principles of faith presented by Weidner would be consensual enough to meet the expectations of a via media that could unite Christians beyond confessional extremes. A neophyte from Judaism, Weidner, thus, proclaimed, defined, and aimed to spread the Christian via media to which he had converted. The themes he dealt with encapsulated the basics acknowledged by Christians, eschewing any confessional polemic. It is noteworthy that Weidner dedicated his Loca praecipua to Ferdinand, who granted a printing privilege for the book. The imperial letter that opened the Loca praecipua, moreover, informed the reader that the book enjoyed the approval of a commission of theologians.

It must be underlined, however, that even if Weidner claimed that the three fundamentals of faith were the result of his own thinking, he also acknowledged in the preface to his book that he drew his inspiration from different sources (Weidner 1559, p. 4). Weidner’s use of Biblical and postbiblical Jewish religious literature to demonstrate Christianity was by no means original. It belonged to the four “basic types of Christian anti-Jewish polemics” (Funkenstein 1971) in the later Middle Ages, which Amos Funkenstein traced back to the twelfth century. The thirteenth century, however, constitutes a turning point regarding the Christian demonstration of the central tenets of Christian faith based on postbiblical Jewish religious literature and, especially, the Talmud (Fidora 2014). The Dominican order played a key role in this watershed moment with the Barcelona Disputation (1263) and writing of the Pugio fidei (Dagger of Faith), which proved that the Messiah had already come based on a myriad of quotations from the Talmud and other rabbinical texts. The Pugio fidei by Raymundus Martini, the Abbot of Burgos, thus constituted a major milestone in the attempt to demonstrate that postbiblical Jewish texts could prove the veracity of Christianity (Burnett 2012). Weidner was, thus, simultaneously following a long tradition of Christian apologetics. In this regard, he, therefore, probably based his Loca praecipua on books written by his predecessors. There are, for instance, striking similarities between his work and the De arcanis Catholicae veritatis (1518) (Galatinus 1518), that is, On the Secrets of the Catholic Truth by Petrus Galatinus (1460–1530)19. Although it is possible to claim that topics addressed in the Loca praecipua are conventional ones in proselyte literature towards the Jews, we must nonetheless take a closer look at the selection made by Weidner. Indeed, compared to Petrus Galatinus’s sum, Weidner’s book appears rather consensual once his omissions are considered. Whereas Galatinus’s book encompassed twelve chapters (Galatinus 1518, fols. IIII–X), Weidner’s had only eight. Each of Weidner’s points were not only far less detailed in doctrinal terms than Galatinus’s, but also he decided to put aside some topics, such as the point On the most holy mother of the Messiah20 (Galatinus 1518, fol. IIII) in which, for instance, Galatinus dealt with the immaculate conception of Mary (Galatinus 1518, fol. VIII). Of course, one can argue that Weidner did not have the theological background of Galatinus and, rather, aimed at proposing a simple summary of Christian faith. The work of Galatinus had already been written and reprinted several times during the sixteenth century. It does not necessarily mean, however, that Weidner’s selection and omissions lacked significance. At the end of his dedication to Ferdinand and Maximilian, he described the Loca praecipua, so to say, as his own confession of faith. Reused in a new context and meant for another audience, Weidner’s borrowings and omissions from previous authors seem to take a new dimension. His borrowings match with some essentials of Christian faith, whereas his omissions could be interpreted as originating from a willingness to omit inessential or adiaphoric matters. Possibly echoing Erasmus’s advice to return to a simple faith by passing over, in silence, the adiaphora, Weidner’s Loca praecipua was following in the footsteps of the court preaching of orators, such as Sagstetter, who would ignore controversial topics to raise consensual questions. The via media, in fine, could be defined as much by what was said as by what was left unsaid. Weidner’s very plausible commitment to the Habsburg via media may have occurred under the guidance of Sagstetter, who baptised him. The Erasmian milieu with which he had become acquainted at the court of Vienna, thus, could have played a significant role in his conversion to the “Christian faith” at a time when neophytes were expected to make a confessional choice.

As a book meant for Christians and Jews alike, the Loca praecipua gave Weidner the opportunity to introduce and define the Jewish sources on which he would demonstrate his main points of Christian faith. Indeed, these were the very sources that led him to Christianity. Accordingly, in the preface to the Loca praecipua, Weidner explained on which texts his quest for the “true religion” relied. In Carinthia, in his own words “I began to read Holy Scripture more carefully. Looking here and there, I cast my gaze on the New Testament and compared it with the Old; and, at the same time, I resorted to explanations of the Chaldeans, Talmudists, and Cabalists and only thus were my eyes opened thanks to God almost more each day so that I understood clearly the true Christian religion and how the Jews oppose in an unworthy, impious, and obstinate way, Christ, who is the very true Messiah, about whom the patriarchs and prophets prophesied, and who is promised in the Law to the people of Israel and all other peoples, as outlined by figures, riddles, and secret revelations”21 (Weidner 1559, pp. 1–2). Starting a systematic and hierarchical introduction to the sources of his Christian faith, Weidner logically began by referring to the Bible, before introducing the Targums of Onqelos and Jonathan, writings of Talmudists “who wrote before Christ”22 (Weidner 1559, p. 11), and, finally, the cabalistic texts. Indeed, after the Torah and the Prophets (Weidner 1559, pp. 6–7), Weidner outlined the great significance of their Aramaic translation, that is, the “Chaldaic Targum”, meaning the Babylonian or Eastern Targum, among the Jews23. “They call the Targum a translation, and it is of such authority with them, that not only does no one dare say anything against it but also they all apply it with no less faith than they do to the text itself both because of the sanctity and skill of the man, and especially because of the truth of the interpretation and exposition of it”24 (Weidner 1559, pp. 10–11). Finally, Weidner defined what he called the Talmud and the Cabbalah (Weidner 1559, pp. 11–14). The 1562 version of the Loca praecipua, however, gave a much longer definition of the latter texts than the 1559 edition did. Thus, in the second edition, Weidner differentiated between the Oral Law or Oral Torah (Torah Shebaal Peh) next to the Written Torah (Torah Shebichtav) (Weidner 1562b, p. 22). He defined “the Talmud: it is the same as the teaching or discipline, especially all the commentaries and statutes, and including certain histories of past times, a work certainly filled with both divine and natural, as well as political and legal wisdom, and that, indeed, was collected by several Doctors, reduced by Rabbi Asse to one volume like a decree. But again, it is divided into six primary parts, which are called sedarim, that is, orders or arrangements.” (Weidner 1562b, pp. 18–19)25. In this definition, Weidner was emphasising the Mishnah to which he was explicitly referring by mentioning the six sedarim. Indeed, Mishnah, or the Oral Law, is composed of six orders themselves divided into sixty-three tractates. This Oral Law or Oral Torah, written down around the year 200 by Yehouda ha-Nassi, possibly “Rabbi Asse”, whom he designates as its compiler, had been given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai at the same time as the Written Law or Torah. Almost exclusively devoted to the Halakha—that is Jewish Law and Jurisprudence—the Mishnah is commented in the Gemara—both works, the Mishnah and Gemara, constitute the Talmud. The Gemara presents rabbinic discussions held in the two centuries after the codification of the Mishnah in the Jerusalem Talmud and the following three centuries in the Talmud of Babylon—to elucidate the Mishnah. Weidner’s introductory emphasis on the Mishnah respected the hierarchy of sources accepted in Judaism while underlining the capital importance of the Oral Law, which is inseparable from the Written Law, because both were part of a single Revelation. He was, thus, preparing his readers for a more detailed presentation of the Oral Law. It is noteworthy that Weidner’s following defence of the Talmud was much longer in the 1562 edition. The bottom line, however, was that Weidner, according to the usual interpretation by the second half of the sixteenth century, divided between the more recent rabbis, those who lived after Christ, were less reliable than the ones who lived at the time of and before Christ owing to the former’s desire to undermine Christianity. On “ancient Talmudists”, Weidner thus wrote that “these men no less than the Prophets spoke inspired by the Holy Spirit”26 (Weidner 1562b, p. 19). As such, “they spoke about Christ according to everything he did and taught”27.

Finally, Weidner added that he drew on the Cabala, which he suggested to translate by “reception” or “tradition” in Latin. The Cabala “is what is perceived from hearing the narrators and is believed and tenaciously and firmly observed”28 (Weidner 1562b, p. 21). Thus, Weidner was giving the term Cabala a different meaning from that expected during the sixteenth century. In this, he was following the usage of the post-Talmudic period that the term Kabala is used to designate the Oral Law. To explain what this tradition was, Weidner referred to the beginning of the Pirkei Avot or the Ethics of the Fathers in the 1562 edition: “Indeed they say in Pirkei Avot, that is, in the Chapters of the Fathers: Moses received the Law from the Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great synagogue”29 (Weidner 1562b, p. 21). To explain which Law was mentioned here, Weidner further explained: “By the Law here, the Hebrews do not mean the written Law but the spiritual, or mystical, one, that is, the sense or the explanation of the Law. For such is the opinion of the Jews, that Moses received a double Kaw from the Lord on Mount Sinai, one which they call the Torah Shebichsav, that is, the Law which was handed down in writing. But the other one, which is called Torah Shebaal Peh, that is, the Law which is in the mouth, or has been transmitted by word of mouth”30 (Weidner 1562b, pp. 21–22). Weidner then commented on the transmission of the Oral Law by explaining that Moses had transmitted the Law to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the first prophets, the first prophets to the later prophets, among whom the most recent were Zaccharias, Haggeus, and Malachias. They then transmitted it to the “Men of the Great synagogue” which meant to Ezra and his group, who restored the original shine to the Law. Interestingly, Weidner did not use the word Mishnah. The Pirkei Avot, however, would serve as his main basis for his last book, the Sententiae hebraicae (Weidner 1563), to buttress the Christian via media that he had embraced and supported since his arrival in Vienna.

Finally, it seems noteworthy that using postbiblical Jewish literature in his books, Weidner belonged to the Christian Hebraists who, after Johannes Reuchlin (1455–1522), defended Jewish books against their opponents (Reuchlin 1511) (Price 2011; Rummel 2002). Another neophyte from Italy, humanist and Christian Cabbalist Paulus Ricius (Ritius, Ricci, Rizzi, also Paulus Israelita) (ca. 1480–1541) also advocated the use of Jewish knowledge in Christian proselytising. As the personal physician of Emperor Maximilian I (1459–1519) and subsequently Ferdinand since 1519, Ricius notably adduced passages from the Talmud and Cabbala in Sal foederis (Ricius 1507) to justify his conversion to Christianity (Roling 2004). A devoted supporter of Reuchlin and one of Erasmus’s correspondents, Ricius was also one of the first to mediate the Talmud for a Christian humanist audience by translating passages of the Mishnah into Latin (Ricius 1519). This first humanist translation of parts of the Mishnah was apparently undertaken in compliance with the request of the Emperor Maximilian I (1459–1519) (Price 2014), who was Ferdinand I’s grand-father. It appears noteworthy that a few decades before Weidner joined the imperial court, another convert close to Ferdinand was also committed to promoting Jewish literature in defence of the Christian religion. By following the pathway of humanist Christian Hebraism, Ricius and Weidner joined the group of Renaissance Hebrew scholars who had a deep interest in Judaic tradition while differentiating themselves from other contemporary converts from Judaism, such as Johannes Pfefferkorn (1469–1523). Although it is unclear whether Weidner knew about Ricius’s work, it seems likely that he was well aware of the harsh criticism directed against Jews and Judaism formulated by his predecessor at the University of Vienna, Anthonius Margaritha (Margoles) (ca. 1480–1542). The first to occupy the newly founded chair of Hebrew (1533), Margaritha stood out with Der gantz Jüdisch glaub (1530) as a fierce polemicist against his former coreligionists (Carlebach 2001; Burnett 1994). Weidner, in contrast, defended Jewish sources to subjugate them to Christian truth. As such, he belonged to the voices that, shortly after the Roman decisions, continued advocating the use of rabbinic literature in Christian proselytising. Indeed, Weidner’s conversion occurred only a few years after Roman authorities resorted to drastic measures to suppress Jewish books in the hope of accelerating the conversion of the Jews. In September 1553, the Roman Inquisition ordered the burning of the Talmud on the Campo de’ Fiori outside printers’ shops. In the following months, other Italian cities confiscated and burned the Talmud in compliance with the inquisitorial decree. On 29 May 1554, the bull Cum sicut nuper issued by Julius III (1550–1555) justified and confirmed the burning of the Talmud begun in Rome eight months earlier. As a blasphemous book, according to the Inquisition, the Talmud also proved to be a significant impediment to Jewish conversion to Christianity and, therefore, had to be destroyed. Paul IV (1555–1559) reinforced this policy in 1557 by forbidding Jews to own Hebrew books other than the Bible (Stow 1977, 1992). Because of this policy, Hebrew printing ceased in Rome after 1553 for over two centuries and completely stopped in Venice for around a decade. These events marked a significant reversal in the Papal attitude towards oriental studies and printing. Only a few decades earlier, Daniel Bomberg (from ca. 1483 to ca. 1549), had operated in Venice (1516–1549) the most prolific Hebrew printing workshop in Europe and produced the first complete edition of the Babylonian Talmud (1520–1523) with the official approval of Leo X (1513–1521).

It is likely that Ferdinand’s will to convert the Jews of the Habsburg Monarchy received a new impetus from these Roman decisions. It seems, therefore, no coincidence that Weidner’s first mission as a major protagonist of Christian proselytising in Bohemia consisted of book censorship (Diamant 1933). At the request of Ferdinand, Weidner apparently played a critical part in a censorship commission held in Vienna in 1560 to review all the books owned by Jews in Prague. Weidner’s expertise in rabbinic literature made him the leading expert of a committee apparently convened at the initiative of Sagstetter. Ferdinand’s attitude towards Bohemian Jews started to change in 1551, when he ordered them to wear, as the Jews of the Hereditary Lands (Erblande) already did, a distinctive mark. The decree of 10 December 1551 justified this measure by listing the evil deeds that Jews had purportedly perpetrated against the Christian faith (Jakobovits 1931). In 1557, Ferdinand’s attitude hardened as he threatened Bohemian Jews with expulsion. The application of the edict of 27 June 1557 was, however, delayed until 1561, seemingly under the pressure of his son, Maximilian (1527–1576), and daughter-in-law, Maria (1528–1603) (David and Weinberger 1993; Diamant 1933).

It is noteworthy that the new and expanded edition of the Loca praecipua was financially supported by Ferdinand in the context of Weidner’s mission to the Jews in Prague. Indeed, Weidner went to Prague at Ferdinand’s request for Easter 1561 to debate directly with the Jews of the city and preach in the synagogue. Unlike Vienna, Prague was the center of an active Jewish community. The pogrom of 1420/1421, known as the Wiener Gesera, resulted in the murder or exile to neighboring territories of members of the Viennese community as well as the destruction of the synagogue (Brugger 2006; Lohrmann 2001). After this persecution initiated by Duke Albert V (1397–1439) and the theologians of the University, any new Jewish settlement within the city was prohibited. Prague, in contrast, distinguished itself in the 1550s by its large Jewish community. The emperor believed in persuasion to achieve his religious goals and, therefore, asked his son, Ferdinand, the Governor of Bohemia in Prague since 1547, to facilitate Weidner’s role in the city while reminding him of the delayed expulsion of the Jewish community (Bondy and Dworsky 1906, p. 458). Weidner finally deepened this evangelising mission by publishing the sermon he delivered on 26 April 1561 (Weidner 1562a). Intended for lay readers, the book reminded and underlined the Christian duty to evangelise non-Christians. The sermon was supposed to provide compelling arguments against the Jews’ opposition to identify Jesus as the Messiah. Published in German, this sermon would assist ordinary Christians in convincingly refuting the arguments of the Jews who, by this means, could, from then on, follow the path to faith in Jesus Christ. Weidner’s last book, the Sententiae hebraicae (Weidner 1563), was published after Maximilian, Ferdinand’s eldest son, was crowned the new King of Bohemia (1562). This new reign put an end to Weidner’s missions towards the Jews. This significant shift allowed Weidner to develop a new side of his work, which was latently present in his proselytising books. Given that the Talmud could lead to Christian faith, Weidner argued that some parts of it could be used to nurture Christian life. These two complementary dimensions, however, needed to be justified and explained fully to Christians to prepare them to integrate Jewish literature par excellence into their daily life.

3. Using the Mishnah for the Erasmian via media

3.1. Philosophia Christi, Christian Unity, and the Pirkei Avot

A defence of the Christian faith partly based on rabbinic literature for Jews and Christians alike, the Loca praecipua paved the way for Weidner’s further use of the Mishnah in favour of the Habsburg via media. Indeed, one of the sixty-three tractates of the Mishnah, the Pirkei Avot or the Chapters of the Fathers or the Ethics of the Fathers constituted the cornerstone of Weidner’s last book, the Sententiae hebraicae, published in 1563. Composed of five chapters, the Pirkei Avot is a compilation of teachings and ethical maxims transmitted by rabbis since Moses. Its main characteristic is to be the only tractate of the Mishnah that is not halakhic—that is, related to Jewish Law—but has moral and historical content. The series of ethical aphorisms, which constitute this tractate, makes it close to Jewish wisdom literature. In addition, it seems noteworthy that Pirkei Avot also reflects the rabbis’ engagement with Greek and Roman cultures (Tropper 2004; de Lange 2005). For the Sententiae hebraicae, Weidner selected fifty sayings from the Ethics of the Fathers, which he carefully translated, commented, and confronted with patristic, classical, and biblical authorities. The choice of this didactic and ethical literature proved to be particularly judicious to make an original contribution to the efforts of rebuilding Christian unity on a Christian orthopraxy, the Christian conduct of life based on the imitation of Christ.

Weidner’s partial edition, translation, and commentary of Pirkei Avot must also be understood, however, in the Early Modern European context of growing interest in the Mishnah among Christian scholars (Boxel et al. 2022b). Piet van Boxel, Kirsten Macfarlane, and Joanna Weinberg underlined the specificity of Pirkei Avot, which, against this backdrop, “received special treatment and had its own particular fortuna” (Boxel et al. 2022a). Thus, it seems noteworthy that around twenty years before Weidner’s Sententiae hebraicae, another Hebraist undertook the translation into Latin as well as the commentary of aphorisms chosen from the Ethics of the Fathers. Indeed, the moral value of the Ethics of the Fathers for a Christian readership had been pointed out in the 1541 bilingual edition of Pirkei Avot (Fagius 1541) by the Reformed Hebraist Paul Fagius (1504–1549) (Raubenheimer 1957), who established a Hebrew press in Isny (Bavaria) where he was then serving as principal minister. The title of the edition clearly assigned it the goal of teaching the Hebrew language and cultivating piety in young students (Grafton 2022, p. 50): Sentences truly elegant, pious, and wonderful, useful for learning the language and cultivating the mind in piety, of the old wise Hebrews, which is called Pirkei Avot, that is, Chapters or, if you prefer, Apophthegms of the Fathers31. Anthony Grafton (Grafton 2022) recently not only shed light on the different goals of Fagius’s edition of Avot but also offered a stimulating analysis of Fagius’s humanist methodology in commenting the Maxims of the Fathers. Originally meant as an elementary textbook for students willing to gain command in Hebrew, Fagius’s edition of the Avot also includes commentaries of the maxims. Fagius followed a comparative approach that “Christianized” and “classicized” (Grafton 2022, p. 67) Hebrew quotations and was probably inspired by Erasmus’s methodology, as developed in his Adages. Although it is unclear whether Weidner knew about Fagius’s work, both editions present several striking commonalities, which are probably owing to the humanist approach shared by both scholars. One of the main differences of Weidner’s Sententiae hebraicae and Fagius’s edition, however, also proves to be one of the most meaningful and interesting for our study. While Fagius’s book was bilingual (Hebrew/Latin), and primarily intended for Hebraist students, Weidner’s book was trilingual (Hebrew/Latin/German) and intended for Christians at large—even though the German translation suggests that Weidner had first and foremost in mind the subjects of Ferdinand I throughout the Hereditary Lands (Erblande), especially in Vienna. The addition of a German translation to the Latin rendering of the Hebrew maxims went hand in hand with the systematic translation of their Latin commentaries into German. Thus, it is possible to say that the Sententiae hebraicae aimed to cross the boundary separating scholarly and non-scholarly Christian readership to guide them on the path of moral improvement. The title of Weidner’s edition of fifty sayings of the Pirkei Avot was programmatic because he described them as Hebrew sentences useful for the training of life and briefly explained and illustrated by the most excellent sayings of both sacred and other scriptures by Paul Weidner, Doctor of Philosophy and Medicine and Professor of the Holy Language in the Imperial Academy of Vienna32.

Meant for a Christian audience at large, the fifty aphorisms selected by Weidner in the Ethics of the Fathers tended to demonstrate that, far from being a mere conversionary tool, the Mishnah ought to be added to the Biblical and classical heritage promoted and revered by Christians as a source of wisdom and ethics. By proving that the Judaic literature harboured a wisdom that was able to guide Christians towards virtue and moral improvement, Weidner endeavoured to turn the oral Torah into a major tool of Christian reconciliation, according to the path indicated by Erasmus. As such, the Mishnah could contribute to the emergence of a true Christian society in which peace and harmony would prevail. The bilingual title of the Sententiae hebraicae confirmed Weidner’s intention to spread the Erasmian via media advocated at Ferdinand’s court beyond the narrow circles of humanist courtiers. One can only marvel at the dual nature of a book in which the characteristics of a humanist book and a book of vernacular piety coexist. It seems remarkable that Weidner composed all his works with a double audience in mind: to the Jewish and Christian public of his first opus, he substituted the humanist and non-humanist public of a Christian society considered in its diversity. Although Weidner is not the only orientalist to think of his works for a double readership, the Latin/German bilingualism of the Sententiae hebraicae is, nonetheless, very meaningful. It reinforced the programmatic character of its title by implying that the Christian via media conceived in scholarly court circles under the influence of Erasmus could only triumph with the support of the greatest number. While subscribing to the theory of a Christian orthopraxy in which Christians of the Monarchy and Empire could be reconciled, Weidner, with his bilingual book, also bore witness to his conviction of a need to promote and spread its practice on a daily basis.

This effort to propose a Mishnaic tool to foster Christian unity and concord arguably reflects some major turning points taking place simultaneously in the history of the Habsburg Monarchy and in Weidner’s life. Indeed, the context of the early 1560s fostered a change in ethos in Weidner’s work. First, the time of his missions to the Jewry in Prague seemed over, which allowed him to focus on a book that would fully comply with the quest of Christian unity, as advocated by Ferdinand I and his son, Maximilian. Rather than a neophyte, Weidner could finally be considered as a Christian in his own right, a representative and defender of the Christian middle way, which was, more than ever before, the main priority of the Habsburgs in the context of the reopening of the Council of Trent (1562–1563) (Michaud 2013). Five years after his christening, Paulus Weidner was probably eager to appear as a Christian Hebraist rather than a Jewish convert, especially since he had become Professor of Hebrew at the University in 1560, a role in which he had merely acted thitherto (Denk 2022). Described as a “Doctor of Philosophy and Medicine converted from Judaism to the faith of Christ”33 on the front page of the Loca praecipua in 1559, Weidner could, henceforth, introduce himself as a university professor. This major transition was mirrored by his portraits and themes with which he dealt in his work. Although Weidner was represented as an exemplary convert with his family at the beginning of the Loca praecipua and on the placard that was published a few years later, the Sententiae hebraicae gave him the opportunity to be depicted as a successful Christian humanist scholar of the court of Ferdinand, who had ennobled him (1560). The coat of arms standing at his right skilfully drew the reader’s attention to the author’s relatively new social status. Therefore, his 1563 portrait showcased a religious and social metamorphosis, reflected in the Sententiae hebraicae. Indeed, Weidner felt confident enough to formulate his contribution to the Christian compromise by proposing to include the oral Torah among the sources of wisdom from which true Christian behaviour could be shaped. As such, he was enlarging, de facto, the corpus on which the Christians could rely to follow the Philosophia Christi, which Erasmus considered the centre of the true Christian doctrine.

Therefore, the Sententiae hebraicae could also be understood as a response to the report written by the Dominican Matthias Sitthard (Esche or Cithard) († 1566). Sitthard, who had been Ferdinand’s confessor since 1561, made a report on the second edition of the Loca praecipua, for Weidner had asked for financial support from the emperor for it. Requested in the autumn 1562 to examine the Weidner-extended version of his first book, Sitthard gave a more nuanced opinion than was probably expected. A court preacher since 1559, Sitthard concluded that Weidner’s book proved better at refuting Jewish errors than in reinforcing Christians in their faith, even though he finally declared the work “pious and Catholic”34 (Diamant 1933, p. 60). Although challenging the introductory aim that Weidner had assigned to his first book, Sitthard recognised its conformity to the Christian doctrine. The term “Catholic” should be probably understood as a reference to the original meaning of universality rather than to a confessional church. For the Sententiae hebraicae, in contrast, Weidner aimed to sustain fully and enrich the Christian via media with a Christianised Mishnah. In several ways, the Sententiae hebraicae were an extension of the Loca praecipua. Building on the latter in which he defined and, thus, not only cleared but also Christianised Jewish literature, Weidner proposed fifty quotations from the Mishnah or oral Torah to guide Christians on the path of moral improvement. The Loca praecipua and the Sententiae hebraicae can, thus, be considered as both sides of the same Erasmian coin. Although the Loca praecipua reminded Christians of common beliefs and practices on which they still agreed, thus, putting aside controversial questions as inessential or adiaphoric, the Sententiae hebraicae emphasised what Erasmus deemed the original teaching of Christ, which is essentially concerned with the ethical conduct of life.

As such, the Sententiae hebraicae were meant to help Christians abide by the Philosophia Christi or Christiana Philosophia or heavenly philosophy, which appears as the central theme in Erasmus’s thought. A term going back to the Greek Fathers of the Church, Philosophia Christi was used by Erasmus in the sense of a way of life that was taught by Jesus Himself. Thus, the central Christian doctrine proved to be the imitation of Christ, which relied on virtues, such as humility and charity. As such, the Philosophia Christi can be interpreted as an aspect of the larger concept of piety (pietas), which is defined as “the moral conscience governing the proper relationship between individual and God as well as the individual and the society” (Rummel and MacPhail 2021). Therefore, the ultimate goal of the imitation of Christ appeared to be the construction of a society for which Christ would be the centre. This ideal society would, thus, coincide with Christendom and, therefore, be characterised by unity and harmony under the leadership of a Christian prince worthy of the name by not only behaving as such but also serving Christ by maintaining public order and keeping wrongdoers within bounds (Augustijn 1990, pp. 71–88).

It seems, therefore, no coincidence that Weidner dedicated (once again) the Sententiae hebraicae to the son of Ferdinand I. In his dedication to Maximilian, Weidner insisted on human weakness in the face of Satan’s attacks and on the need to regulate one’s behaviour according to maxims full of prudence and piety. As he observed: “Added to this is, the fact that the Devil, out of hatred for God, pushes us, imprudent as we are, to ignominy of all kinds and our own flesh and, even the world assails us with their desires, attractions, and impostures […]. That is why, to resist more firmly the continuous assaults of Satan, the flesh, and the world and conduct the actions of our life with more care, it is absolutely necessary always to have before our eyes maxims that protect us against any onslaught of these evils”35 (Weidner 1563, fol. Aii^v). Such sayings, Weidner continued, were found not only in Holy Books but also in writings of the “Cabalists and Talmudists who lived before Christ”36, as well as among the most illustrious of theologians and profane authors (Weidner 1563, fols. Aii^v–Aiii). Weidner’s ambition was, indeed, to enrich the sources of Christian wisdom by integrating into them words of Jewish wisdom explained and commented using the books of the Old and New Testaments, as well as numerous Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church, but also of ancient Greek and Latin philosophers. Weidner only rapidly mentioned what constituted his main argument in favour of Talmudic literature. The demonstration made in the Loca praecipua was clearly taken for granted by the author. It could, therefore, directly serve as a tool to encourage and guide the subjects of the Habsburgs on the path of true moral behaviour, as required from them by ordinances of police following the idea of gute Policey promoted by Ferdinand since the beginning of his reign (Pauser 2004).

The notion of gute Policey refers to ordinances, regulations, and laws issued by authorities to establish and enforce social norms, achieve communal order, and enhance the “common good” (bonum commune). The notion of “gute Policey”, borrowed from the Greek politeia via the reception of Aristotle in the thirteenth century, was understood in the sixteenth century as “the good order of the community par excellence” and designated by extension “all the adequate measures taken by authorities to establish this required situation”37 (Pauser 2004, p. 220; Nitschke 1991). Therefore, the police legislation (Policeyrecht) aimed to restore order to a subverted society (Pauser 2000). The ideal of “gute Policey” imposed itself in the Holy Roman Empire, at the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as the “guiding concept of political action”38 (Pauser 2002, p. 17) at all levels of power. In this perspective, the fight against vices was one of the major issues of Ferdinand’s “gute Policey”, which prompted him to promulgate several police ordinances for the Erblande, especially for the territories of Lower Austria. It is noteworthy that this legislation served the purposes attributed by Erasmus to the state (Koerber 1967). According to the humanist, it was fitting for the Christian prince to honour God by guiding his subjects along paths that were pleasing to Him (Pauser 2002, pp. 60–64). From an Aristotelian perspective, Erasmus thought that politics was “a collective aspiration for better living, a desire for peace, and a consensus between citizens that gives full meaning to their meeting”39 (Blum et al. 1992, p. cxcix). The ideal of the common good that underpinned police ordinances was a part of an Erasmian definition of politics. By regulating the behaviour of his subjects according to divine commandments, the prince sought to promote a common good, both terrestrial and celestial, appeasement, here below, of divine anger and, Salvation of souls in the hereafter after death. Ferdinand was an assiduous reader of the Institutio principis Christiani by Erasmus (Margolin 1987, 1988). The dedication of the Sententiae hebraicae to Maximilian was possibly related to the interest that he had, for some time already, taken in his father’s policy. During the provincial diets, where he represented Ferdinand I towards the end of his reign, Maximilian indeed made the application of the police ordinance of 1552 (Habsburg 1552) one of his priorities (Holtzmann 1903, pp. 335, 402, 411, 454, 508). The fight against the “manifest vices”40 was among his main interests (Pauser 1996; Pauser 2002, pp. 32–33).

In addition, it seems worthwhile that this individual and communal fight against temptation fostered by the ruler had been associated in Vienna with the fight against the Ottomans, whose siege of Vienna in 1529 as well as the permanent threat in East Central Europe they represented was interpreted as the scourge of God for Christian sins. According to Karl Vocelka, this religious interpretation of the Turk would have been all the more easily adopted by the prince as it made it possible the establishment of standards of behaviour and favoured strict control over the population (Vocelka 2010). Indeed, each of the four police ordinances that Ferdinand promulgated for Vienna and the territories of Lower Austria correspond to moments of heightened Ottoman threat. Thus, the police ordinance of 1552 was promulgated in the context of renewed conflicts in Hungary a year earlier between the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire. It offered an extended version of the police ordinance of 1542 (Habsburg 1542), which was itself promulgated after the capture of the city of Buda by the Ottomans in the summer of 1541. The interpretation of the Ottoman troops as the scourge of God was strongly defended by Erasmus himself. In the Utilissima consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo, published in 1530 in Basel (Erasmus 1530b), then in Vienna (Erasmus 1530b), shaken by the Viennese siege, Erasmus claimed that only the struggle of Christians against the sin of their hearts could defeat the Turks: “The Turks grow in power not by their piety, not by their virtue, but more than anything because of our indolence”41. Therefore, Erasmus claimed that the whole of Christendom must first of all undertake a “universal and significant correction of life”42 (Weiler 1988, p. 36) as an indispensable prerequisite to the victory of arms (Weiler 1988; Margolin 1980).

In his dedication to Maximilian, Weidner explicitly hoped that the Sententiae hebraicae could help Christians in their spiritual fight against evil. Quoting the prophet Job, he recalled that “the life of man upon earth is a warfare”43 (Job 7:1) (Weidner 1563, fol. Aii^v). The fifty Hebrew quotations thus served implicitly as spiritual weapons on the way to moral improvement. If Weidner’s military rhetoric was reminiscent of Erasmus’s Enchiridion militis Christiani (Erasmus 1503), the collection of ethical and didactic sentences seemed to offer a Mishnaic pendant to another major work of the prince of humanists: the Adages (Erasmus 1500), which were first published in 1500 but continued to expand until Erasmus’s death in 1536. Because the Adages were one of the best-sellers of the sixteenth century, it seems plausible that any learned reader would spontaneously draw the parallel between Weidner’s booklet and Erasmus’s opus magnum. Additionally, suggested by Anthony Grafton regarding the work of Fagius on the Pirkei Avot, this parallel possibly seems even more relevant in Weidner’s case. Although both editors chose to atomize the text of the Pirkei Avot to display a collection of aphorisms, each thoroughly translated and commented, Weidner decided to anonymize each saying, while Fagius scrupulously kept the name of their authors. Thus, each maxim of the Sententiae hebraicae was almost systematically preceded by “they say” (Dicunt)44, which may denote the attempt of presenting them as universal ethics, thus more readily aggregating them into atemporal human wisdom. In so doing, Weidner was probably following in the footsteps of Erasmus, who considered his collection of Greek and Latin adages to be “the common property of the learned, shared segments of a single treasury of wisdom” (Grafton 2022, p. 55; Eden 2001). By omitting the names that are attached to each saying in the Mishnaic tractate, Weidner was de facto decontextualising them. Indeed, unlike Fagius, Weidner had very little interest in explaining Jewish customs or laws. A brief definition of the Shabbat constitutes one of the rare exceptions to this attitude. His commentary on the maxim: “this world is like a vestibule before the world to come; prepare yourself in the vestibule, so that you may enter the banqueting-hall”45 (Pirkei Avot 4:16) (Weidner 1563, fol. Fiii^v) prompted him to compare it to another Hebrew saying “Whoever prepares something to eat on the evening of the Sabbath will eat it on the Sabbath itself, but whoever prepares nothing will eat nothing”46. Weidner then clarified that “it is an allusion to the legal rite, by which the people of Israel were once ordered to prepare on the Sabbath, by the commandment of the Lord, what food they wanted to eat on the Sabbath itself, whence that day was called parsceue, that is, the day of preparation”47. In addition, the Sententiae hebraicae did not openly claim their Mishnaic origin. Indeed, Weidner not only anonymised each of his quotations but also passed over in silence that he was quoting the Pirkei Avot, which he had, nevertheless, explicitly mentioned and quoted in the 1562 introduction of the Loca praecipua. The title of the book itself was vague enough to evoke the idea of Hebrew wisdom to his reader without referring to either the title of the Mishnaic tractate or the Talmud. In any case, Weidner never refers to the Mishnah, rather only to the Talmud and Cabala in the Loca praecipua as well as the Sententiae hebraicae.

The relative vagueness, however, should not overshadow the wide and large selection of maxims proposed by Weidner. Mainly thought of as contributions to the conversion of morals in an individual and collective fight against sin, the Jewish maxims of the Hebraist not only sought to be an additional spiritual tool for achieving a true Christian society but also Weidner’s effort to publish and translate quotations from the Ethics of the Fathers coincided with the humanist ideal of restoring classical languages that aimed at human perfection, owing to the models provided not only by the Sacred Letters but also by the profane authors of Antiquity. Studia humanitatis had no goal other than to achieve the dignity of man, Dignitas hominis, the leitmotif of humanism. Although the first editions of the Adages were originally intended to serve as a manual of style and a royal road to access ancient culture, the Adages of Erasmus offered, already in the 1515 edition, a true Christian reflection rooted in the ideal of the Philosophia Christi. As Marie Barral–Baron writes, “Erasmus does not conceive of an unliterate Christian”, thinking that “Belles Lettres contribute to the formation of the baptised”48 (Barral-Baron 2015). Likewise, one could argue that the Hebrew maxims as proposed by Weidner in the Sententiae hebraicae completed the restoration of the Belles Lettres to edify their readers morally and intellectually. Indeed, in this eminently humanist and spiritual quest, Weidner combined the Mishnaic tradition with Greco-Roman, Old and New Testament sources, as well as patristics received by humanists to orchestrate a dialogue between biblical, classical, patristic, and Judaic sources for the sake of Christian morals as a basis of Christian unity.

3.2. The Sapienta Judaica for Christian Life

Using Pirkei Avot as a basis for Christian moral improvement, Paulus Weidner was, in fact, proposing to achieve a triple reconciliation. First, he sought to contribute to the reconciliation of Christians with each other by suggesting that the imitation of Christ not only united them beyond any confessional controversy but was the very core of Christianity. Second, by integrating the Sapienta Judaica into the pillars of Christians ethics, he was reconciling the Judaic and Christian traditions, although subordinating the former to the latter, in the same quest for moral behaviour, piety, and virtue. Finally, he was supporting the humanist blending of pagan and Christian heritage to which he was adding the Judaic heritage of the Mishnah. As demonstrated by Anthony Grafton, Fagius (Fagius 1541) also drew parallels between the sayings of the sages and the words of Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers as well as those of Christ and the Apostles (Grafton 2022, p. 52). Although this path had already been taken around two decades earlier by Fagius, who was probably following the guidelines given by Erasmus (Grafton 2022), one can argue that Weidner distinguished himself from Fagius by his use of Pirkei Avot to support Christians in the Philosophia Christi, as advocated by Eramus. Therefore, one can claim that in the Sententiae hebraicae Weidner was aiming at a transconfessional, transreligious, and transhistorical unity, which arguably constitutes the main features of his last work.

Indeed, the quest for good Christian behaviour, which Weidner based on the Ethics of the Fathers aimed at embracing human ethics not only across Christian confessions but also across religions and time. From his first quotation onward, Weidner developed a methodology that he would repeat for one maxim after another. Starting by quoting the original text of Pirkei Avot, Weidner would then translate it first into Latin and then into German. He would then comment on the quotation in Latin before offering a German translation of the same comment. Last but not least, he would corroborate and reinforce the Hebrew quotation with passages from the Church Fathers before referring most of the time, but not necessarily, to classical Greek and Roman authors, and systematically finishing by confronting the Mishnaic aphorisms with quotations from the Old Testament and the New Testament. This interpretative pattern suggested that the quest for ethics, for moral improvement and Christian behaviour proved a timeless quest, which culminated in the imitation of Christ. In a humanist and Erasmian perspective, Weidner, thus, implicitly claimed that this quest was inherent to humanity and could, therefore, include human wisdom as a whole. Supported by pagan authors, human wisdom ultimately climaxed in the Gospel. The ultimate purpose of the Philosophia Christi appeared to be the restoration of human nature, originally created good, by following the path indicated by pagan authors up to Christianity. Enthusiastic about the unity of humanity through all the ages, Erasmus underlined in the Paraclesis (Erasmus 1530a) that “we can find a great deal in the book of the pagans that agrees with (Christ’s) doctrine” (Augustijn 1990, p. 84). From this statement, Erasmus drew the conclusion that the Christian faith was entirely in harmony with the disposition and the nature of man. By exploring a similar path, Weidner not only confirmed the Christian humanist and Erasmian interpretation of pagan philosophers but also suggested that the Judaic corpus ought to be added to the basis of this moral endeavour towards true Christian behaviour.

The Sententiae hebraicae offered Mishnaic tools better to follow the Erasmian path of the Philosophia Christi in many different ways. The topics dealt with as well as the organisation of the work tend to confirm the Erasmian inspiration of Paulus Weidner. Weidner’s commentaries aimed not only to Christianise and classicise aphorisms from the Pirkei Avot but also to demonstrate their conformity with Erasmus’s vision of the true Christian doctrine. Thus, to encourage Christians on the path of ethical behaviour, the Sententiae hebraicae repeatedly advocated the imitation of Christ by reminding its readers what it meant to be Christian while stressing the importance of inner conversion, penitence, prayer, peace, and evangelical virtues at large, such as charity and humility. To illustrate the Erasmian quest of the Philosophia Christi, which pervades the Sententiae hebraicae, it is possible to focus on the significance and interpretation of these ideas in Weidner’s commentaries and choice of patristic, classic, and biblical references. First, it seems remarkable that the centrality of the imitation of Christ for true Christian life constitutes one of the principal leitmotivs of the Sententiae hebraicae. Indeed, it seems no coincidence that Weidner opened his book with a definition of the Christian. Weidner thus used his first maxim to immediately put the emphasis on Christian action: “They say: Be strong as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and fleet as a gazelle, and brave as a lion, to do the will of your Father who is in heaven” (Pirkei Avot 5, 21) (Weidner 1563, fol. Biiii). This initial quotation allowed Weidner to summarize what it meant to be a Christian. Beyond his own interpretation, which mainly consisted of an explanation of the virtues symbolised by these four animals, Weidner then referred to Augustine to point out that: “It is in vain that we bear the name Christian if we do not imitate Jesus Christ. What good is it to you to be called what you are not and to usurp another’s name? But if it is your happiness to be a Christian, behave according to the Christian religion, and bear the name Christian with good reason”49 (Augustin De vita Christiana, cap. 1) (Weidner 1563, fol. Biiii^v). Similarly, Weidner then drew on Cyprian to recall that “No one is rightly called a Christian, unless he conforms to Christ’s manners”50 (Ps.-Cyprianus, De XII abusivis saeculi) (Weidner 1563, fol. Biiii^v). This initial aphorism also gave the opportunity to stress the importance of doing God’s will by confronting the Mishnaic command with the Old and New Testaments. Among others, Weidner referred to Psalm 143: “Teach me to do thy will, for thou art my God. Thy good spirit shall lead me on the right path”51 (Ps. 143 (142) 10) (Weidner 1563, fols. Biiiiv–C), which helped the reader know how to pray to God. Unlike other sentences, this first quotation was not compared to any statement from Greek and Roman philosophers. This first statement, which underlined the primacy of Christian behaviour, was later reinforced by another maxim. Indeed, the superiority of orthopraxy over orthodoxy was clearly emphasised in Weidner’s commentary of Pirkei Avot 3:17: “They say: one whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, to what may he be compared? To a tree whose branches are numerous but whose roots are few, so that when the wind comes, it uproots it and overturns it, as it is said, “He shall be like a bush in the desert, which does not sense the coming of good. It is set in the scorched places of the wilderness, in a barren land without inhabitant” (Jeremiah 17:6) But one whose deeds exceed his wisdom, to what may he be compared? To a tree whose branches are few but roots are many so that even if all the winds in the world come and blow upon it, they cannot move it out of its place, as it is said, “He shall be like a tree planted by waters, sending forth its roots by a stream. It does not sense the coming of heat, its leaves are ever fresh. It has no care in a year of drought; it does not cease to yield fruit” (ibid, 17:8)”52 (Weidner 1563, fols. Riii-^v). Weidner’s explanation arguably reflected Erasmus’s view of the true Christian doctrine which went hand in hand with his disapproval of theological strife over inessential matters for which he famously blamed scholastic theologians. Rather than praise mere theological skills, Weidner praised instead “true piety” (vera pietas) by noting that “we apply this opinion to theology, which is certainly a commendable wisdom, firm and salutary, when a good life accompanies it. True piety has more in the background than it promises in the fore: it is better to be pious than to write and understand much: for knowledge and intelligence more often do more harm than good, unless irreproachable morals come in addition, and, so to say, surpass knowledge. Knowledge is only a branch, but piety is the root of a tree, when the branches spread broader than the strength of the root allows, the tree cannot long stand, but if it really has grown deep roots, even if the branches are few, yet more abundant fruit grows. It is not enough to know the will of God unless you express it in your behaviour and life”53 (Weidner 1563, fol. Riiii). Thus phrased Weidner his perspective on the Philosophia Christi, which, as he underlined at the end of this commentary, was also congruent with the words of Christ himself (Mt. 7, 24–27) (Weidner 1563, fols. Riiii-^v). There is arguably a striking similarity between Weidner’s admonition and Erasmus’s claim in the preface to the work of saint Hilaire. After reminding the reader of Paul’s assertion: “knowledge puffs up while love builds up” (I Cor., 8, 1), Erasmus declared: “What matters, what we must apply all our energy to, is to heal our soul of envy, hatred, pride, avarice, and impurity. You will not be condemned for ignoring whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, from one principle or from two; but thou shalt not escape damnation, unless thou strive to possess the fruits of the Spirit, i.e., charity, joy, peace, patience, leniency (…), chastity (…). Formerly the faith consisted rather in the life than in the profession of the articles of faith”54 (cited by Lecler [1955] 1994, p. 145). The quotation from Pirkei Avot 3:17 and its commentary, which in many ways can be seen as the echoing of the inaugural maxim with which Weidner opened his book, was this time backed up not only by patristic and biblical references but also by quotations from classical authors, such as Plutarch and Diogenes Laërtius (Weidner 1563, fol. S), as if Weidner was thus finishing his initial demonstration. Therefore, it seems particularly significant that some of Weidner’s patristical references used to clarify Pirkei Avot 3:17 also mirrored those used for the first Hebrew aphorism of the book. Indeed, new quotations insisted on the necessity that the Christian should imitate Christ, such as Jerome’s injunction: “Let us who believe in Christ follow Christ’s examples”55 (Jerome, Adversus Iovinianum) (Weidner 1563, fol. Riiii^v). Emphasis on action pervades the whole Sententiae hebraicae as a constant reminder of the utmost importance of Christian behaviour over any other consideration. That is why Weidner even praised silence and taciturnity a few pages later: “one sage says: all my days I grew up among the sages, and I have found nothing better for a person than silence. Study is not the most important thing, but actions; whoever indulges in too many words brings about sin”56 (Pirkei Avot, 1:17) (Weidner 1563, fol. Tiiii). In this case, however, Weidner opted for a brief commentary, which merely consisted of a confrontation with three quotations from the Old and the New Testament. The conformity of this maxim with the Bible apparently seemed the most important and relevant to Weidner, who, by quoting Paul, recalled that “the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in virtue”57 (1 Cor. 4:20) (Weidner 1563, fol. Tiiii).

Though scattered throughout the Sententiae hebraicae, Weidner’s Erasmian admonition to follow Christ’s example constituted a preamble or a basis for further maxims inviting the reader to practice Evangelical virtues and keep away from vices. To prompt Christians to start a new life by turning their heart to God and inspire them with a spirit of penance, Weidner regularly chose Hebrew quotations, which served as memento mori meant to compel Christians to follow Christ before it was too late58. The second aphorism of the book, thus, pointed out the second step of Weidner’s Erasmian program: “They say: repent one day before your death”59 (Pirkei Avot, 2:10) (Weidner 1563, fol. Cii^v). This advice allowed Weidner to introduce and build on the concept of correction of life (“vitae correctio”) in his explanation of what could, at first glance, seem to be an invitation to procrastinate inner conversion. Weidner, however, emphasised that the course of human life could be considered as one long day because “indeed, nothing is more certain than death, and nothing more uncertain than the hour of death”60 (Weidner 1563, fol. Cii^v). Some of the patristic and scriptural passages then colligated insisted on the necessity of the earliest possible conversion, for instance, some quotations of the Ecclesiastes, did (Weidner 1563, fol. Ciii^v). They already indicated what could be considered as the third step of Weidner’s suggested Christian progression towards the full practice of Evangelical virtues, such as charity and humility, which should contribute to peace and harmony in a society free of any vice. Indeed, the cultivation of charity was repeated in different forms throughout the Sententiae hebraicae. Charity and the love of one’s neighbour are dealt with in several quotations from the Pirkei Avot. For instance, Weidner used Pirkei Avot 3:7 (Weidner 1563, fol. Iiiii): “They say: give to Him of that which is His, for you and that which is yours is His; and, thus, it says with regard to David: “for everything comes from You, and from Your own hand have we given you””. The idea that God has given humans everything implied, according to Weidner, that the Christian should not only be grateful, but also give to others. The centrality of charity (“charitas”) in Christian life was, thus, demonstrated by quotations from Augustine, which confirmed Weidner’s focus on Christian action: “It is charity alone which overcomes all things, and without which all things are of no avail, and which, wherever it may be, draws all things to itself, if knowledge is alone it inflates, because charity builds, it does not allow knowledge to inflate”61 (Augustine, De doctrina Christiana) (Weidner 1563, fol. K). As such, charity was a key element in the definition of the true Christian: “He is truly a Christian who shows mercy to all, who is moved by no injustice at all, who feels the pain of others as his own, whose table no poor person ignores”62 (Augustine, De vita Christiana, XIV) (Weidner 1563, fol. K). The significance of charity was then reinforced by further quoting Augustine, who claimed “that the root of all good is charity while and the root of all evil is greed (1Ti 6:10)”63 (Weidner 1563, fol. K). A central command of the Gospel reflected by patristic writings as well as the Old Testament, charity proved overall a characteristic of true humanity since “Demosthenes asked, what humans have in common with God? He responded: to do good”64 (Weidner 1563, fol. K^v). Reminders of the charitable duty towards the poor were scattered throughout the book, which enjoined readers “Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor be members of thy household”65 (Pirkei Avot 1:5) (Weidner 1563, fol. Zii^v). Hospitality to strangers, in particular, was a virtue whose example was given by the Patriarchs themselves who were to be imitated (Weidner 1563, fol. Zii^v). Other comments allowed Weidner to insist on fraternal charity. The love of neighbour (amor proximi) (Weidner 1563, fol. Aa^v) and true friendship (Pirkei Avot 5:16) (Weidner 1563, fols. Xiii–Y^v) lay at the heart of several of his quotations and commentaries. Further Sententiae hebraicae were specifically intended to explore other contexts in which Christians had to be charitable. Neither was charity towards one’s enemies omitted. As Pirkei Avot recalled: “If your enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, let your heart not rejoice, lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and avert his wrath from him” (Pirkei Avot, 4:19) (Weidner 1563, fol. Yiiii^v). Based on a verse of Proverbs (24:17), as immediately noted by Weidner, this aphorism prompted the author to highlight the difficulty not only to be fair to one’s enemy but also to follow Christ’s command by loving them: “The Lord said: love your enemies, bless those who curse you, bless those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven (Mt 5:44)”66 (Weidner 1563, fol. Z).

Moreover, Weidner often showed intricate connections between the ideas of charity, fraternity, humility, peace, and unity. In his commentary of Pirkei Avot 4:4: “They say: be very, very humble in spirit, for the hope of mortal man is with the worms67 (Weidner 1563, fol. Bbiiii), he insisted on the necessary modesty inspired by the ineluctable return to dust, which characterised human life, as remarked by the verse of Genesis (3,19): “you are dust and to dust you shall return”68. His praise of humility and modesty went hand in hand with a disapproval of pride (superbia) underpinned by a large variety of quotations from both the Church Fathers as well as from both Testaments. Weidner’s final reference was to the first letter of Peter: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil etc.”69 (1 Pt 3:8–9) (Weidner 1563, fol. CC^v). The significance of Christian virtues to sustain the Christian (comm)unity was further underlined by Weidner’s treatment of two Hebrew maxims quoted one after the other. Intimately connected to his prior definition of “true piety” (vera pietas) (Weidner 1563, fol. Riiii), his treatment of the very concept of Christian community was first and foremost focused on the spirit in which Christians gather. For this demonstration, Weidner proposed his most Christianised translation of the Pirkei Avot. Indeed, the original version of Pirkei Avot 4:11 reads: “Rabbi Yochanan the shoemaker said: Every gathering that is for the sake of Heaven will endure, and every gathering that is not for the sake of Heaven will not endure, in the end”. After anonymising the quotation, Weidner chose the word “Ecclesia” to render “gathering” (Weidner 1563, fol. Siii)70. Although clearly meant to Christianise the Mishnaic saying, Weidner’s choice to render “gathering” by “Ecclesia” still reflected the polysemic dimension of this Latin word deriving from Greek and for which the original meaning referred to the assembly, before designating the Christian assembly, that is, the Church. His German rendering of the same saying, however, required two words to translate Ecclesia: Church (Kirchen) and gathering (Versammlung) (Weidner 1563, fol. Siii)71. Weidner’s following reflection on the right basis of Christian (comm)unity was first inspired by the Gospel by Matthew (15:13): “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots”72 (Weidner 1563, fol. Siii). Thus, implied Weidner by further resorting to authorities of both Testaments, a Church, which would be a gathering of hypocrites, impious, malevolent, and criminals would be sterile and soon disappear (Weidner 1563, fol. Siii^v). For his next Hebrew maxim, Weidner also chose to use the term Ecclesia for his Latin translation of the word community (Weidner 1563, fol. Siiii) while opting in German for God’s community (gemain Gottes) (Weidner 1563, fol. Siiii^v): “do not separate yourself from the Church (community), Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death, Do not judge your fellow man until you have reached his place. Do not say something that cannot be understood. Say not: ‘when I shall have leisure I shall study;’ perhaps you will not have leisure”73 (Pirkei Avot (2:4) (Weidner 1563, fol. Siiii). It is noteworthy that Weidner barely quotes any patristic, classic, and biblical authorities to shed light on this aphorism (Weidner 1563, fol. T). He preferred to give a rather extended commentary of the four pieces of advice it offered. Indeed, the first of them gave him the opportunity to condemn schism and Christian discord: “First, we should not leave the Church: for just as a limb perishes when severed from the body, and the little sheep that strays from the sheepfold falls in the mouth of the wolf, so, in fact, perish miserably those who without reflection separate themselves from the Church. Of course, the Fathers wanted to signify intelligently as follows: There is no salvation outside of Noah’s Ark. Thus, here are criticised sectarians, apostates, deserters, and despisers of the Church”74 (Weidner 1563, fol. Siiii^v). While condemning any seditious attitude, Weidner was trying to foster peaceful behaviour among Christians by translating Pirkei Avot 1:18: “on three things does the world stand: On justice, on truth and on peace, as it is said: “execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Za 8:16)”75 (Weidner 1563, fol. H^v). Weidner only offered one sentence to comment on this statement by explaining that “Indeed, all the tranquillity and happiness of the world depends on it that judgements not be perverted, that truth has its place, and that peace may be sought by all”76 (Weidner 1563, fol. H^v). This injunction tended to remind the reader that the common good relied on the moral behaviour of all. However, Weidner compensated this short commentary with a long series of references. Over five pages, Weidner quoted the Church Fathers, classical authors as well as the Christian Bible to state the centrality of these three concepts for Christians. Regarding peace, Weidner quoted, for instance, Basil (Weidner 1563, fol. Hii) according to whom: “There is nothing so characteristic of a Christian as to bring peace and to be peaceful; that is why the Lord has promised us the greatest reward for it”77. Although each Christian had to contribute to the emergence of a Christian society worthy of the name, Weidner pointed out the special responsibility held by dignitaries in the emergence of the “public good” (publicum bonum) (Weidner 1563, fol. Miii^v). In his translation of Pirkei Avot 2:2: “And all who labour with the community, should labour with them for the sake of Heaven, for the merit of their forefathers sustains them, and their righteousness endures forever”, Weidner chose to render community by “Respublica” in Latin (Weidner 1563, fol. Miii) and “geschefften des gemainen nuts” (matters of common interest) (Weidner 1563, fol. Miii^v) in German. His commentary emphasised the necessity for dignitaries always to keep God in mind when acting, before concluding that: “For it is God who gives intelligence, wisdom, prudence, and other things, when, with His will, we are rightly called to undertake public duties”78 (Weidner 1563, fol. Miii^v). One could argue that Weidner might be alluding to the gute Policey as well as the Policey Ordnungen while hoping that the government (Regiment) would be inspired by the law and precepts of God (lege et praeceptis Dei) (Weidner 1563, fol. Miii^v). In any case, he advised his readers to pray for the King, the prince, and the magistrates as a commentary of Pirkei Avot 3:2: “They say: Pray for the peace of the kingdom, since but for fear thereof we had swallowed up each his neighbour alive” (Weidner 1563, fols. Piiiiv–Q)79. In the same vein as 1. Tim 2,2 which he quoted a bit further, Weidner commanded that the people had to pray for the powerful to secure peace and tranquillity of life led with piety and honesty: “We must pray for kings, princes and magistrates, because we cannot do without them any more than we can do without food and drink: if indeed the wicked were not restrained by the fear of the magistrate, everything would be threatened with plunder and robbery, and nothing would be safe anywhere”80 (Weidner 1563, fol. Q). He could then draw the conclusion that “we indeed see that all honest zeal is destroyed by quarrels, divisions and wars, which are the shortest way to ruin, we see morals corrupted, honesty perish, confidence and modesty be disintegrated, in short, (as this one says) arms do not keep order”81 (Weidner 1563, fol. Q).

Peace, thus, appeared as the necessary condition for the emergence of a true Christian society. Under such circumstances, the promotion of good morals among Christians as well as the struggle against different “vices” could occur. Throughout his book, Weidner used his collection of Sententiae hebraicae to help his readers fight pride (superbia), greed, (avaritia), lust (luxuria), jealousy (invidia), gluttony (gula), wrath (ira), sloth (pigritia) with very practical pieces of advice. Weidner would thus suggest the reader to choose one’s friends wisely: “They say: keep a distance from an evil neighbour, do not become attached to the wicked, and do not abandon faith in [divine] retribution”82 (Pirkei Avot 1:7) (Weidner 1563, fol. Bbii). If the spiritual victory against all the aforementioned vices would mean the rise of a society imitating Christ, it seems worthwhile to finally focus on two specific examples, which seem to echo the Policey Ordnungen promulgated by Ferdinand I: lust and gluttony. Regarding the former, Weidner chose for instance to quote Pirkei Avot 1:5: “Engage not in too much conversation with women, that is, with the wife of your neighbour. From here the Sages said: as long as a man engages in too much conversation with women, he causes evil to himself, he neglects the study of the Torah, and in the end he will inherit gehinnom”83 (Weidner 1563, fol. Zii). On this Weidner commented that “one must rarely or never converse with women, to control lust, which is kindled and inflamed by the conversation and discussion with women”84 (Weidner 1563, fol. Zii^v). This advice was reinforced by various patristic and biblical admonitions to refrain from fornication and adultery (Weidner 1563, fol. Ziii^v). It appears noteworthy, however, that this quotation offers a rare example of Weidner expurgating the Avot. Indeed, in its original version the maxim even suggests not to speak much even to one’s own wife, which Weidner decided to omit. Weidner also advised his readers against gluttony: “They say, the more flesh, the more worms”85 (Pirkei Avot 2:7) (Weidner 1563, fol. Cciii), which he commented by stating that “this sentence blames pleasure-seekers, who do nothing else but to take care of themselves, live for gluttony, and feed their belly, so that they ponder that they will eventually become food for worms”86 (Weidner 1563, fol. Cciii^v). Several quotations following this brief commentary, however, shifted the focus from gluttony to drunkenness (ebrietas) which was famously one of the plagues of the Holy Roman Empire at that time. Weidner’s advice to avoid sexual indiscipline and drunkenness could possibly serve as a reminder of Ferdinand’s 1542 and 1552 Policey Ordnungen, which, among other vices, specifically addressed both of these matters, even connected them, because the latter vice could possibly lead to the former one. Indeed, both Policey Ordnungen encompassed a point dedicated to “drunkenness, gluttony, and gambling“ (Von Zuetrincken/Füllerey/und Spill) (Habsburg 1542, fol. B^v).

Based on the premise that Jewish wisdom could guide Christians on the path to moral perfection, the Sententiae hebraicae eventually emphasised the Mishnaic contribution to human wisdom. In doing so, Weidner reinforced one of the main bases on which to found a consensual definition of Christian identity, that is to say, Christian action. Beyond the Texts and dogmas, the Christian was supposed to be distinguished by moral principles and ethics that transcended ages and confessions. By confronting quotations from the Ethics of the Fathers with the canons of Christianity but also with the pagan philosophers and the Fathers of the Church, the Hebraist integrated them into the cultural substrate of Christian humanism. Weidner was clearly tending to make “Talmudists and Kabbalists” in his own words heralds of Christ by pointing out the similarity of some of their tradition to the teaching of the Gospel. These comparisons he drew on various sources clarified the Mishnaic quotations as much as they justified their importance and validity for Christian spiritual life. By so doing, he claimed this importance of the Oral Law for Christians and tended to mediate it to his new coreligionists.

4. Conclusions

In his mediation on the Judaic tradition, Weidner seized the opportunity to reinvent the basis on which Western Christianity should be reunited. While still claiming its fidelity to Rome, the Habsburg court in Vienna to which Weidner belonged provided a stimulating environment to formulate what the third way between the confessions, the Habsburg via media ought to be. Thus, Weidner felt confident enough to propose to integrate Jewish wisdom into the Philosophia Christi advocated by Erasmus as the path of Christian unity in Christ himself. A representative and supporter of Habsburg irenicism, Weidner was well-versed both in the Hebrew Bible and in rabbinic literature. It does not seem, however, that the path opened by Weidner was followed by other Viennese Hebraists. On the death of Weidner in 1585, the Jesuit Petrus Busaeus (Buräus, Busäus or Buys) remained alone to teach Hebrew, although within the faculty of theology. He remained the last Hebraist at the Alma Mater until his death in 1587. The later academic revival of this discipline would not focus on the quest for Christian compromise anymore.