BUDNY (Budnaeus), SZYMON° (Simon; c. 1530–1593)

BUDNY (Budnaeus), SZYMON ° (Simon ; c. 1530–1593), Polish sectarian theologian. During the struggles of the Reformation in Poland-Lithuania he led the Lithuanian anti-Trinitarian ("Arian") wing of the Polish reformist camp which took a radical stand in questions of theology though a conservative one in its acceptance of the social order. Budny translated the Bible into Polish, using the Hebrew text. An original thinker, he was well known to and in contact with Jewish scholars. In the anti-Trinitarian camp Budny represented a trend of opinion, mainly prevalent in Lithuania where he conducted his theological activity, which while stressing the human nature of Jesus opposed many of the other anti-Trinitarians in their advocacy of pacifism and rejection of all secular or ecclesiastical authority. Budny was much concerned with upholding the purity of the biblical canon and preserving it in translation. His social views stemmed from his appreciation of Mosaic law and biblical Jewish society, which he regarded as the paradigms for the ideal Christian society. In support of his appreciation of authority he argued in his Ourzedzie miecza uźywającem (edited in 1932 under this title; first published as Obrona… in 1583) that "the Lord Jesus Christ is not a lawgiver, but he is the interpreter of Divine Law… You have to accept that the Divine Law recorded by Moses is excellent in itself. The most that you may say perhaps is that it is not perfect from this aspect, that we cannot fulfill it in its entirety… You well know what Jesus says in Matthew chapter 5 – that it is not against Moses, or his Law but against the Jewish clergy and the Pharisees (who set up themselves as exponents and were therefore so-called) that the sayings and teachings of Christ are directed… He opposes and rejects their commentaries, but not the words of Divine Law… Therefore, as the Divine Law is not destroyed and even now exists how can they [i.e., the pacifist Arians] say now there is no need of an office carrying the sword in the Divine Church… With every word they usually call out: 'What have we to do with Moses? What is the Old Testament to us? For Christ gave us another law. According to the one it was permitted to kill. According to the second it is even forbidden to be angry.' Now it has been proved that these are monkish legends, inventions and errors – to invent two laws" (ed. by St. Kot (1932), 102–3). In another connection he quotes the argument of his opponents: "You do not quote anything from the New Testament, only everything from the Old Testament" (ibid., p. 53). Budny's contemporary, Isaac b. Abraham *Troki, who was well acquainted with Budny's writings and Bible translations, remarked the Jewish significance of this passage. In his Ḥizzuk Emunah (Breslau, 1873, 129), Isaac refers to Budny's "book called Obrona" summing up Budny's opinion that Jesus was a commentator on the Law only, and stating, "and he [Budny] adduced there lengthy evidence from the prophets and rational arguments as you will see on page 39 and page 41 and also in other places in this book." While Isaac praises Budny as "the scholar, the latest of Christian translators" (p. 50), elsewhere he refers to him as "our opponent" (p. 65). Altogether there are 24 quotations from Budny in Ḥizzuk Emunah.

In his translation of the New Testament, Budny stressed the importance of the knowledge of Hebrew for a proper understanding of the Gospels, "For as the holy Matthew wrote in Hebrew… then he could not quote these testimonies… except as he read them in the Hebrew books" (H. Merczyng, Szymon Budny jaro krytyk tekstów biblijnych (1913), 141). In his other notes to the New Testament Budny bases arguments on proof from the Hebrew spirit and semantics, and accepts many Jewish interpretations. The extent of Budny's Judaizing was limited by his devotion to Jesus. He expressed great indignation at the Jewish custom of pronouncing Christian Hebrew names in a way that tarnished them (ibid.).

Budny had a forceful and stirring impact on his contemporaries, but his influence was not permanent. His relative rationalism and broad general culture, as well as his knowledge of Hebrew and deep appreciation of the Hebrew Bible, combine to make him an outstanding figure in the history of reciprocal contacts and influences between Jews and Poles and Judaism and Christian opinion in Poland-Lithuania of the 16^th century.

bibliography:

K. Budzyk et al. (eds.), Nowy Korybut, 2 (1964), 61–65 (bibl.); St. Kot, in: Studien zur aelteren Geschichte Osteuropas, 1 (1956), 63–118; H.H. Ben-Sasson, Ha-Yehudim Mul ha-Reformaẓyah (1969), 100–2.

[Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson]