Despite the wealth of scholarly work that has been done –and is being done– on the ‘Biblias romanceadas’, a systematic survey of the pictorial cycles found in MSS Escorial, I.I.3, I.I.4, I.I.5, I.I.7, Ajuda 52-XIII-1, and the Biblia de Alba remains still lacking. Admittedly, the miniatures of the famous Arragel BibleArragel Bibl have attracted considerable attention since the manuscript was first published by Paz y Meliá in 1922, but in most of cases only inasmuch as their striking features were to be linked to rabbinic traditions. For the rest of the manuscripts, the divide created along the lines of art history and philology has turned them into fragmentary realities devoid of any coherent meaning, further isolating these works from the complex visual culture they belonged to. Besides, both art historians and philologists alike seem to have been more concerned with a search for origins and sources than with an engaged analysis of the subtle interplay of text and images in each individual manuscript. However, the scrutiny of Escorial, I.I.3 [E3] proves to be controversial in more than one sense. Its 65 illustrations display a visual narrative that has nothing to do with the iconographic programme designed for the Biblia de Alba. Even if the biblical version copied in E3 can be considered as ‘the closest textual witness to the traditional Sephardic translation procedures’ (Pueyo – Enrique-Arias, 2013: 203), the accompanying miniatures reveal no significant trace of midrashic elements or any detail akin to the illustrated Haggadot whatsoever. In fact, comparison with the biblical compilation copied and illustrated for Queen María of Portugal after Alfonso X’s General Estoria (Évora, BM, MS CXXV2-3 and Escorial, I.I.2; ca. 1340) points out to the existence of some common trends in the depiction of Old Testament episodes in Late Medieval Castile. Regardless, the patrons of this lavish Bible –certainly Christian and pertaining to the upper nobility– have not been identified yet. There is no agreement on the date of the manuscript, either (ca. 1425-1450 for Avenoza; ca. 1487-1501 for Marchena and Villaseñor), although the miniaturists involved seem to have been worked in the illustration of other religious books for the Cathedral of Seville and the Catholic Kings.Several questions can be posed, then, when looking at E3: To what extent was the ‘Jewishness’ of the text highlighted/nuanced/neutralised by the images (and by appending the deuterocanonical Book of the Maccabees)? Were any of the features of the manuscript perceived as particularly ‘Jewish’ by the audience? In sum, did this manuscript stage any kind of religious dispute or, conversely, did it evince that biblical text could be turned in just historia sagrada?