Schools

In the opening line of his Die Philosophie des Judentums, Julius Guttmann writes: ‘‘The Jewish people did not begin to philosophize because of any irresistible urge to do so. They received philosophy from outside sources, and the history of Jewish philosophy is a history of the successive absorptions of foreign ideas which were then transformed and adapted according to specific Jewish points of view’’ (1964:3). Although the particular datum of Jewish philosophy has not changed, the philosophical lenses used to interpret this datum have largely been contingent upon the larger intellectual worlds in which Jews lived. In the period under discussion there were primarily three such philosophical schools: Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, and Humanism.

After the thought of Philo who, pace Harry Wolfson’s formulation, had very little influence on subsequent Jewish philosophical speculation, rationalism reenters Judaism in the Islamic period, initially under the guise of rational theology (kalam). One of the earliest Jewish rationalists was Saadia Gaon (882-942), whose main work, The Book of Opinions and Beliefs, was an attempt to integrate Jewish theological speculation with Greek thought as mediated by Muslim rationalist theologians. In this, he largely sets the stage for the majority of Jewish philosophical speculation in the Islamic world for the next three centuries. For example, Saadia held that Torah and philosophy mutually reinforced one another and that scientific speculation could be invoked to defend traditional Jewish beliefs such as God’s unity and the creation of the world.

Although Saadia was primarily a theologian, albeit with a rationalist temperament, ‘‘Jewish philosophy’’ would begin in earnest in the generations after him. In this regard, Neoplatonism became the dominant philosophical worldview between the ninth and twelfth centuries. Although largely the product of Plotinus and Proclus, Neoplatonic ideas tended to circulate in the name of Aristotle (e. g., The Theology of Aristotle, The Book of the Apple). Two ideas central to Neoplatonism in all of its many guises were the doctrine of the emanation and the myth of the soul. Based on Aristotle’s obscure discussion in De anima, and later comments on it by the likes of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius, emanation sought to solve the problem of how multiplicity arises from unity. As it came to be worked out, the self-reflection or self-intellection of the One entails the emergence of a pure Intellect. By contemplating itself and its source, this pure Intellect gives rise to a second intellect and the outermost sphere of the heavens. The subsequent sequence of intellects and spheres carries down to the tenth and lowest of the supernal or heavenly intellects, the Active Intellect, and the nethermost celestial sphere, that of the moon. As developed by later Aristotelians, the Active Intellect is responsible for the projection of universal forms or archetypes onto matter, and for actualization of human intellect.

The myth of the soul conceives of the human soul as ontically related to the universal Soul, whence it departs to live in a human body. Trapped in the body, the soul can either aspire to reascend to its celestial home or become mired in the filth of matter. The way for the soul to reascend is by means of the study of philosophy. Typical Jewish Neoplatonists include Isaac Israeli (850-c. 932), Bahya ibn Paquda (fl. first half of the eleventh century), Solomon ibn Gabirol (1021-c. 1058), Abraham bar Hiyya (d. c. 1136), Joseph ibn Zaddik (d. 1149), and Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1164).

In the late twelfth century, Aristotelianism largely displaced Neoplatonism as the regnant discourse among Jewish intellectuals. It was certainly not a clean break: If Neoplatonism had absorbed many Aristotelian elements, the opposite also held true. As a result, Aristotle’s metaphysical structures were altered by the adoption of the doctrine of emanation, and the purpose of knowledge took on religious connotations since its ultimate goal was perceived to be the apprehension of the metaphysical world. However, the monism of Neoplatonism was gradually replaced by the dualism of form and matter, and the human soul - no longer regarded as an emanation from the universal Soul - became defined as the form of the body. The Neoplatonic theory of knowledge as recollection or remembrance gave way to the Aristotelian theory of observation and abstraction from sensual phenomena. Finally, Aristotelian ethics lacked the religious character of Neoplatonic ethics that enjoined humans to liberate themselves from the bonds of matter and to elevate themselves to the celestial home by means of spiritual perfection. Important early Jewish Aristotelians include Abraham ibn Daud (1110-1180) and Moses Maimonides (1138-1204).

Perhaps owing to both the novelty and the potential for misunderstanding, early Aristotelians such as Ibn Daud and Maimonides tended to write esoterically, only hinting at implicit connections between Judaism and philosophy. In the post-Maimonidean era, however, many of those who commented on Maimonides’ work were not as concerned with maintaining the same level of secrecy. The result is that Maimonides was translated, both literally and linguistically, into other conceptual idioms, revealing his secrets, as it were. Samuel ibn Tibbon (c. 1165-1232) who lived in Provence, for instance, translated the Guide and many other philosophical works produced by Jews and Muslims (e. g., Avicenna, al-Farabi) into Hebrew.

Samuel ibn Tibbon also wrote two original treatises: A commentary on Ecclesiastes and a philosophical-exegetical monograph by the name of Ma’amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim (Treatise on Let the Waters be Gathered [i. e., Gen 1:9]). Both treatises discuss philosophical ideas in the form of biblical exegesis; and they both borrow and apply methods developed by Maimonides in his Guide. Ibn Tibbon, as well as other members of his family - for example, his son-in-law, Jacob Anatoli (c. 1194-1256) and his son, Moses ibn Tibbon (fl. 1240-1283) - was responsible for helping the thought of Averroes make further inroads into Jewish philosophy. Anatoli is noteworthy because he was one of the first Jewish philosophers that had direct contact with Christian Scholastics, including the famous scholar Michael Scott, when he was the court physician to Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen at Naples. The thirteenth century, to quote Colette Sirat, was ‘‘a century of translations and encyclopedias” (1985:231). Both of these were ultimately responsible for the dissemination of philosophy and science to a growing class of upwardly mobile Jewish court bureaucrats (Tirosh-Samuelson 2003:251-252).

In many ways we can consider Samuel ibn Tibbon as the founder of Maimonideanism, a philosophical-exegetical movement that radicalized Maimonides and that would continue for centuries. This new movement however did certainly not go unchecked or uncriticized. The rise of Maimonideanism gave way to series of intra-communal tensions usually referred to as the ‘‘Maimonidean Controversies,’’ which revolved around the reception, role, and function of Maimonides’ writings. These controversies were not simply a matter of academic debate, but were a series of acrimonious personal and communal conflicts about the direction of Jewish culture, including the age-old struggle religion and philosophy.

The goal of philosophy in this period was to inculcate the values ofphilosophy in as large an audience as possible as opposed to working out technical philosophical problems in obscure treatises. The main way that philosophy was produced in this period was, as mentioned, through encyclopedias and commentaries, in addition to sermons, dialogues, and poetry (Hughes 2008:53-106). Major thinkers in these debates included philosophical popular-izers such as Shem Tov ibn Falaquera (c. 1225-c. 1295). In its most radical form, Maimonideans - as articulated in such individuals as Joseph ibn Kaspi (1280-after 1332) - claimed that philosophy represented the inner, hidden meaning of the Torah. Whereas Maimonides had tried to keep philosophy and religion in creative counterpoint, such individuals held that the plain meaning of the Torah, and thus all the teachings and practices of Judaism, were simply the means to a higher, intellectual end.

In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Jewish philosophy continued to be written and disseminated primarily in the form of commentary. It is, of course, important to be aware that although the genre of commentary outwardly appears conservative, upon closer inspection much original thinking goes on in it, as commentators propound new and often highly original ideas in the guise of earlier thinkers. In this period it is difficult to determine to just what extent Jewish philosophers were familiar with developments in scholastic philosophy. Many of the major Provencal philosophers - e. g., Gersonides (1288-1344), Moses Narboni (d. c. 1362) - reveal little signs of such influence, and the major thinker that they seem to struggle with is Averroes. In contrast, philosophers who flourish in the late fourteenth century and early fifteenth - e. g., Profiat Duran (c. 1350-c. 1415), Joseph Albo (c. 13801444), Abraham Bibago (c. 1446-c. 1489) - are much more conservative and their main task, in the aftermath of strong persecution and proselytizing efforts on the Iberian Peninsula, was to combat what they perceived to be the pernicious influence of Averroism on Spanish Jewry.

If Maimonides was the most important Jewish thinker in the medieval period, second place must surely go to Gersonides. He wrote philosophical commentaries on virtually all of the books of the Bible, in addition to composing an original treatise, Wars of the Lord. Although Gersonides lived in a larger intellectual environment permeated by scholasticism, his philosophical world was that of Muslim Spain, despite the fact that he could not read Arabic. Gersonides’ thought is largely concerned with reconciling the Aristotelianism of Averroes with the theology of Maimonides.

Increasingly in the fifteenth century, we begin to witness the absorption and systematization of Christian thought and philosophy, including the different currents of Scholasticism (Thomism, Scotism, Nominalism) in Jewish philosophy. This may well be the result of better knowledge among Jewish elites, possible Jewish attendance at Christian schools and academies, and perhaps even the existence of similar Jewish institutions. As a consequence we begin to see the employment of Scholastic methods, especially by Iberian thinkers, and even explicit references to Latin Scholastic authors by so-called ‘‘Jewish Averroists’’ (Zonta 14-15). Such thinkers include Abraham Bibago (c. 1446-c. 1489), Abraham Shalom (d. 1492), Isaac Arama (c. 1420-1494), and Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508).

Some have argued that Hebrew Scholasticism in Iberia is part of the attempt to defend Judaism from its two main intellectual opponents at this time: Christianity and radical Averroism (Tirosh-Samuelson 2003:504-505). Others, however, claim that the absorption of Scholasticism was primarily for philosophical reasons (Zonta 2006:22). Hebrew Scholasticism was also popular in Italy, where individuals included Judah Messer Leon (c. 1470-c. 1526) and his disciples Abraham Farissol (1451-1525); the last major Jewish Averroist and one with Scholastic leanings was Elijah del Medigo (c. 1458-c. 1493).

Jewish philosophy in fifteenth-century Italy was also heavily influenced by parallel developments of Humanism in Christian thought. The recovery of Greek texts and the revival of Platonism and Neoplatonism in the middle of the fifteenth century coincided with a parallel movement in Jewish thinkers. One of the earliest Jewish thinkers to absorb these Humanistic trends was the aforementioned Judah Messer Leon, whose Book of the Honeycomb’s Flow attempted to show how the rhetorical and aesthetical innovations actually derived from the biblical narrative (Hughes 2010). For Messer Leon, it was the Torah, as opposed to the ancient orators, that exemplifies perfect speech. Perhaps the best example of humanism in Jewish garb is the enigmatic Judah Abravanel (c. 1465-after 1521). His Dialoghi d’Amore represents one of the first treatises in Jewish philosophy written in Italian, and it shows the influence of Ficino's interest in pagan ancient wisdom and its compatibility with Judaism.