Abstract:This article analyzes Jewish writings normally placed in the period between about 200 b.c.e. and 200 c.e. that associate human mortality with the formation of Adam from the dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2.7). In particular, Ben Sira (16.30–17.1), the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls (5.32; 7.34; 9.17; 11.22, 24–25; 12.30; 20.27–34; 21.11–17, 25, 31–38; 22.12, 19; 23.13, 23, 26–27), Wisdom of Solomon (7.1–6), Philo’s On the Creation (134–35), and Second Enoch (30.8–10) all include material to this effect. The relevant passages generally give the impression that humans are susceptible to death due to the earthly constitution with which they were created, not because of a “fall” of Eden that had a corrupting effect on a previously pristine creation. A number of passages in the same texts have typically been understood to express the notion of a “fall” that introduced death to human existence (Sir 25.24; 1QH 4.27; Wis 2.23–24; Creation 151–52; 2 En 30.11–12, 16–18), but many such passages do not allude to the Edenic inception of human mortality as clearly as scholarship has generally assumed. Ultimately, the notion that humans were created mortal is a widespread and underappreciated motif within the Judaism of this period.
{"title":"Formed from the Earth: Adam and Created Mortality in Second Temple Literature","authors":"William Horst","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0031","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article analyzes Jewish writings normally placed in the period between about 200 b.c.e. and 200 c.e. that associate human mortality with the formation of Adam from the dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2.7). In particular, Ben Sira (16.30–17.1), the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls (5.32; 7.34; 9.17; 11.22, 24–25; 12.30; 20.27–34; 21.11–17, 25, 31–38; 22.12, 19; 23.13, 23, 26–27), Wisdom of Solomon (7.1–6), Philo’s On the Creation (134–35), and Second Enoch (30.8–10) all include material to this effect. The relevant passages generally give the impression that humans are susceptible to death due to the earthly constitution with which they were created, not because of a “fall” of Eden that had a corrupting effect on a previously pristine creation. A number of passages in the same texts have typically been understood to express the notion of a “fall” that introduced death to human existence (Sir 25.24; 1QH 4.27; Wis 2.23–24; Creation 151–52; 2 En 30.11–12, 16–18), but many such passages do not allude to the Edenic inception of human mortality as clearly as scholarship has generally assumed. Ultimately, the notion that humans were created mortal is a widespread and underappreciated motif within the Judaism of this period.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"22 1","pages":"645 - 669"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86058689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:The text is an annotated transcription of Alexander Altmann’s lecture at the Rockefeller Memorial Chapel, University of Chicago, October 1961, with a brief introduction by Leo Strauss. An introductory essay by the editor serves to situate the encounter in their larger scholarly projects and point to a few crucial issues in Strauss’s enigmatic introduction, which sets the stage for Altmann’s lucid presentation. In particular, it points to their respective stances toward Julius Guttmann, the preeminent figure in German Jewish scholarship around 1930, whom both mentioned in the text. The differences pertain to the understanding of medieval Jewish philosophy in its relation to Christianity—a topic that was little problematic for Altmann, who conceived of the Western tradition as an ongoing Jewish-Christian dialogue, whereas Strauss had sought to sketch a new understanding of the medieval Jewish enlightenment in opposition to Christian thought. Altmann’s lecture is a continuous dialogue with Strauss’s position on the encounter of “faith” and “reason” in the Western tradition.
{"title":"Alexander Altmann, “The Encounter of Faith and Reason in the Western Tradition and Its Significance Today,” with an Introduction by Leo Strauss","authors":"Philipp Von Wussow","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0037","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The text is an annotated transcription of Alexander Altmann’s lecture at the Rockefeller Memorial Chapel, University of Chicago, October 1961, with a brief introduction by Leo Strauss. An introductory essay by the editor serves to situate the encounter in their larger scholarly projects and point to a few crucial issues in Strauss’s enigmatic introduction, which sets the stage for Altmann’s lucid presentation. In particular, it points to their respective stances toward Julius Guttmann, the preeminent figure in German Jewish scholarship around 1930, whom both mentioned in the text. The differences pertain to the understanding of medieval Jewish philosophy in its relation to Christianity—a topic that was little problematic for Altmann, who conceived of the Western tradition as an ongoing Jewish-Christian dialogue, whereas Strauss had sought to sketch a new understanding of the medieval Jewish enlightenment in opposition to Christian thought. Altmann’s lecture is a continuous dialogue with Strauss’s position on the encounter of “faith” and “reason” in the Western tradition.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"129 1","pages":"823 - 846"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83985773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay is a contribution to this issue’s forum on legal theory and Jewish history.
摘要:本文是本期法学理论与犹太历史论坛的一篇投稿。
{"title":"Normative Uses of the Narrative of Exile in Modern Halakhic Thought","authors":"A. Kaye","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0041","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Abstract:</p><p>This essay is a contribution to this issue’s forum on legal theory and Jewish history.</p>","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"102 1","pages":"613 - 619"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78658393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay is the introduction to this issue’s forum on legal theory and Jewish history.
摘要:本文为本期法学理论与犹太历史论坛的导论。
{"title":"Introduction: On Legal Theory and Jewish History","authors":"N. Feldman","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0039","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Abstract:</p><p>This essay is the introduction to this issue’s forum on legal theory and Jewish history.</p>","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"94 1","pages":"601 - 605"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81760767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This essay critically engages various contemporary readings of Hasidism. It examines what I call a “domesticating” orientation in Hasidic research, a quasi-apologetic move to read the academic study of Hasidism back into a normative Orthodox framework. I argue this is, in part, a resistance to what I call a “neo-Hasidic” orientation of a previous generation, scholars who sought to use Hasidism as the basis for their modern, existentialist, and renewal projects. This essay argues that while the domesticating critique has some merit, it overestimates its own objectivity and misses crucial aspects of the neo-Hasidic interpretation it seeks to undermine. I then use the work of Rav Shagar and what I am calling his “postmodern” reading of Hasidism as a critique of the domesticating trend that adopts, while also criticizing, the neo-Hasidic interpretation. In sum I argue that Rav Shagar presents a template that cuts through and moves beyond the modernizing and normative trajectories to open vistas for new understandings of Hasidism for our time.
{"title":"Domesticating Hasidism: Neo-Hasidism, Modernity, and the Postmodern Turn","authors":"S. Magid","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0035","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay critically engages various contemporary readings of Hasidism. It examines what I call a “domesticating” orientation in Hasidic research, a quasi-apologetic move to read the academic study of Hasidism back into a normative Orthodox framework. I argue this is, in part, a resistance to what I call a “neo-Hasidic” orientation of a previous generation, scholars who sought to use Hasidism as the basis for their modern, existentialist, and renewal projects. This essay argues that while the domesticating critique has some merit, it overestimates its own objectivity and misses crucial aspects of the neo-Hasidic interpretation it seeks to undermine. I then use the work of Rav Shagar and what I am calling his “postmodern” reading of Hasidism as a critique of the domesticating trend that adopts, while also criticizing, the neo-Hasidic interpretation. In sum I argue that Rav Shagar presents a template that cuts through and moves beyond the modernizing and normative trajectories to open vistas for new understandings of Hasidism for our time.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"176 1","pages":"764 - 794"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77474335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:One of the few disagreements among different Second Temple groups documented in writings that present both opposing viewpoints concerns the level of impurity of the priest who burns the red heifer. A baraita in Tosefta Parah (3.6) reports a dispute between a high priest, Ishmael ben Phiabi, and the Pharisees over this issue, and includes arguments offered by each side to support its view. In the case recorded, the ashes of the red heifer were discarded, a matter of grave consequence considering how infrequently, according to rabbinic tradition, the ashes of the red heifer were prepared. Scholars who have dealt with this passage have pointed to serious difficulties in the readings, but all of their proposed solutions involve either unsupported textual emendations or strained interpretations of the words as they stand. This paper examines a new version of the story discovered in an early Geniza fragment of the Tosefta that contains several significant variants which taken together lead to a definitive reading of the arguments presented by the various sides. The new version of the story enables us to better understand this dispute within the framework of the halakhic thought of the rival groups, the Dead Sea sect and the Pharisees, and to analyze the dialogue ascribed to the opponents in terms of the nominalism-vs.-realism discourse.
{"title":"Ishmael b. Phiabi Burned Two: A New Text from the Geniza on a Pharisee-Sadducee Debate","authors":"Binyamin Katzoff","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0021","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:One of the few disagreements among different Second Temple groups documented in writings that present both opposing viewpoints concerns the level of impurity of the priest who burns the red heifer. A baraita in Tosefta Parah (3.6) reports a dispute between a high priest, Ishmael ben Phiabi, and the Pharisees over this issue, and includes arguments offered by each side to support its view. In the case recorded, the ashes of the red heifer were discarded, a matter of grave consequence considering how infrequently, according to rabbinic tradition, the ashes of the red heifer were prepared. Scholars who have dealt with this passage have pointed to serious difficulties in the readings, but all of their proposed solutions involve either unsupported textual emendations or strained interpretations of the words as they stand. This paper examines a new version of the story discovered in an early Geniza fragment of the Tosefta that contains several significant variants which taken together lead to a definitive reading of the arguments presented by the various sides. The new version of the story enables us to better understand this dispute within the framework of the halakhic thought of the rival groups, the Dead Sea sect and the Pharisees, and to analyze the dialogue ascribed to the opponents in terms of the nominalism-vs.-realism discourse.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"41 1","pages":"357 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85095580","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:According to a rabbinic tradition, Esau tried to prevent Jacob's burial in the Cave of Machpelah. At first Naphtali rushed to bring a legal solution in the form of the title deed from Egypt, but eventually Hushim the son of Dan killed Esau and thus solved the problem with might. The relationship between the two different solutions is the focus of this article. It first traces the midrashic history of both motifs and demonstrates that originally they were independent of each other. The article then examines in detail the different Jewish attestations of the Hushim account, all of which combine the legal conflict over Jacob's burial and Esau's death by the hands of Hushim. Finally, it studies a Muslim parallel transmitted by al-Suddī, an eighth-century scholar from Kufa. In al-Suddī's version there is a violent conflict with Esau concerning Jacob's burial with no mention of Naphtali and the legal solution. In attempting to determine whether al-Suddī's account reflects adaptation or preserves an old version, I offer a history of the Hushim account, emphasizing the dynamics through which midrashic motifs and traditions were conflated and reformulated.
{"title":"Deaf Hishām and Esau's Death","authors":"Joseph Witzum","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0022","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:According to a rabbinic tradition, Esau tried to prevent Jacob's burial in the Cave of Machpelah. At first Naphtali rushed to bring a legal solution in the form of the title deed from Egypt, but eventually Hushim the son of Dan killed Esau and thus solved the problem with might. The relationship between the two different solutions is the focus of this article. It first traces the midrashic history of both motifs and demonstrates that originally they were independent of each other. The article then examines in detail the different Jewish attestations of the Hushim account, all of which combine the legal conflict over Jacob's burial and Esau's death by the hands of Hushim. Finally, it studies a Muslim parallel transmitted by al-Suddī, an eighth-century scholar from Kufa. In al-Suddī's version there is a violent conflict with Esau concerning Jacob's burial with no mention of Naphtali and the legal solution. In attempting to determine whether al-Suddī's account reflects adaptation or preserves an old version, I offer a history of the Hushim account, emphasizing the dynamics through which midrashic motifs and traditions were conflated and reformulated.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"378 - 405"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85807170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:The editor and publisher Samuel Boehm worked for Hebrew presses in Northern Italy before moving to Cracow, where, in 1569, he joined Isaac Prostitz's newly established press and remained visibly active until 1586. This article analyzes in detail the transfer of Italian print culture to East-Central Europe, in which Boehm was highly instrumental. After clarifying a few biographical details, we investigate Boehm's involvement in the intricately woven networks of publishing in Cremona, Padua, and Venice and analyze how he claims visibility for his prominent role, especially in publishing parts of Joseph Karo's Bet Yosef. The article then explores the contexts of Boehm's move to Cracow in a period of Venetian-Ottoman conflict and anti-Jewish hostility that led to a crisis for Venetian Hebrew printing, and it situates the establishment of Prostitz's press in the wider contexts of Hebrew printing in East-Central Europe. Following Boehm's work in Cracow, in particular as an editor of Moses Isserles, the article traces the transfer of central elements of Italian print culture to Cracow: material (types and ornaments), the discourse on editing in the paratexts, editorial expertise concerning halakhah, the organisation of the print shop with fluctuating and overlapping roles for various actors, and the commitment to the transregional distribution of varied genres of Jewish knowledge. Finally, turning to Boehm's editing of Abraham Zacut, we highlight Boehm's own complex vision of the role of transregional movement and local stability for Jewish cultural productivity.
{"title":"The Editor's Place: Samuel Boehm and the Transfer of Italian Print Culture to Cracow","authors":"Andrea Schatz, Pavel Sládek","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0025","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The editor and publisher Samuel Boehm worked for Hebrew presses in Northern Italy before moving to Cracow, where, in 1569, he joined Isaac Prostitz's newly established press and remained visibly active until 1586. This article analyzes in detail the transfer of Italian print culture to East-Central Europe, in which Boehm was highly instrumental. After clarifying a few biographical details, we investigate Boehm's involvement in the intricately woven networks of publishing in Cremona, Padua, and Venice and analyze how he claims visibility for his prominent role, especially in publishing parts of Joseph Karo's Bet Yosef. The article then explores the contexts of Boehm's move to Cracow in a period of Venetian-Ottoman conflict and anti-Jewish hostility that led to a crisis for Venetian Hebrew printing, and it situates the establishment of Prostitz's press in the wider contexts of Hebrew printing in East-Central Europe. Following Boehm's work in Cracow, in particular as an editor of Moses Isserles, the article traces the transfer of central elements of Italian print culture to Cracow: material (types and ornaments), the discourse on editing in the paratexts, editorial expertise concerning halakhah, the organisation of the print shop with fluctuating and overlapping roles for various actors, and the commitment to the transregional distribution of varied genres of Jewish knowledge. Finally, turning to Boehm's editing of Abraham Zacut, we highlight Boehm's own complex vision of the role of transregional movement and local stability for Jewish cultural productivity.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"3 1","pages":"468 - 519"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87032796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides, 1288–1344), scientist and philosopher, authored an extensive commentary on the Pentateuch, where he applies his scientific expertise and inquisitiveness much as he does in his other writings. Following Maimonides, he interprets the narrative of Genesis 32.25–30, which describes the patriarch Jacob's mysterious wrestling match with an unnamed opponent, leaving Jacob with a sensible limp, as a prophetic dream. Going beyond Maimonides, Gersonides inquires as to how a dream could induce an orthopedic injury, and suggests, as one avenue, that the dream was pathognomic: Jacob acted out in a dream the tussle he feared he would have with his brother Esau. Though "medical dreams" were much discussed in premodern medicine, and "sleepfighting" was described by some Christian contemporaries, Gersonides' analyses stand out in their originality and detail.
{"title":"Gersonides on Jacob's Pathognomic Dream","authors":"Y. Langermann","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides, 1288–1344), scientist and philosopher, authored an extensive commentary on the Pentateuch, where he applies his scientific expertise and inquisitiveness much as he does in his other writings. Following Maimonides, he interprets the narrative of Genesis 32.25–30, which describes the patriarch Jacob's mysterious wrestling match with an unnamed opponent, leaving Jacob with a sensible limp, as a prophetic dream. Going beyond Maimonides, Gersonides inquires as to how a dream could induce an orthopedic injury, and suggests, as one avenue, that the dream was pathognomic: Jacob acted out in a dream the tussle he feared he would have with his brother Esau. Though \"medical dreams\" were much discussed in premodern medicine, and \"sleepfighting\" was described by some Christian contemporaries, Gersonides' analyses stand out in their originality and detail.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"40 1","pages":"589 - 598"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87182182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This article examines two letters written by Immanuel of Rome, the fourteenth-century poet and thinker from Italy. Using new manuscript evidence, as well as a new comparative lens, the essay challenges traditional ideas about Immanuel's timeline and intellectual affiliations. Considering a discovery of an older version, a reexamination of a freestanding letter believed to have been part of the Maimonidean debate between Zerahiah of Barcelona and Hillel of Verona shows that Immanuel was not involved in this dispute over the proper application of philosophy and science to biblical exegesis. Having no known addressee, Immanuel's invective letter addresses a scholar's reliance on foreign wisdom, but the most interesting part of the letter is the concluding invective couplet. While scholars had identified the freestanding letter as an indication of Immanuel's involvement in the Maimonidean controversy, this article contends that such involvement is far more evident in a rhetorical letter embedded in Mahberot Immanuel, Immanuel's poetic anthology. The embedded fictional letter, addressed to Joab, challenges a poet, teacher, and ersatz scholar, as Immanuel derides his inability to appreciate allegorical readings of the Bible and his lack of a philosophical education. Using allusions to his own allegorical readings of biblical verse, Immanuel lampoons Joab as an Ashkenazic Jew, in his traditionalist exegetical sensibilities as well as in his inability to compose mellifluous verse. The article concludes that Immanuel was deeply attuned to the nuances of late medieval debates over the relationship between philosophy and Torah.
{"title":"A Lifetime in Letters: New Evidence Concerning Immanuel of Rome's Timeline","authors":"Dana W. Fishkin","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article examines two letters written by Immanuel of Rome, the fourteenth-century poet and thinker from Italy. Using new manuscript evidence, as well as a new comparative lens, the essay challenges traditional ideas about Immanuel's timeline and intellectual affiliations. Considering a discovery of an older version, a reexamination of a freestanding letter believed to have been part of the Maimonidean debate between Zerahiah of Barcelona and Hillel of Verona shows that Immanuel was not involved in this dispute over the proper application of philosophy and science to biblical exegesis. Having no known addressee, Immanuel's invective letter addresses a scholar's reliance on foreign wisdom, but the most interesting part of the letter is the concluding invective couplet. While scholars had identified the freestanding letter as an indication of Immanuel's involvement in the Maimonidean controversy, this article contends that such involvement is far more evident in a rhetorical letter embedded in Mahberot Immanuel, Immanuel's poetic anthology. The embedded fictional letter, addressed to Joab, challenges a poet, teacher, and ersatz scholar, as Immanuel derides his inability to appreciate allegorical readings of the Bible and his lack of a philosophical education. Using allusions to his own allegorical readings of biblical verse, Immanuel lampoons Joab as an Ashkenazic Jew, in his traditionalist exegetical sensibilities as well as in his inability to compose mellifluous verse. The article concludes that Immanuel was deeply attuned to the nuances of late medieval debates over the relationship between philosophy and Torah.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"406 - 433"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82008401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：