Rationalistic Messianism and the Vicissitudes of History: The Final Chapter of Joseph ibn Kaspi's Tam ha-kesef (original) (raw)
Related papers
H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews, 2022
Joseph Ibn Kaspi-a prolific Jewish-Provencal grammarian and biblical commentator from the thirteenth century-has recently stirred the attention of modern scholarship. In just a few years, two remarkable yet quite different monographs have been published: Adrian Sackson's Joseph Ibn Kaspi: Portrait of a Jewish Philosopher in Medieval Provence (2017) and Alexander Green's Power and Progress: Joseph Ibn Kaspi and the Meaning of History, reviewed here. Both scholars have strenuously tried to raise Ibn Kaspi from his ordinary consideration as a biblical commentator, emphasizing his brilliance and original thought. This is no easy task. Ibn Kaspi was a prolific writer and a literalist commentator of scripture-a pashtan-who believed that biblical narratives would be as worthy of trust as Aristotles's writings on logic and nature. His scholarship is large, as he authored several works spanning Hebrew grammar, lexicography, logic, philosophy, theology, and anthropology. There is no doubt that he was an intriguing thinker who is finally getting the attention that he has always deserved.
Joseph Ibn Kaspi: Portrait of a Hebrew Philosopher in Medieval Provence (Table of Contents)
Brill, 2017
Joseph Ibn Kaspi was among the most prolific philosophical writers in one of the most vibrant, productive, creative periods in the history of Jewish philosophy. Born around 1280 in Provence, Ibn Kaspi penned works engaging a broad range of fields, including philosophy, theology, grammar, logic, biblical exegesis, and interreligious polemics. In Joseph Ibn Kaspi: Portrait of a Hebrew Philosopher in Medieval Provence, Adrian Sackson asks the question: What was Ibn Kaspi’s overarching intellectual project? The book focuses on several key themes: Ibn Kaspi’s conception of the formative (not just discursive) function of philosophy; his multi-layered esotericism; his distinct approach to the interpretation of Maimonides; his Maimonidean-philosophical approach to the interpretation of religious texts and practices; his Platonic political thought; his approach to messianism, and his attendant conception of the nature of human history.
In my paper, I intend firmly to criticize Taubes' interpretation of Benjamin's Theology as a modern form of Gnosticism (Benjamin as a modern Marcionit). In a positive way, I sustain rather the thesis that Benjamin's Messianism is in close connection with his conception of reason (“the sharpened axe of reason”) and, in particularly, with the paradoxical unity of Mysticism and Enlightenment, which, according to the famous definition of Adorno, distinguishes his thought. As a radically anti-magical and anti-mythical conception of the historical time, Benjamin's Messianism has to be considered as an original synthesis between motifs of the mystical tradition of the Jewish Kabbalah and motifs belonging to the rationalist tradition of the Jewish philosophy. Moving from Cohen's standpoint of a continuity between Maimonides and Kant, I consider therefore the affinity between his messianic conception of history and that of Benjamin. Both, Benjamin and Cohen, share, together with the reference to the a priori of the idea of justice, the reference to the Kantian connection between rationality and hope. Hence originates the non-eschatological Messianism of both. Motives of difference between Cohen and Benjamin’s messianic idea are to be found, conversely, in their different way to consider the idea of "the infinite task" and of its infinite fulfillment in the context of the historical time. Unlike the fundamentally ethical interpretation that Cohen gives of this relationship, Benjamin understands it ontologically in a monadological sense. This explains the constitutive relationship that exists, in Benjamin's philosophy, between Origin, Fragment and Revelation. In the light of this connection, Benjamin's messianic understanding of the historical time exceeds the Scholemian alternative between a restorative and a utopian conception of Messianism. Consequently, the Krausian motto “Ursprung ist das Ziel” (“The Origin is the Goal”) displays its truth in the idea of the messianic fragment or spark.
Although prophets have been central to Jewish thought long before the rise of Islam, early medieval Jewish prophetology must be seen first and foremost within the framework of Islamic prophetology. The symbiosis of Jews with Islamic society, and in particular the common language -the fact that Jews, like Muslims, spoke, wrote and probably thought in Arabic -naturally contributed to the fact that Jewish writings often followed the same pattern as those of their Muslim counterparts. 2 In the case of theology in general and prophetology in particular, however, the similarities do not stem only from a common linguistic setting. Rather, they reflect the intrinsic nature of Islamic prophetology and the way it emerged.
Jesus, Josephus, and the Fall of Jerusalem: On Doing History with Scripture
The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 was an unquestionably traumatic event in the history of the Jewish people. By all accounts it was a social, political, and theological disaster. As such, contemporary Jewish figures wrestled with the meaning of the event. This article analyses the efforts by two figures in this internal Jewish dialogue to provide this meaning, namely, the historian Josephus and Jesus of Nazareth. We will see that in both cases the meaning of the destruction was rooted in the firm conviction of the God of Israel’s existence and his self-revelation in Scripture. The temple was destroyed not apart from God or in spite of God, but in full accordance with his will. This will, moreover, was judged to be accessible through Scripture, both in terms of its prophetic value and its establishment of a metanarrative – redemptive history – that provided a framework for historical events. In addition, the reason for the destruction was judged by both to be the sins of (certain) people. The major difference between them lay rather in the question of which sins exactly were judged to be responsible.
2023
Hayyim ibn Musa, c.1380-1460 Ibn Musa's 12 premises (haqdamot) for the disputation in Shield and Spear 1. To dispute on the meaning of a Biblical verse only according to its literal interpretation (peshat). 2. Not to accept Targum unless its interpretation is according to our reason (sekhel). 3. Not to accept Talmudic aggadot and Sefer Yosippon if their explanations are not based on any proofs. 4. Not to accept Vulgate and LXX because there are many changes from the Hebrew scripture in them. 5. Not to use equivocal terms in the Bible for disputation. 6. Not to accept the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Christian Hagiography (Flos Sanctorum) because Jews and Muslims (ha-Yishma'elim) would not admit them. 7. The Law of Moses is perfect. 8. Not to believe all the traditions in Midrash and Aggadah if they are not based on the reason. 9. To accept exclusively the literal meaning (peshat) of the biblical verse. It is not necessary to accept any interpretations based on logic (hokhmat ha-higayon) or Aristotelian philosophy. 10. The word "le-'olam" means an finite time, time in which divine will operates, or infinite time. 11. Rejection of the literal meaning of Midrash and Aggadah which Nicholas brings does not mean rejection of all the teachings of Jewish sages. 12. Not to accept Vulgate and LXX for the discussion on the Personas in Divinity Ibn Musa's critical attitude on Jewish tradition (in my previous studies)-Reconsideration on several biblical terms according to their literal meanings. Cf. Does "'almah" (Isa. 7:14) mean a virgin or a young woman?-Criticism on Nicholas's interpretation on a messianic tradition in the Talmud. Cf. 6000 years of the world: desolation for 2000 years, Torah age for 2000, and messianic age for 2000 (BT Sanhedrin 97a; BT Avodah Zarah 9a). If so, when do the messianic age begin?-Sever opposition to referring to Jewish popular tales on Jesus (Toledot Yeshu) as a proof for a messianic tradition in Judaism Current Research Question: Ibn Musa on Targum In Shield and Spear he often refers to Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan. How does ibn Musa evaluate Targum? Does he consider Targum as a reliable tool for the disputation with Nicholas?