Warren Zev Harvey, “Levi ben Abraham of Villefranche’s Controversial Encyclopedia,” in Steven Harvey, ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000), 171-188 (original) (raw)
Related papers
(1138-1204) had a long-standing hermeneutical tradition on which to draw, and against which to propose his own approach to the Law. In Jewish philosophy, however, Maimonides had many fewer antecedents to start with, and none whom he respected philosophically. This was not as serious a problem as might seem, however, since Maimonides, as every philosopher worth his salt, did not view his coreligionists as his only predecessors in this area. We have the letter he wrote to the Hebrew translator of the Guide, Samuel ibn Tibbon, praising certain philosophers and not others, so we know at least which thinkers he was prepared to recommend to one wishing to prepare himself for philosophy.1 The Greek Aristotle and the Muslim philosopher Al-Farabi come out at the head of this list, and Jewish philosophers at the bottom. Actually, Maimonides does not recommend reading any of his Jewish predecessors, as for him the ostensibly Peripatetic school of Greek and Islamic thought is sufficient, mostly, to acquaint anyone with the basic teachings of philosophy. Thus, even Plato and Avicenna are not particularly recommended, though their influence and that of Plotinus is not at all insignificant in the Guide.2 Moreover, Plato's political philosophy, as represented in the Republic, may be regarded as the primary source for Maimonides' own views, underlying much of the Guide's teachings. Plato's opinion of the relationship of philosophy and religion and the uses of religion as a political and social instrument had been communicated to Maimonides through Al-Farabi's writings, however, and Maimonides' praise for the "Second Master," as Al-Farabi was known, may be thought to include his presentation of Platonic political philosophy. Judging from the Guide itself as well as from Maimonides' letter to his translator, the main (non-political) philosophical teachings to which Maimonides is committed 114 Alfred L. Ivry are essentially Aristotelian logic, physics and metaphysics. This commitment obviates the need to study almost all of Maimonides' Jewish predecessors, be they Neoplatonists like Isaac Israeli and Solomon Ibn Gabirol, or quasi-philosophers like Saadiah Gaon and Judah Halevi.
Mishneh Torah's Structure and its Meaning: A Response to Prof. Lawrence Kaplan
In my book 'Reading Maimonides' Mishneh Torah', I propose that Maimonides based the structure of the Mishneh Torah on his cosmology. This has profound consequences for the status of philosophy in his code of Jewish law, and turns it into an intricate work of literary art. Prof. Kaplan finds that Mishneh Torah's 14-book structure as we have it was not part of Maimonides' original concept, and that the structure underwent change in the course of composition. This, he says, tends to undercut my thesis. In this article I argue: 1) we must appreciate Mishneh Torah in its final form; 2) Prof. Kaplan's findings are subject to interpretation; 3) what he has brought to light about Mishneh Torah's evolution actually supports my thesis.
I should like to discuss Maimonides' curiously equivocal comments concerning the Aristotelian notion that God is the Knower, the Known, and Knowledge,*,1 or in John Herman Randall's atticism, nous nousing nous.2 My discussion is based on two celebrated texts in which Maimonides develops this Aristotelian doctrine: The Guide of the Perplexed (part i, chapter 68) and the Mishneh Tôrah, Book of Knowledge, Hilkhôt Yesôdê ha-Tôrah (chapter 2, paragraph 10). The Guide, written in Arabic, is an esoteric philosophic book, while the Mishneh Tôrah, written in Hebrew, is a legal code addressed to everyone. The Mishneh Tôrah, completed in 1180, about ten years before the Guide, comprises 14 large volumes. The two works contain more or less the same philosophic and religious views. However, in the Guide they are presented in a technical, profound, and conflicted way, often using riddles and ruses, while in the Mishneh Tôrah they are presented lucidly and simply, often simplistically. If in the Guide Maimonides complicates everything, in the Mishneh Tôrah he simplifies everything. Thus, the Mishneh Tôrah can serve as a key to the secrets of the Guide.3 The Guide is written in a variety of styles. Each chapter has its own literary atmosphere. Some are orthodox Aristotelian, some radical Aristotelian, some Platonic, some Neoplatonic, some biblical, others Talmudic, and there is even one Sufi chapter (iii, 51). Certain chapters are written entirely in Arabic, others contain many Hebrew or Aramaic words. * This essay is an expanded version of my "De la notion d'intellect-intelligent-intelligible chez Maïmonide" (2006).
2007
This book offers an account of a key event in Jewish intellectual history that is also an important chapter in the history of Western philosophy: the dissemination of Maimonides’ chief philosophical work, the Guide of the Perplexed, through Samuel ibn Tibbon at the beginning of the 13th century in Southern France. Whereas Maimonides interpreted Judaism as a philosophical religion, Ibn Tibbon turned this interpretation into the foundation of Jewish philosophy up to Spinoza, making it into a systematic justification for studying Greco-Arabic philosophy and science in a religious setting. If Maimonides’ work was the gate through which philosophy became an important component of Jewish culture, Ibn Tibbon built the hinge without which this gate would have remained shut. The book examines Ibn Tibbon’s relationship to Maimonides in all its facets: how he translated Maimonides’ work from Arabic into Hebrew, explained its technical terminology, and interpreted and taught its doctrines. Due attention is also paid to Ibn Tibbon’s comprehensive criticism of Maimonides. The book includes the edition of what may be called the first commentary on the Guide: about 100 glosses attributed to Ibn Tibbon that were discovered through examining 145 manuscripts of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation. The glosses illustrate the different aspects of Ibn Tibbon’s relationship to Maimonides and the complex transition of Maimonides’ work from one cultural context to another.