Seymour Feldman. Gersonides: Judaism within the Limits of Reason. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2010. x + 254 pp. $59.50, cloth, ISBN 978-1-904113-44-7.
Reviewed by Norbert Samuelson
Published on H-Judaic (September, 2011)
Commissioned by Jason Kalman (Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion)
Near the end of his academic career Marvin should become a standard text, together with Fox brought together his many years of studying Fox’s on Maimonides, for any frst course in Jew‐ and teaching Maimonides into a single volume. To ish philosophy and is highly recommended as a this day, some twenty years later, Fox’s Interpret‐ Jewish resource in any general course in medieval ing Maimonides: Studies in Methodology, Meta‐ philosophy. What follows below is a summary of physics, and Moral Philosophy (1990) is the single Feldman’s summaries with a few critical remarks best introduction to a study of Maimonides’ phi‐ for readers to consider while savoring Feldman’s losophy that any serious student can read. The mature and learned writings. same can be said now for Seymour Feldman’s Gersonides was born in Orange in Provence Gersonides: Judaism within the Limits of Reason. in 1288 and died in 1344. His major writings are a While scholars may quarrel with many of the single topical philosophic treatise (The Wars of specifcs of Feldman’s interpretations, as they can the Lord), commentaries on many of the books of and do with Fox’s readings of Maimonides, with‐ the Hebrew scriptures (viz., the fve scrolls, the out question Feldman presents a superb summary “former prophets,” Job, Proverbs, Song of Songs, of the totality of Gersonides’ Jewish philosophy in the fve Books of Moses), and extensive commen‐ a single volume that is carefully reasoned and taries on Hebrew translations of Averroes’ com‐ clearly written. Certainly no philosophers or intel‐ mentaries on the books of Aristotle. His topics in‐ lectual historians of medieval thought can consid‐ clude every issue of importance in medieval Jew‐ er themselves academically literate without at ish, Muslim, and Christian philosophy and theolo‐ least some familiarity with the writings of Gerson‐ gy, as well as original scholarship on topics in the ides, and Feldman does a better job than anyone sciences, especially astronomy (based on Ptolemy) else in providing a reliable foundation for that and mathematics (based on Euclid). Gersonides’ minimal philosophical knowledge. His book place in the history of Western civilization rests H-Net Reviews primarily on his work both as an astronomer and but against Maimonides and what was then the as a philosopher, but Feldman focuses primarily standard interpretation of creation, Gersonides on Gersonides the medieval rationalist philoso‐ defended the Platonic claim that the universe is pher whose writings were read by and primarily everlasting, and ofered detail demonstrations directed towards an educated and spiritually (both philosophical and scientifc) in support of committed rabbinic Jewish audience. his position. These arguments receive more atten‐ It is of interest to note that Feldman disre‐ tion (quantitatively) in the body of Gersonides’ gards completely what used to be the standard as‐ writings (viz., twenty-nine chapters in the fnal sumption that Gersonides was an astronomer and version of the Wars) than any other topic that an astrologer who in these capacities must have Gersonides discussed. Feldman highlights the been somehow connected with Christian academ‐ originality of Gersonides’ cosmogony. While open‐ ic studies in these areas in Avignon. Feldman’s ly infuenced by non-Jewish philosophers such as sole reference to a profession is a noncommittal Platonists, Aristotelians, and Muslim theologians, citation of Joseph Shatzmiller’s judgment that Ger‐ Gersonides did not blindly follow any of them. It sonides was a moneylender. On this subject Feld‐ is of interest to note that in developing his general man has nothing else to say. However, if (for ex‐ argument Gersonides, like Maimonides, uses a ample) Gersonides was not an astronomer, how version of a Kalam argument known as “the par‐ could he have written such a sophisticated and ticularization argument” (pg. 37), which itself en‐ original account of the geocentric theory of cos‐ tails a radical (modernist) form of “atomistic and mology as Bernard Goldstein presents in his writ‐ occasionalist physics” (pg. 38). In other words Ger‐ ings on Gersonides’ science? Similarly, if Gerson‐ sonides seems to be at least hinting that the ac‐ ides was not an astronomer, why was the devel‐ cepted particularization argument for creation opment of the so-called Jacob’s staf--the most so‐ entails in some sense the kind of radical depar‐ phisticated tool for measuring relative distances ture from the medieval framework that character‐ between stars prior to the invention of the tele‐ ized the modernist scientifc philosophies of scope--attributed to Gersonides? Spinoza and his contemporaries. This is a fasci‐ nating suggestion (which I think is correct) but Feldman summarizes every central philo‐ Feldman’s discussion of the topic is far too brief to sophical-theological topic in the total corpus of reveal the hinted-at entailment. Feldman’s fnal Gersonides’ writings. As Feldman presents them discussion in connection with Gersonides’ com‐ the topics to be explained are the following: (1) mitment to a continuously created/re-created cos‐ cosmic creation, (2) divine attributes, (3) divine mos is the logic of the entailed claim of an endless omniscience, (4) divine providence, (5) divine om‐ actual past. Of course such an actuality would nipotence, (6) prophecy, (7) humanity and its des‐ have to be infnite, and premodern mathematics tiny, and (8) the Torah. The space allowed for this had no tools to make sense out of such a claim. review prohibits any detailed comments on any of Nor does Feldman make sense out of it. Instead he Feldman’s specifc arguments. Instead I will limit merely points to the possibility of such an account my remarks to the briefest of summaries of Feld‐ with the development by Georg Cantor of transf‐ man’s frst three summaries with a few (very few) nite numbers (p. 44). suggestions of ways that other Gersonides’ schol‐ ars may expand Feldman’s analysis. Gersonides’ deity transcends the physical uni‐ verse, but somehow Gersonides establishes God Against Aristotle and Averroes in particular, as a formal paradigm that functions causally in Gersonides rejected the claim that the universe as the lives of terrestrial beings. Given this explana‐ a whole is eternal and he afrmed its creation, tion, the question becomes how on this model to
2 H-Net Reviews make intelligible the religious claim that God no better with contemporary historians of Jewish speaks his commandments. Gersonides lists three philosophy such as Isaac Husik and Colette Sirat non-literal equivocal positions on the meaning of (p. 99), but Feldman himself expresses a certain these terms, viz., that they are homonymous or amount of respect for Gersonides’ position, or at absolutely equivocal, or metaphorical, or ambigu‐ least enough support to say that “Gersonides’ ous (p. 71). Maimonides, like Plotinus (Feldman stance does not appear to be so radical or novel” does not go so far as to assert an actual causal (p. 101), which is in Feldman’s terms a form of connection here) opted for homonyms for all non- scholastic “compatibistic” theory (viz., that human action afrmative attributions to God, and Ger‐ freedom in a weak sense is compatible with di‐ sonides opts for ambiguous predication in gener‐ vine omniscience in a strong sense) that was not al. The form of ambiguity advocated by Gerson‐ uncommon among Christian scholastics of the pe‐ ides is where a term (e.g., “healthy”) applies pri‐ riod. marily to one kind of subject in a sense called In his conclusion Feldman relates Gersonides’ “prior” and secondarily in a derivative way to an‐ philosophy of Judaism to the modern general other kind of subject in a sense called “posterior.” philosophies of religion of Immanuel Kant, Feldman notes that “sometimes Aristotle desig‐ Nicholas Wolterstorf, Leo Strauss, and Hermann nates this semantic relationship by the term ‘anal‐ Cohen. In diferent ways from these modern ogy’” (p. 73) but Feldman says little more to ex‐ philosophers of religion, Gersonides also presents plain what Gersonides means. He says nothing a picture of a rationalist Judaism that is, with re‐ about how this kind of relational use of a term at‐ spect to Jewish tradition, heterodox. As Hasdai tributed to subjects is distinct and diferent from Crescas and Isaac Abravanel argued, Gersonides’ other expressions of analogy. harmonistic Jewish philosophy is heterodox in at Feldman bases his discussion of Gersonides’ least three respects. First, Gersonides positing of a theory of divine omniscience on Akiba’s cryptic “formless body” out of which the universe was pronouncement that “All is foreseen; yet freedom created makes him more of a dualist than an or‐ is given” (Mishnah Avot 3:5), which Feldman in‐ thodox monist. Second, Gersonides gives purely terprets as an apparent contradiction between the naturalistic explanations of all biblical miracles. afrmation of human freedom of choice and di‐ Third, Gersonides’ denial that God knows individ‐ vine perfect knowledge of everything. Gersonides’ uals as particulars and his exclusion of future solution turns on the ambiguity of the term “all.” contingents from the domain of divine knowledge On Gersonides’ constructive reading of Akiba, clearly is heterodox. “all” means in general and not in each and every However, Feldman argues that Gersonides’ specifc case. Hence, God can have a general theology is even more heterodox, and therefore knowledge of future contingents because this more modern, than even these three legitimate kind of knowledge does not logically compromise complaints from late medieval and early modern their contingency. Correctly sensing that his posi‐ rabbinic philosophers suggest. On Feldman’s in‐ tion is controversial among faithful Jews, Gerson‐ terpretation, Gersonides comes as close as a pre‐ ides cites in support the words of the exegete modern Jewish philosopher could to giving scien‐ Abraham Ibn Ezra in connection with Gen 18:21 tifc claims epistemic priority over the written which express the same position as his own. words of the Hebrew scriptures. Still, Feldman’s However, as Feldman points out, Gersonides’ Gersonides remains a medieval (i.e., a premod‐ position gained no known support from his fellow ern) Jewish philosopher who, while he cannot in medieval Jewish thinkers (p. 99). Gersonides fares principle easily “dismiss” science, can instead in‐
3 H-Net Reviews terpret the words of the scriptures “ad libitum.” We can no longer accept his science as science, for it is as limited as are his Bible readings in the modern world. (Aristotle is not an improvement on the authors of the scriptures for truth claims.) What we can learn from Gersonides, Feldman urges, is his “general principle that reason should function as a control of what we believe has some interesting and important implications for the modern reader” (p. 213). More concretely, “Ger‐ sonides’ account of divine providence too seems to ofer a better explanation of natural evils than any of the traditional doctrines.” Furthermore, “Gersonides doctrine of the shapeless primordial body out of which the world was created ofers a more believable account of the various imperfec‐ tions of nature that cause sufering” (p. 234). None of these assertions are fully explained, so it is not as clear as it could be why these three claims in particular should be taken seriously to‐ day by constructive Jewish (or Christian for that matter) modern theologians and philosophers, and these points go to the heart of the key criti‐ cism of Feldman’s study. What he does well is present accurate and reliable summaries of a wide variety of texts, but a summary can never be sufcient to show the argument in favor of a posi‐ tion, especially when the positions are as subtle and complex as Gersonides’ positions in cos‐ mogony, theology, epistemology, cosmic provi‐ dence, divine knowledge, prophecy, human des‐ tiny, and revealed Jewish law.
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-judaic
Citation: Norbert Samuelson. Review of Feldman, Seymour. Gersonides: Judaism within the Limits of Reason. H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews. September, 2011.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=32938
4 H-Net Reviews
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
5