TheJolirnal a/Jewish Thollght and Philosophy, Vol. 7, pp. 61-82 © 1997 Reprints available directly from the publisher Photocopying permitted by licence only Changing Fronts in the Controversies over Philosophy in Medieval Spain and Provence Dov Schwartz Department of Philosophy, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, ISRAEL Introduction The violent controversies that split medieval Jewry into rationalists and traditionalists were by no means identical in their nature and subject-matter. Though some historians of ideas treat the different outbursts as if they were homogeneous, 1 the differences were sometimes quite profound. Themes that were uppermost in one dispute were completely ignored in another. Positions characteris- tic of one camp at one time were espoused by the other camp in another controversy. Thus, each dispute should be considered on its own merits, and only after an exhaustive study of its evolution and its ideological and cultural makeup can one properly place it in the historical and cultural context of the Middle Ages. As an example of such shifts in the traditionalists' position at different times, let us consider the first anti-Maimonidean contro- versy, stirred up by Samuel b. Ali and Meir Halevi Abulafia 1 See, e.g., J. Guttmann, Philosophies ofJudaism, Gatden City, NY, 1964, pp. 207-236. Among others who have at times treated the entire complex as a uniform controversy are Sarachek and Halkin: J. Sarachek, Faith and Reason: The Conflict over the Rationalism of Maimonides, Williamsport 1935 [hereafter: Sara- chek, Faith and Reason], pp. 168-169: A. S. Halkin, "The Ban on the Study of Philosophy" (Heb.), Perakim 1 (1967), pp. 35-55. And see further below. 61 62 Dov Schwartz (RaMaH). A central- if not the most important - theme was messianism. The traditionalists questioned the conception of the immortality of the soul, while the rationalists supported the Maimonidean doctrine that the ultimate end ("the World to Come") was abstract immortality, other messianic goals being of a temporary nature. Later, however, toward the end of the 13th century, in the dispute spearheaded by Abba Mari of Lunel and Solomon b. Adret of Barcelona (RaShBA), the messianic idea did not come up for discussion at all. A diligent search detects only a few mentions of "redemption" in the many pages of Minhat Kena'ot, Abba Mari's documentation of the dispute; while the question of immortality was treated only marginally. Moreover, in the few references that can be found, the traditionalists accepted the Maimonidean view of the messianic era. Indeed, they feared the antinomistic dangers inherent in radical messianism, and therefore preferred the safer Maimonidean brand of messianism with its insistence on the eternity of the Torah.2 Clearly, then, the various controversies differed considerably, and consequently so did the positions taken by the different parties. I have already had occasion to point out the need for a re-examina- tion of the controversies and their implications;3 in this paper I would like to reconsider one aspect of the overall conflict which has, in fact, been described as its central theme - the problem of the attitude to philosophy sciences or, in the Hebrew of the time, the hokhmot or hokhmot hizoniyyot (literally: "external wisdoms"). It is commonly agreed that one common denominator of the different controversies was a rejection of the authority of science. However, it turns our that attitudes to science were not uniform throughout the different disputes. On the contrary, while the validity of science was a cardinal theme in the twenties and thirties of the 13th century, it was no longer at issue at the end of that century. 2 I shall deal with this example at length in a forthcoming book on the messianic idea in medieval Jewish philosophy (Bar-Han University Press). 3 See D. Schwartz, "Meharsim, Talmudiyyim and Anshei ha-Hokhma- Judah ben Samuel ibm 'Abbas's Views and Preaching" (Heb.), Tarbiz 62 (1993), pp. 585-599; idem. "On the Nature of the Controversy over Medieval Philosophy: R. Yehudah ben Samuel ibn 'Abbas" (Heb.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of jewish Studies, Division C. Vol. II, Jerusalem 1994, pp.71-76..