UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Reconstructing Jewish Identity on the Foundations of Hellenistic History: Azariah de' Rossi's Me'or 'Enayim in Late 16th Century Northern Italy Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9r45c375 Author Rosenberg-Wohl, David Michael Publication Date 2014 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Reconstructing Jewish Identity on the Foundations of Hellenistic History: Azariah de’ Rossi’s Me’or ‘Enayim in Late 16th Century Northern Italy by David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Joint Doctor of Philosophy with the Graduate Theological Union in Jewish Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Erich S. Gruen, Chair Professor Thomas Dandelet Professor Christopher Ocker Fall 2014 © 2014 David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl All Rights Reserved Abstract Reconstructing Jewish Identity on the Foundations of Hellenistic History: Azariah de’ Rossi’s Me’or ‘Enayim in Late 16th Century Northern Italy by David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl Doctor of Philosophy in Jewish Studies and the Graduate Theological Union Professor Erich S. Gruen, Chair Me’or ‘Enayim is conventionally considered to be early modern Jewish history. Recent scholarship tends to consider the work Renaissance historiography, Counter-Reformation apology or some combination of the two. The approach to date has focused primarily upon the third and most sizeable part of Me’or ‘Enayim, the sixty-chapter “Words of Understanding”. In this dissertation, I seek to state a claim to the purpose for the work, a chimerical task. I argue that Azariah de’ Rossi wrote Me’or ‘Enayim neither as history nor as apology but rather to articulate his vision of a new Jewish identity for the Jews of his time and place – late 16th century northern Italy. Recognizing the dominant Christian cultural embrace of the Roman empire and the concomitant Jewish opposition to Rome, de’ Rossi felt that the pressure of the Counter-Reformation left Jews with no viable way to be relevant to contemporary Italian culture while remaining Jewish. He proposed abandoning the account of the Jewish interaction with Rome, an account long contested by Christianity, and replacing it with the honor accorded Judaism by Greece, specifically the Hellenistic empire. Key to that enterprise was emphasizing the role in Jewish history of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy Philadelphus and even Gaius Caligula (a Hellenistic monarch by virtue of the fact that he reigned before the destruction of the Second Temple and the advent of the Roman empire). This purpose accounts for much that is puzzling about Me’or ‘Enayim. It explains why the book focuses upon Hellenistic history in general and upon the sources Aristeas, Philo and Josephus in particular. It explains why Roman history is either dismissed, in the case of Livy, or discounted, in the case of the Rabbinic midrashim accounting for the death of Titus by a divinely dispatched gnat. It explains why the work is comprised of three parts, for political identity is composed of a past, a present and a future. Most of all, I believe, my approach explains how both strains of current scholarship – the historians and the apologists – are right, but only in part. It is true that de’ Rossi is interested in what actually happened: he takes the time to establish the Hellenistic respect for Jews, their priests and their Temple. And it is true that de’ Rossi is eager to discard Rabbinic midrashim dressed up as history that can be debunked: for de’ Rossi, Rabbinic midrashim are vital as ethical lessons, lessons of hope. But de’ Rossi’s interest in history is selective, and not simply because as a religious Jew he is incapable of removing God as a causal agent. De’ Rossi privileges 1 Hellenistic history over Roman history because while the latter is useless to Jews of his age, the former is revitalizing. De’ Rossi’s Me’or ‘Enayim is about the usefulness of history – namely, history in support of identity. In that, it is fruitful to think of Me’or ‘Enayim not simply as a Renaissance work of humanism or of a Counter-Reformation work of apology. It is also, and perhaps primarily, a Jewish work in the spirit of the Protestant Reformation’s rearticulation of the religious past. 2 I dedicate this work to my wife, Kathy. You are the Light of my Eyes. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am privileged to have many, many people to thank – for inspiration and encouragement, for competence and perseverance. I am grateful to Naomi Seidman for opening my eyes to the vast literature and thought of the Jewish people and, in particular, for inspiring me to contribute to its development. Joshua Holo introduced me to the puzzles of medieval Jewish historiography and the Josippon in particular; it is to him I owe the focus of this work. Dina Stein and Holger Zellentin offered me the enchanting world of Rabbinic midrash. I could not have succeeded without the Hebrew language skills imparted to me by Ruthie Rosenwald, the best language teacher ever, and the close readings of Hebrew text I have been privileged to share with Judah Rosenwald, whose tireless enthusiasm for learning is, and will forever be, an inspiration. I am grateful as well for the dedication and creativity deployed by Rutie Adler. I would be remiss in failing to thank Chaim Heller and Henry Schreibman at Brandeis Hillel Day School for guiding me toward this direction of study. About ten years ago, I had the privilege of hearing Joanna Weinberg speak at the Center for Jewish Studies in New York; in the audience was Deena Aranoff, who later became my teacher and adviser and guide as I developed my approach to Azariah de’ Rossi’s Me’or ‘Enayim, the book that is the focus of this dissertation. I owe a debt of gratitude to Tom Dandelet, one of my committee members, for his writing and teaching about historiography in general and the world of Spanish Italy in particular, and I likewise am indebted to my committee member Chris Ocker for his efforts in helping me make my way through the effects of the Protestant Reformation in Counter-Reformation Italy. I never would have been able to complete this dissertation without the endless patience and guidance of my dissertation adviser, Erich Gruen. I appreciate his careful criticism and advice. I came to Erich as a lawyer with a background in Greek and Latin; he stayed with me while I developed my competence in Hebrew. To his great credit, he gave me all the rope I could handle, while making sure I did not manage to strangle myself. I think he would agree that I came close to doing so often. I would be remiss in not including among my teachers those scholars whose work has been so influential to me. Chief among these is Joanna Weinberg. I have been privileged to rely not just upon her edition of Me’or ‘Enayim but upon her various articles exploring de’ Rossi’s work. Robert Bonfil is the other primary scholar upon whose work I have depended, not just for his comprehensive knowledge of Jewish life in 16th century Italy but also for his approach to clarifying the notion of identity. These are my giants, but there are others who have been greatly helpful. David Ruderman kindly offered me early advice on my trajectory, as did Talya Fishman and Fabrizio Lelli. My facility with legend was much enhanced by the important chance I had to study with Galit Hasan-Rokem and with Eleazar Gutwirth, and the frequent chance afforded by Anthony Bulloch to teach Classical Mythology with him as a graduate student. Paul Hamburg provided invaluable assistance in searching for Hebrew resources in particular. I am indebted to Deena Aranoff, to Robert Futernick of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, and in particular to San Francisco’s Museo Italo-Americano for their entrusting me with the curatorship of Il Ghetto: Forging Italian Jewish Identities, 1516- 1870. The remarkable people with whom I worked, including Murray Baumgarten, Sheila Baumgarten, Mary Serventi-Steiner, Angela Little and Paola Bagnatori provided much of ii the background for my approach to the material in this dissertation. I am grateful for the encouragement of my rabbis at San Francisco’s Congregation Emanu-El. Stephen Pearce kindly introduced me to David Ruderman and Peretz Wolf-Prusan shared not only his contagious enthusiasm as a Jewish educator but introduced me to the Talmud. It is with him I first studied the Rabbinic encounter with Alexander the Great, who features prominently in this work. I am grateful to my Harvard Law School professors, especially to those of my first year who decided to teach their respective disciplines in close coordination with each other. To each of them -- Abram Chayes, Todd Rakoff, Alan Dershowitz, Frank Michelman, and particularly Morton Horwitz (whose “Is it a difference that makes a difference?” reverberates perpetually in my ears) -- I owe a debt of thanks for the technique of close reading and careful analysis. If I fail to persuade in this dissertation, the fault is surely mine, for I have been taught well. It was my Classics thesis adviser at Harvard College, Gregory Nagy, who first showed me how to value the semantic range of an individual word; under his guidance I studied the linguistic development of the Greek word arete – excellence. It was my Latin teachers in high school – John Thomson and Henry Charles in particular – who set the path I followed not just in college but to which I have returned.