Lecture

to

be delivered
and

on

May 16,

1944

at the

Fourth

Institute of Biblical

Post-Biblical Studies.

How To

Study

Medieval

Philosophy

Leo Strauss

"How To Strauss's
in
pencil

Study Medieval
original

Philosophy"

was available with

to the editors in Professor

alterations added

typescript,

additions, corrections and

in his

own

hand. We

are grateful to

Heinrich

and

Wiebke Meier for

their most generous

Hillel Fradkin for

changes

help in deciphering Professor Strauss's handwriting and to help with regard to Hebrew and Arabic words. A few minor
in spelling
and punctuation

by

the editors

have

not

been
We

noted.

We

raise

the question of how to

study

medieval philosophy.

cannot

discuss

that question without saying something about how to study earlier philosophy in
general and

indeed

about

how to study

intellectual1

history2

in

general. admits as

In

sense, the

answer

to our question

is
at

self-evident.

Everyone

that,
to

if

we

have to study

medieval

and as

intelligently

as possible.

philosophy As exactly

all,

we

have to study it

exactly

as possible: we are not permitted

any detail however trifling, unworthy of our most careful observation. As intelligently as possible: in our exact study of all details, we must never lose
consider sight of the whole; we must

never, for

moment,

overlook
add

the

wood

for the

trees. But these are

trivialities, terms,

although we and that

have to
cease

that

they

are

trivialities

only if in

stated

in

general

they

to be trivialities if one pays

attention to them while engaged

curious and unexplored

in

actual work:

the temptations to lose oneself

and

details

on

the

one

hand,

to be generous as re

gards minutiae on the

other,

are always with us.

We

touch upon a more controversial

issue

when we

say that

our understand

ing

of medieval

philosophy
do2

must

be historical
not

understanding.

Frequently

peo as

ple reject an account of the unhistorical.

past,
mean

What

they

by

simply as unexact or unintelligent, but it? What ought they to mean by it?3

According
greatest

to a saying of
understood

better than he

Kant, it is possible to understand a philosopher himself. Now, such understanding may have the

merits; but it is clearly not historical understanding. If it goes so far as to claim to be the true understanding, it is positively unhistorical. [The most

outstanding example of such unhistorical interpretation which we have in the field of the study of Jewish medieval philosophy, is Hermann Cohen's essay on
Maimonides'

ethics.

Cohen constantly

refers statements of

Maimonides,

not

to

1994

by

The

interpretation,

University of Chicago. All rights Spring 1996, Vol. 23, No. 3

reserved.

322

Interpretation
center of

Maimonides'2

reference, but to his

Maimonides'2

own2

center of

reference; he

under

them, Cohen had a

stands
pretation.4

not within

horizon, but
he
as

within

his

own2

horizon. inter

technical term

for his

procedure:

called

it

"idealizing"

It may justly be described pretation. At any rate, it is professedly an attempt to himself.]6 Historical better than he understood
the
stand an earlier ever an
philosopher8

modern

form

of allegoric

inter

understand

the old author

understanding7

means

to

under who

exactly
on
that9

as

he

understood

himself. Everyone

tried

his hands
normal10

task,

will

bear

me out when

I say that this task is

already sufficiently tough In the

and most of

assignment

in itself.
philosopher studied

historian

imagination,11

philosophy is subtlety. This historian does

a man

interesting case, the by far superior to

well

by

the

his historian in intelligence, to remind himself of the expe

rience which
with

Gulliver

made when

he

came

the illustrious dead: "I had a Whisper from that the Commentators
most of

in contact, through necromancy, a Ghost, who shall be name

through a

less,
of of

Aristotle

and other great philosophers always

kept in the Shame

those

distant
to

quarters

from their

Principals,

Consciousness

and

Guilt,

Posterity."

authors

because they had so horribly misrepresented the meaning The most sustained effort of the most gifted
to carry
haunt12

historian, hardly
dream
For1

suffices

him for
the

a short moment

to the
can

height

which

is

the native and perpetual

of

of

philosopher:

how

the historian even

philosopher?13

reaching
attempt

a point

from

which

he

can

look down

on a

the

to understand a philosopher of the past better than that the interpreter considers

he

under

stood

himself,
of

presupposes

his insight

superior

to

the insight

the

old author.

Kant

made

this quite clear when suggesting that

understood

one can understand a philosopher age so

better than he

himself. The

aver

historian is
words.

much

too

modest a

fellow to
of

raise such an enormous claim with so without of

many

But he is in danger insight is

avoid
he14

doing

claim with

that his

personal2

superior

to that

noticing it. He will not Maimonides e.g. But only

difficulty
is
superior

can

day
the

insight available to claiming that the to the collective insight available in the 12th century. There is
collective2

more than one

historian
insight

contribution of and

in interpreting, say, Maimonides, tries to assess Maimonides. His15 contribution to what? To the treasure of
who
which

knowledge
des'

has been

accumulated

throughout the

ages.

That

treasure appears to be greater

today

than it was, say,

in the

year of

Maimoni knowl

death. This insight

means

that when speaking of

today.2

Maimonides'

contribution, the
of
Maimonides'

historian has in
edge or

mind as

the contribution of
available

it is

Maimonides to the treasure Hence, he interprets

a

thought in terms of the thought of the present

day. His tacit assumption is that

progress,
and

the

history

of

thought

is, generally

speaking,

that therefore the

philosophic

truth than the philosophic thought of the 12th century. I contend that this assumption is irreconcilable with true historical understanding. It leads to the

thought of the 20th century is superior

to,

or nearer the

necessarily

at

tempt to understand the thought of the past

better2

than it understood

itself,

and

How To
not
will
as2

Study

Medieval

Philosophy

323

it

understood

itself. For: it is

evident

that our understanding of the past

tend to be the

more

adequate, the more we are interested in the past; but

we cannot be seriously interested, i.e. passionately interested in the past, if we know beforehand that the present is, in the most important respect, superior to

the past. It is not a matter of chance

understanding of the continental rior to the historical understanding

consequence of the

that, generally speaking, the historical romantics, of the historical school, was supe
of

fact that the

representatives of the

18th century rationalism; it is a necessary historical school did not

believe in the superiority of their time to the past, whereas the 18th century rationalist believed in the superiority of the Age of Reason to all former ages. Historians who start from the belief in the superiority of present-day thought to
the thought of the past,
understand

feel

no

necessity to
what

understand

the

past

by
a

it

as a preparation of the present only.

primarily:
was

When studying

itself: they doctrine of

they do not ask intention of its originator?

the past,

the conscious and deliberate

of

They

prefer

to ask: what is the contribution

unknown

the the

doctrine

to our

beliefs?

what

is the meaning,
approach of

to

its originator,

of

doctrine from the

of

point of view of the present? what

later developments? Against this in the

name of

is its meaning in the light the historical consciousness rightly

exactness.

protested

historical truth,
understand

historical

The task
exactly2

of

the

historian

of thought

is to

the thinkers

of

the past

as

they
own2

themselves, or to revitalize their thought according to their interpretation of it. To sum up this point: the belief in the superiority of one's
understood own

approach,

or of

the approach of one's time, to the approach of the past

is

fatal to historical

understanding.

of

We may express the same thought somewhat differently as follows. The task the historian of thought is to understand the thought of the past exactly as it

understood

itself; for

to

abandon

that task is tantamount to abandoning the only

practicable criterion of

that the

same

historical

objectivity in the history of thought. It is well-known phenomenon is interpreted in most different ways by

different periods, different generations, different types of men. The same his torical phenomenon appears in different lights at different times. New human
experiences shed new
will

light

on old

texts. No one can foresee e.g. how the Bible

such as

be

read

100

years

hence. Observations

these have led some people

the2

to adopt the
pretation view.

view

that the claim of any one interpretation to be

true inter
such a

is

untenable.

Yet the

observations

in

question

do

not

justify

For the infinite variety

not

of ways

in

which a given

text can

be understood,

do away with the fact that the author of the text, when writing it, The light understood it in one way only provided he was not appears on the basis of the Puritan Saul Samuel and in which the history of
does
muddle-headed.16

revolution understood
question

e.g., is not the light in

that history.

which

the author of the Biblical

of

And

the true

interpretation
makes

the Biblical the

is the

one which

restates, and
author.

intelligible,

history history in Biblical history

of inter-

as understood

by

the Biblical

Ultimately,

the infinite variety

324

Interpretation
is due to
conscious or unconscious attempts to under

pretations of an author stand

the author better than he understood

as2

himself; but

there is only

one

way

of

understanding him
To
own return

he

understood

himself.17

to the point where I left

or of

off:

The belief in the superiority

of one's

approach,

the

approach of one's

fatal to historical
teristic of
called rior

understanding.

time, to the approach of the past, is This dangerous assumption which is charac

may call progressivism, was avoided by what is frequently historicism. Whereas the progressivist believes that the present is supe
what one

to the past, the historicist believes that all

periods are

equally "immediate

to God". The historicist

does

not want

to judge of the past,

understand and

contribution of each period

e.g., but to

assessing the to relate how things

particular
intention2

by

have actually
thought2

been,

wie es eigentlich gewesen

ist,
at

and

in

how the
to
under

of

the past has been. The

historicist has it

least the

stand

the thought of the past exactly as

unable

understood

itself. But: he is
or rather

constitu

tionally

to live

up to his intention. For: he knows,

he assumes,

that, generally speaking and other things being equal, the thought of all epochs is equally true, because every philosophy is essentially the expression of the spirit of its time. Maimonides e.g. expressed the spirit of his time as perfectly
as, say, Hermann Cohen
of

expressed the spirit of

his time. Now,

were mistaken

all philosophers

the

past claimed

to

have found

the

truth,
that

and not

merely the truth in

for their
so.

time.2

The historicist however

makes

asserts

they

believing

And he

this assertion the basis of his interpretation. He knows

a priori

that the claim of Maimonides e.g. that

all

he teaches

the

truth,

the truth valid for

times, is unfounded. In this most important respect, the historicist, just as his hostile brother the progressivist, believes that his approach is superior to the
approach of the thinkers of old.

The historicist is therefore compelled,

by

his

principle, if
understood

his intention, to try to understand the past better than it itself. He merely repeats, if sometimes in a more sophisticated
against2

form, it,

the sin for which

he is

used

to blame the progressivist

one must

so severely.

For,

to repeat, to understand a serious

one must

teaching,

take

it

seriously.

But

one cannot
a serious

be seriously interested in take it seriously, if one knows

seriously,
one must

beforehand that it is "dated". To take

teaching

be

willing to consider the possibility that

it is simply true. Therefore, if

we are

understanding of medieval philosophy, we must be willing to consider the possibility that medieval philosophy is simply true, or, to speak less that it is superior, in the most important respect,
an adequate
paradoxically,18

interested in

to all

that19

we can

learn from any

philosophy

of

the

contemporary

philosophers.

We

can

understand medieval
not

only20

if

we are prepared to

learn something,
of

merely about the medieval philosophers, but from them. It remains then true that if one wants to understand a it in
a philosophic

philosophy

the past,

one must approach concern must

spirit,

with

philosophic2

questions: one's

philosophic

be primarily, not truth, but with the

with what other people

have thought

about the

philosophic

truth

itself. But: if

one approaches

How To
an earlier

Study
is
not

Medieval
his

Philosophy

325

thinker with

question which

central

question, one is
philosophic ques

bound to misinterpret, to distort, his thought. Therefore, the

comprehensive, that it
permits of

tion with which one approaches the thought of the past, must be so

broad,
can

so

being
the2

narrowed

down to the specific,

It

precise

formulation

of

the question than the

of

which

the author

concerned adopted.

be

no

question other

question of

truth about the whole.

phi

The historian losopher

wants to

philosophy

must

then undergo a transformation into a

or a conversion

to philosophy,

if he

wants

be

a competent

historian

of philosophy.

his job properly, if he He must acquire a freedom of

to do

mind which

is

not

too

frequently

met with

he

must

have

as perfect a of

freedom

of mind as

among the professional philosophers: is humanly possible. No preju

philosophy,
of modern

dice in favor
civilization,
of old

contemporary thought,

even of modern

of modern science

the

full1

benefit

of

deter him from giving the thinkers the doubt. When engaging in the study of the philoso

itself,

must

phy

of the

which

past, he must cease to take his bearings by the modern signposts to he has grown familiar since his earliest childhood; he must try to take his

bearings
are not

by the signposts which guided the thinkers of old. immediately visible: they are concealed by heaps
writers,
of

Those
of

old signposts and rubble.

dust

The

most obnoxious part of

the rubble consists of the superficial interpretations

which are offered

by

modern

the cheap cliches

in the textbooks before they

and

which seem

to unlock

by

one

which guided

the thinkers of

formula the mystery the past, must be

succeeded

of

the past. The signposts

can

recovered2

be

used.

Before the historian has

in
a condition of utter which

being
in
a

in recovering them, he cannot help bewilderment, of universal doubt: he finds himself

is illumined exclusively by his knowledge that he knows nothing. When engaging in the study of the philosophy of the past, he must know that he embarks on a journey whose end is completely hidden from him:
darkness he is
not

likely

to return to the shore of his time as the same man who left it.

II. True historical understanding of medieval philosophy presupposes that the student is willing to take seriously the claim of the medieval philosophers that

they

teach the truth.

most unreasonable?
natural science of

it may justifiably be objected, is this demand not Medieval philosophy is based, generally speaking, on the Aristotle: has that science not been refuted once and for all
and

Now,21

by Galileo,

Descartes

Newton? Medieval philosophy is based

on

practically'

complete unawareness of the principles of religious

toleration,

of

the represen

tative system, of the

rights of

man, of

democracy

as we understand

it. It is

characterized by an indifference touching on contempt, toward poetry and his tory. It seems to be based on a firm belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible

and

in the Mosaic

origin of

the oral Law. It stands and

as unsound as

falls

with

the use of a

method of

Biblical interpretation

the

allegoric

interpretation. In
fostered

brief,

medieval

philosophy

arouses against

itself

all convictions

by

the

least indubitable

results of modern science and modern scholarship.

326

Interpretation
all.

Nor is this

thought,
ment

and yet

Medieval philosophy may have been refuted by it could have been an admirable and highly beneficial
even

modern

achieve

for its time. But

view22

this may be

questioned.

A strong
medieval

case can

be

made

for the from

that the influence of philosophy on

Judaism

was

far
Dr.
that

being
on

salutary.

Most

of you will

have

read

the remarkable book

by

Scholem from the

Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. Dr. Scholem

contends

point of view of

Judaism, i.e.
the

of

Rabbinical Judaism, the Kabbalah is He

starts

by

far

superior

to Jewish

medieval philosophy.

from the

observation

that "both the

of ancient

mystics and

philosophers

Judaism". But "the

philosopher can

completely transform the structure only proceed with his proper

task
a

after

having

successfully
...

converted

the concrete realities of Judaism

into

bundle

of abstractions

By

contrast, the mystic refrains from

destroying
Kabbalah

the

living

structure of religious narrative clear

by

allegorizing it

["The differ
and

ence

becomes

if

we consider

the attitude of

philosophy

respectively to the two outstanding creative manifestations of Rabbinic Jewry: Halachah

The
and

Aggadah, Law

and

Legend. It is
and

a remarkable

fact that the

to either
.

phi
. .

losophers failed to inquiries

criticism

establish a

whole world of religious

satisfactory law remained

intimate

relation

outside

the orbit of philosophic

which means of course

.

too that it was not subjected to philosophic

Maimonides'

For be

purely historical understanding bold

man who would maintain

of

religion,
of great

analysis of the origin of the religious commandments

is

importance,
of the
actual

but he Mitzvot
practice
or one

would was
...

that his

ideology

likely

to

increase the

enthusiasm of the

faithful for their

To the philosopher, the Halachah either had no significance at all, that was calculated to diminish rather than to enhance its prestige in his
. . .

eyes."

"The Aggadah it

represents a method of motive powers of

giving

original and concrete

expression to the

deepest

the

religious

Jew,

quality

which

helps to
religion.

make

an excellent and genuine approach was

. .

to the essentials of our to baffle the

However, it
veiled

just this quality

.

which never ceased

philosophers of

Judaism

Only
qua

too

frequently
not

their allegorizations are sim

ply

at suggesting that our blind to the deepest forces of philosophers, were, the Jewish soul; he suggests also that they were blind to the deepest forces of the soul of man as man. Philosophy, he says, turned "its back upon the primi
.

criticism".]23

Scholem does

leave it

medieval philosophers

tive side of

fear ists

of on

life, that all-important region where mortals are afraid of life and in death, and derive scant wisdom from rational philosophy". The Kabbal
the other hand "have a strong sense of the
about

horror that is We

everything living.
grateful

They

do

not,2

reality of evil and the dark like the philosophers, seek

and

to evade its existence with the aid of a convenient

ought

formula". forceful
con rest

to be

to Dr. Scholem for

his sweeping
not permit us

demnation is

of our medieval philosophy.

It does

any longer to

satisfied with
which

that

mixture of

historical

reverence and philosophic

characteristic of

the prevailing mood. For

indifference Scholem's criticism, while

How To

Study

Medieval

Philosophy
a certain
more

327

unusually ruthless, cannot be said to be paradoxical. In fact, to Scholem merely says quite explicitly what is implied in the
accepted work on opinion on

extent,

generally
standard of

the subject. The

of

central

thesis underlying the

the

history
of

Jewish philosophy, Julius Guttmann's

world and man

Philosophy
and

Judaism is that

our medieval philosophers

abandoned, to a considerable extent,

the Biblical ideas

God,

in favor

of

the

Greek ideas,

that

the modern Jewish philosophers succeed much better than their medieval prede

in safeguarding the Judaism. In this connection

cessors

original purport of the central religious

we might also mention

beliefs

of

the

fact that Franz

Rosen-

zweig

considered

Hermann Cohen's
to
Maimonides'

posthumous work

(Religion der

Vernunft)
be
more

definitely

superior

Guide for the Perplexed.

Criticisms

such as these cannot

be dismissed lightly.

Nothing

would

impertinent than to leave things a merely dialectical or disputative answer. The only convincing answer would be a real interpretation2 of our great medi eval philosophers. For it would be a grave mistake to believe that we dispose
at24

interpretation. After all, the historical study of Jewish medi eval philosophy is of fairly recent origin. Everyone working in this field is deeply indebted to the great achievements of Salomon Munk, David Kaufmann already
of such an and

Harry

A. Wolfson in

particular.

But I

am sure

that these great

scholars

would

be the first to

admit

that

modem

scholarship has in
a

not yet crossed

the

threshold of such works as Halevi's Kuzari and

Maimonides'

Guide: BEN
stage.

ZOMA 'ADAYIN But be

BACHUTZ.25

We

are still

truly preliminary
raising the

quite apart

from this

perhaps

decisive consideration, the

extent26

critical remarks gravest

quoted can

answered

to a certain
granted

without

issue.

Dr. Scholem takes it for

express,
cal
or

that

our medieval philosophers

intended to

to

interpret, in

their

philosophic

works, the

living

Judaism,
intention

or

the religious

sentiments or experiences of

reality of histori the pious Jew. Their

The
whole edifice

real of of

was much more

was

modest,

or much more radical.

the Jewish tradition the

adherents of

virtually

or even

Greek

philosophy.

actually With all due caution

under attack

from the
by1

side our

necessitated

insufficient information

about what

had happened in the Hellenistic

period of

Jewish history, one may say that the Middles Ages witnessed the first, and discussion between these two most important certainly the first
adequate,2

forces ophy
or

of the

Western

world:

the religion of the

Bible

and

the

science or philos

of the

Greeks. It

was a

discussion,

not

between

ethical monotheism and

paganism, i.e. between two religions, but between

religion as such and science and obedience

and a stake

philosophy as such: between the way of life based on faith way of life based on free insight, on human wisdom

alone.2

What

was at

in

that

discussion,
as the

were not so much

the

religious sentiments or experi

presuppositions2

themselves,2

ences

elementary

and

inconspicuous

on

the

basis

of which
pious well

those sentiments or

experiences could

be

more

than beautiful

dreams,
was

wishes, awe-inspiring delusions

or emotional exaggerations.

It

very

for the Kabbalist Moses

of

Burgos to say that the

philosophers

328

Interpretation
the

end where

Kabbalists begin. But does this

interest to the

not amount

to a
of

confession

that
with

the Kabbalist as such is not concerned with the

foundations2

belief, i.e.
To

the only this

question of

philosopher as philosopher?

deny
or

that

question and

is

of paramount

importance is to

assert

that a

conflict

between
that

faith

knowledge, between

religion and science

is

not even

thinkable,

intellectual

honesty
the

is nothing to be

cared

for. And to believe that the

specific

experiences of

mystic are sufficient

that1

to quell the

doubts

raised

by

science or

such experiences guarantee the absolute philosophy is to forget the fact in which they guarantee the truth of the Torah in no other way than absolute truth of the Christian dogma or of the tenets of Islam; it means to
that27

minimize

the

importance In

of

the doctrinal
was

conflicts

between the three

great

monotheist religions.

fact, it

the insoluble character of those

rate

doctrinal

conflicts which

engendered,

or at

any

strengthened, the impulse toward

philosophic studies.

[It is
to

perhaps not altogether

much more

insignificant that Jewish

of

phi

losophy

has

proved

be

impervious to the influence

the Chris

tian dogma than the

Kabbalah.]28

One may say of course and this is the implication of the view taken by Guttmann and Rosenzweig in particular that modern Jewish philosophy has

discussed the
much more

question of

faith

and

knowledge,

of religion and

science, in
Jewish1

advanced, in

a much more mature

way than medieval

after all

phi

losophy. At the

root of all our

internal difficulties is
not with

the conflict

be

tween the traditional Jewish

beliefs,
not

modern natural science and with modem

Aristotelian metaphysics, but with historical criticism. And this conflict Jewish philosophy, but by mod Modern Jewish

is

being

discussed

of

course,

by

medieval2

ern2

Jewish

philosophy.

Yet there is

another side to this picture.

philosophy from Moses Mendelssohn to Franz with the basic premises of modern philosophy in
of modern

Rosenzweig

stands

and

falls

general. Now, the superiority philosophy to medieval philosophy is no longer so evident as it seemed to be one or two generations ago. Modern philosophy led to a distinc alien to medieval between tion, philosophy, philosophy and science. This dis tinction is fraught with the danger that it paves the way for the admission of an
unphilosophic science and of an unscientific philosophy: of a science which
mere

is

tool,

and

hence

apt to

become the tool

of

any powers,

of

any interests that

be,

and of a

belonging
phy,

philosophy in which wishes and prejudices have usurped the place to reason. We have seen modern philosophy the claim to

resigning
the

demonstrable truth
or else

and

degenerating

into

some

form

of

intellectual
go so

autobiogra
of mod

evaporating into methodology

And
we are

ern science.

observing every
of

by becoming day that people

handmaid
far in

debasing

the name of philosophy as to speak

such as

the philosophies of vulgar

not accidental:
and29

impostors

Hitler. This

regrettable usage

is

come of

the distinction between philosophy

it is the necessary out science, of a distinction which

of

is bound to lead eventually to the Whatever we might have to think of

separation2

philosophy from

science

Neo-Thomism, its

considerable success

How To
among
non-Catholics

Study
old

Medieval

Philosophy

329

is due to the

increasing
The

awareness

that something is ba

sically wrong
century,
again
of

with modern philosophy.

question, discussed in the 17th

or vice

the
a

superiority
topical

of

the moderns to the ancients,

versa, has

become

question.

It has

again

become

a question:

only
are

fool

would presume

that it has already found

a sufficient answer.

We

barely

beginning
But the
the study
necessity.

to realize
mere

its

enormous

implications. become
a

fact that it has

again

question,
and not

suffices

for making
a

of medieval

would

philosophy like to stress

philosophic,

merely

historical,
of modem

one point which

is

of particular significance

for the

right approach

to our medieval philosophy. The

development

philosophy has led to a point where the meaningfulness of philosophy or sci ence as such has become problematic. To mention only one of its most obvious
manifestations: there was a time when

science are, or can, or ought to

common

generally held that philosophy or be the best guide for social action. The very
was

it

present-day talk

of

the

importance
rate

and

necessity

of political
of

myths2

alone suffices to show that at science

any has become doubtful. We

science?"

the sociap significance

philosophy

or

are again confronted with

the question

"Why

philosophy?

why

This

question was

in the

center of

discussion in the
serve no

beginnings

of philosophy.

One may say that the Platonic dialogues

more obvious purpose

than precisely this one: to answer the question why phi

losophy,
of eval

why

science?

by justifying
to

the city, the

political community. are compelled

philosophy or science before the tribunal In fundamentally the same way, our medi
raise

philosophers

the question why philosophy, why

science?

by justifying
and

philosophy

or science

before the tribunal

philosophy, the

of

the

law,

of

the Torah. This most

own

fundamental from its

question of

question of

its

legitimacy

necessity, is
was

no

longer

a question

for

modern philosophy.

Modern philosophy

beginning

the attempt to replace the allegedly

wrong philosophy or science of the Middle Ages phy or science: it did not raise any longer the philosophy
or science
itself:2

by

the allegedly true philoso

question of the granted.

it took that necessity for is

absent

necessity of This fact alone

can assure us

from the

outset that medieval

philosophic radicalism which

from

this most important respect, superior

altogether absurd

philosophy is distinguished by a philosophy, or that it is, in to modern It is then not

modern
philosophy.]30

that we should turn from the modern philosophers to the

medieval philosophers with the expectation that we might

have to learn

some

thing from them,

III. The
or

and not

merely

about

them.

student of medieval
under

not, he is

the

philosophy is a modern man. Whether he knows it influence of modern philosophy. It is precisely this
so

influence
to
on

which makes

it

difficult,

and

to begin with even

impossible, really

understand medieval philosophy.

the

student of medieval

tion of medieval

philosophy interpreta philosophy which makes an with inevitable. The to begin philosophy understanding of
unhistorical2

It is this influence

of modern

330

Interpretation
philosophy
requires

medieval

then a certain

emancipation2

from the influence

serious,

of modern philosophy. constant and relentless phy.

And this

emancipation

is

not possible without

reflection2

on

the specific

character of modern philoso modern men understand

modern2

For knowledge

alone can make men

free. We

philosophy only to the extent to specific character. in its ophy This cannot possibly mean that the student
medieval

which we understand

philos

of medieval

philosophy
of

must

possess a complete phies.

knowledge

of all

important

medieval and modern philoso

The

accumulation of such a vast amount of at all

knowledge,
to a

factual infor
of mental

mation, if

possible,
other

would reduce

any2

man

condition

decrepitude. On the
on

those "fables
which

convenues"

hand, it is impossible for any genuine scholar to rely about the difference between medieval and modern

thought

have

acquired a sort of even

immortality by
true,
have to

migrating from
the young

one

text

book to
not

another.

For

if those

cliches were

scholar could

know that this is the

one

case:

he

would

accept them on trust.

There is

only

way

of

combining the

duty
in

of exactness with

the equally compelling

observations at strate

duty

of comprehensiveness: one must start with

detailed

gic points. model

There

are cases e.g. work:

which a medieval work

has

served as with

for
we

a modern

by

a close comparison of the

imitation
of

its
As

model,

may

arrive at a clear and

lively

first-hand impression

the charac

teristic difference between the medieval approach and the

an example one could mention work

modem approach.

Ibn

Tufayl'

s on

Hayy

ibn Yaqzan

and

Defoe's

Robinson Crusoe. Defoe's 17th century,

without of

is based

the Latin translation made in the

the

work of

the Arabic philosopher. Both works deal with the

question of what a

solitary human
society

being

can achieve with

his

natural

powers,

the

help

of

or civilization.

The

medieval man succeeds

in be
techni

coming
cal

a perfect

philosopher; the

modem man

lays the foundation is

represented

of a

civilization.

Another type Treatise

of strategic

points

by

modern

commentaries on medieval texts.

Maimonides'

comparison of

on

on

Logic

with

Mendelssohn's commentary the Maimonidean text itself could well

into
our subject.

perform would

the

function

of an

entering

wedge

The third type

be detailed

modern polemics against medieval

teachings. Take Spinoza's

critique of

Maimonides'

teaching
what

and method

in the Theologico-Political Trea

are misunderstood or

tise.

By

observing

theses of
one

Maimonides'

insuffi

ciently

understood

by Spinoza,

is

enabled

to grasp some of the specifically

modem prejudices which to

begin

with prevent us at

least

as much as

they did

Spinoza from understanding Maimonides. Yet,

mentioned are open

all examples of

the three types

to the objection that they may mislead the unwary student into taking the difference between these specific modern and medieval philoso phies for the difference between modem philosophy as such and medieval phi

losophy
science

as such.

To grasp that

general

difference,
typical

there

is, I think,
of

no

better
or a

way than a precise comparison of the in both the Middle Ages

and

most

divisions

philosophy

the

modem period.

It is easy to compile

How To
list
of

Study

Medieval

Philosophy

33 1

ula of

the philosophic disciplines which are recognized today, from the curric present-day universities, or from the title-pages of systems of philosophy composed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Compare that list with, say, Al

farabi's
are so

Avicenna'

or

division

of philosophy.

The differences

are so

big, they
the most

obvious2

appallingly
person;

that

they

cannot

be

overlooked even

by

shortsighted

they

are so obtrusive

that

they

compel even the most

lazy

student to think about

them.31

One

sees at once e.g.

that there do

not exist

in the

Middle Ages

such philosophic

disciplines

and one acquires at once an

invincible

many
when

modem

scholars32

who write of

philosophy of history, justified distrust against the perfectly articles or even books on medieval esthetics
as esthetics or and question

or on medieval

philosophy

history. One becomes interested in the

and of appeared

the very terms esthetics

one

time;
starts

leams that they

on

make

their

philosophy history first appearance in the 18th century;

absence of a

for the first

one

reflecting

the assumptions underlying their appearance

and one

is

already

well on one's way.

Or take the

discipline

called philoso

phy of religion from medieval philosophy. How many books and pamphlets have been written on Jewish philosophy of religion in the Middle Ages, on
something, that

is,

which

strictly speaking, does

not exist.

Something

must

be

basically
sophic
of

wrong
of

with all

these books
we

and pamphlets.

In the

place of our modem

philosophy

religion,

find in

medieval philosophy:

theology
doctrine

as a philo
a world and

discipline,
of

natural

theology

as

it

was

formerly

called.

There is
of

difference between

natural

theology,33

the

philosophic1

God,

philosophy is the meaning

medieval

religion, the analysis of the

of

human2

attitude2

toward God. What

that difference? What

entitled

does it

mean

that the greatest work of the greatest work

what

Christianity is

Summa Theologica

whereas

of the

Reformation is

entitled

Institutio Christianae Religionisl And

does in

it

mean

that Maimonides excludes the

discussion

of religious subjects

from his
start

Guide? This is exactly the type

order to arrive
philosophy.

of questions with which one

has to

eventually

at a

tme, exact, historical understanding

of medieval

[Many
pedantic,
not

scholars consider not

the type of questions which I have mentioned, as

to say bureaucratic.

They

would argue as

describe

a medieval philosopher's remarks on

follows: why should we poetry e.g. as his contribu have

considered those re
political science.

tion to

esthetics?

The

medieval philosopher would

marks as

belonging
please

to poetics, or to ethics, or perhaps even to

He

conceived of

poetry

destined to

by

essentially instructing or to instruct

subservient a

as

an

purposeful

activity,

as

an

activity He

by

pleasing.

He

conceived of

poetics as a technical art

considered

destined to teach how to

make good poems etc.

poetry essentially improvement. In short, he had

modem philosophers, we

to ulterior purposes such as moral

terribly

narrow view of poetry.

Thanks to

our

know better:

we

ing

in its

own

right,

and

that esthetics far from

know that poetry is something teaching a poet how to

exist make
ap-

poems, is the

analysis of poetic

productivity

and of esthetic enjoyment or

332

Interpretation
The
modem view

preciation or understanding.

being

so

manifestly

superior

to

the

medieval

view, why

should we

hesitate for

a moment to refer the medieval

philosopher's remarks on

poetry to
to

our center of

reference, and hence to

mental

de

scribe them as
which makes

belonging
outset that

esthetics?

Well,

this

is precisely the
matter

habit34

impossible historical understanding

the
medieval view of

of medieval philosophy.

If

we

know from the

the

should not waste our

time in studying

it,

or

if

someone

is wrong or poor, we does not mind wasting

required

his time, he simply

understanding
mentioned

will not command

the intellectual energy

for truly

a view

for

which

he

cannot

this example of

esthetics vs.

have any real sympathy. Since I poetry, I may be permitted to add that
goes

the

medieval view of

poetry ultimately

the work of a
sense of

man who cannot

be

accused of

back to Plato's Republic, i.e. to having had a monkish lack of

terminology2

beauty.]35

The implication

of

the

point

I have been trying to make, is that

term

is

of paramount

importance.

Every
since

designating
is

an

important

subject

im

plies a whole philosophy.

And

to begin with, one cannot be certain which

under an obligation

terms are important and

which

terms are not, one

to pay

the utmost attention to any term which one reads, or which one uses in one's
presentation. no

This naturally brings us to the question of higher praise for a translation of philosophic books than that it is
that it

translations.2

There is

of utmost
of

literalness,
those

is in

ultimitate

literalitatis,

to avail myself of the

Latinity

wonderful medieval or

translators whose translations

from the Arabic into

most36

Hebrew

from

either

language into Latin

infinitely
why

surpass

modem ultimi

translations I

know:37

although

their Latin in particular

understand

is

frequently
modem

in

tate turpitudinis.

It is difficult to

many1

translators

have

such a superstitious
man

fear

of

translating literally. It leads

to the consequence

that a

who

has
the

to rely entirely on modem translations of philosophic

works, is

unable

to reach a precise understanding of the thought of the author.

poorest

Accordingly,
pelled students of

even

linguists (such
was

as the present

to read the

originals.

This

not so

speaker) are com in the Middle Ages. Medieval

are
a

interpreters

Aristotle, who did not know a word of Greek, of Aristotle, to modem scholars who possess
of

by

far

superior as

ing

knowledge

Greek

antiquities.

fact that the

medieval commentators

simply This superiority is decisively due to the disposed of most literal translations of the

overwhelm

Aristotelian text

and

that

they

stuck

to the text and the

terminology

of

the text.

IV. The
eral.

foregoing
us

Now let

apply to the study of medieval philosophy in gen turn to Jewish medieval philosophy in particular. Medieval
remarks

Jewish philosophy

consists broadly of two types, an earlier type which flour Islamic environment, and a more recent type which emerged in a Christian environment. I shall limit myself to the older type which is more interesting from the point of view of our methodological question, to say noth ing of other considerations. There are specific difficulties obstructing our un-

ished in

an

How To

Study

Medieval

Philosophy

'333

derstanding
dependent.
growth of

of

Arabic-Jewish
of

as well as of the
as

Islamic philosophy

on which

it is

History

philosophy,

the modem world.

distinguished from doxography, is an out Its program was stated for the first time by Francis
something outside of philosophy proper, than for philosophers: it became an integral

Bacon.

Originally
for

it

was considered as

as a pursuit part of

antiquarians rather

philosophy in the 19th century only, owing to Hegel in particular. His of philosophy, being an outgrowth of Christian Europe, has a congenital tory inclination to take its bearings as regards the study of medieval philosophy, by
the standards of

Christian

or

Latin

scholasticism.

The

student of medieval phi

losophy,
on

of modem philosophy by his thought, from understanding medieval philosophy, if he does not coher ently reflect on the difference between modem and medieval philosophy. Sim
as a modem

man, is

prevented

the

influence

ilarly,

the student of Islamic and Jewish philosophy, who as a historian of

of
Western2

philosophy participates in a tradition tradition from understanding Islamic

origin, is

prevented

by
and

that
not

and

Jewish philosophy, if he does

scholasticism

coherently reflect on the difference between Christian lamic-Jewish philosophy.

Is

One has to

start

from the difference between Judaism

on

and

Islam

on

the

one

hand,
law,2

and

Christianity
as of

the other. For the Jew and the

primarily not,
a
code2

it is for the Christian, a faith2 divine origin. Accordingly, the

Muslim, religion is formulated in dogmas, but a

religious

science, the sacra

doctrina is,

law,

dogmatic theology, theologia revelata, but the science of the Halachah or Fikh. The science of the law thus understood has much less in
not
with

common

philosophy than has dogmatic theology.

principle,38

Hence,

the status of
Islamic-

philosophy is, as a matter of Jewish world than it is in the Christian

tent Christian theologian
without

much more precarious

in the

world.

No

one could

become

a compe

having

studied at part of

least

a substantial part of authorized an and

philosophy; philosophy
even required training. competent ophy.

was

an

integral
other

the officially

On the Fakih

hand,

one could

become

absolutely
of philos

Halachist

or

without

having

the slightest
explains

knowledge

This fundamental difference doubtless

complete collapse of philosophic studies

has

no parallel

in the West in

spite of

the possibility of the later in the Islamic world, a collapse which Luther. It explains why, as late as 1765,

the Ashkenazic Jew Mendelssohn felt compelled to offer a real apology for

recommending the study reading logic. It

explains

of

logic,

and

to show why the prohibition against the

not
Maimonides'

of extraneous or profane at

books does

acquired

least partly why the authority enjoyed by Thomas

works.

apply to the study of works on Guide in particular never

Aquinas'

Summa Theologica. Noth

of these two
great'

ing

is

more

revealing than the difference between the beginnings

most representative with

The first

Thomas'

article

of

Summa deals

the

question as

to

tion

to,

the

philosophic

theology is necessary apart from, and in addi disciplines: Thomas39 defends theology before the tribu
whether

Maimonides'

nal of philosophy.

Guide

on

the other hand is

explicitly40

devoted

334
to the
of1

Interpretation
science of

the

law, if

to the

true2

science of
on a

the

law; it
verse;43

opens

in the form

a somewhat of

diffuse

commentary42

Biblical

it

opens as a

de

fense
as a

defense

rather than philosophy before the tribunal of traditional Jewish science of traditional Jewish science before the tribunal of philosophy. Can of

one even

tion as

imagine Maimonides opening the Guide with a discussion to whether the Halachah is necessary in addition to the
Maimonides'

the ques

philosophic contempo

disciplines?

procedure

is illustrated

by

treatise

of

his

rary Averroes the explicit purpose of which is the legal justification of philoso phy: it discusses in legaP terms, in terms of the Islamic law, the question as to
whether

the study
was

of

philosophy is

permitted2

or

forbidden2

or

commanded.2

Philosophy
certainly The
most as parallel to

far

as

clearly on the defensive, not so much perhaps in fact, but the legal situation was concerned. There is more than one
argument

Averroes'

in Jewish literature.
"philosophy"

problematic status of expression granted

telling

in the

use of

philosophy in the Jewish Middle Ages finds its the terms and "philosopher".

We take it for
phers,

that men such as Maimonides and Halevi were philoso

and we call
we act

their respective books without

hesitation

philosophic so?

books.
In their

But do
usage,

in

agreement with

their view of the matter

a man whose

philosopher

designates normally
of

beliefs

by doing are fundamentally

The
philosophers

different from those

whether

the

adherents of

any

of

the three monotheist religions,

as

such

he belongs nominally to one of these are supposed to form a group, a

of

religions or not.

sect,2

fundamentally

distinguished

from the group

calling

the

Jews,

that of the Muslims and that of the Christians.

and

By

thinkers such as

Halevi

deny
of

that there is a
philosophy.

problem2

Maimonides "philosophers", we implicitly idea2 in the very of a Jewish philosopher or of

were as

Jewish

But

of

nothing

these men more

deeply

convinced

than

this that Jewish philosophy

is,

such, something problematic, something

the picture. The official recognition of

precarious.

Now let

us consider

the

other side of

philosophy in the Christian world had doubtless its drawbacks. That recognition was bought at the price of strict ecclesiastical supervision. The precarious posi
tion of philosophy in the Islamic-Jewish world, on the other
or

hand,

guaranteed,
of

necessitated, its

private2

character and

therewith a

higher degree been

inner in

freedom.2

The

situation of
situation

philosophy in the Islamic -Jewish

classical

world resembles said

this

respect

its

in

Greece. It has

often and

that the
not

Greek city
as well.

was a

totalitarian social order:

matters

it comprised,
which

regulated,
and

only

political and

legal

proper, but morality, religion,

one

tragedy

comedy

There
and

was

however

activity
not

was, in fact and in

theory,

private,2

radically essentially The philosophic schools were

trans-political and trans-social: philosophy.

founded,

by

authorities civil or

but

by

without2

men of

authority,

by

private

men.

ecclesiastical, In this respect, I said, the

the
Greek2

situation

philosophy in the Islamic

world

resembles

situation

How To
rather

Study

Medieval

Philosophy

335

than the situation in Christian Europe. This fact

philosophers themselves:
a

was recognized

by

the

Islamic-Jewish

elaborating

on a remark of

Aristotle,
it to

they

speak of a

the philosophic life as

private2

radically
and

life: they
as a

compare

the life of

hermit.
conceived of

Religion is

by

Muslims

Jews primarily

law. Accord

ingly, religion enters the horizon of the philosophers primarily as a political fact. Therefore, the philosophic discipline dealing with religion is, not philoso
phy
ence
of

religion, but
question

political
a

in

is

philosophy or political science. The political sci specific one: Platonic political science, the teaching of

Plato's Republic

and of

his Laws. No difference between Islamic-Jewish

and

phi

losophy

on

the one hand

Christian

scholasticism on

the other is

more palpa world was

ble than this:

whereas the classic of political science

in the Western

Aristotle's Politics, the

were

classics of political science

in the

Islamic- Jewish world

were unknown

the Republic

and

the Laws. In

fact, Aristotle's Politics

century.

to

the Islamic -Jewish

world and not

the Republic and the Laws made their appearance

in Christian Europe

before the 15th The

The Islamic law

a

as well as men

the Jewish law is of course considered a divine

law,

law

given

by

God to

by
der

the

intermediary

of a prophet.

prophet

is interpreted

by Alfarabi,
as

Avi

cenna and

Maimonides in terms

of

the Platonic philosopher-king: as the foun

of the perfect political community.

The doctrine This

of

prophecy
the

such

is

considered

by

these philosophers a part of political science. Avicenna describes

as

Plato's Laws
Hamitzvot
des'

the

political character of and of

essentially Sefer prophecy influences the very plan of his Sefer Hamadda. Its implications appear from Maimoni
Maimonides'

standard work on prophecy.

view of

remark

that the neglect of the arts of

war

and of conquest

in favor

of

astrology led to the destruction of the Jewish state. The difference between Islamic-Jewish philosophy
cism shows

and

Christian

scholasti

clearly in the field of practical philosophy. As regards theoretical philosophy, both Islamic-Jewish philosophy and Christian scho lasticism build on substantially the same tradition. But in political and moral itself
most

philosophy, the difference is fundamental. I have

mentioned

the absence of

Aristotle's Politics from the Islamic-Jewish

absence

world.

Equally
and

significant

is the

from it

of the

Roman literature,
consequence and

of

Cicero

the Roman Law in

particular.

This leads to the

that the doctrine of natural

law,

so char

acteristic of of

Christian scholasticism,

indeed

the 18th century,

some

is completely
writers

lacking
under

Western thought up to the end Islamicin Jewish philosophy: it appears

of of

in

later Jewish

only

the influence

Christian thought. It is

true,
the

the Islamic theologians, the

rational

laws

which were

Mutakallimun, had asserted the existence of practically identical with what were called natural laws in
view altogether.

Occident; but

the Islamic-Jewish philosophers reject this

The

rules of conduct which are called

by
are

the Christian scholastics natural laws and

called

by

the Mutakallimun

rational

laws,

by

the Islamic-Jewish philosophers:

336

Interpretation
accepted opinions.
as

Generally
at

This

view appears of

in the Christian Middle Ages only

of

their

fringes

it were, in the teaching

to the last

Marsilius
I

Padua,

the

most energetic

medieval opponent of clerical claims.

This leads

me

point which of

would

like to

make

in

order

to

difference separating Islamic- Jewish phi bearing losophy from Christian scholasticism, and in order to justify my contention that a genuine understanding of Islamic- Jewish philosophy must be based on con indicate the
extent and

the

stant

awareness

of

that difference.

That44

school

of

Christian
was

scholasticism

which was most

deeply

influenced

by

Islamic philosophy,

Latin

Averro-

ism. Latin Averroism is famous for its doctrine

assertion
versa.

that

thesis may
of

The doctrine

of the double truth, for its in philosophy but false in theology and vice the double truth does not occur in Averroes himself or in

be

tme

his
of

predecessors.

Instead,

we

the distinction between

the esoteric

exoteric on

find in Islamic philosophy teachings, based on demonstrative

relatively

ample use

rhetorical

arguments,

and

teaching based

or scientific arguments.

Up

to

now,

students of which

distinction
scientific

Islamic philosophy have not paid sufficient attention to this is evidently of absolutely decisive importance. For if the true,
an

teaching is
we

esoteric,

secret2

teaching,

we

have

no right of

to be

as45

certain as

are accustomed real

to

be,

that the public

teaching
of

the Islamic

philosophers nique of

is their
not

teaching. We would have to acquire a special tech

reading

necessary for the understanding

books

which set

forth

the

views of

their authors

directly,
its

without

It

would

be wrong to trace the

esotericism origin

any in question to
sought

concealment or circumlocution.
certain spurious phe

nomena of

dying

antiquity:

has to be

in Plato himself, in the

doctrine

by

the Phaedrus concerning the superiority of oral teaching to teaching writings, in the doctrine of the Republic and the Laws concerning the neces
of
this46

sity of noble lies, and, above all, in the literary technique used by Plato himself Platonism2 in all his works. One may safely say that before of the Islamic philosophers has been duly studied, our understanding of Islamic philosophy extremely shaky foundations. Similar considerations apply to the Jew ish philosophy which is dependent on Islamic philosophy. Everyone who has read the Guide, knows how emphatically Maimonides insists on the secret char
rests on acter of

his

own

teaching: he

warns of

his

reader

from the teaching,

outset that

he has

set

forth only the

chapter

headings

the secret

and not the chapters

themselves. In the
conversion of the

Kuzari,

we are confronted with a similar situation:

the final

Kuzari to Judaism is the

of

consequence
of

of47

his

listening

to a

highly

secret

interpretation

the

secret

teaching
in
a

the Sefer Yetzirah. It was

that48

with a view

to phenomena such as these that I ventured to say

our under

standing
this

of medieval

philosophy
who

is1

still

truly preliminary
to

stage.

remark

I do

not minimize

the debt

which we owe

Wolfson

In making and Isaac

of

Heinemann in particular,
our
medieval49

have

spoken on the peculiar

literary

technique

philosophers on various occasions.

What is

required

beyond the
observa-

general

observations, is

a coherent and methodic application of

those

How To
tions to the actual

Study

Medieval
after

Philosophy
of

337
has
of

interpretation
be in

of

the texts.

Only

this interpretation
value,2

been completed,

shall we

a position

to judge

of

the

the

truth2

our medieval philosophy.

judgment lessons
thinkers.

and

to

learn2

For the time being, it is good policy to suspend our important' from our great For there are many
teachers.50

which modem man can

learn only from pre-modem, from

un-modem

NOTES

Word

added

in

pencil.

2.

Underlining

added

in

pencil.

3. Sentence 4. 5. "of
off.

added

in

pencil.

"interpretation''

added supplied

in

pencil

to replace

"procedure"

which

has been

crossed out.

by

the

editors: a word

has been lost

where a corner of a page

has been torn

6. The brackets in
was on

which this passage

is

enclosed were added all

in

pencil.

There

was

apparently

also a word or note of explanation supplied

the page-comer which

words earlier

in the margin, has been lost (see note 5).

hand"

but

an unintelligible portion of which

7. The 8. "an

"on the

other added

following
in
pencil

"understanding"

have been

crossed out.
e.g."

philosopher"

to replace "Maimonides

which

has been

crossed out.

9. Brackets have been

above

placed

in

pencil around

"that"; the

alternative

"such

a"

has been

written

the line in
"typical"

pencil.

10.
12.

has been added,

"abode"

or perhaps
and"

substituted, above the line.

"imagination"

11. The

words

"judgment, taste,

after

have been

crossed out.
"domicile"

"haunt"

replaces

which replaced

"domicile"; both
sheet) in

"abode"

and

have

been

crossed out. entire paragraph was added

13. This It

(on

a separate

pencil

for insertion

after

the end of

the preceding paragraph, either as a part of that paragraph or, as we

graph.
was not

included in the previously

published version of

have it, the lecture.

as a separate para

14.

"only
"His"

with

difficulty
in
pencil

he"

can

added

in

pencil

to replace "he can

hardly"

which

has been

crossed out.

15.

added

to

"The"

replace

which

has been

crossed out.

16. "provided he 17. A

note

muddle-headed"

was not attached

added

in

pencil.

has been

to this sentence or
sociological

paragraph and added

in

pencil at

the bottom of the

the page, as follows: "Application to

past

interpretation: it is but it is
not

an attempt

to

understand

better than it

understood
term."

itself

it has its
added

merits

historical understanding in the

precise sense of the

18. "to

speak

less

paradoxically"

in

pencil.
"what"

19. 21. 22.

"that"

added

by

the editors to replace

in the text. has been

crossed out. crossed out.
arrow

20. A

comma after added

"Now"

only has been deleted in pencil to replace

by

the editors.
which

"But"

"view"

added

in

"assertion"

pencil

to

replace

which

has been

23. The brackets in

which

this passage is enclosed were added in pencil and an

word

has been

drawn from the last

word

at"

24. "to leave things

preceding the brackets to the first added in pencil.

we owe still

following

them.

25. Dr. Fradkin, to whom the meaning is "Ben Zoma is

that

the transliteration of the

a phrase (III 51).

outside,"

Hebrew in the text, informs us that from the Babylonian Talmud (Hagigah 15a)

is

quoted

by

Maimonides in the Guide

extent"

26. "to

a certain
that"

added

in

pencil.

27. "than

added

by

the

editors.

338

Interpretation
which

28. The brackets in 29.

"and"

this

sentence

is

enclosed were added

"or"

in in

pencil.

added

by

the

editors

to replace
passage

in the text.
pencil.

30. The brackets in

dictionary"

which

this

is

enclosed were added

31. The sentence, "Such

following

"them"

study is has been

even more

exciting than the reading in

"scholars"

first

class

historical

crossed out.

32. The words, "(nomina sunt 33. The word following

"between"

odiosa)"

following

have been

crossed out.

"theology"

has been

crossed out.

34. The
36.

word

in the text

was

originally
replace

"habitude";
is
which

"ude"

has been in

crossed out. pencil.

35. The brackets in

"most"

which

this paragraph

enclosed were added

added

in

pencil

to

"all"

has been
and

crossed out.

37. The have been

38. "as
out.

words

"with the

exception of

Schleiermacher
to

Salomon

Munk"

following
has been

"know"

crossed out.
principle'

a matter of

added

in

pencil

replace

"to begin

with"

which

crossed

39.

"Thomas"

added

in

pencil

to replace

"he"

which

has been
be"

crossed out.

40. "is

explicitly"

added

in

pencil

to

replace

"claims to

which

has been

crossed out. not

41. Above the line containing the words "it opens in the form of which have out, an alternative has been written in pencil: "Its first chapters look like".

been

crossed

42. At this 43. At this 44.

"That"

point an alternative point

is is

added

in in

pencil above pencil above which

the line: "(a

midrash)"

the

following
pencil

added

the line: "which

crossed out.

verse'

added
"as"

in

to replace
not

"The"

has been

45. Above

which
"the"

has

been

crossed

out,

an alternative

has been
"e"

written

in

"so"

pencil:

46. The
above

word

has been

replaced

by

"this"

by

"is"

crossing

out

and

adding

in

pencil

the line.
added
words

47. "of 48. The

in

pencil are

to replace

"to"

which
"that"

has been

crossed out.

"we

in"

following
in in

have been

crossed out.
"earlier"

49. Brackets have been

placed

pencil around

"our medieval"; the

"them"

alternative

has

been

written above great

the line in

pencil. pencil

50. "our

teachers"

added

to replace

which

has been

crossed out.