Search Results

Averroes wrote three commentaries on the Physics and revised all three. Therefore a diachronic study is absolutely essential. It is usually assumed that Averroes' commentaries in general were written in the ‘natural’ order: first the short, then the middle, and finally the long commentary. Recently, however, this assumption was challenged by Alfred Ivry, arguing that the long commentary on De anima was written before the long commentary. This brief chapter adduces evidence to show that the commentaries on the Physics were written in the natural order, and throws some light also on the case of De anima.

The three turning points that were studied in chapters 6‐8 are facets of a major turning point in Averroes' thought that led to the consolidation of his ‘Aristotelian atomism’. Chapter 9 examines the arguments that were made in the previous three chapters about dating of this turning potint, and whether it was associated with the writing of the middle commentary or with the writing of the long. The data is very confusing. The conclusion, stated in Chapter 9, is that the turning point could have been influenced by his arguments with the mutakallimūn around 1180 and that Averroes worked out his new physics when he was writing the long commentary. At this stage he looked for the writings of Alexander and tried to find support in them. The revisions of all three commentaries were made after the writing of the long commentary.

This chapter explains the place that metaphysics holds in Maimonides' thought. It also introduces the question of esotericism in the Guide and scholarship on Maimonides. It explains that the Guide is a multilayered commentary on a multilayered book; it is both exegesis and imitation of the Bible. There are a number of biblical features that it attempts to reproduce, including the variety of messages and the multiple methods of communication aimed at different levels of audience.

This introductory chapter begins with a discussion of the fascination with the Book of Job as evidenced by the diverse body of interpretations throughout the ages from religious thinkers in Judaism and Christianity from late antiquity to modern academic scholars. It presents a background of medieval Jewish philosophy, and then reviews the major challenges that interpreters of Job have faced throughout the ages. The present study aims to go beyond providing a description of how medieval Jewish philosophers read the Book of Job by drawing much-needed attention to the exegetical literature in medieval Jewish philosophy in general. By analyzing how medieval Jewish philosophers interpreted the Book of Job, the exegesis of these thinkers is brought to light as an exciting chapter in the history of Jewish thought, which neither scholars of medieval Jewish philosophy nor scholars of medieval Jewish exegesis can afford to ignore. A proper examination of the commentaries chosen and an assessment of their significance both as philosophical and exegetical works require that these be discussed on a number of levels. For each commentary, the discussion will focus on three interfaces: between the commentaries and their antecedent sources, between the commentaries and the biblical text, and between the commentaries and the systematic thought of the medieval Jewish philosophers.

This chapter begins with a synopsis of Gersonides’ views on providence in his systematic work for the purpose of getting acquainted with the basic philosophical concepts that underlie his commentary on Job. It then proceeds with an analysis of the commentary on Job in accordance with the three interfaces. The discussion of the third interface returns the to treatment of providence in Gersonides’ The Wars of the Lord and gives an evaluation of its relationship to the commentary on Job. It is shown that Gersonides’ reading of Job represents an important transition in the interpretation of this text in medieval Jewish philosophy. With this reading, Aristotelianism still reigns supreme as the thought system for interpreting Job; yet, a conservative step has been taken away from the most radical type of Aristotelian reading found in Ibn Tibbon.

Because Duran presents his systematic views on providence in his introduction to the commentary on Job, this chapter will deal with Duran’s thinking on this issue as part of the summary of the commentary, rather than in a separate section. The analysis as a whole will be aided by the fact that Duran’s philosophical thought is in many respects a reaction against Maimonides, and he therefore does not adopt esoteric discourse. It is shown that Duran’s commentary on Job presents another rich and original interpretation of the book. While his exposition is dependent on previous philosophical readings of Job — particularly Saadiah’s — Duran’s commentary also betrays the strong influence of non-philosophical sources in rabbinic midrash and Kabbalah, and these influences result in a reading of Job that is very conservative in orientation. The traditional turn initiated by Gersonides is completed in Duran. This provides a reading of Job that is “rationalistic” in the broad sense of the term, but one that has abandoned Aristotelianism and its concomitant radicalism.

This study examined six readings of Job spanning five centuries; they originate in geographical locations as far apart as Baghdad and Provence; they reflect a wide range of philosophical orientations and perspectives; and they contain numerous insights about every aspect of Job. The remaining challenge is to formulate general conclusions about this material. This purpose will be greatly aided by the scheme of three interfaces around which this study has been organized. These interfaces are reviewed to draw general conclusions about these readings of Job as a collective. The implications of these conclusions for the field of medieval Jewish philosophy as a whole are also discussed.

Porphyry was much more involved in the study of Aristotle’s work than any other Platonist before him. It is shown that Porphyry criticized Aristotle, but he also considered him to have agreed with Plato in all crucial philosophical issues in physics, psychology, ethics, and metaphysics. Porphyry did not deny that Aristotle sometimes contradicted Plato. What he denied was that these contradictions undermined their essential accord. In Porphyry’s view, most of Aristotle’s disagreements with Plato can be reduced either to difference in perspective, or to Aristotle’s misunderstandings of Plato, or to misunderstandings of Aristotle by later interpreters.

This chapter examines how purgatory was described and understood in the works of Bede and Boniface. Particular attention is given to Bede as the author of works in which purgatory was given theological context and legitimation as orthodox belief. The chapter examines the role of friendship ties and gift-giving in Anglo-Saxon society and in the intercessory practices of Bede’s time. The chapter also considers the cultural and religious influences that informed Anglo-Saxon Christianity and explores the potential importance of Anglo-Saxon England’s close ties with eastern Christianity. Key texts discussed include Boniface’s Vision of the Monk of Wenlock and the works of Bede: the Vision of Drythelm, Homily for Advent, Commentary on Isaiah, and Commentary on Proverbs.

The chapter ranges broadly over a number of topics, and summarizes the empirical findings on D. B. of 1986. It discusses issues that arose when blindsight research first emerged. These include stray light and other artefacts, with the appropriate controls that have been applied. The question of whether blindsight is degraded normal vision, together with other relevant research, is considered. The question of response criteria in signal detection terms is aired. Neural pathways and levels are reviewed together with a discussion of the differential physiological and anatomical properties of striate vs. non-striate pathways. A definition of blindsight is advanced, followed by a discussion of the importance of addressed issues of awareness in biology and for practical aspects of empirical research. The chapter ends with a discussion of the importance of ‘commentary keys’ for neuropsychological research and the underlying ‘commentary system’.

This book is concerned with the contexts of Chaucer's Italian sources and how those sources were produced throughout the fourteenth century in ways that offered rich modes of reading material textuality. While dealing with sources in the tradition sense, it has sought to extend the parameters of what constitutes a source to the whole page: margin, gloss, script, support, size and the many other features of a book that exert hermeneutic force on the reader.

This chapter examines the Christian-nation maxim’s antebellum application in three areas—blasphemy laws (the trial of Abner Kneeland), oath requirements, and Sunday laws—and how those uses affected legal attitudes toward disestablishment. The chapter also discusses Justice Story’s evolving view of America’s Christian nationhood, including his dispute with Jefferson, and how he understood the relation between the maxim and disestablishment as evinced in his decisions and Commentaries.

Four types of gospel citation are identified in Augustine's commentary on John. The continuous treatment of the text is made up of the initial citation, most likely to have been taken from a manuscript, and repetitions in the same sermon which sometimes comprise sequential variants. Illustrative material is adduced in non-sequential citations. The biblical text of the title is also of considerable interest, although this is unlikely to have originated with Augustine. The overall dependence of the work on a Vulgate-text type is demonstrated: variations from this are reversions to Augustine's mental text.