Abstract
The Book of Principles, written in Hebrew by R. Joseph Albo in Castile and completed in 1425 may well be the most popular treatise on Jewish dogma ever written.1 The treatise is divided into four books. In the first, Albo lays out the issues involved and presents his basic position. Each of the subsequent books is devoted to one of the three fundamental principles he regards as underlying divine law — that is, the existence of God, the Law is from Heaven and reward and punishment. Albo initially thought of confining his discussion to the first book, which essentially contains all his main ideas on the subject. He was persuaded to elaborate upon each of the principles he presents, resulting in the treatise as we have it today. For all h is well-founded criticism of Maimonides’ approach to this subject, Albo’s list of principles, like the list of his teacher, R. Hasdai Crescas, hardly succeeded in uprooting Maimonides’ “13 Principles” as the semi-official catechism of Judaism. Nonetheless, his treatise made a noteworthy contribution to the rational organization and discussion of Jewish beliefs, and did much to bring the topic of dogma more to the forefront of Jewish thought.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
The treatise, Sefer Ha-’Iqqarim, was edited and translated in to English by Isaac Husik (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1946). It was published in 5 volumes. All references in th e chapter are to this edition. The English translations are my own though I have consulted with those of Husik. For a summary of this treatise see I. Husik, A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy (New York: Atheneum, 1969): 406-427. Albo’s approach to dogma has been analyzed by Menachem Kellner, Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986): 140-156. For his approach to prophecy see Eliezer Schweid, “The Doctrine of Prophecy in th e Philosophic System of R. Joseph Albo [Heb.]”, Tarbiz, 35 (1966): 48-60.
For a description of the Tortosa Disputation see Yitzhak Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1971): 170–243; see also Husik’s introduction to his edition, pp. 15–17.
Albo devotes 3.25-6 to a polemic against Christianity. These chapters were translated into Latin in 1566, together with a refutation, by G. Genebrad. See Colette Sirat, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985): 381. For an analysis of Jewish philosophical arguments against Christianity see Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1977).
For the most detailed discussion of Albo’s sources see Julius Guttmann, “The Study of the Sources of Sefer Ha-’Iqqarim [Heb.]”, in his: Religion and Knowledge (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979): 169–191.
Principles 2. introduction. I will discuss this point in more detail below.
In addition to Guttmann’s article cited above, see also Sara-Klein Braslavy, “The Influence of R. Nissim Gerondi on Crescas’ and Albo’s “Principles” [Heb.]”, Eshel Beer-Sheva, 2 (1980): 177–97.
Albo mentions kabbalistic ideas in Book of Principles 1.20; 2,11, 25, 28; 4.34. At times he singles out the Zohar by name as the source for his views. For Crescas’ acquaintance with kabbalah see Warren Z. Harvey, “Kabbalistic Elements in Crescas’ Light of the Lord [Heb.)”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 2 (1982): 75–109.
For the English translation of Averroes’ treatise see George F. Hourani, Averroes on the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy (London: Luzac, 1961). The translation appears also in: Ralph Lerner and Muhsin Mahdi eds., Medieval Political Philosophy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972): 163–186. For Averroes’ list of fundamental beliefs see p. 176. Averroes’ treatise was translated into Hebrew at the end of the 13th or beginning of the 14th century. This translation was edited by Norman Golb and appears in: PAAJR, 25 (1956): 91–113; 26 (1957): 41–64. The passage in question appears on p. 45. 9 See his Magen Avot [Heb.] (Livorno, 1783): Book 1, parts 1–3. Duran sees the Mishnaic pronouncement in Sanhedrin 10.1 listing those who do not have a portion in the World to Come — one who denies that the Torah is from Heaven; one who denies that the doctrine of resurrection is taught by the Torah; and the apiqoros (epicurean) — as the basis for these three principles. The apiqoros is interpreted as one who denies God; Torah from Heaven remains as is; and resurrection is viewed as representing the principle of reward and punishment. Maimonides’ list is seen as expanding upon these three principles. For a discussion of Duran’s approach to dogma see Kellner, Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought, 83–107. Kellner dis cusses the relation between Averroes and Duran on pp. 103–5 and casts doubt on the view that Averroes served as Duran’s source. It should be noted that Albo’s treatise is less rambling and far more tightly structured than that of Duran.
Principles,introduction:36.
See Principles 1.9.
See, for example, Principles 1.25.
Principles 1.25; see also below.
Torah in Albo’s usage does not refer exclusively to Mosaic Law but is used in reference to any legislation given by God.
Principles 1. 10:97.
Ibid. 1.10:97.
Ibid. 1.15.
See Guide 1.60. Albo appears to break with this point in Principles 1.2 where he agrees with Rabad’ s critique of Maimonides in his hassagot on Maimonides’ Laws of Repentance 3.7.
Principles 1.15:130-3.
Ibid. 1.13. Maimonides and, following him, Duran also treat God’s knowledge in th e context of providence and reward and punishment.
Ibid. 1.13.
See Kellner, Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought, 146–149.
Principles 1.23:181-7.
Principles 1.3:61.
Ibid. 1.23.
Ibid. 1.6:76.
For a discussion of this point see chapter 3, Introduction to Pereq Heleq.
Kuzari 1.25.
Principles 1.17.
Ibid. 1.18.
Ibid. 1.18:163–4; cf Guide 1.61.
Ibid. 1.21.
Ibid. 2.28:181.
Ibid. 2.28:182.
See chapter 2, “Prophecy in Kuzari 4.3–17”..
Elliot Wolfson deals at length with this doctrine in Nahmandes’ thought in: “The Secret of the Garment in Nahmanides”, Daat, 24 (1990): xxv–xlix; see also his, Through a Speculum that Shines (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994): 63–64. For a study of this doctrine in the Zohar see Dorit Cohen-Alloro, The Secret of the Garment in the Zohar [Heb.] (jerusalem: Akadamon, 1987). Duran’s discussion of the “garment” can be found in Magen Avot 22a, 28b–29a.
S. Weil ed., Emunah Ramah (Frankfurt, 1852). For a discussion of the translation of the treatise and its influence on Crescase see Amira Eran, From Simple Faith to Sublime Faith [Heb.] (Israel: Hakibutz Hameuchad, 1998): 22-25.
For a discussion of Ibn Daud’s approach to prophecy see T.A.M. Fontaine, In Defense of Judaism: Abraham Ibn Daud (Assen/Maastricht, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1990): 137–167; Eran, From Simple Faith to Sublime Faith, 207-227.
Emunah Ramah, 90. Cf. p. 68 where the same interpretation is presented and where the angel who governs Israel is identified as Michael.
Ibid. 91. See Fontaine, In Defense of judaism, 180-192; Eran, From Simple Faith to Sublime Faith, 197–206.
See Fazlur Rahman, Prophecy in Islam (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1958): 38ff.; see, however, Herbert Davidson, “Alfarabi and Avicenna on the Active Intellect”, Viator, 3 (1972): 177.
See Kuzari 1.79; 2.50; 3.7.
Cf. Principles 3.24.
Albo cites Sanhedrin 56b, which interprets God’s command to Adam in Gen. 2:16 as alluding to the 7 Noahite commandments.
See Kuzari 3.7; 57; Light of the Lord 2.6.1–2.
Kuzari 2.48.
Guide 3.54. See my discussion of this issue in Maimonides’ Political Thought, 159-188.
Kuzari 2.48; 3.7.
The Book of Beliefs and Opinions 3.3:145.
Saadiah approaches this view in Beliefs and Opinions 5.1, where he deals with the affects of the acts of observance (and disobedience) on the person’s soul.
Beliefs and Opinions introduction.6; see chapter 1, introduction.
See Shlomo Pines, “On the term Rùhàniyyàt and its Origin and on Judah Halevi’s Doctrine [Heb.]”, Tarbiz, 57 (1988): 511–40.
Guide 3.29,37; Laws of idolatry 1.1. Maimonides ties the idea that the stars are the deity with the limitation of the masses to conceive the existence of that which is neither a body nor a force in a body. Albo modifies this idea in arguing that they could not conceive any contact between corporeal beings and in corporeal. There is also a hint here of the view mentioned by Halevi that Cod is too elevated to communicate with humanity.
See my discussion of Guide 2.36–38 in chapter 3; see, however, Josef Stern, “The Fall and Rise of Myth in Ritual: Maimonides versus Nahmanides on the Huqqim, Astrology, and the War against Idolatry”, Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 6 (1977): 185–263 [repr. in his Problems and Parables of Law (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998): 109–161].
In addition to Stern (previous note), see also Dov Schwartz’s discussion of this issue in his: Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought [Heb.] (Ramat Can, Israel: Bar-Ilan University, 1999): 166–215, 263–290. In Book of Principles 4.4, Albo is far more critical of these practices, and even closer to Maimonides’ explicit view on the subject, as Schwartz points out on p. 264.
Maimonides voices the opinion that prophecy comes exclusively for the purpose of foretelling the future in Laws of the Principles of the Torah 10.3. though this, as we have seen in chapter 3, is hardly his last word on the subject.
See also 1.21. Halevi argues this point in Kuzari 1.4. This argument was echoed by Crescas, Light of the Lord 2.4.4.
See Wars of the Lord 2.8, and my discussion of this chapter.
Guide 3.45.
Ibid. 2.33.
Ibid. 2.32–33. For a detailed discussion of this point see chapter 3.
See Kuzari 4.3 and my discussion of this point in chapter 2.
See Guide 2.45.
Book of Principles 3.10. In chapter 8 Albo discusses the practices performed by the idolaters in order to attain knowledge of the future from the demons. He views these practices as essentially strengthening the imagination in a natural manner, this being the faculty most responsible for divination. In rejecting the existence of demons, he follows the mainstream philosophic opinion, common to both Maimonides and Averroes. This opinion, however, stood against that of Crescas who was prepared to accept the existence of such creatures on the basis of rabbinic literature. See Light of the Lord 4.6. The interpretation of “angels” as referring to the rational faculty also appears to based on Maimonides’ approach. Albo discusses the nature of the “angels” in 2.12,28. See above.
Ibid. 3.10:90–95.
Ibid. 3.37; 4.25,32.
Commentary on Numbers 20.8.
For a discussion of this theory see Aviezer Ravitzky, “The Anthropological Theory of Miracles in Medieval Jewish Philosophy”, in: Isadore Twersky ed., Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1984): 231–72 [repr. in his History and Faith: Studies in Jewish Philosophy (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1996): 154–204]; and my, “Miracles in Medieval Jewish Philosophy”, JQR, 75 (1984): 99–133. The 12th century Spanish Jewish philosopher, R. Abraham Ibn Daud, also adopts this view based on Avicenna’s writings. See The Exalted Faith 2.5.1 (S. Weil ed., Emunah Ramah, 73).
See my discussion of Light of the Lord 2.4.2 in the previous chapter.
See Kuzari 1.103.
Principles 3.11:104.
Ibid. 3.11:101.
Ibid. 3.11:106.
Ibid. 3.12:111. See Maimonides, Treatise on Logic, chap. 12.
Genesis Rabbah 1:1.
Many of these arguments already appear in R. Saadiah Gaon’s Book of Beliefs and Opinions 3.7–9 where he attempts to refute them.
Principles 3.14:118. This view is based on the view in B.T. Sanhedrin 59b that Adam was forbidden to eat meat. It should be noted that according to this view Adam was commanded 6 of the Noahite commandments. Earlier Albo cited the view found in Sanhedrin 56b that Adam was given all 7 commandments later given to Noah.
See above, note 83.
See chapter 3, “Introduction”, “Introduction to Pereq Heleq”.
This is the inference from Maimonides’ position in Guide 2.39 and 3.34. Jacob Anatoli makes this argument explicitly. See Malmad ha-Talmidim, L. Silberman ed. (Lyck, 1866): 191a-b.
Sifre Deuteronomy, 82.
Principles 3.14:121–128.
Ibid. 3.16:138–141. R. Saadiah deals with this argument in Book of Beliefs and Opinions 3.9.
Ibid. 3.16:148.
Ibid. 3.17:149.
See my discussion of Wars 2.6 in chapter 4.
See my discussion of Guide 2.33 in chapter 3.
See Laws of Idolatry 1.1–2.
Principles 3.18:169. See chapter 3, “Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah”.
Ibid. 3.19:177.
Ibid. 3.19:180–1.
See, for example, Gersonides’ interpretation of this statement in chapter 4, “Bible Commentaries”.
Sifre Deuteronomy, 357.
Principles 4.3.
See Guide 3.20. Gersonides discusses Maimonides’ position in Wars 3.2–3, and Crescas discusses this issue in Light 2.2.4.
Principles 4.11.
Ibid. 4.19.
Ibid. 4.43.
Ibid. 4.43.
Ibid. 1.18; see my discussion of this chapter, above.
Ibid. 4.44:439–40.
See above, note 7.
See Alvin Reines, Maimonides and Abrabanel on Prophecy (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1970).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Joseph Albo, R. (2001). The Book of Principles. In: Prophecy. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0820-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0820-4_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1181-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0820-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive