In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

鵻 127 鵼 Chapter 6 鵻 In Search of Classical Jewish Eschatology: Yeshu‘ot meshiខ ho 鵼 I f, in the biblical commentaries, Abarbanel engaged midrash regularly, he made nonlegal rabbinic discourse his exclusive focus in the central tome of his messianic trilogy , Yeshu‘ot meshiខ ho.1 In this work, Abarbanel affirmed his intention to interpret rabbinic eschatological sayings “according to their roots and the ways of their wisdom on the basis of straightforward investigation, correct reasoning, and that which the sages and prophets have taught us.”2 In other words, he promised methodologically sound exegesis true to the spirit and teachings of classical Jewish (biblical and rabbinic) eschatology . While proclaiming this conservative or restorative objective with great fanfare, however, Abarbanel also indicated his intention to deploy an innovative hermeneutic in unraveling rabbinic messianic sayings—to blaze an exegetical trail “never trod by anyone before.”3 As in so many other cases, Abarbanel ’s traditionalism would prove to be a composite of old and new. To begin to understand the apparently disparate commitments and sensibilities undergirding Yeshu‘ot meshiខ ho, it is necessary to consider the work’s two main axes: first, the history of interpretation of rabbinic messianic sayings and, second, the sprawling network of ideas, interpretations, and rhetoric that is Abarbanel’s messianism. Rabbinic messianic dicta presented unique problems as well as special challenges and opportunities to postrabbinic scholars. Like other nonlegal rabbinic pronouncements, they could seem bizarre when taken literally. And, like them, they were open to textual manipulations that could transmute their meanings and point them in new directions. Unlike other nonlegal dicta, however, rabbinic messianic utterances had been invoked by missionaries to prove the truth of Christian teachings.4 At the same time, they served as a basis upon which various postrabbinic Jewish savants tried to calculate the time of the (in their mind) real Messiah’s coming.5 Perhaps the greatest challenge that eschatological midrashim and aggadot presented, however, was the difficulty of eliciting 128 鵼 Isaac Abarbanel’s Stance Toward Tradition from them a unified theology of redemption. As a leading scholar of rabbinic literature views it: [P]ossibly in this sphere, more than in regard to any other theme, there is evident the independent approach of the Sages, which finds expression in a variety of views and conceptions. At times this diversity exceeds the standards of normal differences of opinion and reaches down to fundaments. It is not confined to divergences within the framework of the generally accepted system of concepts, but reaches antitheses that imply the complete negation of one doctrine by the other.6 Posttalmudic efforts to interpret messianic aggadah must, then, be understood within several contexts, the most important being the diverse forces that generally shaped interest in and approaches to aggadah in different times and places; the specific exegetical, theological, and eschatological teachings of individual scholars; and, at times, the (often dramatically altered) historical circumstances in which interpretation of messianic sayings was undertaken. Abarbanel’s messianism has been the subject of ample study during this century ,7 not least due to the almost universal assumption of scholars that Abarbanel ’s preoccupation with “the end” was definitive in shaping his religious outlook and scholarly agenda after 1492, when he composed most of his works. Abarbanel’s messianism has also garnered attention due to a widely held belief regarding its immense influence, with one of Abarbanel’s leading modern students going so far as to dub him “the father of the [Jewish] messianic movements of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”8 Actually, such perceptions, and the assumptions underlying them, remain far more dubious than earlier studies of Abarbanel’s messianism would allow. A full-fledged reevaluation of the issue requires a separate study,9 but basic issues regarding Abarbanel’s eschatology are clarified by focussing on Yeshu‘ot meshiខ ho from new vantage points. In particular, this work should be considered not only as a messianic tome (such being the focus of earlier scholarship) but also as one of the most extensive exercises in rabbinic exegesis even undertaken by a premodern Jew.10 In reflecting on Yeshu‘ot meshiខ ho from this perspective, it proves revelatory to consider Abarbanel’s stance towards tradition in the work; that is, the nuances and complexities that emerge as Abarbanel attempts to steer a course amidst a welter of earlier Jewish eschatological exegesis and theological speculation. So as not to lose the forest for the trees, a few overarching conclusions that arise when Yeshu‘ot meshiខ ho is...

Share