Abstract

Jewish and Christian philosophy existed side by side in the Middle Ages. Both sought the same goal: the explanation of God and His universe. Both utilized the same sources; yet each attained different philosophical and theological systems. The Meditation of the Sad Soul illustrates this divergence between Christian and Jewish thought. Furthermore, since it stands midway between Neo-platonic and Aristotelian Judaism, it underlines the development of key philosophical concepts common to both Judaism and Christianity. Abraham Bar Hayya lived in eleventh century Barcelona, an intellectual center for both Jews and Arabs. The major points of his philosophy blend rabbinical, Neo-platonic and Aristotelian ideas, yet maintain a unique independence of their own. For instance, Abraham cut through the rabbinical and Aristotelian proofs of God, demanding instead a primary positive faith in God's existence. Caught up in the theology of light, he rejected the Platonic idea that darkness was merely an absence of light. Rather, darkness had a force equal to light. Most important, darkness and light were opposites, as were good and evil. God created both. Abraham insists that each had an independent existence in the world. Abraham's thought shows a more "rational" strain which appears later in Christian and even Jewish "heresies." Since good and evil exist as positive forces, man can freely choose his path to salvation. Abraham never gets caught in the Augustinian dilemma of will, grace, and predestination. Further examples of Abraham's independent position crop up in his ideas of creation and time. Creation ex nihilo, of course, but creation in time. Time must have a beginning and, consequently, an end. But man does not have to await passively the Messiah's rectification of sin. Man must repent here on earth and actively lead a good life. He cannot repent after death. How influential was Abraham's tract? The editor calls it a "minor classic" yet does not indicate that it formed a basis for later Christian theology. Maimonides knew it and rejected some of its basic tenets. Still, the book is important since it indicates a striking combination of traditional philosophy subjected to a new critical rationalism, an it foreshadows some of the questions raised by deviant Christian and Jewish theologians.--J. K. B.