See, e.g., Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 9–13; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 134–145; Kilcher, Sprachtheorie, 34–39; Idel, Kabbalah, 88–91.

See, e.g., Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 9–13; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 134–145; Kilcher, Sprachtheorie, 34–39; Idel, Kabbalah, 88–91.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Stemberger, ‘Mischna Avot’, 255–258.

Stemberger, ‘Mischna Avot’, 255–258.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, e.g., Halbertal, Concealment and Revelation, 69–76; Elior, Three Temples, 208–213; Scholem, Origins, 45–46; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 111–119. Scholem’s more expansive treatment of this tradition in idem, Jewish Gnosticism, is based on subsequent rabbinic commentaries on the Mishnaic ruling preserved in the Babylonian Talmud.

See, e.g., Halbertal, Concealment and Revelation, 69–76; Elior, Three Temples, 208–213; Scholem, Origins, 45–46; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 111–119. Scholem’s more expansive treatment of this tradition in idem, Jewish Gnosticism, is based on subsequent rabbinic commentaries on the Mishnaic ruling preserved in the Babylonian Talmud.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

So, e.g., Schäfer, Origins, 180–182; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, 23–25. Compare the rabbinic restrictions on the public translation of similarly distracting scriptural passages in Mishnah Megillah 4.10, Tosefta Megillah 3.31–38, and Babylonian Talmud Megillah 25a–b, with discussion in Schäfer, op. cit., 178–180.

So, e.g., Schäfer, Origins, 180–182; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, 23–25. Compare the rabbinic restrictions on the public translation of similarly distracting scriptural passages in Mishnah Megillah 4.10, Tosefta Megillah 3.31–38, and Babylonian Talmud Megillah 25a–b, with discussion in Schäfer, op. cit., 178–180.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Pico, Opera, 1.80–83; tr. Farmer, 344–363. For the quoted text, see Pico, op. cit., 1.80; tr. Farmer, 344–345.

Pico, Opera, 1.80–83; tr. Farmer, 344–363. For the quoted text, see Pico, op. cit., 1.80; tr. Farmer, 344–345.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Pico, Opera, 1.107–113; tr. Farmer, 516–553.

Pico, Opera, 1.107–113; tr. Farmer, 516–553.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

For the following, see Pico, Opera, 1.328–330; tr. Borghesi et al., 250–261. All quotations reflect the translation of Borghesi et al.

For the following, see Pico, Opera, 1.328–330; tr. Borghesi et al., 250–261. All quotations reflect the translation of Borghesi et al.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf. Pico, Opera, 1.329; tr. Borghesi et al., 254–255, with discussion in Wirszubski, Pico, 121–122.

Cf. Pico, Opera, 1.329; tr. Borghesi et al., 254–255, with discussion in Wirszubski, Pico, 121–122.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

For a similar assessment, see Kilcher, Sprachtheorie, 101–102. Compare von Stuckrad, ‘Christian Kabbalah’, 11–13, who detects an inchoate move toward cultural pluralism in Pico’s appeal to Jewish knowledge. While I agree with von Stuckrad’s assessment in principle, I would hesitate to recommend Pico as an advocate of Jewish culture in view of his frankly abusive attitude toward the Jewish religion.

For a similar assessment, see Kilcher, Sprachtheorie, 101–102. Compare von Stuckrad, ‘Christian Kabbalah’, 11–13, who detects an inchoate move toward cultural pluralism in Pico’s appeal to Jewish knowledge. While I agree with von Stuckrad’s assessment in principle, I would hesitate to recommend Pico as an advocate of Jewish culture in view of his frankly abusive attitude toward the Jewish religion.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Pico, Conclusiones 11.21 in idem, Opera, 1.109; tr. Farmer 528–529. Pico would go on to engage “the Talmudists” more extensively in his 1489 commentary on the creation narrative in Genesis. See Pico, Heptaplus 7.4 in idem, Opera, 1.51–55; tr. Wallis et al., 157–163, with discussion in Black, Heptaplus, 214–232.

See Pico, Conclusiones 11.21 in idem, Opera, 1.109; tr. Farmer 528–529. Pico would go on to engage “the Talmudists” more extensively in his 1489 commentary on the creation narrative in Genesis. See Pico, Heptaplus 7.4 in idem, Opera, 1.51–55; tr. Wallis et al., 157–163, with discussion in Black, Heptaplus, 214–232.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

On this missive, see Price, Johannes Reuchlin, 127–135. Reuchlin published his letter the following year as part of his pamphlet Augenspeigel, for which see idem, Werke, 4.17–168. An annotated English translation of the relevant portions of the latter document appears in O’Callaghan, Preservation, 105–198.

On this missive, see Price, Johannes Reuchlin, 127–135. Reuchlin published his letter the following year as part of his pamphlet Augenspeigel, for which see idem, Werke, 4.17–168. An annotated English translation of the relevant portions of the latter document appears in O’Callaghan, Preservation, 105–198.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation