Jewish Scepticism in Christian Eyes: Jacob F. Reimmann and the Transformation of Jewish Philosophy

Much the most important part of any answer we give to our initial query into the nature of Jewish philosophy is that Jewish philosophy is an academic discipline. It is an invention, for reasons important to ponder, of nineteenth-century historians, intent on bringing together certain think-ers,while simultaneously excluding others. Before the invention of Jewish philosophy as an academic discipline no one asked or wondered about the nature of Jewish philosophy, quite simply because the subject did not exist. [ … ] No one in premodern, indeed, in much of modern times understood Jewish philosophy as a subdiscipline of philosophy, as a way of philosophizing. No one felt the need to ascertain the essence of Jewish philosophy [ … ] distinguishing it from every other kind of philosophy or mode of theological interpretation.³

Much the most important part of anyanswer we give to our initial query into the natureofJewish philosophyi st hat Jewish philosophyi sa na cademic discipline. It is an invention, for reasons importanttoponder,ofnineteenth-century historians, intent on bringing together certain thinkers, while simultaneouslyexcluding others.Beforethe invention of Jewish philosophyasanacademic discipline no one askedorwondered about the natureofJewish philosophy, quitesimply because the subjectd id not exist.
[ … ]N oo ne in premodern, indeed, in much of modern times understood Jewish philosophyasasubdiscipline of philosophy, as away of philosophizing.No one feltt he need to ascertain the essenceo fJ ewish philosophy[ … ]distinguishingi tfrome very other kind of philosophyo rm ode of theological interpretation.³ All these assertions could probablyb ea pplied to the Jewishw orld, starting at the beginning of the Wissenschaft des Judentums.⁴ The Christian tradition, however, did not wait for the nineteenth century in order to reflect on Jewish philosophy. Its interest had begun farearlier,atthe very least by the fifteenth century.⁵ The question of Jewishp hilosophyi nt he history of Christian thought developedi nacompletely different wayt han what took place in the Jewish milieu. Jewisha uthors, such as Simone Luzzatto and Moses Mendelssohn,f or example, envisaged their own philosophical thinking as something autonomous from religious tradition, whereas Christian authors attempted quite the opposite. ManyChristian scholars wereinterested in Jewishphilosophyfor its alleged holiness, as we will see forthwith. But the history of this encounter is particularlys ignificant in understand the interpretation of the meaning of Jewish Scepticism, because it was the Christian milieu (not the Jewish one) that first maintained the Jewish thought could be regarded as as ceptic philosophy.⁶ Jacob Friedrich Reimmann (1668 -1743), aL utherans cholar,p ublished as hort essayi n1 704a rguing under the provocative title "An Salomon fuerit scepticus?" ("WasS olomon aS ceptic?")t hatt he essence of Jewish philosophyi ss cepticism.⁷ To understand this fundamental passage, so decisive for the history of the reception of Jewish thoughtinthe Christian cultureofthe earlymodernage,itis, however,necessary to carry out twop reliminary steps:t he first is to reconstruct the history of Christian interest in Jewish philosophy, the second is to understand the role played by the Lutheran world in this history.

1C hristian Discovery of JewishT radition
In the fifteenthcentury aphenomenon emergedinEuropean culture-later to be defined as Christian Hebraism-this was the attempt to apply philological techniques, developedf rom the studyo fL atina nd Greek texts,t ot he Hebrew text of the Bible and from there proceed to other sources of the Jewish tradition. This new approach profoundlyc hanged the wayo ft hinking about Judaism, widening the boundaries within which it had previouslyb een understood. Then ew sources, studied in the original language, as far as this was possibleatthe time, not onlyhelped to rethink the Christian tradition, but alsog avea ccess to previouslyu nknown new texts and traditions. The use of philological instrumentss imilar to those impemented for Greek and Latin sources also brought with it the need to use interpretative categories capable of bringingthe Jewish tradition to the level of other Classical traditions. Until that time, the Hebrew tradition was not regarded comparable to the Greek and Latin cultures.⁸ During this period anew instrument was introduced to interpret the Jewish tradition and legitimise its use. At the beginning of the fifteenthcentury,several authors borrowed as cheme from the works of the Greek Church Fathers, thatd ivided the history of the Jews into two periods: the ancient,p ure and primeval Hebraism of the patriarchs,a nd am odern Judaism corrupted by al iteral interpretationo fM osaic law. This two-stages cheme was especiallyi mportant in the second half of fifteenth century,f or the development of an ew idea of Hebraica veritas.⁹ Several au- thors, such as Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, justified their own interest in the Jewishtradition by maintaining that,for example, the Kabbalah was part of original Jewish wisdom, and not linked to modern Judaism.¹⁰ This new attitude toward Judaism, which will not be analysed in depth here, contributed to the 'Judaisation' of European culture itself.¹¹ In using the term Judaisation Ii ntend to refer to ap rocess of increasingi ncorporation of Jewish works and authors into the myth of as ingle original ancient wisdom, wherethe Bible and Jewish literature (i. e. the part of it considered to be more ancient) came to be seen as sources thatmaintained their validity for all mankind.
This introduction was necessary to understand how the birth of interest in Jewish philosophyofthe second half of the sixteenth century links to aChristian Hebraism that,i ns ome aspects, was influenced by the prisca theologia,a pplying its approach to various fields of interest,within the framework of ag enealogical construction of human knowledge rooted in ancient Jewishw isdom.¹² There are, however,d ifferent traditions that take the name prisca theologia: 1) one which sawi nt he Jewish tradition the onlyt rue pre-Christian revelation which reached the gentilest hrough the Egyptians who wereinstructed by Moses 2) aseries of other pre-Christian revelations different and independent from the Jewish one. While the first was considered more orthodox, being approved by the fatherso ft he Church and maintaining al ink with the Old Testament, the second was considered mored angerous as it impliedt hat sebius of Caesarea, La préparation évangélique,v ol. some pagan philosophers had acquired knowledge of the truth equal to that of revealedr eligions.
In the history of prisca theologia these distinctions have ac ircumscribed value, since the different traditions intertwine and overlap each other, often preventing a clear distinctionbetween ortodoxy and heresy or merelymarking the differences between the various Christian confessions.H owever,i ti si mportant to note that such traditions succeeded in consideringJ ewisht hought readable and interpretable with the tools of classical tradition. Also, in one of his most important works,M arsilio Ficino, one of the initiators of the prisca theologia,t he De Christiana religione, maintained bothp ositions, quoting the chain of wisdom thath eh ad inherited from Gemisto Plethon on the one hand and introducing Eusebius' vision of aJ ewish origin of Greek philosophicalt radition on the other.¹³ Iwill reportbelowsome passages that best exemplifywhat we want to maintain here. One of the best known examples of this tradition is the debate on the origin of languages Guillaume Postel (1510 -1581), hebraist,p hilosopher and self-acclaimed prophet,presented in his work De originibus seu de Hebraismiantiquitate,linguarum affinitate. Here he advocated the antiquity of the Hebrew language, using this argument to reconstruct the chain of human wisdomf rom the Jews to the Greeks.¹⁴ The influenceo ft his idea on sixteenthc entury culture is not limited to languageb ut extends to other fields of knowledge,identifying,for instance, Moses as the inventor of poetry,a na ssumption thatt he first humanists, for reasons mentioned earlier,r efused absolutely. The work of the French hebraist Gilbert Génébrard (1535 -1597) is useful in understanding how the ideologyofpriscatheologia was able to takedifferent forms. In fact,inhis main work, the Chronographia,Génébrard refused the antiquity and the authority of Hermes Trismegistus, while, at the sametime,usedexcerpts from the Fathers of the Church, Eusebiusin particular,tomaintain the dependence of Greek wisdom on the Jews. He identifiesM osesa st he first poet and initiator of this discipline.¹⁵ Beyond the specific meaning of these statements,w hich certainlyh ad polemicali ntent within the world of Humanae litterae in the second half of the sixteenth century,i ti si mportant to stressh ere the 'disciplinary' legitimation acquired by the Jewishtradition, to the point that in some milieus it challenges and sometimes exceeds the Greek and Latin traditions. Génébrard'sshortdiscussion of Jewish poetry is valid not onlyi ni tself, but it is also evidence of ap eculiari nterest in the Jewish tradition. Similarly, Henri Estienne (1528/31-1598), aC alvinist printer and editor of the first edition of the Orphic fragments, published an anonymous ancient tractate in 1580,t he Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum,which developed ap arallel between Mosaic laws and the laws of the twelve tables.A lthough the French lawyer François Pithou (1543 -1621)h ad alreadyp ublished this work, Estiennewrote an introduction of particular salience to this discussion.¹⁶ As alreadye mphasised in the title of his work, Estiennew anted to distinguishb etween sources and rivers of the law, trying to reach the first ones. He identifiedt hese sources as the laws givenb y God to Moses, which the Egyptians then imitated and subsequentlyi mpartedt o the Greeks.¹⁷ The introduction of the Calvinist editor helps us see how the idea that Jewish laws werethe sourceofRoman and Greek laws circulated in the European cultureo ft he second half of the Sixteenth century,u sing preciselyt he patterns characteristic of the earlier prisca theologia.
[…]Quod si mihi de quapiam meorum etiam maiorum legementionem licet facere,n ullam post Mosaicam( quae Deum ipsum autorem habuit not homines) inveniemus,q uae peregrinos aeque commendatos habeat ac Celtica.' sustainable. One of these attemptsf ormulated the coincidenceb etween the Epicurean theory of atoms and the Book of Genesis: We have also good historical probability for this Opinion, that this Philosophyw as at hing of much greater Antiquity than either Democritus or Leucippus;a nd first,b ecause Posidonius, an ancient and learned philosopher, did (as both Empiricus and Strabo tell us) avouch it for an old tradition, that the first Inventour of this Atomical Philosophyw as one Moschus,aPhoenician, who, as Strabo also notes, livedbeforethe TrojanWar.
[…]and Mr.Selden approves of the conjecture of Arcerius,the publisher of Iamblicus, that this Monchus was no other than the celebrated Moses of the Jews,with whose successors,the Jewish philosophers,priests,and prophets, Pythagorasc onversed at Sidon.¹⁸ In this passageR alph Cudworth (1617-1688), one of the most important Cambridge Platonists,u ses themes and authorsc haracteristic of the prisca theologia,c learly showing that,inmid-seventeenth century,this ideologystillhad apolitical and cultural implication. To infuse the atomistic theory with am osaic aurea (without any philological and historical basis) gave him the opportunity to legitimise theories that were distant to anyr ecognised orthodoxy.
These three cases are merelya ne xample of the tranformation of the Christian perception of Jewish tradition. Thef ramework developed by the humanists of the prisca theologia gave the European scholars an opportunity to think Judaism out of the traditional theological path. They now had the tools to interpret Jewish history as part of the history of language, poetry or law. Thus, this use of the sources of prisca theologia and of the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church and alsog avet hem the chance to insert Judaism within the history of philosophy.

2T he JewishT radition in Germany in the Seventeenth Century and the History of Philosophy
At the same period in Germany, within the Lutheran world, we witness the diffusion of works whose main topic was the philosophicaland political tradition of the Jews. Some of these treatises,p ublished at the end of the seventeenth century,a imed to demonstrate not onlyt hat aJ ewishp hilosophye xisted, but also that it had influenced the Western philosophical tradition. The formulas and the sources usedb y these authorsd emonstrate their familiarity with the idea just outlined. On the other hand,other works,maintainedthe completeirrelevance of the Jewish tradition for the development of Greek and European philosophy, for its closeness to theology.¹⁹ The question of Jewishphilosophyand its connection to the other philosophical traditions also became important for the first historians of philosophywho published their works in the second half of the seventeenth century.T he Protestant world in particularw as interested in the history of pagan philosophy: these authorsw ere not attemptingtotrace an erudite history of human knowledge,but sought to implement this history in ap olemical manner.F rom the second half of the seventeenth century,the Lutheranuniversities of the German States began to produce an ever-increasingnumber of small and large treatises concernedwith both the history of philosophya nd the history of theology.²⁰ From its foundation on, the Reformation had recognised the common path of these two disciplines, by composinge ither philosophical histories of theology(i. e. Christianity) or theological histories of philosophy (both Greek and 'Barbaric').²¹ At the outset (i. e. from the sixteenth century), Greek philosophyw as recognised as one of the sources of the corruption of original Christianity. Soon, however,t he confrontation with other confessions (Calvinism and Catholicism), forced Lutheranism to embracephilosophyand Aristotelian thought²² in particular.The relationship between philosophyand theologywas subjected to increasinglyinsistent and targeted attacks duringt he seventeenth century,w hen new methodso fp hilosophy The history of philosophy, thus, acquired an important role in polemicald ebate within the Lutheran World. Studying the history of the different schools of philosophers involved reflectingo nt he different philosophical methods useful in understanding not onlyt he history of thought,b ut also the history of the Church, and the history of the relationship between the twofields. From this perspective some authors of the period such as Christian Thomasius (1655 -1728)-and later,a sw ill be demonstrated, Johann Franz Budde( 1667-1729)-developedanew wayt os tudy the history of philosophy.
From the 1660s, particularlya fter the foundation of the university in 1694,t he city of Halle had been alocation where oppositiontoLutheran orthodoxy was growing.The presenceofT homasius and Budde (who moved to Jena in 1705), at the universitya nd the Pietist community,i np articularA ugust Hermann Francke (1663 -1727), in religious circlesthere, created an environment highlycritical of the Lutheran tradition and promoted anew idea of religion and culture. The central point bonding men and perspectivesoftenincompatible with one other wasthe need to rethinkthe Lutheran tradition, both from at heological and philosophicalp oint of view.A tt he center of their reflection was the need to rethinkC hristianitya nd its relationship to pagan culturaltradition, through acareful studyofthe history of both the Church and philosophy. Studying the origins of philosophya nd the various philosophical schools, alsob ecame am eans to rethink the role of Lutheran theologya nd its relationship to the philosophicalt radition, in particulart he Aristotelian. In this new phase, the production of Lutheran universities, both within theological and philosophical faculties, focussed its attention preciselyont hese issues. The wayt he professors reflected on the various open questions took on different forms, literarygenres and themes. In this debate the history of pagan philosophyand the role playedby Jewisht radition in the transmission of human wisdom became the subjects for several works.T homasius, for example, examined different philosophical methodologies, to find the best tool for challengingt he dogmatism of Lutheran orthodoxy. By excluding sectarian, sceptical and syncretistic methodologyh ed ecided eclecticism was the best wayt of ind an empirical methodf or his purposes.
Accordingt oT homasius, the history of philosophy, gave scholars access to the different opinionso ft he philosopherso ft he past,s timulatingt he possibilityt o find the best solution to the problem of the present.²⁴ Despite his refusal of scepti- cism in the interpretation of the history of philosophy, Thomasius was not insensitive to the contribution of scepticism to the struggle against dogmatism. He held history to be knowledge of the opinions of others, and thus morebased on probability than certainty,a nd concluded thusly: Even if, when studyingp hilosophy, one is reallyf urther from sceptical doubt than from the infallibility of the dogmatics,y et where historical matters arec oncerned, especiallyi np olitical questions,one should not believeeventhe half of what is said. But one does not doubt without ag ood reason for doubting.²⁵ But scepticism, according to Thomasius, was not confined to the realm of history,in his work on Philosophia aulica,h em aintained scepticism wasn ot ap hilosophical school similar to that of the past; but was the main antagonist to dogmatism.²⁶ The ambiguity of his statement mirrors the complexity of the debate in Germany toward scepticism. This Greek philosophy, in fact,was one of the topics on which several authors published short and long tractates,b yd efending or attackingh is role within the history of pagan and Christian philosophy.²⁷ JohannF ranz Budde, student and then colleagueo fT homasius, participatedi n the debate on the history of philosophy. Born in Anklam in 1667, he studied oriental languages, theologya nd philosophya tt he University of Wittenberg. In 1693 he moved to Halle, whereh em et August Hermann Francke and Christian Thomasius. Budde was involved in the work of Thomasius and the Halle milieu in transforming Lutheran cultureand published several tractates on different topics.Among the various works he wrotei nt his period, one is particular important for this analysis,the Introduction to JewishP hilosophy. ²⁸ The treatise was part of aw ider project on the general history of philosophy, its origin and link to the history of Christianity.H e had alreadydiscussed the topic in other works:Firstly, in two short essays published in aj ournal edited in Halle from 1700 to 1704,a nd then in at ractate on the philos-ophyofSpinoza.²⁹ Budde developed anew idea of the history of human wisdom, by maintaining it to be possible to identify acommon origin of the history of philosophy and theology. He discovers this in the first steps of the history of Hebrew wisdom, which Budde defines as philosophia mystica or theosophia,a nd then as Kabbalah. Budde'sm ain task was to find ac ommon origin of the twoh istories (philosophy and theology), for the purpose of reconsidering the relationship between Aristotelism and Lutheranism. By using the Jewish tradition, and inserting it in the wider history of ancient wisdom (prisca theologia)h ew as able to weaken the role playedb yA ristotlean philosophya nd reinforcet he effort of his group to reform Lutheran tradition.³⁰ As has been observed, the first attempt to analyse Jewish philosophyw as published in the journal Observationesselectae edited in Halle by Budde and Thomasius. All the works in this collection appeared anonymouslyand encapsulated the thought of the school of Halle. The school was based on the principles alreadym entioned: anti-Aristotelism, anti-dogmatism both in the cultural and religious domain, and a harsh criticism of Lutheran orthodoxy.³¹

3J acobR eimmann and JewishS cepticism
In the eighth volume of this journal, another work on the history of Jewish philosophywas published.Its author was Jacob Friedrich Reimmann, and the essaybore the provocative title: "WasS alomon aS ceptic?".³² Reimmann was borni nG röningenn ear Halberstadt in 1668, and studied theologyand philosophyfor twoy ears at the University of Jena.Hethen became director of the school of Halberstadt,and continued to work in the school system of his town. He was also involved in religious life: he became ad eacon in 1714 and preacher at Halberstadt,a nd went on to become superintendent of the churches at Hildesheim. He died in the samet own in 1743.Throughout his life, he remained in contact with the most eminent figures of the time, such as Thomasius and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646 -1716) and published several works on av ariety of subjects both in Latin and in German. Influenced by Halle'sm ilieu, he sawhis main task to be combining rational thought and Lutheranism, which incurred goingbeyond traditionalG erman scholasticism.³³ He dealt with the Jewish tradition and its theologya nd philosophyi nv arious works,both in Latin and German. He published along and articulate treatise entitled Versuch einer Enleitung in die Historie der Theologie insgemein und Juedischen Theologie ins besondere (Attempt at an Introduction to the Historyo fT heology in General and JewishTheology in Particular), published in Magdeburgin1717. ³ ⁴ Reimmann dedicated an entire work to the studyofatheism, atopic very much en vogue at the time, with achapter specificallydevoted to the atheism of the Jews, leading,inevitably,to ad iscussion of Jewish philosophyi tself.³⁵ But in other short tractates,s uch as the essaydedicated to the four elements, he always made reference to the Jewish tradition.³⁶ Reimmann was, therefore, well aware of the importance of the discussion on Jewish tradition for the debate on the history of philosophyand for the history of theology, however,h ed evelopedh is idea of Jewishp hilosophyt hrough ac ompletelydifferent approch. He decided to combine this topic with another theme discussed in that period; scepticism and in so doing combined them in an original way. Reimmann chose the figure of Solomon primarily because traditionally, and especially in the book of Ecclesiastes, the Jewish king had expressed doubts about the ability of the human mind to know.C learlyR eimmann is to use his figure to support his model of philosophy, as will be demonstrated. It is interesting to note that from now on the figureo fS olomon becomes important for the debate on scepticism in Germany.³⁷ Reimmann divided his essayonSolomoninto two parts. In the first he discusses the 'nature' of Jewish philosophy, and its link to sceptical tradition. In the second he defends his statement against the critique of his opponents, in particularf rom the accusations of Protestant theologian Joachim Lange ( 1670 -1744).
In the second part of his tractate, Reimmann defends his interpretation from the critique of theologian Jacob Lange. It has been recorded that Reimmannt old Lange of his interpretationo fS olomon'sp hilosophyd uring ap rivatec onversation in 1704, and the latter went on to attack him in his book Medicina mentis,published the same year in Berlin.⁵¹ Langewas one of the most important Pietist theologians of the time, he grew up in the Halle milieu, together with Francke and Thomasius, and then lived in Berlin contemporary to Spener.⁵² Lange'stractate attempted to rethink the history of philosophyi nt he light of the Pietistic critique of the traditionalorthodoxL utheranism. Thus, Reimmann'sidea that the holyphilosophyofSolomoncorresponded to scepticism was unacceptable and, for Lange, clear evidence of atheism.⁵³ Reimmann, thus, spends the lastpart of his tractate defending not onlyhis interpretation of Solomon'sp hilosophy, but largely scepticism itself. At the end of his work he openly quotes Sextus Empiricust om ake clear to his adversaries scepticism was not ap hilosophyw hich 'did not doubtall beliefs generally,' rather it 'doubted onlyuncertain or dubious things, which wereinvestigated and disputed by the sciences of the dogmatics.'⁵⁴ Finally, he concludes that scepticism was not addressed to theological wisdom: […]so, far be it from me to placeall of Solomon'sdoctrine within the frameworkofakatalepsia; rather,Iwill distinguish as carefullyaspossible theological questions fromphilosophical ones, theory from praxis, dogmas about the existenceo ft hings from dogmas about the essenceo f things.⁵⁵ SurelyReimmann was influenced by Halle'sEnlightment.But his idea of scepticism cannot be traced exclusively to the 'rationalistic' use of scepticism at the time. The sources he uses refer,ont he one hand, to the French tradition: two long quotations taken from the philosopher François de La Mothe Le Vayer( 1588 -1672).⁵⁶ While on the other,m ystic and anti-Cartesian Pierre Poiret (1646 -1719) is mentioned at the end of the treatise.⁵⁷ The referencet oh is work, which had been re-edited onlya quod ille in timoreDei collocat,eSalomone impie et praepostere philosophantur.Exhorum numero sunt,q ui ad hujus libri ductum non dubitant,eSalomone alterum quasi Pyrrhonem seu Scepticum facere ejusque doctrinam ἐν ἀϰαταληψιᾳ seu ignorantia et fluctuatione Sceptica ponere. Qui ubi principium suum: "Nos scire nihil," in hoc libroi nveniant,etq uid en ihilo suo derivari velint,equidem non deprehendo. Si quis vero principia et indolem Philosophiae Salomonaeae ex hoc praecipuelibro eruerev oluerint,i ntera lia secreta meditatione excutiat sequentia loca, in quibus simul caeterorum clavis est c. 1v .2 ;c .VII v. 13,2 0, 30;VIII 12, 13;I Xv .18; XI v. 9, 10;X II v. 7, 13,1 4.'  Reimann, "An Salomon," 361-362: 'Etenim ut ipsi olim Sceptici

Conclusion
Reimmann'si nvolvement in Thomasiusa nd Budde's Observationess electae project shows that he agreed with the attempt the Halle school made to attack dogmatism, and re-think Lutheran orthodoxy.However,hebelieved that Thomasiusand Budde's tools,a nd particularlye clectic philosophy, werei nsufficient.⁵⁹ Reimmann argues that Solomonwas the best example of the Jewishp hilosophical tradition, and as the Jewishking livedcenturies before Pyrrhon,itwould be fair to claim him as the real founder of scepticism.⁶⁰ The relationship between scepticism and the Jewish tradition, for Reimmann, served to strengthenthe main characteristic of that kind of Greek philosophy-thatb eing its acknowledgement of human ignorance and doubt. Reimmann, however,u ses fideistic garb to legitimise the sceptic strategya gainst dogmatism and traditionalk nowledge.
In so doing,h et ransforms the idea of Jewishp hilosophyi nt he eyes of Christians. As we have seen, from the beginning of the earlymodern age, Christian culture used the Jewishtradition for the purpose of legitimising particular philosophical systems-e. g. Platonism, Atomism, or Cartesian thought-and alsot og ivet hem ah oly veneer. This scheme established as trong relationship between the Jewisht radition and pagan philosophy: it regarded the formera sp ossessingaphilosophicals ystem and attributed an aura of holiness to the latter.
Reimmann went further in establishingaconnection between the pagan tradition and the Jewish one, but he refused to attribute ag iven philosophical system to Jewish philosophy. Accordingt oh im, thanks to their unique relationship with de son amour,e te nm eme tems mettre àf ond leurs coeurs en repos sur une infinitéd ed ifficultes dont on se tourmentel'Esprit sur autreschoses."' Cf.  Reimmann, "An Salomon," 361: 'Tertio nec illud bene dicitur,quod ait,hos homineseSalomone alterum quasi Pyrrhonem velScepticum facere.Qui enim illi alterumeSalomone possent facere Pyrrhonem, cum alter ratione ordinis priori sit posterior,etS alomon Pyrrhonem fere octingentosa nnos antecesserit?E quidem ex Pyrrhone facere Salomonem alterum,q uoad in ἀϰαταληψίᾳ conveniunt, non prorsus esset impossibile; Sed enim ex Salomonefingere Pyrrhonem alterum tam est ἀδύνατον, quam ipsum archetypume xe ctypo exprimere.' God, the Jewishp hilosophers( Joba nd Solomon),weret he onlyo nes aware of the weakness of the human mind. The German scholar,therefore, used the Jewish tradition to legitimise not so much ap hilosophical system, as ap hilosophical strategy that was to underminetraditionalknowledge.Jewishphilosophy, for Reimmann'sintentions,had to lose its legitimising role and transform itself into its opposite, that is to say, into an instrument for criticising all dogmatic philosophical systems.
Reimmann'sidea of Jewishphilosophywas not developedany further,nor did it influences ubsequent reflections on the topic. On the contrary, it provoked several opposing reactions. Largely he was accused of wanting to transform Solomon into an atheist.⁶¹ Despite this, however,the recognition of Jewish philosophyasasceptical philosophy, and the justification of sceptical doubt as the onlytool for philosophical knowledge,was bound to have significant consequences, not onlyfor the history of Jewishp hilosophyi nt he Lutheranworld, but abovea ll, for the history of philosophyi ng eneral.
After Reimmann, Jewishphilosophybegan to be seen in adifferent waybyChristian eyes: it became less important as am eans to defend specific philosophicals ystems,o rt ou nderstand the relationship between philosophya nd theology. It was 'normalised' and became equal to all other non-Greek philosophical traditions. Reimmann'sw ork mayn ot have playedarole in this process, but it almost certainly stands as evidence of this transformation.