Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Uriel da Costa
Uriel da Costa (Portuguese: [uɾiˈɛl dɐ ˈkɔʃtɐ]; also Acosta or d'Acosta; c. 1585 – April 1640) was a Portuguese Sephardi philosopher who was born a New Christian but returned to Judaism, whereupon he questioned the Catholic and rabbinic orthodoxies of his time. This led him into conflict with both Christian and Jewish institutions: his books were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and several Jewish authorities excommunicated him. His iconoclastic life culminated in suicide in c. 1640.
His short autobiography contains many details about his life, but over the past two centuries, documents uncovered in Portugal, Amsterdam, Hamburg, and elsewhere have added much to the picture.
Da Costa was born Gabriel Fiuza da Costa in Porto. His ancestors were Cristãos-novos (New Christians)—Jews forcibly converted to Catholicism by state edict in 1497. His father, Bento da Costa, was a well-off international merchant and tax-farmer. His mother, Branca, "seems to have been a Judaizer" (i.e., a false convert to Christianity), according to Nadler.
Studying Catholic canon law at the University of Coimbra intermittently between 1600 and 1608, he began to read the Hebrew Bible and contemplate it seriously. Da Costa also held a benefice, an ecclesiastical office, in the Catholic Church. In his autobiography, da Costa depicted his family as devout Catholics. However, they had been subject to several investigations by the Portuguese Inquisition, suggesting they were Conversos, more or less observing Jewish customs. Da Costa explicitly supported adherence to Mosaic law.
After his father died, the da Costa family fell into financial difficulty due to unpaid debts. In 1614, they escaped their predicament by leaving Portugal with a significant sum previously collected as tax farmers for Jorge de Mascarenhas. The family branched off, settling among two major Sephardic diaspora communities. Newly circumcised and with new Jewish names, two brothers migrated to Amsterdam, while two others went with their mother to Hamburg. Da Costa was among the Hamburg group, going by Uriel among his Jewish neighbours and using the alias Adam Romez for outside relations, presumably because he was wanted in Portugal. All resumed their international trade business. Upon arriving in Hamburg, da Costa quickly became disenchanted with the kind of Judaism he saw in practice. He came to believe that the rabbinic leadership was obsessed with ritualism and legal posturing. At this time, he composed his earliest known written work, Propostas contra a Tradição (Propositions against the Tradition). In eleven short theses he called into question the disparity between Jewish customs and a literal reading of the Torah, and more generally tried to prove from reason and scripture that this system of law is sufficient.
In 1616, the text was dispatched to the leaders of the prominent Jewish community in Venice. The Venetian rabbinic council ruled against it, prompting the Hamburg community to sanction da Costa with a herem, or excommunication. The Propositions are extant only as quotes and paraphrases in Shield and Buckler (nonr: מגן וצנה), a lengthy rebuttal by Leon of Modena, written in response to religious queries about da Costa posed by the Hamburg Jewish authorities.
Da Costa's early work thus resulted in official excommunication in Venice and Hamburg; it is not known what effect this had on his life. He barely mentioned it in his autobiography and continued his international business. In 1623, he moved to Amsterdam for unknown reasons. The leaders of the Amsterdam Sephardic community, troubled by the arrival of a known heretic, staged a hearing and sanctioned the excommunication previously set in place against da Costa.
At about the same time (in Hamburg or Amsterdam), da Costa was working on a second treatise. Three chapters of this unpublished manuscript were stolen and formed the target for a traditionalist rebuttal published by Semuel da Silva of Hamburg. Da Costa enlarged his book further, with the printed version containing responses to da Silva and revisions to the crux of his argument.
Hub AI
Uriel da Costa AI simulator
(@Uriel da Costa_simulator)
Uriel da Costa
Uriel da Costa (Portuguese: [uɾiˈɛl dɐ ˈkɔʃtɐ]; also Acosta or d'Acosta; c. 1585 – April 1640) was a Portuguese Sephardi philosopher who was born a New Christian but returned to Judaism, whereupon he questioned the Catholic and rabbinic orthodoxies of his time. This led him into conflict with both Christian and Jewish institutions: his books were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and several Jewish authorities excommunicated him. His iconoclastic life culminated in suicide in c. 1640.
His short autobiography contains many details about his life, but over the past two centuries, documents uncovered in Portugal, Amsterdam, Hamburg, and elsewhere have added much to the picture.
Da Costa was born Gabriel Fiuza da Costa in Porto. His ancestors were Cristãos-novos (New Christians)—Jews forcibly converted to Catholicism by state edict in 1497. His father, Bento da Costa, was a well-off international merchant and tax-farmer. His mother, Branca, "seems to have been a Judaizer" (i.e., a false convert to Christianity), according to Nadler.
Studying Catholic canon law at the University of Coimbra intermittently between 1600 and 1608, he began to read the Hebrew Bible and contemplate it seriously. Da Costa also held a benefice, an ecclesiastical office, in the Catholic Church. In his autobiography, da Costa depicted his family as devout Catholics. However, they had been subject to several investigations by the Portuguese Inquisition, suggesting they were Conversos, more or less observing Jewish customs. Da Costa explicitly supported adherence to Mosaic law.
After his father died, the da Costa family fell into financial difficulty due to unpaid debts. In 1614, they escaped their predicament by leaving Portugal with a significant sum previously collected as tax farmers for Jorge de Mascarenhas. The family branched off, settling among two major Sephardic diaspora communities. Newly circumcised and with new Jewish names, two brothers migrated to Amsterdam, while two others went with their mother to Hamburg. Da Costa was among the Hamburg group, going by Uriel among his Jewish neighbours and using the alias Adam Romez for outside relations, presumably because he was wanted in Portugal. All resumed their international trade business. Upon arriving in Hamburg, da Costa quickly became disenchanted with the kind of Judaism he saw in practice. He came to believe that the rabbinic leadership was obsessed with ritualism and legal posturing. At this time, he composed his earliest known written work, Propostas contra a Tradição (Propositions against the Tradition). In eleven short theses he called into question the disparity between Jewish customs and a literal reading of the Torah, and more generally tried to prove from reason and scripture that this system of law is sufficient.
In 1616, the text was dispatched to the leaders of the prominent Jewish community in Venice. The Venetian rabbinic council ruled against it, prompting the Hamburg community to sanction da Costa with a herem, or excommunication. The Propositions are extant only as quotes and paraphrases in Shield and Buckler (nonr: מגן וצנה), a lengthy rebuttal by Leon of Modena, written in response to religious queries about da Costa posed by the Hamburg Jewish authorities.
Da Costa's early work thus resulted in official excommunication in Venice and Hamburg; it is not known what effect this had on his life. He barely mentioned it in his autobiography and continued his international business. In 1623, he moved to Amsterdam for unknown reasons. The leaders of the Amsterdam Sephardic community, troubled by the arrival of a known heretic, staged a hearing and sanctioned the excommunication previously set in place against da Costa.
At about the same time (in Hamburg or Amsterdam), da Costa was working on a second treatise. Three chapters of this unpublished manuscript were stolen and formed the target for a traditionalist rebuttal published by Semuel da Silva of Hamburg. Da Costa enlarged his book further, with the printed version containing responses to da Silva and revisions to the crux of his argument.