“FROM MOSES TO MOSES” 167
preceding publications.^49 Each of these works agrees with the style and
theological position typical of its author. To postulate a forgery, one
would thus have to imagine a whole industry of expertly fabricated texts.
Furthermore, an essential element of the falsifi cation theory was the
claim that the Treatise on Resurrection can be understood in the context
of Western Christianity better than in the oriental, Muslim context.^50
The other two essays, however, discuss issues of pop ular religiosity and
of philosophy that are unmistakably couched in twelfth- century Bagh-
dad. The third text must therefore also have been written as part of the
discussion on resurrection that preoccupied religious thinkers in the Ori-
ent in that period. The explanation for any idiosyncrasies this text may
contain should thus be sought in this oriental context.
The chronological order of the three essays is also clear from the avail-
able evidence. As noted already by Harkavy, Joseph’s Silencing Epistle
shows no familiarity with a response to the Gaon written by Maimo-
nides.^51 A warm and close relationship had been established betweenMai-
monides and Joseph, and it remained so after Joseph left for Aleppo. Not
only does Maimonides call him “my son” (beni)—which, although af-
fectionate, is a rather common Hebrew formula of address to younger
persons—but he also calls him “my child” (al-walad), a more intimate
form of address that seems to have been reserved for Joseph (and proba-
bly also for the younger biological son, Abraham). During the debate with
the Gaon, Maimonides comforts both himself and his student by remind-
ing Joseph of the bond between them: “Even if I did not fi nd in my gen-
eration anyone [who would listen to me] except you alone, it would be
enough.”^52 He pleads with Joseph to continue writing to him, “since I
have no better friend than [your letters].”^53
In view of the intense and close correspondence between them, it is
very unlikely that Joseph would have remained ignorant of Maimonides’
response to the Gaon had it already been written, or that he would have
refrained from quoting it. Furthermore, the nature of the relations be-
tween this disciple and his master makes it hardly thinkable that, after
Maimonides’ had had his say, Joseph would presume to have the last
word on the same points or to add yet another elementary, step- by-step
(^49) See further below.
(^50) This, and not only issues of its consistency with Maimonides’ other writings, was the
mainstay of the falsifi cation theory; cf. A. D. Friedberg, “Maimonides’ Reinterpretation of
the Thirteenth Article of Faith: Another Look at the Essay on Resurrection,” Jewish Studies
Quarterly 10 (2003): 245, note 3.
(^51) See A. Harkavy, “Fragment einer Apologie des Maimonidischen maamar tehiyyat ha-
metim;”Zeitschrift für hebräische Bibliographie 1 (1897): 125– 28, 181– 88.
(^52) Epistles, 293.
(^53) Ibid., 313.