Talk:Uriel da Costa

Untitled
As far as I remember, it's d'Acosta, though I could be wrong. Danny

apparently there are multiple spellings of his name in common use... Acosta, d'Acosta, some other one as well (da Costa or something like that...)

He signed his own name as "daCosta" (we have a sample from a synagogue register.) The Costa part is the main part, since it means "coast" in Portuguese. Thus the confusion about da, d', and a. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.20 (talk) 10 Feb 2006

Ł== date of birth ==

What is the source on that date of birth? Israil Bercovici, in a footnote about Gutzkow's play about Uriel Acosta says 1590. Bercovici, Israil, O sută de ani de teatru evriesc în România ("One hundred years of Yiddish/Jewish theater in Romania"), 2nd Romanian-language edition, revised and augmented by Constantin Măciucă. Editura Integral (an imprint of Editurile Universala), Bucharest (1998). ISBN 9739827225. Note is on p. 102. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the reference mentioning his being born about 1591, which was too vague and doesn't agree with other sources. I added a reference to the Portuguese language encyclopedia which gives a fairly detailed discussion about this person's life.Bartam (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Inquisition
"&hellip;had converted from Judaism to Catholicism in order to avoid the persecutions of the Inquisition." Presumably based on a misconception. The Inquisition had authority only over professing Christians, so converting from Judaism to Catholicism would place one under their authority, rather than removing one from it. Presumably the conversion would have been to escape persecution by civil authorities. I am changing the article accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Marrano
Similarly, and I don't know how to resolve this one: they can't be both "Marranos" and sincerely "devoutly religious" Roman Catholics. "Marranos" are insincerely converted Jews (or their descendants) who profess Catholicism while practicing Judaism in secret. Sincere conversos and their descendents&mdash;Teresa of Ávila, for example&mdash; are not Marranos. So which is it? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC) "Marrano" was originally a term of abuse which became an historical term. "Marrano" refers to converted Jews or their descendants. It is perfectly possible to be a very sincere and devout Roman Catholic and not to practice Judaism in any way as a religion and historically speaking still be a "marrano" because there is such a thing as Jewish ethnicity. "The Jew who abandons his faith remains a Jew", Albert Einstein. The Jews are a people. Nickyfann (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.43.123 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the second sentence of "Life" to read that his parents were New Christians who were descended from Jews who had converted to Roman Catholicism. Bartam (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pharisees, Sadducees, Karaites
1. "gross incongruities" and "Rabbinic Judaism claims that there is an oral tradition that was given along side the written tradition even though there is no direct mentioning of such a phenomenon in the entire Jewish Bible". Are you expressing an opinion? This is not the place to vilify Pharisee Theology.

2. Sadducees and Karaites are not in any way related with the exception of one theological point. The Sadducee Theology centered on the Priesthood and Temple worship. They had a widely differing view from the Pharisees and the Essenes on Predetermination and Providence as part of their fundamental self-identity. Karaites concede the point that there is no Oral Law...but one would be hard pressed to come up with some body of positive philosophical assertions (even strict adherence to the text is very different) on which they wholly agree. Furthermore, they represent two socially and historically distinct movements. There is no historical continuity, with hundred of years between them.

I am changing the last paragraph.

Separate Article for Exemplar Humanae Vitae
There is currently no article on Da Costa's autobiography itself - Examplar Humanae Vitae. It may warrant an article of is own. ?

Nickyfann (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uriel da Costa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106094221/http://urieldacosta.no.sapo.pt/ to http://urieldacosta.no.sapo.pt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Image
Darksider asks:

I apologize, but does this picture really show a young Jewish student boy being taught a philosophical cleverness by an older master, or is it just some bad joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.86.49 (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about the artist or his intentions, but it purportedly depicts da Costa and the young Spinoza, which Spinoza biographer Steven Nadler flatly rejects, calling it "pure fantasy." See Nadler's Spinoza, A Life. Second edition, p. 84. Amuseclio (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio

question about image of manuscript
,

The picture of the first page of the manuscript you just posted is interesting, and the name of the file is apparently related to da Costa. But I can't see in the article or either in the picture itself anything that does relate to Uriel da Costa. Can you please specify what the connection is between the manuscript and Uriel da Costa? Would you have any sources/references that assert the connection? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear sorry but I didnt'received the notification (sometimes it happens). The info about Acosta is in the BEIC digital catalogue (you can access the matadata page clicking on the BEIC link on the BEIC banner on the image page, then click on "Show MetaData for"). You see he's identified not only by name but also by approx. birth/death. If you find any error, please let me know and I'll forward it to the BEIC librarians. Thank you again. --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear . Thank you very much for the metadata information on the original manuscript you give below. This appears to be a collection of original legal/jurdical manuscripts from the 16th century and beginning of 17th century. This is the relevant information about all the original manuscripts contained in the collection:


 * Miscellanea iuridica -- ff. 304-308: Henricus Simonis, Repetitio ad C. 3.28 -- ff. 367-500: Pedro Barbosa, Repetitio ad D. 36.1 -- ff. 500-522: Henricus Simonis, Repetitio ad C. 2.3.6 -- ff. 522-550: Uriel Acosta, Repetitio ad D. 41.2 -- ff. 550-554: Roderigo Lopez, Repetitio ad D. 41.2.23 -- ff. 554-590: Antonius Vazius, Repetitio ad D. 12.1


 * So apparently the relevant pages concerning Uriel Acosta would be on folios 550-554 of the collection. From Uriel Acosta's biography we know that he studied canonical law at the University of Coimbra between 1600 and 1608. So these 4 pages/folios would appear to be some legal/juridical work concerning canonical law that Uriel da Costa wrote when he was a student of law at the University of Coimbra. As far as I know these 4 pages/folios written in Latin manuscript are original documents from the period and from the University of Coimbra that were never before studied or published in a modern scholarly format. As a student of the subject and of the history of the period I would very much appreciate it if you could locate those 4 pages/folios in the collection and send me a digital reproduction of them? But even of that is not possible, I believe that all this historical information would be important for you and for the catalogue librarians to have and to know. Thank you very much! warshy (¥¥) 17:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the interested. did answer all my questions and even provided a link to the collection of original Latin manuscripts from the 16th and 17th centuries. Our full exchange ended here. Thank you very much again. warshy (¥¥)  21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For all interested: this is the link to the BEIC online catalogue containing this collection of original Latin manuscripts. Thank you again! warshy (¥¥) 21:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The best latest revision was reverted
All the changes made recently are mostly cosmetic, nothing very crucial, in my view. I won't get into an "edit war" over the current version. But I don't see any non-native language problems with the version that was suggested recently (by ), and that was reverted today. But the ending of the lede right now uses the term "Saint Church," which is wikilinked to the Catholic Church. This is a completely non-standard way of referring to the Catholic Church, it is uncommon (really unheard of) in the historical sources I know, and it should be changed. If the IP editor that first changed the article today or the other new user that came back defending the original version do not reply, I will start making the changes again, one by one. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 22:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)