Editing Uriel da Costa (section)

==Life==
His short autobiography contains many details about his life, but over the past two centuries, documents uncovered in Portugal, Amsterdam, Hamburg, and elsewhere have changed and added much to the picture.

Da Costa was born in [[Porto]] with the name '''Gabriel Fiuza da Costa'''. His ancestors were ''Cristãos-novos'', or [[New Christians]], [[Persecution of Jews and Muslims by Manuel I of Portugal|Jews forcibly converted to Catholicism by state edict]] at 1497.<ref>Salomon & Sassoon, introduction to da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions, 1993 [p. 2].</ref> His father, Bento da Costa, was a well-off international merchant and [[tax-farmer]].<ref>Salomon & Sassoon, introduction to da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions, 1993 [p. 4].</ref> His mother, Branca, "seems to have been a Judaizer", a false convert to Christianity.<ref>Nadler, ''Spinoza, A Life'', 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press 2022, 77</ref>

Studying [[Canon law of the Catholic Church|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 [[Converso]]s, more or less close to Jewish customs. Gabriel explicitly supported the adherence to [[Mosaic authorship|Mosaic]] prescriptions as well as traditional ones.<ref>{{Cite book|title=In the shadow of history: Jews and conversos at the dawn of modernity|last=Faur|first=José|date=1992|publisher=State University of New York Press|isbn=9780791408018|pages=esp. 123|oclc=878665784}}</ref>

After his father died, the da Costa family fell into financial difficulty due to unpaid debts. In 1614, they escaped this predicament by leaving Portugal with a significant sum previously collected as tax farmers for [[:pt:Jorge de Mascarenhas|Jorge de Mascarenhas]]. The family branched off, settling among two major [[Sephardi Jews|Sephardic]] [[diaspora]] communities. Newly circumcised and with new Jewish names, two brothers migrated to [[Amsterdam]], while two others went with their mother to [[Hamburg]]. Gabriel 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.<ref>Salomon & Sassoon, ''Introduction to da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions'', 1993 [pp. 6–8].</ref> Upon arriving in Hamburg, da Costa quickly became disenchanted with the kind of Judaism he saw in practice. He came to believe that the [[rabbi]]nic leadership was obsessed with [[ritual]]ism and [[Halakha|legalistic]] posturing. At this time, he composed his earliest known written work titled ''Propostas contra a Tradição'' (Propositions against the Tradition).<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/dieschriftendesu00acos|title=Die Schriften des Uriel da Costa|last1=Acosta|first1=Uriel|last2=Gebhardt|first2=Carl|date=1922|publisher=Amsterdam, M. Hertzberger|pages=[https://archive.org/details/dieschriftendesu00acos/page/1 1]–10}}</ref> In eleven short theses he called into question the disparity between certain Jewish customs and a literal reading of the [[Law of Moses]], 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 [[History of the Jews in Venice|Jewish community in Venice]]. The Venetians ruled against it, prompting the [[Portuguese Jewish community in Hamburg|Hamburg community]] to sanction da Costa with a [[Herem (censure)|''herem'', or excommunication]]. The ''Propositions'' are extant only as quotes and paraphrases in ''Shield and Buckler'' ({{langx|he|מגן וצנה}}), a lengthy rebuttal by [[Leon of Modena]],<ref>Salomon & Sassoon, introduction to da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions, 1993 [pp. 9–12].</ref> written in response to religious queries about da Costa posed by the Hamburg Jewish authorities.{{efn|Leone of Modena later published a developed iconoclastic treatise of his own ("kol sakhal / shaagat arye"), and it is quite possible that da
Costa's doubts had some influence on him. Salomon & Sassoon, introduction to da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions, 1993, pp. 24–29.}}

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.<ref>Previous research concluded he went to Hamburg after a time in Amsterdam, but some official documents show otherwise.</ref> The leaders of the Amsterdam Sephardic community, troubled by the arrival of a known [[Heresy in Judaism|heretic]],<ref>Salomon & Sassoon, introduction to da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions, 1993 [pp. 12–16].</ref> 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.[[File:Uriel da Costa’s excommunication.jpg|thumb|500x500px|'''Uriel da Costa's excommunication''' (1888) by [[Meijer de Haan]] took 8 years of work, created a huge backlash, and disappeared shortly after and still not extant.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Offenberg |first=Adri |date=2009-01-01 |title=Meijer de Haan's Uriel Acosta |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/zuto/6/1/article-p121_16.xml |journal=Zutot |language=en |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=121–130 |doi=10.1163/187502109790213014 |issn=1571-7283}}</ref>]]

In 1623, da Costa published this book under the title of {{lang|pt|Exame das tradições phariseas}} (Examination of Pharisaic Traditions) in Portuguese. The complete printed book was discovered in 1990 at the [[Royal Library, Denmark|Danish Royal Library]] by [[H. P. Salomon]]; previously, only the three chapters had been known. The work runs to over 200 pages and is divided into two parts. In the first part, da Costa develops his earlier ''Propositions'', considering Modena's responses and corrections. In the second part, he adds novel views that the [[Hebrew Bible]], especially the [[Torah]], does not support the idea of [[immortality of the soul]]. Da Costa believed that this was not an idea deeply rooted in biblical Judaism but rather had been formulated primarily by [[Pharisees|Pharisaic]] rabbis and was a late addition to the [[Jewish principles of faith]]. The work also pointed to discrepancies between biblical Judaism and [[Rabbinic Judaism]]. He declared the latter an accumulation of mechanical [[ceremony|ceremonies]] and ritual practices. He believed it was thoroughly devoid of [[spirituality|spiritual]] and philosophical concepts. Da Costa was relatively early in arguing before a Jewish readership in favor of the mortality of the soul, and in appealing exclusively to direct reading of the bible. He cites neither rabbinic authorities nor philosophers of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic traditions.<ref>Salomon & Sassoon, introduction to da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions, 1993 [p. 47].</ref>

The book sparked a controversy among [[Jews in Amsterdam]], whose leaders reported to the (Christian) city authorities that this was an attack on Christianity as well as on Judaism. The work was [[book burning|burned publicly]], and da Costa fined a significant sum. By 1627, da Costa was a denizen of Utrecht, though the Amsterdam community still had an acrimonious relationship with him. For example, they asked a Venetian rabbi, Yaakov Ha-Levi, whether da Costa's elderly mother was eligible for a burial plot in the Jewish cemetery. The following year, da Costa's mother died, and he went back to Amsterdam. Ultimately, the loneliness was too much for him to handle.<ref>Salomon & Sassoon, introduction to da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions, 1993 [pp. 18–24].</ref> Around 1633, he accepted terms of reconciliation with the Jewish authorities, which he does not detail in his autobiography. He was thus reaccepted into the Jewish community.[[File:Exemplar Humanae Vitae, Uriel Acosta.jpg|left|thumb|439x439px|''Exemplar Humanae Vitae'', by Uriel Acosta.]]

Shortly after, da Costa was tried again; he encountered two Christians who expressed to him their desire to convert to Judaism and he dissuaded them from doing so. Based on this and earlier accusations regarding [[kashrut]] violations, he was excommunicated a second time. As he describes it, for seven years, he lived in virtual isolation, shunned by his family and embroiled in civil-financial disputes with them. In search of legal help, he returned to being "an ape amongst the apes"; he would follow established Jewish traditions and practices but with little real conviction. Seeking reconciliation, he first suffered punishment for his heretical views: he was publicly given 39 [[Flagellation|lashes]] at the Portuguese [[synagogue]] in Amsterdam, then forced to lie on the floor while the congregation trampled over him. This ordeal left him both demoralized and thirsty for revenge against the man (a cousin or nephew) who initiated his trial seven years previously and marked the final dramatic point of his autobiography. 

In a document titled ''Exemplar Humanae Vitae'' "Example of a Human Life," da Costa tells the story of his life, intellectual development, and experiences as a victim of [[Religious intolerance|intolerance]]. Transmitted to print in Latin some decades after his death and only a few pages long, it also expresses [[rationalism|rationalistic]] and skeptical views, including doubts about whether biblical law was divinely sanctioned or whether it was simply written down by Moses. Da Costa suggests that all [[religion]] is a human invention, and specifically rejects formalized, ritualized religion. He further sketches an idealized religion to be based only on [[natural law]], as God has no use for empty ceremony, nor for violence and strife.

===Suicide===
Two reports agree that da Costa committed suicide in Amsterdam in 1640:<ref>Salomon & Sassoon, introduction to da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions, 1993 [p. 23].</ref> [[:w:de:Johannes Müller (Pastor)|Johannes Müller]], a Protestant theologian of [[Hamburg]] gives the time as April, and Amsterdam [[Remonstrants|Remonstrant]] preacher [[Philipp van Limborch]] adds that he set out to end the lives of both his brother (or nephew) and himself. Seeing his relative approach one day, he grabbed a pistol and pulled the trigger, but it misfired. Then he reached for another, turned it on himself, and fired, dying a reportedly terrible death.