Abarbanel wrote many works during his lifetime which are often categorized into three groups—
exegesis,
philosophy, and
apologetics. His philosophy dealt with the sciences and how the general field relates to the Jewish religion and traditions, and his apologetics defend, the idea of the
Messiah in Judaism while criticizing the Christian version. Abarbanel's exegetic writings were different from the usual biblical commentaries because he took social and political issues of the times into consideration. He believed that mere commentary was not enough, but that the actual lives of the Jewish people must be deliberated on, as well, when discussing such an important topic as the
Bible. He also took the time to include an introduction concerning the character of each book on which he commented, as well as its date of composition, and the intention of the original author, to make the works more accessible to the average reader.
Exegesis Abarbanel composed commentaries on the
Torah and
Nevi'im. These were published in three works: "Perush" (Commentary) on the Torah (Venice, 1579); "Perush" on the Earlier Prophets (Pesaro, 1511?); "Perush" on the Later Prophets (Pesaro, 1520?). His commentaries are divided into chapters, each of which is preceded by a list of questions or difficulties that he sets out to explain over the course of the chapter. Not only did this make it easier for scholars to find the answers they were looking for, but these lists of difficulties aided the average student in studying Abarbanel's work. In his commentary on the Torah, these questions have no fixed number, sometimes amounting to over 40, but in his commentary to the Prophets he limits himself to six. Abarbanel rarely forayed into the world of grammatical or philological investigation in the vein of
Abraham ibn Ezra or
David Kimhi before him, instead focusing on a content-based investigation of the Scripture at hand. Occasionally, Abarbanel digresses from the subject under discussion, particularly in his commentary on the Torah. His style and presentations are prolix and often repetitive. Some of his interpretations derive from homilies delivered in the synagogue. He vehemently fought the extreme rationalism of philosophical interpretation, as well as interpretations based on philosophical allegory. At the same time, he himself had recourse, especially in his commentary on the Torah, to numerous interpretations based on philosophy. His opposition to philosophical allegory must also be ascribed to the conditions of his time, the fear of undermining the unquestioning faith of the simple Jew, and the danger to Jewish survival in exile. This also explains Abarbanel's faith in the Messianic concepts of Judaism, as well as his need to make his work accessible to all Jews instead of writing merely for the scholars of his time. Although his commentary often differed from
kabbalistic interpretations, Abarbanel nonetheless believed that the Torah had a hidden meaning in addition to its overt significance, thus he interpreted passages in the Torah in various ways. His commentary to Deuteronomy 25:5 demonstrates both his knowledge and endorsement of kabbalists and kabbalistic understanding of Scripture. Side by side with philosophical concepts (entitled "the analytical way", "the scientific", or "the method of wisdom") he gives "the way of the Torah", i.e., the moral and religious tenets to be derived from the text. He quoted extensively from the
Midrash, but allowed himself to criticize his source, when in his view, it did not align with the literal meaning of the text. He explains, "I shall not refrain from pointing to the weakness inherent in their statements where they are homiletical in nature and are not accepted by them as authoritative" (Introduction to
Joshua). Overall, Abarbanel's exegetical writings are notable for these distinctions: • His comparison of the social structure of society in biblical times with that of the European society in his day (for example, in dealing with the institution of monarchy, I Samuel 8). He had wide recourse to historical interpretation, particularly in his commentaries to the Major and Minor Prophets and to the Book of Daniel, but in numerous instances his interpretations are anachronistic (for example, Judges 18). • Preoccupation with Christian exegesis and exegetes. He generally disputed their christological interpretations, especially those of Jerome. But he did not hesitate to borrow from them when their interpretation seemed correct to him. "Indeed I regard their words in this matter to be more acceptable than those of the rabbis to which I have referred" (I Kings 8, reply to the sixth question). • His introductions to the books of the prophets, which are much more comprehensive than those of his predecessors. In them, he deals with the content of the books, the division of the material, their authors, and the time of their compilation, and also drew comparisons between the method and style of the various prophets. His investigations are made in the spirit of medieval scholasticism. He may consequently be considered as a pioneer of the modern science of Bible
propædeutics. However, the major characteristic that separated Abarbanel from his predecessors was his unflagging commitment toward using the Scripture as a means of elucidating the status quo of his surrounding Jewish community; as a historical scholar, Abarbanel was able to contemporize the lessons of the historical eras described in the Scripture and apply them successfully in his explanations of modern Jewish living. Abarbanel, who had himself taken part in the politics of the great powers of the day, believed that mere consideration of the literary elements of Scripture was insufficient, and that the political and social life of the characters in the
Tanakh must also be taken into account. A characteristic instance of his vacillation is afforded by his most important religious work, the
Rosh Amanah (
The Pinnacle of Faith) (Amsterdam, 1505), whose title derives from
Song of Songs 4:8. This work, devoted to the championship of the
Maimonidean 13 articles of belief against the attacks of
Hasdai Crescas and
Joseph Albo, ends with the statement that Maimonides compiled these articles merely in accordance with the fashion of other nations, which set up axioms or fundamental principles for their science. However, he holds that Judaism has nothing in common with human science; that the teachings of the
Torah are revelations from God, and therefore are all of equal value; that among them are neither principles nor corollaries from principles. Abarbanel agrees with and supports some of Maimonides' ideas, but he assails Maimonides' conception that the prophetic visions were the creations of imagination. Abarbanel will not hear of this explanation, even for the
bat kol of the Talmud, which, according to him, was an actual voice made audible by God—a miracle, in fact. • "The Crown of the Ancients" (
Ateret Zkenim) • "The Forms of the Elements" (
Tzurot Hayesodot) • "New Heavens" (
Shamayim Hadashim) • "Deeds of God" (
Mifalot Elohim) ==Assessment of his works==