Public Disputation Research Articles

Book Review: Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity

Book Review: Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity

Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity

Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity

Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of 1263 and Its Aftermath.

In late July 1263 a public disputation was convened by King James I of Aragon, pitting Friar Paul Christian against the distinguished rabbi of Gerona, Moses ben Nahman. Organized by leading figures in the Dominican Order to give Friar Paul an opportunity to test his innovative missionizing argumentation against a worthy opponent, the spectacle in Barcelona was colorful, impressive, surely somewhat frightening to the Jews, and ultimately indecisive. Both sides claimed victory, and their documented claims have given rise to substantial disagreement among historians over the tone and outcome of this important event. Robert Chazan's masterly analysis reconstructs the Barcelona disputation from the conflicting Christian and Jewish sources and sets it in its broad historical context, with particular attention to the post-disputation maneuvers on both sides. His richly detailed account focuses on Rabbi ben Nahman's eloquent efforts to reassure his fellow Jews in the face of new missionizing pressures.

Manichaeans and Public Disputation in Late Antiquity

Manichaeans and Public Disputation in Late Antiquity

Comment [on Review of “Composition and petrology of the Earth's mantle”

I wish to draw your attention to an unfavorable review by B. Mysen of my book. Composition and Petrology of Vie Earth's Mantle, published in the March 1977 issue of EOS (pp. 133–187). It seems to me that the publication of this review raises some serious issues of principle.The first concerns the objectivity of the reviewer. It is well known in petrological circles that during the last few years, Mysen has beén involved in an intense public disputation with myself and colleagues concerning the conditions under which andesitic magmas might or might not be formed by hydrous melting of peridotite in the mantle. In view of this record it is questionable whether Mysen should have accepted an invitation to review the book. It is just possible that he may have been unable to fulfill the responsibility of a reviewer to his readers to be objective. Whether or not this is so 1 leave for others to judge. I should point out, however, that Mysen's review presents a remarkable contrast to reviews of the book published in other journals. I have also been impressed by the number of U.S. colleagues who have approached me and volunteered their opinion that the review was unfair.