"Secret Agenda"

By: Jonathan Seidel 

Esoteric maimonides but in the non-kabbalistic way: philosophical orality 

Maimonides negative theology enabled him to more or less sidestep theology for philosophical discourse. Yet, despite his intellectualisation, His Guide does supply a nuanced theological stream. Given also that religion is mystical, for the most ardent rationalist to some degree there needs to be some section of spirituality. Frankly, kabbalah is in its cosmological field as its a systematic framework over mystical elements. Thus even Maimonides conceded to a mysticism albeit a deeply intellectual one. 

For Maimonides, graphing the infinite was through cognitive elevation. It is the intellectual exercise that prompts the mystical experience. The divine is divulged through knowledge. Metaphysical knowledge is the ultimate connection to God. God is the the origin of knowledge and understanding his deepest secrets elevates one closer to him. Maimonides channeled all divine ontology into intellectual jargon. The celestial sphere was a metaphor for divine knowledge. All is knowledge and it is all possible by man if he works at it.  

Maimonides intellectualism is not impossible even if improbable today. The dearth of religious rationalism is dually noted. Strauss’ esoteric reading of Maimonides is rhetorically fair but to imply that this is some sort of celestial measure is dubious. Maimonides was a controversial figure and noting his Mishneh Torah does not convince he was all concerned with controversy. Esotericism can be compared to the sensus comminus. The hidden agenda is oral in nature to refrained from visitation on paper. Strauss’ view of intentional contradictions is aligned with Maimonides’ contradictions in the Mishneh Torah and the contradictions in the Bible. All these issues can be resolved by semiology. There is lurking knowledge behind the black letter text. 

To solve the dichotomy is not to disorient it with radical hermeneutics and self-imposed solutions. Nor is it to ignore the sensitive pieces for naive comfort. Maimonides exoteric reading is itself a controversial stand. This does not mean that the esoteric character was necessarily more or less radical. To understand the image attempting to be evoked, linguistics parallels are necessary. Unifying the totality of his work, the secret esotericism which Strauss dubs a philosopher’s true intent is the significant orality perverse in ancient Judaism. Though book culture had emerged on the scene, orality was still an important role in both legal and philosophical matters. The Andalusian school perpetuated the talmudic and geonic legacies transmitting orality behind the semantic rulings. Maimonides Mishnaic formulation is a testament to the hidden semiology. Codified works were brutally canonical anthologies not legal forums. 

The level of esoteric attention was concealed with exoteric vocabulary. It was only synchronically from Maimonides purview that such deeper insights or his true intentions could be understand. Yet, trying to hypothesise what Maimonides wished to hide is questionable. It is Maimonides’ exegetical formulation in contrast to Gersonides more philosophical discourse that marks his exoteric vocabulary. Ibn Ezra’s biblical commentary is similarly esoterically cryptic. Nahmanides alternatively optimises his layered exegesis openly. Maimonides is Gersonides foil in his limited extrapolation as Nahmanides of Ibn Ezra’s. His exegesis is cryptic in of itself. His methodology is dynamic, instead of static. Even reading his thirteen principles which are regarded as a creed are exegetically proscribed as opposed to the later summarisations. Esoteric need not be a mystical feature but a hermeneutical assessment. It is interpretation over an explanation. Exegesis derives from tradition while philosophy derives from reality. Exegesis enables furthering creative interpretations to deeply understand heritage. 

The esoteric intention need not be advanced to mystical nor aristotelean matters. Such a position obscures Maimonides’ open articulation of Aristotle and his disagreement with mystical ailments. Maimonides’ goal was to explain the religious complexities not construct a pure philosophy. His interpretation of ma’aseh merkavah and ma’aseh breishit, the two celestial notions though transformed into physics and metaphysics respectfully, enumerate a dialectical position. The esoteric strand is less about the celestial markers and more about its complexity. Not heterodoxy but difficulty. Esotericism is not to hide controversial views but to enlighten the reader. Maimonides was not shy about allegorising scripture nor did he shrink from promoting Aristotle. His brazen confidence was instrumentally passionate. The level of intellectual discourse publicly marked controversy and yet he wrote explicitly. If he was hiding something, it was not out of fear. It is therefore apparent that hiding is not hiding but interpreting following his exegetical motivation to educate properly.

Combining both the oral foundation and dialectical logic cultivates a traditional presence in Jewish history. An esoteric style is marked by an oral continuity. What is hidden is the oral prowess that need not be ruined by unnecessary revelation. Concealment is not always a secret affair, sometimes it is a secret gem. It is beyond the intuition and is rooted in the traditional transmission. The cultural truths were necessarily unique to the tribe. Philosophers sought to reveal all knowledge to man and to diminish secrets. Yet, their premise was on philosophical truths, while Maimonides was adhering to cultural truths. Maimonides and his Andalusian predecessors continued the oral legacy of the talmudic rabbis legally but also intellectually. It is hyperbole to assert that it was Maimonides was the one duped by the philosophy and the mystics who were the true traditionalists. His successors also misinterpreted him but that is due to the advent of anti-maimonideanism and book culture applauding semantic readings and forced interpretations. 

Maimonides was not anti-mystical, he believed that knowledge through spirituality elevates man. The esoteric stance is to the philosophers who wish to corrupt the masses with their revelations. The esoteric secret was to present the complex concepts in a systematic format to ensure comprehension. Orally this lecture would be cohrent but due to the book dominance, the exoteric explanation would confuse people. The logical dialectical analysis provided a path to abstract understanding. Interpreted as an oral origination professes the intention to compose fluid cognition. The catalyst of aristotelean thought is marred by his subtle incoherence with some of Aristotle’s opinions. The perplexities of the metaphysical analysis prove too great for the simple mind to conceive from a textual rendition. The esotericism is an oral invitation to examine the issue properly. 

Given the mystical and anti-philosophical stances by his contemporaries, his Andalusian heritage stood alone in its philosophic tradition. Though he differed in many aspects from some of his Andalusian predecessors that of Halevi, Ibn Ezra and Ibn Daud, there was an influential connection between them. Though their philosophies differed they all were indebted to Avicenna and rationalism even if Halevi was more an empiricist and Ibn Ezra more a mystic. Ibn Ezra is likened to believing in the eternity of the universe the same secret Maimonides potentially held. Both also encrypted their positions in literary exegesis. Gersonides, a Provencal successor and a kind of Maimonidean, openly preached some radical metaphysical positions, one of whom is the eternity of the universe. Given these three tied diachronically, even if one more a spiritual or one more rational, their metaphysical agreement needlessly poses a traditional mantra that was orally transmitted. Written cryptically-esoterically to maintain the pure oral form and only later was openly publicised by Gersonides.         

Maimonides geonic predecessors Samuel ben Hofni and Saadia promoted the rationalist approach. Though not philosophers like Maimonides, their rationalism was ever apparent in their feelings toward allegories, rabbinic science, and scriptural interpretation. Though there was disagreement about the precise measure of rational discourse, Hai Gaon did agree with many of the widespread rational ideals. The polemic by the anti-maimonideans preempted by the tosafists is akin to their hermeneutical analysis. They usurped the half a century of geonic-Andalusian philosophy. Rationalism had a foothold in Jewish life since the dawn of the geonic era through Maimonides. Maimonides did not invent a new philosophy but continued the old. He did present a novel construction of Jewish law and thought but much was developed by his predecessors. Most of the esoteric markers were hidden in commentaries, unlike Maimonides' systematic philosophy. The oral compilation was thus marred to literary dialectics. 

Maimonides esoteric style is intentional as the textual shift forced oral teachings to print. Though written texts can be ambiguous in their own right, the complexity of metaphysical knowledge and its cultural mentality retained its purity in encrypted form. The maimonidean move was not the first of its kind in Jewish thought nor in his own school. Maimonides continued a trend albeit in his own unique way that contra to almost all other scholars was not to just hide this personal radical position. It was to persist a traditional position that was continuously bombarded by his revolutionary opponents.