Rabbinic Advances

By: Jonathan Seidel

Wyscholgrod’s attack on Maimonides for demythologising Judaism aligned with previous thinkers is valid but to point to biblical Judaism as the correct manifestation overlooks rabbinic interpretation. Firstly the rabbinic mind continued the biblical mythologised model and secondly it expanded it.   

God in Judaism does not receive the familial inside scoop that other religious provide. The Greeks tell stories of their gods and anthropomorphically define them. These gods are more than just characters in a story. Their humanity dives deep into their personal lives. Their feelings are presupposed with human action. They lie cheat steal murder. They are superhuman beings. They are revered but are also imperfect creations. Theology was trademarked in folklore. The gods narrationally provided images for the people to live by. For example, in Norse mythology, Odin’s war victories were educated and implemented by the vikings. It was their ancestry to fight and die on the battlefield. A noble warrior would attain salvation in Valhalla. Theology is closely attached to values. The god’s lust for glory passed on to his subjects doing the same. Valhalla is a direct reaction to Odin’s fight-first mentality. Fighting was inherent to their way of life. It was not just genetically modified but psychologically educational. The values of battling and victory were nurtured into the flighting spirit. 

Judaism’s model is less about God’s private abode and more about his actions. God’s actions are linked to his effect on the people. Even the prophetic visions are valuational. Despite the angelic supernaturalism, the point is the merit derived. The celestial arena is important insofar as it is related to man. God’s private history is nobody’s business. It is an irrelevant topic. Judaism’s belief in the central aspect of divine communication is riddled through the narratives. God’s actions are associated with man’s growth. God’s presence in history is to aid man’s development. There is a sense of God serving man. Man must submit himself for God but God wishes to help as long as man is pulling his weight. God’s will is always in relation to man’s behaviour. God is no deist with other things to do. He is immanently involved in human affairs. The Jewish god is a provider and a protector. 

The anthropomorphic aspects are genuine portrayals of emotional response. This in no way implies anything about God’s humble abode other than his capacity to feel. The biblical God is narratively linked to Israel. His actions are monitored by the religious servitude. God is mysterious. We only know him by his actions. He enters the frame imparts a message and leaves. His constant engagement from the Exodus story till reaching the land is still periodic. He entertains the pivotal events and then disappears. God’s life and abilities are hidden from the finite. God’s actions and feelings are human as he created humanity. God’s suffering and anger are justifiable reactions to the tragic consequences. The philosophical paradox attempting to understand this textual difficulty uproots the narratives semiology. It undermines the divine connection to man. No matter how he does it, he does it. It is the presentation that envelops the narrational hegemony. 

Ironically, the rabbinic mind is more anthropomorphic than the biblical text. The sages expanded the utility of the divine character. The exegetical texts relate intimately to a God who they debate and argue with. The hierarchy is at times shattered in the face of the law. The law is the highest ordeal and the divine relationship is transitioned to the feminine secondary. God’s former role as parent and king is replaced with a submissive wife. There is an inferiority gifted to God. This is no way diminishes the transcendent nature of the divine. Though an unusual depiction of God the subservient wife, it is a further expansion of rabbinic relation to God. In another case the sages depict God as a student to the Israelite rabbi. A student who cares for his rabbi and provides for him. God presented as the younger identical twin feeling the suffering of his older sibling. Much of these could be depicted in parental or spousal relationships. The role-reversal points to a deeper intimacy between God and Israel, narrating unseeingly inappropriate divine personifications for empowered closeness. 

The biblical text is more regarded as a history book than mythology. It more an embellished past, an exhortation than a myth. Myths are fundamental folklore dogmatic truths—episodic supernatural, a-historical/outside of time, in a faraway land. Greek mythology in its stories of gods fits this genre. Greece continued the ancient mythologies of Mesopotamia. These narratives produces metaphysical horizons. Their cosmological focus attempted to understand the world at large. What is the truth to reality. This theme spread into Plato and Aristotle’s philosophical writings as well. Plato’s eternal forms and Aristotle’s unmoved mover are both articulations of metaphysical speculation. History was documented by Herodotus but separate in embellished form. He is considered a liar by all accounts. History was a means to an end. The preoccupation with denoting the actual nature of the world, what stands beyond the frame, the secrets of the universe was a philosophising goal. Ironically, even Maimonides the rationalist did not construct a cosmology. Maimonides apparent departure pointed cosmologies to the philosophical margins of his faith. He ridiculed Aristotle’s cosmology. Yet the rabbinic world only narrated leaflets of cosmological formalities. 

Biblical Judaism’s polemic against Mesopotamia and then hellenism was the power of history. Events were more important than ideas. The events highlighted experiential drama and relatable encounters to imbibe a sense of belonging. Judaism stressed history as a central aspect of its philosophy. Jewish history is phenomenological. Rituals are embedded in space and time. Keeping the sabbath has a time limit linked to a historical record. The passage of events marks the trajectory of Jewish rehabilitation. The Jewish journey is the test of time. Not to ponder the universe but actualise it. Narratives speak of inspiration and implementation. The jew is not a philosopher but a doer. A lifetime of developmental progress wedged in the archetypical biblical characters. 

Rabbinic Judaism is not the same. It is far more legalistic and centred on detail discourse than recalling past events. Yet, the mere pondering if such and such teacher made a certain claim and imparting wisdom of past leaders is a testament to historical ties. The Jewish memory bank relives the cultural past in the present. The rabbinic mantra is autonomous remembrance. It is their recollection of the events. It isn’t just narrational but theological in its affirmation. Memory more than history is manifested. Memorial personas are symbolically marked to study and evaluate. It is not the consideration of the lofty heights but the lessons of the past that muster the future, emboldening the self. History is the barometer to human growth and reality not cosmology. Myths occupy a certain superstitious determinism abstractly dissociated from reality. History is a coded map with an enveloping process. The systemic articulation is an intellectual pursuit of spiritual ideas. The abstract is far more unrelated to the individual. The event preaches an ancestral connection to a concrete occurrence to be dreamt and ascertained. 

Rabbinic Judaism may present a legalistic force but its narrational positivity and valuational preoccupation need only demonstrate its link to the biblical legacy beyond the citations. It responded to a reality shift and responded accordingly. Though role reversals occurred the centrality of the divine intimacy did not change. If anything they were bolstered by a longing for connection. The transition altered the mechanics but kept the spirit.