Symbolic Myths

Stop blaming Maimonides for impersonal deity   

By: Jonathan Seidel

Gottlieb notes that even into the enlightenment era Maimonides was continuously ridiculed for his demythologised version of religiosity. Following the emergence of peshat and kabbalah in medieval ashkenazi, Maimonides’ rationalism was not the origin of his extreme allegorisation. Tradition presents a more complex picture that only conveniently brushed with rationalism.

The bible is replete with anthropomorphic  statements. Numerous statements about God’s bodily figure and his emotions. Much of literature is honed in on accepting the literal manifestations. The bible positions God as a character in the history of religious growth. God interacts with the Israelites in protecting them and guiding them forward. The rabbis expanded the anthropomorphic ordeal transforming God into the most intimate of God-man relationship. The rabbis demonstrate an immanent deity despite the loss of prophecy and the temple.

The shift to anti-anthropomorphism began in the geonic period. Hai Gaon especially demythologised talmudic allegories. His figurative explanation of divination. He further denied any attributes to God. Hai anticipated Maimonides impassibility. Though this is but a position of one Gaon, his stature may stretch to other leaders and even more so his school. Yet, unlike Maimonides they didn’t question angels or their power. Samuel ben Hofni, Saadia and Sherira were more rationalistic of the bunch. The former more than the later. Samuel was far more in the scope for reason than his successors but like Hai, his prestige and evident philosophy presents a pre-Maimonidean strand.  

Yet, the first mentioning of anti-anthropomorphism is in the bible itself. Deuteronomy presents a supra-rational rather than supernatural version of revelation. God speaks to the people instead of cultivating miracles. His physical form is diminished entirely. In the closing chapters of Isaiah a similar phenomenon occurs in the polemic against posting a divine image. A potential theory could involve the earlier texts liken an image ini an attempt to wean the Israelites of the idolatry of the surrounding nations. This dynamic attitude is unfortunately busted by its nonlinear effect. Moses’ ability to see God’s back but not his front does throw a wrench in the works but again this is a dynamic attitude in the early paradoxical struggle the Israelites were living. Chronologically, Isaiah’s sight of God does not fit with the Deuteronomic shift. Yet, if the Israelites were insistently falling into the idolatrous trap appealing to them with a divine image would be helpful even if incorrect. Deuteronomy was the ideal entering the land with a clean slate while Isaiah was amidst tumultuous times. Alternatively, consistency is naive and both represent the competing views in ancient Israel. Still, there is biblical precedent for incorporeality.

The French school of thought presented a new peshat theory that re-read the bible. His commentary undid the geonic position by pushing a literal leading. His successors were even more literal in their interpretations. They textualised oral law into written commentary. Their sage-supreme attitude led to the countless commentaries and dialectical analysis. The French exegesis though initially more meidrashic became exceedingly literal. Ibn Ezra who spent the later years of his life in ashkenazi lands was influenced by this trend most prevalent in Rashbam and later in Bekhor Shor. They proposed intuitive empirical translations of the text. They went    straight to the source voiding talmudic tradition. They formulated their own commentaries. 

The pilpul method so ingrained in tosafist methodology was an additional matrix of innovative thinking. They canonised the talmud and attempted to solve the contradictions synchronically and reinterpret texts to fit their narrative. Pilpul proposed a study-centric way of life. It was a conservation and preservation scheme. They juggled divergent texts to authenticate their positions and explain the text differently. This voided the oral for a textual exegesis. Tosafot may disagree with Rashi but it morphed a deeper organic link; all was interconnected and justifiable. Given this multiplicity strata there is no objective law. It is the sage in his genius who deduces and postulates the interpretation. The sage is the barometer of definition

The Tosafist position on anthropomorphism is genuine. Scholars held to divine bodily identity. Yet it seems that their anthropomorphic positions were also minimised. It was the push of the Tosafists that empowered the age old method following their commentaries but it wasn’t their polemic. Yet given the substantial attack on Maimonides its exaggeration also must be minimised. Given Rashi’s talmudic anthropomorphisms and French literalism the polemics carry weight. It is noteworthy that its even idle mention was weaponised by anti-maimonideans like Nahmanides to prove their point. Their kabbalistic anthropomorphic structure accepted angels and demons literally translating rabbinic texts. The pushed more Neo-platonic lore in the realms of magic and astrology and augury to chiromancy and chirognomy. The postulated the production of a celestial metaphysic with an expanding philosophy of supernal concepts. The legendary was not metaphorical but real.

Given, the emergence of peshat, pilpul and kabbalah in the Middle Ages it wouldn’t be shocking to note that just as these were inventions so to was the anthropomorphic stance. Granted, one could argue Nahmanides is simply continuing the tradition of sages but he is not. His position of peshat and kabbalistic devotion are absent from earlier texts. The rabbinic anthropomorphism was a literary technique not a Jewish idea. Philosophy may have played a role in its mitigation but this is also a misunderstanding of rabbinic philosophy. Reading allegories literally is the French way of reading texts not the geonic nor maimonidean. Interpreting in our modern literal perspective distorts the original intent. Blaming Maimonides not only ignores religious texts but it undermines Jewish history. It reinforces a stigma against Maimonides, philosophy while promoting esoteric ideology and scholarly elitism. 

Anthropomorphism is similar to the maimonidean legal methodology that followed the talmudic peshat described as the sensus comminus translated as the commonly accepted form. Meaning that there was a linear transmission through the years. Pilpul attempted to explain the text, to recover the original intent but the Andalusian school transmitted the meaning through generations. For the sages their exegetical explanations though at times farfetched were correct interpretations even if not translated literally. Take for example that talion law is compensation. That is not the literal model but a metaphorical stance for the law. Peshat in talmudic lingo is simplicity not literalism. The fact that despite talion law’s literal definition all knew it was really compensation. Though perplexing to the modern reader, it was obvious to the ancient believer. The knowledgable community passed on these teachings behind the text orally through the generations. It only became necessary to link them back to the source with advent of writing and citing. The way to read scripture is not from the text to exegesis but vice versa. The tosafists broke with Jewish tradition with a revolutionary style that mocked historical transmission. Though they found supporting texts, this was scholastic not talmudic. 

If this is the case with law so too with theology. There is a difference between greek and jewish divination models. Greeks promoted visual aids in line with pagan history while Judaism promoted auditory measures. Deuteronomy and Isaiah are such matters. The auditory is represented in prophetic literature and early rabbinic literature with God playing a more immanent role. His immanence is only heard never seen. Maimonides furthered this with noting the auditory with text. Jews listen to the text and thus learn about God. His speech is the divine will passed on to us. Auditory lends weight to envisioning the crazy through ears but never seeing in plain sight. The talmud frequently denotes the bat kol as the expression of the divine. Much of religious communion is through speech, mainly in prayer, hearing one's own words.

Even if God is ineffable what about other supernatural possibilities. It is to this that semiology becomes apparent. Semiology is a sign system that uncovers the semantic phrasing. Talion law is one example of legal semiotics. In this vein, the identity of supernatural beings is not duped by reason alone but by tradition. Judaism is auditory not visual. Angelic creatures are allegorised. The terminology follows the mythic folklore of the ancients similarly to its other parallels and permission of slavery. Relying on the semantic text to teach the communities belief is naive. Midrash is generally a good starting point as well as literary synchronicity. Maimonides version need not be a revolution but an extension, Contra kabbalists, the text wasn’t hiding esoteric secretes but exoteric explanations. This is not akin to Spinoza or Kaplan’s naturalism. Their experiences and heritage speak to a linguistic tradition. The text highlights these points. The oral community possess a folklore that ascribes ritualistic metaphysics to the tribal legacy. The latter scholars took Maimonides far but Leibowitz’s more radical version approves values over facts. It is the history of value over fact. The orality necessitates a certain ideology but it’s the lifestyle more than the theology that is present.

Ancient religions like hellenism preferred practice over belief. Yet, it was a lifestyle more than simple correct conduct. It wasn’t formulating a list or following a rule book but following a certain path, a tribal path. Similar to Maimonides’ pursuit of truth, the intellectual track furthers wisdom and knowledge. Belief becomes evolutionary from visual to auditory. Symbols explain reality. Allegories teach lessons. Maimonides systemisation is its own form of semantic phraseology. There was no uniform measure. It was the linguistic community’s publication. The oral had been unveiled. It is the tribal wisdom that de-fossilises the static and dogmatic nature. The gradual shift to auditory may reflect a developmental ordeal or a typological presentation. The organismic matrix presents different versions given the situation. There are varied perspectives that are jointly valid. The Maimonidean creed officially aligned itself with orthodoxy. The semantic text noting the celestial are symbolic manifestations of Jewish wisdom. Theological semiotics portrays an ancient compression of Israelite identity. The lived experience of the ancient Jew is via oral transmission. The auditory nature compelled a linguistic consensus and tribal cohesion.

The sages were the first bible critics interpreting the text in a seemingly bizarre manner tangentially. The oral narrative was transmitted and then organised according to a semiotic position. The former oral exegesis harmonised the textual difficulties. The figurative explanations for biblical events does not undermine their value. The bible is exhortation, embellished yet genuine. The sages questioned Job’s historicity. The lifestyle theme avoids the accuracy query. The folklore is transmitted as true. Veracity is unquestioned. Only with written’s law challenge did scholars like Maimonides explain that the first biblical stories were figurative. The lack of exegetical justification for their non-literalism means nothing. The figurative challenge is due to the query being raised. If there is no challenge than there is no evidence. The figurative nature under the radar persisted without fail till scepticism emerged. Given our geonic-Andalusian trend its fair to note that both Saadia and Maimonides explained creation metaphorically. Myths were presented in historical form, narrationally to inspire. Mythology was knowingly sermonic. The people were not naive. Mythology was hyperreal in the existential sense not rationally. 

The theosemiology was a conscious choice of the sensus comminus articulating the meta-narrative of Jewish culture. The symbolism manifested a caring relational deity who protects and provides. It is the divine encounter that man rises above his ego and recognises the responsibility to the other. The narration differs from other religions. It does not build a cosmology but a philosophy of man. Judaism portrays a deity searching for man. For man to rise to the challenge. Not simply to serve but to aid humanity. God’s concern for man is transformed into man caring for the other. Man must elevate via the influential storylines. The semantic phraseology overlies the semiotic valuation.