A Tale of Two Ideologies

By: Jonathan Seidel

 Mythology and Science

The advent of geonic rationalism as a response to islamic philosophy is dually noted but it is plausible there is an additional model. Philo’s work was not only more or less unknown to the geonic world, his work was rooted in hellenistic influence. Saadia’s work is regarded as kalam related and his predecessor Isaac Israeli was a neoplatonist. The issue at large is not if philosophy is Jewish or if there is a unique Jewish philosophy. Philosophy is a tool for explanation just as exegesis is a tool for interpretation. Philosophy is a universalistic exercise unveiling the secrets of the universe via logic. If the goal is to explain then is there a difference between the various techniques? Kabbalah and philosophy diverge at the apex of agenda and conclusions. Kabbalah literally interprets the ancient mythos compiling it into a further cosmology, while the philosophers strip the mythos of its supernal garb and allegorise it scientifically. Since both are a later construction of an earlier production it is unclear the initial intent of religious identity. Both would have you believe their point of view. The kabbalists build on the supernatural terminology legitimising it with further particularities while the philosophers regard it as symbolic. 

Suggesting that the rationalists were influenced by islamic philosophy is the same to the Kabbalist’s mystical influence and the bible’s mythical influence. The amount of parable comparability with other ancient Near East cultures like Gilgamesh and the like is very apparent. Likewise, neoplatonic themes run deeply in kabbalistic theology. Then there is no pure origin of religion. Congruently, there is no measure of whether the biblical or rabbinic themes were influenced by external cultures. In the same vein, the acceptance of the biblical themes as no matter their influence as biblical alone is analogous to the rational theme in rabbinic Judaism today. The rationalist stream has been advocated from the geonim till contemporary thinkers. It is the mystical elements that pop up periodically. It was not just, Maimonides but his predecessors and successors. Recommending, rationalist Judaism as a problematic clause is usurping millennium of Jewish thought and interpretation. The mythic elements were pervasive through every society, universal just as philosophy is. It is the kabbalah that attempts to particularise Judaism in an untraditional manner. Arguing points never mentioned in tradition. For all of the philosophical complexity, it does not begin to cement its deviation. Maimonides’ rationalism may have been perverted but that does not prove a traditional opposition to rationalism. Rabbinic logic is apparent and advocated in literature even if regulated to the legal aspects. 

Mythologies are not automatically literal expositions. Such a position bemoans any ancient understanding. Even if the masses believed in their myths, held them closely, it doesn’t mean that was the intent nor the reality. The greek acceptance of mythology does not necessitate universal acceptance. Applying our contemporary feelings about tradition and accuracy maligns any genuine analysis. A similar problem already exists in the ancient legal style. The statutory legal model is applied to the ancient codexes instead of properly understanding them. Though moderns may at times deny myth for science, the religious will uphold their literalism. At the end of the day, the dichotomy persists. These are just political banter. A biased agenda either in favour of science or religion. It is even more revealing that those of the kabbalistic tradition incorporate ideas never mentioned in Judaism. Fairly unfettered by the rational agenda, the calling for some supernal ontology is by no means ever commissioned by the bible. Even the talmudic allegories are limited in this manner to a point of rabbinic opposition to allegorical investigation. It is even more comical the difference in quantity of allegories between both Talmud’s. The argument may even go further of pagan myths persisting in Babylonian while on the hand the christian mythology inspired nullification. The diachronic approach is a dangerous one as it pins one side against the other while self-defeating in its own right.                 

Classically, both sides polemically charge each other. Saadia rationalised Sefer Yetizirah while kabbalists attribute it to Abraham. Rabbenu Yonah burned Maimonides books while attributing Kabbalah a divine origin in their celestial texts. Vilna Gaon attributed the Zohar to Rashbi and claimed Maimonides was brainwashed by Aristotle. Noda Biyehuda praised Maimonides and banned kabbalistic study. Saadia called Shiur Koma a forgery and Yaavetz called the Moreh Nevuchim a forgery. It is fair to say that though academically Maimonides wins the day, in traditional quarters kabbalah is the major doctrine. Kabbalah is genuine despite its continuous evolution. The lack of modern polemics against kabbalah with the exception of the minor rabbinic claims. Though not wholly absent, there are opponents to the study but those also oppose philosophy. They are more the talmudic-centric believers, simple and legalistic. For this individual both Maimonides and Nahmanides are wrong. There is no prophetic intelligence nor demonic art. Ironically, this is by far a very common approach in the haredi world but a very untraditional approach. Their extra-legal category may be mussar. No cosmological identity but ethical lessons. This shares its own faults aligned with the medieval French problematics yet is not berated to any natural or supernatural dogmatism. 

The question goes further for the modern Jew who is tasked with interpreting rabbinic allegories. Does one take a hardline literal stance or metaphorical one. Tiptoeing this issue by accepting some and not others is very difficult and becomes exceptionally arbitrary. Take the case of R Joshua ben Levi’s adventures with Elijah or tricking the angel of death to get into Eden Alive. Additionally, R Hanina ben Dosa igniting vinegar. To a point where R Karo suggests the king wearing a second school around his neck as a magical shield versus Maimonides’ opinion that it it’s a reminder of Torah. Maimonides does not dismiss allegories, he finds their use educationally and developmentally. Sefer Yetzirah’s position that the alphabet are powers of the cosmos’ structure is defined by Maimonides as a mode of communication to teach about God. Hebrew is either a vehicle or a supernatural force. Rationalists and Kabbalists are at each other’s throats. For those who in the third camp who either are talmudists in their Tosafist literalism or talmudists in their Tosafists anti-philosophy do no justice to the debate at hand. If in the former camp then the literalism is mystically inherent, so rejecting kabbalah is simply a gerrymandering of mystical elements. Only those mentioned by Moses or Sages is accurate but not later rabbis. If in the latter camp then the cynicism towards philosophy is biased against a “secularised” function yet simultaneously doing philosophy just calling it machshava.     

The hypocritical self-defeating continues in later scholars. For the pro philosophy gang Shadal and Wyscholgrod reject Maimonides’ demythologising and philosophical truth yet still promote philosophy. They are both rationalists against the mystical framework but are “biblical” in their Yiddishkeit. Anthropomorphic terminology is central for imagining a connection with God. Their strawmannirg of the Maimonidean God is a lifeless careless deity yet prove the Maimonidean theme of the allegorical necessity of divine feelings to think as if God has these feelings. Maimonides rejects the literal definition but acknowledges their metaphorical meaning. They love philosophy but not the un-Jewish version they claim Maimonides and his followers hold. On the other side is the hasidim who draw from the kabbalistic doctrines by demystifying them for educational purposes. In their own opposition of Maimonidean philosophy, they basically do the same thing but demythologise kabbalah instead of the bible while still voiding the literalism of the kabbalah. The mystical hasidim are quasi-mystical as they approach the spirit against kabbalistic doctrines. They believe in the meditative spiritual deity which is Maimonidean as they reject philosophy. Their own demystification and construction for educational purposes is aligned. Both these ideologies purport to reject a certain style but in reality are playing misconstrued apologetics that in essence validates their opponent. 

The inconsistencies and seemingly profound influence philosophy has had on Judaism is not solely as the opponent of kabbalah. Those who attempted to synthesise the ideals fell short of properly addressing the problem. The synthesis lacked proper alignment. Some like R Soloveitchik mentioned kabbalistic concepts to bolster their philosophical positions while R Kook mystified Maimonidean rationalism for his Kabbalistic orientation. On the other hand, many such as R Wasserman and R Kotler have subverted Maimonidean philosophy to articulate their own ideals by appropriating him to fit their worldview. Maimonides’ methods have been replicated and reconfigured for others to promote their agendas. Maimonidean philosophy though at face value is seemingly irregular, is in no way as novel as the other philosophies. The historical authentication of rationalism even if not Maimonidean (given the "diversity" from Saadia through the Spanish scholars to their southern French successors) demonstrates either a millennium of brainwashing or there is something more to this. This argument works on the other side as well. The diversity in kabbalistic orientation seems at face value to be self-contradicting yet could be noted as layered interpretation, nevertheless they are recognised as canonical. Given this continued reverence, it too deserves respect. Unless the kabbalists were brainwashed by external influences throughout time. Seems a little foreign. The point isn't if either of these methods is genuinely internal but that teaches proper Judaism. For most of Jewish history both played a crucial role.