Evasive Origins

By: Jonathan Seidel

The bible as parables: the semiotic link to uncovering Jewish theology

Maimonides along with his geonic-Andalusian predecessors demythologised Judaism to quell the supernal measures codified in the text. Maimonides correctly wrote esoterically in line with the ancient oral style aligned with the contemporary philosophy of semiotics. Signs and symbols denote the mythos of the society. The esoteric character presented is symbolic notation of the reality. 

The science of mythology is a complicated idea. What these supernal ideals meant for most cultures, it only speculated. Though my personal belief is that these celestial notions were intentionally presented in parables as a marker of a larger idea. The narrational composition is a far more valuational lesson than a literal presentation of that event. This isn’t to say that they did not believe in their myths but it is more to say that the myths were educational more than functional. They certainly believed in the pragmatism of myths more than the theological certainty.

Taking the demythologising further, focusing only on Jewish history instead of validating diachronically. If this metaphorical methodology began in geonic era, it hardly makes a maimonidean innovation or even creation. This being the case it makes more sense that there was a tradition these rabbis were drawing from. The use of external influence or coercive effect is used quite periodically to bolster an agenda. Unless one wishes to assert that the geonim were also brainwashed by Aristotle. I find it more easier to believe that this was the tradition and it was fables that transitioned to science. Whether this is solely a Jewish model or other cultures also metaphorically believed in their myths is debatable. Why did they need to demytholgise? I believe the answer lies in the transition to a rational science. The old had to be stripped of its content to be refashioned with new structure.   

If this is the case, then the Israelites were aware their myths were more metaphorical than a factual. Which in particular? I hesitate to write off critical biblical events but it is possible the event stands for more than its accuracy. All these events are a measure of their value. The events present a picture of educational and theological purpose. It is the cultural ethic. It is simpler to concentrate on specific texts. The semantic contradictions and imperfections are of our concern. Just as for Maimonides these contradictions reflected an esoteric hidden gem so too for the biblical record.

Semiology has already aided in pointing to the inaccurate semantic physiology of the bible. The semantic holes are filled by the oral network. If this is applied legally then it can be applied theologically. The esoteric method is an oral phenomenon. The text is replete with examples. A famous case is concerning revelation. One text is verbal and one is non-verbal. In this vein, it is possible it denotes a gradual change or something much deeper. The dialectical analysis measures an oral understanding over semantics. The competing positions are indicative of what actually occurred. Maimonides argues they only heard God’s voice but not any verbalisation while the Tosafists argued they heard all ten commandments. The latter focus on linguistic syntax concerning the word “saying” belongs to the earlier verse. Ironically, Maimonides’ version is a deeper reading of the text than the Tosafist plain reading. The semiotic approach would side with the non-verbal version, the positions hiding behind the text. 

It is this esoteric writing that is so prevalent. It is not what it seems. It is not a debate of varied authors but an oral framework presented in written format. Moses was the sole receiver rather than the people. The oral communication is the more naturalised version. If anything Deuteronomy acts as the publicised orality of the earlier text. Deuteronomy could even be projected as the exoteric successor of the esoteric origin. Given, Deuteronomy’s notion of Moses’ personal recollection, it is a more honest account of the event. Deuteronomy does for the rest of the text what Maimonides does for Talmudic tradition. His work the Mishnah Torah as reminiscent of Deuteronomy’s true name is intentional. Maimonides exposed the esoteric style albeit in his own esoteric method. His semiology is prevalent in his writings. Deuteronomy more resembles Ibn Tibbon’s commentary while Exodus and Leviticus more present the the Guide’s dialectical style. 

Deuteronomy’s role as the exposition of oral identity from the written character of Exodus and Leviticus is harboured for talion law. Exodus is blunt naming the reciprocal while Leviticus mentions the position reciprocated injury, a phrase Exodus hides. Exodus is presented in the listing of laws from slave to any sort of damage. Leviticus is presented in God commanding Moses concerning the blasphemer and a limited narration of damages. Deuteronomy follows the path but does so in the context of courts and judges. More of a reality check. It puts the entire portion of both earlier texts in context. Leviticus provides some narration but its still esoterically coordinated while Deuteronomy is fully publicly ordained. Though this is in a legal sense, it is further evidence to Deuteronomy’s role. The oral needs to be written in order for the true intent to remain uncorrupted. Orality can be misconstrued but Moses’ intent may simply have been his own revelation of the ideals. Unlike Moses Maimonides, Moses Rabbenu was an exoteric writer because unlike his successor he was a scholar and prophet not a philosopher. God is the esoteric author and Moses as the student divulged the secrets. God is the king of esoteric writing while Moses is the exposer. 

To posit another example is the manna. Exodus tells the tale of God sending the manna to the people after a group complaint and they called it manna for it was like coriander seed white and tasted like honey. In Numbers, there an additional complaint but in the description it is like a coriander seed and bdellium. The description is limited in the latter. Number is preoccupied with the visual while Exodus opens to gustatory. The corrupted syntax in Numbers: a coriander seed and then it says it looks like bdellium but if it looks like a coriander seed then it does not look like bdellium. Rashi obviously fixes the issue but noting coriander is the size not the appearance. It also tasted like rich cream instead of honey. Only in Numbers is the visual magnified into bdellium and boiling of the manna into cake. Deuteronomy does not pose a linguistic parallel but places the manna in context of its worth to the people. It is not about the appearance but its value to the people. Exodus is the command, Numbers is the action and Deuteronomy is the lesson. Deuteronomy though does build on Exodus’ promotion of divine salvation from Egypt. Numbers focuses only on its edible function not its meaning. This goes against the developmental model and points to a complimentary model that positions dialectics in esoteric style mixing it up and it is only Moses’ recollection of the Manna as bread but not just any bread, God’s gift to man.    

The manna example does not pose a threat necessarily to the supernatural character of the manna. Though Numbers seems to assert it’s natural like effects. Positing a visual and then explicitly writing “it looked like” is a measure of hyper-visualisation. Especially if “bidolach” a pearl and not bdellium then even more concentration on sight. The more description to natural phenomena the higher the probability it was natural. Though alternatively, Deuteronomy fully voids the entire subject of its taste. Manna is a powerful lesson. A gift from God in the desert to remember God’s salvation. A new bread of the desert not Egypt. It’s a disassociation tactic. Exodus visualises it but also tastes in one sentence moving on to its more educational role. The bible mentions miracles but it is clear that miracles are more educational than literal. The purpose is to learn and not harmonise their accurate measures. 

Shmita is another example where the law and miraculous ideal is mentioned throughout three books. There is a trifecta identity to this. This is not true in every case. Chronology prevents certain events from earlier mentioning like that of Korah while others such as the splitting of the sea is mentioned solely in Deuteronomy though almost not even a mention. There may be a legalistic connection. It’s not just about events but legal fortitude around it. Revelation was a legal event as well as manna and shmita. Their reoccurring scent may be best deciphered by their consistent implication. Shmitta is Exodus is mentioned in its legal listings quickly noted and moves on. There isn’t much order here. In Leviticus it is given an expanded role as directly addressed by God to discuss. The law is developed and expanded. There is more emphasis on eating while Exodus is on resting. Deuteronomy’s version is caring for the needy, ensuring all is prepared. Deuteronomy builds on Leviticus here about the divine miracle of aiding others and God will help you. Shmita is a sign of looking out for others while God looks out for you. Away from the land and to the people. Exodus makes note of this in ensuring your family rests like the land but it does include a divine miracle. Here the miracle is mentioned in Moses’ collection but it is teleological. The miracle is by the person to ensure his fellow is secure. Each text presents an educational goal but only the latter two concern others beyond the family. The role of miracle yet again is to develop.

The previous mentioning of single mentioned miracles can still be used as examples. Looking at both the Deuteronomic interpretations of the earlier miracles shed’s light on Moses’ purpose. Korah’s rebellion is mentioned by Moses. Datan and Abiram are the only ones mentioned not Korah. The vivid picture of the earth opening up her mouth and swallowing everything uses a different word: “patzat” and not “patach”. The original story goes into grave detail about the demise but the deuteronomic character in its summarising methodology notes the event and persists on. The mentioning is to bolster commitment in God. This is also the case of the the more explanatory picture of God hurting the Egyptians unlike its mere overlooked statement in Numbers. Exodus narrationally specifics the event of God saving the Israelites from Pharaoh. Yet it is only the rolling back of the water not the splitting of the sea that is mentioned by Moses. These sentences linked to the Korah episode demonstrate God’s resilience in protecting the Israelites from their foes. God goes to great lengths to protect. Another educational position over theological discourse. Recall what has done and will do as long as you commit to him.  

These examples highlight the dialectical conversion in the biblical text. A divine perfection of written liturgy. God is personified and the core of ancient Israel. The text semantically looks contradictory but is in fact part of the esoteric style of writing. It is only in Deuteronomy due to Moses’ prophetic capabilities. It is Moses who in his compilation posits the exoteric frame to God’s writing.