Only Time Will Tell

By: Jonathan Seidel

Between esotericism and appropriation: uniform maimonidean exotericism and multi-dimensional halevian interpretation 

Throughout the near millennium the Kuzari has been in print, various individuals have posited their insight on the Kuzari. Though most have used Halevi’s ideas to further their own careers over commentating on his work per se, it does still validate their debt to the work. It is this continuous inspiration that has perverted Halevi’s initial intent. For pro and anti rationalists to source his book as substantial influence is troubling. Obviously they may turn to various aspects: the rationalists may focus on his revelation while the mystics on his anti-rationalism. Alternatively, they may both use revelation to promote their agenda. His dialectical rhetoric itself hints to divergent conclusions. Yet, it is not all clear that they were reading Halevi accurately. Given the exoteric analysis, the Maimonideans accepted the frame presented by anti-rationalists which they attempted to quell. Their goal was to synthesise it with Maimonides. It does seem they were on the right track with an Andalusian focus but the anti-rationalists compounded the exoteric narrative as his genuine feelings. 

The first Kuzari commentary wasn’t until Renaissance Italy. After expulsion and near violence of the work, it clearly lost its oral mission and directed polemic. There are attempts to classify Halevi as the Haver and the king even historically but misconstrued socio-historically. The anti-rationalists and mystics found a friend in Halevi’s story. It is indeed a fair view of the matter. It can even be argued that the influence drawn to promote the various agendas specifically following its publication into Provence maintained its oral nature as no scholar attempted to screen a Halevian intent. The maskilim tried but nowhere does an early medieval sage try. His poetry was strong but that was it. 

The Kuzari appropriation is less Nahmanides and his successors fault. It was the lack of transmission and concern. Maimonides’ philosophy took a thorough oral transmission. Maimonides’ influence persisted through the years at a steady rate (the controversy may have only strengthened its resilience). Provence was the first episode of maimonidean exotericism and continued through the years. The difference in maimonidean exploitation is rather obvious. The maimonideans didn’t just gather from their master, they wrote commentaries about what he thought. The focus on Maimonides’ hidden agenda was not some conspiracy theory but the Andalusian interpretation. They looked beneath the text past the dialectical analysis. Maimonides’ elitism was for the philosophically adept to understand where he was coming from. Reading his work semantically was a fool’s errand and misconstrued his oral spirit. 

Halevi, alterantively, is scarcely mentioned nor his style. His work becomes the core of interpretation. There is no authorial intent. Whatever the book says that is the interpretation. Again in line, with a peshat reading. The text is at it says. Though it was not the early anti-maimonideans who perverted his work with their peshat, it was its later affect. Honestly even their derash was a dangerous task. Once they revised peshat they redefined derash. The maimonidean derash was oral while the anti-maimonidean derash was mystical. The peshat enabled multiple interpretations. Each unconcerned with the author’s real motive. There is almost no validation of the dialectical element nor contradictions so similar to Maimonides. It is even more shocking that the maimonideans didn’t pick up on it though that ignorance may be due to its lack of authority and research. Still, the frame persisted from Nahmanides school to the Provencal scholars, granting a certain perspective on its hermeneutic. This enabled the maimonideans to claim rationalism even though I doubt they were referring to its oral theme.  

The first deviation was the peshat derivation. Taking the Kuzari at face value, it offered all types of possibilities. Semantics enable all possible inquiries. It is important to reiterate that none of the early scholars commented on the book. It was a source of information and even more inspiration. This enabled early rationalists and mystics to both quote sporadic parts in favour of their agendas. It was this personal ambition that prompted a diverse exegesis of the Kuzari. This contrasting with the later thinkers who wrote commentaries. Even though Halevi is not investigated until post-expulsion Italy, it did not last. It is for this reason that up until very recently there wasn’t a Halevianism, though that still may not be genuine. Italian Jews and then the positive-historical school drew biographical and sociological descriptions of Halevi. Halevi’s anti-rationalists successors: Nahmanides, Crescas and Abarbanel did not perceive the Kuzari as the source of their belief. They found an alley not a master. The same can be said of the enlightenment movements: maskilim and hasidim. They both found points to quote. Even the Nefesh Chaim makes note but it is not the central focus. Unlike the maimonideans who were very explicit in their debt to Maimonides.

Maimonideanism did dissipate over the years. Instead of converting oneself to maimonideanism, one incorporates Maimonides ideals into their philosophy. This may be in due part to the changing tides over the generations as well as the eventual decline of rationalism for more existential trends in the history of philosophy. The Renaissance seems to be the precursor for the infusing Maimonides with Halevi, Saadia and Bahya in the Jewish academies. Syllabuses joined all philosophical study as dually relevant. Once books were compiled, it began to erase any “real students” of maimonideanism. This is not entirely accurate but with the printing press providing access to each of the books, students could create their own philosophies. No longer was there a sole maimonideanism but a synthesised notion. Textuality constructed a new worldview. Mendelssohn, for example, drew from both and though put Halevi’s revelational cause at the centre of his thought, his maimonideanism was very present. Modern “maimonideans” like Leibowitz, Roth and Hartman are not pure maimonideans affected by other thinkers as well.   

The provencal rabbis continued their master’s oral tradition. While later scholars “corrupted it”. Students transformed into quasi-historians. The individualisation that  followed the Italian educational centres marked the ultimate end of esotericism liturgy and oral philosophical tradition. There is a modern attempt to sociologically capture authorial intent. The scientific study of Judaism attempted this with Maimonides and Halevi. Yet, their failure was due to the textual translation that they perceived. They failed to acknowledge the culture and rhetorical strategy, instead focused on each individually and idealistically. Their socio-historical experiment was marred with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The contemporary academic is aware of semiology and hermeneutics able to to examine the full breath of textuality. Though divorced from traditional scholarship yields inaccurate rabbinic intentions. 

We know Maimonides’ intent from his students, Halevi’s is conjecture. Yet, his work within the Andalusian world and the consistency of esoteric rhetoric present in said culture points to a different message. The appropriation by later scholars began as an innocent inspiration that culminated in a misconstrued image that transforms the authorial polemical intent to a new validated religious view.