Unbroken Telephone

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Peshat and science: Gersonides radical hermeneutics

Gersonides followed in the Maimonidean tradition but his opinions went much further than his predecessor. Not only were his opinions more radical, he also devoted more works to pure philosophy. It his dedication to the intellectual art over halakhic works. His preoccupation with philosophy toppled Maimonides' theology. 

His philosophical primacy led to his extreme positions. Though medieval Jewish philosophy is replete with original positions whether Ibn Ezra’s post-mosaic textuality or Abarbanel’s Mosaic Deuteronomy, Gersonides takes the cake with multiple possibilities. This is not to say that he forcibly rejected his heritage. Despite his lack of halakhic works, his knowledge of the biblical and talmudic tradition is profound. 

The tension between tradition and science proved elegant in his novel interpretations of reality. Concerning creation, he did not ascribe to the biblical nor the Aristotelian model: neither ex nihilo nor eternity was correct. He compromised by combining the theories deducing creation out of eternal matter. He socratically adduced that creation was possible and eternity is incorrect and formulated his philosophical argument following Plato’s eternal matter albeit in a modified manner. His rational argumentation is extensive in proving his thesis. Yet, it is his conclusion that differs so greatly from contemporary orthodox belief. Though in his own traditional way, he reads his position back into the text, a statement Maimonides insinuates but does not follow through. He records that the Torah never says water was created but was with God forever.

Gersonides' extreme positions were exoteric replications of his predecessors. His conclusions find familiarity with the Andalusian scientific application. It is the deviating analysis of the Tosafists that brought on this exposure. Rashbam was famous for his untraditional literal readings which spread to sephardi lands. Ibn Ezra and scholars afterwards followed suite in this enterprise. Yet, it is important to look at how even in the halakhic world radical interpretations began to emerge. Rashbam and Ibn Ezra in a tag-team sort of way advocate for a varied talmudic conclusion. In one instance the talmud rules that the owner’s place nor the location of the injury matters for damages to injuring or killing a borrowed animal. Both commentators argue that the borrower is absolved when the owner is with him. 

The variance in the peshat model is starting from the text. The bible is the source of the law and thus, its origination. If the law is different than the law is mistaken. The talmudic sages like their Andalusian counterparts began from the talmud and sourced their laws in the bible. It was a type of footnoting to authenticate not to demonstrate the origin of the law. The sensus comminus knew the law and the law was then compiled into the bible. The French mistake and subsequent erroneous position is that the bible is the legal statute of ancient Israel. This undermines the ancient oral style, yet this did not help in its widespread effect on ensuing scholars. 

The French went further than Ibn Ezra. Ibn Ezra’s legacy was in the Andalusian school hiding his esoteric feelings while remaining faithful to the halakhic matters. His peshat approach was a combination of both worlds but for Rashbam it was a bifurcation. Rashbam is willing to part with the talmudic expositions in his peshat teaching. The talmudic method was carelessly mistaken in certain matters and reinterpretation was necessary. This led to the derashic derivations of the kabbalists interpreting way beyond the simple meaning. Positing their own model of religiosity.      

While Maimonides and Ibn Ezra hid their more esoteric writings only speculated that they believed in these options for their successors, it is clear that they posited some radical positions. Nahmanides’ kabbalistic operation displayed an array of non-traditional theological positions. The maimonidean controversy inspired a publicizing of these radical ideas across the spectrum. The more spiritual and more rational came out. Nahmanides and Abulafya on the former and Meiri and Gersonides the latter. The peshat model ridded orality of its esoteric clothing.  

The Andalusian orality maintained the radical doctrines hidden from plain sight. The textualisation of the Tosafist put everything but the kitchen sink out there. Writing became a form of expression. The renewed reading of the text by the anti-maimonideans accorded much mystical layers. The peshat reading of the French began a deeper analysis of the text. They interpreted texts in an untraditional manner. The kabbalistic ideas were so prominent in Nahamanides’ commentary. It was this publication that announced the transition to derash. The Zohar too is a biblical commentary. The rise of kabbalah followed the peshat movement in early ashkenaz of reverting to the bible to reinterpret the text.

   `

Nahmanides may have a referred to Ibn Ezra as a proto-kabbalist but that does not mean that his ideas were necessary so mystical. Like Maimonides, Ibn Ezra couched many of his opinions in esoteric liturgy. Other scholars bemoaned this title to him. He was a philosopher, maybe not as an ardent rationalist like Maimonides but his mysticism at least as it is related to kabbalah was mute. If anything, Ibn Ezra was a rationalist. He believes that man loves God naturally. Commandments are explained rationally and logic is significant for their understanding. God is known through scientific observation. The science of the lower world leads to the science of the middle world. No demons and other supernal phenomena. Yet, he differed from Maimonides in his advocation of astrology with its own rational effect.  

Halevi who is generally regarded as an empiricist found much reason in his magnum opus. He prioritisation of reason is profound in its necessity. Despite his reservations for philosophy which were fairly apparent, he does not dismiss the discipline nor recant his rationalism. Halevi is critical of philosophy’s intellectual limitations and its rejection of historical revelation as evidence of God. Alongside his Andalusian contemporaries he naturalised the supernatural aspects of religion of prophecy and miracles. Still, he drifted in other chapters to supernatural prophets and particularistic Judaism. He sought the power of reason but bordered it against the mystical cleaning to God. Halevi worked through history over reason. Yet did not reject the sciences just saw them as an inferior model of connecting to god. Man can find Elohim via science but not YKVK. Halevi scepticism was hardly novel in a force of islamic influence. 

Leading to us to the maimonidean successors. Radak a proponent of the maimonidean scheme had a few choice words for the rational interpretation of texts. He rejects the exegesis meriting Serah bat Asher centuries to live till King David’s reign. Contrary to Rashi, he will reject literal expositions of midrash if they defy logic in line with his predecessors. While, Maimonides followed the sensus comminus of the geonim to interpret midrash figuratively, his publication did not examine the details just the concepts at large. Radak’s commentary explores the midrashim and those he finds extraneous. Radak is a perfect example of a scholar drawing completely from his predecessors. There is no Radakian model like Maimonides or even Gersonides. Radak was more a follower than a revolutionary. In one place he cites Ibn Gabirol noted as a proto-mystic to expand it into the rationalist frame. Whether this is a reconstruction of Ibn Gabirol’s thought or a dimension of exoteric configuration of his esoteric neoplatonism, it demonstrates an affinity to Saadia’s sensory knowledge.    

Meiri another proponent of Maimonidean team. Meiri was from Perpignan, Gersonides from Bagnols and Ibn Tibbon from Lunel. All these cities were in southern France bordering Spain. For all the talk of Provence none of these thinkers lived there. And the former two both died in Perpignan. Meiri and Gersonides were part of the later maimonideans after Ibn Tibbon but were close to the maimondiean mind. Meiri demythologised allegories in accordance with the geonic-Andalusian tradition. He voided demons from reality. His promotion of greek knowledge and intellectualism in the religious frame were reminiscent of earlier tradition. Prophecy was another aspect of agreement.Yet, where Meiri differed from the other maimonideans mentioned was his talmudic scholarship. Though lost for generations, he was a pivotal figure in his time. Though more liberal in his interfaith legal conclusions, philosophically was on board.    

   

The positions of Ibn Tibbon, Maimonides’ translator, take on radical form. He argued that the guide hid his true feelings. The esoteric strand in the guide was concealed. Though Ibn Tibbon does not draw the oral connection, his propagation of Maimonides’ hidden thought is expressed by his contemporaries in their own right. His continuously applied science to the biblical teachings. Similar to Gersonides his model of aligning the text with science utilised the text’s definition and explaining rationally. His meteorological description explains the Genesis narrative as the construction of the sublunar world. Persisting on the sensus comminus of ancient Israel, he accords his position with King David’s cosmology. 

Thus far we have noted the revelation of radical theological positions in the works of the Spanish world. Maimonides’ successors for and against exploited the theological framework. Given the Andalusian mimetic tradition, the theological formulation is consistent, the French tradition not so much. The geonic figurative reading of the allegories is intentional. Allegories are not literal descriptions, they are scientific. Writing mythology in a scientific context couches the truth behind a supernatural phenomena. Symbols are simpler images than complex logic. Though it’s speculative if the ancients believed what the sages and subsequently Maimonides’ thought. This would conclude that Aristotle’s physics were not novel and were a mere exploitation similar to Maimonides’ revelation. It is not a long shot to reason that someone before Aristotle conceived of his theory. The lack of writing and its rational basis were hidden from the public eye (oral thinking need not be accurate only that it was accepted). 

Gersonides and his contemporaries were part of the maimonidean revelation. It is clear that Maimonides did disagree with his predecessor on various issues whether prophecy or astrology. The aspect of sensus comminus may be challenged on its uniformity or only certain theological positions were uniform. The trans-generational link between the geonic Andalusian school and Provence prove a heritage. Maimonides may have mitigated celestial marks too much, but the esotericism of his predecessors prevents the ability to properly analyse the abstract commentary.