A Little Faith Up Above

By: Jonathan Seidel

The historical side has a profound impact on Jewish theology. Dogma took over Maimonides thought and haunted the philosophical spectrum for years. It now has created a bifurcated society of the orthodox and the orthoprax. Though the latter are less anti-theology and more anti-dogmatic. Theology places a decisive role in religious affiliation. The historical side does not negate the prowess of a theological foundation. Shapiro’s array of divergent sources and opinions is critical to appreciating the foundational elements of Judaism. 

Strauss’ defence of orthodoxy rests on the “as if” claim that as long as Jews believe in Sinai it holds because there is no evidence for or against. Both sides are speculative and it thus both sides can believe what they wish without any proper blowback or deconstruction. I’ve pondered for a while and wrote about was if Judaism could survive without dogmas. It is highly irrelevant historically. Even if at one point dogmas were absent, they have become so enmeshed in religiosity that they have their centrality. They posses a measure of tribalism and uniqueness in their abstract formulation. It is a sacred persona to the culture. The neglect of dogma today is difficult to examine, hinging Judaism on dogma to validate commitment. 

I’ve had and still do have my fair share of scepticism but I recognise the necessity of theology. Dogma not so much. Yet, foundational elements are important to a unified culture. The concept are integral not necessary the minute details. Like Maimonides, I believe the law to be the most essential part of Jewish expression but there is more than just a valuational backing. To paraphrase Sacks, Halakha much change because theology doesn’t. The theology the bedrock of symbolic value is meta-historical. It is the metaphysical layer that remains throughout. The abstract binds faith but it does bind expression. The halakha is the communal participation that drives to the ultimate uniformity. All Jews join together to pray to God whether they think he is a guy in the sky or a spirit. The Aristotelian logic indeed irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Maimonides’ purposeful articulation is unnecessary to internal cohesion. The believer and the sceptic hold hands in their shared heritage. Maimonides’ God and Spinoza’s God are both prayed to. 

Theological prompts are a byproduct of an individual’s outlook on the world. Maimonides’ naturalism is apparent which leads to his valuational perspective of reward and punishment as well as the rationales for commandments. Maimonides naturalism leads to a transcendent God. While for the mystics God’s immanence plays a big role in fate and divine manifestation. Theology is bound to religious comprehension. To take another example. Maimonides’ conviction that all was given to Moses is connected to his constitutionalism. The great legislator and philosopher is the transmitter of the entire Torah and nothing can eclipse it. Obviously Maimonides’ rationalism could not contend with the the supernal elements as well as the scientific compatibility with the Torah. Though Maimonides did not place creation at the top of his list, did not mean that he did not care for it. Crescas prioritisation of creation is imperative for his interpretation of Judaism. It is not coincidental that thinkers emphasised different aspects that moulded their philosophy. Hasdai’s version was foundational in order to believe in the Torah.

Maimonides’ exploitation offered up the debate onto subsequent generations. The goal is highly fashioned. Though it is truly sad that those who aspire to Maimonides’ thirteen misconstrue him. Believing in the thirteen means believing in his thirteen with all its philosophy. Omitting this aspect is deeply missing his full range of the ordeal. The minimising does not actually say what Maimonides meant. It is less an integrity point and more an acceptance point. The current thirteen principles are an appropriation. There is a measure in intellectual honesty and full depth compression. Don’t just believe in the vague concept but what it means. Maimonides’ description was more than just a phrase, it was a process. 

Next we reach the diversity. Duran, Hasdai and Albo had a few choice words for Maimonides. Hasdai himself went the limit by forging a systemic construction of his own. He built his foundation differently yet reached the same result. Though the ashkenazim and kabbalists have different conceptions of God, they too are accepted into the canon. None of these other groups fit into Maimonides rationales. Sometimes not even vaguely in the same ballpark. The nature of this diversity is quite beautiful. Faith is both private and public. On the one hand the connection is intimate but on the other the connection is communal. Relating to the ineffable in whatever capacity is important. Hasdai and Albo’s disagreement was not to denigrate Maimonides but to offer alternatives. They believed his rationalism to be wrong and even dangerous. They never call him a heretic or reject him. It was a philosophical, valuational and quasi-political. 

Until, the recent century such dogmatic association was non-existent. Now it is rampant. Given the dire circumstances today, there is a logical position to conform for the betterment. Alternatively, there is a difficultly in accepting a disbelief. Nevertheless, I think Blau was right that dogma or better theology is important. I do not think that dogma is necessary as long as halakhic expression is fulfilled. The ability of Maimonides, Nahmanides, Hasdai and Abarbanel to posit varied theologies and still maintain the same Yiddishkeit more or less is not shocking. Rationalism and mysticism are not as analogous but the philosophy is hand in hand with the action. So when it comes to agnostic Jews or unaffiliated ones it is difficult. Law and theology are necessary, the symbiotic relationship is critical. The bedrock of religiosity wether seen as literal or allegorical, fact or myth does not take away from the value and the heritage. 

The rise in orthopraxy must not avail itself of Jewish theology. Uniformity is not the solution but metaphysical appreciation is. The theological framework is the valuational backing to the legal corpus. The metaphysical layer is a realised version of the fictional mentality. Accepting the commandments as cultural or religious, as valuational or metaphysical need not divorce from the connection to one’s identity. The mythos is integral to the overall spirit of the peoplehood. The tribe needs stories and lessons as well as committed members. Hasdai opposition and Abarbanel’s repudiation marked a need for belief unfettered by coercive tactics. The criteria open for all those to find their way to God. The road to the infinity is carved individually.

For alternative theological models in the modern age see the latter half: Philosophical Dealings