Astute Beliefs

By: Jonathan Seidel

The turn to biblical theology seems to be a a favourite of postmodern thinkers and their distain for medieval philosophy especially Maimonides as if he was the sole problem. They omit the rest of the Andalusian thinkers and the great geonim. Maimonides was not an outcast in everything. He followed a tradition that has shifted in the past half millennium beginning with Hasdai who never gets the credit he deserves. 

Apparently yeridas hadorot only applies to the social changing law not the immutable metaphysical beliefs. The geonim are all but forgotten and the Andalusian thinkers are anti-maimonideans because Ibn Ezra’s secrets must be mystical and Halevi’s dialogue has to be an anti-rationalist critique. Context is never served and thus “peshat” readings destroy the credibility of thinkers and its tradition. Hasdai edging on modernity posited an account not only against Maimonides but all Spanish thinkers who prioritised reason. They were are Aristotelians and duped by Aristotle.

I can appreciate the liturgical reasoning and linguistic association. Yet to read the text in the semantic way they are doing may well bring lofty meanings and insightful purposes but cannot be portrayed as the truth against medieval interpretations. Uncovering ancient systems we find an esoteric style clashing with the ashkenazi enterprise. The peshat approach is perceiving the text as is and undermines integrity. 

This role of biblical theology though not necessarily so novel is new to the contemporary mind. There is a difference between commenting on a text for an explanation and transforming it into a theological structure. This is important as for many orthodox scholars sought to bring more attention to the prophetic books while academic pushed for diachronic affinities. In none of these cases a theology forms. 

It is recently that the biblical text became weaponised as a theological force. Sacks and Wyschogrod both attribute the bible as the source of theology. While Sacks shows a debt to Maimonides, Wyschogrod does not. Wyschogrod returns to biblical Judaism as theological manifestation. Sacks brings the messages. He finds the values and pragmatism while Wyschogrod promotes existential and metaphysical layers. Biblical theology is the core of religiosity expanding knowledge to better religious expression.  

Ochs, Kepnes and Gibbs articulate a reading based in midrashic reading. The rabbinic layer textually can promote new readings. They derive theological prowess from the text. They construct an empowered theology that surpasses Wyschogrod. The latter’s ontology provides a different view than the textual reasoners. There is a buburian type of theme of the thou. Leading to a view of pragmatism that revisions the bible in its absolute context. There is a paradoxical frontier in accepting the logic of scripture with the magic of it. Kepnes even associates this with the peshat reading. The textual reasoners are not the first rabbinic interpreters. Levinas began the aggadic prowess and now the midrashic use with Kadushin’s influence.

As we are moving through the ages, it is only fair that the Andalusian crew get a chance to be represented in the post-modern age. While, the biblical and rabbinic models are employed to recapture and reinterpret, the medieval model stands its ground. There are some reservations. The syllogistic rationalism is indeed removed from the equation but not the allegorical means of understanding the text as well as the priority of the intellect. The symbolic means is integral for a Jewish future. The metaphysical elements still carry utility and the halakhic constitutionalism as the foundation. The semi-naturalistic pose with metaphysical symbolism embraces the fictionality of religious experience.