 |
| Torah with Arabic translation, by Rav Saadia Gaon, in Hebrew alphabet (Judeo-Arabic). |
INTRODUCTION:
In this essay we are going to look at the origins of Jewish
philosophy and attempt to determine when in Jewish history, did the notion of
formalized philosophy and theology enter the arena.
ORIGINS OF JEWISH PHILOSOPHY:
Generally speaking – other than the nuances between the
various Biblical characters, and even the later sages of the Talmud, each with
their particular schools and approaches - it appears as though philosophy was
never a central issue to early Judaism.
During Talmudic times the primary focus was formulating a legal
and ethical code. Very little importance was placed on philosophical principles
as it was largely regarded a non-Jewish discipline and enterprise.
Hyam Maccoby, in his book entitled The Philosophy of the
Talmud, writes:
“The Talmud is not a work of
formal philosophy, but much of what it says is relevant to philosophical
enquiry... the Talmud has original ideas about...ethics... This leads into a
discussion on the relation between morality and ritual, and...the role of
tradition.”[1]
But there is still no
formal philosophy in the technical sense of the word.
Even Philo the Philosopher of Alexandria (25 BCE-50 CE) was unable
to get any real intellectual purchase amongst the rabbis. This was not only
because he attempted to bridge sophisticated Greek philosophy with Judaism -
which set off alarm bells amongst the rabbis for fear of Hellenization - but
simply because the sages felt that the legal and ethical Talmudic
texts were sufficient, and that philosophy was extraneous to Judaism.
Menachem Kellner writes of the prevalent attitude at that
time;
“Loyalty to G-d, Torah, and Israel, therefore is the hallmark of the
Jew: loyal [halachik or ritualistic] behaviour, not systematic theology, is
what is expected and demanded [particularly during Talmudic times].”[2]
 |
| Philonis Iudei - Philo of Alexandria |
Philo, whose Hebrew name was Yedidya haKohen, wrote about
forty books. These still exist today only because they were preserved, not by
Jews, but by the early church. Ironically it was the church which felt a need
for his some of Philo’s mystical teachings which he borrowed from Plato.[3]
For almost one thousand five hundred years it was only the
church that studied Philo’s works.[4]
This was until R. Azariah de Rossi also known as the Meor Enayim
(1513-1578) began to quote extensively from Philo. It was at that late stage
that Philo actually began to make a somewhat meaningful impression on the
rabbinic world.[5]
THE KALAM:
Meanwhile, from around 700 CE, the traditional disinterest
that Judaism had previously displayed toward philosophy suddenly began to
change as a result of Islamic influences.
“...Jews who came under Muslim rule in the seventh
century had no philosophic works corresponding to the philosophic writings of
the Church...[and Islam]”[6]
After the founding of Islam in the 600’s, Baghdad soon became
a centre of Islamic scholarship. Greek books on mathematics, science and
philosophy were translated into Arabic. There arose a need to study falsafa or
philosophy so that Muslims could debate with both Christians and Jews.
Based on their newly acquired knowledge of Greek philosophy,
some Islamic scholars known as the Mutazila, composed specialized
writings called Kalam or speech[7],
to serve this very purpose. These writings were scripturally based but included
rationalist views as well, and were therefore very appealing to thinking
religious people. The Kalam allowed one to be both a religious scholar
and a (‘modern’) rationalist at the same time.
THE KARAITES:
As a result of the popularity of the Islamic Kalam,
the then very large and influential Jewish sect of Karaites (which was founded
in the 700’s; and which rejected rabbinical Judaism and adhered only to the
literal text of the Torah) were the first group to begin introducing philosophy
to the Jewish world along the lines of Kalamic thought.
They were so
successful that, “...it is sometimes impossible to tell from the contents of
a Karaite Mutazilite work whether it was written by a Jew or a Mohammedan.”[8]
See KOTZK
BLOG 53.
R. SAADIA GAON (882-942) - ‘THE FATHER OF JEWISH
PHILOSOPHY’:
There were now Islamic and Karaite religious rationalists
who embraced philosophy in order to enhance their beliefs - but there was nothing
yet from within the Rabbinite community.
Menachem Kellner writes:
“With the rise of Islam from
without and of Karaism from within, [rabbinic] Judaism was confronted by
challengers that it could not ignore. Islam was an aggressively proselytizing
religion, and Karaism denied the Jewish legitimacy of Rabbanite Judaism.”[9]
Now, mainstream rabbinic Judaism had serious challenges which
it needed to respond if it didn’t want to be sidelined.
This challenge was met with very satisfactorily by R. Saadia
Gaon in the late 800’s.
If Philo was the obscure great-grandfather
of Jewish philosophy, and the Karaites the collective grandfather of the albeit non-rabbinic
movement to introduce philosophy to Jews - R. Saadia Gaon was certainly the
father of rabbinical Jewish philosophy.
As a consequence of his incorporation
of philosophy into Judaism, it developed into a major mainstream component
which later actually defined all future movements within the rabbinic world. He
was the first rabbi to systematically introduce and endorse the concept of a philosophical
system running side by side with traditional rabbinic thought.
He is also said
to be the father of the Jewish Kalam, a movement which Rambam was
later to refer to as the Mutakallimun. (A term perhaps comprising
Mutazila and Kalaam?)
It must be pointed out, however, that R. Saadia Gaon did not
totally embrace all of the Islamic Kalam. He omitted certain aspects
which he felt were incompatible with Jewish thinking.[10]
In fairness, according to some, it is not clear as to
whether one can define R. Saadia Gaon as exclusively being a rationalist. He
may have simultaneously had mystical leanings. This appears to be evidenced by
the very different styles of his two main theological works, haEmunot ve’haDeot
(i.e. his ‘rational’ thinking) and his Arabic translation of and commentary on
Sefer Yetzirah (i.e. his ‘mystical’ teachings).[11]
Perhaps because of his rational views, R. Saadia Gaon
experienced a substantial amount of opposition. Some went so far as to question
his Jewish credentials. They attacked the fact that ‘Saadia’ is not a Jewish or
Hebrew name. Historically he does appear to be the first Jew to go by the name ‘Saadia‘,
which some of his opponents assumed was a corruption of the Arabic name Sa’id.
Taking his innovative adoption of Kalamic philosophy into consideration,
one can understand the innuendo.[12]
Yet despite the opposition, the Kalamic ideas were
generally fresh and exciting to many within the religious world who felt
weighed down by the intricacies of ritual and were looking for meaning. This is
why the Kalam had so much appeal among Jewish theological thinkers at
the time (whom, besides R. Saadia Gaon, included other leaders like R. Hai Gaon[13]
and his father-in-law R. Shmuel ben Hofni who was the last Gaon of Sura).
RAMBAM (1204-1135):
Rambam gives a rather comprehensive description of this
period of history when he recorded how philosophy entered Judaism as a result
of Islamic influences.
Rambam wrote:
“Regarding that measly bit of argument (of
kalamic thought)...which you will find in the writings of some Gaonim and
Karaites, which they adopted from the Mutakallimun of Islam, this is no where
even as profound as the original, when compared to what Islam has compiled on
the subject.
Furthermore, Islam was the first to walk this path, owing
to a certain sect, the Mutazila, from whom our co-religionists took over their
ideas...when they walked upon the road the Mutazila had taken.”[14]
Thus Rambam is clearly not very complimentary of R. Saadia (nor
of the other Gaonim) who introduced the Kalam to Judaism in the first
instance. Nor is he happy about the ‘unsophisticated’ manner in which the
Gaonim allowed the Islamic sect of Mutazila to have such influence over
Judaism.
Kalamic philosophy posits that creation of the
universe by G-d is ‘logical’ and ‘obvious’. This was ‘unsophisticated’
thinking, according to Rambam, who as a rationalist par excellence insisted
that creation was ‘far from obvious’ and probably not ever susceptible
to proof in a scientific sense.
Rambam goes on to present the 12 basic principles of the Kalam.
Some of these may be of interest to a modern reader:
“The world is composed of small particles which are not
divisible...
There exist certain spaces which are devoid of all
substance and material (a vacuum)...
Time is made up of fundamental instants which are not
divisible...
Every entity is (and even atoms are) subject to
accidents...
Any state of affairs which can be imagined, is admissible
in intellectual argument...”[15]
Surprisingly, but possibly because of its mystical
connotations, the concept of the soul is glaringly absent from much of kalamic
thought.
Rambam then makes a fascinating observation:
“After a certain time another sect arose in Islam, namely
the Ashariyya, who espoused other opinions. You will not find any of these
latter opinions among our co-religionists. This was not because they preferred
the first opinions (of the Mutazila) over the others (the Ashariyya), but
simply because the views of the former had already become entrenched (within
Judaism).”[16]
Here Rambam clearly bemoans the fact that so much of Jewish
thought was predisposed by the Mutazila to the extent that its teachings had
become entrenched and its influence irreversible.
[As an aside, this distinction of Islamic sects has led some
to suggest that had Islam followed the more rational path of Mutazila instead
of the more mystical approach of Ashariyya, it may have evolved along an
entirely different path to the one it finds itself on today.[17]
Some even suggest that Mutazila was the ‘wasted opportunity of Islam’
and that had the rational approach become the dominant theology, the Muslim
world may have led the industrial revolution instead of Europe.
Reason and free
will were central to Mutazila thought, whereas Ashariyya adopted a more mystical
and fatalistic approach, claiming that everything came from G-d and leaving
little place for human innovation. Historically the Ashariyya sect survived the
test of history, because it is said that the Abbasid Caliphate would rather
have had obedient and conforming citizens, instead of rationalists who would be
more prone to questioning their thinking and authority.[18]]
From the Jewish perspective, the influence of Kalamic
thought also waned. This was partly due to the fact that most of its writings
were in Arabic and did not get translated into Hebrew. With the passage of time
it was the mystical approach that similarly proved to resonate more with the
masses. By then the general concept of Jewish philosophy was most likely
already firmly implanted within the psyche of the Jewish people and it blended
naturally with Kabbalistic philosophy.[19]
RECENT DISCOVERIES SUPPORT RAMBAM’S THEORY ON ORIGINS OF
JEWISH PHILOSOPHY:
Besides our source in Rambam, perhaps much of what we have discussed
might have gone by undetected. We may have been led to believe that Jewish
Philosophy ‘always existed’ - had it not been for some recent discoveries.
With access to various libraries of the former Soviet Union,
we are now able to study old manuscripts which were hitherto inaccessible. One
such collection of manuscripts is known as the Firkovich collection. It
contains many hundreds of Mutazilite manuscripts, written in Arabic with Hebrew
characters (Judeo-Arabic) which Jews had copied and obviously studied. This
supports the thesis of Rambam, that Islamic rationalists exerted widespread
influence upon the Jews at that time.
Another source of this information, previously unknown to Ashkenazi
scholars, was found in old Yemenite manuscripts which were only discovered in Yemen
the 1950’s. These also attest to the strong influence of Mutazila thought
informing early Jewish philosophy. See KOTZK
BLOG 91.
ANALYSIS:
Today, most committed Jews are clearly defined by their philosophical
approach, or hashkafa, to Torah. It is not uncommon to believe that
one’s particular hashkafa is superior to the hashkafa of another.
Sometimes we even maintain that the other’s hashkafa is theologically ‘incorrect’.
While the impact, influence and dominating importance of hashkafa
is indisputable in today’s Torah world, the question begs:
From a purely historical and academic perspective (in other
words I’m not suggesting we abandon Chassidus and Mussar etc.) - how
essentially and authentically critical is Jewish philosophy to fundamental Judaism
- considering that we managed without it through the entire Biblical, Talmudic and
Savoraic periods – and furthermore, considering its non-Jewish origins?
Should not the obvious need for hashkafa be to augment
Judaism rather than define its very essence?
Or, lest one argue that today hashkafa is such an integral
part of our mesorah and tradition, these words of Rav Kook may better resonate:
“The
halacha (legal aspects of Judaism) and the aggadah (non-legal or theological
aspects) must be united....The fact that one who concerns himself with halacha
feels he has entered a different world when he enters the realm of aggadah and
vice versa, destroys much of the spiritual stimulation that is inspired by the
peace of mind that comes from (their) inner unity.”[20]
REFERENCES:
The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, by
Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Learman.
The Jewish Kalam, by Harry A. Wolfson.
A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy, by Isaac Husik
(1916).
Guide for the Perplexed, Rambam.
Saadia Gaon: The Double Path of the Mystic and the Rationalist,
by Gyongyi (Ginger) Hegedus.
Saadya and the Jewish Kalam, by Sarah
Stroumsa.
[1]
From a brief on: The Philosophy of the Talmud, by Hyam Maccoby
[2] See
Must a Jew Believe Anything, Menachen Kellner, p. 18. [Parenthesis mine.]
[3]
See Philo as a Biblical Commentator, by R. Michael Leo Samuel.
[4]
Some Jewish scholars questioned whether or not Philo even knew Hebrew as he
based his work on the Greek translation of the Torah (which occurred in 250 BCE).
He also did not quote from Ezekiel, Daniel, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes or
Ester, which raises the question as to how much of the biblical canon was
available (to him?) at that time. Yet he did believe that everything in the
Torah has a divine origin including the letters and accents. He also taught
that the literal meaning of the Torah is generally accurate (although he had
questions about the creation story), but that there also was an additional and deeper
allegorical meaning attached to the literal text as well. Based on the biblical
verse ‘male and female He created them’, Philo proposed that both women and men
should be afforded equal rights.
[5]
According to psychologist Kevin Furman: “Perhaps the Jewish idea is not to
avoid philosophy per se but to avoid a systematic construct which is thereby no
longer fluid, dynamic and mindful of the infinite.”
[6]
The Jewish Kalam, by Harry A. Wolfson, The Jewish Quarterly Review Vol. 57, pp. 544-573 [Parenthesis mine.]
[7]
Ibn Ezra refers to R. Saadia Gaon as the ‘first and foremost among speakers
(medaberim) everywhere’
[8]
See A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy, by Isaac Husik 1916, p. 25
[9]
See Menachem Kellner ibid. p. 49 [Parenthesis mine.]
[10]
He omitted ideas like emanationism and atomism, see Saadia Gaon: The Double
Path of the Mystic and the Rationalist, by Gyongyi (Ginger)
Hegedus.
[11]
“According to Saadya the human mind has the inherent potential to ‘see’ reality
in more than one way: by perception, or by imagination and revelation.” See
ibid. p. 228. R. Saadia Gaon was also the first to translate the Torah into
Arabic, with commentary, and interestingly it remains the authoritative Arabic
Bible to this day.
[12]
This type of rhetoric was perpetuated by his antagonist R. Aaron ben Meir, also
a Gaon, with whom he disputed about the calculation of the new moon. Had Ben
Meir got his way the Jews in Israel and Babylonia would have experienced a two
day difference in their dates for the Passover holiday. See Sefer haMoadim by R. Saadia in which he
refutes Ben Meir. This ‘victory’ over Ben Meir got him to be the first outsider
to be appointed as Gaon, as prior to this event, the Gaonim were all chosen
from 5 or 6 noble families who claimed to have descended from David.
[13]
Rav Hai Gaon received numerous questions on the validity of influence by
Matazilite teachings on Jewish thinking. His ‘endorsement’ of aspects of the Jewish
Kalam is evident in his responsa literature.
[14]
Rambam, Guide to the Perplexed, Book 1, ch. 73-76.
[15]
Guide for the Perplexed, Book 1 ch. 73
[16]
Ibid.
[17] “It (Ashariyya)
had its origin in the reaction against the excessive rationalism of the
Mu'tazila. Its members insisted that reason must be subordinate to revelation.
The Mu'tazila - literally 'those who withdraw themselves' - movement was
founded... in the...eighth century. Its members were united in their conviction
that it was necessary to give a rationally coherent account of Islamic
beliefs... they generally held to five theological principles, of which the two
most important were the unity of God and divine justice...(They) deny that the...Qur'an
was eternal..(and)...assert the existence of free will. After the demise of the
Mu’tazila as a distinct movement, Mu’tazilite doctrine – by now regarded as
heretical by Sunnis – continued to be influential amongst Shi’ites in Persai
and the Zaydis in the Yemen.” (Paraphrase from Muslimphilosophy.co.)
[18]
However, see Ignaz Goldziher for a different perspective: “During the reign of
three Abbasid caliphs, when the Mutazilites were fortunate enough to have their
doctrines recognized as state dogma, those doctrines were urged by means of
inquisition, imprisonment, and terror...” This view shatters the notion of the
Mutazilites being ‘liberal and rational free thinkers’.
[19]
This last point is my own and I have no reference to substantiate it.
[20]
Orot, vol. 1, p. 25
........................................................
NOTES FOR FURTHER STUDY:
DEFINITIONS OF RATIONALISM AS IT RELATES
TO JUDAISM:
Is there space for rationalism within
Judaism - when as a spiritual quest it should be more concerned with revelation
instead?
“Common to all kalam schools is the
formulation of a system based on the dual basis of rationality and Scripture,
and the assumption that the two complement, rather than contradict, each other.”
-Saadya and the Jewish Kalam, by Sarah Stroumsa, p. 71
“According
to a romantically orthodox position, Judaism is an extra-rational religion,
because our sages deliver a divine message whose authority and meaning cannot
be gainsaid by any recognizable standard of rationality. According to a
sceptically postmodern position, Judaism is sub-rational, because it is
constituted by political, economic, and psycho-social phenomena that cannot be
reduced to ant set of rational principles.”
RAV KOOK ON OTHER RELIGIONS:
Rav Kook took great umbrage to those who
disparaged other religions. All religions, in his view, contained an authentic
“seeking after G-d and his ways in the world.”
He wrote:
“At a time such as this, we
must clarify the common elements of all religion...and not be afraid of the
customary disdain and deep hostility that lurks in the soul against everything
alien”[1]
Regarding the animosity often demonstrated
between Jews, Christians and Moslems, Rav Kook wrote:
“The brotherly love of
Esau (Christian) and Jacob (Jew), and of Isaac and Ishmael (Moslem), will rise
up above the confusions fostered by the evil emanating from our creaturely
character...and turn them to light...”[2]
He said: ‘There is a holiness that
builds and a holiness that destroys...One whose spirit cannot reach out
to wide horizons...finds shelter in naturally formed structures, like rabbits
who find shelter in the rocks.”[3]
No comments:
Post a Comment