532) Dialogues of vision: How we view Maimonides and how he might view us (Part II)

 

Secrets of the Guide by Dr Micha Goodman

How Maimonides might view us

Introduction

Part I examined the reception of Maimonidean thought in rabbinic Judaism. Part II now turns the focus on its head and examines, theoretically, how Maimonides might view contemporary Judaism as we know it. 

We begin with an overview of the essence of Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) in an attempt to understand what it means by ‘secrets.’ 

‘Secrets’

There are two bodies of knowledge that Maimonides describes as Maaseh Bereishit and Maaseh Merkavah, which together form the Pardes (Orchard of esoteric wisdom) into which the four sages entered (b. Chagiga 14b). This knowledge (yeda), he maintains, once existed among the prophets and sages until a tragedy occurred, and that knowledge was lost. Maimonides understands a real prophet as—not someone who experiences visions—but rather as a composite of perfected intellect, ethics and ability to imagine (Goodman 2015:39). Maimonides believed that the greatest loss to Judaism was not the destruction of the Temple or its rituals, but the loss of knowledge. Maimonides (Introduction to Moreh Nevuchim, section 3) writes that he managed to re-establish the hidden secret that our Masoret (Tradition) had lost. He did this, not through revelation or prophecy but through the capacity of the mind. 

531) Dialogues of Vision: How we view Maimonides and how he might view us (Part I)

R. Yihye Kafich (1850-1931), leader of the rationalist Yemenite group Dardaim.

Introduction

This two-part series series—based extensively on the research by Professor Marc B. Shapiro and Dr Micha Goodman—engages in a dialogue of vision: Part I examines how we view Maimonides and the reception of Maimonidean thought in rabbinic Judaism, particularly over the past two and a half centuries. Although arguably the greatest Jewish thinker, the rabbinic world has always had an ambivalent relationship with Maimonides, beginning with centuries of opposition—known as the Maimonidean Controversies—to a partial acceptance of selected writings of Maimonides only in relatively recent times. Part II turns the focus on its head and examines, theoretically, how Maimonides might view contemporary Judaism as we know it. 

How we view Maimonides

Enlightenment

Shapiro(2023:168) explains that over the last two and a half centuries, rabbinic interest has been resurgent in Maimonides, ironically as a result of the rise of the Enlightenment movement in late eighteenth-century Germany. Faced with increasing engagement with Maimonides’ philosophical writings by the maskilim (secular members of the Enlightenment), the rabbis formulated different responses to a renewed problem that—although always there—had lain dormant for so long. 

530) Early textual layering in Zohar and Bahir as clues to their dating

Sefer haZohar, Cremona Edition (1559-1560)

 Introduction

This article—based extensively on the work by Professor Ronit Meroz—examines new evidence suggesting that the Zohar and Sefer haBahir may have originated in the Middle East, challenging the prevailing Spanish and Provencal origin theories. Sidestepping the controversies over who wrote the Zohar, it is historically evident that the text first appeared in material form around 1290 in Spain. This emergence led the majority of scholars to conclude that the Zohar was a creation of Spanish Kabbalists. Meroz's research, however, shifts the cultural milieu for the origins of this emerging Kabbalah, from Spanish and French Christian lands to Middle Eastern Muslim lands.

Gershom Scholem: Single authorship by Moshe de León in Spain

In the 1940s, Gershom Scholem ascribed the role of sole authorship of the Zohar to Moshe de León, based on similarities in Moshe de León’s writing style when compared to his other known books. This view remained the dominant scholarship for half a century. 

529) Avraham Ibn Daud: Maimonides’ unspoken mentor?

14th century copy of Avraham Ibn Daud's Sefer haKabbalah

Introduction

Is it possible that Maimonides (1138-1204) had an unspoken mentor who has been largely overlooked by history? This ‘mentor’ may have been the twelfth-century philosopher, translator, and historian Avraham Ibn Daud (c. 1110–1180). “[H]istory has been rather unkind” (Fontaine 2023:1) to Avraham Ibn Daud. Yet, it seems that Maimonides was not the first to engage with Arabic Aristotelian rationalists, because just decades before,  Avraham Ibn Daud emerged as the pioneering rabbinic thinker who made: 

“the first attempt to integrate the teachings of the Muslim Aristotelians into a Jewish philosophic theology” (Fontaine 2007-8:23). 

It must be noted that Avraham Ibn Daud passed away when Maimonides was about twenty-five years old, yet Maimonides is often (perhaps unfairly) credited as the first to have achieved this theological synthesis that changed the face of Judaism. 

528) Rationalism, Mysticism and Binitarianism

Introduction

It’s commonly assumed that Jewish belief in G-d has remained consistent throughout history. In truth, Jewish perceptions of the Divine have been strikingly diverse, shaped and reshaped across centuries, cultures, and theological currents. 

Many are familiar with the contrast between Maimonidean philosophical rationalism—rooted in Aristotelian thought—and the mystical worldview of Kabbalah which some maintain is rooted in Neoplatonic thought.[1] Yet there is a third, often overlooked theological strand with ancient roots: Jewish binitarianism. Emerging as early as Second Temple times, this approach suggests a dual structure within the Divine, typically involving a transcendent G-d and a mediating figure. Any serious discussion of Jewish theology must move beyond the binary of rationalism and mysticism to include this third, lesser-known but historically significant option. This discussion explores the theological tensions of the thirteenth century surrounding the nature and definition of G-d.