Jewish dogma after Maimonides: semantics or substance?
The medieval Jewish discussion of dogma is generally understood as a debate about definitions and hierarchy: what exactly is an “obligatory belief” and what does that status entail, which specific ideas qualify as such, and how do various dogmas relate to each other in terms of their dependencies or...
| Published in: | Hebrew Union College annual |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
HUC
2016
|
| In: |
Hebrew Union College annual
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Judaism
/ Middle Ages
|
| IxTheo Classification: | BH Judaism TE Middle Ages |
| Further subjects: | B
Maimonides, Moses (1135-1204)
B Doctrine B Philosophy |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The medieval Jewish discussion of dogma is generally understood as a debate about definitions and hierarchy: what exactly is an “obligatory belief” and what does that status entail, which specific ideas qualify as such, and how do various dogmas relate to each other in terms of their dependencies or inner groupings? Modern scholars and traditional students of the literature share this conception of the debate, and thus reduce the medieval argument about dogma to the level of semantics. It is not a substantive debate about the very nature of the Torah, but rather a discussion of secondary significance about how to best describe a shared conception of the Torah. In this view, systems of dogma are about nothing more than the taxonomy of belief. Such an attitude assumes that Maimonides' famous list of the “thirteen foundations of the Torah” reflects a conservative stance (regardless of his wider agenda). This paper argues, to the contrary, that his dogma is best read in context as a natural reflection of radical formulations found in his pre-Guide rabbinic writings. It further argues that the great Iberian critics of Maimonidean dogma understood it in exactly this way and rejected it as such, offering meaningful alternatives in its place. They designed their alternative systems to reflect their views about the nature and substance of the Torah, not just to address the semantics of dogma. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.15650/hebruniocollannu.86.2015.0195 |