Studies in Judaism 25

Studies in Judaism 25

Of authors living in other countries, I have to mention here R. Shemariah,

of Crete, who flourished at about the same time as R. David d'Estella, and

is known from his efforts to reconcile the Caraites with the Rabbanites.

This author wrote a book for the purpose of furnishing Jewish students

with evidence for what he considered the five fundamental teachings of

Judaism, viz.: 1. The Existence of God; 2. The Incorporeality of God; 3.

His Absolute Unity; 4. That God created heaven and earth; 5. That God

created the world after His will 5106 years ago--5106 (1346 A.C.), being

the year in which Shemariah wrote these words.(124)

 

In Portugal, at about the same time, we find R. David ben Yom-Tob Bilia

adding to the articles of Maimonides thirteen of his own, which he calls

the "Fundamentals of the Thinking Man." Five of these articles relate to

the functions of the human soul, that, according to him, emanated from

God, and to the way in which this divine soul receives its punishment and

reward. The other eight articles are as follows: 1. The belief in the

existence of spiritual beings--angels; 2. _Creatio ex nihilo_; 3. The

belief in the existence of another world, and that this other world is

only a spiritual one; 4. The Torah is above philosophy; 5. The Torah has

an outward (literal) meaning and an inward (allegorical) meaning; 6. The

text of the Torah is not subject to any emendation; 7. The reward of a

good action is the good work itself, and the doer must not expect any

other reward; 8. It is only by the "commands relating to the heart," for

instance, the belief in one eternal God, the loving and fearing Him, and

not through good actions, that man attains the highest degree of

perfection.(125) Perhaps it would be suitable to mention here another

contemporaneous writer, who also enumerates twenty-six articles. The name

of this writer is unknown, and his articles are only gathered from

quotations by later authors. It would seem from these quotations that the

articles of this unknown author consisted mostly of statements emphasising

the belief in the attributes of God: as, His Eternity, His Wisdom and

Omnipotence, and the like.(126)

 

More important for our subject are the productions of the fifteenth

century, especially those of Spanish authors. The fifteen articles of R.

Lipman Muhlhausen, in the preface to his well-known _Book of Victory_(127)

(1410), differ but slightly from those of Maimonides. In accordance with

the anti-Christian tendency of his polemical book, he lays more stress on

the two articles of Unity and Incorporeality, and makes of them four. We

can therefore dismiss him with this short remark, and pass at once to the

Spanish Rabbis.

 

The first of these is R. Chasdai Ibn Crescas, who composed his famous

treatise, _The Light of God_, about 1405. Chasdai's book is well known for

its attacks on Aristotle, and also for its influence on Spinoza. But

Chasdai deals also with Maimonides' Thirteen Articles, to which he was

very strongly opposed. Already in his preface he attacks Maimonides for

speaking, in his _Book of the Commandments_, of the belief in the

existence of God as an "affirmative precept." Chasdai thinks it absurd;

for every commandment must be dictated by some authority, but on whose

authority can we dictate the acceptance of this authority? His general

objection to the Thirteen Articles is that Maimonides confounded dogmas or

_fundamental beliefs_ of Judaism, without which Judaism is inconceivable,

with beliefs or _doctrines_ which Judaism inculcates, but the denial of

which, though involving a strong heresy, does not make Judaism impossible.

He maintains that if Maimonides meant only to count fundamental teachings,

there are not more than seven; but that if he intended also to include

doctrines, he ought to have enumerated sixteen. As beliefs of the first

class--namely, fundamental beliefs--he considers the following articles: 1.

God's knowledge of our actions; 2. Providence; 3. God's omnipotence--even

to act against the laws of nature; 4. Prophecy; 5. Free will; 6. The aim

of the Torah is to make man long after the closest communion with God. The

belief in the existence of God, Chasdai thinks, is an axiom with which

every religion must begin, and he is therefore uncertain whether to

include it as a dogma or not. As to the doctrines which every Jew is bound

to believe, but without which Judaism is not impossible, Chasdai divides

them into two sections: (_a_) 1. _Creatio ex nihilo_; 2. Immortality of

the soul; 3. Reward and Punishment; 4. Resurrection of the dead; 5.

Immutability of the Torah; 6. Superiority of the prophecy of Moses; 7.

That the High Priest received from God the instructions sought for, when

he put his questions through the medium of the Urim and Thummim; 8. The

coming of the Messiah. (_b_) Doctrines which are expressed by certain

religious ceremonies, and on belief in which these ceremonies are

conditioned: 1. The belief in the efficacy of prayer--as well as in the

power of the benediction of the priests to convey to us the blessing of

God; 2. God is merciful to the penitent; 3. Certain days in the year--for

instance, the Day of Atonement--are especially qualified to bring us near

to God, if we keep them in the way we are commanded. That Chasdai is a

little arbitrary in the choice of his "doctrines," I need hardly say.

Indeed, Chasdai's importance for the dogma-question consists more in his

critical suggestions than in his positive results. He was, as we have

seen, the first to make the distinction between fundamental teachings

which form the basis of Judaism, and those other simple Jewish doctrines

without which Judaism is not impossible. Very daring is his remark, when

proving that Reward and Punishment, Immortality of the soul, and

Resurrection of the dead must not be considered as the basis of Judaism,

since the highest ideal of religion is to serve God without any hope of

reward. Even more daring are his words concerning the Immutability of the

Law. He says: "Some have argued that, since God is perfection, so must

also His law be perfect, and thus unsusceptible of improvement." But he

does not think this argument conclusive, though the fact in itself (the

Immutability of the Law) is true. For one might answer that this

perfection of the Torah could only be in accordance with the intelligence

of those for whom it was meant; but as soon as the recipients of the Torah

have advanced to a higher state of perfection, the Torah must also be

altered to suit their advanced intelligence. A pupil of Chasdai

illustrates the words of his master by a medical parallel. The physician

has to adapt his medicaments to the various stages through which his

patient has to pass. That he changes his prescription does not, however,

imply that his medical knowledge is imperfect, or that his earlier

remedies were ignorantly chosen; the varying condition of the invalid was

the cause of the variation in the doctor's treatment. Similarly, were not

the Immutability of the Torah a "doctrine," one might maintain that the

perfection of the Torah would not be inconsistent with the assumption that

it was susceptible of modification, in accordance with our changing and

progressive circumstances. But all these arguments are purely of a

theoretic character; for, practically, every Jew, according to Chasdai,

has to accept all these beliefs, whether he terms them fundamental

teachings or only Jewish doctrines.(128)

 

Some years later, though he finished his work in the same year as Chasdai,

R. Simeon Duran (1366-1444,) a younger contemporary of the former, made

his researches on dogmas. His studies on this subject form a kind of

introduction to his commentary on Job, which he finished in the year 1405.

Duran is not so strongly opposed to the Thirteen Articles as Chasdai, or

as another "thinker of our people," who thought them an arbitrary

imitation of the thirteen attributes of God. Duran tries to justify

Maimonides; but nevertheless he agrees with "earlier authorities," who

formulated the Jewish creed in Three Articles--The Existence of God,

Revelation, and Reward and Punishment--under which Duran thinks the

Thirteen Articles of Maimonides may be easily classed. Most interesting

are his remarks concerning the validity of dogmas. He tells us that only

those are to be considered as heretics who abide by their own opinions,

though they know that they are contradictory to the views of the Torah.

Those who accept the fundamental teachings of Judaism, but are led by

their deep studies and earnest reflection to differ in details from the

opinions current among their co-religionists, and explain certain passages

in the scripture in their own way, must by no means be considered as

heretics. We must, therefore, Duran proceeds to say, not blame such men as

Maimonides, who gave an allegorical interpretation to certain passages in

the Bible about miracles, or R. Levi ben Gershom, who followed certain un-

Jewish views in relation to the belief in _Creatio ex nihilo_. Only the

views are condemnable, not those who cherish them. God forbid, says Duran,

that such a thing should happen in Israel as to condemn honest inquirers

on account of their differing opinions. It would be interesting to know of

how many divines as tolerant as this persecuted Jew the fifteenth century

can boast.(129)

 

We can now pass to a more popular but less original writer on our theme. I

refer to R. Joseph Albo, the author of the _Roots_,(130) who was the pupil

of Chasdai, a younger contemporary of Duran, and wrote at a much later

period than these authors. Graetz has justly denied him much originality.

The chief merit of Albo consists in popularising other people's thoughts,

though he does not always take care to mention their names. And the

student who is a little familiar with the contents of the _Roots_ will

easily find that Albo has taken his best ideas either from Chasdai or from

Duran. As it is of little consequence to us whether an article of faith is

called "stem," or "root," or "branch," there is scarcely anything fresh

left to quote in the name of Albo. The late Dr. Löw, of Szegedin, was

indeed right, when he answered an adversary who challenged him--"Who would

dare to declare me a heretic as long as I confess the Three Articles laid

down by Albo?" with the words "Albo himself." For, after all the subtle

distinctions Albo makes between different classes of dogmas, he declares

that every one who denies even the immutability of the Law or the coming

of the Messiah, which are, according to him, articles of minor importance,

is a heretic who will be excluded from the world to come. But there is one

point in his book which is worth noticing. It was suggested to him by

Maimonides, indeed; still Albo has the merit of having emphasised it as it

deserves. Among the articles which he calls "branches" Albo counts the

belief that the perfection of man, which leads to eternal life, can be

obtained by the fulfilling of _one_ commandment. But this command must, as

Maimonides points out, be done without any worldly regard, and only for

the love of God. When one considers how many platitudes are repeated year

by year by certain theologians on the subject of Jewish legalism, we

cannot lay enough stress on this article of Albo, and we ought to make it

better known than it has hitherto been.(131)

 

Though I cannot enter here into the enumeration of the Maimonists, I must

not leave unmentioned the name of R. Nissim ben Moses of Marseilles, the

first great Maimonist, who flourished about the end of the thirteenth

century, and was considered as one of the most enlightened thinkers of his

age.(132) Another great Maimonist deserving special attention is R.

Abraham ben Shem-Tob Bibago, who may perhaps be regarded as the most

prominent among those who undertook to defend Maimonides against the

attacks of Chasdai and others. Bibago wrote _The Path of Belief_(133) in

the second half of the fifteenth century, and was, as Dr. Steinschneider

aptly describes him, a _Denkgläubiger_. But, above all, he was a believing

Jew. When he was once asked, at the table of King John II., of Aragon, by

a Christian scholar, "Are you the Jewish philosopher?" he answered, "I am

a Jew who believes in the Law given to us by our teacher Moses, though I

have studied philosophy." Bibago was such a devoted admirer of Maimonides

that he could not tolerate any opposition to him. He speaks in one passage

of the prudent people of his time who, in desiring to be looked upon as

orthodox by the great mob, calumniated the Teacher (Maimonides), and

depreciated his merits. Bibago's book is very interesting, especially in

its controversial parts; but in respect to dogmas he is, as already said,

a Maimonist, and does not contribute any new point on our subject.

 

To return to the Anti-Maimonists of the second half of the fifteenth

century. As such may be considered R. Isaac Aramah, who speaks of three

foundations of religion: _Creatio ex nihilo_, Revelation (?), and the

belief in a world to come.(134) Next to be mentioned is R. Joseph Jabez,

who also accepts only three articles: _Creatio ex nihilo_, Individual Providence, and the Unity of God.(135) Under these three heads he tries to classify the Thirteen Articles of Maimonides.