Maimonides on the Eternity of the World 41
face value.2 Though I belong to the camp of those who adopt an esoteric reading of Maimonides and maintain that he attempted to understand Judaism in light of Aristotelian thought—and did not seek to develop a position that took a middle course between the personal God of tradi-tion and the impersonal God of philosophy—I confess that it is hard to read Maimonides’ account of creation without feeling that he really means it. Why else would he go to such pains to defend this doctrine philosophically as well as on religious grounds? Moreover, Maimonides does not simply go through the motions of proving creation, but displays a great deal of philosophic ingenuity, and develops some solid philosophic arguments that improve upon those found in his sources, while still not abandoning the principles of Aristotelian physics to which he is committed. This is hardly the move we would expect of someone hinting at an esoteric position. The presentation of standard
2 The most important modern exponent of the esoteric reading of Maimonides is Leo Strauss; see his classic study “The Literary Character of The Guide of the Perplexed,”
in Essays on Maimonides, ed. Salo Baron (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941), 37-91 [reprinted in Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing (Glencoe: Free Press, 1952), 38-94]. For a survey of esoteric vs. exoteric readings of Maimonides’
thought, see in particular Aviezer Ravitzky, “The Secrets of the Guide of the Perplexed: Between the Thirteenth and the Twentieth Centuries,” in Studies in Maimonides, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 159-207. See also Howard Kreisel, “Moses Maimonides,” in History of Jewish Philosophy, ed. Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman (London: Routledge, 1997), 245-280. For some recent studies of Maimonides’ esotericism, see Sara Klein-Braslavy, King Solomon and Philosophical Esotericism in the Thought of Maimonides (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1996) (Heb.); Yair Loberbaum, “On Contradictions, Rationality, Dialectics and Esotericism in Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed,”
Metaphysics 55 (2002): 711-750; Aviezer Ravitzky, “Maimonides: Esotericism and Philosophical Education,” Daat 53 (2004): 43-62 (Heb.). For a study of this issue in medieval Jewish philosophy in general, see Moshe Halbertal, Concealment and Revelation: Esotericism in Jewish Thought and its Philosophical Implications (Princeton:
Princeton University Press 2007); Dov Schwartz, Contradiction and Concealment in Medieval Jewish Thought (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002) (Heb.). It should be noted that even among those scholars who favor an esoteric reading of Maimonides, not all of them agree that his motive was essentially political—that is to say, to hide certain truths from the masses. See also Warren Z. Harvey, “How Leo Strauss Paralyzed the Study of the Guide of the Perplexed in the 20th Century,”
Iyyun 50 (2001): 387-396 (Heb.). For a strident attack against the esoteric reading of Maimonides in general, see Herbert Davidson, Moses Maimonides: The Man and His Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 387-402.
Chapter Three 42
but weak philosophic arguments to rebut the stronger arguments of your opponent is indeed a possible way of subtly alluding to an esoteric position.3 However, that a strong philosophic argument should be interpreted as not seriously held by its author—such an interpretation appears to be the product of perverse thinking.
It is easy to see the motivation of some of the medieval interpreters in making such a move, such as Joseph Ibn Kaspi and Moses Narboni, who suggest that Maimonides in fact believed in the eternity of the world and develop an esoteric reading of his statements on this issue.4 The doctrine of eternity was philosophically more respectable, and in this manner they tried to show how Maimonides was in basic agree-ment with the Aristotelian position, as they themselves apparently were. The modern interpreter is no longer burdened with this consid-eration; the opposite is the case. Maimonides’ belief in creation, even creation ex nihilo, is more in keeping with contemporary science. Thus his stated position on this issue is the one that those interested in inter-preting tradition in light of science should take pains to defend.
Nevertheless, I would like to advance the claim that despite all the considerable evidence to the contrary—much of it brought in pains-taking detail by Kenneth Seeskin in his recent book, Maimonides on the Origin of the World5—Maimonides in fact secretly favored the belief in the eternity a parte ante of the world.6 The primary path I will adopt in arguing that Maimonides in essence accepts the position that he vociferously argues against is the textual one—a path long favored by
3 See Leo Strauss’s masterful discussion of methods for conveying secret teachings that oppose the prevailing orthodoxy in his Persecution and the Art of Writing, 22-37.
4 See Joseph Ibn Kaspi, Maskiyot Kesef, ed. Solomon Werblunger (Frankfurt A.M., 1848), 99-101; Moses Narboni, Be’ur le-Sefer Moreh Nevukhim, ed. Jacob Golden-thal (Vienna, 1852), 23b, 34a-b, 52a [both commentaries are reprinted in Sheloshah Qadmonei Mefarshei Ha-Moreh (Jerusalem, 1961)].
5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
6 I am not claiming that Maimonides was absolutely convinced of this position and that he thought that the philosophers had in fact presented a demonstrative argu-ment proving eternity. I am prepared to grant that Maimonides continued to entertain doubts on this issue. My claim is that he felt that the eternity of the world was the preferable position from a philosophic standpoint and was in all likelihood the esoteric position of Jewish tradition.
Maimonides on the Eternity of the World 43
the esotericists and most in keeping with Maimonides’ remarks in the introduction to his treatise.7 Comments Maimonides makes in passing often do not belong to the thrust of his argument in the context in which they appear and in fact clarify his opinion on issues he discusses elsewhere. Moreover, a close look at some of his comments reveals that they in fact undermine the gist of his argument and support the posi-tion he purportedly rejects. There is a midrashic quality to such reading—looking for the textual irregularities in the Maimonidean text and then offering an interpretation that seems to fly in the face of what the text literally states, or that reads much between the lines.8 While each of these readings taken individually are open to refutation, together they seem to support the view that there is an esoteric subtext to Maimonides’ treatise, which extends also to the issue of creation.