MAIMONIDES in the EXEGETICAL CONSTELLATION As Is Often The

CONCLUSION MAIMONIDES IN THE EXEGETICAL CONSTELLATION As is often the case in scholarly inquiry, the resolution of a particular dilemma has helped to illuminate a broader spectrum of issues. This study was driven primarily by the need to solve a conundrum posed to us by our examination of Maimonides: in his Book of the Command- ments he professes adherence to peshuto shel miqra, seemingly linking him to the Andalusian philological exegetical school; yet his halakhic exegesis diverges from its principles, and he even “devalues” Scrip- ture’s literal sense (ẓāhir) when laying out his biblical hermeneutics in The Guide of the Perplexed. This dilemma made it necessary to develop a precise account of Maimonides’ biblical interpretation, one that con- strues it as multifaceted. Armed with this account, we developed a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the peshat revolution in his Geonic-Andalusian interpretive heritage and the parallel development in the northern French peshat school. At this point we can appropriately bring this study to a close by charting Maimonides’ place in the constellation of the great medieval Jewish exegetes. Apart from disentangling the notions of ẓāhir al-naṣṣ and peshuto shel miqra, which are related in complex ways, this investigation has revealed multiple interpretive models constructed by the medieval exegetes on the basis of the talmudic rule that “a biblical verse does not leave the realm of its peshat.” When viewed in broad brushstrokes and from a later perspective of the thirteenth century and onward—for example, the exegetical work of David Kimhi and Moses Nahmanides, who were already largely disconnected linguistically from the Judeo- Arabic heritage—the definition ofpeshuto shel miqra emerges rather uniformly as a philological reading of Scripture that co-exists with the non-philological interpretive traditions of the Midrash.1 But in the exegetical revolution of the tenth through twelfth centuries, a variety of 1 Although the peshat method continued to develop after the twelfth century (Kimhi, e.g., incorporating midrashic values and Nahmanides a kabbalistic dimension; see Cohen, “Qimhi,” 396–415; idem, Three Approaches, 295–331; Wolfson, “Truth,” 103– 153; see also below, n. 3), the rule of peshat and the term peshat itself were not recast 484 conclusion peshat models were advanced by exegetes such as Saadia, Samuel ben Hofni, Ibn Janah and Abraham Ibn Ezra in the Geonic-Andalusian tradition, and Rashi, Joseph Qara and Rashbam in northern France. At first glance, Maimonides appears unconnected to this impor- tant exegetical movement. This is only partly because he did not write running biblical commentaries.2 Ostensibly, what sets him apart more fundamentally is his overt tendency to recruit extra-biblical disciplines—logic, science, philosophy, talmudic law, etc.—to interpret the Bible. While capable of ascertaining ẓāhir al-naṣṣ, he does not view that as the ultimate goal of Bible interpretation, expressing contempt for those who limit themselves to a mere “explanation of the words” (sharḥ al-alfaẓ). Yet, it has become clear through the course of this study that the great medieval pashtanim likewise interpreted Scripture creatively within a nexus of other disciplines—including linguistics, logic, poetics, history, halakhah, science, philosophy and theology. Saadia, the father of the Geonic-Andalusian school, emphasized the need to harmonize Scripture with reason—which, for him, included science and philosophy—and the traditions of the Rabbis. Recent scholarship has brought into sharp relief the impact of various disciplines on the subsequent Andalusian peshat tradition, for example, by illuminating Ibn Janah’s extensive use of Arabic linguistics, Moses Ibn Ezra’s reliance on Arabic poetics and Abraham Ibn Ezra’s incorpora- tion of neo-Platonic thought and science—which included astrology in his conception—into his peshat exegesis.3 All of this suggests that the medieval dedication to peshat ought not be viewed as a pure scriptur- alism resembling the Sola Scriptura doctrine of the Protestant Refor- mation in the sixteenth century. Although Joseph Qara comes close to expressing such a doctrine in speaking of Scripture’s self-sufficiency, recent scholarship reveals that even his peshat model was complex and incorporated midrashic and polemical elements.4 Moreover, his fundamentally. Nahmanides’ construal of the peshat principle, for instance, combines elements from Ibn Janah and Maimonides; see chapter seven, sec. 6, above. 2 This, by itself, would not be an exclusionary factor. Ibn Janah, for example, was one of the most influential figures in the Andalusianpeshat movement, though he evidently did not write biblical commentaries per se. See Perez, “Vestige,” 283–284. 3 See references in the introduction, sec. 1 above. This tendency in Araham Ibn Ezra (which includes mystical, supernatural elements), in turn, can be seen as paving the way for Nahmanides to infuse Kabbalah into his exegetical system—as an integral part of his peshat project—two generations later; see Halbertal, Concealment, 34–48; 83–92; Berger, “Miracles,” 112. 4 See Grossman, France, 288–316; see also chapter three, n. 164 above..

Load more