An Alternative Approach to Maimonides’ Contradictions

Abstract

A contrast between an external meaning and inner profundities is a central assumption of much scholarship about medieval Jewish thinkers, and about Maimonides in particular. His introduction to The Guide for the Perplexed is the locus classics often cited in support of what has become known as“esoteric” readings of medieval philosophy. It contains unusual instructions for how to read the Guide. Among them is a warning to be on the lookout for inconsistencies that the author deliberately builds into the text. These contradictions have been invoked in order to support an enormous variety of interpretations, from those that see Maimonides as a mystic to those who consider him a skeptic, and many others besides. Most of these approaches purport to be revealing Maimonides’“true belief” about some theological or philosophical doctrines and claim that it is hidden beneath an orthodox veneer that is more acceptable to the masses. In contrast, those who claim that Maimonides was sincere when he argued for the positions that he explicitly defends tend either to ignore the contradictions or to play down their peculiarity by likening them to writing styles used by other philosophers. In this paper, I argue that while the inconsistencies in question are an important aspect of his esoteric techniques, they are not connected with a hidden philosophical opinion, nor do they arise from his dialectical method of writing. Instead, they are among the strategies that Maimonides uses to explain some particularly obscure biblical passages. Maimonides' “real opinion” need not be conflated with what he conceals when he employs contradictions. It is therefore possible both to respect Maimonides’ own declaration to be writing esoterically by carrying out discussions that are inconsistent with each other and also to take his philosophical and theological arguments at face value. Doing so allows the reader to approach the Guide in ways akin to those generally used to clarify and explain similarly great philosophical works and, thereby, to appreciate the originality of its arguments without devaluing their acuity.