Jewish theology versus Jewish thought
I’m starting a new thread here because the discussion in your column about Rabbi Inbal’s response may be confusing.
Here, you made a distinction there between Jewish thought (which in your opinion is an empty concept) and philosophy that describes and explains the principles of Judaism. As I understand it, what makes Jewish thought unique in your view and that philosophy lacks is the normative, binding issue. I will put aside for now the difficulty I think there is in this description and ask something else. What is the difference in your view between Jewish thought and Jewish theology? For example, do some followers of Jewish thought analyze the question of the creation of the world differently than those who come from Jewish theology?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You say here that there is no difference between Jewish thought and Jewish theology, but in a column responding to Rabbi Inbal, you distinguish between the two and say that the first does not exist and the second does… (even if it exists in a “thin”, concrete and non-binding form). You have an internal contradiction.
Secondly, it seems to me that you are arguing against Jewish thought – which does not exist according to your view… – that it cannot be binding. You may be right, but why is that interesting? What do we care about the normative status of its claims? What is interesting is whether or not true claims are made within its framework.
Isn't that so?
My argument is against the field known as ‘Israeli thought’, which is usually included in Torah study. It claims the Torah scripture and demands a similar attitude to the study of other fields included in the Torah (such as Halacha). I have no problem with those who want to study the thought of Maimonides or the Khazari, and even if they call it ‘Israeli thought’ as an academic discipline. Although it is usually worthless things in my opinion, it is possible to define such a field. ‘Jewish theology’, if you want to define such a concept, is simply the correct theology. In this sense, it is also Christian and Hindu theology. It can exist. To the extent that it exists, it is also true for every gentile and can be drawn from the writings of every gentile.
Forgive me, but I have understood all these years (and this is also reflected in the last column on Rabbi Inbal) that in your opinion, “there is no such animal” (Jewish thought). That's it, sharp and sweeping.
Now it seems to me that you are saying something different, although you qualify your statement.
It seems to me that this ambivalence of yours plays into the hands of people like Inbal.
Do you agree that there is a problem here and that is why people like Inbal attack your view?
So you misunderstood. Now I have explained my intention. I cannot and do not want to deny facts. There is such a field of academic research and there is such a field of occupation.
Therefore, I do not agree that there is a problem here, and I do not see what plays into Inbal's hands here.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
