Q&A: Jewish Theology versus Jewish Thought
Jewish Theology versus Jewish Thought
Question
I’m opening a new thread here because the discussion in the framework of your column about Rabbi Inbal’s response could be confusing.
In any case, there you drew a distinction between Jewish thought (which in your view is an empty concept) and philosophy that describes and explains the principles of Judaism. As I understand it, what uniquely characterizes Jewish thought in your approach, and what philosophy does not have, is the binding normative element. For the moment I’m setting aside what seems to me to be a difficulty with that description, and I want to ask something else: in your view, what is the difference between Jewish thought and Jewish theology? For example, do adherents of Jewish thought analyze the question of the creation of the world differently from someone approaching it from Jewish theology?
Answer
There have been discussions here in the past, and of course also in the second book of the trilogy. See, for example, Column 275. There is no difference between Jewish thought and Jewish theology. You can conduct a conceptual inquiry into concepts related to Jewish faith. What is Judaism? What is revelation? What is providence? What is a chosen people? If you want to call that Jewish thought, fine by me. Every claim in these areas is the product of the thinker’s own mind, and usually this is just contentless, baseless verbiage.
The one area in which I am willing to accept such a definition is the thought of Jewish law. That is similar to philosophy of science.
Discussion on Answer
My claim is against the field called ‘Jewish thought,’ which is usually included under Torah study. It claims the status of Torah writings and demands an attitude similar to the attitude toward studying other fields included in Torah (such as Jewish law). I have no problem with people who want to study Maimonides’ thought or the Kuzari, even if they call it ‘Jewish thought’ as an academic discipline. Although usually, in my opinion, this consists of things that are worthless, such a field can be defined.
‘Jewish theology,’ if you want to define such a concept, is simply the correct theology. In that sense it is also Christian theology and Hindu theology. That can exist. To the extent that it exists, it is true for every non-Jew as well and can be drawn from the writings of any non-Jew.
Pardon me, but all these years I understood (and that is also reflected in the latest column about Rabbi Inbal) that in your opinion “there’s no such thing” as Jewish thought. Just like that, flatly and sweepingly.
Now it seems to me that you’re saying something else, even if you qualify your statement.
It seems to me that this ambivalence of yours actually plays into the hands of people like Inbal.
Do you agree that there is a problem here, and that this is why people like Inbal attack your outlook?
Then you didn’t understand correctly. I’ve now explained what I meant. I cannot and do not want to deny facts. There is such an academic field of research, and there is such an area of activity.
So I do not agree that there is a problem here, and I do not see how this plays into Inbal’s hands.
You say here that there is no difference between Jewish thought and Jewish theology, but in the response column to Rabbi Inbal you distinguish between the two and say that the first doesn’t exist and the second does… (even if it exists in a “thin,” concrete, and non-binding format). You have an internal contradiction.
Second, it seems to me that your claim against Jewish thought—which according to you does not exist—is that it cannot be binding. Maybe you’re right, but why is that interesting? Why should we care about the normative status of its claims? What is interesting is whether within that framework true claims are being made or not.
Isn’t that so?