Why the Medieval Rabbis Were Not So Medieval

Why the Medieval Rabbis Were Not So Medieval                       www.derek4messiah

Medieval is sort of a bad word to many people. For me it never has been. Chalk it up to a childhood fascinated with Tolkien and Arthurian legend and the romantic side of the Middle Ages. The Renaissance festival was heaven for me.

Supposedly the Medieval period was a time of intellectual darkness, a scientific and literary famine.

The Christian literary critic, C.S. Lewis, didn’t think so. He wrote that modernism had degraded in many ways from the preferable models of medieval thought. And while I am not against progress or discovery (neither was Lewis), I’d have to say that much we have put our hope in for intellectual salvation has left us dry and hungry. It’s too bad we could not have retained some of the benefits of pre-modernism while gaining from discovery and knowledge in better ways.

It was with appreciation that I just finished reading Edward Greenstein’s article on “Medieval Bible Commentaries” in Barry Holtz’s Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts. He says:

The label “medieval” often connotes the cloistered and reactionary, but in Jewish literature, for which there is no “Dark Ages,” the Middle Ages symbolize a peak of scholarship, creativity, philosophy, and writing. Sectarian schisms within the Jewish fold and external pressure, mainly Christian persecution, had the effect of stimulating, not repressing, Jewish expression.

The Joys of Rashi, Ramban, Radak, and More
I discovered the power of the medieval exegetes when I purchased the Sapirstein Edition Rashi from Artscroll. My previous attempt to read Rashi was frustrating, because the supposedly simple Rashi, a man of few words, is in actuality complex. His comments come in a dialogue with earlier midrash and cannot be understood without the benefit of context. The year I spent in Rashi with the help of Artscroll scholars was one of discovery and joy.

I’m spending this year with Nachmanides, also known as the Ramban. I have the five-volume edition (no Bible text and no Hebrew original, but these are five thick volumes) by Shilo Publishing House. The Ramban is a man of many words.

I’ve found that the medieval exegetes teach me something every time I turn to them. I disagree with them much of the time, just as they disagreed with each other. And actually that was the greatest lesson: learning that Jewish tradition speaks with many voices and leaves much room for choice (a fact misrepresented to me by my exposure to the Orthodox way of thinking I encountered early in my studies).

You might not think that turning the rabbis from the Dark Ages would help, but I learned how much there is to learn from reading those I now regard as masters and I as the pupil.

Peshat and Derash: Islam and the Emergence of Peshat
The subject of peshat and derash, plain meaning and derived meaning, is worthy of an entire post, so I will only briefly explain what they are here. More importantly for this post, I want to share Greenstein’s historical insight into the reasons for the intellectual sharpness of these medieval rabbis.

There were a number of trends in Europe, in Judaism, and in the Islamic world which moved the rabbis toward new ways of viewing the Bible.

Greenstein explains that Islam brought with it a new emphasis on scripture or sacred text, being for Muslims, of course, the Koran. The use of classical philosophy, especially Aristotle, by Arabic theologians, brought an intensity of rational thought about sacred texts and linguistics which challenged the Jewish scholars.

The common model for understanding God’s moral will prior to this period was to preserve traditions about scripture from the classical rabbis (especially the Tannaim, or rabbis up to the time of Mishnah, and Amoraim, the rabbis up to the time of Talmud). The classical rabbis had left a large and complex body of interpretations, stories, and learning in the midrashic literature and Talmud. These interpretations and stories often departed greatly from the plain meaning of scripture and were more about Jewish practice than scriptural interpretation.

Islamic emphasis on sacred text influenced the genesis of a Jewish turn to the Bible as sacred text. The Bible was found worthy of study in its own right and not merely as the underlying text of the rabbinic stories and interpretations of old.

At the same time, a movement arose in Judaism which opposed the traditions of the rabbis and stood on the ground of textual evidence alone. This movement, Karaitism, still has a following today. Yet the medieval rabbis were able to see that abandoning the tradition was going too far. The literalism of the Karaites produced some embarrassing results. The truth is, there was and is much wisdom about practice in the classical rabbinic tradition. Therefore, the medieval exegetes tended to respect both the midrashic traditions as they led to conclusions about practice and contextual, linguistic research into the Bible text. They tended to harmonize them and bring forth the best of both worlds.

From the time of Rashi to his grandson, Rashbam, and later exegetes, the idea of peshat emerged and grew. Greenstein shows that the definition of peshat is not accurately embodied by the idea of literal or plain interpretation. Neither is derash best summed up by mystical, symbolic, or fanciful interpretation. These descriptions only approximate the difference.