Presence

Steven I. Weiss, the man behind Protocols, has an article in the Forward discussing Marc Shapiro's new book, "The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised." I haven't read the book yet, but I will. It sounds similar, in more than a few ways, to Menachem Kellner's Must a Jew Believe Anything?.

It seems, from the article, that Shapiro is approaching the question of whether or not Maimonides 13 Principles of Faith are relevant today from a historical perspective; the question is whether or not the Jewish community (or communities) accepted these beliefs as dogmatic. I'm hoping that, in addition to this, Shaprio discusses Maimonides rationale for formalizing on these specific beliefs. Maimonides certainty in proclaiming these 13 articles as dogmatic did not stem from a historical tradition (quite the contrary, in fact); he proved, to himself, using the methods available to him at that time (Aristotiliean physics and metaphysics) that these statements were incontrovertably true. His position was a product of the entire intellectual climate of his time. Understanding Maimonides position requires understanding the underlying assumptions to all of his thought.

Most of the physics and metaphysics of Aritstotle has been wholy rejected by science. Maimonides motivation in affirming these beliefs stemmed from his belief that the science of his time was correct and true. If he were alive today, and knew what we know, would he write the same thing? I'm fairly certain that, without revisiting the proofs to see if they still stand, Maimonides would be hesitant to assert anything.

The other issue is the interpretation of the 13 principles. The best example is the resurrection of the dead. Looking in the original source, Maimonides makes a very curt statement as to what this belief entails. Basically he says, "The dead can be resurrected." Part of the reason why his works were set aflame with such regularity was because of this ambigious description. Not until the [Kesef | Lechem] Misheh, who re-explains Maimonides position on resurrection according to the prevailing conceptualization, do we have anything from Maimonides that seems to fit with present-day accepted dogma.

More work definetly needs to be done here. Reframing Judaism as an orthopraxis is not enough; the connection between action and belief is, at least for children of the West, too strong to sever so resolutely without setting adrift many who are already, perhaps without even knowing it, lost at sea. The ramifications for Orthodoxy's interaction with its Reform and Conservative brothers is also an important consideration.