Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:53:27.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maimonides, Aquinas and Ghazali: distinguishing God from world

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

David Burrell
David Burrell*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA, and Tantur Ecumenical Institute, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This exploration focuses on Moses ben Maimon's attempt to give philosophical voice to the revelation of the Torah to offer a window into the comparative (though not actually collaborative) efforts of Jewish, Christian and Muslim medieval thinkers to adapt the metaphysical strategies available to them to the hitherto inconceivable task of articulating a creation utterly free, with nothing presupposed to it. Short of a divine revelation, nothing could have suggested such an affirmation, so crafting the adaptations demanded of familiar philosophical categories would require exploiting the illumination inherent in those distinct revelations. Far from being a merely historical exercise, these efforts are presented as object lessons for philosophical theologians today, as we move to show how Aquinas and Ghazali complement Maimonides' way of negotiating recondite regions where reason and faith interact. In that sense, this exercise inspired by medieval thinkers may be dubbed ‘postmodern’, since the deliverances of faith can be seen to be interwoven with rational inquiry and indispensable to its execution. Moreover, their witness can also challenge current ‘philosophers of religion’ who may all too easily presume their categories to be adequate to the task of probing the reaches of religious faith. In this way, the call to transform philosophical strategies in ways not unlike that undertaken by our medieval thinkers can suggest a benign reading of the ‘postmodern’ situation in which we admittedly live.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 270 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 At this point, Jose Faur directs us to his article: ‘God as Writer: Omnipresence and the Art of Dissimulation’, Cross Currents 6 (1989), pp. 37–8.

2 His advice is explicitly incoherent, which suggests that he realised how misleading is the decoding metaphor: ‘to decode God's speech and writing, the hearer/reader must fill in the intervals between the letters and the words, discovering the syntax which is manifested but not located in them, like Bezalel, the builder of the tabernacle, who knew how to join the letters by which Heaven and earth were created. Thus “proving” Creation is the same kind of oxymoron as a proposition articulating the syntax of its own syntax’ (p. 14). See also Pickstock, Catherine, After Writing (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001)Google Scholar.

3 Many have difficulty distinguishing analogy from metaphor because they expect the words themselves to differ; it is the realisation, the use itself, which turns the trick. Daniel Davies has just completed a doctoral dissertation at Cambridge, titled ‘The Unity of Metaphysical Vision in the Guide for the Perplexed: A Study in Maimonides’ Methods of Presentation’, which explores the Rambam's use of various linguistic strategies to bring about this realisation.

4 van Fraasen's, BasEmpirical Stance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002) develops this latter point elegantlyGoogle Scholar.

5 For a contemporary analogy, see Sokolowski, Robert, The God of Faith and Reason (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992)Google Scholar, who uses his phenomenological skills to elucidate what he calls ‘the distinction’ of creator from creation. For analogies in Jewish and Muslim tradition, see my ‘The Christian Distinction Celebrated and Expanded’, in Drummond, John and Hart, James (eds), The Truthful and the Good (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996), pp. 191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Grant, Sara, Towards an Alternative Theology (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

7 Perush ha-Rambam le-Sippu Beri’ at ha-‘Olam (Jerusalem, 1978), cited in Aviezer Ravitsky, ‘The Secrets of the Guide to the Perplexed: Between the Thirteenth and the Twentieth Centuries’, in Twersky, Isadore (ed.), Studies in Maimonides (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 159–207, citation at p. 193Google Scholar.

8 Perush, p. 256.

9 Davidson, Herbert, ‘Maimonides' Secret Position on Creation’, in Twersky, Isidore (ed.), Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), vol. 1, pp. 15–19Google Scholar.

10 Ghazali, Book of Faith in Divine Unity and Trust in Divine Providence (Kitab at-tawhid wa tawakkul), tr. David Burrell (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2002).

11 Schlomo Pines has explored this in an article which places the Rambam firmly in the Islamicate, ‘The Limitations of Human Knowledge according to al-Farabi, ibn Bajja, and Maimonides’, in Twersky, Isidore (ed.), Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), vol. 1, pp. 83–109Google Scholar.

12 See Avital Wohlman's presentation of Yesheyahu Leibowitz's views, in her Maimonide et Thomas d'Aquin: Un dialogue impossible (Fribourg: Presses Universitaires, 1999).

13 Mishneh Torah 14.12.1, in Twersky, Isadore (ed.), A Maimonides Reader (New York: Berhman House, 1972), p. 224Google Scholar; see also Guide 2.29.

14 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; which I reviewed for Modern Theology 21 (2005), pp. 686–8.

15 Silence of St Thomas: Three Essays (New York: Pantheon, 1957; South Bend, IN: St Augustine's Press, 1999): ‘The Negative Element in the Philosophy of St. Thomas’, pp. 47–67 (emphasis added).

16 For a critical look at standard lines of delineation between ‘philosophy’ and ‘theology’ issue, see my ‘Theology and Philosophy’ in Jones, Gareth (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), pp. 34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Braine, David, Reality of Time and the Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Rogers, Eugene, Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth: Sacred Doctrine and the Natural Knowledge of God (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995)Google Scholar; McCabe, Herbert, OP, God Matters (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1987)Google Scholar; Kerr, Fergus, OP, After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, Brian, Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar, Thomas Aquinas (London and New York: Continuum, 2002); Rocca, Gregory, OP, Speaking the Incomprehensible God: Thomas Aquinas on the Interplay of Positive and Negative Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

18 Cross, Richard, John Duns Scotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar and Ingham, Mary Beth and Dreyer, Mechthild, The Philosophical Vision of John Duns Scotus (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

19 Tanner, Kathryn, God and the Doctrine of Creation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989)Google Scholar; Sokolowski, Robert, The God of Faith and Reason (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

20 Ingham and Dreyer, Philosophical Vision of Scotus, pp. 47, 39.

21 te Velde, Rudi, Aquinas on God: The ‘Divine Science’ of the Summa Theologiae (London: Ashgate, 2006)Google Scholar.

22 Goris, Harm J. M. J., Free Creatures of an Eternal God: Thomas Aquinas on God's Foreknowledge and Irresistible Will (Leuven: Peters, 1996)Google Scholar.