Studies in the Meaning of Judaism (JPS Scholar of Distinction Series)

10 / The Problem of the Form of a Jewish Theology

10 / The Problem of the Form of a Jewish Theology Methodological problems have been the concern of Jewish theologians only in recent years. Other than holding sporadic discussions of the place of dogma in Judaism, thinkers of previous generations seemed to take the initial steps and dominating principles of their work for granted. In contemporary Jewish thought as in almost all other humanistic fields there is, by contrast, an intense self-consciousness about every move, particularly the first one. The difficulty of finding or creating a generally acceptable framework for Jewish theological discussion has been a major factor inhibiting such work. For that reason largely, though others might well be adduced, it has been suggested that this generation may not be the time to do systematic Jewish theology. Rather the most useful task for the theologian would be to concentrate on significant aspects of Jewish belief and elucidate them. Such atomistic work could well serve as a corrective to and as progress from the time of the theological system builders: Tillich, Barth and Bultmann among the Protestants; Baeck, Kaplan, Buber and Heschel among the Jews. Hopefully it would prepare the way for a new time of synthesis which lies in the future. Prudence alone would seem to make such a procedure desirable. Yet on reflection it is difficult to see how one can escape the holistic question altogether. While much can be learned by concentrating on a single religious motif and studying it in depth, its proper function and general significance emerge only when it is seen in the total context of the thought of which it is a part. Rabbinic literature is notorious in this regard. It contains such a dialectic of opinions, not excluding flat 115 1970 contradiction, that it is difficult to believe that there is any overall form to rabbinic thought at all. Without some such sense of the general balance of rabbinic sensibilities, however, one hardly knows what to make of an isolated rabbinic statement, or teacher, or study of a single idea.1 Novices in the literature have often failed to notice that hyperbole is almost the customary tone of aggadic rabbinic utterances and hence have been led to claim as central to rabbinic Judaism something which a more experienced scholar, out of his comprehensive sense of rabbinic thought, would consider only representing what the rabbi happened to be emphasizing at that moment. A collection of all the many things which some sage at some time said was equivalent “to the entire Torah” would bring in many odd items, particularly when compared to what the same rabbi said were the halachic requirements that each Jew should minimally fulfill, much less the whole Torah. That is why we are grateful when theoreticians like Kadushin and Heschel help us to acquire a sense of the general form of rabbinic thinking, though the former’s system is quite cumbersome to work with while the latter’s, though charting two significant modes of thinking, does not yet help us to see what is the greater framework which keeps this dialectic, like all the rest of the rabbinic aggadic dialectic, within its bounds.2 It may help to give a more modern example. Each of the modern Jewish thinkers referred to above has an understanding of God as mystery that is highly significant for his view of Jewish faith and life. A comparative study of this concept in their thought will show that much of what they have to say about it is quite similar. Yet when this motif is seen in the context of the thinker’s overall view of Judaism, specifically of revelation , of man, of the nature of the Covenant between God and Israel, it turns out to mean something quite different to each of them.3 Thus it is common practice in the study of individual ideas to show their scope by indicating how they function in relation to other important religious ideas. Since most writers are unconscious of such definition by contextual delimitation, the holistic aspect of their work tends to remain implicit. They believe they have merely adumbrated one idea, whereas, in fact, they have understood it in terms of a more inclusive view of Judaism which they do not realize they have or are not able to bring to expression. One cannot for long escape the question of the whole of a Jewish theology. Once that question is raised, the related one of the form of the thought pattern suggests itself. Now...