Still more emphatic is Shem-tob ibn Palqera in demanding the right of free inquiry into everything taught by Revelation and Tradition. In a dialogue between the believer and the inquirer (Hammebhakkesh) the former is represented as ignorant of everything our mind desires to know; whilst the wise man, who combines belief and confidence in Tradition with the right use of his reason, knows how to satisfy the inquirer, and lays down the rule, “Let the study of the Torah be the foundation, and the study of other things secondary; believe nothing that is not proved by reason or by God” (i.e., by the word of Revelation).
R. Abraham ben David, in Emunah ramah: “Because three out of four scholars (R. Akiba, Ben-azai, Ben-zoma, and Elisha) were unsuccessful in their philosophical researches, therefore many turn their backs upon science, and in consequence of this neglect they remain ignorant of the chief principles of our religion.” The object of his book is to reconcile religion and science.
R. Judah hallevi, in his “Kuzari,” endeavours to convince the Kuzarite king of the truth of the Jewish religion by philosophical arguments, but gives unhesitatingly the preference and the higher authority to Divine revelation. He is convinced that reason or [[14]]philosophical argument could never refute any principle taught in the Law. He says: “Prophecy is certainly stronger than logical inference.”
R. Abraham ibn Ezra believes that man’s intellectual faculties are insufficient to solve all transcendental problems; thus, e.g., the nature of the spirit of man is unknown to most, and is only comprehended by him “whose thoughts are weighed in the balance of reason, and are established on the four elements of wisdom, viz., the three R’s: reading, writing, and reckoning; (in Hebrew, the three ס: סְפָר סֵפֶר סִפּוּר) and the Divine Law.” Ibn Ezra recommends the study of science, united with the belief in Divine revelation. “The Torah,” Ibn Ezra remarks in his Commentary on Ps. xix. 8, “is perfect in itself; it requires no evidence from without for the truths which it teaches.”
Maimonides’ “Guide to the Perplexed” is entirely devoted to the problem how to reconcile Scripture and reason. Scripture cannot contain anything contrary to reason; nor can the result of scientific research and philosophical speculation be conceived as contrary to reason, which is their very basis. But where any such contradiction is perceived, we are at fault either in our reasoning or in our interpretation of the Divine Writings. The Incorporeality and Unity of God are doctrines that have been fully proved, and Scripture cannot teach anything that is contrary to them. Where we believe them to be contradicted in the Holy Writings the contradiction is only apparent, and by assuming an allegorical use of words and phrases the seeming contradiction is removed.
R. Joseph Albo prefaces his book on the principles [[15]]of Judaism as follows: “As the human understanding is incapable of finding out what is true and what is good, there must be a higher Being that assists us in determining what is good and in comprehending what is true. It is therefore necessary, above all, to study and to know the divine Law that guides man in these problems.”
R. Eliah del Medigo, in his Bechinath haddath (Examination of Religion) says as follows:—
“Let us first see whether or not the study of philosophy is permitted to the followers of our religion; and, if it be permitted, whether the study is to be considered a duty and a laudable act. The right-minded Jew does not doubt that the Law aims at leading us to humane conduct, good deeds, and true knowledge, the common people according to their capacity, and the more gifted according to their abilities. Certain fundamental truths are therefore set forth in the Law and the Prophets in an authoritative, poetical, or dialectical style; but the higher order of intellects are encouraged to search for proper proofs. Thus the whole nation is addressed by Isaiah: ‘Lift up your eyes on high and see who hath created these,’ and the like. Also the chief of the Prophets tells the Israelites: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is One.’ Those who are more highly endowed than their fellow-men are exhorted, either directly or indirectly, to follow the course which is suitable to them. The direct exhortation to philosophical research is contained in the words: ‘Know then this day, and take it to thy heart, that the Lord He is God,’ &c.; and indirectly it is contained in the commandment [[16]]to love and to fear God, as has been explained by R. Moses Maimonides.—The study of science will certainly be of use to the scholar; it leads to a knowledge of the created things, and through these to a knowledge of the Creator. Such study may even be considered as necessary to the Jewish scholar, though not to the ordinary Jew. The scholar must, however, not entirely rely on his research, but on that which is taught in the Law. In this the scholar and the ordinary man are equal, that both accept the teaching of the Torah as infallible; only with this difference, that the scholar can in addition satisfy his thirst for knowledge and confirm by scientific proof what he has already accepted as true on the authority of the Bible.”
Of modern scholars I only quote Moses Mendelssohn’s theory. He accepts unconditionally the teaching of the Bible; all its truths are absolute and perfect; no reasoning whatever can refute them; but difficulties may sometimes present themselves to us in reconciling the teaching of the Bible with that of our reason. What have we then to do? The philosopher declares: “If I were to find my reason in contradiction to the Word of God, I could command reason to be silent; but the arguments, so long as they have not been refuted, will nevertheless assert themselves in the innermost recesses of my heart; the arguments will assume the form of disquieting doubts, which will resolve themselves into childlike prayers, earnest supplication for enlightenment. I should utter the words of the Psalmist: ‘Lord, send me Thy light, Thy truth, that they may [[17]]guide me, and bring me to Thy holy mount, to Thy dwelling-place!’ ”
The conception which Moses Mendelssohn had of Jewish belief and its relation to reason we learn from the following passage:—“I recognise no other eternal truths than those which are not only comprehensible to the human mind, but also demonstrable by human powers. This principle by no means brings me into conflict with my own religion; on the contrary, I consider it an essential element in Judaism, and the characteristic difference between Judaism and Christianity. Judaism has no revealed religion in the sense in which Christianity has. The Jews have a revealed legislation which instructs them in the divinely ordained means by which they may attain the eternal bliss. Laws and rules for conduct in life were revealed to Moses in a supernatural way, but no doctrines, no saving truth, and no general laws of logic. The latter the Eternal reveals to us, as to all men, through nature and through the things themselves; never through words and letters. The divine book revealed to Moses, though a book of laws, includes an inexhaustible treasure of truths and doctrines.… The more we study it the more we wonder at the depth of the knowledge contained in it. But these truths are taught, and not forced upon us as dogmas. Belief does not allow itself to be commanded; it is based upon conviction. In the Hebrew language, the very word which is generally translated ‘faith,’ viz., אמונה denotes originally confidence, trust that the promise made will also be fulfilled, and not what we understand by ‘religious faith.’ ” [[18]]