It seems to me that we have to do here not with a casual mistake, but
with one of those facts which indicate that the national sentiment was
strong enough in Maimonides to conquer even logic. If Maimonides had set
out to define the term “dogma” in its purely religious sense, he could
not have found the slightest justification for regarding the national
belief in a future redemption as a dogma. But he felt that a national
hope was necessary to the existence of the nation; and without the
existence of the nation the continuance of its religion is unthinkable.
It was this feeling that made him for once oblivious of logic, and
prevented him from clearing up in his own mind the nature of religious
dogmas in general, so that he might be able to include among them that
national belief on which the nation depends for its existence, although
it has no direct relation to the maintenance of religion as such.[161]
So also with the belief in resurrection, by which our people has always
set great store in its exile. Every individual Jew has suffered the pain
of exile not merely in his own person, but as a member of his people;
his indignation and grief have been excited not by his private trouble
only, but by the national trouble. He could find personal consolation in
the hope of eternity in paradise; but this did not blunt the edge of the
national trouble, which demanded its consolation in the prospect of a
bright future for the nation. In those days the individual Jew was no
longer, as in ancient times, keenly conscious that successive
generations were made one by the organic life of the nation; and he
could not therefore find consolation in the happiness which awaited his
people at the end of time, but which he himself would not share. Hence
he clung to the belief in resurrection, which offered what he required—a
reward to himself for his individual share of the national grief. Just
as every Jew had participated, during his own lifetime, in the national
sorrow, so would every Jew be privileged in the future to see with his
own eyes the national consolation and redemption.[162] Thus the belief
in resurrection was complementary to the belief in the Messiah. United,
they gave the people heart and strength to bear the yoke of exile and to
battle successfully against a sea of troubles, confident that sooner or
later the haven would be reached. When, therefore, Maimonides found it
written in the Mishnah (beginning of chapter _Chelek_) that he who
denies resurrection forfeits eternal life, he did not feel any need to
explain this statement in a sense opposed to its literal meaning, as he
usually did when his system so demanded, but took it just as he found
it, and made it a dogma. He satisfied his heart at the expense of his
head.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account