Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations A peer-reviewed e-journal of the Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations Published by the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to the Apostle Paul: Spinoza, Shestov, and Taubes Daniel R. Langton University of Manchester Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 114 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 Introduction valuable for understanding the modern history of Jewish- non-Jewish inter-relations.2 Furthermore, such a restrictive Jewish attitudes towards the Apostle to the Gentiles have program automatically excludes those Jewish thinkers who been the subject of a number of studies in recent years. might have alternative reasons for reading Paul’s writings These have tended to focus on New Testament or Pauline and who believe that he has relevance for other kinds of studies, on theologians and religious leaders.1 This is scholarly discourse. For those engaged in philosophical because those conducting the surveys have been interested endeavors, for example, the attraction to Paul appears to be primarily in interfaith dialogue and the theological issues, not his implicit critique of society in the construction of the least the question of what to make of Paul’s apparent church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles. In the hostility towards the Law. For those interested in Jewish- philosophical writings of Baruch Spinoza, Lev Shestov and Christian relations in a wider cultural context, however, this Jacob Taubes, the claim is made that the Church has theological bias is unfortunate. After all, by remaining in the seriously misunderstood the apostle and has failed to realm of interfaith studies, one is very often excluding so- recognize the threat that he represents to the established called marginal Jews who, for obvious reasons, are uncomfortable social order. What follows, then, is not a survey of Jewish championing their community’s received traditions and Pauline scholarship or contributions to interfaith dialogue by dialoguing with representative members of the Christian recognized Jewish theologians, but rather a study of the fraternity. There are many ways to define Jewishness, and place of Paul in the Jewish politico-philosophical imagination. We an exploration of the intellectual worlds of those who regard will begin with a figure who features in every book of Jewish themselves as Jewish, in some sense, even if they are not philosophy but whose interest in Paul is rarely commented committed to any kind of Judaism, is arguably every bit as upon. 1 For example, Daniel R. Langton, “Modern Jewish Identity and the Baruch Spinoza Apostle Paul: Pauline Studies as an Intra-Jewish Ideological Battleground’” in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28.2 (2005): Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was born of Portuguese 217-258; Daniel R. Langton, “The Myth of the ‘Traditional Jewish View of Jewish parents in Amsterdam and died in poverty, reviled for Paul’ and the Role of the Apostle in Modern Jewish–Christian Polemics,” in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28.1 (2005): 69-104; Pamela Eisenbaum, “Following in the Footnotes of the Apostle Paul” in Jose Ignacio Cabezón & Sheila Greeve Davaney, eds, Identity and the 2 The approach adopted here is deliberately non-essentialist, an approach Politics of Scholarship in the Study of Religion (London: Routledge, 2004), that does not pre-determine the outer limits of ‘Jewishness’ and that 77-97; Stefan Meissner, Die Heimholung des Ketzers: Studien allows one to take into account the rich variety of Jewish experience; zurjiidischen Auseinandersetzung mit Paulus (Mohr: Tübingen, 1996); ‘deviancy’ or ‘marginality’ are terms with no useful meaning in this context. Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer, “The Essential Heresy; Paul’s View of the Law Alternative approaches tend to essentialize by classifying phenomena as According to Jewish Writers, 1886-1986,” PhD thesis, Temple University ‘Jewish’ only in so far as they conform to the assumed essence of a (May 1990); Donald A. Hagner, “Paul in Modern Jewish Thought” in ‘normative Jewishness’ (which may or may not be related to theological Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris, eds., Pauline Studies: Essays criteria such as matrilineal descent, conversion to a particular tradition or Presented to F.F. Bruce (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980), 143-165; set of beliefs, adherence to a certain body of law, or non-theological Halvor Ronning, “Some Jewish Views of Paul as Basis of a Consideration criteria such as racial or cultural definitions); all else is to be excluded as of Jewish-Christian Relations” in Judaica 24 (1968): 82-97. deviant. Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 115 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 his free thought and largely unrecognized for his profound possess no definitive evidence of his self-understanding,6 few contributions to modern western philosophy, political theory, nowadays would dismiss entirely the idea that it included a Jewish and biblical criticism. Expelled from the synagogue and dimension. estranged from the Jewish community, many commentators have concluded that his Jewishness was of little relevance to One of Spinoza’s purposes in writing A Theologico-Political him or to his philosophical work. Certainly, one of his chief Treatise was to make the case for freedom of thought as a aims was to free philosophy from religious authority, and in A stabilizing force for society.7 He maintained that the people Theologico-Political Treatise (1670)3 he attempted to place were controlled by the clergy whose authority was built on religion on a new basis, one far more natural and political irrational and superstitious teachings, observing that than traditional and theological. From this perspective, his view of the Law as a product of the Jewish people (and not vice versa) amounted to its abrogation.4 On the other hand, more recently, other commentators have noted that his writings represent a continuous dialogue with the Torah, the authoritative body of revealed law into what today would be called a Prophets, and philosophers such as Maimonides, that he modern secular identity.” He also observes, “The Treatise is, to my sought the transformation of the Jews rather than their knowledge, the first modern work to advocate the restitution of Jewish conversion, and that he himself never converted to sovereignty and a Jewish State.” Ibid, xiii, 19. See also Yosef Yerushalmi, Freud’s Moses: Judaism Terminable and Indeterminable (New Haven: Christianity. From this point of view, Spinoza should be Yale University Press, 1991), 10, where Spinoza is held up as the first regarded as a forerunner of the modern emancipated example of the modern secular Jew. secular Jew and credited with the emergence of a critical 6 The evidence is notoriously ambiguous. Taking just one letter as an attitude to tradition within Jewish thought.5 While we example, Spinoza can be understood to express pantheistic, Jewish and Christian sentiments: “I hold an opinion about God and Nature very different from that which modern Christians are wont to defend. For I 3 Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (Hamburg: Apud Henricum Ku(cid:31)nraht, maintain that God is, as the phrase is, the immanent cause of all things, 1670), published anonymously. The edition used here is Benedict de but not the transcendent cause. Like Paul…I assert that all things live and Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, trans. R.H.M Elwes (New York: move in God...I would dare to say that I agree also with all the ancient Dover Publications, 1951), a reprint of R.H.M Elwes, Works of Spinoza, I Hebrews as far as it is possible to surmise from their traditions, even if (London: G. Bell & Son, 1883). these have become corrupt in many ways...I say that it is not entirely 4 Such luminaries as Herman Cohen, Emmanuel Levinas, and Leo Strauss have necessary to salvation to know Christ according to the flesh; but we must regarded Spinoza as a self-hating Jew, anti-Jewish, and demeaning of think far otherwise of the eternal son of God, that is, the eternal wisdom of Judaism. See Steven B. Smith, Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of God, which has manifested itself in all things, more especially in the Jewish Identity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 16-20, 166- human mind, and most of all in Christ Jesus.” Letter from Spinoza to 196, for an excellent overview of previous Jewish (and non-Jewish) Henry Oldenburg (November or December 1675), reproduced in Franz appreciations of Spinoza. Kobler, ed,, A Treasury of Jewish Letters: Letters from the Famous and the Humble II (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1953), 553. 5 Perhaps the most convincing presentation of such a view is offered in Steven B. Smith, Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity 7 The subtitle of the Treatise reads “Containing a number of dissertations, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). Smith argues, “Spinoza put wherein it is shown that freedom to philosophize can not only be granted Jewish concerns and problems at the forefront of his thought in order to without injury to Piety and the Peace of the Commonwealth, but exercise a profound transformation of them. Not conversion but secularization was that the Peace of the Commonwealth and Piety are endangered by the the final aim of the Treatise. It was an attempt to turn Judaism from an suppression of this freedom.” Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 116 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 in despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mystery be to hoodwink the subjects, and to mask the fear, which Firstly, Paul bridges the gap between the religious and the keeps them down, with the specious garb of religion… philosophical in that, according to Spinoza, “none of the [T]he ministries of the Church are regarded by the masses Apostles philosophized more than did Paul.”10 By this he merely as dignitaries, her offices as posts of emolument – meant that Paul appeared to favor rational argument to a in short, popular religion may be summed up as respect greater extent than did the other disciples whose claim to for ecclesiastics. The spread of this misconception inflamed authority more often appealed to divine revelation. In this every worthless fellow with an intense desire to enter holy context, Moses, too, was also compared unfavorably to the orders, and thus the love of diffusing God’s religion Apostle to the Gentiles. degenerated into sordid avarice and ambition…[F]aith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices – All the arguments employed by Moses in the five books aye, prejudices too, which degrade man from rational are…not drawn from the armory of reason, but are merely being to beast, which completely stifle the power of modes of expression calculated to instill with efficacy, and judgment between true and false, which seem, in fact, present vividly to the imagination, the commands of carefully fostered for the purpose of extinguishing the last God…Thus Moses, the chief of the prophets, never used spark of reason! Piety, great God, and religion are legitimate argument, and, on the other hand, the long become a tissue of ridiculous mysteries.8 deductions and arguments of Paul, such as we find in the Epistle to the Romans, are in nowise written from He argued that by allowing people to think and supernatural revelation.11 philosophize freely the foundations of society would be established more securely. Contrary to his enemies’ While he was prepared to take seriously both the Old and aspersions, his famously unorthodox identification of God New Testaments (after applying rationalist criteria to their with ‘nature’ did not lead him to reject religious practice reading) Spinoza was a good deal more skeptical of the altogether. Rather, he believed that religious observance authority of contemporary priests. Their authority was should be protected by a sovereign who required of his founded upon tradition and unverifiable claims to special subjects adherence only to a simple creed which was knowledge of the divine will. Scholastic assertions that “the acceptable to a wide variety of existing sects, and who natural light of reason” could teach nothing of any value otherwise respected freedom of conscience.9 In this way, the concerning salvation could be dismissed easily for, as influence of the clergy would be minimized and philosophers decriers of reason, they were not entitled to use it to defend such as himself would be able to concentrate on the their non-rational views; their insistence on something advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society without concern for the constraints of traditional authority. In 10 Spinoza puts this down to Paul’s need to find a language appropriate for this ambitious project, the apostle Paul was to prove useful the Gentiles. He goes on, “other Apostles preaching to the Jews, who to Spinoza in a number of ways. despised philosophy, similarly adapted themselves to the temper of their hearers (see Gal 2.11) and preached a religion free from all philosophical 8 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 5, 6-7 (Preface:18, 25-29). speculations.” B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 164 (11:56). 9 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 211-212 (16:100-110). 11 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 159 (11:18-20). Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 117 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 superior to reason was “a mere figment.” As Paul himself himself to other nations.13 Intriguingly, he admits that Paul suggested, the shortcomings of their worldview would be seemed to disagree with him. clear for all to see. I confess that in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, I find But there is no need to dwell upon such persons. I will another text which carries more weight [than Exodus 23 merely add that we can only judge of a man by his works. and 34], namely, where Paul seems to teach a different If a man abounds in the fruits of the Spirit, charity, joy, doctrine from that here set down [by Spinoza], for he there peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, says (Rom 3:1): “What advantage then hath the Jew? Or chastity, against which, as Paul says (Gal 5:22), there is what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: no law, such an one, whether he be taught by reason only chiefly, because that unto them were committed the or by the Scripture only, has been in very truth taught by oracles [or prophesies] of God.”14 God, and is altogether blessed.12 It is revealing that such is his predilection for Paul that Thus Paul was not only a model of philosophic integrity Spinoza is prepared to gloss over this apparent discrepancy whose teaching method was superior to those of both as an anomaly. Instead he places greater emphasis on the Christian and Jewish founding fathers, but also a potent universalism in Paul’s thought and continues by demonstrating weapon to wield against the contemporary enemies of how the apostle made no distinction between different reason. peoples when it came to the human condition of sin, consciousness of which accompanied knowledge of the law. Secondly, Paul’s universalistic teachings are of great And since all mankind experienced this sin, the ‘law’ that interest and are drawn upon early on in the treatise to accompanied it, and which was also familiar to all, must refer demonstrate that God cannot be delimited by any creed or to a universal sense of right and wrong rather than to the claimed as the property of any one people. Once again, it is Mosaic Law developed by the ancient Hebrews. Moses, together with his parochial descendents, who is contrasted negatively with Paul. Contemporary Jewish But if we look to the doctrine which Paul especially teachers, to whom Spinoza refers as Pharisees, claimed that desired to teach, we shall find nothing repugnant to our the divine gift of prophecy or revelation had been given only present contention; on the contrary, his doctrine is the to the Hebrew nation. To prove this, they pointed to the same as ours, for he says (Rom 3:29) “that God is the passage in Exodus where God makes a covenant with them God of the Jews and of the Gentiles”…Further, in chap. 4 as a result of Moses’ petition. After a sideswipe at the Jews verse 9, he says that all alike, Jew and Gentile, were as a “rebellious…stiff-necked people” whose “disposition and under sin, and that without commandment and law there spirit” provoked Moses’ plea for “the special election of the is no sin. Wherefore it is most evident that to all men Jews,” Spinoza offers a plain reading of the story to argue absolutely was revealed the law under which all lived – that nothing in the text indicated God’s refusal to reveal 13 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 52-53 (3:73-80). 12 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 80 (5:91-97). 14 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 53 (3:81-82). Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 118 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 namely, the law which has regard only to true virtue, not Furthermore, as obedience to God consists solely in love the law established in respect to, and in the formation of a to our neighbor - for whosoever loveth his neighbor, as a particular state and adapted to the disposition of a means of obeying God, hath, as St. Paul says (Rom. particular people…So that Paul teaches exactly the same 13:8), fulfilled the law - it follows that no knowledge is as ourselves.15 commended in the Bible save that which is necessary for enabling all men to obey God in the manner stated, and Spinoza has no difficulty taking the next step and without which they would become rebellious, or without suggesting that the internal sense of ethical behavior the discipline of obedience.17 possessed by all peoples was possible precisely because all men could come to know God’s laws through rational Thirdly, Spinoza argues that a close reading of Paul’s thought and observation of nature. This idea was an writings suggests the proper approach to the sacred important one to Spinoza (and to later Enlightenment scriptures, the interpretation of which was conventionally thinkers and deists) and, once again, he chooses to justify it regarded as a priestly prerogative. The readiness of the by reference to Paul. apostle to distinguish between teachings revealed through prophecy and his own teachings demonstrates the need to [W]e must by no means pass over the passage in Paul’s discern between revelation and other forms of knowledge.18 Epistle to the Romans, 1:20, in which he says: “For the Paul himself is capable of making this distinction, and invisible things of God from the creation of the world are Spinoza is quick to point out that “Paul speaks according to clearly seen, being understood by the things that are his opinion and [that as a result of human error] in many made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they passages we come across doubtful and perplexed phrase”; are without excuse, because, when they knew God, they he also has no trouble finding examples where the apostle glorified Him not as God, neither were they thankful.” “corrects himself as speaking merely humanly and through These words clearly show that everyone can by the light the infirmity of the flesh.”19 Using the epistles to suggest that of nature clearly understand the goodness and the eternal the language of the Bible is a flexible tool adapted in divinity of God, and can thence know and deduce what different ways at different times for the purposes of effective they should seek for and what avoid…16 communication could, he believed, also lead to a more profound understanding of, amongst other things, the very And what were the practical implications of such a natural nature of God.20 law? For Spinoza, the just society would base its laws on those common ethics that inculcated good relations between 17 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 176 (13:10). men. In a section headed, “It is shown that scripture teaches 18 Spinoza’s conviction is that “the Bible leaves reason absolutely free, only very simple doctrines, such as suffice for right conduct,” that it has nothing in common with philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and Philosophy stand on totally different footings.” B. Spinoza, A Theologico- Spinoza drew upon Paul to argue, Political Treatise, 9 (Preface:42). 19 Spinoza offers 1 Cor 7:25,40; Rm 3:5,28; 6:19; 8:18. B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 40 (2:118), and 157 (11:4). 15 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 53 (3:83-88). 20 Paul is only one of the New Testament disciples who adapted their 16 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 67-68 (4:95-96). message as necessary. “[L]est its novelty should offend men’s ears it had Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 119 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 Spinoza’s conception of the deity is notoriously His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and problematic, not least for the difficulty in reconciling it with volitions are eternal truths, and always involve the God of biblical tradition. Whatever the precise meaning necessity.21 Spinoza retained for the term ‘God’, it was to some extent synonymous with ‘nature’, a power without a personality, While other Jewish thinkers might have drawn upon closely related to the universal, deterministic laws of the Maimonides,22 here Paul is brought to bear in an argument cosmos. It therefore comes as something of a surprise to that the biblical language which endows God with a find him claiming Paul in support of this idea. personality is a necessary evil, a concession to untutored minds, which no philosopher need take seriously. Rather, [Paul] never himself seems to wish to speak openly, but, God appears as something akin to the stuff of the universe, to quote his own words (Rom 3:6, and 6:19), “merely whose nature we glimpse only through the eternal laws and humanly.” This he expressly states when he calls God predetermined mechanisms of creation. just, and it was doubtless in concession to human weakness that he attributes mercy, grace, anger, and According to Spinoza, then, Paul and the biblical authors in similar qualities to God, adapting his language to the general were prone to error, constrained by the conventions popular mind, or, as he puts it (1 Cor 3:1, 2), to carnal of their times, and consciously adapted their language to men. In Rom. 9:18, he teaches undisguisedly that God’s their specific audiences – to such an extent that the very anger and mercy depend not on the actions of men, but nature of God had been profoundly misunderstood. In all on God’s own nature or will…We conclude, therefore, that this, Spinoza implies, the Bible should be read with a God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, willingness to recognize what is authoritative and what is not. merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, He looks forward to the day when this critical approach and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality would free religion from unauthoritative teachings, which he God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of calls superstitions.23 Ultimately he argues that, for the to be adapted to the disposition of contemporaries (2 Cor 9:19,20), and 21 B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 65 (4:73-76). built up on the groundwork most familiar and accepted at the time.’ B. 22 Spinoza was disinclined to draw on Maimonides as a result of the Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 163-164 (11:55). Supernatural twelfth-century philosopher’s attempt to equate Judaism with rationalism. imagery was one way of accomplishing this, and Paul was by no means As Feld put it, “The first six chapters of the Theologico-Political Treatise the only biblical writer to engage in this kind of language. “[T]he prophets are an extended argument with Maimonides: Spinoza many times perceived nearly everything in parables and allegories, and clothed explicitly indicates that Maimonides is the one who holds the position he is spiritual truths in bodily forms, for such is the usual method of imagination. seeking to demolish. It is the Maimonidean identification of Judaism and We need no longer wonder that Scripture and the prophets speak so rationalism which takes the full brunt of his criticism and his argument that strangely and obscurely of God’s Spirit or Mind (cf. Numbers 11:17, 1 prophets are not philosophers is offered to free philosophy from its Kings 22:21, &c.), that the Lord was seen by Micah as sitting, by Daniel as religious connection.” Edward Feld, Modern Judaism, 9:1 (1989), 109. an old man clothed in white, by Ezekiel as a fire, that the Holy Spirit 23 Spinoza believed that “many quarrels and schisms distracted the appeared to those with Christ as a descending dove, to the apostles as Church, even in the earliest times, and doubtless they will continue so to fiery tongues, to Paul on his conversion as a great light. All these distract it for ever, or at least till religion is separated from philosophical expressions are plainly in harmony with the current ideas of God and speculations, and reduced to a few simple doctrines taught by Christ to his spirits.” B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 25 (1:121). disciples…How blest would our age be if it could witness a religion freed Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 120 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 purposes of a just society based on solid rational church or another, it is clear that Paul functioned as a foundations, only those biblical teachings that encourage familiar and powerful figure of biblical authority.25 Thus the right conduct are necessary. seventeenth-century marginal Jew made a conscious effort to clothe his arguments in the apparel of the Apostle to the Of course, Spinoza would have been quite capable of Gentiles. Or, as he once put it, making the arguments outlined above regarding the importance of reason, the universal conception of God, and [L]est its novelty should offend men’s ears it had to be his proto-biblical-criticism without reference to Paul. Why is it adapted to the disposition of contemporaries...built up on that the apostle featured in such a positive way in the the groundwork most familiar and accepted at the time.26 alternative vision of society described in A Theologico- Political Treatise – especially considering that Spinoza was forced to overlook those aspects of Pauline theology with Lev Shestov which he was at odds? The answer lies in the difficulties of articulating his political theory in the dangerous historical While Spinoza had valued Paul for his rationality, the context in which he wrote, a context in which power Russian Jewish philosopher and bitter critic of Spinoza, Lev remained in the hands of Christian authorities. If Spinoza Shestov (1866-1938),27 was attracted to Paul precisely had called for a “universal religion of human reason that because he regarded him as part of a long-term Judeo- transcends the historical differences between the revealed Christian critique of western rationality. Although the faiths and that can serve as an ethical basis for a free, open professor of Russian literature at the University of Paris and tolerant society,” as has been suggested,24 then this produced no dedicated study, the apostle is frequently in would explain both his apparent anti-Judaism and his Shestov’s thought, informing his language and reinforcing apparent high regard for Paul. On the one hand, in order to his arguments throughout a wide selection of his writings. undermine the authority of revelational religion in general, he had launched a polemical attack on Judaism in particular, Shestov’s particular brand of existentialist philosophy is ostensibly contrasting Christianity favorably; and yet many of notoriously difficult to articulate, not least because language his Christian contemporaries had realized that his criticisms could just as easily be applied to their own faith. On the 25 In a discussion about the nature of apostolic authority, Spinoza writes, other hand, Spinoza himself suggested that it was useful to “If we call reason to our aid we shall clearly see that an authority to teach support his arguments from scripture; and certainly, for the implies an authority to choose the method. It will nevertheless be, majority of his audience who belonged to one Christian perhaps, more satisfactory to draw all our proofs from Scripture; we are there plainly told that each Apostle chose his particular method...” B. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, 163 (11:49-50). For the same also from all the trammels of superstition.” B. Spinoza, A Theologico- reason Jesus appears frequently in the Treatise, where he is also Political Treatise, 163-164 (11:56-57). presented positively as a philosopher. 24 Smith argues persuasively that Spinoza was not denigrating Judaism in 26 In fact, Spinoza is here describing Paul’s own approach. B. Spinoza, A order to champion Christianity but was just as concerned to undermine Theologico-Political Treatise, 163-164 (11:55). Christianity’s claims to revelational authority. S. Smith, Spinoza, Liberalism, and 27 Born Yehuda Leyb Schwartzman in Kiev of a wealthy Jewish family, he the Question of Jewish Identity, 105-118, 197. emigrated to France in 1921 and remained in Paris until his death. Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 121 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 was part of the system that he wanted to critique. Fascinated In Job’s Balances (1929)30 and his magnum opus Athens by paradox and the subjective experience of the individual, and Jerusalem (1938),31 can therefore be understood to he was convinced that the western tradition of rational combine a radical skepticism with a profound religious philosophy was bankrupt. This was because rational thought sense.32 tries to describe the world in generalizations and unchanging laws that delimit what is and is not possible. Drawing upon Shestov’s interest in the Bible began relatively late, after European philosophy and literature, with which he was he had left revolutionary Russia for France in the 1920s and intimately familiar, Shestov tried to show how mankind two decades since he had first begun his crusade against experienced despair and loss of freedom as the result of reason.33 One commentator has suggested that it was partly having embraced the intellectual restrictions of the scientific worldview. The very attempt to rationalize suppressed the 30 Leo Chestov, In Job’s Balances: On the Sources of the Eternal Truths, raw experience of lived reality and failed to address the most trans. Camilla Coventry and C. A. Macartney (London: J.M. Dent and meaningful questions of individual existence.28 What, then, Sons, 1932). Originally published in Russian (Annales contemporaines: was the alternative? Shestov eventually came to believe that Paris, 1929). the biblical tradition best captured the frightening yet 31 Lev Shestov, Athens and Jerusalem, ed. § trans. Bernard Martin (Ohio liberating insight that everything was possible, that nothing University Press, 1966). Originally published in French and German was fixed or certain, and that, ultimately, all was beyond Athиnes et Jerusalem; Essai de la philosophie religieuse (Paris: 1938); man’s control.29 This way of understanding life as potentiality, Athen und Jerusalem: Versucht einer religiosen Philosophie (1938). 32 Shestov’s dismantling of all philosophical edifices has been described which he described as ‘faith’, was ‘biblical’ in the sense that as “an anguished religious quest, casting away all forms of idealism – its God was not the God of the philosophers, the unmoved indeed, of all moral and epistemological certainty and reassurance – in mover, but rather the capricious God of Abraham, Isaac and order to encounter the living God: unpredictable, irrefrangible, absurd.” Jacob – and of the apostle Paul. Shestov’s ‘religious Michael Weingrad, “New Encounters with Shestov” in The Journal of existentialism’, which is most famously given expression in Jewish Thought and Philosophy 11:1 (2002), 49. 33 Initially, there was nothing religious about his existentialism. From early on in his career Shestov had been convinced of the failure of philosophy 28 “[Modern philosophy] sweeps away beauty, good, ambition, tears, to provide solace to individuals in despair, illustrating his argument by laughter, and curses, like dust, like useless refuse, never guessing that it means of poetic truths penned by Shakespeare, among others. Thus the is the most precious thing in life, and that out of this material and this turbulent experiences of Hamlet and King Lear culminated in increased alone, genuine, truly philosophic questions have to be moulded. Thus the knowledge of their own inner worlds, he argued, 33 “[Modern philosophy] prophets questioned, thus the greatest sages of antiquity, thus even the sweeps away beauty, good, ambition, tears, laughter, and curses, like Middle Ages. Now only rare, lonely thinkers comprehend this.” L. Shestov, dust, like useless refuse, never guessing that it is the most precious thing In Job’s Balances, II:16 in life, and that out of this material and this alone, genuine, truly 29 “The business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty - man philosophic questions have to be moulded. Thus the prophets questioned, who is supremely afraid of uncertainty, and who is forever hiding himself thus the greatest sages of antiquity, thus even the Middle Ages. Now only behind this or the other dogma. More briefly, the business of philosophy is rare, lonely thinkers comprehend this.” L. Shestov, In Job’s Balances, II:16 not to reassure people but to upset them.” Lev Shestov, Apotheosis of 33 “The business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty - man Groundlessness: An Attempt in Adogmatic Thinking (St. Petersberg: who is supremely afraid of uncertainty, and who is forever hiding himself Obshestvennaia Pol’za, 1905), I:11, reprinted in Bernard Martin, ed,, All behind this or the other dogma. More briefly, the business of philosophy is Things are Possible & Penultimate Words and Other Essays (Ohio not to reassure people but to upset them.” Lev Shestov, Apotheosis of University Press, 1977), trans. S.S. Koteliansky. Groundlessness: An Attempt in Adogmatic Thinking (St. Petersberg: Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 122 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 2, Issue 2 (2007): 114-139 to make his philosophy more intelligible to a European existence appeared to them as arbitrary as it was absolute. audience that the Hebrew Bible began to feature in Nor was the insight of the Hebrews limited to the Old Shestov’s work. In any case, his conception of biblical faith Testament. The New Testament could, in this very important emerged as a positive compliment to his negative evaluation sense, be regarded as one with the Old, and this explains of logical positivism. A non-practicing Jew who eschewed how Shestov came to see the Apostle to the Gentiles as part orthodox tradition, Shestov was wary of institutional religion of a Jewish biblical tradition that questioned worldly wisdom.34 and collective religious experience. In his Bible, which appeared to consist primarily of Genesis and some of the As far as Shestov is concerned, Paul’s message was “true prophetic writings, Shestov found a powerful precedent for Jewish thinking”35 and the man himself a visionary whose his idea, for the ancient texts told of various individuals’ teachings should be read alongside those of the Hebrew direct experience of a living God whose sovereign rule over prophets themselves.36 Indeed, Shestov regards the apostle as an astute interpreter of older biblical insights. He is Obshestvennaia Pol’za, 1905), I:11, reprinted in Bernard Martin, ed., All particularly keen to stress how Paul confronted the Things are Possible & Penultimate Words and Other Essays (Ohio University Press, 1977), trans. S.S. Koteliansky. 34 “The Bible remains the book of books, the eternal book. It would be no 33 Leo Chestov, In Job’s Balances: On the Sources of the Eternal Truths, loss to exchange the theological literature of a whole generation of later trans. Camilla Coventry and C. A. Macartney (London: J.M. Dent and epochs against a single Epistle of St. Paul or a chapter from Isaiah.” L. Sons, 1932). Originally published in Russian (Annales contemporaines: Shestov, In Job’s Balances, II:7. “In the Letter to the Romans the apostle Paris, 1929). repeats the same thing and even more strongly: ‘For what does Scripture 33 Lev Shestov, Athens and Jerusalem, ed. § trans. Bernard Martin (Ohio say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as University Press, 1966). Originally published in French and German righteousness’” (Romans 4:3). The whole Bible – the Old and the New Athиnes et Jerusalem; Essai de la philosophie religieuse (Paris: 1938); Testament – is supported by this kind of a justification, and most of the Athen und Jerusalem: Versucht einer religiosen Philosophie (1938). letters of the apostle Paul speak of this truth that is incomprehensible and 33 Shestov’s dismantling of all philosophical edifices has been described goes contrary to all the habits of our thinking, a truth that revealed itself as “an anguished religious quest, casting away all forms of idealism – many thousands of years ago to a small, half-wild people.” L. Shestov, indeed, of all moral and epistemological certainty and reassurance – in Speculation and Revelation, 5. order to encounter the living God: unpredictable, irrefrangible, absurd.” 35 In a conversation with his disciple Benjamin Fondane (26 July 1928), Michael Weingrad, “New Encounters with Shestov” in The Journal of Shestov mused, “I think that Hitler really has a lot of intuition – he hates St Jewish Thought and Philosophy 11:1 (2002), 49. Paul: it’s true Jewish thinking.” When Fondane asked him whether “Paul 33 Initially, there was nothing religious about his existentialism. From early had betrayed the spirit of the Bible when he opened to the Gentiles the on in his career Shestov had been convinced of the failure of philosophy privileges of the chosen people? Didn’t God say: ‘I have loved Jacob but to provide solace to individuals in despair, illustrating his argument by Esau I have hated’?” Shestov answered “Of course! And yet...in the means of poetic truths penned by Shakespeare, among others. Thus the beginning there was no such thing as Jews and non-Jews...” “Entretiens turbulent experiences of Hamlet and King Lear a knowledge that shared avec Leon Chestov” in Nathalie Baranoff and Michel Carassou, eds., next to nothing with the world as described by rationalists. This experience Rencontres avec Leon Chestov (Paris: Plasma, 1982). Elsewhere he of the individual, Shestov maintained, was frequently of greater import described Paul ironically as “an ignorant Jew” (L. Shestov, Potestas than the abstract logic of philosophy, even though the tendency was to set Clavium, preface) and affectionately as “an old Jew” (L. Shestov, In Job’s it aside as inferior. For an account of the evolution of Shestov’s thought, Balances, II:5:33). see Brian Horowitz, “The Tension of Athens and Jerusalem in the 36 “The prophet Isaiah and St. Paul have warned us that human wisdom is Philosophy of Lev Shestov” in The Slavic and East European Journal, foolishness before God and that God’s wisdom is foolishness in the eyes 43:1 (Spring 1999). of men.” L. Shestov, In Job’s Balances, III:5. Langton, “Modern Jewish Philosophical Approaches to Paul” 123 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/