Probably more than any other post-talmudic author, Maimonides is widely recognized as an integral part of the Jewish canon. Although his code did not become the primary text for studying Halakhah, as was his stated hope, the fact that it is referenced in the Vilna Talmud attests to its great importance. But halakhic expertise was only one of Maimonides's many gifts, and in some circles he is better known as a philosopher. Given that reactions to his philosophy were often negative, the impact of the Guide of the Perplexed might have been more marginal. However, James Diamond makes a strong case to include the Guide in the canon of Jewish texts as well.
Diamond begins by explaining some of the Guide’s features that inextricably connect it with the Jewish tradition, and also make it ripe to take its own place as a fundamental text that later authors use in creative ways. Most of the book deals with episodes exemplifying that interaction. The exception is a chapter about Maimonides on loving God (chap. 2), which, as well as offering a detailed and important analysis, anticipates themes addressed later in the book.
Respondents to Maimonides are presented in chronological order, and the first is a well-known antagonist, Naḥmanides, who, even while opposing Maimonides's world view, is indebted to the Guide (chap. 3). Diamond shows that Naḥmanides formulated his explanations of Abraham's particularity by adopting Maimonides's account and altering it in order to teach a thoroughly different understanding of Jewish peoplehood. Chapter 4 considers the Ritva (R. Yom Tov b. Abraham Ishbili), an especially welcome section, since it deals with a relatively unknown aspect of his work. Illustrating an important element of Diamond's story, Ritva sympathizes with Naḥmanides, but nevertheless defends Maimonides and argues that there are various acceptable ways to believe. Moreover, his strategy includes explaining how Naḥmanides did not properly understand Maimonides's thought or the way in which the Guide is written.
From the Ritva's attempt to defend Maimonides, Diamond moves on to Isaac Abrabanel, whose lifelong engagement with Maimonides generated much writing on the Guide, alongside the rest of his voluminous output (chap. 5). Abrabanel also often defended Maimonides's views against what he considered misinterpretations by commentators whom he thought distorted Maimonides's positions in order to conform them to their own. While he disagreed with Maimonides about a number of matters, he continued to articulate his views with reference to him. For example, Abrabanel explains the story of the Akedah by subtly and respectfully subverting Maimonides's interpretation, using it to advocate a relationship with the divine that distinguishes the two thinkers. Meir Ibn Gabbai, discussed in chapter 6, was less circumspect in his critique, explicitly opposing Maimonides's theological positions. Nevertheless, Diamond shows that Ibn Gabbai offers alternative interpretations to precisely the same biblical terms that Maimonides explained in the Guide. Like other authors treated, he uses the same quotations as Maimonides and subverts their meaning. Ibn Gabbai objected to Maimonides's use of “wisdom” to measure the Torah's meaning, which allows us to segue into another critic who is also known for attacking the way in which Maimonides's exegesis views Scripture in light of philosophy. Certain terms that Maimonides interprets are central to Spinoza's critique, so that while Spinoza rejects Maimonides's exegesis, in chapter 7 Diamond depicts him as a perceptive reader of the Guide, and shows that such a background enriches our understanding of the philosopher. The chapter finishes with a short account of Buber's reaction to Spinoza and Maimonides. If any is needed, the example of Buber's biblical exegesis justifies including Spinoza in the canon that Diamond presents. These critics, Ibn Gabbai and Spinoza, were fundamental to later theological developments, although of different kinds, and, since they both use Maimonides as a foil, his influence might reasonably be seen to have been magnified through them.
A different kind of interaction is displayed in the eighth chapter, on Herman Cohen. Whether or not Cohen's reading is faithful to Maimonides is still an ongoing discussion. Diamond presents it as an appropriation, which could be considered a critique that pays homage to how central Maimonides is to the entire Jewish tradition. Another nineteenth-century writer is then included, the Neẓiv (R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin) (chap. 9). Like Ibn Gabbai, he seems to have been particularly offended by Maimonides's extreme theocentrism, expressed by his insistence in the Guide, seemingly contrary to a position adopted in an earlier work, that God's purpose in creation is nothing other than an act of pure will, and that each being is created purely for its own sake. Neẓiv emphasizes instead the Torah's goal and the righteous person as the pinnacle of creation. As opposed to Maimonides, he locates the goal of creation as loving God in communal practice rather than dispassionate solitude. The final chapter considers Abraham Isaac Kook's response, which fits with Kook's overall vision of the way in which knowledge progresses. It corroborates the claim that Kabbalah cannot be severed from the philosophical tradition.
Diamond's book shows that in order to understand Jewish philosophy, it helps to be properly conversant in Maimonides's work. He is able to show how later authors play with Maimonides's prooftexts because he is already deeply familiar with the Guide. In the same way that it is necessary to detect biblical allusions and partial quotations if one is to understand Jewish writers, it is necessary also to be aware of how Maimonides employed arguments and prooftexts in order to understand the full import of later thinkers’ comments. The work is extremely impressive, particularly since the background learning required to read all of the thinkers adequately is highly varied. Diamond is therefore able to expose how a number of Jewish authorities are indebted to Maimonides, even though they are not usually connected in the scholarly literature.
I can imagine a number of criticisms. There will inevitably be quibbles over interpretations of each author treated, including Maimonides himself. One might also object that appealing to a limited number of figures, on a limited number of subjects, does not establish that Maimonides was omnipresent in all that followed him, so perhaps Diamond overstates his case. But maybe it is enough to make the point about those figures that continue to be studied as authoritative in different sections of today's Jewish world, and that deal with issues of wide concern to the religious Jewish public. On the other hand, it could be argued that the canon examined is too narrow, involving only those texts that have become well known in the Ashkenazic world, excluding other traditions, such as the Yemenite reception. There is also no extended engagement with Maimonides's reception in hasidic thought, although the chapter on Rav Kook includes relevant elements, and there are some brief discussions in the notes. However, this last point is not a critique of the work carried out. This is already a large book that covers a huge amount, including texts from disparate backgrounds that require different sorts of expertise. If such gaps as appear are judged to be significant, that only makes Diamond's overall argument for Maimonides's importance for later Jewish thought even stronger.
