102 CHAPTER FOUR
Maimonides’ originality, the fact that he presents the fruits of his own
scholarship rather than reiterates the ideas of his pre decessors, is also
readily apparent in the way he constructs and substantiates his claims,
while openly admitting the limitations of his scholarship.^89 At the same
time, he is clearly aware of the radical innovation that he is making, and
of the strong re sistance that his ideas are likely to meet.^90
Maimonides’ repeated insistence on his innovation is not empty vain-
glory. As far as I can tell, Maimonides was indeed the fi rst author to offer
an explicit and detailed analysis of pagan infl uence on the development
of mono theistic religions. Maimonides’ originality should be viewed in
the context of the Jewish, Rabbinic tradition, on the one hand, and of the
contemporary Arabic culture, on the other. This deserves to be empha-
sized not only in order to give Maimonides the honor he is due, but also
because the explanation for Maimonides’ discovery lies in his relation-
ship to both cultures. Maimonides is positioned at a cultural crossroads
that, because of his own openness to the possibilities it offered, proved
particularly fecund. His broad education in Arabic culture gave him ac-
cess to philosophical and heresiographical literature, through which he
learned of the Sabians: not the historical Sabians sought by modern schol-
arship, but rather the confused myth of the Sabians as a collective name
that includes different peoples, as they were known in the twelfth cen-
tury. The encounter with these Sabians led Maimonides to believe that
he had discovered the essence and foundation of idolatry. The combina-
tion of his broad Arabic education with his tremendous erudition in the
Jewish sources, and his interest in understanding the commandments of
the Torah, enabled him to make a major breakthrough. It is this combi-
nation that allowed him to identify in the Sabian writings— so he believed—
the idolatry for which the commandments of the Torah are meant to
serve as an antidote. This identifi cation, and its detailed analysis, is Mai-
monides’ original discovery; it was not made by anyone before him, and,
if we consider the special admixture of fi elds of knowledge and areas of
(^89) When Maimonides is unable to provide an explanation for a commandment, he states
this outright. For example, regarding the commandment of libations as part of some sacri-
fi ces, he says: “As for the offering of wine, I am up to now perplexed with regard to it: How
could He have commanded to offer it, since the idolaters offered it? No reason for this has
occurred to me” (Guide 3.46; Dalala, 434:12– 14; Pines, 591). To his explanation for the
prohibition of eating meat cooked with milk, he adds: “According to me, this is the most
probable view regarding the reason for this prohibition; but I have not seen this set down
in any of the books of the Sabians that I have read” (Guide, 3.48; Dalala, 440:1– 7; Pines,
599). See also Gevaryahu, “Paganism According to Maimonides,” 358.
(^90) SeeGuide 3.32 (Dalala, 385:13– 17; Pines, 527): “I know that on thinking about this at
fi rst your soul will necessarily have a feeling of repugnance toward this notion and will feel
aggrieved because of it.”