104 CHAPTER FOUR
Scholars of Judaism, on the other hand, who seek to understand Mai-
monides in the context of Jewish thought, accept the position of the
“Arabists,” according to which Maimonides’ interest in the Sabians is no
more than a natural continuation of what can be found in the Muslim
heresiographical literature. Therefore, even when they pay lip ser vice to
Maimonides’ originality, it appears from their writing that if he made
any innovation at all, it was marginal and insignifi cant. Isadore Twersky,
who dedicated a bulky monograph to Maimonides’ legal compendium
and to his legal philosophy, devoted just a few words to the Sabians
(who occupy several dozen pages in Maimonides’ writing). Twersky makes
a passing reference to Maimonides’ innovation, describing it as “quite
novel, and highly controversial in the opinion of most of Maimonides’
successors.”^96 “Quite novel” seems to me a rather pale epithet to describe
Maimonides’ discovery, in par ticular since Twersky does not dwell on the
topic.
Similarly, Halbertal and Margalit discuss at length Maimonides’ views
on idolatry. Maimonides’ phenomenological efforts, however, and the
painstaking cultural study of which he was so proud are not discussed in
their book at all, and his innovative insight is reduced to a “change...
in the direction of internalization.”^97 Josef Stern recognizes Maimo-
nides’originality within the Jewish tradition, describing him as “the fi rst
fi gure within the rabbinic tradition... to explicitly acknowledge the
formative role of pagan myth on the rituals and commandments of the
Mosaic Law.”^98 Limiting the evaluation to the Rabbinic tradition, how-
ever, obfuscates Maimonides’ sources, on the one hand, and does not do
justice to his in dependence from them, on the other. As argued here, an
explicit and developed analysis of the role of pagan myth in shaping
monotheistic religions in general and the specifi c commandments of the
Torah in par ticular is not found prior to Maimonides, in either Jewish or
non-Jewish sources.
The historian Heinrich Graetz evaluated Maimonides’ explanations as
“superfi cial.”^99 Amos Funkenstein, who quotes Graetz in his study on
the topic of “divine accommodation” is milder: he provides an overview
of Maimonides’ ideas and admits that “it is still possible that the argu-
ment of Maimonides is new and reliable in its method rather than in the
(^96) Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides, 389 and note 81. In the footnote,
Twersky writes: “I have prepared a separate monograph on Maimonides as a historian of
religion.” Unfortunately, such a monograph was never published.
(^97) Halbertal and Margalit, Idolatry, 109.
(^98) Stern, “The Fall and Rise of Myth in Ritual”: 187– 88; see also Gevaryahu, “Paganism
According to Maimonides,” 353, 357.
(^99) H. Graetz, Die Konstruktion der jüdischen Geschichte (Berlin, 1936), 84– 86.