240 Job Y. Jindo
transcends fate and nature — the notion that Kaufmann deems as unique to
biblical monotheism — only a precondition for the idea of divine interper-
sonality with an enduring, external focus of interest — the idea that a deity
can fully and continually engage in the interpersonal drama with human-
kind, which is perhaps the real uniqueness of biblical monotheism?34
Be that as it may, how does Kaufmann understand the ontology of bibli-
cal literature? Is the Bible (merely) a cultural artifact? Or is it still a text
of divine origin? And how does he explain the inception of monotheistic
insight, which he deems to permeate this literature? In fact, nowhere does
Kaufmann discuss the issue of revelation. While the Talmudist Ephraim E.
Urbach (1912 – 91) and other believing scholars criticize him for not engag-
ing in such metaphysical issues, he insistently refuses to present any em-
pirical explanation to the origin of monotheistic insight.35
Kaufmann asserts that the distinction between the “content” and “form”
of cultural creativity must be maintained because the origin of such con-
tent, according to him, cannot be fully explained by empirical methods
— only the form of a given content and the process of its transformation
thereby can be described. For example, Homer’s or Beethoven’s artistic cre-
ativity — especially, the original insight that sparked in their ruah., as well
as the creative spontaneity of their ruah. involved in this process — cannot
be explained from empirical observation alone.36 Th us, Kaufmann notes,
what empirical investigation can consider is only the history of a given cul-
tural creativity aft er its inception.
In this respect, for Kaufmann, biblical monotheism is not diff erent from
any other original and creative work or thought by the human spirit or
ruah.. It came into being — just like any other cultural product — in a partic-
ular setting of time and space. However, according to Kaufmann, we can-
not empirically explain why this content, although universalistic in prin-
ciple, was conceived nowhere in the world but in ancient Israel. For him,
this discussion of “why” is outside the scope of empirical investigation. “In
terms of form, we can say: the formation [of biblical monotheism], too, is
nothing other than a novel and unique creation of the human spirit. How-
ever, in terms of content, this is not the case. Accordingly, we may have to
presume a special intervention of providence. However, we have, at this
point, exceeded the realm of empirical history and entered into the realm
of faith.”37
Kaufmann’s statement on the “special intervention of providence” has no
empirical value — for it is a statement of faith or speculation — as he himself
acknowledges elsewhere.38 Empirical reason cannot penetrate into what is