190 CONCLUSION
infl uence.”^1 Pines, on the other hand, states that in this period, “in the
sphere of philosophical literature... Jewish thinkers had recourse pri-
marily to the books of their Moslem counterparts,” whereas “rare and
of secondary signifi cance is that relationship to the teaching of their
Jewish pre decessors.”^2 Rather than admitting only occasional infl uences,
Pines’s approach, to which I subscribe, assumes medieval Jewish phi-
losophy to have been shaped by the surrounding culture and impreg-
nated by it. It would be impossible, according to this view, to correctly
understand medieval Jewish phi losophers outside the Islamic context—
just as it would be impossible, of course, to understand them correctly if
we ignored their Jewish identity.
The previous pages provide ample evidence to support the claim that
Maimonides must be read within his broader cultural context of infl u-
ences. Here, too, Pines’s evaluation deserves to be quoted: “The fact that,
relatively speaking, Maimonides had so little recourse to Jewish philoso-
phy is signifi cant. It implies inter alia that he had no use for a specifi c
Jewish philosophic tradition... .Qua phi losopher he had the possibility
to consider Judaism from the outside.”^3 The examination of Maimo-
nides’ work in other domains, however, demonstrates that Maimonides’
ability “to consider Judaism from outside” was not limited to the fi eld of
philosophy. Maimonides emerges from the previous pages as a phenom-
enologist of religion who uses broad strokes of the brush to paint pat-
terns of thought and behavior. He is a thinker who looks for absolute
rules of the universe and humanity, an Aristotelian who tries to identify
pure forms. He also emerges as a keen observer of human societies, a
precursor of Ibn Khaldun.
The consistent phenomenological stripe in Maimonides’ work shows
that, wholly immersed in the practice of Judaism as he was, Maimonides
was nevertheless able to observe it “from the outside,” beyond philosophy.
In a way, this ability to distance himself from his own tradition, to put
his own identity in brackets, is similar to his ability to withdraw into his
inner world while carry ing on the demanding task of a community leader.
As a scientist and as a legal phi losopher, as a sociologist or as a historian
of religion, Maimonides integrated the “circles of infl uence” into his own
thought.
Maimonides was an exceptional personality, and his integration of
various legacies was no doubt also exceptionally successful. Nevertheless,
(^1) E. Schweid, Feeling and Speculation (Ramat- Gan, 1970), 18– 19 [Hebrew]. See also
Aviezer Ravitzki, “On the Method of Studying Jewish Philosophy,” Jerusalem Studies in
Jewish Thought 1 (1981): 7– 22 [Hebrew].
(^2) See the preface, note 7, above.
(^3) Pines, “Translator’s Introduction,” cxxxiv. For a reappraisal of Pines’s statement, see
Harvey, “Medieval Sources of Maimonides’ Guide,” 283– 85.