Thus to Saadiah philosophy and science are mere luxuries, and cannot be considered as handmaids to the Torah. They are not studied on account of their intrinsic value or as helps for the understanding of Holy Writ, but merely for the purpose of procuring proper weapons for theological warfare, or of superadding the conviction that what is known to us from the most trustworthy source is confirmed from other less reliable sources.

The poet and philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol, who is lost in enthusiasm in contemplating the powers of the human soul, humbly acknowledges that it was his faith that saved him from fall and ruin. Referring to man’s faculty of acquiring knowledge, he says in his “Royal Crown” ‏כתר מלכות‎: “Who can comprehend Thy wisdom in giving to the soul the faculty of acquiring knowledge, on which her existence depends, knowledge being her foundation? She is permanent and immortal in the same measure as her foundation is well established.” But, reflecting on human weakness, he expresses his feeling of gratitude to the Creator for His guidance in the following words: “Thou hast done yet more for me. Thou hast implanted in my heart a perfect faith, so that I believe in Thee as the true God, and in Thy prophets as true prophets; Thou hast not cast my lot among those that rebel against Thee, or among those who provoke Thy name, despise Thy Law, attack Thy servants, and disbelieve Thy prophets.” Knowledge—philosophy and science—is the very essence, the immortal element of the soul, and yet without the Word of God man would go astray and be lost.

The boundaries between faith and reason are more distinctly set forth in the Commentary on Sefer Yetsirah by Dunash ben Tamim (ed. L. Dukes in Shire Shelomoh, i. p. vi. seq.): “All these beings above and below have been created by God, and it is within the province of man to explore and to examine all of them; but he must not pass beyond these boundaries to investigate into the essence of God; ‘for in the city of his refuge shall he dwell,’ and ‘if he goeth out of his place, and the avenger of blood smite him, he hath no remedy.’ Besides, wisdom and science acknowledge that man is unable to comprehend by his own intellect anything that exists outside the sphere of created beings.”

R. Bachya, son of Joseph hassephardi, who lived in the eleventh century, treats, in the Introduction to his “Duties of the Heart,” of the three sources of human knowledge—Holy Writ, Tradition, and Reason. Bachya is fully convinced that the knowledge derived from the first two sources is complete and correct. “If you are a man endowed with knowledge and reason, and are able to demonstrate the principles of your belief and your religious practice, which you have been taught by the Sages in the name of the prophets, it is your duty to do so, and to let reason confirm what Tradition teaches. If you abstain from attempting this investigation, you neglect your duty towards your Creator.”

Still more emphatic is Shem-tob ibn Palqera in demanding the right of free inquiry into everything taught by Revelation and Tradition. In a dialogue between the believer and the inquirer (Hammebhakkesh) the former is represented as ignorant of everything our mind desires to know; whilst the wise man, who combines belief and confidence in Tradition with the right use of his reason, knows how to satisfy the inquirer, and lays down the rule, “Let the study of the Torah be the foundation, and the study of other things secondary; believe nothing that is not proved by reason or by God” (i.e., by the word of Revelation).

R. Abraham ben David, in Emunah ramah: “Because three out of four scholars (R. Akiba, Ben-azai, Ben-zoma, and Elisha) were unsuccessful in their philosophical researches, therefore many turn their backs upon science, and in consequence of this neglect they remain ignorant of the chief principles of our religion.” The object of his book is to reconcile religion and science.

R. Judah hallevi, in his “Kuzari,” endeavours to convince the Kuzarite king of the truth of the Jewish religion by philosophical arguments, but gives unhesitatingly the preference and the higher authority to Divine revelation. He is convinced that reason or philosophical argument could never refute any principle taught in the Law. He says: “Prophecy is certainly stronger than logical inference.”

R. Abraham ibn Ezra believes that man’s intellectual faculties are insufficient to solve all transcendental problems; thus, e.g., the nature of the spirit of man is unknown to most, and is only comprehended by him “whose thoughts are weighed in the balance of reason, and are established on the four elements of wisdom, viz., the three R’s: reading, writing, and reckoning; (in Hebrew, the three ‏ס‎: ‏סְפָר סֵפֶר סִפּוּר‎) and the Divine Law.” Ibn Ezra recommends the study of science, united with the belief in Divine revelation. “The Torah,” Ibn Ezra remarks in his Commentary on Ps. xix. 8, “is perfect in itself; it requires no evidence from without for the truths which it teaches.”

Maimonides’ “Guide to the Perplexed” is entirely devoted to the problem how to reconcile Scripture and reason. Scripture cannot contain anything contrary to reason; nor can the result of scientific research and philosophical speculation be conceived as contrary to reason, which is their very basis. But where any such contradiction is perceived, we are at fault either in our reasoning or in our interpretation of the Divine Writings. The Incorporeality and Unity of God are doctrines that have been fully proved, and Scripture cannot teach anything that is contrary to them. Where we believe them to be contradicted in the Holy Writings the contradiction is only apparent, and by assuming an allegorical use of words and phrases the seeming contradiction is removed.

R. Joseph Albo prefaces his book on the principles of Judaism as follows: “As the human understanding is incapable of finding out what is true and what is good, there must be a higher Being that assists us in determining what is good and in comprehending what is true. It is therefore necessary, above all, to study and to know the divine Law that guides man in these problems.”

R. Eliah del Medigo, in his Bechinath haddath (Examination of Religion) says as follows:—

“Let us first see whether or not the study of philosophy is permitted to the followers of our religion; and, if it be permitted, whether the study is to be considered a duty and a laudable act. The right-minded Jew does not doubt that the Law aims at leading us to humane conduct, good deeds, and true knowledge, the common people according to their capacity, and the more gifted according to their abilities. Certain fundamental truths are therefore set forth in the Law and the Prophets in an authoritative, poetical, or dialectical style; but the higher order of intellects are encouraged to search for proper proofs. Thus the whole nation is addressed by Isaiah: ‘Lift up your eyes on high and see who hath created these,’ and the like. Also the chief of the Prophets tells the Israelites: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is One.’ Those who are more highly endowed than their fellow-men are exhorted, either directly or indirectly, to follow the course which is suitable to them. The direct exhortation to philosophical research is contained in the words: ‘Know then this day, and take it to thy heart, that the Lord He is God,’ &c.; and indirectly it is contained in the commandment to love and to fear God, as has been explained by R. Moses Maimonides.—The study of science will certainly be of use to the scholar; it leads to a knowledge of the created things, and through these to a knowledge of the Creator. Such study may even be considered as necessary to the Jewish scholar, though not to the ordinary Jew. The scholar must, however, not entirely rely on his research, but on that which is taught in the Law. In this the scholar and the ordinary man are equal, that both accept the teaching of the Torah as infallible; only with this difference, that the scholar can in addition satisfy his thirst for knowledge and confirm by scientific proof what he has already accepted as true on the authority of the Bible.”

Of modern scholars I only quote Moses Mendelssohn’s theory. He accepts unconditionally the teaching of the Bible; all its truths are absolute and perfect; no reasoning whatever can refute them; but difficulties may sometimes present themselves to us in reconciling the teaching of the Bible with that of our reason. What have we then to do? The philosopher declares: “If I were to find my reason in contradiction to the Word of God, I could command reason to be silent; but the arguments, so long as they have not been refuted, will nevertheless assert themselves in the innermost recesses of my heart; the arguments will assume the form of disquieting doubts, which will resolve themselves into childlike prayers, earnest supplication for enlightenment. I should utter the words of the Psalmist: ‘Lord, send me Thy light, Thy truth, that they may guide me, and bring me to Thy holy mount, to Thy dwelling-place!’”