Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 1.pdf/680

624 — Anthropomorphism

Tin:

Antichrist

JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

remark was not tlip outrnmo of pliilosopliic reflection, but was based n|ioii the olil pniphelic view of the Deity.

It wn.'<. lie

.siii<l.

like praising a Croesus

by saying "ho has a few coins"; better no praise than inadequate epithets: against "Moreh," i. 59. The question became a matter for lively discus,sion in the various schools when, for a second time, there was forced upon the Jew the jiroblemof reconciling prophecy and pliilosopliy by the latlc'r term mean-

—

in gAristotelianisin. the

only

jiliilosopli-

system which prevailerl among the Me- tlie Anibs, and therefore also with the dieval Phi- Jews living among Moslems. It is in-

Saadia and

ical

losopliers. teresting to notice

how

this second at-

tempt to harmonize Judaism and Hellenism led to the same result. Judaism was in danger intcllectuali/ed as to be no longer recogof being so

The dcvclopiMcnt of Jewisli nizable as a religion. thought during the jicriod from Saadia to Jlaimonides presents an exact inirallel to that connecting the Septuagint and I'liilo; and this is most .strikingly brought out by theclianged altitude toward the BibAs lical Anthropomor])liismand Anihroiinpalhism. regards Anthroiiomorphism Saadia is in full harmony with rabbinical Juilaism when he maintains that the corporeality of Goil is contrary bolli to reason and Scripture at least in so far as tradition woidd have it (see Kitab al Amanat wal' Itiiiadat," ed. Landauer, p. 93,1. 10 ft *Y/., Leyden, 1881— ii. 3 of the Hebrew translation of the work). Following the Targum of

—

Onkelos

— which be esteems very highly — he sets up

which the ten ant liropomorphic designations which occur in Scripture are to be e.xiilaiiicd: Uod's "head" indicates sublimity; the following rules, according to

"eye." jirovidence; "face." favor or disfavor; "ear." heeding; "mouth " and "lip."conuuand .and instruction; "hand," power; "heart." iusighl; "bowels," compassion; and " foot," the act of conquering or subduing, coiKjuest. But his treatment of the subject of

Anthropopathism is dictated more by Greek pliilcsophy than l)v Judaism, and is not remotely connected with his views on God 'sat tributes (see ATTiunrTES). Bahya. the next.Iewish philoso])licr after Saadia liewrote his" Hobotha-Lebabot" probably in the year mentions hisgreat predecessorin 10-tO Bahya a few words (chap. i. g 10) and accepts,

—

.

and Judah ha-Levi.

in its entirety, his explanation of the Biblical antliropomorphisms. He lays

more stress, however, than Saadia upon the negative character of the divine attributes, so that, had he been consistent, he would have arrived standpoint of Maiinoniih'S. But Bal.iyadid not possess a clear conception of the nature of negative attributes; for, while he taught that God is absolute unity, he also claimed that this fact involved the attributes both of being and eternity (see Kaufmann, "Die Theologie des Bachva ibn Pakuda," Vienna, 1874; and " Attributenlchrc." p. lo3). Judah lia-I.evi not to mention Ibn Gabirol, whose views scarcely possess any Jewish characteristics was far more consistent than Bahya, and was the first Jewish philosopher to reject completely the doctrine of essential attributes, insisting on the fact that it is impossible to predicate anything of God. But his approach to Neoplatoiusm the doctrine of God as " ])ure existence " is after all not a real approach. When luiinfluenced by philosophic speculation Judah ba-Levi maintains a position nearer to traditional Judaism tluin any other religious philosopher. His pious convictions are not based upon speculative philosophy, but on historical facts, on revelation and prophecy, the representatives of which comprehended and recognized the higher world as clearly and distinctly as ordinary mortals do this mundane at the

—

—

—

sphere.

624

mysticism determined toward Anthropomorphism. While the conception of the corporeality of God,

This

philosopln'c

also his attitude

opposed

t— as there

is

souK'tliing in

llii'se

ideas

which tills the human soul with awe of God. Hut this rather op|iortunist and indulgent attitude toward Anthropomorphism found, almost during the lifetime of Judah ha-Levi (died about Maimon- 11.^0), a delermined opponent in the

and His

ides

person of Mainionides

— the greatest of

Jewish philosophers. JIaimonides was

Itabbinile Jew to set >ip the Influence, the incorporeality of God as a dogma, and to jilace any i)erson who dciiird this doctrine upona level with an idolater. While his predecessors had contented themselves with rejecting Anthropomorphism as contrary to reason treating it as a purely theoretic matter JIaimonides declared it a heresy that would deprive any one holding the doctrine of a share in the world to come (" Yad lia-Hazakah. Hilkot Teshubah," iii. 7). The first part of hisreligio-philosophical work (the "Jlondi Nebukim") practically constitutes a treatise on Hebrew synonyms, the object of which is to explain away the anthropomorphisms in the Bible. But Maimonides was not content to restrict himself to opposing Anthropomorphism. Philosophy being to him not the handmaid, but the mistress, of theology, he pursued his thought until lie arrived at the concept of God as a melaplivsical being, withdrawn in cold sublimity and isolation from His creatures with whose weal or wo He first

—

—

—

could no longer concern Himself

— and

whom

free will; a being, in short, to

void of a no attributes

could be ascribed except those of a negative character. Thus Maimonides was confronted with a difficulty similar to that which Philo encountered when he propounded his doctrine of the "Logos": the question, namely, how to establish a communication

between a God devoid of attributes and the material universe. In fact, his lack of success was as complete as that of Philo, at least as far as Judaism is concerned. Despite the high esteem enjoyed by ilaimonides among the great body of Jews, he was unable to achieve any success with his"intellectualization " of Only one of his teachings that the notion of God. found favor in the eyes of the incorporeality of Ctod of his coreligionists, was accepted in all sincerity, and was even adopted in the ritual of the Synagogue; a proof that in this doctrine he had caught the true That his warfare against Anthrospirit of Judaism. pomorphism was a matter of serious concern to the

—

—

is shown by the comment of Abraham ben David of Posquieres the only one who could rival Maimonides in rabbinical scholarship on the passage in the "Yad ha-Hazakah." referred to above: " Greater and bet ter men than he JIaimonides have

Jews

—

—

—

—

held this opinion." It is difficult to determine whence the Jews of southern France who bitterly opposed Maimonides (See derived their antiantliropomorphic views.

—

—

Even in Kaufmann. " Attributenlehre," p. 485. northern France at an earlier date. Rashi on Mak. Viii remarks that the angels are not composed of flesh and blood, which, in philosophic phraseology, means the "angels are incorporeal.") The Jews of Provence were possibly influenced by the mystical literature in which the " measurements of the dimensions" of God play a great part, although this literature did not enjoy universal authority, oven when,