Download YESHIVAT HAR ETZION

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************
IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE KUZARI:
AN INTRODUCTION TO JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
by Prof. Shalom Rosenberg
Lecture #34a: Attributes and Archetypes
During the Middle Ages the theory of divine attributes was associated with some
very interesting logical and philosophical questions.
We will discuss some of these
questions later on. In order to do so, we will have to sort the various types of attributes into
categories. However, before we proceed, we must realize an important fact: our religious
language in general and our language of prayer in particular is based upon the Scriptures. In
the Song of Glory we say "through the hands of Your prophets, through the mystery of Your
servants, You have displayed Your glory." Our religious language is rooted in the prophetic
vision. Therefore we must return to the prophetic vision and gain a deeper understanding of
it.
We will begin with a discussion of the most fundamental type of divine attributes,
those which reflect human traits.
The term for this type of description of God is
anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism
These attributes use characteristics borrowed from the world of human interaction.
This anthropomorphism need not be physiological; it may take a psychological form as well.
Thus, for example, we find phrases reflecting the human body, such as "the eyes of God," or
psychological ones, such as "God's anger." Of course, these divine attributes are not to be
interpreted literally; it is a known fact that the Torah uses human language terms. As our
Sages put it, "the Torah spoke the language of people."
This phrase is important, but it does not say enough. The Kuzari, and the Rambam
in his wake, taught us that this phrase is only the opening for a discussion of biblical
language.
First of all, it is worth noting the position of Abraham Joshua Heschel; he
maintained that the Bible contains no actual anthropomorphisms; for the Bible never
describes God's physicality, only His apparent emotional response to our actions. This
distinction helps us understand the importance of the "psychological" attributes, such as the
statement that God "loves the convert" or "abhors evil." These phrases explicitly direct us to
their ethical meaning, and demand that we not use them to reach anthropomorphic
conclusions.
Given this background, we ought to take note of the statement made by Benno Jacob,
a modern Bible commentator, who draws our attention to an interesting paradox. As we, the
readers, proceed through the Scriptures, we notice that the use of anthropomorphism
increases. The reason is simple. We must be wary of anthropomorphisms when they pose a
danger, when people are liable to be misled by them. However, as we reach a level of
distance from anthropomorphism and it loses its religious philosophical menace, it becomes
more and more permissible, if it helps us express what we cannot express directly in words.
This is the reason that the prophets used human language much more freely. If we combine
these two statements, we will better understand the Rambam's guiding principles in this area,
which we would do well to follow. They are as follows:
1. The Scriptures do not attribute importance to a simplistic interpretation of
anthropomorphisms.
2. We must be exact as to the meaning of the anthropomorphism by examining the other
potential options for expression in the textual context.
Why Use Anthropomorphisms?
The Rambam fought a stubborn war against anthropomorphism. However, his great
achievement was not merely the disqualification of these adjectives in their simple form, but
rather the wonderful explanation of why anthropomorphism exists, and why the Torah
chooses to use these terms.
The Rambam explains that the goal of all the Scriptural
descriptions of God is to communicate a sense of God's flawlessness. When two descriptive
options exist, the Scriptures choose the one which best conveys the sense of God's
flawlessness.
The Torah desires to impart the concept of an utterly perfect God, and
therefore it uses terms which infer perfection, even though they do not accurately describe
God. Let me give you some examples of this principle.
The Torah uses terms taken from the human senses. Thus, for example, God is
attributed sight, hearing, and even the sense of smell.
These attributions are not
coincidental. The Torah wishes to teach us that God is familiar with and interested in
mankind, and responds to man's behavior. However, the Torah does not use all the possible
terms in the sphere of the senses. Terms connected with the sense of touch and of taste are
totally absent.
This requires an explanation, since this striking omission is clearly
intentional. The senses which the Torah uses to describe God's responses maintain the sense
of distance for us. People can hear and see across great distances. This is not the case with
our other senses. The Torah wished to convey the sense of God's presence and watchfulness
on the one hand, while avoiding the potential pitfalls of the anthropomorphism of the senses.
In this area idolatry failed, for the intimate anthropomorphisms which it allowed itself gave
legitimacy to the belief in physical relationships between the gods and their human subjects.
Anthropomorphism In Language
We can attribute characteristics to God, because we use various indirect linguistic
and poetic forms of language. The metaphor is a good example of such a tool. I would
suggest that there are two types of metaphor. One type of metaphor is the intentional use of
a word in order to evoke associations from another area and apply them to the area under
discussion. For example, one might say, in reference to a politician, "So-And-So is a real
snake." We describe a particular situation in the social or intellectual sphere by using terms
taken from the world of the jungle. There the snake is the wily, slippery trickster. We
mean to say that this particular person demonstrates characteristics similar to the snake's.
We borrow a word from one field, and move it to another, bringing all its associations along.
Another type of metaphor would be the use of a word in order to apply only one narrow
aspect of it to our situation. For example, when we say that we have completed "the lion's
share" of the work, we do not mean to arouse all the associations of the lion in the jungle.
We merely refer to the single aspect of the relatively large size of the lion's share.
Generally, the first type of metaphor is the one we commonly use when defining attributes of
God.
(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)
*********************************************************
BE SURE TO VISIT THE "VIRTUAL CITY OF JERUSALEM"
WWW.VIRTUAL.CO.IL
*********************************************************
VISIT YHE'S WEB SITE:
HTTP://WWW.VIRTUAL.CO.IL/EDUCATION/YHE
*********************************************************
To subscribe send e-mail to: [email protected]: subject:(leave blank or type word
'subscription'), on first line of text type: sub YHE-JEWPHI2 <your full name> .
Copyright (c)1998 Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved.
*********************************************************
SHIURIM MAY BE DEDICATED TO VARIOUS OCCASIONS - YAHRZEITS, SEMACHOT, BIRTHDAYS,
ETC. PLEASE E-MAIL [email protected] FOR AN APPLICATION.
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
E-MAIL: [email protected] or [email protected]