)
THE JEWISH ENfVfLoPEDIA
623
By Biblical writers is "to behold tlie face of God," uiiiiiis of a slight vowel-eiianiic (,v/(v(»7i in place of i/iri/i) this became "to appear before Goil," This and similar emeiidatioiis of the Scribes (see GeijfiT, " L'rsclirifl." pp. iil8 d ki//.) show that the <'ii(leavorof the "Soferim" was toliohl the Dc'ityaloof from
contact with the merely
all
human, and thus
to avoid attributing,' human qualities to interprelini; the laniruage of the Bible. less,
A nth ropomorjihism and even
God even
in
Neverthe-
Antliroiiopathism,
when
not too gross and flagrant, did not appi-ar to them seriously objectionable. Among the eiirhteen "Tikkune Soferiin " (emendations of the Scribes) in the Mck, (Ex. .v,7. ed. Friedmami. Jiilri). which istlie oldest source, not a .single e.vamplc of the changing of a real antliropoinori)liic expression is found. The older Targumim aildnce a principle similar to llie"So" ferim." They always speak of the Mi;.mh. ("word of God) if in the Hebrew text (iod is represented as speaking but they retain in their translations such expressions as the hand, linger, or eye of God. The present te.t shows only traei's of this tendi'ncy, but they are inimistakable, asGinsbiirger has shown {I.e. 2(5.")). (rinsburger (p. '.iTO) is accordingly right 1>. when he deduces the following rule for the employment of memra in the older Targumim: "Whenever a relation is predicated of God. through which His spiritual presence in an earthly being must be assumed, tin' para|ihrasi' with memra is employed." The "fathers" of the Sejituagint went much further than tlie "Soferim " or the " .Metnrgemaniin " in their employment of interpretative exSeptuagint. pressions. by paraphrasing or spiritualizing (rendering less worldly or gross) the anthropomorphic or aiitliropopathic phrases of the- Mible. The " image of (Jod " becomes in the Sepluagint "the glory of the I,ord"('16cn Myiioe) " the mouth of God." " the voiic of the Lord " [ouvi/ Kviiioi). Even human emotions are excluded froiu Deity. Repentance, wrath, and )iily are suggested in such a manner that nothing human is stated of God. The customary assumption that thisaversion to the predication of anything corporeal, or indeed human, of fjod is due to the intlnenee of Greek philosophy is far from certain. Krankei, in his " Vorstudien." was the Hrst to deny that any traces of (Jreek inlluence can be disciivered in the Sepluagint: and Freudenthal has fully demonstnited the correctness of this assertion. According to the hitter's argument ("Jew. Quart. Hev." 180(). pp. 2()() it xc/.). no other traces of the alleged inlluence of Greek philosophy can be noticed in the Septuagint; and conseipK'Utly the avoidance of anthropomorphisms ai]d anihropopa tliisins in the Septuagint must be looked u]ion as a ri'tinement of religious idi'as wliieli had its origin upon Jewish soil. Nor must it be forgotten that many aiilhropomoiphie phrases ari' simply luitrans-
—
—
" '3 Sy "by God" mouth of God"). Although the
latabh' intr) (JriMk; for instanci'. (lilirally.
"by
lli<'
Septuagint. and later the Targiiniin. Onkelos and Yerushalmi. to the Prophets avoid anthro])omor phisms and anthropopalhisms, whenever the Biblical ixprissionsseem such, no lixed rule for the avoidance of these phrasis can be shown to have existed, as the same Targum sometimis renders an Anthropomorphism literally, and again, in anipl her place, cpiiti' freely. (Theehibonite rules which .Maybaum sets up fort )idielosscem loocomplieated. Besides. tnkelos. (
pnsent uniform character, cuutaiiis originally extraneous elements.
<lespite its
iiiany
In the older rabbiincal litenilure there also occur a number i>f utienuiees which show a ten<lency to suppres.H low and sensuous conceptions of (JikI by nii'ansof a new lierineneutics. Kiferring to the fan-
Anthropomorphism
and figurative expressions of the Prophets, an old rabbinical sjiying remarks: "The Prophets show gnat daring in likening the Creatorto EarHer thi-creature" (Gen. H. xxvii. 1 Habbi Rabbin- Akiba sought a different interpreical Liter- tation of those passjiges in the Bible that seem to identif}- Goil and the ature. angels. God, in His sublimity, must in His very es.sence dilfer from His holy angels. Comiiare >Iek.. Heshallah, (i. where" Akiba iledares as heretical the c<'rtaiidy ancient explanation of the worils •• like one of us" (Gen. iii. 22) as referring to the angels. Compare his Christian contemiiorary Justin Martyr, who declares the interpretation Akiba rejected to be "Jewish heresy" ("Dialogus cum Try phone, "62). Wlienever actions similar to those of a human being are predicated of God, the older ciful
1.
employed the term Sl3'33 ("as though it were possilile"); intending by this term to .sjiy that these expressions are not to be taken literally, but only as a mod<'of speech acconunodated to the average" intellect (,Mek.. Yithro. 4). An entirely flitferent ten<lency from the one just described in the treatment of anthropomorphisms and anthroiiopathisms is apparent as soon as jiliilosophical speculation concerns itself with Jewish monotheism as a factor in determining the interjiretation of the Scrijiture. Such a result was quite inevitable; for. as Frankel (" Vorstudien." p. 1T4) remarks, the ordinary intellect often regards what appears to the speculative reasonerasanthroi)omorphic, as a notion in.separable from the c<ineept of (!od. The maimer in which Aristobidus. l.'iO nc. endeavors to remove the anthro|ioiuorphic designations of G<id is, accordingly, no longer the Aristobulus same, nor is it even similar to the proand Philo. cedure of the Palestinians, as the existing fragments of his work show. The "resting " of (!od. of which the Bible speaks, means, according to AristipbiUus. that He instituted a permanent selfmainlaining order in the world. So God's "coming down " is not to be conceived as a bodily descent into space, but only as a vision or mental picture (see Siegfried, "Piiilo," p. 198). From this it is evident that Aristobidus stands with only one foot on the base of traditional Judaism; and of his succes.sor Philo not even that much can The God of Philo. owing to the inbe asserte<l. tlnenee of Platonism. is not only essentially dilTeran idea which also ent from man and the worhl coincides with the leaching of the Pharisees of this j)erio(l but He is entirely devoid of attribtites. Philo opposes not only the literal understanding of the anthropomorphic and anlhropo]iathie passages in the Bible, but also the doctrine of God as an active worker, inasnuieh as activity can not be This predicated of a Being devoiil of attribtites. was the impelling motive of Philo's doctrine of the "Logos." which doctrine later on became a chief pillar of Christianity. Alexandrianisni had no material influence upon the development of Judaism, so that a long time pas,sed before the experiment was repealed of reading the Bible with philosophical scrutiny. The antipathy of the Palestinian Jews to the Greeks and everything (ire(ian involved this eonseipience, that rabbinical liteniturc shows no development whatever in the tieatnient of Anlhropom<irphism, Hnninii, an aiiioni of the third century, when rebuking a cantor for unduly multiplying the attributes of God in his pmycrs (Ber. 2.>;). ailded that he himself would use no attributes in imiving, if it weri' not But the exthat some are employed in the liible. ample he gives to illustnite his point shows that his rabbis
—
—
