Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T03:43:10.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas: Natural or Divine Prophecy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Alexander Altmann
Alexander Altmann
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Get access

Extract

The question whether prophecy is a natural phenomenon or a divine gift goes back to classical antiquity. A natural explanation of divination in sleep was first attempted by Democritus whose theory operates with the notion of ‘images’ (eidōla) that affect the soul in dreams and foretell the future. Whence these images emanate does not seem to be too clear from the sources at our disposal. Democritus is said to have described them as “great and gigantic … although not indestructible,” and from this we may, perhaps, infer that he associated the images with the statues of gods to which the ancients ascribed an odd assortment of capacities. The ‘images’ may therefore signify certain emanations from those statues, especially since Aristotle distinctly speaks of Democritus′ theory as one involving ‘images and emanations’ that derive from certain objects. The theory thus understood bears some resemblance to what Maimonides reports as the manner in which the Sabians explain prophecy: statues in temples and holy trees give prophetic revelation to people. Whatever the correct interpretation of Democritus' theory of dream visions, its intent was clearly scientific. This first effort to see divination in naturalistic terms—Cicero criticized it as far too crude—was to be superseded by Aristotle's more sophisticated theory in his small treatise On Divination in Sleep which forms part of the so-called Parva naturalia.

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 3 , April 1978 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Jaeger, Werner, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers (Oxford, 1947), pp. 180–1, 249, n. 36;Google ScholarHorovitz, Saul, Die Psychologie bei den judischen Religionsphilosophen des Mitielalters von Saadia bis Maimuni (Breslau, 1898; reprint ed., Westmead, 1970), p. 189, n. 133.Google Scholar

2. Sextus Empiricus Adversus physicos 1. 19.

3. For references see Arthur Stanley Pease, ed., M. Tulli Ciceronis de divinatione (University of Illinois, 1920–23), 1: 271–72.

4. Aristotle De divinatione per somnum 2. 464a 11.

5. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, 3: 45.

6. See Jaeger, Theology, p. 181. The notion of ‘images’ is used by Democritus also in connection with his theory of poetic inspiration. See Pease, De divinatione, 1: 237–38.

7. Cicero De natura deorum 1. 38–39; De divinatione 2. 67.137–39.

8. Aristotle De divinatione per somnum 1. 462b28, 463bl; 2. 464a5.

9. Aristotle De divinatione 1. 462b19–24,463b13–18,464a33. For Aristotle's dream theory referred to in what follows in the text, see his De somno el vigilia 1. 454b8–11; De somniis 3. 460b28–461a30, 461b27–462a32.

10. De divinatione per somnum 2. 463b13–15.

11. Sometimes Aristotle identifies the ‘demonic’ with the ‘divine’; see Hermann Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus, 2d ed., p. 164, s.v. daimonios. For nature as below the divine see the statement of Themistius quoted by Wolfson, H. A., “Hallevi and Maimonides on Design, Chance and Necessity,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 11 (1941): 148–49, 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar (republished in Wolfson, H. A., Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, ed.Isadore, Twersky and George, H.Williams [Cambridge, Mass., 1977], 2: 44–45, 49).Google Scholar For the development of the notion of the ‘demonic’ in the Platonic tradition, see Regen, Frank, Apuleius philosophus Platonicus (Berlin and New York, 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos 1. 20–21, quoted by Cicero De divinatione 1. 30. 63 from either Cratippus or Posidonius, as suggested by Heinemann, Isaac, Poseidonios metaphysische Schriften (Breslau, 1928), 2: 354.Google Scholar Cf. den Bergh, Simon van, trans., Averroes′ Tahafut Al-Tahaful (London, 1954), 2: 167.Google Scholar

13. Pines, Shlomo, “The Arabic recension of Pan/a Naturalia and the philosophical doctrine concerning veridical dreams according to al-Risdla al-Manamiyya and other sources,” Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974): 141–42.Google Scholar

14. See Heinemann, Schriften, p. 328 and passim.

15. Cicero De divinatione 1. 38. 82–83, 39. 84; 2. 49. 101. The argument is reported in the name of Chrysippus, who wrote a treatise on divination, and others. The reverse argument: “if there is divination, there must be gods” is found in Aristotle's On Philosophy (see Sextus Adv. phys. 1. 20) and in Posidonius (see Heinemann, Schriften, p. 346).

16. Cicero De div. 1. 50. 113; Philo Vita Mosis 1. 277 (see Heinemann, Schriften, p. 333).

17. Cicero De div. 1. 13. 23; on Carneades see Heinemann, Schriften, p. 341.

18. Cicero De div. 1. 32. 70, 2. 58. 119. Heinemann (Schriften, p. 354) leaves it undecided whether Cratippus adopted the Stoic view or whether Cicero formulated Cratippus's view in Stoic fashion. On Cratippus see Pease, De divinitatione, 1: 59.

19. Referred to in n. 13.

20. See Harry Blumberg's edition of the Arabic text of Averroes′ Epitome of Parva Naturalia (1972), his edition of the Hebrew translation of this text (1954); and E. L. Shields′ edition (with H. Blumberg's assistance) of the Latin version (1949), all published by The Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge, Mass.

21. See Pines, “Arabic recension,” pp. 120.

22. See Palacios, Miguel Asin, trans., El regimen del solilario por Avempace (Madrid and Granada, 1946), pp. 22–24 (54–55); quoted and partly translated by Pines, pp. 137–38.Google Scholar

23. See the texts quoted by Pines, pp. 114–21, 137–38; Averroes′ Epitome of Parva Naturalia: Arabic72. 7, 73. 4–7, 79. 7–12, 84. 7–9; Hebrew47. 9–10,48. 1–3,51. 16–52.3,55. 3–5; Latin 101. 35–36, 102. 49–52, 109. 4–9, 116. 17–18.

24. Averroes′ Epitome: Arabic 67. 4–11, 84. 11; Hebrew 44. 3–9; 55. 6–7; Latin 116. 23. On the hadith and its many variations see Kister, M. J., “The interpretation of dreams …, ” Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974): 71. To the list should be added: Franz Rosenthal, trans., Ibn Khaldun The Muqaddimah (Bollingen Series 43, 1958), 1: 208–9.Google Scholar

25. Averroes′ Epitome: Arabic 67. 8–10, 73. 4, 88. 9–91. 3; Hebrew 44. 6–9, 47. 16–48. 1, 57. 14–59. 9; Latin 102. 48–49, 120. 7–123. 41. The attribution of medical prognosis to dream revelation is a well-known topos in ancient philosophy. For references, see Pease, De divinatione, 2: 572. Heinemann, Schriften, p. 332 quotes a reference concerning the discovery, in a dream, of the efficacy of arislolachia against snake poisoning.

26. See Munk, Solomon, “Notice sur Joseph ben-Iehouda …, ” Journal Asiatique 3d ser. 14 (1842): 22, 24–25, 31;Google ScholarBaneth, D. H., ed., Moses Ben Maimon Epistulae (Hebrew), vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1946), p. 70. Baneth (p. 22) confirmed Munk's dating of the letter.Google Scholar

27. Sefer mdhamol ha-shem (Riva di Trento, 1960), 2: 4, fols. 17c”18b.Google Scholar

28. For bibliographical details (translations, etc.) and texts quoted by St. Thomas, see Vansteenkiste, C., “Autori Arabi e Giudei nell′ opera di S. Tommaso,” Angelicum 32 (1960).Google Scholar

29. The Versio Vulgata is variously attributed to Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187) and Michael Scot (d. c. 1235). See Shields′ edition, p. xiii.

30. Albertus Magnus, Opera Omnia, vol. 9 (Paris, 1891), Lib. Ill, Desomno et vigilia. Tract. 1, C. 2, p. 179; Aquinas, Thomas, Quaestiones disputatae (QD), 1, De veritale, ed. Raimondo, Spiazzi (Turin and Rome, 1953), 12. 5 (4), 246a;Google Scholaridem, , Summa theologiae, 45, ed. R. Potter (Manchester, 1970), 2: 2 (57), 172. 4 (4).Google Scholar

31. Cf. Albertus Magnus, Opera, 3. 1. 1, p. 178: “hoc quod dicit Aristoteles plus accedit veritati, quam aliquid quod ante vel post scripsit aliquis Philosophorum, cujus scripta ad nos devenerunt.”

32. Of the range of literature available to Albertus Magnus one catches a glimpse from the quotations found in his De sormo et vigilia.

33. Augustine, St., De Genesi ad litteram, 12. 1–37,Google Scholar in Migne, J. P., Patrologiae cursus completum, Series latina, 34: 454–86.Google Scholar

34. SeeGuttmann, Jacob, Das Verhdltnis des Thomas von Aquino zum Judenthum und zurjudischen Litleratur (Gottingen, 1891), pp. 73–79;Google ScholarKoplowitz, Ernst Salomon, Die Abhdngigkeit Thomas von Aquins von R. Afose Ben Maimon (Mir, 1935), pp. 89–93;Google Scholarand the excellent monograph by Jose Maria Casciaro, El didlogo teologico de Santo Tomds con musulmanes y judios, el tema de la profecia y la revelacion (Madrid, 1969). On some early polemics concerning the degree of Thomas' "dependence" on Maimonides, see the valuable essay by Mausbach, Joseph, “Die Stellung des hi. Thomas von Aquin zu Maimonides in der Lehre von der Prophetie,” Theologische Quartalsschrift 81 (1899): 553–79.Google Scholar

35. He does so with some reservations, as is evident from his remarks in Guide, 1: 72 in fine. A searching analysis of the Avicennian ontology is found in Davidson's, Herbert study, “Alfarabi and Avicenna on the Active Intellect,” Viator Medieval and Renaissance Studies 3 (1972): 109–78.Google Scholar

36. I borrow this term from H. A. Wolfson's translation of Maimonides' definition of prophecy (2: 36) as “a free grace flowing from God through the medium of the Active Intellect to man's rational faculty first and then to his imaginative faculty.” As Wolfson explains, the term faid. which is usually translated as “emanation,” actually denotes the “element of liberality and generosity in the act of emanation” and is correctly rendered by largitas in the old Latin translation (Paris, 1520). See Wolfson, “Hallevi and Maimonides on Prophecy,” JQR, n.s. 33 (1943):Google Scholar 71 (republished in Wolfson, Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, 2 [1977]: 60–119; cf. p. 108).Google Scholar

37. Phaedrus 247A; see also Timaeus 29E; Aristotle Metaphysics 1.2. 12 938a2: “It is impossible for the Deity to be jealous.”

38. See Fazlur, Rahman, ed., Avicenna[os;s De Anima (London, 1959), p. 178;Google ScholarS. van, Riet, ed., Avicenna Latinus, Liber De Anima seu Sextus de Naturalibus (Louvain and Leiden, 1968), p. 29: et non est illic occultatio aliqua nee avaritia.Google Scholar

39. Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 5: 10; Joseph ibn §addiq, Microcosm, ed. Saul Horovitz, p. 38; Abraham ibn Da′ud, ′Emunah ramah, ed. S. Weil, 74. 9–10; 36. 37–41: ki ′ein sham kilut.

40. Cf. Guide, 2: 12 (Munk 26a); 3: 18 (Munk 37b).

41. See Nuriel, Avraham, “Ha-rason ha-'elohi be-moreh nevukhim,” in Tarbiz 39 (1970): 39–61.Google Scholar

42. See Henry, Paul, “Le probleme de la liberte chez Plotin,” in Revue neo-scolastique, 2d ser., 8 (1931);Google ScholarRist, J. M., Plotinus: The Road to Reality (Cambridge, 1967); Klaus Kremer, “Das ‘Warum’ der Schopfung: ‘quia bonus’ vel/et ‘quia voluit’? Ein Beitrag zum Verhaltnis von Neuplatonismus und Christentum an Hand des Prinzips ‘bonum est diffusivum sui’,” in Kurt Flasch, ed., Parousia, Festgabe fur Johannes Hirschberger (Frankfurt, 1965), pp. 241–64.Google Scholar

43. See Joseph Kaspi, Moses Narboni and Shemtov ben Joseph ad loc. (2: 32).

44. See Manser, Gallus M., Das Wesen des Thomismus, 3d ed. (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1949), pp. 140–52, 166–79; Etienne Gilson, “Les sources greco-arabes de l'augustinisme avicennisant,” Archives d′hisloire doctrinale et litteraire du Moyen Age, 1929–30, pp. 5–107.Google Scholar

45. Cf. Grabmann, Martin, Mittelalterliche Deutung und Umbildung der aristotelischen Lehre vom nous poietikos (Munich, 1936), pp. 47ff.Google Scholar

46. Angelic intellect: Avicenna, Tis′ rasa′il (Cairo, 1326 A.H.), 122. 12 (al-′aql al-malaki); holy intellect: Avicenna, De anima (ed. Rahman), 248. 18 (′aql qudsi); holy spirit: Ti′ rasa′il, 64. 2; holy spirit: De anima, 249. 1 (al-ruh al-qudsiyya); divine power: De anima, 250. 4 (quwwa qudsiyya). The notion of ‘angelic intellect’ is implied in al-Farabf's statement that one who has achieved contact with the Active Intelligence was considered an ‘angel’ (malak) by the ancients; see Al-siyasal al-madiniyyah (Hyderabad, 1346 A.H.), p. 49. The Hebrew version (Sejer hahathalot, ed. Filipowski, p. 40, bottom line) reads melekh (king), and the reading malik (king) in the Arabic text is followed by Rahman, Fazlur, Prophecy in Islam (London, 1958), p. 30Google Scholar and Ralph, Lerner and Muhsin, Mahdi, eds., Medieval Political Philosophy: A Sourcebook (Chicago, 1963), p. 36Google Scholar. Bronnle, Paul, ed., Die Staatsleilung von Alfarabi, Deutsche Bearbeitung (Leiden, 1904), p. 61 translates ′EngeP, and this reading corresponds to the statement in Averroes′ Epitome of Parva Naluralia: “These men, if they exist, are men only in an equivocal sense, and they are more nearly angels than men” (Arabic 90. 2–3; Hebrew 58. 12; Latin 122. 23–24).Google Scholar

47. QD, 12. 4, p. 245a; 12. 5, p. 246a–b; 12. 8, p. 253a; ST, 2. 2. 172. I, 172. 2 and passim.

48. QD, 12. 1, p. 236a; ST, 171. 2.

49. QD, 12. 1, p. 236b; ST. 171. 2 (2).

50. QD, 12. 3, p. 241a. See Aristotle Physics 2. 1 192b–193al.

51. Thomas reports this view (which we discussed above, pp. 3–4) in the name of St. Augustine who refutes it. See De Genesi ad litleram, 12:13.

52. QD, 12. 3, p. 241a.

53. QD, 12. 3, p. 241a–b. Cf. Aristotle De generation animalium 2. 3 736b28. Thomas Aquinas offers two different sets of definitions of the ‘natural’ in QD, De veritate, 24. 10, p. 454a and 25. 6, p. 479a.

54. QD, 12. 3, p. 241b: prophetia … de qua nunc loquitur; prophetia de qua loquimur.

55. QD, 12. 3 (ad 1 and 5), pp. 242b and 243a.

56. Avicenna, De anima (ed. Rahman), 180. 4–7; (ed. van Riet), 31. 29–33.

57. See Litt, Thomas, Les corps celestes dans I′univers de Saint Thomas d′Aquin (Paris, 1963), pp. 113ff., 117, 122–23, 129. Litt analyzes Thomas's treatise “De occultis operationibus naturae” and shows that in his view of the celestial bodies he followed Albertus Magnus. For Avicenna's doctrine, see S. van den Bergh, Tahafut, 2: 166–67.Google Scholar

58. QD, 12. 3 (ad 1), p. 242b; (ad5), p. 243a; 12. 4, p. 245; 12. 8 (3), p. 253a; 57". 172. 1 (2).

59. QD, 12. 8 ( « / 3 ), p. 253b.

60. QD, 12. 3, p. 241b; 12. 4, p. 245a; 12. 8, p. 253a.

61. QD, 12. 4–5; ST, 172. 3–4.

62. QD, 12. 12 (6), p. 261a

63. QD, 12. 12 (2), p. 260b.

64. QD. 12. 4, p. 245a.

65. Ibid(ad 6), p. 245b.

66. Ibid(ad 4).

67. Ibid(2), p. 244b.

68. QD, 12. 7, p. 251a–b (see also 12. 3 [ad 1], p. 242b); cf. 57", 174. 2–3.

69. Garceau, Benoit, Judicium, Vocabulaire, Sources, Doctrine de Saint Thomas d' Aquin (Montreal and Paris, 1968), pp. 38–39.Google Scholar

70. See Wolfson, H. A., “The Terms Tafawwur and Tasdiq in Arabic Philosophy and Their Greek, Latin and Hebrew Equivalents,” Moslem World 33 (1943): 1–15 (republished in Studies, 1: 478–92; cf. 2: 564–65).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71. QD, 12. 7 and 12. 12; ST, 174. 2–3.

72. Thomas's view derives, in the first place, from Augustine's. See De genesi, 12. 9 (Prophetiam ad mentem pertinere). As for the lowest level of prophecy, there is an echo of Maimonides′ description of veridical dreams (2: 36) as novelet nevu′ah, a term quoted from Genesis Rabba, 17:5,44: 17. Thomas (ST, 173. 2) refers undoubtedly to this term when he says that mere imaginative apparitions are “called by some casus prophetiae” (this being the correct reading in place of extasis prophetiae, which makes no sense). The reference becomes perfectly clear from a passage in Albertus Magnus, De somno et vigilia, 3. 1. 3, p. 181: “propter quod tradiderunt Philosophi, quod somnium aliquod futurum praenuntians est casus a prophetia factus. Casus enim vocatur immaturus fructus decidens, qui tamen figuram et saporem fructus etiam aliquo modo praetendit.” Joel, Manuel, Verhdltnis Albert des Grossen zu Moses Maimonides (Breslau, 1863; 2d ed. 1876, here quoted), p. 25,Google Scholar first drew attention to the use in this passage (in the name of the ‘philosophers’) of Maimonides′ quotation and interpretation of the midrashic phrase, casus being obviously the rendition of novelet (i.e., the fruit ‘falling’ prematurely off the tree) in the Latin version by Augustinus Iustinianus which was based on Judah al-Harizi's Hebrew translation (see Kluxen, W., “Literargeschichtliches zum lateinischen Moses Maimonides,” in Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale 21 (1954): 23–50).Google Scholar Joel did not verify his assumption but the Paris 1520 edition of the old Latin version (reprint ed., Frankfurt, 1964), fol. 63b does indeed contain this term: Dixit etiam in eadem ratione quod casus prophetiae somnium est. Johannes Buxtorf jun. (Doctor Perplexorum, [Basle, 1629], p. 293) renders the midrashic statement: “Deciduum Prophetiae est Somnium.” Cf. Guttmann, Jacob, Die Scholastik des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts (Breslau, 1902), pp. 113–14. The dependence of the Thomas Aquinas passage on Maimonides was definitively established by Joseph Mausbach (see n. 34), p. 563, n. 1 by suggesting the reading ‘casus’ (following the note in the Bar-le-Duc edition). Jose M. Casciaro (see n. 34), pp. 165–66 adopts Mausbach's reading.Google Scholar

73. QD. 12. 8, p. 253a.

74. QD, 12. 8, p. 253a–b.

75. QD, 12. 8, p. 253a.

76. QD, 12. 8, p. 253a–b.

77. QD, 12. 13, p. 265b.

78. See Guide, 2: 45 in fine: 2: 6 (Munk 17b–18a). The ‘separate intellects’ that are said to appear to the prophets (Ibid Munk 16b) are figurized in corporeal form by the imagination (1: 49, 2: 41–42), which is the mediating agency par excellence in all prophecies, except Moses′.

79. See Jacob Guttmann, Das Verhdltnis…, pp. 73–75.

80. Guide, 1:46 (Munk 52b). Zvi Diesendruck, “Maimonides′ Lehre von der Prophetie,” in Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (New York, 1927), pp. 124ff., interpreted this passage in the sense of prophecy being a divine creation. This view cannot be upheld.

81. See n. 59.

82. Guide, 2: 35. On the various shades of meaning of this term see Wolfson, H. A., “The Amphibolous Terms in Aristotle, Arabic Philosophy and Maimonides,” Harvard Theological Review 31 (1938): 151–73;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, “Maimonides and Gersonides on Divine Attributes as Ambiguous Terms,” Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume (New York, 1953), pp. 515–30 (republished in Studies, 1: 455–77, 2: 231–46).Google Scholar

83. For this meaning of the term see Wolfson's two essays referred to in the preceding note.

84. H. A. Wolfson, “Hallevi and Maimonides on Prophecy” (see n. 36), p. 71.

85. QD. 12. 14, p. 266b.

86. QD. 12. 12 (ad 2), pp. 262b-263a.

87. See Rahman, Prophecy in Islam, pp. 76–77 (n. 37), quoting al-Farabi, Tafisil al-sa'ada, p. 44.

88. Guide. 2: 36 (Munk 80a). For a different interpretation see Kaspi, ad loc.

89. See Altmann, Alexander, “Ibn Bajja on Man's Ultimate Felicity,” Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1965),Google Scholar 1: 74 and passim (republished in Altmann, Alexander, Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism [Ithaca, N.Y. and London, 1969], p. 96 and passim).Google Scholar

90. QD, 12. 14; ST, 174. 4.

91. Politics 1. 1. 9 I253a2; 3. 4. 2 1278b19; Ethica Nichomachea 1. 7. 6 1097b 11; 9. 9. 3 1169b18. It can be shown that the manner in which the Arabic philosophers and Maimonides elaborate the statement presupposes some knowledge of its use in the Politics, not merely in the Ethics. This corroborates S. Pines's suggestion that some recension, paraphrase or summary of Aristotle's Politics was known to the Arabs. See his article “Aristotle's Politics in Arabic Philosophy,” Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975): 157.

92. Avicenna,Al-Shifa′, Al-Ilahiyyat(2), ed. Ibrahim, Madkour (Cairo, 1960), 10: 2, pp. 441–42.Google Scholar

93. QD, 12. 3 (11), p. 240a; ST. 172. 1 (4).

94. Ibid(ad 11), p. 243a–b (ad 4).

95. Guide, 2: 39–40, 3: 29–34.

96. QD, 12. 12 passim.

97. Albertus Magnus, De somno et vigilia, 3. 1. 2., p. 179: ut dicit Simonides, “Deus invidet hanc scientiam homini, et ideo velat earn sub metaphora et deceptione.” On Simonides see Pease, De divinatione, 1: 194.

98. See Walzer, Richard, “Al-Farabf's Theory of Prophecy and Divination,” in Journal of Hellenic Studies 1 (1957): 144ff.Google Scholar (republished in Walzer, Greek into Arabic [Cambridge, Mass., 1962], pp. 21 Iff.).Google Scholar

99. See above, p. 4.