Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:25:13.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-Cognizing Intellect and Negative Attributes in Maimonides' Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Hannah Kasher
Hannah Kasher
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his introductory essay on the philosophical sources of The Guide of the Perplexed, Shlomo Pines points out a well-known contradiction between two conceptions of God in Maimonides' theology. On the one hand, Maimonides borrowed the Aristotelian definition of God as the intellect that cognizes itself; on the other, in line with Avicenna's Neoplatonic theory of attributes, Maimonides denied the possibility of saying anything positive about God. Pines proposes two possible solutions; first, that Maimonides was well aware of the contradiction, or, second, that he fell into the contradiction inadvertently. As Pines himself admits, however, neither solution is satisfactory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 87 , Issue 4 , October 1994 , pp. 461 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1994

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 Maimonides, Moses, The Guide of the Perplexed (trans. Pines, Shlomo; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963) xcvii–xcviiiGoogle Scholar.

2 Ibid., 1.18.

3 Ibid., xcviii.

4 Ibid., xvii.

5 Pines, Shlomo, A History of Jewish Philosophy from Maimonides to Spinoza (Jerusalem: ha-studentim shel ha-Universitah ha-Ivrit, 1963/1964) 31Google Scholar [Hebrew].

6 Ivry, Alfred, “Neoplatonic Currents in Maimonides' Thought,” in Kraemer, Joel L., eds., Perspectives on Maimonides (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 115–40Google Scholar.

7 Maimonides Guide of the Perplexed 1.56–57.

8 Ibid., 1.68.

9 Ibid., xcviii.

10 Ibid., lxix–lx, lxiii.

11 Ibid., xciii.

12 Ibid., 1.68.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid., 1.56.

17 Ibid., 1.58.

18 Ibid., 1.1–49.

19 Ibid., 1.56–60.

20 See Schweid, Eliezer, Maimonides and the Scope of His Influence (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1968) 127Google Scholar [Hebrew]. Schweid calls the situation one of “tense synthesis,” not contradiction.

21 Barth, Karl, Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1960) 102Google Scholar.

22 Otto, Rudolf, The Idea of the Holy (2d ed.; trans. Harvey, John W.; London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1958) 63Google Scholar.

23 Barth, Anselm, 154.

24 Otto, Idea of the Holy, 6.

25 This is the basic thesis of Otto's work cited above in n. 22.

26 Sifra Lev. Kedoshim 1 (Jerusalem: Sifra, 1959) 86Google Scholar.

27 Leibowitz, Yeshayahu, Judaism, Human Values and the Jewish State (ed. and trans. Goldman, Eliezer, et al. ; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) 24–25Google Scholar, 45–47. For a systematic analysis of holiness, see Harvey, Warren Zev, “Holiness: A Command to Imitatio Dei,” Tradition 16 (1977) 7–28Google Scholar; and Twersky, Isaac, “Sanctification of the Name and Sanctification of Life—Aspects of Holiness in Maimonides' Teachings,” in Gafni, Yashayahu and Ravitzki, Aviezer, eds., Holiness of Life and Self-Sacrifice: Studies in Memory of Amir Yekutiel (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-toldot Yisrael, 1993) 167–90Google Scholar [Hebrew].

28 Maimonides, Moses, Sefer ha-Miẓvot (trans. Kafih, Yosef; Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1971) 18Google Scholar (4th rule) [Hebrew].

29 Maimonides, Moses, Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha-Madaʿ (ed. Lieberman, Saul; Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1964) 67Google Scholar.

30 Maimonides, Moses, Mishneh Torah: Sefer Ṭohorah (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1962) 489 (Hilkhot Tumʾat Okhalin 16.12).Google Scholar

31 Ibid.

32 Maimonides Guide of the Perplexed 3.8, 33.

33 Ibid., 3.32.

34 The thirteen principles are as follows: the existence of God; God's unity; God's incorporeality; that God is eternal; that God alone is to be worshipped; prophecy; the superiority of Moses; that the Torah is divine; that the Torah is unchanging; that God knows the deeds of humans; reward and punishment; the coming of the Messiah; and the resurrection of the dead. See Maimonides Commentary on the Mishnah on Sanhedrin 10 [Pereq Ḥeleq]; quotations are from Abelson, Joshua, “Maimonides on the Jewish Creed,” JQR 19 (1907) 47–49Google Scholar.

35 For negative attributes in Maimonides' writings, see Wolfson, Harry A., “Maimonides on Negative Attributes,” in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume: On the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1945) 411–46Google Scholar.

36 Saʿadia Gaʾon Book of Doctrines and Beliefs 2.1, in Three Jewish Philosophers (trans. Altmann, Alexander; college ed.; New York: Atheneum, 1969) 2.77Google Scholar.

37 For a comparison between Yehudah Halevi and Maimonides, see Kreisel, Howard, “Judah Halevi's Influence on Maimonides: A Preliminary Appraisal,” Maimonidean Studies 2 (1991) 95–123Google Scholar.

38 Yehudah Halevi Sefer ha-Kuzari 2.2, in Three Jewish Philosophers (trans. Heinemann, Isaak; college ed.; New York: Atheneum, 1969) 3.62Google Scholar.

39 Ibid.

40 R. Levi b. Gershom, Milhamot ha-Shem (Riva di Trento: ʿAl yede Yaʿakov Mazkriʿah, 1560) fol. 47.

41 On the special relationship between Maimonides and al-Farabi, see Berman, Lawrence V., “Maimonides, the Disciple of Alfārābi,” Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974) 154–78Google Scholar.

42 Al-Farabi, , On the Perfect State (trans. Walzer, Richard; Oxford: Clarendon and New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) 57Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., 79.

44 Ibid., 59.