Maimonides and religious language

Maimonides’ great work of philosophy (that he actually presents not as a work of philosophy but commentary), the Guide of the Perplexed, is an esoteric work in which Maimonides declares that he wants to disguise his true views (from the unlearned masses including rabbis who have not studied philosophy).  The question is what he was covering up and did not want to reveal. In my view, in the spirit of Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, Maimonides was a radical Aristotelian thinker and an agnostic.  He is very careful to cover up his Aristotelian viewpoints in the Guide (and his Aristotelian views actually appear very clearly in the Book of Knowledge of his law code), but strikingly he presents his agnosticism in the Guide in a fairly clear way.

Regarding the Book of Knowledge of his law code, Maimonides uses the term First Existent in relation to God (his one major work written not in Arabic but Hebrew so that there is no problem of translation) – a term that does not appear in the Bible.  Even though the term First Existent is not the exact term that Aristotle used in relation to God, the term is nevertheless Aristotelian in spirit.  The Aristotelian terms for God are First Cause, Prime Mover or Pure Intellect – and, it is clear that Maimonides’ term First Existent reflects Aristotelian rather than Biblical terminology.

In the Aristotelian conception, God is not conceived as a Creator, and God is conceived as devoid of conscious will.  In the Biblical conception, God creates the universe as an act of conscious will, and even more important God demands morality as God is conceived of as having conscious moral will.  That is, in the Biblical conception, God is conceived of not only as the Creator of the universe, but most importantly as a God of revelation and redemption – a moral God who demands morality (and is a source of Torah and commandments).  In the Aristotelian conception of the medieval period in which Maimonides lived (as this was not necessarily the conception of Aristotle himself), God is conceived as a power devoid of conscious will and an impersonal source of existence (First Cause) as well as truth (Pure Intellect), as the sun is an impersonal power and source of light (and the analogy of the sun is an analogy that Maimonides himself uses in the Guide of the Perplexed) – and, the universe is conceived as eternal flowing from God as an eternal source from which the universe and truth are emanated, as light is emanated from the sun.

It is striking, and not by accident, that in the first 4 chapters of the Book of Knowledge of Maimonides’ law code that present fundamental principles of Torah God is presented as a source of existence and truth (as in an Aristotelian conception of God) – and not, as in the Biblical conception, in the main as a source of Torah (morality) and commandments.  The opening passage of the Book of Knowledge of his law code says:

The foundation of all foundations, and the pillar of all wisdoms, is to know that there is a First Existent and He has brought every existing thing into existence.  And every existing thing…exists only on account of His true existence.  If it were supposed that He does not exist, nothing else could exist.  But, if it were supposed that all other existing things do not exist, He alone would exist, and their non-existence would not imply His non-existence, since all other existing things are dependent upon Him, while He is not dependent upon them…Therefore, His true essence is not like their true essence.  This is what the prophet says, “But the Lord is the true God” (Jeremiah 10, 10).  He alone is the Truth, and nothing else is true like His truth.  This is what the Torah says, “There is none else besides Him” (Deuteronomy 4, 35).  That is, there is no True Existence besides His, like His.

I have highlighted and underlined the root words existence and truth that are repeated throughout the passage indicating that God, as in an Aristotelian conception, is a source of existence (First Cause or Prime Mover) and truth (Pure Intellect) – and, glaringly absent from the passage is any mention of God as a source of Torah (morality) and commandments.  Indeed, in the first four chapters of the Book of Knowledge in which Maimonides presents material that he considers the essence of Judaism and religion there is no mention of observance of Torah and commandments, and no mention of God as a source of morality or source of Torah and commandments.

Maimonides in his law code, in the Book of Knowledge (Fundamentals of Torah 1, 9), argues that anthropomorphic language of the Torah describing God in human terms must be understood metaphorically – as the Torah is speaking in a language that human beings can understand (“the Torah speaks in a human language”).  In the Guide he goes even further in presenting a clear agnostic conception and argues that we cannot say anything whatsoever of God even not of an anthropomorphic nature.  An idol of wood and stone is a visual representation of God – and, any verbal description of God is a verbal representation serving to define and limit God bordering upon idolatry in defining God who is entirely beyond comprehension.  We cannot say of God that God is good or merciful or any other description, and, we even cannot say that God exists (or that God doesn’t exist). According to Maimonides (the Guide 1, 59), we must be entirely silent regarding God (except for what we read in the Bible and what is permitted to us by law to say as a part of formal prayers and blessings) – and, he quotes (the Guide 1, 59) a verse from the Book of Psalms (65, 2) “silence is praise to You”.

I personally do not identify with Maimonides’ Aristotelian views, and they are in my mind a distortion of the Bible and our tradition – but, the agnostic view that he presents in the Guide that we cannot know whether God exists or does not exist is a given today in the realm of modern philosophy in light of the arguments of Hume and Kant (and many are simply unaware that Maimonides presents such a view some 800 years ago).  In light of the arguments of Hume and Kant metaphysics has died (as the answer to any metaphysical question is always maybe yes, maybe no) – and I am very pragmatic in my orientation, which expresses itself for me in an anti-metaphysical conception of Judaism and religion.  Traditional Judaism is a religion in a pragmatic sense of a way of life of the Jewish people – and, observance of tradition (law and ritual) then, for me, is due not to metaphysical reasons (Torah as the Divinely revealed word of God), but as an expression of Jewish identity and culture.

However, where I part company with Maimonides regarding his agnosticism is concerning religious language.  A very strong argument can be made that Maimonides was actually a mystic (and it is not by chance that his son, Abraham, was a mystic influenced by the Sufis who were Moslem mystics).  But, Maimonides was not a mystic in a non-rationalistic sense – Shlomo Pines, one of the great scholars of medieval Jewish thought, terms Maimonides’ mysticism a form of rational mysticism.  Maimonides’ argument that we must be entirely silent regarding God is very characteristic of mystical approaches in which religious experiences cannot be described in language.  There are Jewish mystics, though, who do make use of poetic and metaphoric language in describing and speaking of God.

I am not a mystic and not mystical in my orientation – my orientation is rationalistic and pragmatic.  Yet, I do think that religious language is very meaningful as long as we understand that from a philosophic point of view we are using metaphors and speaking in poetic terms – in speaking of God we are not necessarily describing a metaphysical reality but speaking in poetic terms.  The poem Anim Zemirot that we say at the end of the morning Shabbat prayer service, and which came from medieval Jewish mysticism, reflects an alternative approach to that of Maimonides.  At the beginning of the poem it is written “I will tell of Your glory though I do not see You, I will conceptualize You (images and comparisons), and describe You, though I do not know You…they (prophets) described the power of Your works, they conceptualized You (images and comparisons), but not as You are (in reality)”.  The poem here is expressing an agnostic conception in which God is beyond all human comprehension, and our descriptions of God are only images that do not and cannot describe God as God is in reality. In the continuation of the poem there are images of God that are very anthropomorphic describing God in crass human terms.

Both Maimonides and the poem Anim Zemirot begin with the same philosophic assumption that God cannot be known at all – and, yet, the conclusions or resulting approaches are diametrically opposed.  In the face of our recognition that we cannot know God, Maimonides argues that we must be entirely silent.  In the face of the same recognition that we cannot know God, the poem Anim Zemirot describes God in metaphorical and poetic language that is inspiring and that enables an uplifting religious experience.  By the way, Maimonides’ approach also enables a religious experience but it is one of silent, non-verbal meditation or contemplation, which is an influence of the Greek culture upon his thought and not a traditional Jewish way of worship. In both cases of Maimonides and Anim Zemirot, though, the importance of religious language is not as an end in and itself but as a means to enable religious experience.

I want to give two examples that such religious and poetic language as that of the poem Anim Zemirot enables religious experience – and such anthropomorphism (personification) of the poem is found in the Bible and Talmudic literature as well.  First, Rebbe Nachman, the great Chasidic (mystical) teacher, instituted the practice of seclusion in which one pours out one’s heart or soul as if conversing with a good friend.  It is an unanswerable question whether God actually exists or not, and conceiving of God as a good friend is merely an image and metaphor – in any case, whether God actually exists or not, the image of our conversing with God as a good friend enables us to have the psychological and spiritual experience of pouring out one’s soul, which is without question very healthy psychologically and spiritually.

Second, when we stand in prayer in Judaism in praying the Amidah (the standing prayer and central prayer of Judaism) we have a custom that we take 3 steps backwards and 3 steps forward before beginning our prayer, and we take leave of God as it were with 3 steps backwards.  The reason is that we are creating a religious experience as if we are standing before a King.  The experience that we are seeking is fear of God – a central concept of the Bible and the Jewish tradition.  Fear of God in the Bible is a moral concept and not a theological concept (and I write of this in my book on the Bible) – and does not presuppose the existence of God in a metaphysical sense.  The Book of Proverbs in the Bible gives a remarkable definition of fear of God – “fear of God is the hatred of evil” (Proverbs 8, 13).  Fear of God here in the verse refers not to theological belief concerning God but simply to the hating of evil – a moral conception of fear of God that even a secular person who does not believe in the existence of God in a theological sense can display; and, conversely one who believes in the existence of God theologically may lack fear of God in this moral sense.  Fear of God then is an emotional and religious experience in which we have a deep feeling of awe and fear that God forbid, as it were, that we should do something wrong or hurtful – that necessarily expresses itself in the refraining from wrongdoing.  By the way, love of God in the Biblical conception is love of goodness, and likewise (like the concept of fear of God) is a feeling and moral character trait – a trait that expresses itself in the doing of good deeds.

So, when we take 3 steps backwards and forward in beginning to pray in Judaism as if we are standing before a King it is not important at all whether such a God actually exists or not – and this is a question that is foreign not only to the Bible but also to the Talmudic tradition both of which are pragmatic in orientation. What is important is that we have the emotional and religious experience of “fear of God” and that we emerge from our prayers in some way a better person from a moral point of view.  The religious experience of fear of God is the ultimate goal of the prayer, and the religious and poetic language of the prayer is only a means to achieve the goal – and, this is a religious experience that is available even to a secular atheist, as the Biblical concept of fear of God is a moral rather than theological concept.  I also want to add that the poetry of the prayer (the religious language) and the customs (as if we are standing before a King) are the beauty of tradition – and without such poetry and beauty Judaism would be, in my eyes, very sterile and dry.

I once had a conversation with a Jewish woman who defined herself as an atheist, and without question was a truly God fearing person even though she would not have described her moral character as representing the fear of God – but, the Bible would indeed describe her moral character as representing the fear of God (“fear of God is the hatred of evil”).  Although an atheist, she said that she devotes 5 minutes each day to a conversation with God, much like the practice of seclusion of Rebbe Nachman.  She described this conversation as a fantasy, since she did not believe in the existence of God.  I asked her why she should describe such an experience as a fantasy – this is a very negative way (the cup half empty) of describing her experience.  I suggested that her experience can be described in a more positive way (a cup half full) as a religious experience in which her religious language in conversing with God enables the experience of pouring out her soul – and, such a religious experience that is so beneficial psychologically and spiritually is not dependent upon one’s theology (religion and religious experience does not necessarily presuppose theology), and is available to an atheist as well (as the religious experience and use of religious language does not necessarily presuppose that God actually exists or presuppose that one believes that God exists).

Jeffrey Radon

Author of orthopraxjudaism.com

This Post Has 8 Comments

  1. Dovid

    Nice article. I have one question though. The article assumes that Maimonides was an agnostic about God. What is this based on? Where specifically in the Moreh can I find this or maybe you can quote it. Thanks

    1. Jeffrey Radon

      Hi Dovid, I did cite in my blog here the passages in the Guide (1, 50-59) in which Maimonides presents his agnosticism. I will elaborate her a little. You (and anyone else) can contact me for further discussion on my Facebook page (Jeffrey Radon).

      In these passages, Maimonides is arguing (the Guide 1, 54) that the essence of God is beyond all human comprehension. This means that we cannot describe God in any way, and we cannot apply any descriptive attributes to God.

      On a widespread basis, Maimonides is understood as presenting a “negative theology” in the sense that we cannot say anything of a positive nature describing God (God is compassionate) – and, we can only then describe God in a negative way (God is not cruel). This is a misunderstanding of Maimonides’ position – and, he explicitly rejects such a notion of “negative theology” (the Guide 1, 58) when he points out that even to describe God in a negative sense is problematic in that such description serves to indirectly define God who is indefinable (to say that God is not cruel is to imply indirectly that God is merciful).

      Moreover, in arguing that the essence of God is entirely beyond human comprehension such that we cannot say anything at all of a positive or negative nature about God, this includes for Maimonides the existence of God – and, we cannot know or say that God exists or does not exist. Maimonides states explicitly (the guide 1, 57) that the existence of God is identical to the essence of God – and, if the essence of God is beyond all human comprehension, then the existence of God is beyond all human comprehension (and, we cannot know or say anything at all about the existence or essence of God). Maimonides continues (the Guide 1, 59), as I cited in my blog, that we must be entirely silent in relation to God and he quotes the verse from the Book of Psalms (65, 2) “silence is praise to You”.

      Thus, Maimonides’ position is not one of “negative theology” in the widespread understanding of this term according to which we cannot say anything of a positive nature about God (God is compassionate) and we can only describe God in a negative way (God is not cruel) – rather, Maimonides’ position can only be understood as “negative theology” in the sense of the negation of human language in relation to God. His position is a mystical position according to which all human language is inadequate in relation to God, and God is entirely beyond human language and comprehension such that we cannot know or say anything whatsoever (of a positive or negative nature) about God.

  2. Shmuel

    Thank you for this essay. I agree with it. According to the doctrine of negative attributes, we cannot say anything at all about G-d; all we can say is what G-d is not. For example, G-d has no body and is one. Maimonides admits that we cannot prove it, even though he tried to do so. Yet, he did not deny His existence but understood that we are unable to prove that G-d exists. He felt that all we can know is that G-d exists, and even then, there is no certainty.

    According to the Mishneh Torah, only G-d can be described as “one,” yet, in the Guide, “negative theology” would seem to negate this description? Negative theology frees G-d from language, as you wrote, “Silence is praise to Thee” (Ps. 65:2). As a result, Maimonides insists that we cannot know anything at all about G-d. Any description he gives is for the masses.

    You wrote that “Maimonides was actually a mystic” and can be described as rational mysticism. This is interesting and may be correct. While Maimonides seems to suggest a mystical approach to G-d, this may be for the masses. It is inconsistent with what he said previously.

    1. Jeffrey Radon

      Hi Shmuel, thank you for your comment.

      I want to clarify two things here.
      1) According to Maimonides conception of “negative attributes” it is not true as you suggest that we cannot say anything about God and can only say what God is not – this is not accurate. I explained this misunderstanding above in my comment to Dovid concerning Maimonides’ conception of negative theology.

      In Maimonides’ conception, one cannot say anything about God in a positive (God is compassionate) or negative (God is not cruel) sense – and, we cannot say what God is or what God is not. In Maimonides’ conception, “negative attributes” is the negation of language in relation to God such that we cannot say anything about God whatsoever, and we therefore must be entirely silent in relation to God (“silence is praise to You”) – and, such silence means that we cannot say what God is and we cannot say what God is not (we are left only with silence).

      2) The view that Maimonides is a mystic in the sense of rational mysticism is not my personal view but a view that exists in the academic world – and, as I pointed out in my blog, this was a position presented by Professor Shlomo Pines one of the great scholars of medieval Jewish thought. I myself am a teacher and not a scholar – and, I draw from academic scholarship in teaching.

      More important, Maimonides’ mysticism is not at all for the masses. His rational mysticism means that the essence of religion is the attainment of intellectual enlightenment, which can be attained only through the rigorous study of philosophy and science – and, such rigorous study of philosophy and science is not at all appropriate in Maimonides’ conception for the unlearned masses. Maimonides’ rational mysticism is not inconsistent with anything he writes – and, he is consistent throughout his philosophic writings in presenting intellectual enlightenment as the essence of religion and as the essence of prophecy.

      In addition, Maimonides’ rational mysticism in which we cannot say anything whatsoever in relation to God is not inconsistent with Maimonides’ philosophic arguments to demonstrate the existence and unity of God. Such arguments that Maimonides gives are with an awareness on his part of the limitations of human reason (and, with an awareness that such arguments do not provide certain knowledge) – and, Maimonides is aware as a mystic (and agnostic) that we cannot say that God exists or that God is one even though such descriptions are plausible from a logical point of view (on the basis of our limited human logic). In my view, the same is true in relation to the issue of creation and eternity – Maimonides’ true position is one of agnosticism in which we cannot say whether the universe has been created in time or is eternal. However, in my view, Maimonides’ true position is that the eternity of the universe is a more plausible conception from a logical and philosophic point of view than that of creation (on the basis of our limited human logic).

  3. Shmuel

    Hi Jeff, thank you for writing. I agree with what you wrote. It makes sense. I also agree that Maimonides was uncertain whether G-d created the world out of nothing, called creation ex nihilo, or whether G-d formed the world out of pre-existing matter, the view of Aristotle. It seems that Rambam does not know and did not espouse either view.

    1. Jeffrey Radon

      Hi Shmuel – just one clarification here. It is not exactly that Maimonides is uncertain regarding creation and eternity – and, not exactly that he does not know and thus does not espouse either conception. Rather, in my view, the question of creation and eternity is for Maimonides beyond human comprehension – and, thus, not only can Maimonides not answer such a question of whether the universe was created or is eternal, but no human being can answer such a question.

      Furthermore, it is not exactly accurate that he does not espouse either conception. In my opinion, he actually espouses both conceptions of creation and eternity. In the Guide of the Perplexed, he presents himself on a surface level as if he holds that the universe was created. But, again, the Guide is an esoteric work in which Maimonides is disguising his true conceptions – and, in my view, he gives very strong hints and clues to a perceptive reader that he actually espouses the conception that the universe is eternal. However, in my view, he is espousing such a conception of the eternity of the universe to an intellectual elite only as a plausible conception – and, as an expression of his agnosticism he is very aware of the limitations of human reason, and he is thus aware that such a question of creation and eternity cannot be answered in being beyond human comprehension. But, for Maimonides, the eternity of the universe as a plausible conception based upon logic and (medieval) science is a form of knowledge though uncertain.

      By the way, I want to add one additional point here in relation to the issue of creation and eternity in particular and in relation to Maimonides’ conceptions in general. The Guide of the Perplexed as an esoteric work is filled with contradictions such that it is really impossible to determine from the Guide Maimonides’ true conceptions. However, in the first 4 chapters of the opening book of his law code, the Book of Knowledge, in which Maimonides presents material that he considers to be the essence of religion, he presents in a consistent way, without any contradictions, Aristotelian conceptions – especially of God and religion. An Aristotelian conception of God necessarily implies the eternity of the universe – and, Maimonides in those opening 4 chapters of the Book of Knowledge besides presenting an Aristotelian conception of God brings arguments for the existence of God that assume the eternity of the universe.

  4. Peter I Monheit, MD

    This is a time to ask how modern science views and times of the universe have influenced Maimonides’s concept of eternity, size, and make-up of the Universe, and how this may influence the existence of G_d.

    1. Jeffrey Radon

      Hello Peter, thank you for your comment.
      Maimonides is living in a medieval world in which Aristotelian thought is dominant in both the realms of philosophy and science – and, Maimonides’ conception of God is Aristotelian (although he is agnostic in relation to his own Aristotelian conception of God). How Maimonides would conceive of God were he living in our modern world is pure speculation. What is clear, though, is that Maimonides, as a strict rationalist who understood Scripture and his tradition through the lens of the contemporary Aristotelian philosophic and scientific thought of his own day, would were he living in our modern world understand Scripture and his tradition through the lens of modern philosophic and scientific thought – and, his conception of God in all likelihood would not be an Aristotelian conception but a modern conception in light of modern philosophic thought. Most important, considering that Maimonides in the medieval period was agnostic regarding the existence of God (even according to his own Aristotelian conception of God), then it seems clear that were he living today he would be agnostic regarding the existence of God (no matter the conception of God).

Leave a Reply