The Guide of the Perplexed, Volume 1
384
The Guide of the Perplexed, Volume 1
384eBook
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780226502267 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | University of Chicago Press |
| Publication date: | 05/15/2010 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 384 |
| Sales rank: | 606,669 |
| File size: | 2 MB |
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Image selem] and likeness demuth]. People have thought that in the Hebrew language image denotes the shape and configuration of a thing. This supposition led them to the pure doctrine of the corporeality of God, on account of His saying: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. For they thought that God has a man's form, I mean his shape and configuration. The pure doctrine of the corporeality of God was a necessary consequence to be accepted by them. They accordingly believed in it and deemed that if they abandoned this belief, they would give the lie to the biblical text; that they would even make the deity to be nothing at all unless they thought that God was a body provided with a face and a hand, like them in shape and configuration. However, He is, in their view, bigger and more resplendent than they themselves, and the matter of which He is composed is not flesh and blood. As they see it, this is as far as one can go in establishing the separateness of God from other things. Now with respect to that which ought to be said in order to refute the doctrine of the corporeality of God and to establish His real unity — which can have no true reality unless one disproves His corporeality — you shall know the demonstration of all of this from this Treatise. However, here, in this chapter, only an indication is given with a view to elucidating the meaning of image and likeness.
Now I say that in the Hebrew language the proper term designating the form that is well known among the multitude, namely, that form which is the shape and configuration of a thing, is to'ar. Thus Scripture says: beautiful in form [to'ar] [12b] and beautiful in appearance; What form [to'aro] is he of?; As the form [to'ar] of the children of a king. This term is also applied to an artificial form; thus: He marketh its form [yeta'arehu] with a line, and he marketh its form [yeta'arehu] with a compass. Those terms are never applied to the deity, may. He be exalted; far and remote may this thought be from us. The term image, on the other hand, is applied to the natural form, I mean to the notion in virtue of which a thing is constituted as a substance and becomes what it is. It is t' e true reality of the thing in so far as the latter is that particular being. In man that notion is that from which human apprehension derives. It is on account of this intellectual apprehension that it is said of man: In the image of God created He him. For this reason also, it is said: Thou contemnest their image. For contempt has for its object the soul, which is the specific form, not the shape and configuration of the parts of the body. I assert also that the reason why idols are called images lies in the fact that what was sought in them was the notion that was deemed to subsist in them, and not their shape and configuration. I assert similarly with regard to the scriptural expression: images of your emerods. For what was intended by them was the notion of warding off the harm caused by the emerods, and not the shape of the emerods. If, however, there should be no doubt concerning the expressions the images of your emerods and images being used in order to denote shape and configuration, it would follow that image is an equivocal or amphibolous term applied to the specific form and also to the artificial form and to what is analogous to the two in the shapes and configurations of the natural bodies. That which was meant in the scriptural dictum, let us make man in our image, was the specific form, which is intellectual apprehension, not the shape and configuration. We have explained to you the difference between image and form, and have explained the meaning of image.
As for the term likeness [demuth], it is a noun derived from the verb damoh [to be like], and it too signifies likeness in respect of a notion. For the scriptural dictum, I am like a pelican in the wilderness, does not signify that its author [13a] resembled the pelican with regard to its wings and feathers, but that his sadness was like that of the bird. In the same way in the verse, Nor was any tree in the garden of God like unto it in beauty, the likeness is with respect to the notion of beauty. Similarly the verses, Their venom is in the likeness of the venom of a serpent and His likeness is that of a lion thatis eager to tear in pieces, refer both of them to a likeness in respect of a notion and not with respect to a shape and a configuration. In the same way it is said, the likeness of the throne, the likeness of a throne; the likeness referred to being in respect of elevation and sublimity, not in respect of a throne's square shape, its solidity, and the length of its legs, as wretched people think. A similar explanation should also be applied to the expression: the likeness of the living creatures. Now man possesses as his proprium something in him that is very strange as it is not found in anything else that exists under the sphere of the moon, namely, intellectual apprehension. In the exercise of this, no sense, no part of the body, none of the extremities are used; and therefore this apprehension was likened unto the apprehension of the deity, which does not require an instrument, although in reality it is not like the latter apprehension, but only appears so to the first stirrings of opinion. It was because of this something, I mean because of the divine intellect conjoined with man, that it is said of the latter that he is in the image of God and in His likeness, not that God, may He be exalted, is a body and possesses a shape.
CHAPTER 2Years ago a learned man propounded as a challenge to me a curious objection. It behooves us now to consider this objection and our reply invalidating it. However, before mentioning this objection and its invalidation, I shall make the following statement. Every Hebrew knew that the term Elohim is equivocal, designating the deity, the angels, and the rulers governing the cities. Onqelos the Proselyte, peace be on him, has made it clear, and [13b] his clarification is correct, that in the dictum of Scripture, And ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil, the last sense is intended. For he has translated: And ye shall be as rulers.
After thus having set forth the equivocality of this term, we shall begin to expound the objection. This is what the objector said: It is manifest from the clear sense of the biblical text that the primary purpose with regard to man was that he should be, as the other animals are, devoid of intellect, of thought, and of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil. However, when he disobeyed, his disobedience procured him as its necessary consequence the great perfection peculiar to man, namely, his being endowed with the capacity that exists in us to make this distinction. Now this capacity is the noblest of the characteristics existing in us; it is in virtue of it that we are constituted as substances. Now it is a thing to be wondered at that man's punishment for his disobedience should consist in his being granted a perfection that he did not possess before, namely, the intellect. This is like the story told by somebody that a certain man from among the people disobeyed and committed great crimes, and in consequence was made to undergo a metamorphosis, becoming a star in heaven. This was the intent and the meaning of the objection, though it was not textually as we have put it.
Hear now the intent of our reply. We said: O you who engage in theoretical speculation using the first notions that may occur to you and come to your mind and who consider withal that you understand a book that is the guide of the first and the last men while glancing through it as you would glance through a historical work or a piece of poetry — when, in some of your hours of leisure, you leave off drinking and copulating: collect yourself and reflect, for things are not as you thought following the first notion that occurred to you, but rather as is made clear through reflection upon the following speech. For the intellect that God made overflow unto man and that is the latter's ultimate perfection, was that which Adam had been provided with before he disobeyed. It was because of this that it was said of him that he was created in the image of God and in His likeness. It was likewise on account of it that he was addressed by God and given commandments, as it says: And the Lord [14a] God commanded, and so on. For commandments are not given to beasts and beings devoid of intellect. Through the intellect one distinguishes between truth and falsehood, and that was found in [Adam] in its perfection and integrity. Fine and bad, on the other hand, belong to the things generally accepted as known, not to those cognized by the intellect. For one does not say: it is fine that heaven is spherical, and it is bad that the earth is flat; rather one says true and false with regard to these assertions. Similarly one expresses in our language the notions of truth and falsehood by means of the terms emeth and sheqer, and those of fine and bad by means of the terms tov and ra'. Now man in virtue of his intellect knows truth from falsehood; and this holds good for all intelligible things. Accordingly when man was in his most perfect and excellent state, in accordance with his inborn disposition and possessed of his intellectual cognitions — because of which it is said of him: Thou hast made him but little lower than Elohim — he had no faculty that was engaged in any way in the consideration of generally accepted things, and he did not apprehend them. So among these generally accepted things even that which is most manifestly bad, namely, uncovering the genitals, was not bad according to him, and he did not apprehend that it was bad. However, when he disobeyed and inclined toward his desires of the imagination and the pleasures of his corporeal senses — inasmuch as it is said: that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes — he was punished by being deprived of that intellectual apprehension. He therefore disobeyed the commandment that was imposed upon him on account of his intellect and, becoming endowed with the faculty of apprehending generally accepted things, he became absorbed in judging things to be bad or fine. Then he knew how great his loss was, what he had been deprived of, and upon what a state he had entered. Hence it is said: And ye shall be like Elohim knowing good and evil; and not: knowing the false and the true, or apprehending the false and the true. With regard to what is of necessity, there is no good and evil at all, but only the false and the true. Reflect on the dictum: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. It is not said: And the eyes of them both were opened, [14b] and they saw. For what was seen previously was exactly that which was seen afterwards. There had been no membrane over the eye that was now removed, but rather he entered upon another state in which he considered as bad things that he had not seen in that light before. Know moreover that this expression, I mean, to open, refers only to uncovering mental vision and in no respect is applied to the circumstance that the sense of sight has been newly acquired. Thus: And God opened her eyes; Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened; Opening the ears, he heareth not — a verse that is analogous to its dictum, That have eyes to see and see not. Now concerning its dictum with regard to Adam — He changes his face and Thou sendest him forth — the interpretation and explanation of the verse are as follows; when the direction toward which man tended changed, he was driven forth. For panim is a term deriving from the verb panoh [to turn], since man turns his face toward the thing he wishes to take as his objective. The verse states accordingly that when man changed the direction toward which he tended and took as his objective the very thing a previous commandment had bidden him not to aim at, he was driven out of the Garden of Eden. This was the punishment corresponding to his disobedience; it was measure for measure. He had been given license to eat good things and to enjoy ease and tranquillity. When, however, as we have said, he became greedy, followed his pleasures and his imaginings, and ate what he had been forbidden to eat, he was deprived of everything and had to eat the meanest kinds of food, which he had not used as aliment before — and this only after toil and labor. As it says: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and so on; In the sweat of thy brow, and so on. And it explains and says: And the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground. And God reduced him, with respect to his food and most of his circumstances, to the level of the beast. It says accordingly: And thou shalt eat the grass of the field. And it also says in explanation of this story: Adam, unable to dwell in dignity, is like the beasts that speak not.
Praise be to the Master of the will whose aims and wisdom cannot be apprehended! [15a]
CHAPTER 3It is thought that in the Hebrew language the meanings of the words figure [temunah] and shape [tabnith] are identical. This is not the case. For tabnith is a term deriving from the verb banoh [to build], and it signifies the build and aspect of a thing; I mean to say its shape, for instance, its being a square, a circle, a triangle, or some other shape. Accordingly it says: The shape of the tabernacle and the shape of all its vessels. And it says: According to the shape which thou wast shown upon the mountain; the shape of any bird; the shape of a hand; the shape of the porch. In all these passages the word means shape. For this reason the Hebrew language does not use this word with reference to attributes that apply in any way to the deity.
As for the term figure, it is used amphibolously in three different senses. It is used to designate the form of a thing outside the mind that is apprehended by the senses, I mean the shape and configuration of the thing. Thus it says: And make you a graven image, the figure of any, and so on; For ye saw no figure. It is also used to designate the imaginary form of an individual object existing in the imagination after the object of which it is the form is no longer manifest to the senses. Thus it says, In thoughts from the visions of the night, and so on, the conclusion of the dictum being, It stood still, but I could not discern the appearance thereof, a figure was before mine eyes. He means: a fantasm of the imagination that is before my eyes while in sleep. The term is also used to designate the true notion grasped by the intellect. It is with a view to this third meaning that the word figure is used with reference to God, may He be exalted. Thus it says: And the figure of the Lord shall he look upon. The meaning and interpretation of this verse are: he grasps the truth of God. [15b]
CHAPTER 4Know that the three words to see [ra?oh], to look at [habbit], and to vision [hazoh] are applied to the sight of the eye and that all three of them are also used figuratively to denote the grasp of the intellect. As for the verb to see, this is generally admitted by the multitude. Thus it says: And he saw, and behold a well in the field. This refers to the sight of the eye. But it also says: Yea, my heart hath seen much of wisdom and knowledge; and this refers to intellectual apprehension. Every mention of seeing, when referring to God, may He be exalted, has this figurative meaning — as when Scripture says: I saw the Lord; And the Lord became seen to him; And God saw that it was good; I beseech Thee, let me see Thy glory; And they saw the God of Israel. All this refers to intellectual apprehension and in no way to the eye's seeing, as the eye can only apprehend a body, one that is placed in some direction and, in addition, with some of the accidents of the body, I mean the body's coloring, shape, and so forth. Similarly God, may He be exalted, does not apprehend by means of an instrument, as will be explained later.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "The Guide of the Perplexed Volume I"
by .
Copyright © 1963 The University of Chicago.
Excerpted by permission of The University of Chicago Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
How To Begin To Study The Guide of the Perplexedby Leo Strauss
Translator's Introduction
The Guide of the Perplexed
Part I