Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia

Maimonides and Aquinas: A Medieval Misunderstanding? Author(s): Jennifer Hart Weed Reviewed work(s): Source: Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, T. 64, Fasc. 1, Filosofia e Espiritualidade: O Contributo da Idade Mdia / Philosophy and Spirituality in the Middle Ages (Jan. - Mar., 2008), pp. 379396 Published by: Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40419563 . Accessed: 12/04/2012 01:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia.

http://www.jstor.org

niftonRPE V, Jg|IL]642008 I

Maimonidesand Aquinas:
A MedievalMisunderstanding?
JenniferHart Weed*
via has Abstract:ThomasAquinas'treatment MosesMaimonides' negativa been of In some contemporary Maimonideans calledintoquestion. particular, frequently misunderstands Maimonides. Other scholars that haveargued Aquinas argue grossly to thatMaimonides' of provides insuperable challenges defense his own position the withthevia alternative ofnaming God,despite problems Aquinasraised ways two to attends Aquinas' objections Maimonides to In the article, author negativa this are to f.13.2in order see ifthese in Summatheologiae objections validandfurther, in as Maimonides this toseeifAquinas mischaracterizes passage, somehavealleged. or the Maimonides, of Before addressing question whether notAquinasunderstood debateoverreligious to introduction thehistorical also theauthor offers a brief in Ages. language theMiddle KeyWords:Aquinas,St. Thomas(12257-1274);DivineAttributes; Equivocation; Moses (1135-1204);Namingof God; God; Language;Maimonides, Existence; Via Simplicity; negativa. de de da 0 Resumo: tratamento via negativa MoisesMaimonides S. Tomds Aquino por os De sido frequentemente em questdo. um modoparticular, seguidores tern posta mal tern de compreendeu que contempordneosMaimonides argumentado S. Tomds de Outros Judeu. o pensador que especialistas argumentam a defesa Maimonides de as alternativas da sua propria desafios insuperdveis maneiras fornece posigdo com das Deus apesar dificuldades nomear porS. Tomds a via negativa. identificadas de de de sobretudo duas objeccoes S. Tomds Aquino a Neste ocupa-se artigo, autora a destas na a Maimonides Summatheologiae f.13.2,a fimde verificar validade malMaimonides ndo verse S. Tomds terd e tambem compreendido para objeccoes de a de Antes tratar questdo saberse tal nesta alegado. passagem, comoalgunstern a a Maimonides, autoraoferece correctamente simou ndoS. Tomds compreendeu na historico a linguagem sobre ao umabreve religiosa IdadeMedia. introdugdo debate Atributos de Palavras-Chave: divinos; Deus; EquiAquino,S. Tomds (12257-1274); Moises(1135-1204);Nomeacao; Maimdnides, vocacdo;Existencia; Linguagem; Via Simplicidade; negativa.

Canada). of University New Brunswick(Fredericton,

3791 LIHRPF

I rjg

RevistaPortuguesade Filosofia

64.2008

1379-396

380

Jennifer Hart Weed

1. Introduction has ThomasAquinas'treatment Moses Maimonides' negativa frevia of Maimonbeencalledintoquestion. particular, contemporary In some quently Other ideanshaveargued that Maimonides.1 misunderstands Aquinas grossly insuscholars thatMaimonides' defense his ownposition of provides argue the to alternative ofnaming God,despite problems perablechallenges ways thinkers Aquinas like haveraisedwith via negativa.2 the of Aquinasaddressesthe problem religious languagein severalof his Summatheologiae, contra and Summa works, including gentiles, hisCommenin on theSentences. of However, tary Aquinas' critique Maimonides Summa ia.13.2 is particularly three reasons.First, for theologiae interesting at least conin namesMaimonides Aquinas explicitly thispassage.Second,thistext accordtainsthree Aquinas' of via to Third, objections Maimonides' negativa. aboutGod Maimonides thinks all affirmative that statements ingto Aquinas, areto be interpreted indicating negation whatcannot be as a of fittingly said of God.3It is thisclaimthathas garnered muchattention from so Aquinas' who thisis notMaimonides' view. detractors, arguethat In whatfollows, willattend Aquinas' in ThesecritiI to objections ia.13.2. in his thought cismsofMaimonides onlyidentify not possibleshortcomings but they also provide context a positive the for for argument Aquinas'own viewof religious insofar he is able to satisfy as theseobjections. language, Of course,if it is thecase thatAquinasmischaracterizes this Maimonides, in on mischaracterization be identified order see ifithas anybearing must to theobjections levied hisview. against Beforeaddressing questionof whether not Aquinasunderstood the or I willoffer brief a debateoverreliintroduction thehistorical to Maimonides, andthedoctrine simplicity. Aquinas Maimonides of Both and giouslanguage, subscribeto the doctrine, and it significantly impactstheirrespective to God. approaches naming

1 Feldman "A Scholastic of of Maimonides' Doctrine Divine Seymour Misinterpretation In: Attributes." Joseph Buds (ed.) - Maimonides: Collection Critical A. A Dame: of Essays.Notre of DamePress, 1988, 267-283. UniversityNotre pp. 2 See,for A. In: of instance, of Joseph Buds- "AMaimonidean Critique Analogy." Journal the 41 of History Philosophy (2003),no. 4, pp. 449-470. 3 Alltranslations theLatin Thomas from aremy ownandareoftheLeonine edition. Aquinas
Summa theologiae. ia.13.2. In: ThomaeAquinatisOpera Omnia. Rome: Editio Leonina Manualis,

1882.ST, P. 13.2."...cumdicimus Deus esseviventum, significamus Deus nonhoc modo quod res et RabbiMoyses." est est,sicut inanimatae: similiter accipiendum in aliis.Et hocposuit

Rtvist* deFilosofia Portuguese 64*2008

Mopp UffRPF

HIT I 380

Maimonidesand Aquinas

381

The Debate overReligiousLanguage in different to Three approaches religious language emerged the radically to when terms usedtodescribe are middle approach, ages.According thefirst are to thoseterms equivocalwithrespect whatthey God and his attributes meanin reference creatures. to For to meanin reference God and whatthey wouldstatethatGod is notgood in thesame sense this example, approach advocates thisapproachin thetwelfth is thata creature good.Maimonides century. whenterms used to describe are God to According thesecondapproach, are with to meanin thoseterms univocal and hisattributes respect whatthey This to meaninreference creatures. approach to reference Godandwhat they a is wouldstatethatGod is goodin thesamesensethat creature good.Howof within context thispaper. the this I ever, willnotbe addressing approach are God whenterms usedtodescribe and tothethird approach, According This wouldstate are thoseterms used analogously. approach his attributes thatGod is good in an analogoussense to a creature's Aquinas' goodness. whatis signified the between relies of by uponthedistinction theory analogy of and name(ressignificata), themodeofsignification thename(modus sigto The ressignificata belongs properly God and moreso to God nificandi).4 to to it to than creatures. Thus, is applied primarily Godandsecondarily creaare is In tures. thiscase,Aquinas able to use namesthat appliedto God nonthat perfections God has essentially e.g., metaphorically, namesthatsignify to do the In likeGodis good.5 contrast, modus apply signiftcandi notproperly to and to God.Theyapply primarily creatures onlysecondarily God because God and creatures. between the Aquinasadvocates theyexpress similarity inthethirteenth thisapproach century. DivineSimplicity doctrine divine of to subscribe themedieval and BothAquinas Maimonides a offers general In description passage,Maimonides simplicity. thefollowing ofhisview:
towardascendingto are If,however, belongto thosewhose aspirations directed you with certain and thathighrankwhichis therankofspeculation, to gaining knowledge whatever so of to regard God'sbeingOne byvirtue a trueOneness, thatno composition of is to be foundin Him and no possibility divisionin any way whatever thenyou in no way and in no mode any essential has mustknowthatHe, mayHe be exalted, it thatHe shouldbe a body, is also impossible and attribute, that just as itis impossible attribute...6 thatHe shouldpossessan essential

5Ibid., IM3.6. 6Moses - The Pines. Irans. Maimonides Guide the Chicago: University of Perplexed, Shlomo 1.50. ofChicago 1963, Press,
I r^fiL de rteWsta Portuguese Flhsofb I

4sriM3.3.

38llUBLEEL

64*2008 1379-396

382

JenniferHart Weed

God does nothave anykindof comThus,God is one simpleessence.7 nor intoparts.8 Avicenna, Maimonides, position can he be divided following in holdsthatexistence an accident is that"attaches" essence, to except the case ofGod.9 SinceGoddoesnothaveanycomposition, doesnothavethe he that accident existence does he haveanyother of nor kindofattribute might to somehow attachto his essence.10 God'sexistence identical his is Rather, there no differis essence.11 SinceGod'sessenceand existence identical, are ence between is "what is" and "that is." So God'sexistence necessary. he he On thisbasis,Maimonides and God havedifferent that human beings argues are kindsofexistence.12 is a necessary God beingand humanbeings contingent beings. and and of God Furthermore, does nothavea composition matter form, so he is incorporeal.13 he is incorporeal, does notoccupy he Since space,nor can he holda position space,norcan he experience in motion succession.14 or So God doesnothavetheaccident space,position, theaccident time, or of of in which motion.15 Thereis no potentiality God and so he does not requires in have the accidentof passion.16 of Thus,thereis no possibility division and God between essenceand his existence, between substance his or his an accident. God could have an extrinsic accidental property, Additionally, although in that (something he couldgainorlosewithout undergoing change himany in it like"being mentioned thisessay"), wouldmakeno senseto claim self, wouldbe ruled thatGod has location, coloror size. Each oftheseattributes outbydivine simplicity. drivesthe medieval debateconcerning language.If religious Simplicity God is simple, thenone wonders how we can speak of him havingattridifferent buteslikegoodness, etc. and Maimonides wisdom, Aquinas provide to hereis notenough to While whatI haveincluded responses thisproblem. of treatment it, defend doctrine simplicity, evento givea thorough the of or and will whatMaimonides Aquinas this brief sketch be enough understand to arereferring whenthey to simplicity. speakaboutdivine
7 Ibid.,i.l. 8 Ibid.,1.50. 9 Alexander A. In: in Altmann "Essenceand Existence Maimonides." Joseph Buus (ed.) - Maimonides:Collection Critical DamePress, of A Notre Dame:UniversityNotre 1988, of Essays. pp. 148-165. 10 1.35. Guide, 11 Altmann, 149. p. 12 1.35. Guide, 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.,n.13. 16 Ibid.,1.68.

64*2008

yHIRPF 1382

Maimonidesand Aquinas

383

of Aquinas'Characterization Maimonides In ia.13.2,Aquinasrejects twoapproaches naming to God. He rejects a causal interpretation the divinenames,and he rejectsMaimonides' of via to Maimonides thinks all affirmative that statenegativa. According Aquinas, ments aboutGodaretobe interpreted indicatingnegation what as a of cannot be we we that fittingly said of God, i.e., "When say,'God is living/ signify God is not like an inanimate for all and similarly understanding thing, 17 other couldbe termed "radically a propositions."Thisapproach negative" and it three reasons: approach Aquinas rejects for
a thanothers, said of are First, reasoncannotbe assignedwhycertainnames,rather God... Second,because itwouldfollow thatall namessaid ofGod,are said ofhimin a sense... Third, because thisis againsttheintention thosewho of posterior [secondary] aboutGod...18 speak

approachto namingGod is so radiAquinasobjectsthatMaimonides' the it willpermit predication falsehoods God. Thatis, of of callynegative, of viewcalls forthenegation all affirmative attributes God, of Maimonides' whilebeingdeniedof God,signify thatsomenames, and does notconsider to falsewithrespect God. For example, Aquinasarguesthaton something to say, in it "Godis a body" Maimonides' view, wouldbe entirely appropriate that likeprime matter.19 itis But to order imply Godis nota mere potentiality to Godis a body. Maimonides' must false saythat Therefore, approach clearly be rejected. Maimonideson DivineActions and others havepointed does not Feldman As Seymour out,Maimonides In whenitcomesto speechaboutGod.20 partichimself negations to restrict can he thatGod'sactions be namedin theaffirmative, "God ular, argues e.g., Actions be attributed can to but creates," are to be understood equivocally. into So do Godbecausethey notintroduce composition hisessence.21 itlooks Maimonides' view. has as ifAquinas mischaracterized
17st IM3.2. "... cum dicimusDeus esse viventum, significamus quod Deus non hoc modo est, sicut res inanimatae:et similiter accipiendumest in aliis. Et hoc posuit Rabbi Moyses." 18Ibid. "Primo quidem, quia secundem neutramharum positionumposset assignari ratio quam alia... Secundo, quia sequereturquod quare quaedam nomina magis de Deo dicerentur de omnia nomina dicta de Deo, per posteriusdicerentur ipso... Tertio, quia hoc est contraintentionemloquentiumde Deo." 19Ibid, "...poteritsimiliterdici quod Deus est corpus, quia est causa corporum.Item, per hoc quod diciturquod est corpus,removetur quod non sit ens in potentiatantum,sicut materia prima." 20Feldman, 271. See also Guide,1.58. p. 21Guide,1.52.

3831 LJlfiEE.

I nflnA-

Revista de Portuguese Filosofia I

64.2008 1379-396

384

Jennifer Hart Weed

to are "Actions not,nor do theyderivefrom, According Maimonides, not distinct inorqualities God.They uniquedeedsorevents, of are properties would habits traits.1'22 or a Actions verbs.23 whereas quality are So qualities, refer someallegedfeature God,actions to in refer an event. to Sinceactions refer an event, to in do notindicate features theagent question, of apart they from fact the do thattheagentperformed action.24 the Sincetheactions not refer features theagent, in to of do composition theagent. they notindicate actionscan be predicated a subject of without Therefore, indicating thereby in Maimonides writes, composition thesubject.
is is God,mayHe be exalted, said to be merciful, as itis said,'Likea father merciful just to his children, 103:13),and it says,'AndI willpity his as (Ps. them, a manpitieth own son (Mai. 3:17). It is notthatHe, mayHe be exalted, affected has compassion. is and But an actionsimilar thatwhichproceedsfrom father respect his childand to in to a thatis attached compassion, to and Him,may pity, an absolutepassion,proceedsfrom He be exalted, reference his holyones...25 in to

In thispassage,God is said to be merciful acts becausehe performs that aresimilar creaturely ofmercy derive to from merciful acts that a disposition in thecreature.26 in God as However, is notto be understood beingmerciful thesame sensethatcreatures merciful. is and are "Merciful" a quality, God a does notpossessqualities. humanbeingscan apprehend divine However, In a thatactionto God.27 thiscase, action;and thenattribute name from act a act to to someone apprehends divine that appears be similar a creaturely ofmercy. all from are divine actions appliedto God However, namesderiving to This evenwhen apply name"merciful" God, we the equivocally. meansthat and thenamesignifies Godis notmerciful thesamesenseas creatures that in thatGod performs actionthatonlyresembles an acts creaturely of mercy. It is notimmediately howMaimonides affirm clear can divine simplicity and thefactthatGod can perform without contradiction. actions, multiple

22Feldman, 271. p. 23 Wolfson - "The Aristotelian Predicablesand Maimonides'DivisionofAttriHarryAustryn butes.1* Isadore Twerskyand George H. Williams (eds.) - Studies in theHistory Philosophy In: of and Religion.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1977,vol. n, p. 190. 24Kenneth Session "Sanctityand Silence: The Religious Significanceof Maimonides' In: CatholicPhilosophicalQuarterly. (2002), pp. 7-24. 76 NegativeTheology." American 25Guide 1.54. 26Atthis an juncture,one mightobject thatit is possible fora human to perform act without havinga change occur in his nature.This may be the case. But it seems possible fora human to.have a qualitythat precipitatesan action while in the case of God that is not possible. ConIt one could construe Maimonides' argumentprobabilistically. is possible that the sequently, in an qualityof mercyprecipitates act of mercy, a human being,and on thisbasis, we can name some of God's acts, "merciful/' 21Guide,1.54.

64.2008

UBBEL

1384

Maimonidesand Aquinas

385

out In hisview, essenceofGod carries actionsthatmight the havemultiple in but essence, effects, originate God'ssimple
Thoughan agentis one, diverseactionsmay proceedfromhim,even if he does not will.An instance thisis fire: melts of it possesswilland all themoreifhe acts through bleachesand blackens. somethings, makesothers hard, cooks,and burns, Thus,ifsome of whichburns man wouldpredicate firethatit is thatwhichbleachesand blackens, he he and cooks,whichmakeshardand whichmelts, wouldsay thetruth. Accordingly thinks in of thatthere subsist itsixdiverse notions... whodoes notknowthenature fire for of all oftheseactionsbeingopposedto one another, themeaning anyone ofthemis he of knowsthat from different thatofanyother. However, who knowsthenature fire, of heat.28 all itperforms theseactionsbyvirtue one activequality, namely,

kinds fire at bleachIn this example, produces leastsixdifferent ofactions, think thatthesesix different kinds etc. burning, One might ing,blackening, of actionsrequiresix different powersin the agent,fire.But upon closer actions performed virtue are all one of by inspection fire, can see that ofthese of heat.So one shouldnotassumethata multiplicity the ofone thing, fire's in The fire shows of a entails multiplicity powers theagent. actions example to thisinference be false. to are deniedof Sinceactionsare appliedequivocally God,they in effect of we God'sactions, denythattheordinary him.In naming meaning those in is incorrect arguing namescan be appliedto God. So although Aquinas aboutGod as negative statements all thatMaimonides interprets affirmative to it wouldbe correct say thatevenwhenMaimonides statements, applies be that an actionto God,he is denying thatnamecan properly said ofGod. and of are Actions deniedof God byvirtue equivocation so in thisrespect, reflects view. his of characterizationMaimonides Aquinas' 2. Aquinas'Rejectionof Maimonides:ObjectionI thereis no is to objection Maimonides that,on his view, Aquinas'first That shouldbe said of God.29 thanothers reasonwhysome namesrather of attributes God, of calls forthe negation all affirmative is, Maimonides whilebeingdeniedofGod, thatsomenames, and does notseemto consider one might to falsewithrespect God. For example, say, something signify like thatGod is nota merepotentiality in "God is a body," orderto imply that thinks Godis incorporeal like But matter.30 Maimonides, Aquinas, prime
28Ibid., i.53.

29snM3.2. 30Ibid."... potent did similiter quod Deus estcorpus, Item, per quia estcausa corporum. sicutmateremovetur nonsitens in potentia hoc quod dicitur tantum, quod quod estcorpus, to thatwillbecomeclearin Section 1 am leaving one sideAquinas' For ria prima." reasons 3, sinceGod is thecause ofbodies. one might "Godis a body," in say, argument thispassagethat
Revista deFUosofh I Portuguese

1 ftL__ 3851 IMEPF

64-2008 1379-396

386

JenniferHart Weed

since God is absolutelysimple. So it would be false to say, "God is a body." Maimonides'projectis flawed. Therefore, Thereare two thingsto be said on Maimonides1 behalfwithrespectto this objection.First,as I have alreadypointedout, Maimonides providesreasons and why certain names are applied to God in the affirmative other names are applied to God negatively.31 Actionsare predicatedof God in the affirmative,e.g., "God creates,"because actions are remotefromthe essence and do not indicate a thing'snature. Essential attributes are interpreted negatively because theypurport indicatea thing's to natureand in God's case, his nature cannotbe indicatedbecause it is unknowable.32 on Second, Maimonides places restrictions the names that humans can are applyto God. These restrictions designedto prevent blaspheunthinking, mous statementsabout God, such as, "God is a body."The followingis an abbreviatedlist of these restrictions: Everyattribute 1. that is to be negated of God must first demonstrated be true in its negativeform.33 Accibe to 2. dental attributes cannot be predicatedof God.343. "...anythingthat entails to to corporeality oughtofnecessity be negatedin reference Him. ...One must likewise of necessitydeny,with reference Him, His being similar to any to 35 existing thing." Thus, somethingthat cannot be conceived of as compatible with divine cannot be ascribed to God, eitherin positiveor in negativeform. simplicity Maimonides mentionson more than one occasion in the Guide Furthermore, that his chiefconcern is the interpretation Scripturalpassages that seem of to indicate that God is corporeal. His veryapproach to religious language centerson providing understanding thesepassages thatdoes not affirm an of God's corporeality. KennethSeeskin notes,Maimonides argues thatnothAs ing can be expressedabout God thatwould indicatea deficiency.36 Thus, God cannot be said to be ignorant powerless,even ifthe intention to express or is that the qualities of knowledge or power are not properlysaid of God.37 So Maimonides would not advocate predicatingcorporeality God in the of no the affirmative, matter interpretation.
In summary, Maimonides does notname God by wayof causation and so thisargument is directed someone at other than Maimonides. 31Guide, 1.58. 32AsDavidBurrell and Cf out, points bothMaimonides Aquinas agreeon thispoint. . David Burrell - "Aquinas Islamicand Jewish and Thinkers". Norman In: Kretzmann Eleonore and Stump to New York: (eds.) - TheCambridge Press, Companion Aquinas. Cambridge University 1993, 60-84. pp. 33Guide, 1.60. 34Ibid.,1.52.
35ibid., i.55. 36Seeskin, pp. 19-20. 37Guide,1.55.

RevisU de Portuguese Filosofis 64*2008

nflL.*UBRPF

I 1386

Maimonidesand Aquinas

387

that Maimonides' ofrestrictions notruleout list Someone do object might If reductio. corporealitynotan accident is then is notruled by it out Aquinas' the restriction.38 restriction claimsthatcorpothethird Further, third only of "God mustbe negated God,and thereductio rightly interprets, is a reality body" negatively. the of restrictions ruleout the to Even if we grant ability Maimonides' as we reductio, might judge thoserestrictions irrelevant givena religious attribute in tradition whichtheprophets consistently bodypartsto God in them thatdo evil,"39 or theaffirmative, "ThefaceoftheLordis against e.g., Maimonides' insistence corporethat "And thoushaltsee Myback."40 Despite texts with suchattrito be cannot attributed God,theprophetic arefilled ality addresses thesepassagesby interpreting Maimonides butions. Surprisingly, and notbyrepudiating the of actions as divine "body parts" indicative divine his to He or apply ownlistofrestrictions passagesas heretical false.41 doesn't attributions corporeality of If attributions.he admits theprophetic prophetic reductio. admit he it to God,then wouldseemthat must Aquinas' claimthatone shouldnever cannot Maimonides applycorporeal partsto If to forthenhe wouldbe in opposition his owntradition. he wereto God, to he couldapply a claimthat corporeal parts God,then is introonly prophet and on prophets those the between restrictions a distinction placed ducing forthisdistinction. doesn't else. But Maimonides on everyone argue placed that needsan interpretive So Maimonides principle wouldruleoutAquinas' needsto intact. Maimonides texts the whileleaving prophetic Or, reductio, he are thattheprophets notboundbythelistofrestrictions placeson argue or sucha principle such an arguelse. I havebeen unableto find everyone in ment theGuide. the Seeskinoffers following of In his treatment Aquinas'first objection, response,
do thatforobviousreasons,theprophets notascribeto God wouldreply Maimonides Sincewe are notallowedto add any as thatthemultitude regards a deficiency. anything of of attributes our own,thepositive by qualitiescaptured theattributes actionare the with.42 we onlythings needto be concerned

38With listed has Maimonides in mindthenineaccidents to attributes, respect accidental in is in probably Corporealitynotincluded thislistbutMaimonides byAristotle hisCategories. of and to intends ruleoutcorporeality denying require position quantity God,bothofwhich by of accident actionand the between Aristotelian differentiates Maimonides Of a body. course, to can that Actions are verbs be attributed God without thatare verbs. actions compromising divine simplicity. 39Psalm34:17. 40Exodus33:23. 41Guide, 1.29. 42Seeskin, 19-20. pp.
I r\g| 3871 U1RPF de Revista Portuguesa Fllosofh I 64.2008 1379-396

388

Jennifer Hart Weed

of Butiftheprophets speakofGod'sfaceorback,and notthink these can "God is a body"? attributions a deficiency, couldn't as By Aquinassay, why this Seeskin's wouldnotruleout thereductio. itself, "deficiency principle," that remark we are notallowedto add attributions ourownis promising, of butI was unableto find statement theGuide.Moreover, in this Maimonides' with to use philosophical terms suchas "efficient cause"or "form" tendency toGodsuggests methat thinks is appropriate add one'sown to he it to respect attributions thoseof the prophets, to in discourse especially philosophical aboutGod.43 in whenwe observe divine actions effects theworld, or Further, we might naming be God in such a wayas to go beyond whathas already been namedby theprophets. is possiblethatevery It timeGod produces a neweffect,newdivine a namewillbe generated. So withrespectto Aquinas'reductio, looks as if we are leftwith it Maimonides' insistence thatprophetic attributions corporeal alwaysindisuch cate divineactions.Thus,we wouldhaveto modify Aquinas'reductio that "Godis a body" interpreted indicating divine is as a suchas "God action, creatures" something that. there or like But doesn't apprehends appearto be a Maimonidean that and principle wouldruleoutthereductio notruleoutthe at attributions,thesametime. prophetic is incorrect assuming in thatMaimonides However, Aquinas arguesfor thenegation all attributes he is mistaken believing Maimonides of in that and in does notprovide justification whysome namesare predicated the a for affirmative othersare predicated and Maimonidesprovides negatively.44 reasonsas to whysomenamesare attributed God and others denied to are of God, in general. But theredoes not appearto be a Maimonidean prinviewis Maimonides' ciple thatwouldruleout Aquinas'reductio. Although morenuancedthanAquinasgiveshimcredit in thisobjection, for Aquinas' in in reductio successful drawing is attention an important to inconsistency Maimonides' to naming God.45 approach 3. Objectionn to Aquinas'secondobjection Maimonides' approachis, "itwouldfollow thatall names said of God, are said by meansof a posterior [secondary] sense."46 offers example whatis meant "secondary He an of sense"in the by
43Guide,1.69. 44See also Seeskin, pp. 19-20. 45Someone mightobject thatsuch a flawis to be foundin Aquinas and any othertheologian who is wrestling with the Abrahamic traditions.But this objection is ad hominemtu quoque of and doesn't diminishthe inconsistency Maimonides' approach. Of course, any treatment in Aauinas' via analozia should cite thisobjectionin orderto see ifhe fallsDrevto it. too. "ST1U3.2.

Revista de Portuguese FHosofia

64-2008

flgl ___ I

UiRPF

J388

Maimonidesand Aquinas

389

is becauseit signisecondarily following passage,"Healthy said ofmedicine in fiesonlythatit causes healthin an animal,whichis called healthy the as not sense."47 Thatis, one speaksof medicine "healthy" because primary in one as it exhibits Rather, speaksofmedicine signsofhealth and ofitself. in inthiscase,an animal. health another becauseitproduces thing, "healthy" the Animals exhibit (e.g.,metabolic processes, production signsof health, in an of urine, activedigestion, etc.),thustheycan be termed "healthy" a sense. primary doesnotopposethepractice recognizing of In thisobjection, perAquinas that resemble God with in and fections creatures inferring creatures respect between cause and effect. on to thoseperfections, thebasis of therelation himself. to this procedure, Instead,Aquinasis objecting Aquinasfollows a all to to thatmediate references God through reference creaapproaches that is takes different arguing when"goodness" applied a tures. view, Aquinas sense.Thereis no needto thatGod is goodin a primary to God,it indicates in to to of a invoke feature creatures order applygoodness God.48 According "Godis good,"meansmuchmorethanjust "Godis thecause of to Aquinas, "God is good,"meansthatGod is essentially in good. goodness creatures." in he where argues of discussion analogy la. 13.6, Thiscan be seeninAquinas' like are words "goodness" appliedto God to in that regards theressignificata, are wordslike"goodness" the but primarily, as regards modussignificandi, creatures first.49 becausewe know to primarily, applied creatures seemsmisdirected. secondobjection In somerespects Although Aquinas' he thatGod is thecause oftheuniverse, does notinterthinks Maimonides "Godis to pret"Godis living," mean,"Godis thecause oflifein creatures;" seemsto recognize means"Godis notdead."Furthermore, Aquinas living," all as of this, givenhis characterization Maimonides someonewho negates of of and his omission anydiscussion Maimonides' affirmative propositions It of treatment divineactions.50 could be thatAquinasis unawareof that that So discussion. it looks as if eitherthe second objectionis claiming or namesGod onlysecondarily, thesecondobjecvia Maimonides' negativa at at tionis notdirected Maimonides, all. at is Someonemight arguethatthe secondobjection not directed Maiin the So two addresses different monides. positions ia.13.2. perhaps Aquinas of to to is secondobjection meant be an objection thecausal interpretation
47Ibid, "...sicut sanum hoc tantum per posteriusdiciturde medicina, eo quod significant quod sit causa sanitatisin animali,quod per prius dicitursanum/' 48Ibid. This of Aquinas offers description Aquinas' view should not be takenas an argument. and divine pera lengthy argumentforhis view that includes a discussion of divine simplicity it but fection, it is beyondthe scope of thispaper to offer here. Ibid., IM3.6. 50Ibid., IM3.2.

I ftfiL_.3891 UWEPF

de Revista Portuguese Filosofia I 64*2008 1379-396

390

Jennifer Hart Weed

Howthedivine to a that names, position has beenattributed Alainde Lille.51 that this writes both for ever, seemsto meto be an unlikely solution, Aquinas and of of are and (that Maimonides that thecausalview), incorrect positions, for three reasons.52 according Aquinas, secondobjection as much So the is to directed the Maimonides itis directed as against against causalview. in ia.13.6,Aquinasdiscussesthe view thatsince human Furthermore, better thanthey knowGod,all namesare appliedto beingsknowcreatures creatures In of and to primarily onlysecondarily God.53 his statement this of of position, Aquinasomitsany discussion the meanings thosenames, be they causal or otherwise; is theprocedure imposing it nameson God of In that this secondarily is at issue.54 myview, Aquinasidentifies procedure withMaimonides forthisreason, secondobjection leviedagainst and is the too. Maimonides, A brief does lookat theGuidesubstantiates claim.Maimonides Aquinas' notapplynamesto God primarily. does notapplyessential to He attributes God in a positive attributes deniedof God. Additionally, are sense;essential Maimonides namesthe divineactionsby invoking their to similarity creaactions. divine So actions "creation" like cannot appliedto Godpribe turely becauseaccording Maimonides, nameoftheaction to the either, marily, only in or and appliesto theevent theact beingperformed, notto somequality God.55 divine The are actions nameGod'scausalactivities, they absolutely but shared Maimonides arguesthat also there no common is by equivocal. thing God and creatures.56 is of Whenthesame attribute predicated God and ofa is the thesetwoattributes wouldhavein common their creature, onlything Accordnames.57 meanings thesenameswouldbe entirely The different.58 of the of is "Godis thecauseof ingto Maimonides, meaning "Godis living" not, lifein creatures." is the of Rather, meaning "Godis living" "Godis notdead."

51Herbert op to Alain McCabe, references de Lillein a footnote st iM3.2,in theBlackfriars to edition Pegis,in his Introduction St. (London:Eyre& Spottiswoode, 1964),as does Anton Thomas NewYork: Modern The 1945. Aquinas. Library, 52st r\ 13.2."Sedutrumque tria." istorum videtur inconveniens, esse propter 53Ibid.,Is.13.6."Videtur de dicantur creaturis quamde Deo. Secunquod nomina prius per secundum dumenimquodcognoscimus cum secundum illudnominamus; nomina, hoc aliquid, sint creaturam Sed quamDeum.Ergo philosophum, signaintellectuum. perprius cognoscimus a nomina nobisimposita, prius conveniunt creaturis per quamDeo." 54See st i. ad 1. "Adprimum ad ilia 13.6 quantum quod obiectio procedit ergodicendum nominis." impositionem 55Seeskin, 11. p. Guide, 1.56. 57Ibid. The of Press, 1990, 20. p. Philosophy. Chicago: UniversityChicago
Revista de Portuguesa Filosofia 64.2008 58Marvin Fox and Moral Maimonides: Studies in Methodology, Metaphysics, Interpreting

I fjffl B LJHRPF I 390

Maimonidesand Aquinas

391

the of terms God to whenAquinasdescribes process applying Therefore, Maimonides' view. ButAquinas' second he is, in fact, describing secondarily thisview;it is onlya description. an is notreally argument against objection that us wouldneedto offer a counter-example, a demonstration i.e., Aquinas in in withthisobjection orderto God can be namedprimarily, conjunction In an Aquinas againstMaimonides. thecorpusofia.13.2, provide argument know Godfrom since claims offer sucha demonstration: human to beings just all of in and creatures, sinceGod possesses Himself theexcellences creatures we and He is thecauseofall creatures, can nameGod'sperfecpre-eminently These namesare appliedto God of our tionsfrom observations creatures. (primarily).59 substantially of to amounts a summary Aquinas' this In short, counter-example approach was to references "what said above"in theSummatheotonaming God,with we to So logiae.60 withrespect the secondobjection, are leftwithAquinas' of description his own methodof namingGod over and againstthatof from and this In to Maimonides. order evaluate objection, to refrain begging whether notGodcan or we determine thequestion Maimonides, must against is this Not be namedprimarily. surprisingly, question thenubofthedisagreeexaminaand Maimonides. ment between However, a complete only Aquinas could of God and hisdefense thismethod of method naming tionofAquinas' cannot and of the determine validity his counter-example, thisexamination cannot sucha treatment, here.Absent be offered Aquinas'secondobjection be evaluated. 4. Objectionm is to and third final "(T)hisis against objection Maimonides that, Aquinas' whenit is said,'God is of theintention thosewhospeakaboutGod.Namely, or 'He 'He to they living,' intend saymorethan, is thecause ofourlife,' that,

59st ia.13.2. "Et ideo aliterdicendumest, quod huiusmodiquidem nomina significant subsa sed de tantiamdivinam,et praedicantur Deo substantialiter, deficiunt repraesentatione ipsius. nostercognoscit enim sic nomina Deum, secundum quod intellectus Quod sic patet.Significant sic cum cognoscat Deum ex creaturis, cognoscitipsum,secunipsum. Intellectusautem noster, Ostensumest autem supra quod Deus in se praehabet dum quod creaturaeipsum repraesentant. omnes perfectiones creaturarum,quasi simpliciteret universaliter perfectus.Unde quaelibet et creaturaintantumeum repraesentat, est ei similis,inquantumperfectionem aliquam habet, eum sicut aliquid eiusdem speciei vel generis,sed sicut excelnon tamen ita quod repraesentet effectus cuius tamen aliqualem similitudinem a lens principium, cuius formaeffectus deficiunt, solarem. Et hoc supra virtutem repraesentant consequuntur;sicut formaecorporuminferiorum divinaagebatur.Sic igitur praedictanomina divinamsubstanexpositumest,cum de perfectione earnrepraesentant." tiam significant, tamen,sicut et creaturaeimperfecte imperfecte 60See, for st ia.4.2 and 4.3. example,

1 htil 391 I LJHREL

de Revista Portuguese Filosofia I 64*2008 1379-396

392

Jennifer Hart Weed differs frominanimatebodies.'"61Here, Aquinas is objectingto Maimonides' approach because it "cutsagainstthe grainof religiouspractice."62 In ia.13.5, Aquinas argues thatan equivocal approach to God rendersany He demonstration knowledgeof God fromcreaturesimpossible.63 writes or thatifall language about God was equivocal,
but Thennothing could be knownor demonstrated about God from creatures, always And this is the demonstrations would be vulnerable the fallacyof equivocation. to about God, and also who make manydemonstrations againstboththe philosophers, of by againstwhattheApostle says:Theinvisible things God are madevisible thethings that havebeenmade(Rom. l,20).M

In this passage, Aquinas argues that an equivocal approach to naming God would exclude any demonstration proofsof God, includingAristoteor would lian argumentsforthe existenceof the Prime Mover.Demonstrations be ruled out by what Aquinas terms the "fallacyof equivocation,"or the "fallacyof four terms."That is, any syllogismcontainingan equivocation would be renderedinvalidbecause it would contain fourterms.Therewould be no singlemiddletermthrough whichto linkthe premises. Given Maimonides' interpretation the divinenames, therecould be no of demonstration God's existence.Since divineactions are absolutelyequivoof So cal, even theycould not formthe middletermof a syllogism.65 any proofs forGod's existencewould be renderedinvalid. But Aquinas' objection goes beyond the claim that proofsforGod's existence would be rendered invalid by Maimonides' interpretation. Aquinas argues that if we accept the equivocal approach to naming God, then we would be forcedinto silence.66 all termsapplied to God are equivocal, and If we don't know what theirmeaningsare when theyare applied to God, then we could never communicateanything about God.67This is worrisomefor and Aquinas because it createsproblemsforthehistoricalreligioustraditions

abouthim.

61sr i8.13.2. "...quia hoc est contra inentionemloquentiumde Deo. Aliud enim intendunt a dicere, cum dicunt Deum viventum,quam quod sit causa vitae nostrae, vel quod differat corporibusinanimatis." 62David Burrell - art. cit, p. 77. 63srr\13.5. 64Ibid. Sed nee etiam Quia secundum hoc, ex creaturis pure aequivoce, ut aliqui dixerunt. nihil posset cognosci de Deo, nee demonstrari;sed semper incideretfallacia Aequivocationis. Et hoc est tarncontraphilosophos,qui multademonstrative Deo probant,quam etiam contra de conspiciuntur." Apostolumdicentum,Rom. 1:20: invisibiliaDei per ea quae factasunt,inteilecta, 65Guide 1.54. 66Seeskin readilyadmitsthatMaimonides1 approach leads to silence.See Seeskin, pp. 21-24. 67Guide, 1.46 and 1.54. Notice that terms negated of God do not communicate anything

RovtttM PortuguesecteFnosonti

64*2008

Dfl * I

UlfiEE. |392

Maimonidesand Aquinas

393

BothJudaism Christianity and their their theologies. historically approached with assumption thewriters thosetexts the that of weretrying sacredtexts to If truths aboutGod,other thannegations. Aquinasis correct, communicate thenMaimonides' tradition approachstandsopposedto his own religious and thisseemsproblematic. to as Yet,it would be a mistake understand Aquinas'objection someof like the following, "Since the majority the Jewish and Christian thing thattruths be communicated can traditions operateundertheassumption mustbe false." Maimonides' the aboutGod,therefore, approach Clearly, coland traditions notdisprove do of an lective assumptions theJewish Christian one God. However, could construe Aquinas' equivocalapproachto naming the of and lines,"Either majority theJewish Chrisfollowing alongtike point in thattruths be communicated can are tian traditions correct assuming If or are are then aboutGod in theaffirmative they incorrect. they correct, then Maimonides' approachto namingGod is false.If theyare incorrect, be but he God might true, then is in oppoto Maimonides' approach naming to sition hisowntradition." in dilemma. Either he Thisargument placesMaimonides an unfortunate or to and is correct in opposition hisownreligious tradition, he is incorrect. of a to is the Ofcourse, dilemma notenough warrant rejection Maimonides' someoneto examinehis approach but it is enoughto motivate approach, morecarefully. of nature hisposition wouldaccepttheunlikely I think thatMaimonides some Putnam it whileat thesametimeclaiming to be true.68 provides Hilary withruling speech out is thatMaimonides notconcerned by insight noting Thatis, withthenature thatspeech.69 of concerned aboutGod,but rather to believers is to Maimonides' language designed remind approach religious don't and thattheir inadequate, thatifthey speechaboutGod is hopelessly GiventhatGod is of willbe guilty idolatry.70 thisfactthenthey recognize simpleand thatour languageis best suitedto complexobjectsthatcan that "S of in be described propositions the form, is P,"it is not surprising This is Maimonides' described. God cannotbe accurately point.It is not aboutGod,it is thevery out schemathatis ruling statements Maimonides' itself. of nature language, aboutGod, are believers to stopspeaking doesnotarguethat Maimonides of offer in theTorah that areto ignore orthat descriptions God passages they to shouldcontinue speak thatbelievers Maimonides and his actions. argues within certain about God but thatthisneedsto be done carefully, param68In withthisview,see Seeskin, pp. 21-24. agreement 69 14 HilaryPutnam- "On NegativeTheology. In: Faithand Philosophy. (1997), pp. 407-422. 70Ibid., 413. p.

I nfiL__ 3931 UWRPF

de Revista Portuguesa Filosofia I 64*2008 1379-396

394

Jennifer Hart Weed

of that eters.71 Aquinas, Like Maimonides recognizes God is thecreator the Maimonides that Godcan be known universe.72 Aquinas, Like through argues we knowGod'sessence, extent. cannot We his creation, onlyto a certain but namesofhim. can only observe actions deny his and inappropriate claimthatGod is thecreator? But how are we to interpret Maimonides' meansthat whathe writes it Given elsewhere, wouldseemthatMaimonides in Godproduces certain effects theuniverse so on thisbasiswe attribute and are theactionof creation him.But God'scausal activities to be differento is of becausethere no similarity tiatedfrom causal activities creatures, the So or between God and creatures.73 if "creator" "cause"is appliedto God, are it is appliedequivocally. whenequivocalterms appliedto God, Further, we mean.So forthisreason, don'tknowwhatthe we don'tknowwhatthey means. "Godis creator" claim, for If this assessment correct, is thenit will be problematic students For of Maimonides articulate to explainhis viewof God to others. to and observation aboutMaimonides' makesthefollowing example, Joseph Buijs on the of "For metaphysics, Maimonides, dependence creatures Godis causal, But of of and attributes action."74 accordbasedon his theory divine agency know what"Godis cause"means.His approach to Maimonides, don't we ing about discussions and to naming God undermines philosophical theological God sincewe are never surewhatwe meanwhenwe speakaboutGod other God is his Eventhrough actions, thanthatGod is notlikea created thing. unknowable. discussion or it of doctrine a philosophical Whether is a statement religious loomslargeoverMaimonides' aboutGod,thefallacy equivocation of project. as will to Maimonideans also be subject Aquinas' critique they Contemporary is compatible that to viewsin a manner Maimonides' struggle communicate If aboutGod is equivocal, withhis viewof religious language. all language cannot that thenMaimonides' ownstatements God is a "cause"or "creator" This is of be used in a philosophical or argument in a statement theology. withMaimonides' the heartof Aquinas'objection, and the core problem is third to God.Aquinas' objection hisstrongest, approach naming equivocal and for showstheinherent it weakness theequivocal of approach itsconflict out as with historical the traditions. Indeed, I pointed in thediscusreligious the sion of Aquinas'first the do objection, prophets not follow restrictions that Maimonides placeson thenamesofGod.
71Of course,Maimonides thanto to seems to applydifferent parameters the prophets in of first else, everyone as I explained thediscussion Aquinas' objection. 72Guide, 1.53. 73Feldman, 271. p. 74Buus, 469. p.

Revista de Portuguese Filosofh

64*2008

Hfln nt I

UffRPF 1394

Maimonidesand Aquinas

395

that an of IfAquinas abletooffer account religious is language is notpurely with then and that compatible thehistorical is traditions, religious equivocal, in Once again, this he willhaveovercome weakness Maimonides' position. or here,but Aquinas' Aquinas'via analogiacannotbe presented defended thatany alternative sets a standard third approachmustmeet. objection 5. Conclusion are Maimonideans correctto approachAquinas'treatContemporary In withsuspicion. Summatheologiae mentof Maimonides ia.13.2, Aquinas all statements aboutGod as Maimonides interpreting affirmative describes considerable emphasison divineactions. despiteMaimonides' negatively, on mustbe examined their to each of theobjections Maimonides However, or are to ownin order see ifthey successful not. thatMaimonides has As I have shown, objection charges Aquinas'first falsehoods God, and of us no schemathatwouldrestrict from predicating on lists severalrestrictions the names of God. this is false.Maimonides in out reductio are theserestrictions unsuccessful ruling Aquinas' However, first So attributions. Aquinas' out also without ruling theprophetic objection in to drawsattention an important approachto inconsistency Maimonides' God. naming sucis one,but it is ultimately Aquinas'secondobjection a complicated out in cessful pointing thatMaimonides appliesnamesto God secondarily. we to For this However, is not an argument. thisobjection be successful, believes It from wouldneeda counter-example Aquinas. is clearthat Aquinas but is of thathis own discussion analogy just such a counter-example, the cannotbe and successof thiscounter-example Aquinas'secondobjection of within context thispaper. the determined Maiis to Maimonides the strongest third objection. objection Aquinas' and an equivocal in results silenceas Aquinasobjects, monides' approach From about God.75 of the approacheliminates possibility demonstrations to naming God is a better that I conclude thisfact, cannot approach Aquinas' with relithat those I However,can conclude wrestling thewestern approach. God thatdoes not shouldlook foran approachto naming traditions gious the facedbyMaimonides, to fallprey theproblems especially inconsistency and the between namesused by theprophets thenamespermitted Maiby schema. monides'
751 would like to thank Eleonore Stump, Colleen McCluskey,Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, Jack Marler,Fr. Garth Hallett and Ronald Weed for AlexanderFidora, Andreas Niederberger, helpfulcommentson earlierversionsof this paper. I would also like to thankFr. David Burrell, for C.S.C., his generousadvice at severalstages of thisproject.

I ftL_.3951 1MRPF

de Revista Portuguesa Fihsofia I 64.2008 1379-396

3%

JenniferHart Weed

on I theseobjections their own,it is clearfrom Although haveexamined of the text thatthey mustbe readwithin context his widerdiscusAquinas' sion and defense die via analogia.If in thiswiderdiscussion of Aquinasis to able to offer wayofnaming a Godthat does notfallprey theshortcomings is ofMaimonides' then willhavefound waytonameGodthat supehe a view, rior that Maimonides. to of

64*2008

UHfiEL 1396