Islamic Roots of Jewish Rationalism

Medieval Muslim theologians, philosophers, and polemics took the Jewish scholarship to task for Jewish primitive, irrational, contradictory, and manlike (anthropomorphic) concepts of God, supremacist legal doctrines, racial ethos, and deficient moral theory. In response, various Jewish scholars developed strategies to demonstrate the relevance and validity of their traditions. This involved adopting metaphorical interpretations similar to those used by Muslim theologians to address perceived anthropomorphisms in the Bible and Talmud. Additionally, they employed allegorical methods for texts that were particularly challenging in terms of language and imagery.

Early Jewish rationalists, notably the Karaites, were pioneers in applying metaphorical and allegorical interpretations to the Bible, moving away from traditional Rabbinic interpretations found in the Talmud and Midrash. They focused solely on the biblical text, prompting their Rabbinic contemporaries to reevaluate their interpretations in the context of Greek and Muslim intellectual frameworks. Prominent Rabbinic figures, such as Saadia Geon, adapted these rational approaches to maintain the relevance of traditional Jewish literature. This intellectual movement reached a pinnacle with the work of Moses Maimonides, who embodied this rationalist approach in Jewish thought and bequeathed it to coming generations. Therefore, medieval and post-medieval Jewish rationalism owes a great deal to the Muslim onslaught, approaches, and strategies.

The Karaites, also known as Karaim or Qaraites, are a Jewish religious group characterized by their reliance on the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) as the sole scriptural authority and their rejection of the Oral Torah (Talmud) that Rabbinic Judaism considers equally binding. Here are some key aspects of Karaite Judaism:

Origins and History: Karaite Judaism is believed to have emerged in the early Middle Ages, around the 8th or 9th century Muslim Empire. The movement gained followers in various regions, including the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe.

Beliefs and Practices: Karaite Jews strictly adhere to the text of the Hebrew Bible and interpret it according to its plain meaning, rejecting the Rabbinic tradition of oral law and interpretation found in the Talmud and Midrash. This leads to differences in religious practices and interpretations of Jewish law. For example, Karaites observe the Sabbath and dietary laws based on their understanding of the Tanakh.

Scriptural Interpretation: Unlike Rabbinic Judaism, which relies heavily on Rabbinic interpretation and the Oral Torah, Karaites emphasize personal study and interpretation of the scriptures. They believe that every Jew has the responsibility to study the Torah and determine its correct meaning.

Prayer and Worship: Karaite prayer services differ from those of Rabbinic Judaism. They do not use the traditional Jewish prayer book (siddur) and their prayers are composed mainly of biblical verses.

Community and Demographics: Historically, Karaite communities were found in various parts of the world, but their numbers have dwindled over time. Today, small Karaite communities exist in countries like Israel, the United States, Turkey, and Russia.

Relationship with Rabbinic Judaism: Throughout history, the relationship between Karaites and Rabbinic Jews has been complex, ranging from coexistence to conflict. In some periods, Rabbinic authorities strongly opposed Karaite interpretations and practices.

Modern Developments: In modern times, the Karaite movement has experienced both a revival of interest and the challenges of assimilation and declining numbers. Karaites today continue to maintain their distinct religious identity while also engaging with the broader Jewish and global communities.

The Karaite movement represents a unique and significant thread within the tapestry of Jewish history and religious expression.

Karaite Judaism is known for its strict anti-anthropomorphic interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. This stance is a significant aspect of Karaite theological thought and differentiates them from Rabbinic Judaism in certain respects. Here are key points regarding their anti-anthropomorphic views:

Literal Interpretation of Scripture: Karaite Jews emphasize a literal interpretation of the Bible. They reject the idea of anthropomorphism — attributing human characteristics to God — in their interpretation of the scriptures. This contrasts with some Rabbinic interpretations, that describe God in human-like terms.

Rejection of Physical Attributes to God: In line with their literal approach to the Bible, Karaites assert that any biblical reference to God having physical form or human-like attributes (such as bodily organs) should not be understood as implying that God possesses a physical form. They argue that these are metaphorical expressions used to make the concept of God more comprehensible to humans.

Influence of Islamic Thought: The development of Karaite thought in the early medieval period was contemporaneous with the rise of Islamic theology, which also strongly emphasizes the transcendence and non-anthropomorphic nature of God. Some scholars suggest that Muslim transcendental thought influenced Karaite interpretations.

Impact on Worship and Imagery: This theological stance impacts Karaite religious practice and art. For instance, you will not find images or physical representations of God in Karaite synagogues or literature, adhering to a strict interpretation of the Second Commandment against graven images.

Contrast with Rabbinic Exegesis: Rabbinic Judaism often interprets anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Hebrew Bible as metaphorical or as a limited human understanding of the divine.

Theological Debates: The issue of anthropomorphism has been a point of theological debate between Karaites and Rabbinic Jews. Karaite scholars have historically critiqued what they viewed as the anthropomorphic tendencies in the writings of some Rabbinic commentators.

Continued Relevance: The Karaite commitment to anti-anthropomorphic interpretation remains a defining feature of their theology and religious practice. It exemplifies their broader approach to scripture, emphasizing a plain, direct, and rational understanding of the text.

Overall, the Karaite rejection of anthropomorphism in their interpretation of the scriptures is a central aspect of their religious identity and distinguishes their theological perspective within the Jewish tradition.

The connection between Karaite Judaism and the Mu'tazilites, an Islamic theological school of thought known for its rationalism, is an interesting aspect of religious and intellectual history. Both groups emerged around the same time in the early medieval period, and there are several areas where their thoughts and doctrines show similarities:

Rationalism and Reason: Both the Karaites and the Mu'tazilites placed a strong emphasis on the use of reason and rational thought in religious matters. The Mu'tazilites were known for their rationalist approach to Islamic theology, advocating for the primacy of reason in understanding and interpreting the Quran. Similarly, Karaites advocated for a rational approach to interpreting the Hebrew Bible, relying on their understanding and reason, rather than the traditional Rabbinic oral law.

Anti-Anthropomorphism: Both groups strongly opposed anthropomorphic interpretations of God. The Mu'tazilites, in their quest to uphold the unity and transcendence of God (Tawhid), rejected any literal interpretation of the Quranic verses that seemed to ascribe physical attributes to God. Similarly, as mentioned earlier, Karaites were against any anthropomorphic understanding of the descriptions of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Influence of Surrounding Intellectual Climate: The Karaite movement emerged in the Islamic world, and the intellectual and theological climate of this environment, which included the Mu'tazilite thought, likely influenced Karaite scholars. While it is not clear to what extent direct influence occurred, the similarities in their approaches suggest a direct impact of the prevailing intellectual trends.

Scriptural Primacy: Both groups emphasized the primacy of their respective scriptures (the Quran for Mu'tazilites and the Hebrew Bible for Karaites) over other religious texts and traditions. This included a rejection of the authoritative status of the Oral Torah in Rabbinic Judaism by Karaites and a similar stance by Mu'tazilites concerning certain Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) they deemed unreasoned.

Debates on Free Will: Another area of similarity is the debate on free will and predestination. The Mu'tazilites were known for their assertion of human free will, opposing the idea of predestination. Karaite scholars also engaged in similar debates, although their conclusions were not always identical to those of the Mu'tazilites.

Theological and Philosophical Exchanges: The medieval Islamic world was a melting pot of theological and philosophical ideas, and exchanges between different religious and intellectual groups were common. This environment facilitated the cross-pollination of ideas between groups like the Mu'tazilites and Karaites.

The Karaites (Karaite Judaism being a movement distinct from Rabbinic Judaism), Gaonim Saadya (889–942), Sherira (d. 1002), and Hai (d.  1032), vigorously opposed such anthropomorphisms and interpreted them figuratively. Interestingly, most of the known Karaites were contemporaries of al-Ash’ari, the Mu’tazilites, and other well-known Muslim theologians and apologetics, and were most probably influenced by Islamic transcendental thought as many Western scholars have observed. Wolfson for instance notes, “The need of explaining scriptural anthropomorphisms became all the greater to spokesmen of Judaism under Muslim rule during that period in view of the fact that in Muslim literature Jews were represented as anthropomorphists.”  The Karaites (meaning “readers” of the Hebrew scripture) believed in original Judaism and denied rabbinic/Talmudic authority partly due to the anthropomorphisms this indulged in. Karaites such as Salmon ben  Yeruhim for instance, snapped at some of the daring anthropomorphic expressions found in post-scriptural rabbinic writings to show, as Wolfson observes: “that the rabbis had an anthropomorphic conception of God. Of post-Talmudic literature, he explicitly mentions the mystical works Sefer Shem ben Noah, Otiyyot de-Rabbi Akiba, and Shi’ur Komah, and quotes from other works of the same type without mentioning them by title.”

Karaite's Figurative Interpretations

The Karaites explained most biblical anthropomorphisms figuratively, for example, the phrase God creating man in His image (Genesis 1:26–7) was explained as “by way of conferring honor.”

The movement was very much influenced by Greek rational thought, as well as coming very close to Muslim rationalists with regards to their conception of the Deity. The Karaites, Jacob B. Agus informs us: “ventured into the field of philosophical speculations, in advance of their rabbinic brethren, identifying themselves completely with the Mutazilite school of thought among the Arabs. In common with the Moslem theologians, they elaborated a rationalistic theology, which emphasized the principles of God’s unity, incorporeality, man’s freedom, and God’s justice.”

There was so much identification that, to I. Husik, the works of one group can be credited to the other.

Saadia Gaon's Opposition

Saadia Gaon opposed Karaite's rejection of rabbinic/Talmudic authority, defending traditional rabbinic thought by emphasizing the figurative nature of the anthropomorphic expressions and hence the figurative interpretations employed. Notably, his translation of the scripture into the Arabic language, eliminated all anthropomorphic expressions by the figurative method. For instance, referring to Moses’ plea (Exodus 33) to behold the glory of God, and God’s response that Moses could see the back of God but not His face, Saadya explained: “I wish to say in explanation of this entire passage that the Creator possesses an effulgence which He created and showed to the prophets in order that they might be convinced that the words they hear are indeed from the Creator. When one of them sees it, he declares, “I have seen the glory of God.” Some, too, speaking figuratively, say, “I saw God”... But when they perceive this light, they cannot endure contemplating it, because of its tremendous potency and splendor...”

Similarly, Daniel saw not God but the same created form that the rabbis called Shekinah. He further argued that “If we were to speak of Him in true language, we should have to forego and reject such assertions as the following – that He hears and sees, that He loves and wills, with the result that we should be left with nothing but His existence alone...”

In addition to this, and like the Mu’tazilites (Muslim rationalists and anti-attributists), he established the internal unity of  God in the sense of His simplicity. There exist a great many similarities and borrowings from Islamic Rationalists, especially the Mu’atazilites, and as Neusner and others have observed, figurative interpretations of scriptural anthropomorphisms, were mostly due to them.  Wolfson notes that such a “conception of internal unity or absolute simplicity was not derived by the Arabic-speaking Jews directly from Scripture, for the unity of God in Scripture meant only numerical unity. It was the Mu’atazilite stressing of internal unity or absolute simplicity that led them to interpret scriptural unity in that sense.”

Saadia was later followed by many other rabbis such as Bahya (1270–1340), Chasdai Crescas (1340–1410), and Joseph Albo (1380– 1444), who favored allegorical interpretation of anthropomorphic passages of the Hebrew Bible.

Moses Maimonides and Jewish Rationalism

Yet it was in the twelfth-century Jewish philosopher, rabbi, and physician, Moses b. Maimon (1135–1204), “a proud son of aljamas of Muslim Spain”, and the physician to the Muslim governor of Egypt, Ayyub, from whom Jewish rationalism received its classic formulation. Maimonides stressed the transcendence, incomparability, and absolute otherness of God, interpreting biblical anthropomorphisms thoroughly and figuratively. In this area, argues O’Leary, Maimonides “reproduces the substance of that already associated with al-Farabi and Ibn Sina put into a Jewish form.” He also observes that “the teaching of Maimonides shows a somewhat modified form of the system already developed by al-Farabi and Ibn Sina adapted to Jewish beliefs.” Lawrence V. Berman, a famous Stanford professor of Judaic Studies, declares Maimonides as “the Disciple of al-Farabi.” Berman declares that “doubtless, there were many intellectuals who accepted the Alfarabian view and tried to understand Islam and Christianity from its perspective, but no one else in a major work attempted to apply his theory in detail to a particular religious tradition.”

In his The Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides, according to Berman, “appears as a theologian in the Alfarabian sense and here the Alfarabian point of view is clearly felt.” In the Guide Maimonides asserts in philosophical language the spirituality of God and mitigates biblical anthropomorphisms by via negativa meaning that God cannot be known by human categories but by negative attributes i.e. God does not commit evil, God is not finite, in other words stripping God of all positive attributes. He argues for the complete “rejection of essential attributes in reference to God.” After a detailed discussion of various attributes, Maimonides concludes: “Consider all these and similar attributes, and you will find that they cannot be employed in reference to God. He is not a magnitude that any quality resulting from quantity as such could be possessed by Him; He is not affected by external influences and therefore does not possess any quality resulting from emotion. He is not subject to physical conditions and therefore does not possess strength or similar qualities... Hence it follows that no attribute coming under the head of quality in its widest sense can be predicated of God... are clearly inadmissible in reference to God, for they imply composition, which... is out of question as regards the Creator...He is absolutely One.”

The Problem of Literalism

Maimonides saw in literalism the source of error. “The adherence to the literal sense of the text of Holy Writ is the source of all this error...” He further argued that “the negative attributes of God are the true attributes: they do not include any incorrect notions or any deficiency whatever in reference to God, while positive attributes imply polytheism, and are inadequate... we cannot describe the Creator by any means except by negative attributes.”

So Maimonides’ God is existing but not in existence, living but not in life, knowing but not in knowledge, etc.: “It is known that existence is an accident appertaining to all things, and therefore an element superadded to their essence. This must evidently be the case as regards everything the existence of which is due to some cause; its existence is an element superadded to its essence. But as regards a being whose existence is not due to any cause – God alone is that being, for His existence, as we have said, is absolute – existence and essence are perfectly identical; He is not a substance to which existence is joined as an accident, as an additional element. His existence is always absolute and has never been a new element or an accident to Him. Consequently, God exists without possessing the attribute of existence. Similarly, He lives, without possessing the attribute of life; knows without possessing the attribute of knowledge...”

He concluded by observing that “every attribute predicated of God either denotes the quality of an action, or – when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself, and not of His actions – the negation of the opposite... All we understand is the fact that He exists, that He is a Being to whom none of His creatures is similar, who has nothing in common with them, who does not include plurality. ...Praised be He! In the contemplation of His essence, our comprehension and knowledge prove insufficient... in the endeavor to extol Him in words, all our efforts in speech are mere weakness and failure!”

Maimonide’s transcendental Deity did not seem to resemble either the original biblical Deity or the rabbinic one and was in no way a development upon them. Its philosophical nature and foreign color were quite obvious. Therefore, his Guide, observes Agus, “was severely criticized, occasionally banned, more frequently permitted only for those over thirty. It was not included in the curriculum of study in the great yeshivoth, but the adventurous souls who dared to think for themselves regarded the Guide as their Bible.” His Creed of the thirteen essentials of faith, writes Suffrin, “has never been favorably accepted; and, although it is printed in some prayer-books, it is never recited publicly.” His path, argues Guthrie, ended “in obscurity and never has been the mainstream of Jewish belief.” Modern Jewish thinker, Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929), observes that the negative theology “dismembered and abolished the existing assertions about God’s “attributes,”... This path leads from an existing Aught to Nought; at its end atheism and mysticism can shake hands. We do not take this path, but rather the opposite one from Nought to Aught. Our goal is not a negative concept, but on the contrary a highly positive one.”

Kadushin contends that the whole “Medieval Jewish philosophy is neither a continuation of that development nor in line with it. Rabbinic thought alone has its roots firmly in the Bible, and it alone remains united with the Bible in a living bond.” And rabbinic thought is undoubtedly anthropomorphic and in certain cases quite corporeal.

While Maimonides' rational and philosophical approach to theology has been embraced by many critically-minded, rationalist Jews, it has generally not found favor among traditionalists. These traditionalists tend to adhere to a more literal, anthropomorphic, and corporeal understanding of God, often favoring a concept of God in Rabbinic tradition that is more closely aligned with human attributes and limitations.

See details in my book "St. Thomas Aquinas and Muslim Thought."