https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anthropomorphism
ANTHROPOMORPHISM, the attribution to God of human physical form or psychological characteristics. Anthropomorphism is a normal phenomenon in all primitive and ancient polytheistic religions. In Jewish literary sources from the Bible to the aggadah and Midrashim, the use of anthropomorphic descriptions and expressions (both physical and psychical) is also widespread. Yet at the same time it is accepted as a major axiom of Judaism, from the biblical period onward, that no material representation of the Deity is possible or permissible. The resolution of this apparent contradiction requires consideration and understanding of virtually every anthropomorphic expression. In every instance it should be asked whether the expression is an actual, naively concrete personification of God, or a fresh and vital form of religious awareness resorting to corporeal imagery, or an allegorical expression, in which the anthropomorphism is not merely an aesthetic means for the shaping of a particular perception or utterance, but is rather a conscious method of artificially clothing spiritual contents in concrete imagery.
The evolutionary approach to the study of religion, which mainly developed in the 19th century, suggested a line of development beginning with anthropomorphic concepts and leading up to a more purified spiritual faith. It argued, among other things, that corporeal representations of the Deity were more commonly found in the older portions of the Bible than in its later books. This view does not distinguish between the different possible explanations for anthropomorphic terms. It especially fails to account for the phenomenon common in the history of all cultures, that sometimes a later period can be more primitive than an earlier one. In fact, both personifications of the Deity as well as attempts to avoid them are found side by side in all parts of the Bible. The paucity of anthropomorphisms in certain works is not necessarily proof of any development in religion, but may well be due to the literary characteristics and intentions of certain biblical narratives, e.g., the narratives designed to express the growing distance between God and man through describing His relationship to Adam, the patriarchs, and the early and late prophets, etc.
Based off of the Jewish Virtual Library, it is considered a central belief of Judaism that anthropomorphism is not permitted yet there are many sources that utilize an anthropomorphic approach to explain a concept. How do we know that God does not have the characteristics that he is often described with (e.g. God standing, thus necessitating that God has legs)? Would it be a problem if God shared the qualities that humans have? Why?
'צלם' ו'דמות'. כבר חשבו בני אדם כי 'צלם' בלשון העברי יורה על תמונת הדבר ותארו; והביא זה אל הגשמה גמורה לאומרו "נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו" - וחשבו שהאלוה על צורת אדם - רצוני לומר תמונתו ותארו - והתחיבה להם ההגשמה הגמורה והאמינו בה; וראו שהם אם יפרדו מזאת האמונה יכזיבו הכתוב וגם ישימו האלוה נעדר אם לא יהיה גוף בעל פנים ויד כמותם בתמונה ובתואר אלא שהוא יותר גדול ויותר בהיר לפי סברתם והחומר שלו גם כן אינו דם ובשר - זה תכלית מה שחשבוהו רוממות בחוק האלוה: אמנם מה שצריך שיאמר בהרחקת הגשמות והעמיד האחדות האמיתית - אשר אין אמת לה אלא בהסרת הגשמות - הנה תדע המופת על כל זה המאמר אבל הערתנו הנה בזה הפרק היא - לבאר ענין 'צלם' ו'דמות': ואומר כי הצורה המפורסמת אצל ההמון - אשר היא תמונת הדבר ותארו - שמה המיוחד בה בלשון העברי 'תאר' - אמר "יפה תואר ויפה מראה" "מה תארו?" "כתואר בני המלך" ונאמר בצורה המלאכית "יתארהו בשרד... ובמחוגה יתארהו" - וזהו שם שלא יפול על האלוה ית' כלל - חלילה וחס: אמנם 'צלם' הוא נופל על הצורה הטבעית - רצוני לומר על הענין אשר בו נתעצם הדבר והיה מה שהוא והוא אמיתתו מאשר הוא הנמצא ההוא - אשר הענין ההוא באדם הוא - אשר בעבורו תהיה ההשגה האנושית. ומפני ההשגה הזאת השכלית נאמר בו "בצלם אלוקים ברא אותו": ולכן נאמר "צלמם תבזה" - כי ה'בזיון' דבק בנפש אשר היא הצורה המינית לא בתמונת האברים ותארם. - וכן אומר כי הסיבה בקריאת הצלמים 'צלמים' - היות המבוקש מהם ענינם הנחשב לא תמונתם ותארם; וכן אומר ב"צלמי טחוריהם" כי היה הנרצה מהם - ענין דחוק הזק ה'טחורים' לא תואר ה'טחורים'. ואם אי אפשר מבלתי היות 'צלמי טחוריהם' ו'צלמים' נקראים כן מפני התמונה והתואר יהיה אם כן 'צלם' - שם משתתף או מסופק יאמר על הצורה המינית ועל הצורה המלאכית ועל כיוצא בה מתמונות הגשמים הטבעיים ותאריהם: ויהיה הנרצה באמרו 'נעשה אדם בצלמנו' - הצורה המינית אשר היא ההשגה השכלית לא התמונה והתואר. הנה כבר בארנו לך ההפרך בין 'צלם' ו'תואר' ובארנו ענין 'צלם':
Some have been of opinion that by the Hebrew ẓelem, the shape and figure of a thing is to be understood, and this explanation led men to believe in the corporeality [of the Divine Being]: for they thought that the words "Let us make man in our ẓelem" (Gen. 1:26), implied that God had the form of a human being, i.e., that He had figure and shape, and that, consequently, He was corporeal. They adhered faithfully to this view, and thought that if they were to relinquish it they would eo ipso reject the truth of the Bible: and further, if they did not conceive God as having a body possessed of face and limbs, similar to their own in appearance, they would have to deny even the existence of God. The sole difference which they admitted, was that He excelled in greatness and splendour, and that His substance was not flesh and blood. Thus far went their conception of the greatness and glory of God. The incorporeality of the Divine Being, and His unity, in the true sense of the word--for there is no real unity without incorporeality--will be fully proved in the course of the present treatise. (Part II., ch. i.) In this chapter it is our sole intention to explain the meaning of the words ẓelem and demut. I hold that the Hebrew equivalent of "form" in the ordinary acceptation of the word, viz., the figure and shape of a thing, is toär. Thus we find "[And Joseph was] beautiful in toär ('form'), and beautiful in appearance" (Gen. 39:6): "What form (toär) is he of?" (1 Sam. 28:14): "As the form (toär) of the children of a king" (Judges 8:18). It is also applied to form produced by human labour, as "He marketh its form (toär) with a line," "and he marketh its form (toär) with the compass" (Isa. 44:13). This term is not at all applicable to God. The term ẓelem, on the other hand, signifies the specific form, viz., that which constitutes the essence of a thing, whereby the thing is what it is; the reality of a thing in so far as it is that particular being. In man the "form" is that constituent which gives him human perception: and on account of this intellectual perception the term ẓelem is employed in the sentences "In the ẓelem of God he created him" (Gen. 1:27). It is therefore rightly said, "Thou despisest their ẓelem" (Ps. 73:20); the "contempt" can only concern the soul--the specific form of man, not the properties and shape of his body. I am also of opinion that the reason why this term is used for "idols" may be found in the circumstance that they are worshipped on account of some idea represented by them, not on account of their figure and shape. For the same reason the term is used in the expression, "the forms (ẓalme) of your emerods" (1 Sam. 6:5), for the chief object was the removal of the injury caused by the emerods, not a change of their shape. As, however, it must be admitted that the term ẓelem is employed in these two cases, viz. "the images of the emerods" and "the idols" on account of the external shape, the term ẓelem is either a homonym or a hybrid term, and would denote both the specific form and the outward shape, and similar properties relating to the dimensions and the shape of material bodies; and in the phrase "Let us make man in our ẓelem" (Gen. 1:26), the term signifies "the specific form" of man, viz., his intellectual perception, and does not refer to his "figure" or "shape." Thus we have shown the difference between ẓelem and toär, and explained the meaning of ẓelem.
The author describes the differences between ẓelem and toär. What stance does the author take in terms of these concepts in relation to God? How does this demonstrate the impact that word use and interpretation have throughout the Tanakh? How do Maimonides' views reflect the anthropomorphism of God? If at all, to what extent?
Kaplan (1881-1983)
To believe in God means to accept life on the assumption that it harbors conditions in the outer world and drives in the human spirit which together impel man to transcend himself. To believe in God means to take for granted that it is man's destiny to rise above the brute and to eliminate all forms of violence and exploitation from human society. In brief, God is the Power in the cosmos that gives human life the direction that enables the human being to reflect the image of God.
What "form" does God take in Kaplan's theology? How does this reconcile with those who state a belief in God but do not "rise above the brute" enabling them to "reflect the image of God"?
"Moreover, people who believe in God mean many different things by the word “God,” and they differ even more widely in the role that that belief plays in their lives and what it means in terms of their actions. Conversely, people who deny belief in God mean to state many different things in describing themselves that way, and their denial may be a pervasive part of their lives - they fight belief in God as often as they can and with as many people as they can - or it may be just a minor aspect of their lives.
This is all very confusing. After all, if people mean very different things by the word “God,” they presumably mean very different things by asserting or denying belief in God. Furthermore, the kind of evidence we would look for to convince us of their belief or denial depends crucially on what they mean to assert or deny in the first place. One can legitimately wonder whether people actually share anything when they speak about God or whether God-talk is a series of people using their own private languages, languages that can only be understood and assessed by others if they have the patience to ask each person many questions about what they mean by “God” and why they believe whatever they assert about God...
...One last point will be helpful for our discussion of modern Jewish conceptions of God. Because we have the faculty of memory, our pictures of other human beings can often remain the same long after we lose track of them. That is clearly true for my memory of many of my friends and students in years past and, I presume, it is equally true of their memories of me, unless we happen to see each other years later. If, however, we are still interacting with each other, it is probably important to adjust our images of each other so that our current interactions reflect the new realities. That is clearly the case with parents and children: as children mature, parents need to change their image of them and their expectations of them, or there will be trouble! My point here, then, is that sometimes it is very important to update one’s former image of a person in order to reflect the changed circumstances of our relationship.
The implications of this human analogy are hopefully clear. If we have multiple conceptions of human beings, where, after all, one can point to one physical body as the person in question, how much the more will that be true of God, where no such physical body exists. Furthermore, if various people can and do have multiple and widely varying conceptions of a person, all the more should that be true of God, who presumably is open to interaction with everyone. In fact, in light of the number of people who profess a belief in God, it is amazing that there are not vastly more conceptions of God than there are.
The relevant and trustworthy sources of evidence for any one of those conceptions will depend on the particular description of God, just as it does with human beings. If God is defined as “the Creator of the universe,” for example, the evidence depends on theories of astrophysics. Questions like these are then relevant: Did the world come into being at a given moment, or has it existed eternally? What evidence is relevant to deciding that question – or is the answer to that question completely beyond human capability to know? If, for the sake of argument, physicists find grounds to believe in the Big Bang, is that equivalent to a belief in God as the Creator? On the other hand, if God is portrayed as a powerful and loving, covenantal partner with the People Israel, as most Jewish sources do, what kinds of evidence can and should we look for to make belief in such a divine Partner reasonable? However we answer that question, the nature of the evidence will clearly be different from what we need to demonstrate a divine creative force.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to be willing to reconsider our images of God in the past - and especially those of our childhood - in light of our more mature thinking and our added experiences as adults. God may have been “the Man on the Mountain with the flowing white beard” when we were seven or eight, but that will not do for seriously religious and intellectually alive adults – any more than second- or- third-grade mathematics or English skills will suffice for an adult." - from "God in Modern Jewish Thought" by Rabbi Elliot Dorff, PhD
As the understanding of God continues to evolve, could a future version of God be so vastly different from the "Man on the Mountain with the flowing white beard" version of God that there is increased division in Judaism? Could this be the basis for the formation of a new sect within Judaism or a new religion altogether?
If the concept of God changes over time, how do we know that there is truth to God? How do you find evidence of God, as the concept of God changes over time? Do you need evidence?
1900-1980
The concept of God has gone through a process of evolution from the jealous God of Adam, going on to the nameless God of Moses, and continuing to the God of Maimonides, of whom man can know only what He is not. The 'negative theology' of Maimonides leads, in its ultimate consequence--though one not contemplated by Maimonides- to the end of theology. How can there be a 'science of God' when there is nothing one can say or think about God? When God himself is the unthinkable , the 'hidden,' the 'silent' God, the Nothing?
Fromm explains the different forms God has evolved through over time, from physical to figurative. Do you believe that the trend of a decline of the anthropomorphism of God could lead to the end of theology?
(10) The Talmud limits the mishnah’s rule that one can read while sitting to the Megillah. When reading Torah one must stand.
Abbahu derives this from the verse where God tells Moses to stand with him. Moses, who is learning Torah directly from God, must be standing. Rabbi Abbahu goes on to say that the verse may even imply that God is also standing, for it uses the word “with me.” However, he admits that such an anthropomorphism is a bit heretical.
Finally, R. Abbahu learns another halakhah from this verse. A teacher should not sit on a couch and teach his students. Rather both should be on the couch or both on the ground. There should not be a hierarchical distinction between the two.
The sugya now continues to discuss the issue of standing or sitting while learning Torah. I should note that there are discussions among Greek philosophers as well as to whether one should sit or stand while studying philosophy.
Based off of Daf Shevui of Megillah 21a, Rabbi Abbahu believes it may be heretical to describe God as standing, even though the verse the Rabbi is using uses the terms "with me." If, however, this is heretical, why do you think these terms would be included in the Tanakh verse, taking the perspective that the Tanakh is the infallible word of God?
(2) נשאתי את ידי, “I have raised My hand.” The Torah employs an anthropomorphism here (using language employed by human beings to portray non-existent limbs of disembodied Beings such as G’d). The whole verse is to be understood as an allegory. When a man swears an oath he usually raises his hand towards heaven to reflect his sincerity and earnestness. The Torah used this form of expression to describe that G’d related with similar seriousness and determination to what He had in mind for the descendants of Avraham, etc. This is not an isolated instance in which G’d is described as “raising His hand.” Compare Deuteronomy 32,40: “For I have raised My hand to heaven.”
In Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 6:8:2, it is believed that the particular verse in question is considered to be an allegory and that it is used to illustrate the way in which a human should swear an oath. Why do you think an anthropomorphism of God is employed here when God could have issued a command for humans to raise their hands upward? Do you think that an anthropomophsim of God would lead to a stronger conviction among followers if God is trying to convey something for humans to follow (in contrast to simply issuing a command)?