Left-handedness and “righteousness”

2.2.4 Conclusion on the Torah I was able to explain away a lot of anthropomorphic references to my satisfaction. But I am a modern guy who does not believe in an anthropomorphic god. What did the original writers of Tanakh think? We can’t really know, because they didn’t write down anything else—but they passed down… Continue reading Antropomorphism: a conclusion from primary sources only

2.2.3 Anthropopathism in Tanakh According to Tanakh, does God even have the emotions of a man? Numbers 23:19 said “God is not man to be capricious, Or mortal to change His mind. Would He speak and not act, Promise and not fulfill?” and 1 Samuel 1 15:28 said “The Glory of Israel does not deceive… Continue reading Does the god of the Israelites have the emotions of a human?

2.2.2 Materiality of God So it is possible to argue that, according to Tanakh, God does not have a body.  But does Tanakh imply that God has a substance? Does He have flesh? Can He be seen? Or is He immaterial?   Deuteronomy 4:15 implies that God is immaterial by saying that “for your own… Continue reading Is the god of the Israelites material?

2.2. Direct anthropomorphism in the shape and description of God in Tanakh 2.2.1 Corporeality of God According to Tanakh, does God have a body? One of the strongest laws in Tanakh is that you cannot create representational images of God. Deuteronomy 4:16 goes into fine detail: “Do not do evil and make for yourselves a… Continue reading Is the god of the Israelites anthropomorphic?

2. Anthropomorphism  2.1. Definition of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism  The Oxford English Dictionary describes anthropomorphism as “the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.” I add: “in particular in our case, the attribution of human physical characteristics.”  Another related notion is anthropopathism, defined by the Oxford English dictionary as the attribution… Continue reading Anthropomorphism: definitions

The summary of all the generations of commentators can be seen here: 0.5.2.5. Sequence of generations of Torah scholars Knesset Hagedola -> Tannaim -> | Mishnah | ->  Amoraim -> Savoraim -> |  Talmud | Gaonim -> | Closure of Torah academies | -> Rishonim -> | Shulkhan Arukh | -> Acharonim 0.5.2.6. Collected writings… Continue reading After the greatest ones

0.5.2.4. The end of organized Judaism: Rishonim and Acharonim Once the great academies in Israel and Babylon were closed, there was no more authoritative figure to discuss and decide Halakha. Great Torah scholars were dispersed across the nations, and great Torah schools started around great local Torah scholars. The communities tended to regard as authoritative… Continue reading The greatest commentators

The secondary sources are so extraordinarily deep and varied that it was difficult for me to fathom. I was confused by the difficult languages (typically Hebrew and Aramaic) and the incredibly large number of early commentators. I ended up having to take a few months to try and rationalize this environment before being able to… Continue reading Secondary sources

Because we are dealing with all primary sources in two semitic languages (Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic), it is worth discussing them briefly. 0.1. Tanakh and Halakha All the Jewish law = Tanakh (which is written) + Halakha (Oral Law), which was passed orally along the generations of priests. The Halakha explains and expands upon the… Continue reading Primary or quasi-primary sources