Abstract
The chapter discusses the deduction of the widespread nineteenth century concept of ethical monotheism from Maimonidean sources – as it was indeed attempted by several Jewish scholars before Hermann Cohen and as it eventually culminates in Cohen’s works on Maimonides. Cohen relies, as far as he draws on Jewish sources for his definition of this concept, essentially on a radical re-interpretation of Maimonides’ famous doctrine of the divine attributes from the Guide of the Perplexed. Concerning the Wissenschaft movement, it will be shown how out of the renewed interest in Maimonides’ philosophy in Germany in the second half of the nineteenth century, there emerged a certain development of thought about Maimonides’ concept of God. This development in the interpretation of Maimonides, guided by the thinker’s interest in modernizing and purifying the Jewish idea of God, led eventually to the outstanding results in Cohen, but even beyond Cohen – for Cohen’s central thesis, that the real aim of Maimonides’ religious philosophy is purely ethical, did not remain unchallenged in his own school, as the chapter shows. Cohen demonstrates in a sophisticated argument that Maimonides’ “negation of privation” technique turns the apparently negative attributes of God in fact into attributes that are “more positive, because they are more prolific than the positive attributes.” By associating the Maimonidean technique of “negation of privation” with the logical category of infinite judgment, Cohen is able to construct a concept of God that is not only similar to the Platonic idea of the good beyond being, but also one that is highly compatible with the Jewish traditional God of Bereshit, the Creator of the universe.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This chapter is based on an earlier and much shorter version, published as: “Maimonides and Ethical Monotheism – The Influence of the Guide of the Perplexed on German Reform Judaism”, in: James T. Robinson (ed.) The Cultures of Maimonideanism, Leiden (2009), p. 309–334. See for the relation of Wissenschaft des Judentums to Christianity the collection of essays devoted to this subject, Görge K. Hasselhoff (ed.) Die Entdeckung des Christentums in der Wissenschaft des Judentums, Berlin 2010.
- 2.
Cf. Guide I:51–60.
- 3.
Guide I:57.
- 4.
See Harry A. Wolfson’s classical article “Maimonides on Negative Attributes”, in his: Essays in Medieval Jewish and Islamic Philosophy (New York 1977) p. 180–215. For a modern discussion of Maimonides’ “negative theology” see the edition of the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly dedicated to this subject (76, 1–2002).
- 5.
Manuel Joel Die Religionsphilosophie des Moses ben Maimon, Breslau 1876, p. 16. Cohen’s remark is in his “Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis”, reprinted in Hermann Cohen, Werke, vol. 15, ed. Hartwig Wiedebach, Hildesheim 2009, p. 179 (Jüdische Schriften III, p. 231).
- 6.
Joel Religionsphilosophie, p. 49.
- 7.
The true character of Maimonides’ ethics is a longstanding subject of dispute between scholars, focusing basically on the issue of whether ethics for Maimonides belong to the ‘rational faculty’ of man (and thus to the divine in man), or simply to the realm of utilitarian social agreements between human beings. See for details below in this chapter, and also the discussion in Chap. 8 in connection with Kant.
- 8.
Joel Religionsphilosophie, p. 50. This refers to Guide II:32 and III:51, See Howard Kreisel Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy, Dordrecht 2001, p. 221ff and 289ff.
- 9.
Joel Religionsphilosophie. p. 17–22.
- 10.
See Alexander Altmann “Essence and Existence in Maimonides”, in: Maimonides (ed. Joseph A. Buijs, Notre Dame 1988), p. 148–165.
- 11.
Joel Religionsphilosophie, p. 21.
- 12.
Abraham Geiger: Das Judentum und seine Geschichte von der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels bis zum Ende des zwölften Jahrhunderts, Breslau 1865. p. 141.
- 13.
- 14.
Guide I:54. The thirteen attributes of God as traditionally derived from the verse in Exodus (34:6) and expounded in the Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 17b) are part of the Jewish liturgy.
- 15.
Moritz Eisler Vorlesungen über die jüdischen Philosophen des Mittelalters, Wien 1870, vol. II, p. 46.
- 16.
David Kaufmann Geschichte der Attributenlehre in der jüdischen Religionsphilosphie, Gotha 1877.
- 17.
It should be noted that Kaufmann’s book is also a critical review of Munk’s translation of the Guide into French, which had been published in the meantime (completed by 1865), at least concerning the chapters on the divine attributes.
- 18.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, p. 444, note 125.
- 19.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre. p. 438f.
- 20.
Guide I:60 quotation after Pines.
- 21.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, p. 456, note 143.
- 22.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, p. 474f.
- 23.
Kaufmann, in a note, prefers the translation of Charisi (
) over that of Ibn Tibbon (
) and adds a reference to Narbonni, who pointed out that this “solemn expression” does not appear elsewhere in the Guide. (Kaufmann, p. 475, note 160). Michael Schwarz has also 
. - 24.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre 475.
- 25.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre 474ff.
- 26.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre 478.
- 27.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre 478.
- 28.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre 479.
- 29.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre 480.
- 30.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre. p. 483f. While this allusion is at least in part to Hegel, it is ironic that Alexander Altmann used “a sort of Hegelian dialectic” to demonstrate that “the intrinsic meaning of the negations is a positive one.” See his “Maimonides on the Intellect and the Scope of Metaphysics”, in: Von der mittelalterlichen zur modernen Aufklärung, Tübingen 1987, p. 123. Before Altmann, Harry A. Wolfson also found positive meaning behind Maimonides’ negative attributes. See his Studies in the History of philosophy and religion, ed. I Twersky, Cambridge 1977, vol II, 227ff.) For the discussion of Maimonidean parallels in Kant, see Chap. 8.
- 31.
Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, p. 471f, note 157. Kaufmann refers to Stöckl’s Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Mainz 1865, vol. II, p. 272f. § 75.
- 32.
Cohen mentioned Maimonides’ theory of the divine attributes in many of his articles written after the turn of the century. However, it is discussed extensively in only two places: in Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, Cohen’s contribution to the two-volume jubilee edition for Maimonides’ 700th yahrzeit, (Moses ben Maimon, ed. Jacob Guttmann et al., Leipzig 1908/1914), and in the Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums (Leipzig 1919). Cohen’s much briefer interpretation of Maimonides, which appears in his book Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie (Giessen 1915, p. 46f.), is analyzed in part by Arthur Hyman in his “Maimonidean Elements in Hermann Cohen’s Philosophy of Religion”, in: Hermann Cohen’s Critical Idealism, ed. R. Munk, Dordrecht 2005, p. 357–370. But in spite of the title, Maimonides’ influence on Cohen plays a minor role in this essay.
- 33.
Hermann Cohen “Religion und Sittlichkeit”, in: Jüdische Schriften III, p. 133.
- 34.
TB Berachot 33b.
- 35.
Religion und Sittlichkeit, 134.
- 36.
For details, see Chap. 2.
- 37.
Hermann Cohen “Liebe und Gerechtigkeit in den Begriffen Gott und Mensch”, in: Jüdische Schriften III, p. 44ff.
- 38.
See for example the book by Breslau teacher David Rosin on Maimonides’ Ethics from 1876, which Cohen had studied.
- 39.
Hermann Cohen Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis (CEM), in: Werke, vol. 15, p. 194 (Jüdische Schriften p. 241). See Chap. 7 for Maimonides and the Sabians.
- 40.
See Lenn Evan Goodman “Rational/Ritual Law”, in: A People Apart; Chosenness and Ritual in Jewish Philosophical Thought, ed. Daniel H. Frank. Albany 1993, p. 109ff.
- 41.
Cf. Guide III:51 and Howard Kreisel “Reasons for the Commandments in Maimonides’ ‘Guide of the Perplexed’ and in Provençal Jewish Philosophy”, in: Maimonidean Studies 5 (2008) 159ff.
- 42.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 196 (JS 242).
- 43.
Steven Schwarzschild “The Democratic Socialism of Hermann Cohen”, Hebrew Union College Annual 27 (1956), p. 422. Schwarzschild’s article still provides the best overview of Cohen’s attitude towards Hegel.
- 44.
Cf the discussion of Guide II:25 (where Maimonides seems to say that if Aristotle had proven the world to be eternal, he would have been prepared to interpret the Bible accordingly) in Chap. 7.
- 45.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 198 (JS 243).
- 46.
Spinoza notes (even if based on the wrong reading) that Maimonides’ definition of the pious from the nations of the world (in the famous Laws of Kings and Wars 8, 11) would exclude Aristotle from that category. See for a brief summary on Aristotle’s’ status Howard Kreisel ““Maimonides on Divine Religion”, in: Maimonides after 800 Years-Essays on Maimonides and His Influence [ed. J. Harris], Cambridge 2007, p.151ff. See also: Michael Nehorai “How a Righteous Gentile can Merit the World to Come” [Hebrew], in: Tarbiz 61 (1992), p. 31–82 and Hannah Kasher “The Torah as a Means of Achieving the World to Come” [Hebrew], in: Tarbiz 64 (1995), p. 301–6.
- 47.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis. p. 200 (JS 244). cf. On the mefursamot Howard Kreisel “The Practical Intellect in the Philosophy of Maimonides”, in: Hebrew Union College Annual 59 (1988) p. 189–215.
- 48.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 202 (JS 245f). Cohen’s concept of revelation is complex, but for the purpose of this argument, even the traditional explanation suffices.
- 49.
Cf. Eliezer Schweid “Hermann Cohen’s Biblical Exegesis”; in: “Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums”; Tradition und Ursprungsdenken in Hermann Cohens Spätwerk;. ed. Helmut Holzhey [et al.]. Hildesheim, 2000, p. 365.
- 50.
Exodus, 34:6.
- 51.
Julius Guttmann “Die religiösen Motive in der Philosophie des Maimonides”, in: Entwicklungsstufen der jüdischen Religion, Giessen 1927, p. 70f. The same idea is taken over in Guttmann’s major Die Philosophie des Judentums from 1933, (reprinted: Berlin 2000, p. 206).
- 52.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 203 (JS 246). For the same reading of Maimonides in Emanuel Levinas, see his “A Religion for Adults”, in: Difficult Freedom. Essays on Judaism, (transl. Sean Hand), Baltimore 1997, p. 17.
- 53.
Laws of Ethical Traits 1:6.
- 54.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 204 (JS 247).
- 55.
Actually, according to Cohen’s own systematic logic, cognition creates actuality, which is in fact the sole reality there is. However, as he gives here his interpretation of Maimonides’ philosophy, he seems to avoid this radical turn.
- 56.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 204 (JS 247).
- 57.
Deut. 6:5 and many other places.
- 58.
Guide III:51; I:39; Laws of the Foundations of the Torah II, 1–2 and many more.
- 59.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 225f. (JS 261).
- 60.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis p. 225 (JS 260).
- 61.
- 62.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis p. 226 (JS 261). Cohen noted that, at least concerning this point, Maimonides was in agreement with Plato and not with Aristotle. Although this thought is not developed here any further, there is a general theme throughout the essay of claiming Maimonides for the Platonic tradition of ethical thought, a tradition that also Cohen himself adopted after some reinterpretation of Plato.
- 63.
In Guide III:51 Maimonides seems indeed to say this.
- 64.
Cf. here David Rosin’s Die Ethik des Maimonides, (Breslau 1876) p. 115. Rosin follows his Breslau colleague Joel and calls chapters III:51–54 of the Guide an “appendix on ethics.”
- 65.
For a full discussion of this passage in Cohen, see Chap. 7.
- 66.
Cf. Begriff der Religion, p. 61 See also Heinz Mosche Graupe Die Entstehung des modernen Judentums, Hamburg 1969, p. 302–303 and Chap. 5 above.
- 67.
The question puzzles scholars until this day. David Novak asked if there could be “a more” than just negativity for Cohen when it comes to the essence of God (The Election of Israel, Cambridge 1995, p. 59, note 30).
- 68.
Martin Kavka Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy, Cambridge 2004, p. 108. The rejection of the Ding-an-sich in Jewish philosophy after Kant goes back to Salomon Maimon. See for example his Philosophisches Wörterbuch, reprinted in Salomon Maimon Gesammelte Werke (ed. V. Verra), Hildesheim 1971, p. 185ff. For discussion: Samuel Atlas From Critical to Speculative Idealism: the Philosophy of Solomon Maimon, The Hague 1964, p. 14f.
- 69.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 219 (JS 256f).
- 70.
Hermann Cohen Ethik des reinen Willens, in: Werke, vol. 7, Hildesheim 2002, p. 55.
- 71.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, 248f. Cohen identified this element as well as did Kaufmann before him: how can Maimonides ask us to trust positive revelation only after the test of reason, he writes, when reason is deprived of all positive concepts?
- 72.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 216 (JS 254). Cohen refers here to Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) and his book De docta ignorantia (1440), which was clearly written under Maimonidean influence. Cf. H. Lawrence Bond “Nicholas of Cusa from Constantinople to ‘Learned ignorance’: The Historical Matrix for the Formation of De docta ingnorantia”, in: Nicholas of Cusa on Christ and the Church, ed. G. Christianson (Leiden 1996), p. 156f. See also Jakob Guttmann “Aus der Zeit der Renaissance”, in: Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 6, 1899, p. 250–266.
- 73.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 213 (JS 252f.) Since this study focuses on the ideological and religious implications of Wissenschaft des Judentums, I cannot follow every aspect of this highly technical discussion. Cf. F. Bamberger Das System des Maimonides (Berlin 1935, p. 36ff.) for a critique of Cohen’s “over-sophisticated” method. In the last decades, however, Cohen,’s argument was taken very seriously by some scholars, and to a large extent confirmed. See for example Amos Funkenstein Perceptions of Jewish History, Los Angeles 1993, p. 142, note 33, and Kavka, Messianism, p. 106–112.
- 74.
Here the English translation can be misleading, for the German for ‘not unknowing’ (nicht unwissend) carries the meaning intended by Cohen while the English does not necessarily – the German actually means ‘not ignorant’.
- 75.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 220 (JS 257).
- 76.
Hermann Cohen Logik der reinen Erkenntnis, Berlin 1902, p. 88ff. See also Kavka, Messianism p. 107. For a general introduction, see Werner Flach “Cohen’s Ursprungsdenken”, in: Hermann Cohen’s Critical Idealism, ed. R. Munk, Dordrecht 2005, p. 41–65.
- 77.
See Hermann Cohen Werke vol. 15 (ed. Hartwig Wiedebach), Hildesheim 2009, p. XXIVf.
- 78.
Both quotes: Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 215 (JS 253).
- 79.
Begriff der Religion, 45.
- 80.
Begriff der Religion, p. 47. Cohen writes explicitly that he takes Maimonides to mean this although those exact words are not in the Guide.
- 81.
Both quotes: Begriff der Religion, 47.
- 82.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 217 (JS 255). Cohen makes it abundantly clear that this concept of limiting God to being related to morality only is the very opposite of Pantheism. This is interesting since some scholars, referring to two hints in Salomon Maimon’s exposition of the teachings of the Guide in the autobiography, attempt to find pantheistic tendencies in Maimonides. See, for example, Yosef Schwartz: “‘Causa materialis’: Solomon Maimon, Moses ben Maimon and the possibility of philosophical transmission”, in: Salomon Maimon; Rational Dogmatist, Empirical Skeptic; Critical Assessments. Ed. by Gideon Freudenthal. Dordrecht, 2003.
- 83.
Benzion Kellermann, Die Kriege des Herrn, 2 vols., Berlin 1914–1916.
- 84.
Interestingly, Gersonides himself is willing to sacrifice theological principles before philosophical truth in order to be logically consistent – especially divine omniscience, because he thinks that individual providence is impossible. See Charles H. Manekin “On the Limited-Omniscience Interpretation of Gersonides’ Theory of Divine Knowledge”, in: Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism, ed. Alfred Ivry [et al.], Amsterdam 1998, p. 135ff, and my own “Medieval Infinities in Mathematics and the Contribution of Gersonides”, in: History of Philosophy Quarterly, 23–2 (2006), p. 95ff.
- 85.
The Platonic ‘Good beyond being’ [epekeina tes sousisa – Rep. 509b] is not only transcendent, but also beyond conceptual knowledge, inasmuch as for Plato it is the source of being and truth. See Nicholas Denyer “The Role of the Good”, in: The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic, Cambridge 2007, p. 284ff.
- 86.
Kellermann, Kriege, vol. 2, p. 124f (note).
- 87.
For the use of Kantian language in this context, see the extensive discussion in Chap. 8. For Kellermann’s discussion of Spinoza’s theory of the attributes and its relation to Maimonides, see Benzion Kellermann Die Ethik Spinozas, Berlin 1922, p. 56.
- 88.
Guide I:68 and 73, for emanation: II:4 and 12, conjunction: III:51, and See Josef Stern “Maimonides Epistemoloigy”, in: The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, ed. K. Seeskin, Cambridge 2005, p. 107ff. Nevertheless, it is still controversial if Maimonides thought that a full conjunction of active and acquired intellect is possible – an assumption on which Kellermann’s argument here depends.
- 89.
Kellermann, Kriege, vol. 2, p. 125 (note). We already find a similar argument in Hasdai Crescas (Or Hashem I, 1, 3) which was answered by Abarbanel and others – a discussion that Kellermann seems not to be aware of, although Kaufmann presents it (cf. Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, p. 389, note 47).
- 90.
Kellermann, Kriege, p. 125, note.
- 91.
Kellermann, Kriege, p. 135, note.
- 92.
David Neumark Geschichte der jüdischen Philosophie des Mittelalters, Berlin 1907, vol 1, p. 589 and others. For a discussion, see Chap. 2.
- 93.
Cf. the clear but dismissive reference to Cohen’s interpretation of Maimonides by Julius Guttmann: “The contemplative character of Maimonides’ religious thought has no doubt absorbed ethical elements, yet it is certainly inadmissible to define his system, as a whole, exclusively in terms of the latter.” (Philosophies of Judaism, transl. Silverman, p. 169.)
- 94.
Cf. Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 247f. (JS 275ff).
- 95.
Kellermann, Kriege, p. 135, note.
- 96.
Ibid., p. 126, note.
- 97.
Hermann Cohen Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums, Frankfurt 1929, (RR), p. 71., English translation by S. Kaplan Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism, New York 1972, p. 61.
- 98.
A judgment like: This object is not a table. (cf. Imanuel Kant Kritik der reinen Vernuft B 95–97) This judgment is infinite because it leaves infinite possibilities regarding what the object might be. For history see: Harry A. Wolfson “Infinite and Privative Judgments in Aristotle, Averroes, and Kant”, in: Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion (ed. Isidore Twersky and George H. Williams), Cambridge 1977, vol. 2, p. 542ff.
- 99.
RR 73 [English: 63].
- 100.
RR 73. “the rational part of religion” [der Anteil der Vernunft an der Religion] is a standard formulation throughout the book. Kaplan translates this as “the share of reason in religion” [63].
- 101.
RR 76 [64].
- 102.
RR 77 [67].
- 103.
For Plotinus’ influence on Maimonides, see Alfred Ivry “Islamic and Greek Influences on Maimonides’ Philosophy”, in: Maimonides and Philosophy, ed. Shlomo Pines, Yirmiyahu Yovel, Dordrecht 1986, p. 149f.
- 104.
Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis, p. 213f. (JS 253), cf. Kavka, Messianism, p. 110.
- 105.
RR 81 [70].
- 106.
RR 78 [68]. The text that Cohen here refers to (“the men of the Great Synagogue have included this thought in the daily prayer”) reads in Hebrew:
. - 107.
See for Levinas: Ze’ev Levy “Hermann Cohen and Emmanuel Lévinas”, in: Hermann Cohen’s Philosophy of Religion; International Conference in Jerusalem, 1996. Ed. by Stéphane Moses and Hartwig Wiedebach. Hildesheim, 1997, 133–143; for Benjamin: Astrid Deuber-Mankowsky Der frühe Walter Benjamin und Hermann Cohen. Jüdische Werte. Kritische Philosophie. Vergängliche Erfahrung. Berlin 2000.
- 108.
Die Lehren des Judentums. An edition was published in 1999 by W. Homolka et al.
- 109.
See however Julius Guttmann’s essay about the religious motives in Maimonides’ philosophy from 1928, where the author discerns a certain ethical twist in Guide I:54 when Maimonides suddenly identifies the attributes of action with the thirteen attributes of God (see above). This trend is indeed continued, according to Guttmann, in the final chapters of the Guide “where morality, which was before thought to be inferior to theory, is now declared to be the true meaning of gaining knowledge of God, that is, to be the goal that theory should lead to.” But Guttmann immediately adds the observation, obviously directed against Cohen, that it is hardly correct to interpret those “isolated passages” in Maimonides to be a general ethical climax of his doctrine (Julius Guttmann “Die religiösen Motive”, p. 80).
) over that of Ibn Tibbon (
) and adds a reference to Narbonni, who pointed out that this “solemn expression” does not appear elsewhere in the Guide. (Kaufmann, p. 475, note 160). Michael Schwarz has also 
.
.Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kohler, G.Y. (2012). Divine Attributes – The Ethical Concept of God. In: Reading Maimonides' Philosophy in 19th Century Germany. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Philosophy, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4035-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4035-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4034-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4035-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)