Israel and Humanity - Multiplicity of Divine names

 Share 

III.

Multiplicity of divine names.

§ 1.

A question that relates to our current study and on which we also wanted to substantiate the charge of polytheism is, in addition to the grammatical plural, the multiplicity of divine names in Scripture. Why, for example, these three names: El, El-ohieme and Avaya ? request a heretic to a rabbi. Is it that he there were many gods? The rabbi answered questioned citing the example of Roman emperors were called in turn Caesar or Augustus, or the Greek word Basileus, without the multiplicity of designations impliquât the plurality of persons.

We should add that not only the variety of names proves nothing against monotheism, but it gives an explanation of grammatical plural of some of them, primarily because the plural may mean simply one who has many names divine , and secondly because it can be reasoned as diversity, name itself, the large number of attributes 1a Divinity to be expressed, and the reply of the rabbi suggests. The Schemoth Rabba explained more clearly in this regard: "Rabbi Abba bar Mammal says: Do you want to know my name? says the Lord is by my works I am called. My name turns El Shaddai, Sebaoth, El-ohieme, Avaya. When I judge the world, I am called El- ohieme , when I fight a battle, Sebaoth , when I leave pending the punishment of sin, El Shaddai when I clear my mercy to my creatures, my name is Avaya ".

The multiplicity of the divine names can not be invoked against the antiquity of the Mosaic monotheism by supposing that these various names, having once belonged to as many different gods, came gradually to blend into the design of one God ; any opinion one professes in effect on the previous value of these names in polytheism, one could reasonably argue that they eventually apply to all distinctly in one particular god. But this idea of merging all the gods into one is nothing but the application of our theory on the relationship that existed between polytheism and monotheism.

But is it necessary to see each of these names a separate topic? The system of divine polynyma not found there not in pagan antiquity as in Judaism? We believe it can be attributed to the complexity of the knowledge acquired and we have already had occasion to say that as religious ideas develop, the original name of the deity appear to be inadequate, he instinctively adds other appointments . This basic process can be considered the first step of humanity in the way of theological speculation reached and later cultivated peoples. Moses expressly says that God's name at one time is not the same as at an earlier time and the whole context suggests that it is because of the diverse meanings of those words in succession. When we see the same writer, like Isaiah, for example, use alternate names of El, El-ohieme, Avaya, El Schade, Yah , it must be admitted, whatever the origin these words, once applied to God, they ended up filling the exact role that we identify.

Max Muller is one of polynyma character of the religion of the Semites: "It is, he says, that the ancient worship of the Semitic race is distinguished by a large number of names of the Deity is the case for the polytheistic religions of the Babylonians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, as monotheistic beliefs of Jews, Christians and Muslims " The polynyma is so good in the Semitic genius it also extends to men. Everyone has this to memory the famous verse from Isaiah, which exegesis Christian pretends to find so many names characteristic of the man-God, while others, using only the last qualifier for the Messiah and the first four to God which imposes such, reflect on this passage: "The Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, Eternal Father will give the name of the Prince of Peace" Isaiah , verse where we see about us, a series of designations relating to the same subject, not at all as expressing his own qualities effective, but figuratively as representing those of the author that it should manifest itself . Hence the names that appear to agree only to God and that we give not only to men, as in this case, but also to objects of nature or of human art, to stones, altars, statues, when all this is intended to represent some great idea, however important to perpetuate remembrance theandric fruitful source of beliefs or fetish, as the mere multiplicity of divine names was for the polytheistic beliefs.

The words by which language to describe the objects indicate that their quality most prominent, because the inner substance things necessarily escapes our senses and on our minds. So where is the invisible Being whose existence is revealed only by multiple and varied acts, is it any wonder that men have used it many names? Aristotle summed up in two words of our divine polynyma saying that "God is has several names depending on the effects it produces" , as the names he mentions are those that have been donated to various pagan gods, so he saw what we see ourselves, as many different aspects of God.

We know that Juno was called the goddess of a thousand names (Myrionyme) Indian scholars and scientists recognize that all forms of deities placed under multiple words for the people of East hidden in the bottom one and the same god. The same causes have so consistently produced the same effects and polynyma, far from providing an argument against monotheism, proves the contrary as it was prior to the polytheism that was introduced precisely when they began to see the gods segregated under various names that classify the different attributes of God. This passage reads point suddenly, the nation of unity persisted more or less time, even after the personification of the attributes. At length, however, these became almost theological personification of the divine persons and the qualifications primitive one God, many names of different gods. This transmutation is then not a single case like that of animal species, including intermediate stages of evolution can not be demonstrated, and we know the contrary transient states through which they passed on the design of one God called several the names of various deities each denoted by a special term. Max Muller calls it signals a énotéisme and defines as "a religion which, while recognizing different deities, representing each as independent of all others, as this single deity the spirit of the worshiper at the time of worship and prayer. This character, he adds, is prominent in the religion of the Vedic poet. Although many gods are invoked in various hymns, sometimes in one song, notwithstanding there is no priority rule established between them. According to various aspects of nature and desires changing the human heart, sometimes it is Indra, god of blue sky, sometimes Agni, the god of fire, sometimes Varuna, the ancient god of heaven that we pray as supreme god, without a shadow of rivalry or subordination of any kind. "

The fact is of utmost importance, but the explanation seems very unlikely, indeed, the illusion which is renewed in the spirit of the worshiper whenever a new god is invoked, although in the same hymn of other deities are worshiped simultaneously in the same way, is far less likely that the idea of taking turns each name or personification of God for the whole Divinity.

This phenomenon occurs not only among the Aryans, we also found among the Semites. The Semitic gods, we are told, are like the gods of the children of the Aryan race, to the deities of the Vedas almost without substance, or the abstractions of Romans, Fides, Virtus . This lack of individuality in the primitive gods Semitic or Aryan, attests to the original unit, a common characteristic which they stand then imperceptibly. If primitive religion was polytheism, the gods of individuality is more pronounced, as we ascend the course of time, the lack of marked originality proves the contrary as the starting point of evolution n ' could be that the concept of one God uniting all perfection personified later. The attribute could become divine person with no other change than the sense of the word, and yet these different meanings were not new, they were all legitimate meanings of the word. Greek prosopon and the Latin persona designated both the individual and the face, the aspect that we recognize.

The énotéisme experimental evidence is taken in the history of religions. Another is provided by the Hebrew theosophy, in which he must see, as we have said, this mixed form, without sacrificing the smallest particle of pure monotheistic doctrine, however, lends itself more than the Mosaic Karaite trends pluralistic Aryans and the Gentile in general. As the danger of falling into polytheism there should be greater, monotheism there should react with even more force against this énotéisme is the first level crossing polytheistic ideas. Kabbalah established is a significant distinction between the various divine attributes, but without going so far as to make as many people and divine worship was directed toward the attribute to which the nature of worship or the needs of his soul grew particularly the worshiper. But the peril was doubtless that in addressing a particular attribute of God, we saw all God and that we neglect the other, marking the precise step énotéiste with its inevitable consequences. To obviate this inconvenience that we had done many times an argument against the Kabbalah, it was prescribed as prayer, worship, worship should be targeted as the Cause of causes, the Supreme Unity, asking that His grace reaches us by one or another of its attributes.

Whatever you do, the multiplicity of divine names in the Scriptures will never lead to the demonstration of Israelite polytheism. The merger of all aspects and attributes of God of the Bible was complete in worship and we see that the Kabbalah, which is accused of recklessly encourage abuse of énotéisme, takes great care to guard against otherwise them his followers.

§ 2.

We have seen how the divine attribute is embodied in a name. Still see the same phenomenon, either in the transition from polytheism to monotheism, polytheism, but in himself.

Macrobius reports that it was a sacred dogma in the religious mysteries of the ancients Apollo was the name for the sun, while he paced the upper hemisphere. Elsewhere it surprises in Virgil's idea of a god in the making: The poet, he said, using the expression Numine lœso quo - offended by what divinity - so that he speaks only of the goddess Juno, Myrionyme said, shows that different attributes of one deity could be taken for as many different gods. Burnouf has rightly observed that when a single word was once turned into proper name , there remains a step to give him a body and personify. We repeat: Nomina numina is how are the gods.

Yes, that is how are the gods, that is to say, the figures of the divine being created by the imagination of men, but it would be absolutely absurd to claim that this is how God is as if Being could result qualifiers by which it designates as if they did not necessarily an objective reality is evidenced by the tireless efforts of the human mind to represent.

The German Symbolist school sees the pagan gods personified the attributes of a being that embraces both the finite and the infinite, of a pantheistic god. It is true that more recently has substituted the point of view of the metaphysical school of naturalistic interpretation, but we have already noted that both systems are far from mutually exclusive, are reconciled in the kabbalistic doctrine that sees the attributes divine in some way affect the nature and give birth to a hierarchy of lower order forces, modeled on the divine hierarchy which it reflects. Thus the metaphysical method and the naturalistic method can be true and the other one, except to distinguish the various polytheistic gods or transcendental ideals and cosmic gods, natural or immanent. It would also no difficulty in showing that the same god was often double or triple, as was designed in one way or the other, thus there were several Zeus several Apollos, several Hercules, Dionysius more.

Finally mention another way to isolate the divine attributes which therefore had the same results. We refer to skills that are applied to God by calling God the example of a particular person or the God of any particular thing, as the special character you wish to represent. This process is very philosophical and very monotheistic well have birth, by a strange but natural mistake, the belief in the incarnation, especially as the Kabbalah gives the name of the Messiah in a divine emanations. It is undeniable that in the Bible this way of naming God aims to highlight the particular attributes that appears more in the thing spoken in the history or the appearance of the character in question. The expression of God of heaven and earth means the author and the curator of nature , and similarly, that of God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is God in history, the social welfare. These words of blessing to the twelve tribes: "The grace of visiting the bush come upon the head of Joseph" are called in allusion to the Mosaic revelation, as the epithet "God enthroned upon the cherubim" recalls the election of Israel and the establishment of true worship in his temple.

There is even a different form, even more significant because it is intermediate, in which the divine attribute is implicit and explicit personification. When Jacob calls his God "the God of Abraham Isaac and terror," there is a clear intention to appoint this special aspect of God inspired fear of his father Isaac.

Finally worship, especially as that includes the Kabbalah shows us how to make the gods. Doubtless there is nothing further from the spirit of this theology that the plurality of God. He was even accused of being excessively unit. Nevertheless there is also complaining multiply by Sephiroth objects of worship. These are two charges which cancel each other. In fact, Kabbalah gives us a very understandable explanation of the passage of monotheism to polytheism by his theory of the personification of divine attributes or emanations. And if it be objected that such a theory, in Judaism, even facilitates this passage we rependrons without paradox that is the result of the complete truth, precisely because being complete, it extends to the extreme confines of the error. The truth in fact ends only where the error begins, as the error does not end until the truth begins.