JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ible
(mishlei), expounded allegorically, except for a few passages
(including 31:10ff.) and terms (e.g., “father,” God; “mother,”
Israel). Systematic, philosophical allegory was absent in rabbinic
literature because no philosophical system presented a
real challenge to the literal meaning of Scripture.
(2) The situation, however, differed radically among Hellenistic
Jews, many of whom felt the need to prove that the
teachings of the Bible are consonant with Greek wisdom. Here
the allegorical method, which had been used by the Stoic philosophers
to interpret the old Greek myths, provided a means
of harmonization. It appears, however, that at first Hellenistic
Jewish writers were reluctant to use allegory. The Greek version
of the Bible, the Septuagint (see above), shows hardly
any traces of it. *Aristobulus of Paneas, who is considered an
allegorist (see Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 8:10, 2), does
distinguish between “mythical” expressions in the Bible and
their allegorical sense, i.e., their “physical” or cosmological
meaning. However, he only offers metaphorical interpretations
of anthropomorphic descriptions of God. The Letter of
*Aristeas, on the other hand, emphasizes the symbolic meaning
of Jewish law and ritual, and does so for apologetic reasons.
Similarly, the Wisdom of *Solomon uses allegorical interpretations:
the garments of the high priest, for instance, are said
to represent an image of the entire cosmos (18:19). The sect
of the *Therapeutae is likewise described by Philo (Cont. 78)
as employing the allegorical exposition of Scripture. Nevertheless,
it is only in Philo himself that the method comes into
its own. According to *Philo, the true significance of Scripture
lies in the “underlying meaning” (hyponoia, also termed
allegoria), which is “obscure to the many” and comprehensible
only to “the few who study soul characteristics rather
than bodily forms.” According to H.A. Wolfson, “everything
in Scripture, from names, dates, and numbers to the narration
of historical events or the prescription of rules for conduct,
is to Philo subject to allegorical interpretation” (Philo, 1 (1947),
116). Yet this does not mean that the historicity of the Bible or,
for that matter, its legal validity is dissolved; its literal meaning
is upheld. Thus, the three men who appeared to Abraham
(Gen. 18), while representing metaphysical symbols, are still
to be regarded as real beings; and, the laws of the Pentateuch,
no matter how spiritual in significance, are still to be observed.
In fact, Philo denounced those allegorists who regarded practical
observances as superfluous (Migr. 93). His main concern,
however, was to impress the authority of the Bible upon
Jews and Gentiles by showing that its symbolic language concealed
profound metaphysical and psychological truths; and
that its laws were meant to guide the soul toward the contemplation
of God by freeing it from material attachments.
His allegorism bears all the marks of a deeply personal spiritual
religion.
(3) In the medieval period allegorism in its proper sense,
as distinct from the mere employment of metaphorical interpretation,
was applied by Jewish neoplatonic and Aristotelian
philosophers and kabbalists. By contrast, the Jewish theologians
following the methods of Islamic *Kalām, did not en-
gage in allegorism but were content to treat biblical anthropomorphism
as metaphors (taʾwīl). *Saadiah Gaon laid down
the philosophic position on the propriety as well as the limitations
of metaphorical interpretation (taʾwīl) and it was later
acknowledged by Abraham *Ibn Daūd and *Maimonides.
According to Saadiah, the literal meaning of a biblical text is
to be discarded in favor of taʾwīl in four instances only: if it is
contradicted by sense perception, by reason, by some other
explicit text, or by rabbinic tradition qualifying its apparent
meaning. He argued that if license were given for metaphorical
interpretation in other than these four instances, all the
commandments of the Torah and all the miraculous events
narrated in Scripture might be explained as mere metaphors
(Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 7). Saadiah upholds the literal
meaning of passages presumably referring to the resurrection
of the dead, but insists on the metaphorical sense of the
anthropomorphic descriptions of God. His use of the taʾwīl
method is sufficiently restricted to prevent allegorism on any
significant scale.
(4) Under the impact of neoplatonic and Aristotelian
philosophy the situation changed fundamentally. Having expanded
the meaning of taʾwīl to include the philosophic interpretation
of doctrinal matters, the Islamic neoplatonic and
Aristotelian philosophers distinguished between the “inner”
(bāṭin) and “apparent” (ẓāhir) meaning of certain words and
teachings of the Koran, treating the “apparent” meaning as
an allegory replete with philosophic truth. Concurrent with
this distinction it was often held that the philosophical truths
contained in the allegory should be kept secret from the multitude.
Following this tradition Moses *Maimonides insists that
the true meaning of certain biblical passages, such as Ezekiel’s
vision of the Chariot, and chapters in Proverbs, etc., lies in the
philosophical truths which they express in allegorical fashion
and which should not be revealed to the philosophically untrained.
Applying the simile of Proverbs 25:11 (“A word fitly
spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver”), he said that
“the inner meaning bears the same relation to the apparent one
as gold to silver” (Guide, introd.). Here allegory proper comes
into its own. The “inner” meaning is considered superior to
the “apparent” one since it alone establishes “the truth in all
its reality” (ibid.). Philosophic truth, as far as it is demonstrable,
is thus made the arbiter of biblical exegesis. Maimonides
was less radical when he interpreted anthropomorphic or spatial
terms applied to God as either homonyms or metaphors.
Maimonides cites the rabbinic phrase, “The Torah speaks in
the language of men” (BM 31b), in the sense that Scripture
speaks of God in terms appropriate to the mental capacity of
the multitude (Guide 1:26). This phrase had already been applied
in this sense by earlier exegetes and theologians such as
Judah *Ibn Quraysh, *Jacob b. Nissim, *Baḥya ibn Paquda,
Judah *Halevi and others. The question of the legitimacy of
the allegorical method had been raised by Abraham *Ibn Ezra,
who rejected the search for hidden meanings (sodot; ḥidot) in
passages whose plain meaning did not conflict with reason or
sense perception. He also asserted that the apparent and the
644 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3