Anthropotheism
Encyclopedia
Anthropotheism is ascribing human form and nature to god
s, or the belief that gods are only deified human beings. Associated with classical Greek
and Roman
beliefs, a type of anthropotheism finds a modern expression in the Mormon
world-view of eternal progression. Vestiges of Hebrew anthropotheism can be discerned throughout the Hebrew Bible
. It is a type of physitheism
. The attribution of human general qualities to divine beings may be called anthropopathy
.
Early religion, among its many objects of worship, includes animals
, considered, in the more refined theology of the later Greeks and Romans, as metamorphoses of the great gods. Similarly we find "therianthropic" forms—half animal, half human—in Egypt or Assyria-Babylonia. In contrast with these, it is considered one of the glories of the Olympian mythology of Greece that it believed in happy manlike beings (though exempt from death, and using special rarefied foods etc.), and celebrated them in statues of the most exquisite art. Israel shows us animal images, doubtless of a ruder sort, when Yahweh is worshipped in the northern kingdom under the image of a steer. (Some scholars suggest that the title "mighty one of
Jacob" from Psalm 132:2--5 et al., ריבא (abir) as if from רבא (avir) is really "steer" (ריבא, abir) "of Jacob.") But the higher religion of Israel inclined to morality more than to art, and forbade image worship altogether. This prepared the way for the conception of God as an immaterial Spirit. True mythical anthropomorphisms occur in early parts of the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis 3:8, cf. 6:2), though in the majority of Old Testament passages such expressions are merely verbal (e.g. Isaiah 59:1). In the Christian Church (and again in early Islam) simple minds believed in the corporeal nature of God. Gibbon and other writers quote from John Cassian the tale of the poor monk, who, being convinced of his error, burst into tears, exclaiming, "You have taken away my God! I have none now whom I can worship!" According to a fragment of Origen (on Genesis 1:26), Melito of Sardis shared this belief. Many have thought Melito's work, περἰ ἐνσωμάτου θεοῦ (peri ensomatou theou), must have been a treatise on the Incarnation; but it is hard to think that Origen could blunder so. Epiphanius tells of Audaeus of Mesopotamia and his followers, Puritan sectaries in the 4th century, who were orthodox except for this belief and for Quartodecimanism
. Tertullian, who is sometimes considered anthropotheist, stood for the Stoical doctrine, that all reality, even the divine, is in a sense material.
The reaction against anthropotheism begins in Greek philosophy with the satirical spirit of Xenophanes (540 BCE), who puts the case as broadly as any. The "greatest God" resembles man "neither in form nor in mind." In Judaism—unless we should refer to the prophets' polemic against images—a reaction is due to the introduction of the codified law. God seemed to grow more remote. The old sacred name Yahweh is never pronounced; even "God" is avoided for allusive titles like "heaven" or "place." Still, amid all this, the God of Judaism remains a personal, almost a limited, being. In Philo we see Jewish scruples uniting with others drawn from Greek philosophy. For, though the quarrel with popular anthropotheism was patched up, and the gods of the Pantheon were described by Stoics and Epicureans as manlike in form, philosophy nevertheless tended to highly abstract conceptions of supreme, or real, deity. Philo followed out the line of this tradition in teaching that God cannot be named. How much exactly he meant is disputed. The same inheritance of Greek philosophy appears in the Christian fathers, especially Origen. He names and condemns the "anthropomorphites," who ascribe a human body to God (on Romans 1, sub fin.; Rufinus' Latin version). In Arabian philosophy the reaction sought to deny that God had any attributes. And, under the influence of Islamic Aristotelianism, the same paralysing speculation found entrance among the learned Jews of Spain, with Maimonides
.
Till modern times the philosophical reaction was not carried out with full vigour. Spinoza (Ethics, i. 15 and 17), representing here as elsewhere both a Jewish inheritance and a philosophical, but advancing further, sweeps away all community between God and man. So later J.G. Fichte and Matthew Arnold ("a magnified and non-natural man"),—strangely, in view of their strong belief in an objective moral order. For the use of the word "anthropomorphic," or kindred forms, in this new spirit of condemnation for all conceptions of God as manlike—see J.J. Rousseau in Émile iv. (cited by Littré),—"Nous sommes pour la plupart de vrais anthropomorphites". Rousseau is here speaking of the language of Christian theology,—a divine Spirit: divine Persons. At the present day this usage is universal. What it means on the lips of pantheists is plain. But when theists charge one another with "anthropomorphism," in order to rebuke what they deem unduly manlike conceptions of God, they stand on slippery ground. All theism implies the assertion of kinship between man, especially in his moral being, and God. As a brilliant theologian, B. Duhm, has said, physiomorphism is the enemy of Christian faith, not anthropotheism.
As for anthropomorphism, the latest extension of the word, proposed in the interests of philosophy or psychology, uses it of the principle according to which man is said to interpret all things (not God merely) through himself. Common-sense intuitionalism would deny that man does this, attributing to him immediate knowledge of reality. And idealism in all its forms would say that man, interpreting through his reason, does rightly, and reaches truth. Even here then the use of the word is not colourless. It implies blame. It is the symptom of a philosophy which confines knowledge within narrow limits, and which, when held by Christians (e.g. Peter Browne, or H.L. Mansel), believes only in an "analogical" knowledge of God.
God
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism....
s, or the belief that gods are only deified human beings. Associated with classical Greek
Greek mythology
Greek mythology is the body of myths and legends belonging to the ancient Greeks, concerning their gods and heroes, the nature of the world, and the origins and significance of their own cult and ritual practices. They were a part of religion in ancient Greece...
and Roman
Roman mythology
Roman mythology is the body of traditional stories pertaining to ancient Rome's legendary origins and religious system, as represented in the literature and visual arts of the Romans...
beliefs, a type of anthropotheism finds a modern expression in the Mormon
Mormon
The term Mormon most commonly denotes an adherent, practitioner, follower, or constituent of Mormonism, which is the largest branch of the Latter Day Saint movement in restorationist Christianity...
world-view of eternal progression. Vestiges of Hebrew anthropotheism can be discerned throughout the Hebrew Bible
Hebrew Bible
The Hebrew Bible is a term used by biblical scholars outside of Judaism to refer to the Tanakh , a canonical collection of Jewish texts, and the common textual antecedent of the several canonical editions of the Christian Old Testament...
. It is a type of physitheism
Physitheism
Physitheism is the attribution of a physical form and attributes to deities, a practice associated with the ancient Greeks and to a lesser extent the Romans. In modern Jewish and Christian theology the Abrahamic God is held to be a transcendent spirit with no body parts...
. The attribution of human general qualities to divine beings may be called anthropopathy
Anthropopathy
Anthropopathy is the attribution of human emotion to a non-human being, generally a god....
.
Early religion, among its many objects of worship, includes animals
Animal worship
Animal worship refers to religious rituals involving animals, especially in pre-modern societies, such as the glorification of animal deities, or animal sacrifice....
, considered, in the more refined theology of the later Greeks and Romans, as metamorphoses of the great gods. Similarly we find "therianthropic" forms—half animal, half human—in Egypt or Assyria-Babylonia. In contrast with these, it is considered one of the glories of the Olympian mythology of Greece that it believed in happy manlike beings (though exempt from death, and using special rarefied foods etc.), and celebrated them in statues of the most exquisite art. Israel shows us animal images, doubtless of a ruder sort, when Yahweh is worshipped in the northern kingdom under the image of a steer. (Some scholars suggest that the title "mighty one of
Jacob" from Psalm 132:2--5 et al., ריבא (abir) as if from רבא (avir) is really "steer" (ריבא, abir) "of Jacob.") But the higher religion of Israel inclined to morality more than to art, and forbade image worship altogether. This prepared the way for the conception of God as an immaterial Spirit. True mythical anthropomorphisms occur in early parts of the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis 3:8, cf. 6:2), though in the majority of Old Testament passages such expressions are merely verbal (e.g. Isaiah 59:1). In the Christian Church (and again in early Islam) simple minds believed in the corporeal nature of God. Gibbon and other writers quote from John Cassian the tale of the poor monk, who, being convinced of his error, burst into tears, exclaiming, "You have taken away my God! I have none now whom I can worship!" According to a fragment of Origen (on Genesis 1:26), Melito of Sardis shared this belief. Many have thought Melito's work, περἰ ἐνσωμάτου θεοῦ (peri ensomatou theou), must have been a treatise on the Incarnation; but it is hard to think that Origen could blunder so. Epiphanius tells of Audaeus of Mesopotamia and his followers, Puritan sectaries in the 4th century, who were orthodox except for this belief and for Quartodecimanism
Quartodecimanism
Quartodecimanism refers to the custom of some early Christians celebrating Passover beginning with the eve of the 14th day of Nisan , which at dusk is Biblically the "Lord's passover".The modern Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, starting with the sunset at...
. Tertullian, who is sometimes considered anthropotheist, stood for the Stoical doctrine, that all reality, even the divine, is in a sense material.
The reaction against anthropotheism begins in Greek philosophy with the satirical spirit of Xenophanes (540 BCE), who puts the case as broadly as any. The "greatest God" resembles man "neither in form nor in mind." In Judaism—unless we should refer to the prophets' polemic against images—a reaction is due to the introduction of the codified law. God seemed to grow more remote. The old sacred name Yahweh is never pronounced; even "God" is avoided for allusive titles like "heaven" or "place." Still, amid all this, the God of Judaism remains a personal, almost a limited, being. In Philo we see Jewish scruples uniting with others drawn from Greek philosophy. For, though the quarrel with popular anthropotheism was patched up, and the gods of the Pantheon were described by Stoics and Epicureans as manlike in form, philosophy nevertheless tended to highly abstract conceptions of supreme, or real, deity. Philo followed out the line of this tradition in teaching that God cannot be named. How much exactly he meant is disputed. The same inheritance of Greek philosophy appears in the Christian fathers, especially Origen. He names and condemns the "anthropomorphites," who ascribe a human body to God (on Romans 1, sub fin.; Rufinus' Latin version). In Arabian philosophy the reaction sought to deny that God had any attributes. And, under the influence of Islamic Aristotelianism, the same paralysing speculation found entrance among the learned Jews of Spain, with Maimonides
Maimonides
Moses ben-Maimon, called Maimonides and also known as Mūsā ibn Maymūn in Arabic, or Rambam , was a preeminent medieval Jewish philosopher and one of the greatest Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages...
.
Till modern times the philosophical reaction was not carried out with full vigour. Spinoza (Ethics, i. 15 and 17), representing here as elsewhere both a Jewish inheritance and a philosophical, but advancing further, sweeps away all community between God and man. So later J.G. Fichte and Matthew Arnold ("a magnified and non-natural man"),—strangely, in view of their strong belief in an objective moral order. For the use of the word "anthropomorphic," or kindred forms, in this new spirit of condemnation for all conceptions of God as manlike—see J.J. Rousseau in Émile iv. (cited by Littré),—"Nous sommes pour la plupart de vrais anthropomorphites". Rousseau is here speaking of the language of Christian theology,—a divine Spirit: divine Persons. At the present day this usage is universal. What it means on the lips of pantheists is plain. But when theists charge one another with "anthropomorphism," in order to rebuke what they deem unduly manlike conceptions of God, they stand on slippery ground. All theism implies the assertion of kinship between man, especially in his moral being, and God. As a brilliant theologian, B. Duhm, has said, physiomorphism is the enemy of Christian faith, not anthropotheism.
As for anthropomorphism, the latest extension of the word, proposed in the interests of philosophy or psychology, uses it of the principle according to which man is said to interpret all things (not God merely) through himself. Common-sense intuitionalism would deny that man does this, attributing to him immediate knowledge of reality. And idealism in all its forms would say that man, interpreting through his reason, does rightly, and reaches truth. Even here then the use of the word is not colourless. It implies blame. It is the symptom of a philosophy which confines knowledge within narrow limits, and which, when held by Christians (e.g. Peter Browne, or H.L. Mansel), believes only in an "analogical" knowledge of God.
Sources
- Hill, Robert H. A Dictionary of Difficult Words, Signet, 1969.
- Widtsoe, John A. "Is Progress Eternal or Is There Progress in Heaven?" IE 54 (Mar. 1951):142; see also Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 179-85, Salt Lake City, 1960.