126 James A. Diamond
identifi es (with this very citation) as mimicking a Solomonic methodology.
Such persons distinguish themselves from their literalist compatriots by
an appreciation for parables and riddles, the preferred literary genre of the
biblical and rabbinic traditions. Th ey acknowledge that “all men of wisdom
speak of the ultimate in loft y matters only by way of riddle and parable
[hiddah u-mashal ].”8
Depending on the audience, scriptural language either simplifi es or
complicates. For those who are averse to the rigors of rational thinking, the
moral, social, and political messages of scriptural language provide com-
fort, while for the philosophically inclined, reading the Bible becomes an
intricate, angst-ridden process of deciphering and unraveling.
Th ough contemporary scholarship tends to alienate Maimonides the
philosopher from Maimonides the halakhist (rabbinic law expert), he re-
mains consistent on the centrality he assigns to the enterprise of reading
Scripture for Jewish faith. Th e Mishneh Torah, his comprehensive legal
code, opens peculiarly for a work that purports to be a purely legal abridg-
ment encompassing all of Talmudic law. It commences with a book titled
Book of Knowledge, whose fi rst subsection, the Laws Concerning the Basic
Principles of the Torah, opens by identifying the very fi rst commandments
to fi rst fi rmly establish in one’s mind the existence of God, and then the
unity of that God. Th e greater part of this chapter is concerned with the
subtle art of reading Scripture, presenting a virtual digest of all the prob-
lematic terms descriptive of God that are dealt with in the Guide’s lexi-
cography of biblical terms. All of them, whether they indicate features of
a divine physiognomy, emotions, or attributes, are metaphors (kinuim),
parables (mashal ), or fi gures of speech (melitsah). Once Maimonides de-
livers a highly abstruse defi nition of divine existence and unity, there is a
seamless transition to its scriptural antecedents with the phrase “It is ex-
plicitly set forth [mefurash] in the Torah and the Prophets.”9 Two internal
scriptural proofs are cited as substantiating God’s incorporeality, a staple
feature without which His unity is misconceived. Since the verse God is in
heaven above and on the earth below (Deut. 4:39) locates God in two places
at the same time, violating the spatial limitations of physical bodies, He
must be incorporeal. Th en again, any analogy with the material world is
ruled out, for you saw no fi gure (Deut. 4:15) at Sinai, as well as a subsequent
declaration to Isaiah in which God renders himself wholly incomparable:
To whom will you compare me and with whom will I be identifi ed? (40:25).
Prophetic revelation links up with Sinaitic reportage to form a scriptural
continuum reinforcing a philosophical bulwark of divine unity. Th e latter