Saadia was the first important Jewish philosopher. Philo of Alexandria does not come within our purview as he was not
mediæval. Besides his work is not systematic, being in the nature of a commentary on Holy Writ. Though Philo was a
good and loyal Jew, he stood, so to speak, apart from the real centre of Jewish intellectual and spiritual development. He
was on the one hand too closely dependent on Greek thought and on the other had only a limited knowledge of Jewish
thought and tradition. The Bible he knew only in the Greek translation, not in the original Hebrew; and of the Halaka,
which was still in the making in Palestine, he knew still less.
It was different with Saadia. In the tenth century the Mishna and the Talmud had been long completed and formed
theoretically as well as practically the content of the Jew's life and thought. Sura in Babylonia, where Saadia was the
head of the academy, was the chief centre of Jewish learning, and Saadia was the heir in the main line of Jewish
development as it passed through the hands of lawgiver and prophet, scribe and Pharisee, Tanna and Amora, Saburai
and Gaon. As the head of the Sura academy he was the intellectual representative of the Jewry and Judaism of his day.
His time was a period of agitation and strife, not only in Judaism but also in Islam, in whose lands the Jews lived and to
whose temporal rulers they owed allegiance in the East as well as in Spain.
In Islam we saw in the introduction how the various schools of the Kadariya, the Muʿtazila and the Ashariya arose in
obedience to the demand of clarifying the chief problems of faith, science and life. In Judaism there was in addition to this
more general demand the more local and internal conflict of Karaite and Rabbanite which centred about the problem of
tradition. Saadia found himself in the midst of all this and proved equal to the occasion.
We are not here concerned with the vicissitudes of Saadia's personal life or of his literary career as opponent of the
Karaite sect. Nor can we afford more than merely to state that Jewish science in the larger sense begins with Saadia.
Hebrew grammar and lexicography did not exist before him. The Bible had been translated into several languages before
Saadia's day, but he was the first to translate it into Arabic, and the first to write a commentary on it. But the greatest
work of Saadia, that which did the most important service to the theory of Judaism, and by which he will be best
remembered, is his endeavor to work out a system of doctrine which should be in harmony with the traditions of Judaism
on the one hand and with the most authoritative scientific and philosophic opinion of the time on the other. Israeli, we
have seen, was interested in science before Saadia. As a physician he was probably more at home in purely physical
discussions than Saadia. But there is no evidence that he had the larger interest of the Gaon of Sura, namely, to
construct a system of Judaism upon the basis of scientific doctrine. Possibly the example of Islam was lacking in Israeli's
environment, as he does not seem to be acquainted with the theories and discussions of the Mutakallimun, and draws
his information from Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic sources. Saadia was in the very midst of Arab speculation as is
evident from the composition of his chef d'œuvre, "Emunot ve-Deot," Beliefs and Opinions.[37]
The work is arranged on the Muʿtazilite model. The two main divisions in works of this character are Unity and Justice.
The first begins with some preliminary considerations on the nature and sources of knowledge. It proceeds then to prove
the existence of God by showing that the world cannot have existed from eternity and must have been created in time.
Creation implies a creator. This is followed by arguments showing that God is one and incorporeal. The rest is devoted
to a discussion of the divine attributes with the purpose of showing that God's unity and simplicity are not affected by
them. The section on unity closes with a refutation of opposing views, such as those of the dualists or Trinitarians or
infidels. The section on Justice centres about the doctrine of free will. Hence psychology and ethics are treated in this
part of the work. To this may be added problems of a more dogmatic nature, eschatological and otherwise. We shall see
in the sequel that Saadia's masterpiece is modeled on the same plan.
But not merely the plan and arrangement of his work give evidence of the influence upon Saadia of Islamic schools,
many of his arguments, those for example on the existence of God and the creation of the world, are taken directly from
them. Maimonides, who was a strong opponent of the Mutakallimun, gives an outline of their fundamental principles and
their arguments for the existence, unity and incorporeality of God.[38] Some of these are identical with those of Saadia.
Saadia, however, is not interested in pure metaphysics as such. His purpose is decidedly apologetic in the defence of
Judaism and Jewish dogma. Hence we look in vain in his book for definite views on the constitution of existing
substances, on the nature of motion, on the meaning of cause, and so on. We get a glimpse of his attitude to some of
these questions in an incidental way.
The Mutakallimun were opposed to the Aristotelian theory of matter and form, and substituted for it the atomic theory.
God created atoms without magnitude or quality, and he likewise created qualities to inhere in groups of atoms. These
qualities they called accidents, and one of their important discussions was whether an accident can last more than a
moment of time. The opinions were various and the accidents were classified according to their powers of duration. That
is, there were some accidents which once created continued to exist of their own accord some length of time, and there
were others which had to be re-created anew every moment in order to continue to exist. Saadia does not speak of
matter and form as constituting the essence of existing things; he does speak of substance and accident,[39] which might
lead us to believe that he held to the atomic theory, since he speaks of the accidents as coming and going one after the
other, which suggests the constant creation spoken of by the Mutakallimun. On the other hand, when he answers an
objection against motion, which is as old as Zeno, namely, how can we traverse an infinitely divisible distance, since it is
necessary to pass an infinite number of parts, he tells us that it is not necessary to have recourse to the atomic theory or
other theories adopted by some Muʿtazilites to meet this objection. We may believe in the continuity and infinite
divisibility of matter, but as long as this divisibility is only potentially infinite, actually always finite, our ability to traverse
the space offers no difficulty.[40] Finally, in refuting the second theory of creation, which combines Platonism with
atomism, he argues against an atomic theory primarily because of its implications of eternity of the atoms, but partly also
on other grounds, which would also affect the Kalamistic conceptions of the atoms.[41] These points are not treated by
Saadia expressly but are only mentioned incidentally in the elucidation of other problems dealing with the creation of the
world and the existence of God.
Like Israeli Saadia shows considerable familiarity with Aristotelian notions as found in the Logic, the Physics and the
Psychology. It is doubtful, however, whether he really knew Aristotle's more important treatises at first hand and in detail.
The "Categories," a small treatise forming the first book of Aristotle's logic, he no doubt knew, but the other Aristotelian
concepts he probably derived from secondary sources. For while he passes in review all the ten categories showing that
none of them is applicable to God,[42] we scarcely find any mention of such important and fundamental Aristotelian
conceptions as matter and form, potentiality and actuality, the four causes, formal, material, efficient and final—concepts
which as soon as Aristotle began to be studied by Al Farabi and Avicenna became familiar to all who wrote anything at all
bearing on philosophy, theology, or Biblical exegesis. Nay, the very concepts which he does employ seem to indicate in
the way he uses them that he was not familiar with the context in which they are found in the Aristotelian treatises, or with
the relation they bear to other views of Aristotle. Thus no one who knew Aristotle at first hand could make the mistake of
regarding his definition of the soul as making the latter an accident.[43] When Saadia speaks of six kinds of motion [44]
instead of three, he shows clearly that his knowledge of the Aristotelian theory of motion was limited to the little of it that
is contained in the "Categories."
We are thus justified in saying, that Saadia's sources are Jewish literature and tradition, the works of the Mutakallimun,
particularly the Muʿtazilites, and Aristotle, whose book on the "Categories" he knew at first hand.
Saadia tells us he was induced to write his book because he found that the beliefs and opinions of men were in an
unsatisfactory state. While there are some persons who are fortunate enough to possess the truth and to know that they
have it and rejoice thereat, this is not true of all. For there are others who when they have the truth know it not, and
hence let it slip; others are still less fortunate and adopt false and erroneous opinions, which they regard as true; while
still others vacillate continually, going from one opinion and belief to another. This gave him pain and he thought it his
duty to make use of his limited knowledge to help them. A conscientious study of his book will tend to remove doubt and
will substitute belief through knowledge for belief through tradition. Another result of such study, not less important, will
be improvement of character and disposition, which will affect for the better a man's life in every respect, in relation to
God as well as to his fellowmen.[45]
One may ask why it is that one encounters so many doubts and difficulties before arriving at true knowledge. The answer
is, a human being is a creature, i. e., a being dependent upon another for its existence, and it is in the nature of a
creature as such that it must labor for the truth with the sweat of its brow. For whatever a man does or has to do with is
subject to time; each work must be accomplished gradually, step by step, part by part, in successive portions of time. And
as the task before him is at the beginning complex, he has to analyze and simplify it. This takes time; while certainty and
knowledge cannot come until the task is accomplished. Before that point is reached he is naturally in doubt.[46]
The sources of truth are three. First is that to which the senses testify. If our normal sense perceives under normal
conditions which are free from illusion, we are certain of that perception.
The judgment is another source of truth. There are certain truths of which we are certain. This applies especially to such
judgments of value, as that truth is good and falsehood is bad. In addition to these two sources of immediate knowledge,
there is a third source based upon these two. This is logical inference. We are led to believe what we have not directly
perceived or a matter concerning which we have no immediate knowledge of the second kind, because we infer it from
something else which we have perceived or of which we have immediate certainty. Thus we believe man has a soul
though we have never seen it because we infer its presence from its activity, which we do see.
These three sources are universal. They are not peculiar to a given race or religious denomination, though there are
some persons who deny the validity of some or all of them. We Jews believe in them and in still another source of truth,
namely, authentic tradition.[47]
Some think that a Jew is forbidden to speculate or philosophize about the truths of religion. This is not so. Genuine and
sincere reflection and speculation is not prohibited. What is forbidden is to leave the sacred writings aside and rely on
any opinions that occur to one concerning the beginnings of time and space. For one may find the truth or one may miss
it. In any case until a person finds it, he is without a religious guide; and if he does find what seems to him the truth and
bases his belief and conduct upon it, he is never sure that he may not later be assailed by doubts, which will lead him to
drop his adopted belief. But if we hold fast to the commandments of the Bible, our own ratiocination on the truths of
religion will be of great benefit to us.[48]
Our investigation of the facts of our religion will give us a reasoned and scientific knowledge of those things which the
Prophets taught us dogmatically, and will enable us to answer the arguments and criticisms of our opponents directed
against our faith. Hence it is not merely our privilege but our duty to confirm the truths of religion by reason.[49]
Here a question presents itself. If the reason can discover by itself the truths communicated to us by divine revelation,
why was it necessary to have recourse to the latter? Why was it not left to the reason alone to guide us in our belief and
in our conduct? The answer is, as was suggested before, that human reason proceeds gradually and does not reach its
aim until the end of the process. In the meantime one is left without a guide. Besides not everybody's reason is adequate
to discover truth. Some are altogether incapable of this difficult task, and many more are exposed to harassing doubts
and perplexities which hinder their progress. Hence the necessity of revelation, because in the witness of the senses all
are equally at home, men and women, young and old.[50]
The most important fact of religion is the existence of God. We know it from the Bible, and we must now prove it by
reason. The proof is necessarily indirect because no one of us has seen God, nor have we an immediate certainty of his
existence. We must prove it then by the method of inference. We must start with something we do know with certainty
and proceed from it through as many steps of logical inference as may be necessary until we reach the object of our
search.[51]
The world and the things in it are directly accessible to our senses and our judgment. How long has the world been in
existence and how did it come to be? The answers to these questions also we do not know through our senses, and we
must prove them by a chain of reasoning. There are several possibilities. The world just as it is may have existed from
eternity. If so nobody made it; it just existed, and we have no proof of God. The world in its present form might have
proceeded from a primitive matter. This hypothesis only removes the problem further back. For, leaving aside the
question how did this prime matter develop into the complex world of our experience, we direct our attention to the prime
matter itself, and ask, Has it existed from eternity or did it come to be? If it existed from eternity, then nobody made it, and
we have no proof of a God, for by God we mean an intelligent being acting with purpose and design, and the cause of
the existence of everything in creation. The third alternative is that whether the world was developed out of a primitive
matter or not, it at any rate, or the primitive matter, as the case may be, was made in time, that is, it was created out of
nothing. If so there must have been someone who created it, as nothing can create itself. Here we have proof of the
existence of God. It follows therefore that we must first show that the world is not eternal, that it came to be in time, and
this is what Saadia does.
Here are some of his proofs. The world is finite in magnitude. For the world consists of the earth, which is in the centre,
and the heavens surrounding it on all sides. This shows that the earth is finite, for an infinite body cannot be surrounded.
But the heavens are finite too, for they make a complete revolution in twenty-four hours. If they were infinite it would take
an infinite time to complete a revolution. A finite body cannot have an infinite power. This Saadia regards as self-evident,
though Aristotle, from whom this statement is derived, gives the proof. Hence the force or power within the world which
keeps it going is finite and must one day be exhausted. But this shows also that it could not have gone on from eternity.
Hence the world came to be in time.[52]
Another proof is based on the composite character of all things in heaven and earth. Minerals, plants and animals are
made up of parts and elements. The heavens consist of spheres, one within the other. The spheres are studded with
stars. But composition implies a time when the composition took place. In other words, the parts must have been there
first and somebody put them together. Hence the world as we see it now is not eternal.[53]
A special form of composition, which is universal, is that of substance and accident. Plants and animals are born (or
sprout), grow and decay. These manifestations are the accidents of the plant or animal's substance. The heavenly
bodies have various motions, lights and colors as their accidents. But these accidents are not eternal, since they come
and go. Hence the substances bearing the accidents, without which they cannot exist, are also temporal like them.
Hence our world is not eternal.[54]
Finally, past time itself cannot be eternal. For this would mean that an infinite time has actually elapsed down to our day.
But this is a contradiction in terms. What is already accomplished cannot be infinite. Infinity is possible only as a
potentiality, for example, we may speak of a given length as infinitely divisible. This merely means that one may mentally
continue dividing it forever, but we can never say that one has actually made an infinite number of divisions. Therefore
not merely the world, but even time must have begun to be.[55]
It will be seen that the first three arguments prove only that the world in the form which it has now is not eternal. The
possibility is not yet excluded of an eternal matter out of which the world proceeded or was made. The fourth argument
proves a great deal. It shows that nothing which is subject to time can be eternal, hence not even prime matter. God can
be eternal because he is not subject to time. Time, as we shall see later, cannot exist without motion and moving things,
hence before the world there was no time, and the fourth argument does not apply to premundane existence.
To complete the first three arguments Saadia therefore proceeds to show that the world, which we now know came to be
in time, must have been made by someone (since nothing can make itself), and that too out of nothing, and not out of a
pre-existing eternal matter.
If an eternal matter existed before the world, the explanation of the origin of the world is open to two possibilities. One is
that there is nothing outside of this matter and the world which came from it. This is absurd, for it would mean that an
unintelligent dead thing is the cause of intelligence and life in the universe. We must therefore have recourse to the other
alternative that someone, an intelligent being, made the world out of the primitive, eternal matter. This is also impossible.
For if the matter is eternal like the maker of the world, it is independent of him, and would not be obedient to his will to
adapt itself to his purpose. He could therefore not make the world out of it.
The only alternative left now is that the author of the universe is an intelligent being, and that nothing outside of him is
eternal. He alone is responsible for the existence of the world, which was at one time nothing. Whether he first created a
matter and then from it the universe, or whether he made the world outright, is of secondary importance.[56]
There is still a possibility that instead of making the world out of nothing, God made it out of himself, i. e., that it
emanated from him as light from the sun. This, as we know, is the opinion of the Neo-Platonists; and Israeli comes very
close to it as we saw before (p. 6). Saadia is strongly opposed to any such doctrine.
It is unlikely, he says, that an eternal substance having neither form, condition, measure, place or time, should change
into a body or bodies having those accidents; or that a wise being, not subject to change or influence, or
comprehensibility should choose to make himself into a body subject to all of these. What could have induced a just
being who does no wrong to decree that some of his parts should be subject to such evils as matter and material beings
are afflicted with? It is conceivable only in one of two ways. Either they deserved it for having done wrong, or they did not
deserve it, and it was an act of violence that was committed against them. Both suppositions are absurd. The fact of the
matter is that the authors of this opinion to avoid the theory of creation ex nihilo went from the frying pan into the fire. To
be sure, creation out of nothing is difficult to conceive, but this is the reason why we ascribe this power to God alone. To
demand that we show how this can be done is to demand that we ourselves become creators.[57]
The question what existed in place of the earth before it was created evinces ignorance of the idea of place. By place is
meant simply the contact of two bodies in which the one is the place of the other. When there is no earth and no bodies
there is no such thing as place.
The same thing applies to time. Time means the persistence of existing things in heaven and earth under changing
conditions. Where there is no world, there is no time. This answers the objection raised by some, namely, how is it
possible that before all these bodies were made time existed void of objects? Or the other difficulty which is closely
related, viz., Why did not God create the world before he did? The answer to both is, there was no before and there was
no time, when the world was not.
The following question is a legitimate one, Why did God create all things? And our answer is, there was no cause which
made him create them, and yet they were not made in vain. God wished to exhibit his wisdom; and his goodness
prompted him to benefit his creatures by enabling them to worship him.[58]
We have now proved the existence of God as the cause of the existence of all things. We must now try to arrive at some
notion of what God is as far as this is in our power. God cannot be corporeal or body, for in our proof of his existence we
began with the world which is body and arrived at the notion of God as the cause of all corporeal existence. If God
himself is corporeal our search is not at an end, for we should still want to know the cause of him. Being the cause of all
body, he is not body and hence is for our knowledge ultimate, we cannot go beyond him. But if God is not corporeal, he
is not subject to motion or rest or anger or favor, for to deny the corporeality of God and still look for these accidents in
him is to change the expression and retain the idea. Bodily accidents involve body.[59]
The incorporeality of God proves also his unity. For what is not body cannot have the corporeal attributes of quantity or
number, hence God cannot be more than one.[60] And there are many powerful arguments besides against a dualistic
theory.
A unitary effect cannot be the result of two independent causes. For if one is responsible for the whole, there is nothing
left for the other, and the assumption of his existence is gratuitous. If the effect consists of two parts of which each does
one, we have really two effects. But the universe is one and its parts cannot be separated.[61] Again, if one of them
wishes to create a thing and cannot without the help of the other, neither is all-powerful, which is inconsistent with the
character of deity. If he can compel the other to help him, they are both under necessity. And if they are free and
independent, then if one should desire to keep a body alive and the other to kill it, the body would have to be at the same
time alive and dead, which is absurd. Again, if each one can conceal aught from the other, neither is all-knowing. If they
cannot, they are not all-powerful.[62]
Having proved God's existence, unity and incorporeality, he proceeds to discuss his most essential attributes, which are,
Life, Omnipotence, and Omniscience. These easily follow from what was said before. We cannot conceive a creator ex
nihilo unless he is all-powerful; power implies life; and the thing made cannot be perfect unless its maker knows what it
is going to be before he makes it.
These three concepts our reason discovers with one act of its thinking effort, for they are all involved in the concept,
Maker. There is no gradual inference from one to the other. The reason we are forced to use three expressions is
because of the limitations of language. Hence it must not be thought that they involve plurality in God. They are simply
the implications of the one expression, Maker, and as that does not suggest plurality in God's essence, but signifies only
that there is a thing made by the maker, so the three derivative terms, Living, Omnipotent, Omniscient, imply no more.
The Christians erred in this matter in making God a trinity. They say one cannot create unless he is living and wise,
hence they regard his life and his wisdom as two other things outside of his essence. But this is a mistake. For in saying
there are several attributes in him distinct one from the other, they say in effect that he is corporeal—an error which we
have already refuted. Besides they do not understand what constitutes proof: In man we say that his life and his
knowledge are not his essence because we see that he sometimes has them and sometimes not. In God this is not the