We can only comprehend [infinite things] finitely and according to a finite reason. Accordingly, it is evident that no name can be found whereby God might express to us who He is or what He is like.
Five Books on the Nature of God,
or
On the Divine Attributes
or
On the Divine Attributes
By Girolamo Zanchi
Translated by Patrick J. O'Banion
Book 1, Chapter 6, Quaestio 1, Part 1
Volume 1 is available for order now from Merchant Royal Press
Chapter Six
Quaestio 1
Whether any name is fitting for God that distinguishes Him
from created things and makes Him known to us?
As this question can be understood in two different ways, so also a twofold response can be offered. First, many people may understand it to mean: Whether some name may be found that is so perfect and worthy of God that thereby can be discerned how and to what extent He differs from created things and that can perfectly express who He is and what He is like in a way that we can receive. I respond with this thesis to anyone who interprets fitting thus and understands the quaestio in this manner.
The First Thesis
Just as no created mind can comprehend who God is and what He is like (and, hence, the extent to which He differs from created things), so no name or names ever could or can now perfectly express this to us.
The first part of the proposition is certain and beyond dispute. For the infinite can neither be comprehended nor perfectly perceived by the finite. The second part is also evident, if you both consider the natural capacity [ingenium] of those meant to express the names and reflect upon whence the names whereby God is named have been and are acquired. Our natural capacity is finite and feeble when it comes to perceiving so dazzling a light as God. Therefore, since we cannot perceive that light, neither can we express it by any name.
I emphasize the word we because I do not deprive God of this power. Rather, just as He understands Himself perfectly, so also, having selected a worthy name from His nature—a name that is, consequently, of infinite power—He is able to display who He is and what He is like in a most simple way. He can do this even if no man or angel can understand the power and complete meaning of that name. For the reason previously alleged, however, it is altogether impossible[1] for it to be expressed to us such that we fully comprehend it. But how much less possible is it for us to come upon a name on our own that befits and is appropriate for expressing God’s nature?
Hereto pertains the Damascene’s argument:
The divine is incomprehensible.
Therefore, it is also necessarily nameless.[2]
This is also clear if you consider whence we derive God’s names. We get them from created things, from things that are in front of us and with which we are familiar. And thus, the Damascene: Therefore, out of His ineffable goodness, He has graciously consented to be named in accordance with what is familiar to us ([On the Orthodox Faith,] bk. 1, ch. 12b).[3] For we know that beings (τὰ ὄντα) exist in the world. Therefore, God, in order to declares Himself truly to be and to exist—indeed, to be the cause of all beings (τῶν ὄντων)—called Himself the One who is (τὸν ὄντα), saying: The One who is (ὁ ὤν) sent me [Ex. 3:14, LXX]. And in Hebrew: יה and יהוה [Yah and Jehovah], which are from the verb to be, and אשר אהיה [asher Ehyeh].
To be sure, the reason why God called Himself living and Life is to show that He lives and is the Author of life, because we see living things. Again, because we ourselves have been gifted with reason and intelligence, He therefore, in order to signify that He is also intelligent and the cause of all reason and intelligence, deigned to call His Son, who is consubstantial[4] with Himself, Word[5] and Wisdom. And so on with the rest of the names.
Yet, in [The Guide to the Perplexed,] (bk. 1, ch. 60[6]), Rabbi Moses Egyptus[7] makes the name יהוה an exception, for he says that all of God’s other names are derived from His works, as he explains beautifully. But the name יהוה is God’s proper name, and by its pure signification indicates God’s essence, and for that reason the Hebrews call it the explicit[8] name, because it is in a class distinct from the rest. For all the others are derived from God’s works.[9] But this name [that is, יהוה] is actually derived from the verb to be.
Whatever the case may be with this name, the other names are undoubtedly derived from created things. Now, God’s names are derived from created things, but the mind only comprehends the names of the things it knows. We, however, can only comprehend finite things or, if things are infinite by nature (like God), we can only comprehend them finitely and according to a finite reason. Accordingly, it is evident that no name can be found whereby God might express to us who He is or what He is like.
So, if the question Whether any name is fitting for God is understood in the sense in which I have explained it, then the alleged negative response is certain and most true, as all can see.
[1] ἀδύνατον.
[2] Τὸ θεῖον ἀκατάληπτον ἐστὶ. Ergo πάντως καὶ ἀνώνυμον ἔσται. Quoted from John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 88 (bk. 1, ch. 12b).
[3] δι᾽ ἄφατον ἀγαθότητα ἠνδόκησεν, ἐκ τῶν καθʼ ἡμᾶς ὅνομάζεσθαι. Quoted from John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 88 (altered).
[4] ὁμοοῦσιον.
[5] Λόγον.
[6] Zanchi uses Augustine Giustiniani’s Latin edition of The Guide to the Perplexed (Dux seu director dubitantium aut perplexorum, Paris, 1520), which is based upon the anonymous medieval Dux neutrorum translation and contains many errors. Zanchi correctly cites this as ch. 60 per Giustiniani, however, it is actually ch. 61 per better manuscripts and modern editions.
[7] That is, Moses Maimonides (1138–1204).
[8] נזיר.
[9] Maimonides writes: “All of the names for God found in Scripture derive from verbs, as is hardly obscure—save only YHVH, a name devised for Him, and thus ‘the explicit name,’ since it clearly denotes God Himself without etymological connotations. All His other sublime names are equivocal, since they are based on actions like our own, as I explained.” The Guide to the Perplexed: A New Translation, trans. Lenn Evan Goodman and Phillip Isaac Ackerman-Lieberman (Stanford University Press, 2024), 112–13.