Neusner posits that the rabbinic God achieves a full “personality” in the Babylonian Talmud when He is portrayed as freely engaging with and even arguing with human beings. In these moments, God and humanity have the “same rules of discourse” and God is “held accountable to human standards.” Neusner calls this the “social attributes” of “incarnation.” Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
For a critique of Neusner’s use of the term “incarnation,” see Elliot R. Wolfson, “Book Review: The Incarnation of God by Jacob Neusner,” Jewish Quarterly Review 81, no. 1/2 (1990): 219–22.
Alexander Altmann has maintained that rabbinic stories about God should not even be construed as theology: “In spite of the ease with which rabbis used anthropopathic imagery in haggadic homilies, their theological stance was one of opposition to any sort of anthropomorphism.” And, later in the article, he posits that aggadic “strand[s] . . . cannot be said to have had within early Judaism any theological . . . significance.” Alexander Altmann, “Homo Imago Dei in Jewish and Christian Theology,” Journal of Religion 48, no. 3 (1968): 235–59. Along these lines, Solomon Schechter has described rabbinic theological musings as mere “impulses” that are “uncertain,” “incoherent,” and “not always trustworthy,” and that the rabbis show “carelessness and sluggishness in the application of theological principles.” Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 12, 13. Elsewhere, he describes the rabbis as “simple, naïve people, filled with a childlike scriptural faith.” Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 42.
Indeed, this pessimistic attitude informed Jewish psychologist Eric Fromm to assert that “little is found in the Talmud that could be described as ‘theology.’” Erich Fromm, You Shall Be as Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and Its Tradition (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 34. In similar fashion, Max Kadushin has argued that rabbinic theology reflects the “spontaneous expressions” and “values” of the uneducated masses. For him, aggadah is the product of communal life. Kadushin’s position assumes that, unlike the medieval period, there was no sharp division between the masses and the rabbinic elite. Because of this, Kadushin dislikes the term “rabbinic theology”: first, this material is not representative of “rabbinic” thought only (as it reflects folk thought as well) and, second, the term “theology” implies a sophisticated scholarly production. Rabbinic thought, however, for Kadushin is “un-premeditated,” “naïve,” and “effortless.” Max Kadushin, The Theology of Seder Eliahu: A Study in Organic Thinking (New York: Bloch, 1932), 29; Max Kadushin, Organic Thinking: A Study in Rabbinic Thought (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1938), 211–14. Along these lines, also see Louis Ginzberg et al., The Legends of the Jews, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1967), 29–32. Galit Hasan-Rokem also subscribes to the folk thesis, but only applies it to select aggadot. Galit Hasan-Rokem, Web of Life: Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000).

The various documents of the Hebrew Bible reflect varying degrees and kinds of anthropomorphism. See Anne Katherine Knafl, “Forms of God, Forming God: A Typology of Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2011); Israel Knohl, The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 71–86; Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 191–209.

On the humanization of God in the Hebrew Bible, see Yochanan Muffs, The Personhood of God: Biblical Theology, Human Faith, and the Divine Image (Woodstock, Vt.: Jewish Lights, 2005); Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit, Idolatry (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 67–78.

For the claim that rabbinic anthropomorphism surpasses biblical anthropomorphism, see David Stern, “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Characters of God in Rabbinic Literature,” Prooftexts 12 (1992): 151–74; Arthur Green, “The Children in Egypt and the Theophany at the Sea,” Judaism 24 (1975): 446–56; Elliot R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 33.