Difference between revisions of "Philosophy:Miracles/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Questions and Answers on Genesis I 31</a><a href="PhiloOntheCreation156-166" data-aht="source">On the Creation 156-166</a><a href="PhiloAllegoricalInterpretationII71-78" data-aht="source">Allegorical Interpretation II 71-78</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambamHilkhotMelakhim12-1" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamHilkhotMelakhim12-1" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Melakhim 12:1</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Questions and Answers on Genesis I 31</a><a href="PhiloOntheCreation156-166" data-aht="source">On the Creation 156-166</a><a href="PhiloAllegoricalInterpretationII71-78" data-aht="source">Allegorical Interpretation II 71-78</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambamHilkhotMelakhim12-1" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamHilkhotMelakhim12-1" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Melakhim 12:1</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Methods used to reinterpret apparent miracles</b> – This approach explains away apparent miracles using a number of different methods. It reads certain stories as being allegorical and others as having  occurred only in dreams or in someone's mind.  In other cases it assumes that verses are to be understood metaphorically rather than literally.</point> | <point><b>Methods used to reinterpret apparent miracles</b> – This approach explains away apparent miracles using a number of different methods. It reads certain stories as being allegorical and others as having  occurred only in dreams or in someone's mind.  In other cases it assumes that verses are to be understood metaphorically rather than literally.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Stories understood to be allegorical</b></point> | ||
<point><b>Talking animals</b><ul> | <point><b>Talking animals</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>The Snake in Eden</b> – <multilink><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Questions and Answers on Genesis I 31</a><a href="PhiloOntheCreation156-166" data-aht="source">On the Creation 156-166</a><a href="PhiloAllegoricalInterpretationII71-78" data-aht="source">Allegorical Interpretation II 71-78</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink> and Ralbag understand the story of the Garden of Eden to be an allegory,<fn>Rambam alludes to this possibility as well. [See Moreh Nevukhim 2:30 and Abarbanel's understanding of the passage.]</fn> with the snake acting only as a symbol.<fn>Accoring to Philo he symbolizes pleasure and vice, while according to Ralbag he represents the "כח הדמיוני".</fn> As such, the serpent never talked.</li> | <li><b>The Snake in Eden</b> – <multilink><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Questions and Answers on Genesis I 31</a><a href="PhiloOntheCreation156-166" data-aht="source">On the Creation 156-166</a><a href="PhiloAllegoricalInterpretationII71-78" data-aht="source">Allegorical Interpretation II 71-78</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink> and Ralbag understand the story of the Garden of Eden to be an allegory,<fn>Rambam alludes to this possibility as well. [See Moreh Nevukhim 2:30 and Abarbanel's understanding of the passage.]</fn> with the snake acting only as a symbol.<fn>Accoring to Philo he symbolizes pleasure and vice, while according to Ralbag he represents the "כח הדמיוני".</fn> As such, the serpent never talked.</li> |
Version as of 13:05, 3 December 2018
Miracles
Exegetical Approaches
Minimized Miracles
There is an attempt to minimize miracles in Tanakh, either by suggesting that certain seemingly supernatural phenomenon did not occur at all, or by suggesting that the events did not contravene the laws of nature.
Reduce Number of Miracles
Certain verses in Tanakh which appear to describe a violation of the laws of nature are reinterpreted and understood not to have happened in reality.
- The Snake in Eden – Philo and Ralbag understand the story of the Garden of Eden to be an allegory,1 with the snake acting only as a symbol.2 As such, the serpent never talked.
- Bilam's donkey – According to Rambam and Ralbag, Bilam's entire encounter with the donkey and angel only took place in a prophetic dream, so here, too, no animal spoke.
- People's perspective - Ralbag3 maintains that due to the speed of the nation's victory over their enemies, there was a perception that time stood still and that the day had been lengthened.
- Metaphoric language - R. Walfish4 suggests that the description of the sun's standing still is simply a metaphoric way of expressing how the forces of nature aided Israel in battle.5 [For elaboration on both of these positions, see Stopping of the Sun at Givon.]
Using Nature
Stories which mentions wondrous, seemingly unnatural events, happened in reality, but never violated the laws of nature. Divine intervention is noticeable only in the timing or extent of the phenomena.
- According to certain explanations of Rambam, the magnitude of the victory caused the day to seem to be longer than usual in the Israelite perception, despite no celestial changes having occurred.
- Similarly, according to Ralbag, the day did not change, but rather the victory was so fast that it is described metaphorically as the sun standing still.
- Various modern scholars give other natural explanations for the miracle, such as the sun's position blinding the enemy,11 or a solar eclipse.12
- Radak cites R. Shemuel b. Chofni who states that the witch of Ein Dor pretended to be Shemuel, and gives a natural explanation for how she was able to give an accurate "prophecy".
- Shadal gives a natural explanation for Paroh's mages turning their staves into snakes.
Supernatural Miracles
Stories of miracles should be understood literally as historical accounts of what happened.
Miracles are Momentary Divine Interventions
When a miracle is needed, Hashem directly intervenes in nature, momentarily violating or suspending the laws of nature.
- Ramban views miracles as proof that nature is not unchanging, and therefore that the belief in the eternity of the world is falsse.
- All miracles were preordained during creation, and the laws of nature contain specific exceptions for each and every miracle.
- According to Rambam, Avraham's did not receive any guests in reality, but rather the whole story happened in a prophetic vision. Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel elaborate on this, explaining the angels' appearance to Lot in the following chapter as either a continuation of Avraham's vision, or a separate dream of Lot. For further detail, see the Divine Prophecy approach of Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men?
- According to Rambam, Yaakov's various encounters with angels all happened in a dream.16
Miracles are Preprogrammed Divine Interventions
All miracles were preordained during creation, and the laws of nature contain specific exceptions for each and every miracle.