Difference between revisions of "Philosophy:Miracles/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
<p>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.</p> | <p>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.</p> | ||
<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 | + | <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 need to be reread, or to be understood metaphorically rather than literally. Examples of each category follow below.</point> |
− | <point><b>Stories understood to be allegorical | + | <point><b>Stories understood to be allegorical</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> | ||
+ | </ul></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Events understood to have occurred in dreams</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Bilam's donkey</b> – 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.</li> | <li><b>Bilam's donkey</b> – 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.</li> | ||
+ | <li><b>Gidon's signs</b> – Rambam<fn>See also Ralbag, though he also raises the possibility that they took place in reality or via a prophet.</fn> assert that the signs performed for Gidon with the wet and dry fleece took place only in a dream.</li> | ||
+ | <li>Physical manifestations of angels –</li> | ||
+ | </ul></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Metaphorical language</b><ul> | ||
+ | <li><b>Sun standing still</b> – R. Walfish<fn>See R. Walfish, "עיון בפרשת עצירת השמש בגבעון", Megadim 38 (2003):43-52.</fn> 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.<fn>She compares it to Devorah's statement, "מִן שָׁמַיִם נִלְחָמוּ הַכּוֹכָבִים מִמְּסִלּוֹתָם נִלְחֲמוּ עִם סִיסְרָא" in Shofetim 5:20. Just as this verse is not read literally to mean that the stars actually fought with Sisera, so, too, Yehoshua did not mean that the sun actually stopped in its tracks. Both are merely poetic flourishes.</fn>  [For elaboration on this positions, see <a href="Stopping of the Sun at Givon" data-aht="page">Stopping of the Sun at Givon</a>.]</li> | ||
+ | <li>Miracles in the End of Days – According to Rambam, the prophecies regarding changes in nature in the end of days, such as Yeshayahu 11:6, should be understood allegorically as referring to world peace, and not actual changes in the behavior of animals.<fn>See similarly Shadal on Yeshayahu 40:3 and Radak on 49:11.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Lot's wife</b> – Ralbag asserts that the phrase "וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח" refers not to Lot's wife but to the land which she witnessed turn into a mound of salt. [For full discussion, see <a href="Lot's Wife and Her Fate" data-aht="page">Lot's Wife and Her Fate</a>.]</point> | <point><b>Lot's wife</b> – Ralbag asserts that the phrase "וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח" refers not to Lot's wife but to the land which she witnessed turn into a mound of salt. [For full discussion, see <a href="Lot's Wife and Her Fate" data-aht="page">Lot's Wife and Her Fate</a>.]</point> | ||
Line 23: | Line 30: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>People's perspective</b> - <multilink><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 10:12-13</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot18-37" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 18:37</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink><fn>See also Rambam as understood by Efodi and R. Moshe of Narbonne.</fn> 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.</li> | <li><b>People's perspective</b> - <multilink><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 10:12-13</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot18-37" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 18:37</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink><fn>See also Rambam as understood by Efodi and R. Moshe of Narbonne.</fn> 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.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Metaphoric language</b> - | + | <li><b>Metaphoric language</b> -</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Gidon's signs</b> – Rambam assumes that these took place in a dream rather than reality.</point> | <point><b>Gidon's signs</b> – Rambam assumes that these took place in a dream rather than reality.</point> | ||
<point><b>Reviving the "dead"</b> – According to one opinion in <multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-17" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-17" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:17</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, the boy that Eliyahu revived had never died, but was only unconscious.  He was so sick, and his pulse and breathing were so faint (or non-existent) that his mother thought him dead.<fn>He suggests that the language "עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא נוֹתְרָה בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה" does not mean that the boy died. He compares it to the similar metaphoric language in Daniel 10:17, "וַאֲנִי מֵעַתָּה לֹא יַעֲמׇד בִּי כֹחַ וּנְשָׁמָה לֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בִי", where it is clear that Daniel is not trying to say that he had literally died.</fn>  Eliyahu, thus, did not miraculously bring him back from the dead but rather resuscitated him.<fn>It is possible that the same idea is not suggested by the boy revived by Elisha since in that story the verse explicitly states, "וַיָּמֹת" .  Even if this was taken to refer only to lack of breath, since significant time passes between the boy's death and the arrival of Elisha, CPR would have no longer been effective regardless. See, though, Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 1:42, who suggest sthat the verb "וַיָּמֹת" might also refer to a severe sickness adn not actual death, in which case this story , too, can be explained as Elisha curing the boy rather than reviving him from the dead. [It should be noted, however, that Rambam himself does not say this.]</fn></point> | <point><b>Reviving the "dead"</b> – According to one opinion in <multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-17" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-17" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:17</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, the boy that Eliyahu revived had never died, but was only unconscious.  He was so sick, and his pulse and breathing were so faint (or non-existent) that his mother thought him dead.<fn>He suggests that the language "עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא נוֹתְרָה בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה" does not mean that the boy died. He compares it to the similar metaphoric language in Daniel 10:17, "וַאֲנִי מֵעַתָּה לֹא יַעֲמׇד בִּי כֹחַ וּנְשָׁמָה לֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בִי", where it is clear that Daniel is not trying to say that he had literally died.</fn>  Eliyahu, thus, did not miraculously bring him back from the dead but rather resuscitated him.<fn>It is possible that the same idea is not suggested by the boy revived by Elisha since in that story the verse explicitly states, "וַיָּמֹת" .  Even if this was taken to refer only to lack of breath, since significant time passes between the boy's death and the arrival of Elisha, CPR would have no longer been effective regardless. See, though, Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 1:42, who suggest sthat the verb "וַיָּמֹת" might also refer to a severe sickness adn not actual death, in which case this story , too, can be explained as Elisha curing the boy rather than reviving him from the dead. [It should be noted, however, that Rambam himself does not say this.]</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>The End of Days</b> – | + | <point><b>The End of Days</b> – <fn>See similarly Shadal on Yeshayahu 40:3 and Radak on 49:11.</fn>b</point> |
<point><b>The Plagues, Splitting of the Sea</b></point> | <point><b>The Plagues, Splitting of the Sea</b></point> | ||
<point><b>Angels</b></point> | <point><b>Angels</b></point> |
Version as of 13:21, 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.
- 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.
- Gidon's signs – Rambam3 assert that the signs performed for Gidon with the wet and dry fleece took place only in a dream.
- Physical manifestations of angels –
- Sun standing still – 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 this positions, see Stopping of the Sun at Givon.]
- Miracles in the End of Days – According to Rambam, the prophecies regarding changes in nature in the end of days, such as Yeshayahu 11:6, should be understood allegorically as referring to world peace, and not actual changes in the behavior of animals.6
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,13 or a solar eclipse.14
- 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.18
Miracles are Preprogrammed Divine Interventions
All miracles were preordained during creation, and the laws of nature contain specific exceptions for each and every miracle.