Difference between revisions of "Philosophy:Miracles/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim229" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim142" data-aht="source">1 42</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim229" data-aht="source">2 29</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim235" data-aht="source">2 35</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim242" data-aht="source">2 42</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim246" data-aht="source">2 46</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim317" data-aht="source">3 17</a><a href="Rambam Moreh Nevukhim" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim</a></multilink>, Ralbag</mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim229" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim142" data-aht="source">1 42</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim229" data-aht="source">2 29</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim235" data-aht="source">2 35</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim242" data-aht="source">2 42</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim246" data-aht="source">2 46</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim317" data-aht="source">3 17</a><a href="Rambam Moreh Nevukhim" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim</a></multilink>, Ralbag</mekorot> | ||
<point><b>The natural and supernatural</b> – This position assumes that, for the most part, the world is run via natural order, and that even when there is Divine intervention, the laws of nature are utilized and not contradicted totally. Discomfort with and the desire to minimize miracles might stem from a number of philosophical assumptions, as laid out in the following bullets.</point> | <point><b>The natural and supernatural</b> – This position assumes that, for the most part, the world is run via natural order, and that even when there is Divine intervention, the laws of nature are utilized and not contradicted totally. Discomfort with and the desire to minimize miracles might stem from a number of philosophical assumptions, as laid out in the following bullets.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Immutability of nature</b> – The desire to minimize miracles stems, in part, from a belief in the immutability of the laws of nature.<fn>See Rambam Moreh Nevuchim 2:29 where he states that, on the whole, the natural order of the world does not change. He points out that this does not mean that Hashem can not bring miracles when He wants to, only that Hashem normally does not. He adds that even when supernatural miracles occur and change the natural order to some extent, they are temporary phenomena, usually of short duration.  Thus, at the end nature reverts to what it was.  [It should be noted that Rambam maintains that even the resurrection of the dead in Messianic times will only be temporary, though it is possible that other factors influence that view.]</fn> If Hashem set the laws of nature, they should be unchanging, as He Himself says, "עֹד כׇּל יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ" (Bereshit 8:22).<fn>See also Kohelet 1:9, " מַה שֶּׁהָיָה הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה וּמַה שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה וְאֵין כׇּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ", which might suggest that a "new" phenomenon can never be created. Ralbag, in fact, says as much: "הנה התבאר.. שהם יראו שלא יתכן שיתחדש על דרך המופת אם לא מה שיתכן שיתחדש על המנהג הטבעי באורך הזמן". According to him, it is not possible to create a totally new object or for a phenomenon that could not otherwise happen in nature to occur; miracles simply speed up otherwise "natural" processes. [It should be noted, that according to him, transforming one object into another is not against he laws of nature; an object can shed one form to take on another, given enough time.  Thus, changing a staff into a snake is still working within "nature".]</fn>  Moreover, since natural law attests to the perfection of Hashem's Creation, any change thereof appears to suggest that Creation was not perfect, | + | <point><b>Immutability of nature</b> – The desire to minimize miracles stems, in part, from a belief in the immutability of the laws of nature.<fn>See Rambam Moreh Nevuchim 2:29 where he states that, on the whole, the natural order of the world does not change. He points out that this does not mean that Hashem can not bring miracles when He wants to, only that Hashem normally does not. He adds that even when supernatural miracles occur and change the natural order to some extent, they are temporary phenomena, usually of short duration.  Thus, at the end nature reverts to what it was.  [It should be noted that Rambam maintains that even the resurrection of the dead in Messianic times will only be temporary, though it is possible that other factors influence that view.]</fn> If Hashem set the laws of nature, they should be unchanging, as He Himself says, "עֹד כׇּל יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ" (Bereshit 8:22).<fn>See also Kohelet 1:9, " מַה שֶּׁהָיָה הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה וּמַה שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה וְאֵין כׇּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ", which might suggest that a "new" phenomenon can never be created. Ralbag, in fact, says as much: "הנה התבאר.. שהם יראו שלא יתכן שיתחדש על דרך המופת אם לא מה שיתכן שיתחדש על המנהג הטבעי באורך הזמן". According to him, it is not possible to create a totally new object or for a phenomenon that could not otherwise happen in nature to occur; miracles simply speed up otherwise "natural" processes. [It should be noted, that according to him, transforming one object into another is not against he laws of nature; an object can shed one form to take on another, given enough time.  Thus, changing a staff into a snake is still working within "nature".]</fn>  Moreover, since natural law attests to the perfection of Hashem's Creation, any change thereof appears to suggest that Creation was not perfect, or that Hashem had not foreseen all that was necessary.<fn>This last point would not be an issue for Ralbag, who does not believe that Hashem knows all of man's particulars regardless.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Methods used</b> – This approach explains away apparent miracles using a number of different methods. It reads certain stories as being allegorical or as having occurred only in a dream or in someone's mind.  In other cases, it assumes that verses need to be understood metaphorically or reread in another manner. Examples of each category follow below.</point> | <point><b>Methods used</b> – This approach explains away apparent miracles using a number of different methods. It reads certain stories as being allegorical or as having occurred only in a dream or in someone's mind.  In other cases, it assumes that verses need to be understood metaphorically or reread in another manner. Examples of each category follow below.</point> | ||
<point><b>Allegorical stories</b> – The miraculous nature of certain events is eliminated by suggesting that the story in which the event occurred is only an allegory. Thus, <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 <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot3" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagShofetim6-36" data-aht="source">Shofetim 6:36</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot3" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot18-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-23-32" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:21</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua4-20" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 4:20</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 10:12-13</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot17-15" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 17:15</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> 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.</point> | <point><b>Allegorical stories</b> – The miraculous nature of certain events is eliminated by suggesting that the story in which the event occurred is only an allegory. Thus, <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 <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot3" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagShofetim6-36" data-aht="source">Shofetim 6:36</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot3" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot18-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-23-32" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:21</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua4-20" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 4:20</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 10:12-13</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot17-15" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 17:15</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> 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.</point> |
Version as of 23:16, 4 December 2018
Miracles
Exegetical Approaches
Minimized Miracles
There is an attempt to minimize the miracles mentioned 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 the 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 took place only in a prophetic dream, so the donkey never actively spoke.
- Gidon's signs – Rambam6 asserts that the signs performed for Gidon with the wet and dry fleece took place only in a dream.
- Physical manifestations of angels – According to Rambam and Ralbag, angels are incorporeal beings whose physical manifestation to man, a material being, would be a violation of the laws of nature. As such, they reinterpret many stories which mention angels appearing or speaking as being prophetic dreams.7
- Sun standing still – Ralbag8 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, though in reality it had not.9
- Reviving the "dead" - According to one opinion brought (and rejected) by Radak,10 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.11 Thus, though Eliyahu only resuscitated the boy,12 it was perceived as if he miraculously brought him back from the dead.
- Sun standing still – R. Walfish13 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.14 For elaboration, 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 11:6-7, should be understood metaphorically as referring to world peace, and not as actual changes in the behavior of animals.15
- Lot's wife – According to Ralbag the referent of the word "וַתְּהִי" in the phrase "וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח" is not Lot's wife but the land. The verse shares how she witnessed the land of Sedom become a mound of salt. For elaboration, see Lot's Wife and Her Fate.
- "מלאכים" – Ralbag points out that the word "מלאך" merely means a messenger16 and thus need not refer to celestial beings who supernaturally appear in physical form to man, but might instead refer to human prophets.17
- "וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר" – Radak brings an opinion that suggests that the word "עֹרְבִים" in this verse should be translated as "merchants", pointing to similar usage in Yechezkel 27:28. As such, it was not ravens, but human merchants who provided Eliyahu with food.
- Limited view of Divine providence – The less one views Hashem as actively involved in running the world, the less likely one is to suggest that He intervenes all the time through miracles. Thus, Rambam and Ralbag who posit that, on the whole, the world is run via nature, are more likely to view Biblical events as being as natural as possible. Moreover, since they view Divine providence to be directly related to a person's righteousness (or how in line they are with the Active Intellect), they will be likely to reinterpret any miracle which relates to an undeserving individual.18
- Purpose of miracles – Abarbanel claims that the magnitude of a miracle is directly proportional to the need that prompts it.19 Thus, if a miracle seems disproportionate to the benefit that it grants, there is a reason to minimize it.20
- Superiority of Moshe – Another motivating factor that relates only to several specific miracles stems from the declaration in Devarim 34:10-11 that Moshe's miracles were unsurpassed by any other prophet. As such, miracles such as the sun standing still, or reviving the dead, which might otherwise rival those of Moshe, need to be re-interpreted. See Moshe's Epitaph – Signs and Wonders for elaboration.
Reduce the Supernatural Element
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.
- Snake in Eden – An anonymous explanation brought (and rejected) by Ibn Ezra22 suggests that Chava understood the snake's hissing to mean what the Torah says in his name, but that the snake did not actually speak.23 Abarbanel explains similarly hat the snakes' eating of the fruit without harmful affects, expressed the message: "לֹא מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן" though no words were spoken.
- Bilam's donkey – Shadal explains the speech of the donkey similarly, suggesting that Bilam understood its brays, not that it used human speech.
- Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel explain the plagues from the plague of frogs forward to have been caused by a simple chain of effects spawned by the plague of blood. The blood spoiled the waters of the Nile, leading the frogs to invade the country; their deaths, then, invited insects in the form of "כנים" and so forth.25
- Shadal, R. D"Z Hoffmann, and Cassuto further point out that many of the plagues are known natural phenomenon that occasionally strike Egypt,26 stating that the miracle was simply in the timing and severity of the plagues. For further elaboration, see The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural?
- Manna – As early as Josephus, there have been attempts to identify the manna that fell in the Wilderness with similar natural phenomena known in contemporary times. See, for example, the opinion of Chivi brought (and rejected by) Ibn Ezra, and R. D"Z Hoffmann's exploration of the points of contact and contrast between the "manna" collected by Beduins from the Tamarisk tree and Biblical manna.28
- Selav – See Ramban, Hoil Moshe and R. D"Z Hoffmann who claim that Hashem employed nature in bringing the "שְׂלָו", with the latter referencing modern accounts of quail migrations.29 Some modern scholars30 further attempt to explain the deaths of those who gorged on the quail in Bemidbar as also being (at least partially) a natural consequence of their actions rather than a miraculous Divine punishment.31 For discussion, see שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl.
- Clothing – Ibn Ezra and Shadal suggest that the clothing of the nation lasted for forty years, not due to a miracle, but because they had left with several sets.32 For further discussion of the degree to which the nation led a miraculous existence throughout the sojourn in the Wilderness, see Life in the Wilderness.
Supernatural Miracles
Stories of miracles should be understood literally as historical accounts of what happened.
Face Value
Miracles in Tanakh are understood to have occurred as described.
- Ramban views miracles as proof that nature is not unchanging, and therefore that the belief in the eternity of the world is false.
- All miracles were preordained during creation, and the laws of nature contain specific exceptions for each and every miracle. According to Rambam, nature is immutable, and therefore all miracles must have been set in nature from the day of creation.
Embellished
Many of the miracles described n Tanakh are embellished, and described as even more miraculous than they originally seem.