Difference between revisions of "Philosophy:Miracles/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Sun standing still</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, though in reality it had not.<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></li> | <li><b>Sun standing still</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, though in reality it had not.<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></li> | ||
− | <li><b>Reviving the "dead"</b> - According to one opinion brought (and rejected) by <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>,<fn>See also the various sources cited by  אברהם ס. אברהם, "הנשמה מלאכותית בתנ"ך?", המעין כח, ג (ירושלים תשמ"ח): 72-76.</fn> 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" might 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>  Thus, though Eliyahu only resuscitated the boy,<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."  In addition, 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 suggests that the verb "וַיָּמֹת" might also refer to a severe sickness, 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> it was perceived as if he miraculously brought him back from the dead.</li> | + | <li><b>Reviving the "dead"</b> - According to one opinion brought (and rejected) by <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>,<fn>See also the various sources cited by  אברהם ס. אברהם, "הנשמה מלאכותית בתנ"ך?", המעין כח, ג (ירושלים תשמ"ח): 72-76.</fn> 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" might 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>  Thus, though Eliyahu only resuscitated the boy,<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."  In addition, 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 suggests that the verb "וַיָּמֹת" might also refer only to a severe sickness, 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> it was perceived as if he miraculously brought him back from the dead.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Metaphorical language</b> – Understanding certain verses metaphorically, as poetic flourishes rather than literal statements of fact, further reduces the number of miracles in Tanakh:<br/> | <point><b>Metaphorical language</b> – Understanding certain verses metaphorically, as poetic flourishes rather than literal statements of fact, further reduces the number of miracles in Tanakh:<br/> | ||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Lot's wife</b> – According to <multilink><a href="RalbagShofetim6-36" data-aht="source">Ralbag </a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37</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>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 <a href="Lot's Wife and Her Fate" data-aht="page">Lot's Wife and Her Fate</a>.</li> | <li><b>Lot's wife</b> – According to <multilink><a href="RalbagShofetim6-36" data-aht="source">Ralbag </a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37</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>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 <a href="Lot's Wife and Her Fate" data-aht="page">Lot's Wife and Her Fate</a>.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>"מלאכים</b>" – <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot16-7" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot16-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot18-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot21-17" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot32-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2</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="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> points out that the word "מלאך" merely means a messenger<fn>As evidence, Ralbag points to  Chaggai 1:13 where the prophet Chaggai is called "מַלְאַךְ ה'‏".  See also Bereshit 32:4, where Yaakov sends human messengers to his brother and the text calls them "מַלְאָכִים".</fn> and thus need not refer to celestial beings who supernaturally appear in physical form to man, but might instead refer to human prophets.<fn>This is how he explains the "מַלְאַךְ" which appears to Hagar, the three "men/angels" who visit Avraham, the "מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים" who Yaakov encounters in Bereshit 32:3 and the "מַלְאַךְ" seen by Manoach and his wife. [He similarly explains the "בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים" of Bereshit 6 as being human giants and not celestial beings.]  In other cases, though, he suggests that stories which speak of angels really occurred just in a dream [see | + | <li><b>"מלאכים</b>" – <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot16-7" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot16-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot18-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot21-17" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot32-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2</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="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> points out that the word "מלאך" merely means a messenger<fn>As evidence, Ralbag points to  Chaggai 1:13 where the prophet Chaggai is called "מַלְאַךְ ה'‏".  See also Bereshit 32:4, where Yaakov sends human messengers to his brother and the text calls them "מַלְאָכִים".</fn> and thus need not refer to celestial beings who supernaturally appear in physical form to man, but might instead refer to human prophets.<fn>This is how he explains the "מַלְאַךְ" which appears to Hagar, the three "men/angels" who visit Avraham, the "מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים" who Yaakov encounters in Bereshit 32:3 and the "מַלְאַךְ" seen by Manoach and his wife. [He similarly explains the "בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים" of Bereshit 6 as being human giants and not celestial beings.]  In other cases, though, he suggests that stories which speak of angels really occurred just in a dream [see point above]. It seems that in any given story, when choosing between these two methods of discounting angels,  Ralbag is motivated by specific textual considerations (see, for example his <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">comments</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> on Bereshit 19), and whether or not the individual seeing the "angel" is worthy of receiving a prophetic dream. [Thus, for example, Hagar, who was not on a level to receive a prophetic dream instead spoke with a prophet.]</fn></li> |
<li><b>"וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר"</b> – <multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-4" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-4" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:4</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> 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.</li> | <li><b>"וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר"</b> – <multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-4" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-4" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:4</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> 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.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
No Violation of Natural Order | No Violation of Natural Order | ||
<p>Stories which mentions wondrous, seemingly unnatural events, happened in reality, but never completely violated the laws of nature. Divine intervention is noticeable only in the timing or extent of the phenomena.</p> | <p>Stories which mentions wondrous, seemingly unnatural events, happened in reality, but never completely violated the laws of nature. Divine intervention is noticeable only in the timing or extent of the phenomena.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="ArtapanusCitedinEusebiusCh27" data-aht="source">Artapanus</a><a href="ArtapanusCitedinEusebiusCh27" data-aht="source">Cited in Eusebius Ch. 27</a><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="parshan">About Artapanus</a></multilink>, R. Saadia Gaon in <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 3:1</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit Second Commentary 3:1</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-28" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:28</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink><fn>The citation of R. Saadia in Ibn Ezra does not match R. Saadia's own commentary</fn>, Chivi in <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary14-27" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary14-27" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 14:27</a><a href=" | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="ArtapanusCitedinEusebiusCh27" data-aht="source">Artapanus</a><a href="ArtapanusCitedinEusebiusCh27" data-aht="source">Cited in Eusebius Ch. 27</a><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="parshan">About Artapanus</a></multilink>, R. Saadia Gaon in <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 3:1</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit Second Commentary 3:1</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-28" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:28</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink><fn>The citation of R. Saadia in Ibn Ezra does not match R. Saadia's own commentary where he allows for a supernatural reading of the story.</fn>, Chivi in <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary14-27" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary14-27" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 14:27</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary16-13" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 16:13</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>,  <multilink><a href="RadakYehoshua5-2" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakYehoshua5-2" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 5:2</a><a href="RadakShemuelI16-2" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 16:2</a><a href="RadakShemuelI28-24" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 28:24</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-17" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:17</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-21" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:21</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemot11-10" data-aht="source">R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemot11-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 11:10</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemot14-20-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:20-21</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot18-2" 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="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot16-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot18-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot21-17" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot32-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2</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>,<fn>Ralbag combines this approach with the above one, suggesting that some apparently supernatural events did not occur at all and that others occurred, but via nature.</fn> <fn>Abarbanel reads the plagues in a natural way, but allows for more supernatural readings of other stories; see position below.</fn> <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:11</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:20</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="ShadalShemot8-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot9-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:4</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:15</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:21</a><a href="ShadalShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot7-18" data-aht="source">R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot7-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:18</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot8-2" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:2</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot9-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:5</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot9-8-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:8-10</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot10-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:22</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="UCassutoShemot7-17" data-aht="source">U. Cassuto</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:17</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="UCassutoShemot9-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:9</a><a href="UCassutoShemot10-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:14</a><a href="UCassutoShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. Umberto Cassuto</a></multilink></mekorot> |
− | <point><b>Miracles and nature</b> – As above, this position assumes that, for the most part, the world is run via natural order.  Even when there is Divine intervention, the laws of nature are utilized | + | <point><b>Miracles and nature</b> – As above, this position assumes that, for the most part, the world is run via natural order.  Even when there is Divine intervention, the laws of nature are utilized, as Hashem attempts to veer from natural law as little as possible.</point> |
<point><b>Philosophical motivations</b> – This position is motivated to minimize miracles by the same factors as the above approach: belief in the immutability of nature, a limited view of Divine providence, a desire that miracles be in proportion to their need, the impossibility of self-contradictions, and the need to ensure the supremacy of Moshe's wonders. See discussion above for details.</point> | <point><b>Philosophical motivations</b> – This position is motivated to minimize miracles by the same factors as the above approach: belief in the immutability of nature, a limited view of Divine providence, a desire that miracles be in proportion to their need, the impossibility of self-contradictions, and the need to ensure the supremacy of Moshe's wonders. See discussion above for details.</point> | ||
<point><b>Methods used</b> – As opposed to the above approach, which suggested that certain "miraculous" events did not take place at all, this position suggests that in many cases, the event described in Tanakh did actually occur, just that it employed natural means.<fn>These two methods of minimizing miracles do not contradict and often the same exegete will employ both methods, suggesting that certain events did not occur at all and that others employed natural means.</fn>  Many examples of how the proponents of this position read nature into the various seemingly supernatural episodes in Tanakh follow:</point> | <point><b>Methods used</b> – As opposed to the above approach, which suggested that certain "miraculous" events did not take place at all, this position suggests that in many cases, the event described in Tanakh did actually occur, just that it employed natural means.<fn>These two methods of minimizing miracles do not contradict and often the same exegete will employ both methods, suggesting that certain events did not occur at all and that others employed natural means.</fn>  Many examples of how the proponents of this position read nature into the various seemingly supernatural episodes in Tanakh follow:</point> |
Version as of 23:06, 5 December 2018
Miracles
Exegetical Approaches
Reducing the Supernatural
There is an attempt to minimize the prevalence of apparently supernatural phenomena described in Tanakh, either by suggesting that certain miraculous phenomena did not occur at all, or by suggesting that the events did not contravene the laws of nature.
Some Miracles Didn't Happen
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 – Rambam11 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 beings12 whose physical manifestation to man, a material being, would be a violation of the laws of nature.13 As such, they reinterpret many stories which mention angels appearing or speaking as being prophetic dreams.14
- Sun standing still – Ralbag15 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.16
- Reviving the "dead" - According to one opinion brought (and rejected) by Radak,17 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.18 Thus, though Eliyahu only resuscitated the boy,19 it was perceived as if he miraculously brought him back from the dead.
- Sun standing still – R. Walfish20 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.21 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.22
- 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 messenger23 and thus need not refer to celestial beings who supernaturally appear in physical form to man, but might instead refer to human prophets.24
- "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.
No Violation of Natural Order
Stories which mentions wondrous, seemingly unnatural events, happened in reality, but never completely 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 Ezra29 suggests that Chavvah understood the snake's hissing to mean what the Torah says in his name, but that the snake did not actually speak.30 Abarbanel explains similarly, suggesting that the snakes' eating of the fruit without suffering any harmful consequences, expressed the message: "לֹא מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן" though no words were spoken.
- Bilam's donkey – Shadal explains the donkey's speech in the same manner, claiming 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.33
- Shadal, R. D"Z Hoffmann, and Cassuto further point out that many of the plagues are known natural phenomenon that occasionally strike Egypt,34 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.36
- 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.37 Some modern scholars38 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.39 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.40 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.
Preserving the Supernatural
Stories of miracles should be understood literally as historical accounts of what happened.
Literal Readings
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 Accounts
Many of the miracles described in Tanakh are embellished, and described as even more miraculous than they originally seem.