Difference between revisions of "Philosophy:Miracles/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<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  | + | <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 note 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>"" – | + | <li><b>"וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר"</b> – Radak brings an opinion that suggests that the word "הָעֹרְבִים" in this verse should be translated as "merchants", pointing to similar usage in Yechezkel 27:28. As such, it was nt ravens, but human merchants who provided Eliyahu with food.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Mutable Nature</b> – This 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 world does not change form its natural course.  He points out that this does not mean that Hashem could not, had He wanted to, but that Hashem normally does not.  Moreover, even when supernatural miracles occur they are temporary phenomena, usually of short duration. [It should be noted that Rambam maintains that even the resurrection of the dead in Messianic times will only be temporary.]</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 Kohelt 1:9, " מַה שֶּׁהָיָה הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה וּמַה שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה וְאֵין כׇּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ".</fn> Moreover, since natural law attests to the perfection of Hashem's Creation, any change thereof appears to suggest that Creation was not perfect, and 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.</fn></point> | <point><b>Mutable Nature</b> – This 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 world does not change form its natural course.  He points out that this does not mean that Hashem could not, had He wanted to, but that Hashem normally does not.  Moreover, even when supernatural miracles occur they are temporary phenomena, usually of short duration. [It should be noted that Rambam maintains that even the resurrection of the dead in Messianic times will only be temporary.]</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 Kohelt 1:9, " מַה שֶּׁהָיָה הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה וּמַה שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה וְאֵין כׇּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ".</fn> Moreover, since natural law attests to the perfection of Hashem's Creation, any change thereof appears to suggest that Creation was not perfect, and 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.</fn></point> | ||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Splitting of Yam Suf</b> – Rashbam, Ibn Kaspi, and various scholars cited by Shadal and U. Cassuto all point to the mention of Hashem's bringing an "easternly wind" (Shemot 14:21) as evidence that this miracle was brought through naturalistic means. the opinions in Shadal and Cassuto suggest that Yam Suf split as a natural result of the wind's role in the lowering and raising of the tide.<fn>Artapanus as cited by Eusebius and Chivi as cited by Ibn Ezra take this a step further, and state that the entire miracle was just a matter of Moshe knowing the tide schedule.</fn>  For further elaboration, see <a href="Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural" data-aht="page">Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural?</a></point> | <point><b>Splitting of Yam Suf</b> – Rashbam, Ibn Kaspi, and various scholars cited by Shadal and U. Cassuto all point to the mention of Hashem's bringing an "easternly wind" (Shemot 14:21) as evidence that this miracle was brought through naturalistic means. the opinions in Shadal and Cassuto suggest that Yam Suf split as a natural result of the wind's role in the lowering and raising of the tide.<fn>Artapanus as cited by Eusebius and Chivi as cited by Ibn Ezra take this a step further, and state that the entire miracle was just a matter of Moshe knowing the tide schedule.</fn>  For further elaboration, see <a href="Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural" data-aht="page">Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural?</a></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Victory over Amalek</b> – Rashbam maintains that Moshe's uplifted hands did not miraculously lead to victory, but rather served to boost the morale of the army. He compares it to soldiers who are encouraged by viewing their flag-bearer.</point> | ||
<point><b>Wilderness miracles</b><ul> | <point><b>Wilderness miracles</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Manna</b> – 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.<fn>See also the article of "אבינעם דנין, "<a href="https://mikranet.cet.ac.il/pages/printitem.asp?item=1374">המאכילך מן מן המדבר</a>. The miracle of the manna is minimized boy others in a second way, as they suggest that it was not the sole food source in the wilderness, and that it might not have rained down in areas where there were alternative means of acquiring food.  See Rashbam and Minchah Belulah.</fn> </li> | <li><b>Manna</b> – 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.<fn>See also the article of "אבינעם דנין, "<a href="https://mikranet.cet.ac.il/pages/printitem.asp?item=1374">המאכילך מן מן המדבר</a>. The miracle of the manna is minimized boy others in a second way, as they suggest that it was not the sole food source in the wilderness, and that it might not have rained down in areas where there were alternative means of acquiring food.  See Rashbam and Minchah Belulah.</fn> </li> |
Version as of 03:50, 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 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 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.4 [See, for instance, Rambam's understanding of the three "angels" which visit Avraham in Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men and Ralbag's explanation of the story of Yaakov's wrestling with the "angel" in Wrestling With Angels and Men. ]
- Sun standing still – Ralbag5 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.6
- Reviving the "dead" - According to one opinion in Radak,7 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.8 Eliyahu, thus, did not miraculously bring him back from the dead but rather resuscitated him.9
- Sun standing still – R. Walfish10 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.11 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.12
- 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 messenger13 and thus need not refer to celestial beings who supernaturally appear in physical form to man, but might instead refer to human prophets.14
- "וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר" – Radak brings an opinion that suggests that the word "הָעֹרְבִים" in this verse should be translated as "merchants", pointing to similar usage in Yechezkel 27:28. As such, it was nt ravens, but human merchants who provided Eliyahu with food.
Remove Supernatural 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.
- Snake in Eden – An anonymous explanation brought by Ibn Ezra 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.19
- 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.20
- Shadal, R. D"Z Hoffmann, and Cassuto further point out that many of the plagues are known natural phenomenon that occasionally strike Egypt,21 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.23
- 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.24 Some modern scholars25 further attempt to explain the deaths of those who gorged on the quail in Bemibar as perhaps being (at least partially) a natural consequence of their actions rather than a miraculous Divine punishment.26 For discussion, see שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl.
- Clothing – Ibn Ezra and Shadal suggest that the clothing of the nation did not wear out, not due to a miracle, but because they had left with several sets.27 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.
- 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.33
Embellished
Many of the miracles described n Tanakh are embellished, and described as even more miraculous than they originally seem.