Maimonides insists on G.o.d"s knowledge of all things of which he is the creator, including particulars. And he answers the arguments of the philosophers by saying that their objections are valid only if we a.s.sume that G.o.d"s knowledge is similar to ours, and since with us it is impossible to know the material except through a material organ, it is not possible in G.o.d. As we cannot comprehend the infinite; as we cannot know the non-existent, nor the changing without a change in our knowledge, G.o.d cannot do so. But it is wrong to a.s.sume this. G.o.d"s knowledge is identical with his essence, which these same philosophers insist is unlike anything else, and unknowable. Surely it follows that his knowledge is also without the least resemblance to our knowledge and the name alone is what they have in common. Hence all the objections of the philosophers fall away at one stroke. _We_ cannot in one act of knowing embrace a number of things differing in species; G.o.d can, because his knowledge is one. _We_ cannot know the non-existent, for our knowledge depends upon the thing known. G.o.d can. _We_ cannot know the infinite, for the infinite cannot be embraced; G.o.d can. _We_ cannot know the outcome of a future event unless the event is necessary and determined. If the event is contingent and undetermined we can only have opinion concerning it, which may or may not be true; we are uncertain and may be mistaken. G.o.d can know the outcome of a contingent event, and yet the event is not determined, and may happen one way or the other.
Our knowledge of a given thing changes as the thing itself undergoes a change, for if our knowledge should remain the same while the object changes, it would not be knowledge but error. In G.o.d the two are compatible. He knows in advance how a given thing will change, and his knowledge never changes, even though that which was at one moment potential and implicit becomes later actual and explicit.
At this point Gersonides steps in in defence of human logic and sanity.
He accuses Maimonides of not being quite honest with himself.
Maimonides, he intimates, did not choose this position of his own free will--a position scientifically quite untenable--he was forced to it by theological exigencies.[346] He felt that he must vindicate, by fair means or foul, G.o.d"s knowledge of particulars. And so Gersonides proceeds to demolish Maimonides"s position by reducing it _ad absurdum_.
What does Maimonides mean by saying that G.o.d knows the contingent? If he means that G.o.d knows that the contingent may as contingent happen otherwise than as he knows it will happen, we do not call this in us knowledge, but opinion. If he means that G.o.d knows it will happen in a certain way, and yet it may turn out that the reverse will actually take place, then we call this in our case error, not knowledge. And if he means that G.o.d merely knows that it may happen one way or the other without knowing definitely which will happen, then we call this in our experience uncertainty and perplexity, not knowledge. By insisting that all this is in G.o.d knowledge because, forsooth, G.o.d"s knowledge is not like our knowledge, is tantamount to saying that what is in us opinion, uncertainty, error, is in G.o.d knowledge--a solution far from complimentary to G.o.d"s knowledge.
Besides, the entire principle of Maimonides that there is no relation of resemblance between G.o.d"s attributes and ours, that the terms wise, just, and so on, are pure h.o.m.onyms, is fundamentally wrong. We attribute knowledge to G.o.d because we know in our own case that an intellect is perfected by knowledge. And since we have come to the conclusion on other grounds that G.o.d is a perfect intellect, we say he must have knowledge. Now if this knowledge that we ascribe to G.o.d has no resemblance whatsoever to what we understand by knowledge in our own case, the ground is removed from our feet. We might as well argue that man is rational because solid is continuous. If the word knowledge means a totally different thing in G.o.d from what it means in us, how do we know that it is to be found in G.o.d? If we have absolutely no idea what the term means when applied to G.o.d, what reason have we for preferring knowledge as a divine attribute to its opposite or negative? If knowledge does not mean knowledge, ignorance does not mean ignorance, and it is just the same whether we ascribe to G.o.d the one or the other.
The truth is that the attributes we ascribe to G.o.d do have a resemblance to the same attributes in ourselves; only they are primary in G.o.d, secondary in ourselves, _i. e._, they exist in G.o.d in a more perfect manner than in us. Hence it is absurd to say that what would be in us error or uncertainty is in G.o.d knowledge. Our problem must be solved more candidly and differently. There are arguments in favor of G.o.d"s knowing particulars (Maimonides gives some), and there are the arguments of the philosophers against the thesis. The truth must be between the two, that G.o.d knows them from one aspect and does not know them from another. Having shown above that human events are in part ordered and determined by the heavenly bodies, and in part undetermined and dependent upon the individual"s choice, we can now make use of this distinction for the solution of our problem. G.o.d knows particulars in so far as they are ordered, he does not know them in so far as they are contingent. He knows that they are contingent, and hence it follows that he does not know which of the two possibilities will happen, else they would not be contingent. This is no defect in G.o.d"s nature, for to know a thing as it is is no imperfection. In general G.o.d does not know particulars as particulars but as ordered by the universal laws of nature. He knows the universal order, and he knows the particulars in so far as they are united in the universal order.
This theory meets all objections, and moreover it is in agreement with the views of the Bible. It is the only one by which we can harmonize the apparent contradictions in the Scriptures. Thus on the one hand we are told that G.o.d sends Prophets and commands people to do and forbear. This implies that a person has freedom to choose, and that the contingent is a real category. On the other hand, we find that G.o.d foretells the coming of future events respecting human destiny, which signifies determination. And yet again we find that G.o.d repents, and that he does not repent. All these apparent contradictions can be harmonized on our theory. G.o.d foretells the coming of events in so far as they are determined in the universal order of nature. But man"s freedom may succeed in counteracting this order, and the events predicted may not come. This is signified by the expression that G.o.d repents.[347]
Levi ben Gerson"s solution, whatever we may think of its scientific or philosophic value, is surely very bold as theology, we might almost say it is a theological monstrosity. It practically removes from G.o.d the definite knowledge of the outcome of a given event so far as that outcome is contingent. Gersonides will not give up the contingent, for that would destroy freedom. He therefore accepts free will with its consequences, at the risk of limiting G.o.d"s knowledge to events which are determined by the laws of nature. Maimonides was less consistent, but had the truer theological sense, namely, he kept to both horns of the dilemma. G.o.d is omniscient and man is free. He gave up the solution by seeking refuge in the mysteriousness of G.o.d"s knowledge. This is the true religious att.i.tude.
The question of Providence is closely related to that of G.o.d"s knowledge. For it is clear that one cannot provide for those things of which he does not know. Gersonides"s view in this problem is very similar to that of Maimonides, and like him he sees in the discussions between Job and his friends the representative opinions held by philosophers in this important problem.
There are three views, he says, concerning the nature of Providence. One is that G.o.d"s providence extends only to species and not to individuals.
The second opinion is that G.o.d provides for every individual of the human race. The third view is that some individuals are specially provided for, but not all. Job held the first view, which is that of Aristotle. The arguments in favor of this opinion are that G.o.d does not know particulars, hence cannot provide for them. Besides, there would be more justice in the distribution of goods and evils in the world if G.o.d concerned himself about every individual. Then again man is too insignificant for G.o.d"s special care.
The second view is that of the majority of our people. They argue that as G.o.d is the author of all, he surely provides for them. And as a matter of fact experience shows it; else there would be much more violence and bloodshed than there is. The wicked are actually punished and the good rewarded. This cla.s.s is divided into two parts. Some think that while G.o.d provides for all men, not all that happens to a man is due to G.o.d; there are also other causes. The others think that every happening is due to G.o.d. This second cla.s.s may again be divided according to the manner in which they account for those facts in experience which seem to militate against their view. Maintaining that every incident is due to G.o.d, they have to explain the apparent deviation from justice in the prosperity of the wicked and the adversity of the righteous. One party explains the phenomenon by saying that the prosperity and the adversity in these cases are only seeming and not real; that they in fact are the opposite of what they seem, or at least lead to the opposite. The second party answers the objection on the ground that those we think good may not really be such, and similarly those we think bad may not really be bad. For the way to judge a person"s character is not merely by his deeds alone, but by his deeds as related to his temperament and disposition, which G.o.d alone knows.
Eliphaz the Temanite belonged to those who think that not all which happens is due to G.o.d; that folly is responsible for a man"s misfortune.
Bildad the Shuchite believed that all things are from G.o.d, but not all that seems good and evil is really so. Zophar the Naamathite thought we do not always judge character correctly; that temperament and disposition must be taken into account.
Of these various opinions the first one, that of Aristotle, cannot be true. Dreams, divination, and especially prophecy contradict it flatly.
All these are given to the individual for his protection (_cf._ above, p. 342). The second opinion, namely, that G.o.d"s providence extends to every individual, is likewise disproved by reason, by experience and by the Bible. We have already proved (p. 345) that G.o.d"s knowledge does not extend to particulars as such. He only knows things as ordered by the heavenly bodies; and knows at the same time that they may fail to happen because of man"s free will. Now if G.o.d punishes and rewards every man according to his deeds, one of two things necessarily follows. Either he rewards and punishes according to those deeds which the individual is determined to do by the order of the heavenly bodies, or according to the deeds the individual actually does. In the first case there would be often injustice, for the person might not have acted as the order of the heavenly bodies indicated he would act, for he is free to act as he will. The second case is impossible, for it would mean that G.o.d knows particulars as particulars--a thesis we have already disproved. Besides, evil does not come from G.o.d directly, since he is pure form and evil comes only from matter. Hence it cannot be said that he punishes the evil doer for his sin.
Experience also testifies against this view, for we see the just suffer and the wicked prosper. The manner in which Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar wish to defend G.o.d"s justice will not hold water. Man"s own folly will account perhaps for some evils befalling the righteous and some good coming to the wicked. But it will not account for the failure of the good man to get the reward he deserves, and of the wicked to receive the punishment which is his due. The righteous man often has troubles all his life no matter how careful he is to avoid them, and correspondingly the same is true of the wicked, that he is prosperous, despite his lack of caution and good sense. To avoid these objections as Eliphaz does by saying that if the wicked man himself is not punished, his children will be, is to go from the frying pan into the fire. For it is not just either to omit to punish the one deserving it, or to punish another innocent man for him. Nor is Zophar"s defence any better. For the same man, with the same temperament and disposition, often suffers more when he is inclined to do good, and is prosperous when he is not so scrupulous. Bildad is no more successful than the other two. The evils coming to the righteous are often real and permanent. But neither does the Bible compel us to believe that G.o.d looks out for all individuals.
This is especially true in reference to punishment, as can be gathered from such expressions as "I will hide my face from them, and they shall be given to be devoured" (Deut. 31, 17), or "As thou hast forgotten the law of thy G.o.d, so will I myself also forget thy children" (Hosea 4, 6).
These expressions indicate that G.o.d does not punish the individuals directly, but that he leaves them to the fate that is destined for them by the order of the heavenly bodies. True there are other pa.s.sages in Scripture speaking of direct punishment, but they may be interpreted so as not to conflict with our conclusions.
Having seen that neither of the two extreme views is correct, it remains to adopt the middle course, namely, that some individuals are provided for specially, and others not. The nearer a person is to the Active Intellect, the more he receives divine providence and care. Those people who do not improve their capabilities, which they possess as members of the species, are provided for only as members of the species. The matter may be put in another way also. G.o.d knows all ideas. Man is potentially capable of receiving them in a certain manner. G.o.d, who is actual, leads man from his potentiality to actuality. When a man"s potentialities are thus realized, he becomes similar to G.o.d, because when ideas are actualized the agent and the thing acted upon are one.
Hence the person enjoys divine providence at that time. The way in which G.o.d provides for such men is by giving them knowledge through dream, divination or prophecy or intuition or in some other unconscious manner on the individual"s part, which knowledge protects him from harm. This view is not in conflict with the truth that G.o.d does not know particulars as such. For it is not to the individual person as such that providence extends as a conscious act of G.o.d. The individualization is due to the recipient and not to the dispenser. One may object that after all since it is possible that bad men may have goods as ordered by the heavenly bodies, and good men may have misfortune as thus ordered, when their attachment to G.o.d is loosened somewhat, there is _injustice_ in G.o.d if he could have arranged the heavenly spheres differently and did not, or _incapacity_ if he could not. The answer is briefly that the order of the spheres does a great deal of good in maintaining the existence of things. And if some little evil comes also incidentally, this does not condemn the whole arrangement. In fact the evils come from the very agencies which are the authors of good. The view of providence here adopted is that of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite in the book of Job (ch. 32), and it agrees also with the opinion of Maimonides in the "Guide of the Perplexed" (_cf._ above, p. 292).[348]
Instead of placing his cosmology at the beginning of his system and proceeding from that as a basis to the other parts of his work, the psychology and the ethics, Levi ben Gerson, whose "Milhamot Hashem" is not so much a systematic work as an aggregation of discussions, reversed the process. He begins as we have seen with a purely psychological a.n.a.lysis concerning the nature of the human reason and its relation to the Active Intellect. He follows up this discussion with a treatment of prognostication as exhibiting some of the effects of the Active Intellect upon the reason and imagination of man. This is again followed by a discussion of G.o.d"s knowledge and providence. And not until all these psychological (and in part ethical) questions have been decided, does Levi ben Gerson undertake to give us his views of the const.i.tution of the universe and the nature and attributes of G.o.d. In this discussion he takes occasion to express his dissatisfaction with Aristotle"s proofs of the existence of the spheral movers and of the unmoved mover or G.o.d, as inadequate to bear the structure which it is intended to erect upon them. It will be remembered that the innovation of Abraham Ibn Daud and Maimonides in making Jewish philosophy more strictly Aristotelian than it had been consisted in a great measure in just this introduction of the Aristotelian proof of the existence of G.o.d as derived from the motions of the heavenly bodies. Levi ben Gerson"s proofs are teleological rather than mechanical. Aristotle said a moving body must have a mover outside of it, which if it is again a body is itself in motion and must have a mover in turn. And as this process cannot go on _ad infinitum_, there must be at the end of the series an unmoved mover.
As unmoved this mover cannot be body; and as producing motion eternally, it cannot be a power residing in a body, a physical or material power, for no such power can be infinite. Gersonides is not satisfied with this proof. He argues that so far as the motions of the heavenly bodies are concerned there is no reason why a physical power cannot keep on moving them eternally. The reason that motions caused by finite forces in our world come to a stop is because the thing moved is subject to change, which alters its relation to its mover; and secondly because the force endeavors to move the object in opposition to its own tendency, in opposition to gravity. In the case of the heavenly bodies neither of these conditions is present. The relation of the mover to the moved is always the same, since the heavenly bodies are not subject to change; and as they are not made of the four terrestrial elements they have no inherent tendency to move in any direction, hence they offer no opposition to the force exerted upon them by the mover. A finite power might therefore quite conceivably cause eternal motion. Similarly an unmoved mover cannot be body, to be sure, but it may be a physical power like a soul, which in moving the body is not itself moved by that motion. Aristotle"s proofs therefore are not sufficient to produce the conviction that the movers of the spheres and G.o.d himself are separate Intelligences.[349]
Gersonides accordingly follows a different method. He argues that if a system of things and events exhibits perfection not here and there and at rare intervals but regularly, the inference is justified that there is an intelligent agent who had a definite purpose and design in establishing the system. The world below is such a system. Hence it has an intelligent agent as its author. This agent may be a separate and immaterial intelligence, or a corporeal power like a soul. He then shows that it cannot be a corporeal power, for it would have to reside in the animal sperm which exhibits such wonderful and purposive development, or in the parent animal from which the sperm came, both of which, he argues, are impossible. It remains then that the cause of the teleological life of the sublunar world is an immaterial power, a separate intellect. This intellect, he argues further, acts upon matter and endows it with forms, the only mediating power being the natural heat which is found in the seed and sperm of plants and animals.
Moreover, it is aware of the order of what it produces. It is the Active Intellect of which we spoke above (p. 337). The forms of terrestrial things come from it directly, the heat residing in the seed comes from the motions of the spheres. This shows that the permanent motions of the heavenly bodies are also intelligent motions, for they tend to produce perfection in the terrestrial world and never come to a standstill, which would be the case if the motions were "natural" like those of the elements, or induced against their nature like that of a stone moving upward. We are justified in saying then that the heavenly bodies are endowed with intellects and have no material soul. Hence their movers are pure Intelligences, and there are as many of them as there are spheres, _i. e._, forty-eight, or fifty-eight or sixty-four according to one"s opinion on the astronomical question of the number of spheres.
Now as the Active Intellect knows the order of sublunar existence in its unity, and the movers of the respective spheres know the order of their effects through the motions of the heavenly bodies, it follows that as all things in heaven above and on the earth beneath are related in a unitary system, there is a highest agent who is the cause of all existence absolutely and has a knowledge of all existence as a unitary system.[350]
The divine attributes are derived by us from his actions, and hence they are not pure h.o.m.onyms (_cf._, p. 240). G.o.d has a knowledge of the complete order of sublunar things, of which the several movers have only a part. He _knows_ it as _one_, and knows it eternally without change.
His _joy_ and _gladness_ are beyond conception, for our joy also is very great in understanding. His is also the perfect _Life_, for understanding is life. He is the most real _Substance_ and _Existent_, and he is _One_. G.o.d is also the most real _Agent_, as making the other movers do their work, and producing a complete and perfect whole out of their parts. He is also properly called _Bestower_, _Beneficent_, _Gracious_, _Strong_, _Mighty_, _Upright_, _Just_, _Eternal_, _Permanent_. All these attributes, however, do not denote multiplicity.[351]
From G.o.d we now pa.s.s again to his creation, and take up the problem which caused Maimonides so much trouble, namely, the question of the origin of the world. It will be remembered that dissatisfied with the proofs for the existence of G.o.d advanced by the Mutakallimun, Maimonides, in order to have a firm foundation for the central idea of religion, tentatively adopted the Aristotelian notion of the eternity of motion and the world. But no sooner does Maimonides establish his proof of the existence, unity and incorporeality of G.o.d than he returns to the attack of the Aristotelian view and points out that the problem is insoluble in a strictly scientific manner; that Aristotle himself never intended his arguments in favor of eternity to be regarded as philosophically demonstrated, and that they all labor under the fatal fallacy that because certain laws hold of the world"s phenomena once it is in existence, these same laws must have governed the establishment of the world itself in its origin. Besides, the a.s.sumption of the world"s eternity with its corollary of the necessity and immutability of its phenomena saps the foundation of all religion, makes miracles impossible, and reduces the world to a machine. Gersonides is on the whole agreed with Maimonides. He admits that Aristotle"s arguments are the best yet advanced in the problem, but that they are not convincing.
He also agrees with Maimonides in his general stricture on Aristotle"s method, only modifying and restricting its generality and sweeping nature. With all this, however, he finds it necessary to take up the entire question anew and treats it in his characteristic manner, with detail and rigor, and finally comes to a conclusion different from that of Maimonides, namely, that the world had an origin in time, to be sure, but that it came not _ex nihilo_ in the absolute sense of the word _nihil_, but developed from an eternal formless matter, which G.o.d endowed with form. This is the so-called Platonic view.
We cannot enter into all his details which are technical and fatiguing in the extreme, but we must give a general idea of his procedure in the investigation of this important topic.
The problem of the origin of the world, he says, is very difficult.
First, because in order to learn from the nature of existing things whether they were created out of a state of non-existence or not, we must know the essence of existing things, which is not easy. Secondly, we must know the nature of G.o.d in order to determine whether he could have existed first without the world and then have created it, or whether he had to have the world with him from eternity. The fact of the great difference of opinion on this question among thinkers, and the testimony of Maimonides that Aristotle himself had no valid proof in this matter are additional indications of the great difficulty of the subject.
Some think the world was made and destroyed an infinite number of times.
Others say it was made once. Of these some maintain it was made out of something (Plato); others, that it was made out of absolute nothing (Philoponus, the Mutakallimun, Maimonides and many of our Jewish writers). Some on the other hand, namely, Aristotle and his followers, hold the world to be eternal. They all have their defenders, and there is no need to refute the others since Aristotle has already done this.
His arguments are the best so far, and deserve investigation. The fundamental fallacy in all his proofs is that he argues from the laws of genesis and decay in the parts of the world to the laws of these processes in the world as a whole. This might seem to be the same criticism which Maimonides advances, but it is not really quite the same, Maimonides"s a.s.sertion being more general and sweeping. Maimonides says that the origin of the world as a whole need not be in any respect like the processes going on within its parts; whereas Gersonides bases his argument on the observed difference in the world between wholes and parts, admitting that the two may be alike in many respects.
In order to determine whether the world is created or not, it is best to investigate first those things in the world which have the appearance of being eternal, such as the heavenly bodies, time, motion, the form of the earth, and so on. If these are proven to be eternal, the world is eternal; if not, it is not. A general principle to help us distinguish a thing having an origin from one that has not is the following: A thing which came into being in time has a purpose. An eternal thing has no purpose. Applying this principle to the heavens we find that all about them is with a purpose to ordering the sublunar world in the best way possible. Their motions, their distances, their positions, their numbers, and so on are all for this purpose. Hence they had a beginning.
Aristotle"s attempts to explain these conditions from the nature of the heavens themselves are not successful, and he knew it. Again, as the heavenly bodies are all made of the same fifth element (the Aristotelian ether), the many varieties in their forms and motions require special explanation. The only satisfactory explanation is that the origin of the heavenly bodies is not due to nature and necessity, which would favor eternity, but to will and freedom, and the many varieties are for a definite purpose. Hence they are not eternal.[352]
Gersonides then a.n.a.lyzes time and motion and proves that Aristotle to the contrary notwithstanding, they are both finite and not infinite.
Time belongs to the category of quant.i.ty, and there is no infinite quant.i.ty. As time is dependent on motion, motion too is finite, hence neither is eternal. Another argument for creation in time is that if the world is eternal and governed altogether by necessity, the earth should be surrounded on all sides by water according to the nature of the lighter element to be above the heavier. Hence the appearance of parts of the earth"s surface above the water is an indication of a break of natural law for a special purpose, namely, in order to produce the various mineral, plant and animal species. Hence once more purpose argues design and origin in time.
Finally if the world were eternal, the state of the sciences would be more advanced than it is. A similar argument may be drawn from language.
Language is conventional; which means that the people existed before the language they agreed to speak. But man being a social animal they could not have existed an infinite time without language. Hence mankind is not eternal.[353]
We have just proved that the world came into being, but it does not necessarily follow that it will be destroyed. Nay, there are reasons to show that it will not be destroyed. For there is no destruction except through matter and the predominance of the pa.s.sive powers over the active. Hence the being that is subject to destruction must consist of opposites. But the heavenly bodies have no opposites, not being composite; hence they cannot be destroyed. And if so, neither can the sublunar order be destroyed, which is the work of the heavenly bodies.
There is of course the abstract possibility of their being destroyed by their maker, not naturally, but by his will, as they were made; but we can find no reason in G.o.d for wishing to destroy them, all reasons existing in man for destroying things being inapplicable to G.o.d.[354]
That the world began in time is now established. The question still remains, was the world made out of something or out of nothing? Both are impossible. The first is impossible, for that something out of which the world was made must have had some form, for matter never is without form, and if so, it must have had some motion, and we have a kind of world already, albeit an imperfect one. The second supposition is also impossible; for while form may come out of nothing, body cannot come from not-body. We never see the matter of any object arise out of nothing, though the form may. Nature as well as art produces one corporeal thing out of another. Hence the generally accepted principle, "_ex nihilo nihil fit_." Besides it would follow on this supposition that before the world came into existence there was a vacuum in its place, whereas it is proved in the Physics that a vacuum is impossible.
The only thing remaining therefore is to say that the world was made partly out of something, partly out of nothing, _i. e._, out of an absolutely formless matter.
It may be objected that to a.s.sume the existence of a second eternal thing beside G.o.d is equivalent to a belief in dualism, in two G.o.ds. But this objection may be easily answered. Eternity as such does not const.i.tute divinity. If all the world were eternal, G.o.d would still be G.o.d because he controls everything and is the author of the order obtaining in the world. In general it is the qualitative essence that makes the divine character of G.o.d, his wisdom and power as the source of goodness and right order in nature. The eternal matter of which we are speaking is the opposite of all this. As G.o.d is the extreme of perfection so is matter the extreme of imperfection and defect. As G.o.d is the source of good, so is matter the source of evil. How then can anyone suppose for a moment that an eternal formless matter can in any way be identified with a divine being?
Another objection that may be offered to our theory is that it is an established fact that matter cannot exist at all without any form, whereas our view a.s.sumes that an absolutely formless matter existed an infinite length of time before the world was made from it. This may be answered by saying that the impossibility of matter existing without form applies only to the actual objects of nature. G.o.d put in sublunar matter the nature and capacity of receiving all forms in a certain order. The primary qualities, the hot and the cold and the wet and the dry, as the forms of the elements, enable this matter to receive other higher forms. The very capacity of receiving a given form argues a certain form on the part of the matter having this capacity; for if it had no form there would be no reason why it should receive one form rather than another; whereas we find that the reception of forms is not at random, but that a given form comes from a definite other form. Man comes only from man. But this does not apply to the prime matter of which we are speaking. It may have been without form. Nay, it is reasonable to suppose that as we find matter and form combined, and we also find pure forms without matter, _viz._, in the separate Intelligences,--it is reasonable to suppose that there is also matter without form.
Finally one may ask if the world has not existed from eternity, what determined the author to will its existence at the time he did and not at another? We cannot say that he acquired new knowledge which he had not before, or that he needed the world then and not before, or that there was some obstacle which was removed. The answer to this would be that the sole cause of the creation was the will of G.o.d to benefit his creatures. Their existence is therefore due to the divine causality, which never changes. Their origin in time is due to the nature of a material object as such. A material object as being caused by an external agent is incompatible with eternity. It must have a beginning, and there is no sense in asking why at this time and not before or after, for the same question would apply to any other time. Gersonides cites other objections which he answers, and then he takes up one by one the Aristotelian arguments in favor of eternity and refutes them in detail. We cannot afford to reproduce them here as the discussions are technical, lengthy and intricate.[355]
Having given his philosophical cosmology, Gersonides then undertakes to show in detail that the Biblical story of creation teaches the same doctrine. Nay, he goes so far as to say that it was the Biblical account that suggested to him his philosophical theory. It would be truer to say that having approached the Bible with Aristotelian spectacles, and having no suspicion that the two att.i.tudes are as far apart as the poles, he did not scruple to twist the expressions in Genesis out of all semblance to their natural meaning. The Biblical text had been twisted and turned ever since the days of Philo, and of the Mishna and Talmud and Midrash, in the interest of various schools and sects. Motives speculative, religious, theological, legal and ethical were at the basis of Biblical interpretation throughout its long history of two millennia and more--the end is not yet--and Gersonides was swimming with the current. The Bible is not a law, he says, which forces us to believe absurdities and to practice useless things, as some people think. On the contrary it is a law which leads us to our perfection. Hence what is proved by reason must be found in the Law, by interpretation if necessary. This is why Maimonides took pains to interpret all Biblical pa.s.sages in which G.o.d is spoken of as if he were corporeal. Hence also his statement that if the eternity of the world were strictly demonstrated, it would not be difficult to interpret the Bible so as to agree. But in the matter of the origin of the world, Gersonides continues, it was not necessary for me to force the Biblical account.
Quite the contrary, the expressions in the Bible guided me to my view.[356]
Accordingly he finds support for his doctrine that the world was not created _ex nihilo_, in the fact that there is not one miracle in the Bible in which anything comes out of nothing. They are all instances of something out of a pre-existent something. The miracle of the oil in the case of Elisha is no exception. The air changed into oil as it entered the partly depleted vessel. The six days of creation must not be taken literally. G.o.d"s creation is timeless, and the six days indicate the natural order and rank in existing things proceeding from the cause to the effect and from the lower to the higher. Thus the movers of the heavenly bodies come before the spheres which they move as their causes.
The spheres come before the terrestrial elements for the same reason.
The elements are followed by the things composed of them. And among these too there is a certain order. Plants come before animals, aquatic animals before aerial, aerial before terrestrial, and the last of all is man, as the most perfect of sublunar creatures. All this he reads into the account of creation in Genesis. Thus the _light_ spoken of in the first day represents the angels or separate Intelligences or movers of the spheres, and they are distinguished from the _darkness_ there, which stands for the heavenly bodies as the matters of their movers, though at the same time they are grouped together as one day, because the form and its matter const.i.tute a unit. The _water_, which was divided by the firmament, denotes the prime formless matter, part of which was changed into the matter of the heavenly bodies, and part into the four terrestrial elements. Form and matter are also designated by the terms "Tohu" and "Bohu" in the second verse in Genesis, rendered in the Revised Version by "without form" and "void." And so Gersonides continues throughout the story of creation, into the details of which we need not follow him.[357]
The concluding discussion in the Milhamot is devoted to the problem of miracles and its relation to prophecy. Maimonides had said that one reason for opposing the Aristotelian theory of the eternity of the world is that miracles would be an impossibility on that a.s.sumption. Hence Maimonides insists on creation _ex nihilo_, though he admits that the Platonic view of a pre-existent matter may be reconciled with the Torah.
Gersonides, who adopted the doctrine of an eternal matter, finds it necessary to say by way of introduction to his treatment of miracles that they do not prove creation _ex nihilo_. For as was said before all miracles exhibit a production of something out of something and not out of nothing.
To explain the nature of miracles, he says, and their authors, it is necessary to know what miracles are. For this we must take the Biblical records as our data, just as we take the data of our senses in determining other matters. On examining the miracles of the Bible we find that they may be cla.s.sified into those which involve a change of substance and those in which the substance remains the same and the change is one of quality or quant.i.ty. An example of the former is the change of Moses"s rod into a serpent and of the water of Egypt into blood; of the latter, Moses"s hand becoming leprous, and the withering of the hand of Jeroboam. We may further divide the miracles into those in which the prophet was told in advance, as Moses was of the ten plagues, and those in which he was not, as for example the reviving of the dead by Elijah and many other cases. Our examination also shows us that all miracles are performed by prophets or in relation to them. Also that they are done with some good and useful purpose, namely, to inculcate belief or to save from evil.
These data will help us to decide who is the author of miracles.
Miracles cannot be accidental, as they are performed with a purpose; and as they involve a knowledge of the sublunar order, they must have as their author one who has this knowledge, hence either G.o.d or the Active Intellect or man, _i. e._, the prophet himself. Now it is not reasonable to suppose that G.o.d is the author of miracles, for miracles come only rarely and are of no value in themselves but only as a means to a special end, as we said before. The laws of nature, however, which control all regular events all the time, are essentially good and permanent. Hence it is not reasonable to suppose that the Active Intellect who, as we know, orders the sublunar world, has more important work to do than G.o.d. Besides if G.o.d were the author of miracles, the prophet would not know about them, for prophetic inspiration, as we know (p. 342), is due to the Active Intellect and not directly to G.o.d.
Nor do we need waste words in proving that man cannot be the author of miracles, for in that case the knowledge of them would not come to him through prophetic inspiration, since they are due to his own will.
Besides man, as we have seen, cannot have a complete knowledge of the sublunar order, and hence it is not likely that he can control its laws to the extent of changing them.
There is therefore only one alternative left, namely, that the author of miracles is the same as the inspirer of the prophets, the controlling spirit of the sublunar world, whose intellect has as its content the unified system of sublunar creation as an immaterial idea, namely, the Active Intellect, of whom we have spoken so often. The prophet knows of the miracles because the Active Intellect, who is the author of them, is also the cause of the prophetic inspiration. This will account too for the fact that all miracles have to do with events in the sublunar world and are not found in the relations and motions of the heavenly bodies.
The case of Joshua causing the sun and moon to stand still is no exception. There was no standing still of the sun and moon in that case.