This Saturday, Jews around the world will be reading about how our ancestors walked through the Sea of Reeds on dry land, with water on both sides. Accordingly, I thought you would enjoy this hypothesis given in 2010 by Carl Drews of the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
You can find many news articles about this study online (e.g. here).
While we have no way to know for sure the event occurred as Mr. Drews suggests, I happen to love this way of thinking when it comes to explaining miracle stories. We freethinkers look for the most likely explanation, and since “An invisible being came and messed with the laws of physics” is never the most likely explanation, seems that we’re left with either:
a) The story was completely fabricated, or
b) A natural event happened, and the authors of the Bible did what everyone did in the first millennium BCE – they attributed the event to the hand of their god.
Which is the more likely explanation for miracle stories? a) or b)?
No doubt that for some of the miracle stories in ancient sources such as the Bible, explanation a) may be the most likely explanation. But, in general, all else being equal, I would think that b) should be the default, at least when it’s a story that is presented as an historical event that happened to an entire people. In some cases, though, the story may have started as a b), but as it was related many times over many generations, some additional embellishing fabrications crept in.
The Aish HaTorah/Ohr Somayach types (those who try to “prove” the Bible is divine) are known for arguing, “There’s no way you could convince an entire nation that –
– their ancestors all stood at Mt. Sinai;
– their ancestors survived in the desert for 40 years on manna;
– their ancestors all saw the sea split;
While their basic argument is wrong – plenty of people have been convinced that miracles happened to their ancestors – just ask students of Aish HaTorah and Ohr Somayach! – I think it is true that the more likely explanation is that something did happen, and the people interpreted that something as an act of God. For instance, we wouldn’t argue the Miracle of the Sun story never happened at all.
What do you think? Do you think miracles are usually made up 100%, or are natural phenomena misunderstood, … or Option C!
(h/t Rabbi Jonathan Sacks – one of the things I actually learned from him in that debate with Professor Richard Dawkins for which I criticized Rabbi Sacks in previous posts.)