Polytropy

The miracles recounted in the Gospels are not violations of the laws of nature, because the Evangelists had no conception of those laws in the first place. So I argued in a post of June, 2022. Having encountered resistance to the argument, I return to it now.

In what I have found, perhaps the most important point is made by God in the Hebrew Bible, at the beginning of Deuteronomy 13, here in the King James Version:

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder (σημεῖον ἢ τέρας),
2 And the sign or the wonder (τὸ σημεῖον ἢ τὸ τέρας) come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

I’ve supplied from the Septuagint the Greek of the bolded words. Unfortunately I do not read Hebrew, but here’s a page that has it, along with a parallel English translation. The word σημεῖον means “point” in Euclid’s Elements; the King James translates it as “miracle” in the Gospel of John. The Revised Standard Version uses “sign” there, just as in Deuteronomy; however, I found the Torah passage above by looking up “miracle” in the Index of the Annotations of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (whose translation is the RSV). According to this Bible’s annotation on Deuteronomy 13:1,

This law makes clear that a sign or wonder is not in itself a proof that God has spoken, for God may give false prophets power to perform wonders in order to test the people’s faith. A miracle is not significant unless it prompts faith in the God whom Israel has known in her historical experience.

That’s an interpretation of Hebrew Scripture by some Protestant Christian scholar (apparently Bernhard Anderson). Both as interpretation and as independent statement, it seems unobjectionable. One may ask how the correct deity is supposed to be recognized, if not by signs and wonders. The basic point seems clear enough: nothing physical, by itself, can establish a spiritual or moral claim.

The physical is what is studied by the science of physics. Not everything is physical. I would say this was obvious, but there are professional philosophers who deny it. There is a philosophy, or at least a “thesis,” called physicalism. As if to avoid the objection that physics cannot in fact answer all of our questions or solve all of our problems, physicalists will say that everything at least “supervenes” on the physical.

I talk about that in “Anthropology of Mathematics,” a post of October, 2019, just before the Pandemic. The post is long, and one may ask whether it is something other than the sum of its parts. Perhaps it should be understood as a catalogue raisonné in the sense of Collingwood:

the literary form of a treatise in which a meta­physician sets out to enumerate and discuss the absolute presup­positions of thought in his own time cannot be the form of a continuous argument … It must be in the form of a catalogue raisonné …

Collingwood’s idea came up in my examination of absolute presuppositions in “What It Takes,” May, 2018. This was a sequel to “Effectiveness,” which looks at miracles, but mainly in science.

Meanwhile, in “Anthropology of Mathematics,” I note that mathematical questions are not physical questions. In a post of September, 2020, called “More of What It Is,” the “it” of the title is mathematics, and I look at a couple of practitioners who do not distinguish our subject from physics. I think they are wrong, and I seem not to be alone in thinking this, but in any case, our main topic now is something else.

One can study a Biblical manuscript as a physical object, and scholars rely on such study. However, they engage in another kind of study in addition. So does a fellow described by George Orwell in Chapter XV of Down and Out in Paris and London (1933).

Penniless, Valenti lies starving in his room for five days. When Maria stops by, she notices his empty oil can. She returns it for the deposit, with which she buys Valenti bread and wine. Thus has been answered his prayer to Sainte Éloïse, whose picture hangs on the wall. He must therefore use his remaining sous to buy the saint the candle that he promised; he cannot buy cigarettes instead.

According to Maria, the picture is not of Éloïse, for whom the quarter is named, but of Suzanne May, the courtesan for whom the hotel is named. Says Valenti, according to Orwell,

Maria and I had a good laugh, and then we talked it over, and we made out that I didn’t owe Sainte Éloïse anything. Clearly it wasn’t she who had answered the prayer, and there was no need to buy her a candle. So I had my packet of cigarettes after all.

I don’t think Valenti is right, unless he is going to say that of course dead people never answer prayers. And perhaps he normally would say that, since he is an atheist. And yet in hunger he prayed,

Dear Sainte Éloïse, if you exist, please send me some money. I don’t ask for much – just enough to buy some bread and a bottle of wine and get my strength back. Three or four francs would do. You don’t know how grateful I’ll be, Sainte Éloïse, if you help me this once. And be sure, if you send me anything, the first thing I’ll do will be to go and burn a candle for you, at your church down the street. Amen.

So what should he do? I don’t know, but I don’t think the answer relies on ascertaining any physical features of the universe.

I first drafted “Miracles” in 2018, when I was reading Charlotte Brontë’s Villette. The distinction between Protestant and Catholic was a theme of that novel, as for example in the following from Chapter XIII, which may reveal something of the author’s understanding of miracles:

Two lamps hung from the ceiling over the two tables; these were lit at dusk, and their kindling was the signal for school-books being set aside, a grave demeanour assumed, general silence enforced, and then commenced “la lecture pieuse.” This said “lecture pieuse” was, I soon found, mainly designed as a wholesome mortification of the Intellect, a useful humiliation of the Reason; and such a dose for Common Sense as she might digest at her leisure, and thrive on as she best could.

The book brought out (it was never changed, but when finished, recommenced) was a venerable volume, old as the hills – grey as the Hôtel de Ville.

I would have given two francs for the chance of getting that book once into my hands, turning over the sacred yellow leaves, ascertaining the title, and perusing with my own eyes the enormous figments which, as an unworthy heretic, it was only permitted me to drink in with my bewildered ears. This book contained legends of the saints. Good God! (I speak the words reverently) what legends they were. What gasconading rascals those saints must have been, if they first boasted these exploits or invented these miracles. These legends, however, were no more than monkish extravagances, over which one laughed inwardly; there were, besides, priestly matters, and the priestcraft of the book was far worse than its monkery.

That was not one of the many passages from Villette that I looked at in the document of which “Miracles” was originally a chapter. I began the document, observing and asking:

A novel unfolds through time like music. How can it be present at once like a painting?

---

The novel is of interest to me as the story of somebody who finds herself teaching in a foreign country where the language is not her native tongue.

To the “Miracles” post itself I have added criticism of schools in Brontë’s own country. The criticism is by Collingwood and Orwell, along with Richard Beard in “Why public schoolboys like me and Boris Johnson aren’t fit to run our country” (from Sad Little Men).

The last chapter of Collingwood’s first book is called “Miracle.” Collingwood there is dismissive of an approach to the subject that I would propose to take:

It is certainly possible to define miracle in such a way that the whole difficulty is evaded. If we merely say “a miracle is something striking, wonderful, awe-inspiring” – then no problem arises; but such definitions will probably be suggested only by persons to whom controversy has imparted the wisdom of the serpent.

Apparently Collingwood alludes to Matthew 10:

16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

What is given me to say is that “striking, wonderful, awe-inspiring” is precisely what “miraculous” originally means. Etymologically speaking, a miracle is something to admire. It is even something to smile at, these three words all sharing the Indo-European root *smei- (at least according to the scholars at the Linguistics Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin).

The plain etymological sense of “miracle” persists, according to the definitions in several dictionaries, as follows. (I omit the sense of “miracle” as an abbreviation of “miracle play.”)

• Concise Oxford Dictionary, 6th edition (1976):

  Marvellous event due to some supposed supernatural agency; remarkable occurrence; remarkable specimen (of ingenuity, impudence, etc.).

• American Heritage Dictionary, published as the Grolier International Dictionary (1981):

  1. An event that appears unexplainable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God. 2. A person, thing, or event that excites admiring awe.

• Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th edition (1995):

  1 an extraordinary event attributed to some supernatural agency. 2 a any remarkable occurrence. b a remarkable development in some specified area (an economic miracle; the German miracle). 3 (usu. foll. by of) a remarkable or outstanding specimen (the plan was a miracle of ingenuity).

Apparently the dictionaries still treat the primary sense of “miracle” as a technical one. Collingwood refers to it as follows.

The definition which gives rise to our problem is to the effect that a miraculous event is one caused by God’s interference with the course of nature.

The problem in question belongs to the “historical theologian”; if he says that some occurrence

• is not a miracle, he is accused of being an unbeliever;
• is a miracle, he is accused of being “an obscurantist believer in the impossible.”

The real problem would seem to be with those who use “miracle” technically. They should be able to explain that usage clearly.

I can try to explain the following as clearly as anybody could want. In the so-called upper half-plane, consisting of points (x, y) for which y > 0, when we define the length of a path C,

• not in usual Euclidean way, as

  ∫_C √(dx² + dy²),

• but rather as

  ∫_C √(dx² + dy²)/y,

then

• the geodesic lines are precisely
  • the vertical rays with endpoints on the x axis, and
  • the semicircles centered on that axis;
• the geodesic circles are the Euclidean circles lying wholly in the upper half-plane;
• the geodesic center of such a circle is
  • not the arithmetic mean,
  • but the geometric mean, with respect to the x axis, of the endpoints of the vertical diameter.

Thus the upper half-plane becomes a model of Lobachevskian plane geometry. This proves the impossibility of something that people tried to do for two thousand years: derive Euclid’s fifth postulate, the Parallel Postulate, from the other four.

Mathematics is thus a miracle. Does anybody want to deny this?

The technical sense of “miracle” is the primary sense in the big old Oxford English Dictionary; but the OED definition also supplies some useful information in the fine print:

A marvellous event occurring within human experience, which cannot have been brought about by human power or by the operation of any natural agency, and must therefore be ascribed to the special intervention of the Deity or of some supernatural being; chiefly, an act (e.g. of healing) exhibiting control over the laws of nature, and serving as evidence that the agent is either divine or is [sic] specially favoured by God. Phrases, to do, † make, work, † show a miracle.

The L. miraculum in this sense, though common in patristic and later theology, is foreign to the Vulgate, in which the Gr. words rendered ‘miracle’ in the English Bible – σημεῖον ‘sign’, τέρας ‘wonder’, δύναμις ‘power’ or ‘mighty work’, are translated respectively by signum, prodigium, and virtus.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has the best definition of “miracle” that I have found, although it contradicts the OED concerning the Vulgate:

In general, a wonderful thing, the word being so used in classical Latin; in a specific sense, the Latin Vulgate designates by miracula wonders of a peculiar kind, expressed more clearly in the Greek text by the terms τέρατα, δυνάμεις, σημεῖα, i.e., wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God.

(I supplied the Greek letters after consulting the scan at Wikisource; the Greek words are the plurals of those given in the OED.) I would propose two objections:

1. There is no need to say that the wonders are performed “by supernatural power”; the point is already made, and made better, by saying they are “signs … ascribed to God.”
2. The OED is partially correct: the Vulgate does not use the word miracula (or the singular miraculum) in the New Testament (though it does in the Old).

I confirmed this as follows. Having purchased a download of the “full contents of the New Advent website,” I searched its Bible files (which have Greek, English, and Latin versions) for the string miracul and found only the following verses in the Vulgate, given here (from New Advent) after the English of the King James (from AV1611.com) and the Greek of the Septuagint (from New Advent). Proper study of all of this would require knowing Hebrew and the particular texts used by the various translators; also knowing Latin and Greek better than I do. Meanwhile, it seems as if either Jerome had a theological agenda, or else he did not give miraculum the technical meaning that we do.

Italicization in the KJV is supposed to mean there’s no corresponding Hebrew or Greek word. The parenthetical quoted English words are from the RSV.

1. Exodus 11:7

   But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference (“distinction”) between the Egyptians and Israel.

   καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ οὐ γρύξει κύων τῇ γλώσσῃ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους ὅπως εἰδῇς ὅσα παραδοξάσει κύριος ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν Αἰγυπτίων καὶ τοῦ Ισραηλ

   Apud omnes autem filios Israël non mutiet canis ab homine usque ad pecus: ut sciatis quanto miraculo dividat Dominus Ægyptios et Israël.

2. Numbers 26:10

   And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men: and they became a sign (“warning”).

   καὶ ἀνοίξασα ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς κατέπιεν αὐτοὺς καὶ Κορε ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ τῆς συναγωγῆς αὐτοῦ ὅτε κατέφαγεν τὸ πῦρ τοὺς πεντήκοντα καὶ διακοσίους καὶ ἐγενήθησαν ἐν σημείῳ

   et aperiens terra os suum devoravit Core, morientibus plurimis, quando combussit ignis ducentos quinquaginta viros. Et factum est grande miraculum,

3. 1 Samuel 14:15

   And there was trembling (“panic”) in the host, in the field, and among all the people: the garrison, and the spoilers, they also trembled, and the earth quaked: so it was a very great trembling (“panic”).

   καὶ ἐγενήθη ἔκστασις ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ καὶ ἐν ἀγρῷ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οἱ ἐν μεσσαβ καὶ οἱ διαφθείροντες ἐξέστησαν καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἤθελον ποιεῖν καὶ ἐθάμβησεν ἡ γῆ καὶ ἐγενήθη ἔκστασις παρὰ κυρίου

   Et factum est miraculum in castris per agros : sed et omnis populus stationis eorum qui ierant ad prædandum, obstupuit, et conturbata est terra : et accidit quasi miraculum a Deo.

4. Job 33:7

   Behold, my terror (“fear of me”) shall not make thee afraid, neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee.

   οὐχ ὁ φόβος μού σε στροβήσει οὐδὲ ἡ χείρ μου βαρεῖα ἔσται ἐπὶ σοί

   Verumtamen miraculum meum non te terreat, et eloquentia mea non sit tibi gravis.

5. Isaiah 21:4

   My heart panted, fearfulness affrighted me: the night of my pleasure hath he turned into fear (“trembling”) unto me.

   ἡ καρδία μου πλανᾶται καὶ ἡ ἀνομία με βαπτίζει ἡ ψυχή μου ἐφέστηκεν εἰς φόβον

   Emarcuit cor meum; tenebræ stupefecerunt me : Babylon dilecta mea posita est mihi in miraculum.

6. Isaiah 29:14 (note also the use of admirationem; but I did not search for such relatives of miraculum).

   Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder (“wonderful and marvelous”): for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

   διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ προσθήσω τοῦ μεταθεῖναι τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον καὶ μεταθήσω αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν κρύψω

   ideo ecce ego addam ut admirationem faciam populo huic miraculo grandi et stupendo; peribit enim sapientia a sapientibus ejus, et intellectus prudentium ejus abscondetur.

7. Jeremiah 23:32

   Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness (“recklessness”); yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord.

   ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς προφητεύοντας ἐνύπνια ψευδῆ καὶ διηγοῦντο αὐτὰ καὶ ἐπλάνησαν τὸν λαόν μου ἐν τοῖς ψεύδεσιν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν τοῖς πλάνοις αὐτῶν καὶ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς καὶ οὐκ ἐνετειλάμην αὐτοῖς καὶ ὠφέλειαν οὐκ ὠφελήσουσιν τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον

   Ecce ego ad prophetas somniantes mendacium, ait Dominus, qui narraverunt ea, et seduxerunt populum meum in mendacio suo et in miraculis suis, cum ego non misissem eos, nec mandassem eis : qui nihil profuerunt populo huic, dicit Dominus.

8. Jeremiah 44:12 (I don’t see anything in the Greek corresponding to “astonishment” or miraculum)

   And I will take the remnant of Judah, that have set their faces to go into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, and they shall all be consumed, and fall in the land of Egypt; they shall even be consumed by the sword and by the famine: they shall die, from the least even unto the greatest, by the sword and by the famine: and they shall be an execration, and an astonishment (“horror”), and a curse, and a reproach.

   τοῦ ἀπολέσαι πάντας τοὺς καταλοίπους τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ πεσοῦνται ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν λιμῷ ἐκλείψουσιν ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου καὶ ἔσονται εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς ἀπώλειαν καὶ εἰς κατάραν

   Et assumam reliquias Judæ, qui posuerunt facies suas ut ingrederentur terram Ægypti, et habitarent ibi, et consumentur omnes in terra Ægypti : cadent in gladio, et in fame, et consumentur a minimo usque ad maximum : in gladio et in fame morientur, et erunt in jusjurandum, et in miraculum, et in maledictionem, et in opprobrium.

I also searched for mirac (as in “miracle” or “miraculous”) in the King James Version. First I looked separately at each gospel, at Acts, and at the first two epistles, as found on Wikisource, because single pages there contain whole books. Then I realized that Project Gutenberg had the whole KJV on one page, and I finished my work (and confirmed the earlier work) with this. Thus there are five instances of mirac in the Old Testament, 32 in the New, as follows; the Greek and Latin are again from New Advent.

Exodus

7:8 And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
7:9 When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle (“miracle,” σημεῖον ἢ τέρας, signa) for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent.

Numbers

14:22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa), which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;
14:23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:

Deuteronomy

11:2 And know ye this day: for I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the Lord your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm,
11:3 And his miracles, and his acts (“his signs and his deeds,” τὰ σημεῖα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ τέρατα αὐτοῦ, signa et opera), which he did in the midst of Egypt unto Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and unto all his land;

---

9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle (“mighty work,” δύναμις, virtus) in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Luke

One instance, in chapter 23:

8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle (“sign,” σημεῖον, signum) done by him.

John

Several instances.

2:11 This beginning of miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa) did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa) which he did.

---

3:1 THERE was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa) that thou doest, except God be with him.

---

4:54 This is again the second miracle (“sign,” σημεῖον, signum) that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judea into Galilee.

---

6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa) which he did on them that were diseased.

6:14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle (“sign,” σημεῖον, signum) that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa), but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

---

7:31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa) than these which this man hath done?

---

9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa)? And there was a division among them.

---

10:41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle (“sign,” σημεῖον, signum): but all things that John spake of this man were true.

---

11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa).

---

12:18 For this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle (“sign,” σημεῖον, signum).

12:37 But though he had done so many miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa) before them, yet they believed not on him:

Acts

2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles (“mighty works,” δυνάμεις, virtutes) and wonders (“wonders,” τέρατα, prodigia) and signs (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa), which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

---

4:16 Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle (“sign,” σημεῖον, signum) hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.

4:22 For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle (“sign,” σημεῖον, signum) of healing was shewed.

---

6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles (“great wonders and signs,” τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα, prodigia et signa magna) among the people.

---

8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa) which he did.

8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs (“signs and great miracles,” σημεῖα καὶ δυνάμεις μεγάλας, signa et virtutes maximas) which were done.

---

15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders (“signs and wonders,” σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, signa et prodigia) God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

---

19:11 And God wrought special miracles (“extraordinary miracles,” δυνάμεις τε οὺ τὰς τυχούσας “powers not by chance,” virtutesque non quaslibet) by the hands of Paul:

Romans

No instance of “miracle.”

I Corinthians

“Miracle” occurs only in chapter 12.

10 To another the working of miracles (“miracles,” δυνάμεις, virtutes); to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles (“workers of miracles,” δυνάμεις, virtutes), then gifts of healings (“healers,” χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, gratias curationum), helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles (“miracles,” δυνάμεις, virtutes)?

Galatians

3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles (“miracles,” δυνάμεις, virtutes) among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Hebrews

2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles (“by signs and wonders and various miracles,” σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσιν, signis et portentis, et variis virtutibus) and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Revelation

13:13 And he doeth great wonders (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa), so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa) which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

---

16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa), which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

---

19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles (“signs,” σημεῖα, signa) before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

In all of those passages of the New Testament, the Revised Standard Version uses,

• for σημεῖον, “sign”;
• for δύναμις,
  • “mighty work” in Mark 9:39 and Acts 2:22,
  • “miracle” in the other cases (Acts 8:13 and 19:12, I Corinthians 12, Galatians 3:5, and Hebrews 2:4);
• for τέρας, “wonder,” in each case (Acts 2:22, 6:8, and 15:12, and Hebrews 2:4)

It may good to change the “miracle” of the King James to “sign,” if the former word has developed new connotations since 1611. I think the word inevitably has new connotations, if only because our scientific understanding of nature has developed.

C. S. Lewis refers to this development in “A Chapter of Red Herrings,” which is Chapter VII of Miracles: A Preliminary Study. (I use the 1947 edition, as published online by Faded Page; as far as I can tell, the 1960 edition differs mainly if not exclusively in Chapter III.)

Any day you may hear a man (and not necessarily a disbeliever in God) say of some alleged miracle, ‘No. Of course I don’t believe that. We know it is contrary to the laws of Nature. People could believe it in olden times because they didn’t know the laws of Nature. We know now that it is a scientific impossibility’.

I continue to agree with the person to whom Lewis gives a voice. A violation of the laws of nature is a “scientific impossibility.” It is even a logical impossibility, a contradiction in terms. However, I agree also with Lewis, that the impossibility of breaking (what one has thought to be) a law of nature is not something known from experience:

Granted that miracles can occur, it is, of course, for experience to say whether one has done so on any given occasion. But mere experience, even if prolonged for a million years, cannot tell us whether the thing is possible. Experiment finds out what regularly happens in Nature: the norm or rule to which she works. Those who believe in miracles are not denying that there is such a norm or rule: they are only saying that it can be suspended.

I don’t think that last part can be right for somebody who has really thought through what it means. Collingwood shows well in Religion and Philosophy that God’s rules are not such as would ever need suspending:

These are the causes of human abnormality; defect in the man or defect in the rule. Neither cause can be operative in the case of God. He is not vacillating and infirm of purpose; and he is not subject to the occurrence of events whose possibility he had overlooked. No reason, in fact, can ever arise why God should ever depart from his own rules of conduct.

I don’t know whether Lewis ever read those words, although he did read others by Collingwood: Chapter IV of Lewis’s Miracles has an epigraph from Collingwood’s Idea of Nature (1945). In Chapter VIII, Lewis will modify what he says about suspending rules:

The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern.

Collingwood questions the whole idea of a pattern:

The conception of a rule or norm thus leads not to the explanation but to the denial of miracle. Abnormality implies that either the rule or the exception was wrong; alternatives equally impossible to the divine wisdom.

… we must ask whether the conception of normality is sound; whether it is true to say that God always acts in perfect conformity to perfect principles. The doctrine as stated appears simple and unobjectionable, but it is in fact either tautologous or misleading.

For example, following a rule is not in itself virtuous; it should be the right rule, for the right reason, and even then the fact that there was a rule at all is accidental.

In conduct the only thing that confers moral value is motive; and if one is conscious of no motive except obedience to a rule, one cannot claim the action as a moral one. Whereas if one is conscious of the action as a duty, its legality no longer makes any difference.

See a later post, “Foresight,” on Aristotle’s expression of this. Meanwhile, we have already seen God warn against the rule that might be formulated as, “Always follow the miracle-worker.”

Still, our own lives are governed by rules, and we see rules in nature, and we can conceive of a breaking of those rules. Lewis’s response to rejection of the concept of virgin birth seems fair enough:

… you will hear people say, ‘The early Christians believed that Christ was the son of a virgin, but we know that this is a scientific impossibility’ … Such people seem to have an idea that belief in miracles arose at a period when men were so ignorant of the course of nature that they did not perceive a miracle to be contrary to it. A moment’s thought shows this to be nonsense: and the story of the Virgin Birth is a particularly striking example … When St. Joseph finally accepted the view that his fiancée’s pregnancy was due not to unchastity but to a miracle, he accepted the miracle as something contrary to the known order of nature. All records of miracles teach the same thing.

Mary’s pregnancy was contrary to the known order; but order of what?

According to Lewis, “If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws.” It’s hard to believe that Lewis is ignorant of the law of conservation of mass, which itself would be violated by the putative “miraculous spermatazoon.”

Joseph was not aware of spermatazoa; they were first observed by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in 1677. On the other hand, van Leeuwenhoek believed he had something to look for, a physical contribution of the male in an act of conception. Perhaps Joseph believed in the same thing. Nonetheless, the only Biblical account of what Joseph accepted in his fiancée is in Matthew 1:

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin (ἡ παρθένος) shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew here is quoting Isaiah 7:14. It was pointed out to me by a graduate-school classmate (who later migrated to Israel) that the Hebrew word rendered παρθένος in Greek and “virgin” in English can mean simply a young woman and even a young woman who has sexual experience, as in Proverbs 30:

18 There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not:
19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.

A serpent on sand would leave a trace; a ship in the shallows would leave a wake; a man with a virgin would leave blood. Thus where the KJV has “with a maid,” the translation accompanying the Hebrew just linked to has “with a young woman.” The Septuagint and Vulgate somehow avoid the issue, speaking of a man not with a maid, but in youth (ἐν νεότητι, in adolescentia).

I suspect what matters to Joseph is not so much whether Mary comes to him as a virgin, as whether other people believe she does. There is no indication that the angel warned everybody else not to gossip about the old man’s young bride.

Why then does the Joseph of Matthew’s account adopt the son of his wife? I see no reason for it to have anything to do with a “miraculous spermatazoon.”

Christianity preaches a savior who accepted death by torture. Why should he not turn out to be the adopted son of a man who accepted an unchaste wife?