There are a number of sources outside of the New Testament which indicate that Jesus had a reputation for being a miracle worker. The non-Christian writer has no real reason to create a Jesus that preformed miracles especially of those miracles were intended to validate his message. While the evidence is meager, it is an indication that Jesus’ reputation as a miracle worker was known outside of the Christian community by people that would have no interest in enhancing Jesus’ reputation. Josephus attributes miracles to Jesus, as does the Babylonian Talmud. In the second century Origen quotes the heretic Celsus as thinking that Jesus learned his magical arts in Egypt, and when he returned to Galilee he did miracles in order to claim to be God (in Contra Celsus, 1.38, cf 1.160). Celsus is late evidence since he is living at the end of the first century and likely only knows Jesus through the Gospel traditions. A rather indirect piece of evidence is that the name of Jesus is associate with healing spells and exorcisms. The evidence for exorcisms is rather late (AD 330), but rabbis forbid using Jesus name in healings as well.
The so-called criterion of authenticity can applied to the miracle stories. For example, all strata of the tradition indicates that Jesus did miracles, including Mark, Q, M/L, and John. This ought to satisfy the criterion of Multiple Attestation since miracles appear in all of the various forms suggested by form criticism. Given the methodology of even the Jesus Seminar, one can confidently conclude that Jesus had the reputation as a miracle worker, that he claimed to do miracles, healings, etc.
The criterion of plausibility argues that an event is more likely historical if it is a plausible event. If this is applied to the miracles, many will dismiss miracles because they do not seem plausible. What is or is not plausible is highly subjective, and very often implausible events actually occur. To me, it is implausible that anyone claiming to be a messiah in the Second Temple Period would not do miracles. While the modern worldview would dismiss miracles as implausible, the Second Temple Period would require them if Jesus was to be taken seriously as the messiah!
This is the sort of thing that Anthony Le Donne suggests in his The Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: 2011). There are many memories of Jesus acting as a a healer or exorcist, even raising the dead. These memories are in a wide range sources, and there is variation among these sources. Le Donne refers to this as memory refraction – people are the same events with slight variations, but the main contours of the event are the same. These variations actually increase the likelihood that a given event is historical (130). In the case of Jesus’ miracles, not only are there variations on the same event, but many miracles around given themes (healing, exorcism etc).
The criterion of embarrassment is more helpful. If a deed seems like it might have been an embarrassment to the growing theology of Jesus, and they passed it along anyway, it has a greater claim to validity. The healing of the woman with the flow of blood, for example, has Jesus healing the woman without really consciously thinking about it, the power just “went out of him” and he did not know who it was that touched him.
In addition, Jesus was known to have been a man of prayer, yet there are no stories in which Jesus prays in connection to a healing. If the early church were going to create or enhance the prayers of Jesus (which they very well may have), it is remarkable that they did not create prayers to be added to the miracles of Jesus. This means that Jesus did not heal in the same way Jewish holy men healed, through prayer and ritual.
In short, it is historically plausible that Jesus was known as a miracle worker during his own lifetime, even if the modern thinker dismisses the possibility of miracles. Do these sorts of “criteria” for authenticity work for miracles in Jesus’ ministry Or is this a case of “preaching to the choir”? For example, what is the difference between my argument here and saying, “lots of people think Santa brings the presents at Christmas so it must be true”?
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 17, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Bill Heroman
Phillip, forgive me, but the title of this post should have been, “Jesus’ miracles as historically plausible” or “as historically credible” or “Accepting the historicity of Jesus’ miracles”. My point being, none of that is “History” per se, because History, like Theology, is something we write.
The Gospels are histories, or at least works which, whatever their genre, do attempt to convey historical events, and that makes them written histories, at least of a sort. But while I appreciate that defending their “authenticity” seems worthwhile to many, simply accepting it remains good enough for me.
At any rate, proper historiography treats the historicity question as a starting point, not a sisyphean struggle for shoring up credibility. That’s what makes the new memory approach by Le Donne & Allison so intriguing. While it may still be in some ways reductive, it does promise to build a picture of Jesus based on all four Gospels, and in line with their actual testimony.
It’s not all that I wish for, certainly, but so far I think it’s a step in the right direction.
October 18, 2012 at 6:40 am
Phillip J. Long
I suppose that adding the word “plausible” is a good idea, there is nothing here that is a “smoking gun” which proves the miracles happened. The “Jesus Remembered” view (throw Dunn a few others into this approach as well) is intriguing, but I have always wondered: does remembering non-truth somehow make it true? A whole generation of my students can tell the story of Lord of the Rings – we know it is fiction, but if the story was told over several generations which did not know it was fiction in the first place (or were told it was a fact), would that story attain the status of historical fact?
That is the reason for my “preaching to the choir” conclusion – Le Donne et al works well for me, because I already think these miracles have a basis in fact / history.
By throwing out several of the criteria for authenticity (multiple attestation, embarrassment, execution, etc.) I think that there is a case for the plausibility of the miracles, with history there are always going to me questions.
October 21, 2012 at 12:49 pm
John Caprari
In the culture we live in today, I believe its absolutely necessary to be able to use the historicity of the Gospels and Jesus’ miracles if it’s available as a means of defending or proving it’s validity. I agree with Mr. Heroman on the aspect of just accepting, believing, or simply having faith. But, there is such a thing called Apologetic’s and it should be used. I’m aware not everything is capable to be defended and there needs to be a degree of faith alone. But in the skeptical and questioning world we live in today, if there is evidence that proves authenticity, it should be taken advantage of. For example if there is trustworthy evidence that a ball player took steroids, it will be believed. If there is enough evidence and enough people who attest, one can be found innocent or guilty in court. On the other hand, if there is not enough evidence, people won’t automatically just believe. For example, there is a lack of evidence when it comes to proving the government had no part in destroying the twin towers, there are people who believe the government was involved in the towers’ destruction because of a lack of evidence. It seems ignorant when people deny the plausibility of Jesus’ miracles. Strauss writes, “While the study of miracles is outside the realm of strict scientific investigation, it is not outside the realm of historical research, which depends on the written and oral reports of those who witnessed such events” (Strauss 457). We find accounts of Jesus’ miracles in Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Q. There are also references to Jesus’ miracles in “a variety of Gospel genres, including miracle stories, pronouncement stories, controversy stories, sayings, parables, commissioning accounts, passion narratives, and summaries of Jesus’ activities” (Strauss 458). There are also references to Jesus’ miracles outside of the New Testament. Josephus makes a statement referring to Jesus’ miracles and the Babylonian Talmud claims Jesus was killed not only because he led Israel astray but for practicing magic. There is also the early church leader Origen who believed Jesus learned magical powers in Egypt and was performing them. These are a few sources that prove that Jesus was widely known as a miracle worker. This evidence in history proves authenticity to the plausibility of the miraculous done by Jesus.
October 21, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Kyle Vegh
I think your comment that “not everything is capable to be defended and there needs to be a degree of faith alone” is very applicable to our current topic. If there are any areas of Christian history that we have little evidence to be able to support, I honestly think they deserve faith. Our faith has been demonstrated to be accurate in so many different ways, that we can reasonably accept those things that we can’t necessarily demonstrate to be true beyond a doubt. And while miracles themselves may or may not be that thing that we cannot provide evidence for (although Strauss admits, “there is little information outside of the account [of a particular miracle] itself by which to judge it,” (458-459) some might argue that, although perhaps done for different purposes/in different ways than done in the first century, there are many miracles that happen all around the world and that is enough to believe), I believe that we, as Christians, should be prepared to take steps of faith when required in response to the vast supply of evidence God has provided for our belief.
October 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Kyle Vegh
Before I get to my post, may I just ask why, as Strauss is talking about how “miracles appear in all strata of the Gospel tradition” (Strauss 458), he mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Q, but he abbreviates Matthew and Luke as M and L respectively?
Not only that, but I have another question slightly related to the above one. Q is a theoretical document, correct? Because Strauss mentions on page 462 that a certain story “appears in both Mark and Q.” How would we know if this story is found in Q if no such document exists today?
The arguments we use to demonstrate the authenticity of Christ’s miracles are far more reliable than the flimsy and dubious arguments people attempt to use to authenticate other things. With other things, such as world religions, fantasies or shaky histories, there is very little reliable eyewitness evidence and documentation. In answer to Long’s question, “what is the difference between my argument here and saying, ‘lots of people think Santa brings the presents at Christmas so it must be true’?” I would say that there is a large difference between believing in something because of wishful thinking and believing in something because of sound historical documentation, especially from eyewitnesses, and even more especially from eyewitnesses who were Christ’s enemies not at all inclined to make people want to believe in him. Even his enemies of the first century did not try to dismiss that he was performing miracles, but they instead tried to insist that these miracles were not from God. Consider, as Strauss did, Luke 11:15, where the Pharisees don’t refute his exorcism, but instead “accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub” (Strauss 462). Or look at John 9, in which a man who had been born blind was given sight. In v. 16, the Pharisees question the man about the healing and, instead of denouncing the fact that he was healed (because it was obvious he had been, since he was known to be blind from birth) they say that he was “not from God” because he healed on the Sabbath. The testimony of Jesus’ enemies provides great support for the claims of Christianity.
October 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Phillip J. Long
“How would we know if this story is found in Q if no such document exists today?” – A fair question, perhaps the best way to think of this as every “potential layer of tradition.” Or, “every proposed layer.” If there is no Q, then obviously it does not matter if there is a Miracle Story in Q.
October 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Joseph Furno
To be honest I see this more as a “lots of people think Santa brings them presents on Christmas so it must be true.” Now don’t get me wrong I believe in the miracles that Jesus performed. I just don’t really see any of the examples you gave as solid evidence that could hold up in a court room. What it really comes down to is faith. I honestly don’t think there will ever be a point on earth when we’ll be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus did/or didn’t do all the miracles that the Bible says he did. As a Christian though we can look at evidence there is for the miracles and combine that with faith.
October 21, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Jared Kusz
While I do not think there is enough out there to “prove” that Jesus did indeed perform these miracles, I do think that there is enough evidence (as pointed out by Dr. Long) to open up the question of historical relevancy. Moreover, there is enough to take the rational historian from complete dismissal of fabricated fairy tales to a point of considering the miracles as historical options. But that opinion of mine goes nowhere in a culture of subjective thinking rooted in a culture of rationalized thinking and scientific proofs. So we must, in a sense, rely on some of the arguments brought to our attention in the above blog. Those are all steps toward appeasing the modern day thinker and allowing those who believe in the credibility of Jesus’ miracles the right to stand at the podium and offer up our thoughts and rationale.
October 21, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Marissa Pelletier
I agree with Kyle that there is a big difference between believing “lots of people think Santa brings the presents at Christmas so it must be true.” Believing that Santa brings gifts is totally different in believing that Jesus did miracles. It is important to state that Jesus was historically known as a healer and exorcist (Strauss, 458). Strauss says, “The historian’s role is to find out what happened, not to assume what could or could not have happened” (457). The accounts given to us about Jesus can help us understand who Jesus was and what he did. That’s why it is important to look at the historical evidence. I agree with Joseph Furno that it does come down to faith in whether or not you believe Jesus did perform miracles.
October 22, 2012 at 12:32 am
Ty Cook
I agree with the ideas that Jared and Joe brought up, but I would say there is strength to an argument for plausibility. I agree that, in the end, it is about faith. There will never be 100% indisputable proof that Jesus performed miracles. It comes down to belief. However, there is strength for an argument of plausibility. The difference between the Santa analogy and Jesus is the varying accounts of Jesus being a miracle worker. It is in the Gospels and in others sources. This was perhaps the most interesting part of it for me. Seeing that Josephus, the Talmud, and Origen all recognize Jesus as a miracle worker is good support. Josephus is an ancient historian that is often referenced as a credible source for ancient history. This presence of non-Christian literature acknowledging Jesus as a miracle worker is great support for the plausibility. But as I said earlier, it comes down to faith. It is plausible but whether it is fact or not comes down to faith.