8: Jesus the Healer

8: Jesus the Healer

8

Jesus the Healer

This chapter will not address whether Jesus’s amazing deeds recorded in the first and second centuries were actually miracles in the sense of having been actions performed by God. That question is an extension of this one and will await a later discussion in this study, especially since it involves various philosophical and theological issues left largely unanswered in reflections on whether or not Jesus healed sick individuals, cast out demons, or raised the dead. So when the word miracle is utilized here, it is more in the sense of amazing feats and real healings performed by Jesus.

Rather, taken in a more straightforward manner, the chief issue to be investigated here is a historical one: whether or not events such as the mighty deeds depicted in the early Gospels attributed to Jesus, or other deeds similar to them, actually occurred. Thus it should be noted carefully that when the word miracle is used in this chapter, it reflects the terms and ideas used in the various ancient texts without making judgments in this context as to whether God actually performed these events. In this sense, it is basically the idea of “miracle claims” that is discussed here.

Jesus’s Miracle Claims and Contemporary Scholarship

An absolutely amazing feature in recent critical New Testament thought is the significant alteration that has developed regarding the scholarly attitude concerning this topic.1 Due to the evidential application of historical considerations to the Gospels (which will be examined later in this chapter), critical scholars virtually across the scholarly spectrum acknowledge that Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. As already explained at the outset of this chapter, this is not necessarily to answer the questions of what really or exactly happened on those occasions or what was the ultimate cause of the events in the sense of being from God’s hand and so on, but it is granted by scholars today that events at least very similar to those depicted in the Gospels actually did occur. This is the case even for more skeptical researchers.

Earlier in the previous century, even the New Testament skeptical scholar Rudolf Bultmann acknowledged that there could be no doubt that Jesus healed sick individuals and expelled demons.2 Further, some of these miracle accounts “originated in the earliest church.”3 Much more recently, Jarl Fossum notes: “That Jesus was a miracle worker is central to the Christology of the New Testament Gospels and Acts.”4 Perhaps surprisingly, prominent Jesus Seminar member Marcus Borg attested quite strongly, “Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.” Further, Jesus’s healing cases clearly cannot all be accounted for simply as “faith healings” alone, for we just do not know how far Jesus’s powers actually extended.5 Prominent historical Jesus researcher John Meier states, “In sum, the statement that Jesus acted as and was viewed as an exorcist and healer during his public ministry has as much historical corroboration as almost any other statement we can make about the Jesus of history.”6

Such often positive statements and conclusions could be multiplied many times over from the relevant critical literature. Though many of these New Testament and other scholars include atheists, agnostics, Jewish authorities, and many skeptics among their numbers, they still agree often that the available data indicate clearly that Jesus was in some sense a healer and exorcist.7

Few scholars have provided more meticulous analyses on this topic than either John Meier or Graham Twelftree. Meier concluded his over 400-page in-depth study by judging that more than 40 percent of the miracle claims presented in the Gospel texts actually correspond to specific historical occurrences from the life of Jesus. As indicated above, Meier quite amazingly concluded from Jesus’s actions during his public ministry that not only was he viewed widely as a healer and exorcist, but that there is as much historical verification for these aspects of his life as there is for almost anything else that may be said about the historical Jesus. In fact, these aspects are much better evidenced than many other assertions made about Jesus, ones that are often considered to be settled issues.8 The meticulous nature of Meier’s studies on the available data pertaining to the historical Jesus has made him as influential as almost any scholar in this field, indicating the worth of his contribution to this topic.

In an even lengthier critical study, Twelftree concluded that a much higher percentage (approximately 76 percent) of the Gospel miracle accounts accurately portray historical events in Jesus’s life. Twelftree’s study indicated findings quite similar to Meier’s: “There is hardly any aspect of the life of the historical Jesus which is so well and widely attested as that he conducted unparalleled wonders.” Astonishingly, these miraculous deeds “were the most important aspect of Jesus’ whole pre-Easter ministry.”9

Crucially as well, neither Meier nor Twelftree discount the remaining Gospel miracle accounts where there is insufficient historical evidence to actually establish these occurrences as individual events. Hence, the accounts may very well describe healings and exorcisms that actually happened. Both scholars agree that a lack of evidence fails to disqualify an event; this just indicates that the other examples cannot be proven by the canons of probability.

That the sum of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms may indeed mark the centermost of Jesus’s pre-Passion actions, as mentioned by Twelftree, is another means of marking their importance. That Jesus pointed to his miracles as indications that he was God’s spokesperson is still another signal as to the import of these occurrences.10

Craig Keener is another New Testament scholar who investigates the topic of miracles in minute detail. His treatment of Jesus’s miracles is not as comprehensive per se, since his emphasis is quite clearly placed on contemporary miracle claims. Rather than examining the historical intricacies of the Gospel pericopes, as do Meier and Twelftree, Keener chiefly and helpfully provides an overview of the current scholarly discussion.

Keener argues that all ancient sources likewise agreed that Jesus performed miracles, including ancient non-Christian texts from both the Jewish rabbis as well as from the early philosophical critic Celsus. Quite surprisingly, none of these ancient texts attempted either to deny or refute the Christian claims. Additionally, Keener enumerates approximately a dozen different ancient reports that record Jesus’s miracles, including the five most commonly identified Gospel sources (Q, Mark, M, L, and John).11 He also finds that there is very little development over the time between the composition of the Gospels, concluding, “The essential substance of the miracles themselves remains unchanged.”12

Keener likewise briefly addresses the state of recent scholarly views on the subject of Jesus’s miracles, especially from within the ranks of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus. Several exceptionally positive affirmations are reproduced from these critical scholars, including even the radical critic Morton Smith, whom Keener terms the “most skeptical toward the Gospel tradition.” Yet, while Smith dismisses Jesus’s miracles, he still “argues that miracle working is the most authentic part of the Jesus tradition.” Keener ends this chapter by posing two methodological sorts of questions for later discussions: the potential contrast of Christian with non-Christian miracle claims and the huge issue of contemporary a priori assumptions against miraculous events.13

Borg notes three indications why the historicity of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms is virtually undisputed even by the vast majority of critical scholars. Initially, these reports are affirmed in the “earliest sources” that we possess. Further, these occurrences were thought to be “relatively common in the world around Jesus” in that general time.14 Lastly, Jesus’s opponents did not contest the proclamations that he did healings and exorcisms, but “they claimed that his powers came from the lord of the evil spirits,” thereby admitting the existence of the events themselves by their very criticism. In this way, Jesus’s disciples, the crowds of people who heard and saw Jesus, and even his adversaries all agreed to what happened and that at least these healings and exorcisms were due to Jesus’s skills and power.15

More interestingly for some, it might even be stated according to Borg that the major determination in Jesus’s time was not the miracles themselves, which were recognized as actual events. Rather, the chief concern was the teachings brought by the wonder worker. What did the individual teach as following from their miracles? In the view of the Gospel authors as well as for Jesus, his mighty acts were done by the power and authority of God.16

So the scholarly attitude has changed rather significantly during the past few decades regarding whether or not Jesus actually performed events such as those recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. It is almost unanimous, even among quite skeptical scholars, that Jesus was in some sense a healer and an exorcist, however these events are ultimately explained or interpreted. The Synoptic authors also maintain that these events were linked to the hand of God and were performed by God’s power. As such, Jesus’s miracles were caught up as an integral part of the overall divine plan. This is especially the case when understood within the ancient Jewish context, as we shall see.

More specifically in terms of the various messages themselves, we see miraculous occurrences utilized in the texts to vindicate Jesus’s forgiveness of sins and to argue repeatedly that he was the Messiah, that he had both claimed and been given other divine titles, that he was God’s chosen messenger especially regarding the coming of God’s kingdom, and that his teachings were true. In him, God was confronting people with a choice. In short, what they did with Jesus determined whether or not they could enter God’s kingdom. Intriguingly, even Jesus’s exorcisms were employed as pointers to messages such as his triumph over Satan (Mark 3:22–27) as well as the connection to the presence of God’s kingdom (Luke 11:20). All of this and more was said to follow from the occurrence of his miracles and exorcisms.

Even a majority of recent critical scholars hold that Jesus thought his miracles confirmed both his person as well as his message.17 In fact, Twelftree remarks, the evidence indicates that “because of his miracles, Jesus appears to have been conscious that he was God’s key figure.”18 I. H. Marshall affirms that Jesus’s resurrection served as “the decisive stimulus” in causing the early Christians to recognize that Jesus was deity.19 Such critical recognition is not surprising, since the Gospel comments indicating that Jesus thought in terms of the miraculous confirmation of his message are reflected by very strong multiple attestations, being found in at least four sources (Mark, Q, M, and John).

In other words, against this general backdrop and according to the data, Jesus predicted his resurrection and performed healings and exorcisms apparently in addition to nature miracles.20 Further, he taught that all of these items were accrediting signs that verified his personal claims and teachings. Moreover, perhaps even the majority of critical scholars have argued repeatedly that Jesus was also raised from the dead, just as he had proclaimed earlier in his ministry. What would this overall scenario look like from the Jewish perspective? As Borg explains, Jesus’s opponents did not deny his miracles. Rather, they admitted them while attributing them to evil powers. But this move actually only succeeded in pointing both to Jesus’s holiness as well as to his healing authority.21

The Historical Data behind the Critical Observations

This is one of the few chapters across this entire study where we began by leading with the second step of the minimal facts method—namely, the critical scholarly views on this subject—rather than with the actual evidence, in spite of the concrete data constituting by far the most crucial element in every one of our topics. This reversal is due to the startling nature of what almost all critical scholars admit freely. Even though many of these critical scholars do not recognize the supernatural element in Jesus’s actions, they usually do acknowledge that real healings genuinely took place. Therefore, cases like those described in the Gospels, and perhaps even basically the same ones depicted there, are recognized and accepted. These research judgments still tend to attract surprise and attention, hence setting up a discussion of the ensuing data that led to these scholarly positions in the first place.

We turn now to the evidential considerations to sample some of the major types and special instances of historical evidence on behalf of these critical views pertaining to Jesus’s miracle claims. The considerations thus far have chiefly emphasized Jesus’s reported physical healings and exorcisms, which are by far the most widely recognized in critical terms. While Jesus’s nature miracles are often rejected by some of these same scholars, others decide in their favor. We will list a sizable number of considerations that favor all three categories of Jesus’s claimed miraculous events, beginning with several of the critical historical criteria that were introduced, defined, and have been applied earlier and throughout this volume.22 These tests are quite useful and are often applied as checkpoints that may be applied to the past. Then we will move on to several additional areas of historical attestation.

Historical Criteria

Arguably the strongest and most crucial of the criteria, the Synoptic Gospel miracle and exorcism accounts of Jesus, are multiply attested in every one of the major in-dependent sources that lie behind each of these Gospels—notably Mark, the sayings source Q, M (Matthew’s special material), and L (Luke’s special material). This is recognized across a scholarly consensus from liberals such as the Jesus Seminar to conservatives.23 Further, the few miracle accounts recorded in John’s Gospel along with the lesser possibility of some of the miracle stories in Mark’s Gospel are also thought by many critical scholars to have utilized a Signs or Miracles Source.24

Moreover, even Jesus’s nature miracles are likewise mentioned in each of these canonical Gospel sources, such as the four major Synoptic texts (Mark, Q, M, and L), including a passage in the pre-Gospel source Q, where Jesus describes several of his healing miracles to be passed on to John the Baptist, who apparently was doubting. At the end of this list Jesus includes that “the dead are raised.”25 The other three major sources (Mark, M, and L) also include multiple examples of Jesus’s nature wonders, as does John’s Gospel.

As to the comment above that this may be the strongest of the criteria in favor of Jesus’s miracles, we might recall Ehrman’s comment:

If a saying or deed of Jesus is found in only one source, then it is possible that the source simply made it up. But if a word or action is found in several sources and they did not collaborate with one another, then none of them made it up; the tradition must predate them. If it is found independently in a number of sources, the probability of its being reliable is increased, assuming, of course, that it is contextually credible.26

Pertinent to Ehrman’s assertion here are the independent canonical texts listed above that all attest to Jesus being a miracle worker or an exorcist. These include at least Mark, Q, M, L, John, and Paul, plus the many pre-Pauline creedal traditions found especially in the Epistles and the sermon summaries in Acts. There is also the possibility that Josephus’s non-Christian work, the Antiquities of the Jews, mentions Jesus’s miracles, but this reference is debated by scholars, and its status is unclear. It is noteworthy that virtually this same list of sources would also apply to Jesus’s nature miracles as well.27 Given Ehrman’s chief point above, all of this indicates that the oral traditions behind the data actually preceded them and are hence earlier still.

Altogether very few researchers, including other skeptical scholars, have provided the careful demarcation of individual reports associated with the life of the historical Jesus as that which is provided by Crossan. Granted, some of the dates of Crossan’s sources are contested rather strongly by probably the majority of scholars,28 and the source-attestation counts for a number of these events could be tallied differently. However, having made these comments, Crossan still includes many reported miracles of Jesus in his lists, tallying both according to his chronology as well as his counts of multiple, independently attested sources. The total source count of the individual citations alone regarding Jesus’s life, even gathered together tightly, still tallies almost twenty-five pages of text!29

Regarding chronology, Crossan includes within the earliest “First Stratum” of sources (dated AD 30–60) a number of texts, such as Paul’s authentic epistles, what Crossan terms the “Cross Gospel,” the Gospel of the Hebrews, and a “Miracles Collection” that later became part of the Gospels of Mark and John. These sources contain major events and miracle reports, such as Jesus’s death by crucifixion, and his resurrection and appearances (as in 1 Cor 15:3–7 and many other places). In the “Second Stratum” (AD 60–80) Crossan includes the Gospel of Mark, Colossians, and a “Signs Gospel” that later also became part of John’s Gospel. The “Third Stratum” (AD 80–120) contains the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, John and their miracle and exorcism accounts, plus 1 John, 1 Peter, Clement, Ignatius’s seven epistles, Polycarp, Barnabas, the Didache, and the miraculous events mentioned in each of these.

Regarding the best attested of the miracle reports, Crossan’s earliest stratum contains those accounts accompanied by multiple independent attestations. These occurrences include Jesus’s crucifixion, resurrection, and postresurrection appearances, as well as the teaching of Jesus’s virginal conception. The earliest stratum accounts supported by triple independent attestations include the postresurrection appearance to James along with some of the important items Jesus mentioned about himself. First-stratum accounts involving double independent attestations include Jesus’s burial plus his healings of a leper, a boy cured at a distance, and a blind man. Even the nature reports of Jesus walking on water and Lazarus being raised are part of this doubly attested group.30

This incredible collection of independent texts, oral traditions, and early dates, even by critical scholars, represents a remarkably amazing array of ancient sources that originate from various locations and perspectives that together attest to miracle reports and other key events and teachings attributed to Jesus. As already mentioned, not all of the sources are of the same quality or degree of scholarly recognition and acceptance, nor are they recognized equally. Nonetheless, there remain a sufficient plethora of excellent examples complete with early dates and enough multiple attestations of sources to please almost all critical scholars that Jesus was a miracle worker and exorcist. This array helps explain why critical scholars across a wide consensus acknowledge the likelihood of at least some of these events having occurred more or less as described in the canonical Gospels and elsewhere.

Jesus’s Opponents and Enemy Attestation

It may be recalled that one of Borg’s three reasons for designating Jesus as a healer and exorcist is that while his opponents and critics in the Gospels were in position on many occasions to observe these occurrences, they were left with little or no decent explanations, resorting to calling them blasphemous or attributing them to Satan or Beelzebub (Mark 2:1–12; 3:22; Luke 13:10–17).31 This latter attitude is also attested in Q.32 Jesus’s critics were also present when he performed nature miracles (Matt 28:11–15; Mark 5:39–42; John 11:47–48).

Quite intriguingly, Borg goes well beyond many critical scholars in openly entertaining questions pertaining to the possibility of whether Jesus may actually have performed real exorcisms of evil spirits as well as his doing the nature miracles like those described in the Gospels, noting some intriguing modern considerations and studies as well. Borg raises several worthwhile thoughts here: not all sickness in the Gospels was thought to come from evil spirits, others besides Jesus and his followers were said to have performed similar things too, and not all of Jesus’s healings were “faith healings.” Borg answers that we just cannot be sure that these things cannot occur—we simply do not know.33 As a noteworthy side point, Jesus’s observers did not appear to differentiate between the different types of miracles as modern scholars do, nor did they attempt to explain away the different types.34

Before moving forward, a significant emphasis has emerged here. Our initial two defenses of Jesus’s miracles consisted of the unanimous major source attestation behind the Synoptic Gospels plus the confirmation provided by Jesus’s opponents. According to Borg, applying these data helps make the case for Jesus’s healings and exorcisms practically indisputable among critical scholars. But the additional theme that emerges here is that these same sources also serve to evidence Jesus’s nature miracles as well, which are not as often held by these same scholars. But if this material from each of the Gospel sources counts so significantly on behalf of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, then why would they not also establish the nature miracles as well? It is difficult to accept the first two miracle categories on these data while excluding the third type. This consideration may have been precisely the reason that caused Borg to consider with more openness the subjects of both actual exorcisms as well as nature miracles. Critical protests to the contrary regarding the nature miracles too easily take on at least the appearance of an a priori slant and begin to look like special pleading.35

Miracles Involving Multiple Criteria

Graham Twelftree and John Meier are two specialists on the subject of Jesus’s miracles who have documented many cases where Jesus’s individual healings, exorcisms, and even his nature miracles are supported by more than one historical criterion. Several examples can be enumerated.

The healing of blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10:46–52 (and parallels) provides several clear indications of historicity. The report of this event was almost surely early, pre-dating the Gospel of Mark, as well as most likely being derived at least in part from eyewitness testimony. It also incorporated an embarrassing element, indicates Aramaic origins, and even exhibited at least a partial hint of the criterion of dissimilarity, which is usually thought to be the strictest of these rules. For example, Bartimaeus is one of only two persons who requested a miracle from Jesus in Mark whose proper name is provided, whereas the use of specific names for non-disciples is rare in this Gospel. Further, the name Bartimaeus is Aramaic, and Bartimaeus addresses Jesus as “Rabbouni” in 10:51, which is also a very uncommon Aramaic title for Jesus. Each of these aspects most likely indicates an ancient report that was probably derived from one of Mark’s traditional sources.

Moreover, Bartimaeus addresses Jesus as the “Son of David” (10:47), which is not a pre-Christian Jewish title for the Messiah according to Twelftree, and it is also the only time the title is used in Mark. This fulfills at least partially the dissimilar point just mentioned, and there are other indications that this was a pre-Markan reminiscence. Lastly, the crowd embarrassingly rebukes the blind man in 10:48, which appears to be a very surprising, upsetting, and even nasty reprimand. As Twelftree states, these are all key elements indicating that this account “probably goes back to the memories of Jesus’ audience.”36

Meier likewise remarks concerning the “unusual convergence of an impressive number of elements pointing to historicity” in the case of Bartimaeus. Writing a few years before Twelftree’s work, Meier mentions many of the same points. Meier also adds items such as the specific knowledge of Palestinian geography, Jewish customs, the locations of this occasion, as well as the time of year found in the source.37 Meier concludes with the judgment that the healing of blind Bartimaeus “is one of the strongest candidates for the report of a specific miracle going back to the historical Jesus.”38

In another healing case, of the deaf person who was healed in Mark 7:31–37 (and Matt 15:29–31), there is evidence of early and eyewitness testimony as well as an embarrassing element and another example of an Aramaic term being used. According to Twelftree, these details again indicate the likelihood that “we are reading a story that has good claim to go back to the reports of those who were in Jesus’ audience.”39

Confirming these comments, there are “a remarkable number of non-Markan words in such a short miracle story,” marking this account as one of the lesser known ones in the early church. Moreover, that Jesus utilized his fingers and spittle in the healing process not only differentiates this from Jesus’s normal healing methods but is rather embarrassing as well, hence making it highly unlikely that it is an invented story. Lastly, the term Ephphatha (“Be opened!”) is Aramaic, which is yet another indication of what is likely an original term used by Jesus, hence predating the Gospel of Mark by going back to the very earliest data. Twelftree concludes the matter here: “These considerations taken together augur well for this story’s faithfully reflecting an actual event in the life of the earthly Jesus.”40

Meier notes similar elements to Twelftree, including the non-Markan terms, the embarrassment of Jesus using his saliva, along with the Aramaic command “Ephphatha” in this text. Meier notes that the use of saliva plus Jesus placing his fingers into the man’s ears add discontinuity to the mix too, a strong criterion, meaning that the text was derived neither from previous Jewish sources nor from later Christian sources. Hence, it appears to be authentic. In fact, he concludes that it is the two elements of embarrassment and discontinuity that push this healing example into the historical category.41

Mark 9:14–29 (and parallels) narrates an exorcism by Jesus that exhibits elements of coherence, embarrassment, as well as an early report. The story follows well when compared with typical exorcism cases, pointing to its consistency. Jesus’s rebuke in Mark 9:19 regarding this being a “faithless generation” seems to show Jesus in at least a somewhat negative, embarrassing light, making it highly unlikely that the situation was invented. That Matthew and Luke both seem to tone down the incident somewhat is an indication that Mark most likely preserved the very earliest rendition of the story. Lastly, that later members of the church did not capitalize on Jesus’s comment that prayer was also necessary is an indication that this story was probably not invented later. Twelftree summarizes the incident this way: “We can be confident the story as a whole faithfully reflects an incident in the life of Jesus.”42

Meier comments similarly, adding that there are also a number of Semitisms in this passage, which would most likely indicate it existed originally in Aramaic and therefore was quite early. Accordingly, with all items being considered, Meier is inclined to see this exorcism as a real tradition predating Mark’s account.43

Regarding Jesus’s nature miracles, the events usually placed in this category are the most widely disputed, especially by the most critical members of the scholarly academy. It is also the case that these seem to be viewed this way not because the evidence is horrible, but chiefly because of worldview considerations. Actually, some of the data here are quite exemplary. But the worldview questions cannot be entertained here, especially since they are treated in other places in this study, including in the historiographical chapters at the outset of this present volume.

Meier notes several reasons why the entire category of the so-called nature miracles (which he terms a “catchall category”) needs to be reworked, not the least of which is the miracles’ decided lack of homogeneity among other considerations.44 Still, most crucially, and based on several criteria each along with other arguments, both Twelftree and Meier think the historical evidence favors the key nature miracles of Jesus raising the dead, including the case of Lazarus. They judge all three of these events to rank somewhere between probable and fairly certain as far as referring back to actual events narrated in the Gospels. Twelftree is more positive in his assessment here, but neither scholar rejects any of these three stories of Jesus raising the dead.45

It also should be noted that both of these authors include much more in-depth discussions of these and other miraculous-type incidents in Jesus’s life beyond what has been discussed here. For example, Twelftree has treated over a half dozen additional healing and exorcism cases where more than one criterion or other considerations help to confirm each incident.46 For his part, Meier has four full chapters including the discussions above, plus far more material.47

To sum up the overall case of Jesus’s miracles performed during his ministry: of Twelftree’s count of twenty-nine total miracle cases treated, twenty-two of them are “judged with high confidence to reflect an event or events most likely in the life of the historical Jesus.” Intriguingly enough, this total includes at least five cases of nature miracles, including all three where Jesus is described as having raised dead individuals. Further, “we have found no good evidence that any of the miracle stories are legendary or have their origins outside the Christian tradition.” This leaves a total of only seven miracle accounts where “the nature of historical research is such that these stories cannot, based on available data, be said with the same degree of certainty to reflect . . . an event in the life of the historical Jesus.” But as mentioned elsewhere, this does not mean that these last seven miracle stories did not occur, but only that they could not be established on historical grounds.48

For Meier’s summary, multiple independent source attestation is the most crucial major test that establishes the historicity of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, though the other criteria and certain other considerations all help significantly. Hence, it is the wide convergence of a great many healings and exorcisms spread over a variety of independent sources that best establish the overall case.49 Meier notes that the healings constitute a stronger case than do the more limited number of exorcisms. Quite curiously once again, with the three instances where Jesus is recorded as having raised dead individuals, Meier judges that each one “enjoys remarkably strong multiple attestation in the sources: Mark, John, L, and Q.” This includes the well-known case of Lazarus, which “argues that even during his lifetime Jesus was thought of by his disciples to have raised the dead.” As mentioned earlier, this indicates to Meier that being a healer and exorcist “has as much historical corroboration as almost any other statement” regarding the historical Jesus. Critics who deny or ignore this feature of Jesus’s ministry have produced “a domesticated Jesus.”50

For Twelftree, the overall case for these three categories of events can lead to the conclusion that at least some of these occurrences were genuine miracles, in the sense that God would necessarily have had to intervene in order for them to occur.51 However, this is not the case for Meier, who argues that historical analyses cannot determine whether true miraculous events actually happened.52

Additional Marks of Historicity: Jesus’s Healings and Exorcisms

A fourth indication of historicity for some of Jesus’s extraordinary feats is that a number of prominent critical researchers have argued in favor of various additional historical indicators concerning the narratives pertaining to Jesus’s healings and exorcisms. Some of these signals are rather obscure, precisely something a specialist would recognize that others might not. While it is true these two categories of episodes are seldom questioned, further details may also be helpful beyond those that have already been given.

A number of scholars are impressed with the overall coherence of the entire Gospel landscape, namely, that Jesus’s miracles fit well with the general teaching concerning his person and message. Fuller recognizes this balance of Jesus’s authoritative words and mighty actions: “God is directly present in the words of Jesus” as he imparts his themes of salvation and judgment. Within this entire picture, Jesus’s healings and exorcisms are signposts that indicate the presence of God’s kingdom.53 Bornkamm likewise argues for the congruence that existed between Jesus’s public preaching in concert with his activities. More specifically, Jesus’s miracles were signs that drew people to him, while the authority that he manifested in his teaching did the same. In short, Jesus’s deeds and words fit together perfectly to account for his enormous influence.54

Taking a different path to a similar conclusion, Twelftree notes several historical indications of the authenticity of Jesus’s exorcisms. In contrast to other ancient exorcists of the time, Jesus did not employ material devices, such as placing a root up to the person’s nose. Nor did Jesus command the demon to prove that it had exited the individual’s body by performing some act. Moreover, Jesus did not take the route of other exorcists in utilizing the common formula, “I bind you.” Finally, he did not pray to God to remove the spirit or otherwise invoke other authorities beyond his own power and authority. While recognizing that Jesus’s methods were not totally without parallel, Twelftree points out that he did appeal uniquely to his own authority when he cast out the demons.55

In agreement with Fuller, Bornkamm, and a number of other prominent scholars, Twelftree understands Jesus’s power as an indication of God’s kingdom being enacted in the world. Twelftree sums up these overall corresponding features in the historical Jesus’s life with this powerful comment: “This understanding was unique. Jesus was the first to believe that in the ordinary events of exorcism Satan was being destroyed and the kingdom of God was arriving.”56

Lastly, Jesus Seminar Fellow Bruce Chilton points out elements in Mark’s exorcism story in 1:21–28 which indicate this account was not contrived for the sake of this Gospel. These textual “oddities” indicate its status as a pre-Markan account. For instance, the “most striking oddity” is the demon’s attempt to gain control over Jesus by addressing him by his proper name, thereby placing him on the defensive (1:24). Further, the demon’s expression of violence as it left the possessed man, trying to injure him in the process, is not the means by which Mark usually describes “the magisterial authority of Jesus’ exorcism” and thereby also serves as another indication of the account’s authenticity.57

These supplementary historical indications (among still others) augment the discussion so far by pointing out additional indicators regarding the authenticity of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms. These include more general observations (like those of Fuller and Bornkamm) as well as more specific details (such as Twelftree and Chilton explain).

Additional Marks of Historicity: Jesus’s Nature Miracles

A fifth indication of the historicity of the Gospel miracle accounts is that, as with Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, several critical scholars have also isolated numerous historical elements in some of Jesus’s nature-miracle accounts. This is remarkable in the sense that these stories in particular are often treated as the more extraordinary Gospel claims, perhaps in the sense that the personal faith of the individuals involved generally plays a much less significant role in the accounts. Thus, positive ideation and the power of suggestion would not bring about some of the described occurrences. Moreover, at least some of these occasions appear to evince greater power.

In the examples where Jesus raised the dead, Murray Harris finds additional historical indicators in the account of Jesus raising the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11–17), a small town in Galilee. On this occasion, Jesus approaches the town gate and discovers a mother walking along with a crowd of people, leading the funeral bier of her only son. Jesus takes pity on the woman, who was also widowed in addition to having lost her only son. Notably, the custom in Galilee was for a woman to precede the funeral bier that contained the body. But conversely, this was not the custom in Judea, located just south of this town. Other smaller hints are the specific name of this town being provided when this location is never named anywhere else in the Bible. This raises the question that if part or all of this story were contrived, why would such an obscure location be named instead of a better-known one? Also, Luke’s account is exceptionally restrained, with no attending comments about the nature of the afterlife and so on that are present in the apparent parable of the poor man who dies in Luke 16:22–31.58

In the raising of Jairus’s daughter,59 Harris notes the presence of additional, unneeded details that enhance the story, such as the pressing throng, Jesus overhearing the communication from Jairus’s servants, Jesus twice telling the mourners to leave the room, as well as his order to give the girl food. In particular, Jesus’s report that the girl was asleep (which seems to lessen the miraculous nature of the event) plus the scorn of those present that was directed at Jesus, are two different sorts of embarrassment that appear to detract from Jesus’s authority and image. Harris cautiously urges the authenticity of this case because of the presence of these elements plus the absence of the wilder features often found in the miracle accounts in the apocryphal Gospels.60

Regarding the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1–44), Harris suggests that the historicity of the account is favored by the wealth of circumstantial details, like the geography, the personal names involved, and the family background and details. Moreover, this story is brief and simple, without the obvious reports from Lazarus concerning either what he experienced during his four days of death or the curious questions and comments concerning such topics from the witnesses.61

Stephen Davis lists three factors that argue for the rationality of believing another nature miracle, namely, Jesus’s changing water to wine (John 2:1–11). Davis thinks it embarrassingly odd that the early church would create or otherwise employ an account that could easily have encouraged those who criticized Jesus for being a glutton and a drunkard (Matt 11:19; Luke 7:33–34). Additionally, the seemingly harsh way that Jesus addresses his mother in John 2:4 has often been questioned. Lastly, Jesus appears to play a rather unobtrusive part throughout that may be thought to be incongruent to John’s high Christology.62

Paul Barnett addresses the feeding of the 5,000, comparing carefully Mark’s account (Mark 6:30–46 and parallels) with that in the Fourth Gospel (John 6:1–15). After listing both similarities and differences, Barnett agrees with a number of contemporary scholars that the two versions derive from separate renditions, “with each resting in all probability on independent eyewitness recollection.”63

Craig Blomberg begins his essay with the almost unanimously recognized and critically accepted kingdom teachings of Jesus, especially as manifested in his parables. He applies here the widely attested criterion of coherence, seeking material “which is fully consistent with material authenticated by the other recognized criteria.” The bulk of his chapter indicates how the nature miracles cohere with Jesus’s kingdom teachings as they are symbolized in the parabolic inbreaking of God’s kingdom. As Blomberg concludes: “In short, the nature miracles and the parables closely cohere with each other. . . . It therefore follows that the earliest forms of these miracle stories should be recognized as most probably historical (that is to say factual accounts of deeds from the life of Christ).”64

The authors in this section thus join other researchers in arguing that, as with Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, there are also sufficient marks of historicity to indicate the credibility of Jesus’s nature miracles as well. In this matter, the scholars here agree with Twelftree and Meier, as already mentioned.

Historically Reliable Aspects of the Gospels

The sixth indication that a majority of the Gospel reports of Jesus’s miracles are most likely historically reliable is that these events are drawn from sources that are increasingly being shown to be dependable in some sense. This view of the Gospels has been emerging in recent years, drawn across numerous aspects over a large number of publications written by critical scholars. Contrary charges are sometimes heard that the Gospel authors were not eyewitnesses,65 or that the individual stories and other teachings in these writings were not based on eyewitness reports.66 These more skeptical stances are frequently aimed at the Gospel depictions of miracles. Doubting the Gospels as viable sources would especially work against even the possibility of the supernatural events in them. This is especially so regarding the nature miracles due to their more obvious manifestation of power that is due to more than faith alone, and which often point to God. So evidential pushback is often necessary.

Yet, there has been a large increase in recent publications that present a wide variety of new details and perspectives arguing the thesis of Gospel reliability both generally as well as more specifically, as in this discussion of exorcisms.67 While this overall topic cannot be argued here, it may be noted that the evidence in support of Gospel reliability in general and the miracle texts in particular supports a strong case for the historicity of the miracles.

More specifically, many significant areas that are quite relevant here could be highlighted in this discussion.68 For example, even the majority of critical scholars presently view the Gospel genre as that of ancient Greco-Roman bios, meaning that a historical framework underlies these texts.69 Further, much work has been published on the eyewitness, early creedal traditions, and similar testimony behind the Gospel authors and sources.70 The possibility of note-taking and other means of remembering Jesus’s message has received major attention of late.71 Few conclusions regarding the Gospels are more readily recognized by virtually all recent scholars than the presence of major sources behind each of the Gospels, with many of these generally thought to be quite early in origin.72 Ancient secular writings have also helped significantly in providing corroboration for many background aspects of Jesus’s life, as well as other Gospel and early church details.73

It should be noted as well that, like most contemporary perspectives on the New Testament, there are also divergent views from reputable scholars on these topics above, in whole or in part. While most of these perspectives appear to be at least fairly well supported, critics can and do offer alternative suggestions. Often, general support is voiced while caveats are still offered, even by the same scholar.74

The chief thought here is not to invoke the idea that the entire text of the Gospels is uniformly one way or another. Rather, these different strands of research indicate that particular portions are more or less likely shown to be verified according to historical standards and therefore can be accepted as indicating probable amounts of data. As several researchers, including Meier, Twelftree, and Crossan, among others have shown, a number of significant evidential categories above often coalesce and overlap fairly often, even in particular examples of Jesus’s miracles. These are quite significant pointers. Due to results such as these, Borg was cited earlier in his assertion that “despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.”75

Notably, some authors over the years have concluded that it is essential to establish whether the four canonical Gospels were either written by eyewitnesses or at least relied on eyewitness testimony for the most crucial reports in their works. That really has not been the direct emphasis here, but definitely not because the data are lacking in the present research. Such relevant issues are addressed in several chapters later in this same volume. For one example, Richard Bauckham’s sophisticated volume Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, cited above, is a very clear indication that these concerns are far from the case.

But it should be recognized that both the approach and the categories pursued above still allow eyewitnesses and other close, reliable observers to move in and out of both the pre-Gospel sources as well as through the Gospel material itself in ways that fill the role of excellent ancient observers and reporters. Thus, this has been a slightly different way to actually augment some similar approaches. For example, Ehrman allows repeatedly that many of the exceptionally early creedal traditions that Paul received and recorded in the earliest New Testament writings likely came from Jerusalem, were established and in existence even before his conversion (at just two to three years after Jesus’s crucifixion), and most likely would have come from apostles like Peter, John, and James the brother of Jesus!76 Ehrman asks, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?”77 He summarizes that this body of information was sufficient to “give us a rock solid start.”78 The Acts sermon summaries also attest to some relevant data here as well.

Therefore, reliability efforts do not rest on the single path of the Gospel authors being established either as eyewitnesses themselves or as being informed directly by eyewitnesses. Again, that route could be pursued and such a conclusion could definitely further the case for Jesus’s miracles. For example, even though R. T. France states that he would argue for the traditional Gospel authors, he notes the additional consideration that this is actually not essential to determine whether or not the identity of the Gospel authors is known. He argues that these books should be judged the way most historians judge matters of historical accuracy—by virtue of their being the earliest narratives that report the best evidential traditions.79 Again, this subject is addressed in great detail later in this volume.

All told, this sixth consideration combines a well-grounded, multifaceted report that undergirds Jesus’s miracles and exorcisms. Many of the individual elements zero in precisely at some of these most crucial events.

The Resurrection of Jesus

The seventh reason that could favor Jesus’s miracles and exorcisms will be stated here just briefly. It has been argued that the case for these events can be established on their own grounds apart from other considerations. But there is an additional, brief insight to be mentioned here. This entire study is centered on one particular event: that of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. If the resurrection occurred, then the remainder of Jesus’s miracles becomes less problematic and more likely.

Throughout the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus is treated as the major miracle besides being a nature wonder. In fact, Crossan referred to the resurrection as “the supreme ‘nature’ miracle.”80 If this most majestic of nature miracles did in fact occur, then by itself this would create some impetus for a different all-around ethos and understanding of how Jesus’s miracle claims should be viewed and treated. There is a sense that while the issue may be debated by scholars, most would probably concede that if Jesus’s resurrection actually occurred, such a fact would indeed cast a different light over the earlier discussion of Jesus’s miracles too. As important and well documented as many of Jesus’s actions were, this would still change the dynamics of the entire discussion.

Contemporary Confirmation Claims

Whatever the contemporary verdict on Jesus’s mighty events, an eighth area that may be helpful here in evaluating the historicity of the Gospel accounts also appears to be quite germane to the topics in this chapter. Namely, what is to be made of the various and often incredible sorts of information that have emerged in recent years regarding contemporary medical and other claims that might be comparable to the Gospel phenomena, especially when there are various considerations in their favor? These might include controlled double-blind prayer experiments, documented healings, and even nature wonders. Could potential corroboration even be possible? Data have been supplied in some recent cases that at least tend to raise some eyebrows, especially when credentials have been claimed for a wide variety of verified cases. Some of the particulars have already been mentioned elsewhere in this chapter and will be discussed momentarily.

There is a definite diversity of views on Jesus’s miracle claims. Sometimes it is assumed that if modern medical science could have investigated the Gospel marvels, the outcome would strongly oppose and perhaps even eliminate what has been interpreted by some as Jesus’s healing miracles. After all, the ancients are usually thought to be backward in many ways.81 At the same time, it is also widely recognized today that there are levels of healing, including physical and emotional species among other possibilities, with various shades in between. Even so, it seems that charges are often made that miraculous events are simply not witnessed today in the same way that the biblical writers describe. Further, it is also commonly asserted that, since these occurrences are absent today, we are justified in being even more skeptical of the entire category.82

But what if such events do occur today? In such a scenario, could recent carefully researched studies actually change some perspectives, working backward to increase our openness to the New Testament reports? Further, it may be that such wonders are indeed documented but often go uncovered because they are not regularly mentioned or searched out. Some examples may provide some hints.

At least a couple of major double-blind medical experiments have examined ways in which prayer might affect physical healing. In one, the intriguing outcome indicated a statistically positive effect on the recuperation of those who received prayer in twenty-one of twenty-six monitored categories, with strong odds against this happening by chance. Yet none of these almost 400 coronary care patients knew whether they were actual recipients of prayer due to the double-blind nature of the experimental design. Therefore, the results cannot be explained by references to the patients’ faith healing alone. The experiment was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and the chief cardiologist’s conclusion was: “These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU [Coronary Care Unit].”83 Other medically monitored prayer experiments, with at least one other one also being a double study, have also been performed with very positive outcomes.84

In terms of modern healing case studies, a rigorous and sophisticated overview of medical testing of both these prayer examples plus additional research on prayer and healing studies has been published by Candy Gunther Brown, Testing Prayer: Science and Healing.85 With chapter titles such as “Are Healing Claims Documented?” and “Can Health Outcomes of Prayer Be Measured?” plus being published by Harvard University Press with endorsements from one present and one emeritus Harvard Medical School professor, it is no wonder that studies such as Brown’s are bound to attract careful attention!

Additionally, Keener’s large two-volume work, which includes several hundred contemporary claims of healings, was specifically done as an extension to his huge four-volume Acts commentary.86 It was precisely Keener’s hope that the recent miracle data would shed light on the historicity of the New Testament events, including the healing cases in Acts, as indicated in his subtitle.87 Keener’s intentions in these works were other than apologetic in nature, and even the majority of his cases were reported anecdotally. Nonetheless, many of the best attested examples of the contemporary miracle claim cases reported there are exceptionally impressive, particularly when they are attested by before-and-after X-rays, MRIs, and CT scans or accompanied by many specialized medical witnesses and comments.88 Moreover, Keener also provides lists of contemporary exorcism cases, including the studies cited by Borg in this chapter, along with additional examples beyond these regarding still other psychiatrists, psychologists, and other scholars who have reported their own wide array of confirmed and unexplained data.89

The sum of these contemporary studies involves many varieties of phenomena that present an astounding, potentially well-documented quantity of empirically evidenced examples of healings and exorcisms, many accompanied by some intriguingly verified details. Many, or perhaps even a majority, of these examples could be rejected for one reason or another while a large core could still remain.90 Most of the healing and exorcism reports are also occasioned by the presence of what might be termed “divine action patterns”91 that involve prayer, expressions of faith, anointing, and other features that are sometimes strikingly similar to the reports in the Gospels and Acts.92

As mentioned earlier, the skeptical scholar Marcus Borg went as far as to inform his audience regarding the provocative nature of certain contemporary “possession” cases, citing the testimony of psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, who discovered two possible cases of possession and exorcism that he and a team of medical professionals could not explain in terms of straightforward medical limitations. Borg also remained open to instances of real nature healings like the possibility of Jesus having raised Lazarus from the dead.93 Contemporary studies by physicians on specific medical healings have also been published.94

No doubt individuals will decide differently regarding all eight of these arguments on behalf of Jesus’s miracles. But however these evaluations are made, decisions should follow according to the evidence rather than on the overall position that the person held previously. Too many views of this nature appear to be made based on preconceived notions.95 Similar to Borg’s comments above, another Jesus Seminar member, Bruce Chilton, states that “perfectly respectable philosophical reflection” may move in one direction, but “to say that demons do not exist and stories that suppose they do are misleading, has the attractive ring of rational consistency about it, but it would seem to reduce history to a priori notions of what is possible.”96

Beyond arguing against a priori dismissals, we have documented several ways in this chapter as to how recent non-Christian and other skeptical New Testament scholars have still decided in favor of at least some of the healings and exorcism cases that are described in the Gospel reports, however they are interpreted, agreeing that they probably represent historical Gospel accounts. However, that many critical scholars have come to this position in recent decades suggests that the prevalence of good data could at least be what pushed them in this direction. That would seem to be a positive sign of openness, as with the anecdotal story told above regarding two convinced agnostics.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we examined many reasons why contemporary scholars, including many skeptical researchers, take seriously that Jesus at least claimed to be a miracle worker, and plenty of them actually affirm that Jesus healed many people in various ways. The arguments discussed here include (but are not limited to) these factors: multiple attestation, enemy attestation, and other combinational criteria (such as early and eyewitness material, Aramaic phrases, and possible cases of dissimilarity). Still additional marks of historicity include the data pointing to exorcisms and nature claims, the reliability of the Gospels, Jesus’s resurrection, as well as contemporary accounts of miracle claims.

In sum, a few themes, explicit and implicit, follow from the discussion in this chapter and may be stated quite briefly. First and most straightforwardly, the contemporary critical view at present, even from quite critical New Testament scholars as well as other researchers specializing in similar areas, is that Jesus performed the healings and exorcisms as reported in the Gospels. Those accounts (or at worst, quite similar actions), actually occurred in the life of the historical Jesus. Recent critical scholarship (even among non-Christian specialists), then, is almost completely agreed that Jesus was a miracle worker of some sort and an exorcist, at the very least in the slightly more minimal sense just mentioned above, and that he performed these actions described in the Synoptic Gospels. As Dunn asserts:

One of the most compelling features of the whole sweep of ancient opinion regarding Jesus is his reputation as an exorcist and healer. It is no exaggeration to claim that it is one of the most widely-attested and firmly established of the historical facts with which we have to deal.97

For Dunn, then, the healing elements of Jesus’s message were solidly anchored in the earliest messages. At the “core,” “the stories were being told as miracles from the first.”98

We have seen a few times now where Borg states that this assurance is “firmly attested” such that “on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable.”99 It should be crucially noticed that this overall critical conclusion in this chapter definitely does not rest simply on say-so opinions or views, even if they are scholarly in nature. As both Dunn and Borg note, this conclusion is clearly due to the state of the data—it is “firmly established” as Dunn states, as well as being that from the outset. For Borg, this “virtually indisputable” conclusion rests on the historical attestation itself, much of which has been reported in the chapter. This is a huge recognition regarding recent studies and it may even apply to Jesus’s mighty nature actions too, especially if his resurrection occurred. But this still remains to be argued.

Second, we did not argue specifically in this chapter that these healings, exorcisms, and possibly the nature events were to be identified as miraculous actions of God. That too remains for future discussions in this study. Yet, the presence of some sorts of what we termed “divine action patterns” were seen here as well. Both Jesus’s healings and exorcisms as well as contemporary events of a similar nature were frequently stated to have occurred in the presence of agreement with Jesus’s major message, then wed to faith. Later, these keys were applied with action. More about these connections later,100 but the connection to God is a path that is already visible in the events themselves, as already pointed out here. Contemporary miracle claims increase the relevance and evidential force of these conclusions.101

In conclusion, then, the case for Jesus being caught up in some sense with the supernatural realm at many points appears to follow from what has been said here. We may agree along with Stephen Neill that, for these along with other reasons, it indeed may be affirmed that no one like Jesus has ever lived, taught, or performed such things before or even since:

If we take the Gospels seriously (and at the same time as critically as you will), Jesus is not the least like anyone else who has ever lived. The things that he says about God are not the same as the sayings of any other religious teacher. The claims that he makes for himself are not the same as those that have been made by any other religious teacher. His criticisms of human life and society are far more devastating than any other man has ever made. The demands he makes on men are more searching than those put forward by any other religious teacher.102

Notes

1 As a personal example from my own graduate student experiences in the 1970s, if one held during that decade that the Gospels were correct in teaching that Jesus was indeed a miracle worker and an exorcist, those who understood the issues could probably surmise that that individual was most likely either an evangelical or a conservative Roman Catholic. Today the tide of research has indeed turned.

2 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, 146 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

3 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:61 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

4 Fossum, “Understanding Jesus’ Miracles,” Bible Review 10 (1994): 17.

5 Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61 (see chap. 2, n. 32) for the quotation; cf. also the greater context in 59–61, 65–71.

6 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:970 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

7 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, esp. 25, 566 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261, cf. 315–17 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Vermes, Jesus in His Jewish Context, 5–6, 97 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Remus, Jesus as Healer, 106–18 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Kee, What Can We Know, 3, 19, 112 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Grant, Jesus, 35–37, 42–43 (see chap. 1, n. 24); E. P. Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 13, 168 (see chap. 1, n. 44); David Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017), 93, 142–43, cf. 167.

8 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:970 (see chap. 1, n. 27). Meier’s historical conclusions are provided on 968–70.

9 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 345 (see chap. 1, n. 30). For Twelftree’s historical conclusions, see 328–30.

10 As in Mark 2:1–12; Matt 12:38–42; 16:1–4; John 10:37–39; 14:11. The early sermon summaries in Acts continued similar themes (see Acts 2:22–24; 17:1–4, 22–34).

11 See Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 1:22–25, 29–33; see also Keener’s more recent volume on this subject where he compares modern miracle claims with those of Jesus in Keener, Miracles Today (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), parts 4–5.

12 Keener, Miracles, 1:31–32.

13 Keener, 1:26, for the Smith quotation; for the other topics, see 24–34. In chapter 2, Keener addresses the first of these questions by intriguingly contrasting early Christian miracle claims with ancient non-Christian miracle claims.

14 For more than one reason, Borg’s second argument here is the most debatable of these three assertions and introduces and encompasses a very wide variety of facets that must be approached both separately as well as differently. Borg is correct that the persons who lived in Jesus’s time and geographical vicinity generally thought miracles occurred with or without being performed by extraordinary persons. In this sense of the people’s beliefs on this subject, the original statement above is accurate. Where human parallel examples are concerned, these could involve Jewish prophets and holy men, ancient magicians, or the so-called Hellenistic divine men, like Apollonius of Tyana. But on the one hand, it does not at all follow that the specific details here were well-grounded historical occurrences. And this is the case as it pertains to both the extraordinary occurrences themselves as well to the individuals with whom they may have been connected. In fact, the reports concerning both the miracle claims and the individuals are almost always contained in sources that are very much later (sometimes even centuries afterwards!) than the claimed events themselves. Nor are there careful means of adjudication. Further, the comparison between the so-called parallel cases and Jesus’s examples is most frequently not at all comparative. These questions will be treated in much depth in a later volume of this study in a chapter devoted to both the reported events and those who reportedly performed them, where it will be pointed out that numerous very major problems always afflict these comparisons. For now, some initial considerations and distinctions here are contained in texts such as Gwynne, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, 6, 14, 17–18, 127–31, 239 (see chap. 6, n. 187); Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, esp. 11–12, 34 (see chap. 4, n. 54); Norman Anderson, Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), chap. 2. But on the other hand, as pointed out by C. S. Lewis, it should not be assumed that such events, or even just the non-Christian cases, should always be denied necessarily. Thus, it need not be held that all such non-Christian reports were false, for other options are available. See Lewis, Miracles, 132–33 (see chap. 4, n. 82). According to the Old and New Testaments alike, God performed miraculous acts among those who were neither Israelites nor Christians. Moreover, supernatural occurrences strictly among pagans were also known in biblical times. Additionally, widespread contemporary healing data, many of which are accompanied by supporting evidence of various sorts, are reported around the world today. For examples of these reports, often in a Christian context, see Candy Gunther Brown, Testing Prayer: Science and Healing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).

15 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61.

16 Borg, where these two points are made respectively, on 180–85 and 66–67.

17 This is quite incredibly the case even though some theologians and Scripture scholars who actually reject the literal resurrection event as well as the literal doctrines themselves think that the connection between them still holds even for today! A few examples across a wide critical spectrum and spread over more than a half century of those who think that at least Jesus believed this about his teachings would include Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:7; Marxsen, Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, 125, 147, 169, 183 (see chap. 5, n. 39); Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, esp. 59–61, 65–71; Reginald H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1965), 107; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation, trans. A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977), 124–32; Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 63-64 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), chap. 5 for instance; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1994), 61–67; Kee, What Can We Know, 112; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:967–70; Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 328–30, 343–48; Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, chap. 10, esp. 167. Cf. Vermes, Jesus in His Jewish Context, 97; cf. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 316–17.

18 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 346–47.

19 I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 128–29.

20 For recent discussions of nature miracles, see Graham H. Twelftree, ed., The Nature Miracles of Jesus: Problems, Perspectives, and Prospects (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017).

21 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61.

22 A discussion earlier in this volume addressed the objections that a number of recent commentators raise regarding some or most of these criteria. Yet, as pointed out there, it remains the case that the majority of critical commentators on New Testament matters consider them to be very valuable contributions to discussions regarding historical matters, especially in the Gospels. These criteria are likewise used by some secular historians. Hence, a pertinent matter here concerns issues such as where and how these criteria are actually employed.

23 Besides Mark, Q, M, and L, particular members of the Jesus Seminar also allow additional though lesser sources as having contributed to the Synoptics too, such as the Letters of Paul, the Didache, and possibly even the Gospel of Thomas. Each of these texts is also considered to have been an independent source that usually also mentioned Jesus’s miracles; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 15–16, 18, 128 (see chap. 2, n. 19). Also, Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 15–37 (see chap. 2, n. 35); Stein, Gospels and Tradition, esp. 158 (see chap. 2, n. 35); Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 171–79, particularly 173, 175; Licona, Differences in the Gospels, 113–15 (see chap. 4, n. 43).

24 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 16–18. However, after speaking more positively in the first major Seminar volume where it appeared that there was thought to be a fair amount of evidence here for a Signs Source, most members of the Jesus Seminar ultimately rejected these sources (Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, esp. 388–89). However, John Dominic Crossan is much more positive on the Signs Source, placing sources in both the AD 30–60 as well as the 60–80 strata; see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 429–30 (see chap. 6, n. 44)

25 This passage is numbered variously by at least three different Jesus Seminar scholars. Burton Mack numbers this saying as QS 16 in the reconstruction of Q, as in Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993), 86. Marcus Borg’s team identifies this saying as Q24 in Borg, Mark Powelson, and Ray Riegert, eds., The Lost Gospel Q: The Original Sayings of Jesus (Berkeley: Ulysses, 1996), 58. James M. Robinson labels this text as Q 7:18–19, 22–23 in Robinson, ed., The Sayings of Gospel Q in English (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 9. It is worth mentioning that both Q and its reconstruction are also questioned by many scholars. As William Farmer asserts in his article “The Church’s Stake in the Question of ‘Q,’” Perkins Journal of Theology 39 (1986): 14: “The existence of Q, the fount of all these speculations, is not proven and today is more hotly contested in gospel scholarship than at any other time in our century. . . . In our view the present spectacle of theologians writing books about the theology of the ‘Q’ community is like children making castles in a sandbox.” Likewise, see Farmer’s essay “Order out of Chaos,” Perkins Journal of Theology 40 (1987); also Mark Goodacre, The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002).

26 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 290; also, 78, 92, 97, 111, 130–31, 232, 251, 261.

27 Crossan’s statement must not be overlooked here that Jesus’s resurrection was “the supreme ‘nature’ miracle.” Crossan, Historical Jesus, 404.

28 These differences in dating apply most of all to perhaps a half dozen or so sources or source fragments that most scholars (even many fellow skeptical thinkers) often place in the second century or even later that are usually dated by Crossan to AD 50–60. A convenient list can be found in appendix 1 of Crossan, Historical Jesus, 427–29.

29 Crossan, 427–50, 461.

30 These tallies are found in Crossan, Historical Jesus, 427–32. In appendix 6 (461), Crossan provides a summarized inventory of Jesus’s miracle reports as found in his first three strata.

31 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61.

32 This charge by Jesus’s adversaries that he cast out demons by the power of the prince of demons is contained in QS 28, according to Mack’s numbering of these texts.

33 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, especially the various points being raised in the discussions on pages 61–71, including endnotes 8–10, 16. Two of the psychiatric sources that Borg mentions are M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983); and Peck, Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist’s Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption (New York: Free Press, 2005).

34 Interestingly, at times Crossan is reminiscent of some of the old liberal attempts to find a natural explanation for Jesus’s miracles; see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 405, 407.

35 This theme of how worldview concerns seriously affect and change perspectives on the miracles and similar questions is treated in more detail in Habermas, “Did Jesus Perform Miracles?,” in Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 126–29.

36 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 301–2.

37 Meier, Marginal Jew, with the lengthy treatment of this miracle account on pages 2:686–90 and the summary and quotations on 690.

38 Meier, 2:690.

39 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 322–23.

40 Twelftree, 323.

41 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2711–14, with this conclusion on 713–14.

42 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 290.

43 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:653–656, with this conclusion on 656.

44 Meier, 2:874–1038.

45 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 304–10, esp. 328; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:777–873, particularly 837 and 970.

46 These further instances are located in Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 284–90, 293–98, 316–17, 325–26 in an overall treatment found in chaps. 2–4.

47 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:646–1038.

48 For Twelftree’s summarized report, see esp. Jesus the Miracle Worker, 328–30, with the two quotations here on 328 and 330 respectively.

49 Crossan’s minute, highly detailed miracle source count presented above should be remembered at this juncture for its variety as well (see the section titled “Historical Criteria” earlier in this chapter, in particular, the text associated with nn. 29 and 30). Even though it was mentioned that a number of Crossan’s sources would be judged by many scholars to be too late to be useful in such a study, a number of those listed are still thought by many scholars besides Crossan to be valuable across a large cross section of recent research. One strong point here is that a number of these largely accepted texts extend beyond the canonical source spectrum.

50 See Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:967–70, quotations on 970.

51 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 330.

52 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:968; cf. William Lane Craig, “‘Noli Me Tangere’: Why John Meier Won’t Touch the Risen Lord,” Heythrop Journal 50 (2009): 91–97.

53 Fuller, New Testament Christology, 103–8.

54 Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene McLuskey and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 54–63, 64–69, 130–32, 169–70.

55 Such as the methods described by Josephus, Ant. 8:46–49. Cf. also Graham Twelftree’s description in his book Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 157–58, 163–64.

56 As Twelftree writes in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 361–400 (see chap. 7, n. 18). This quotation is the concluding sentence of the essay on 393.

57 B. D. Chilton, “Exorcism and History: Mark 1:21–28,” in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 253–71, esp. 260–61.

58 Murray J. Harris, “The Dead Are Raised,” in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 298–99.

59 This is the only time that all three Synoptic Gospels relate the same incident of Jesus raising a deceased individual (Matt 9:18–19, 23–26; Mark 5:21–24, 35–43; Luke 8:40–42, 49–56).

60 Harris, “Dead Are Raised,” esp. 310.

61 Harris, 313–14.

62 Stephen T. Davis, “The Miracle at Cana,” in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 429.

63 P. W. Barnett, “The Feeding of the Multitude,” in Wenham and Blomberg, 273–93.

64 Craig Blomberg, “The Miracles as Parables,” in Wenham and Blomberg, 327–59. Blomberg’s succinct conclusion is found on 347–48.

65 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 16.

66 Fossum, “Understanding Jesus’ Miracles,” 23.

67 Just a few of the more general treatments of this subject include an initial comment from James H. Charlesworth, who cites scholars from approximately a dozen different countries and cultures who are “independently, recognizing that in its broad outline the Gospels’ account of Jesus is substantially reliable and true.” Charlesworth, “Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity,” in Images of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 1–41. The quotation is on 7. Cf. also Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, “The Historical Jesus and the Biblical Church: Why the Quest Matters,” in Jesus, Skepticism and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins, ed. Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 17–42, esp. 23–24; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs, Broadman and Holman Studies in Christian Apologetics (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016); Peter Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018). Older classics include F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960); A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978); Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? (see chap. 4, n. 43).

68 It should be noted that only a very limited amount of the relevant subtopics and available scholarly sources will be noted in this context.

69 See Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 71); Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, 110, 130, 134, 234 (see chap. 4, n. 41); Licona, Differences in the Gospels; Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019).

70 See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017); Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Exceptionally crucial here is the subject to be treated in much detail later in this volume, namely, the data supplied by the extremely early creedal sources that predate the writings in which they appear, sometimes by one to three decades, that record the earliest Christian teachings on Jesus’s life and teachings, including supernatural elements such as Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Perhaps surprisingly, these creeds are widely accepted on critical grounds by nearly all critical scholars today as well. Among the best sources here are Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid, ed. Gary Habermas and Benjamin Charles Shaw (London: Lutterworth, 1949; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2018); C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980); and Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). Examples of both non-Christian as well as other skeptical New Testament scholars who recognize this material include Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 97, 131–32, 140–41, 144–46, 155–58, 170–72, 251, 254, 260–63; Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 25–26, 38, 145 (see chap. 6, n. 173), Crossan, Historical Jesus, 293–94, 364; Casey, Jesus, 136, 185–87; Vermes, The Resurrection, 121–23; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, esp. 97–99 (see chap. 6, n. 173); and Mack, The Lost Gospel, with a chart on 259.

71 Most notably, Dunn, Jesus Remembered (see chap. 1, n. 3). Also Kenneth Ewing Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991): 34–54; Bailey, “Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Expository Times 106 (1995): 363–67; Keener, Christobiography, 365–496. Two older but influential works are Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Lund: Gleerup, 1961) and Harald Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970). See also Gerhardsson, Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (see chap. 4, n. 46).

72 Sources such as Q, M, L, one or more pre-Markan Passion sources, and pre-Gospel miracle documents have been discussed throughout this study and relevant details are very commonly found elsewhere. One of the remarkable studies in a very specific area here is Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1492–524 (see chap. 4, n. 40). Dunn, Jesus Remembered, chap. 7; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chaps. 2, 6, 9; Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 167–79; Robert H. Stein, Gospels and Tradition, chaps. 2, 8; Licona, Differences in the Gospels, 112–16; Keener, Historical Jesus, chaps. 6, 9–10. Non-Christian and other skeptical sources are widely accepted here as well: Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 163–64, 261–63; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 293–94, 429–30, 434–41; Casey, Jesus, 83–84, 108, 133–34; and Mack, Lost Gospel, 2–11, 34–39, 71–80, 181, 259.

73 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament (see chap. 6, n. 3); France, Evidence for Jesus (see chap. 6, n. 3); Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Jesus outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence?,” in Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus under Fire, 207–29; Norman Anderson, Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985); Habermas, Historical Jesus, chaps. 2–4, 8–9, and appendix 3 (see chap. 3, n. 48). On many sometimes surprising examples of additional assistance from archaeological finds, see the scholarly treatment of these areas by Randall Price with H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), particularly 233–93. This also includes a number of skeptical scholars such as Crossan, Historical Jesus, 372–76; Ehrman, New Testament, 195–98 (see chap. 4, n. 34); Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 50–68, plus a few other briefer references such as that by Casey on Josephus in Jesus, 9.

74 One example with regard to the subject of human memory is supplied by Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior (New York: HarperCollins, 2016).

75 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61, with a similar thought on 59.

76 Besides the Ehrman references directly above in this section, further key comments are found in Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144–46, 251, 261, and How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperCollins, 2014), 138–39.

77 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 145.

78 Ehrman, 131.

79 France, Evidence for Jesus, 124–25.

80 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 404.

81 Of course, David Hume in his famous essay “Of Miracles” made this point quite clearly (see chap. 7, n. 3). Hume’s argument against miracles is evaluated in much depth in two lengthy chapters in volume 2 of this study.

82 See Crossan, Revolutionary Biography, 80–82, 84–86 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 63.

83 For the original study, see Randolph C. Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” Southern Medical Journal 81 (1988): 826–29, for the quotation, see 826; cf. Randolph C. Byrd with John Sherrill, “On a Wing and a Prayer,” Physician 5 (1993): 14–16, esp. 16 for the comment on the improvement in twenty-one of twenty-six categories.

84 See also William S. Harris et al., “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit,” Archives of Internal Medicine 159 (1999): 2273–78.

85 Brown, Testing Prayer, 74–98.

86 Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–2015). See also Keener’s Acts, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).

87 Keener, Miracles.

88 It must be kept in mind here that the various species of data notwithstanding, different sorts of information often appeal (or not!) to various kinds of people. Having culled a number of potentially striking cases from Keener’s two volumes on miracles, I found some striking examples: (1) “A sudden disappearance of a child’s massive brain tumor after prayer occurred, before any medical treatment could begin.” The tumor covered almost one-quarter of the girl’s brain, with both pre- and post-MRI confirmation; see Miracles, 1:428. (2) An eight-year-old boy had two holes in his heart, a condition that also impaired his lungs. After prayer he was taken to surgery. But pre- and post-tests showed that the holes that were there the previous day had now been healed. He did not need surgery and was actually cleared to play baseball just two days later; see 1:431–32. (3) A physician recounted that a patient was “immediately cured from metastasized breast cancer after prayer,” confirmed by X-ray; see 1:435.

(4) Another physician confirmed that a woman with tuberculosis was healed after prayer. The physician could also confirm that her cure was permanent because they were later married and spent the rest of their lives together; see 1:435! (5) While away from home at a Christian retreat, a man seriously broke his ankle and went to a hospital, where an orthopedist set the ankle in a cast. Upon arriving home the next day, several states away, the man was sent by another physician to another hospital for X-rays. After studying the pictures, the physician informed the patient that his ankle had actually never been broken, as indicated by the absence of any break or tissue damage where the break was said to have occurred. But the earlier X-rays were ordered, and they clearly confirmed the break. A set of the radiology reports were also sent to Craig Keener; see 1:440! (6) A hospital physician reported watching as a ten-year-old girl’s club foot “straightened before my very eyes” during prayer for the girl’s healing. The attending physician was later interviewed, during which he confirmed that he had witnessed the event personally at close range and that the result was instantaneous; see 1:463. This last example could potentially provide the sort of data that skeptics regularly request pertaining to a limb that grows back. (7) A baby was born without hip sockets or a ball at the end of her bones. The medical plan for her included an involved cast to be worn throughout her life. Church members prayed, and she was reexamined before being placed in the cast. Afterward the physician found that, contrary to the earlier X-rays, the baby now had both hip sockets and the ball at the end of the bone; see 1:503. He declared her to be healed. (8) Forty physicians confirmed the specific case of a cure from Lourdes, France, “of a medically incurable, quadriplegic postencephalitic idiot—a child who went from complete insensibility and lack of control to intelligent normalcy”; see 2:680. (9) In another case described as “naturally inexplicable,” cancer had spread prohibitively in a woman’s body and her physicians could do nothing for her. However, she was cured instantly, including the healing of damaged organs; see 2:682n206.

As mentioned, one of Keener’s theses throughout his two-volume work is that “the miracle reports in the Gospels and Acts are generally plausible historically. . . . Similar claims, often from convinced eyewitnesses, circulate widely today, and there are no a priori reasons to doubt that ancient eyewitnesses made analogous claims.” See 1:7. As Keener pointed out: “I will argue . . . that there is some sufficiently strong evidence today to meet an open-minded nonsupernaturalist’s bar of proof.” See 2:607. Some of the cases cited by Keener are summarized in Habermas, Philosophy of History, 43–44 (see chap. 4, n. 28).

89 Keener also reports a number of quite striking exorcism cases; see appendices A and B in volume 2 of Miracles, which are also reported and similarly summarized by Habermas, Philosophy of History, 45. Additionally, Keener includes a large number of religious “power encounters” where Christians were reportedly confronted by witch doctors, voodoo priests, shamans, and so on, who challenged them to face-to-face confrontations with regard to producing healings or other supernatural types of phenomena, along with providing the results of these challenges; see Miracles, 1:232, 269n19, 284n127, 318n62, 561, 586n528, 590, 809n133, 813n165, 836, 839n357, 842–56, again summarized by Habermas, Philosophy of History, 45–48.

90 As an anecdotal story of my own, not long after Keener’s two miracles texts were published, I recommended them to two philosophically minded agnostic friends. We had been engaging in friendly conversations rather than in debate or public dialogue situations. These two agnostics purchased and studied Keener’s books. The next time we communicated, they began by relating that they were completely convinced that at least several of the best-documented cases they had studied had actually occurred and even thought that some were miraculous in nature. They were not Christians, but they considered that this data for present-day miracles was highly probable.

91 David Basinger, “Christian Theism and the Concept of Miracle,” 142–44, (see chap. 7, n. 18).

92 Some twenty-five years before Keener, Wenham and Blomberg, the editors of Miracles of Jesus, made a somewhat reminiscent remark about contemporary miracle stories around the world being similar to the Gospel accounts; see “Preface,” 5.

93 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 60–71, with these examples on 63–71, esp. 720n16; also, Peck, People of the Lie, 182–211.

94 H. Richard Casdorph, The Miracles (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1976); Rex Gardner, Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986).

95 On the often overarching influence of worldview instead of evidence, see Habermas, “Did Jesus Perform Miracles?,” 125–29.

96 Chilton, “Exorcism and History: Mark 1:21–28,” in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 263. The editors also agree similarly at the outset of the volume that dismissing the Gospel miracle stories because “they are strange to our contemporary outlook would, of course, be unsatisfactory.” See Wenham and Blomberg, “Preface,” 5.

97 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 670.

98 Dunn, 672.

99 Borg, Jesus, The New Vision, with these two citations on 59 and 61.

100 See especially Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, esp. chaps. 1–3 (see chap. 2, n. 33).

101 A significantly limited amount of material especially in this chapter’s critique, accompanied by significant editing, can also be found in earlier materials written by Habermas, including a brief, unpublished paper that was invited by and read to the “Synoptic Gospels Study Group” at the Evangelical Theological Society in Baltimore, Maryland, on November 19, 2013, as well as other previously published writings including Habermas, “Did Jesus Perform Miracles?,” 117–40; Habermas, “Why I Believe the Miracles of Jesus Actually Happened,” in Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, ed. Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 111–24; and Habermas, “Christian Miracle-Claims and Supernatural Causation: Representative Cases from the Synoptic Gospels and Contemporary Accounts,” in Building on the Foundations of Evangelical Theology: Essays in Honor of John S. Feinberg, ed. Gregg R. Allison and Stephen J. Wellum (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 114–31. Some small amounts of the latter work were used by the permission of Crossway Books.

102 Stephen Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths: The Christian Dialogue with Other Religions, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 233. An almost identical quotation is also found in a later, sizably longer edition of this volume published by InterVarsity Press in 1984; see page 286 there.

↑ Back to top