Block 4 - The Miracles of Jesus

A book I used to use in this course contains a chapter that I believe is the finest treatment of Jesus' miracles from a historical critical point of view. The item in question is The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders (1993), Chapter 10, "Miracles." I do not necessarily agree with all of it, but rather than being dismissive of Jesus' miracles or attempting to completely rationalize them out of existence, Sanders does attempt to grapple with the fact that more than anything else, the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus had a wide reputation as a miracle worker.

Just about every scholar I know of agrees with the division of Jesus' miracles into three categories: 1) Healings, 2) Exorcisms, and 3) Nature miracles. Most modern scholars believe there may be some truth to the reputation for healings and exorcisms, but dismiss all nature miracles as pure fiction.

Sanders takes a different approach than most scholars do in that he first seeks to explain and evaluate how exactly miracles were perceived in the ancient world. But in so doing he obviously works from the perspective of the modern scientific world view that has no room for miracles actually happening in the manner in which the ancients believed they did (by divine intervention). However, he is not ready to slap on the label of fiction, because that would imply intentional deception by the supposed miracle worker. Indeed, there was plenty such activity in the ancient world, since there were plenty of people eager and willing to believe in miracles. A good Biblical example is Simon the Great (Acts 8:9-25). This Simon is known of from other sources, but many skeptical Biblical scholars doubt he ever embraced Christianity. Regardless, it is clear that Acts presents him as a deceiver, not a true miracle worker, since as soon as he sees Peter impart the Holy Spirit by the laying on how hands he offers Peter a large sum of money to learn the secret of how this trick works (Acts 8:18-19).

there are notable examples among Greco-Roman pagan society, the best known being Apollonius of Tyana, a traveling philosopher with a reputation as a healer. Once when Apollonius was discussing various types of worship (to the pagan gods) a young man with a reputation as a reveler and carouser broke out in raucous laughter completely drowning the voice of Apollonius. Apparently the majority of the locals attributed this rude laughter to his often being drunk. Apollonius astutely recognizes in the young man the presence of a demon causing this behavior. Apollonius addresses the demon and demands that the demon vacate the young man. Which the demon does dramatically, leaving the young man very meek and subdued. The young man then gives up his rowdy ways and follows Apollonius.

Many skeptical Biblical scholars use Apollonius as an example that Jesus was not unique in the ancient world as a miracle worker. If the average modern American is not likely to believe the reports about the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana, why believe those of Jesus?

There were also miracle workers among Palestinian Judaism in Jesus' time. The two most famous were Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circledrawer. It must also be noted that Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circledrawer only had a few impressive miracles to their credit, while those attributed to Jesus are numerous. Josephus claims to have known of a number of healers, especially exorcists. Josephus attributes the success of their exorcisms to some secret "Wisdom of Solomon" that had been passed down by word of mouth, meaning that a whispered incantation was the key to the exorcism. The use of an incantation supposedly derived from King Solomon smacks of magic, not divine intervention. Therefore according to this line of thinking, the logical conclusion is that Jesus was at all not unique. But, really - only Apollonius is anything like Jesus, of the miracle workers of that time that are known of today.

For Sanders he sees no indication whatsoever that Jesus' miracles indicate any intention to deceive. This leaves the possibility (for Sanders) that we are dealing with either exaggeration or wishful thinking. Stories of miraculous healings were quite common in the Greco-Roman world of Jesus' time. There were many pious devotees of the Greek god Asclepius, who specialized in healing, and numerous extant reports of healings attributed to the work of this god. Sanders surmises that if a person prays to a god and some of the time the prayer is answer as requested, then that would be seen as legitimate evidence that the god is effective in his work.

As you might be able to guess, many modern scholars view what the Gospels call demon possession as being some kind of mental disorder. Therefore, even scholars who do not believe in divine intervention suggest that it is possible that Jesus, by the sheer power of his magnetic personality was able to bring about a change in people who were experiencing various mental disorders. The supposition is that there would be cases of people whose station in life did not fit their personality and thus lead to an inner struggle which would be manifested as being emotionally unstable, and perhaps Jesus could "heal" them simply by giving such people to "be themselves." Of course such a person might not be welcome at home if they were going to exhibit behavior seen as anti-social. According to this line of thinking, this would explain why Mary Magdalene stayed with Jesus instead of returning home. (Of course, one could posit that simply gratitude for being healed would be reason enough to follow Jesus.)

In order to understand anything related to the miraculous in ancient times requires the recognition that there was then no hard division between the 'natural' and the 'supernatural.' God or the gods were constantly at work in the world. The entire cosmos was populated by good and evil spirits who could at will enter the world of sense perception (Sanders, pages 141-142). A good example of how this is taken for granted is in Philippians 2:10-11, where Paul says that every knee will bow to Jesus, not just those on earth but those above and below the earth, which presupposes that there are knees in heaven and under the earth that do not yet bow to Jesus. Thus, for Paul the spirit world is pervasive.

Now do not think that all ancients were automatically gullible. Sanders mentions that the great Roman orator/philosopher Cicero (106-43 BCE) did not believe in miracles. Quoting Cicero on this topic: "For nothing can happen without cause; nothing happens that cannot happen, . . . [and when it has happened] it may not be interpreted as a miracle. Consequently there are no miracles" (Sanders, page 143). Sanders is pleased to point out that Cicero's rationalist perspective, while in the minority in his own time, has become the majority viewpoint in the modern world.

In examining Jesus' healings Sanders makes an interesting observation that there are details that border on the magical in a couple of Jesus' healings. The first is the fact that in Mark's story of the healing of the girl who died (Mark 5:41), Mark quotes Jesus' exact words in Aramaic in
which he tells the dead girl to arise, talitha koum. This makes Sanders wonder why did Mark preserve the exact words as Jesus spoke them rather than translating them into Greek. His suspicion is that Mark (or someone before Mark) must have perceived some special power in the words themselves, as if they might have thought to be a magical incantation. This same phenomenon occurs in Mark 7:34 in the healing of a deaf man, where Jesus says ephphatha, which is Aramaic for "be opened." Sanders wonders why would Mark preserve these words of Jesus in their original form unless some special value was attached to them. This is true, but whether or not we should call it a magical incantation is questionable. Sanders does not mean that Jesus intended it that way, but simply that possibly that Mark (or his source before him) understood it that way.

Regardless of Jesus' methods there is no question but that he had a strong reputation as a healer among those who passed on information about his earthly life. There are stories of healing lepers, blind people, deaf/mutes, the lame. Some modern scholars detract from the stories about the healing of lepers by pointing out that in ancient times leprosy could include more skin ailments than the disfiguring disease we call leprosy today. Indeed, any skin ailment that altered the appearance of a person might be deemed (by Jewish people) to render the individual "unclean," that is unfit for participation in society according to the laws of Moses (see Leviticus, chapter 13 for details). While this may be true, if Jesus has a reputation for healing even minor skin ailments, one would have to argue that either these were psychosomatic ailments that were healed by the power of suggestion, or else, there was something truly unusual going on with Jesus' healings.

With regard to exorcisms. I mentioned earlier that most modern critical scholars consider demon possession as misdiagnosed mental disorders. Therefore, it was possible for Jesus to heal them by the power of suggestion due to his highly charismatic personality.

However, I believe that Jesus' Exorcisms are better interpreted as spiritual warfare than healings. We tend to view them as healings, but I am quite convinced that the gospel writers intentionally portray Jesus' exorcisms as spiritual warfare in they are best understood as proxy warfare. This is proxy warfare in which the Heavenly Father's earthly proxy (Jesus) does battle against the earthly minions of the demonic leader, Satan. The main point to gain from this is that Jesus wins every confrontation, every time and easily. By the power of his verbal word Jesus is able to banish the minions of Satan from his presence. In so doing, Jesus demonstrates that the power of the Kingdom (rule) of God has arrived on earth in the person and ministry of Jesus, as demonstrated by his power over the minions of the Evil One (demons) (see Luke 11:20).

In conclusion, I am quite convinced that people in Jesus' time did know the difference between what was credible and incredible and they knew that what Jesus was perceived as doing were no ordinary events. If they were, there would be no reason to record them.

A few more comments on Sanders. In a similar way that Sanders viewed Mark's retention of Aramaic healing words as possible magical elements in Jesus healings, Sanders looks at the story of the woman who was healed of a hemorrhage in the same way. For Sanders, the fact that she was healed simply by touching the hem of Jesus' robe in the midst of a crowd, makes this looks (to Sanders) a lot like magic (Mark 5:25-30). Jesus had magical power that could be drained off of him without his consent. Of course, Jesus states that it was the woman's faith that had made her well. But Sanders retorts that this line about faith was added later to banish any hints of magic from the story, because at first glance the healing power seems to be in the robe itself.

While Sanders believes that Jesus truly had a reputation as a miracle worker, he does not give as much credit to this as do the Gospels. Sanders provides his reasons for this on page 157. The main problem with Jesus' reputation as a miracle worker is that (in Sanders' opinion), the public reaction to Jesus' miracles is disproportionately small compared to the dramatic quality of some of these miracles. Sanders' test case if the multiplication of the loaves (which Sanders calls "feeding the multitude"). If such a miracle actually happened it would seem likely that there would be a great public response, especially since 5,000 people reportedly attended the event. However, the Gospels records virtually no public reaction to this miracle.

Sanders concludes that the best explanation would be that "there was little response because there were few major miracles." This leads Sanders to conclude that: "Possibly Jesus' actual miracles were relatively minor and excited the public only temporarily" (page 157 bottom). Sanders concludes that it was not Jesus' miracles that convinced his followers that he was a unique Son of God, but Jesus' resurrection (see pages 164-165). Sanders concludes that the Gospels as we have them exaggerate the miracles of Jesus, that the ones he did perform did not convince others to see him as God's special envoy, but rather to see Jesus as a "holy man, on intimate terms with God" (page 164 middle).