Miracles of Jesus

In The Formation of Q, Kloppenborg identifies three redactional layers in the Sayings Gospel Q: the “formative stratum” (or Q¹), the “main redaction” (or Q²), and the “final recension” (or Q³). He ascribes the Beelzebul story in Q 11:14–15, 17–20 entirely to the main redaction. It will presently be argued that the kingdom saying in Q 11:17b appeared in the formative stratum before it was incorporated into the Beelzebul story as part of the main redaction.

John 9:6 contains a curious reference to Jesus’ use of spittle and clay to heal a man born blind. Beginning with Irenaeus, patristic exegetes saw here an allusion to God’s use of dust to create Adam. Modern commentators, however, are generally skeptical of this interpretation. After noting numerous other allusions to creation in John’s Gospel, this paper examines several Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies that mention spittle and clay in the context of the creation of humankind. These texts helpfully illumine the role of spittle and clay in John 9:6 and lend substantial support to Irenaeus’s exegesis.

Fred Francis Bosworth (1877-1958) was a Pentecostal pioneer, famous healing evangelist, musician and author who took the United States and Canada by storm in the 1920s and 1930s. With his brother, Burton B. Bosworth, often working with him, he reportedly led more than a million people to Christ through his ministry. He was considered by scholars and ministers alike to be one of the most successful healing evangelists of the 20th century. He received more than 225,000 written testimonies of healing and his book, Christ the Healer, is a classic that has been in print since 1924.

Though he spent most of his life as a member of the Christian & Missionary Alliance, he was well respected among Pentecostals and holiness groups. In fact, F.F. Bosworth was the preacher who brought Pentecost – and the first Assemblies of God church -- to Dallas, Texas. The church he founded, Dallas First Assembly of God Church, is thriving to this day.

The impact of Bosworth’s teachings continues to be felt in all parts of the world. Many of today’s mega Charismatic/Pentecostal churches and other ministries, including those of T. L. Osborn, Kenneth Copeland, Fred Price, Benny Hinn and the late Kenneth E. Hagin, have been greatly influenced by his work. Osborn, one of the most successful missionary evangelists of the 20th century, has said: “Old F.F. Bosworth used to share a lot secrets with us.” Vast numbers of Word of Faith churches read Bosworth’s teachings with great excitement. His book is a required text at Rhema Bible Training Center in Tulsa, Okla.

The Vita Apollonii leaves much open to interpretation. In 4.45 Philostratus tells us
about a young woman who was thought dead by her family and the whole of Rome.
Apollonius whispers something in her ear and the maiden starts talking again. The
narrator comments it was impossible for the bystanders and still is impossible for
him to say whether the girl was really dead or not: whether it was a case of Scheintod
which proved Apollonius’s extraordinary powers of observation or whether it was a
resurrection-miracle which would signal a special ontological status for ‘the man’ from
Tyana. In his suspension of judgment, Philostratus uses the words arrhêtos hê katalêpsis
combining a technical term from Stoic epistemology (katalêpsis) with a concept
related to the Mysteries (arrhêtos). We discuss the Philostratean interpretative strategies,
link them to the Pythagorean tradition of selective communication, and read
the reference in this chapter to the story of Alcestis to the epistemological debates
between Stoics and Skeptics about the limits of human wisdom.

In this article, I clarify and deepen my criticism of methodological naturalism in biblical studies and other historical disciplines. Responding to Tobias Hägerland's and Cecilia Wassén's defense of this methodological paradigm, I make three main points. First, I argue that while methodological naturalism might be a reasonable posture in the natural sciences, the same is not the case in historical studies. The natural sciences study nature – natural mechanisms and laws – which means that supernatural and irreducibly personal causes (such as God) fall outside their purview. When it comes to the study of history, on the other hand, nothing that has impacted human culture in the past is by definition outside of the discipline's sphere of interest. This goes for supernatural as well as natural causes. History is the study of the past, not the study of the natural. Second, I scrutinize Hägerland's and Wassén's claim that methodological naturalism cannot be abandoned because this would complicate the process of testing historical hypotheses, thereby expanding the role of subjective judgment. This line of argument is fundamentally misconceived. If supernatural explanations are possibly true, it would be patently irrational to exclude them from scholarly consideration on the ground that they would complicate the process of testing and adjudicating between hypotheses. Third, I defend N.T. Wright's argument in favor of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus against two interrelated lines of criticism.

Some New Testament scholars argue that as historians, they must reject all miracle reports a priori. When asked to justify this view, the scholars usually appeal to some of the following philosophical claims:

1) Miracles are incompatible with our natural scientific knowledge.

2) Even though miracles are theoretically possible, we can never be rationally justified in believing that a reported miracle actually happened (Hume’s argument).

3) Miracles entail the existence of a supernatural realm, and the supernatural (God) cannot be the object of scientific or scholarly knowledge or study.

I argue that there are no good reasons to believe any of these claims, which should be regarded as “myths”. The first claim confuses science with a controversial philosophical theory – naturalism. The second claim is undermined by the devastating philosophical criticism that has been directed at Hume’s anti-miracle argument. The third claim entails that philosophers of religion who debate theistic arguments are wasting their time, since no theistic argument can ever succeed. It is very unclear, however, how anybody could possibly know that no theistic argument can ever succeed.

All three myths are exemplified in a recent book by Cecilia Wassén and Tobias Hägerland: Den okände Jesus: Berättelsen om en profet som misslyckades (The Unknown Jesus: The Story of a Prophet Who Failed). Taking this work as my point of departure, I discuss the myths with reference to a wider horizon of Swedish and international Jesus research. I also suggest a more reasonable framework for dealing with miracle reports in the context of historical scholarship.

ABSTRACT: Have Jesus's miracles an historical foundation ? In comparing the so-called healings of Jesus to the best ancient medical practices, the author, an historian, is in position to give a positive response to this fundamental question. The solution he gives is the topic of two books published in french: "Jesus, questionned miracles" (Osmondes Publisher, Paris, 1998) and "Jesus, the Physician" (Carnot Publisher, Chatou, 2003).

RÉSUMÉ : Les miracles de Jésus ont-ils une réalité historique ? En comparant notamment les guérisons attribuées à Jésus avec certains gestes thérapeutiques des meilleurs médecins de l'Antiquité, l'auteur, historien, est en mesure d'apporter une réponse positive à cette interrogation. C'est le thème même de deux de ses livres : "Jésus, les miracles en question" (Editions Osmondes, Paris, 1998) et "Jésus, les miracles élucidés par la médecine" (Editions Carnot, Chatou, 2003).

This essay considers what might first appear to be a minor theological problem in the major work of Dante’s mentor, and shows that it indeed poses a conundrum and a riddle to be solved. Taking up Augustine’s commentary on Christ’s three resurrection miracles – in the house, outside the gate, and in the sepulchre – I note that in his Tresor Brunetto retains the first of these locations but revises the second to “in the doorway of the house” and the third to “in the street.” Ruling out a traditional “source” for these deviations, I ask: Are these changes of scenery significant – a trivial memory lapse, subtly subversive, or ringing a change? Ultimately, I propose an underlying shift in perspective: from Augustinian biblical topography to a contemporary urban setting – an “update” from a late Classical to a medieval scene, from Hippo to Florence – an “urbanization” of the Augustinian “stages of sin” that gestures towards the streetscape of the Vita nuova.

SUMMARY: This study presents an analysis of Matthew 17, 24-27 concerning the tribute for the temple and the miracle of the stater. I discuss the pertinence of the different scholarly explanations proposed about the episode and the miracle and arrive at the conclusion that the instructions given to Peter by Jesus are certainly metaphorical and that we have here the situation before 70 A.D. I also show that to be better understood, the texts of the New Testament have to be confronted with others ancient sources, particularly with talmudic literature.

SOMMAIRE : Cet article présente une analyse de la péricope matthéenne (Matthieu 17, 24-27) relative à l'impôt du didrachme et au miracle du statère qui lui est directe-ment attaché. Après avoir discuté la pertinence des différentes explications savantes proposées jusqu'ici de l'épisode et du miracle, l'auteur arrive à la conclusion que les consignes données à Pierre par Jésus sont certainement métaphoriques et qu'elles s'intègrent manifestement dans une période anté-rieure à la destruction du Temple (70 apr. J.-C.). Il montre également que pour être mieux compris, les textes du Nouveau Testament doivent être confrontés avec d'autres sources antiques et, en particulier, avec la littérature talmudique.

Este artículo propone un análisis exegético del relato bíblico de la curación del ciego de Betsaida (Mc 8:22-26) a partir del desarrollo de tres aproximaciones sucesivas, interdependientes y acumulativas. En primer lugar, se aborda la perícopa mediante la presentación de la versión griega, su estructura narrativa y su traducción, de corte literal. En segundo lugar, se abordan los contextos narrativos del texto desde su marco literario y narrativo. Finalmente, se analiza cada una de las escenas del relato tratando de dilucidar su sentido simbólico. //
This article proposes an exegetical analysis of the biblical story of the healing of the blind man from Bethsaida (Mk 8:22-26) through the development of three successive, interdependent, and cumulative approaches. In the first place the pericope is addressed through the presentation of the Greek version, its narrative structure, and its translation to Spanish, both in a literal way. In the second place the narrative contexts of the text are addressed from the point of view of
its literary framework. Finally, each scene is analyzed trying to figure its symbolic sense.

In Epidaurus, the main ancient sanctuary of Asclepius, important inscriptions from the fourth century B.C. were found. Their texts were based primarily on earlier traditions on healings. They tend to exaggerate and to promote the sanctuary. Their main feature is incubation followed by vision and healing, usually in a dream. It is assumed that there are some similarities and some differences between the healing stories from Epidaurus and from the Gospels. However, the similarity consists only in generic features: they are both healing stories and can be labeled miracle stories (but " miracle " is a notion we have constructed). Similarities in details between single stories are secondary and only few. Some health problems in the stories, as blindness, are the same, but it is rather banal, because they were both frequent and difficult to treat. Laying on hands and touching in the Gospel stories are perhaps inspired by Greek worldview, but they do not occur in Epidaurus. Other features are different. The heal-ings are named differently. Stories are build In a different manner. Epidaurus stories stem mostly from votive inscriptions and reliefs (adorned with fantasy), the Gospel stories stem from oral traditions. Epidaurus stories concentrate on the sick persons, the Gospel stories on the healer. Jesus in these stories appears as a powerful human being. Epidaurus healings result from a theophany or sometimes occur through sacred animals, serpents and dogs. Epidaurus stories are most often related to oracular dreams, what never occurs in Jesus stories. Visions from Epidaurus involve chirurgical operations and many medicaments, both absent in the Gospels. The Gospel miracles had no sacral context. Epidaurus stories were transmitted in the context of a particular sanctuary, the Gospel stories in the context of a community. These descriptions of healing miracles seem quite dissimilar. (Polish summary in the text).

Resulta poco común en los relatos de curación presentados a lo largo de los evangelios canónicos que Jesús realice acciones de carácter ritual (¡o hasta mágico!) para otorgar la salud. Por lo general, basta su palabra y la fe de quienes le suplican. El caso del relato de curación del tartamudo sordo en Mc 7, 31-37 parece ser una excepción, lo que ha llamado la atención de varios exégetas. Para profundizar en tal realidad y en el sentido teológico de la narración, el presente artículo realiza un estudio exegético de dicho relato teniendo en cuenta la versión griega del mismo, su marco narrativo y geográfico y el análisis detallado de cada una de sus escenas.

It is not common that Jesus makes ritual deeds (or even magic!) in the healing stories shown throughout the canonical gospels. In general, his words and the people´s faith are enough. The story about the healing of the mute and deaf man in Mc 7:31-37 looks like an exception, which has called the attention of several scholars. In order to deepen in such matter and in the theological sense of the story, this article does an exegetical study taking into account its Greek version, its narrative and geographic framework, and the detailed
analysis of each one of its scenes.

In conjunction with Pope Francis' "Mission of Love" to Cuba and the United States, the Saint John's Community has organized "Illuminating the Mission"--seven days of reflection on images and biblical texts from The Saint John's Bible--as a means of honoring his visit. George Fox University is also supporting this program, and Paul Anderson will contribute brief reflections on each of the images, as well.