Loading...Miracles. Who woulda thought….
In previous posts I’ve given some of the common explanations people given to explain how Christianity ended up taking over the Roman world, all of which seem plausible (Christians attracted people because of their community life, better health care, etc) but, in my view, not sufficiently supported by the existing evidence. I’ve also I’ve indicated that I have a decided view of the matter: that it was because of Christian “miracles.” That seems a bit odd for an atheist to argue, but, well, hear me out.
Here I begin to explain it (this will take a couple of posts). All this is taken, with minor edits, from my book Triumph of Christianity (Simon and Schuster, 2018), which makes the full case. I begin with the paragraph that ended my previous post.
******************************
The best place to look for actual evidence of why Christianity succeeded are the actual accounts of conversions from the early church. These are relatively abundant and scattered throughout the decades and centuries with which we are concerned. Moreover, these narratives are unambiguous about what attracted outsiders to the faith. The Christians did amazing miracles.
I am not saying
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I sometimes wonder whether the emergence of Christianity functioned as a radical reinterpretation of a Jewish worldview that could otherwise have appeared, at least from the outside, as if its God had been defeated. Israel was under foreign domination, and many promised blessings seemed unrealized. I do not mean this as a denial of faith, but as a way of thinking about Christianity as a response to a profound historical and theological crisis: why were the people of God suffering so deeply?
This also makes me think about why early Christianity spread so rapidly. Were people drawn mainly by miracles, healing, communal support, or other practical benefits? Or, more deeply, did they embrace Christianity as a grand narrative that gave new meaning to defeat, suffering, and injustice?
Personally, I suspect the latter was very important. Given the reality of persecution and martyrdom, it seems difficult to explain the movement’s endurance merely in terms of practical advantage. Perhaps early Christians found powerful hope in the conviction that suffering was not meaningless, and that God’s kingdom had already begun in another form.
Nevertheless, it is quite remarkable that Judaism survived the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by transforming itself into Rabbinic Judaism.
I go through spells of not reading your articles, Professor. Probably as a non professional they are overwhelming. However, I regularly return because at first thought I thought them so entertaining. That is a great disservice to your great scholarship. My better description is they are so intellectually stimulating. I will never achieve scholarship but I do believe this aids my self actualization. And I thank you very much for that.
Thanks!
When you say miracles, do you mean both (a) believing that Jesus did miracles through hearing or reading about it and (b) believing they themselves could do and partake in miracles (like how people are persuaded today by watching tele-evengelists)?
If including (b), I’d assume this would have had the bigger effect, since of course there are many instances of miracles being done in the OT by Moses etc so it would have been a familiar phenomenon.
For conversions it was believing that Jesus and his original and current followers could do them. The hope, of course, would be that some of these would happen to you if you converted.
This question is off-post but references your book MISQUOTING JESUS, where you talk about how scriptuo continua and parsing can lead to misinterpretation. You give a great English example: GODISNOWHERE, which you show can be parsed as God Is No Where or God Is Now Here. Obviously a big difference in meaning as a result of parsing. Do you know of one or two examples from the NT that illustrate how parsing the Greek can change meaning?
The one we always liked to use was Paul’s statement, “I would not have you ignorant, brethren” or … “I would not have you, ignorant brethren” (!)
There aren’t too many actual examples in the NT, but there are some. 1 Timothy 3:16 is a pretty famous instance: The greek could be read either as “and confessedly great is the mystery of our religion” or “and we confess that the mystery of our religion is great.” Mark 10:40, probalby sais “but it is for those for whgom it has been prpared” but could mean “it has been prepared for others”. Romans 7:14 could be “we know” or “I indeed know”
As to the miracles that Jesus himself is reported to have performed in the four gospels – what do you think actually happened? Are these entirely fabrications by early believers? Yes, everybody heard it from somebody else, but the initial reporter had to be either a complete liar or he had to have witnessed something that he at least thought, correctly or incorrectly, was a miracle. And I don’t even tend to think that Jesus was God, but there are those today who would contend that there are scientific reasons why the laying on of hands can promote healing (other than just psychological reasons and expectations). Perhaps Jesus knew a lot more about these methods than the average person. The gospel writers appeared to have a good deal of education and knew that the stories had to all originally come from oral reports. If they had thought they were all originally fabrications, why would they have included so many in the gospels?
My view is that when his disciples came to beleive he was the Son of God after they came to think he had been raised from the dead, they realize dthat the Kingdom of God was indeed soon to arrive, and that he (Jesus) would be the Son of Many who judged the earth and brought it in. That led them to believe he was already Son of God among them, and that in his life the kingdom of God could be seen to begin to appear. That led to tales of the great miracles he did, providing evidence of the near kingdom. In the kingdom there would be no hunger, illness, demonic forces, or death, and so in his life he was said to have multiplied loaves, healed the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. I don’t htink these were “made up” in the sense of “lies” but were simply rumors and gossip originally that hardened into tales.
This is something I have wondered about too! I assumed that if there were notable examples of this, Dr Ehrman would probably have mentioned them. It is still somewhat surprising to hear confirmation that there aren’t that many!
I have been recently trying to memorize a few passages from the OT book of Amos, and I decided to try writing them out in vowel-less scriptuo continua. That is to say, “thus says the lord” becomes “thssysthlrd”. It has been quite interesting to then try to read it back, especially for portions that I do not have memorized. It often takes me a while to figure out what it says but rarely do I come up with a variation. That might be because I am already familiar with the text, though.
I gave some examples in my reply.
Thank you for this. The distinction between miracles actually happening, people believing they happened, and that belief producing social effects seems exactly the right one to make. I look forward to seeing how the argument develops.
1. These accounts of the book of Acts are highly legendary stories that are obviously not historical.
2. More concerning is Paul speaking of the “signs and wonders” that he himself performed on the mission field. Assuming that he is claiming to have performed miracles, it seems he must be lying?
3. It seems that many of those who converted did so by hearing about “miracles” and believing without seeing, correct?
4. Those that did see the “miracles” were likely not educated and gullible to “magic tricks” being performed in front of them. Does this seem correct?
I’m not sure someone who claims to do miracles is lying, if they express it generally. Sometimes amazing things happen to someone, or something they do has an incredible outcome, and they assume it’s a miracle. That’s not the same as saying “Last Tuesday I raised a five-year old boy from the dead”.
Yes, almost everyone believed without seeing. And in my experience even highly educated people are gullible to magic tricks. Check out modern faith-healers and their devotees.
“That’s not the same as saying “Last Tuesday I raised a five-year old boy from the dead”.”
I was assuming that Paul’s “signs and wonders” were more along the lines of him claiming to perform miracles such as raising a person from the dead. Is that your thought regarding Paul’s signs and wonders?
“And in my experience even highly educated people are gullible to magic tricks. ”
I agree that educated people can be gullible to magic tricks. I was referring to the first century when most people were not formally educated.
I know there are some educated people today that believe in faith-healers but my thought would be that most post-enlightenment educated people today would believe a faith-healer to be a fraudster, no?
I really don’t know what Paul is referring to. But I very much doubt he was known to have raised anyone from the dead; that kind of thing would be something he would specify, I would think. My sense is that he is thinking about the miraculous conversions he made or other incidents that could probalby be explain on other grounds. But I don’t really know. And yes, faith healers today have repeatedly been shown not actually to have healed people and many have been exposed as frauds. Some interesting books written on this. I’m reading ne now by James Randi, called The Faith Healers.
What do you think was more appealing to early converts: miracles or the message? Paul was mostly focused on the message, but the (later) Gospels and Acts emphasized the miracles. What really happened?
Well, we know the message of Christ’s death and resurrection happened. And messages about the miracles happened. I don’t think the miracles themselves did, but talk about them certainly did, and had its effect
Dear Dr Ehrman
If I may ask one final question regarding the nature of the Resurrection of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, what in your opinion differentiates the significance of the resurrection of Jesus from the claim the John the Baptist had risen from the dead, as in Mark 6:17-29? In essence, was there a qualitative difference between the claim of the resurrection of Jesus and the rumor that John has returned from death that led early Christians to conclude that Jesus was the eschatological ‘first fruits’? Was it simply that the return of the dead was a common idea at the time, or does the eschatological nature of the claim of Jesus resurrection differentiate him from other ‘resuscitations’? Any illumination at all would be immensely welcome.
I’d say it’s hard to know if any of John’s followers claiming he was raised. “Some” people are thinking that Jesus sure seems to be saying and doing the same things John did; but who they are is not explained, according to Mark. The context may suggest that hte “some” were not his followers per se but outside observers, since others said Jesus was Elijah or anothee one of the prophets, and in those two cases it would not have been their “followers” who were saying so. In any event, it’s hard to know if this is simply something Mark (or a story teller he heard it from) came up with to emphasize Jesus’ close connections to Jewish prophets (john, elijah, others) or if it was a genuine rumor out there. In Luke it’s just Herod’s idea.
It seems that one problem about telling tales about miracles is that each new miracle raises the bar for the next. Maybe thats how we got a giant speaking cross coming out of Jesus’s tomb in the Gospel of Peter?
Yup. And even more amazing stoeis later.
I suppose you’ll cover this in a later post, but how many of the claimed miracles were genuine? For instance, at Lourdes, millions of people go for healing, but the Catholic Church recognizes only 72 as real. Didn’t the shrines of Asclepius offer miraculous healing?
Since I don’t believe miracles happen at all (in the sense we’re using), I don’t think any of them were “genuine” in the sense that they really happened. Same with the 72 at Lourdes. And yes, there were lots of miracles attributed to Asclepius and others, with stories to back them up.
In your recent Q&A you mentioned that, in the Gospel of Judah, Judah is portrayed as superior to the other disciples. I deliberately use his Hebrew/Aramaic original name because “Judas” carries centuries of negative connotations that may distort how we read the earliest sources.
My question is this: if Judah was truly a betrayer, how do we explain Jesus’ decision to choose him as one of the Twelve? Even if Jesus did not know him beforehand, wouldn’t he have recognized his character after only a few days of close association? And if Judah were untrustworthy, would Jesus still have sent him out—paired with the others—to preach the kingdom of God?
Likewise, would the Twelve have entrusted the money bag to the worst member of the group? Communities normally choose the most reliable person for such a responsibility, yet Judah never absconded with the funds. And if he were truly malicious, would he have taken his own life immediately after Jesus’ arrest?
My question continues in the next box.
Sometimes trusted people turn on their friends, for reasons of their own. It happens a lot, unfortunately.
Given these inconsistencies, doesn’t the traditional betrayal narrative become difficult to sustain? Especially when the Gospel of Judah depicts him as the only disciple who understands Jesus, the one to whom Jesus reveals the deepest mysteries, and the one who will “exceed all of them”?
This portrayal suggests not a villain but the disciple closest to Jesus in insight, perhaps even the one Jesus trusted most. If Jesus believed his mission required an unnatural death, is it not plausible that Judah acted at Jesus’ request, rather than out of treachery?
So my question is: in light of the internal logic of the Gospels and the portrayal in the Gospel of Judah, does it not make more historical sense to see Judah not as a betrayer, but as the disciple who—however tragically—fulfilled the role Jesus asked him to perform?
Your conclusion is the one put forth in the Gospel of Judas (or Jude, if you prefer not to use the normal translation). If you’re saying that that is the most historically likely view, I suppose you’d need to find evidence in our sources that Jesus asked him to betray him, and an explanation of why he would do so based on everything else we know, historically, about jesus. (the problem is that historians canb’t simply take ancient accounts and assume they’re all historically accurate and then draw the conclusions. We have to decide WHAT PARTS of the sources are accurate, and have good reasons for thinking so) (What for example would be the grounds for thinking Judas was entrusted with the money bag?)
There is a very good historical explanation as to why Jesus would have ordered or instructed Judas to turn him over to arresting authorities. Ancient written texts strongly suggest a pre-planned or pre-arranged scenario; Jesus stating, “One of you will betray me.” When Judas responds, “Is it me?” Jesus instructs, “Do what you must do.” Then having Judas lead the arresting party to a remote location out of the city in the middle of the night (and not back where they were having Passover supper), and then Jesus telling his remaining disciples, “His hour was at hand,” and keep reminding them to stay awake – it was clearly pre-planned. Then to have the recent discovery of the ancient Gospel of Judas to say just that. I put more credence on ancient texts rather than opinions of modern-day historians who simply do not understand a simple historical context that explains this (among many other things).
Also, Paul’s letters provide multiple attestation to the scenario that Jesus was betrayed on the very night of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23).
The miracles in the times of Jesus would be interesting to categorize.
We could consider these four potential categories:
A) healing miracles curing sickness, demons, eyesight, leprosy, ‘withered’ or non-functioning limbs, fertility
B) food-related miracles such as the multiplying of bread or fish
C) water-related miracles such as changing it into wine, walking upon it or a cleansing ‘baptism’
D) death miracles such as resuscitation or resurrection
Could those categories of miracles have been easily understood as metaphors in the 1st or 2nd century?
A) = healings of false beliefs, ignorance or following weak/wrong paths?
B) = miracles of gifts/rewards from divinity through faith?
C) = miracles of supernatural interactions controlling nature with faith?
D) = returning to the faith
Would these metaphorical concepts equally obvious to the Jews and Gentiles? Those categories of miracles and metaphors were certainly NOT exclusive to Christianity, they were weaved into many ancient creation narratives throughout the globe over many centuries. So why would the Christian miracles be any more impressive or convincing than all the other known miracles?
Are you saying that ancient people would have seen them metaphorically? I can’t think of any Jewish or Christian source from antiquity that suggests that as an option. Do ytou have something in mind?
Yes. I have been told numerous times that the Adam and Eve story was easily understood by the Jewish people more as an allegory or metaphor for ‘coming of age’ and leaving the nest. The Bronze Serpent of Numbers 21 could be understood as people challenged to “see” a message of God if they were to survive. Lot’s wife ‘turning into a pillar of salt’ could be seen as being excommunicated from the community (or a healthy condition) for breaking a covenant with God. Ananias and Sapphira dying on the spot for skimming on their profits could be seen as both showing that Peter was empowered with some control over divine powers and/or that a guilty conscience drains life. It seemed commonplace to teach moral lessons in creative parable forms using well-known figures or locations.
Source example: Origen’s commentaries often focused on the symbolism and morals within the scripture stories. Origen did not make serious attempts to claim that the miracle actions were historical. Certainly, he was not the only one who refrained from requiring a literal reading and a full belief of all miracles. But later in time, Augustine would still refer to the symbolism and morals in the scriptures, but then he would also attempt to state the miracles as actual historical events. For him, understanding the lessons and morals was needed, but all the stories also had to be understood as being historically true. So as time progressed, just accepting the meanings of the lessons thru a miracle story became inadequate and faith/belief of Christian miracles had to go to a higher level of acceptance. From what I understand from the various writings of J. Davies, J. Meyer, J.D. Crossan, E.P. Sanders and S. Cohen, many Jews were not necessarily impressed by the ‘literal’ Christian miracles that were similar to miracles they already knew in their stories, but some were likely impressed by the Christian messages and converted. Perhaps many pagans would have also been equally unimpressed by the ‘literal miracles’ themselves if they were not increasingly encouraged by bishops into more literal understandings. Without some literal acceptance of miracles, the continued uplifting of Jesus and Mary would not of been as easy of a path for many to accept on faith alone.
Yesterday you said Rodney Stark “unrealistically and uncritically assumes that when Christian sources praise Christians and malign pagans for their health care practices, they are giving factual information.” But Stark is a sociologist who examined exponential growth of the church, not individual conversions. If you are gaining five for every one lost to disease, growth would still be exponential. (And this doesn’t even consider the fertility rate.) Plus the founding Christian documents urge such caregiving behavior, which was not a known cultural value of pagans. Stark contrast!
Today you seem credulous that Peter’s shadow and Paul’s handkerchief could miraculously heal, and people saw this actually happen and were convinced by that. Gullible report.
Stark thought “5,000 heard the message and all 5,000 converted” was a wild exaggeration. This was cold-call sales. Actual salespeople would be thrilled with a 1% success rate for cold-call sales. “Nobody who is offered such a great deal can resist!” is a sales pitch, not a sales report.
New Member here
Does the evidence show miracles to be a primary factor in the conversion of people mainly during the early stages of Christianity? Or does it continue to be a strong attraction in later periods?
I expect that the more the church becomes the state conversion becomes a social and economic requirement, rather than a choice.
I’d say it was less an economic requirement than a social reality. Most of those 3 million Christians around 300 CE had children; who 20 years later themselves had children; all while more adults are converting, and also haveing children.
“Paul spoke of the “signs and wonders” that he himself performed”
This makes sense from a historical standpoint. Since Paul did not do anything impossible there were no witnesses to Paul doing anything impossible. So Paul never identifies a specific impossible act he did. Although Paul lacks credibility in general his failure to claim he did any specific impossible act does sound historical compared to Acts which writes about him. What Paul says above then, sounds more like Paul’s interpretation of what he did do.
While I’m here, regarding MS, his accusers are generally in the ironic position of believing that Jesus did the impossible, which is impossible, while MS’ interpretation was that Jesus was a magician, which is possible.
Joseph
You said that most people have never experienced a miracle. Why do you say that? I’m thinking it’s the opposite. Most people have experienced a miracle at some point in their lives.
Didn’t Paul state that he performed miracles? He wrote that he performed signs and wonders. That means people did experience miracles firsthand, but we don’t know what they were specifically.
I’m assuming that people in the early church were healed from some of their sicknesses, and that would be a miracle to them. There’s miracles and then there’s David Copperfield stuff. They’re not the same thing.
Most people who believe in genuine miracles have *heard* about them, not actually themselves been, say, raised from the dead or cured of cancer..
Have you ever watched videos of David Blaine’s street magic? His specialty is close-up magic. He’s very good, and people are so bewildered by what he does that many speculate he is divine. If he can get this reaction from people born in the United States in the 21st Century, who were at least taught some science in high school, it shouldn’t be surprising that many in the ancient world believed wholeheartedly in miracles.
Ah, good point.