Loading...Yesterday I started to talk about why historians cannot demonstrate that a miracle such as the resurrection happened because doing so requires a set of presuppositions that are not generally shared by historians doing their work. Over the years I’ve thought a lot about this question, and have tried to explain on several occasions why a “miracle” can never be shown, on historical grounds, to have happened — even if it did. Here is a slightly different way of approaching the matter, as I expressed it in an earlier publication on the historical Jesus:
********************************************************
People today typically think of miracles as supernatural violations of natural law, divine interventions into the natural course of events. I should emphasize that this popular understanding does not fit particularly well into modern scientific understandings of “nature,” in that scientists today are less confident in the entire category of natural “law” than they were, say, in the nineteenth century. For this reason, it is probably better not to speak of supernatural violations of “laws,” but to think of miracles as events that contradict the normal workings of nature in such a way as to be virtually beyond belief and to require an acknowledgment that supernatural forces have been at work.
This understanding is itself the major stumbling block for historians who want to talk about miracles, since the historian has no access to “supernatural forces” but only to the public record, that is, to events that can be observed and interpreted by any reasonable person, of whatever religious persuasion. If a “miracle” requires a belief in the supernatural realm, and historians by the very nature of their craft can speak only about events of the natural world, events that are accessible to observers of every kind, how can they ever certify that an event outside the natural order — that is, a miracle — occurred?
Still, some people think they have “evidence” of a miracle having happened. But what evidence could there be? Here is where we get into our problem.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE MISSING!!!!
I don’t think there is historical evidence that Jesus performed miracles, that they happen today, or that they have ever happened (in any religion). It’s just perplexing why miracles stories are a huge part of the Bible in general, and the NT in specific. Given they didn’t happen and there are so many in the gospels, it makes me doubt what the gospels say about Jesus (by the way, I do think Jesus existed! haha). Minus the miracle stories of the NT, we don’t have much. Why should we rely on the rest. Good religious stories, but not much historical…
minus the religion stories of the gospels (not the NT) is what I meant to say 🙂
Well, we still have a lot — just not nearly as much as we’d like! (But far more than for 99.99% of everyone else who was living at the time….)
It is a difficult problem and I appreciate your sharing your views about it. I guess one could have a patient die and take EEGs and EKGs that confirm this and then have the patient come back to life the next day with EKGs and EEGs to show this. That would b a miracle that could be documented.
Yes, it could be. And if he came back to live 40 years later, that would be even *more* of a miracle!
The funny thing is that most people reject most miracle stories they hear or read – unless they coincide with or support their own religious beliefs. Funny how that works.
Something I think needs to be addressed in these discussions is the difference between “belief” in a historical explanation, and the “understanding” that historical explanation x is the best hypothesis. For example, I don’t “believe” that Jesus was an Apocalyptic Prophet. I think there are far too many *other* plausible hypotheses that could be right. But having said that, I *do* think the Apocalyptic Prophet hypothesis is the best one going around. E.g. Take 5 of the most common archetypes for who Jesus could have been: Apocalypticist (Schweitzer, yourself, Allison etc.), Wandering Wisdom Sage (Crossan, Borg etc.), Zealot-like Revolutionary (Brandon, Aslan etc.), Magician (Morton Smith), Mythical figure (Carrier, Doherty, Wells etc.). Now I’ll roughly assign them a percentage of what I think of these hypotheses:
Apocalypticist (40%), Wandering Wisdom Sage (20%), Zealot (20%), Magician (10%), Mythical figure (10%).
From this, I conclude that the Apocalyptic Prophet hypothesis is the best going around (40%), but it’s still *more likely* that it’s one of the *other* hypotheses, even if I can’t say which (20+20+10+10 = 60%).
Apocalyptic Jesus would be the hypothesis I’d be putting my money on if we could ever build a time machine and find out for sure, but I wouldn’t feel confident in winning the bet. Hope that makes sense!
Interesting idea!
toejam, keep in mind that (using your numbers) the Apocalypticist (40%), Zealot (20%), and Magician (10%) need not be seen as mutually exclusive. The Wandering Wisdom Sage hypothesis (20%) can also be made compatible with an apocalyptic worldview, even if the scholarly advocates themselves do not argue that it is. Historical judgment is not always a zero-sum game.
Why take ‘miracles’ literally when the intended message of the (invented) story is quite obvious? Like the ‘walking on the water’, ‘the miraculous feeding’, etc. It even works in the case of the ‘resurrection’ (which, at first, hadn’t been interpreted as a physical revivification of a dead body anyway).
Also, if there was a deity who was in the miracle business then why would the deity only perform them sometimes? What would be the criteria? And wouldn’t events that could ONLY have been performed by this deity actually proof this deity’s existence then? And if that’s the case then why would the deity still hide?
Miracles do indeed occur, and even on a daily basis. Through the wonder of science which well may be the wisdom of God bestowed upon man, the blind are enabled to see, cancers are cured, broken hearts made to work, man explores space and even the most hardened of hearts can be compelled to reach out to the poor.
An interesting discussion. There have been a couple of other articles on miracles lately, that are worth checking out. Both accessible from this link.
http://philocosmology.com/2013/11/14/could-miracles-happen/
What you’ve packaged here is a first-class explanation of why miracles cannot be confirmed by historians, and how the work they do is different from the methodologies of natural science. However, there’s another problem that has plagued humankind throughout history, so much so that most people have not, and still do not, get the message. I suspect this is a big part of what motivates you as a writer and a teacher.
My question for you is this. Do you sometimes feel like you are swimming against the river? And in particular, do you think the religious majority will ever understand, let alone accept, what it is you are trying share??
As for me, especially with the widespread worship of so many *sacred stories* and the success of books like Killing Jesus, I remain skeptical, yet thankful, for the good things you are trying to. 🙂
Well, I suppose if I was swimming *with* the current life wouldn’t be so challenging and entertaining!
I only differ with you in one area: your saying that “miracles…require an acknowledgment that supernatural forces have been at work.”
I assume that by “supernatural forces,” you’re referring to a God or gods, angels, demons, etc. It’s possible that if events we would call “miracles” sometimes happen, they have natural causes that we don’t understand and may never understand – causes in the realm of what’s now called the “paranormal,” not “supernatural.” Probably involving Mind exercising a real influence on Matter. Those who believe events of this type are possible acknowledge that they’re unpredictable, can’t be replicated on demand.
As an example (I’m not saying this sort of thing does happen, only that it might): A person suffering from an “incurable,” sure-to-be-fatal illness is devoted to a candidate for “sainthood.” She addresses impassioned prayers to that would-be “saint” – seeking a cure not only for her own sake, but to advance the campaign for sainthood! And…she actually does make a full, “miraculous” recovery.
In the context I’m referring to, the “non-supernatural” explanation would be that the woman herself possessed the power to effect the cure. Her mind truly altered cells in her body! But she could never have acknowledged, even to herself, that she possessed such a power. Her prayers “worked” because of her faith in “God” and the would-be “saint”; it didn’t matter whether either of them actually existed.
I’m not saying this affects the arguments for probability of miracles. Just making the point that if they do take place, the explanation isn’t necessarily (directly) theistic.
Good point — depending on how we define “miracle.”
Pardon me for being off-topic here, but I have to say I enjoyed your performance in the first episod of the new Bible Secrets Revealed on the History Chanel. I was particularly intrigued by Prof Candida Moss (possibly because of her looks) who recently created a firestorm among Catholics and others by her throries about the early persecution of Christians, particularly dismissing Tacitus’ account of their persecution under Nero. What is your opinion of her as a historian?
She’s a fine scholar. I haven’t seen the episodes though. (I tend not to watch them)
And while we are still off topic, I believe it was stated on Bible Secrets Revealed that Matthew’s idea of the Virgin Birth came from the mistranslation of Isiah 7 in the Septaugint. But the Septaugint was not completed until well into the second century. Did Matthew have an advanced copy? And why would Matthew, who supposedly was an educated Jew, not go to the original Hebrew text rather than rely on the Greek translation?
You must be thinking the second century BCE, not CE. It was widely available at the time of the NT. And just as most Jews in America today cannot read Hebrew (many can *pronounce* it, but few can read it to know what it means) so too in the ancient Roman world. Being Jewish did not mean knowing Hebrew.
I am just catching up on this from a few days ago. I can go along with what you argue for contemporary historians with their presuppositions. But I suspect in ages gone by, when pretty well everyone beloved in God and the reality of miracles, the consensus amongst historians about probable explanations of past events would have been very different. For example, in a previous age where the supernatural was thought to be commonplace, the generality of people including historians probably wouldn’t have accepted your definition of miracles as the least likely explanation of any event.
And coming to the present, there are still significant numbers of Christians e.g. Pentecostals and Charismatics, who think that miracles are very common – some even think miracles are a daily occurrence and very common explanations of unusual events. My interest is how to convince them that ‘miracle’ is not necessarily the best explanation of e.g. the resurrection stories. I think it’s a tall order – no amount of evidence will typically shift the worldview of such folk – but perhaps one approach which offers some hope is to demonstrate how a non-miraculous explanation can provide a satisfying explanation of the data we have.
Good points!
My problem with miracles is when there are dozens of them repeated in the same text one after another then it lowers the credibility of the source and lowers the probability that one specific miracle will be true.
For example, if I was in a court room testifying as an eyewitness that I saw the defendant shoot the victim, you might actually believe me and may even vote guilty if you were on the jury as a result of my testimony. However if the defense attorney asked me what I had done earlier that day and I responded with “I saw a UFO hovering over a lake on my morning jog and was abducted whereupon they did some brain surgery and transported me back to earth”, well … there goes my credibility that I saw the defendent shoot the victim.
Similarly with the Bible, we’re not only confronted with one miracle … the resurrection of Jesus … but we’re bombarded with fantasy stories throughout the OT and NT that quite frankly make the resurrection story even more implausible.
Interesting analogy!
Mr. Ehrman
I’m curious as to your opinion on the ‘source’ of the miracle stories, specifically the feeding of the multitude. I’m aware that miracle workers were common at that time, however the feeding of the multitude appears in all 4 canonical gospels. Do you have an opinion as to what may have inspired this story , given that it matches the criterion of “multiple attestation” ? If we discount the supernatural, then was this story simply invented by Jesus’s followers, or is there evidence that this was a pre-existing story borrowed from pagan myths of the period ?
Yes, Matthw and Luke got it from Mark, but Mark has two versions of it and John has one, so it’s multiply attested. I’m not sure we’re able at this distance to determine where a story like this may have originated from….
Thank you. I guess my broader question is this: I agree that when we read the gospels we are not reading history but mostly later additions and embellishments. But is there any research that shows “where” any of these traditions came from ? The Jesus story contains a vast amount of remarkable, seemingly archetypal, stories and sayings (“cast the first stone”, feeding the multitude, the sermon on the mount etc. )
Did this treasure trove of stories/sayings simply appear out of thin air in some sort of 1st century creative burst of morality tales ? Was there a Stephen King among the group of early writers ? I don’t mean to be factious, it’s just that I’m always reading that “Jesus probably never said that” … Ok then … well, who DID say that ? : )
facetious I meant
It’s not necessarily the case that things allegedly said and done by Jesus were *actually* said and done by someone else. Stories about historical figures and their words and deeds sometimes simply appear in the process of story telling about them. Think of what tea partiers claim Obama has said and done, e.g.
Thank you. No need to reply, I’d just like to say that I think that would be a great topic for scholarly research and a book for the general reader. I’ve read that some elements of the nativity story that can traced to pagan traditions, also certain iconography such as the good shepherd. The Jesus story contains many brilliant world-changing sayings and stories. It would be fascinating to learn where some of them may have really originated.
And incidentally, learning that Jesus did not actually do/say this or that does not affect my personal faith as a Christian in the least bit.
Whatever may or may not have really happened 2000 years ago, no one can deny that there does exist a collection of sayings, stories and beliefs which are collectively called “Jesus”. That ideal, not the literal history, is what constitutes my faith.
Professor Ehrman
I have listened to many of your books and at least 2 of your lectures and enjoy them very much. But I think here you are getting things rather mixed up. Its the disagreements that lead to comments so I hope you and other readers will not interpret my comments as being indicative of my overall view of your work or publications. It’s not. I want to thank you for giving a me a great introduction to many issues in this area. But now on to the disagreement.
I posted a blog on it here:
http://trueandreasonable.co/2014/05/29/ehrman-and-the-historicity-of-miracles/
In your historical Jesus course you offer criteria that the historian uses to evaluate probabilities of events something like:
1) Multiple sources
2) Preferably Independent sources
3) Non biased sources
4) Contextual credibility
5) Close in time to the events
6) No contradictions/internally consistent
You emphasize how important using criteria is for any historical analysis. Yet when it comes to a historical analysis of miracles you refuse to apply any of these same criteria and instead go into discussions of how science and history are different. You assert these criteria can not be applied but offer no explanation why each of these criteria can not be applied to claimed miraculous events. Of course they can be applied, just like they can be applied to non-miraculous events.
You seem to alternate between 2 different definitions of miracle. One is something that is improbable another is something that is supernatural. I think these are really 2 different definitions and shouldn’t be conflated. If a baseball team makes a miraculous comeback int he 9th inning we are not necessarily claiming anything supernatural happened. Likewise if when I take communion and believe it is the real body and blood of Christ I call that a miracle. But that does not mean I think its improbable that I am taking the real body and blood of Christ. Nor do I thin it is rare, it does indeed happen “all the time” – every time a Catholic Mass is said. But I do think something supernatural happens. So its important to separate these 2 definitions and not conflate them.
I think we should focus on the idea that a miracle is a supernatural event and not conflate the notion that it is improbable. Now of course people for philosophical reasons have indicated that it is improbable miracles have occured but lets address the philosophical problems for what they are and not claim they are historical problems.
Aren’t science and history different when we are talking about non-miraculous events? If so then what is the point? Mentioning this distinction seems a red herring. If you are saying science disproves miracles then you are indeed venturing away from history and into philosophy and allowing your philosophical beliefs to influence your historical analysis.
Likewise, making a case that something happened far back in the past is harder for both non-miraculous and miraculous events. So this seems a another red herring.
“If a “miracle” requires a belief in the supernatural realm, and historians by the very nature of their craft can speak only about events of the natural world, events that are accessible to observers of every kind, how can they ever certify that an event outside the natural order — that is, a miracle — occurred?”
I am not sure what you mean by “supernatural realm.” The miracles recorded in the new testament are believed to have happened in this “realm.” They did not travel to some other world to see it. They were accessible to observers just like any other event. It is not claimed that the people who saw Jesus after the resurrection or saw Jesus healing the sick raising the dead walking on water etc., traveled to some other realm. They saw it in this realm just like they saw John the baptist making Jesus wet with water.
Historical criteria work only for events that can be considered historical. Any event that requires non-natural (i.e. supernatural, i.e. divine)intervention is not considered by historians to be a historical event (even if it happened). If that doesn’t make sense to you (as it doesn’t to a lot of people), I’d suggest you read my discussion in How Jesus Became God, where I talk about why the past is not the same as history.
In that post you say can’t consider miracles to be historical due to the presuppositions of the current community you work with. Using the actual historical criteria you apply to other events, in an objective detached way, might mean you would admit miracles pass historical muster. And then you fear you would not be taken seriously by that community. You really don’t want that happen. In sum this is known as a group bias. I hope you do not take offense at my saying that. I don’t mean to offend you but I do hope you think that through a bit more.
Keep in mind that just because something passes historical muster that does not mean you need to believe it. If you wanted to still reject miracles and avoid being ridiculed by your peers you could say “Yes when I apply the criteria historians use in isolation I would say that the miracles happened. However, for philosophical/scientific reasons, I think miracles are very unlikely to have happened therefore I don’t believe in them.” This would be the clear way to explain your position. It wouldn’t conflate your otherwise clear application of historical criteria with your somewhat vague and imprecise philosophical views as these posts do.
You wouldn’t have to resort to so many different red herrings. For example, your comments about what your grandfather had for lunch on May 25th 1954 not being history is beside the point. It’s not history because we have no sources to work with. But when it comes to miracles we do have sources to work with. Your decision to exclude miracles has only to do with the presuppositions of the community you wish to impress.
The analogy about my grandfather’s lunch was to make a specific point — not the one you bring up: namely, that history is not the past. History is the reconstruction of the past. Historians never, ever invoke God as an explanation for what happens in the past (e.g., for the victory of WWII; for the abolition of slavery, for the fall of the Roman empire, for anything in fact!). Invoking an act of God is a statement of theology, not history. That doesn’t mean that the past could not have acts of God. It means that if it does, these acts are not invoked to explain causation by historians. This is not a rule that I myself made up!!!
History is in the past, but not all of the past is history.
Your refusal to apply your historical criteria with respect to whether a supernatural event may have occurred is your choice. There is no rule of logic or reason that says you can not. It is obvious to anyone who thinks about it, that you can indeed apply the criteria to a supernatural event.
I do not claim that you made up the anti-miracle rule you assert. It is simply a rule that is imposed due to the biases of the group you are trying to impress. (And of course, there were times when the bias went the other way.) Your peers may reject these events for various philosophical or religious reasons. That is fine. But that does not mean you can not do the same historical analysis on supernatural events as you do with natural ones. Such ad hoc rules do not help the profession.
As for historians never claiming the supernatural occured let me ask, is Herodotus not a historian because he relates a “wonderful” event where Arion was forced overboard while out at sea and carried by a dolphin back to land? And if we jump to the 20th century are Hilaire Belloc, and William Thomas Walsh no longer to be considered historians?
Throughout the history of the Catholic Church several of it’s writers have considered the resurrection “historical.” Would you agree? Did they just always misunderstand what the word “historical” means and only in the last 70 years do we now know what the term means?
Recently there has been a shift to refuse to accept supernatural events may have have causative effects in history, but this is new based on our new biases.
No, Herodotus is not a modern historian. And medieval Catholic historians are not modern historians. You don’t seem to notice the difference!!
Dear Bart, I have a question regarding miracles and early Christians (living e.g. from 1st to 3d century).
1. Did they actually believe all those things? From the writtings of early christian authors, did they believe for example in Jesus’ healings or his walk on the watter or the star above the house (narative of birth)?
2. Could you recommend a book or an article that deals precisely with those things (using primary sources). Did early Christians believe in miracles about Jesus (not just resurrection, but everything else).
Thanks.
P.S. I completly agree with you about the question of historian and miracles. For me, that’s just common sense. I come from Croatia (doing my PhD in gnosticism), we dealt with that in our freshman year (I think that course was called “Introduction to the historical method” or something like that). It’s really sad to see so manny people in USA thinking that they are real historians while they use miracles as an explanation for some events in their writtings.
1. Evdiently yes! 2. I don’t know of any books that discuss whether early Christians actually believed these stories, probably because everyone just assumes they did. And for good reason! When they talk about them, they sure *appear* to believe what they’re talking about.
It seems to be so clear from your response. But, as you probably know, Origen for example openly doubted the historicity of the temptation accounts in Matthew / Luke. He also doubted literal readings of Genesis 1. So I imagine that some (like him) doubted and others believed. Would you agree with that or do you think that Origen is just an exeption that proves the rule? Thanks!
P.S. You should visit with your family Croatia in summer! It’s beautiful!
Origen was highly exceptional in just about every way! I don’t think we can think of him as representative of most Christians at the time. Croatia: yes indeed, I’m eager to go. Do you know about the work of my close colleague and friend, Zlatko Plese? He’s your compatriot.
Thanks for the answer. When one thinks about it, you sure are correct. Origen comes from an elite educational background. That was a rare thing in ancient world. His thoughts on Jesus, miracles, faith and God were not the thoughts of some ordinary guy in Palestine or Asia Minor for example.
Zlatko Plese? I sure do know about him! I’ve read some of his work. Also I have in my private library translation of The Apocryphal Gospels that you co-authored with him. Funny thing is, I was at a symposium in Split this year where I had a lecture on gnosticism. Afterwards, a guy who was also at that symposium came to me and ask me about Plese and told me that they were in the same highschool and were friends back then. It’s a small world!
Anyways, hope you’ll get your opportunity to see Croatia during the summer! Who knows, maybe we”ll meet!
Kind regards!