(8 votes, average: 4.63 out of 5)
Loading...This is the final, and most important, of my posts on the miracles of Jesus. In it I raise the question – without being able to come to an absolutely definitive answer – of whether Jesus was thought to be a miracle worker already in his life time or if, instead, miracles came to be ascribed to him only later by followers who believed he had been raised from the dead. I incline toward the latter view.
To set the stage for and make sense of what I have to say, I include the final comments from the previous post:
******************************
In the other two Synoptics there is a different understanding, one that can be seen most clearly in the saying preserved in Matthew 11:2-6. Here we are told that John the Baptist, who is now in prison, has heard about “the deeds of Christ,” and sends some of his disciples to him to ask if he is the one to come at the end of time, or if there is someone else. Jesus replies: “Go and report to John the things you hear and see: the blind come to see and the lame walk; lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised… and blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.” Is the end upon us, John wants to know? Yes indeed. Jesus’ miracles demonstrate it. Or as he says later in Matthew, “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28).
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!
Is there any evidence that Paul was aware of the miracles of Jesus apart from his resurrection?
He never mentions any of them in any of his surviving letters. On the other hand, he knew some of Jesus’ disciples so it’s hard to think they never mentioned any of them. But there’s no hard evidence either way.
It is not easy to tell if Jesus himself was a miracle worker.
But what is rather clear is that miracle making was extremely important in the early church.
Just in the start of his fist (known) letter to the Thessalonians, Paul says:
“our GOSPEL came to you not SIMPLY with words but also with MIRACLES ” (1 Thess 1:5).
The gospel was not SIMPLY transmitted through preaching, it needed MIRACLES.
Paul considers the work of miracles as sign of real apostleship:
“The signs of a TRUE APOSTLE were performed among you with utmost patience, with SIGNS and WONDERS and MIGHTY WORKS.” ( 2 Cor 12:12).
No MIRACLES, no APOSTOL, no GOSPEL.
And miracles were not only a must to start a church in Paul’s times, in fact were part of the daily activities of those churches (1 Cor 12:6-10, Gal 3:5).
If the apostles and even many members in the early christians communities were capable of making wonders …. it is not hard to imagine how stories of miracles ended up in th gospels.
What you’re describing sounds like the mindset of Pentacostal churches today, which often privilege their own experiences of “signs, wonders, and mighty works” in their assemblies regularly, from glossolalia to “fatih-healing” to deliveries of “prophecy”.
Christians then and now certainly aspire to the appearance of miracle-making.
Yessss !!
Once, I visited one of those Pentecostal churches here in Uruguay, and I was shocked to hear stories about ‘spiritual healings.’ They truly believe the ‘Lord’ can heal all kinds of illnesses and even help them find a job, a wife, or a husband. In their minds, those ‘miracles’ really work. Then I thought, ‘Paul’s churches probably were very similar to this!’
Of course, I believe it’s all part of the psychological power that Paul, like any cult leader, exerted on his communities. He clearly states it in 2 Corinthians 10:4-6.”
I can only imagine how hard life was back in those days. Humans often have a hard time with reality. It’s the year 2023, and we have people who believe the Earth is flat. I imagine some believed miracles happened during Jesus’ days, and I have no doubt that stories were embellished after his death. I imagine people needed something to believe in to make life more bearable and for leaders to gain control over the people using both fear and hope.
This is pretty much my view as well — the earliest Christians (including Paul) claimed that Jesus’s power, or the Holy Spirit, performed miracles through them, which affirmed their claims about the Gospel, ergo Jesus must have first performed those miracles as a sign of his messiahship/divine status as well. It is striking that Paul never writes that the apostles are performing signs or miracles *just like Jesus did*.
Of course it’s important to remember that the earliest Christians almost certainly did believe that Jesus had executed the one miracle that really mattered: rising from the dead.
I fully believe that the early Christians were capable of “making wonders.” I have attended a modern evangelical service in which healings were performed. Some of the ailments were visible, among them a couple people with one short leg. I hadn’t noticed anyone limping previously, but seated (a little sideways), when they held out their legs, they obviously had one shoe a bit short of the other. After being prayed over they were stood up to test the result, then re-seated, this time with their hips straight with the chair. Their legs, when held out, were now equal! They were healed! They, and the congregation, made up of their close acquaintances, seemed convinced. They accepted that short-leg-syndrome could come on suddenly and that praying to Jesus had the power to banish it. Possibly, even the miracle-working pastor believed this.
Well, I have always been suspicious regarding ‘miracles’ and the like. I believe that in antiquity, just as in our days, ‘miracles’ were often associated with deceit and PROFIT.
This was also the case for the author of Acts. take a look,:
Samaria – Simon the magician (Acts 8:9-24)
People in Samaria “paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic” but then Peter and John came to Samaria.. “Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them MONEY”
Apparently Simon wanted to purchase the new trick,no doubt he thought he could pay off the investment.
Philippi – The fortune-telling slave girl (Acts 16:16-19)
“a certain slave girl .., who brought her masters much PROFIT by fortune-telling” met Paul and his companions, Paul seized the opportunity and hired the girl without paying their masters and so the girl began to follow Paul and his crew saying: “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.””
(to be continued …)
Now Paul performed his own trick and “exorcized” the poor girl… bad movement … “when her masters saw that their hope of PROFIT was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them … to the authorities”.
You killed the goose that lays the golden eggs, you pay for it!
Ephesus – The seven sons of Sceva and the burning of books (Acts 19:11-20)
“ Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul”… so successful was Paul in Ephesus that “some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists ” began to use Paul’s name without paying the royalties ,“We exorcize you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches” they proclaimed .. bad movement … Paul decided to send a message , he hired a bully who feigned to have an “evil spirit” and called the seven sons of Sceva to his own house.
When the poor fellows were about to perform their exorcism the bully “leaped on …overpowered them.. so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.”
This was enough not only for the “itinerant exorcists” …
(to be continued …)
“This became known both to all Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and .. many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled 50.000 PIECES OF SILVER”
So much SILVER …indeed magic was a profitable business!!!
The only problem with that logic, is that Jesus (or the gospel writer) admits the some of the Pharisees have ‘the power’ (during arguments with Jesus). And later Paul admits his opponents have ‘powers’. It’s all a problem of ‘which’ powers (and linking to Isaiah).
To be really cynical about it I suppose it’s conceivable that Jesus could have staged some miracles, although I doubt it and certainly prefer to think not. He could have paid some guys a couple of denarii to pretend they were lame or blind or dead and then come along and “heal” or “raise” them. If the disciples bought into it they certainly would have spread the word and maybe invented some more miracle stories to pass around during his lifetime. Far-fetched? I hope so.
The New Testament Jesus was clearly a highly charismatic figure, apparently very intelligent with a powerful memory for Scripture: Stern at times, angry on occasion, compassionate much of the time. I wonder if any professionals have ever attempted a psychoanalysis of him from afar? It would be interesting reading.
Oh yes, many have. It’s a fruitless and pointless task. It’s hard enough to psychoanalyze someone you talk to. We have not a single word written by the historical Jesus and his world was so very different in its assumptions and views and sense of reality that most anyone from then would seem pretty crazy today…..
This was so beautiful to read! Thanks Professor Ehrman! more blogs please! Also, I’m excited for your cruise trip this summer! I wish I could come but it’s a bit out of my budget, unfortunately! Hopefully during our lifetime*, I can attend one of your cruise trips to learn from you while sailing the high seas~!
love and peace
-Babak
I split the difference and my sense tells me Jesus possessed “faith healing” powers.
Hypothetical situation:
Someone leaned on their crutches because they needed them at one time but became afraid to walk without them for fear their legs weren’t strong enough and they might fall.
Jesus comes along and says “Have faith in your ability to walk. The body heals itself. You’ve been healed but are afraid. Picture yourself walking! Now throw aside your crutches !”
The subject throws the crutches aside and walks.
“Its a miracle !”
“You see my son, your faith (in your legs) has set you free. Keep walking but don’t tell anyone this happened else you’ll be embarrassed you walked on a crutch for years for nothing.”
Jesus leaves town and the subject runs around literally telling everyone of his miracle.
The story evolves over the years.
Do you think the question of how popular Jesus was in his lifetime, how many followers he attracted, is relevant to whether, during his lifetime, he was thought to be a miracle worker?
In that time and place and among uneducated people, it seems unlikely that he would have been especially popular if he was not thought to perform miracles.
But maybe he wasn’t terribly popular. There are definite indications of that in the Synoptics.
Not necessarily. Lots of religious figures are hugely popular without being thought to be miracle workers. I don’t think he was hugely popular, in any event. For one thing Galilee was not heavily populated, he is not recorded as going into the major cities, and most people in rural areas had to work all the time….
1. Did Jesus likely just walk through the small villages in Galilee and talk to anyone who would listen?
2. Maybe he talked to people while they were working?
3. It is assumed that he never had the large crowds listening to him that the gospels describe?
1. Historically? I don’t know. 2. Maybe. 3. I dn’t think he could have had thousands of people gathered together, or hundreds, or dozens, at least generally.
Can you suggest a writer or book which carefully tries to work out a “naturalistic” account of Jesus’s exorcisms and healings?
These events lend themselves to psychosomatic explanations. And they comprise by far the biggest categories of Jesus’s miracles.
Are there well-documented examples of such “cures” in our “scientific” era, ie, examples for which we have good reasons to think we have naturalistic explanations?
Are there indications in the gospels themselves that such naturalistic explanations suffice? Exorcisms especially seem to lend themselves to naturalistic explanations. Another possible example might be Jesus curing “lepers” by touching them, ie, extraordinary compassion and acceptance and Jesus’s lack of concern about being infected.
Perhaps in Matthew and Luke healings are more embellished than the original story in Mark, with the latter possibly being more naturalistic.
And Jesus’s emphasis on forgiveness may have cured people who had psychosomatic illnesses due to heavy burdens of guilt.
And many actual cures, if they in fact happened, may not have happened immediately, eg, giving compassion, forgiveness, and acceptance more time to work.
There were tons of them in the 19th century. YOu might start by reading the famous evaluation of them by Albert Schweitzer, in his classic the Quest of the Historical Jesus.
Professor Ehrman, how do we handle Eusebius’ quotations of a man who lived before him who was relating a tradition or text that was composed even before that man? Does this type of information warrant any type of appreciation? If so, to what degree? Especially, how do we value this type of information versus something in an account written by an identifiable author as they lived (i.e. Paul and Thucydides)?
I suppose you’d need to look at a specific case and evaluate it. I’m not quite sure which passages in Eusebius you have in mind.
Specifically when Eusebius provides a fragment of Quadratus’ apology to Hadrian in Ecclesiastical History, 4.3.1-2. It’s not a first-hand account of someone who was ostensibly healed by Jesus. Nor is it an account from an author who spoke with someone who was ostensibly healed by Jesus. What sort of credibility or veracity do you assign to an account like that?
“To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion… The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man’s understanding and of his apostolic orthodoxy. He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:— those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day.”
Are you asking if I think Quadratus is reliably reporting a miracle that happened? No, not at all.
Even before I became interested in biblical scholarship, it seemed to me that the passion narratives in the New Testament argue against the idea that Jesus performed miracles during his ministry. The reasoning is simple: if Jesus had walked on water, turned water into wine, cured people of leprosy, resurrected a number of dead people, miraculously multiplied food, commanded the weather to change, healed blind people, and so on, then his disciples would have been so accustomed to witnessing miracles that they would not have had any trouble believing reports that Jesus himself was resurrected. But in the resurrection narratives it is just the opposite: it is only with enormous difficulty that the apostles of Jesus finally come to believe that he was resurrected. So, if their difficulty believing in Jesus’ resurrection is historical then that suggests they were unaccustomed to seeing the miraculous. And that suggests that Jesus wasn’t doing the miraculous during his ministry. It has always been hard for me to understand how Peter could have denied Jesus, how Judas Iscariot could have betrayed Jesus, and how the other apostles could have abandoned Jesus if they had witnessed the miracles that the New Testament claims they witnessed.
Bart- You say it’s “not implausible” that Jesus’ miraculous acts were later inventions, but I seem to recall that in your book, “Apoclyptic Prophet of the New Millenium” you represented that it’s likely Jesus did faith healings and exorcisms. These would have been deemed actual miracles, just as such things were during Marjoe Gortner’s revival meetings. Please clarify, and explain if there’s a scholarly consensus on the matter.
No, I don’t think I said that in my book. I said that people may well have *thought* he did miracles, but I don’t say he actually did faith healings and exorcisms. (If you have a quotatoin of mine where I do say that, let me know!! That in itself would be a miracle) (but it wouldn’t be a miracle that I said something and forgot about it, since that happens 69 times a day)
I know you didn’t say he did ACTUAL miracles, but you indicated he probably did deeds that people inferred to be miracles.
P 197 of the Kindle edition: ” Jesus’ exorcisms are among the best-attested deeds of the Gospel traditions…they are contextually credible, to the extent that we know of other persons, both pagan and Jewish, who were said to have had power over demons, …without making a faith claim, historians can’t say that Jesus actually cast evil spirits out of people. But we can say that he probably did have some pretty amazing encounters with people believed to be demon-possessed, and that his ability to cast the demons out was seen as a characteristic aspect of his ministry”
FYI, I had compared this to the acts performed by the charlatan Marjoe Gortner. There was a fascinating documentary about him in the 1970’s, wherein he admitted it was theater – but people had actually believed it. (I’m not suggesting Jesus was a charlatan; he could have believed in what he was doing).
My view is that Jesus was polar opposites from Marjoe. I saw the documentary when it came out and even though I was a consrvative evangelical (or because I was) I wanted to strangle the guy….
In the Kingdom of God there will be no natural disasters; Jesus controls nature even now.
In the Kingdom there will be no more demons; Jesus casts out demons now.
In the Kingdom there will be no more disease or bodily ailments or physical impairments; Jesus heals the sick now.
In the Kingdom there will be no more death; Jesus raises the dead now.
your speculation
There is a deeply seated logic to seeing and portraying the miracles in this way.
No there is no logic,
Even if Jesus controls nature , casts out demons, heals the sick raises the dead, that does not mean those are absent in Jesus’s view of the Kingdom of Heaven. very childish view of Jesus message in addition to not being substantiated, by anything in bible, gospels or Isaiah
Well, I”m sorry to be so childish. On the other hand, unless you become a child you wil never enter the kingdom of heaven….
disabledupes{239c9acf8d8e0d7a9799dfcac48a6137}disabledupes
“Well, I”m sorry to be so childish. On the other hand, unless you become a child you wil never enter the kingdom of heaven…”
Perfect reaction. 🙂
2005, a chicago American studying for mBA in Shanghai, told me not Childish, but child like. years later, everyone is trying to seek some sort of authority even children.
what about these uSA evangelists? They are no way Christian nationalists- but seeking their own arrogance!
2) 1987, in LA, I suppose the head of the Maranatha Campus fellowship was laying hands on a Korean student that had a walking disability. WE prayed very hard for them as the preacher, Phil Bonasso was trying to heal her via HS. When nothing happened he just said some soothing words. nothing like “Leap of Faith”
2011 in Beijing Korean Expat Church, though I never understood any Korean language, each month they had pentecostal meetings several times/month. They were far better witnesses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maranatha_Campus_Ministries
Well, I”m sorry to be so childish.
Hi Dr Ehrman I was just curious whether you would agree with N.T Wright on the claim that it was agreed by the Jews and people like Pliny and the ancient greek philosophers etc that when people died they stayed dead. As he’s claiming that it seems bizarre that they would conjure up this idea of a ressurected messiah rather than just pack up their bags and leave the movement their or find a new Messiah such as James which N.T Wright says would have made a great candidate as whilst I know its always going to be more likely than someone raising from the dead is he right in claiming this was not a held belief among people regardless of whether dead people can Historically shown to have risen?
It depends which Jews you talked to. In the Hebrew Bible, death is the end of life and people don’t come back to life — except in the idea of a resurrection as found in Daniel 12. That idea caught hold and became a dominant view among apocalyptic Jews in the time of jesus, including the Essenes, John the Baptist, Pharisees, etc. Philo was not an apocalypticist, but hte followrs of John B. and Jesus were.
Human beings tell stories. Always have. It’s a rare occasion when those stories get less embellished over time. Far more often, stories grow with time. Some stories are untrue and the teller knows it; some are untrue, but the teller believes what he was told; some are true and told by people who were involved. All of them grow with time. “This car wreck! The car somersaulted in the air!” will grow over time unless there is clear video footage of the event, in which case the teller MAY refrain from making it somersaut twice over the years. My old mate nails it when he says, “The older we get. the better we were.” It’s human nature. The thing that most distinguishes us from other mammals is WE. TELL. STORIES.
Was there a faith healing and exorcism tradition within ancient Israel at the time in which Jesus may have participated? His faith healing could have been amplified over the decades into the miracles that we see in the gospels. But it could have been there from the start possibly as a family tradition.
It depends what you mean by “faith healing.” Many people then believed that those who had particularly close relationships with God or the gods were empowered to do miracles.
The reality that Jesus was crucified and rotted, rather than was removed, buried and was resurrected, is a HUGE gap for me trying to understand how subsequent stories were reinforced without also being countered by stories of those who saw his body on a cross, rotting.
Bart, you have commented to me in an earlier post that Jesus’ followers fled, probably never saw his body rotting, etc. However, others must have see this. Story creation, modification, discussion, reinforcement and transmission is a swirl that I accept. But why would people who knew reality versus subsequent miracle stories not be part of the historical record somewhere?
To me, the fact that reality accounts are not recorded somewhere indicates the gospels are written as mythical and allegorical stories. Similarly, no contemporary historians note Jesus’ resurrection or his miracles. Philo of Alexandria does not say something like “Jesus, the Jew who raised Lazarus who was able to describe being dead…” I would not expect accounts of Lazarus saying “If you die, don’t walk into the light” :), but I would expect authorities to have investigated a legitimate and historical raising of the dead, and I would expect a historian to mention it.
The problem is that we think of Jesus as the most important human who ever lived and therefore it’s beyond belief, to us, that masses of people wouldn’t have kept a close eye on him while dying and being buried. But the reality is almost certainly the opposite. No one paid attention to trouble makers being crucified that morning (or the morning before or the morning after). Jesus was an unknown figure tried for crimes against the state and like the other two guys that morning was crucified somewhere outside the walls. Probably some days later their remains were tossed into a ditch somewhere adn the crosses then reused, and it went on like that day after day….
Is it likely that most people stayed away from the crucifixion area so they would not be put on a cross also?
Good questoin. We do have references to people watching, so it appears to be more like a public hanging. The point of doing it in public was precisely so people could walk by and see.
B: ” Probably some days later their remains were tossed into a ditch somewhere adn the crosses then reused, and it went on like that day after day…”
A few months ago you published a discussion with someone who argued that it was not uncommon to give a proper burial to a crucified one, and you the contrary.
Q1: Perhaps strange question, but when you say that something most probably happened, does that mean that you also believe that most probable interpretation/reconstruction? That would seem very likely, of course, but not necessary.
Q2: In this specific case, do you indeed think that Jesus’ body decomposed on the cross and/or was put in a mass grave?
Q3: Are there instances in which you do consider some reconstruction most probable but still believe/prefer an other one?
1. I tend to accept the view that seems most probable, yes. In fact, if something else seeemed more probable, I’d be a pretty lousy historican not to change my mind and accept that instead. 2. Yes, I think he at least partially decomposed on the cross. I don’t know of much evidence ot help us know what they did with the body — mass grave, ditch someplace, osmething else? 3. None that I can think of. Historians always prefer what is most probable. The trick is figurig out what makes one thinkg more probable than another.