Miracles - Revision history

David Persyn: fix link

2015-01-06T18:21:13Z

fix link

David Persyn: link

2015-01-06T18:19:58Z

link

David Persyn: /* Can Jesus’ Miracles be given a Purely Naturalistic Explanation Today? */ footnotes

2015-01-06T18:17:18Z

‎Can Jesus’ Miracles be given a Purely Naturalistic Explanation Today?: footnotes

David Persyn: /* Can Jesus’ Miracles be given a Purely Naturalistic Explanation Today? */

2015-01-06T16:44:06Z

‎Can Jesus’ Miracles be given a Purely Naturalistic Explanation Today?

David Persyn: /* The Historicity of Jesus Raising the Dead */

2015-01-06T16:43:16Z

‎The Historicity of Jesus Raising the Dead

David Persyn: /* The Raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-45) */ format

2015-01-06T15:57:25Z

‎The Raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-45): format

David Persyn: /* The Raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-45) */ format

2015-01-06T15:50:30Z

‎The Raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-45): format

David Persyn: /* The Raising of the Son of the Widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17) */ footnotes and formats

2015-01-06T15:48:11Z

‎The Raising of the Son of the Widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17): footnotes and formats

Show changes

David Persyn: /* The Historicity of Jesus’ Exorcisms */ footnotes

2015-01-06T15:34:35Z

‎The Historicity of Jesus’ Exorcisms: footnotes

Show changes

David Persyn: /* John P. Meier’s Analysis of the Historicity of Jesus’ Miracles */ footnotes

2015-01-06T14:56:05Z

‎John P. Meier’s Analysis of the Historicity of Jesus’ Miracles: footnotes

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 © Robert J. Spitzer S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011
-[[Contents | Return to Table of Contents]]
+[[Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F | Return to Table of Contents]]
 == Introduction ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith – Jesus
+Magis Christ Wiki
 Unit II. F
 Did Jesus Really Perform Miracles?
 © Robert J. Spitzer S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011
 == Introduction ==

@@ Line 440: / Line 440: @@
 The reader may have been thinking – “Well, all you have established is that Jesus performed what believers thought were exorcisms, healings, and raisings from the dead.  But how can you know whether there was truly an exorcism or a healing or a raising from the dead?  Perhaps the exorcisms were cures of epilepsy; perhaps all the healing miracles were cures of psychosomatic disorders; and perhaps the raisings from the dead were reanimations of people in suspended animation.  How do we really know that He really performed a miracle and not merely performed what 1st century believers thought was a miracle?”
-This is a very good question which neither I, nor Meier, nor any other exegete for that matter, will be able to answer with complete certitude.  As Meier makes clear time and time again, if we are not present on the scene with appropriate scientific instrumentation and contemporary medical knowledge, we cannot definitively answer that question.   Nevertheless, we might be able to bring some insight to the answer through logic and common sense.
+This is a very good question which neither I, nor Meier, nor any other exegete for that matter, will be able to answer with complete certitude.  As Meier makes clear time and time again, if we are not present on the scene with appropriate scientific instrumentation and contemporary medical knowledge, we cannot definitively answer that question.<ref>See Meier 1994, p. 775, among many, many other pages.</ref>  Nevertheless, we might be able to bring some insight to the answer through logic and common sense.
 First, the sheer quantity of miracles (particularly healing miracles) manifests that Jesus had truly extraordinary healing power.  It is a little difficult to believe that all the blind people He cured had psychosomatic blindness, and all the withered limbs were psychosomatically induced, and all the deafness, muteness, and paralysis – were also psychosomatically induced.  Perhaps there really was a lot of psychosomatic illness in Galilee and the environs at that time; but if one looks at the proportion of physical blindness compared to psychosomatic blindness today, it would become apparent that blindness generally has a physical cause, which might lead one to suspect that some of the blindness Jesus cured had a physical cause as well – perhaps one or two.

@@ Line 456: / Line 456: @@
 Without being present in 1st century Palestine with appropriate scientific equipment and knowledge, it is very difficult to get beyond the domain of common sense.  But then again, common sense is not altogether hapless and unreliable.  Perhaps a little more of it could lead to even better judgments about the meaning of life and the value of the human person.  In the meantime, I would suggest that using it with respect to the case of Jesus’ miracles leads at least to the probabilistic conclusion that Jesus instantaneously cured the blind, the deaf, the mute, the paralyzed, lepers, and yes, He even raised people from the dead.
-V.
+== Conclusion ==
 We may now conclude by reconsidering one final point made at the end of Section III., namely, Jesus raising the dead by His own word, power, and authority.  We saw that each seemingly historical incident of Jesus raising the dead portrayed Him as effecting it by His own command (implying His own authority and power).  In the Marcan Jairus narrative, we have the popular (formally incorrect) Aramaic phrase, “talitha koum” (“little girl, get up”).  In the Lucan Nain narrative, we have the command, “Young man, I say to you, Arise,” with the possible non-redactional addition of “I say to you.”  In the Johannine narrative, we have Jesus shouting at Lazarus in the tomb, “Lazarus, come forth” (“Lazare, deuro exō”), which Meier believes is part of the most primitive story standing behind the pre-Johannine tradition.  In all three cases, Jesus’ own command produces an immediate raising from the dead.

@@ Line 434: / Line 434: @@
 Since the discussion of raising the dead is so vital to communicating Jesus’ compassion and empathy as well as manifesting His Lordship during His ministry, the conclusion to this section can be integrated into the conclusion of the unit, and so we will proceed directly to it.
+== Can Jesus’ Miracles be given a Purely Naturalistic Explanation Today? ==
 In view of the immense historical evidence within the Gospel traditions (and corroboration from non-Christian sources), it is difficult to deny that Jesus worked what were considered to be miraculous deeds, including raisings from the dead, during His ministry.  This miraculous power, in conjunction with His resurrection and gift of the Spirit, sheds light on His claim to vanquish evil by His own authority, to bring the kingdom of God in His own person, and thereby to accomplish the mission reserved to Yahweh alone.  Thus, He showed Himself to be not only the Son of Man, but also the exclusive Son of the Father.

@@ Line 414: / Line 414: @@
 <blockquote>Jesus came to the tomb.  It was a cave, and a stone lay over its entrance.  Jesus said:  “Take the stone away.”  They therefore took the stone away.  In a loud voice Jesus shouted:  “Lazarus, come forth.”  The dead man came forth [with his feet and hands bound with burial cloths, and his face wrapped in a handkerchief.]  Jesus said to them:  “Untie him and let him go.”  Now many of the Jews who had come to Mary and had seen what He had done believed in Him.</blockquote>
-There are four major indications of historicity.  First, it is obvious from Meier’s exegetical work that the Johannine story (John 11:1-45) has undergone a very lengthy development (technique #1).  Many of these developments were made by the Evangelist, but, as Meier makes clear, many were also part of the development of the pre-Johannine tradition.   This multi-layered complex development must have taken place over a considerable number of years, and so it is reasonable to assume that the above primitive narrative was formulated close to the time of Jesus.
+There are four major indications of historicity.  First, it is obvious from Meier’s exegetical work that the Johannine story (John 11:1-45) has undergone a very lengthy development (technique #1).  Many of these developments were made by the Evangelist, but, as Meier makes clear, many were also part of the development of the pre-Johannine tradition.<ref>See Meier 1994, pp. 798-818.</ref>  This multi-layered complex development must have taken place over a considerable number of years, and so it is reasonable to assume that the above primitive narrative was formulated close to the time of Jesus.
-Secondly, as far back as the tradition can be reconstructed, it seems to have been firmly anchored in Bethany.   Such an historical detail seems quite gratuitous (if it is not true) because it falls outside the standard form and does not advance any apologetical, catechetical, or instructional purpose.  Its preservation seems to be dependent on the belief of the early formulators of the tradition that it was true (see technique #3).
+Secondly, as far back as the tradition can be reconstructed, it seems to have been firmly anchored in Bethany.<ref>See Meier 1994, p. 831.</ref>  Such an historical detail seems quite gratuitous (if it is not true) because it falls outside the standard form and does not advance any apologetical, catechetical, or instructional purpose.  Its preservation seems to be dependent on the belief of the early formulators of the tradition that it was true (see technique #3).
 Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the early formulation of the tradition includes the names of Lazarus and Mary. When one considers that John (and the Synoptics) do not generally preserve the names of the recipients of miracles (with the exception of Jairus and Bartimaeus in Mark and Luke, respectively), it is quite striking that not one, but two names are preserved.  The preservation of Mary’s name is truly unusual, because she is not the recipient of a miracle, but only the sister of Lazarus and a friend of Jesus.  Again, these personal names fall outside the standard form of the story and do not advance any apologetical, catechetical, or instructional purpose.  Therefore, it seems very unlikely that they would have been added during the lengthy development of the Lazarus tradition.  So, why were both names preserved?  Because they were historically accurate, and more importantly, Lazarus and his sister Mary were probably disciples of Jesus and known in the early Church.  If this were not the case, it would be difficult to explain Mary’s extended presence in the early narrative (technique #3).  If this is the case, then the tradition would be linked back to its recipient (and his sister – an eyewitness), and therefore to the ministry of Jesus.  Meier notes in this regard:
-I think it likely that John 11:1-45 goes back ultimately to some event involving Lazarus, a disciple of Jesus, and that this event was believed by Jesus’ disciples even during his lifetime to be a miracle of raising the dead.
+<blockquote>I think it likely that John 11:1-45 goes back ultimately to some event involving Lazarus, a disciple of Jesus, and that this event was believed by Jesus’ disciples even during his lifetime to be a miracle of raising the dead.<ref>Meier 1994, p. 831.</ref></blockquote>
-The silence of the Synoptics about the Lazarus tradition may seem somewhat perplexing, but if one remembers that the Synoptics did not have access to many of the Johannine sources, and that John did not have access to many of the Synoptic sources, it would not be surprising if they had not even heard of it.  Furthermore, even if the Synoptics had heard about it, they were not in dire need of another narrative about raising the dead because they already had the Jairus account, and it was not their proclivity to multiply miracles of this kind.  Finally, the implication that the Lazarus miracle incited the Jewish authorities to persecute Jesus is very likely a Johannine redaction.  This would mean that the Lazarus miracle probably did not have the importance that John implies it did (which makes the Synoptics’ possible ignorance of it unsurprising).  In view of these three considerations, says Meier, “the silence of the Synoptic Gospels about the raising of Lazarus says nothing one way or the other about the ultimate historicity of the tradition.”
+The silence of the Synoptics about the Lazarus tradition may seem somewhat perplexing, but if one remembers that the Synoptics did not have access to many of the Johannine sources, and that John did not have access to many of the Synoptic sources, it would not be surprising if they had not even heard of it.  Furthermore, even if the Synoptics had heard about it, they were not in dire need of another narrative about raising the dead because they already had the Jairus account, and it was not their proclivity to multiply miracles of this kind.  Finally, the implication that the Lazarus miracle incited the Jewish authorities to persecute Jesus is very likely a Johannine redaction.  This would mean that the Lazarus miracle probably did not have the importance that John implies it did (which makes the Synoptics’ possible ignorance of it unsurprising).  In view of these three considerations, says Meier, “the silence of the Synoptic Gospels about the raising of Lazarus says nothing one way or the other about the ultimate historicity of the tradition.”<ref>Meier 1994, p. 832.</ref>
 In view of all this, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus raised His disciple Lazarus from the dead in Bethany, and that Lazarus’ sister Mary was an eyewitness, and that this miracle was well known in the region of Bethany, and rapidly became a story which experienced a very lengthy development leading to the above-mentioned pre-Johannine narrative, and finally, to the fully expanded Johannine narrative.  Once again, we have evidence of Jesus having raised an individual from the dead.
@@ Line 430: / Line 430: @@
 First, we see once again in the earliest constructable pre-Johannine narrative, Jesus giving the command to raise the dead by His own authority.  In this case, He does not ask the person to “get up” (talitha koum – “little girl, get up”) or “young man, I said to you, arise,” but rather a command for the dead Lazarus to come out of the tomb after the stone had been rolled away.  Unlike Elijah and Elisha, He does not make recourse to prayers, and does not act as an intermediary for the working of God’s power.  Rather, He manifests divine power and authority (the power of life and death) in Himself.  Once again we see a primitive tradition (probably originating close to the time of Jesus’ ministry) displaying a radical departure from the Elijah/Elisha stories and Jewish tradition, directly implying that the power and authority of God are intrinsic to Jesus.  It is difficult to imagine an early formulator of the tradition making such a radical claim without some grounding in history.  Most impressive is the fact that this radical claim enjoys multiple attestation not only through three sources (Mark, special Luke, and John), but also through the primitive traditions standing behind these three sources.  This will be discussed in the conclusion immediately below.
-Secondly, the primitive narrative speaks to Jesus’ deep feelings for Lazarus, using visceral terms: “embrimōmenos en heautō” (“groaning in Himself”).  Like splagchnon (a gut-wrenching sense of compassion or tender mercy – Luke 7:13), embrimōmenos en heautō carries with it a visceral quality of great interior disturbance.   It seems that the author of the tradition is trying to convey Jesus’ empathy for the pain of Mary, the sister of Lazarus (and perhaps to some extent His own pain at the loss of His friend).  The Johannine redactor tries to interpret and explain this by noting that “Jesus wept.  So the Jews said, ‘See how He loved him!’” (John 11:35).  The interpretation of the redactor indicates that Jesus’ internal disturbance arises out of empathy (His love for Lazarus and his sister) and sympathy (weeping with Mary’s weeping –  John 11:33), once again we are given a concrete insight into the deep feelings of Jesus – particularly for those who grieve and mourn.  The fact that “embrimōmenos en heauto” comes from a primitive tradition close to its source may well reflect Jesus’ real feelings, which will give concreteness and feeling to the discussion of the unconditional love of God in Part Two of this book.
+Secondly, the primitive narrative speaks to Jesus’ deep feelings for Lazarus, using visceral terms: ''“embrimōmenos en heautō”'' (“groaning in Himself”).  Like ''splagchnon'' (a gut-wrenching sense of compassion or tender mercy – Luke 7:13), ''embrimōmenos en heautō'' carries with it a visceral quality of great interior disturbance.<ref>''“Embrimaomai”'' has several visceral meanings ranging from anger, to groaning, to sighing with chagrin.  When it is applied to the interior psyche, it probably has the meaning of internal turmoil or disturbance.  See Strong’s Online Concordance #1690 in http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1690.htm.</ref>  It seems that the author of the tradition is trying to convey Jesus’ empathy for the pain of Mary, the sister of Lazarus (and perhaps to some extent His own pain at the loss of His friend).  The Johannine redactor tries to interpret and explain this by noting that “Jesus wept.  So the Jews said, ‘See how He loved him!’” (John 11:35).  The interpretation of the redactor indicates that Jesus’ internal disturbance arises out of empathy (His love for Lazarus and his sister) and sympathy (weeping with Mary’s weeping –  John 11:33), once again we are given a concrete insight into the deep feelings of Jesus – particularly for those who grieve and mourn.  The fact that ''“embrimōmenos en heauto”'' comes from a primitive tradition close to its source may well reflect Jesus’ real feelings, which will give concreteness and feeling to the discussion of the unconditional love of God in Part Two of this book.
 Since the discussion of raising the dead is so vital to communicating Jesus’ compassion and empathy as well as manifesting His Lordship during His ministry, the conclusion to this section can be integrated into the conclusion of the unit, and so we will proceed directly to it.

@@ Line 404: / Line 404: @@
 Anyone who has a basic familiarity with John’s Gospel will reveal a large number of Johannine redactions in the Lazarus story which detail everything from Jesus’ love for Lazarus and his family, to the Johannine theology of Jesus as the resurrection and the life.  After twenty pages of assiduous exegesis (peeling back redactions and accretions to the oral tradition), Meier proposes a probable pre-Johannine narrative about the raising of Lazarus. His textual and exegetical rationale for this early narrative may be found in volume 2 of ''A Marginal Jew.''<ref>See Meier 1994, pp. 798-818 for the methodology and exegesis leading to Meier’s rendition of the pre-Johannine narrative.</ref>  To keep my analysis concise, I will begin with the pre-Johannine narrative as Meier has assembled it.  The square brackets in the reconstructed text indicate sections about which Meier is uncertain.  He believes that they were not part of the Johannine redaction, but is not sure whether they were part of an original primitive narrative or a part of the evolution of the tradition prior to the time that John edited it.
-<blockquote>Once there was a sick man, Lazarus of Bethany, the town [in which] Mary his sister [also lived].  His sister sent [a message] to Jesus, saying:  “Lord, behold, he whom you love is sick.”  When Jesus heard that he was sick, He then remained in the place where He was for two days.
+<blockquote>Once there was a sick man, Lazarus of Bethany, the town [in which] Mary his sister [also lived].  His sister sent [a message] to Jesus, saying:  “Lord, behold, he whom you love is sick.”  When Jesus heard that he was sick, He then remained in the place where He was for two days.</blockquote>
-[Possible secondary addition in the tradition:  After this he said to his disciples: “Lazarus our friend is asleep, but I am going to wake him.”  The disciples said to him: “Lord, if he is asleep, he will recover.”  But Jesus had spoken about his death; but they thought that he was speaking about the repose of sleep.  Then Jesus said to them plainly:  “Lazarus is dead.  But let us go to him.”]
+<blockquote>[Possible secondary addition in the tradition:  After this he said to his disciples: “Lazarus our friend is asleep, but I am going to wake him.”  The disciples said to him: “Lord, if he is asleep, he will recover.”  But Jesus had spoken about his death; but they thought that he was speaking about the repose of sleep.  Then Jesus said to them plainly:  “Lazarus is dead.  But let us go to him.”]</blockquote>
-When Jesus came [to Bethany], He found him already four days in the tomb.  Many of the Jews had come to Mary to comfort her over her brother.  [Mary was sitting at home.]  When she heard [that Jesus had come], she arose quickly and came to Him.  [Jesus had not yet come into the town.]  When the Jews who were with her in the house and were comforting her saw that Mary had quickly arisen and went out, they followed her, thinking that she was going to the tomb to weep there.
+<blockquote>When Jesus came [to Bethany], He found him already four days in the tomb.  Many of the Jews had come to Mary to comfort her over her brother.  [Mary was sitting at home.]  When she heard [that Jesus had come], she arose quickly and came to Him.  [Jesus had not yet come into the town.]  When the Jews who were with her in the house and were comforting her saw that Mary had quickly arisen and went out, they followed her, thinking that she was going to the tomb to weep there.</blockquote>
-When Mary came to the place where Jesus was, seeing Him she fell at His feet, saying to Him:  “Lord if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”  When He saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, Jesus groaned in spirit.  And He said:  “Where have you laid him?”  They said to Him:  “Lord, come and see.”
+<blockquote>When Mary came to the place where Jesus was, seeing Him she fell at His feet, saying to Him:  “Lord if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”  When He saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, Jesus groaned in spirit.  And He said:  “Where have you laid him?”  They said to Him:  “Lord, come and see.”</blockquote>
-Jesus came to the tomb.  It was a cave, and a stone lay over its entrance.  Jesus said:  “Take the stone away.”  They therefore took the stone away.  In a loud voice Jesus shouted:  “Lazarus, come forth.”  The dead man came forth [with his feet and hands bound with burial cloths, and his face wrapped in a handkerchief.]  Jesus said to them:  “Untie him and let him go.”  Now many of the Jews who had come to Mary and had seen what He had done believed in Him.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Jesus came to the tomb.  It was a cave, and a stone lay over its entrance.  Jesus said:  “Take the stone away.”  They therefore took the stone away.  In a loud voice Jesus shouted:  “Lazarus, come forth.”  The dead man came forth [with his feet and hands bound with burial cloths, and his face wrapped in a handkerchief.]  Jesus said to them:  “Untie him and let him go.”  Now many of the Jews who had come to Mary and had seen what He had done believed in Him.</blockquote>
 There are four major indications of historicity.  First, it is obvious from Meier’s exegetical work that the Johannine story (John 11:1-45) has undergone a very lengthy development (technique #1).  Many of these developments were made by the Evangelist, but, as Meier makes clear, many were also part of the development of the pre-Johannine tradition.   This multi-layered complex development must have taken place over a considerable number of years, and so it is reasonable to assume that the above primitive narrative was formulated close to the time of Jesus.

@@ Line 171: / Line 171: @@
-III.A.
+=== The Historicity of Jesus’ Exorcisms ===
 The arrival of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus is central to Jesus’ mission, message, and actions.  It is not merely an acknowledgement of the dawning of the kingdom or a revelation that the kingdom is symbolically here.  For Jesus, the preaching of the kingdom was identical with the coming of the kingdom in power and Spirit.
@@ Line 180: / Line 179: @@
 For Jesus, the coming of the kingdom (here and now) is marked by the vanquishing of evil (here and now), which is grounded in His exorcisms, healings, and raisings from the dead (here and now).  Even though Jesus mentions the kingdom apart from His miracles (as in the parables of the kingdom and His response to the Pharisees who ask Him about the time of the coming of the kingdom – “The kingdom of God is in your midst” – Luke 17:21), His announcement of the arrival of the kingdom is connected with His deeds of power.  This becomes particularly apparent when Jesus exorcises a demon from a mute man which elicits an accusation from the Pharisees that He is casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul.  Jesus responds:  “If by the finger of God I cast out the demons, the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20).  Nothing could be plainer.  Jesus’ exorcism clearly manifests His vanquishing of evil, and His vanquishing of evil clearly manifests the presence of the kingdom of God.
-It is important to note here that Jesus exorcizes by His own authority (not by invoking the name of God), which indicates that He is claiming to have divine power in Himself, and further, to be taking on the mission reserved for Yahweh alone.  The implications for Jesus’ divinity are obvious.  The Pharisees did not miss these implications, and felt compelled to accuse Him of using the power of the devil instead of having the power of God.
+It is important to note here that Jesus exorcizes by His own authority (not by invoking the name of God), which indicates that He is claiming to have divine power in Himself, and further, to be taking on the mission reserved for Yahweh alone.<ref>“I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation:  a vocation, given him by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by himself.”  (Wright 1996, p. 653)</ref> The implications for Jesus’ divinity are obvious.  The Pharisees did not miss these implications, and felt compelled to accuse Him of using the power of the devil instead of having the power of God.
 Thus, the exorcisms have an important threefold purpose in Jesus’ ministry: