Steven Carr

http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html

An interesting essay.
It starts :-

'The earliest traditions about Jesus include accounts of his miracle working. They are intertwined with the earliest sayings traditions. Additionally, the attestations of Jesus' miracles are uniquely diverse and numerous. There are no first century equivalents.'

Presumably Paul did not write any traditions about Jesus.

Are there really no first century equivalents to Jesus's miracles such as his spitting on eyes to cure blindness? Did not Vespasian do the same?

'It is clear that Mark's miracle stories are not fictionalized accounts created by its author, but rather inherited miracles stories "from many different streams of first-generation Christian traditions.'

Why is this clear? And why did not the first-generation Christians not create fictionalised accounts? (We know later Christians definitely did, so why did the first Christians take a vow of truth-telling that later Christians did not feel bound by)

Layman writes 'Research into the historical Jesus has found the distinctive contents of Luke, both teaching and narrative, to have a high degree of authenticity." Really? This seems a rather haut-en-bas declaration. Could we have some have this research?

'One reason scholars are confident that Luke is passing along established traditions is because of his demonstrated careful use of Mark and Q.'

Another non sequitor. Because Luke is repeating the attestation of Mark, we know he was careful, yet Layman also wants us to think that multiple attestation is import.

Can Layman find a single unbiased author of the first-century AD who confirms that there was a miracle-worker at work in Palestine? No.


Layman writes 'As with Mark, Matthew, and Luke, application of form and source criticism to the Gospel of John reveal that its miracle stories are derived from earlier sources (whether written, oral, or eyewitness accounts).'

What sources? How reliable are those sources? What miracles in John can be shown to come from eyewitness accounts?

Layman writes 'Finally, it could be argued that Jesus' miracles are based on the Old Testament. The main problem with this objection is that it misses the point of the divergent pattern criterion. It would be possible for any number of Jewish people or sources to invent miracle stories based on the Old Testament. But as the above discussion shows, they simply did not do so.'

And they simply did. We can document Luke's 'careful' use of the Septuagint here http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm

[remarks deleted-V ]Of course, he does not do so.....

Toto

This all seems so familiar. I think Layman started some threads along those lines, to be found in the Archives now:

Jesus the Miracle Worker (starts with the same dismissive language: which has been softened just a bit to One of those other Jewish "miracle-workers"?

(Unfortunately, the posters' names have been stripped off. But you can tell.)

Layman

Actually, here is how it starts:

A concept popular with skeptics, if not with New Testament scholars, is that Jesus' miracles are best explained as fictions added by the early church to enhance its own cause and Jesus' image among potential converts. Many believe that the reports of Jesus' miracles are similar to—and no more persuasive than—other accounts of miracles from the first century. There are a number of problems with these beliefs. The earliest traditions about Jesus include accounts of his miracle working. They are intertwined with the earliest sayings traditions. Additionally, the attestations of Jesus' miracles are uniquely diverse and numerous. There are no first century equivalents. To clarify, this article does not equate Jesus' exorcisms that do not result in miraculous healings with his miracle working.

As for Paul, he provides some information about Jesus, but not in a narrative form. The most important tradition to him was indeed miraculous, that Jesus rose from the dead.

Actually, what I wrote was: "There are no examples of comparable miracle workers in Judaism or Paganism contemporary with Jesus."

Yes, Vespasian, the Emperor of the perceived civilized world is credited with a healing or two. He is not generally recorded as a miracle worker. This is hardly makes him a comparable miracle worker to Jesus.

My comments on Mark:

It is clear that Mark's miracle stories are not fictionalized accounts created by its author, but rather inherited miracles stories "from many different streams of first-generation Christian traditions." (Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 618) This is proven, in part, by the diversity of the miracle narratives and sayings in Mark. Of 666 total verses in Mark, 209 deal with Jesus' miracles. These verses are varied in form and content. There are blocks of miracles stories (4:35-5:43), individual, distinct miracle stories (9:14-29), miracle stories intertwined with broader narratives (6:7-8:21); and individual miracles embedded in the pre-Marcan passion narrative (10:46-52). (Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 618) Furthermore, Mark's miracle stories are varied. They are long and circumstantial, as well as short and pithy (1:30-31). They are detailed, including names of places and people, and they are nondescript, giving neither names nor places. They are physical healings, nature miracles, exorcisms, and miraculous knowledge. Jesus is portrayed both as performing miracles and as speaking about his miracles (3:20-30). In short, "when one looks at this vast array of disparate streams of miracle traditions in the first Christian generation, some already grouped in collections, some still stray bits of material, Mark alone -- writing as he does at the end of the first Christian generation -- constitutes a fair refutation of the idea that the miracle traditions were totally the creation of the early church after Jesus' death." (Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 620)

Additionally, at least two of Mark's miracle stories contain Aramaisms: the raising of Jairus' daughter from death (5:41) and the healing of the deaf man (7:34). Because the gospel writers were attempting to reach a Greek speaking audience, most of the sayings and narratives are in Greek. The existence of an Aramaism, therefore, is generally regarded as evidence of early formation of the relevant tradition. See Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, page 202. ("The criterion of Aramaic linguistic features argues that traces of Aramaic syntax or wording underlying a tradition point to the tradition's age and authenticity.") Thus, the fact that two of the miracle stories persisted in retaining some Aramaic argues strongly for their early existence.

I cited my source. Obviously, if you disagree then you will discount the value of L to some extent. If you would like, I can recheck Van Voorst to see what other references he provides.

You miss, or at least misconstrue, the point. It is how Luke uses Mark that is significant. He does not use him as a springboard for creative writing. He is relatively conservative in his use of Mark. And, to a perhaps less detectable sense, Q (or Matthew):

One reason scholars are confident that Luke is passing along established traditions is because of his demonstrated careful use of Mark and Q. "The general fidelity to his sources M[ark] and Q, where these can be certainly identified, makes one skeptical of suggestions that he created material in the Gospel on any large scale. It is much more plausible that Luke's own attitudes were in considerable measure formed by the traditions which he inherited." (I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, p. 31) This fidelity, although not absolute, is consistent with Luke's stated purpose in writing his gospel:

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)

Accordingly, we can be confident that Luke's unique material is derived from otherwise unknown, but pre-existing traditions in the early Christian community (perhaps even a significant literary source).

Most historical source are biased. Not sure what your point is here.

But as I indicate in my article, most relevant scholars agree that Josephus refers to Jesus' miracle working. He's not unbiased, but perhaps he is only biased in the other direction.

If they were eyewitness accounts, then one or some of the witnesses were involved in Jesus' ministry. For traditionialists and some others, that would mean the Apostle John or another disciple of Jesus. But I did not imply that most scholars who believe John used preexisting sources accept such a source (which is why I said "whether written, oral, or eyewitness"). Many do not, but still conclude that there was a "signs source."

If it was not a disciple, and especially not John, we do not know who the sources were. What we know is that they preexisted the Gospel of John.

Since I haven't made any comparisons or arguments about the book of Mormon, I'm not sure how you think this impeaches me. But if your point is that because there are similarities between the Septuagint and the Gospel of Luke or other NT writings they must mean free creation, you are wrong. Jewish and Christian authors often couched historical events in OT language or terminology. Luke not the least of all.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price6.htm

2. Gospel of Luke

The Gospel of Luke provides ample New Testament evidence of the Christian tendency to describe historical events in Hebrew Bible language and themes.

Luke describes John the Baptist in terms of Isaiah 24:3-5 at Luke 3:1-6.

Luke refers to the Twelve, which are obviously symbolic of the Twelve Tribes of Israel described throughout the Hebrew Bible at Luke 9:1-2.

Luke refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in terminology gleaned from the Hebrew Bible (Daniel 9:26 and 12:7) at Luke 21:22.

Luke, confirmed by Paul himself, describes Paul being let down through a wall, in a story similar to the Hebrew Bible (Joshua 2:15 and 1 Samuel 19:12) at Acts 9:25 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:33).

Luke describes a successful ministry to the Gentiles, explicitly citing Amos 9:11-12 at Acts 15:16.

[expression of disagreement - exact words deleted by mod]

Layman

Not sure what your point is. I did post an early form of part of this article a while ago. I filled it out and added a much more complete section on dissimilarity.

Toto

The point was to provide links to the earlier posts.

Toto

For reference, since Van Voorst was mentioned:

Van Voorst's refutation of the Mythical Jesus Theory (summary) which does not deal with his treatment of special L.

I do not intend to be an active participant in this thread. The original arguments that were made in the archived thread seem to be still valid, and I cannot credit the idea that historic references to miracles can come even close to the sort of evidence that would be required to make the idea of a miracle even plausible.

Layman

Just to be clear, the article does not argue for the validity of these miracles, just their early origins.

NOGO

Except that Paul attribues the resurrection miracle to Yahweh, not to Jesus.

So we still do not have first century miracles attributed to Jesus.

Nice try.

Layman

Only if you date the gospels and all their sources radically late. And dismiss Josephus.

So yeah, if you ignore all the evidence there are no first century miracles attributed to Jesus.

Roland

According to the chart on this site, Jesus miracles weren't mentioned by non-gospel Christian writers until well into the 2nd Century.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin.../OldTable.html