Man, I’m really sorry I missed this past SBL, but am thoroughly enjoying this whole discussion of miracles. Thanks James Crossley, for stoking the fire!

I wanted to make a few comments on the matter and then let John Meier speak to us all (through his book that is).

1. I have no problem with believing in the miraculous, I am a confessing Christian after all. But I must agree with James in part on this — the belief in the miraculous takes us out of the realm of historical inquiry. I am in partial ignorance on this subject as I did not hear the ensuing discussion, but have read Bauckham’s book and Crossley’s paper.
2. I appreciate Crossley’s ‘though experiment’ as it were, and think it has validity to it. But in my mind, he is specifically asking us to move from history to theology. When you force Christian scholars to make that move, don’t be mad if they answer they believe miracles can occur — you have asked them to move from a historical judgment to a philosophical/theological judgment! I nowhere got the impression in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that he is claiming miracles are real — only that we need to trust that this is what the eyewitnesses believe they saw happen.
3. Having admitted that discussion of miracles is out of the realm of history proper, it is likewise just as disastrous, in my opinion, to let the secular world-view dismiss them. These are still solid and well attested historical happenings in the Jesus tradition. And stop comparing these miracle stories to other ancient ones. Yes we have some examples, but do we have such a high concentration of miracle stories in various forms surrounding one individual? Not that I am aware of.
4. Can we all get over the fact that someone gave a whooping call after Bauckham said his bit on miracles? It happened, so be it. That person doesn’t represent all of us Christians, nor did it represent Bauckham. The person vocally agreed with Bauckham, big deal. Everyone who knows that person already knew their faith bias, now a whole room knows. I am mortified by some of the things I hear from Hector Avalos, but I don’t assume James Crossley or Jacques Berlinerblau thinks the same thing and therefore dismiss them because of it! (I have a harder time not dismissing Avalos, I’ll admit!)
5. I went to the secular section that James Crossley read at for the previous SBL. I heard quite a bit of laughter and ‘vocal’ smirks at some of the jabs the presenters took at evangelical scholars in general and particular (*cough cough* N. T. Wright *cough cough*). Was this professional just because all of the presenters took the “high ground” of the secular world-view and therefore were justified in the unprofessionalism? Of course not. Let’s get a dose of reality — we are all human beings with opinions and presuppositions that always will taint our work to some degree and even activate our vocal chords in (gasp!) professional settings on occassion.

Now for almighty Meier (its a long one— please don’t sue me for copyright):

Left to themselves, the Christians in the unpapal conclave would probably want to affirm not only (1) that Jesus performed startling deeds that some of his contemporaries considered miracles but also (2) that such deeds were actually miracles, feats beyond all human capacity, accomplised by the power of God alone and revealing the unique status of Jesus. By the same token, left to himself or herself, the agnostic would state in no uncertain terms that miracles simply do not happen, than modern men and women cannot possibly accept the miracle stories of the Gospels as literally true, and that such stories had their origin either in the creative imagination and propaganda of the early church or in deeds actually performed by Jesus that were later magnified and reinterpreted (or misunderstood) by Christian faith in the light of the OT.
Obviously, if the members of the conclave are ever to forge a consensus statement on miracles, neither side can have its way absolutely. The committee must hammer out some sort of compromise language that will capture at least an essential part of the truth, without however expressing the whole truth as either side sees it. Restricted to the empirical evidence and what van be clearly inferred from it by rational argument, these latter-day Henry Clays will have to be content with modest questions and modest claims. In particular, with so many pitfalls along the way to consensus, the committee will have to take special care to thrash out preliminary but pivotal questions of method. Only then will the conclave be able to treat adequately the real point at issue: the miracles of Jesus narrated in the Gospels and the historical tradition lying behind them……
Can miracles happen? Do miracles happen? The problem of the possibility and actual occurrence of miracles is logically the first question any inquirer would raise in a discussion of the miracles of Jesus. I fear then that I will be disappointing almost all my readers with the answer I give. In my view, these wide-ranging questions are legitimate in the arena of philosophy or theology. But they are illegitimate or at least unanswerable in a historical investigation that stubbornly restricts itself to empirical evidence and rational deductions or inferences from such evidence. No sooner do I make this claim than I imagine both believers and nonbelievers crying- “cop-out!” On the one side, staunch Christian believers - especially those of a conservative bent-will protest that I am once again giving the victory to agnostics by default: I am in effect saying that miracles are not real events in time and space. On the other side, nonbelievers, non-Christians, and even some Christians will no doubt detect covert Christian apologetics in what seems a refusal to bite the bullet. In their view, I am refusing to pursue a thoroughgoing critical approach to history, an approach that necessarily accepts the conclusions of modem science and philosophy: miracles cannot and therefore do not happen. In their eyes, I am trying to preserve a tiny acre of a bygone mythical world within the otherwise modem universe of historical research. With more than a little chutzpah I reply that both sides are wrong……..
I maintain that … it is inherently impossible for historians working with empirical evidence within the confines of their own discipline ever to make the positive judgment: “God has directly acted here to accomplish something beyond all human power.” The very wording of this statement shows that it is essentially theo-Iogical (“God has directly acted … “). What evidence and criteria could justify a historian as a historian in reaching such a judgment? To be sure, a professional historian who is likewise a believing Christian might proceed from one judgment (“this extraordinary event, occurring in a religious context, has no discernible explanation”) to a second judgment (“this event is a miracle worked by God”). But this further judgment is not made in his or her capacity as a professional historian. The judgment that this particular event is a miracle accomplished by God necessarily moves the person making the judgment into the realm of philosophy or theology.
Hence it is my contention that a positive judgment that a miracle has taken place is always a philosophical or theological judgment. Of its nature it goes beyond any judgment that a historian operating precisely as a historian can make. What a historian—or a physicist or a doctor—may say in his or her professional capacity is that, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence, one cannot find a reasonable cause or adequate explanation for a particular extraordinary event. The historian may also duly record the fact that a particular extraordinary event took place in a religious context and is claimed by some participants or observers to be a miracle, i.e., something directly caused by God. But to move beyond such affirmations and to reach the conclusion that God indeed has directly caused this inexplicable event is to cross the line separating the historian from the philosopher or theologian. The same person may make both types of judgments, but he or she does so in a different professional (or amateur) capacity and in a different realm of human knowledge.
All that I have just said holds true of nonbelievers as well. Let us suppose that an atheist has carefully examined a cure that is alleged to be miraculous. Let us also suppose that he has found that, at a certain moment, in a religious setting, a person totally blind from birth because of a physical pathology suddenly saw perfectly. Let us further suppose that the atheist then verifies the fact of the past physical blindness, the suddenness and permanence of the cure, and the truthfulness and sincerity of the blind person as well as of others who witnessed the cure. At this point the atheist can reach the same judgment as a colleague who is a believer: “As far as can be ascertained, this cure cannot be explained by any human ability or action, by any known force in the physical universe, or by fraud or self-delusion.” But, just as his believing colleague might proceed to take a further step and judge the event a miracle, the atheist might offer his own further judgment: “Whatever the explanation may be, and even in the absence of an explanation, I am sure that this is not a miracle.” The atheist’s judgment may be as firm and sincere as the believer’s; it is also just as much a philosophical or theological judgment, determined by a particular worldview, and not a judgment that arises simply, solely, and necessarily out of an examination of the evidence of this particular case.
To repeat my main point: the historian can ascertain whether an extraordinary event has taken place in a religious setting, whether someone has claimed it to be a miracle, and—if there is enough evidence—whether a human action, physical forces in the universe, misperception, illusion, or fraud can explain the event. If all these explanations are excluded, the historian may conclude that an event claimed by some people to be miraculous has no reasonable explanation or adequate cause in any human activity or physical force. To go beyond that judgment and to affirm either that God has directly acted to bring about this startling event or that God has not done so is to go beyond what any historian can affirm in his or her capacity as a historian and to enter the domain of philosophy or theology…..
Granted the severe limitations of our data, I would suggest that we must be careful to keep both our questions and our conclusions modest. What may we reasonably ask in such a restricted situation? In my opinion, we may reasonably ask and hope to answer the following questions: (1) Are reports about Jesus performing miracles totaIly inventions of the early church as it developed its missionary apologetic and propaganda in a Greco-Roman world that expected miracles from divine figures visiting the earth? Or do at least some of the reports ofJesus’ miracles go back to the time and activity of the historical Jesus? (2) Do certain kinds of supposed miracles appear to be typical of reports of Jesus’ activity, while other kinds are relatively or completely absent, in comparison with other reports of miracles in the ancient world? (3) To move from reports to what Jesus actually did: Did in fact Jesus perform certain startling or extraordinary actions that he and his followers claimed to be miracles? (4) What ultimately did these supposed miracles mean to Jesus, his disciples, and other observers in the total context of his ministry?
The reader will no doubt notice what issues these four questions do not include. In keeping with the position I mapped out above, I do not think that a historian as a historian (or an exegete as an exegete) can say yes or no to the further question: Was God directly acting in Jesus’ ministry to bring about miracles? I am not saying that such a question is illegitimate; I am simply saying that it lies beyond the specific competence of the historian or exegete…..
no matter what the evidence may be, a particular action of Jesus could not possibly have been a miracle is a philosophical judgment, not a historical one. And the agnostic has no more right to impose his or her philosophical worldview on the whole conclave than does a believing Catholic or Protestant.

Meier, John P. Mentor, Message, and Miracles. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus 2. New York: Doubleday, 1994, pp 510-518.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007 at 7:29 pm by Danny Zacharias and is filed under miracles, historical Jesus, biblical studies, Atheism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.