Crossley Responds
November 30th, 2007 by Danny ZachariasJames Crossley responded to my previous post, which I would like to point you all to here. He called for a bit of a rewording, which I think is in order, and as I said, I was not there so I take James word as to the “nature of the vocal support” in the room.
I do want to clarify two points though. The first is my point about comparing miracles with other ancient figures with miracle stories surrounding Jesus. First off, these are valuable connections and James is right to say that we shouldn’t just ignore these (hope I didn’t sound that way). My point is that this fact (miracle stories appear elsewhere in ancient writings) is often used to quickly dismiss the miracle stories in the gospel tradition. It is not as simple as that, though some may wish it were. Crossley said,
I’m not sure if this works at all. We stop comparing similiar issues in the ancient world because they are not 100% like-for-like? And does it mean that the higher the concentration of miracles stories are, the more likely they are to be…what?…genuine miracles?
I agree, we continue the comparison. But the higher concentration across various forms means, in my own humble opinion, that they are not as easy to dismiss as literary creations of authors or stories by later followers. And again, going over to the question of “genuine miracles” is moving to the theological realm. The end of your partial sentence, I think, would be, “the higher the concentration of miracles stories are, the more likely they are to be traced to events that were perceived by witnesses to be miraculous.” Does that sound reasonable?
Finally, I still think my point is valid regarding the move from history to theology. Crossley again:
it is still a big claim to imply eyewitnesses to miracles. If true (and hence what if) then what did they see? Did they all really believe they saw water turn into wine, a man walking on water and calming the elements and so on? Or was something else going on? But I also added - and this is important - this question: could eyewitnesses have made stories up about e.g. the miraculous. After all, this kind of creative storytelling seemed to be common enough in the ancient world.
If (and only if) we do have eyewitnesses to this, then yes! They all really believed they saw water turn into wine. Did the water actually turn into wine? That is where we exit historical criticism nad enter the philosophical realm. I confess James, I’m still not understanding how a claim to eyewitnessing a miracle would cause a revolution in historical enquiry. I’m also not sure I would bracket healings off from miracles as you did in your paper, though I can perhaps understand bracketing off exorcism.
Further thoughts and clarifications Crossley? I’m always appreciative of our exchanges.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:29 am
Surely there is another question: did the eye-witnesses form the stories to show the power of the Spirit they encountered both in Jesus and in themselves after the crucifixion? These powers testify to the resurrection - and to the opening of the covenant to all nations. If you are a skeptic and cannot bring yourself to miracles - then you need to postulate a psychological and physical mechanism whereby the human experiences inexplicable change after an encounter with the power of another person in his life and in his death. Then you need to explain that power.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Danny wrote:
“Did the water actually turn into wine? That is where we exit historical criticism and enter the philosophical realm”
I dont see at all why a historian is entering the “philosophical realm” if he is trying to decide if a historical person actually turned water into wine or actually revived a rottening corpse. I actually see it as an all too common ploy in biblical scholarship to avoid the really hard questions. If many biblical scholars are totally divorced from the discoveries the last 200 years in sciences like physics, chemistry, biology etc etc its hardly the fault of secular historians.