Those Nature Miracles of Jesus: Historical?

Last updated on: October 6, 2017 at 12:05 am by Scot McKnight

Those Nature Miracles of Jesus: Historical? 2017-10-01T14:43:45-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

My friend and fellow student of James D.G. Dunn, Graham Twelftree is well known for his robust examination of the miracle stories of Jesus: exorcisms, miracles, etc. Now he has put his hand to editing a book, The Nature Miracles of Jesus: Problems, Perspectives, and Prospects, in which a variety of scholars across the spectrum examine the nature miracles and respond to one another.

Graham opens with an admirable but succinct study of how the nature miracles have been understood in church history, and he has special concerns with the skepticism that reshaped this discussion in the modern era.

Every apologist needs this book for it gives immediate access to recent approaches to the nature miracles. Furthermore anyone who cares about the miracles and defending miracles needs to be abreast of this recent research.

Here is Graham’s own summary of the contributions of the authors in this volume:

For most of the history of the discussion of Jesus the nature miracle stories were assumed to have originated in his ministry. The work of Johannes Cocceius in the late seventeenth century, that we noted opened up a fissure between meaning and history, marked a change. With scientific discourse deeply influencing theological enquiry, Jesus researchers increasingly approached the nature miracles in diverse ways, from ignoring them as late entries into the tradition to affirming their essential historicity.

The present project seeks to engage the issues head on. In the next chapter, Craig Keener argues for the historicity of the nature miracle stories associated with Jesus. He argues that while historians may not be able to prove the occurrence of past events they are able to offer credible evidence to support the nature miracles of Jesus. To begin with, Keener points to the otherwise considerable reliable information in the Gospels that portrays Jesus as a miracle worker. Although this does not guarantee the reliability of any one account, it does allow the historian to claim that the nature miracles are consistent with Jesus’ larger ministry. In particular, Keener notes that the category of nature miracle is attested in multiple sources, and that they are both possible and plausible. He concludes that unless historians begin with a prejudice against supernatural activity they lack sufficient reason to question the reports of the nature miracles.

And I agree with Keener’s method and conclusions, while at times I can side with points made by Eve.

Eric Eve explores the possibility that while the nature miracle stories have their roots in actual historical occurrences in the life of Jesus, they have grown in the telling. It is not, he argues in chapter 3, that we need to suppose that a purely natural occurrence was mistaken for a miracle. Rather, a culturally appropriate judgment was made about an event that we would not judge to be miraculous. Eve argues that given that individual and collective memory were shaped to reflect community values and to exalt the founding hero, it is to be expected that stories about Jesus would have grown in the telling. Indeed, he notes there are clear signs that the stories were framed and shaped by Old Testament themes and stories. Yet, it is their partial resistance to such framing and reshaping that lends plausibility to at least some of the stories originating in something that actually took place. However, in that we are unable to reverse engineer the workings of memory or oral tradition, speculative reconstruction produces limited results. Other stories, he judges, may be better explained in terms of myth or invention. Eve concludes that for the Gospel writers the truth about Jesus was not captured in historical truth alone, but also through interpreting him in the light of scriptural precedent and Easter faith.

Keener and his ilk have adequately responded especially to approaches like Crossley’s and Zimmermann’s.

In the fourth chapter, James Crossley argues that we should act as if proving miracles in the traditional historical-critical sense is not part of this game—the historical-critical enterprise. For supernatural activity cannot be established by the historian. Further, what Crossley calls the demise of the “criteria of historicity” shows there is little confidence that the historian is able to prove whether or not miracles “really happened.” Rather, the nature miracles are to be assumed to be pure myth. In turn, these traditions are early additions to the Jesus story. What can be established, and is important, is the belief in miracles, for this would help the historian focus on the ways the first believers constructed identities and developed Christology.

Ruben Zimmermann, in the fifth chapter, offers a literary-hermeneutical approach. On the basis of the distinction in narratology between the discourse and the story he emphasizes that the nature miracle stories associated with Jesus are without any doubt narrated as factual narratives (discourse-level), referring to past events. At the same time, these stories relate something that breaks through any form of “normal” reality, as experienced in daily life (story-level). This aspect shows analogies of these stories with fantasy literature against the definition of fantasy in literary studies. Zimmermann argues that the tension between the factual narrative and the “Active” content of nature miracle stories was already present for the ancient reader, for it is inherent in this kind of text. He concludes that this problem of the nature miracles cannot and should not be “solved.” Instead, he suggests that this tension should be retained, for it drives the hermeneutical process: it reveals that the comprehension and the incomprehension cannot be separated; it provides a sensitivity to God breaking through and transcending norms; and it initiates an enduring process of storytelling for a community.

In the next two chapters, philosophers Michael Levine and Timothy McGrew present opposing views. Both essays take their starting point from Hume’s infamous essay. As his contribution to solving the problem of nature miracles, Levine says that for Hume to frame the question of miracle in terms of laws of nature is neither necessary nor useful. Rather, Levine supposes that the possibility of miracles has more to do with the nature of causation. As an example he focuses on the logical entailment (or logical consequences) theory of causation, showing it to be utterly implausible. The connection between events and causation are not sufficiently loose to allow for miracles. On the other hand, Timothy McGrew shows that the breakdown of Hume’s argument has opened the way for significant developments. He notes Richard Swinburne, among others, arguing that given a high probability of bare theism there is no upper boundary on more specine doctrines, including miracles. Also, brought into view is the mounting number of reports of modern-day miracles. On the last page of his essay McGrew says: “if we have learned any lesson from the collapse of Hume’s everlasting check’ it should be that we have no right to put such claims beyond the reach of evidence.”

Graham summarizes my view accurately. My view is “radical” in the sense that it is maintained all the way to the core. The problem I have with “did Jesus do this or that?” studies is that the result leads to a reconstruction of Jesus, and that reconstructed Jesus is taken to be what we are to believe. The canon and the creed have made that decision. Yes, the historical method yields some probable results; it is especially valuable for apologetics. But for determining what we believe we don’t await the latest conclusions of historians. That is to surrender (our faith) to Caesar. I’m grateful Graham permitted my viewpoint to be part of this book.

Scot McKnight takes a radical approach. He points to the severe limits of what proving the historicity of the nature miracles using historical methods can achieve for the Christian faith, when the Christian faith has already affirmed and assumes such conclusions. For, he notes that this approach uses what he calls an Erastian historiography in which the historian separates and subordinates faith to the historical process and its results. What concerns McKnight is that the historical-critical method produces a limited Jesus that is different from the canonical or creedal Jesus. In turn, echoing Martin Kahler, he says that a Jesus reconstructed by historical methods is an insufficient and uncertain foundation for the church’s faith. McKnight s solution is to propose a “radical separationism.” This, he argues, does not stand in the way of historical enquiry, but also encourages a “plain” reading of the text in order to hear the voice of God and see his power, including in the nature miracles.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 5, 2017

DMin Projects

Next Post

October 6, 2017 "An Act of Pure Evil"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many books in the Bible are classified as poetry?

Select your answer to see how you score.

5 7 6 4