Miracle Reports and the Argument from Analogy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Bulletinfor Biblical Research 25.4 (2015) 475 49 5 Miracle Reports and the Argument from Analogy CRAIG S. KEENER ASBURY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY Traditionally, scholars used the argument from historical analogy to deny the historical reliability of extraordinary miracle claims in the Gospels, claims such as visible healings, instant cures ofblindness or inability to walk, resuscitations from death, and nature miracles. In view ofa wide body ofglobal reports avail- able today, the analogy argument instead supports the historical plausibility of eyewitness reports ofthese experiences. Key Words: miracle reports, miracle stories, argumentfrom analogy, blind, blind- ness, raising the dead, nature miracles, Blumhardt, Bultmann Potential modern analogies for miracle reports in the Gospels may he em- ployed in various ways, but the focus here is to chahenge the conventional argument from analogy used against the historical reliability of the an- cient claims.1 The ancient sources about Jesus unanimously support these claims, and modern analogies allow us to treat this evidence as credible, in contrast to the more skeptical approach of scholars such as Strauss and Bultmann. Many experiences have been significant enough to convince those not starting with Christian assumptions; others have included visible physical changes and the sorts of dramatic experiences sometimes reported in the Gospels that are not easily explained in purely psychosomatic terms (including resuscitations and nature miracles). Although these analogies prove neither the ancient accounts nor that divine activity stands behind them, they should remove the a priori -Bibli ٠٢£ This article is based on my paper presented at the meeting o£ the Institute .1 cal Research, November 21, 2014.1 am grate£ul to Pro£s. Darrell L·. Bock and Robert L. Webb for their responses; I remain responsible for errors that remain. I o£fered a similar plenary special Divine Action," the 2014״ address ("Miracle Reports in the Gospels and Today") at coherence for the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion, Oxford University, July 14, 2014. For related discussions, see my "Miracle Re^rts: ?ers^ctives. Analogies, Explanations," in Hermeneutik der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen: Historiche, literarische und rezeptimsästhe- tische Aspekte (ed. Bernd Kollmann und Rüben Zimmermann; WUNT 339; Tübingen: Mohr Sie- Healing and Exorcism Narratives in Matthew's ٠٢£ beck, 2014); idem, "Cultural Comparisons Gospel," HTS Theological Studies 66 (2010). 476 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 25.4 prejudice that the G©spel traditions about healings and nature miracles cannot ultimately reflect genuine eyewitness experience. P o t e n t ia l C ontributions o f A n a l o g ie s Given limited space, this article cannot address the philosophic and theo- logical question whether we should interpret some miracle claims as genu- inely divine or superhuman action. Although from a theistic framework many of the examples in this article would be viewed as miraculous, his- torically focused scholars debate the extent to which this question may be addressed within a purely historiographic framework.21 thus address only briefly, and confíne primarily to the third point of this introductory sec- tion, possible implications of this research for philosophic and theological exploration.3 Here, 1 offer instead a very modest challenge to a major traditional argument against the historical reliability of biblical miracle accounts, namely, the argument from analogy.4 People today, and presumably also in antiquity, have extraordinary experiences analogous to the most-often- dismissed experiences reported in the Gospels and Acts, however we ex- plain the causes of those experiences. By "analogous," 1 refer to the criterion that has often been used to dismiss as genuine experiences biblical accounts of miracles: experiences such as sudden healings of blindness or raisings from the dead do not occur and therefore have never occurred. This challenge may contribute to biblical studies in several ways. First, and the area on which this article focuses: the challenge calls into question 2 For various views on (or related to) whether historians should adjudicate oracle claims (not mcludmg the vast related literature m philosophy), see, e g , Aviezer Tucker, "Miracles, ,Theory 44 (2005) 373-90, Brad s Gregory س Historical Testimonies, and Frobabilities,"History "The Other Confessional History On Secular Bias m the Study of Religion," History and Theory 45 (2006) 132-49, Tor Egli Forland, "Historiography without God A Reply to Gregory," History and Theory 47 (2008) 520-32, Robert L Webb, "The Historical Enterprise and Historical Jesus Research," m Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (ed Darrell L Bock and Robert L Webb, Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 2010) 39-54, Michael R LiconaandJanG van der Watf, "Historians and Miracles The Principle of Analogy and Antecedent Frobabihty Reconsidered,"HTS Theological Studies 65 (2009), idem, "The Adju- dication of Miracles Rethinking the Criteria of Historicity," HTS Theological Studies 65 (2009), Michael R Licona, "Historians and Miracle Claims," Joumalfor the Study of the Historical Jesus 12 (2014) 106-29, now also Graham H Twelftree, "The Historian and the Miraculous," plenary address at Oxford's "Special Divine Action" conference, July 13, 2014 3 I address biblical and philosophic theologies of miracles, issues that differ from foe focus of this essay, m, respectively, "Miracles," m The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and The- ology (ed Samuel E Ballentme et a l, 2 vols, Oxford Oxford University Press, 2015) 2 101-7, and "Miracles," Dictionary of Christianity and Science (ed Paul Copan et al, Grand Rapids Zondervan, forthcoming) 4 That the argument IS modest must be emphasized, because modern experiences do not demonstrate the authenticity of ancient analogues, they do, however, refute the argument, based on the alleged modem nonoccurrence of these experiences, against ancient analogues Although modest, my argument remains necessary because of the influence of foe argument it counters K e e n e r : Miracle Reports and the Argumentfrom Analogy 477 some scholars that the most dramatic healings reported £م the assumption in the Gospels must reflect late, legendary accretions rather than allowing that much of this material could he genuine information ultimately derived from eyewitnesses. Traditionally, writers used the argument from historical analogy against the credibility of many early Christian healing claims; more re- cently, however, Gerd Theissen and others have shown that the argument from analogy actually suggests the contrary.5 Against some traditional Western critical assumptions, millions of eyewrtnesses do offer claims com- parable to those in the Gospels, however we evaluate them. If these claims can be credibly offered in the 21st century, we lack reason to assume that witnesses could not have offered them in the 1st. Second, those interested in global readings, including myself, may learn from the way that many Christians in the Majority World read these accounts.6 As Yale's Lamin Sanneh points out, through the Majority World the gospel as it is being embraced by ٠ .. western culture "can encounter societies that had not been shaped by the Enlightenment" and are thus closer to the milieu of earliest Christianity.7 In contrast to our typical Western penchant for allegorizing the accounts for exclusively spiritual meanings5 or viewing them as embarrassments, many Christians globally find in these accounts encouragement for faith and sometimes even models ؟.for ministry One need not treat these readings as normative to recognize where they challenge our own exegetical blind spots. As to which approach may be closer to the setting of earliest Christianity, we might consider how tes- timonies functioned elsewhere in antiquity. Surely healing claims posted in Asclepius's sanctuaries, for example, were not designed solely to satisfy ٥! .historical interest; instead they invited trust in the god's power 5 E g , Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical ]esas A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapnlis Fortress, 1998) 310, also Walter Wink, "Write What You See," Fourth R7 (1994) 3-9 (here, p 6), David A deSilva, "The Meaning o£ the New Testament and the Skandalon of World Construetions," EvQ 64 (1992) 3-21 (here, pp 16-17) Some late 19th- and early 20th- eentury thinkers already made similar observations, see Robert Bruce Mullin, Miracles and the Modern Religious Imagination (New Haven, CT Yale University Fress, 1996) 185-86, 219 6 This interest has birthed a range of scholarship today, from within 1BR itself, see, e g , the contributions m Craig s Keener and Darnel Carroll R, eds, Global Voices Readingsfrom the Majority World (Feabody, MA Hendrickson, 2013) 7 Lamm Sanneh, Whose Religion Is Christianity7 The Gospel beyond the (Grand West Rap- ids Eerdmans, 2003) 26 8 1 certainly recognize that the Gospel writers themselves also apply lessons from Je- sus's healings to wider aspects of his mission (see, e g , Mark 2 10, 17,Matt 8 17, Craig s Keener, The Gospel ofMatthew A Socio-rhetoncal Commentary [Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 2009] 273, 290-91, 298)But denymg their physical dimension essentially allegorizes the narratives 9 Cf Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom The Coming of Global Christianity (New York Oxford University Press, 2002) 122-31 10 On these sanctuaries, see, e g , my Acts An Exegetical Commentary (4 vols, Grand Rapids Baker Academic,