On the Treatment of Miracles in New Testament Scholarship

Abstract

All introductory textbooks to the New Testament have something to say about the miracles and resurrection of Jesus, sometimes implicitly but more often explicitly. Not surprisingly, conservative textbooks take a conservative approach, rejecting outright the “naturalism” that governs other human and natural sciences. Yet even liberal textbooks stop short of assuming a fully naturalistic paradigm. This paper analyses the assumptions that serve as the foundation of both conservative and liberal treatments of the miraculous, and joins others in calling for the academic study of Christian Origins to situate itself more fully within the academic study of religion. Tous les manuels d’introduction au Nouveau Testament ont quelque chose à dire sur les miracles et la résurrection de Jésus, parfois implicitement, mais le plus souvent de manière explicite. Comme on pouvait s'y attendre, les manuels conservateurs adoptent une approche conservatrice, en rejetant purement et simplement le « naturalisme » qui régit les autres sciences humaines et naturelles. Pourtant, même les manuels libéraux s'arrêtent avant d’assumer un paradigme entièrement naturaliste. Cet article analyse les hypothèses qui servent de base aux traitements conservateurs et libéraux du miraculeux, et s'unit à d’autres pour l’appel à une étude universitaire des origines chrétiennes afin de s'intégrer pleinement dans l’étude scientifique de la religion.

The Miraculous in the New Testament: Current Research and Issues

“…Nevertheless, he says, ‘Since historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and the chances of a miracle happening, by definition, are infinitesimally remote, historians can never demonstrate that a miracle probably happened’ (2012: 257, his emphasis). However, Ehrman can be judged unsuccessful for, as Crook asks: ‘Is the historian really unable to say, categorically, that the sun did not stand still, as Joshua 10.13-14 claims?’ (2011: 466, his emphasis).…”

“…For example, in the absence of yielding any negative historical results, Levine reasonably questions whether evangelicals are involved in historical research or apologetics (2011; cf. Crook 2011).…”

On the Treatment of the Supernatural by Zeba Crook

“…Zeba Crook makes it clear that an openness to supernatural explanations has no place in an academic discipline. This is necessary for Christian Origins to be taken as seriously as other academic disciplines (2011: 475). However, Crook takes it farther than that.…”

“…However, Crook takes it farther than that. Crook takes issue with the suggestion that naturalism is seen as a failure, despite data that indicate a large majority of adult Americans believe in miracles (2011: 464). Crook accuses certain authors of bordering on “intellectual dishonesty” when they allow for supernaturalism in some cases and yet are willing to rely on the scientific advancements that have developed from a naturalistic worldview.…”

“…It would be like a family budgeting in order to pay their bills, knowing that an unexpected cheque could arrive in the mail, but not relying on it. Supernaturalism (wrongly called anti-naturalism by Crook) does not necessarily lead to the chaos of police being required to investigate supernatural causes for criminal acts (2011: 473). In his appropriate attempt to set a high academic standard for Christian Origins, Crook ends up falling into both the straw man and slippery slope fallacies.…”