The following is a rough draft of a paper in my Gospels as Literature class. Any and all suggestions are welcome in the comments.

Introduction

The purpose of this research paper is to analyze the use of miracle stories in the Canonical and Gnostic gospels. The canonical gospels will be used to represent the Orthodox Christian community in West Asia and the Mediterranean. The Gospels of the Nag Hammadi library and other notable Gnostic texts will be representative of the Gnostic sects with the understanding Gnosticism was not a monolithic tradition, but had many forms.

First, the metaphysical basis of varying approaches to miracle stories will be examined with an emphasis on Hume and Lewis’ positions. Luke will be used as representative of the Canonical Gospel tradition. Each Gnostic gospel will be examined individually with the goal of surveying how each author uses miracles. Finally, the results of the Canonical and Gnostic gospels’ attitudes towards miracles will be compared and contrasted.

I will argue that in the canonical gospels, the miracle stories served a marketing function, drawing in the first and second century readers to the canonical gospels. The immediacy of the miracle stories to the gospel message formed what Hume would later term a “constant conjunction:”(Hume explained cause and effect as a mere constant conjunction between two events. For Hume, this did not necessarily mean that the two events were casually connected, only that the two events were )”: .” This constant conjunction served to link in the readers mind the practicality of the effects of the miracles and the way of life demanded by Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the gospels. The same power that manifested itself in the miracles was behind the teaching. This is the opposite effect that the non-canonical gospels intend to have on their readers. I will argue that the non-canonical gospels, the Gnostic and Docetic texts in particular, use miracles for a different function. The Gnostic texts only employ miracles sparsely, using them to emphasize the divine spark in everyone and the priority of spirit over matter.

Bias Examined

One of the first things that should be examined or at least considered in any study of occurrences and use of miracles is the metaphysical framework one used in analyzing the miracles accounts. Restated, one should explore and expose his or her biases towards miracle stories before launching into a study of them. Quite naturally, if a person believes wholesale in the occurrence of miracles, his or her approach would be quite different from a person who is an adamant denier of the possibilities of miracles. Therefore, the first part of this paper will explore the possibility and likelihood of miracles with a concluding account of how they will be dealt with in this paper.

A good argument against the existence of and belief in miracles came from the Scottish philosopher and historian, David Hume. In his work, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume says, “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.” (Hume 73) Hume uses what he calls the probability principle to discern whether miracles should be believed. Eyewitness testimony is the most trustworthy evidence one can have of specific instances of history. However, there are problems with the reliability of eyewitness testimony Hume demonstrates. All inferences are never actually proved; they are merely implied causation due to constant conjunctions of events.

Eyewitness testimony is also shaken by the fact that humans sometime tell falsehoods and are sometimes prone to confusion. Lastly, one needs to take into account the uniformity of experiences and how the uniformity aligns with the eyewitness testimony. If the eyewitness testimony matches up with past testimonies and experiences, then it may be assumed the testimony is more likely to be accurate. However, if the testimony contradicts what has been observed in the past, then one has reason to doubt the testimony’s accuracy. Furthermore, Hume says, “We entertain suspicion concerning any matter of fact, when the witnesses contradict each other; when they are but a few, are of a doubtful character; when they have an interest in what they affirm; when they deliver their testimony with hesitation, or on the contrary, with too violent asseverations.” (Hume 75) When this reasoning is applied to the gospel miracle accounts, some of the negative criteria are meet. The gospel accounts contradict one another, at least in sequence. For instance, was Peter’s mother-in-law healed before Peter was called to be a disciple as in Luke 4:38-40 reports, or after as is reported in Matthew 8.14-15? In a Humeian analysis, this would be important because even though this discrepancy is probably due to a difference in editing, it still implies that one of the two is factually false and that calls into question the reliability of the text. The number of eyewitnesses of these miracles is also disputed because one cannot go back to the earliest eyewitnesses and has to rely on mostly oral traditions handed down from the eyewitnesses. The gospel writers, as evangelists, have an exceeding interest in what they are affirming.

With eyewitness testimony called into question, Hume turns next to the subject of the testimony, the miracles themselves. His definition of miracle was that they are violations of the laws of nature. They are, by definition, extremely improbable; the laws of nature are as immutable as Christians perceive God to be. Hume maintains that since there is uniform experience that miracles do not happen, this amounts to “direct and full proof” against the testimony of miracles. Therefore, “no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle.” (Hume 77) On the basis on these two principles, Hume maintains that there will always be more proof against a miracle occurring than for it. Therefore, since a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence, one should always reject a miraculous story.

The greatest problem for Hume’s treatment is that it seems to disavow his other attempts to make sense of reality. Hume is very adamant elsewhere that one is to regard the supposed laws of nature as mere constant conjunctions. As such, one is never protected from violations of these constant conjunctions because of a lack of observation of the connectedness between any two events. If one is to adopt this view, then there cannot be any laws of nature for miracles to rail. I might have missed something in his treatment of causality and miracles, thus I too, “keep my mind still open to instruction.” For the moment, let one give grace to Hume’s contradiction and allow for both skepticism and the laws of nature. With that said, his arguments for the disavowal of miracle testimony are unscathed by this counter-argument.

Hume has been answered by two other convincing arguments, the first one stems from probability calculus and C.S. Lewis proposed the second one. The argument from probability calculus maintains that Hume used bad math in his analysis of the probability of miracles. Dr. Craig went into this argument in detail in his debate with Dr. Ehrman at the College of the Holy Cross in March of 2006. A brief summary will be given here. The probability of a miraculous event X needs to be ran not just with background knowledge, but also with background knowledge and evidence (Ehrman and Craig 14-19). With this change, the probability of a miracle having occurred gives value to the evidence for it. Therefore, if there is ever strong historical evidence for a miraculous event, such as multiple attestations, then the probability is quite high.

Lewis acknowledges Hume’s flaw that I have noted above and expounds on it. Hume’s big assumption was the Uniformity of Nature, as Lewis terms it. Lewis says that Hume is using probabilities to analyze the Uniformity of Nature and that such an examination is fruitless. He likens the situation to timetables for a school. No study of the timetables themselves can let one know if it is possible to change the timetables. He says, “To find that out you must eavesdrop in the [school] master’s common-room. It is no use studying the time-table.” (Lewis 125) This analogy assumes there is a schoolmaster that set up the timetables. Quite naturally, if there is such a schoolmaster, then he could be at liberty to amend the tables to his liking. Likewise, once God, the Supernatural, is allowed, one has no security against miracles. Probability as a judge of possibility is thrown out the window. Probability can only be used to determine what most likely happened, or what happened in general. History, on the other hand, should try to determine what happened in the specific. Therefore, while probability can and should be employed to help determine what likely occurred in the past, one should also be mindful that even in the bell curve; there are exceptions to the norm.

For Hume there is no schoolmaster and therefore no one to amend the timetables. This is the crux of the problem. If we admit God, we must admit the possibility of miracles. That is the over arching point of Lewis’s work. All that is left is to prove the existence of God. Hume’s approach is a methodological atheist and therefore no miracles are possible, while Lewis is a methodological theist approach and therefore miracles are possible.

This is the historian’s conundrum; an unwarranted assumption either way must be made in order to approach the miracle stories in the Bible or any other work. An assumption on God’s existence or nonexistence must be made in order for one to evaluate the miracle accounts. However, it is well outside the scope of this paper to prove or disprove the existence of God, which is needed to affirm or deny a methodological atheistic approach or the methodological theist approach. When one discounts the miracle stories as fantasies, then the value that the gospel writers place on them is lost. Whether or not the miracles actually happened, they are recorded in the Bible. Therefore, the evangelists and their audiences assumed that the miracles did happen and employed the miracle stories to emphasize their points. For this reason, the historical-critical approach will not be utilized for it does not apply. Instead, a narrative-critical approach will be exercised. This will allow for the miracle accounts to be taken at face value.

Miracles in the Canonical Gospels/Luke

It is impractical to do an adequate treatment of all four of the canonical gospels here; instead, the paper will focus on one gospel as a representation of the Canonical Gospels. Since the Gospel of John differs substantially from the synoptics, it is not an adequate candidate for representation of the Canonical Gospels. The Gospel of Luke, however, is the latest and most polished of the synoptics. Luke often cleared up questions that arose from the other gospels (J. Achtemeier 549). For instance, in Mark 1:45 the Geek text says, “But he [the man who was healed] went out and openly talked about it, so that he:”(A note in the Synopsis of the Four Gospels, page 39 says that the Greek word in 1.45 that is now rendered as Jesus was “he” in the Greek; this rendered that verse confusing.)”: could no longer openly enter a town.” It is not explicit as to which person Mark is referring. Was it Jesus or was it the man he had just healed that could no longer openly enter a town? Luke clears this up by informing the reader that it was Jesus that stayed in the wilderness (J. Achtemeier 549). Luke also shares literary links with the synoptic gospels; Luke uses Mark as a source and shares at least one source in common with Matthew. Because of Luke’s concern for clarity and his links to the other gospels, the Gospel of Luke is the best candidate for a representation of the genre. Major deviations of the other Canonical Gospels from the themes in Gospel of Luke will be noted.

How does Luke use miracle stories? While the Gospel of Luke’s usage of miracles is complex, the over-arching theme is one of validating the message through the promotion of worldly benefits. In addition to this main theme, other streams can be found, such as the bestowal and validation of authority, refocusing the narrative on Jesus, or a demonstration of the nature of faith (J. Achtemeier 550-552).

In the Gospel of Luke, there is a constant theme of utility. With the exception of four miracles :”(The four miracles that do not involve the meeting of needs are the conception of Jesus by the Spirit of God, Luke1.35; the passing of Jesus through the crowd, Luke 4.28-30; the resurrection of Jesus, Luke 24.1-12; and the ascension of Jesus, Luke 24.50-51. )”: , each miracle in the Gospel of Luke deals with the meeting of needs. There are no fewer than twenty accounts of Jesus giving health, restoring life, or providing nourishment. For the first and second century Greeks to whom this gospel was written, the prospect of a religion that gave one immediate benefits was enticing. The overall effect of this effort is that the Gospel of Luke offered its readers practical, everyday benefits. To illustrate this point, one of the largest rivals to Christianity in the early part of the first millennium was the cult of Asklepios, the Greek god of healing (McCasland 221-227). It was the god’s promise of help in this world not in the next, which made the cult so appealing. Jesus met this same need and surpassed it in the providing of sustenance. This is why Jesus is constantly being referred to as savior, a term that conveys a sense of needs being immediately met, and a term that was usually reserved for Cesar (Lectures in The Gospels as Literature 2006).

The teachings of Jesus are usually accompanied, or be more specific, predicated by miracle stories. Does this serve to validate Jesus’ teaching, something that Mark abhors:”(In Mark Jesus over and over requested that those he healed keep quiet about it, see Mark 1:40-46. Mark also has Jesus denounce those that used miracles to validate their authority. Finally, Mark does resort to using miracles to attest the authority of Jesus, see Mark 2.9-12.)”: ? It does not. Similar to the case of the Gospel of John:”(In the Gospel of John, miracles often reveal more about the nature of God than validate the authority of Jesus.)”: , the use of miracles might seem validate the message upon first glance, but under the surface, another answer awaits. Achtemeier suggests that the clearest way to see how Luke does this is to examine how the same stories are treated in the other gospels (J. Achtemeier 551). A comparison will demonstrate Luke frames miracle stories around the teachings of Jesus and offers a glimpse of how Luke intended to influence the reader. The first example that Achtemeier gives is of Jesus’ healing of the man with the withered hand. This account is located in Mark 3.1-6, Matthew 12.9-14 and in Luke 6.6-11. In each account, Jesus enters a synagogue and encounters a man with a withered hand. Matthew and Mark only mention that Jesus entered the synagogue and it is not known whether or not Jesus is at the synagogue to teach or to listen. In Luke however, the reader is informed that Jesus was indeed teaching. Jesus then senses the thoughts of the Pharisees and confronts them with a miracle that at once is helpful to the man with the withered hand and demonstrates the authority of Jesus’ teaching.

The same theme of encasement reappears in Luke’s treatment of Mark 6.34, the preface of the feeding of the five-thousand. In Mark 6.34, there is only mention of Jesus teaching the crowds about “many things.” Was the crowd’s motivation for coming in Mark the result of past miracles? The only indication the reader is given for the approachment of the crowd is that they were “…sheep without a shepherd.” Luke modifies this source by adding that in addition to teaching the crowd, Jesus also healed everyone who had need. Once again, there is a connection or immediacy drawn in Luke of Jesus’ teachings to Jesus’ miracles.

These connections serve to create proximity between the Jesus’ miracles and teachings. The Gospel of Luke constantly has a theme of utility running alongside the theme of teaching. The effect of this is a causal conjunction that forms in the reader’s mind between the two. The constant association of the teachings of Jesus being accompanied by miracle stories serves to foster the idea that if one desires to have the immediate benefits that are displayed across the gospels, then one should pay attention and heed Jesus’ teachings. Thus, the miracle stories in the Gospel of Luke function as billboards for the message. It was how Luke marketed the teachings of Jesus to his readers.

[I still want to include Luke’s treatment of the resurrection with the main point being that it was the central miracle in his gospel. I will also expand this portion to include at least some treatment of how the other canonical gospels treat the resurrection.]

Miracles in the Nag Hammadi Library Gnostic Gospels

The miracle profile of Gnostic Gospels in the Nag Hammadi library differs substantially from those in the Canonical Gospels. The Nag Hammadi library is a collection of texts found in Egypt. The texts are Coptic translations of lost Greek manuscripts (Robinson 2). The texts contain heavy Gnostic overtones and therefore it is claimed to be part of a Gnostic library. In many of the Gnostic gospels, there are no records of miracles. For instance, in the Gospel of Truth, no miracles occur. This Gnostic gospel is very esoteric and philosophical rather than a narrative, like Matthew. Instead of performing miracles, Jesus is often put to a test of knowledge or wisdom and ends up confounding his opponents. This jealousy of Jesus’ knowledge is what leads to his crucifixion. The struggle was with “Error” and the “Material Ones” which were in error:”(See The Gospel of Truth 26.5-25 and 31.1-20)”: . Jesus was the bringer of knowledge that one needs in order to be written in the book of life. There are several gospels that only contain one miraculous event; it is often an implied miraculous event. In The Book of Thomas the Contender, only implies one miraculous event: the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. It only mentions that Judas Thomas, twin brother of Jesus, begs Jesus for hidden knowledge before he ascends back into heaven in 1.1. Similarly, The Sophia of Jesus Christ, only mentions that Jesus had risen from the dead and was teaching the Twelve and seven women how to be “perfect flesh,” in 90.10-20. The emphasis was once again on hidden knowledge. The more famous Gospel of Thomas, which is a saying gospel with intermittent short narratives that splice together sections, only contains one implied miracle. Towards the end of the gospel in verse 114, Peter wants to send Mary away because as a female, she was not worthy to hear the secret teachings of Jesus, which are known as Life. Jesus acknowledges this and tells Peter that He will teach or lead her so that she might become spiritually male. Jesus then reinforces the idea that only those that are male can go into the kingdom of heaven. More than likely, this is a mental or spiritual transformation, although it is possible that Jesus was in fact talking about a bodily transformation.

In the In the Gospel of Philip, there are several occurrences of miracles. In this gospel, the very appearance of Jesus was otherworldly. He appeared to each as each was in 57.25-58.10. If one was tall, Jesus appeared as a tall person; if they were short, He appeared as a short person. In the miracle of the dye located in 61.25-30, Jesus is able to take seventy-two colors of dye and make them all white.

“The lord went into the dye works of Levi. He took out seventy-two different colors and threw them into the vat. He took them out all what. And he said, ‘Even so has the son of man come [as] a dyer.’”

Since in the Gnostic worldview ignorance and matter are what keeps one from salvation, from the truth, the colors most likely symbolize one or both of these themes. Salvation conversely comes from the removal of ignorance or the release of the divine spark from its entrapment in the body. In the story of the dyes, the whiteness is symbolic of either or both of the above salvific attributes. The colors are symbolic of the ignorance of man, which Jesus, through his knowledge can make clean, or complete again. This gospel, like the Gospel of Truth contains very esoteric subject matter, such as in 71.15-20 where Jesus is described as born of two virgins, matter and spirit. This is why Jesus is the only one that can rectify the fall into matter. The Gospel of Philip also indicates the separation of the sexes is the cause of the fall of humankind:”(See the Gospel of Philip 70.9-25)”: . The last miracle in this gospel is the mention of the Samaritan’s healing oil in 78.5-10. Jesus is not involved with this miracle, but the parable from the Canonical Gospels is portrayed as an actual event and miracle. The Samaritan in 78.5-10 does not try to mend the wounded traveler, but instead merely gives him wine and oil. Because love covers a multitude of sins, the wounded traveler is healed. This miracle story is very important, as it offers a glimpse into several key doctrinal points that differ from the Canonical Gospels. In the Four, all authority stems from Jesus. He is able to heal, raise, and command nature due to his own essence. He sometimes bestows this ability upon others; see the sending out of the Twelve. In The Gospel of Philip, on the other hand, it is the love and knowledge of the Samaritan that enables the wine and oil to heal the wounds of the traveler. Notice also the connection between sins and wounds. The Gospel of Philip implies that defections in the flesh are evidence of being more sinful.

Similar themes arise in the Gospel of Mary.

Miracles in the Docetic Gospels

Non-canonical texts found outside the Nag Hammadi Library include the Gospel of Peter, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. These gospels are not primarily Gnostic texts; they are more adequately categorized as Docetic texts. While these texts are not as clear-cut Gnostic as are the texts of Nag Hammadi, they too contain Gnostic overtones and therefore are worthy of consideration here. These gospels employ miracles with higher frequency than the Nag Hammadi texts, but follow similar themes, as will be shown. The Gospel of Peter is a fragmentary gospel that picks up at the end of the trial of Jesus. The only purely narrative Gnostic or near-Gnostic gospel has been examined thus far in this paper. This gospel is heavily saturated with wondrous events, some of which one sees in the Canonical accounts and others that are either added or embellished. As Jesus is being crucified, skies are darkened early, alarming the Jews:”(Gospel of Peter, v.15)”: . Once Jesus died a quiet and seemingly painless death:”(Ibid, v.10)”: , the veil of the temple was torn in two, the skies brightened and the whole earth quaked:”(Ibid, v.20-23)”: . These disturbances of matter symbolize and embody the idea that Jesus had won the battle over matter. The Scribes and Pharisees indicate that the miracles of nature indicate that Jesus was in fact innocent:”(Ibid v.25)”: . In verse 35-40, a voice calls out from heaven and the stone of Jesus’ tomb rolls away. Then two young men descend from heaven and enter the tomb, they bring Jesus out:”(Ibid v.37)”: . In perhaps the most bizarre miracle ever, the Cross of Jesus followed them out and the voice from heaven subsequently quizzed the Cross in verses 39-43. Once again, as is seen in the Nag Hammadi texts, the miraculous appearances of all spiritual beings are male.

[I will be also look at the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.]

Thematic Differentiation

The canonical set of Gospels has variations on the same theme, that Jesus has the power to redeem the material world, which is of value. [This is to be elaborated and developed more.] The Gnostic hated of matter influences their use of miracles in their gospels. They do not either show up or show Jesus’ mastery over matter. Healings are not prevalent because both a healthy body and a sick body are both still expressions of evil matter. This idea is bolstered with the Good Samaritan story in the Gospel of Phillip. In this story as was shown above, sin was immediately connected with sickness. [This is to be expanded and developed more]

In each of the Canonical Gospels, the central miracle is that of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension:”(The earliest versions of the Gospel of Mark only has the announcement of Jesus’ resurrection and do not mention the ascension of Jesus. The later versions of the book include an account of the witnessing of these miracles.)”: . They employ these miracles as the final miracle as summation of Jesus career and a vindication of his authority and personhood. Many of the Gnostic and near-Gnostic texts downplay or ignore the resurrection and ascension. They fail mention it at all, consider it a spiritual appearance, or merely acknowledge it in passing, setting the stage for the revelation of knowledge by the one that has completed the journey. For instance, while a resurrected Jesus appears in the Gospel of Mary, it is not Jesus’ death that saves, but instead the knowledge that Jesus gives is what saves (King 44). [This section is still being developed.] 

Bibliography

DesRosiers, Dr. Nate. Lectures in The Gospels as Literature. (2006).

Achtemeier, Paul. “The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91.2 (1972): 198-221.

Achtemeier, Paul J. “The Lucan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus: A Preliminary Sketch.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94.4 (1975): 547-562.

Ehrman, Bart D., and Willam Lane Craig. “Is there Historical Evidence for the Resurection of Jesus?” 28 March 2006. Holy Cross. 1 October 2006 http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf.

Fischel, H.A. “Jewish Gnosticism in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 65.2 (1946): 157-174.

Gero, Stephen. “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: A Study of Textual and Literary Problems.” Novum Testamentum 13.1 (1971): 46-80.

Grant, Robert M. Miracle and Natural Law. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1952.

Grant, Robert M. “The Origin of the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69.4 (1950): 305-322.

Guijarro, Santiago. “The politics of exorcism: Jesus’ reaction to negative labels in the Beelzebul controversy.” Biblical Theology Bulletin (1999).

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993.

Lewis, C.S. Miracles, a Preliminary Study. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947.

Moule, C.F.D. Miracles. Edited by C.F.D Moule. Oxford: A.R. Mowbray and Co. Ltd., 1966.

Robinson, James M. “The Miracles Source of John.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39.3 (1971): 339-348.

—. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by James M. Robinson. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978.

Temple, Sydney. “The Two Signs in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81.2 (1962): 169-174.

Tietze, Godfrey. “Knowledge of God in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Bible and Religion 22.1 (1954): 14-19.

Wilson, R. McL. “Gnostic Origins Again.” Vigilae Christianae 11.2 (1957): 93-110.