Scholarly Consensus Regarding Jesus Performing
Miracles
Last Updated: October 23, 2006
1. New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: "Whatever you think about the philosophical possibility of miracles of healing, it's clear that Jesus was widely reputed to have done them (TNT:264).
2. New Testament scholar David E. Aune wrote: “Since there is little doubt that the historical Jesus was an exorcist and a healer, this historical factor has helped to shape the components of the stereotypical role he plays in the Gospel presentations" (TNTLE:57).
3. New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III wrote: "As with his methodological comments in the first volume, Meier once again separates historical and theological claims in discussing at great length Jesus' miracles. He does not argue for the historicity of any of the miracles per se, but does argue that some of the stories about miracles go back to historical occasions or events in the life of Jesus, which both Jesus and others interpreted as miracles. Meier writes, 'It is sufficient for the historian to know that Jesus performed deeds that many people, both friends and foes [and probably Jesus himself], considered miracles.' But Meier is equally clear in rejecting the modern a priori judgment of Sanders that miracles cannot and therefore never did happen" (TJQ:211).
4. New Testament scholar Paula Fredriksen wrote: "Did Jesus of Nazareth, then, perform miracles? Here I as a historianhave to weigh the testimony of tradition against what I think is possible in principle. I do not believe that God occasionally suspends the operation of what Hume called 'natural law.' What I think Jesus might possibly have done, in other words,must conform to what I think is possible in any case. (Those who have no trouble accepting these miracle accounts as reliably, factually descriptive may skip this paragraph and the next. They should be aware, however, that Jesus, on the evidence, was hardly unique in performing such acts.) So, to answer my own question: Yes, I think that Jesus probably did perform deeds that contemporaries viewed as miracles. Those I have least trouble imagining his working conform to those also named by Paul: healings and exorcisms. Modern culture, too, is familiar with charismatic cures worked by suggestion. Our explanations differ from those given in ancient sources-where we use the language of psychosomatic disease and suggestion, people in antiquity spoke of demons and special powers-but the phenomenon observed seems identical" (JNKJ:114-115).
5. New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders wrote: "Exorcism, however, is the most prominent type of cure in the synoptic gospels. The sheer volume of evidence makes it extremely likely that Jesus actually had a reputation as an exorcist" (THFJ:149).
6. New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders also wrote: "I think it strongly probable that Jesus was regarded as an exorcist" (THFJ:153).
7. New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders also wrote: "Jesus' enemies did not suspect him of fraud, but of healing by calling on a demonic power" (THFJ:160).
8. New Testament scholar Dr. James D. Tabor wrote: “In each place Jesus would lay his hands on those who were sick or physically impaired and cast out evil spirits or demons. Sickness was thought to result from demons ‘binding’ people, so his activities of healing and exorcism were connected.Jesus was a political revolutionary who expected nothing less than the violent overthrow of the kingdoms of the world, but he did not think it would come about by collecting arms and gathering rebel bands of troops as some of his contemporaries had attempted. The first step was to defeat Satan and his powers. As he saw things, in order for the Kingdom of God to come not only would Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the Roman legions have to be deposed, but first and foremost Satan himself, who was seen as the behind-the-scenes ‘ruler of the age.’Jesus directly linked his power to cast out demons to ‘binding Satan’ and destroying his kingdom. In a passage from the Q source, he makes a decisive pronouncement: ‘If I by the finger of God cast out demons then the Kingdom of God has come to you’ (Luke 11:20)…Huge crowds gathered to hear him preach and to witness the reported healings and exorcisms” (TJD:161, 162).
9. Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan wrote: “One might also conclude that miracles come into the tradition later than earlier, as creative confirmation rather than as original data. I think, however, that such a conclusion would be completely wrong. The better explanation is just the opposite. Miracles were, at a very early stage, being washed out of the tradition and, when retained, were being very carefully interpreted (Hull). A full proof of that assertion would demand wider studies on the four intracanonical Gospels than presently possible, but it is at least substantiated by the miracles under consideration. I hold, in summary, that Jesus, as magician and miracle worker, was a very problematic and controversial phenomenon not only for his enemies but even for his friends” (THJLOAMJ:310-311).
10. John Dominic Crossan also wrote: "“Jesus was both an exorcist and a healer: I take 121 Beelzebul Controversy [1/2], 110 A Leper Cured [1/2], 127 Sickness and Sin [1/2], and 129 Blind Man Healed [1/2] as not only typically but actually historical. His vision of the Kingdom was but an ecstatic dream without immediate social repercussions, were it not for those exorcisms and healings. Those latter were what the Kingdom looked like at the level of political reality” (THJLOAMJ:332).
11. Historical Jesus scholar Anthony Ernest Harvey wrote: “There are also certain facts about Jesus which, by any normal criterion of historical evidence, it would be altogether unreasonable to doubt. Such facts are that Jesus was known in both Galilee and Jerusalem; that he was a teacher; that he carried out cures of various illnesses, particularly demon-possession, and that these were widely regarded as miraculous; that he was involved in controversy with fellow-Jews over questions of the Law of Moses; and that he was crucified in the governorship of Pontius Pilate” (JATCOH:6).
12. Historical Jesus scholar Geza Vermes wrote: “Compared to the preaching to which the members of the Capernaum synagogue were accustomed, that of Jesus is defined as ‘new’ (didache kaine), and its novelty is assigned to its being delivered ‘with authority’. Since this ‘exousia’ is parallel to the ‘authority and power’ (en exousia kai dunamei) with which Jesus is depicted in Luke 4:36 as an exorcist, it is logical to conclude that both as teacher and as miracle-worker, he was primarily perceived as charismatic, that is a person who paramount authority was spiritual in nature. Also, acts of healing and exorcism were seen as tangible confirmation of the validity and compelling character of his teaching” (TROJTJ:73).
13. Geza Vermes also wrote: “In short, it was the people’s belief in the heavenly origin of Jesus’ and John’s teaching, reinforced in the case of the former by his apparent mastery over corporeal and mental sickness, that dispensed them both from the need to demonstrate the truth of their doctrine” (TROJTJ:74).