http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=388
Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?
| by |
Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div. |
One cannot read the Bible for long without confronting events that defy
strictly naturalistic explanations. A nation of slaves escaping bondage
by walking on dry ground through a parted sea, an ax head floating and
persons walking on water, and men rising from the dead are but a
sampling of the miracles recorded in both the Old and New Testaments.
Certainly, these are extraordinary phenomena not experienced in present
reality. Thus, the factuality of such events depends on the general
reliability of the Bible as a historical document. Unfortunately, the
Bible’s credibility is under a thick cloud of suspicion in some
theological circles today.
Liberal theologians generally have dismissed the historicity of
miraculous events, considering them to be the mythological
interpretations of natural incidents by two ancient communities: Israel
and the early church. Such an approach suggests that the Bible expresses
how its authors perceived events, but does not necessarily reflect how
they actually happened (Borg, 1993a, 9[4]:9). Accordingly, we should not
conclude from Genesis that God actually created the Universe in six,
literal days, or that Adam and Eve, as the first human couple, lived in a
real Edenic paradise. These are powerfully symbolic tales whose
“...primary purpose and place in the Hebrew Bible is theological, not
historical” (Dever, 1990, 16[3]:52). Thus, the Genesis account of
creation presents the theological truth that “everything comes from
God,” but it does not reflect actual occurrences in remote antiquity.
Biblical religion, however, is rooted in God’s acts in human history,
not in lofty, abstract ideas or ideals. The crucial issues are: (a) is
the Bible historically reliable or not?; (b) should we read the Bible
with confidence or skepticism?; and (c) why do many theologians cast
suspicion on the historicity of the Bible?
THE HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD
Prior to the seventeenth century, the Bible was considered the
universal authority in all fields of knowledge. However, by the end of
that century, science, history, and philosophy became autonomous
disciplines, freed from biblical authority and the traditionally
recognized experts in these fields (Krentz, 1975, p. 10). The
Enlightenment, in which revelation became subservient to reason, had
begun (see Marty, 1994).
This new, rationalistic approach to the world eventually spawned a
radically different attitude toward the Bible. In the second half of the
eighteenth century, in connection with the intellectual movement of the
Enlightenment, the Bible began to lose its status as the unique and
authoritative “Word of God.” Scholars approached the Bible as a mere
human production that, “...like any product of the human mind, can
properly be made understandable only from the times in which it appeared
and therefore only with the methods of historical science” (Kümmel,
1973, p. 14).
The controls of historical science to which Kümmel referred began to
guide biblical interpretation during this period, and continue to exert
tremendous influence on theology in mainstream scholarship. When applied
to the Bible, the generally accepted “historical-critical” method that
grew out of the Enlightenment subverts the biblical concept of verbal
inspiration (see Anderson, 1993, 9[5]:9). Therefore, we need to analyze
carefully the procedures and presuppositions of current historical
criticism.
Basic Assumptions
Though different scholars use the method with different sets of
assumptions, thus obtaining different results, one can speak justifiably
of a specific historical-critical method that is guided by a specific
set of shared presuppositions (Gredainus, 1988, p. 25). Ernst Troeltsch,
in his 1898 seminal essay on
Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology, articulated the three fundamental principles of this method: (1) criticism/probability; (2) analogy; and (3) correlation.
1. Criticism/probability
Troeltsch explained this first principle as follows: “...in the realm
of history there are only judgments of probability, varying from the
highest to the lowest degree, and that consequently an estimate must be
made of the degree of probability attaching to any tradition” (1898, p.
13). This basic principle implies that one should read a historical
document with a certain skepticism. The historian’s job is to determine
its degree of credibility, but never entertain the possibility of
complete accuracy. Accordingly, the precision of historical testimony,
at best, can be only highly probable, but never absolute. Troeltsch
further insisted that this principle be applied impartially to all
historical traditions, including the Bible. Obviously, this approach
precludes the possibility of complete, historical accuracy of the
biblical text.
2. Analogy
The second basic principle—that of analogy—is the key to historical
criticism (Troeltsch, 1898, p. 13). This idea suggests that all
legitimate, historical phenomena must have a present-day analogy.
Underlying this principle is the uniformitarian assumption that all
events in history are similar. In other words, like those in Peter’s
day, it assumes that “all things continue as they were from the
beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:4). Thus, the factuality of any
alleged past event is judged by occurrences in present reality. Only
those events that have a corresponding contemporary event are considered
historical. Consistent with this assumption, a historian dismisses as
unhistorical any recorded event that transcends the experience of
contemporary humanity. This principle rejects
a priori the factuality of unique, miraculous events such as Jesus’ resurrection, since no analogous event occurs today.
3. Correlation
The third basic concept of history, according to Troeltsch, is the
“...interaction of all phenomena in the history of civilization” (1898,
p. 14). This concept implies that all historical events are “...knit
together in a permanent relationship of correlation...in which
everything is interconnected and each single event is related to all
others” (Troeltsch, 1898, p. 14). In other words, all historical events
form a unified web of immanent causes and effects. Every event must be
interpreted “...within the context of the whole of history in terms of
its causes and effects, its antecedents and its consequences”
(Gredainus, 1988, p. 27). This principle views history as a closed
continuum of
natural causes and effects, which eliminates the
possibility of a transcendent God’s entering into human history. Yet,
that is what the Bible is all about!
Results
Some aspects of this approach to the Bible were consistent with sound
methods of exegesis. For example, it placed proper literary and
historical constraints on biblical interpretation. It appropriately
emphasized the fact that the Bible was written in certain historical and
cultural contexts by different men with varying literary styles. And,
it is correct exegetical procedure to interpret texts in light of the
historical circumstances under which they were written and in keeping
with contemporary cultural norms. Further, we recognize that the Bible
contains different kinds of literature (e.g., narrative, poetry, etc.)
and that the literary style of Paul differs significantly from that of
Peter. These are legitimate factors to consider when approaching any
text and, when used judiciously, they do not militate against the
biblical doctrine of verbal inspiration (see Hamann, 1977, pp. 74-75).
In general, however, the historical-critical method—with its underlying
presuppositions—has resulted in an extreme skepticism regarding the
historicity of biblical events. Since research is conducted “...as if
there were no God” (Linnemann, 1990, p. 84), this method repudiated the
divine nature of the biblical text. This fundamental presupposition
produced at least two destructive results. First, it excluded the
possibility of God’s acting in history, demanding that all supernatural
events in the Bible be given natural explanations. Second, scholars
considered the Bible to be the end product of a long, evolutionary
process of mere human literary genius. For instance, Julius Wellhausen
(1844-1918) denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and alleged
that it was an amalgamation of different sources (both oral and written)
compiled by a redactor (editor), and thus had no real historical
underpinning. Modern critics continue to hold to such a fragmentary view
of the Pentateuch (Davis, 1993, 19[2]:54). Therefore, many scholars do
not consider the Old Testament to be a unique, divine revelation; it is
just one body of ancient, sacred literature among a myriad of others.
This has compelled many scholars to draw a sharp distinction between
“actual” and “theological” history in the Bible. Such a distinction has
led many biblical students to dismiss historical investigations of the
Old and New Testaments, and to seek instead theological or canonical
meanings (cf. Anderson, 1994 and Childs, 1985, p. 6). For example,
Gerhard von Rad, an influential Old Testament scholar, contrasted
“history” and “story” in the Hebrew Bible. He argued that critical
historical scholarship eliminates the possibility that all Israel was at
Sinai, or crossed the Red Sea as the Bible indicates. Though something
actually happened in Israel’s past, these stories were the constructions
of Israel’s faith (1962, 1:106-107). Thus, one must peel off the layers
of elaborate embellishments from biblical narratives to arrive at
actual history. For example, one should not accept naively that God
actually parted the Red Sea. This was a mythological explanation of some
natural event in Israel’s past. Accordingly, biblical scholars must
recognize the minimum historical core of Old Testament stories while
they pursue their maximum theological meanings.
Similarly, New Testament scholars draw a line of distinction between
the historical Jesus and the Jesus presented in the Gospels. Such
critics argue that many of the words and events attributed to Jesus
actually were put into His mouth by the early church to deal with a
specific problem it faced (Bultmann, 1958, p. 63; cf. Koester, 1993 and
Borg, 1993b, 9[6]:10,62). For example, this idea suggests that the
confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding Roman taxation
(Mark 12:13-17) was not an actual occurrence in Jesus’ life. It was a
story invented by the early church to address a crucial contemporary
issue: “Is it consistent with Christian principles to pay Roman taxes?”
This contrived episode provided authority for paying such taxes.
Additionally, Jesus’ miracles recorded in the Gospels are considered to
be the result of the early church’s theological reflection on, and
proclamation of, Jesus’ ministry (see Fossum, 1994). For example, Marcus
Borg (who denies the historical factuality of the virgin birth, the
star of Bethlehem, the journey of the wisemen, and the shepherds’ visit
to the manger; see 1992, 8[6]:4), offered this interpretation of the
resurrection narratives:
I would argue that the truth of Easter does not depend on whether there
really was an empty tomb, or whether anything happened to the body of
Jesus. The truth of Easter is that Jesus continued to be experienced as a
living reality after his death, though in a radically new way, and not
just in the time of his first followers but to this day. It is because
Jesus is known as a living reality that we take Easter stories
seriously, not the other way around. And taking them seriously need not
mean taking them literally (1993a, 9[4]:9).
To Borg, and other scholars of kindred spirit, the truth of
Christianity depends merely on the internal consistency of its
doctrines, not on the historicity of its miraculous claims (e.g., Jesus’
resurrection). Thus, to be a Christian, one simply should “...live
within [the Bible’s] images and stories and vision of life,” which are
not necessarily historically authentic (see Borg, 1993a, 9[4]:54). Paul,
however, perceived and cautioned against the destructive implications
of such an approach: “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile;
you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). For Paul, Jesus’
resurrection was more than a symbolic expression of his subjective,
continued experience of Jesus as a living reality (see Borg, 1994,
10[2]:15); it was an
actual event in history that authenticated Christianity.
APPRAISAL OF THE METHOD
Obviously, the principles and presuppositions of the
historical-critical method have forced its scholastic adherents into an
unenviable position: arguing for the truthfulness of Christianity while
denying its historical foundations. However, rather than retreating into
such untenable positions, it seems that a more respectable route would
be to analyze the method that caused the problem.
This does not mean that the Bible should be exempt from legitimate
historical investigation. God revealed His Word to humankind in human
form. As such, it can be subjected to the same critical questions as
other ancient documents. However, one should not apply more harsh
criteria to the Bible, as is often the case, than those applied to other
historical traditions. Additionally, any method used to assess the
historicity of the Bible must allow for the possibility of all
events—natural and supernatural—or it is insufficient.
Is the generally accepted historical-critical method a proper tool with
which to evaluate the history of Israel and the real, historical Jesus?
A close analysis of this method exposes its insufficiencies for
biblical investigation. Consider some of them.
Radical Skepticism
One problem with this method is its radical skepticism regarding the
reliability of historical documents. Certainly, since some documents are
spurious, one should not gullibly accept as true all historical
statements. Thus, a measure of doubt is in order when one investigates a
historical document. But the historical-critical method presses this to
the extreme. It has shifted the burden on the Bible to prove its own
historical accuracy. Yet, despite the Bible’s many marks of historicity
(see Moreland, 1987, pp. 133-157), these do not satisfy the critic’s
persistent skepticism. The underlying principles of this critical method
disallow the historical accuracy of the Bible. Accordingly, this method
condemns the Bible as historically specious regardless of the proof it
offers for its own credibility, which is not a fair treatment of the
evidence.
Subjective
The historical-critical method purports to be a scientific, rigidly
objective investigation of historical documents. However, as Gerhard
Hasel correctly observed, “...it turns out to be in the grip of its own
dogmatic presuppositions and philosophical premises about the nature of
history” (1991, p. 198). For example, the idea that all past events must
be explained by prior historical causes (correlation), and understood
in terms of analogy to other historical experiences, is subjective. This
places the authenticity of any reported event ultimately at the mercy
of the historian’s experience. So, the fate of an alleged event rests
upon the broadness or narrowness of the critic’s experience (Gredainus,
1988, p. 31).
Proves too much
Additionally, even if critics approach the idea of analogy with a
broader scope than one’s personal experience (i.e., from the experience
of contemporary humanity), this does not solve its difficulties. When
pressed to its logical end, this method screens out all
unique
historical events, whether miraculous or nonmiraculous. Accordingly,
when something happens for the first time in history, and there is no
previous analogy, it must be dismissed as unhistorical despite
eyewitness testimony. Such a method cannot confirm the historicity of
the first human landing on the Moon, or any other historical first,
though we know such occurred. In short, a strict application of analogy
“...will tend to declare as unhistorical what we know as a matter of
fact to be historical” (Gredainus, 1988, p. 31; cf. Geisler, 1976, pp.
302-304). Anything that proves too much proves nothing at all.
Biased
Finally, the presuppositions of this method do not give the Bible a
fair hearing because the method’s guiding principles are inherently
biased against miraculous events. Taking their cue from the
philosophical skepticism of David Hume and René Descartes, the
architects of this method eliminate
a priori the miraculous from
the realm of historical possibility. Clearly, this disallows the
prospect of God’s acting in history before considering the evidence. In
essence, it says, the crossing of the Red Sea could not happen like the
Bible says because we know it could not happen that way. This reasoning
actually begs the question in favor of a naturalistic interpretation of
all historical events, which is far from an impartial investigation of
biblical data (Geisler, 1976, p. 302). A method that excludes the
possibility of divine intervention in the affairs of humankind is
woefully inadequate to evaluate the testimony of scripture (Hasel, 1991,
p. 198).
CONCLUSION
The Bible makes miraculous claims about historical events. While it is
true that the Universe operates according to natural law, that does not
preclude the possibility of the miraculous. Scientific laws testify to
general regularities in nature, but they cannot be used as a testimony against unusual events in
particular.
Biblical writers recognized natural regularities such as the changing
of seasons (Genesis 8:22), and often appropriately attributed them to
God as the author of such natural laws. For instance, Amos attributed
natural hydrological processes to God: “[He] calleth for the waters of
the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the Earth: Jehovah is His
name” (Amos 5:8). However, there are certain recorded events that
cannot be explained by natural processes. There simply is no sufficient
natural explanation for the resuscitation of a decomposing body (John
11:39-45). And, it is methodologically improper to deny that such an
event could take place before examining the evidence. Further, it is not
logically naive to acknowledge a supernatural cause of a supernatural
effect.
Additionally, one should not attempt to place theology over against
history, as many historical critics frequently do. It is true that the
Gospel writers, for instance, had a theological purpose behind their
inspired presentations of Jesus’ life. Also, some of Jesus’ miracles, no
doubt, had theological meanings attached to them. For instance,
conservative scholars have long recognized that the cursing of the
barren fig tree represented the vacuous piety of the Jewish nation, for
which it was destroyed (Mark 11:12-14). However, such theological
purpose and meaning do not negate the fact that miracles actually
occurred.
Finally, the historicity of the Bible’s miraculous claims is contingent
on the general reliability of the Bible. Any method employed to
investigate its historicity must include the possibility of the
miraculous. Gerhard Hasel has summarized this point well:
If the reality of the Biblical text testifies to a supra-historical
dimension which transcends the self-imposed limitations of the
historical-critical method, then one must employ a method that can
account for this dimension and can probe into all the layers of depth of
historical experience and deal adequately and properly with the
Scripture’s claim to truth (1991, p. 199).
We should consider legitimate questions of the biblical text
(linguistic, literary, cultural, historical) as we investigate the
meaning of God’s Word. Yet, we must recognize that humanly contrived
methods are subject to both error and abuse. Recognizing this, we should
listen with cautious skepticism when such methods repudiate the truth
of Bible.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Bernhard (1993), “Historical Criticism and Beyond,”
Bible Review, 9[5]:9,17, October.
Anderson, Bernhard (1994), “The Changing Scene in Biblical Theology,”
Bible Review, 10[1]:17,63, February.
Borg, Marcus (1992), “The First Christmas,”
Bible Review, 8[6]:4,10, December.
Borg, Marcus (1993a), “Faith and Scholarship,”
Bible Review, 9[4]:9,54, August.
Borg, Marcus (1993b), “Jesus in Four Colors,”
Bible Review, 9[6]:10,62, December.
Borg, Marcus (1994), “Thinking About Easter,”
Bible Review, 10[2]:15, April.
Bultmann, Rudolph (1958),
Jesus and the Word (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Childs, Brevard (1985),
Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Davis, Thomas (1993), “Faith and Archaeology: A Brief History to the Present,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 19[2]:54-59, March/April.
Dever, William (1990), “Archaeology and the Bible,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 16[3]:52-58,62, May/June.
Fossum, Jarl (1994), “Understanding Jesus’ Miracles,”
Bible Review, 10[2]:16-23,50, April.
Geisler, Norman (1976),
Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Greidanus, Sidney (1988),
The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hamann, Henry P. (1977),
A Popular Guide to New Testament Criticism (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Hasel, Gerhard (1991),
Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Koester, Helmut (1993), “Recovering the Original Meaning of Matthew’s Parables,”
Bible Review, 9[3]:11,52, June.
Krentz, Edgar (1975),
The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Kümmel, Georg Werner (1973),
The Theology of the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).
Linnemann, Eta (1990),
Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Marty, Martin E. (1994), “Literalism vs. Everything Else,”
Bible Review, 10[2]:38-43,50, April.
Moreland, J.P. (1987),
Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Rad, Gerhard von (1962),
Old Testament Theology, (New York: Harper and Brothers).
Troeltsch, Ernst (1898),
Religion in History (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991 reprint).
In September of this year, Stephanie Pappas wrote an article for LiveScience
titled, “Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling.” In that article,
she explained that researchers from Harvard University recently
“discovered” that people who are more apt to trust their first
intuitions are more likely to believe in God than those people who stop
and reflect on those intuitions. In order to test this idea, the
researchers gave participants a math test that consisted of three
problems with questions such as: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total.
The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”
(Pappas, 2011). As Pappas explained, the intuitive answer is 10 cents,
but that is wrong. Those who gave answers such as 10 cents, instead of
the correct answer of 5 cents for the test were “one-and-a-half times
more likely to believe in God than those who got all the answers right”
(Pappas, emp. added). Using this and other test results, the
researchers concluded that intuitive thinkers, or those who follow their
gut feelings, are more likely to believe in God than more reflective
types. David Rand, one of the researchers, stated: “It’s not that one
way is better than the other. Intuitions are important and reflection is
important, and you want some balance of the two. Where you are on that
spectrum affects how you come out in terms of belief in God” (Pappas).