Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts

by Craig S. Keener

class, again unless one a priori excludes them. Tucker, writing on historiography, notes that events that appear unique in kind may still be confirmed by other evidence, though one cannot use comparable events to increase the likelihood (244–45). Many events or phenomena initially considered unique gave way to a larger pattern of data as new discoveries were admitted (cf. 245), but attempts to reduce complex historical events to commonalities necessary for analogies have proved inadequate (249

Wilson, “Miracle Events,” 278, in fact contends that miracles have been verified often enough that denial of them represents irrational “passion or prejudice.”

Gregory shows the specific commitment to metaphysical naturalism in the work of Émile Durkheim (1912), whose approach helped shape the discipline of sociology of religion (ibid., 139–40). A social approach to religion is invaluable, but a reduction of all religion to social structures simply assumes metaphysical naturalism (141, 144; so also for reducing religion to politics, 144–46). Durkheim’s successors felt no need to demonstrate a methodological premise they now took for granted (142–43). Even past the mid-twentieth century, challenging Durkheim seemed risky, but eventually multiple challenges brought his views into disfavor (Turner, “Advances,” 39–40). Gradually religious anthropology emerged, relinquishing anthropology’s previous “tight positivism,” sympathetic to rather than suspicious of the sincerity of much religious experience (44); Turner regarded the old approach of Durkheim as imposing atheism on other peoples (51–52), the sort of behavior for which anthropologists sometimes castigated missionaries (cf. her comments about Christianity in 51). For more open antecedents, see Poewe, “Rethinking,” 253

Most scholars believe that the founders of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam did not claim to work miracles, though Islam and later forms of Buddhism allow for miracles

Tens of thousands of cures are attributed annually to the Hindu deity Venkateswara, and paranormal phenomena to Hindu yogis, Christian Science, and other circles that are theologically incompatible with the majority of my examples in this book (Hiebert, Reflections, 239).

Moreover, assigning burden of proof based on academic consensus repeats the fallacy with which philosophers of science once charged religion: epistemic appeals to authority and consensus rather than fair-minded investigation of evidence.

Traditional cessationists apparently account for a minority of evangelicals today, since evangelicals have one of the highest proportions of belief in present miracles (with not only a strong majority agreeing, but 61 percent agreeing intensely, the same percentage that strongly affirm the existence of angels and demons), second only to Mormons (roughly 80 percent) and close to members of historically black Protestant churches (58 percent).

Theissen and Merz, Guide, 310–13. They suggest (312) that perhaps there is a “supernatural” element within nature itself, a charisma present in many people and capable of being used benevolently or malevolently, “religious” explanations being socially determined (cf. Ashe, Miracles, 26–27). Other hypotheses may ultimately prove more viable, but Theissen and Merz at the least recognize the reality of the phenomena.

Authenticity, 22–23 (citing Walls, Movement; Jenkins, Next Christendom). Yung notes that this perspective may seem strange to Westerners but it fits most non-Western cultures (“Integrity,” 173). Elsewhere he suggests that openness to the miraculous is so characteristic of global Christianity today that antisupernatural Western Christianity, which once marginalized non-Western Christian supernaturalism, appears to be “the real aberration” (“Reformation”).

Alvin Plantinga’s criticism in Clark, Philosophers, 69. Research shows that beliefs about healing are complex and are much more correlated with charismatic practice than with education and other factors (Village, “Dimensions,” studying 404 Anglicans).

Bultmann’s confidence without argument contrasts with many ordinary Christians who argue for miracles by citing examples to which they or others are eyewitnesses—an argument that some intellectuals simply dismiss without genuine consideration or self-critical examination of their own assumptions. Does not such dismissiveness risk elitism?

See, e.g., Pocock, Van Rheenen, and McConnell, Face, 136–37; cf. Keener, “Spirit,” 170. For Pentecostal relevance to indigenous healing traditions as well as offering a connection to the Gospels and Acts, see also, e.g., Porterfield, Healing, 126; Yong, “Independent Pentecostalism,” 401. Cultural receptivity to spiritual realities does not necessarily lead to embracing the same spirits as before. Lehmann, Struggle, 145, compares Latin American Pentecostal healings with earlier possession cults, but underlines significant differences (the former demonizing the latter’s spirits, and Pentecostals having followers whereas possession cults have clients). Scholars argue that in Africa as well, Pentecostals have demonized the old spirits and have grown at the expense of the older “Spirit churches” that accommodated them (Dijk, “Technologies,” 221; for an example, see Kalu, “Mission,” 13–14); the fast-growing charismatic churches are often displacing both traditional mission churches and independent churches (Mwaura, “Integrity,” 198). Turaki, “Missiology,” 281, also notes that they are often evangelizing “nominal second generation Christians.” [33]. Yung, “Integrity,” 173. In Yung, Quest, 238–39, he cites indigenous

Walls, Movement, 117. These churches often borrow forms from traditional religions but tend to be their harshest opponents (Walls, Movement, 99).

As often noted, e.g., Pope-Levison and Levison, Contexts, 109–10, 167 (on Jesus). Biblical anthropology valued healing because it valued the whole person as opposed to Western dualistic denigration of the body (see Blessing, “Healing,” 188–92).

To some extent, these voices are still often filtered through Western academia, that is, those who work through the Western system and gain a voice there are often required to speak its language and work by its rules to gain a hearing in Western academia, as is also the case for various minority perspective voices in the West. I am not implying that academia should have no boundaries (contrast the current glut of information on the Internet, largely undistinguished by any critical grid) but lamenting that some boundaries simply reinforce the hegemony of the dominant culture.

This observation does not make antisupernaturalism wrong (antisupernaturalist critics are right to point out that supernaturalism is appealing; e.g., Frank, Persuasion, 222–23), but it does make it arrogant to simply dismiss all other worldviews by merely claiming that one’s assumptions are self-evidently correct.

Cf. Swinburne, Miracles, 17; Larmer, Water, 106; Beckwith, Argument, 53. Colwell, “Miracles and History,” 12, asks on what basis Hume forms this opinion, since he presents no historical evidence to substantiate it. Colwell cites our own culture as a counterexample to Hume’s claim. Others observe that Hume also readily dismissed claims from his own era (the Jansenists), further demonstrating the ad hominem character of his claim (Beckwith, Argument, 53).

Johnson, Hume, 80; cf. Evans and Manis, Philosophy of Religion, 132. For that matter, did Jerusalem’s elite not have reason to wish to expose the movement’s hoaxes or hysteria, if that were possible (Colwell, “Miracles and History,” 11)? [69]. That Hume considered the Jewish people “barbarous and ignorant,” still more so in antiquity, is clear enough (see, e.g., the language of Kugel, Bible, 34; in our essay, cf. Hume, Miracles, 55; more clearly, History of Religion, 50–51, on their intolerance). If he did so because they believed in miracles, however, this is a circular argument (Collins, God of

Taliaferro and Hendrickson, “Racism,” 429 (noting on 433 that, whether the issue was race or miracles, Hume’s approach was to decide what was uniform and then to “explain away all ostensible counter-examples”). Hume’s failure to take account of clear examples available to him reveals inconsistency with his own proclaimed empirical method.

Ibid., 174. For the correlation of church growth with healing campaigns, see already McGavran, “Healing and Growth,” in 1979 (cited in more recent format in McGee, Miracles, 174). [91]. While insisting on greater nuancing and thicker description, she notes that many of the best scholars summarize that “healing testimonials claiming recovery from every condition from headaches to cancers are too numerous to count, and that healing is in many instances cited as the primary motivator for religious conversion and church affiliation” (Brown, “Introduction,” 13).

Ibid. Cf. Duffin, Miracles, 183, answering pragmatically “rather than appealing to an abstract philosophical definition”: “these events were miracles for the people involved.”

Kraft,

E.g., Pettis, “Fourth Pentecost,” 252–53; Green, Thirty Years, 9–10. I suspect that I could have multiplied the accounts in this book many times over by sending a survey to hundreds of missionaries and/or ministers in particular parts of the world, though not all would have had time to respond. Nevertheless, the book probably contains sufficient accounts to make its point without reading like a dissertation. [125]. For Pentecostalism’s relevance

At the same time, it is elitist for scholars to consider only the views of scholars as those that “count” when our ideas on this particular topic are largely inherited, rather than argued, no less than the views of popular religion are. Both groups cite arguments, but few members of either group have critically explored the reasons for their views.

Some leaders may fabricate or exaggerate miracle claims to promote their ministries; other believers may enthusiastically and in a well-meaning way circulate stories uncritically to promote their movements. At the same time, my interviews suggest to me that the proportion of those who believe that they have seen miracles in their lives or those of people directly known to them (i.e., not just claims of persons they do not know in public meetings) is fairly high and that many of these cures involve serious health issues (esp. in poorer countries).

That is, one cannot simply dismiss the value of the claims by saying that many people believe in space aliens (more respectably called extraterrestrial intelligence). Those who claim to have seen aliens or even UFOs are far fewer (cf. Prather, Miracles, 47). Although researchers estimated 3.7 million alien abductees from one survey, the number of actual claims is probably much lower, though plausibly “many thousands” (Appelle, Lynn, and Newman, “Experiences,” 255–56, esp. 256), whereas more than 80 million Christians alone claim to have witnessed healings in the same country. Alien abduction experiences fit altered state of consciousness experience, and much of the “evidence” derives from memories recalled through hypnosis, which can create or adapt “memories” (Walsh, Shamanism, 169; for comparison with shamans and their spirit guides in ASCs, see Mack, Abduction, 8, an often baffling work cited in Herrick, Mythologies, 187). Perhaps 22 percent of the U.S. population believes that space aliens have visited earth (Appelle, Lynn, and Newman, “Experiences,” 258), but even if most of this group also were among those believing in divine miracles (which is questionable; paranormal beliefs seem less common among the religiously committed [McClenon, Events, 21; cf. Greeley, Sociology, 15]), perhaps half the U.S. population (some 150 million people) would remain as believing in miracles who did not believe in space aliens. Lumping all unusual claims together (e.g., UFO experiences ...

is uncritical (see rightly Kwan, “Argument,” 548; on the cultural evolution of beliefs about extraterrestrials, see Herrick, Mythologies, 42–73).

overemphasize them, Hiebert, “Power Encounter,” 56, recognizes the value of such demonstrations, including healing, in reaching supernaturalist non-Christians such as folk Muslims; others (Musk, “Popular Islam,” 214–15; Parshall, “Lessons,” 255–56) have underlined the importance of this approach even more emphatically. Fernando, “God,” 193, notes that from their context Western evangelicals have sometimes emphasized

Book about Islam and supernatural stuff?

Though most Christians would also deny that the sphere of God’s love and activity is limited to Christians, probably most would also regard the above feat as exhibitionistic rather than as a demonstration of divine love.

Outside Jewish and Christian tradition, laying on hands for healing appears in ancient Egypt (1550 b.c.e.); among Indonesian Muslims, Soviet folk healers, and Brazilian Spiritists (Krippner, “Medicine,” 198–99). In early Judaism, see 1Qap Genar XX, 22, 29 (Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 65, 67; Flusser, “Laying on of Hands”; Driver, Scrolls, 461); cf. lxx 2 Kgs 5:11; in Jesus’s ministry, e.g.,

Immersion in another culture sometimes transforms core beliefs

One is forced to dismiss the sincerity (a matter beyond disagreeing with their interpretation) of all such claimants only if one’s philosophic presuppositions require this. But such certainty of one’s own presuppositions as to dismiss without investigation the sincerity of such a large number of other people’s purported testimony may lack self-critique to the point of hubris. Such a priori dismissal functions more effectively in polemic than in dialogue. Most admit that miracle claims are usually at least subjectively real to individual interpreters (Brownell, “Experience,” 226).

Cf. Prather, Miracles, 90. Hiebert, Reflections, 245, notes that most who claim healings at meetings return to their doctors a week or two later. His source (Pattison, Lapins, and Doerr, “Faith Healing”) is limited in its scope and not free of bias, but the point remains: the cures that count evidentially must outlast the emotion of the moment.

Rose Engcoy’s April 14, 2002, interview. Jenkins, New Faces, 114, cites a new convert in the Philippines who prayed for a neighbor’s dying baby. According to his source, the baby was healed, so others then asked for prayer and most were healed; by about a decade and a half later, everyone in this village had turned to the healing God.

My informant supplied various other details about the woman, her long-term and intimate friend; it is difficult for me to communicate in writing the utmost sincerity with which she shared. She was eager for me to get this story out to the world, because she believed that it would help challenge skepticism that God could do miracles, including in cases like the virgin birth (though no one claims that the healed woman was a virgin). She was disappointed that her friend, once granted the miracle, did not publicize it much for God’s glory.

relevance of miraculous power in Africa, see also Gräbe, “Discovery.” Early in the Qua Iboe Mission in Nigeria, “a spontaneous outburst of glossolalia” occurred without any “Pentecostal influence . . . within hundreds of miles” (Orr, Awakenings, 160).

Gulick, personal correspondence (April 19, 23, 24, 25, 2010; June 10, 11, 12; July 31; Sept. 4, 9, 2010). She provided documentation from her doctors; the inexplicable changes were noted, in different ways, both by her eye doctor (a macular degeneration specialist; July 6, 2010; April 15, 2011) and her optometrist (June 10, 2010), and warranted a new prescription that included her previously blind eye (Aug. 26, 2010; documentation from her optometrist dated March 10, 2008; Aug. 26, 2010). By our correspondence of Aug. 28, 31; Sept. 3, 2010, she was able to read (laboriously) with her previously blind eye, with improvements progressing (Oct. 30, 2010; Jan. 11; April 15; May 25; June 11, 2011).

One of these instances, in Melbourne, was so astonishing that a particular reporter from a local news station came to interview the person, but apparently lost interest once the man testified that Jesus had healed him.

Numbere, Vision, passim. The book recounts (e.g., 65, 130–32, 167, 210, 443–44) and summarizes (e.g., 61, 63, 99, 130–31, 134, 185, 192, 210, 213, 233, 414) many other miracles associated with his ministry. See especially the summary of healing services on 415–16 (noting on 416 that many are reported in more detail in their magazine): “Broken bones have been mended, paralytics, epileptics, the blind, the deaf, the lame and many others have been healed; including those with heart and liver diseases. One of the latter cases was a medical doctor.” On other occasions, Numbere made use of more natural means of health restoration when available (230, 293, 345). The book’s author, Numbere’s wife, is a medical doctor as well as a pastor.

Ibid., 246–47. The student’s name was Martins Okokowre (Ikokobe), healed Jan. 11, 1981, and the doctors he worked with recognized it as undeniable; though Dr. Tonye Briggs tells me that one simply called it a “spontaneous healing,” the medical students knew it was a miracle (phone interview, Dec. 16, 2009).

I have direct accounts in which others recognized the languages from Dr. Derek Morphew (Nov. 12, 2007); Pastor David Workman (April 30, 2008); Dr. Médine Moussounga Keener (Aug. 12, 2009, secondhand about Pastor Daniel Ndoundou); my student Leah Macinskas-Le (April 25, 2010, regarding her Jewish mother becoming a believer in Jesus because she understood the Hebrew prayer of an uneducated pastor’s prayer in tongues); Del Tarr, personal correspondence, Sept. 30, 2010 (noting three cases he has witnessed, including a recent one involving Korean; cf. also Oct. 5, 6, 2010). In written sources, see Tarr, Foolishness, 401–3 (about ten cases, some with considerable supporting evidence, especially cases where Tarr, a linguist, was one of the eyewitnesses); Prather, Miracles, 166–71 (an eyewitness account); Mansfield, Pentecost, 50 (a French major, Mansfield listened as a friend, praying in tongues, prayed in French with perfect pronunciation, and Mansfield discovered afterward that the friend did not even know that he had been praying in French); Warner, Evangelist, 256–57 (on 267n13 noting the interview source insisting that the speaker, who knew no Romanian, spoke it for twenty-five minutes); Burton, “Villages,” 8 (when central African believers received tongues, “we heard perfect English and beautiful French by natives who had never heard” them, as well as “South African Dutch and German”); Simpson, “Utterance” (a Chinese Christian reported unknowingly praying in Japanese, there...

Catholic and Orthodox theology never adopted a cessationist stance (e.g., Mullin, Miracles, 133; Kselman, Miracles, 197).

Exorcism, 20–23 (citing Cels. 1.22; 4.33; 7.4, 67; Hom. Jos. 24; in Matt. comm. ser. 110). Kelsey notes (Healing, 137–38) that “Origen once commented that there were many instances he could set down from his own experience, but he saw no point in giving nonbelievers another chance to ridicule Christians for imagining things like healing” (Cels. 1.46).

“Ministry of Healing,” 233–34, noting that she remained well. Gordon also notes the ensuing persecution, which compelled Fancourt’s father, a minister who had previously been cessationist, to add his own confirmation of her account (234

Thus, in the earlier period, many people would come to a long-term amputee for prayer and spiritual counsel (41). But the widespread use of anesthesia by the 1870s “made passive acceptance of suffering seem not only needless, but sometimes even pathological” (15). Cf. this emphasis on accepting suffering also in the 1700s (Kidd, “Healing,” 165). Against the propaganda circulated by prominent nineteenth-century polemicists, hostility toward anesthesia was driven by physicians rather than clergy (Schoepflin, “Anesthesia,” 129).

Many believed that God willed for them to keep suffering (52–53), but Cullis objected that they actively sought medical help, so why not pray (53)? Physicians now “often encouraged their patients to pray for physical restoration” (67).

citing Boardman’s account directly from the physician father.

This approach contrasted with the approach in the Gospels, where sickness was normally an enemy to be worked against, suggesting that pastoral care should also support the sick rather than resign them to suffering (see Seybold and Mueller, Sickness, 191–92).