Featured

Does The Gospel of Mark Suffer from Confirmation Bias?

When we are presented with an idea, we do not evaluate it purely on merit. Rather, we consider an idea in the context of our own accepted beliefs and experiences. This causes us to accept concepts that fit into our established worldview, and to eschew those that do not. This psychological phenomenon is known as Confirmation Bias[1]. A modern example of confirmation bias can be seen with miracle healing televangelists. Despite the numerous examples of Peter Popoff’s unfounded miracles, his close associate Larry Skelter refused to believe that Popoff was anything but “the real deal”. It is natural to extend this ponderance to the fundamentals of Christianity: Could the gospels’ writers have suffered from confirmation bias in their acceptance of Jesus miracles? The answer is, of course, yes, as any human is susceptible to it. Meaningful inquiry, however, must go beyond impressionistic analysis. One can look into the texts to search for examples of biased conclusions. While such a query cannot be exhaustively answered in the space of this writing, a case study can certainly be explored.

Let us examine how Confirmation Bias might have affected the inclusion of miracles in the New Testament, within the context of Mark 6:1-6. 

1 He[Jesus] went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.“

Mark 6:1-6

The traditional reading is that Jesus performed only a few healings because his fellow Nazarenes lacked faith. In Christian theology, faith is often considered a prerequisite to divine intervention and miraculous events[2]. This is a well established position held by various Christian sources, so it will not be reiterated here. On the other hand, there has been a new, skeptical reinterpretation of the passage that invokes confirmation bias.

Skeptical readers may argue that “the unintended implication here is that Jesus could only do miracles and heal people if the people believed he could.” In effect, the proposition finds a strikingly similar comparison to faith healers like Peter Popoff. It directly implies that the impact of an attempted healing was not realized beyond belief. In other words, the effect of the attempted miracles was merely psychological, rather than curative. It suggests that Mark desired to explain that Jesus performed miracles, while inadvertently included evidence that he did not. The skeptical reading has a fascinating approach, and certainly warrants a more analytical view of the passage. 

If the skeptical reading is the most accurate interpretation, then we need to correct our understanding of the passage. This will be attempted using two primary assumptions which formally express the intent of the skeptical interpretation:

A) Jesus failed to do anything necessarily interpreted as magical.

B) Mark desires to believe Jesus performed magic, and thereby explains away Jesus’ inability to perform magic in Nazareth.

First, the phrase “How are such mighty works done by his hands” should be ignored per assumption A. The term “mighty works” is translated from the Greek word “dunamis”, which is often employed to convey an idea of supernatural labor in the gospels [3]. Another example of this word usage can be seen in verse 5, which also is translated as “mighty work”. In terms of ideological flow, this excision doesn’t detract from the text’s coherence. It limits the meaning of “things” that Jesus is said to have obtained to strictly knowledge and wisdom, without any supernatural ability. If one were to read the passage without the phrase, it would still make sense. The application of these skeptical assumptions only becomes difficult in verse 5.

The first part of verse 5 is essential to the skeptical reading (B), as it apparently denotes Jesus’ inability to heal in the presence of those whom he has offended. Due to confirmation bias, it could be that Mark understands that Jesus laid hands on people, but could not remove their illness. Despite this failure, Mark records Jesus as healing anyway. Such a reading is problematic for a few reasons. 

First, it is necessary to understand that in this case, the verse contains a singular thought. Mark is saying that Jesus was generally unable to perform miracles in Nazareth, except for a few cases. If we interpret the word ‘miracles’ as denoting a genuinely supernatural event, the qualifier (except) implies that Jesus could physically perform a miracle, which violates Assumption A. We may then consider the term ‘miracles’ to mean a natural event only appearing to be a miracle. However, that interpretation does not fit well with the rest of the verse.

Mark explains his qualifier by saying that Jesus “laid his hands on a few sick people”. This alludes to a religious practice of semikhah meant to transfer a blessing or power upon the recipient[4]. It was perhaps most famously performed in Deuteronomy 34:9, wherein Joshua was bestowed a spirit of wisdom from Moses. Given the religious backdrop of Mark, it is a strong possibility this is the connotation that intended. Subsequent word choice in the passage makes the writing intent even clearer. 

Perhaps most destructive to the skeptical reading is the word translated as ‘heal’. This word, ‘therapeuo’[5], is strongly associated with the supernatural in Mark’s gospel. Its usage prior to chapter 6 is in conjunction with demons, and is often applied in contexts where natural healing would be impossible. Mark appears to clearly indicate that a few supernatural healings in chapter 6 did occur, despite the general lack of faith. But if that’s true, then why does the text state that Jesus couldn’t perform miracles? As it happens, the translated concept of “could not” has broader meaning for Mark and other writers in the New Testament. For example, Mark 1:45 states that 

“But he[the miracle benefactor] went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, so that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.” 

While the Greek phrase is translated as “could no more” in the verse [6], the intent is clear. It does not mean that Jesus was not permitted to enter the city, but that he could not enter the city without being swarmed by people. Naturally, there are other cases where the concept has a literal meaning. Thus, the nuance of “could not” allows for a more general understanding of what it means that Jesus couldn’t perform most healings needed in Nazareth. Mark describes the scene as one where Jesus withholds his power, rather than a show of weakness in the face of challenge. The focal point of the passage is the impasse between parties. The Nazarenes are unwilling to believe that out of their group could come a prophet that surpasses them. Jesus is similarly unwilling to provide any further demonstration of power to those that dismiss him. This conclusion is hardly novel, but its arrival was directed by a unique psychoanalytical criticism of the text.

Confirmation bias is a common phenomenon in human psychology. It requires us to question our hidden motives behind why we accept certain ideas, but not others. Even for the well-intentioned New Testament writers, this phenomenon was possible. However, Mark 6 contains no such example. Rather, the chapter displays an internal consistency about Jesus’ ability to perform supernatural works, while acknowledging that his audience was not always receptive. Mark is confident in Jesus’ miracle working ability, and characterizes the Nazarene as a Messiah fully able to heal, but carrying no obligation to unbelievers. Ultimately, the traditional Christian approach to the text holds up in closer study.

Sources

  1. Heshmat, S. (2015, April 23). What Is Confirmation Bias? Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias
  2. Tabletalk Magazine. (n.d.). The Obstacle of Unbelief. Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/obstacle-unbelief/
  3. Dunamis Meaning in the Bible – New Testament Greek Lexicon (NAS). (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/dunamis.html
  4. Newman, J. (1950). Semikhah ; a study of its origin, history and function in Rabbinic literature. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/books/edition/Semikah/jf_nAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=”the fact that transference”&dq=semikhah&pg=PA5&printsec=frontcover
  5. Therapeuo Meaning in the Bible – New Testament Greek Lexicon (NAS). (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/therapeuo.html
  6. Mark 1:45 Greek Interlinear. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mar/1/45/t_conc_958045
Featured

The Preposterous Power of Peter Popoff

Jesus and Peter Popoff both set high expectations of miracles for their respective audiences, with Popoff carefully adding qualifiers to define away the possibility of failure. However, this says nothing about the actual success of their miracle performances. Whereas this series has analyzed several of Jesus’ miracles, we now turn our attention to those of Popoff. He and his associates claim that Popoff can perform miracles, but have never shown an example by which neither the means nor the end is necessarily miraculous. This becomes quite apparent from a cursory look at the types of events that Popoff foists onto his followers as miraculous. 

Popoff’s miracle evidence usually takes the form of swooning, monetary windfalls, lifestyle changes, and supernatural healing [1]. If the reader has any experience with previous articles in this series, this evidence should immediately stand out as troubling. Swooning in response to a religious experience is a known phenomenon, but lacks any evidentiary substance. The act of fainting hardly requires a supernatural cause, and there are a plethora of reasons as to why an individual may faint. Similarly, there could be any number of reasons why an individual experiences a monetary windfall. In fact, all of the means Popoff’s believers cite as the source of their financial blessings are explicitly associated with human financial systems. That is not to say that God could have caused those in power to make choices amenable to the believers, but such an occurrence is indistinguishable from human agency. Just as with Jesus, the best evidence for Popoff’s miracles resides in events that are beyond natural circumstances. As fate would have it, the substance of Popoff’s power resides largely in the claims of supernatural healing.

Eyewitnesses of Popoff’s ministry often allege that the televangelist achieves miraculous feats in a manner that is strictly unsound. First, consider what Popoff’s associate, Larry Skelton, had to say about his friend’s miracles. When interviewed by GQ about about the miracles, Skelton said that 

“I’ve seen people with a short leg that had, for a while, a six-inch buildup on one of their shoes, You could see, there was no fakery to it. All of a sudden, that leg began to grow out to the same size as the other.” [2]

Larry Skelton on Peter Popoff

From this description, it appears that these people had what is known as Leg Length Inequality (LLI). Intuitively named, this is a condition in which a patient’s legs do not have the same length. According to University of Washington Orthopaedic, limb lengthening can cause bones to grow at “approximately 1 inch per month” [3], dramatically slower than the visible limb growth recounted by Skelton. If this event really did happen, it would be strong evidence that Popoff could/can perform miracles. However, less than three percent of the population has a 15 mm or greater difference in their leg lengths [4]. Popoff’s patient in this case had more than 10 times that length difference. How did Popoff manage to find someone with such a rare condition?

Frankly, the very situation Skelton describes is beyond extraordinary. The average individual has a LLI of 5.2 mm with a standard deviation of 4.1 mm. For context, if you sampled a million people, only four with discrepancies greater than 1.17 inches would be found. Popoff is alleged to have healed multiple people that had about 4 times that LLI. The odds that any such patient ever existed are effectively zero*, making the problem itself supernatural. On an evidentiary level, this is a noted departure from the two miracles defended in this Miracles of Jesus series.

When we look at the various miracles that Jesus performed in the gospels, we find they were solutions to problems grounded in common human experience. Physical illness, mental illness, and transportation are common issues people faced in Jesus’ day and continue to face in the present. Skelton’s description seems as though it belongs in the same category, but it does not. It is statistically impossible for an individual to have a LLI of 6”. Evidence for a miracle is strongest when there is a comprehensible phenomenon that is achieved by incomprehensible means. Skelton doesn’t give an explanation for how these patients existed, but presumably it is meant to be a natural interpretation. Nevertheless, if such patients did exist, it would still be possible for him to observe a half foot LLI or shoe buildup. The issue is that Skelton could have easily misjudged the buildup thickness, or been fooled by the patient shifting their gait to accommodate the length difference. Despite this, Skelton takes the position that Popoff is “the real deal”.

Even though Skelton believes in Popoff’s supernatural abilities, he still alludes to Popoff’s faked miracles in the 1986 scandal. Ultimately, this incident casts a dark shadow over any other analysis one could apply to Popoff’s alleged miracles. His willingness to create a pretense of the supernatural warrants deeper scrutiny on the claims attributed to him. Popoff could quite easily convince his audience that his patient was healed just by proclaiming it to be so, as he has numerous times on television. His strategy has not fundamentally changed since James Randi first exposed his earpiece trick. In essence, the means have shifted from technology to human psychology. Popoff’s career in the supernatural is littered with stories of deception coincidence. It seems highly unlikely that there is any reputable claim of a truly miraculous encounter with Peter Popoff. 



Sources

  1. Peter Popoff – Jesus Does the Healing. (2009, March 6). Retrieved January 18, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZipJkv5y4c
  2. Oppenheimer, M. (2017, May 26). Peter Popoff, the Born-Again Scoundrel. Retrieved October 6, 2019, from https://www.gq.com/story/peter-popoff-born-again-scoundrel.
  3. UW Medicine. (n.d.). Limb Lengthening & Shortening. Retrieved January 18, 2020, from https://orthop.washington.edu/patient-care/articles/childrens/limb-lengthening-shortening.html
  4. Knutson, G. A. (2005, July 20). Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232860/


Additional Reading

The Gait Guys. (2012, September 8). leg length discrepancies and shoe lifts. Retrieved from https://www.thegaitguys.com/thedailyblog/leg-length-discrepancies-and-shoe-lifts

Featured

The Truthful Deity Experiment

One of the fundamental ideas of Christianity and most theistic religions is the idea that God can be understood to some degree. Christianity makes some claims such as God is loving, just, merciful, etc… However, all of these claims presuppose one important thing: The idea that God can be known. Today’s post will be investigating and deconstructing an argument that seeks to prove the very opposite, that an omnipotent being by definition cannot be known. With this background established let’s analytically phrase the argument:

Continue reading “The Truthful Deity Experiment” →
Featured

Hedging The Miraculous

Mini-series Foreword

In the 1980s, a televangelist by the name of Peter Popoff was rising to prominence. Distinct from most prosperity gospel preachers of the time, Popoff had a unique draw to his sermons. He claimed to receive prophetic messages from God about various ailments that his parishioners had. Popoff would identify their name, what was wrong, and then declare them supernaturally healed in dramatic fashion. While many people had stories to tell of how Popoff’s prayers and faith led to divine healing, and even financial stability, the spiritual high eventually came crashing down. In 1986, skeptic James Randi proved Popoff had been using a wireless transmitter to get information about the parishioners[1]. Following this, Popoff’s viewership ratings plummeted, and he soon filed for bankruptcy.

Despite his failure, Popoff can still teach us a great deal on how to convince people to believe in miracles. In analyzing his approach, we can shed some light on what it would take to start a movement like Jesus’ in the first century. The next few articles in this mini-series will compare Popoff and Jesus with regard to several key themes of their miracle campaigns.

Hedging The Miraculous

Popoff

One of the first components of Popoff’s strategy was his philosophical ‘safety net’. This term refers to the fallback explanation Popoff prepared for instances when the miracles did not work as intended. During one service, Popoff asked an attendee “You got cancer in the stomach? Are you ready for God to burn that cancer out?” [2] This safety net is subtly expressed: It isn’t Popoff who performs the miracle, it is God. Nevertheless, it is Popoff who is physically present, and this causes the crowd to mentally associate the man with the miracle. If Popoff is unable to perform the miracle, then it is simply not in God’s will for it to happen. This perception has been confirmed by at least two people who encountered Popoff.

In 2017, Mark Oppenheimer of GQ interviewed Larry Skelton, a former musician who played the organ for Popoff ministry for decades [3]. When asked about the miracle scandal of 1985, Skelton had this to say

“When you’re praying for the sick, it’s through the Holy Spirit, and there’s some times that it works freely, and then there are other times when the Spirit’s just not there.”

Larry Skelton, longtime friend of Peter Popoff

Skelton’s assertion certainly implies the “safety net” theory that Popoff is setting up a divine scapegoat for his own deceptive purposes. However, the interview is only able to attest to the internal views of miracles within the ministry. A tape recording from one of the organization’s sermons confirms that this view was transferred to the audience. A woman whose cancer was ‘burned’ out of her was asked if she believed the miracle. Not only did the woman say yes, but her companion said “Yes I believe that because God never lies.” [2] Popoff successfully transferred over any culpability away from himself. One might wonder what the women thought after the next medical checkup, if they bothered.

Jesus

Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth also had this fallback available is an interesting point of discussion. If Jesus claimed God had decreed someone would be healed, he would have been held to the Deuteronomy standard for prophets [4], which states

“When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

Deuteronomy 18:22

The passage clearly associates any miraculous falsity squarely on the shoulders of the prophet making the miracle claim. This reasoning comes from a philosophical / religious principle that God does not lie, therefore any false claim could not have divine origin. Such logic is similar to the aforementioned vote of confidence by the cancer patient’s companion. The critical difference is that it does not presume the truthfulness of the prophet. This says nothing to how Jesus actually posed his miracles, but we do have evidence pertaining to that point of discussion. In Matthew 10:1, Jesus sends out his disciples to perform their own miracles [5].  

And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.

Matthew 10:1

Notice that there is no mention of God in the context of the supernatural, nor in the succeeding verses. The reader is meant to assume it is Jesus’ own power the disciples are imbued with. Consequently, any success or failure would rightfully be directed to Jesus. Further commentary from those within Jesus’ organization heavily suggests the disciples associated the miracles with Jesus. In reaction to Jesus calming a storm, the disciples questioned themselves by asking “What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?” [6]. Indeed we also find that this perception extends to those who were not disciples of Jesus.

Mark’s gospel records two instances of witnesses believing that Jesus’ had some sort of miraculous power. A ruler of the synagogue named Jairus seeks Jesus out [7]

and implored him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live.”

Mark 5:23

The language used indicates that Jairus believes Jesus is the key factor in his daughter’s healing. He doesn’t ask that Jesus pray for her healing, but that Jesus’ touch would allow her to continue living. The laying on of hands is a concept also found in the Torah, whereby Moses lays his hands on Joshua to bless him [8]. Jairus expects some sort of blessing or power to be conveyed from Jesus to a patient upon physical contact – and he is not the only one. Similarly, the woman with the issue of blood[9] desired to simply touch Jesus for the purpose of physical restoration. Both Jairus and the unnamed woman expressed a belief that it was a power within Jesus that would enable them to get the miraculous results. 

Peter Popoff and Jesus of Nazareth both made miracle claims during the height of their careers. When we analyze Popoff’s phrasing, we find his words are strategically chosen to allow the possibility of failure, and transfer it to another agent. This is done in such a way as to simultaneously accept any accolades in the event of success. Conversely, Jesus’ statements on his own miracles lack such maneuvering.  Instead, Jesus tends to forgo phrasing that would remove any miracle credit from himself, wholly accepting the outcome of his miracle endeavors. This idea is successfully conveyed to his followers, and the audience as well. Such confidence suggests that Jesus seriously believed he would be able to fulfill his claims in a way that would satisfy his audience. At least in this regard, the Nazarene did not appear to have an intent to deceive his audience.

Sources

  1. Weinstein, J., & Measom, T. (2016, March 27). Exposing Peter Popoff. Retrieved October 6, 2019, from http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/exposing-peter-popoff/.
  2. gchinnici1974. (2008, February 14). Peter Popoff exposed – Part 1. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNl52deOZro.
  3. Oppenheimer, M. (2017, May 26). Peter Popoff, the Born-Again Scoundrel. Retrieved October 6, 2019, from https://www.gq.com/story/peter-popoff-born-again-scoundrel.
  4. Deuteronomy 18:22
  5. Matthew 10:1
  6. Matthew 8:27
  7. Mark 5:23
  8. Deuteronomy 34:9
  9. Mark 5:28
Featured

The Jefferson Bible – A Naturalistic Gospel?

The very beginning of the series introduced the importance of Jesus’ miracles to his moral precepts. The supernatural elements in the gospels are so well-known, it is difficult for many to imagine the gospel message without them. However, ‘many’ does not include Thomas Jefferson. After his stint as president, Jefferson made a version of the New Testament that removed Jesus’ miracles almost entirely. The Jefferson Bible (JB) is an intriguing read, and highlights how miracles change the message of the gospels.
 

Continue reading “The Jefferson Bible – A Naturalistic Gospel?” →
Featured

Author’s Note: 08/12/2019

No new post this week, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any news!

First, the “Miracles of Jesus” series is more than halfway through! There will be at least 5 more posts on the topic, and then the series will conclude. Obviously, the Mechanics of Christianity is more than just one series. Another will replace it, and your input is more than welcome for what the next series should be. Comment below any suggestions for now, and a formal poll will be posted in the coming weeks.

Second, after the “Miracles of Jesus” ends, there will be no formal series in the interim. Instead, there will be a few “Aside” articles as posted content. Asides will be various articles on the Mechanics of Christianity, but will not necessarily have any interconnected themes. Excitingly, these may have a few guest writers!

Finally, a couple changes have been made to the website. Two new domains have been purchased for the blog! You can now use www.FaithMechanics.com and www.MechanicsOfChristianity.com as links to the site. Another (related) change is that ads have also been removed from the site. I never made any money from them (WordPress added them), and I’d much prefer to publish important content unobstructed by commercialism. Some readers may not have noticed due to Adblock, but at least this is now consistent for all readers.

Thanks for reading, and you can check out the most recent article here!

Featured

The Pharisees on Jesus’ Miracles

In this discussion of the miracles of Jesus, the miraculousness of the gospel accounts has been elucidated on to a great degree. More recently, the series has focused on why certain miracles should not be considered compelling from a general standpoint. For contemporary readers of today, the miracles of Jesus carry a certain weight: We understand the difficulty in performing them due to the lack of technology of the time and our scientific knowledge. Even so, the gospels record eyewitnesses being in amazement at Jesus’ works. If that is the case, then why didn’t more rabbis find Jesus’ miracles to be compelling evidence for his divine claims? Here, I will attempt to scratch the surface of this complex topic.

Continue reading “The Pharisees on Jesus’ Miracles” →
Featured

Uncompelling Miracles: An Anthology

Previously, a case study of uncompelling resurrection miracles was given. Today, we seek to develop a more general understanding of what makes a miracle uncompelling. From this negative assessment, we can lay the ground works for a consistent model of miracles. Without further ado, here are four different miracles that should not be used for evidence of Jesus as a miracle worker:

Healing of Malchus

First, we’ll begin begin with the Healing of Malchus, a roman soldier whose ear was sliced off by Peter in Luke 22:47-54 [1] (recorded by all gospel accounts).

Continue reading “Uncompelling Miracles: An Anthology” →
Featured

Uncompelling Miracles: A Case Study

While the previous articles have discussed miracles that would affirm Jesus’ divinity claims, one might wonder: Do all of Jesus’ miracles substantiate Christianity? The answer is more complex than a boolean response can give. Nevertheless, the answer is more ‘no’ than it is ‘yes’. In order to illustrate this, let’s use one of Jesus’ miracles as a case study. Since the Raising of Lazarus (ROL) is the most recent miracle analysis, it seems fitting to investigate another of Jesus’ resurrections: Raising The Young Man At Nain (RTYMAN), found in Luke 7:11-17 [1].

For this analysis, we’ll use the exact same approach previously established. In the narrative, Jesus encounters the young man‘s funeral procession while on his way to Nain. From the very beginning, there are two key evidentiary differences between ROL and RTYMAN. No information is given about the cause of death, so it is difficult to say if he suffered from an illness or injury that would cause death. This opens the door for questioning if this is another incident whereby the patient was incorrectly presumed dead. Even so, we are led once again to the question of if the Young Man was dead by the time Jesus encountered the procession.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Jews of the time likely buried their dead “within a day after death” [2], since they did not embalm their dead for preservation. Consequently, there was not much time for a pre-existing condition to kill the Young Man, and we don’t even know what that condition was. If we examine several examples of modern resurrections[3, 6] , we find that many of the patients were buried rather quickly. This is confirmation of the intuitive reasoning that the man was not necessarily dead at the time, leaving the door open for a ‘misjudged death’. Conversely, the reasoning does not apply to Lazarus’ resurrection. If Lazarus was not dead as presumed, he could have truly died from dehydration or his illness before Jesus arrived. Finally, the observed response of the patient in both cases is the only element that is equally compelling.

It was previously discussed that some patients in comas will respond to sounds with deep personal meaning to them. For Lazarus, it could’ve been the voice of a close friend (Jesus). In that case, Lazarus responding to Jesus and physically walking towards the group is unusual. In his coma and dehydrated state, it would be miraculous for Lazarus to respond to Jesus, let alone walk immediately after. With RTYMAN’s narrative, Jesus is essentially a stranger to the young man. Jesus’ voice should have had no such significance to pull the man out of a coma. Aside from that, I don’t find RTYMAN’s evidence for Jesus as a miracle worker to be compelling neither on a comparative nor an absolute basis. Whether or not one accepts either of the two miracles as reasonable evidence, the Raising of Lazarus is certainly the more compelling of the two. Much of the criteria for accepting RTYMAN as miraculous evidence would also apply to the Raising of Lazarus as well.

This article isn’t meant to convey the idea that I don’t believe the Gospel’s account of the RTYMAN. Rather, it’s meant to demonstrate that there are evidential differences between gospel miracle accounts. The Resurrection of Lazarus acts as a standalone evidential basis for Jesus being as a miracle worker. The RTYMAN narrative does not have strong evidence for an exclusive miraculous interpretation. If one already considers Jesus to be a miracle worker, the narrative is entirely believable. While the RTYMAN is not a compelling miracle in and of itself, it does give greater insight to other miracles of Jesus. For example, it demonstrates that the concept of Jesus raising people from the dead was not solely expressed by the Gospel of John. Resurrection of the dead was considered a part of Jesus’ ministry, rather than a rogue idea.

Below is a quick comparison of the Raising of Lazarus, RTYMAN, along with the Raising of Jairus’ Daughter for good measure.


Raising of LazarusResurrection of The Young Man At NainRaising of Jairus’ Daughter [4]
Presumed Primary Cause of DeathIllnessUnknownIllness
Possible Identification of DeathLack of heartbeat, breath, and movement [5,6]Lack of Heartbeat, breath, and movementLack of heartbeat, breath, and movement
Possible Secondary Cause of DeathDehydration, AsphyxiationUnknownUnknown
Time Presumed Dead> 4 Days~ 1 Day< 1 day
In-Coma Response to Jesus Likely?No – Dehydration, illness, and possibly low oxygen would inhibit response.No – Jesus was not a psychological trigger. No – Jesus was not a psychological trigger.

Sources

  1. Luke 7:11-17
  2. Encyclopedia Judaica: Medicine. (2008). Retrieved from https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/medicine
  3. Lusher, A. (2018, January 09). The bizarre cases of people ‘waking up’ after being declared dead. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/halloween-come-back-life-waking-dead-funerals-mortuaries-confirm-russia-egypt-a8023916.html
  4. Mark 5:35-43
  5. Hajar, R. (2018). The pulse in ancient medicine part 1. Heart Views, 19(1), 36. doi:10.4103/heartviews.heartviews_23_18
  6. “11 People Who Turned Up Alive at Their Own Funeral.” Mental Floss, 2 Feb. 2017, mentalfloss.com/article/91126/11-people-who-turned-alive-their-own-funeral.
Featured

The Raising of Lazarus

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure famous for performing numerous forms of miracles. Instantaneous healing, control over the elements, and paying off taxes with fish money are impressive, but none of these have the visceral appeal of resurrection. Death is unlike any hardship we face in life, because it is the end of life. It drives many of our decisions throughout life, slowly but surely losing the subtlety of its influence as the years march on. Death is one of the few universal themes in human experience, and Jesus claimed to overcome it. That certainly seems like a miracle worth investigating in this series. For this week’s post, I will be analyzing the Raising of Lazarus account found in John 11:1-44 [1].

Continue reading “The Raising of Lazarus” →
Featured

“Walking on Water” as a Fictional Account

The last segment of The Miracles of Jesus series gave a naturalistic exploration of how Jesus could have walked on water. Here, we will explore how the text supports a literal, supernatural reading, framed in the context of skeptical New Testament scholarship. In Subversive Symmetry [1], Professor George Young writes a novel analysis of the walking on water account. Young begins by describing the account as “a barrage of inexplicable events that defy any natural and/or historical explanation.” He then resorts to applying literary critical methods to the passage, which are the same one might use to analyze a comic book, or other fantastic literature. Interestingly, Young has taken the position that the account is complete fabrication, but as fiction, not falsehood. His analysis includes summaries of other scholarly skeptical positions which actually illuminate the flaws of this methodology.

Continue reading ““Walking on Water” as a Fictional Account” →
Featured

How Did Jesus Really Walk on Water?

Last week we discussed extrabiblical reports of Jesus’ miracles. Today, we’ll begin a critical revisiting of the source material. The first miracle is the famous incident where Jesus is recorded as “walking on water”[1,2,3]. Out of all the miracles attributed to Jesus, this is one of the most impressive. One might disregard the calming of a storm as coincidental, or the casting out of demons as psychological therapy, but walking on water goes beyond achieving the improbable. The laws of physics simply do not allow for such an event. Since proposing that a human can actually do such a thing seems absurd, let’s take a skeptical approach and try to understand how this could have been faked.

Continue reading “How Did Jesus Really Walk on Water?” →
Featured

Josephus and Celsus on The Gospels’ Miracles

19th Century engraving of Flavius Josephus by William Whiston
Bust of 2nd Century Philosopher. Captured by
Marie-Lan Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons

Most people are at least somewhat familiar with Jesus’ miracles as described in the Bible. However, few are aware that extrabiblical texts also cite a supernatural aspect of Jesus’ ministry. Perhaps the most famous of these is The Antiquities of the Jews [1], written by 2nd Century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Below is a quote from New Testament scholar J.P. Meier’s [6] reconstruction of the key text:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds…”

Continue reading “Josephus and Celsus on The Gospels’ Miracles” →
Featured

Why Are The Miracles of Jesus Important?

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure known for his moral teachings, in addition to the miracles the Bible attributes to him. These two aspects of his ministry are intrinsically linked to his claim of being the Son of God. If this claim is discarded, the various principles that Jesus taught can be thought of as moral axioms for consideration. However, acceptance of the claim transforms these moral suggestions into obligations. This philosophical implication was something Jesus was well aware of.

Upon being asked how he could claim to forgive the sins of a paralyzed man, Jesus replied “Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?” [1] In essence, Jesus professes to possess authority over the moral and physical realms for the same reason: his claim of divinity . In our postmodern context, we prefer the comfort of choosing whether or not to value any combination of moral systems. Clearly, Jesus’ own approach to morality is incompatible with this. The miracles performed by Jesus are intended to be evidence for his divinity claim, which is in turn the foundational basis for his ethical laws. This ultimately means to discard Jesus’ miracles is to undermine the moral grounding of his teaching. Therefore, it becomes necessary to investigate the nature of the miraculous premise behind Jesus’ miracles.

” To discard Jesus’ miracles is to undermine the moral grounding of his teaching. “

Any proposed moral precepts should be subject to logical analysis for self-consistency, and those of Jesus are no different. However, such analysis does not address the desire of many evidentialists for physical proof of divinity. The internal image many people have of God is one outside of that of a purely deistic description. One often expects that if God exists, God will intervene. This perception of an intervening God is also echoed in numerous places in the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament. The wonders that Jesus performed are intended to satisfy that description by not only providing practical aid to the recipients, but also by the supernatural means in which they are achieved. The miracles Jesus performed provide tangible evidence for him having some sort of authority or power over the physical realm, and strengthen the weight of his moral claims.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll discuss various topics on the miracles of Jesus, such as extrabiblical sources, in-depth evidential analysis of the miracles, and even compare Jesus to a modern healing charlatan televangelist. It is my hope that this discourse will shed light on the historical and present significance of Jesus’ miracles, as well as inspire fair reconsideration of their plausibility.

Citations

  1. Matthew 9:5