Talk:Miracles attributed to Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Brown and the JS
I'm not trying to get in an edit war, but I seriously do not see anything about miracles or exorcisms on pages 820-1 of Brown's An Intro... I assume you have a copy in front of you, but if not I could type out the passage in question to verify. I believe my version is accurate because it is mostly quoted material from Brown. Roy's version is strange because it brings up topics that Brown does not mention. Brown mentions that part of the a priori assumptions of the JS is an anti-supernatural bias. He goes into detail saying they reject the bodily resurrection and Jesus' prophecies about his fate. No where does it say that this supernatural bias attacks the miracle and exorcism stories. As shown from the text, the JS accepts many of these events as historical. Or at least that people of Jesus' time would have interpreted certain historical events as miracles and exorcisms. The fellows may personally believe that there is a rational explanation behind it, but it would be like denying that faith healers exist. We all know that faith healers are out there. Whether we believe their power is supernatural or not is another question. However, all of this is moot because Brown doesn't even mention anything along these lines. -Andrew c 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't want a silly edit war either. But Brown clearly says, as you agree, that the seminar has an antisupernatural bias. And as most define miracles as supernatural, that clearly has an anti miracle bias. He then clearly says that events such as the resurrection have "no chance" of being declared historical with the group. And I know that the group believes that Jesus' healings were historical, they say as much in my copy of The Complete Gospels, but an exorcism is not just a "healing", it's a supernatural event with a demon being driven out of a person, and Brown clearly on page 821 says that the seminar presupposes the "demons don't exist" and so a REAL exorcism is not allowed by the group as historical either. A healing is not exactly an exorcism. Brown clearly says that their antisupernatural bias disallows them from declaring the resurrection or exorcisms historical. I'll quote the entire section if you wish. Roy Brumback 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have read page 821 at least 3 times just now, and more times yesterday, and I have not found the word demon anywhere on the page. I did however, turn the page to 822 and saw a section describing Crossan's personal view. "There are no demons, and so Jesus performed no exorcisms in the strict sense even though he delivered inidividuals from duress that they regarded as possession." However, let me read for you from the Acts of Jesus, page 58. "John P. Meier is inclined to think [the exorcism of Mark 1:22-28] is a Christian creation. The Fellows of the Seminar came to the same conclusion, but allowed for the possibility that it reflected a particular event by coloring it gray. At the same time, the Fellows endorsed the statement that Jesus practiced exorcism with a red vote". On top that, it is repeated on page 79 "Once again, the Seminar had no trouble believing that Jesus practiced exorcism." Crossan's opinion is one thing. He is making a philosophical statement regarding his opinion of how exorcisms work. But Crossan is not the Seminar. It is clear that the Jesus Seminar accepts the exorcisms, with no a priori stipulations (unlike Crossan) as "a red vote". I believe you are mistaken when you assume Brown's criticism of Crossan should be applied to the JS, and I request that my version be reverted to, or a version that doesn't mention miracles or exorcisms.-Andrew c 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- You're right, it is Crossan's view, not the entire Seminar's, and is on page 822, my mistake. However, does the group conclude the exorcisms are historical in the sense that Jesus actually removed demons or simply what people thought were demons. And I agree Brown does not explicitly mention miracles, but do you agree that an antisupernatural bias is a de facto bias against miracles, which are supernatural? He clearly says Crossan concludes based on a priori considerations that no miracles actually occured. Is there any supernatural miracle the group has declared as historical, historical in the sense that a supernatural event actually occured not in the sense that people simply thought one occured? Roy Brumback 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The historical method cannot say if an event was supernatural or not. Ehrman and Meier both go into detail regarding this, so to try and single out the JS is strange because mainstream historians acknowledge as much. I will look through the Acts of Jesus further, but the sections I read today clearly did not say either way that they were supernatural or that they were not supernatural, simply that they accepted that Jesus performed exorcisms (with no further comment). Brown says that the JS has an anti-supernatural bias, and that is that. I think we should leave it as that. We do not need to be interpreting Brown for our audience. If you read Brown and thought he was referring to miracles without stating as much, can we not do the same thing here, and let our readers decide what Brown meant, instead of telling them. I believe your wording puts too many words into Brown's mouth, and the article would be equally as informative, and more accurately representing Brown if we didn't try to interpret what Brown meant by "anti-supernatural bias". On top of that, I'm pretty sure the JS, which is a majority Christian organization, with many theologians and clergy, mean what they say in the parts I quoted above. But I will browse the book further and see if there is something I missed where they discuss the nature of the supernatural further (but I doubt it because it is a history book, not a philosophy or theology book).-Andrew c 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Sorry, I didn't look at the article before I wrote. I like your changes. The placement is more appropriate because it is directly in response to a JS claim regarding the resurrection. -Andrew c 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Christian perspective
This subsection could be considerably improved. It contains a number of unsourced statements. Not only so, but there are many different perspectives on Jesus' miracles within Christian churches. DFH 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revision
It seems that some of the miracles listed here would be better classified as something else, or reworded so that they make more sense as "miracles attributed to Jesus". For example, the Annunciation and the Satanic possession of Judas currently don't make sense in this section. Paul Haymon 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
