This page is a work in progress.   We'll begin the discussion by reminding our readers that scientifically a miracle must have empirical evidence in order to be accepted.    That may be a difficult (unfair?) stnadard for miracles which are only reported historically.  So the credibility of the writer is very much an issue.  

One must also consider the reason why a writer might "invent" such a story in an otherwise legitimate historical narrative.   Along this line the pedigree of the writing is also an issue since a later editor may inserted a miracle story into a narrative which otherwise is truthful. 

To whet your appetite for more...

Let us first consider one of the two non-synoptic miracles reported in Mark's gospel, but claimed by an emporer of Rome!

We are speaking about the Healing of the Blind Man at Betsaida as described in Mark 8:22-25.

 

HERE'S SOME ITEMS FOR STUDY:

1.)  What is the name of the Roman Emperor who may have conducted a very similar miracle?

                         Answer: Vespasian, who had just become emperor when he performed his miracle.

2.)  Which two Roman historians describe the Roman version of this miracle?

                  Answer:  One of them was the historian Seutonius; and he recorded the incident in his The Histories.  The other was Tacitus.

3.)  What Old Testament Prophecy may have led Jewish Messianists to expect such a miracle?

4.)  Since the Romans were obviously embarrased by their enactment of this miracle, why did they do it?

                   Answer:   Obviously they were trying to suggest that Vespasian was the Messiah, and therefore the Jewish patriots fighting them in Jerusalem should put down their arms and surrender to  Roman soldiers.

5.)  Who was most likely responsible for encouraging the Romans to deliberately enact such a Messianic miracle deliberately attributable to their Emperor? 

Our answer would be most likely Josephus, the Jewish historian and prince, captured by the Romans in Galilee at the beginning of the Jewish Roman war, which occurred from 66 to 70 AD. 

6.)  Why was this miracle not reported by the other two synoptic gospel writers, Luke and Mathew?   (This question presupposes that these two gospel writers used a copy of Mark's gospel in compoding their own gospels.  See our discussion of the Gospels

Ah, this is a good question.    In the case of Luke, who wrote his version a long time after the events actually occurred (possibly as late as 150AD), he may have left this miracle out of his gospel deliberately, not wanting to stir up old hostilities.   Under the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Christianity blossomed in the Roman Empire.  So perpaps Luke was leaving well enough alone, by stirring up what must have been a touchy subject.

What about Mathew? And John?    

We will discuss these in the next installment.