Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING §15.7
Luke seem to have drawn directly on Mark. 273 That is, the comparison of versions
which has enabled us to detect the core and thematic stability of particular
traditions is less obvious in the traditions of Jesus' powerful deeds.
We should however disabuse ourselves of any suggestion that simply because
a story narrates a miracle it must be a late addition to the tradition.
Strauss's objection to the rationalist attempts to explain away the miracles remains
valid: the stories are intended to be accounts of miracles. 274 But that does
not necessarily mean that the stories are wholly the product of later reflection. If
we have learned anything from our analyses of Jesus tradition thus far it is that
traditions characteristically were elaborated in the retelling without affecting the
stability of subject matter and core. The point here, then, is that the element of
miracle must in at least some cases belong to the core. The stories were being
told as miracles from the first. 215 Only so could Jesus' reputation as exorcist and
healer have become so firm and so widespread so quickly. 276 At the same time,
we should not lapse into talk of 'the original report' of a miracle, 277 as though
there was one single 'original' from which all subsequent accounts derived. Even
in the disciple circles there would have been a variety of tellings and retellings
round the stable core of miracle.
Here too we need to recall the lessons learned above in §6.3. In the study of
history there are no objective facts, only interpreted data. There is no objective
Jesus, no artefact ('the historical Jesus') at the bottom of the literary tell to be uncovered
by clearing away all the layers of tradition. All we have is the remembered
Jesus, Jesus seen through the eyes of those who followed him, Jesus enshrined
in the memories they shared and the stories they told and retold among
273. The possibility of detecting 'miracle sources' behind Mark and John (§7.8f) is best
left to vol. 2; the overlap between Synoptic and Johannine miracle tradition is confined to the
healing of the centurion's/royal official's servant (John 4.46-54; discussed in §8.4b) and the
linked feeding and walking on the water miracles (John 6; see below §15.7f); otherwise the
lack of overlap hinders the sort of tradition-historical analysis which we assay in this volume.
274. See above, §4.2.
275. This would include stories of (apparently) bringing back individuals to life (as in
Mark 5.35-43 pars.; and Luke 7.11-17; as also in Acts 9.36-43 and 20.9-10). See Meier's very
thorough discussion of the stories of Jesus raising Jairus' daughter, the widow of Nain's son,
and Lazarus and the reference in Matt. 11.5/Luke 7.22 (Marginal Jew 2.773-873).
276. Goppelt also observes that the customary assumption that miraculous motifs would
have been transferred to Jesus is not well founded: 'No one ascribed miraculous healings to
comparable figures in his surroundings, e.g., John the Baptist or the Teacher of Righteousness at
Qumran' (Theology 1.144). 'The tradition of Jesus' miracles has too many unusual features to be
conveniently ascribed to conventional legend-mongering' (Harvey, Jesus 99-110 [here 100]).
277. G. H. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999)
tends to fall into this trap (e.g., 285). Meier's warning at this point is also apposite (Marginal
Jew 2.735 n. 38).
672