Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§15.7 Who Did They Think Jesus Was?
sense words, such as we find in the magical papyri. 320 On the contrary, they probably
belonged to the tradition from the first, as the words which the first Aramaicspeaking
tradents recalled Jesus as speaking. 321 Finally, we should note that, although
Mark has made good use of the story of the two-stage healing, the story itself
hardly does Jesus much credit as a healer. 322 The embarrassment of his relative
failure and the crudity of his technique is probably sufficient indication that
the story goes back to a tradition of Jesus' mission, recalled despite (or because
of) its problematic character. 323
Whatever we now may think of the events which might have occasioned
these stories, the most obvious conclusion to draw is that there were various incidents
during Jesus' mission which were experienced/witnessed as miracles, understood
as healings brought about by divine power flowing through Jesus.
These first impressions would almost certainly have been embodied in the remembrances
of these episodes as they were first circulated among Jesus' followers.
Strauss was right: remove the element of miracle and you eliminate the very
reason why the story was told in the first place.
f. The Nature Miracles
The most 'extraordinary deeds' attributed to Jesus are usually designated 'nature
miracles', most notably the stilling of the storm (Mark 4.35-41 pars.), the
feeding of the 5,000 (6.32-44 pars.), and the walking on the water (6.45-52
tended to use rhesis barbarike, 'foreign language' (Philops. 9); see also Theissen, Miracle
Stories 64-65.
320. See Meier's robust response to F. L. Horton, 'Nochmals ephphatha in Mk 7:34',
ZAW77 (1986) 101-108 (Marginal Jew 2.759 n. 159); contrast Kollmann, Jesus Vh^-ZA.
321. These [Aramaic healing] formulas were probably preserved for the purpose of
guiding Christian thaumaturges in exorcistic and healing activities' (Aune, 'Magic in Early
Christianity' 1534-35).
322. Is this part of the reason that Matthew and Luke both omit it?
323. The criterion of embarrassment is emphasized by Meier: 'having Jesus spit in a
person's face does not seem to fit any stream of Christology in the early church' {Marginal Jew
2.693); he also notes the number of hapax legomena in 8.23-25 (741-42 n. 76). Similarly in regard
to Mark 7.31-37: embarrassment (713-14) and hapax legomena (758 n. 154). Meier is followed
by Twelftree, Jesus 300-301, 322-23. Lüdemann agrees: 'because of the specific details
[Mark 7.31-37] may have a high claim to authenticity' {Jesus 52; contrast Pesch,
Markusevangelium 1.399). Similarly on Mark 8.22-26: 'such an abstruse story as this can
hardly be derived from the community' (Jesus 55) — the sort of over-confident comment which
invites a pencilled 'Oh!' in the margin. The Jesus Seminar (Funk, Acts of Jesus) was more confident
regarding Mark 8.22-23: 'The Fellows by a narrow majority concluded that Jesus cured
at least one blind person' (103), but more ambivalent on 7.32-35 (98-99).
683