The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles (review)

In his first book, Eric Eve adds more than four chapters to his dissertation at Oxford University. The first chapter is an introduction that covers the major issues, clarifying that a "miracle" in the biblical world did not denote, as it has in the West since the Enlightenment, an act by God that breaks "the laws of nature." The next two chapters are devoted to Josephus and Philo. Chapters four through six concentrate on apocryphal literature, especially Pseudo-Philo and Enoch. Chapter Seven concentrates on the Qumran texts (esp. 1QapGen, 4QprNab, and the so-called Messianic Apocalypse). In Chapter Eight Eve returns to the apocryphal texts with a discussion of miracle and romance in Tobit and Artapanus. The next five chapters discuss miracle in Second Temple Judaism (charismatic figures, prophets, exorcists, healers, magicians). The fourteenth chapter completes the book with a conclusion.

Eve points out, correctly, that comparisons of Jesus with others who may have been known to have performed miracles, such as Abraham in the Genesis Apocryphon, is misleading. Jesus was not one who was reputed to have performed only one or an occasional miracle. His life (or narrative) was characterized by miracles (and, I would add, the proof that he performed healing miracles is the polemic of those who resisted him. His opponents claimed he performed miracles because he was aligned with evil and Beelzebub).

The work could have benefited by careful editing (on page 180, for example, the discussion is poorly written and self-contradictory). Far too often the discussion lacks lucidity, and frequently statements are later contradicted or modified. Eric's claim that the surviving Jewish literature comes from the elite and urban groups and therefore provides us with a skewed view is generally correct but needs nuance. A chapter on the Testament of Solomon would have clarified and modified this general rule. This Jewish text provides insight into folkloristic views of magic, healing, and exorcism (he mentions this pseudepigraphon only twice and obliquely). Of course, the traditions in the gospels and Acts are not to be categorized as the ideas of those who are elite and urban. Some readers may find the book to be a difficult read due to such new and unfamiliar acronyms as BNP (Bearer of Numinous Power), PNP (Petitioner of Numinous Power), and MNP (Mediator of Numinous Power).

Generally, this book is a helpful study that clarifies what it means to grasp that Jesus' miracles should be understood in terms of miracles, healings, and exorcisms in Jesus time, place, and religion. Eve indicates that Jesus did not attribute sickness to God or humans, but most likely to demons. Jesus is never reputed (contra, I would add, Asclepius and his sons [cf. Plato, Res Publica 3.407 E-408 A]) to have healed broken bones and wounds. Worthy of further discussion is the claim that Jesus, like Elijah and Elisha (especially), combined the healing role of folk heroes with the office of a prophet. Also, refreshing and challenging is the suggestion that Jesus' healings and exorcisms were perceived by his contemporaries as related to the great miracles of national deliverance in the past (viz., the Exodus and the withdrawal of the Assyrian army during the time of King Hezekiah). Jesus' uniqueness seems clearer thanks to Eve's research. Jesus is unlike Hanina ben Dosa because he engaged in a ministry of healing; he was also unlike Josephus' "sign prophets" because he not only promised miraculous signs but also healed and promised healing. Eve thus tends to support G. Theissen's conclusion that Jesus' uniqueness resides in proclaiming eschatological salvation experienced in the present through acts of healing or exorcism. In summation, Eve points to Jesus' "experience of divine empowerment" that caused him "to combine and transform Jewish traditions" (p. 381).