1. Introduction
The Acts of the Apostles and Pauline letters record numerous miracles performed by the apostles, including:
- Healings (Acts 3:1–10; Acts 14:8–10).
- Exorcisms (Acts 16:16–18; Acts 19:11–12).
- Raising the dead (Acts 9:36–42; Acts 20:9–12).
- Judgment miracles (Acts 5:1–11; Acts 13:8–12).
The question is whether these events are:
- Historically reliable eyewitness accounts, or
- Religious legends or theological constructs created to enhance apostolic authority.
2. Historical and Textual Considerations
2.1 Early Dating of Sources
| Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Acts of the Apostles | Traditionally attributed to Luke, a companion of Paul (Colossians 4:14), dated to c. AD 62–80. Some scholars argue for an earlier date due to the abrupt ending without mentioning Paul’s death (Bruce, 1988). |
| Pauline letters | Earliest NT writings (AD 50s), with references to miracles in his ministry (Romans 15:18–19; 2 Corinthians 12:12). |
Implication
These texts were written within living memory of the events, limiting time for purely legendary development.
2.2 Eyewitness Claims
- Acts 2:22 – Peter declares Jesus’ miracles were public and known.
- Acts 3:9–10 – Healing of the lame man at the Temple witnessed by crowds.
- Acts 26:26 – Paul before Festus and Agrippa: “These things were not done in a corner.”
3. Theological Purpose vs Historical Reality
3.1 Theological Motives
Scholars acknowledge that miracle narratives:
- Demonstrate apostolic authority and the continuity of Jesus’ ministry through His apostles (Acts 1:1–2).
- Serve evangelistic purposes – confirming the gospel message (Hebrews 2:3–4).
3.2 Legendary Hypothesis
| Critical View | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Miracle legends theory | Suggests miracles were attributed later to enhance apostolic status, similar to hagiographical embellishments in later saints’ lives. |
Evaluation
- The time gap between events and written accounts is minimal compared to typical legend formation (e.g. Buddha or Muhammad miracle stories arose centuries later).
- Public nature of many miracles would make false claims easily refutable by contemporary opponents (Acts 4:16 – even the Sanhedrin admitted the healing could not be denied).
4. Comparative Historical Evidence
4.1 Miracles in Other Religions
| Example | Dating of miracle stories |
|---|---|
| Buddha | Miracle stories (e.g. levitation, cosmic manifestations) developed in later Mahayana texts centuries after his death. |
| Muhammad | Qur’an itself records no miracles apart from revelation; later Hadith literature centuries later attributes miracles. |
Contrast with Apostolic Miracles
- NT miracle accounts appear within the first generation, with no significant temporal gap for gradual legend accretion.
4.2 Non-Christian Sources
Although no external Roman or Jewish sources directly record specific apostolic miracles, early hostile references acknowledge Christian claims of miracles and exorcisms (e.g. Celsus in Origen, Contra Celsum 2.48, dismisses them as sorcery, indicating opponents did not deny that acts were reported but reinterpreted them).
5. Scholarly Perspectives
| Scholar | Viewpoint |
|---|---|
| F.F. Bruce (1988) | Acts is historically credible; miracles are recorded as public events within a credible narrative framework. |
| Craig Keener (2012) | Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts argues that dismissing NT miracles purely as legend is historically unjustified given parallels with well-attested global miracle reports. |
| Bart Ehrman (2014) | While sceptical of supernatural causation, he acknowledges that early Christians genuinely believed miracles occurred, indicating sincere historical claims rather than deliberate fabrication. |
| N.T. Wright (2003) | The miracles are part of the inaugurated kingdom, historically grounded in Jesus’ ministry continued through His apostles. |
6. Philosophical Considerations
6.1 Naturalistic Skepticism
| Argument | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Miracles violate natural laws | Hume’s classic critique (1748) that miracle claims are less probable than the possibility of error or deception. |
Counterpoint
- Hume’s framework presupposes philosophical naturalism, rather than evaluating claims on historical evidential grounds (Swinburne, 2003).
6.2 Evidentialist Defence
| Argument | Explanation |
|---|---|
| If God exists, miracles are possible | Assess each claim based on historical testimony, context, and coherence rather than a priori dismissal. |
7. Summary Table
| Explanation | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Historical eyewitness accounts | Early dating, public nature, transformation of witnesses, no time for legendary development. | Requires acceptance of supernatural possibility. |
| Religious legends hypothesis | Explains theological motives. | Fails to explain early dating, public claims, and consistency across independent sources. |
8. Conclusion
The apostolic miracle accounts in the New Testament are best understood as sincere historical claims recorded within a generation of the events. While:
- Theological purposes are evident (affirming gospel truth and apostolic authority).
- The textual and historical data do not support the view of purely later religious legend formation.
Acceptance of their factual historicity ultimately depends on one’s philosophical openness to supernatural causation. However, from a historical-critical perspective, they cannot be dismissed as mere legends without confronting the early eyewitness-based nature of the testimonies.
9. References
- Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Book of Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
- Ehrman, B. (2014). How Jesus Became God. New York: HarperOne.
- Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
- Keener, C. S. (2012). Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
- Swinburne, R. (2003). The Resurrection of God Incarnate. Oxford: Clarendon.
- Wright, N. T. (2003). The Resurrection of the Son of God. London: SPCK.