my meetings with Dr. Green

First we discussed the list of questions I emailed to Drs. Green and Nolland. The questions were too varied and broad for a single dissertation, so we started to boil it down in terms of what kind of inquiry I wanted to make: Historical? Sociological? Theological?

My proposed question was this: What was the function of miracle in the early church? I’m particularly interested in this topic because it has implications for how we understand the role of miracles (healing, prophecy, etc.) in the church today.

I realize that a purely historical inquiry is not what I want to do. I am not asking the historical question: ‘did Jesus perform miracles?’ or ‘did the disciples perform miracles?’ I will be concerned only with how they were remembered, as recorded in our written sources (especially the NT). Also, I will not be exploring the philosophical question ‘are miracles possible?’ However, I believe I need to somehow respond to the argument that miracle-working (as recorded in the NT) is to be rejected a priori as ahistorical and impossible, and as the invention/addition of later author(s). I can best do this by clearly arguing that Jesus and the disciples were widely remembered as miracle-workers, and not just by the church.

At the outset I will need to define what I mean by ‘miracle.’ I will do this by first exploring the language used in my relevant texts (Greek); and its relevant words, namely: dunamis, semeion, ergon, and teras. Secondly, I think it will be helpful to somehow explore the ways in which these concepts are different than the modern, Western idea of ‘miracle’. This will entail some analysis of the symbolic universe(s) and worldview(s) in the first-century Greco-Roman world, as well as some linguistic exploration (what do these four words mean).

I have not clearly defined what I mean by ‘the early church.’ At the heart of my question is this: what was Jesus’ (or Paul’s, or Luke’s) intention regarding the function of miracle-working in the church? I’ll be examining both what these three (and others) said directly about the subject, as well as the evidence for the actual occurrence of miracle-working in the church. For this reason, I believe the earlier witnesses will be more helpful in answering this question than the later. At this point I’m inclined to limit my inquiry to the first and second centuries. The most promising texts, in terms of miracle-working, seem to be: Luke-Acts, 1&2 Corinthians, and the Apocryphal Acts. This is an area where I will need to do a lot more reading of primary sources (e.g. the Church Fathers, the Apocryphal works, other 1st/2nd century literature).

I will not mainly be focused on whether our written sources accurately reflect actual historical events. I will be examining the miraculous ‘as recorded by the author of Luke-Acts’ or ‘as recorded by Paul’. This is perhaps where my study will differ from that of John Meier’s in The Marginal Jew, in which he analyzed the probability that each particular story was historical.

Because I am limiting my investigation to these particular texts, I will not be exploring the function or role of miracle in other biblical texts (e.g. OT), except insofar as they shed light on my topic. Having said that, it does seem that some investigation of OT miracle-workers (namely Elijah/Elisha and Moses) will be called for, as they are clearly alluded to by Luke and Paul.

My first step ought to be an exploration of the relevant literature that deals specifically with this topic (e.g. Kee, Pilch, Twelftree). I will then seek to ‘carve out my own space’, and discover where I can make a new contribution, or ask different questions.

Dr. Green invited me to consider presenting a paper at one of their fortnightly meetings of graduate students (perhaps this fall).