What Scripture says
The Gospels report many miracles: healings of the blind, lame and sick (Mark 10:46–52, John 5:1–9, ESV), exorcisms (Mark 5:1–20), nature miracles such as calming a storm and feeding thousands (Mark 4:35–41, 6:30–44), and raising the dead (Luke 7:11–17, John 11).
Jesus presented them as signs of God’s kingdom: “if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20). When John the Baptist asked whether he was the one to come, Jesus pointed to his works: “the blind receive their sight and the lame walk” (Matthew 11:4–5, echoing Isaiah 35:5–6). Peter later told a crowd that Jesus was “attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs… as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).
What the evidence says
History
What historians agree on
Historians widely agree that Jesus was known in his lifetime as a healer and exorcist. John Meier, a careful Catholic historian, concluded the claim that Jesus performed deeds viewed as miracles has very strong historical support. Even many skeptics agree. The reasons:
- Multiple sources: miracle stories appear in every layer of the Gospel tradition (Mark, the material shared by Matthew and Luke, and the material unique to each Gospel and to John), and in Acts.
- Hostile witnesses: Jesus’ opponents didn’t deny his deeds; they attributed them to Satan: “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons” (Mark 3:22). Later Jewish sources, such as the Talmud, say Jesus “practised sorcery”. Celsus, a 2nd-century pagan critic, said Jesus learned magic in Egypt.
- Josephus describes Jesus as “a doer of surprising deeds” (Antiquities 18.63; see 6.1).
- Specific details, such as names (Bartimaeus, Mark 10:46) and places (Capernaum, Bethsaida), which fit the setting.
So historians agree on the reports. The question is what really happened.
Philosophy
Are miracles possible?
Whether the miracles really happened depends on whether miracles are possible at all:
- If God exists (see 1.1), miracles are possible: the God who made the laws of nature can act within the world he made.
- If there is no God, then any miracle report must have a natural explanation: misunderstanding, exaggeration, legend or psychosomatic healing.
Hume’s argument
The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1748) argued that it’s always more likely that a witness is mistaken or lying than that a law of nature has been broken, so no testimony could ever establish a miracle.
Critics reply:
- Hume’s argument assumes what it sets out to prove: that miracles don’t happen. John Earman, a philosopher of science and not a Christian, called it an “abject failure” in its probability reasoning.
- Unusual events can be established by good evidence. Hume’s reasoning would reject any unprecedented event.
- The real question is whether God exists and might act. If he does, the probability of a miracle in a particular context, such as in the ministry of someone claiming to bring God’s kingdom, isn’t negligible.
Modern reports
Craig Keener’s two-volume study collected hundreds of modern miracle reports from around the world, some with medical documentation, including healings of blindness and claims of people raised from the dead. He argues that eyewitnesses can and do report experiences they regard as miraculous, so the Gospel reports aren’t implausible as eyewitness claims. He also cites a 2006 Pew Forum survey in ten countries, from which he estimates that hundreds of millions of people claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing.
Comparison with other wonder-workers
Other ancient figures were reported to perform miracles, such as Apollonius of Tyana (described by Philostratus in the 3rd century) and Jewish holy men like Honi the Circle-Drawer. Skeptics argue this shows miracle stories were common. Others point out that the Apollonius accounts were written about 150 years after his death, possibly in response to Christianity, while Jesus’ were written within decades.
Where they meet
Historians agree Jesus was known as a healer and exorcist. Whether his deeds were real miracles depends on whether miracles are possible, which is a philosophical question, not only a historical one.
What’s still open
- Whether miracles are possible.
- How to assess specific miracle accounts.
Bottom line
Historians widely agree Jesus was known as a healer and exorcist; even hostile Jewish sources called him a sorcerer. Whether they were real miracles depends on whether miracles are possible, so this is rated Debated.