When we are presented with an idea, we do not evaluate it purely on merit. Rather, we consider an idea in the context of our own accepted beliefs and experiences. This causes us to accept concepts that fit into our established worldview, and to eschew those that do not. This psychological phenomenon is known as Confirmation Bias[1]. A modern example of confirmation bias can be seen with miracle healing televangelists. Despite the numerous examples of Peter Popoff’s unfounded miracles, his close associate Larry Skelter refused to believe that Popoff was anything but “the real deal”. It is natural to extend this ponderance to the fundamentals of Christianity: Could the gospels’ writers have suffered from confirmation bias in their acceptance of Jesus miracles? The answer is, of course, yes, as any human is susceptible to it. Meaningful inquiry, however, must go beyond impressionistic analysis. One can look into the texts to search for examples of biased conclusions. While such a query cannot be exhaustively answered in the space of this writing, a case study can certainly be explored.
Let us examine how Confirmation Bias might have affected the inclusion of miracles in the New Testament, within the context of Mark 6:1-6.
1 He[Jesus] went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.“
Mark 6:1-6
The traditional reading is that Jesus performed only a few healings because his fellow Nazarenes lacked faith. In Christian theology, faith is often considered a prerequisite to divine intervention and miraculous events[2]. This is a well established position held by various Christian sources, so it will not be reiterated here. On the other hand, there has been a new, skeptical reinterpretation of the passage that invokes confirmation bias.
Skeptical readers may argue that “the unintended implication here is that Jesus could only do miracles and heal people if the people believed he could.” In effect, the proposition finds a strikingly similar comparison to faith healers like Peter Popoff. It directly implies that the impact of an attempted healing was not realized beyond belief. In other words, the effect of the attempted miracles was merely psychological, rather than curative. It suggests that Mark desired to explain that Jesus performed miracles, while inadvertently included evidence that he did not. The skeptical reading has a fascinating approach, and certainly warrants a more analytical view of the passage.
If the skeptical reading is the most accurate interpretation, then we need to correct our understanding of the passage. This will be attempted using two primary assumptions which formally express the intent of the skeptical interpretation:
A) Jesus failed to do anything necessarily interpreted as magical.
B) Mark desires to believe Jesus performed magic, and thereby explains away Jesus’ inability to perform magic in Nazareth.
First, the phrase “How are such mighty works done by his hands” should be ignored per assumption A. The term “mighty works” is translated from the Greek word “dunamis”, which is often employed to convey an idea of supernatural labor in the gospels [3]. Another example of this word usage can be seen in verse 5, which also is translated as “mighty work”. In terms of ideological flow, this excision doesn’t detract from the text’s coherence. It limits the meaning of “things” that Jesus is said to have obtained to strictly knowledge and wisdom, without any supernatural ability. If one were to read the passage without the phrase, it would still make sense. The application of these skeptical assumptions only becomes difficult in verse 5.
The first part of verse 5 is essential to the skeptical reading (B), as it apparently denotes Jesus’ inability to heal in the presence of those whom he has offended. Due to confirmation bias, it could be that Mark understands that Jesus laid hands on people, but could not remove their illness. Despite this failure, Mark records Jesus as healing anyway. Such a reading is problematic for a few reasons.
First, it is necessary to understand that in this case, the verse contains a singular thought. Mark is saying that Jesus was generally unable to perform miracles in Nazareth, except for a few cases. If we interpret the word ‘miracles’ as denoting a genuinely supernatural event, the qualifier (except) implies that Jesus could physically perform a miracle, which violates Assumption A. We may then consider the term ‘miracles’ to mean a natural event only appearing to be a miracle. However, that interpretation does not fit well with the rest of the verse.
Mark explains his qualifier by saying that Jesus “laid his hands on a few sick people”. This alludes to a religious practice of semikhah meant to transfer a blessing or power upon the recipient[4]. It was perhaps most famously performed in Deuteronomy 34:9, wherein Joshua was bestowed a spirit of wisdom from Moses. Given the religious backdrop of Mark, it is a strong possibility this is the connotation that intended. Subsequent word choice in the passage makes the writing intent even clearer.
Perhaps most destructive to the skeptical reading is the word translated as ‘heal’. This word, ‘therapeuo’[5], is strongly associated with the supernatural in Mark’s gospel. Its usage prior to chapter 6 is in conjunction with demons, and is often applied in contexts where natural healing would be impossible. Mark appears to clearly indicate that a few supernatural healings in chapter 6 did occur, despite the general lack of faith. But if that’s true, then why does the text state that Jesus couldn’t perform miracles? As it happens, the translated concept of “could not” has broader meaning for Mark and other writers in the New Testament. For example, Mark 1:45 states that
“But he[the miracle benefactor] went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, so that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.”
While the Greek phrase is translated as “could no more” in the verse [6], the intent is clear. It does not mean that Jesus was not permitted to enter the city, but that he could not enter the city without being swarmed by people. Naturally, there are other cases where the concept has a literal meaning. Thus, the nuance of “could not” allows for a more general understanding of what it means that Jesus couldn’t perform most healings needed in Nazareth. Mark describes the scene as one where Jesus withholds his power, rather than a show of weakness in the face of challenge. The focal point of the passage is the impasse between parties. The Nazarenes are unwilling to believe that out of their group could come a prophet that surpasses them. Jesus is similarly unwilling to provide any further demonstration of power to those that dismiss him. This conclusion is hardly novel, but its arrival was directed by a unique psychoanalytical criticism of the text.
Confirmation bias is a common phenomenon in human psychology. It requires us to question our hidden motives behind why we accept certain ideas, but not others. Even for the well-intentioned New Testament writers, this phenomenon was possible. However, Mark 6 contains no such example. Rather, the chapter displays an internal consistency about Jesus’ ability to perform supernatural works, while acknowledging that his audience was not always receptive. Mark is confident in Jesus’ miracle working ability, and characterizes the Nazarene as a Messiah fully able to heal, but carrying no obligation to unbelievers. Ultimately, the traditional Christian approach to the text holds up in closer study.
Sources
- Heshmat, S. (2015, April 23). What Is Confirmation Bias? Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias
- Tabletalk Magazine. (n.d.). The Obstacle of Unbelief. Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/obstacle-unbelief/
- Dunamis Meaning in the Bible – New Testament Greek Lexicon (NAS). (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/dunamis.html
- Newman, J. (1950). Semikhah ; a study of its origin, history and function in Rabbinic literature. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/books/edition/Semikah/jf_nAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=”the fact that transference”&dq=semikhah&pg=PA5&printsec=frontcover
- Therapeuo Meaning in the Bible – New Testament Greek Lexicon (NAS). (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/therapeuo.html
- Mark 1:45 Greek Interlinear. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2020, from https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mar/1/45/t_conc_958045
Mechanics of Christianity 