Some gospel stories are demonstrably late interpolations, many of which contain miraculous elements. These include:
•The Nativity
•The dialogue with Satan
•The wine miracle
•Walking on water
•Feeding the multitude
•The Transfiguration
•Revival of Lazarus
•Angel in the garden
•Sweating blood
•Healing of Malchus
•Dead rising on Good Friday
Had Judas, Peter & the other disciples been witness to the transfiguration or the raising of Lazarus, would they have betrayed Jesus, denied knowing him, or fled his arrest? All of them? Not a single disciple or witness or healed leper came to his aid when he was apprehended, save one armed disciple who quickly abandoned the cause after severing the ear of the unfortunate Malchus.
The earliest Christian writers - Paul, Clement, etc. - are familiar with some miracle stories, but not all. They know nothing of (or know but disbelieve) the virgin birth, the star of Bethlehem, the slaughter of the Bethlehemite children, the baptism, the dialogue with Satan, the water turned to wine, the feeding of the multitude, the transfiguration, the return of Elijah, the raising of Lazarus or the children, or the dead saints, the temple prediction, Magdalene's exorcism, Jesus sweating blood, the angel at Gethsemane, the healing of Malchus, the earthquake, Thomas's investigation, the fate of Judas, the tongues of fire or the raising of Tabitha and Eutychus.
Neither Paul nor Clement are aware of the people reanimated by Jesus and the apostles. Had they known, they would have adduced them as evidence when arguing with the Corinthian church - in both Paul's & Clement's epistles - about the nature of resurrection. Lacking such arrows in his quiver, the intrepid Clement instead introduces the legendary phoenix to his readers. This bird supposedly regenerates inside a temple in Heliopolis every 500 years out of the ashes of self-immolation - something no mortal could possibly verify. This is evidence of God's power to raise the dead, according to this sainted first century bishop of Rome. Had he known of Lazarus or Tabitha or Eutychus, he undoubtedly would have mentioned them in his letter instead of resorting to the testimony of a dumb, nonexistent bird.
As for Paul, he couldn't have called Jesus the "firstborn" or "firstfruit" of the dead had he heard credible reports of people raised while Jesus was alive, or on the day of his execution.
Paul knows nothing of Jesus having predicted the destruction of Zerubbabel's temple. Had he known, he might have rejoiced that the days were few for an institution he saw as obsolete.
The gospels betray either ignorance or skepticism on the part of the evangelists where the miracles are concerned.
Mark knows or says nothing of the virgin birth, the dialogue with Satan, the wine miracle, the reanimation of Lazarus or the widow's son, the angel at Gethsemane, Jesus sweating blood, the healing of Malchus, the fate of Judas, the earthquake, the risen saints or the inquiry of Thomas.
Matthew is unfamiliar with the wine miracle, Lazarus, the widow's son, the angel at Gethsemane, the sweating blood, the healing of Malchus, the inquiry of Thomas and the Emmaus and Tiberius apparitions.
Luke is ignorant of the star of Bethlehem, the prophetic dreams of Joseph, the slaughter of the innocents, the sojourn in Egypt, the wine miracle, Lazarus, the inquiry of Thomas and the Tiberius apparition.
John is silent re the virgin birth, the star of Bethlehem, etc., the baptism, the temptation, King Herod, John's execution, the transfiguration, the exorcisms, the widow's son, the angel at Gethsemane, Jesus sweating blood, the healing of Malchus, the fate of Judas, the earthquake, the risen saints and the Emmaus apparition.
Justin Martyr (c. 160) is the first Christian writer to mention the dialogue with Satan and the account of Jesus sweating blood.
The resurrection of Lazarus is unknown to any Christian prior to Irenaeus, who mentions it circa 180 CE, 150 years after the supposed event. He is also the first to take note of the wine miracle and Stephen's vision of heaven.
###