Evidence / Facts / the Sources / Apostle Paul
Psychosomatic illnesses were probably quite common in Judaea at that time, given the nature of their religion and the fact that it was failing them.
There's no basis for this claim. There's no evidence that such illnesses were more common in Judaea. Other writings, non-Jewish, indicate belief in exorcisms or treatments to cast out demons. But there are
no other writings which record actual cures of demon-possessed victims, prior to the 1st century. There were lots of religious rituals and chants to expel demons, but no written accounts reporting actual cures. Probably the first is the Philostratus
Life of Apollonius of Tyana, written about 220 AD. But until then there is only the Jesus case in any literature, and then Philostratus wanted to provide us with an alternative to Jesus and gave us his mostly fictional Apollonius of Tyana, for whom there is this one source only, written 120+ years after the event(s) reportedly happened.
Josephus mentions a Jewish exorcist in his
Antiquities, written about 80-90 AD. But there is no cure mentioned in his report of the exorcist practicing the rituals instituted by Solomon. There were only prescribed rituals and chants. The cures done by Jesus -- not just religious ritual -- are obvious cases of someone mentally deranged who was brought back to normal. Despite the superstitious element, the accounts cannot have been invented and must be cases of someone deranged who was cured, and the witnesses described it as "demons" having been cast out. No other explanation of this makes any sense.
- The hypothesized Q Source was also very early. But it was mostly a collection of Jesus' alleged sayings. Only two miracles are mentioned in Q, one each of types 1 and 2.
No, you mean only two are
narrated accounts. But there's a third mention of the miracle acts in Q (Mt 11:4-5, Luke 7:21-22). This proves that the miracle claims do not originate from Mark, but are in at least one earlier source also.
It's probably true there were "sayings collections" etc. which omit the miracles or downplay them. But all the evidence is that the miracles were early, back to the beginning, but that the sayings were more popular for circulation from theologians to possible disciples/believers. The sayings/teachings of Jesus were always more popular and got more attention from all the Christian writers, far later into the Middle Ages. St. Augustine omits them entirely in his
Confessions, and in his
City of God he makes only one brief mention of Lazarus being raised and no other Jesus miracle. Most of the famous Church writers each give one mention only, or maybe 2, in their hundreds of pages about Christ and Church doctrine. If you take any of the Church writers at random and do a search, it takes a long time, even hours, of scanning, to find mention of the miracle acts of Jesus (other than the Resurrection). What they do mention repeatedly are the Virgin Birth (even the Star of Bethlehem) and the fulfillment of messianic prophecies by Jesus. Also there's emphasis on the Voice from Heaven at the Baptism of Jesus, and other portents. But not the miracle acts, which are downplayed by ALL the Christian writers.
⬤ Polycarp about 150-60 AD omits any mention at all.
⬤ 2 Peter about 130 AD omits any mention at all.
⬤ The
Epistle of Barnabas (between 70-130 AD) omits all reference except one brief phrase about "signs and wonders" done by Jesus. So this author knew of the miracle acts but avoided any reference other than one very short mention.
⬤ The
Shepherd of Hermas (after 100 AD) makes no mention of the miracles of Jesus.
⬤ The
Ascension of Isaiah (mostly 2nd century) omits all reference except one brief "signs and wonders" mention.
⬤ Tatian's
Oratio ad Graecos (early 3rd century) totally omits the miracle acts of Jesus, even though this is a polemic against paganism in favor of Christian belief, and this writer knew the Jesus miracle stories.
This pattern is repeated again and again, on into the later centuries. All the above later Christian writers knew of the miracle stories in the Gospel accounts, yet made no mention of them, or virtually no mention, or downplayed them.
So the absence or downplaying of the miracle stories does not mean these were unknown, as this downplaying was the norm throughout all the Christian writings long after they definitely knew of them from the Gospel accounts. The emphasis rather was on the Virgin Birth and on Jewish prophecy fulfillment.
The single miracle-story exception to the above is the Resurrection, which is emphasized by all the Christian writers. But the other miracle acts are all downplayed, in the later writings as well as the earlier ones. This partly explains the omission in Paul, the earliest theologian, downplaying the Jesus miracle acts just as all the later Christian theologians downplayed this part of Jesus in the Gospels.
- the First Epistle of Clement of Rome. This gives nothing about Jesus' life or any miracles.
But Clement mentions the Resurrection, which is the only miracle emphasized by all the Christian writers on into the future even up to modern times. All of them have known of the healing miracles also, but they've chosen to de-emphasize these and emphasize only the Resurrection miracle, as the major climax miracle of Jesus.
De-emphasizing the miracle healing acts is probably a mistake, but it's easy to see that for the evangelists the Resurrection symbolizes especially the final Triumph of Jesus over death and over his enemies, etc., so it has much more impact or significance.
"Primary Sources"?
So: All the Gospels mention miracles of types 3 and 4, but altogether these constitute just two primary sources: The "Signs Source" for the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark.
You can pretend that the term "primary sources" has significance in some sense you're using here. But in the broad context of ALL the historical writings generally (not singling out the Gospel writings only for critical analysis), we have 4/5 sources for the Jesus miracles, and we have no sources for almost all other such claims (e.g., pagan deities, gods, heroes, etc.). The Jesus in Galilee about 30 AD is the only one for whom there is credible evidence.
By a strict definition, we have almost
NO "primary sources" for most ancient history events, because almost none of the writers were direct witnesses to the events and had to rely on other sources before them (with a tiny few exceptions). We have no account of the Julius Caesar assassination except from writers 100-200 years later -- though there's a casual reference to it in Cicero which says virtually nothing about it but just enough to give a hint. So what is a "primary source"? This phrase is tossed around as if it means something important or adds to the credibility, but it's mostly just fancy jargon. If it means the earliest-known source, then fine -- often it's 100-200 years later than the event being reported.
The real "sources" are any known writings which mention the event in question and are dated close to when it happened. To add extra jargon about a "PRIMARY" source as if it was the only real source is usually just playing word games. If 2 or 3 different accounts mention the same event(s), that adds much more credibility, as long as they're reasonably close, 50-100 years, rather than several centuries later.
Most of Matthew and Luke are not dependent on Mark, as though this is the "primary" source and Mt and Lk are only "secondary" sources adding no extra credibility. No competent scholar describes Mt and Lk this way. What they say is that certain facts in Lk and Mt are dependent on Mark, but others are not, because they are from other sources. Bart Ehrman says much of Matthew is not dependent on Mark because Mt had other sources also.
So you cannot change the fact that we have 4 / 5 basic sources for the Jesus miracle acts by playing these word games. The other hypothetical sources like Q etc. might be added, but if we stick to what is attested in the actual manuscripts that are known, we have basically the 4 / 5 sources. A few others also exist but are insignificant compared to these main 1st-century or early sources. And the hypothetical sources, or other sources not known, cannot be used in some way to cancel out the 4/5 sources we know for sure.
More research to find additional sources is fine. In the future there will be still more scrolls discovered and more evidence.
But Paul does NOT mention any such miracles.
Many of the Christian writings, for centuries later, omit any of the miracle acts (other than the Resurrection), as noted earlier. The major writers mention them once or twice only, downplaying them as unimportant. Also, Paul ignores totally everything in the Gospels which happened prior to the night Jesus was arrested.
The Q source does NOT mention any such miracles.
Yes it does mention Jesus raising the dead (Mt 11:4-5, Luke 7:21-22). All you can claim is that the Q Source downplays the miracle acts just as all the Christian writings downplay them for centuries later, into the Middle Ages and even into modern times.
So, any non-mention of the miracles is due to intentional omission of them even though they happened and were mostly known to the writers who didn't mention them. The other writings DOWNPLAY the miracles of Jesus, treating them as less important. Some writings omit them entirely, but the more common pattern is to downplay them (omit them other than one brief mention), because we can see that the writers did know of them. E.g., they mention them once only and then say nothing more. But also in some cases the writers knew of them and yet totally omitted any mention (2 Peter, Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.).
As to Paul, he omits everything about Jesus prior to the arrest and trial, so the miracle healing acts are omitted along with everything else except after that last night which is all that Paul cares about.
Neither of two early writers -- Clement of Rome, a Christian, and Josephus, a non-Christian -- mention any miracles. Various other writings mention no miracles.
Yes, including writers 100 and 200 years later who downplay this even though they knew of it. All you're proving is that the Christian writers chose to downplay this part of the Gospel accounts, not that they were unaware of it.
Again, you're wrong about Clement of Rome, who mentions the Resurrection. Also, we don't know what Josephus said. Most scholars believe he said part of the famous passage which is rejected by some, which includes mention of the miracles.
Thus there are only TWO (2) sources for miracles types 3 or 4: Mark and John.
No, if you want to play word games with your "primary sources" jargon, you can make up your own historical facts. But the recognized facts of history are that we have 5 sources for the Resurrection, and 4 sources for the miracle healing acts. We have AT LEAST this many sources, and possibly more which are less significant. You are twisting the words of the scholars on this. No scholar says Matthew and Luke are not also sources. These are real documents, in manuscripts, in museums, each attested to by multiple scholars who say they were written separately by 4 different writers (or sets of writers/editors). That 2 of them quoted from Mark or Q does not change this at all. They are still 4 separate sources, and your word-game semantics doesn't change the historical facts. Tossing around jargon like "primary sources" is not the basis for deciding what the evidence is. There are hundreds of facts and many other sources not known, most of them lost, for these facts or any other facts of history. Tricks to reduce the number of sources is your only case for saying we have only 2 sources. You can't name any scholar who says the 4 Gospels are really only 2 sources.
What they say is that certain parts of Mt and Lk rely on Mark. But most of Mt and Lk are not from Mark, and so are different sources than Mark. It's dishonest to say they're not separate from Mark when most of their content is non-Mark. It's true that they use the Mark text for most of their reported miracles, for better accuracy from an earlier source closer to the evidence. This does not reduce the credibility of any of these sources.
If these miracles really happened, then independent accounts might be seen beyond the two sources, but NO.
No, for 99.9999% of events there are no sources at all, and yet those events did happen. These 2 major sources we have are mostly independent of Mark. Most of the miracle claims in Mt and Lk are not dependent on Mark. Rather, they used the Mark text which was closer to the events, and so they use Mark for most of their miracle reports. This does not mean that Mt and Lk wouldn't include these if they didn't have Mk. There are a few miracles in Mt and Lk (not many) which are not in Mark or Q, though the Mk text is used for most of them.
By your logic, if Mark did not exist, but only Mt and Lk, then the evidence for the Jesus miracle acts would be greater. Which is Wacko logic. How can the evidence be less if we have more written accounts attesting to it?
There are 4 sources for the healing miracles, 5 for the Resurrection. By any other standard, applied to any literature, these are 4 and 5 sources, not only 2. You've been asked before to name any other literature which you compress into less than the sources we have -- why can't you name any? You can't cite any other case where you or anyone applies a standard like this. You are applying a Double Standard in order to arrive at this dishonest conclusion that there are only 2 sources for these reported events. You don't do this for any other literature or history sources except in this one case only. No literature or history scholar does this for any other sources for historical events -- reducing the number of sources because 2 sources quote from a third. Finding an extra source with some of the same wording does not magically cancel other evidence that is known. Name another case in all of literature where 4 sources are reduced down to 2 only? simply because 1 or 2 quote from a third? You can't name one. As long as your theory relies on applying a double standard to this one case only, and never to any other literature, it indicates prejudice and not honest fact-finding.
If the miracles were widely believed, wouldn't we expect Paul to mention at least one?
No, he mentions NOTHING about the biographical Jesus prior to the night of the arrest. It's only the earlier Jesus who did the miracle acts, not the later Jesus the night he was arrested and afterwards. He did not perform any healing acts while he was being tried and then nailed to the cross. He did not heal the blind and the lame while he was dying on the cross or later at the appearances. Paul downplays the miracle acts (except the Resurrection), i.e., all those earlier acts of Jesus along with his early encounters with the disciples, just as virtually all the Christian writers downplay those miracles and emphasize the Resurrection only, along with the teachings or sayings etc. The writers were interested only in the theology, not the miracle healings.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Cute little jingle. You could put it to music. Good word-poetic repetition of the same word "extraordinary" to add impact.
But getting away from symbol to the substance, we have the necessary extra evidence for the miracle events. This is what we always need when unusual claims are made. We need the same kind of evidence as for normal events, but we need MORE of that evidence, or extra sources, extra witnesses, MORE of the same evidence, not a different kind of evidence. These are alleged facts or events in history, like all the other events. In a court case, such claims require extra witnesses, or extra sources saying it happened, to make it credible.
It's fine to say a particular report as evidence is not as strong if it's dependent on another. But that a second source attests to the same unusual claim increases the credibility, despite this reliance on the other source. This additional attestation is further evidence that the claim is true, because the additional source had reasons for believing it. We aren't sure exactly why the Gospel writers believed these claims, but none of them believed something miraculous or "supernatural" only because they saw it in one written source and nowhere else. They had reasons for believing it, from everything they saw and heard, written and oral. A good rule is:
They used Mark because they already believed it.
They did not believe it only because they found it in Mark.
And 4 sources rather than only one is good extra evidence, for ancient history events, most of which are from one source only.
Almost all non-Christian scholars and many Christian scholars will concede that the supernatural miracles did NOT happen.
No, most of them have the honesty to say we don't know. Very few historians say in their history book or in their class: "These alleged events did not happen." No, they say we can't judge these claims which have to go into the doubtful category. There are many scholars who say Jesus did some kind of healing acts. Two non-Christian scholars who say this are Paula Frederiksen and Reza Aslan, though they also say there were other healers and not Jesus only, which they don't clarify. But simply saying "the supernatural miracles did NOT happen" is very rare among non-Christian scholars. Of course most say they don't believe it, if they're asked. But that's much different than preaching dogmatically, "the miracles did not happen."
The Resurrection
Resurrection became a central tenet of the Church mainly due to Paul's influence.
No, if we believe Paul this is not the case. Rather, he was influenced by the Resurrection claim, which already existed before him. He says he was influenced by this long before he ever wrote about it and influenced others. Bart Ehrman says the original disciples became believers because of the Resurrection claim, long before Paul's influence, even before Paul's conversion. So if Ehrman is right, the Resurrection was a central tenet long before Paul.
But what did Paul think of the Resurrection? For Paul, his vision of the risen Jesus was just that: a VISION (dream or imagination) of a Jesus risen to join His Father in heaven.
No he doesn't say that. In 1 Corinthians 15 he says Jesus died and "was buried" and "was raised" and "appeared" to Peter and several others he names.
Paul emphasizes the difference between "flesh and blood" and immortal spirit. Later writings speak of a Resurrection followed by an Ascension but for Paul these two events were one and the same.
You're just imposing your particular interpretation onto Paul. Everything he says confirms the bodily resurrection as a physical event -- nothing denies it. And when he distinguishes "spirit" and "flesh" he applies this to all humans and not only to Christ. He describes the Christ Resurrection as both physical and spiritual, and also human resurrection. Nothing in Paul contradicts the physical flesh-and-blood resurrection, anymore than he denies human physical bodies. He confirms both physical and spiritual.
Roman chapter 6 is one of many places where Paul makes his view of the Resurrection clear; nowhere does he imply a Resurrected flesh-and-blood Jesus.
Yes he does explicitly say it. Along with the rising to Heaven also.
Why are you omitting Paul's most important account of the Resurrection -- 1 Cor. 15, where he says Jesus died and "was buried" and "was raised" and "appeared" to Peter and many others? just as the Gospel accounts describe the resurrection and appearances, as a physical bodily event? Which does not contradict Paul's "spiritual" language. It's both.
How does a disembodied spirit get crucified and buried and raised? "buried" where?
Just because Paul uses some symbolic "spirit" language and makes the risen Christ also a cosmic figure does not mean this same risen Christ was not also the earthly physical human who was killed and buried in the ground and raised up from that spot. He's both. This was a physical person who was killed and buried, and then Paul says he was raised up and became a cosmic figure in Heaven, after having been seen in his physical body. The same person was all this, not the spirit-cosmic only.
It contradicts Paul to say Christ was not killed physically and buried and then raised in a body seen physically by others. To eliminate the physical part and say it was only spiritual, all of it, makes Paul wrong, and so you're not telling us what Paul said but just saying Paul was wrong. OK fine, Paul was there and you were not, so it's more realistic to believe Paul rather than you, for an event which happened back then in his time.
All the sources agree that the physical Jesus person was killed, as a physical human, and his physical body buried in the ground, from which he was raised up and then appeared, as a physical human, to many witnesses who saw him. That's the only "vision" -- humans seeing him normally after he had been killed and raised. As 3 of the Gospels report, while Mark says he rose physically and would be seen later by them, also physically. Nothing in Paul's "spirit" language contradicts that he was also a physical human person seen by others. It contradicts Paul to deny the physical flesh-and-blood part, but it does not contradict him to affirm both the physical and the "spiritual" part.
