Some miracle claims (e.g., the Jesus miracle acts in the Gospels) are more credible than others.
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
Not without qualifiers like "the story is told" or "the people believed" or "his tomb claims."
Summation: The "qualifiers" (disclaimers) occurring so frequently in the writings but not in the Gospel accounts are further evidence for the historicity of the Jesus miracle acts. These "qualifiers" are not
always in the "professional historian" accounts and others, who in a few cases did believe the miracle claims. And they did give a kind of respect or credibility to the
ancient miracle legends, at least pretending to believe them, and reserving their ridicule mainly for the recent charlatan cases which were mostly scoffed at by everyone.
But it's necessary to consider the Asclepius stories here, which make miracle healing claims. In some of the testimonials, the miracle claims are stated as facts which are believed by the writer or source.
Do the ASCLEPIUS miracle claims have more credibility?
Carrier, in his "Kooks and Quacks" says:
But above all these, the "pagans" had Asclepius, their own healing savior, centuries before, and after, the ministry of Christ. Surviving testimonies to his influence and healing power throughout the classical age are common enough to fill a two-volume book (Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, in two volumes, 1945--entries 423-450 contain the most vivid testimonials). Of greatest interest are the inscriptions set up for those healed at his temples. These give us almost first hand testimony, more reliable evidence than anything we have for the miracles of Jesus, of the blind, the lame, the mute, even the victims of kidney stones, paralytics, and one fellow with a spearhead stuck in his jaw (see the work cited above, p. 232), all being cured by this pagan "savior." And this testimony goes on for centuries. Inscriptions span from the 4th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. and later, all over the Roman Empire. Clearly, the people of this time were quite ready to believe such tales. They were not remarkable tales at all.
For now, let's assume that the above entries 423-450 give the best evidence for miracle events comparable to the Gospel accounts of the Jesus miracle acts. We can draw conclusions from this listing, but of course the real list is at least 10 times longer, so that this special group here is only a good indication of the pattern of the miracle claims with this cult, which spreads out over many centuries, going back perhaps to 1500 or 2000 BC, and written testimonials back to about 500 BC.
These accounts, covering pp. 221-259 (Edelstein), are stories generally believed by the writers as real events of encounters with Asclepius and resulting cures. And the sources are not just that of low-class uneducated commoners, but in some cases of historians and physicians and other educated writers comparable to the "professional historians."
But above all these, the "pagans" had Asclepius, their own healing savior, centuries before, and after, the ministry of Christ.
But not
during it, or anywhere near it. In fact, there's a blank space of about 200 years, 100 BC to 100 AD, during which there are no accounts of Asclepius miracles, or virtually none.
These entries 423-450 (pp. 221-259) throughout are virtually all from the period
BEFORE 100 BC and AFTER 100 AD. Why is there a huge hole here, from 100 BC to 100 AD? What happened to the healing power of Asclepius after 100 BC, for which there is no testimonial, but then which comes roaring back about 100 AD and increasing then for another 100-200 years?
What happened to Asclepius during this 200-year inactive period? Was he "on a journey" (I Kings 18:27)?
This gaping hole cannot be ignored as insignificant. For centuries there evolved many Asclepius stories, in the inscriptions, beginning around 500 BC, and these began from earlier traditions of unknown origin, dating back many centuries. And a healing cult had evolved, with priestly rituals, of uncertain origin, and lasting up to the 2nd century BC. But by about 100 BC it fades away, leaving no trace from then until about 100 AD. Why?
Here's a good general history of the cult:
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/12602/wickkhiserbl032.pdf?sequence=2
We can see this hole, or blank space, by looking at the information provided in the entries 423-450, which are representative enough to use as an indicator of the cult's miracle claims.
There are 2 ways to identify the chronologies and the empty period: there are some
dates given (years BC and AD), and names of
authors who can be identified. These are sufficient to identify the quantity of quotations from each of the 4 periods:
1) prior to 100 BC,
2) 1st century BC,
3) 1st century AD, and
4) after 100 AD; and also to identify the number of authors from these periods.
# of pages of Asclepius testimonials/quotes
prior to 100 BC: 17+ pages
1st century BC: 2 pages
"2nd-1st c. BC": 1 page -- i.e., ambiguous category
1st century AD: 0 pages
after 100 AD: 5+ pages
So there are zero Asclepius inscriptions in the 1st century AD, but a small amount of them in the 1st century BC. Do these fill in the hole from 100 BC to 100 AD? No, a close look shows that the real miracle healing stories of Asclepius are earlier than 100 BC. The pattern is very clear that these miracle stories were decreasing and had disappeared by the 1st century BC.
These 100 - 1 BC cases are short enough to give the English here. Consider whether these are serious miracle stories:
To Asclepius
Poplius Granius Rufus
When for two years I had coughed incessantly so that I discharged purulent and bloody pieces of flesh all day long, the god took in hand to cure me. . . . He gave me rocket to nibble on an empty stomach, then Italian wine flavored with pepper to drink, then again starch with hot water, then powder of the holy ashes and some holy water, then an egg and pine-resin, then again moist pitch, then iris with honey, then a quince and a wild purslane to be boiled together -- the fluid to be drunk, while the quince was to be eaten -- then to eat a fig with holy ashes taken from the altar where they sacrifice to the god. -- -- --[p. 252]
Sounds like a formula to induce vomiting.
"rocket to nibble on an empty stomach"? "a quince and a wild purslane" etc.? This is the "more reliable evidence than anything we have for the miracles of Jesus"? The "miracle" here is that this character was allowed to run around loose instead of being locked up.
This could easily be a satire from
Mad Magazine, poking fun at some religious cult. The only reference to any healing here is the phrase "the god took in hand to cure me," which might mean this worshiper recovered immediately, but there were better ways to say it if that was the meaning. It's not clear that a "miracle" is happening here. This is no comparison to the list of earlier inscriptions of entry 423, with several serious miracle claims.
Here's the other entry indicated as from "1st c. B.C.":
To Asclepius
Poplius Granius Rufus
My right shoulder -- -- -- and -- -- -- and the whole from -- -- -- giving me unendurable pains, the god ordered me to be confident and gave me relief. I should apply a plaster of barley-meal mixed with old wine and of a pine cone ground down with olive oil, and at the same time a fig and goat's fat, then milk with pepper, wax-pitch and olive boiled together -- -- --[p. 253]
He says the god "gave me relief," suggesting a possible healing experience. If so, perhaps the cause was the exercise from all the work of collecting the above ingredients -- especially grinding down the pine cone and boiling the goat's fat and wax pitch -- after all that fuss who's gonna care about an aching right shoulder?
Many of the Asclepius cures have elements like this, prescribing various items for rubbing or ingesting, with procedures to follow, resulting in the recovery.
(Can you imagine Jesus in the Gospels scrambling around to put together such a concoction as this to heal the paralytic, and then saying "Take up your bed and walk!"? How could anyone walk after ingesting all that, let alone pick up a bed?)
So, there is this small amount of "testimonial" in the intermediate period, but let's get serious -- the real Asclepius miracles all fall into the very early period, before 100 BC, or the later period, after 100 AD, leaving the wide hole in the center. And these "1st c. BC" stories are much more like prescribed medical remedies than miracle cures. All the clear miracle healing stories date from before or after this empty period 100 BC - 100 AD.
The other quote, possibly of the intermediate period, has the ambiguous dating of "2nd-1st c. BC":
-- -- -- (a certain woman) -- -- -- at the head and -- -- -- gives thanks to Asclepius the Savior; having suffered from a malignant sore on her little finger she was healed by the god who ordered her to apply the shell of an oyster, burnt and ground down by her with rose-ointment, and to anoint [s.c., her finger] with mallow, mixed with olive oil. And thus he cured her. After I had seen many more glorious deeds of the god in my sleep and god ordered me to inscribe my visions -- -- -- in my sleep the god ordered -- -- --[p. 253-254]
Whoops! "in my sleep"? "visions"? Here the miracle element disappears altogether, as it's only someone reporting "visions" or scenes from a dream. Legitimate miracle claims have to be something more than "visions" experienced while someone is sleeping.
(Oyster shell, burnt and ground with rose-ointment? Oh, and don't forget the mallow mixed with olive oil.)
So, except for the above 3 dubious "miracle" claims, the entire list (423-450) is of inscriptions prior to 100 BC and after 100 AD, with nothing happening in the 200-year interval of 100 BC to 100 AD. Why did the miracles of Asclepius cease during this interval? Surely no one thinks the above 3 cases are any kind of serious "miracle" claims, comparable to Jesus healing lepers etc. The earlier and later reported Asclepius miracles do include serious claims of cures, and not just prescriptions for holy ashes and burnt oyster shell and grounded pine cone with goat's fat and boiled wax-pitch. So the period 100 BC - 100 AD is virtually devoid of any serious miracle claims, such as we see in both the earlier and the later periods.
These give us almost first hand testimony, more reliable evidence than anything we have for the miracles of Jesus, of the blind, the lame, the mute, . . .
You might say it's equally reliable evidence. The inscriptions apparently were written close to the events, maybe a decade or two later -- the dating is not precise, but probably less than 50 years, perhaps even contemporary to the time of writing.
But it's easy to explain why these worshipers of the ancient healing god believed the miracle cures happened: At all times and in all cultures there are ancient healing gods believed in by the general population, to whom they pray for miracles such as healing, to recover from their illnesses. Everyone in the culture gives respect to the ancient traditions without ridiculing them or poking fun at the worshipers who pray to be cured or to recover.
In modern times almost all those who pray for healing are Christians believing in the ancient Christ healing tradition from 2000 years ago. A few religionists of other traditions, like Hinduism, also believe in their ancient healing deities, whose names are invoked by the worshipers and also by their priests or gurus etc. The ancient Asclepius rituals fall neatly into this pattern of miracle claims of all cultures, which worship ancient healing gods.
When miracle claims are believed and when they are not
But this cannot explain why the Gospel writers believed in the Jesus miracle healings, which were not done in the name of an ancient healing deity. The ancient healing tradition is always very specific and the ancient healing god is always named by the practitioners and worshipers. There are no exceptions to this (except Jesus in the Gospel accounts where no ancient authority is invoked by name as the source of the miracle power).
The Gospel writers surely had no motive to omit such invoking by Jesus, if he did in fact name Yahweh or Moses or Solomon or Elijah etc. as the source of his power. He never does, in all the Gospel reports of his healing acts.
So this explains why fictional claims of miracles by Asclepius were believed, by worshipers and priests in the temples, where the written accounts we have might be dated near to the time of the reported events.
But also, isn't it strange that the miracles of Asclepius die out, before 100 BC, and that they are totally absent from then up to about 100 AD, where they suddenly appear again as the cult experiences a revival? Why this empty gap of 200 years of no Asclepius miracles?
. . . even the victims of kidney stones, paralytics, and one fellow with a spearhead stuck in his jaw (see the work cited above, p. 232), all being cured by this pagan "savior."
But isn't it interesting that all these serious miracle claims are back in the 4th century BC, and there are no such claims later, none from 100 BC to 100 AD? Why is it that all the
serious claims about Asclepius miracles have to be limited to that earlier period, or later after 100 AD, and there are no such reported miracle events during that empty 200-year space?
And this testimony goes on for centuries. Inscriptions span from the 4th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. and later, all over the Roman Empire.
No they don't. They die out and are totally absent from 100 BC to 100 AD. They do not "span from the 4th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D.," but only to the 2nd century BC, where they die out, and are totally absent after 100 BC until about 100 AD.
Clearly, the people of this time were quite ready to believe such tales.
No they were not. I.e., not from the 2nd century BC up to 100 AD. Why were "the people of this time" not ready to believe such tales during this empty space of at least 200 years? i.e., this space during which the Jesus miracle stories originate? Why were they NOT ready to believe such tales, and yet all of a sudden were ready to believe it in this one case only and no other case, in the 1st century AD? Why this one case which stands out against this pattern of NOT BELIEVING during this time?
They were not remarkable tales at all.
But such tales were NONEXISTENT after 100 BC. If one case only stands out in contrast to this, of miracle claims appearing and being published in written accounts, and there is no other case of such a thing, then how is that not "remarkable"?
Surviving testimonies to his influence and healing power throughout the classical age are common enough . . .
No, not "throughout the classical age," but only during this age up to about 100 BC and then resuming after 100 AD, with a dead period in between. Not "throughout" the classical age.
. . . are common enough to fill a two-volume book (Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, in two volumes, 1945--entries 423-450 contain the most vivid testimonials). Of greatest interest are the inscriptions set up for those healed at his temples.
But why did the healing claims stop happening during the 200-year empty space, or slowly die out going into this period?
The listing of authors shows the same pattern of the near-empty 200-year space. For those earlier quotes, noted above, many are inscriptions with apparently no author named. But there are a few, and then several more after 100 AD:
# of authors cited
before 100 BC: 3
1st century BC: 1
1st century AD: 2
after 100 AD: 12
Let's look at the 3 in-between authors which are on the borderline to the empty 200-year period. The pattern is still clear, that there are no serious miracle claims during this period.
1st century BC (just after 100) -- The Poplius Granius Rufus quotes are already noted above, showing the prescription remedies for coughing and for pain in his right shoulder -- the "plaster of barley-meal" and "a pine cone ground down with olive oil" and of course the "goat's fat" with "wax-pitch" and so on. So here are 2 examples into the 1st century BC, but these are much more in the category of medical prescriptions than miracle cures.
1st century AD -- At the other end of the empty space, near 100 AD, we have Statius and Rufus (a different Rufus than the above), perhaps in the 90s.
Statius was a poet of that period, and in the passage here he only relates the ancient legend of Asclepius making a voyage from Greece to Rome to cure Romans of a plague at around 290 BC. I.e., about the time when Romans adopted this Greek healing god.
But the poem (p. 255) mentions a "lad" being treated:
To none else was trusted the power to unman the lad, but the son of Phoebus [Asclepius] with quiet skill gently bids his body lose its sex, unmarred by any wound.
This seems to refer to the castration of a eunuch named Earinus, who served the emperor Domitian. If there's any "miracle" or healing here, it might be that the procedure done on this boy was done according to a method to minimize the pain, and so the poet Statius is crediting Asclepius with doing a castration that didn't hurt too much.
Again, such "miracles" indicate a medical school rather than a miracle cure cult. Castrations to produce eunuchs were practiced with some procedures to minimize the damage. And Asclepius was credited with anything that had a good outcome, including good castration outcomes, apparently.
So obviously, the "miracles" of Asclepius during this period don't amount to much, in the empty space 100 BC - 100 AD. The serious examples are outside this space, before 100 BC and after 100 AD.
In the other inscription from the 90s AD, Rufus, a physician, relates a "cure" from Asclepius (p. 239), but the patient had to choose the lesser of 2 evils: he could get rid of his epilepsy, but only by taking on a new Quartan Fever illness. If he would accept the latter in exchange for the epilepsy, then he would be cured of the epilepsy. He agreed to this, so Asclepius gave him the Quartan Fever in place of the epilepsy.
So that's the miracle cure in this case.
So
the Asclepius cult was transitioning from a religion into a medical school, partly legitimate, moving away from miracle claims, offering some relief from afflictions in some cases, or some standard medical remedies with partial effectiveness, but also negative side effects.
So, maybe a less painful castration, trading epilepsy in return for a Quartan Fever, and some pain relief by grinding pine cones and consuming boiled goat's fat with pine-resin and boiled barley meal etc. etc. -- These are the miracles of Asclepius during the 200-year gap. Otherwise it's clear that Asclepius was not doing his miracles during this period, i.e., not throughout the classical age, but only up to the 2nd century BC, at which point he took a long vacation, and then returned, after there were rumors of Jesus in Galilee healing lepers and the blind and raising the dead, at which point Asclepius was revived and put his priests back to work at the temples.
So the 200-year empty space contains no serious examples of miracle healing claims. Except for the above 3 dubious examples, all the authors named are either before 100 BC or after 100 AD. This pattern of the empty 200-year space is very obvious here, despite these 3 authors at the two ends of the 200-year empty space. So there is virtually no Asclepius miracle cult during this period -- no serious miracle claims coming from this cult.
There's a simple explanation for this empty period: The normal life of this cult was its very slow evolution over many centuries, and it was dying a natural death from 300-200-100 BC, along with several other ancient miracle cure legends, of which the Asclepius cult was the most widespread.
All of them were dying, slowly disappearing during the period after 200 BC and into the 1st century AD. But then there was a sudden revival of the cult at around 100 AD, which was not normal and is difficult to explain, unless something irregular happened.
This coincides with a clear pattern of miracle stories appearing in the literature, from the very earliest writings, with a general decline beginning around 600 BC onward, dying out almost totally up to about 100 AD, but then suddenly starting up again and increasing into the Middle Ages.
The miracle stories which fit neatly into this pattern are easily explained, as to how they occur even though they are fictional. But any which do NOT fit the pattern are more difficult to explain as being fictional, and the possibility that they are fact increases. Or, since many of the stories are a mixture of fact and fiction, the element of fact becomes more probable as the stories are more inconsistent with the general pattern of such stories appearing in the literature, whereas the element of fiction becomes more probable as the stories fit in more with the standard pattern.
I.e., the recognized
pattern of miracle claims appearing in the literature can clarify why the miracle stories were written and believed by readers, when the stories conform to the pattern. But where any of them appear contrary to the general pattern of such stories appearing in the literature, then it's more difficult to explain how the (fiction) stories came to be written and believed, and so their appearance in the writings becomes more easily explained by the possibility that the alleged events really did happen, and so the accounts of them become more credible as factual reports of what happened (even if there's still a fictional element).
The following shows approximately the pattern of the appearance of miracle stories in the literature, from the earlier to the later periods:
__________
Earliest known times
Many miracle stories in most cultures
↓
600 BC
Approximate turning point where miracle claims begin to decrease in frequency.
↓
500 BC
The frequency of such stories is slowly decreasing.
The stories are preserved by cults but are decreasing in importance.
↓
400 BC
Slow decline in the stories. Skepticism toward claims of recent miracles.
Adherence to ancient traditions is the norm.
↓
300 BC
Increasing decline in the stories and cults believing them.
↓
200 - 100 BC
Major decline and disappearance of miracle claims.
Increasing skepticism of such claims.
↓
100 BC - 100 (90) AD
BLANK! No new miracle stories anywhere (except the Gospel accounts).
Almost total rejection of charlatans, pretenders, messiah-types.
↓
100 - 200 AD
Sudden outburst of new miracle stories in all the literature.
New charlatans start appearing.
↓
200 AD - into the Middle Ages
Continuing increase in miracle claims, becoming more common than ever.
Increasingly more miracle-workers on a grand scale.
__________
The Asclepius miracle stories fit neatly into this pattern, except that the cult eventually dies and is replaced by Christian miracle claims which satisfy the demand.
So, whatever caused miracle claims to be more popular in 600-400 BC also inspired those of the Asclepius cult, and the disillusionment with such stories occurred in common between the Asclepius stories and the other pagan stories, all decreasing in popularity from 300-200-100 BC.
But by contrast, the Jesus miracle stories totally disrupt this pattern, appearing suddenly in the mid-first century AD, when no other miracle stories had been appearing for more than 100 years. So there was no miracle tradition leading up to the Jesus miracle claims appearing without warning some time from 30 AD and later, in contrast to the Asclepius cult arising as part of a tradition of miracle beliefs still going strong in 600-400 BC when the Asclepius cult appears along with the testimonials at the temples, and then slowly dying with the others, virtually disappearing until they are artificially given a boost after 90 AD and are revived to continue another 200-300 years.
No, miracle claims were NOT widespread or popular among the general population.
belief in the ancient gods/heroes --
YES
belief in the latest charlatan-messiah --
NO
belief in instant miracle-workers popping up --
NO
belief in any miracle-worker resembling Jesus in the Gospels --
NO
People believed in the ancient legends, but not in any new or sudden charlatans, all of whom were rejected and ridiculed. But priests doing healing rituals in the name of Asclepius or other ancient healing god were respected and not ridiculed as the instant miracle-workers were, and the writers often did not use the "qualifiers" when describing their miracle healing events.
But something happened in the 1st century AD to interrupt the pattern of the disappearing miracle cults. Because at about 100 AD we see a new explosion of miracle stories, and a revival of the ancient cults, producing a new period of miracle beliefs, going toward the Middle Ages into a new period where miracle stories became far more popular than in pagan Greece and Rome, or in the Jewish scriptures.
Our original question was: Why did the writers (historians and others) so often employ the "qualifiers" which express their skepticism about the claims, but also in a few cases did believe the claims and expressed no skepticism?
The pattern they followed was to give credibility to the ancient miracle gods/heroes, but not recent charlatans. And it's easy to explain how Asclepius and ancient gods were revived in response to a stimulus, which must have happened in the 1st century. It wasn't a new charlatan who caused this stimulus, as all the charlatans were recognized for what they were and were scoffed at by both the educated and uneducated.
Why are there no "qualifiers" in the Gospel accounts of the Jesus miracle acts?
best explanation:
The events really did happen.
So the meaning of the "qualifiers" in the writings is that they show legitimate doubt by the writers, who disbelieved such stories without good evidence. But in the case of the Gospels there are no qualifiers in reporting the miracle acts of Jesus, so those writers must have had good evidence for believing the claims. There's no other explanation why these were believed and yet no other such claims were believed by any writers, even though many of them were ready to believe such claims if there was evidence.
They did believe in the established
ancient miracle traditions dating from centuries earlier (or seemed to believe them) and they accepted some recent reports based on the ancient traditions, or on rituals done in the temples where the ancient traditions were practiced, honoring the ancient deities which the current priests invoked by name, thus gaining credibility for their claim to perform miracle cures.
This explains why many of the Asclepius miracle claims were believed even by people near the time of the reported events. I.e., 4th century inscriptions describing miracle healings reported at the Epidaurus temple, built earlier in the 4th century.
Asclepius cult priests and worshipers = Today's Christian evangelists and their followers
Every culture has its ancient religious tradition of praying for miracles.
Just as today, or any time in history, there are worshipers who pray and claim to have been healed by their ancient healing god -- if it's a popular ancient god being invoked, then the claims are far more likely to be accepted, including by historians and other educated writers. Like Josephus believing the exorcist cast out a demon which knocked over a container of water, which he attributes to the tradition of Solomon who prescribed the expulsion ritual. Or like Suetonius and Tacitus believing in the miracle healing by Vespasian, which was attributed to the ancient god Serapis.
When the writers believe the claim, or at least respect the ancient god which is invoked by name, they present the story as true, without "qualifiers," and refrain from ridicule or skepticism about the claim.
But there's no explanation why the Gospel writers believed claims of the Jesus miracles, unless it's simply that there was abundant evidence for these claims, as being of real events which did happen, in contrast to all the other claims about "messiahs" or god-men or prophets etc. having miracle powers.
