"just the facts, ma'am" -- 1st-century evidence that Jesus cured mental illness
In the ancient religious literature there are rituals for casting out demons, but there are no other cases of reported cures, where the victim is described as recovering.
You think Jesus was the only miracle-worker of his time?
There are no other credible examples. No evidence, other written accounts/reports of anyone performing such acts and curing victims.
His own disciples were said to do the same, . . .
Only some claims of receiving this power from Jesus. If it's true they did perform such acts, it's only because Jesus gave them this power.
But the few mentions of such acts by the disciples are not good evidence that they did perform these acts, such as the record of the Jesus healings is good evidence. They are easily explained as a result of wishful thinking by later believers who hoped that the reported miracle power was transmitted to believers and did not end with Jesus.
Here are the only mentions of such miracles by the disciples:
Matthew 10:
1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. . . . saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.
This reference says only that he commanded them to do it, not that they actually did any such acts. So the author apparently was not sure the disciples really did these things.
Mark 6
7 And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. . . . 12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.
There's little of anything in this report that's unusual. It's not clear that any lepers or paralytics were instantly cured, e.g.
Why doesn't it narrate at least one case of the disciples healing someone? like there are more than 30 narrative accounts of Jesus performing these acts and producing unusual cures?
Luke 9
1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, . . . 6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.
Luke 10
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and . . . . 17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!"
These are claims of some healings, "everywhere" -- but if the writers of this really believed it, why didn't they give some narrative accounts of it?
In any case, it's really only Jesus who is said to have such power, and anything similar the disciples might have done was not their own power but was derived from him.
In Acts there are some reported miracles, mostly by Peter and Paul, but those are obviously just copycat stories based on the earlier Jesus miracles, and there's only the one source for them. If there's only one source saying it, then it's not credible.
. . . to say nothing of initiates into other traditions.
There are no other written accounts saying miracle acts/cures were done, dating from any time near to when they allegedly happened. Of course there were traditions about the ancient healing gods, and worshipers praying to them, priests performing the standard rituals at the temples, etc. Sometimes a victim recovered from an illness, which would have happened anyway, as always in religious practices throughout all cultures.
In the 1st century the Asclepius cult was dying out, with no reported miracles any longer being inscribed. From 200 BC until the time of our NT writings there were no miracle traditions developing, no reported miracle-workers doing wonders anywhere (except Eunus in Sicily who is said to have blown fire out from his mouth -- that's how low you have to stoop to find anything) -- there were only the ancient legends handed down from centuries earlier.
But some pagan traditions experienced a revival, after about 100 AD, along with a new explosion of miracle claims.
The man himself never claimed to be the sole magic worker in all of history.
If there are other cases, we don't have evidence for them.
Though there is evidence that Rasputin the "mad monk" was able to cause the Czar's son to recover from his blood disease, while the mainline doctors could do nothing for him. But that's limited to only one victim the "magic worker" was able to help. Probably there have been a few cases of a "magic worker" who had some limited power.
My point is that the "demon-possession" stories were probably cases of
mental illness, which easily explains the depictions of the victim's erratic behavior. And though there's reference in the ancient literature to demons and rituals to cast them out, there are no other reported cases of a victim being cured. So it was not a practice to record fictional accounts of such victims being cured by exorcists. I.e., rituals to cure them were prescribed and published, but not any accounts reporting victims being cured, such as we have written accounts of Jesus doing several cures.
The "casting out demons" stories make no sense unless something real did happen, corresponding to the descriptions in the accounts, because there is nothing else like this in the ancient literature, and thus nothing from the culture of the time, like reported exorcism cures, which can explain these reported events in terms of the cultural traditions of the time.
When a "miracle" or religious practice is copied from earlier traditions, or from the culture of the time, then that can explain where the story comes from. But there is nothing in the ancient culture from which these casting-out-demons stories could have been borrowed. Or the other miracle acts of Jesus.
QUALIFIER: There is one copycat Jesus miracle story, that of multiplying the fish and loaves. This is the only Jesus miracle which could have been copied from something earlier (II Kings 4:42-44). The fact of this one, which appears to be a copycat version of an earlier legend, illustrates how new legends or miracle claims (likely fictional) could be borrowed from earlier legends. It happened a lot. And yet there is no other Jesus miracle story which has such a resemblance to something earlier. Which is strong evidence that these reported miracles are probably based on real events which happened, or real miracle acts he did in the period around 30 AD. After which the written accounts appeared, but before which we have nothing like these miracle claims to serve as an antecedent to the Jesus Resurrection and other miracle acts suddenly appearing and reported in the 1st-century writings.