The Jesus miracle legend has no normal explanation, as all the other miracle legends do.
Lumpenproletariat's argument begins with the premise that back in the period in question people did not write things down that weren't true.
If I ever gave that as a premise, I should be taken out and shot.
Obviously people wrote down stories about the gods and so on.
What people did not do was believe or record stories about recent miracle events, or believe in instant miracle-workers who suddenly popped up. Miracle claims were generally rejected by most people, just as they are today, but not ancient stories about the pagan deities. People believed the stories which had been handed down over many generations, and wrote about them, and also new stories about ancient miracle heroes.
That premise is immediately refuted by the existence of written examples of things that he finds inconvenient, such as the miracles of Roman Emperors, Simon Magus, etc.
There are virtually no instant miracle stories about Roman Emperors. But the Vespasian story is unusual, appearing in written accounts 50 or so years after the alleged event. But this is easily explained, as this was a famous celebrity hero who had millions of admirers, and a popular hero like this can easily become made into a legend in a short period. He was uniquely popular compared to the other emperors.
You can call him an "exception to the rule" of sorts, but very rare, and easily explained, such that the basic point holds true that there are not sudden miracle stories which pop up about a current hero figure, especially not about anyone of minor importance. The sudden appearance of miracle stories about Jesus are a jarring departure from the norm. There's nothing anywhere close as an analogy to this case.
There's also a Marcus Aurelius story about a supposed miracle on the battlefield. Battlefield miracle stories are common. These easily fit into a pattern. All the examples you can cite do fit into a very recognizable pattern of mythologizing. No pattern can explain the case of Jesus, which departs drastically from any norm.
The Simon Magus miracle stories are all from 100 years or longer after the alleged events reportedly happened. A long delay from the alleged event to the first written account fits the normal pattern.
So then Lumpenproletariat draws the first circle of his sharpshooter fallacy: All these other people spent years developing their fame. Jesus's ministry was too short for him to achieve the amount of fame necessary to have mythology written about him. This circle has been soundly refuted by the claims of the gospels themselves, which indicate that from the time he was born prophets and prophetesses were drawing attention to him;
No, only Luke says such a thing, not "the gospels" generally.
The closest to this is later when John the Baptist refers to Hebrew prophecy and identifies himself as the "voice in the wilderness" of Isaiah.
No critical scholars believe the Luke announcement to Mary and other details of the birth stories. If it's in one account only and fits into no pattern in common with the others, then the credibility is very low.
There is no basis for any historical claims about Jesus prior to his appearance in Galilee, or his appearance at the Jordan with John the Baptizer. There's no record of him prior to then.
. . . that at the age of 12 he was confounding Jewish leaders in the temple and saying that "He must be about his father's business" (which evidently included confounding Jewish leaders with his wisdom since that is the context in which this statement was made).
This is all from the same one source only, Luke, and has no confirmation in the other sources, which contain nothing resembling it. If there was any such real information about Jesus that early, we'd see some indication of it in the other gospels also. This is legend only.
The stories to which he appeals refute his premise that he just sat on his ass for 30 years then wowed everyone with 3 years of blockbuster miracles . . .
This is what all the evidence indicates (minus your loose language). Do you want to rely on the evidence, or do you just like pouncing on the legendary elements only?
. . . before disappearing into the clouds never to be seen again.
That this is all you can come up with only proves the point that Jesus had a short public career, maximum 3 years, before which he did no public activity and for which there is no information whatever. You have nothing to offer to contradict this.
Albert Schweitzer is a reliable authority on the Historical Jesus:
The "Life of Jesus" is limited to the last months of his existence on earth. . . .
About Jesus' earlier development we know nothing. All lies in the dark. Only this is sure: at his baptism the secret of his existence was disclosed to him,-- namely, that he was the one whom God had destined to be the Messiah. With this revelation he was complete, and underwent no further development.
The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, p. 253-254
Schweitzer's conclusions are based on an analysis of the ENTIRE gospel accounts, not hand-selecting out one or two uncharacteristic passages. It's reasonable to accept his thoughtful conclusions as against the shallowness of yours.
Lumpenproletariat has thus-far ignored this inconvenient blockage of his fantasy and gone on to fabricate an entire thing called "Normal Mythologizing." I can only assume he uses this term because he well-recognizes the similarities between his preferred myths and the myths in which it gestated.
You've been asked to cite the "similarities" many times, and you offer nothing but Justin Martyr as a source, who really gave no "similarities" in his
Apology but strains to find them in an obvious effort to convince Romans to stop persecuting Christians, by trying to make them think that Christ-worshipers are similar to the pagan-god-worshipers. But you have never shown one similarity between Jesus and the pagan deities, or the Jesus miracles and the pagan miracle stories.
He draws more circles around his favorite myth, suggesting that "normal mythologizing" cannot happen within 40 years of the existence of the person around whom the myth is centered unless the person is famous.
Probably in ALL cases there is no mythologizing unless the myth hero had been a famous celebrity during his life. Which Jesus was not, making him the only exception to this "rule" which applies to all others. Name any example of someone who became mythologized but who had not been a high-profile famous celebrity in his lifetime.
He then ignores the fact that according to the best models we can put together Paul the Apostle spent at least 20 years making Jesus famous all over Asia Minor.
No he did not. However, let's assume Jesus became "famous" as a result of Paul (which is silly) -- even so, this was AFTER the lifetime of Jesus.
So get the "rule" straight: A mythologized hero must have been someone who was a famous celebrity
DURING HIS LIFETIME, not AFTER he lived, 20 years later.
But, it's NOT true that Paul made Jesus famous during those years. There are 2 possibilities: Jesus did not become a famous celebrity until much later, perhaps 80-90 AD or even later; OR, Jesus had already become "famous" in oral reports only, but we have no way to check that.
And further, it is really bone-headed to think that the Greeks/gentiles that Paul contacted had never heard of Jesus before Paul came to them. There is no reason to think these gentiles would respond to anything Paul was saying unless they had already heard something of Jesus from earlier reports.
There's no way to explain why this gentile audience would respond to his preaching or his letters if they were hearing of Jesus for the first time, from Paul only. They would have thought he was a wacko. There must have already been some oral reports, or earlier written documents, so that his audience was already familiar with some of it, so they would know Paul wasn't just hallucinating.
His "But Jesus wasn't famous enough" argument takes flight.
Absolutely Jesus was NOT a famous celebrity in 30 AD, by the time of his death (except probably some local spread of the stories about him,
if we assume he did perform the miracle acts and "his fame spread" as Mark and Matthew say). Saying Paul made him famous 20 years later is irrelevant, because this would still have been AFTER Jesus lived, not during his lifetime.
Unfortunately for his purposes this also negates the gospels commonly referred to as "Matthew," "Luke" and "John," as they would have been fabricated by people living in a milieu wherein this character was at least famous enough to have a book written about him.
Again, you're clumsily ignoring the "rule": The myth hero must have been a famous celebrity DURING HIS LIFETIME. This is the case for all myth heroes. Name one for whom this is not the case.
Obviously in the case of the pagan heroes -- Zeus, Apollo, Hercules, etc. -- we don't know about them personally, from historical accounts, of which there are none.
But for ALL myth heroes who originated from historical figures, whom we know about, it is a fact that they were all famous celebrities during their lifetimes:
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, Vespasian (and other emperors), St. Nicholas, St. Genevieve, St. Francis (and other famous "saints"), King Arthur and William Tell (if they did exist), American heroes like Daniel Boone etc., and so on -- all the mythic heroes you can name. They were all famous celebrities during their lifetimes.
We could add Moses, Achilles, King David, Romulus, Elijah, Krishna, Abraham, Gilgamesh, Zoroaster, Buddha, Noah --
if they existed as real persons they were all famous celebrities during their lifetime. Jesus is the only one who was not.
Lumpenproletariat then attempts to extricate his favorite fairy tale from similar examples of Joseph Smith et al, . . .
He was a notorious celebrity during his lifetime. He fits the same pattern. The notoriety and celebrity status is what leads to the mythologizing.
. . . by arguing that the Jesus miracles were attested by "curious onlookers" rather than direct disciples under the charismatic influence of the preacher. Even if we were to accept this ridiculous and unevidenced premise . . .
The evidence is from the only accounts we have of the events. They clearly imply that members of the crowd told others what happened, and also the victim who was cured. In 2 or 3 cases the accounts say this explicitly, that the one healed, or the onlookers told others. But in most cases it implies it without saying it explicitly. You can read the individual accounts and see clearly that this is the pattern reported.
But by contrast, ALL the Joseph Smith miracle stories originated from his direct disciples only, who had been influenced by the Prophet's charisma over a long time.
This distinction is based on the stories themselves which we have, in both cases.
. . . it would seem that this would exclude the vast majority of the Jesus miracles, as they are suspect for the same reason.
The evidence is that they were not from the direct disciples, whereas the evidence for the Joseph Smith miracle stories tells us that they are from his direct disciples only. The ones named were all his direct disciples. But the Jesus accounts imply that the victim healed was not a disciple, and that non-disciples who witnessed it reported it.
Of course you can suspect the sources of making up this fact in order to deceive later 20th-century debaters and provide material for the apologists. But there is nothing requiring us to assume that deceptive motivation of the gospel writers/editors.
Few if any of these miracles were performed in a vacuum where the people observing didn't have the opportunity to listen to the preaching of the guy and be influenced by his charisma.
In some cases it clearly implies that this was not so and that those who reported it were not his disciples or had not known of him prior to the event. Including the victim healed:
Mark 7
1 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Ger'asenes. 2 And when he had come out of the boat, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3 who lived among the tombs; and no one could bind him any more, even with a chain; 4 for he had often been bound with fetters and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the fetters he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him.
It's obvious that this demoniac was not a disciple of Jesus, who only just arrived there at his location.
5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out, and bruising himself with stones. 6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him; 7 and crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me." 8 For he had said to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!" 9 And Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" He replied, "My name is Legion; for we are many." 10 And he begged him eagerly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now a great herd of swine was feeding there on the hillside; 12 and they begged him, "Send us to the swine, let us enter them." 13 So he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea. 14 The herdsmen fled, and told it in the city and in the country. And people came to see what it was that had happened.
There's obviously much to be skeptical about in this story. Nevertheless, something of this story must have really happened, because it would make no sense for the later gospel writer/editor to totally make this up. There was some such encounter as this, and the "demons" perhaps were added to the original real event.
The important point here is that these people, herdsmen, etc. are obviously not disciples of Jesus.
15 And they came to Jesus, and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the man who had had the legion; and they were afraid. 16 And those who had seen it told what had happened to the demoniac and to the swine.
These people reporting what had happened were not disciples of Jesus.
17 And they began to beg Jesus to depart from their neighborhood.
Obviously they are hostile to him, not his disciples, not attracted by his supposed charisma.
18 And as he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with demons begged him that he might be with him. 19 But he refused, and said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." 20 And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decap'olis how much Jesus had done for him; and all men marveled.
Isn't it obvious that those reporting this miracle event were NOT his disciples?
21 And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him; and he was beside the sea. 22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja'irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet, 23 and besought him, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live."
This one is less clear. But it's implied here that this synagogue official was not one of the disciples. Possibly you could say he was spellbound by the charisma of Jesus at this first encounter with him. But this is not typically how miracle stories originate. It is always a
long-term follower of the guru who believes uncritically and makes claims to convert people, not someone like this who sees him for the first time.
24 And he went with him. And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. 25 And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.
It implies she knew of him only from reports about him, not from having been a disciple or attending his preachings over some time period. She believed because of the reports, not because of any supposed charisma of his.
28 For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well." 29 And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, "Who touched my garments?" 31 And his disciples said to him, "You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, 'Who touched me?'" 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease."
35 While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler's house some who said, "Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?" 36 But ignoring what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, "Do not fear, only believe." 37 And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. 38 When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly. 39 And when he had entered, he said to them, "Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping." 40 And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41 Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Tal'itha cu'mi"; which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." 42 And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.
There's no indication in the last case of who spread the story. However, one thing clear in this case also is that the girl healed was not one of his disciples and hadn't experienced any supposed charisma of his. Virtually all the victims healed by Jesus were non-disciples.
Whereas for the JS miracle stories, all the ones healed were his direct disciples who had been influenced by his charisma over a long time.
Many of them explicitly describe scenes in which the only observer was Jesus himself or the apostles.
But not the healing miracle stories. Virtually all of them take place in the presence of non-disciples, and usually a large number of them.
Some of the other stories, such as calming the storm and the walking on water, originated from the disciples only. And so, in those cases, there is reason to be more skeptical.
Possibly there were some miracle stories that came from later legend-building. It makes sense that after the original miracle acts took place there would be more stories added which were fictional accounts. It's clear there were fictional stories added later, appearing in later "gospel" accounts in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and such mythologizing may have begun in the 1st century also, maybe even in the original accounts.
The miracles in the Book of Acts may be fictional, based on later legend-building. But this later mythologizing makes no sense unless there was first a real person who demonstrated real miracle power, to which the later stories were added. I.e., the later mythologizing required an established figure to whom they could become attached.
How, indeed, does one observe Jesus performing miracles while being immune to being influenced by his charisma?
These were non-disciples who had not seen him before. In some cases the one healed was unconscious, so obviously was not influenced by his charisma. But also, these witnesses had not encountered him before this. Normally the devotees who report miracles done by their guru are long-time followers of him, not members of a crowd encountering him for the first time as in the case of these miracles by Jesus.
It would be like going to a Rolling Stones concert and casually observing the screaming women at the foot of the stage but being uninfluenced with the charisma of Mick Jagger.
But it's the
long-term influence on the disciples which causes them to imagine that he performs miracle acts. The relation of the guru to the disciple is one of DOMINATION and manipulation, not in a momentary one-time event, but over a period of time.
Here are some descriptions of how charismatic leaders dominate their followers. The relationship between them is a long-term one, where the followers/disciples are under the influence of the leader over an extended time period. These dominated followers are the ones who promote the guru's image and help spread his crusade and yield to his authority. It requires time for him to establish this hold over them. (I added the bold type where the point is especially clear, but all the following descriptions depict the followers as part of a long-term process, not something which happened in only one day or one week.)
http://www.icsahome.com/articles/charismatic-leadership-csj-3-1
Today's cult leaders tend to use ritual and
repetition to keep their followers in a state of mind receptive to suggestion. . . .
The change in personality that Theodore experienced is analogous to that observed today in young adults who become members of modem religious cults. The explanation given for their change applies equally well to Theodore. Two important forces are involved that lead to a third. "First a strong belief system is engendered, a raison d’etre, a seemingly coherent system of ideas and values. Second, and perhaps more importantly, is the rapid development of a sense of belonging, of commonality, of being an integral part of a group ... These two experiences -- believing and belonging -- serve to produce a third vital effect, a significant increase in the individual's self esteem. The result is a person with a strong sense of identity, feeling good about himself ... with a powerfully supportive group, and a shared ideology, affect and catharsis."
Weber, Tucker, and others have attempted to articulate the qualities of the charismatic leader. The subject studied usually possesses extraordinary personality traits that attract disciples and followers who accept his authority and/or leadership. He can sometimes inspire awe and reverence, and even, on occasion, love. The ability to arouse passionate devotion and enthusiasm can lead his followers to deny their bourgeois commitments to career, promotions, and Wary. Very often these leaders have established communal cooperative organizations rather than the more normative hierarchic structures. Authority is more frequently effected by a freely offered obedience, while leadership is sustained through intellectual and moral domination. The leader, too, is very cognizant of his hold upon his supporters, and he tries to maintain his personal attraction in a variety of ways, such as speeches, writings, and personal communication.
http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/o12f99.htm
That is, a power relation which is one of dominance involves the following
Voluntary compliance or obedience. Individuals are not forced to obey, but do so voluntarily.
Those who obey do so because they have an interest in so doing, or at least believe that they have such an interest.
Belief in the legitimacy of the actions of the dominant individual or group is likely (although this is defined by Weber as authority). That is, "the particular claim to legitimacy is to a significant degree and according to its type treated as ‘valid’" (Weber, p. 214).
Compliance or obedience is
not haphazard or associated with a short-term social relationship, but is a
sustained relationship of dominance and subordination so that regular patterns of inequality are established.
When
dominance continues for a considerable period of time, it becomes a structured phenomenon, and the forms of dominance become the social structures of society.
Temporary or transient types of power are not usually considered to be dominance. This definition of domination also eliminates those types of power that are based on sheer force, because force may not lead to acceptance of the dominant group or voluntary compliance with its orders. Situations of overt conflict and force are also relatively unusual. For example, Weber considers overt forms of class conflict and class struggle to be uncommon. While Weber’s definition of domination may be narrow, it is a useful way of examining
relationships that do become structured. While employer-employee or other types of relationships characterized by domination and subordination often involve conflict, the use of force is not always, or is not normally, an aspect of these and subordinates do obey and implicitly accept this subordination.
A particular leader may have unusual characteristics that make him or her a leader. This may relate to a special gift of a leader, a particular style of speaking and acting, or extraordinary qualities. Ritzer notes "Although Weber did not deny that a charismatic leader may have outstanding characteristics, his sense of charisma was more dependent on the group of disciples and the way that they define the charismatic leader. To put Weber's position bluntly, if the disciples define a leader as charismatic, then he or she is likely to be a charismatic leader irrespective of whether he or she actually possesses any outstanding traits" (Ritzer, p. 134). Examples of charismatic leaders in recent Canadian history include Diefenbaker, Trudeau and Levesque. Cult leaders such as David Koresh or Jim Jones are examples on a smaller scale. . . .
The charismatic leader gains and maintains authority solely by proving his strength in life. If he wants to be a prophet, he must perform miracles; if he wants to be a war lord, he must perform heroic deeds. Above all, however, his divine mission must 'prove' itself in that those who faithfully surrender to him must fare well. If they do not fare well, he is obviously not the master sent by the gods.
A good example of the last kind of follower is Wilford Woodruff, who is the major source for the Joseph Smith miracle stories and who was the 4th LDS President (Smith was the first, Brigham Young the second President). He clearly did well for himself by his loyalty to the Founder-Prophet, fitting the above description of how a charismatic leader "proves" himself to the devotee who surrenders to him.
This is how the Joseph Smith miracle stories originated, but not those of Jesus in the gospel accounts. The public career of Jesus was far too short for him to become established as a dominating guru-charismatic who won followers like Wilford Woodruff to promote his crusade and provide miracle stories to enhance the guru's image.
The above quotes, and many others from websites on charismatic leaders, describe how these come to dominate their followers and get them to promote the guru's image and yield to his authority and believe anything he says and make him into a god. And it's clear that this domination is something that develops over a period of time -- not just a few days, definitely not a one-time event. It easily requires months and years for the dominating relation to develop.
Lumpenproletariat's arguments strain to walk the tight wire of his own construction.
Ultimately, buried under the massive weight of counter evidence composed of everything from ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, Roman, Greek, Chinese, Hindu and Jewish mythology all the way to the constant onslaught of hoaxes on Snopes.com, Joseph Smith, J.Z. Knight, Mohammad, Benny Hinn and others, . . .
None of these has any resemblance to the miracles of Jesus. You haven't quoted one myth from any of the above to show any similarity. You can rattle off a laundry list of names and cults and religions, throw in the kitchen sink, but it doesn't prove anything to just run these off. None of the above sheds any light on how the Jesus miracle stories were produced and published so soon after the alleged events contrary to all the patterns of ancient miracle stories. Nothing is explained or proved by just a list.
Lumpenprolariat is forced to create myopic constructs that deal with one of these at a time, hoping that we won't notice how they are refuted by one of the others, and ultimately bury his favorite fairy tale in an avalanche of fairy tales that run the entire gamut of everything he can hope for to find separation.
What is "refuted" by your avalanche of names? All those mythologies and legends and miracle claims are explained by the mythologizing process we see at work over and over throughout all the literature and the history. A popular celebrity hero becomes deified, usually over many generations, sometimes sooner, because of his charismatic influence over the followers. Or for the ancient pagan myths there are centuries of legend-building upon an earlier hero whose origin is unknown.
None of these explain how the Jesus miracle legend originated.
The only thing he's left with is overall popularity of his favorite myth, and even that is watered down by the fact that in order to make that claim he must gather hordes of disparate doctrines including those who believe in the virgin birth narratives (which he doesn't) as well as those who . . .
But why was there ONLY ONE myth figure who was seized upon by all these disparate doctrines? Why didn't they choose any other mythic figure as the symbol to attach their doctrines to? You never answer this question.
. . . believe in the more gnostic variants of christianity . . .
That there are added stories, legends, new versions or "variants" on the original events which happened about 30 AD only adds extra credibility to the original accounts of the miracle events, because the actual occurrence of these earlier events is what explains where all the later legend-building and new interpretations and versions came from.
The later versions, the gnostics, the "heresies" and new "gospels" appearing in the 2nd and 3rd centuries are various efforts to explain what happened earlier, and also many of them are groups which existed already in some form and saw the new Jesus legend as something they had to attach themselves to, because of his reputation as a miracle-worker which had credibility and so could not be ignored. If those events really happened, it is to be expected that many new interpretations and new cults and schools and doctrines would emerge to claim this miracle-worker.
. . . (which don't necessarily even include a physical Jesus).
But the gnostics still had Jesus
appearing in physical form, or possessing an
apparent physical body which people saw. They adopted the same Jesus story, but reinterpreted Jesus into something essentially spiritual, as though his physical form was an illusion or phantom which appeared as physical.
That ALL the new cults popping up from about 50 AD - 300 AD focused on this one miracle legend only and on no others is further evidence that something totally different than anything else occurred here which cannot be explained, which doesn't fit the normal patterns that all the other miracle legends fit. What is it that happened in this one case only which attracted all these new cults looking for a hero figure, but did not happen with any other cult figure or miracle hero, of which there were many, and yet which were all ignored by the new cults seeking a hero myth?
Why should they all choose this one Jesus of Galilee figure only, instead of choosing from among the many other cult heroes available to them?
His arguments are like a deer running after being shot through the lungs with an arrow. Dead and don't know it.
You can shoot the truth -- even kill it, but it never stops running.
Food for thought.
