The Jesus miracle stories are inconsistent with the "context" of the first century --
. . . despite misstatements of your favorite Jesus-debunker guru, Dr. Carrier, etc.
It's easy to cite a long article and imagine that you've proved something. But Carrier's examples prove nothing. He offers nothing to show that there was anything peculiarly superstitious about the 1st century AD which could explain the rise of the Jesus miracle legend.
All the facts show that the Christ miracles of the 1st century AD are totally out of place -- unless we assume that the miracle acts described in the gospels actually did happen, around 30 AD, and this would explain how a new rash of miracle stories breaks out in the early 2nd century and later.
Since the Carrier article is too long, the following will be only on the first paragraph, to be continued later:
We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context.
The
context is that such tales were NOT common in the 1st century BC and were becoming fewer from earlier times. And in the 1st century AD we have only the new Jesus miracle stories emerging, no others. Carrier has no examples to show otherwise. All the tales of miracles he offers date only from 100 AD and later, or were from several centuries earlier, based on ancient deities or sages far removed from the period of the new Christ miracles, not on any recent miracle heroes or new legends.
The CONTEXT is that such tales were DECREASING from the earlier time, so that hardly any new miracle tales were popping up in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, so that fewer and fewer such tales were being told. But then, out of nowhere, the Christ miracles burst in on the scene at around 30 AD, or through the following decades,
with no others -- only these Jesus miracle stories appear during the 1st century. The only exception to this would be the stories about the apostles, appearing around 90-100 AD, obviously inspired by the earlier gospel accounts for which there is no explanation.
But then, the
context is that later, around 100 AD and beyond, there's a sudden explosion of new miracle stories.
Yet it is quite enlightening to examine them against the background of the time and place in which they were written, and my goal here is to help you do just that. There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, . . .
Not more than at other times. But let's assume there was an extra supply of rebels or revolutionary figures, like Judas the Galilean and John the Baptist and others, some of whom were militant insurrectionists against the Roman Empire, or against "The Establishment" of those times. This is easily explained by the political developments, BUT these have nothing to do with superstitions and miracle tales. These various "messiahs" or charlatans or prophets or dissidents etc. were not reputed miracle-workers or a product of superstition. They were anti-Establishment figures who were able to win a following, but there's virtually no miracle stories or "tales" which circulated. It was hatred of the Establishment which drove their popularity, and of course their charisma.
Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are part of this context, show no miracle tales, but only a trend of resistance against the religious Establishment in Jerusalem. The Teacher of Righteousness, probably a real person, has no miracle acts attributed to him, no healings, no resurrection, nothing comparable to the miracle acts of Jesus.
Likewise in the other literature appearing at the time, Book of Enoch, etc., there were no new miracle heroes emerging, no new miracle events, but only rehashing of the ancient ones.
So, what is this "context"?
. . . from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, . . .
There were frauds from every age, not just this one. In the case of miracle-worker frauds, these were rejected by 99% of the population. Just because they won 2 or 3 dozen idiot followers doesn't show that this age was any more superstitious than others. Those followers were less than .1% of the people who were exposed to them and observed whatever they did. And virtually all these observers rejected the charlatans, which is why there is no written evidence from the time attesting to any of their alleged miracle deeds.
. . . even innocent men mistaken for divine, . . .
There's virtually no evidence of this. Jesus is the only case of this for which there is any evidence.
. . . and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them.
There's probably not one case for whom we can determine that there were as many as even 100 followers. If there happens to be 1 or 2, that's an extremely rare exception. Even 50 is unlikely for any case you can name. And those who gained more than a couple dozen required many years, decades, during which to accumulate so many disciples. It's only the political dissidents/militants who acquired a large following, and these were not reported miracle-workers.
For the political charlatans/messiahs it is said in 1 or 2 cases that they made a
claim of being able to perform some spectacular deed, but there's no report from any source saying that they did in fact perform any miracle act, nor that anyone actually
believed they performed such an act.
Carrier cannot give any example of a source claiming a quack actually performed any miracle act. He pretends there is such evidence, but gives none. There were "leaders" of dissident groups, rebels, revolutionaries, but these political disturbances he refers to have nothing to do with miracles performed by anyone.
Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, . . .
There is NO other source reporting that any miracle acts were performed by anyone, or reporting that anyone believed claims of such a thing. The gospel accounts stick out conspicuously as the ONLY written documents (plus the Paul epistles reporting the resurrection of Jesus) presenting reports of some new hero doing a miracle act. Over a period of several centuries, up to about 100 AD -- for at least 400 years there is NOTHING ELSE in all the literature claiming that some new miracle-worker appeared and amazed crowds by performing any superhuman acts.
Josephus is sometimes cited, but there's virtually nothing there. He mentions one "exorcist" who seems to have caused a bucket of water to be overturned when supposedly a demon was cast out, but that's it. He says nothing about the victim being cured by the exorcist. He attributes no miracle acts to the various "messiah"-type figures who pop up here and there.
Carrier cannot give one example of such a thing. That's the context. No new reported miracle heroes. The closest there is to such a phenomenon are the many healing stories of worshipers at statues and temples of the ancient deities, claiming that the ancient deity answered their prayer. No charlatan, no instant miracle-worker, no new miracle hero cult. At most there were only priests performing ancient rites and promoting the ancient healing deities, not any recent charlatan-messiah.
And the praying at statues and testimonials by the worshipers was an ancient practice, from many centuries earlier, with no trend of these increasing up to the 1st century AD to provide a "context" for the Jesus stories to appear. If such ancient worshiping practices would lead to the creation of new miracle healing heroes or charlatans, then we should see some indication of this in the several centuries earlier, from 500 BC to 30 AD, before the Christ cult(s) appeared.
. . . and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority.
They were a small minority at ANY time, both before and after the Gospels were written. There's no evidence that there were more "skeptics" at other time periods than when the Gospels were written.
Carrier mentions no "skeptics" which confirm his point, but only examples which contradict him. He mentions some in the 2nd century, e.g., Lucian, who are motivated by the recent rash of Christian miracle claims appearing in the 1st century AD and later, and who also criticize some of the ancient miracle legends. Carrier has no examples of any skeptic criticizing cults or superstitions from 400 or 300 BC up to the time when the Christ cults appeared.
Meanwhile, Carrier cites Plutarch, a 1st-century skeptic, which contradicts Carrier, because this skeptic was contemporary to the time "when the Gospels were written," so Carrier himself gives this evidence of skeptics during this time, contradicting his insinuation that there were fewer skeptics during the time when the Jesus miracle stories appeared.
His best "skeptic" example is Lucian, late 2nd century, who was mostly a reactionary against Christianity, but also poking fun at others -- and yet ALL the examples of superstitions condemned by Lucian are either the Christ stories and others after this, from 100 AD onward, or the EARLY legends, the ancient pagan gods and their worshipers, all prior to 400 BC. Nothing at all from 400 BC and later up to when the new Christ cult(s) appeared. Why this omission? Because the miracle superstition practices were DEcreasing and there were fewer and fewer examples of them going forward to the time when the Christ miracles suddenly pop up from nowhere contrary to the historical pattern taking place.
This "context" argument, to make any sense, has to be a claim that the Christ miracle stories were CAUSED by these conditions of superstition and miracle tales which reflect a mindset of the period which caused people to believe such stories. And yet, the "context" Carrier describes is about something which existed only AFTER the Christ miracles appeared, and also MANY CENTURIES BEFORE, but not during the 200-300 years just prior, which is the critical "context" period which might have a causal connection to the sudden rise of the new Christ miracle legend. Rather, those conditions were DEcreasing at the beginning of the 1st century AD and had been decreasing for at least 300 years.
So the exact opposite of Carrier's theory is the truth of what was happening.
Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were much more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously.
There is no evidence for this, other than conventional belief in ancient deities only. The evidence is that the vast majority of the people did not believe in the supernatural stories, other than those of the ancient deities/heroes. Not claims of recent charlatans performing wonders. These had very few followers, and nothing of their supposed mighty deeds was taken seriously enough to be recorded by anyone.
Recent charlatans, claiming to perform wonders, were rejected by 99% of the population in the 1st century as they are today, and accumulated only a tiny following of disciples. The stories that were taken seriously were not about current charlatans who only recently appeared, but those of
ancient prophets and deities, and also earlier gurus (e.g., Gautama) who had a long career and had accumulated a reputation over several generations/centuries.
The occasional charlatan who appears to be successful at winning disciples who believe in his superhuman power, winning a large following perhaps within only a few years rather than decades or generations, is always a case of one identifying with a specific ancient deity in whose name he performs his acts. E.g., mostly modern examples, cult founders, etc.
The Jesus of the gospels does not fit any of these patterns, which easily explain the miracle tales about the ancient deities, but which are contradicted by the sudden appearance of the new Christ cult(s), putting the Christ miracle legend totally OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of the 1st century AD and of the whole ancient period, from the first writings around 2000 BC forward into the Middle Ages.
(This Wall of Text to be continued)