Is Jesus Christ ONLY ONE OF MANY reputed miracle-workers of Antiquity?
Who are the others? Where is the record of them? Where are the reports of their miracle deeds?
Your entire “logic” is predicated on the notion that there existed a first century equivalent of a newspaper of record that reported—for all posterity—on officially investigated “hoaxes” and/or reported every single idiotic claim that any person made, such that they could in turn be investigated and tracked.
No such fundamental record existed.
I'm not asserting anything which assumes such a record existed.
You most certainly are, just indirectly.
Rather than nitpicking over what that means, the fact is that there were several references to hoaxes but that there was no comprehensive record of all the hoaxes. And Jesus was by far the most documented of the reputed miracle-workers but is not identified as a hoax by any of the sources we have for the period.
So there's much mention of reputed miracle-workers who were hoaxes.
"Much"? You just said there were only two authors who wrote about such "hoaxes;" Lucian and Plutarch.
No, there was also Josephus. And there are ambiguous references to this or that presumed wonder-worker, e.g., Simon Magus mentioned in
Acts, and Josephus mentions Simon the Magician who might be the same character. Also it depends on how far back you want to go. There was the slave-revolt leader in 132 BC, Eunus, who was said to blow fire out from his mouth in some kind of trick. There are accounts of Romulus who died mysteriously, and the commoners were deceived by nobles who claimed he was taken away by the gods. This is described in accounts as probably a hoax perpetrated by those nobles.
So there are many stories, or reports of earlier events, saying there was a hoax played on people by someone. It was common to report these in the writings, as hoaxes, and these reports of hoaxes outnumber the miracle-workers reported as legitimate (if we count Jesus and Asclepius each as one reported miracle-worker). At least in comparison to reports saying a hoax was perpetrated, there are actually very few reported miracle-workers (reported as legitimate in the accounts) before 100 AD (unless one claims it's a "miracle" every time someone had a vision or made a prediction which came true, etc.). Rather, the total number of cases reported as legitimate by writers was vastly greater after 200 AD and the following centuries, when the pattern changes and the cases reported as legitimate outnumber the reported hoaxes.
Scoffing at miracle claims follows a pattern which changes from the Classic period into the Middle Ages, appearing in different forms. E.g., in the
Book of Acts Paul is quoted preaching the resurrection of Jesus to a crowd at Athens (ch. 17), and some in the crowd scoffed at him specifically in response to this claim. Scoffing at miracle claims or reputed wonder-workers is frequent in the literature at this time and earlier, and also there were very few cases of such reputed miracle-workers before 100 AD. But in the following centuries the number of reputed miracles vastly increased, while the scoffing decreased, so that the many stories reported in the following centuries are never scoffed at by the writers but are reported as legitimate events which happened, and our sources for reputed miracle-workers (e.g., St. Genevieve, St. Francis) are not skeptical writers who scoffed at it, as our sources frequently are for the cases many centuries earlier.
So, there was far more skepticism and scoffing at miracle claims before 200 AD and back into ancient times than there was from 200 AD forward for about 1000 years. It was during the early period of much more skepticism that the reported Jesus miracles appear, when there were very few such stories and virtually no miracle traditions leading up to the Christian Gospel accounts. But then, there is a sudden increase in such stories, after the Gospels appeared.
Lucian was a satirist born in 125 CE. He wasn't an historian by any measure and is considered, in fact, to be the grandfather of "science fiction." You are evidently mentioning him because he does not specifically call Christianity a "hoax" in any of the books that have survived the ravages of time.
No, his relevance is mainly that he debunked a fraudulent miracle-worker named Alexander.
But everything we know about Lucian comes from the writings that we have. For all we know, he could have written dozens of books about the still nascent Christian cult, all of which were either lost to time or deliberately destroyed by any number of later "Christians" at any point in time.
Including today.
Yes, for all we know, the Catholic Church might have sent out its book-burning squad, in recent times, and rounded up all books which debunk the Bible or Jesus etc., including all manuscripts back to the 1st century, and had them destroyed, paying off all the librarians and scholars to keep their mouths shut, and also murdering all authors and scientists having any dangerous facts, and it might have tortured all the scholars and forced them to rewrite the existing books and manuscripts and suppress all the evidence against Christianity. And maybe tomorrow it will send their Black Helicopters to snatch you out and torture you and all the other Bible-debunkers, to shut you up.
Regardless, the only time Lucian does mention Christians, however, it's in a personal letter he wrote to a friend ("Cronius") about
the death of Peregrine that had to have been written some time after 165 CE (i.e., after Pregrine/Proteus died).
Here's what he writes about Christians in that letter:
1 Poor dear Peregrine--or Proteus, as he loved to call himself,--has quite come up to his namesake in Homer.
...
10 That business about his father makes rather good hearing: only you know all about that;--how the old fellow would hang on, though he was past sixty already, till Proteus could stand it no longer, and put a noose about his neck. Well, this began to be talked about; so he passed sentence of banishment on himself, and wandered about from place to place.
11 It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue--he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. Well, the end of it was that Proteus was arrested and thrown into prison.
12 This was the very thing to lend an air to his favourite arts of clap-trap and wonder-working; he was now a made man. The Christians took it all very seriously: he was no sooner in prison, than they began trying every means to get him out again,--but without success. Everything else that could be done for him they most devoutly did. They thought of nothing else. Orphans and ancient widows might be seen hanging about the prison from break of day. Their officials bribed the gaolers to let them sleep inside with him. Elegant dinners were conveyed in; their sacred writings were read; and our old friend Peregrine (as he was still called in those days) became for them "the modern Socrates."
13 In some of the Asiatic cities, too, the Christian communities put themselves to the expense of sending deputations, with offers of sympathy, assistance, and legal advice. The activity of these people, in dealing with any matter that affects their community, is something extraordinary; they spare no trouble, no expense. Peregrine, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on trust, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. Now an adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who has seen the world, has only to get among these simple souls, and his fortune is pretty soon made; he plays with them.
14 'To return, however, to Peregrine. The governor of Syria perceived his mental warp: “he must make a name, though he die for it:” now philosophy was the governor's hobby; he discharged him–wouldn't hear of his being punished–and Peregrine returned to Armenia. He found it too hot to hold him. He was threatened from all quarters with prosecutions for parricide. Then again, the greater part of his property had disappeared in his absence: nothing was left but the land, which might be worth a matter of four thousand pounds. The whole estate, as the old man left it, would come perhaps to eight thousand. Theagenes was talking nonsense when he said a million odd. Why, the whole city, with its five nearest neighbours thrown in, men, cattle, and goods of every description , would never fetch that sum.
15 –Meanwhile, indictments and accusations were brewing: an attack might be looked for at any moment: as for the common people, they were in a state of furious indignation and grief at the foul butchery of a harmless old man; for so he was described. In these trying circumstances, observe the ingenuity and resource of the sagacious Proteus. He makes his appearance in the assembly: his hair (even in these early days) is long, his cloak is shabby; at his side is slung the philosopher's wallet, his hand grasps the philosopher's staff; truly a tragic figure, every inch of him. Thus equipped, he presents himself before the public, with the announcement that the property left him by his father of blessed memory is entirely at their disposal! Being a needy folk, with a keen eye to charity, they received the information with ready applause: “Here is true philosophy; true patriotism; the spirit of Diogenes and Crates is here!” As for his enemies, they were dumb; and if any one did venture an allusion to parricide, he was promptly stoned.
16 'Proteus now set out again on his wanderings. The Christians were meat and drink to him; under their protection he lacked nothing, and this luxurious state of things went on for some time. At last he got into trouble even with them; I suppose they caught him partaking of some of their forbidden meats. They would have nothing more to do with him, and he thought the best way out of his difficulties would be, to change his mind about that property, and try and get it back. He accordingly sent in a petition to the emperor, suing for its restitution. But as the people of Parium sent up a deputation to remonstrate, nothing came of it all; he was told that as he had been under no compulsion in making his dispositions, he must abide by them.
So what we get from this is a description of a group of primarily well-to-do Jews ("convinced him of his superiority...prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue" "partaking of some of their forbidden meats") who worshipped a
man (not a god) that was crucified (not resurrected) and supposedly worshipped Peregrine/Proteus
as a God as well.
Not as God, but
as a God. See the distinction? He describes this cult as being extremely superstitious and non-critical and basically easily duped by Proteus. Worshipped as a god; became devout to him; accepted his laws; made him "President" no less.
So are you arguing that all of this was true? I mean, it must be, because it was written down, right?
This might be something like "historical fiction" describing some Christians during Lucian's time and using the fictional Proteus character. It can't be used as a source for the historical Jesus of 30 AD.
But more important is Lucian's account of the charlatan Alexander of Abonoteichus, or Alexander the False Prophet
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/lucian_alexander.htm :
AN account of the false priest of Asclepius, Alexander of Abonoteichus. It has been discussed in detail by Cumont in the Mémoires couronnées de l’academie de Belgique, vol. xl (1887).
Although Alexander achieved honour not only in his own country, a small city in remote Paphlagonia, but over a large part of the Roman world, almost nothing is known of him except from the pages of Lucian. Gems, coins, and inscriptions corroborate Lucian as far as they go, testifying to Alexander’s actual existence and widespread influence, and commemorating the name and even the appearance of Glycon, his human-headed serpent. But were it not for Lucian, we should not understand their full significance. Alexander's . . .
Lucian's account of this character is more appropriate here, because it's not fiction but is about a real historical figure. Like the gospel accounts are not fiction but are about real persons in history. This is about the period after the Asclepius cult revived at around 100 AD, after the Gospel accounts of Jesus had begun circulating:
. . . full significance. Alexander’s religious activity covered roughly the years A.D. 150-170. The cult which he established outlasted him for at least a century. It was highly unusual in its character, as Cumont observes. Sacred snakes were a regular feature of sanctuaries of Asclepius ; but to give a serpent a human head and style it the god incarnate was a distinct innovation. Moreover, the proper function of Asclepius was to heal the sick, who passed the night in his temple, expecting either to be cured while they slept or to have some form of treatment suggested to them in their dreams. But at Abonoteichus we hear nothing of incubation, and only incidentally of healing; the “new Asclepius” deals in oracles like Apollo, and gives advice on any subject. This, together with Alexander’s extravagant claims of divine descent, confirms Lucian in his appraisal of him as an out-and-out charlatan, aiming to play upon the gross credulity of the times and to secure the greatest gain with the least effort.
Lucian was in a position to know a good deal about Alexander, and clearly believes all that he says. Without doubt his account is essentially accurate, but it need not be credited absolutely to the letter. Lucian was no historian at best, and he was angry. In the account of his relations with Alexander he reveals his own personality more clearly than usual, but not in a pleasant light.
The piece was written at the request of a friend, after A.D. 180, when Alexander had been in his grave for ten years.
There were charlatans, or hoax miracle-workers, here and there, and we have more reports of them than we have of reputed real miracle-workers (reported as authentic by the writers). So it's not unreasonable to expect that someone would write an account of Jesus the charlatan, if there was reason to believe that the miracle claims in the Gospels were a hoax.
As for Plutarch, who was actually a biographer and a philosopher (and a Platonist), he, of course, lived much closer to Jesus' alleged death (i.e., born in 45 CE- 120 CE). He influenced early Christians, but does not write about them most likely for the obvious reason that they weren't much of anything until much later in his life. GMark isn't even written until the late 70's and from Lucian we get that they are basically a Jewish splinter cult at best by about the time Plutarch dies.
I mentioned Plutarch with Lucian because of the following quote from Richard Carrier's "Kooks and Quacks" article
https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html :
Miracles were also a dime a dozen in this era. The biographer Plutarch, a contemporary of Josephus, engages in a lengthy digression to prove that a statue of Tyche did not really speak in the early Republic (Life of Coriolanus 37.3). He claims it must have been a hallucination inspired by the deep religious faith of the onlookers, since there were, he says, too many reliable witnesses to dismiss the story as an invention (38.1-3). He even digresses further to explain why other miracles such as weeping or bleeding--even moaning--statues could be explained as natural phenomena, . . . Clearly, such miracles were still reported and believed in his own time. I find this to be a particularly interesting passage, since we have thousands of believers flocking to weeping and bleeding statues even today. Certainly the pagan gods must also exist if they could make their statues weep and bleed as well!
Carrier lists Plutarch's excerpt here along with mentions of charlatans by Josephus and Lucian. However, checking more closely, it turns out that the Plutarch text is not about charlatans, but only about the gullibility of worshipers who imagine seeing the statues weeping or hearing them vocalize. And Carrier relates this Plutarch excerpt to modern claims of "weeping statues" where there are hoaxes played on the worshipers, though that isn't what Plutarch is saying.
But still there are many examples of hoax reports. Probably even from Plutarch, though his point here about the statues was only about the gullibility of some worshipers and not about a hoax.
But there is no way to explain the Jesus miracle acts as fictional
Nonsense. Look at Lucian's letter. In that letter he writes a fictional account.
We know it's fictional because the characters in it are fictional, unlike the Gospels which are about real historical figures. There is a real historical setting with real historical figures named, with the events placed during the reign of Tiberius and when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. Lucian's fiction story names no historical figures or characters who were real persons. But by contrast, his account of Alexander the false prophet is non-fiction, being about a real historical figure in a real historical setting.
And Paul's epistles are not fictional accounts. He names real persons, at the churches in Judea, with whom he met. Jesus Christ was a real person, and also James, who Paul calls "brother of the Lord," and Josephus also mentions James, who he says is brother of Jesus "who was called Christ." So our sources for the Jesus miracle acts are not fictional, not about non-existent fictional characters, but about real persons in history, mentioned in several documents as real persons.
Or are you now arguing that what Lucian wrote is non-fiction, in which case you'd need to . . .
He wrote both fiction and non-fiction. There's no need to place every author neatly into the "fiction" or the "non-fiction" category.
. . . you'd need to explain how the Christians of circa 160 CE could have taken Proteus as a God and made him their "President" accordingly. Did they not already believe that there was only one God (in three parts, no less)?
It's not clear what your point is. The Lucian story is fiction, while the gospel accounts describe real historical events taking place in Judea-Galilee at about 30 AD. Of course there could be errors in the gospel accounts, just like there are in Josephus and Herodotus, etc., but these are factual accounts reporting what happened, or what the authors believed had happened, unlike the Lucian story.
However, the other Lucian account, about Alexander the false prophet, is factual. And this too probably contains some error (fiction), but it is a factual account, not fictional, based on what Lucian believed was historically accurate.
"The accounts" are GMark (fiction) and . . .
You can condemn any writings as "fiction" which you don't like. By that standard there are no reliable accounts about anything, and there is no historical record.
Most of Mark is about characters we have no information about outside the NT. However, there are four real historical figures in the account (in addition to Jesus Christ), who we know really existed: John the Baptist, Herod Antipas, Herodias, and Pontius Pilate.
For three of these we have verification outside the NT that GMark is about real people in history, not someone fictitious. For Pilate and all the other characters we have no way to verify Mark's report about them, i.e., what they did, but there's nothing to contradict his account. So, all Mark's characters are likely real historical persons rather than fictional, but only for John the Baptist and Herod Antipas and Herodias do we have exterior confirmation of what he says about them. Pilate also is historical, though we have no confirmation for Mark's reports on Pilate (outside the NT) as we have for his reports on the other three.
This doesn't mean every detail in Mark about these three is accurate, but it's giving a factual account of them, reporting what the author thought really happened, or who these historical persons were and what they actually did. There are some discrepancies, but GMark is about real people in history and is therefore not fiction. Whereas Lucian's Proteus story is not about real historical figures. But you're free to purge from the historical record anything you wish didn't happen and condemn it as fiction, because we don't have a time machine for returning to the past to confirm what really happened, and all our documents could be forgeries, and all the historical record might be fraudulent, if that's what you wish to believe.
"The accounts" are GMark . . . and Paul . . .
No, there are 5 accounts, not only 2. The 4 gospels are not the same one source. They are all from the 1st century and are close enough to the reported events for each to be treated as a legitimate source, like any other document is considered a source for events that recent, in the ancient history record. Just because 2 of them quote from Mark does not eliminate them as separate sources in themselves.
. . . and Paul desperately arguing that a belief that Jesus was spiritually resurrected was a necessity or else there was no religion, which in turn conclusively proves that . . .
Your depiction of what Paul was arguing is your subjective word game. There's nothing in Paul saying "or else there was no religion" etc. If you want to use Paul to prove something, you have to quote him rather than putting your words into his mouth.
We have five sources, or accounts: the 4 gospels and the Paul epistles. These five sources are more than enough to establish the general facts, and of course there are many details one can dispute, as with any accounts we rely on for historical facts.
. . . which in turn conclusively proves that the "Christians" (at least the gentiles, which were the only ones Paul was trusted to handle by the actual disciples) didn't even believe Jesus had resurrected.
No, it indicates that some of the Greeks farther distant from the event had doubts about the claims of resurrection. Some believed and some disbelieved. That's what we should expect if the resurrection etc. actually did happen.
Marry that fact to what Lucian writes--that the Christians he referred to in or around 165 CE worshipped a man (not a god) who . . .
This helps confirm that Jesus performed the miracle acts. Because it says they worshiped him, and there is no explanation WHY they did this if he did not perform the miracle acts described in our sources for the event of about 30 AD. There has to be a reason why they worshiped him "as a god." What is the reason, based on the evidence from the 1st century, close to the time? The best answer is the reports of the miracle acts, including the resurrection, in our only sources. If that's not why some worshiped him "as a god," then what is the reason?
. . . who was crucified (not resurrected) and evidently had no . . .
It's OK to assume Lucian did not believe the resurrection. But he doesn't say that, and he had no information about what happened, other than from the earlier sources which say Jesus did resurrect. Lucian had no sources of information except those reporting that the resurrection did happen. He knew nothing except what's in those sources.
. . . had no problems worshipping other men as a God as well--
There were a few persons who were worshiped "as a god." E.g., the Roman emperor. In every such case we can recognize the REASON WHY a person was worshiped "as a god." It was always because of something unusual they did, or the unusual power they exerted in some way, and this got exaggerated into a claim about their divine status.
So, whoever was worshiped "as a god" -- you must explain WHY they were worshiped this way. Only one in a million (or 10 million) was worshiped "as a god." So there has to be something very unusual in their case, and you can always identify what it was in any case where we have some reports or sources telling who he was and what he did. Such as we have for the Roman emperor, who exerted vast power over millions of humans who were forced to obey and do homage to the ruler.
So then, what was unusual about Jesus that many people worshiped him "as a god" as this text says they did? By far the best answer is that he performed the miracle acts reported in the Gospel accounts, or, you can say it's that people
believed he did those acts. But then you must explain why they believed it but not similar claims about anyone else. Why were there such claims about him, recorded in writings, multiple sources, in a period 30-70 years after his death? and for someone who had no political power like emperors and kings did? There is no other example of such a thing. Why would a large number believe such claims about Jesus and write accounts of it, but not for anyone else?
. . . and you've got a good 150 years after Jesus' alleged death where the extra-biblical world informs us he was just a man that was killed.
No, there were extra-biblical writings by then saying he was the Son of God who was killed and then resurrected. By 180 AD some of the early Church writings had appeared, e.g., Justin Martyr, Epistle of Barnabas, which affirmed the Resurrection and other reports in the Gospels.
But why are you obsessed with writings 150 years later as a source for the historical Jesus? We must rely on the earliest sources, which are the Paul epistles and the Gospel accounts. The farther distant we go from the earliest sources, the more we find new distortions and tales being fabricated, new theological interpretations and confusions getting mixed in with the original facts. So someone's interpretation of what Christians thought in 180 AD "informs us" nothing concerning the historical Jesus in 30 AD.
But there is no way to explain the Jesus miracle acts as fictional, given the accounts and the proximity to the reported events and the lack of any explanation how Jesus could have become the object of mythologizing such as famous and powerful figures like Alexander the Great or Emperor Vespasian were mythologized, or how people could have mistaken Jesus to have divine healing power . . .
People didn't. Cult leaders did.
Cult leaders are not "people"?
There's no way to explain how cult leaders 30 or 40 years later would mistake only Jesus to have divine healing power and not any other prophet or rabbi also. There were many "cult leaders" and many rabbis and prophets and priests and messiah pretenders of one kind or another who could be imagined to have miracle power. The "cult leaders" at this time were not united around any one doctrine or any one rabbi or prophet or guru.
Whatever "cult leaders" you have in mind, they did not all think alike or all have the same philosophy or revolutionary program. There were anti-Roman and pro-Roman cult leaders, there were mainline Jews and rabbis, and there were dissident Jews like the Essenes and Zealots. And there were Gnostics and other mystics, whose influence got into the NT writings. Why would all these differing "cult leaders" come together around this one person only and agree to make him their miracle-working Messiah?
If he did nothing unusual, then how did he stand out such that they all united around him only, to crown him King of the Jews, and not around anyone else, like John the Baptist, or some other rabbi or prophet or sage? Why don't we have several miracle-working Messiah figures appearing instead of only this one?
You are assuming fictional stories are non-fictional and then claiming the fact that they are non-fictional to be evidence that they are non-fictional.
You mean like fictional stories in Herodotus and Josephus and other historians? (They do contain some fiction.)
The Gospel accounts and Paul epistles are non-fiction because they are about non-fictional real historical persons, in a particular historical setting, naming particular historical persons as some of the characters, and connected to real events, some of which are verified.
If you mean it's fictional in the same way that Josephus and Herodotus contain some fiction, then you can call them that, but they are about real people and the general events reported are factual, despite the fictional element, like the particular dialogue and words which the writer presumably chose. In some cases the dialogue might be totally created by the editor-writer, which also happens in some of the historical documents, which are still evidence for the general events and are non-fiction. It's difficult at times to distinguish the historically precise content from the fictional element in the historical writings. But they are still credible sources for the events, and history is based on them.
We have that same kind of "fiction" in Josephus and Herodotus and other historians, and some historians may be more credible than these two. But the fictional element does not change a factual account of the events into fiction.
Then you reference Lucian who confirms that Jesus was just a man who was killed that his followers worshipped as a God, not as God, just like they did Proteus.
Lucian's account is not about real people, while the Gospel accounts are about real historical persons, like John the Baptist and Herod Antipas and others. And some of the events reported are verified, unlike anything in Lucian's Proteus story.
Lucian is a credible source for events of his time, in the 2nd century. He is not a source for anything happening in 30 AD. Even his fictional Proteus story might be partly reliable for information about people of that time, as his account of Alexander the false prophet is a reliable source for that period. But those 2nd-century writings have nothing to do with the historical Jesus in 30 AD.
So is Proteus now also God?
No, he's the Jolly Green Giant.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
