Telling Lies about 1st-century miracle-workers
Misquoting Josephus
Is it sometimes appropriate to tell lies in order to promote an idea which is healthy for society, or to discourage some unhealthy beliefs people have?
Efraim Palvanov --
--
Here's a very reliable Jewish scholar who's right probably 98% of the time. Yet like so many other scholars, he feels the need to distort the truth about the 1st century context of Jesus. Again and again we hear the lie that there were other reported miracle-workers similar to Jesus -- in the first century AD especially, but also throughout the centuries prior to the appearance of Jesus in about 30 AD. But when you check the facts, this turns out to be a gross distortion. It has to go into the "LIE" category, because the facts are plain to anyone who investigates and asks who these miracle-workers were and what the sources are for them. And the sources are absent in all cases, and anyone could easily check the sources to determine this.
It's popular to toss out a laundry list of alleged ancient miracle-workers, but not quote the ancient sources for them.
. . . we find many messianic pretenders at that time, many people claiming to be Meshiac. Josephus mentions at least six, and at least another few who he doesn't say were Meshiac, but claimed the kingship, so he mentions many, 6, 7, 8, 9, different people who claimed to be the Messiah . . . a lot of them were miracle workers and had other things going for them, who had huge followings, tens of thousands of followers, maybe more . . .
It's necessary to get the facts straight, not make up our own facts in order to promote an ideology, as Palvanov does here: There are
no reported 1st-century miracle-workers in Josephus, though there is mention of the messiah-charlatans. It's mentioned that at least one of them promised to do "wonders and signs" with God's power, including to cause the walls of Jerusalem to collapse. But these are reported as charlatans only by Josephus, who says they did nothing except get their butts kicked by the Romans and their followers killed or put to flight.
It is dishonest to report these as "miracle-workers" when there is no report from anyone saying any such miracles were done by them, or that anyone believed they did such things. And even their fraudulent promises to do such acts are very few. It's false to say there were "many" such messianic pretenders who were miracle-workers. The number of those reported to have done such acts is zero, while the number of reported charlatan messianists
promising to do mighty deeds is probably only two. The account of them is in Josephus Antiquities Book 20, chapter 8 (8.6) (167), with mention also in the Book of Acts (5:36-37) (21:37-38). These are extremely rare cases in the literature suggesting there were reported miracle-workers. Outside of the Josephus and Book of Acts references there is nothing about them to be found. It's dishonest to pounce on such a rare mention of these charlatans and insinuate from this that there many reputed miracle workers running around, with Jesus being only one of many such characters.
This distortion of the truth is obviously done to insinuate that the reported Jesus miracles in the Gospel accounts are typical of many other such reported miracle legends of that period. This has to be labeled a LIE for its extreme distortion of the real historical situation and context of the 1st century. There is NO such miracle mentality of the period to be found in the popular Jewish-Greek-Roman culture prior to about 50 AD. The absence of such thinking is amazing if you look at the real facts of the time, to be found in the written accounts of the period. While as we proceed into the 2nd century and beyond, by contrast, we encounter a huge flood of such miracle myths and fads and folklore, showing the period before 50 AD to be vastly out of character to the historical period generally. The large body of Jewish literature stretching back several centuries, to 500 B.C., contains virtually zero miracle stories, with some cases of miracle legends popping up in earlier centuries, back to Moses, e.g.
The only serious miracle legend is that of Elijah/Elisha, in I and II Kings. These stories date from before 500 BC, leaving the following 500-600 years virtually devoid of any new miracle legends. And the Elijah/Elisha legends are virtually forgotten by Jews after 500 BC. There's virtually zero about them in the literature of the Hellenistic period up to the time of Jesus. It's only after the appearance of Jesus in the 1st century AD that we see a revival of interest in Elijah. There's nothing to provide any context for miracles or showing any Jewish need for miracle-workers during these pre-Christian centuries.
The charlatans mentioned in Josephus almost certainly had much larger followings than Jesus had -- "huge followings, tens of thousands of followers, maybe more" -- yes, and such political upheavals, insurrections, riots were the normal subject matter of the mainline historians who focused their attention on the wars and politics and affairs of the rich and powerful and not on a healer attracting hundreds or thousands of peasants seeking cures from their physical afflictions.
We talked about the Essenes, who believed in . . . their Teacher of Righteousness who would come and save them . . .
There is no claim in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Teacher of Righteousness either did miracles or was going to return and perform miracles later. There is no mention in all the Dead Sea Scrolls of anyone performing miracle acts. All the apocalyptic literature and other Jewish literature of this period is devoid of miracle-workers or miracle stories.
Exceptions? There might be 2 exceptions: The story of Tobit mentions one miracle (but no miracle-worker), and the Book of Daniel relates the 6th-century BC prophet escaping from the lions, while his enemies are cast into the den and promptly ripped to shreds and devoured. Also, Sirach recounts the prophets Elijah and Elisha (along with all the other Jewish heroes going back to Adam). These minor exceptions illustrate the rule that the Jewish culture of this period had virtually no interest in miracle legends or miracle-workers.
The popular theory is that the Jesus miracle stories are some kind of product of the general period, reflecting the current Jewish and pagan cultures. And yet no one ever produces examples of such miracle subject matter in that period. Instead history shows that the Jesus miracle-worker crashes into history, in about 30 AD, reported page after page performing these unprecedented miracle acts, with nothing earlier having any similarity to him showing what might have inspired those early believers to create this miracle-worker figure totally unlike anything earlier.
The question needs to be asked: Is there a need today to rewrite history, to distort the ancient history record, in order to discredit the picture of Jesus as a 1st-century miracle-worker? Is there a need to falsify the record, deny the facts from the written accounts, in order to stamp out the widespread belief in the miracles of Jesus? Is this belief in miracles 2000 years ago so dangerous and damaging to humans that it's best to stamp out this belief no matter what it takes? even to the point of lying about the historical record, making up stories about non-existent miracle-workers similar to Jesus? is the crusade to stamp out the Jesus belief so important that it's necessary to create fictions of our own in order to accomplish this reprogramming of people's minds today? Do we need this Enlightenment today, to implant the politically-correct ideas, to replace the facts of history with what we know to be more healthy kinds of thinking or believing? Do these more healthy kinds of thinking have more importance than the actual facts of history to be found in the ancient writings?
Why do these debunkers crusading to wipe the Jesus facts clean from the record need to go this far in order to accomplish this purging project? Of course they can honestly disbelieve the evidence from the 1st-century documents and suggest skepticism toward this evidence. But aren't they crossing the line when they fabricate their own miracle legends and plant them into Josephus or other ancient documents? Why does stamping out the Jesus miracle-worker take such high priority for these debunkers?
It's obvious that believers also tell lies in order to promote their beliefs, or make themselves more secure in their beliefs. Believers and nonbelievers alike do this, but why do
even the scholars do it? Shouldn't there be a consensus that the scholars should stop it?
Despite the above falsehoods by Palvanov, most of the lecture is truthful about how Christianity adopted symbols and traditions from the earlier Jewish and Greek and Roman culture. The post-biblical Jewish literature -- Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocalyptic literature, etc. -- is necessary for studying the direction of thought going into the Christian era.
. . . .
There's a theory among scholars that Jesus was trying to be that person, trying to be the 2nd Coming of the [Teacher of Righteousness], which is ironic because Christians today are waiting for the 2nd Coming of Jesus. But according to this theory, Jesus was the 2nd Coming of the [Teacher of Righteousness] already.
. . . There's a pattern here of various messianic leaders gathering huge followers and getting killed, getting martyred. . . . There were many other messianic pretenders . . .
(This Wall of Text to be continued)