(continued from previous Wall of Text)
Thingsweneverdid: The healings carried out by Vespasian seem designed to demonstrate the close association between the new emperor and the god. Healing was one of the powers long attributed to Sarapis, and the first healing miracle to be attributed to him was restoring sight to a blind man, one Demetrius of Phaleron, an Athenian politician. ("Spit in Your Eye: The Blind Man of Bethsaida and the Blind Man of Alexandria", Eric Eve, New Test. Stud. 54 (Cambridge University Press, 2008)
Note that the only evidence offered for the Vespasian miracle(s) is a quote from a modern scholar. The real sources for this are the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts. But these are not quoted because they are not very convincing. Nevertheless this is evidence and should be used if we're going to take seriously a claim that Vespasian performed any such miracle. And these sources cannot be discounted. The Tacitus account is adequate enough, but the Suetonius version is not very convincing.
Here's the Suetonius account of the miracle:
A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them,3 and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would any how succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases.
So the only statement here that Vespasian was successful in doing this cure of 2 victims is: "he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases."
So this is one source, for what it's worth.
Here's the other source (Tacitus) for the same miracle event:
One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his loss of sight, threw himself before Vespasian's knees, praying him with groans to cure his blindness, being so directed by the god Serapis, whom this most superstitious of nations worships before all others; and he besought the emperor to deign to moisten his cheeks and eyes with his spittle. Another, whose hand was useless, prompted by the same god, begged Caesar to step and trample on it. Vespasian at first ridiculed these appeals and treated them with scorn; then, when the men persisted, he began at one moment to fear the discredit of failure, at another to be inspired with hopes of success by the appeals of the suppliants and the flattery of his courtiers: finally, he directed the physicians to give their opinion as to whether such blindness and infirmity could be overcome by human aid. Their reply treated the two cases differently: they said that in the first the power of sight had not been completely eaten away and it would return if the obstacles were removed; in the other, the joints had slipped and become displaced, but they could be restored if a healing pressure were applied to them. Such perhaps was the wish of the gods, and it might be that the emperor had been chosen for this divine service; in any case, if a cure were obtained, the glory would be Caesar's, but in the event of failure, ridicule would fall only on the poor suppliants. So Vespasian, believing that his good fortune was capable of anything and that nothing was any longer incredible, with a smiling countenance, and amid intense excitement on the part of the bystanders, did as he was asked to do. The hand was instantly restored to use, and the day again shone for the blind man. Both facts are told by eye-witnesses even now when falsehood brings no reward.
Part of a complete English translation of the Histories. Very large site on classical Antiquity contains many classical texts and related material.
penelope.uchicago.edu
This has to be acknowledged as legitimate evidence. But note that Vespasian himself is very doubtful of the request and consults his medical experts. The miracle-worker himself, the Emperor, doesn't have any knowledge of the curing power, but he is instructed by the worshipers and the Serapis experts who know the proper ritual to be performed.
Tacitus seems to say that even by the time he writes of this, about 105 AD, the eye-witnesses still say it happened. This lends some credibility to the claim. Perhaps they really believed that the 2 victims recovered.
On the other hand, the Suetonius account only says the miracle attempt was successful, with no reference to the victims recovering, and with little mention of witnesses.
So we have 2 sources saying this miracle happened. This is evidence that something happened, one time only, with Vespasian somehow being an agent through which some kind of superhuman healing power happened to these 2 victims. How good is this evidence?
There are only 2 sources, for one event, and except for these 2 we have no evidence that Vespasian ever performed any miracles. 2 sources are better than only one. But we have only this one claimed miracle event (or one event with 2 victims healed), and only the 2 sources. Except for this there is no evidence that Vespasian ever did miracle acts.
Possibly you could argue that at least there's reason to believe Vespasian on this one occasion did a miracle. Or, some great divine intervention happened this one time in the career of Vespasian.
But there's a major factor which casts serious doubt on the whole thing: it's so easy to explain how Vespasian got credited with doing such a miracle, even if it did not happen at all. If the miracle event is easily explained, by ordinary natural means, then this natural explanation is more plausible than a miracle explanation.
the natural explanation for the Vespasian "miracle"
Emperor Vespasian was a famous popular hero celebrity, having millions of admirers across the Roman Empire, and such a popular hero can easily receive attention, in the pop media and in gossip, to bestow honors upon him, crediting him with miracles he never really performed. This had obviously happened, in some similar ways, to earlier heroes like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, and others.
And throughout history there are so many examples of a widely popular hero being credited with miracles or amazing achievements not normally possible. And this is especially so over time, after generations of further story-telling in which the original character gets expanded into a superman figure.
So this mythologizing element can much more easily explain how this miracle came to be credited to Vespasian, even if an actual healing never really happened. If there's another explanation why the worshipers believed it, then it doesn't matter that no healing really happened. Their belief can be explained even if a real healing did not happen here, and so it's more likely to be a psychological and religious interpretation and wish, rather than actual miracle event of someone healed.
(And yet, if the evidence in a particular case is especially strong, the miracle claim might still be the best explanation. But this evidence from Suetonius and Tacitus, in the Vespasian case, is dubious. The two writers seem to be harboring much doubt about it, and are just going along with it because of Vespasian's wide popularity.)
This is a normal pattern when religious people pray and do religious rituals, without any real healing of the victim(s) prayed for, because the worshipers are addicted to their popular hero or religious celebrity who inspires them to set aside their critical judgment and believe the narrative being presented to them. It's not unusual for worshipers to believe a miracle happened, such as miracle recovery from an illness, when these 2 factors are at work: 1) they pray to their ancient god which they already believe in as worshiping members of his cult, convinced that the Divine Power will intervene on their behalf, and 2) they focus on a popular hero figure, or religious charismatic, who has widespread recognition and status. So because of these 2 factors being present, a psychological explanation is more realistic, considering the vast popularity of Vespasian which easily explains why the miracle was believed even if a real miracle event did not happen.
contrast to the reported Jesus miracle acts: But this cannot explain the Jesus miracle healing stories, because he was not a famous or popular or powerful celebrity during his lifetime, or even for several decades afterward. Also, Jesus did not have status in any priesthood practicing an ancient religious cult ritual, nor did he invoke the ancient healing god or cult to give authority to him, as the Serapis worshipers recognized the authority granted to Vespasian.
Vespasian’s use of his foot to effect the other healing, whether by standing on the man’s hand (as in Tacitus) or touching the man’s leg with his heel (as in Suetonius) should be understood in light of the fact that a foot could be seen as a symbol of Sarapis. In some minds Vespasian’s two healings might be taken as a sign, not simply that Vespasian enjoyed Sarapis’s blessing, but that he was in some sense to be identified with the god. This is in part suggested by the ancient Egyptian myth that the kings of Egypt were sons of Re, the sun-god, and is further borne out by the fact that Vespasian was saluted as ‘son of Ammon’ as well as ‘Caesar, god’ when he visited the hippodrome only a short while later.
Note that there is no evidence here that a miracle healing took place. Virtually all the "evidence" for the Vespasian miracle is a focus on the symbolism and the ritual performance of the healing act, without reference to any actual healing which took place. The pagan miracle healings, such as they are, say little or nothing about a victim actually recovering, but only like to focus on the symbolism and interpretation and ancient teachings and rituals. With virtually nothing to tell us that a victim actually recovered.
When you consider any claim that a miracle took place, especially an instant healing, like we see in the Gospel accounts, you must look at the claim that the victim actually did recover, and require the description of this recovery. Is the recovery of the victim highlighted in the story? Or is it all about the fancy ritual, the fancy chanting and praying, the application of religious objects, the charisma of the charismatic healer, the appeal to the ancient gods, and other symbolism apart from the actual recovery of the victim?
Virtually all the ancient miracles in the written record are focused on the symbolism and religious pomp and intensity of the worshipers and priests and pundits, with little to say about benefits experienced by the devotees as a result of a miracle being performed. Does the written account tell us of the benefits to the victims? Far more likely than this are to be found praises to the god and his priests, and presentation of symbols and religious ceremony and commands to obey, and even threats of punishment and destruction of the enemies of the god, or enemies of the established priesthood and its laws and symbols.
And this miracle of Vespasian fits this pattern, with little said about the benefits or recovery of the victims or worshipers seeking the miracle power from him, while instead emphasizing the symbols and rituals, and glorifying the deity seeking to impose the rituals and symbolism onto the worshipers.
We have to ask: Where is the actual description of a recovering victim who is healed? In the Gospel accounts of Jesus healing victims, we see such description. But there is little or no such description in the Vespasian healings and other pagan examples.
That stories about healing blind men with spittle should independently arise around 70 CE in both Mark’s Gospel and Roman propaganda would be something of a coincidence.
Possibly there's a connection. But nothing to suggest that the Mark miracle stories are fictional. The "spit" connection could be a fictional element added later, maybe inspired by whatever also inspired this in the Vespasian story. It's likely Mark added some elements from the popular culture which were not in the original events from 30 AD, or in his earlier sources.
The coincidence becomes all the more striking given the parallel function of the stories: the Blind Man of Alexandria is a story that served to help legitimate Vespasian’s claim to the imperial throne, a claim also supported by various prophecies including Josephus’s reinterpretation of Jewish messianic expectations. The Blind Man of Bethsaida leads into Peter’s confession of Jesus as the messiah, but a messiah apparently misconceived in emperor-like terms.
Let's assume Mark's placement of this story is to introduce the Peter confession. This has nothing to do with whether the healing event actually happened. Mark's "Messiah" pronouncement might be a fact -- Peter actually said it -- or only Mark's theory which he put into Peter's mouth. Either way, it doesn't answer whether the miracle claim is credible. Did this healing act really happen or did it not? This is not answered by speculating what purpose the story is being used for by the author, in placing it into the account.
It's fine to ask the question why Mark includes this story, and why he puts it in this spot prior to the Peter confession. And it's reasonable to question the "spit" element in the story, because of the similarity to the Vespasian story -- coincidence -- which also includes the "spit" theme. But none of that leads to the conclusion that this healing of a blind man did not really happen.
If you're judging that Mark must have concocted a healing story here, in order to provide an occasion for his "Jesus as the messiah" thesis, there's a further question that also must be asked: Why did Mark believe Jesus was this messiah? or why did he promote this Jesus Messiah idea? and in particular:
Why Jesus and not someone else? like John the Baptist or James the Just? Why did Mark choose this Jesus character to be his messiah figure and not someone else? Were there not many other candidates for this role who would have been just as logical as Jesus? There were many other popular rabbis who had just as many disciples as Jesus -- many other revered prophets and rebels and martyrs who were just as entitled to the "Messiah" label as Jesus was. What did Jesus do that made him the proper choice to be placed into this role rather than the many others who could have been selected?
And likewise, why did several others, especially writers like Paul, designate this Jesus person rather than someone else for the Messiah role? This is a fundamental question which gets neglected. But you must try to answer this before you conjecture that the writer fabricates miracle stories in order to promote this Jesus Messiah theory as some kind of crusade. You have to explain how several different writers all converged onto this one Jesus figure for their crusade, making this one person their Messiah instead of many others who were equally qualified to fill this role. What brought all these divergent writers into this single project to promote only this one minor dissident character who got crucified as a rebel of some kind? Why this person in particular and no one else?
We have five of them who proclaim that this one was killed and buried and then resurrected back to life, bodily, being seen by many witnesses together -- and the four gospel writers all saying that he performed miracle healing acts, unlike anything found previously in the written record. How do you know they aren't reporting this for the simple reason that they believe it based on the evidence they've acquired? These reports reflect problems of discrepancies and doubt as to some details and yet agreement and corroboration on the main points, all serving to verify the overall picture of a person who did these acts in the time and places identified in the accounts.
If this picture of a miracle-worker is basically true, regardless of all the fine details, then we have the complete picture, with all the questions answered. And this agrees with the conjecture that a miracle story, such as the blind man at Bethsaida, is presented in a way to promote the Jesus Messiah theory, which the writer finds necessary to explain these unusual facts in his sources. That the miracle story is used to promote the theory doesn't in any way undermine the miracle story, because it's precisely this and other such evidence which has led the writer to adopt this theory.
Even if this were mere coincidence it seems likely that Mark’s audience would hear one story in terms of the other, but it seems even more likely that there is no coincidence and that Mark deliberately shaped the Blind Man of Bethsaida with the Blind Man of Alexandria in mind.
If "deliberately shaped" means only that the "spit" element was added by Mark, that does not undermine the credibility of this blind man story in general, as another case of a Jesus miracle healing act. And so maybe it's not a coincidence, but there is such a connection of the Vespasian story to Mark's use of this "spit" theme which he adds to his account. So it's not Mark's blind man story per se that is inspired by the Vespasian story, but rather the "spitting" idea he adds to the story.
And again, this idea might have been floating around generally, so that the Mark story and the Vespasian story are still not directly connected, but rather, the two are connected to this "spit" idea which was used by both. Either is possible, indirect or direct connection of the two miracle stories, with the INdirect connection seeming more plausible.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
