Quotations
"Jesus was only one of many rabbis
who traveled through the country side preaching and healing, and his life
and death were scarcely noticed in secular records of the time."
Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 19, 1993
"There is little doubt that Jesus
performed exorcisms as they were understood in his time ... It was just a
natural thing to do for an itinerant charismatic healer and teacher ...
and he was not the only one to do it."
John Rousseau, U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 20, 1993
"What if the notion of a single,
miraculous, point of origin [of Christianity] was acknowledged for what
it was, not a category of critical scholarship at all, but an article of
faith derived from Christian mythology?"
Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence
The Search for a Non-Unique Jesus
Built into the naturalistic assumption
that drives the liberal New Testament search for the "man behind the myth"
is the notion that, whoever Jesus was, he cannot have been utterly unique.
The laws that operate in the world today, including the laws of human behavior,
have always operated. And thus, when we are trying to understand who Jesus
was, they argue, we must assume that he was in principle like the rest
of us.
The major obstacle to this, of course,
is that the New Testament unequivocally speaks of Jesus in radically unique
terms. It is reported that he made unprecedented claims for himself, lived
a truly extraordinary life, performed miraculous deeds, drove out demons,
and was raised from the dead. How is this radical uniqueness to be explained
if the "real" Jesus was, in fact, in principle no different from other
people?
One major "discovery" that helps
explain this, in the eyes of many liberal scholars, is that such claims,
and such deeds, were not all that uncommon in the ancient world. The Gospel
portrayal of Jesus as a miracle working "divine man," it is argued, has
many parallels. Thus, for example, we sometimes read in the media or in
popular books certain scholars claiming that stories about virgin births
were also told about Alexander the Great; stories about people being raised
from the dead were also told about a man named Apollonius; stories about
resurrected deities were also told in ancient "mystery religions"; stories
about healings and exorcisms were also told about a host of magicians in
the ancient world; and stories about stupendous miracles were also told
about certain Jewish holy men.
The Bible's supernatural stories
of Jesus, then, are not all that unique after all. To people who have always
assumed that Jesus was unique, these reports can obviously be most disturbing.
But, in the interest of being truly "religiously literate," you need to
know that there is another side to this story.
Jesus the Psychosomatic Healer
The observation that there were others
in the ancient world who purportedly performed miracles just as Jesus did
can be pushed in one of two directions. Some liberal scholars, following
a tactic used by the skeptical philosopher David Hume two centuries ago,
argue that the miracle stories in the ancient world cancel each other out.
That is, if we're not willing to believe the other stories of healings,
exorcism, and divination found in other ancient literature, then we shouldn't
feel compelled to believe the miraculous stories about Jesus either. All
such stories are on the same par. They are legendary.
An increasing number of other scholars,
however, find the historical evidence that Jesus actually performed something
like healings and exorcisms too strong to be rejected, and thus hold that
Jesus must have possessed some sort of extraordinary power. But, they continue,
this extraordinary power was not necessarily unique to Jesus. While it
is perhaps foreign to modern westerners, it was not uncommon in the ancient
world. Nor is it yet uncommon, some would add, in other parts of the world
today. So, while many of the ancient stories about healers and exorcists
may be legendary -- including some of the stories in the Gospels -- some may
in fact contain an element of historical truth. But this, they argue, does
not make Jesus altogether unique.
Thus, to mention a few of the most
noteworthy examples of this view, Geza Vermes, Marcus Borg, and Sean Freyne
see Jesus as an example of certain Jewish charismatic healers and/or wonder-workers
that we know of in ancient Judaism. Scholars like John Hull, Morton Smith,
and Otto Böcher, however, see Jesus as one more example of the various
magicians and/or exorcists that roamed the ancient world and that can be
found in some primordial cultures today. In both cases, something extraordinary
and perhaps even inexplicable about Jesus' ministry is admitted.
This position is better than the
view that writes off all of Jesus' "miraculous" ministry as legendary in
that these scholars at least see that the Gospels' stories about Jesus
working miracles couldn't have been conjured up from nothing. And, while
these scholars don't usually embrace anything like a traditional Christian
"supernatural" explanation for Jesus' ministry -- it wasn't necessarily God
the Father who worked through Jesus -- they are at least willing to stretch
their understanding of the natural world far enough to encompass the radically
"extraordinary." This is a small step in the right direction.
Nevertheless, this view does little
by way of coming to grips with the New Testament proclamation that Jesus
was the unique Son of God and that it was God the Father (not merely an
extraordinary ability) who was working through him in a miraculous way
to confirm his unique Sonship. While admitting that Jesus performed extraordinary
feats, these scholars nevertheless usually explain this as a natural ability,
howbeit an ability that is foreign to most western people (hence it is
called "extraordinary").
The most prevalent explanation of
this extraordinary ability among scholars today is that Jesus was a "faith
healer" correcting "psychosomatic disorders." He probably used some sort
of "trancelike therapy," Crossan speculates, such as is used by shamans
today in primordial cultures. [ 1 ] Many within the Jesus Seminar embrace
something like this explanation. But, in any case, the central controversial
point made by such explanations as this is that Jesus was not unique.
What is one to make of such explanations?
Is there really historical evidence that indicates that there were others
who did what Jesus did? Is the portrait of Jesus as "divine" in the New
Testament shared by others in the ancient world? And are such stories as
the virgin birth and the resurrection found outside the Bible and attributed
to other figures? In the minds of many scholars -- those usually not given
much press time -- these parallels between Jesus and other ancient "wonder
workers" are not very impressive.
The Uniqueness of Jesus' Claims and
Deeds
For starters, the Bible never questions
the fact that healings, exorcisms, and other miraculous acts can be done,
by whatever means, by a wide variety of people. Nowhere does it assume
that such feats are the exclusive domain of Jesus, or of his followers.
Nor has such a claim ever been part of the Christian Church's official
teaching. In principle, therefore, a person who believed in Scripture should
have little difficulty also accepting that certain ancient wonder-workers
performed feats that to some degree parallel Jesus' own ministry -- if the
evidence indicates this (more on this below). For it is not Jesus' supernatural
power that, in and of itself, makes Jesus unique.
What makes Jesus radically unique,
according to the New Testament, is not so much that he performed supernatural
deeds, but why he performed them! For Jesus, such feats were never just
random exhibitions of a curious ability he possessed. Such feats rather
expressed and demonstrated the truth that he embodied the Kingdom of God.
"If I drive out demons by the finger of God," Jesus says, "then the kingdom
of God has come to you" (Lk. 11:20).
Such "signs," as John calls them
(Jn. 4:54), expressed God's unconditional love and amazing concern for
the needs of people, and they were demonstrations of the truth that Jesus
Christ was the Son of God who had come to save the world. They expressed
and demonstrated the truth that God himself was graciously present in,
and working through, this one unique historical person to set up his kingdom
on earth. It is, then, the total picture of who Jesus is that is radically
unique. This uniqueness includes, is expressed by, and is verified by,
his supernatural deeds. But it is not reducible to these supernatural deeds.
Whatever we make of the supposed
parallels to the deeds of Jesus, we can conclusively say that there is
not, and never has been, anything remotely parallel to the total picture
of Jesus we find in the New Testament.
Greek Heroes and Wonder-Workers
We see, then, that even if there
were people in the ancient world who, either by Godly, demonic, or parapsychological
power, did deeds that somewhat parallel Jesus' miraculous deeds, the uniqueness
of Jesus which the New Testament speaks of is not thereby compromised.
But, many scholars would argue, we do not have any good reason to admit
such parallels in the first place. When the supposed parallels are taken
on a case by case basis, they do not stand up to scrutiny.
Legendary "Divine Men"
Perhaps the most frequently cited
parallels for Jesus' ministry come from various stories that circulated
in the Greco-Roman world about certain legendary "divine men." Many emperors
were spoken of as being "a god" by the common people, and stories would
sometimes spring up about them that attributed supernatural deeds to them.
The most frequently cited example
of this is Alexander the Great. Alexander was said to have been born to
a virgin, to have done wondrous deeds, and to have accepted accolades as
being a god. Do these facts undermine the uniqueness of the Gospels story
that Jesus was born to a virgin, did miraculous deeds, and was worshipped
as God? On the basis of the following considerations, many scholars would
answer this in the negative.
-
The earliest accounts of Alexander we
possess contain none of the features of later legends about him. But, despite
the best efforts of certain scholars, no "pre-supernatural" stage of the
Jesus tradition can be found.
-
The stories of Alexanders' supernatural
life developed gradually over a thousand year period of time. This hardly
parallels the Gospel accounts which are written within thirty or forty
years of Jesus' life and which demonstrably contain material that is even
earlier.
-
The legendary accounts of Alexander
arise after Christianity -- indeed, after Christianity has spread throughout
the entire Roman world. Hence, it is likely that the stories of Alexander
have been influenced by stories about Christ.
-
The Gospel's were written in the context
of a Jewish world view which held, as a central feature of its theology,
that human beings could not be God. The accounts of Alexander were circulated
in pagan environments where the concept of "divinized men" (men being transformed
into a god) was common. Thus, when the Gospels and Epistles of the New
Testament portray Jesus in divine terms, it has a much more profound significance
than when Alexander, or any pagan person, is called "a god."
For these reasons, many scholars judge
all attempts to reduce Jesus to a anything like a Greek "divinized man"
to be completely misguided.
Apollonius the Wonder-Worker
Slightly more compelling, however,
are the supposed parallels between Jesus and a certain Apollonius of Tyana,
and for this reason he is the most frequently cited Greek parallel to the
New Testaments portrait of Jesus. Like Jesus, Apollonius is said to have
lived in the first century, was said to have healed people, to have exorcised
demons, to have perhaps raised a young girl from the dead, and to have
appeared to some of his followers after his death. These parallels with
Christianity initially look impressive. But on closer inspection, their
impressiveness diminishes considerably. Consider the following:
-
We have some reason to suspect that
Philostratus, the biographer of Apollonius, had financial motives for embellishing
his account. He had been commissioned by empress Julia Damna, a follower
of Apollonius, to write an account for the expressed purpose of glorifying
Apollonius on the occasion of a Temple being constructed in his honor (funded
by Julia's son, Caracalla). The Gospel accounts, of course, were also written
to glorify Jesus Christ -- though, in the interest of truth, they also contain
features that appear counter-productive to this intention, as we shall
see. But, more importantly, it is also clear that the authors of the Gospels
had nothing personal to gain, and everything to loose, by publishing their
works. One can not therefore suspect them of possessing ulterior motives.
-
The account of Apollonius is composed
in the early third century in Cappadocia where Christianity had been present
for a long while. This greatly increases the likelihood that stories about
Apollonius had been influenced by earlier stories about Christ. Discovering
parallels between the two, then, is not surprising.
-
The account of Apollonius is filled
with overt sensationalism centered on Apollonius' use of charms, omens,
incantations, etc. The Gospel accounts, however, are remarkable sober in
their telling of Jesus' deeds. They read like straight forward reports,
and altogether lack the sensationalism and superstition found in Philostratus'
account.
-
Finally, even though he had been commissioned
to write a biography glorifying Apollonius, Philostratus' account is often
quite tentative. He reports what has been said about Apollonius, whereas
the Gospels write from the perspective of eyewitnesses. In the account
of Apollonius raising the young girl from the dead, for example, Philostratus
reports that some say that the girl "seemed to have died," but others say
that Apollonius had detected "some spark of life in her which those who
were nursing her had not noticed."
This tentative resuscitation is hardly
parallel to (say) the story of Jesus raising Lazareth from the dead after
he'd already been decomposing for four days (Jn. 11:38-44). And it can
in no wise stand next to the four Gospel accounts of Jesus himself rising
from the dead! Whoever the real Apollonius was, therefore, he provides,
at best, a very shaky parallel to Jesus.
Christianity and the Mystery Religions
There were, throughout the Greco-Roman
world, numerous secret religious societies that have come to be called
"mystery religions." While they frequently had features in common with
one another, they each had their own deity, their own mythological stories,
their own initiation rites, and their own esoteric religious practices.
Liberal scholars early in this century frequently argued that Christianity
borrowed many of its ideas from these mystery religions. They argued, for
example, that the notion of a "dying and rising god," of "being cleansed
by the blood," and even of baptism and communion were inherited from these
mystery religions.
By the second world war, however,
this theory had universally been abandoned by scholars because the evidence
for it was so scanty. Recently, however, a few of the scholars that are
getting media attention, such as Burton Mack, have attempted to resurrect
it. In his popular book, The Lost Gospel, for example, Mack argues that
the apostle Paul formed "a spirited cult ... on the model of the mystery
religions, complete with entrance baptisms ... rites of recognition ... [and]
ritualized meals (the lord's supper) ... " [ 2 ] And so, in the interest of
getting "the rest" of the story, a brief rebuttal is in order. Five basic
points can be made against it.
-
We have no concrete evidence of what
mystery religions believed or practiced before the second century A.D.,
and most of the evidence from which supposed parallels are drawn is much
later than this. There is, therefore, simply no basis for arguing that
Christianity borrowed from these religions. If there was any borrowing,
it was in the other direction.
-
Some mystery religions did speak about
a "dying and rising god," but this bears absolutely no resemblance to the
Gospel's proclamation that Jesus died and rose from the dead. As most scholars
now realize, the deities of these mystery religions were simply symbols
of the cycles of the seasons. Vegetation dies in the fall and winter but
is "resurrected" in the spring. Ancient people frequently created myths
to express the mystery of this on-going occurrence. The death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, as its portrayed in the Gospels, has absolutely nothing
to do with this.
-
The deities of the mystery religions
are completely divorced from history, whereas the Jesus of the Gospel is
completely rooted in history. What these mythological deities did, including
their dying and rising, happened "once upon a time." The Jesus that the
Gospel's speak of, however, lived just prior to the writing of the Gospels.
People were still around who knew him, his mother, his brother (James),
and Pontius Pilot under whom he was crucified, when they were written.
In this light, the attempt to draw any parallel between the resurrected
Christ of the Gospels and vegetation deities has to be judged as desperate.
-
The attempt to draw parallels between
the mystery religions practice of baptism and communion is no better. First,
all of the evidence for such supposed parallels comes after the third century.
So, if there is in fact any commonality between these and Christianity,
it must be attributed to the mystery religion borrowing from Christianity,
not the other way around. But, even more fundamentally, the supposed points
of commonality simply do not exists if you examine them on a case by case
basis. We know, for example, that devotees of the god Mithra would stand
under a bull while it was gutted and would be bathed in its blood. They
would, with the other devotees, then eat the bull. This was part of their
initiation into the inner circle of the Mithra cult. One could call this
"baptism" and a "communion meal" if they wished. But trying to argue that
it actually parallels Christian baptism and communion is outlandish.
-
Finally, it is important to remember
that Christianity was born within a Jewish, not a pagan, culture. While
the religions of the Greco-Roman world were very eclectic, borrowing freely
from various religions and philosophy in their environment, orthodox Jews
always resisted such a practice. They knew that they had been called by
God to be "a separate people." They therefore looked on pagan ideas and
practices with disdain. This was carried over into Christianity. It is
reflected, for example, in the apostle Paul's warning to steer clear of
pagan philosophy and mythology, for it might corrupt the Gospel (Col. 2:6-8;
I Tim. 6:20). To suggest that the early Jewish followers of Jesus would
have, or could have, modeled their religion after their pagan neighbors
flies in the face of this.
Jesus and Ancient Magicians
A third area from which certain scholars
have tried to construe parallels between Jesus and others in the ancient
world concerns the widespread practice of magic. Unlike the evidence for
mystery religions, there is a wealth of evidence that a good many people
in the ancient world believed in the effective power of such things as
protective charms, love potions, spells, and incantations. And many times
this magic was used to effect physical healing in people's lives or to
deliver them from evil spirits.
It is not surprising, then, that
some scholars such as Morton Smith and John Hull have tried to make the
case that the historical Jesus was simply an ancient magician. There are
a number of considerations, however, that put this theory quickly to rest.
I shall briefly outline the three that are the most forceful.
-
The Jesus of the Gospels never bases
his healings or his exorcisms on magic. All of his miracles are based on
a) God's concern for the individual, and b) the individual's faith. "According
to your faith," Jesus repeatedly says, "be it unto you" (e.g. Mt. 9:2,
22, 29). This approach has nothing in common with the magical practices
of his day in which people invested objects, formulas, or rituals with
power. If one is going to argue that the "real" Jesus was a magician, one
is going to have to dismiss all the evidence we have of him to do so. And
this doesn't enhance the credibility of any theory.
-
Relatedly, Jesus never employed anything
like magical practices in his healings or exorcisms. He twice applied spit
on a blind man's eyes, and once on a mute person's tongue, while performing
healings (Jn. 9:6, Mk. 7:33, 8:23), and some have found parallels to this
in extant magical literature. But the similarity is only apparent, for
it is nowhere suggests that this practice somehow contributed to the healing
process. The fact remains that we never find Jesus using spells, incantations,
or magical objects such as amulets, ashes, dog's hair, or incense such
as we find throughout the ancient magical literature. And this renders
the thesis that Jesus was anything like the magicians of his age most unlikely.
-
While we have a wealth of literature
on the belief in magic in the ancient world, we possess no reliable literature
which suggests that the practitioners of this magic were actually successful.
Many, of course, claimed that their magic worked, just as practitioners
of magic today claim that their crystals, mini-pyramids, incantations,
etc. work. They "feel" luckier, healthier, more protected, and so on. But
such convictions can hardly be said to parallel the kind of thing we find
in the Gospels. Here we do not find formula's that someone thinks will
work: here we find four reliable accounts of how an extraordinary man did
work.
For reasons such as this, the attempt
to argue that the historical Jesus was just another magician must be judged
as being misguided. How Jesus healed and casts out demons was as unique
as why he healed and performed exorcisms. And, most certainly, it had nothing
to do with magic.
Jewish Miracle-Workers
The final, and most compelling, area
from which some recent scholars attempt to draw parallels which call into
question the uniqueness of Jesus' ministry is found in what certain scholars
have called "charismatic Judaism." There were, according to Geza Vermes
and others, certain Jewish "holy men" about whom miraculous stories are
told which look similar to the stories told about Jesus. We have, then,
good reason to see Jesus as one more example of these holy men, the only
difference being that Jesus' followers eventually formed a religion that
broke away from Judaism while the followers of other holy men did nothing
of the sort.
This approach has the distinct advantage
over the others of locating Jesus within his Jewish environment. It sees
that Jesus was first and foremost a first century Jew, and thus that he
would not likely have been inclined to borrow elements of pagan religions
around him. But, I argue, on closer inspection the supposed parallels are
not much more compelling than those looked at in the first three areas.
Three things can be said against this theory.
-
The accounts of "holy men" performing
miracles are really about God answering the prayers of these holy men.
In the available accounts we have, these men pray to God for rain, and
it rains. They pray for someone to be healed, and they are healed. As impressive
as this is ( some accounts are undoubtedly historical), this is not at
all parallel to the kind of authority Jesus displays throughout the Gospels.
Throughout the Gospels, Jesus himself is portrayed as commanding sicknesses,
demons, and death to leave, and they "obey." This was in part why the crowds,
along with his disciples, marveled that his authority was like none they
had ever seen (e.g. Lk. 8:24-25). Even when Jesus does pray to the Father
before raising Lazareth, he notes that it is only for the crowds sake that
he does so (Jn. 11:42). Their are no known parallels to this kind of authority.
-
The occasional miraculous answers to
prayer that are attributed to certain holy men in the extant Jewish literature
are just that -- occasional. In no instance do these "feats" (if you can
call them that) take center stage to what these men were all about. Such
is not the case with Jesus, however. While Jesus was certainly about more
than his miracles, his miracles were nevertheless central to who he was.
Almost every page of the Gospels contains them. Take away the answered
prayer of the holy men, and little about them is changed. Take away the
miracles from Jesus, and little is the same.
-
This leads directly to a third major
difference between the miracles of Jesus and the answered prayers of ancient
Jewish holy men. The reasons behind the miracles are fundamentally different.
As one would expect, the Jewish writings which allude to the answered prayers
of certain holy men see these answered prayers as helping people and glorifying
Yaweh. For Jesus, however, the purpose for the miracles was not only to
help people and to glorify God, but even more fundamentally, to do so by
glorifying himself!
The Father has given him authority,
the Jesus of John's Gospel claims, "that all may honor the Son just as
they honor the Father" (Jn. 5:23). For Jesus, in other words, glorifying
God and glorifying himself were intrinsically bound up with one another.
So much so that he could add, "He who does not honor the Son does not honor
the Father, who sent him"(Jn. 5:24). So also he tells Lazarus' sisters
that Lazarus' sickness "is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified
through it" (Jn. 11:4).
This is unprecedented! There is no
parallel to a man, within orthodox Judaism, making such stupendous claims.
And there certainly is no parallel to anyone performing miracles, on his
own authority, to substantiate such claims! Whatever commonalties Jesus
may have with other Jewish "charismatics," they are dwarfed in significance
by this monumental difference. Indeed, so different was Jesus from other
Jewish holy men that Jesus was (understandably) accused of blasphemy -- claiming
to be God. And his miraculous powers were therefore attributed to Satan
(Mt. 12:24; Mk. 3:22). And in the light of this, all attempts to make Jesus
simply one of the holy men whose prayers God answered must be judged as
extremely weak.
The Miracle of all Miracles
There are, we see, no clear parallels
to the radically unique ministry of Jesus. With few exceptions, his miraculous
ministry is the only one we have any reliable information about. But, even
beyond this, the amount of miracles he performed, the way he performed
them, and the reasons he performed them were all radically unique. Jesus
is, pure and simple, one of a kind.
But we have not yet addressed the
chief thing that sets Jesus apart not only from all other supposed ancient
miracle workers, but from all other people period: this miracle worked
was raised from the dead and never again died! This proclamation lies at
the foundation of everything the New Testament says about Jesus is the
claim that Jesus Christ. While the character, teachings, and wondrous deeds
of Jesus had already impressed the multitudes that he was more than just
a teacher and prophet, it was the resurrection more than anything else
that finally convinced them that this man was indeed the Son of God!
This event sets Jesus miles apart
from any other historical figure, but for just this reason it cannot be
admitted as historical by those scholars who work with naturalistic presuppositions.
It must, therefore, somehow be explained away.
Endnotes
- TIME, January 10, 1994. [ Go Back ]
- B. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), p.220. [ Go Back ]
|