Posted:
Dec 24, 2001 | Back to the Miracles
Index | Summary
6. Did the authors create miracle stories/accretions about their dead leader which were fashioned
and expressed in ways that would make him look like a miracle-working man to
prospective Greco-Roman converts? Isn't this what Josephus and Philo did with
the man Moses--embellished his profile with miraculous elements? In this scenario, the gospel accounts are
deliberately written in such a way as to invoke some culturally-common image of
a 'divine man' or 'divinized hero', with a view to convincing others that
"Jesus was the best so far, so join our group". The attempt is to get
the reader to associate Jesus with some specific figure (e.g., Asclepius) or
with some generalized notion of 'god-like human hero' (a notion constructed
from many exposures to many such figures, so that a grid for noticing 'family
resemblances' can be assumed among the potential readership).
Blackburn expresses this position quite clearly:
"Study of Gospel miracle stories has long been
heavily influenced by the belief that early Greek-speaking Christians, whether
Jewish or Gentile, formulated these accounts so as to assimilate Jesus to
the typical miracle-working divine man (theios aner) with which
the Hellenistic world was familiar" [X02:JSOTGP6:185]
As does Kingsbury:
"Since Mark appears to have written his Gospel in a Hellenistic setting, it can be assumed that he was familiar with this concept of divine man. Indeed, to proclaim Jesus effectively or to instruct or edify Christians, Mark could be expected to have draped Jesus in the cloak of the divine man. Hence, from all indication it would seem that exactly the Hellenistic concept of divine man provides the best avenue of approach for gaining insight into mark's presentation of Jesus" [Kingbury, cited at [X02:JCDMSG:37]
As it turns out, this is quite a slippery question--there are many, subtle sub-questions hiding in there:
· Did Josephus and Philo, in fact, 'divinize' Moses into a superhuman, miracle worker?
· How widespread, influential, and socially-accepted were these 'miracle workers' or 'divine men', to the first century audiences?
· How common was the practice of creating, writing, and disseminating miracle narratives about one's religious teacher/leader to 'sell him' to others?
· What were the 'risks' associated with doing that?
· Were there specific divine men with very highly defined 'miracle types' whcih the gospel writers could target for emulation?
· If so, do the miracles in the gospels match those miracles "closely and obviously enough" for us to believe the original hearers would make the connection?
· Are there OTHER elements (non-miraculous) in the gospels that would argue against this, by perhaps alienating the intended audience?
I think, given the complexity of this, that we will have to 'amble' through these questions first, then try to synthesize our findings. So, let's dive in…
…………………………………………………………………………….
Did Josephus and Philo, in fact, 'divinize' Moses into a
superhuman, miracle worker?
This is very easily answered 'no'.
We have already seen that Josephus downplays the miraculous elements in his Antiquities of the Jews, and that the pre-Rabbinic Jewish writers 'embellish' Moses and selected other biblical heroes (most notably Abraham) in naturalistic ways--not supernaturalistic ways. For example, Abraham gets turned into the inventor of the plough, and Moses becomes the inventor of naval warfare. Abraham becomes an ancestor of the Spartans(!), and Moses teaches hieroglyphics to the Egyptians--but neither personally do miraculous deeds themselves, nor are they accorded truly 'divine' status by the Jewish authors.
" 'Philo actually tones down Moses' miracle working activity...Both Philo and Josephus carve Israel's heroes info figures besides miracles-workers; for all of Artapanus' embellishments of the Moses tradition, he seems little concerned to turn him into a miracle-worker.'...All of this therefore calls into question the hypothesis that Hellenistic Jews had begun a fairly widespread process of assimilating their heroes to pagan miracle workers." [Holladay, cited at [X02:TAMMT:102]]
Some of the Jewish authors, such as Ezekiel the Tragedian and Artapanus exalt Moses, but it falls very short of divinizing.
1. Ezekiel the Tragedian (remember, writing in poetry!) has Moses on the throne of YHWH in a dream, but the interpretation of it by Jethro in the text is more or less the OT party line of Moses as ruler [X02:TAMMT:60-61]:
"(Moses relates his dream to Jethro) On Sinai's peak I saw what seemed a throne, so great in size it touched the clouds of heaven. Upon it sat a man of noble mien, becrowned, and with a scepter in one hand while with the other he did beckon me. I made approach and stood before the throne. He handed o'er the scepter and he bade me mount the throne, and gave to me the crown; then he himself withdrew from off the throne. I gazed upon the whole earth round about; things under it, and high above the skies. Then at my feet a multitude of stars fell down, and I their number reckoned up. They passed by me like armed ranks of men. Then I in terror wakened from the dream" [OTP:2:811-2; note that there is nothing here which cannot be found in OT texts and which are amplified in Jewish tradition--see [HI:JWSTP:126f]]
The interpretation by Jethro amounts to nothing more than world rulership and prophetic reach--elements fully in Jewish tradition of the time:
"And his father-in-law interprets the dream as follows: 'My friend, God gave you this as sign for good. Would I might live to see these things transpire. For you shall cause a mighty throne to rise, and you yourself shall rule and govern men. As for beholding all the peopled earth, and things below and things above God's realm: things present, past, and future you shall see."
2. "While Artapanus undoubtedly had great reverence for Moses, it cannot rightly be claimed that he transforms him into a god. Holladay has pointed out that Artapanus appears to put some distance between himself and the exalted claims made by others concerning Moses: he was called Musaeus 'by the Greeks,' and he was called Hermes (= Thoth) and deemed worthy of divine honors 'by the [Egyptian] priests'" [X02:TAMMT:64]
But those writers most 'bioi'-oriented in their depiction of Moses (i.e. Philo and Josephus), can use the 'god-like' adjective (theios) because this adjective is used of ANYONE who does a high-quality deed of some type. A person doesn't have to be a 'divine man' to do a 'divine-like' act of charity, bravery, or oration…
Philo calls him theios twice..."It follows as a consequence of this that, when Moses is appointed 'a god unto Pharaoh' he did not become such in reality, but only by a convention is supposed to be such...That the wise is said to be a god to the foolish man, but that in reality he is not God, just as the counterfeit four-drachma piece is not a tetradrachm. " (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 160-162)]
"For Philo, theios was an appropriate designation for the man who, during his life in the body, excelled all others in escaping the claims of the phenomenal world and participating in the aretae of God. Moses was theios because he was so godlike." [X02:TAMMT:67-68]
"F.H. Colson introduces his edition of the Life of Moses by commenting on the 'essential fidelity with which Philo adheres to the narrative of Scripture'. There is, he says 'little or none of the legendary accretions' found in Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus and the later rabbinic tradition. He goes on, however, 'There is, of course, any amount of amplification.' Fidelity which allows amplification but not legendary accretion..." [JSOTGP3:106]
Josephus applies the term theios to Moses three times, but two of these are put on the lips of Egyptians. In Ant 3.180, he uses the term to describe Moses, but the term doesn't look like it means 'divine' (in the wonder-working or theological sense) here.
"It is possible theois in Ant. 3.180 primarily means 'inspired'. Holladay has shown that for Josephus the prophets are theioi because the theion pneuma used them as a channel of communication" [X02:TAMMT:69]
"Thus Moses is probably theios not only because he is inspired, but also because the immense degree of his aręte (merits) constitutes him as a very godlike man." [X02:TAMMT:70]
Feldman actually translates the theois aner phrase as 'man of God', and consistently points out that this is NOT ascribing divinity to Moses: "it is not to assert Moses' divinity…That Josephus has no intention of asserting Moses' divinity is clear from the proof that he gives…does not mean divine in the most literal sense." [HI:FJTC3:279]
And, oddly enough, even when these authors mention Moses' biblical miracles (i.e., not invented ones), they don't use them to 'support' some exalted view of Moses (as the objection might be understood as implying about the gospel writers and Jesus):
"Finally, in none of the three writers is there an explicit attempt to deduce Moses' exalted status from his miracles. This is true for Artapanus even though he, unlike Philo and Josephus, does show a tendency toward emphasizing Moses' (biblical) miraculous powers." [X02:TAMMT:72]
What we end up with here, is that whatever embellishments these non-Rabbinic Jewish writers made to the stories about Moses were NOT in the nature of adding invented miracle stories. Therefore, if this motive were somehow present in the evangelists, it will not be because they had precedents in earlier or contemporary Jewish authors.
"Our study has failed to produce evidence to substantiate the position that Hellenistic Jews, in an effort to propagate their faith to Gentiles, tended to heighten thaumaturgic motifs, either in their portrayals of Israel's heroes or in their own understanding of history" [Holladay, cited at X02:TAMMT:5]
………………………………………………………………….
How widespread, influential, and socially-accepted were these
'miracle workers' or 'divine men', to the first century audiences?
Here we are confronted with a large mass of chaotic data, but much of it is very inconsequential. We will, however, have to examine most of the human figures that could be candidates for this category of 'wonder worker'. Simple 'gods' are not in view here, but only figures that were believed to have been humans once in their 'career', before achieving some level of divinity…We need to be sure, however, that we try to 'scale' this, and try to assess the relative 'visibility' or 'mindshare' these figures have.
Once we have gotten a handle on the extent and number and visibility of these figures, we will ask the question about how influential they seemed to be, especially on literature. In other words, we want to assess how much of a 'big deal' they were in changing people's beliefs, actions, worldview, behavior. Were they just entertainment figures to be discussed for fun at the dinner table (or school), or did people literally 'drop out and tune in' to their message and directives?
Finally, we need to assess their place in the social system--which classes in the social structures would this type of figure appeal to? Which classes would have found them unacceptable (and therefore a negative inducement to 'believe')?
The most comprehensive list and discussion of these figures I have found are in Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Aner Concept as an Interpretive Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. Barry Blackburn. Tubingen: Mohr, 1991. (revision of Ph.D thesis of 1986 for Univ. of Aberdeen), cited throughout as [X02:TAMMT]. Many of the healers are also discussed in Wehner Kahl, New Testament Miracle Stories in the Religious-Historical Setting: A Religionsgeschichliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. [X03:NTMSRHS]
Blackburn divides the Hellenistic "human-plus" miracle-workers into three categories: seers, healers, and workers of other miracles.
Seers are the most widespread:
"The most common form of miraculous power is some form of divination" [X02:JSOTGP6:190]
Blackburn lists 13 figures in this category: Amenophis, Amphiaraus, Amphilochus, Tiresias, Idmon, Mopsus (son of Chloris), Phineus, Cassandra, Calchas, Mopsus (son of Manto), Parnassus, Telemus, Democritus. [However, divination, prediction of the future, and supernatural knowledge can also be ascribed to some of the non-Seer figures as well.]
And traveling seers were not uncommon:
"Certainly, itinerant priests were not unknown in Rome, either, but they seem to have specialized in divination." [HI:MIAW:49]
These figures are not very relevant to our discussion, though:
"It is certainly fair to conclude that divination and healing are fairly common miraculous powers among our figures, but neither encompasses all, and what is more, divination, the most prevalent power, plays a comparatively minor role in the miracle traditions associated with Jesus in the Gospels." [X02:JSOTGP6:190]
The most relevant category is that of healers, and in this category Blackburn lists 13 figures as well. The below table will highlight some of the characteristics of this data:
|
Healer |
# of events |
Means? |
Notes
|
|
Asclepius |
many |
herbs/arts |
|
|
Machaon (son of
Ascy) |
1 |
herbs/arts |
(descendent of Asclepius) |
|
Podalirius (son of
Ascy) |
1 |
herbs/arts |
(descendent of Asclepius) |
|
Polemocrates (son
of Machaon) |
0 |
herbs/arts |
(descendent of Asclepius) |
|
Nicomachus (son of
Machaon) |
0 |
herbs/arts |
(descendent of Asclepius) |
|
Gorgasus (son of
Machaon) |
0 |
herbs/arts |
(descendent of Asclepius) |
|
Alexanor (son of
Machaon) |
0 |
herbs/arts |
(descendent of Asclepius) |
|
Aristomachos |
0 |
? |
(only on a temple inscription) |
|
Amunos |
0 |
? |
(only on a temple inscription) |
|
Iatros Hros |
0 |
? |
(only on a temple inscription) |
|
Oresinios |
0 |
? |
(only on a temple inscription) |
|
Menecrates of
Syracuse |
3 |
? |
only did epileptics;
a comical figure |
|
Pyrrhus |
0 |
used his foot |
only did spleens |
To this we might add Melampus (from Herodotus) who is said to have done a shamanistic healing of the madness of the women of Argos, using drugs, songs, and rituals.
With the (possible) exception of Asclepius (more on him below), these figures do not quite look like miraculous healers at all. Half of these are quasi-mythological, almost none of them have any narrated events of healing, they ALL use regular medicinal practices and means of the day (except the guy with the 'magic big toe'), and we have no real indication that they healed more than once.
The structuralist study by Kahl notices this last point too, in his analysis of miracle stories/narratives (as opposed to general descriptions):
"In fact, the two characteristics (being an immanent bearer of numinous power and having more than one healing miracle story attributed to it) are shared only by Jesus in the gospels and Apollonios in Philostratus' Vita. Since Philostratus' Vita dates from around 220 C.E., it is evident that the description of Jesus in the gospels is distinct from the other extant contemporary traditions of the first century C.E. insofar as the BNP's [Bearers of Numinous Power] of those stores are transcendent figures. Indeed, we know of only one other case in the entire miracle story tradition of antiquity before Philostratus' Vita Apollonii of an immanent bearer of numinous power, and then only in a singular version of his miracle, Melampous according to Diodorus of Sicily. The immanent 'miracle workers' of Jewish and pagan miracle stories before or from around the turn of the eras are, with this one exception, PNP's [Petitioners to Numinous Power] and/or MNP's [Mediators of (another's) Numinous Power]. [X03:NTMSRHS:236; note--well before the time of Jesus, Asclepius had become a transcendent figure, like Yahweh, and healings attributed to A are not of the 'wonder worker' model any longer.]
The "other miracles" category contains 15 individuals (some mythic):
|
Other
Miracle Workers |
miracles |
Means?
|
Notes |
Parallel?
|
|
Abaris |
<5 |
(pythg) |
air-walker,
[subdue storms (post-Jesus)] |
|
|
Amphion |
1 |
music |
charm
nature (rocks, animals) |
|
|
Argonaut:
Orpheus |
3 |
music |
charmed
nature (term of derision by 5th BC) |
|
|
Argonaut:
Calais and Zetes |
1 |
wings |
flight |
|
|
Argonaut:
Euphemus |
0 |
gift from Poseidon |
ran
over water, only toes touching |
? |
|
Argonaut:
Periclymenus |
1 |
gift from Poseidon |
self-metamorphism
into animals |
|
|
Aristeas
of Proconnesus |
4 or 5 |
soul travel? |
post-mortem
appearances |
? |
|
Empedocles |
<5 |
(pythg), various means |
wind-stayer,
music-on-anger, a trance-healing? |
|
|
Epimenides |
1 |
(pythg) |
57-year
long nap, but mostly prediction |
|
|
Hermotimus
of Clazomenae |
1 |
(soul travel?) |
prediction
when soul-traveling |
|
|
Melampus |
1 |
drugs/songs/rituals |
shamanistic
healing |
|
|
Musaeus |
0 |
student of Orpheus |
gift
of flying from North wind? |
|
|
Nectanebus |
2 |
magic |
turned
into snake, deluded people |
|
|
Pythagoras |
<5 |
music/incantations |
mostly
knowledge, 2 places@once |
|
|
Zalmoxis |
1 |
(pythg), charms |
lived
in a vault for 3 years (only miracle?) |
|
Now, the striking thing about this list is that it doesn't match the gospel miracles very well at all. Even the two maybe's aren't very close: (1) the post-mortem appearances are said to have been not really post-mortem at all, describing the soul-travel of Aof P during a trance like state; and (2) the poetic account in Argonautica is a whimsical image of someone so fast they can run over water only touching down into the water infrequently with their toes--not actually a 'miraculous power' so to speak at all. ["After them from Taenarus came Euphemus whom, most swift-footed of men, Europe, daughter of mighty Tityos, bare to Poseidon. He was wont to skim the swell of the grey sea, and wetted not his swift feet, but just dipping the tips of his toes was borne on the watery path. ", I.179-84. Commentators later ascribed this in scholia to a gift from Poseidon.]
If we slice the data a different way, we can state the data as close as possible to the gospel narratives:
"The miracle traditions that fall outside divination and healing are too numerous for exhaustive recitation, but some examples will illustrate their variety: (1) Resuscitations of the dead were associated with Asclepius, Empedocles, Apollonius, and Alexander of Abonuteichos, (2) control of the elements (wind, hailstorms, or violent seas or rivers) was ascribed to Orpheus (by his music), Abaris, Epimenides, Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Apollonius, (3) Amphion and Orpheus could charm rocks, animals, and (in Orpheus' case) trees, by their music, (4) Pythagoras persuaded animals to do his bidding, (5) Musaeus, Calais and Zetes, Abaris (riding on Apollo's arrow), and Lucian's Hyperborean magician had the ability to fly, (6) Pythagoras was seen teaching in two cities on the same day and hour, (7) the power to walk (or run) upon water was associated with Euphemus and the Hyperborean magician, (8) Periclymenus and Nectanebus sometimes assumed different (usually animal) forms, (9) a katabasis to and anabasis from Hades was achieved by Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Zalmoxis, (10) Hermotimus, and in later tradition Aristeas and Epimenides, could send their souls on journeys, (11) the Hyperborean practiced love-magic, (12) Abaris engaged in a continual fast, (13) Epimenides took a 57 year nap, (14) Apollonius exercised or chased away demons and (15) Nectanebus caused another to have a deceptive dream (16) Melampus understood bird language, and Apollonius animal and human languages, (17) Epimenides and Pythagoras knew the former incarnations of their souls, (18) Pythagoras recognized human souls in animals, and (19) he could hear cosmic music. [X02:JSOTGP6:190]
But if we pull out of this list the post-Jesus accounts (e.g., Apollonius, Alexander of Abonuteichos) and post-Jesus traditions ascribed to earlier figures (e.g., Abaris calming storms), we still end up with a very wide gap between these stories and the gospel accounts. There just doesn't seem to be much overlap in this category at all. And exorcism, as a category, is not represented at all in the pre-Christian accounts (note: seven exorcisms are ascribed to Jesus in the gospels).
But back to our current discussion…
Our lists, then, yield 13 seers, 13 healers, and 15 odd-miracle workers, for a total of 41 pre-Christian miracle workers. Of these, a third are seers and of little/no relevance to our quest. Of the remaining 28, at least a third are mythic figures (from poetic accounts in Homer, Pindar, the Argonautica, etc) or assimilated 'students of' figures (being colored by the features of their teacher/father/founder). This means we only end up with less than 20 real people to whom miracle working was ascribed (but not necessary with any actual miracle stories), of which 20 people half look like regular physicians. [We should also note that there are only three main healing deities of this period, even though in principle any could heal: Heracles/Hercules, Isis, Asclepius, cf. [HI:MGRA:11]]
Even the healing miracles ascribed to Asclepius seem somewhat irrelevant to this study:
1.
The miracles ascribed to Asclepius in the several centuries
before Jesus occurred at his temples (and through his priests and
through dreams), as from the divine/transcendent Asclepius;
2. The miracles done when he was a human (pre-Homer) look like regular medicine (with an occasional incantation thrown in):
"Given the modern connotation of 'miracle,' it might appear misleading to so describe Asclepius's healings since he employed herbs (drugs and salves) and sometimes performed surgery. Moreover, Homer and Pindar say that Asclepius was educated in the healing arts by his centaur teacher, Chiron. Nevertheless the degree to which Asclepius' medicine is intertwined with magic and miracle is illustrated in Ovid's account of the healing of Hippolytus: 'Straightway he drew from an ivory casket simples that before had stood Glaucus' ghost in good stead….Thrice he touched the youth's breast, thrice he spoke healing words: then Hippolytus lifted his head'" [X02:TAMMT:25]
3. The number of during-human-status miracle narratives can be counted on one hand.
[We will, however, have to come back to Asclepius, since the pagan reactions to Jesus sometimes involved and appealed to his tradition.]
This basically nets out at around 10 or so 'famous' miracle workers, going into the first century AD…???!!!
On the surface, of course, this is not quite the mass of miracle stories we might have expected, given this question.
Lets do a quick sanity check on this.
Let's use Wendy Cotter's excellent sourcebook Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the study of New Testament Miracle Stories [HI:MGRA].
· If we go through the chapter called "Heroes who Heal" we come up with the names of Pythagoras (but the accounts are by post-Jesus writers), Empedocles the Pythagorean (but the accounts are by post-Jesus writers), King Pyrrhus (with the spleen-curing foot, by Plutarch), Augustus/Vespasian (we have already discussed these), Apollinius of Tyana (by post-Jesus Philostratus), the Physician Asclepiades (no actual miracle given, but saved a person from being buried prematurely) and then the biblical heroes of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. The pre-Christian elements here are very, very limited in scope--surprisingly so.
· In the chapter on "Exorcisms", she lists Apollonius of Tyana (written after the gospels) as the sole example of a named non-Jewish exorcist. [She does give the Lucian satirical description of an exorcism.]
· In the chapter on "Gods and Heroes who control nature", she gives as heroes Orpheus (who calms the sea by singing), Pythagoras (but from a post-Jesus source), Empedocles the Pythagorean (also from a post-Jesus source), Apollonius of Tyana (again, post-Jesus source Philostratus), Julius/Augustus (but these are metaphorical references), Abaris (who rides the magic arrow, but this is not believed by Herodotus who records this first), Xerxes (walked on the sea by building a bridge!), Alexander/Caligula (discussed earlier).
· In the chapter on "Changing water into wine and other nature miracles", she lists NO non-Jewish heroes! [Dionysus is mentioned, of course, but he is a god, not a hero in the sense of 'miracle working human'.]
Again, this only leads us to about ten (at most) non-Jewish miracle working heroes, going into the time of the gospel writings. I personally find this quite under-whelming (smile), and begin to wonder about how realistic this question might be after all…
But
there's even something odd about the timing of these figures…
If we look at the human-life dates of these miracle working healers and odd-miracle workers (those that show up in literature, instead of local inscriptions only), an interesting fact appears:
|
Person |
Apprx dates?
|
First Mention |
Temple/Cult? |
Healers
|
|
|
|
|
Asclepius |
12-10th centuries BC |
Homer |
Yes |
|
Machaon (son of
Ascy) |
12-10th centuries BC |
Homer |
|
|
Podalirius (son of
Ascy) |
12-10th centuries BC |
Homer |
|