According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. In fact, adding a time gap of two generations to Jesus’s death lands you in the second century, just when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear. These do contain all sorts of fabulous stories about Jesus, trying to fill in the years between his boyhood and his starting his ministry, for example. These are the obvious legends sought by the critics, not the biblical gospels.[1] Do the writings we have about these other alleged ‘miracle-workers’ pass the two generation test (A generation is 30-40 years)?
1. Muhammad: There’s no claim in the Qur’an that Muhammad performed miracles. The first biography we have of Muhammad comes from at least 150 years after his death (4-5 generations), and I am not sure that even there, there are miracle claims.
2. Apollonius of Tyana: With Apollonius of Tyana, these are myths and legends that have no historical value whatsoever. They are post-Christian inventions, where Apollonius is a figure that is deliberately constructed to compete with early Christianity. Apollonius is a figure constructed in large part by Philostratus written c. AD 225, approximately 125 years after the death of Apollonius (3-4 generations) later as a deliberate counterpoint to Christianity. Moreover, the church had grown quite large and influential by that time, so Philostratus constructed Apollonius as a pagan alternative to Jesus. Moreover, we have very few extant sources from antiquity outside of Philostratus that refer to Apollonius and those sources tell us precious little (Lucian, ‘Alexander the False Prophet’ 5; Origen, Contra Celsum 6.41.5–10).
3. Honi the Circle Drawer: Onias, also known as Honi the Circle-Drawer, is first mentioned in Josephus as one whose prayers for rain were answered (Jos Ant 14:22). Around three centuries after Josephus (11.25-15 generations), the story is reported in the Jerusalem Talmud with many more details. Honi prays for rain. When it does not come, he draws a circle and stands inside it, promising not to leave his spot until it rained. When only a few drops came, Honi said this is not what he had prayed for. Then it rained violently. But Honi said he had prayed for ‘rain of good will, blessing, and graciousness’. Then it rained in a normal manner (Y. Taanit 3:8–9 66d, in Neusner 1987:226). It may be observed that, while Josephus places Honi in the first century BC, the Jerusalem Talmud places him in the sixth century BC, 500 years earlier. Moreover, Josephus’s account is approximately 150 (3.75-5 generations) years after the purported event (assuming the closer date)
4. Hanin ben Dosa: Hanina ben Dosa is a first-century AD figure who is likewise mentioned in the Mishnah (c. AD 200; TB Berarkhot 34b; 61b; Yevamot 21b; TB Sotah 9:15; TB Baba Batra 74b; TB Ta’anit 24; 25a) and appears in the Talmud (AD 400–600; Neusner 2005:53; c. AD 400 for the Jerusalem Talmud and by AD 600 for the Babylonian Talmud). Therefore, the first report on Hanina ben Dosa’s miracles as with Honi is about 150 (3.75-5 generations) years after the purported events
5. Alexander the Great: The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years (10-13.33 generations) after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers.
Since the majority of scholars agree that the historical Jesus performed acts that he and others viewed as exorcisms and miracles, evidence for miracles in non-Christian religions must be admitted into consideration (Licona 2009). But this does not mean that the evidence is equal in quality.
Poorly attested miracle claims are scarcely able to rule out well-evidenced ones. We may agree with Hume that most miracle claims are poorly attested. Most miracle reports appear centuries after the purported events and are not usually corroborated by multiple sources or neutral-to-hostile witnesses. However, Hume and Ehrman fail to recognise that the reports of Jesus’ miracles are far superior in quality than what is extant for other miracle claims. However, there is one exception, namely, the Emperor Vespasian.[2]
6. Vespasian: Three sources report two miracles performed by the Roman Emperor Vespasian. Tacitus and Suetonius write around 35 years after the purported event (Annals 4.81; Twelve Caesars, Vespasian 7.2), while Dio Cassius reports it at least 110 years later (65.8.1). Two of the three sources wrote as close to the event as Mark was to Jesus. However, it is well known that Vespasian made significant attempts to control public perception of his rule. For example, many modern historians note the increased amount of propaganda that appeared during Vespasian's reign.[3] Stories of a supernatural emperor who was destined to rule circulated in the empire.[4] Vespasian approved histories written under his reign, ensuring biases against him were removed.[5] Vespasian also gave financial rewards to ancient writers.[6] The ancient historians who lived through the period such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus and Pliny the Elder speak suspiciously well of Vespasian while condemning the emperors who came before him.[7] Those who spoke against Vespasian were punished. Thus, in all probability, the miracles that were attributed to Vespasian were the result of propaganda, and not history.
In any case, I am skeptical of being able to historically establish miracles from the life of Jesus. No doubt, it can be historically established that Jesus was perceived as an exorcist and miracle worker, but whether these were truly supernatural or not probably cannot be established directly (This goes triple for the alleged miracles of other figures from ancient antiquity). However, the historical evidence that can be given to support the miracles from the life of Jesus is inferior in quality and quantity compared to the historical evidence for the Resurrection. For example, the empty tomb is attested in 6 independent sources whereas I know of no miracle in the life of Jesus that is that well attested. In terms of quality, the empty tomb provides empirical and independent confirmation of the miracle of the Resurrection whereas we don't have any such evidence for the miracles in the life of Jesus. More could be said, but let me close by saying that even thought the miracles in the life of Jesus probably cannot be supported by direct historical evidence, I think that they should be believed in indirectly, after one shows that it is rational to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus.
[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207
[2] Michael R. Licona, Jan G. van der Watt1 The adjudication of miracles: Rethinking the criteria of historicity
[3] M.P. Charleswroth, "Flaviana", Journal of Roman Studies 27 (1938) 54–62
[4] Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Life of Vespasian 4–5
[5] Josephus, Against Apion 9
[6] Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Life of Vespasian 18
[7] "Otho, Vitellius, and the Propaganda of Vespasian", The Classical Journal (1965), p. 267-269
2. Apollonius of Tyana: With Apollonius of Tyana, these are myths and legends that have no historical value whatsoever. They are post-Christian inventions, where Apollonius is a figure that is deliberately constructed to compete with early Christianity. Apollonius is a figure constructed in large part by Philostratus written c. AD 225, approximately 125 years after the death of Apollonius (3-4 generations) later as a deliberate counterpoint to Christianity. Moreover, the church had grown quite large and influential by that time, so Philostratus constructed Apollonius as a pagan alternative to Jesus. Moreover, we have very few extant sources from antiquity outside of Philostratus that refer to Apollonius and those sources tell us precious little (Lucian, ‘Alexander the False Prophet’ 5; Origen, Contra Celsum 6.41.5–10).
3. Honi the Circle Drawer: Onias, also known as Honi the Circle-Drawer, is first mentioned in Josephus as one whose prayers for rain were answered (Jos Ant 14:22). Around three centuries after Josephus (11.25-15 generations), the story is reported in the Jerusalem Talmud with many more details. Honi prays for rain. When it does not come, he draws a circle and stands inside it, promising not to leave his spot until it rained. When only a few drops came, Honi said this is not what he had prayed for. Then it rained violently. But Honi said he had prayed for ‘rain of good will, blessing, and graciousness’. Then it rained in a normal manner (Y. Taanit 3:8–9 66d, in Neusner 1987:226). It may be observed that, while Josephus places Honi in the first century BC, the Jerusalem Talmud places him in the sixth century BC, 500 years earlier. Moreover, Josephus’s account is approximately 150 (3.75-5 generations) years after the purported event (assuming the closer date)
4. Hanin ben Dosa: Hanina ben Dosa is a first-century AD figure who is likewise mentioned in the Mishnah (c. AD 200; TB Berarkhot 34b; 61b; Yevamot 21b; TB Sotah 9:15; TB Baba Batra 74b; TB Ta’anit 24; 25a) and appears in the Talmud (AD 400–600; Neusner 2005:53; c. AD 400 for the Jerusalem Talmud and by AD 600 for the Babylonian Talmud). Therefore, the first report on Hanina ben Dosa’s miracles as with Honi is about 150 (3.75-5 generations) years after the purported events
5. Alexander the Great: The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years (10-13.33 generations) after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers.
Since the majority of scholars agree that the historical Jesus performed acts that he and others viewed as exorcisms and miracles, evidence for miracles in non-Christian religions must be admitted into consideration (Licona 2009). But this does not mean that the evidence is equal in quality.
Poorly attested miracle claims are scarcely able to rule out well-evidenced ones. We may agree with Hume that most miracle claims are poorly attested. Most miracle reports appear centuries after the purported events and are not usually corroborated by multiple sources or neutral-to-hostile witnesses. However, Hume and Ehrman fail to recognise that the reports of Jesus’ miracles are far superior in quality than what is extant for other miracle claims. However, there is one exception, namely, the Emperor Vespasian.[2]
6. Vespasian: Three sources report two miracles performed by the Roman Emperor Vespasian. Tacitus and Suetonius write around 35 years after the purported event (Annals 4.81; Twelve Caesars, Vespasian 7.2), while Dio Cassius reports it at least 110 years later (65.8.1). Two of the three sources wrote as close to the event as Mark was to Jesus. However, it is well known that Vespasian made significant attempts to control public perception of his rule. For example, many modern historians note the increased amount of propaganda that appeared during Vespasian's reign.[3] Stories of a supernatural emperor who was destined to rule circulated in the empire.[4] Vespasian approved histories written under his reign, ensuring biases against him were removed.[5] Vespasian also gave financial rewards to ancient writers.[6] The ancient historians who lived through the period such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus and Pliny the Elder speak suspiciously well of Vespasian while condemning the emperors who came before him.[7] Those who spoke against Vespasian were punished. Thus, in all probability, the miracles that were attributed to Vespasian were the result of propaganda, and not history.
In any case, I am skeptical of being able to historically establish miracles from the life of Jesus. No doubt, it can be historically established that Jesus was perceived as an exorcist and miracle worker, but whether these were truly supernatural or not probably cannot be established directly (This goes triple for the alleged miracles of other figures from ancient antiquity). However, the historical evidence that can be given to support the miracles from the life of Jesus is inferior in quality and quantity compared to the historical evidence for the Resurrection. For example, the empty tomb is attested in 6 independent sources whereas I know of no miracle in the life of Jesus that is that well attested. In terms of quality, the empty tomb provides empirical and independent confirmation of the miracle of the Resurrection whereas we don't have any such evidence for the miracles in the life of Jesus. More could be said, but let me close by saying that even thought the miracles in the life of Jesus probably cannot be supported by direct historical evidence, I think that they should be believed in indirectly, after one shows that it is rational to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus.
[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207
[2] Michael R. Licona, Jan G. van der Watt1 The adjudication of miracles: Rethinking the criteria of historicity
[3] M.P. Charleswroth, "Flaviana", Journal of Roman Studies 27 (1938) 54–62
[4] Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Life of Vespasian 4–5
[5] Josephus, Against Apion 9
[6] Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Life of Vespasian 18
[7] "Otho, Vitellius, and the Propaganda of Vespasian", The Classical Journal (1965), p. 267-269
RSS Feed