Jesus the Magician a partial answer

Book Report on Jesus the Magician 21 12 05 Tony Hylton UHL
Introduction
Jesus the Magician by Morton Smith is his attempt to produce a portrait of Jesus based on the traditions among Jesus’ detractors who opposed or did not follow him. He asserts “Jesus the Son of God” is pictured in the gospels; the works that pictured “Jesus the magician” were destroyed in antiquity after Christians got control of the Roman Empire” (Smith 1978, ix). For Smith these two pictures are initially contradictory[1] and apparently both “legends”. It is apparent on reading the book that the only outsiders Smith really wants to listen are those he can interprets as accusing Jesus and the disciples of being magicians. Although Smith includes a lot of sources in his work and is runs counter to the present liberal consensus against the miracles of Jesus. It is clear that his only intention (in establishing the facts of the gospels that he affirms) is to confirm his thesis that Jesus was a magician and not something else but you don’t really get the feeling that for Smith there was a possible alternative for Jesus.
The book contains some very good information for understanding some aspects of the New Testament and the ministry of Jesus and of parallel ministries but in terms of objectivity, it lacks greatly.

Development: Knowledge
Smith believes we need to listen more to Jesus opposition to counter what he calls a bias in the research on Jesus up until 1978. Through researching into what outsiders had to say Smith intends to address this imbalance and to give us “Jesus the Magician”. As he says himself
This book is an attempt to correct the bias by reconstructing the lost picture from preserved fragments and related materials, mainly from magical papyri, that New Testament scholarship has generally ignored (Smith 1978, vii).
Although Smith says we are to listen to the outsider it is clear from reading the book that the outsiders we are to listen to carefully are those Smith perceives as calling Jesus a Magician. As you read it becomes clear that the exercise Smith is about is one of labeling Jesus as a magician.
Outline and Argument
Smith’s book is 222 pages plus contents and preface of 9 pages, and was published in 1978 by Harper and Row Publishers. The book consists of a preface, 8 chapters and two appendixes, notes follow but are not always referenced in the main text. The notes are organized according to page numbers and the issue they refer to are not numbered but capitalized titles. The sections of the book are as follows:
The Book has the following chapters:
1 Suppressed Evidence and Perennial Problems 1
2 The Historical Framework 8
3 What Outsiders said- Evidence of the Gospels 21
4 What Outsiders Said – Evidence Outside the Gospels 45
5 What Outsiders Meant 68
6 The Marks of a Magician 81
7 The Evidence of Magical practices 94
8 What the Evidence Shows 140
The book proceeds in chapter one with the thesis that the evidence of outsiders point to a perspective of Jesus as a Magician. However much of this evidence has been suppressed. This establishes the problem. The next two chapters investigate and extract the outsider views of Jesus. Smith then reviews the meaning of magician in late antiquity using the two terms goes and magos. The review is selective. At the end of this chapter and life of Jesus is given according to this mish mash of outsider views. Smith then moves on to a comparison with Apollonius of Tyana whose life parallels that of Jesus. He then moves on to parallels between the Gospel evidence and Magical Papyri. He shows some apparently striking parallels. He finally come to the conclusion that out of three options from the period, that of Jesus Christ, Son of God (gospel), Jesus the Magician (opponents), Jesus the God (the primitive Church).
He concludes that Jesus the Magician is the most realistic portrayal. This is not necessarily historical. Magician is a social type and is an alternative to Divine man.
Conclusion
For me it was interesting reading but methodologically unacceptable, too much anachronistic use of data and too much eisegesis by Smith. He made the evidence say what he wanted it to say and was selectively critical of data.


Smith was born on May 28th 1915 in Philadelphia Pensylvania. He completed his Ph. D in Hebrew University from 1940-44 in classical philology under Professor Schwabe. His subject was Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels. He then went to Harvard and trained under A. D. Nock, Werner Jaeger and later Robert Pfeifer.It lead to a thesis on Judaism in Palestine before the Maccabean revolt Palestinian Parties and Politics that shaped the Old testament.
. he He started teaching in Brown University From 1950 to 1955 and moved to Drew froim 1956to 1957 and finally to Columbia University in 1957.
In 1958 Smith claims to have found a fragment of a letter from Clement of Alexandria in the library of Mar Saba. He published a facsimilie in 1973. It was the mention of a secret gospel of Mark. He wrote the book Clement of Alexandria and the Secret Gospel of Mark (Camb Mass: Harvard 1973). No Western Scholar was allowed access to the fragment. Many think this fragment was a forgery. When he wrote the Jesus the Magician he was Professor of History at Columbia University. The book was some what critiqued by James Robinson and H. D Betz. He completed the revision of the work at the University of Tubingen being hosted by Martin Hengel. He finished in August 1977. Smith dies in 1991.


1 Suppressed Evidence and Perennial Problems
Smith claims he is looking for the Jesus of the average Galilean, or Jesus of Jesus opponents.
A. Two sides to an argument (Evidence has been suppressed)
B. In the case of Jesus we particularly want to hear other sides
C. If the historical Jesus be defined as the common cause and starting point of the movements that
took their rise from him, then the more movements we can see the more lines we can trace
back, the more accurate the result
2 The Historical Framework
A.No interpretation will show us the man as he saw himself. All are outside views.
B. Matter on which the gospels agree we have no reason to question there reprots (p8)
C. No reason to question the unanimous report that Jesus attracted attention as a miracle worker
D. Cures performed by Jesus made him famous.
E. Because of the NT social and medical background of the Near East, Jesus won followers
through miracles.
i. Mark’s witness 10
ii. Q’s Witness 11
iii. Matthews witness 12
iv. Luke’s Witness 13
v. John’s Witness 14
F. Whatever their individual historicity , they prove that Jesus was remembered as a miracle worker in the earliest Palestinian Churches, through combined effect.
G. One piece of evidence against Jesus being a miracle worker. The group of texts where Jesus
refused to do one. But this shows he did them and he might be challenged to do them.
a. Mark and Q indicates Jesus himself was why he was rejected: prophet without honor
b. Paul indicates it was the cross why he was rejected. For his case Mark is earlier.
H. The whole Jesus tradition can be understood from the fact that Jesus was a miracle worker.
a. if his actions are beneficial he is considered holy, following the holy power.
b. If the followers begin to think him Messiah, and they grow fast and civil authorities feel threatened, he is in trouble.
I The miracles can not be understood from the purely didactic tradition.
Pharisees: Teachers of the law were not made over to be miracle workers
Apocalypticists: These were not made into miracle workers
Mircle workers: Could easily be made into a prophet or teacher of the Law.
J. From all this evidence it seems Jesus attracted attention and followers as a miracle worker.
a. exorcist
b. healer
H. Why crucified? He was popular through Miracles (John 11:47)
I. Resurrection, Teaching, Messiah belief “evidence of the gospels is always suspect and often self contradictory’.
J. We look for Jesus social identity. Among the social types:demoniacs,divine men,prophets, magicians.
With connotations: messiahs, prophets, deceivers, brigands, charlatans.
Gamaliel’s speech
K. Gamaliel’s speech is “Christians propaganda”
L. In propaganda Jesus social type is of Theudas and Judas, a teacher and pretended miracle worker
M Luke shows how Christians thought intelligent unbeliever should see Jesus social type.
What did those who were not followers have to say on Jesus social type?
3 What the Outsiders Said- Evidence in the Gospels
Here Smith argues that the gospels were produced “to answer the attacks on the Church circulated by opponents of the Church”…Some of the opposition they report is “wholly imaginary (that of demons), more is put into the mouths of groups that had little or nothing to do with Jesus (Herodians or Pharisees)”
Common opinion
Family and Towns People
Herodians and Pharisees
High Priests
We may reasonably suppose that the outsider pictures of Jesus discernible in the gospels is mainly that of the scribes and the high priests of Jerusalem.
The images of Jesus are for Smith as follows:
Rabbi (disciples and some outsiders)
Teacher
He did some preaching (no evidence he was accepted as legal authority by disciples only)
His legal teaching didn’t arouse any popular opposition
Negative Outside Opinions
He had libertine practices (eating with sinners, neglect of fasts, sabbaths, purity rules) gave trouble with scribes
He had dubious parentage
He had a lack of formal education
He had a humble trade
He faced rejection from his townspeople and family
He was unable to perform any miracles in his home town
He was accused of being insane by his family
He was possessed
He had a demon
His miracles were done by magic
He was a Samaritan.
He raise JB from the dead
He had JB living in him.
He controlled demons through JB.
He cast out demons by Beelzebul.

Positive Outside Opinions
He was a prophet (He reportedly refused to claim – that he was a prophet sent by “the Lord”(Yahweh) or
that what he said was “the word of the Lord”.
He was Eliyahu (most often)

Pagans and those whom he delivered thought:
He was a god
He was a son of a god
He was the Messiah
He was the Son of Man

4 What the Outsiders Said- Evidence Outside the Gospels
Up until this point Jesus is nowhere accused of being a goes or practicing goetes or of being a magus and of practicing mageia. Here Smith first witness is Josephus:
a. Josephus is cited as first as saying “Jesus the so called Christ” 20:200
Clearly this is Smith’s first outsider testimony from outside the New Testament and it doesn’t say goes or magus but Christos. It is also the testimony of a Jew in Palestine.
b. The second testimony of Josephus says:
At that time ( ) there lived Jesus, a man (), if be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of miracles, a teacher of men who receive with pleasure. And he led () many Jews and many of the Greeks () this was the Christ. And when, on accusation by our leading me, Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who formerly loved () did not cease (to do so) , for () he appeared to them on the their day , again alive, while () prophets kept saying these and ten thousand other incredible things about him. And to the present () the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not disappeared’ (p46) Joseph 18: 63

This citation is typical of the way Smith treats his evidence. He rewrites the evidence in some cases. As we can see in this case by turning to what he puts in the brackets. He doesn’t look at other textual sources so much as rewrite the text to fit his presuppositions
In this first example of a treatment of an outside source he changes the text as follows:
Text Smith’s Imagination
Sophos (wise) Sophist
T’alethe (truth) t’asebe impiety
- who said that
- they asserted that
theion propheton pseudopropheton

He refers to these changes in his notes at the back of the book. We notice that even though he made all these changes, this first and earliest external evidence mentions neither goes or magos.
But Smith notes that after making the changes he got what he was looking for “Messiah and miracle worker, with a claim to be more than man- the combination is just what we should have expected” (p46)
It makes us wonder who is “we”?
c. Rabbinic Stories: Rabbi Eliezer
T Hullin, II 24, (4th century)
B. Abodah zarah 16b- 17a (6th or 7th century)
Midrash Qobelet Rabba I.8.3
Here the discussion is about Ben Stada who is not Jesus. Mary the hairdresser, may Magdalen gets a mention. Stada brought spells from Egypt in his flesh and was arrested and executed in Lud.
Smith goes on to read Matthews story as a response to this accusation against Ben Stada.
Smith admits a number of things in attempting to use this evidence, two show the weakness of it for his case: “in the case of Jesus particularly, this practice of concealed reference has been carried to the extreme by manuscript copyists to avoid censorship”. (He also notes Rabbis are ignorant of chronology and guilty of absurd anachronisms as well as referring to their enemies with abusive nicknames and puns).
Thus he concludes “It is often difficult to tell to whom passages on Ben Stada refer.

Although in this second set of outsider opinion magic has not been mentioned regarding Jesus Smith can say
“The charge of practicing magic is now familiar” (p48)
“The accusation that he had been in Egypt and learned magic there, though it now appears for the first time” was the reason for Matthews story.
Eliezer’s discussion (on Ben Stada) and Matthew are contemporary.
He concludes no doubt feeling he has proved nothing “Where ever Jesus learned his magic, his fame as a healer lived on”. (p48)
So for Smith the fact that Jesus healed made him a magician. In Smith mind definition of magician in late antiquity is irrelevant he assumes Jesus is a magician because he healed people.
d. Roman Commentators on the Church Movement:
Suetonius on riots of Crestus in Life of Claudius 25:4, and “Penalties were imposed on the Christians, a kind of men holding a new superstition of magic” other translation “anew and maleficient superstition” Life of Nero 16:2 dated 122
Tacitus written 115 from Annals XV.469 p51

d. Justin Martyr and the Counter Gospel
Dialogue with Trypho 137:2 p54-55
Pliny to Trajan Letters X. 96

e. Lucian (120-185)p56-57
f. Celsus and Origen
Against Celsus (247 AD) p 59
g. Tertullian 200AD p61
h. Gems and Images p62-3
i. Older Magical Papyri contain Jesus in them see p63 for illustration.
Summary this evidence contains memory of his “miracles, inference of his magic” p64




5 What the Outsiders Meant
Here Smith finally gives a selective number of definition of magicians
He gives two definitions of Magician from the period. The one from Roman Law from the Jurist Paulus (200's AD) "Any who perform, or procure the performance of, impious or noturnal sacrifices, to enchant , curse or bind anyone with a spell, are either crucified or thrown to the beasts. Any who sacrifice a man, or make offerings of his blood, or pollute a shrine or temple are thrown to the beasts or, if people of position, are beheaded .It is the prevailing legal opinion that participants in the magical art should be subject to the extreme punishment, that is either thrown to the beasts or crucified: but magicians themselves should be burnt alive. It is not permitted for anyone to have in his possession books of magic art.If they are found in his possession, when his property has been expropriated and the books burned publicly, he is to be deported to an island, or if he is of the lower class, beheaded. Not only the practice of the art, but even the knowledge of it is prohibited." This law is said to have been in effect from 81 or 82 BC.[2]
Smith also cites Paulus on prophets and astrologers. (p 77)

6 The Marks of a Magician
7 The Evidence of Magical Practices
This is really the central part of Smith thesis and here he consulat many of the Magical Papyri and seeks to draw parallels to the gospels. These include:
PGM
IV 1930-2005
I:54ff
VIII:2ff
XIII 78fff
IV 475-830
IV 154-221
LXI. 10ff
IV 320
I 312
VII 559ff
IV 146
III 541
III 263
III 327
V 231ff
XIII 277
XIX b
V 136
I 117
Hippolytus Ref VI
DMP XXI 10ff
And other sources such as Book of Secrets I.I
Against Celsus II:9-12
Lucian Philopseudes 26ff
Lucan Pharsalia VI 624-830
B. Sanh 106a
Book of Secrets I.i

The Baptism of Jesus, the Eucahrist and the Lord's prayer are all considered to have magical elements and to have parallels in magical practices.
The evidence Smith puts forward as evidence of magical practices is most interesting. They include such examples as the following:
Having sanctified yourself in advance and abstainedf from meat(?) and from all impurity, on any night you wish, wearing pure garments , go up on a high roof. Say the first (prayer of) union when the sunlight is fading…having a black Isaic band over your eyes…When the sun rises, greet it…reciting this (hereafter specified) holy spell, burning uncut frankincense…While you are reciting the spell, the following sign will occur: A hawk flying down will stop (in the air) in from of you and, striking his wings together in the middle (in front of his body), will drop a long stoneand at one fly back, going up into heaven. You take up that stone and having cut …engraved and pierced it…wear it around your neck. Then at evening, going up to your roof again and stading facing the light of the (sun) god, sing the hymn (specified) sacrificing myrrh (etc) …And you will soon have a sign, as follows:A fiery star, coming down , will stand in the middle of the roofand…you will perceive the angel whom you besought, sent to you, and you will promptly learn the counsels of the gods." (p98)
8 What the Evidence Shows
Appendix A The Pharisees in the Gospels
Appendix B Jesus vs. the Prophets

The Preface contains some very important information for the reader. The books search is avowedly interested, not in the historical Jesus but in “reconstructing the lost picture of Jesus from preserved fragments”. Smith mains sources are the magical papyri and he notes in the preface that “the major magical papyri are manuscripts dating from the third century A.D. , and later”. Thus it is important to be aware of their late date but also that some of those manuscripts, he notes “refer to Jesus” thus indicating for some scholars that they were Christian in origin and so there use in that case would be quite anachronistic. Smith does not see a problem in either their late date or the occasional reference to Jesus, arguing that Titus and Acts cites pagan poets and there works can not be assumed pagan. Another important source for Smith case is Philostratus Life of Appollonius. He notes that this is a “third century composition” and it has been argued that it was modeled on the gospels (he does not give us a source) but he notes his belief that Petzke, Traditionen has “refuted” the idea.

1 Suppressed Evidence and Perennial Problems
Smith lays out his pretext that there are always two sides to an argument. If we really want to know what happened in the life of Jesus, we need not just the gospel because they give the favorable side but the opponents ideas are as important for Smith. However he accuses the Church of destroying most of the evidence. Nevertheless he has found enough to reconstruct an image of Jesus in the eyes of his opponents. “A picture of Jesus” notes Smith, based only on the gospels, has about “as much historical value as a portrait of Charles de Gaulle or Mao Tse Tung drawn exclusively from Gaullist or Maoist publications. We must try to hear the other side to” (p 7). He sees NT scholarship oversight on the area of the opponents to be “amazing” and one that needs addressing.
2 Historical Framework

Smith accept the basic historicity of the gospels. Believing the basic facts on which they agree to leave little room for doubt. See page 9 “He was born in Palestine..grew up in Galilee, was baptised by John the baptist, formed a band of his own followers, and went about with them mainly in Galilee, but at least once visited Jerusalem and there was arrested and crucified- on these matters the gospels agree; we have no reason to question there reports”
“Nor is there any reason to question their unanimous report that Jesus attracted attention as a miracle worker”
Smith challenges the Liberal Exegetes of the scripture citing modern day examples of miracle reports (p 10) and notes that the Gospel represents Jesus as gaining popularity as a miracle worker because he did so:
“These facts have been rejected as unedifying by liberal exegesis; we must look at the evidence” (p 10) He reviews the evidence for miracles in Mark, Q, Matthew, Luke and John. He sums up “all major strands of gospel material present Jesus as a miracle worker who attracted followers by his miracles2 (p14)

[1] However he later goes on to argue that Jesus was called son of God because he was doing magical acts.
[2] Paulus Sententiae receptae Paulo tributae XXIII:15-18 in Baviera, FIRA