Was Jesus One Among Many Miracle Workers in the First Century?

One is often confronted with the claim that there were many miracle workers roaming first-century Palestine; consequently, Jesus was not unique. What lies behind this claim is an attempt to discredit and deny what the Catholic Church has always maintained regarding Jesus the Christ. Namely, that in fulfillment of the Hebrew Scripture, Jesus was the Messiah Israel waited for and – what is more – he is God incarnate. As such and to reveal this to the world, his ministry consisted of him not only teaching but working different miracles, specifically nature and healing miracles. While it is true that there is some evidence suggesting other miracle workers roamed first-century Palestine, the evidence is not without serious problems, and it nowhere approximates the abundance of miracles attributed to Jesus in the gospels. 

Additionally, Jesus stands apart from all other miracle workers and rabbis in antiquity, and from all other contenders and founders of other faith traditions for that matter. This is the case not only because of the abundance of miracles attributed to him, but also because he made the outrageous claim to be God. While some argue today a rather absurd notion that the historical Jesus did not have such a conception of himself and that such an understanding is a later development of the Church, some even suggesting it did not arise until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E., all our evidence suggests otherwise. It is the case that Jesus claimed to be divine and is portrayed as such on virtually every page of the gospels. One only need recall his seven “I am” statements in the Gospel of John that are clear divinity claims playing off the etymology of the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus. Or one can recall his response to the High Priest in Mark 14:62 after being asked if he is the messiah and the son of the Blessed One. This text reads, “Jesus said, I am, and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’” The response of the High Priest in the very next verse with his tearing of his cloths too suggests his claim to divinity, as it was a claim that assuredly would have been viewed as blasphemous if not true, hence eliciting the strong visceral response by the Priest. Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah and son of Man evokes imagery from the book of Daniel. Jesus equating himself with the “son of man” who will come “riding on the clouds of heaven,” evokes imagery and references to a messianic figure people expected at the time that simultaneously implied he was God, though most but not all at the time understood the Messiah would be a political figure.  

This all calls to mind the classic argument that no one would claim to be God except a madman or God. One would be hard pressed to call Jesus the former. Even his critics today never argue such. Additionally, one should remember that all of Jesus disciples save one went to their death thinking he was God, when they could have recanted and saved their lives. Indeed, it is hard to fathom a movement like the Catholic Church could have started with a figure who was not God. What is more, it should be noted that Jesus is reported to have been seen by hundreds after his resurrection (see Acts of the Apostles). Thus, not only did his miracles as well as his teachings make him unique, but notably his shocking claim to be divine makes him rather unique in both the ancient and modern world.

Regarding the other miracle workers around the time of Jesus in the same region, the best-known and preeminent example is Honi the Circle Drawer. Both the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, and the Mishnah recount his miracles. It is described how this holy man from Galilee drew a circle and standing in it could make it rain after a prolonged drought. However, he did so by imploring God, not of his own volition, quite differently from Jesus. Both sources and their respective accounts agree that it is by his praying to God or imploring him that the miracle occurs. The text from the Mishnah reads:

Once they said to Honi the Circle Drawer, “Pray that rain may fall. “He answered, “Go out and bring in the Passover ovens that they be not softened [by the rain].” He prayed, but the rain did not fall. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and said before God, “O Lord of the universe, your children have turned their faces to me, for that I am like a son of the house before you. I swear by your great name that I will not stir from here until you have mercy upon your children.” Rain began to fall drop by drop. He said, “I have not prayed for such rain, but for rain that will fill the cisterns, pits and caverns.” It began to rain with violence. He said, “I have not prayed for such rain, but for rain of goodwill, blessing and graciousness. Then it rained in moderation. (M. Ta‘an 3:8 as cited in Brad H. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, p. 38)

Despite his admirable chutzpah, it is interesting to note that at first his prayer is not answered, in stark contrast to the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels.         

Josephus also mentions another miracle worker named Eleazar who could cast out demons and is even said to have done so in front of Vespasian, the Roman emperor. Yet another miracle worker from this time in Galilee, Hanina ben Dosa, is said to have been able to heal, and even from a distance, as Jesus does in the gospels (Matt 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10; John 4:46-54). Hanina is known from rabbinic material. Here again, he does not heal by his own power but rather prays to God to enact the healings. One text regarding Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa explains that after being asked to pray for another Rabbi’s son: “He put his head between his knees, and prayed,” and the boy lived.  Again, Jesus was different: he brought the healings on his own accord and by his own power. This point alone makes Jesus unique in first-century Palestine and presupposes his divinity. Thus, one is hard pressed to say it was the later Catholic Church that claimed he was divine and that Jesus did not think of himself as such, seeing how he went around healing by his own volition and making claims of being divine. In similar vein, one can recall how the gospels explain Jesus is one who speaks with authority, suggesting his uniqueness and having no dependence on another (Mark 1:22).

Other cultures past and present have tales of miracle workers, though again nothing quite like Jesus. Tales long separated in time and date that come perhaps a bit closer to those of Jesus are those from India, but they arise out of a polytheist context very different than the world of Jesus, a monotheistic one of Second Temple Judaism and the Greco Roman world of first-century Palestine. This is a unique setting radically different than that of India and elsewhere, and certainly radically different from our own context of today. 

It also must be noted that our sources for these few miracles attributed to Jewish miracle-workers in Palestine are late in date. Additionally, each miracle worker has very few miracles attributed to them. They are nothing like what we find in the gospels in number and type for Jesus. The paucity of evidence for other individuals who seem to have done similar things to Jesus in first-century Palestine and all of antiquity for that matter, even among the Greeks and Romans, should make one cautious in arguing Jesus was one among many. 

Additionally, Josephus’ work mentioned above is tendentious and its historical value has long been called into question by scholars. Indeed, his work is dubious in terms of its value for historical reconstruction, a position many scholars take. That the texts describing other miracle-workers in the region of Palestine in the time of Jesus are all late in date too militates against thinking Jesus was one among many or that any evidence suggests otherwise. The earliest Jewish work for the era of Jesus in the region, that is the earliest of rabbinic material is the Mishnah and it dates to 200 of the Common Era. Rabbinic Literature is therefore rather later in date; thus, one need be very cautious with it and realize it cannot be used for critical analysis with much certainty for events in the time of Jesus. The subsequent Palestinian Talmud and Babylonian Talmud are much later, dating to around 400 and 600 C.E. respectively, and are thus not helpful in this discussion. Therefore, no other evidence compares to that which one finds for Jesus in the gospels. A certain uniqueness for him can be asserted, for no other text from the region and time claimed that anyone else performed such an abundance of miracles while simultaneously professing divinity.

To be sure, miracles attributed to Jesus in the gospels operate on multiple levels, just as Scripture can be interpreted in multiple ways, as articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 115-119), such as via its literal, spiritual, allegorical, moral or anagogical sense. Undoubtedly, his miraculous feats point to who Jesus was. They also point to God’s care for humanity, such as his feeding of the five thousand (Matt 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15) or healing of the sick (e.g. Mark 2:1-12; John 5:1-9, 9:1-41). Often, they have a deeper symbolic meaning. For example, the gospels have Jesus’ miracles occurring in a manner reminiscent of some of Israel’s great paradigmatic leaders. Thus, in Matthew just as Moses was in the wilderness forty years, so Jesus is in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan. Here Jesus is patterned after the image of Moses and elsewhere he is portrayed more in imitation of the great prophet Elijah. Thus, Jesus incorporated both the law (Moses) and prophets (Elijah) in a symbolic sense. It takes all these images and patterning on Israel’s great leaders of faith to begin to explain who this first-century rabbi from Palestine truly was. These portrayals in the image of Moses and Elijah showed the likeness between Jesus and them and the similarity of his work to theirs, though at a much higher level, for he was God. He surpassed them, but they helped articulate who he was to a Jewish audience that would have immediately understood the significance of how Jesus portrayed himself, something lost to us moderns until we delve into the Bible a little deeper. One needs to recall that Jesus’ first followers were Jewish and the early Church was originally first thought of as a sect within Judaism.

Additionally, many of Jesus’ miracles take on a deeper symbolic significance when one understands the ancient context they come from. Jesus walking on water (Matt 14:22-33) and his calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee (Matt 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24) are more than simple miracles. They represent deeper divinity claims, as water to the ancient mind represented the forces of chaos and ancients in the Near east believed only a god could conquer the forces of chaos personified by the water. Often the sea and its waters of chaos were thought to contain monsters that go by the name Leviathan (Isa 27:1), Rahab (Ps 89:7) or Lotan (Baal defeats this monster of the sea in the extant Canaanite Ugaritic Baal Cycle). Ancient Near East creation accounts such as the Babylonian one, Enuma Elish, with its uplifting of Marduk the head Babylonian deity who defeats the sea monster representing primeval chaos, Tiamat, and even the Hebrew Bible depicts such (See Job 26:12-13 and Isaiah: 51:9-10). On this note, one should recall the Spirit of God hovering over the waters in our creation account in Genesis (Gen 1:2). So, for an ancient audience, someone hovering or walking atop the waters signified a deity was present, a motif lost on many of us today if the ancient Near Eastern context is not known. Thus, there is more than meets the eye when Jesus walks atop the water of the Sea of Galilee and stills the storm on the lake: it was a way of revealing Jesus was indeed God because only gods in this ancient context were believed to have control over water and the forces it holds back. In the Hebrew Bible, one can see the motif of calming the sea and vanquishing the dragon, thus scary forces, in Job 26:12-13. It reads: “By his power he stilled the Sea; by his understanding he struck down Rahab. By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent.” No wonder the disciples were terrified at first when they saw Jesus walking on the water toward them and thought a ghost was present. The text even explains that they all cried out in fear (Matt 14:24). They do not calm down until Jesus reveals it is himself and says to them, in what is the most frequently line attested to in all of Scripture: “Do not be afraid” (v. 27), a comforting point Pope John Paul II has often reminded people of during his pontificate.

Thus, Jesus is unique for several reasons. Even in later times and in differing regions, none compares to him, his work and his claims. Albeit others would come along and, within a Jewish context, claim to be the long-awaited Messiah, but would rather quickly be forgotten. One such messianic contender was Simon bar Kokhba. His original name was bar Kosevah, but Rabbi Akiva changed his name to bar Kokhba meaning “son of the Star” in reference to Numbers 24:17 and its prophecy of a star coming out of Jacob. Bar Kokhba led the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135 C.E.) against Rome that ended in a disaster for the Jewish people by which they were permanently expelled from Jerusalem and would not regain any semblance of political autonomy in the region until 1948. It must be noted that he and others, in claiming to be the Messiah, did not make such a bold claim as to be divine. 

To answer the question stated in the title of this article: Was Jesus one among many miracle workers in the fist-century, one must look at the evidence. As shown here, an unequivocal no is the only answer. Jesus’ uniqueness is without question, for he truly was and is the Son of God. He is unique not only in his claim to be God but in the fact that he did his miracles on his own accord and by his own power, not another’s, which presupposes he is God, whereas the other Jewish contenders at the time did so by imploring god, as those of the Hebrew Bible had. Jesus is a continuation of the line of the great Hebrew Bible prophets and leaders, but much more so.

The depth of the miracles of Jesus, about their multivalent meanings, needs to be remembered and in some way suggests the profound significance of all that Jesus did and the unparalleled importance of his ministry in Palestine. As discussed here, there are other references and some evidence for first-century miracle workers and rabbis, but they are far and few between, essentially confined to those individuals mentioned here. They arise from questionable sources such as Josephus or very late rabbinic material. Thus, the paucity of evidence and its unreliability precludes using them for historical reconstruction; even if they are completely historically reliable and not pious folklore, it does not change what is argued here. Moreover, it needs to be remembered that these other miracle-workers never produced a following like Jesus or a movement that changed the world as he did. Additionally, everyone only has a few tales surrounding him, in contradistinction to Jesus. Ultimately, the sparse traditions known from dubious textual witnesses in no way come close to what the Catholic Tradition has passed on regarding Jesus: a tradition that has rightly passed on the understanding that Jesus is utterly unique, for he is God incarnate. This can be seen from the very beginning in the gospels as well as throughout the proclamation of the New Testament and has been preserved and passed on by the Catholic Church.