New Blogger Talks Of Almadel Experiences

A new blogger on the scene relays his experiences with an Almadel operation. For those interested in all things Ars Almadel, you might want to take a peek here.

Jesus The Magician (Post 8: Chapter 7 Summary)

(Prior posts in the series are located in Category "Jesus the Magician")

 

Having spent several of the preceding chapters delineating the view of Jesus held by his adversaries Smith again returns to examine the views of Jesus’ proponents. While Smith has argued that Jesus was typically viewed as a magician by his opponents, he proffers here that many of Jesus’ proponents understood Jesus to be a magician as well. To support his position he points to Acts 19.19, which he claims demonstrates the extent to which the early church continued to follow the magical tradition that had been passed down from the time of Jesus. Indeed, for our author the accusation of magic was not entirely a malicious invention, it in fact reflected actual practice within the early church. In support of this position Smith appeals to the existence of the Christian magical papyri and amulets that have been found in Egypt.

In the remainder of the chapter Smith draws multiple parallels between events depicted within the gospels and events occurring within the magical papyri. The first to be considered is the baptism of Jesus and the descent of the (holy) spirit. Smith makes the case that this story, which he claims lacks a Jewish basis, closely resembles magical stories/techniques where a magician acquires a helpful spirit/demon that permits the working of miracles. Interestingly, according to Smith, it is this purported event that led to the notion of the “sonship” of Jesus (“This is my beloved Son”). For smith the appellation “son of god” has clear parallels within the magical tradition. He points out that while the author of Mark (and later tradition) linked the notion of “son of god” with the notion of ”Messiah,” the title “son of god” has no such correlation within Judaism. Moreover, it primarily appears in relation to miracle stories within the gospels rather than stories concerned with the notion of ‘Messhiaship.” For Smith, the title “son of god” implies a conceptual type, namely – “a supernatural being in human form that performs miracles by his own divine power (see discussion of “divine man” in earlier post). Furthermore, according to Smith the use of “son of god” within Hebrew and Aramaic was a convention to designate a member of a particular class. Accordingly, to say that Jesus is a “son of god” would have been tantamount to saying that Jesus is a god. Thus, according to the author, what we have in the gospels is the story of a man made a god by a rite of purification followed by the opening of the heavens and the coming of a spirit. According to Smith, such stories are plentiful in the magical papyri. Next Smith considers the story of Jesus being driven into the desert for forty days and nights where he is tempted by Satan. This he claims fits the pattern of a magician’s life, especially that of a shaman who typically begins his/her career by withdrawing into solitude where he/she is subjected to a program of testing and arduous ordeals. According to Smith, it is after his “shamanic ordeal” that Jesus performs his first miracles in Galilee. For Smith these miracles are what would be expected from a typical miracle worker/magician, namely - winning disciples, exorcisms and cures. In fact, the author claims that the types of miracles Mark records Jesus to have performed in Galilee are drawn entirely from the magician’s repertoire. Indeed, it was, in Smith’s view, the close parallels between the miracles of Jesus and the types of miraculous events ascribed to magicians that enabled Jesus’ adversaries to label him a magician.

In addition to those parallels mentioned above, Smith offers his readers numerous other instances where he finds parallels between gospel material and contemporary magical texts. I will not present them all here. There are two that I would like to mention, however. The first, being the semblance of the Eucharistic meal at the Last Supper with a type of adoration/ bonding meal preserved within the magical papyri. According to Smith, a typical magical meal is described in the magical treatises as providing the partakers of the meal with enchanted food to cause affection or love. Oftentimes the food is identified with the body and/or blood of a deity with whom the presiding magician is identified. Thus, the food is also the body and blood of the magician. Whoever partakes of the meal is therefore united in love with the magician. For Smith, the Eucharistic meal more closely reflects meals within the magical traditions than it does any possible Jewish source. He emphatically states, “To try to derive them (i.e., the Eucharistic meals) from the Passover ritual or any other Jewish rite is ludicrous. Strange as some rituals of Judaism may be, they do not include eating people.” Lastly, our author finds parallels between the world view preserved within the gospels and the world view preserved within the magical papyri. While Smith admits that these parallels cannot be carried too far, since similarities in world view are to be expected, he does find it intriguing that both the gospels and the magical texts share in common what he calls “theoretical monotheism with practical polytheism.” Specifically, Smith sees both the hierarchical structure of supernatural beings under the one God and the manner in which Jesus dealt with such entities in the gospels to be strikingly similar to the manner in which magicians were described to have dealt with such spirits, especially with respect to exorcisms.

To end this brief summary of a very detailed chapter I would like to quote our author as he reminds us what he is and is not trying to do. He is not trying to uncover the historical Jesus, but rather to uncover an early view of Jesus held by many of Jesus’ adversaries and followers alike, namely – Jesus the magician.

Smith states,

Our primary concern in this chapter has not been to determine what Jesus did, but to analyze the gospels’ account of what he did and to point out the elements which correspond with magical material and which therefore, although preserved in the Christian stories of his life, provided evidence for a picture of Jesus the magician.

Again,

The picture in this chapter has been drawn entirely from the gospels, the accounts of Jesus given by his own followers. We have merely read the gospels with some knowledge of ancient magical material and noted what, in the light of that material, the gospel stories and sayings really say.

Get Your Witchery On!

If you are not familiar with the series of videos on YouTube by Krazyboy I would highly suggest that you become acquainted with them. Krazyboy gives presentations on general magical techniques as well as techniques specific to Hoodoo, Brujeria and Santeria, etc. I found his videos to be both interesting and informative. Check them out here.

Below is a makeshift oil lamp I made at work after I watched one of his videos (well, I was impressed anyway).

Jesus The Magician (Post 7: Chapter 6 Summary)

(Prior posts in the series are located in Category "Jesus the Magician")


Smith begins Chapter Six by making the case that the mark of a magician is, sin que non, a miraculous act and that, based upon the writings of Justin and Celsus, the title “son of god” was used in popular thought as an alternative label to designate a “miracle man.” This, he states, is why the title “son of god” is almost always used in the synoptic gospels in connection with miracle stories. An example of one such miracle worker/magician whose claims to divinity was well known during the time of the composition of John’s gospel was, according to our author, Simon Magus from Samaria. According to Smith it was apparently Jesus’ resemblance to Simon Magus that prompted his critics to label him a Samaritan (like Simon Magus).

Next, Smith demonstrates that early Christian writers such as Origin were forced to admit that the miracles of Jesus closely resembled the miraculous acts that were performed by magicians. However, Origin is quick to point out those factors which distinguish Jesus’ miraculous acts from those that a magician would perform. According to Origin, Jesus’ miracles do not resemble any of those performed by magicians (i.e., goetes) on account that Jesus utilized his miracles as a platform to teach those that were amazed by the spectacles the fear of God and to call them to moral reformation (As a side note, Smith points out that the miracle stories within the synoptic gospels are not usually connected with Jesus’ teaching stories. Thus he takes the position that Jesus’ miracle stories and his teaching stories probably circulated independently of one another, thereby suggesting that the activities did as well.) Smith then argues that other Christians followed suit and, like Origin, conceded that Jesus’ miracles resembled the miraculous acts of magicians. Like Origin they too found other criteria to distinguish the miracles of Jesus from those of the magicians. According to Smith, the typical maneuver of these Christians was to reduce the idea of a “magician” to its lowest standard of the scoundrelous goes. In doing so they were able to assert that Jesus, given that he did not resemble this character, was not a magician (As a side note, Smith reminds us that the notion of “magician” in Palestine had a wide range of meanings that do not fit this characterization of a magician. In other words, Smith argues that while the early Christians denied that Jesus was a magician, they were denying a very limited and specific type of magician, principally the scoundrel or criminal type. According to Smith, this tactic was an intentional misrepresentation of the accusation to deny the charges of Jesus’ accusers).

Smith brings the chapter to a close by comparing the stories of Jesus and Apollonius of Tyana, noting both the historical similarities between the activities of Jesus and Apollonius and the legends that sprang forth as a result of these activities. For Smith, the most noteworthy facts to discern from such a comparison is that both Jesus and Apollonius were believed to be a “son of god” by their followers (i.e., a being of supernatural power) and that both were accused of being magicians by their enemies.

Jesus the Magician (Post 6: Chapter 5 Summary)

(Prior posts in the series are located in Category "Jesus the Magician")

In previous chapters Morton Smith argues that those who opposed Jesus or remained outside his circle of followers considered him a magician. In Chapter 5 he takes a look at some of the notions of a magician as a personality type that were circulating in Palestine during the time of Jesus. First, he considers the types of magicians that stem from Greco-Roman and Persian sides of Palestinian culture of Jesus’ day. According to Smith, the common Greek word for magician at the time of Jesus was goes (goetes, plural). He relays that this term was usually but not necessarily abusive in use. Smith understands the goes to be a type of Greek shaman who functioned primarily at death rites where, after entering an ecstatic trance, he (/she?) would accompany the dead on their journey to the underworld. The author contends that the goetes where known for their persuasive abilities. Accordingly, a persuasive orator might often find him/herself being referred to as either a sophist or a goes. Apparently, the goetes were also known for their persuasive influence among the gods. According to Smith the goetes were often times thought to be able to charm the gods through sacrifices, prayers and spells. Smith also points out that the related term goeteia, which for Herodotus meant a form of magic that transformed its practitioners into werewolves, was likely associated with goetes as well. For others, goeteia was used as a general term for deceit. Thus, a goes was often identified as a deceiver or scoundrel. As a consequence, it appears that at the time of Plato a person identified as a goes was subject to arrest. A second type of magician known in the Palestinian world of Jesus’ day was the magos (magoi, plural), who, according to Smith, was a step above the goes. Smith relays that the real magoi were a priestly clan of Media that came onto the Greek scene when the King of Medes and Persians conquered the Greek cities of Asia Minor. Smith conveys that Herodotus saw the magoi as interpreters of dreams, omens and portents, as well as being instrumental as officiates in private and public sacrifices. According to Smith, the term magos, due to an increasing rationalization, became derogatory in nature much like goes. Magos could mean quack and their practice could be linked to the ingestion of drugs and the deceit of the gods. Oftentimes cannibalism and the ability to send living humans into the realm of the dead and bring them back to the world of the living was attributed to them as well. Despite the rather negative use of the term in later times, it is pointed out by Smith that the terms magos, magoi, and mageia (what magoi practice) continued to have a higher degree of prestige than goes, goetes and goeteia. This was due mainly to a lingering memory of the magoi as a priestly caste connected with ancient powers, such as the ability to placate the gods. The last of the Greco-Roman/Persian terms for magician discussed by Smith is divine man (Greek not provided). Smith points out that whereas an individual was likely to call his/her enemy a goes (or sometimes magos) the same individual would likely refer to his/her friend as a divine man. According to Smith, a divine man was either a god or demon in disguise moving about in the world in a seemingly human form. Because of his indwelling divine nature a divine man could perform magic without resorting to rituals and spells. Smith argues that it was this ability, the ability to operate ritual-free, that was the defining characteristic of a divine man. Smith points out that the dividing line between a divine man and a spell/ritual utilizing magician could at times become blurred, as the Greek magical papyri describe a number of rites by which a magician can obtain a powerful spirit as a constant companion and thereby dispense with rites and spells. Other rites intended to deify the magician either by joining the magician with some god or by changing the very essence of the magician’s soul as to make it divine. According to Smith, anyone deified in this way would for all intents and purposes be indistinguishable from a divine man. Despite this blurring of magical roles, Smith points out that the term divine man did not carry any of the negative connotations attached to the terms goes and magos. While the perceptions of the goes, magos, and divine man varied widely in Palestine ranging from scoundrel/criminal to a deity in disguise, Smith points out that a revision in the Roman law code in 82-81 B.C. (which remained valid until approximately 529 A.D.) branded the practice of magic as a criminal act punishable by crucifixion, being thrown to the beasts or burned alive. Although Smith acknowledges some squabbling as to what constituted punishable magic, he asserts that magic as a practice was, for the most part, deemed a prohibited act during Jesus’ time.

After his examination of three Greco-Roman and Persian magical types Smith takes a look at some Semitic notions of magical personalities. According to Smith, a general tendency within Semitic circles was to identify magic with madness. He claims this is probably do to the ambiguity in many folks minds as to whether a magician had a spirit or whether the spirit had the magician (he argues here and previously that this ambiguity with respect to Jesus is clearly demonstrated in the gospels). Next he turns to discuss the ba’al ‘ob (“master of a divining spirit”) mentioned in the Old Testament. These magical practitioners were thought to have in their possession (or be possessed by) one of the “divining spirits” (‘obot, plural of ‘ob). According to Smith, the ‘obot are a mysterious class of beings often associated with spirits of the dead but are probably better understood as underworld deities. Smith relays that an ‘ob can enter into a human and remain therein for extended periods of time. Since the ‘ob is the source of the magician’s power, the ba’al ‘ob closely resemble the divine man in that he too can perform magic devoid of rituals or spells. While the ba’al ‘ob may have been viewed as a type of divine entity by many, such individuals do not seem to have been well received by the Jewish priestly class as Smith points out that priestly law dictates that a ba’al ’ob is to be stoned. Despite the negative view of the ba’al ‘ob among the priestly class, Smith demonstrates that magic was not wholly condemned by the priests by pointing to the high regard in which Solomon, both King of Israel and a practicing magician, was held in Semitic circles.

*(Smith acknowledges a resemblance between the perceived activities of magicians and Israelite prophets. Since he wishes to discuss only the concepts of “magician” here, he has relegated a discussion of the prophets and their relationship to magic to Appendix B.)

Jesus The Magician (Post 5: Chapter 4 Summary)

(Prior posts in the series are located in Category "Jesus the Magician")

 

In Chapter 4 Morton Smith examines a number of early depictions of Jesus by non-Christians that have been preserved outside of the Christian gospels. First Smith takes a look at the earliest non-Christian work to reference Jesus – namely, Josephus’ Antiquities. It is pointed out that not much can be gleamed from the two passages that mention Jesus in Antiquities. The first passage merely references Jesus as the brother of James who was illegally brought to trial and executed. The second passage as it exists today is, according to Smith, a rewrite with numerous Christian elements inserted at some point subsequent to its original composition. Accounting for these extraneous Christian elements, the author conveys that the original composition likely advanced the view that Jesus was a miracle worker who led the Jews astray and who indulged in impiety while claiming to be more than a man.

Next Smith considers some of the portrayals of Jesus preserved within rabbinic stories that stem roughly from the same time as Josephus’ Antiquities. In one of the stories ascribed to the distinguished rabbi Eliezer, Jesus is identified as the son of Panteri/Pantera (and its variants). Smith points out that this name was not a very common name at the time and speculates that one possible candidate for this mysterious “Pantera” might be a Sidonian archer named Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, who served in Palestine about the time of Jesus’ birth. Next Smith considers another very cryptic passage by Eliezer in which he sees hidden references to Jesus as someone educated in magic and tattooed with spells during a sojourn in Egypt.

After completing his examination of rabbinic literature, Smith turns to an inspection of the Roman depictions of Jesus preserved in the reports of Suetonius and Tacitus, two Roman historians who were active in the early second century. He also touches upon the writings of Lucian, a Roman poet. Some of the charges brought against Jesus in these writings contain the accusations that Jesus promoted “hatred of the human race” and “cannibalism,” both of which Smith argues were common charges against magicians.

Subsequently, Smith turns to an assessment of Palestinian anti-Christian propaganda preserved and responded to by the Christian apologist Justin Martyr, who wrote in Rome between 150 and 165 A.D. It is pointed out by Smith that we learn from Justin that Christianity is viewed by many as a “godless and libertine heresy” that originated with Jesus, a Galilean magician. Justin’s writings also indicate that the Palestinian priests and Sanhedrin denied the resurrection and claimed that Jesus’ body was stolen.

Smith argues that all of the preceding depictions of Jesus stem from Palestinian traditions originating from direct observations of Jesus. According to Smith, a slightly different depiction of Jesus began to emerge from pagan observations of Christian communities in the Diaspora. These depictions portray Jesus as a teacher who introduced a new “initiation,” which Smith contends should be interpreted as meaning that Jesus was viewed as the founder of a new mystery cult.

To round off this chapter Smith makes the case that the very fact that Jesus was later invoked as a source of magical power in both Christian and pagan spells and exorcisms indicates the existence of a longstanding tradition that links Jesus with magic. He also contends that the very nature of early Christian communities themselves probably helped to perpetuate the idea that Jesus and his followers where practicing magicians. According to Smith, Christian talk of mutual love and the Christian community’s inclination to refer to its members as “brothers” and “sisters,” when taken together, led to charges of promiscuity and incest. The idea of Christian communalism led to speculations of polyamorous relationships between husbands and wives. Above all, the practice of the Eucharist led to charges of cannibalism. According to Smith, all of the above charges leveled against the Christian communities were charges typical of those leveled against magicians as well.

To bring an end to the chapter Smith combines the views of Jesus’ opponents preserved both within and outside the gospels to offer a sketch of Jesus’ life “as it was pictured by those who did not become his disciples.” (Smith, 67)

What follows below is Smith’s “sketch” of the life of “Jesus the Magician” in its entirety.

The son of a soldier named Panthera and a peasant woman married to a carpenter, Jesus was brought up in Nazareth as a carpenter, but left his home town and, after unknown adventures, arrived in Egypt where he became expert in magic and was tattooed with magical symbols or spells. Returning to Galilee he made himself famous by his magical feats, miracles he did by his control of demons. He thereby persuaded the masses that he was the Jewish Messiah and/or the son of a god. Although he pretended to follow the Jewish customs, he formed a small circle of intimate disciples whom he taught to despise the Jewish Law and to practice magic. These he bound together and to himself by ties of “love,” meaning sexual promiscuity, and by participation in the most awful magical rites, including cannibalism – they had some sort of ritual meal in which they ate human flesh and drank blood. Surrounded by this circle he travelled from town to town deceiving many and leading them into sin. But he was not always successful. The members of his own family did not believe him; when he went back to Nazareth his townspeople rejected him and he could do no miracle there. Stories of his libertine teaching and practice leaked out and began to circulate. The scribes everywhere opposed him and challenged his claims. Finally, when he went to Jerusalem the high priests had him arrested and turned him over to Pilate, charging him with the practice of magic and sedition. Pilate had him crucified, but this did not put an end to the evil. His followers stole his body from the grave, claimed he had risen from the dead, and, as a secret society, perpetuated his practices. (Smith, 67)

Jesus The Magician (Post 4: Chapter 3 Summary)

(Prior posts in the series are located in Category "Jesus the Magician")

Chapter 3 -

In Chapter Three the author sets out to reconstruct the views of Jesus held by the general populace (comprised of those who were not among his followers) and by those who directly opposed him as they have been preserved within the four gospels (i.e., by Jesus’ believers). At the outset of the chapter Smith considerers the general views of Jesus’ contemporaries. Having offered up a number of recollections about Jesus (some of which would have surely been unflattering to the early Church), Smith argues that none of these recollections would explain the reason for his popularity among the masses. Instead, he makes the case, based upon the preserved fragments, that it was the perception of Jesus as a miracle worker that propelled Jesus into renown.

Despite the fact that there seemed to have been a common non-hostile vision of Jesus as a miracle worker among the masses, Smith argues that the gospels have equally preserved evidence of views where Jesus was seen unfavorably, if not with hostility or outright opposition, by isolated segments of society. The first group explored by the author is Jesus’ family and those from his home town. Smith argues that Jesus was more-or-less rejected by his home community and immediate family. As support, he cites Mk. 6.1ff. where Jesus is reported to have been unable to perform any miracles in his home town due to the unbelief of the people. In reference to Jesus’ family Smith cites Mk. 3.21. where Jesus’ family tries to restrain him and claims that he is crazy. Moreover, Smith makes the case that Jesus reciprocated this animosity towards his family and points to Jesus’ snub of his family in Mk. 3.31-34 as supporting evidence. Continuing along these lines Smith contends that the gospels do not support the amiable relationship between Jesus and his mother that has become the standard depiction in Christian tradition. Why might Jesus have been less than loving towards his mother? According to Smith, a clue is given in Mk. where Jesus is referred to by the townspeople as “the son of Mary.” Smith points out that in Semitic usage the referral to a man as the son of his mother was to indicate that his father’s identity was uncertain. In fact, Smith goes further and claims that the evidence, though scant, would seem to indicate that Joseph was not Jesus’ father.

While the author admits that the gospels preserve numerous stories of opposition to Jesus involving the Herodians and the Pharisees, he dismisses their inclusions within most of the adversarial accounts as anachronisms that grew out of later hostilities (post crucifixion) between these two groups and early Christians (Smith devotes the entirety of Appendix A to argue his case). One group that Smith contends played a particularly prevalent oppositional role to Jesus is identified within the gospels by the moniker “scribes.” According to the author, the scribes were a professional class that probably consisted of several professions, most likely a triune comprised of teachers, layers and notaries. Smith contends that the scribe’s oppositional views towards Jesus can be roughly categorized into three themes: that Jesus is a transgressor of the Jewish Law (he ate with publicans and sinners, his disciples did not observe the mandatory purity ritual of washing their hands before eating, he healed on the Sabbath); that Jesus lays claim to be in possession of a supernatural power; that Jesus is a magician who is able to work wonders (e.g., performs exorcisms) on account that he wields the power of Beelzebul, a mighty demon who “possesses” him (Smith sees a passage in John where Jesus is accused of being a “doer of evil” at his trial as corroborating evidence. According to Smith, “doer of evil” is identified in the Roman law codes as vulgar term for “magician.” Several other examples of corroborating evidence are also offered). It is this last charge, the charge that Jesus was a magician, that Smith sees as the most important on account that it reveals how the scribes contextualized the known facts about Jesus and his activities. According to Smith, the scribes are important not only for providing us with a contemporary view of Jesus, but for their role in the preservation of much of the anti-Christian polemic that would eventually be incorporated into the gospels.

The last group of opponents to be considered by the author is the Jewish authorities running the city of Jerusalem – principally the “high priests.” Smith points out that there may have been some tension between Jewish authorities and Jesus as a result of Jesus’ attack on the Temple of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, he does not see this as the primary cause of opposition to Jesus. According to Smith, the main point of contention between the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and Jesus was Jesus’ source of power. He argues that because Jesus did not fit the mold of a prophet of Yahweh and refused to reveal his source of power when questioned the Jewish authorities were left to speculate as to Jesus’ source of miraculous power. Accordingly, their view of Jesus was probably much akin to the “magician view” held by the scribes who in all likelihood were among the authority’s informants. He argues against many of the gospel trial stories and the testimony that Jesus was handed over to the Roman authorizes for execution on the grounds of his “blasphemous” claim to be the Messiah as spurious and that they are constructs by the early Church. He points out that a claim to Messiahship would not have constituted a punishable offense by Jewish law. Even if it did, the Jewish authorities would have been within their legal right to execute the proper punishment. There would have been no need to hand him over to Roman authorities. According to Smith, the Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to the Roman officials with the accusation that he was a revolutionary magician who was making a claim to kingship.