Jesus the Magician

by Morton Smith

Challenges established Christian beliefs and explores the nature of magic and the biblical language of demons and miracles to reveal how Jesus was viewed by the people of his time

Genres: Religion, History, Christianity, Nonfiction, Occult, Magic, Spirituality

222 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1978

Reviews

[[Name Redacted] · Rating 1 out of 5]

Works like this make me despair for my field, as they are both immensely popular and horribly flawed. This is a HILARIOUSLY bad book, a conspiracy theory masquerading as an academic treatise and popular only because the "masses" cannot see how terrible his methodology and how scanty his evidence (or they don't care because they like what he's saying). I scarcely know where to start. Nearly every one of his claims is easily refuted, which Susan Garrett and Naomi Janowitz among others have done to great effect in their respective works on the subject of magic in the New Testament/Second Temple Judaism/Early Christianity/Antique Mediterranean. Morton Smith actually manages to make the people of the Jesus Seminar look objective and rational by comparison. It's tragic, because this is a subject worthy of exploration, but thank goodness we have Garrett & co. to serve as a corrective. Hopefully my dissertation will do likewise.

The author consistently presents suppositions, guesses or specious theories to the reader, then treats them as facts for the remainder of the text, frequently following "perhaps", "maybe", or "could it be?" with something he fully intends to treat as an established truth (eg: his theory that Jesus claimed or was claimed to possess/be possessed by the spirit of John the Baptist). He substitutes his own faulty translations where the ones used by academics fail to support his claims and interpretations, freely inserting new words and phrases into his personal renditions of the original ancient texts so that they better fit his ideas. Rather than easily-accessible footnotes or endnotes, he uses his own bizarrely idiosyncratic referencing system in an apparent effort to obfuscate the weakness of his arguments by making it a hassle to find any of his references (most of which refer to one another, or actually contradict his claims). He repeatedly relies on the most hyperbolic and sensationalistic language to make his outrageous claims, evidently hoping (like Martin Luther perhaps) to mask his errors and logical-leaps with raw passion. He only distinguishes between the Gospels (and their authors) when it fits his ends; otherwise he treats them all as a single, cohesive work from a single date and author/community.

Likewise, he treats Christianity (and, to a lesser extent, Judaism) as a passive, sponge-like construct shaped by and absorbing elements from everything around it, but having no impact of its own. Thus, according to the author, texts which are contemporary to the Gospels and seem to share common elements are either assumed to have influenced the Gospels or to have shared a common source with them -- the possibility that they could have been influenced BY the Gospels is never considered. Even texts which post-date the Gospels by centuries are presented by Morton Smith as either sharing an unknown source or existing separately -- and in some cases are STILL argued by the author to have shaped both the Gospels and Christianity! Again, for the author of this book there is NO possibility that any non-Christian text or tradition was shaped BY Christianity/the Gospels. According to him Christianity is influenced, it does not influence; the Gospels are shaped, they do not shape.

Yet Smith's primary methodological weakness is actually two-fold: an astonishing mixture of literalism and credulity buttressed by a baffling ignorance of ancient Mediterranean views on magic. He assumes that if an accusation of magic is made, or a defense against such accusations is established, then some sort of magical practice must have been going on. This is not only demonstrably false, but also carries with it the implicit assumption that all such ancient accusations are true - to whit, that all ancient Jews were urine-drinking atheist wizards, and all Persians hedonistic star-gazing fortune-tellers. The reality is that accusations of magic were commonplace, not because the accused actually practiced magic, but because it was a near-universal rhetorical means of discrediting a group or individual - particularly if that group or individual came from a different culture or religion. Accusing an opponent/object of enmity of being a magician was the functional equivalent of calling someone on the Left a "Commie" or someone on the Right a "Nazi" in modern American political discourse - a flashy, easy way of putting them immediately on the defensive and identifying them to others as an evil "undesirable" regardless of their actual views or stances. And again, if we are to follow Smith's logic then all Jews, all Persians, all women and all non-Greeks/Romans must likewise have been magicians, and all of subsequent history must be the product of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by the most unlikely cabal of conspirators in human history.

Morton Smith is also fond of a hypocrisy which may generously be called "inconsistency". For instance: accusing others of anachronisms (especially rabbis), but repeatedly lapsing into his own - such as treating both the Papyri Graecae Magicae and the Coptic language as far more ancient than they are; repeatedly accusing others of presenting preposterous and inconsistent tales of ancient conspiracies, then building his whole book around one; introducing his book by asserting that a fair analysis of a historical figure requires examining both the claims of his supporters and of his detractors, then claiming that the truest picture of Jesus comes purely from an examination of what his detractors said and sneeringly dismissing anything said by his supporters; accusing other scholars of deliberately overlooking or dismissing features of the Gospels & Epistles traditions which do not match their pet theories, then asserting that anything non-magical which the Gospels or Epistles attribute to Jesus is automatically false and a later invention.

He frequently demonstrates a profound ignorance of Second Temple Jewish belief and praxis, and an overwhelming ignorance of the pre-Christian Jewish literary traditions. If Morton Smith is to be believed, anything Jewish in Christianity was a LATER addition to the religion intended to cover up the true (largely pagan) magical origins. As a result he tries to draw a number of fallacious conclusions, such as: that claims of ascent to heaven are to be identified purely with magicians, Jesus and Christians (rather than the long tradition of Jewish pre-Christian literary ascension narratives); that the Last Supper's imagery has no connections to the paschal meal (which he deftly avoids discussing); that the crucifixion/persecution narratives could have no connection to the scapegoat sacrifice or the Isaiahan "suffering servant" motif; that the "breath" mentioned in the Gospels is purely a pagan magical reference (rather than a reference to the ancient Jewish tradition of God "breathing" as in the Genesis narrative of Adam's creation); and that any anthropomorphic descriptions of or to references the Jewish God stem from magical traditions (rather than ancient and well-documented Israelite & Jewish descriptions of God as anthropomorphic).

This ignorance is compounded by his clear antipathy towards both Judaism and Christianity, as when he mocks Jewish religious praxis as "strange", refers to Jewish messianism as an especially "virulent strain" of "nonsense", and calls early Christian beliefs "psychopathic histories."

As I said, Morton Smith's book IS terrible, but it's also not UNIQUELY terrible, and that's important to understand. "Jesus The Magician" was very much a product of the fears and suspicions common to the mid-to-late 20th century West, an age in which popular culture and academia alike were saturated with conspiracy theories revolving around religion. America & Europe were still largely Protestant (or Protestant-influenced) and deep-seated resentment of Catholicism, Judaism, etc. lived on in the popular consciousness. This is the age that gave us "When It Was Dark," "The Mystery of Mar Saba", "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", "The Celestine Prophecy", "King Jesus", "The Sacred Mushroom & The Cross", etc. -- not to mention the endless stream of paranoid articles and books claiming that the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls was taking so long because they were being suppressed by a Catholic/Jewish/Masonic/Templar/scholarly/alien conspiracy. "Jesus The Magician" fits perfectly into this milieu, as evidenced by Smith's clear antipathy towards both Jewish rabbis and what Smith calls "the self-styled 'Catholic Church'". Such fears, hatreds and suspicions have persisted, taking on new forms ("The Da Vinci Code" anyone?) while borrowing liberally from past iterations, all of which has resulted in the continuing popularity of this book.


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Why exactly is it impossible for Christian propagandists to have invented the scene in which people mock Jesus and accuse him of being able to save others but not himself? Why is that impossible? It's a scene in which even his enemies are accepting that he performed miracles. Doesn't that sound exactly like the sort of thing Christians MIGHT add to portray opponents of Christianity (and residents of Jerusalem in particular) in a negative light? I'm not arguing that that's where it came from -- I'm just confused by Morton Smith's "logic"!

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are many varied images of the person of Jesus. Those debated by scholars include Jesus as eschatological prophet, as Cynic, as Jewish rabbi, as anti-imperialist agitator, as polymathic mystagogue, as psychedelic mushroom, as literary invention and others, including the more conventional religious appropriations of the various Christian and non-Christian groups which treat him prominently. Morton Smith, a colleague of my old Church History teacher in seminary, Cyril Richardson, has staked out the field for the claim that Jesus was primarily a wonder-worker, a magician--and thus, by implication to modern readers, a bit of a charlatan. This interpretation is much in keeping with what Smith calls "the Secret Gospel", a holographic ms. he discovered representing part of a letter of Clement of Alexandria to a presbyter in conflict with local Carpocrations about the patristically attested Secret Gospel of Mark, the text of which primarily concerns the raising of Lazarus.

Smith's Jesus the Magician is well-worth reading as a documented argument for this portrayal of Jesus. It is not, in my opinion, convincing. The various early traditions, very many of them at least, certainly portray Jesus as what we might call a magician, but they often include this along with other claims. Wonder-working was no great deal to the ancients to whom so much (stories of apparently dead people reviving, of pygmies, of hippos, of steam power or of electro-plating) was wonderful. It was just one of the signs of authenticity, of power, a sign recognized by the pagan, the Jewish and the Christian communities.

Personally, I look to the Ebionite traditions as regards the organization established by Jesus' brothers and his earliest followers (esclusive, of course, of Paul, the great distorter) for clues as to the actual person of Jesus, of his teachings and practices. Here, so far as we know, there is little emphasis on wonder-working.

[Skallagrimsen]

Among the heresies that got Giordano Bruno burned alive by the Inquisition was his claim that Jesus wasn't God, but rather an unusually skilled magician.

But why shouldn't the prophet whose miraculous birth was greeted by the Magi be a Magician?

[Sir Michael Röhm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jesus the Magician was written in 1978 by a man named Morton Smith. Smith, far from a house-hold name, was a highly educated, but controversial Biblical scholar - and books like this indicate why.

It isn't that the charge is new - indeed, the Gospels contain references to Jesus being a magician as early as Mark (written ca. 70 CE), in Mk. 3:20-30. The typical enemies of Jesus, the Scribes, claimed that he "had a demon" named Beelzebub, who was apparently the leader of the demons in Hebraic mythology at the time and that it was through this power, and not that of God, that Jesus accomplished his miracles.

Smith notes early on in his book that the miraculous events in the Gospels, while certainly difficult for most modern-day people who see no evidence of 'miracles' on the level of Jesus' healing of the sick, raising of the dead, etc., are crucial aspects of the story. Too often, he notes, people who seek the 'historical Jesus' simply interpret him on a secular and materialistic level. It isn't that Smith gives credence to the healings and resurrections as actual events in history; rather, as he notes, the Jewish mindset was decidedly mythological and filled with spirits and miracles. Further, a magical undercurrent certainly existed, with romances involving King Solomon and his alleged powers over spirits and demons in circulation. In his Antiquities of the of Jews, Josephus goes into great detail about this legend.

Once pointing out that the miracles must be dealt with, Smith decides to look at the 'other side' of the coin. We've heard about Jesus' miracles being from God... but non-Christians, Jews and Romans alike, had their own view of where Jesus got his powers. Thus Smith begins citing evidence from the Gospels and later Talmudic writings that are alleged to refer to Jesus as a deceiver and a magician, and continues citing evidence of a similar view about Platonists and Pagans in the Roman Empire.

There's no question that this was a common explanation for Jesus' power by those who did not believe he was a Messiah or a god. Much attention is paid not just to the evidence in the Hebrew and Roman writings, but also to magical texts and papyri that have fortunately survived, some of which cite the Jewish god and Jesus himself in attempts to gain magical powers. Smith then outlines what the ancients considered to be evidence of supernatural powers, from necromancy to the binding of a god or a spirit by its "true name."

There is little doubt that both Jesus and the Jewish God (names ranging from Ioa, Saboath, Adonai, etc.) were used at least somewhat for magical purposes, and great results were often claimed from their invocation. The Gospels likewise make reference to this when the disciples find people using Jesus' name to cast out demons and sicknesses. They come to Jesus, worried and wondering about this, because the people who were using Jesus' name were not people that the disciples knew. They were 'outside of the flock' as it were. Jesus comforts them with, "For he who is not against us is for us." (this is all related in Mk 9:38-40. Interestingly, a very DIFFERENT position is taken by Matthew in Mt 7:21-23, wherein Jesus rejects those who have done things in his name if they have not done "the will of my Father in Heaven.")

I find that the book falters, however, when Smith tries to relate the Gospel accounts to depictions of magicians in various sources, from the magical papyri, the satires of Lucian and others and the life of Apollonius of Tyana. In other words, he tries to find evidence in the Gospels that can fit Jesus to the mold of the standard stereotypical "magician" in Greco-Roman society at the time.

Certainly comparisons can be drawn, but what Smith ignores is the fact that all of these writings came after Jesus had long since passed away. Despite Christianity being a small cult (here used in the neutral sense, such as a "cult of St. Peter" rather than in a negative sense, such as "The Jonestown cult") in the Roman Empire, Christianity itself was very well known and practiced by all manner of people, from ascetics to libertines, from what would become known as the 'orthodox' to the Gnostic.

All of these groups, along with the Greco-Roman equivalent to hippies who think they can combine Buddhism and Wicca without compromising at least one, would certainly use Jesus' name. The 'orthodox' and the 'heretics' would use it just as much as those who simply took various names of power and used them.

It isn't that I reject Smith's hypothesis. In fact, I think it explains quite a bit, especially in the beginning chapters, and I think that he has proven that Jesus WAS regarded as a 'magician' by many and treated as such. But comparing the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life to later accounts of other magicians (the aforementioned Lucian satires, Apollonius of Tyana, etc.) does not allow for the very real possibility that Jesus had gained prominence as a magician in certain circles and that the Gospels were used much later to FORM pictures a magician, rather than the Gospels themselves CONTAINING such comparisons.

To put it into a more modern context, it is akin to taking a Kung-Fu movie that Quentin Tarantino borrowed from for the Klll Bill films and deciding that the similarities indicate that the earlier Kung Fu film was either copying Kill Bill or that Tarantino was involved in the production of both!

It doesn't logically follow. Unfortunately, the evidence that Smith presents is actually much later (often by a century or two) than a 70s Kung Fu film verses an early 00s Tarantino flick, making the possibility of crossover from the old to the new much more likely and much more difficult to trace.

That being said, I really enjoyed the book and I recommend it - come to your own conclusions, certainly! Smith makes a very good case until the last couple of chapters, when it becomes more polemic and less evidence-based. It isn't Smith's fault that we don't have more evidence, of course - but the attempt to prove that there are remnants of Jesus AS a magician (or in the same mold as a magician) ignores the dating, as do many other attempts to claim that Jesus was like Mithras, etc.

[Darrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scholars in search of a historical Jesus usually assume the miraculous stories are later additions and that the real Jesus was either a sage dispensing wisdom or a prophet preaching the end of the world. However, Morton Smith believes the opposite is true.

"Teachers of the law were not, in this period, made over into miracle workers. Neither were the authors of apocalyptic prophecies [...] but a miracle worker could easily come to be thought a prophet and an authority on the Law." (p. 16)

The miracle stories in the gospels show signs of reworking, proof that they were not later additions, but rather part of the original story. There are literally thousands of teachers of the Law found in rabbinic literature, but none of them are comparable to Jesus. This is because he was not a teacher of the Law. He was a miracle worker who later had legal sayings attributed to him.

Jesus was also not a prophet in the Old Testament sense. The Old Testament prophets did not forgive sins, perform exorcisms, and with few exceptions did not heal. Moses and Elisha healed leprosy, Elisha and Elijah raised boys from the dead, but only Jesus and the magicians of his time cured fever, blindness, lameness, paralysis, catalepsy, hemorrhage, wounds, and poison. In fact, Jesus twice refuses to perform the miracles of the prophets (compare II Kings 1:10 with Luke 9:54-55 and II Kings 6:15-17 with Matthew 26:52-4). The miraculous escapes, transfiguration, walking on water, eucharist, and "I am" sayings of Jesus have parallels in magical practice, but not in the Old Testament.

Another common mistake many biblical scholars make is relying on Christian sources. To get a complete picture of who Jesus was, we must also consider what critics said of him. You wouldn't write a biography about a dictator using only what his propaganda said.

Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?
(John 8:48)

Since history is written by the victors, the texts we are left with are mainly Christian. In fact, the Roman Emperor Constantine ordered all books by "heretics" (Christians who held minority opinions) and pagan works critical of Jesus to be destroyed in the early 300's AD. However, many early Christians quoted from these critical works in order to denounce them, so we do have some idea of what they said. Some criticisms of Jesus are even preserved in the New Testament.

Jesus is accused of being a drunkard and a glutton (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34). His own family accused him of being crazy (Mark 3:21) and did not believe in him (John 7:5). He is called the "son of Mary" (Mark 6:3) rather than the son of Joseph, which means he was born out of wedlock. He is also accused of being possessed by a demon, i.e. being crazy (John 7:20, John 8:48, 52, John 10:20). This is why is he told to heal himself (Luke 4:23). A demon apparently drove him out into the wilderness (Mark 1:12, "demon" and "spirit" were interchangeable terms in common usage). He was even accused of being Beelzebul.

It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household! (Matthew 10:25)

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?[...] In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” (Mark 3:22-30)

Interestingly, the only unforgivable sin in Christianity is accusing Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul rather than by the Holy Spirit. The fact that this is such a big deal indicates that it was the most important rumor about Jesus his followers wished to dispel.

Jesus is accused before Pilate of being a "doer of evil" (John 18:30) which in Roman law codes refers to magicians. Jesus is often called "one who leads astray" or "deceiver" which also refer to his being a magician.

After John the Baptist died, the Gospels tells us that many people believed Jesus was John raised from the dead (Mark 6:14). This doesn't make much sense except when we look at magical beliefs of the time in which the spirit of someone who dies a violet or unjust death can be summoned by a magician, such as Jesus.

In third century Smyrna, Christian necromancers summoned the spirit of Jesus because of his violet death by crucifixion. The Samaritan magician Simon as well as Saint Paul (Galatians 2:20, Romnas 15:19, 1 Corinthians 5:13) also summoned the spirit of Jesus to perform miracles, so it's plausible Jesus was using John's spirit the same way.

Jewish accounts of Jesus repeat the accusations found in the New Testament (that he was mad, demon-possessed, a magician). They also accused him of cutting magic Egyptian marks into his flesh, which could be a reference to either scarification or tattooing. (Matthew admits that Jesus was visited by magi (magicians) and lived in Egypt, although only in his infancy.) Magicians of the time did write spells on their flesh and instructions for doing so are found in magical papyri of the time. Paul tells us he was tattooed or branded with the marks of Jesus in this way (Galations 6:17).

Rabbinic writings speak disapprovingly of magicians using the name of Jesus ben Pantera to heal and the Babylonian Talmud (B. Sanhedrin 43a) tells us Jesus was stoned for practicing magic. Jesus was also said to be the student of the magician Joshua ben Perahya who lived 80 BC. (B. Sotah 47a, B. Sanhedrin 107b, P. Hagigah II.2(77d), P. Sanhedrin VI.13(23c))

The Roman historian Suetonius said Christians practiced magic. Lucan, a Roman poet, wrote of a witch who not only summoned a soul from the underworld, but forced it to reenter its dead body, much as Jesus had done. The Christian apologist Justin Martyr counters claims that Jesus was a magician. The writings of Celsus have been destroyed, but Origen quotes from him at length in order to counter his claims.

Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God. (Celsus, quoted by Origin in Against Celsus 1:28,38)

Celsus gives us a different account of Jesus than that found in the Gospels. Jesus was conceived by a soldier named Panthera. He had 10 disciplines instead of 12, and he was betrayed by more than one of them. He said that Jesus was small and ugly (Against Celsus 6:75). Origin agrees that Jesus was indeed ugly, but that his appearance was to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:1-3. Celsus also accuses Jesus of being a wicked man under the influence of an evil spirit (Against Celsus I:68).

The Mandaeans, a sect in modern day Iraq that worships John the Baptist, claim Jesus was an evil magician based on their ancient texts. Also, Jesus was sometimes identified with the Samaritan magician Simon. However, it's unknown exactly how old the Samaritan and Mandean traditions are.

Ancient magical material, which is archeologically datable, shows that the name of Jesus was used in magic spells during his lifetime (see also Acts 19:13). Also, of the three oldest visual representations of the crucifixion, two are found on magical gems.

The oldest visual representation of the crucifixion, a graffito scratched on the plaster of a school room on the Palatine Hill in Rome, depicts a crucified figure with the head of a donkey. There was a long standing legend that the god of the Jews was a donkey or had a donkey head. Josephus refutes this claim (Against Apion II:80), although later Jews accused Christians of the same thing.

A graffito drawn in Carthage around 200 AD depicts a figure with donkey ears and a hoof wrapped in a toga holding a book with the inscription, "The god of the Christians." A little bone crucifix of a crucified donkey has also been found in Montagnana, although it can't be dated. The Christian writer Minucius Felix refutes the claim that the god of the Christians had a donkey head. The association of the Jewish and Christian gods with the donkey may have something to do with the Egyptian god Seth sometimes depicted on magical gems with a donkey head and called Iao (Yahweh).

Before the fourth century, the name of Jesus was used in various magic spells (conjuration, exorcism, cursing, love charms, spells to improve memory or receive revelations through dreams, etc.) by both Christians and pagans. These survive in fragmentary amulets, lead tablets and magical papyri. Jesus has continually been depicted as a magician in Christian art, complete with magic wand, including a gold glass plate in the Vatican library.

New Testament scholars often claim that Judaism was sealed off from the outside world and therefore early Christianity could not have had any pagan influences. The opposite is true. The ancient Israelites had never controlled all of Palestine. While the Jews had overrun most of Palestine including Galilee and forcibly converted the semitic peoples living there between 125 BC to 75 BC, this conversion was only skin deep. The region had long been influenced by Phoenician and Egyptian beliefs (Egyptian amulets are frequently found in archeological digs). Persian influence lead to the Jews adopting monotheism and demonology. Also Greek beliefs and practices were familiar everywhere. In the 360 years between the time Alexander the Great had conquered Palestine and Jesus got baptized, the Jews were ruled by either the Greeks, the Romans, or Roman agents for 320 of those years. It's impossible for Christianity not to have been influenced by paganism.

In the magical papyri, the name of the Jewish god Yahweh is used more than three times as often as any other deity. The fact that the Jews practiced magic is proven by the discovery of the magical book Sefer ha-Razim (The Book of Secrets). The Old Testament speaks of the 'obot ("divining spirits" or "spirits of the dead", see Isaiah 8:19, 19:3, 29:4, 1 Samuel 28, Leviticus 19:31, 20:6,27, 2 Kings 23:24) who are equated with gods.

Solomon was said to control demons in Rabbinic literature (B. Gittin 68a-b, the midrashim on Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes), the writings of Josephus (Antiquities VIII:45-49), and in the romance The Testament of Solomon. Solomon controlled the demons through an amulet engraved with the secret name of Yahweh.

The term "son of god" was synonymous with "magician" and thus Jesus is almost exclusively called "son of god" when performing miracles. Apollonius of Tyana was another magician who lived the same time as Jesus who shared a lot in common with him (he was the son of a god, performed miracles, taught morals, had disciples, rose from the dead, etc.) Early Christian apologists such as Eusebius had difficulty explaining why Jesus should be preferred over Apollonius.

Jesus cured a deaf man by spit and a magic word (Mark 7:32-35) he also cured blindness by spit, although it took two tries (Mark 8:23-26). He used a magic phrase to raise a girl from the dead (Mark 5:41, Peter also uses this phrase in Acts 9:40 although he mistakenly uses the Aramaic word talitha (girl) as the proper name Tabitha!).

The other gospel writers were embarrassed by this apparent magic so they took it out of their versions. They couldn't remove references to Jesus being the son of god since it was essential to their religion, but since it was a common claim of magicians, they have other people call Jesus the son of god (he only says it of himself when forced to, see Mark 14:60-62). The gospels almost completely remove any reference to Jesus being a Samaritan since they were associated with magic.

Magic was a common practice at the time (see Mark 9:38, Acts 19:19) and numerous Christian magical papyri have been discovered. Jesus often gives instructions for the proper way to perform healings and exorcisms in the gospels. In Matthew, magi (magicians) give gifts to the infant Jesus, declaring him the ultimate magician by implication. They then go home by a different route (Matthew 2:12) since after meeting with a supernatural being, you should go home by a different road (Sefer ha-Rezim I:5)

At the baptism of Jesus, a spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove. This scene is not based on anything from the Old Testament or rabbinic tradition, it could only come from the realm of magic. The magical papyri give spells magicians can use to entrap a spirit. This way, they can perform miracles immediately, by commanding the spirit, rather than reciting lengthy spells (The Magical Papyrus of Paris IV:2006, Sefer ha-Rezim I:5). Early Christians said the Samaritan magician Simon Magus performed his miracles by controlling the spirit of a murdered boy.

However, spirits of the dead were mainly used for harmful magic. Since Jesus was a healer, he would have used a supernatural being of a higher order than men. The Magical Papyrus of Paris gives instructions for how to command a god (I:54). It involves burning frankincense to summon a hawk, then burning myrrh to summon a god who comes down in the form of a star. Once the magician has control of the god, he can do things like make food and wine appear, stop evil demons, solidify water so that it can be walked upon, change shape, turn invisible, fly, calm wild beasts, read minds, know the future, etc. This god will also take the magician's spirit up into the air after he dies. The magical papyri also describe how to become a son of god. The Good Demon is invoked in Magical Papyrus of Paris XIII:784: "For I have taken to myself the power of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and of the great god-demon Iao Ablanathanalba." Iao is the Israelite god Yahweh, Ablanathanalba is a magical palindrome of uncertain meaning.

Jesus apparently uses his spirit servant to heal the centurion's servant (Luke 7:1-9) and had 72,000 angels at his command (Matthew 26:53). The spell for how to command such an angelic legion is found in Sefer ha-Rezim VI. Also, the manner in which Jesus obtained disciples corresponds to magical love spells to make someone forget their family and follow the magician. His disciples immediately drop what they're doing, not even bothering to put their fishing nets away, and follow him without so much as saying good bye to their families (Mark 1:16-20). Jesus didn't even permit a potential disciples to bury his father before following him (Matthew 8:22, Luke 9:60).

The exorcisms and healings of Jesus have a magical basis, including the belief that diseases were demons (Jesus commands a fever to leave Simon's mother-in-law as if it were a demon in Luke 4:38-39). Jesus also gives his disciples immunity from snakes and scorpions (Luke 10:19, Mark 16:18) another common magical spell.

Defixions are spells usually written on lead tablets or potsherds and buried by graves or thrown into water to destroy an enemy. One such addressed Osiris and other underworld gods and said "inasmuch as I give over to you Adeodatus the son of Cresconia, I ask you to punish him in the bed of punishment." Paul also uses the language of magic to "give over" his enemies to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:3, 1 Timothy 1:18-20).

It was common to enchant food so that whoever ate it would become possessed. Jesus seems to do this at the Last Supper. When asked who will betray him "Jesus answered, 'It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.' Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him." (John 13:26-27) This same principal seems to be at work with the Eucharist.

In addition to putting evil spirits into people, Jesus also put good spirits into people. He gives the Holy Spirit to his disciples by breathing on them (John 20:22). His disciples had the power to send out a spirit (their "peace") to a house and have it return to them (Luke 10:5-6). They could also place a curse by shaking the dust off their feet (Luke 10:10-12). Jesus had the keys to heaven which other magicians claimed to have.

Another magical parallel is found during the Transfiguration, when Jesus ascends a mountain, changes his form, and meets with the spirits of Moses and Elijah who foretell his future (Luke 9:28-31). Also, Jesus is able to become intangible (Luke 4:29-30, John 7:30, 44, 8:20, 59, 10:39) and invisible (Luke 24:31). Jesus often commands people to tell no one after he heals them, perhaps to keep the demon from coming back (Matthew 12:43).

The Greek term for "one who can get what he wants from the gods" is pray-er, that is, one who prays (Iliad 1:11,94; 5:78). The term was later replaced by magician. After all, both prayers and spells are two different names for the same thing.

Just like the magicians of his time, Jesus called god "Father" and believed he lived in the heavens. He also instructed his followers to pray only in secret, a common magical practice. Glorifying the Name of the god was also important. Compare John 17 where Jesus asks that his name be glorified because he glorified god's name with "Glorify me as I have glorified the Name of your son Horus!" (Papyri Graecae Magicae VII:504). "Thy will be done" was also a prayer used by magicians (PGM XII:189).

Initiates into the magical rites generally wore a particular costume, a linen cloth over their naked body (Mark 14:51, Papyri Graecae Magicae III:706, IV:88, 170, 3095, The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden III: 13, XXVIII:6, XXIX:23, Longer Gospel of Mark quoted by Clement of Alexandria).

Like all magicians of the time, Jesus was poor, and consequently commanded his rich followers to give all that they had to the poor, i.e. to him (Mark 10:21, Luke 12:33). He apparently made his living by performing miracles. One trick faith healers still use to this day is secretly finding out someone's name and pretending they know it through other worldly means. Jesus does this by sending his disciples to a town ahead of him (Luke 10:1). Then he impresses the rich people in that town by already knowing their names. Finally, he invites himself to stay at their house (Luke 19:1-5).

While I don't agree with everything Morton Smith writes in this book, I do agree that the New Testament makes more sense if Jesus was originally a magician who later had sayings and prophecies attributed to him rather than the other way around.

[Mary Overton]

From chapter 7, The Evidence for Magical Practice:
"... the most important magical parallel to the gospels is that to Jesus' life and legend as a whole. This we saw in the comparison of Jesus and Apollonius (above, pp. 85ff.), but even when Jesus' career does not parallel that of Apollonius, it is consistently paralleled by other magical material, and the parallels are not haphazard; they fit together. Taking the gospel material supported by such parallels, we get the following coherent, consistent and credible picture of a magician's career.
"After undergoing a baptism believed to purge him of sin, Jesus experienced the descent of a spirit upon him - the experience that made a man a magician - and heard himself declared a god, as magicians claimed to be. Then 'the spirit drove him out into the desert,' a common shamanic phenomenon. After visionary experiences there, he returned to Galilee where his new spiritual power manifested itself in exorcism, in cures of types familiar in magic, in teaching, with magical parallels and authority, and in the call of disciples, who, like persons enchanted, were constrained to leave their families and belongings and follow him alone.
"With these disciples he lived the predictable life of a traveling magician and holy man .... The company was supported by his success as exorcist and healer, which increased and was increased by his fame. His fame was such that other magicians began to use his name as that of a god in their exorcisms. Soon opposition developed. His neglect of Jewish law, especially as to fasting, purity, and the Sabbath, as well as his association with rich libertines ('tax collectors and sinners') antagonized 'the scribes' (Jewish notaries, lawyers and upper-schoolteachers) who collected, enlarged and disseminated a body of discreditable stories about him, including various charges of magic....
"... he began to initiate his disciples into his own magical experiences. .... The synoptics describe the inner circle of disciples as those 'to whom the mystery (initiation) of the kingdom of God has been given' and who can therefore receive further secret teaching, not given to 'those outside.' They say the 'the twelve' were given power to exorcise. They tell of Jesus revealing himself in glory with two supernatural beings on 'the mountain' in Galilee.... Jesus instituted a rite of footwashing that cleansed his disciples and gave them a share in his lot....
"We are better informed about another magical rite, the eucharist, that Jesus instituted to unite his disciples with himself, both in love and in body.... The rite is a familiar type of magical ceremony in which the magician identifies himself with a deity, and identifies wine and/or food with the blood and/or body of this deity and of himself. The wine and/or food is then given to a recipient who by consuming it is united with him and filled with love for him. This rite is attributed to Jesus by the earliest and most reliable sources." pp. 137-8

[Frank R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Carrying on the accusations of Celsus—and earlier, for even Mark’s gospel does apologetics against the claim—that Jesus was a magician whose miracle-working provided his “act” (Smith, 176), Smith’s work is highly engaging but academically very flawed.

I despised his system of reference (if he referenced at all with some of his quotations), his insertion of his own translation into widely-accepted extant translations of not only biblical but non-biblical texts, his altering of the meaning of those aforementioned texts via his own translation, his refusal to mention that the Jesus Movement’s narratives involved original themes and tropes adapted from a Jewish cultural milieu which could have influenced texts, prayers, whole religions, and (oh yes) magical formulas AFTER their dissemination, and his use of original source material in the form of magical papyri written in the late 2nd-4th centuries to support claims about late 1st and early 2nd century texts (aka the Gospels!).

I was surprised at the level of academic blundering he was performing in this propaganda piece. A critical chronological engagement with the original source texts and how he presents them/his conclusions drawn from their utilization will tell you all you need to know without a deep background in Christian history. We get it, Jesus fit into a “type” within the socio-political-religious context of the time; between the forces of Hellenization, Jewish revolt and messianic expectations, and the unifying influence of the Roman Empire reaching far and wide, there was plenty of room for divine hero-types like Jesus to blossom within every group. He is the uniquely Jewish response to the genre.

But really, come on, just say that Jesus fit the mold of a magician AND that his reports of being a divine man in the gospels that corresponded to existing accounts (e.g. Apollonius) in the ancient world COULD have influenced esoteric traditions, mystery cults, and other individuals seeking to bend the supernatural to their will after his death! Surely, these magicians were pulling everything they could from many traditions—Egyptian gods, various names and titles of Yahweh, Greek deities—including the name if Jesus just to be sure their magic worked. It was not necessarily a sign that Jesus modeled his behavior and ideas of himself around these magical traditions (especially when they were concocted a century or more after his life and times).

I give Smith a lot of credit for his presentation of a “Gospel of the Outsiders” in Chapters 3-5. I thought this was an interesting way to interpret Jesus through the lens of those who were not initiated into the inner Jewish-Christian circle of the 1st century Jesus Movement. If he would have kept this perspective throughout the text and considered legitimate source material from the 1st century and just before, it would have been a more solid academic piece and less of a repetitive manifesto based on limited information and a whole bunch of opinion.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a clever, carefully-argued, delightfully sacrilegious book. The book takes you on a journey to find a historical Jesus, not a theological one. But rather than following the usual path to a historical Jesus, which simply sets aside the miracles and other supernatural elements, Smith tries to account for these elements. The result is a historical Jesus who turns out to be capable of magic. (Now, Smith doesn’t actually think this magic worked as magic. There are good rationalizing explanations for ancient magical practices.) This Jesus bears remarkable similarities to many figures in ancient magical texts, and Smith shows a deft handling of this challenging corpus. Much of this argument requires one to sift through the gospels, which try to prove that Jesus was not a magician, but truly a divine figure. Still, behind this denial lurks the remnants of that ancient accusation, and Smith reveals how apt an accusation it was. The book strikes a careful balance between a rigorous scholarly approach and an accessible description of its findings. There is a lot of Quellenforschung (source-criticism) here, and the prose is sometimes rather dry. In order to get to the root of the historical Jesus, one must account for the errors and contradictions in the gospels. This can be a bit laborious, and much of the actual evidence for these parts of the book are pushed back into the notes at the end of the text. (You’ll want to be pretty familiar with the texts of the gospels as well, because they are often referenced, but rarely quoted.) I found this book convincing, but I don’t have any stake in Jesus’ supposed divinity or historicity. It pairs really well with the equally penetrating study The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity. Like that book, however, there is some risk of circularity in the argument. Smith bring in a wide range of ancient material to support the image of the magician with which he compares Jesus, but often he has to build his claims upon his own earlier suppositions. Unfortunately, this type of reasoning is necessary when you are trying to unearth a buried tradition from deeply slanted sources such as the gospels.

[Jon Stout · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over the years I have read many books trying to flesh out the gospels in describing the life of Jesus and early Christianity. Nearly all of them have been written from within the “circle of faith” as my theology professor used to say, that is from a view of Jesus sympathetic to his ministry as portrayed in the gospels, even when questions of historical fact were raised. “Jesus the Magician” takes a different approach. It is neutral and even indifferent to Christian belief, and tries to understand the historical Jesus in the context of his non-Christian contemporaries, not only Jewish and Greco-Roman, but also Palestinian, Persian, Egyptian, etc. He comes to the conclusion that Jesus was a magician, not a trickster or a conjuror, but an invoker of spirits both good and evil.

The argument is convincing as far as it goes. There is no question that the language in the gospels describes Jesus as calling forth evil spirits in order to cure people, and at his baptism by John, a spirit in the form of a dove is described as descending upon him. Jesus first made his reputation as a healer and miracle worker, and the description of these events is similar to the descriptions of magicians in multiple Mediterranean cultures.

What I find compelling about Jesus, and what Morton Smith bypasses, is not his miracles and his interaction with spirits, but rather his moral teaching and his vision of a loving community, as expressed, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount. Most modern viewers would take the miracles with a grain of salt, seeing some of them perhaps as hypno-suggestion or healing of hysterical symptoms. Morton Smith gives Jesus credit as a healer on this level, but he only superficially addresses Jesus’s teaching, which is what I find revelatory.

Nonetheless I appreciate Morton Smith’s hard-headed approach to the gospel stories. Many contemporary Christians distinguish between the historical Jesus and the meaning that Jesus has in the life of the church (sometimes called “Kerygma”). We can understand the allegorical and mythological importance of gospel stories better if we have a dispassionate and realistic view of the historical Jesus. I can live with sometimes seeing Jesus as an itinerant magician and healer with a beleaguered band of followers. As Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

[Otto Hahaa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ensimmäinen kysymys: Kuinka sana ”magician” pitää kääntää tässä yhteydessä? Loitsija, tietäjä, velho vai noita? Kaikilla sanoilla on suomessa oma erilainen klanginsa ja kaikkia näitä sanoja käytetään raamatunkäännöksissä. Taikuri? Tämän tarkan pohtimisen voin jättää muiden huoleksi, sanon tässä että ”tietäjä”. (Martti Haavio sanoi jossain kirjassansa, että noita on Suomessa ollut samaanimainen parantaja, jonka sitten korvasi tietäjä. Mutta en tiedä, miten nykytutkimus ajatukseen suhtautuu.)

Smithin teesi on, että Jeesuksen maallinen ura on (melkein? aivan selvästi?) yksi yhteen tyypillisen ajanlaskunalunaikaisen tietäjän uran kanssa. Kun vähän evankeliumeja raaputtaa, niin huomaa, että sekä kannattajat että vastustajat tuntevat Jeesuksen ennen kaikkea ihmeiden tekijänä. Kinastelua aiheuttaa vain se, että mistä voima tähän parantamiseen tulee, ylhäältä vai alhaalta. Tämä on tuttua jo uskonnontunneilta, mutta Smith nostaa tämän keskiöön ja kaivaa esiin samoilta ajoilta olevia muita dokumentteja. Simon Magus vilahtaa, mutta enemmän palstatilaa saa Apollonios Tyanalainen (Paavalin aikalainen), joka oli joidenkin mielestä parempi kuin Jeesus, koska onnistui livahtamaan karkuun oikeudenkäynnistään. Alan Moore -faneja ilahduttaa Glycon-jumalan ”profeetan” Aleksanterin mainitseminen. Asiaa kaukaa seurannut diletantti lienee kuullut näistä heeboista jotain, mutta tuskin on perehtynyt papyruskääröistä löytyneisiin loitsuihin. Ja yllättävän samankaltaista stuffia sieltä löytyy. Diletantin on tietysti hankala tietää kuinka uskottavilta nämä päättelyketjut skenen “inessä” olevasta tutkijasta kuullostavat.

Mortonin tyyli on välillä suorastaan vanhatestamentaalisen jyrkkä, välillä mukana on ironista huumoria (jos se on huumoria, eikä samaa vanhatestamentaalista jyrkkyyttä).

Vaikka tämä on aika vanha kirja seitsemänkymmentäluvulta, niin kyllä tämä vielä lukemista kestää. Suomessa vähän samanlaisia ajatusta on esitellyt Raimo Harjula kirjassaan ”Jeesus - Mies myyttien takana”.

[John Lucy · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I told my fiancee the title of the book, she said, "Heck yeah, my type of book." Indeed it is, and seeing as how she probably represents a large portion of believers of various faiths, but particularly Christians, I imagine this is a book a lot of people would enjoy reading. Anyone who digs New Age Christianity or, on the other side of the spectrum, questions the divinity of Jesus should jump at the chance to read this type of book. And as far as reading alternative accounts of Jesus's life go, the subject of this book probably ranks high on the list.

Mr. Morton Smith posits and then follows through with the idea that Jesus and the Christian traditions/stories were more influenced by the tradition and culture of magic/magicians of the time than by Judaism or faith in God. The cult and acceptance of magicians were part of the everyday life back then, with magicians and saviors of all sorts of backgrounds running around all over the place. It shouldn't be news to anyone that you don't have to look far to fit Jesus into some category with a bunch of other guys and gals from that time period: there were other supposed Messiahs, other healers, other magicians, other prophets, etc. It's quite easy to find evidence that would downgrade Jesus to being merely a prophet, magician, healer, whatever. Smith here chooses the magician route and does a fairly good job in arguing that Jesus as magician is the best, and perhaps only, way to truly understand who Jesus was, how he thought of himself, and how his contemporaries thought of him.

How strong Smith's argument is, as with most arguments of this kind, depends on the evidence and how reliable that evidence is. Without question Smith has done his homework, and at least appears to do his best to present both sides of the question; specifically by consulting the works of Origen (though on that score, he usually uses Origen to talk about Celsus) and often defends the historicity of the gospels. Being personally uninformed in the magical arena I cannot really say if he left anything out. Though Smith did present the side that argues for Jesus's divinity, he did it, obviously, only to present it and then get on with his own argument. I can't fault him for not spending much time in my own camp.

I can, however, fault Smith for using much of his research weakly. What I mean is that when anything in the gospels or other Christian documents at all resembled language in magical material, Smith immediately says, "See, Jesus was a magician and everyone understood him as such." But the proposition doesn't hold that easily. If I were to say, "I think George W. Bush was a bad President," it doesn't automatically make me a Democrat; or, likewise, if I were to say, "I think that Barack Obama is a bad President," it doesn't automatically make me a Republican. In actual fact, I would agree with the first statement and disagree with the second statement, all the while being a Republican. So we can't simply compare statements and then, if statements one person makes match up with statements that another person makes, assume that both persons fit in the same category. Unfortunately that's what Smith does much of the time, particularly when discussing the Eucharist--because the language of Jesus and St. Paul in instituting the Eucharist heavily compare to magical rites, Smith says that the Eucharist is indeed a magical rite and nothing else. It's simply not a good or compelling argument, though very interesting. You can go ahead and agree with him if you want, but it remains a poor argument.

A lot of people would also fault Smith with his general method. Before comparing Jesus to the culture of magic, Smith first must make conclusions about how to interpret the gospels, Paul's letters, and other evidence. Generally Smith relies here on simple logic. For instance, Smith might say that because some Christians retained traditions that were/are supposedly harmful to their faith or religion that those traditions are reliable as historical. Well, that's a good assumption, certainly, but what if the first Christians also invented (Smith's language, not mine) oppositional traditions in order to make a stronger claim to Jesus's divinity in response to the invented accusation? The point is that interpreting any story or tradition based on such assumed logic does not make the interpretation more reliable or historically accurate. I'd add that Smith never addresses the major question lurking behind every argument that he makes: why would the first Christians try to suppress Jesus's supposed magician-ness if they perceived and understood Jesus as a magician? We can say all we want that Jesus's first followers, Paul included, would have wanted to suppress any suggestion that Jesus was a magician; but it doesn't make sense if we also say that the first followers, Paul included, saw and understood Jesus as a magician. Why suppress something if that something is what you believe in? This question is particularly relevant considering that, to the Romans, a magician was more acceptable than a supposed son of a god (not named Caesar). If Paul used language that can only truly be understood in terms of magical language and belief, then why would Paul also actively avoid comparisons or suggestions of magic? It doesn't make sense. Again we must return to the weakness of Smith's "similar statements equal similar beliefs" argument. The whole book would benefit greatly if Smith just once addressed this question.

Other than these issues, the research that Smith has put forth makes for good reading. The question of whether or not Jesus (and Paul) was tattooed is an interesting one. Biblical verses that would otherwise are usually completely overlooked take on a new, mind-blowing appearance. That's if you agree with Smith, of course, but even if you disagree, you have to look at some of these verses in a new way. Also, there's a lot of information in here that I simply did not know, though I went to seminary. Most of what I learned deals with how Jesus's opponents talked about him in extra-gospel sources. For that reason alone I recommend this book.

Overall, though I do take issue with how Smith presents some of his arguments, I do recommend this book. I'd just be careful in getting lost in the evidence that Smith presents and not evaluating Smith's method.

[Andreas · Rating 3 out of 5]

When reading the gospels what picture of Jesus emerges objectively from the reported events. Was he more a healer than a prophet, was he a teacher or the Messiah, someone who casted out demons or a miracle worker, was he the Son of Man or the Son of God, and was he divine or human or both at the same time. And what did all these names mean in the historical context?
This is not an easy read due to the fact of the sheer material that is presented, but a book worth reading due to the ideas presented. Even if the reader, like I did, doesn't agree with all the conclusions drawn by the author, his thinking definitely warrants a closer look and examination.

[Mr S Jarvis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Its easy to think Jesus was the first or only healer around at these times, the healing arts were always active

[Joseph Savard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Morton Smith has an interesting story to tell, and is similar to the Jesus we all know. The common story wit this information delivers a bit more perspective.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

“All these apologetic motifs must be kept in mind as we turn to the last and most important step of our investigation, the question: What evidence did the Christian tradition, as presented in the gospels, have in common with the picture of Jesus the magician? Since the authors of the gospels wished to defend Jesus against the charge of magic, we should expect them to minimize those elements of the tradition that ancient opinion [...] would take to be evidence for it, and to maximize those that could be used against it.

This expectation is, in the main, confirmed. The evangelists could not eliminate Jesus’ miracles because those were essential to their case, but John cut down the number of them, and Matthew and Luke got rid of the traces of physical means that Mark had incautiously preserved (e.g. of 7.33f.; 8.23ff.). They could not eliminate the claim that Jesus was the Son of God because that was also essential to their message, but the synoptics make him keep it a secret until the High Priest compelled him to admit it (Mk. 14.61f.p.). Until that time he did not himself make the claim; it was made for him by voices from heaven, demons, his disciples, the crowds, and so on. This is apologetic modesty. His connections with Samaria have almost entirely disappeared from the synoptics. If he had any contact with magicians, or ever went to Egypt, Mark and Luke say nothing of either, and Matthew has located both in his infancy. Accusations of magic made against him are mentioned rarely, mainly for refutation, and some are left unexplained, like the charge that he ‘was’ the Baptist. References to him discreditable background and human failings have been minimized. His teachings about Satan and other demons are vestigial. Moral teaching is emphasized. Money and food, that must have been constant concerns, are scarcely mentioned - money, mainly to reject it. Prophetic predictions of his career are found whenever possible (and sometimes when impossible). Pilate, and in Luke, Herod Antipas, are made to declare him innocent.

In evaluating all these points of the evidence, and others like them, the reader of the gospels must keep in mind that the gospels were written in a hostile world to present the Christian case. Consequently, the elements in them that could be used to support the charge of magic are probably only the tips of the iceberg of suppressed traditions, while elements that counter the charge must be viewed with suspicion as probably exaggerated, if not wholly invented, for apologetic purposes. We have to deal with a body of edited material.”

[Miles Nilsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Religious people might be put off by the implication of this book's title, but the late Morton Smith's "Jesus the Magician" is not quite what you might think. It begins by exploring what will be instantly recognized by the biblically literate person: that Jesus' enemies accused him of being a magician. Smith quotes every scriptural passage he can find to explore this fact. Ironically, the gospels defend Jesus against this charge over and over even though the modern reader would hardly know that the accusation was ever made if the gospels did not repeat it.

If the book has any weakness, it is that it never answers the questions of whether or not Jesus was a magician or, more importantly, of what the difference between magic and religion is, precisely. The reader, however, will be in a better position to answer this question for himself when he has read it.

A bonus to reading this book is that Smith has done two very illuminating things. He has explained a great deal about what magic is in general, and he has reconstructed the world of magic in Jesus' era in particular. There was, for example, a social hierarchy among magicians. The magi whom Matthew tells us came to see the new-born Jesus represented the highest class of magicians. The "go-es" or itinerant street magician, was what Jesus was accused of being, and it was truly an insult.

My favorite insight from reading this book is that I understood for the first time why a magic spell can take a very long time or a very short time. It is because there are two stages to a magic spell, preparation and execution. A magic spell is like a computer program. Setting up a spell is like writing the code for the computer. Once the spell has been "encoded," a word or phrase can now set it in motion, just as a single key stroke, or combination of a few strokes, can be used to set off an elaborate computer program.

[Bill Eichman]

It is the nature of writing about ancient peoples that it must be speculative. This is especially true of persons in the lower classes, about whom nothing is usually recorded. The person we speak of with the Greek name Jesus, who was probably named Yeshuah or Jeshuah, a variation of Joshua in the Aramaic language he spoke, was purportedly the son of a common type of working class laborer, and as we would expect, there is absolutely no historical trace of his existence.

"Wait!", you say. "The Bible!"

Well, there is not enough time to discuss how the bible was written and modified, how it can be judged as a document of history, and so forth.

In Jesus the Magician, Morton Smith spends a fair amount of time examining the question of the historicity of Jesus. That is, asking if Jesus was a real person, actual, a human, and not a demigod story. You see, there are quite a number of demigod stories happening at that same time, and all of them pourported to be a real person, and all purported to be wonder-workers and makers of miracles, healers, talkers-to-god, and so on.

He concludes that Jesus could actually have been a real human. And then suggests he fits perfectly into known history of the era if you postulate that he was a particular type of character well known to actually exist and do the kinds of things Jesus is described as doing. A Magician, that is, a Magi, a particular type of professional healer, scholar, and teacher, whom others believed had special powers to manipulate the world and thereby cause miracles.

Which I think is a truly delightful speculation.

Ur-mark, the missing book on which the first Gospel, Mark, is based,

[Clifford Low · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aside from the author's rather irritating interjections of hostility towards the supernatural, he makes a fairly conclusive case that the New Testament accounts of Jesus cannot be understood outside the context of contemporary practices by magicians and sorcerers.

Early accounts of Jesus promote him as a magician's magician-- both among his supporters and critics. Later accounts attempt to separate him from the glut of magical practitioners of the period. What occurred in the intervening period was a slip in the public opinion of magical practice from incarnated gods and wonder-workers to that of charlatans and libertines.

Frankly, very odd parts of Christianity such as the Holy Spirit appearing as a bird which have never made sense to me at all (having been raised Jewish) make a lot more sense when one considers that a magician's guardian spirit and divine emissary often took the form of an aerial or chthonic animal, depending on his patron god's nature.

[Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

This can be a bit of a dry read at times. There is a lot of repetition. The author makes several assumptions and runs with them as fact. He also at one point uses an "extended" version of Mark that only he has ever seen evidence of as proof. All that being said, I still enjoyed the book. The author makes a reasonably solid case despite its faults. He also cites many sources that I hadn't seen before. I didn't know there was mention of Jesus in the Talmud. Also some nice quotes from Egyptian magical papyri, although it appears that the author did his own translations here, and with the Talmud and even the Bible. The whole "I discovered a secret version of the book of Mark that no one else has ever seen, but it disappeared" thing makes the author a bit suspect to me, but I will now be looking for other writers who examine this aspect of Jesus' career that don't rely on this author for their arguments to see if the evidence is as good as it is made out to be here.

[Curtis Runstedler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This fascinating book looks at the magical aspects of Jesus Christ, both from his prosecutors and from his supporters, from within and outside the Bible. Smith argues that his miraculous actions are analogous to magical acts. His evidence is vast and extensive, from the gospels to magical papyri to Jewish sources. At some points he tends to be speculative due to lack of credible evidence (similar issues with the Jesus accused of necromancy article), but Smith's more valid points are quite substantial. It's interesting to consider the potential mythologies and relevant truths around such an important figure, and the implications of his charge as 'magician'. It makes one reassess and reconsider the Eucharist and his miraculous actions i.e. water into wine, walking on water, for better. I wish Morton Smith was still around; I would love to discuss this topic with him over an Institute of Medieval Studies dinner!

[Joshua Galloway · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mark, the oldest gospel, makes no mention of a Virgin birth. In the Hebrew of Isaiah, the word means "young woman," not "virgin." Many of Jesus' sayings have parallels in contemporary Greek magical papyri. Jesus may have been something more akin to Apollonius of Tyana. This is definitely a good book. Fascinating, and extremely scholarly in its approach to the Gospels. This book made the Gospels more real to me, in that I learned a great deal about the context in which they were written.

[Mel · Rating 2 out of 5]

There were certainly some interesting ideas, but several arguments felt like they jumped to conclusions while others contained endless repetition. I guess I'd like to read a treatment of the subject that's more coherently argued.

[Ethan Kaye · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best non-fiction book ever.

[Jrobertus]

a scholarly work analyzing the times of jc and comparing the gospel stories with rabbinic writings and histories of the time. apparently there were a lot of miracle workers vying for press coverage.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely not an easy read (it's quite...uh...scholarly), but very compelling.

[Michael D'Amato · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was a necessary read for my field and dissertation. I think if you want to make some senss of the Christian authors from the 2nd to 5th centuries CE discussions of magic, demons, and Jesus.