Bart Ehrman'S New Book, "Did Jesus Exist?"

[Bill Hamblin]

I attended SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) last weekend, and listened to a talk by Bart Ehrman, the darling of the New Atheist crowd. He said he has a new book coming out in March 2012 (with HarperOne I believe), Did Jesus Exist? on the Jesus-Myth theory. (I also heard that it will be an ebook only.)

Basically he is going to argue that the Jesus-Myth theory--that Jesus never existed and was fictionally cobbled together from myths and legends--is a bunch of bogus nonsense.

There was also a paper presented by Brent Landau (U. Oklahoma), “Jesus Never Existed”: An Intellectual History of the Jesus-Myth Thesis which also debunked the Jesus-Myth. He said that, as far as he is aware, no one has ever presented a paper at SBL advocating the theory. He said it is a pseudo-scholarly fringe movement recently popularized by the New Atheist crowd.

Since there are some anti-Mormons who seem to be devotees of this theory, I thought they might like to hear scholarly views. It appears, alas, that Asclepius is not the source for Jesus!

[Olavarria]

[Mortal Man]

I attended SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) last weekend, and listened to a talk by Bart Ehrman, the darling of the New Atheist crowd. He said he has a new book coming out in March 2012 (with HarperOne I believe), Did Jesus Exist? on the Jesus-Myth theory. (I also heard that it will be an ebook only.)

Basically he is going to argue that the Jesus-Myth theory--that Jesus never existed and was fictionally cobbled together from myths and legends--is a bunch of bogus nonsense.

And this is somehow surprising?

There was also a paper presented by Brent Landau (U. Oklahoma), “Jesus Never Existed”: An Intellectual History of the Jesus-Myth Thesis which also debunked the Jesus-Myth. He said that, as far as he is aware, no one has ever presented a paper at SBL advocating the theory. He said it is a pseudo-scholarly fringe movement recently popularized by the New Atheist crowd.

Since there are some anti-Mormons who seem to be devotees of this theory, I thought they might like to hear scholarly views.

Now if you could just find one of these anti-Mormons you'd be in business.

It appears, alas, that Asclepius is not the source for Jesus!

Did you think he was?

I can see how John's co-optation of Asclepius' saving powers in some of his stories of Jesus might lead someone to leap to that conclusion but you really ought to consider other sources as well.

[wenglund]

Occasionally, I have been accused (falsely I believe) of arguing and debating for the sake of arguing and debate. But I don't recall when I have ever argued against a book announcement--particularly where the party making the announcement had nothing to do with writing the book. Perhaps I lack that special obsessive quality. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Mortal Man, on 26 November 2011 - 02:44 AM, said:

Did you think he was?

I can see how John's co-optation of Asclepius' saving powers in some of his stories of Jesus might lead someone to leap to that conclusion but you really ought to consider other sources as well.

On pp. 9-10 of Morton Smith's notorious "Jesus the Magician" there is a very good explanation of why I find your case for John co-opting Asclepius' saving powers in some of his stories of Jesus a case-study in parallelomania.

To understand their importance, we must remember that ancient Palestine had no hospitals or insane asylums. The sick and insane had to be cared for by their families, in their homes. The burden of caring for them was often severe and sometimes, especially in cases of violent insanity, more than the family could bear—the afflicted were turned out of doors and left to wander like animals.

This practice continued to the present century; I shall never forget my first experience in the "old city" of Jerusalem in 1940.

The first thing I saw as I came through the Jaffa Gate was a lunatic, a filthy creature wearing an old burlap bag with neck and armholes cut through the bottom and sides. He was having a fit. It seemed to involve a conversation with some imaginary being in the air in front of him. He was pouring out a flood of gibberish while raising his hands as if in supplication.

Soon he began to make gestures, as if trying to protect himself from blows, and howled as if being beaten. Frothing at the mouth, he fell to the ground on his face, lay there moaning and writhing, vomited, and had an attack of diarrhea. Afterwards he was calmer,but lay in his puddles of filth, whimpering gently.

I stood where I had stopped when I first saw him, some fifty feet away, rooted to the spot, but nobody eise paid any attention.

There were lots of people in the street, but those who came up to him merely skirted the mess and walked by. He was lying on the sidewalk in front of a drugstore. After a few minutes a clerk came out with a box of sawdust, poured it on the puddles, and treated the patient with a couple of kicks in the small of the back.

This brought him to his senses and he got up and staggered off, still whimpering, rubbing his mouth with one hand and his back with the other. When I came to live in the "old city" I found that he, and half a dozen like him, were familiar figures.

Such was ancient psychotherapy. Those not willing to put their insane relatives into the street, had to endure them at home.

Also, since rational medicine (except for surgery) was rudimentary, lingering and debilitating diseases must have been common, and the victims of these, too, had to be cared for at home. Accordingly, many people eagerly sought cures, not only for themselves, but also for their relatives.

Doctors were inefficient, rare, and expensive. When a healer appeared—a man who could perform miraculous cures, and who did so for nothing!—he was sure to be mobbed. In the crowds that swarmed around him desperate for cures, cures were sure to occur. With each cure, the reputation of his powers, the expectations and speculations of the crowd, and the legends and rumors about him would grow. Such crowds and their needs, not the later Christian communities, were the earliest matrices of gospel stories and continue, even now, to produce similar stories, for example, see the New York Times (Oct. 10, 1977, p. 31, col. 1):

A Lebanese monk was proclaimed a saint by Pope Paul VI.

Sharbel Makhlouf, a hermit who died in 1898 at the age of 70, thus became the first Lebanese to be canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. . . .

Thousands of fhe faithful went to the rocky peak of Annaya on Mount Lebanon to pay homage to the peasant monk who was canonized in Rome.

Many thousands had trudged the steep 17-miIe road ftom the ancient port of Byblos.

Religious fervor reached a peak when onlookers said they had seen the bronze statue of Saint Sharbel bless the crowd, after which several paralytics had risen and walked and a blind girl had regained her vision.

From this social and medical background of the Near East we can understand why the gospeIs represent Jesus as attracting attention primarily as a miracle worker, and winning his followers by miracles.

The gospels do so because he did so. These facts have been neglected as unedifying by liberal exegesis; we must look at the evidence.

If John co-opted anything it would be of little substance. Afflictions of mental and physical health could hardly have been radically different between Greece of the Asclepian folklore and Galilee-Judaeaof the 1st c. AD. Similar circumstances produce similar traditions.

[Mortal Man]

On pp. 9-10 of Morton Smith's notorious "Jesus the Magician" there is a very good explanation of why I find your case for John co-opting Asclepius' saving powers in some of his stories of Jesus a case-study in parallelomania.

It's a case study in archaeology and the earliest texts.

If John co-opted anything it would be of little substance. Afflictions of mental and physical health could hardly have been radically different between Greece of the Asclepian folklore and Galilee-Judaeaof the 1st c. AD. Similar circumstances produce similar traditions.

The question is not whether Jesus was a healer but whether he was better than Asclepius.

[Bill Hamblin]

It's a case study in archaeology and the earliest texts.

The question is not whether Jesus was a healer but whether he was better than Asclepius.

This theory is simply nuts. The Asclepeion at the pools of Bethesda was built in the mid to late-second century AD, after Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans and rebuilt as a pagan city after AD 135. (I've actually been there and seen it by the way.)

Do you have any textual or archaeological evidence to date the Asclepeion of Bethesda to the first century AD?

[cksalmon]

"There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money...."

Indeed, there are.

In their most recent debate, Dan Wallace made a waggish comment to the effect that some of the best arguments against Ehrman the popularizer are those made by Ehrman the scholar.

None of that is news to Dr. Hamblin, of course.

But, let's restrict our purview to this board. Goodness. I'd wager that Ehrman gets quoted 50:1 by Mormons vs. "anti-Mormons."

[volgadon]

This theory is simply nuts. The Asclepeion at the pools of Bethesda was built in the mid to late-second century AD, after Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans and rebuilt as a pagan city after AD 135. (I've actually been there and seen it by the way.)

Do you have any textual or archaeological evidence to date the Asclepeion of Bethesda to the first century AD?

It is also east of the pool of Bethesda.

MM's link ignores the evidence that Bethesda was a large, public mikveh used for purification rites by Jerusalem pilgrims, which sheds a rather different light on the entire affair. This isn't about proving Jesus greater than Asclepius, it is, rather, showing that Jesus was the true living waters, the source of healing and purification. Not too dissimilar in intent to the Mishnaic statement How fortunate you are, O Israel! Before whom are you made clean? Who is it that makes you clean? Your Father that is in heaven! As it is said (Ezek 36:25) "And I will pour clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean"; it says also (Jer 17:13), "the mikveh of Israel is the Lord"- even as a mikveh makes clean those who are unclean, so the Holy One, blessed be He, makes Israel clean.

(Mishnah, t. Yoma, 8:7).

A mikveh has (and had) two essentials parts. The place where bathing took place and an otzar, which is where living waters were stored. Without living waters, either rain, spring or river waters, one couldn't be purified. The pool at Bethasda is split into two portions, bathing taking place in the southern portion.

For the evidence for Bethesda as a mikveh see von Wahlde, Urban C. “The Puzzling Pool of Bethesda.” Biblical Archaeology Review, Sep/Oct 2011, 40-47, 65.

Edited November 26, 2011 by volgadon

[Bill Hamblin]

A nincompoop over on the board-that-is-not-to-be-named has declared that I am allegedly complaining about a "a new book by Bart Ehrman that argues that there was no Jesus." That is rather amusing, since, in fact, I am merely noting that Ehrman's book debunks the Jesus-Myth theory, not affirms it. For those with sub-marginal reading skills, let me repeat: Ehrman's new book rejects the Jesus-myth theory. Ehrman believes Jesus really existed. I agree with Ehrman on this matter.

[Bill Hamblin]

"There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money...."

Indeed, there are.

In their most recent debate, Dan Wallace made a waggish comment to the effect that some of the best arguments against Ehrman the popularizer are those made by Ehrman the scholar.

None of that is news to Dr. Hamblin, of course.

But, let's restrict our purview to this board. Goodness. I'd wager that Ehrman gets quoted 50:1 by Mormons vs. "anti-Mormons."

Actually, it is quite possible to agree with Ehrman on some things, and disagree with him on others.

In fact, I even disagree with my wife about some things. People are funny that way.

[cksalmon]

Actually, it is quite possible to agree with Ehrman on some things, and disagree with him on others.

In fact, I even disagree with my wife about some things. People are funny that way.

Good to know, since I agree with Ehrman on lots of things and disagree with him on lots of others. It depends upon which Ehrman you're questioning: The debater or the scholar.

[Mortal Man]

This theory is simply nuts.

It is the emerging consensus of Bible scholars.

The Asclepeion at the pools of Bethesda was built in the mid to late-second century AD, after Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans and rebuilt as a pagan city after AD 135.

Hadrian renovated the asclepeion with statues etc. and expanded it into a temple to Asclepius and Serapis.

(I've actually been there and seen it by the way.)

The rest of us will have to be content with this photograph.

Do you have any textual or archaeological evidence to date the Asclepeion of Bethesda to the first century AD?

Yup

James Charlesworth et al. date Asclepius worship at and near this location to at least as early as the first century BC.

See also: André Duprez, Jesus and the god of Healing, as according to John (1970).

Edited November 26, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Bill Hamblin]

It is the emerging consensus of Bible scholars.

Hadrian renovated the asclepeion with statues etc. and expanded it into a temple to Asclepius and Serapis.

Yup

James Charlesworth et al. date Asclepius worship at and near this location to at least as early as the first century BC.

See also: André Duprez, Jesus and the god of Healing, as according to John (1970).

You really don't understand what you are reading, do you? The issue is the date of the Asclepeion, not the date of the pools. The pools go back to the eighth century BC. So? That doesn't mean it has anything to do with Asclepius. They were believed to be healing pools by the second or first century BC. So? That doesn't mean it has anything to do with Asclepius.

First, I note that you did not provide any primary textual or archaeological evidence. You quoted secondary scholars.

Second, let's look at what your scholars actually say.

The first source you cite, Yeung, says this:

The scholarly consensus is that a north pool already existed in pre-Exilic times. In the reign of the high priest Simon II (ca. 220-195 BC) the bigger south pool was constructed. The twin pools were renovated during the reign of Hadrian (after 135 AD) into an Asclepieion with statues of Asclepius positioned in the abaton.

In other words, your first source agrees with me and disagrees with your claim that a pre-Hadrian Asclepeion "is the emerging consensus of Bible scholars." She says exactly the opposite of your claim. There was no Asclepeion at the pools before Hadrian.

She goes on to discuss A. Duprez's theory of a pre-Hadrian Asclepeion (your last source), concluding that "Duprez's proposal has not gained wide attention" (78)--again, the exact opposite of your claim that this is the "emerging consensus." Her own conclusion is that there may have been pagans who went to the healing pools in Jesus's day believing their healing to be related Asclepius, but she does not claim there was an Asclepeion there. On the other hand, she provides no evidence for this claim.

Your second source is Charlesworth. Here's what he says:

It is becoming clear that there was a temple to Asclepius in Bethesda ... Stratigraphy, coins, and pottery indicate that these installations were in place during the time of Aelia Capitolina, Hadrian's name for the city that replaced Jerusalem, or after 135/6 CE. It is probable that the Asclepian cult was active here before 132 and after 70 CE. ... The best evidence for the presence of a cult of Asclepius comes from the post-135/6 period, but there is reason to think that the healing cult of this god goes back to an earlier period.

In other words, he says exactly what I say, and exactly the opposite of what you claim. There was no Asclepeion before 135. Charlesworth claims there may have been a healing cult earlier, but provides no evidence for this. He speculates.

Your final source does not provide any textual or archaeological evidence, merely an assertion about a paper read in 2010. If we could see the paper, I could evaluate it. We can't.

That there was a healing pool there in the first century BC is undisputed. There is evidence for its association with Asclepius only after 135 AD, just as I said.

This is an incredibly fragile foundation to try to establish a claim that the early Christians were making up stories about Jesus by copying Asclepius legends.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[elguanteloko]

You know, I get that some atheist want to react against religion but guys like the interviewer simply go too far. Freakin' annoying.

[Ralph Man]

He said that, as far as he is aware, no one has ever presented a paper at SBL advocating the theory. He said it is a pseudo-scholarly fringe movement recently popularized by the New Atheist crowd.

Since there are some anti-Mormons who seem to be devotees of this theory, I thought they might like to hear scholarly views. It appears, alas, that Asclepius is not the source for Jesus!

Since you believe in several fringe pseudo-scholarly movements that have no meaningful traction in their native academic fields, one would think you wouldn't be so dismissive by citing those grounds alone. I think you need to conjure up the Bill Hamblin who would defend intelligent design as something worth taking seriously and have him reply to this Bill Hamblin about hearing the scholarly news.

[Bill Hamblin]

Since you believe in several fringe pseudo-scholarly movements that have no meaningful traction in their native academic fields, one would think you wouldn't be so dismissive by citing those grounds alone. I think you need to conjure up the Bill Hamblin who would defend intelligent design as something worth taking seriously and have him reply to this Bill Hamblin about hearing the scholarly news.

Nice attempt to scuttle the topic. But it failed.

[Ralph Man]

I wasn't attempting to scuffle the topic Bill. Either you believe the things that you say when you attempt to get people not to be dismissive of the fringe movements you adhere to because the scholarly consensus strongly dismisses them or you don't. If you do, then your own arguments in the past are a relevant reply to the opening post you wrote now. If you don't, I guess that's its own separate conversation. In any case, I was replying to the content of your argument that opened this thread. That's why I quoted it.

[Bill Hamblin]

Nice attempt to scuttle the topic. But it failed.

[Skylla]

Ralph Man: Stay on topic.

Skylla

[Bill Hamblin]

Apparently my point is a bit too subtle for some, so I'll clarify.

1- Tu quoque is not an argument, it's a fallacy.

2- I do not engage in the argument from authority; I believe it is a fallacy. I am not making an argument from authority here.

3- Many anti-Mormons frequently engage in the argument from authority by discussing non-Mormon scholarly rejection of the BOM, Egyptologists on the BOA, etc. It is a mainstay of anti-Mormons, especially among secularists.

4- My main point here was simply to note a new book by Ehrman that might be of interest.

5- In the process, I was tweaking the anti-Mormons a bit. Some of them, while making arguments from authority against the BOM, use arguments against Jesus derived from the Jesus-myth theory. If they actually believe in the validity of the argument from authority against the BOM, they need to jettison their Jesus-Myth theory arguments, because these are considered crank and fringe theories by the vast majority of scholars of the SBL. One cannot use the argument from authority only when you agree with it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Now if you could just find one of these anti-Mormons you'd be in business.

i4m.com, the "Rethinking Mormonism" website, has an article on the subject. Interestingly, the author leaves him/herself plenty of hedge space, but the overall point of the article is to say that a "historical Jesus" is highly questionable. Here's their ominous, grammatically nonsensical, and confidently under-informed conclusion:

Like countless scholars who have made this quest before, there is no real evidence of a historical Jesus.

Now think about the implications this has for Mormonism...

(FWIW this took me apx. 2 minutes of google search.)

Edited November 26, 2011 by LifeOnaPlate

[LifeOnaPlate]

"There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money...."

Indeed, there are.

haha, loving that zing, though I tend to take Ehrman on a case-by-case basis and see some utility in his work so long as he isn't uncritically given the final word. Would that more scholars would make themselves more accessible to the rest of us!

Edited November 26, 2011 by LifeOnaPlate

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for the heads up, Bill. I'm going to try for a review copy of it.

[Daniel Peterson]

(FWIW this took me apx. 2 minutes of google search.)

Which is to say that it's an extraordinarily rare phenomenon that seldom if ever occurs.

(I myself have seen it many times among secularizing ex-Mormons. But then, if my lips or fingers are moving, I'm lying. So that doesn't count as evidence, either.)

I was there in that same session in San Francisco, and I fully concur: Denial of the sheer existence of Jesus is, by and large, the province of cranks. For whatever that's worth.