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

[Bill Hamblin]

I think it is worth noting that denying the existence of Jesus, for whom there is ample historical evidence by ancient standards, entails the rejection of known facts, universally accepted by the biblical studies scholars on both sides of the secular-religious divide.

On the other hand, acceptance of the historicity of the BOM does not require the rejection of any known historical fact. Instead, it supplements know historical data. It requires the affirmation of the existence of something for which their may be insufficient historical evidence, strictly speaking, to affirm on the basis of historical methodologies alone. (And, I should note, most ancient people, places and events have insufficient historical evidence to affirm.)

Methodologically speaking, that is something quite different from rejecting the existence one of the better documented lives of antiquity. It is rather like the difference between denying the existence of hydrogen vs. affirming intelligent life on other planets.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Mortal Man]

You really don't understand what you are reading, do you?

You really can’t refrain from the insults, can 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.

The issue is when Asclepian cultists first began congregating at the pools, and at the baths in the caves just to the east, to petition Asclepius for healing. Many of the votive offerings recovered at these sites appear to antedate 70 AD.

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

Duprez provides primary archaeological evidence for Asclepius worship in first-century Syro-Palestine, including: Ascalon, Jerusalem, Samaria, Caesarea, Ptolemais, Gerasa, Gadara, Tiberias, Sidon and Berytus. — A. Duprez, Jesus et les Dieux Guerisseurs: A Propos de Jean, V 64-79.

There was no Asclepeion at the pools before Hadrian.

There was no temple at the pools before Hadrian. An Asclepeion is simply a place where cultists gather to be healed by Asclepius.

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."

Duprez’s work is over four decades old.

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

Here is what he actually says: “It is probable that the Asclepian cult was active here before 132”.

There was no Asclepeion before 135.

The temple was built in 135 because the Asclepeion already existed.

“For all temples there shall be chosen the most healthy sites with suitable springs in those places where shrines are to be set up, and especially for Asclepius and Salus, and generally for those gods by whose medical power sick persons are manifestly healed. For when sick persons are moved from a pestilent to a healthy place and the water supply is from wholesome fountains, they will more quickly recover. So will it happen that the divinity (from the nature of the site) will gain a greater and higher reputation and authority.” -- Vitruvius, On Architecture i. 2, 7 (circa 15 BC); trans. F. Granger.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I understand you may have attended the "LDS and the Bible" session at SBL. If so, I'm disappointed that I didn't get a chance to meet you. Maybe we'll get another such opportunity next year.

I'd like to offer some comments on your post (see below). If I understand your thinking, you are drawing a contrast between, on the one hand, the arguments from authority used by "many anti-Mormons" against the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, and, on the other hand, the Jesus-myth theory's argument against authority also favored by some anti-Mormons. I think you make a very good point here. Those who appeal to the nearly total lack of non-LDS scholarly support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Mormon find themselves on the other side of that type of argument with regard to the historicity of Jesus, for which there is a nearly total lack of scholarly support for the Jesus-myth theory.

You refer to the argument from authority as a fallacy, and indeed it is, at least as typically framed. That is, it is fallacious to argue that a position should be accepted because most scholars agree with it or that a position should be rejected because few scholars, or few scholars outside one's camp, agree with it. I do think, however, that appeals to scholarly (or scientific) authority have a place in establishing burden of proof. For example, the fact that virtually all historians and biblical scholars date the Babylonian destruction of the first Jerusalem temple to 587 BC (plus or minus a year) is not itself proof of the accuracy of that date, but it does put the burden of proof on the Jehovah's Witnesses who maintain that the event took place in 607 BC. (It's a crucial premise in their convoluted "prophetic chronology" argument for the importance of the year AD 1914 in eschatology.) Their arguments for the 607 BC date can be and have been thoroughly refuted, but it's also fair and even important, in my view, to point out that it is really incumbent on the Jehovah's Witnesses to make a compelling case for their date. We can do this by appealing to scholarly authority to establish the burden of proof.

There's nothing wrong with occasionally bucking the academic establishment and taking a view contrary to the vast majority of scholars or scientists. However, when we do so, we need to acknowledge that we shoulder the burden of proof to explain why our view should be accepted and the majority or even consensus view of academic scholarship or science should in that instance be set aside.

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.

[Daniel Peterson]

You really can’t refrain from the insults, can you?

Stop it, Bill. MM is a gentle soul who has always been respectful civility itself in his interactions with me.

(I've entirely hallucinated my past.)

[Mortal Man]

There's nothing wrong with occasionally bucking the academic establishment and taking a view contrary to the vast majority of scholars or scientists. However, when we do so, we need to acknowledge that we shoulder the burden of proof to explain why our view should be accepted and the majority or even consensus view of academic scholarship or science should in that instance be set aside.

Good point Rob, I wholeheartedly agree.

So when might we be expecting some proof of the unity of Isaiah?

[Mortal Man]

MM is a gentle soul who has always been respectful civility itself in his interactions with me.

This is actually a true statement, once you remove the sarcasm.

[Rob Bowman]

Mortal Man,

Hi there. You wrote:

Good point Rob, I wholeheartedly agree.

So when might we be expecting some proof of the unity of Isaiah?

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that there is a body of conservative academic literature that defends the unity of Isaiah. This issue is an interesting example of the fact that burden of proof can shift to one side or the other depending on different starting points or aspects of the debate. While scholarly majority opinion is clearly tilted heavily against the unity of Isaiah, that opinion shoulders some burden of proof at the outset because in the nature of the case the unity of a text is to be presumed until compelling evidence is brought against it. Unity and disunity are not equally plausible views a priori; there is a legitimate presumption in favor of a text's unity, whether it be Isaiah or Philippians or the Declaration of Independence.

Literary historical scholarship went through a phase in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when it seemed routine for scholars to question the unity or integrity of an ancient or medieval text. That perspective was not limited to the books of the Bible, but of course the Bible contains the best known examples. Part of my "case" for the unity of Isaiah would be to place the academic treatment of Isaiah in its historical context. The disunity theories originated in the historical context of a trend of looking for and seemingly finding seams of disunity in virtually every book of the Bible. The methods used to support such dismembering of the biblical writings were atomistic and anachronistic, failing to understand those writings in terms of the genres and forms of ancient literature. When these methods found disunity almost everywhere, the methods themselves became suspect. Surely some Jewish and Christian writings have come down to us in extant form retaining their original unity and integrity! But the damage was largely done, especially in Old Testament scholarship, for which the identification and tagging of passages, verses, and in some instances partial verses as belonging to J, E, D, P, the Job poem, the Job folk-book, Second Isaiah, Third Isaiah, Historical Micah, Post-Exilic Micah, etc., etc., etc., had become its own academic industry. We would need to discuss this historical development of biblical higher criticism as a whole in order to put the arguments concerning the unity or disunity of Isaiah into proper perspective.

[Mortal Man]

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

Is that why you refuse to participate on MST?

Edited November 27, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Ralph Man]

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.

I can presume this is in reference to my post and therefore I will be on-topic by replying to it.

1) Telling someone they are inconsistent in their arguments or that arguments they have made in the past are a refutation of their present stance (or vica versa) is not a tu quoque fallacy.

2) I'm not accusing you of making an argument from authority. Quite the contrary, I think you are encouraging others to share your dismissive tone towards those who think Jesus was a mythical construction (as opposed to a real historical figure with significant mythical overlay) by pointing out scholars overwhelmingly disagree with that stance. This isn't a fallacious argument from authority. It's rational to weight expert opinion when deciding how seriously an idea should be treated.

3) Insofar as you are doing that, I agree with you. Unfortunately, you believe in several movements where scholars overwhelmingly disagree with you and are dismissive towards arguments you endorse. This is a parallel situation. One could just as easily post a video of a famous biologist like Richard Dawkins correctly pointing out how abysmal intelligent design is viewed by relevant scholars and happily inform people such as yourself of the "scholarly news." You could be, as it were, similarly tweaked.

4) Yet, when you see others dismissive of your stances because of the same dismissed, fringe status, then you're all Semmelweis and phlogiston. Curiously, that is absent here. Therefore, I simply am here to point out that past Bill Hamblin, who I'm sure many of us remember, either rebuts current Bill Hamblin or past Bill Hamblin should see the error of his ways.

[Bill Hamblin]

The issue is when Asclepian cultists first began congregating at the pools, and at the baths in the caves just to the east, to petition Asclepius for healing. Many of the votive offerings recovered at these sites appear to antedate 70 AD.

CFR. Evidence please. (There in fact are not "many" votive offerings at all, and none that can be dated before 70.)

Duprez provides primary archaeological evidence for Asclepius worship in first-century Syro-Palestine, including: Ascalon, Jerusalem, Samaria, Caesarea, Ptolemais, Gerasa, Gadara, Tiberias, Sidon and Berytus. — A. Duprez, Jesus et les Dieux Guerisseurs: A Propos de Jean, V 64-79.

Really? There were Asclepeions in all the pagan towns in the region!? I'm shocked!

CFR, however, on a pre-135 Asclepeion in Jerusalem.

There was no temple at the pools before Hadrian. An Asclepeion is simply a place where cultists gather to be healed by Asclepius.

CFR on Asclepeion as a place where cultists gather. Now you are trying to change not only the issue, but the Greek language?!

I happen to have my handy 2000+ page Liddell and Scott Greek English Lexicon, the standard in the field. Under Askēpieion it reads "temple to Asclepius" 258a. D'oh! Nothing there about a place where people gather. It's a temple.

So, you have at last conceded that there was no temple before Hadrian. That's real progress. So, show me one piece of evidence that people worshipped Asclepius at the pools of Bethesda before 135 AD. You haven't yet.

Here is what he actually says: “It is probable that the Asclepian cult was active here before 132”.

What he is saying is his guess that pagans worshipped Asclepius there between 70 and 132, that is, informal pagan worship between the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and its rebuilding. But it's his speculation. He has no evidence for it.

The temple was built in 135 because the Asclepeion already existed.

CFR. Citing Vetruvius on building Asclepeions near water is not evidence that there was an Asclepeion at Jerusalem.

Give it up.

[Bill Hamblin]

There's nothing wrong with occasionally bucking the academic establishment and taking a view contrary to the vast majority of scholars or scientists. However, when we do so, we need to acknowledge that we shoulder the burden of proof to explain why our view should be accepted and the majority or even consensus view of academic scholarship or science should in that instance be set aside.

I agree. So? When have I ever said or done otherwise?

PS I was not at any of the LDS-related sessions.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

I can presume this is in reference to my post and therefore I will be on-topic by replying to it.

1) Telling someone they are inconsistent in their arguments or that arguments they have made in the past are a refutation of their present stance (or vica versa) is not a tu quoque fallacy.

2) I'm not accusing you of making an argument from authority. Quite the contrary, I think you are encouraging others to share your dismissive tone towards those who think Jesus was a mythical construction (as opposed to a real historical figure with significant mythical overlay) by pointing out scholars overwhelmingly disagree with that stance. This isn't a fallacious argument from authority. It's rational to weight expert opinion when deciding how seriously an idea should be treated.

3) Insofar as you are doing that, I agree with you. Unfortunately, you believe in several movements where scholars overwhelmingly disagree with you and are dismissive towards arguments you endorse. This is a parallel situation. One could just as easily post a video of a famous biologist like Richard Dawkins correctly pointing out how abysmal intelligent design is viewed by relevant scholars and happily inform people such as yourself of the "scholarly news." You could be, as it were, similarly tweaked.

4) Yet, when you see others dismissive of your stances because of the same dismissed, fringe status, then you're all Semmelweis and phlogiston. Curiously, that is absent here. Therefore, I simply am here to point out that past Bill Hamblin, who I'm sure many of us remember, either rebuts current Bill Hamblin or past Bill Hamblin should see the error of his ways.

Nice attempt to scuttle the topic. But it failed.

PS You are completely misrepresenting my views.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Honorentheos]

On the other hand, acceptance of the historicity of the BOM does not require the rejection of any known historical fact.

I believe what it DOES require are the acceptance of hypotheticals described in the Book of Mormon. These being the so-called "Nephite-shaped hole".

Given that LDS apologists use this approach in their attempts to identify where the BoM lands may be, I don't think it's improper to use it as an attack on the validity of the BoM as historical record.

This Nephite-shaped hole would include, though are not limited to:

- military tactics and armaments described in the BoM and even identified as being assimulated by the Lamenites such as armor

- monotheism, in particular proto-Christian monotheism

- temple worship akin to Judism

- agriculture techniques and crops specifically mentioned in the BoM as being brought from the old world to the new for propagation

- old world urban design

- old world disease impacts and immunity traits

The attempt to decouple belief in the Book of Mormon as historical record from archaeological evidence is a parlor trick, IMO.

But to the OP, I fully agree. Disbelief in a historical Jesus is generally on the fringe of biblical scholarship. I'm not sure why so many feel it's necessary to debunk the idea there was a real person behind the stories in order to validate one's atheism. The question of Jesus' divinity is a much better point of argument.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Bill Hamblin]

Other problems

1- There is no mention of an Asclepeion in Jerusalem in the literary sources despite the fact that the first century topography of Jerusalem is extraordinarily well documented due to the writings of Josephus. No mention of either Asclepius or an Asclepeion in the writings of Josephus.

2- The Jews were notoriously antagonistic to public pagan worship in Jerusalem and were very protective of their holy city. (The incident of the eagle and of the statue of Caligula from Josephus are two classic examples.) As far as I am aware, there are no documented examples of pagan shrines or public pagan worship in first century Jerusalem before 70. If there was public veneration of Asclepius in pre-70 Jerusalem it would have been a unique phenomena and would certainly have been mentioned by Josephus.

3- Asclepius healing was generally done by dream incubation, and following instructions received in a dream. This has nothing to do with the description of the healing waters at Bethesda.

[Bill Hamblin]

I believe what it DOES require are the acceptance of hypotheticals described in the Book of Mormon. These being the so-called "Nephite-shaped hole". Given that LDS apologists use this approach in their attempts to identify where the BoM lands may be, I don't think it's improper to use it as an attack on the validity of the BoM as historical record. This Nephite-shaped hole would include, though are not limited to: - military tactics and armaments described in the BoM and even identified as being assimulated by the Lamenites such as armor - monotheism, in particular proto-Christian monotheism - temple worship akin to Judism - agriculture techniques and crops specifically mentioned in the BoM as being brought from the old world to the new for propagation - old world urban design - old world disease impacts and immunity traits The attempt to decouple belief in the Book of Mormon as historical record from archaeological evidence is a parlor trick, IMO. But to the OP, I fully agree. Disbelief in a historical Jesus is generally on the fringe of biblical scholarship. I'm not sure why so many feel it's necessary to debunk the idea there was a real person behind the stories in order to validate one's atheism. The question of Jesus' divinity is a much better point of argument.

Please stay on topic. Start another thread if you want to discuss these issues.

[Log]

deleted, who needs a board nanny?

Edited November 27, 2011 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Relax. I wasn't criticizing you.

So? When I have I ever said or done otherwise.

[Honorentheos]

Please stay on topic. Start another thread if you want to discuss these issues.

A fair suggestion, provided it's mutually accepted.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Relax. I wasn't criticizing you.

Yea, I know. Just reflex.

PS I was not at any of the LDS-related sessions.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Honorentheos]

In relation to the OP, I find pro-Christian apologia founded on proving the existance of a real Jesus-as-man to be an equally weak foundation for one's faith. Lee Stobel's "The Case for Christ" comes to mind.

[Mortal Man]

1- There is no mention of an Asclepeion in Jerusalem in the literary sources despite the fact that the first century topography of Jerusalem is extraordinarily well documented due to the writings of Josephus. No mention of either Asclepius or an Asclepeion in the writings of Josephus.

2- The Jews were notoriously antagonistic to public pagan worship in Jerusalem and were very protective of their holy city. (The incident of the eagle and of the statue of Caligula from Josephus are two classic examples.) As far as I am aware, there are no documented examples of pagan shrines or public pagan worship in first century Jerusalem before 70. If there was public veneration of Asclepius in pre-70 Jerusalem it would have been a unique phenomena and would certainly have been mentioned by Josephus.

The Pool of Bethesda was outside Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. It wasn't incorporated into the city proper until Herod Agrippa expanded the city walls.

3- Asclepius healing was generally done by dream incubation, and following instructions received in a dream. This has nothing to do with the description of the healing waters at Bethesda.

“For all temples there shall be chosen the most healthy sites with suitable springs in those places where shrines are to be set up, and especially for Asclepius..." -- Vitruvius

and (Yeung, Faith, 79):

The dreamers lay among snakes. The Bethzatha Vase and a recovered marble relief both contain serpents, as does a lamp where the (probable) serpent on Asclepius’ staff has worn away.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mortal Man]

CFR on Asclepeion as a place where cultists gather. Now you are trying to change not only the issue, but the Greek language?!

I happen to have my handy 2000+ page Liddell and Scott Greek English Lexicon, the standard in the field. Under Askēpieion it reads "temple to Asclepius" 258a. D'oh! Nothing there about a place where people gather. It's a temple.

It's used both ways.

Speaking of changing the Greek language (Yeung, Faith, 79):

[Daniel Peterson]

This is actually a true statement, once you remove the sarcasm.

It would be a true statement if its propositional content were removed and something non-counterfactual were inserted in its place.

Just for the record. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Bill Hamblin]

The Pool of Bethesda was outside Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. It wasn't incorporated into the city proper until Herod Agrippa expanded the city walls.

Which, if true, still has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the lack of pagan shrines in Jerusalem. It is a mere 100 yards or so north of the temple, easily within sight of the temple. It was also used to wash sheep in preparation for sacrifice in the temple.

“For all temples there shall be chosen the most healthy sites with suitable springs in those places where shrines are to be set up, and especially for Asclepius..." -- Vitruvius

The fact that Asclepeions were near water does not mean that all pools or springs had Asclepeions. Furthermore, the pools of Bethesda collected drainage; there was no spring there. But all of this has nothing to do with the lack of dream incubation.

[Bill Hamblin]

It's used both ways.

It is?! Evidence, please.

Speaking of changing the Greek language (Yeung, Faith, 79):

Your point?

I note that you completely ignored my CFR. Either provide the evidence, or withdraw your claim.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Bill Hamblin