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

[Mortal Man]

Bill,

Relax.

Perhaps he should relax in the healing waters of an Asclepian pool. We could send an "angel" to push the jacuzzi jets to "trouble" the waters for him.

[Rob Bowman]

Honorentheos,

You wrote:

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.

Strobel's book is intended as a popularization of current Christian scholarship on a wide array of topics pertaining to Christ. That having been said, dismissing a book with a wave of the hand, even a popularization, is not much of an argument. Furthermore, if you want to get serious you might engage the literature that addresses the existence of the historical Jesus in more detail and with more academic muscle. Here are a few examples:

Eddy, Paul R., and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. See esp. 6-16.

Eddy and Boyd's book is a must-read for anyone interested in this subject.

[Bill Hamblin]

Perhaps he should relax in the healing waters of an Asclepian pool. We could send an "angel" to push the jacuzzi jets to "trouble" the waters for him.

Even if this were funny it would still be a transparent doge of the several CFRs I've requested.

Repeated assertions and posturing simply won't cut it.

[Mortal Man]

It's used both ways.

It is?! Evidence, please.

"The Johannine narrative describes the porticos as being a place in which large numbers of infirm people were waiting, which corresponds well with the site's 1st century CE use as an asclepieion."

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

Your point?

Earlier you asked for textual evidence. The Asclepius-specific Greek John employs is one small piece of that evidence.

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

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209068914

"Many" typically means "3 or more". Charlesworth describes six artifacts. The votive offerings (e.g., the foot) are very similar to artifacts recovered from the Corinthian Asclepeion, where Paul got his "Body of Christ" theology. See: The Temple of Asclepius: An Alternative Source for Paul's Body Theology? Andrew E. Hill, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 437-439.

For Paul, John and other NT authors, Jesus was a savior like unto Asclepius.

[Honorentheos]

Strobel's book is intended as a popularization of current Christian scholarship on a wide array of topics pertaining to Christ. That having been said, dismissing a book with a wave of the hand, even a popularization, is not much of an argument.

QFT

ETA: correct quote feature issue

Edited November 27, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Rob Bowman]

Honorentheos,

You wrote:

QFT

ETA: correct quote feature issue

Sorry, I'm not grasping your point here (although I know what QFT represents).

[WalkerW]

I actually kind of liked Strobel's book (and later documentary). Kind of a New Testament Reliability for Beginners or For Dummies (and I mean this as praise, seeing that I think For Dummies books are usually nice introductions to subjects one knows nothing about). Introducing people to scholars like Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Ben Witherington III, William Lane Craig, etc. is a good thing.

[Rob Bowman]

WalkerW,

You wrote:

I actually kind of liked Strobel's book (and later documentary). Kind of a New Testament Reliability for Beginners or For Dummies (and I mean this as praise, seeing that I think For Dummies books are usually nice introductions to subjects one knows nothing about). Introducing people to scholars like Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Ben Witherington III, William Lane Craig, etc. is a good thing.

Good point. As popularizations, Strobel's Case books (there are five main books in the series, I think) are excellent because they provide distillations of the thought of top-drawer scholars in their own words. Let me recommend in this context The Case for the Real Jesus, which includes interviews with such scholars as Craig Evans, Paul Copan, and Michael Licona. The chapter with Licona discusses the Jesus-myth theory and the evidence for the resurrection.

[Honorentheos]

Sorry, I'm not grasping your point here (although I know what QFT represents).

My apologies. It was a reference to some people's dismissal of Ehrman simply on the grounds he is not Metzger. Or in other words, the tool wielded is double-edged and cuts both ways. It's not aimed at any particular argument you, yourself, have made in this thread. But since the underlying context of this thread has to do with the argument from authority it's worth "QFT".

Edited November 27, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

WalkerW,

You wrote:

Good point. As popularizations, Strobel's Case books (there are five main books in the series, I think) are excellent because they provide distillations of the thought of top-drawer scholars in their own words. Let me recommend in this context The Case for the Real Jesus, which includes interviews with such scholars as Craig Evans, Paul Copan, and Michael Licona. The chapter with Licona discusses the Jesus-myth theory and the evidence for the resurrection.

I first read the Case for Christ at the invitation of an online believer. I had already moved beyond my LDS faith and was well on my way to exiting Christianity at the time. The only reason I finished it was that I had promised I would.

But it might be interesting to revisit it in the context of a board "book of the month" perhaps. If others were willing to read and discuss it, I would be willing to do so as well. I think you'll find it's less compelling when the arguments it makes are challenged rather than having Strobel roll over on every point as he does.

If interested, and there are others, let me know. I think it'd be interesting to see how others view it if nothing else. Or if you think one of the others in the series is better, let's choose it instead.

December "Book of the Month". What do you say to that?

[Brennin]

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.

The 19th century just called. It wants its discredited ideology back.

[Daniel Peterson]

the Corinthian Asclepeion, where Paul got his "Body of Christ" theology. See: The Temple of Asclepius: An Alternative Source for Paul's Body Theology? Andrew E. Hill, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 437-439.

I'm by no means an expert on the veneration of Asclepius, and won't be participating much here, but I was struck by the formulation above.

The definitive assertion that Paul got his "body of Christ" theology from the Corinthian Asclepion is supported by reference to a single three-page article rather diffidently proposing the Corinthian Asclepion -- note the question mark in the title -- as a possible alternative explanation to some other explanation that, it is strongly implied, is (or, at least, was at the time of the article's publication) more commonly accepted.

Several of MM's arguments seem to follow this pattern, though this one is the most obvious specimen that I've noticed. Too much confidence.

(By the way, I have absolutely no problem with the idea that Paul might have derived his "body of Christ" imagery from the Corinthian Asclepion. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I led a tour to Corinth last summer, and I believe that I may have mentioned the possibility.)

[Bill Hamblin]

"The Johannine narrative describes the porticos as being a place in which large numbers of infirm people were waiting, which corresponds well with the site's 1st century CE use as an asclepieion."

I asked for evidence that the term asclepeion was used in antiquity as a term for a group of worshippers as opposed to a temple, and this is what you give me? Really? I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or obtuse. Asclepeion means a temple dedicated to Asclepius. Your one sentence from Wikipedia is perfectly consistent with this definition. By the way, there is a perfectly good Greek term for a group of worshippers of Asclepius: Asklēpiastai = "guild of worshippers [of Asclepius] (Liddell and Scott 258a).

[Bill Hamblin]

Earlier you asked for textual evidence. The Asclepius-specific Greek John employs is one small piece of that evidence.

Your point is still obscure. But my question was about textual evidence of an Asclepeion in Jerusalem. Your statements do not provide that. Did you think I would be confounded by this transparent dodge? Again I must ask: are you being disingenuous or obtuse? And are you really trying to tell me that when NT authors use the term "savior" in relationship to Jesus they are influenced by Asclepius doxologies rather than the Hebrew Bible descriptions of God as "savior"? Really? This is simply nutty.

I should note that for the second and third centuries AD--the Roman period of Jerusalem--we have clear archaeological, artifactual, inscriptional and textual evidence for the existence of pagan Roman temples in Jerusalem. Yet for the vastly better documented first century, we have no evidence of any sort for the existence of pagan Roman temples or even public pagan worship in Jerusalem.

[William Schryver]

Several of MM's arguments seem to follow this pattern, though this one is the most obvious specimen that I've noticed. Too much confidence.

QFT.

Just copy the bolded phrase to your clipboard and you can use it in virtually every reply made to a post by Mortal Man.

[Bill Hamblin]

"Many" typically means "3 or more". Charlesworth describes six artifacts. The votive offerings (e.g., the foot) are very similar to artifacts recovered from the Corinthian Asclepeion,

Here was your original claim

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.

I asked for a reference for this claim. In reply you list six artifacts mentioned by Charlesworth. Of course there were Asclepius-related artifacts. That's how we know there was an Asclepeion. But these all date to post-135. The point of contention is that you claim they date before 70 AD. So you provide evidence that everyone agrees on--post 135 Asclepeion artifacts--while ignoring the crucial point of dispute--do they date to before AD 70.

So, I ask you again. What evidence--actual ancient texts, artifacts, archaeology, or inscriptions--do we have an Asclepeion or Asclepius veneration in Jerusalem before 135 AD?

[Bill Hamblin]

For Paul, John and other NT authors, Jesus was a savior like unto Asclepius.

Good grief, now you're just being absurd. Statues of two men with long flowing hair and beards is supposed to demonstrate what, exactly? Are you aware of the fact that there are no depictions of Jesus before the third century AD? Are you aware that the earliest Christian art shows Jesus without a beard? Are you aware of the fact that fourth century depictions of Jesus tell us what fourth century Christians thought of him, but tell us nothing of what Paul or John thought of him? Are you aware of the fact that "soter/savior" is a universal term of respect given to rulers and gods. It is ubiquitous. The fact that Asclepius was called Savior and Jesus was called Savior tells us absolutely nothing of a possible relationship between the two. This is just beyond silly. I can only assume that you have no idea about the basic principles and methodologies associated with interpreting ancient texts, artifacts and art.

And finally, what does this have to do with the lack of evidence for the claim of an Asclepeion or Asclepius worship in first century AD Jerusalem?

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Besides being incoherent, this sentence is evidence of precisely nothing. What happened in the second-third century Asclepeion in Jerusalem has absolutely nothing to do with the first century pool of Bethesda if there was no Asclepeion in first century Jerusalem. The point is there is no mention of serpents, or dream incubation or Asclepius, or any distinctively Asclepian belief, artifact or practice in John 5, or anywhere in John for that matter. (PS, IIRC the vase was not found in the Asclepeion, and may have absolutely nothing to do with Asclepius.)

[cksalmon]

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.

No. In this case, I have to disagree, Dr. Hamblin. Of course, neither a tu quoque argument nor an argument from authority is necessarily fallacious. Both have their places in legitimate argumentation schemes.

I think Dr. Peterson has done some work in philosophy; you might ask him.

[volgadon]

It seems that Demetrius I must have been a Soter like unto Asclepius...

[Bill Hamblin]

No. In this case, I have to disagree, Dr. Hamblin. Of course, neither a tu quoque argument nor an argument from authority is necessarily fallacious. Both have their places in legitimate argumentation schemes. I think Dr. Peterson has done some work in philosophy; you might ask him.

Are you using Dan Peterson as an authority to support the argument from authority?!

[cksalmon]

Are you using Dan Peterson as an authority to support the argument from authority?!

A legitimate argument from authority, one that is not fallacious, must be bilaterally stipulated by the relevant disputants. It's a logical shorthand, and normal. Sure, I'd use Peterson in that regard, assuming a relevant overlap; wouldn't you, irrespective of worldview issues?

Edited November 28, 2011 by cksalmon

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm down with that, ck. I'd add that ad hominem arguments are also not automatically fallacious, depending entirely on the context of the argument. (I typically favor avoiding them at all costs, but the fact remains that in principle they aren't universally fallacious imo.)

[Bill Hamblin]

bump. (Waiting ... waiting ...)

[Mortal Man]

bump. (Waiting ... waiting ...)

Merry Christmas Bill