mountainman

The following images are from Achary's blog referenced at post # 1:



"Saviour of the World"

Diogenes the Cynic

That image is Priapus. It has nothing to do with Peter. Acharya is claiming a connection of the piece to Peter based on completely contrived argument that "Peter" and "cock" both mean schlong (offering no support for either word having that connotation in Greek), so therefore all schlongs are Peter the apostle.

She points to peter having an association with roosters, which is true, but he had no association AS a rooster, and he certainly had no erotic or sexual associations (being putatively celibate, after all). Peter was also never called a saviour.

This image is a satire, alright, but it's about sex, not Peter the Apostle.

Toto

Just for entertainment purposes, Pharyngula blogged on the question.

Dave31

It would obviously be helpful to actually read Acharya's blog on the issue:

The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

The fact remains that Errorman accused her of making it up and even drawing the image herself when there were sources and citations right there under the image. There is just no way Ehrman could possibly have read the book and missed them. He did NOT read the book.

Did Bart Ehrman read the books?

Bart Ehrman's Book 'Did Jesus Exist?'

Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman asked with a question mark whether she drew it herself, he didn't accuse her.

He was also not wrong. There is no statue of Peter as a rooster. That statue is not PETER. There is no "Peter the cock."

The statue she proviodes the drawing for is of Priapus, not Peter and has no evidentiary value to her argument, which is based on spurious linguistics.

Steven Carr

Oh yeah,..sure, , he put in a question mark. That makes it all right.

Are you always so dumb and naive? .

Please not the question mark. I am not accusing you of being dumb and naive at all. Not in the least. I'm just pointing out that Ehrman's insinuations can't be excused by saying they were put in the form of a question. Especially as it was a question that a scholar like Ehrman could have answered by reading the book.

Sheshbazzar

Certainly looks like it was intended to represent old St. Peter to me.

tanya

"old" St. Peter?

looks rather youthful and virile, to my inexpert eyes....

:blush:

Dave31

Some seem very confused over the whole "phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican" issue. I think I can help make it more clear.

First, Ehrman wrote in his book that Acharya made it up and that she may have even drawn the image herself. Acharya quickly responded to it in her blog linked at the bottom pointing out the fact that under the image in her book she included:

"Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter. Inscription reads "Savior of the World."" along with the source citation "Walker, WDSSO." So, Carrier's point in bringing this up was:

Ehrman couldn't possibly have read Acharya's book and fail to notice the source citation. It's sloppy and egregious and unbecoming of any reliable scholar; it's plain intellectual dishonesty.

Second, some are confused (including Carrier) that Acharya was claiming that the "statue of a penis-nosed cockerel (which she says is a “symbol of St. Peter”) in the Vatican museum." She didn't say the bronze statue itself was of St. Peter - she only said the Cock/Rooster was a symbol of St. Peter:

To reiterate, some are presuming that Acharya is claiming it's a statue of St. Peter. She never said that either.

The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

Sheshbazzar

"old" only in the sense that good 'old St. Peter' has hung around for a long, long time.