FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-13-2008, 12:03 PM   #11
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Thank you Dave, very interesting post today.
Two questions.
1. Is your quote above from this book (or via: amazon.co.uk) or this one (or via: amazon.co.uk)?
2. Am I then, to understand that you regard the "fact" (reference?) that Hadrian built a second pool, perhaps near the site of the first one (?), as having resolved definitively the question of an early date for authorship of gJohn (i.e. prior to 70CE)--at least regarding John 5:2?

I do not understand how the quote above, from the Princeton scholar, addresses the other underlying question: validity of the "received" versions of the Greek texts, versus the three "oldest" extant versions, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrine. We need a careful word by word analysis, I believe, from each of these three oldest papyrus docs, (if they contain this portion of John?), juxtaposed to the newer versions, in order to understand more clearly this second problem, something of a controversy from the original post, a couple of years ago.....
avi is offline  
Old 12-13-2008, 01:07 PM   #12
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 425
Default

Thanks avi.

1. The quote is attributed to Dr. James Charlesworth's "Reinterpreting John" from the Bible Review of Feb. 1993 online.

2. Regardless of the manuscript one has, if this part of John is in there and it's discussing a building that didn't exist until AFTER 135 CE then, that scripture could not have been written until after 135 CE.

Also, this is cited & discussed in Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) page 231-2.
Dave31 is offline  
Old 12-13-2008, 01:24 PM   #13
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave31
... if this part of John is in there and it's discussing a building that didn't exist until AFTER 135 CE then...
I apologize for my gross stupidity, but, I remain confused on this point. I understood, perhaps completely in error, that the building constructed by Hadrian, or at least, on his order, was located adjacent to, or right upon the original pool, with its own structure, which the Romans had destroyed in 70 CE. Is this wrong? In other words, I thought BOTH the ancient Bethesda, and the newer, Hadrian accomplishment, represented healing pools, a sort of spa, with buildings adjacent, for various spa related activities....In other words, somewhere along the line, I have confounded the notion that Hadrian's version is both uniquely different from the "original, pre70CE version", and incompatible with at least some versions of the text in John 5: 2.
avi is offline  
Old 12-14-2008, 05:54 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave31 View Post
I'm specifically interested in this quote by Dr. James Charlesworth:

Quote:
For example, in John 5:2 the author [supposedly the apostle John] describes a monumental pool with "five porticoes" inside the Sheep Gate of Jerusalem where the sick came to be healed: the pool, we are told, is called Bethesda. No other ancient writer - no author or editor of the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, not even Josephus - mentions such a significant pool in Jerusalem. Moreover, no known ancient building was a pentagon, which was apparently what John was describing with five porticoes. It seemed that the author of John could not have been a Jew who knew Jerusalem. Archaeologists, however, decided to dig precisely where the author of John claimed a pool was set aside for healing. Their excavations revealed an ancient pool with porticoes (open areas with large columns) and with shrines dedicated to the Greek god of healing, Asclepius.... The author of John knew more about Jerusalem than we thought.
After the destruction of Judea in 135 CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian built a temple to Aesclepius/Serapis, the Greek God of healing, on the same site where the pool had been. Asclepius had five daughters, hence the five porches. From this evidence, it would appear that this part of John could not have been written until after 135 CE.
Most scholars seem to interpret the five porches or porticoes as the four sides and the central divide of the double pool discovered by archaeologists.
If so, then the five porches or porticoes are older than Jesus and go back to the late BCE construction of the second pool.

If the five porches or porticoes refer to shrines for Asclepius they would probably be later than Jesus (although a small group of scholars believe that the pool was already devoted to Asclepius before 70 CE). However the identification of the five porches or porticoes specifically with Asclepius worship seems a little speculative.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 12-14-2008, 06:26 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave31 View Post
After the destruction of Judea in 135 CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian built a temple to Aesclepius/Serapis, the Greek God of healing, on the same site where the pool had been. Asclepius had five daughters, hence the five porches.
Actually, to my knowledge, Asclepius had 6 daughters (Hygieia, Meditrina, Panacea, Aceso, Iaso, and Aglaea) and 3 sons (Machaon, Telesphoros, and Podalirius).

And the Qumran Copper Scroll seems to attest to Judean knowledge of the pool before 70 CE (cf. A. Wolters “Copper Scroll,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background [ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000] 215.

See, too, E.J. Vardaman, “The Pool of Bethesda,” Biblical Research 14 [1963]: 27-29; J. Wieand, "John V. 2 and the Pool of Bethesda," NTS, 12 [1966)], pp. 392-404, esp. pp. 394-395).

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 12-14-2008, 06:57 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Most scholars seem to interpret the five porches or porticoes as the four sides and the central divide of the double pool discovered by archaeologists.
So E.J. Vardaman, “The Pool of Bethesda,” Biblical Research 14 [1963]: 27-29;

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 12-14-2008, 07:10 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave31 View Post
I didn't want to start an entire new thread - I just wanted to add a question concerning the evidence.

I'm aware of the claim that the pool at Bethesda existed before 70 CE. My question concerns the archaeological evidence and dating of the "five porticoes" (RSV) or "five porches" (KJV) mentioned in the New Testament.

I'm specifically interested in this quote by Dr. James Charlesworth:

Quote:
For example, in John 5:2 the author [supposedly the apostle John] describes a monumental pool with "five porticoes" inside the Sheep Gate of Jerusalem where the sick came to be healed: the pool, we are told, is called Bethesda. No other ancient writer - no author or editor of the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, not even Josephus - mentions such a significant pool in Jerusalem.

But Josephus is aware of the area in Jerusalem known as Bethesda. See War 2. 328.


Quote:
After the destruction of Judea in 135 CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian built a temple to Aesclepius/Serapis, the Greek God of healing, on the same site where the pool had been. Asclepius had five daughters, hence the five porches.
What is your source for this claim?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 12-17-2008, 10:46 AM   #18
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 425
Default

It says here that in the earlier myth he had two daughters, while in the later myth they numbered FIVE. The building around 135 CE would be representative of the LATER myth, as would be appropriate.

I see nothing here about six daughters.

As we know, MYTHS CHANGE.

The Dictionary of Classical Mythology

Quote:
But Josephus is aware of the area in Jerusalem known as Bethesda. See War 2. 328.
Big deal - where's the mention of the "five porticoes" (RSV) or "five porches" (KJV) mentioned in John 5:2 ?
Dave31 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:04 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.