continued response to thingsweneverdid, Aug 2 2022, #812
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
comparison of Jesus to Asclepius (ancient healing deity)
Strabo writes that in the city of Epidaurus, the healing god Asclepius "is believed to cure diseases of every kind". He writes too that in Canobus the temple of Serapis was so much revered for its power of healing that "even the most reputable men believe in it and sleep in it."...
All of this indicates that there was some worship of Asclepius, just like there is worship of Christ today, and there has always been worship of ancient gods or heroes passed down in the traditions. What's lacking though is
reported cases of actual healing miracles, such as we see in the Gospel accounts, in a written record near to the time the reported miracle acts happened. (And of course in modern times there are millions of reported cases which have not been investigated -- if they were, probably most would be debunked. There's no way to know what the percent of this is.) Again -- there is no significance to the fact that worshipers hold their religious rituals and pray to their gods. It's only when actual reported miracle cures appear in the written accounts of the time that it becomes important. Such reports are very rare, not common.
In the Asclepius case the exception, or credible evidence, is that of a few reported miracles, in the Epidaurus inscriptions, occurring about 300 BC and earlier, and then again after 100 AD. These are the only cases of real evidence, not just that people worshiped at the temple, or visited and prayed there. That people prayed for miracles or for the gods to help them is much different than actual evidence that real miracle acts were done, reported by the witnesses, as the Jesus miracle cures are reported. Those reported cases are not common, such as the religious ceremonies and rituals are.
Theissen is also correct in pointing out that the confidence of the suppliant in the success of the healing process, though volitional in character and comparable to faith in the New Testament, is nonetheless never called 'faith' but only "hope', 'courage', 'simplicity' and the like.
The "confidence" of the suppliant does not mean that a miracle healing act is actually reported, but only that the worshiper strongly believes in the healing god of the ancient tradition. So, if the patient does have a normal recovery, s/he is confident that Asclepius did make the recovery happen. But if there is no recovery, the patient is still confident in the god anyway, and still believes. Like reported divine healings in modern times and throughout history. What is lacking in most cases is any actual report of a real recovery which would not have happened anyway, such as an instant healing which defies conventional medical science. Where such miracle healings really are reported, there's reason to investigate the claim further, since it could be a credible case, depending on the evidence.
However, he seems to have underestimated the challenge of Asclepius to the total person. The following testimonies demonstrate that the challenge presented by Asclepius to the human being is very close to that of Jesus:
"A man came as a suppliant to the god. He was so blind that of one of his eyes he had only the eyelids left within them was nothing, but they were entirely empty. Some of those in the Temple laughed at his silliness (eundia) to think that he could recover his sight when one of his eyes had not even a trace of the ball, but only the socket. As he slept a vision appeared to him. It seemed to him that the god prepared some drug, then, opening his eyelids, poured it into them. When day came he departed with the sight of both eyes restored. (Inscriptiones Graecae, 4.1, nos. 121-122, (2nd half of 4th c.B.C., Epidaurus 9 in Edelstein 1.223 and 231-232, italics mine)
(This example is strong enough to be in the category of a real miracle cure (if it really happened), rather than only a normal recovery or normal treatment of a condition which might have been helped by the treatment. It's difficult to believe the drug alone could produce total healing.)
And the above confirms my earlier point that the legitimate Asclepius miracles (i.e., reputed miracles), published in the above Edelstein volume, are all dated prior to 300 BC, and also after 100 AD. I.e., there is a gap of about 400 years (or maybe 350 years) during which there are no Asclepius miracles reported. And then there's a revival beginning around 100 AD. There are many stories of "cures" or therapies and recoveries attributed to the ancient healing god, but not miracle claims. A mere recovery, or other favorable outcome in the day(s) following the visit to the temple could easily be attributed to normal recovery processes of the body, as also to some of the successful therapies, or medical practices, drugs, herbal remedies, etc. It depends on the reported facts of each individual case.
It's important to understand that this comprehensive collection of the Asclepius testimonials, covering the entire period from about 600 BC and up to beyond 100 AD, is about 90% NON-miracle claims, and is just a listing of all the Asclepius references, both in the literature and in the inscriptions at the temples. The actual MIRACLE claims, being rare exceptions to the overall pattern, with unusual cures defying known medical knowledge, are found only in the very early references (before 300 (or 250) BC) and also in the very late references (after 100 AD), leaving the lengthy gap in the middle, in the period leading up to the 1st century. For comparison to the reported Jesus miracle acts, we're interested in only the non-medical cures, or rather, unusual cures which don't conform to the conventional medical knowledge, and which even today are unexplainable.
One might try to explain the Jesus reported healing miracles in terms of some modern psychology or hypnosis etc., but definitely the vast majority of them have no current explanation, based on the modern science. And there are a few of these also among the Asclepius testimonials, but only a small minority of the total cases reported in the Edelstein volume.
What can be said for sure about the Asclepius cult is that it did have an elaborate medical treatment program for everyone seeking medical help, mostly worshipers of Asclepius, and that it did provide benefits to many of the patients, because of normal treatments or even cures which had medical efficacy. There were the normal cases of failure and loss of patients, but the experience of thousands who visited the temples bears out that there developed several success stories and likely benefits to patients beyond the norm or beyond that of random chance. And some or most of this could be explained as legitimate medical recoveries, or therapies which were beneficial. Also the Asclepius priests (practitioners) were very skilled at psychological techniques, which were beneficial in recoveries.
"faith"?
Although the word 'faith' is not used of the blind man [in the above Asclepius story], his 'silliness' or 'simplicity' is comparable to the faith of the blind beggar Bartimaeus. Whereas Bartimaeus shouted all the more for Jesus' help when others told him to be silent (Mk 10:48), the blind man persisted in spite of the mockery from other people. His faith overcame the obstacles of the hopeless state of his eye and of other people's ridicule. In a sense his faith led to his healing just as in Bartimaeus' case. Both his faith and that of Bartimaeus are tested by difficulties...
It's probably incorrect to equate the "faith" of the Gospel accounts to anything we see in the Asclepius stories, where we don't see any similar emphasis.
The "faith" and "believe" words are used more frequently in the NT writings than any other significant words (i.e., words for "God" or "love" or "obedience" or "commandments" or "forgiveness" or "justice" or "mercy" or "redemption" or "salvation" and so on). Whatever "faith" means, it's probably more important than any other NT word or idea.
And yet not everyone agrees on what "faith" requires, and there's not a good explanation of this word in the NT writings. It's just assumed that everyone understands what it means. When it's defined, or seems to be, like in Hebrews ch. 11, it's not clear that this is anything different than the most common understanding, or that it contains anything profound, or anything requiring something special or difficult or mysterious or hidden from anyone's understanding.
Jesus is quoted saying "Your faith has saved you" several times, and in no case did the person spoken to do anything difficult, pass any test, measure up to any standard, do anything heroic, prove anything, risk anything -- they were all very simple cases of something totally easy to do. Though a physical act takes place in 1 or 2 cases, the "faith" is usually just a mental act, a simple mind process of believing or hoping, and so easy that it's done even before one has finished making the "choice" if actually there was a choice made.
Phrases like "Ye of little faith" etc. seem to be some kind of rebuke, but even so, whatever kind of complaint it expresses does not mean a rebuked one somewhere is rejected for having too little faith and thus doesn't qualify to be saved or healed. The salvation or healing is not conditioned on one's faith measuring up to some strong standard or high bar one must reach or be rejected and damned -- it never means this, as is clear from many examples of the healing acts, where the victims did nothing meritorious or praiseworthy in any sense -- despite the frequent criticism of "too little faith" expressed in some Jesus quotes, which have some meaning, but do not mean an exclusion of anyone trying to believe but somehow falling short.
The "believe" or "faith" word is used many times where we have no indication whatever that there is anything difficult or profound or illusive about it. Even if there might be a problem with doubt or unbelief, etc. -- even so these do not cancel the faith. I.e., there's no indication of anyone somehow being rejected, such as someone coming to him for healing and being refused for harboring some doubt. So the "faith" is probably something very simple, which is easy for anyone, regardless if they have a perceived imperfection of some kind. There's nothing anywhere to suggest that someone trying to believe is falling short, or that their faith is too weak, so they cannot be saved or healed. Also, the "faith" could be a totally selfish act by the believer, or self-interest thought, but it still qualifies as saving faith. There is no "loyalty oath" or "true belief" test or standard the believer must measure up to.
Yet another story testifies that the object of the confidence of the suppliant was not only the healing process, but the healer himself... Here it is evident that Asclepius demanded not just confidence in the success of the healing process, but also trust in his good will. One can even say that he demanded faith in his attributes as a condition for healing...
By contrast, the "faith" in the Gospel accounts, of one being healed, seems to be free of any such demand or requirement. There's nothing to indicate that anyone healed by Jesus had to prove him/herself in any way. "Faith" is not something to edify the believer or a standard of any kind of merit or worthiness.
In one instance Asclepius demanded repentance from the suppliant before he healed him...
Though this seems like a reasonable demand, in the Jesus healings there is no case where any such demand is made of a victim to be healed. It seems the healing is unconditional, without any prerequisite whatever, not even expressions of repentance. Probably the desire to be healed is required, but absolutely nothing else.
By far the most remarkable testimony illustrating how faith contributes to healing is the miraculous healing of the dumb boy... In this example, the confidence of the boy in the success of the miracle comes very close to 'your faith has healed you' in Jesus... His confidence that Asclepius would grant him his wish and his readiness to offer the thank-offering were instrumental in bringing about his healing.
In the Jesus healings it is clear only that the one asking to be healed has to at least hope to be healed. (Or, in some cases, the one requesting healing for someone else not present, because in some cases the one healed is not even present, but the request comes from someone else, e.g., family member.) So all that's clear is that there is a hope for the healing, and then this alone seems to constitute the "faith" that is needed, as far as any requirement to be met. Also no "offering" has to be agreed to.
In all conventional religion there is some demand, some requirement, some ritual to perform, a standard to measure up to, some accumulation of merit, as a condition to be saved or healed. But the Jesus healings in the Gospel accounts are contrary to this religious tradition, as there is no requirement at all, except to believe. This is quite contrary to standard religion, both today and 2000 years ago.
It seems that "faith" -- or whatever word is used, the requirement or condition -- is not the same between the Jesus and the Asclepius healing miracles, even if there is some similarity.
But another important difference is
whether the healing miracles really did happen. It is easy to explain how a miracle story can emerge out of a religious ritual practice performed by an instituted priesthood acting within an ancient religious tradition and deity, or ancient miracle legend recognized by millions of devotees. Which is what the Asclepius cult was, widespread over the Greek and Roman world, widely practiced by millions of worshipers and their established priesthood.
Such belief in an ancient religious tradition produces millions of miracle story narratives -- fictional -- telling of the god's mighty deeds in behalf of the devotees performing the ritual requirements. It's easy to see how a few strange or spectacular miracle reports would be produced from such worshipers who are following their prescribed practices and pursuing their religious instincts. But what is difficult to explain is how a nobody, the uncredentialed Jesus in Galilee, with no recognition and no status and no authority from an established religious tradition, could come to be recognized and recorded in 4 different sources narrating these instant healings which are not credited to anyone else even though there are dozens of others more qualified than he was to receive such special designation as a God-man miracle-worker.
This is the main difference between Jesus and Asclepius (or the Asclepius priests at the temples), or between Jesus and Serapis or other established healing gods. I.e., in the case of Jesus we have performance of the miracle healings, which was witnessed = evidence, recorded in 1st-century sources or writers who looked into these reports and found them credible; while for the other we have statues and formal recognition and institutionalized authority granted from those in the social power structure. And out of hundreds/thousands of Asclepius testimonials, we have maybe a dozen "miracle" claims, about something which, if it happened, would be baffling to scientists.
In the Asclepius testimonials "miracle" claims are the rare exception. A few believers in ancient religious miracle traditions do produce miracle claims, which are not recorded or published by writers probably because the writers are aware of the pious mentality of those devotees and do not believe them if there is nothing else to corroborate the story. But the inscriptions survive because they were carved in the walls of the temple either by the worshiper or by the priest who did the ritual practice.
So, comparison or analogy to the widely-recognized Asclepius established institution in those centuries cannot explain the unexpected sudden outburst of miracle healing reports of the Gospel accounts, reporting this sudden rash of miracle healings during a short period of 1-2 years when there were no other miracle-workers appearing in any sources near this time, going back about 300 years. Rather, this one case is a shocking disruption in the trend at that time of no miracles or interest in such claims in either the Jewish or pagan culture.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
