Hamblin and his crew get what they deserve?

[_Milesius]

Thanks Kish. Still goes over my head, but I kind of get what you're saying.

...

Who is the Rob Bowman guy? His theory of Jesus denial culminates in this:

To get around the evidence for the Crucifixion, some skeptics have found it easiest and most convenient to argue that Jesus didn't exist at all

LOL! WTF? Skeptics are so painted into a corner over the iron-clad assertions regarding Jesus escaping the tomb that it's better they argue he didn't exist at all.

Crucifixion != resurrection. Do you actually read the posts you are attempting to mock?

[_Gadianton]

Crucifixion != resurrection. Do you actually read the posts you are attempting to mock?

That's where he was headed and that's where he went.

[_Milesius]

Crucifixion != resurrection. Do you actually read the posts you are attempting to mock?

That's where he was headed and that's where he went.

Well, then, perhaps you should have cited his subsequent posts.

[_Milesius]

That's interesting, Reverend. I would like to understand Mortal Man's "on-topic" battle with Hamblin but I don't have anywhere near the background.

It looks like there is some evidence that the Bethesda pool story was influenced by Asclepius cult. Not an astounding claim really. In fact, it could be that the narrative imitated Asclepian healing stories in some details without there having been a cult on the site at the time. The question is whether the author would have presented Jesus as more effective a healer than Asclepius. I see evidence in John of this kind of narrative competition with the Greco-Roman world. The story of the woman at the well is based on the Hellenistic royal parousia (arrival or advent) narrative. So is the Asclepius thing a stretch? My inclination would be to say no, but I have not examined the scene in close detail.


The latest issue of Histos has an interesting article on Jesus as a healer.

Professor, I didn't realize that you were posting from the 19th century, when Religionsgeschichtliche Schule was au courant instead of discredited codswallop, as it is in the 21st century.

[_Hoops]

Professor, I didn't realize that you were posting from the 19th century, when Religionsgeschichtliche Schule was au courant instead of discredited codswallop, as it is in the 21st century.

I wrote this exact same sentence just yesterday!!

[_Gadianton]

Well, then, perhaps you should have cited his subsequent posts.

Perhaps.

Perhaps you should back up your condescending to Kishkumen with an argument. Taking jabs at me is understandable. Given Kishkumen's uniquely qualified position to weigh in on this matter, dismissing him with insults sans argument does not reflect well on you.

[_Kishkumen]

Professor, I didn't realize that you were posting from the 19th century, when Religionsgeschichtliche Schule was au courant instead of discredited codswallop, as it is in the 21st century.

The suggestion is entirely uncontroversial, Milesius. It is bizarre that you have a problem with it. Do you imagine that early Christian texts were utterly hermetically sealed off from their environment? What a strange fellow you are.

[_Kishkumen]

No, it is not.

Neener, neener. ?

All of these men were upper class. Cicero held several offices, including consul, and was a senator. Caesar and Alexander the Great lead famous empires. Jesus was at most middle class. He said "My kingdom is not of this world" and Jerusalem was destroyed not once, but twice within 100 years of his crucifixion (and resurrection).

In fine, you are comparing apples and oranges, professor, and I shouldn't have to point this out to you.

No, I am not. All you are doing is stating the obvious: less important provincials, even relatively elevated ones, left less of a footprint than Roman magistrates, governors, and emperors, Hellenistic kings, etc. In other words, the evidence for others is sparse, not that we need to change the standard of evidence to provide less noteables their own category. It is unfortunate that no non-Christian source close to the time of Jesus (same decade as his ministry) mentioned him as far as we know. Acknowledging the practical reasons why this is so does not improve the quantity or quality of the evidence.

[_Kishkumen]

Perhaps you should back up your condescending to Kishkumen with an argument. Taking jabs at me is understandable. Given Kishkumen's uniquely qualified position to weigh in on this matter, dismissing him with insults sans argument does not reflect well on you.

Maybe Milesius believes the Gospel of John was written for Jews and that any literary device that would have made this anecdote readily intelligible to a pagan readership would have sent them running. Or maybe he simply believes that cultures have big walls around them that prevent any cross-cultural influences of any kind. That is why the banjo and rock 'n' roll are all American and have no African roots or influences. Right, Milesius?

[_Kishkumen]

My bottom line is this: even those who reject and criticize the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (I don't adhere to it either, and it took me aback to be accused of such) accept that early Christians could and did draw on the terms and ideology of their surroundings as they expressed their unique message. There is really no point in arguing what is a generally accepted and academically credible principle like this. It is frankly bizarre in the extreme to suggest that this could not be and was not the case.