mountainman

Is called a conjecture.
The playground of BC&H.
Evidence is extra.

Hence my questions about the earlier Healing
god the Roman Empire called Asclepius, and his
staff which is preserved today in the medical
profession of the world, and the host of very
genuine archaeological citations.

The therapeutae of Asclepius were ascetics.
The priests of Asclepius were ascetics.
The asclepia were healing centers for the
rich and poor alike, and often had gymnasia
and assdociated libraries.

These people, in the first few centuries CE,
healed thousands of people, and there are
plenty of votive offerings to prove this.

Whoever wrote the gospels (in some as yet
unknown century) must have been fully
acquainted with the ascetic healings of
the temple cult of Asclepius, and painted
Jesus in the image of a miraculous healer,
who performed fasting to heal, and who
intructed disciples in these same principles.

The problem is that whoever these authors
were, they were compelled to paint Jesus
as an incomplete healing ascetic, by textual
references to Jesus drinking of wine and the
eating of meat.


I mean really, which ascetic
wants an intoxicated guru
in the first century? It does
not make sense.






Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toto

I see that irony is wasted on you.

Toto

Pete - there is no indication that Jesus fasted in order to heal. Jesus ate and drank with his community, and also healed.

Your analysis would get further if you had some grasp of the role of asceticism in religion. But you continue to write as if it were just a healing technique.

Conjecture is one thing, but if you don't have a minimal connection to some factual basis, you might as well write a novel and give up any pretense of history.

mountainman

Toto, what about Matthew 17:21:
19 Then the disciples came to Jesus in private
and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"
20 He replied, (Some manuscripts have this ... )
21 But this kind does not go out
except by prayer and fasting.


I am gathering up references to the ancient ascetic
of antiquity. It is a slow process and incomplete at
present. But for a good start, one of the very well
documented and discussed attributes of the Pythagoreans
was their ascetic practices:

So none of this is conjectural, rather quite well
established, only it is not often discussed by the
general issues raised in BC&H commentary, since
all of this is "christianity-centric".

The article The Ministry of the Ascetics - Therapeutae and Asclepius
has a collection of documentation to "asceticism",
for example, Philo describing the therapeutae.

At the beginning of the fouth century we have people
like Pachomius (widely recognised as the first and earliest
establisher of early christian monastic communities) listing
out the ascetic austerities, and reporting on what he was
himself taught by his "ascetic teacher" Palamon.

From Pachomius we learn that Palamon explains how an
anchorite should live ....



Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Toto

Read that entire chapter. Jesus does not fast in order to gain the power to heal the demoniac, nor does he recommend that the possessed person fast to remove it. It's all about faith.

Ray Moscow

Isn't there some textual issue about the "and fasting" bit? (I ask, hoping someone will look that up.)

Jeffrey Gibson

Codex Sinaiticus and B omit the fasting reference.

As John Muddiman, the author of the entry on fasting in the ABD, notes:

Quote:

Scribal addition [of the fasting reference] is more likely than scribal omission at this point. The secondary insertion may have arisen from the erroneous supposition that the statement refers to the qualities required of a successful exorcist; in fact, if the shorter form is original, it refers to the qualities required in a successful suppliant for exorcism, and alludes to the hesitancy of the father’s supplicatory prayer (cf. Mark 9:24).

One should also note that the Markan Jesus says that his disciples are not to fast (Mk. 2:18-22). Moreover, to the question “Why do your disciples not fast?” he does not reply, as one might expect from Matt 6:6–18, “How do you know they are not fasting; appearances can be deceptive!”

Matthew is aware of this, for he has slightly altered Mark’s wording, so that Jesus can be understood to have rejected only the Jewish custom of fasting during and to express mourning (Matt 9:15) but not that which, according to Judaism, is motivated by other concerns (i.e., to show devotion to god).

For a review of the aim of fasting in Judaism, see S. Lowy, S. "The Motivation of Fasting in Talmudic Literature" JJS 9 (1958) 19–38.

Jeffrey

Ray Moscow

Thanks. I had read something along those lines somewhere, but I couldn't remember any details.

itsamysteryhuh

I see the facts (what some might call "truth") are wasted on you, since you seem to attempt twisting them for your own benefit.

Amaleq13

Does anyone care when it is the undeniably Jewish context of the story that is relevant?

Nice try but no cigar. I make no assumptions about the authors in reaching my conclusion. It is entirely based on the "canonical NT text". You keep forgetting what you claimed you were focusing the discussion upon. Perhaps because it is so painfully clear that it does nothing to support your specious speculations?

It also asserts that he explicitly denied being an ascetic like John. Why do you continue to ignore this rather blatant problem with your conclusion? It is disingenuous at the very least.

None of which supports your claim that Jesus must be understood as some sort of incoherently defined ascetic despite the fact that he denies being one.