Bingo the Clown-O

That of course is another myth.

But beyond the scope of this forum.

Here’s another good one:

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index....ovember_19491/

EarlDoherty

You missed my point, Jake. When I undertook my own research on the subject, I made it a point not to rely on previous mythicists, although I had read a few books of Wells, and a couple of other older mythicists, such as Robertson and Couchoud. It was not my purpose to channel older scholars and "plagiarize" (sp!) their work but to start my own research from scratch, and so I focused on mainstream scholarship to see how well the case for an HJ stood up within the discipline responsible for declaring the Gospel character historical. If I did not happen to read Drews, that is hardly some cardinal sin on my part, let alone justifies your thinly-veiled ad hominem.

And did you miss all the previous scholarship on the epistle to the Hebrews when you jumped on me so cockily on JM and revealed your virtual ignorance on even the basic elements of the document?

Earl Doherty

jakejonesiv

That is even worse Earl. Now you claim that you purposefully didn't read Arthur Drews. Why? Because you didn't want to know what he had written. :constern01:

spin

This is pretty fruitless. It is not strange to avoid the commentators in an effort to get a clean understanding of a problematic issue. It is oh so easy not to see that you have picked up encrustation along with artefact.

Can we do BC&H, please?

jakejonesiv

Sure Stephan, that is exactly right. Joshua (formerly Oshea Numbers 13:16) is the direct counterpart of the heavenly General of the angelic army, Joshua 5:13-15, the storm god whose name he takes. Exodus 23:20-22.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...22&version=RSV

cf Philo, De Mutt. Nom. 21, Justin, Trypho 75.

Jake

DCHindley

Yep, you got it exactly right. I ripped it off of a paperback book cover (I think by Henrey Chadwick). Scanners are great, aren't they?

What I liked about that image was the man was cross eyed with intensity and scowling and wagging a spindly finger. I thought of it as a perfect caricature of the typical hyped-up "true believer." Since avatars are on the left of our screens, I had to reverse it so the spindly finger wagged at the true believers I address here.

I like to think of him as my evil twin, "Skippy." :jump:

DCH

EarlDoherty

Good grief! You're getting as bad as Roo, Jake. I never thought you were capable of this sort of thing. This is pathetic. How would I want to not know what Drews said if I didn't know what he said? If I was willing to read Wells and Couchoud and Robertson, why wouldn't I be willing to read Drews? I just happened not to get around to Drews, mainly because I never encountered him until later.

This is beyond juvenile, Jake. Have a look at yourself in the mirror.

Earl Doherty

tanya

In my opinion, Jake is correct to raise this issue.

Albert Einstein: "Oh, well, yes, umm, let's see. No. I just didn't get around to reading James Clerk Maxwell's stuff, until after 1904."

?????
spin is certainly correct, this is obviously FRUITLESS, as anyone who has read spin's posts on the Therapeutae thread, can fully appreciate:
Can one "do BC&H" without considering the evidence, without analyzing the writings of those many predecessors, who have challenged the historicist presentation of Christianity? I accept Jake's thesis, and I share his implicit criticism of Earl's books, for having (with apparent deliberation) ignored the scholarly achievements of Arthur Drews, writing a century ago.

Is it possible, one must ask, Earl, that you have deliberately ignored Drews, because of his overt support for Wagner?

Current pro-historicist figures, (Hoffmann) maliciously condemn Drews, as a proto-Nazi supporter, because of that support. I marvel at the alliances formed: Lenin too, condemned Drews, despite sharing the Marxian view that Hegel's stance needed to be stood on its head.

We cannot "do BC&H", without gaining exposure to the ideas of those who preceded us. Arguing that a particular "old" source is useless, BECAUSE OF ITS origin, a century ago, is particularly offensive to those of us, who dwell in the past, not the present!!!

tanya

Thanks for the link, Iskander.

I must confess, however, that I do not share your opinion, here. I do not think it reasonable to reference, in an article summarizing the contributions of Arthur Drews, an obtuse, verbose, opinionated treatise, which deliberately ignores Drews, such as that written by Earl Doherty.

Let's change the characters, so you understand my point: Let's say, for example, that I write an article bemoaning the shoddy writing of Bart Ehrman's latest tome, and in that article I ignore the criticisms levied at Dr. Ehrman, by Richard Carrier, because I doubt Dr. Carrier's competence with application of Bayes' theorem to biblical studies. Ignoring for the moment, whether or not my criticism of Carrier is justified, don't you agree with me, that deliberate omission of Carrier's sentiments on the issue of Ehrman's recent book, would represent shoddy scholarship on my part, were I seeking to present my own assessment of Ehrman's publication?

The point here, is that Earl cannot claim a scholarly accomplishment on the one hand, as you have argued, Iskander, and then, on the other, explain that he "never got around" to reading Drews. <edit>.
The allegation of Docetism, against Clement, is not limited to current articles. I don't have a quote handy, but I believe there is a passage in one of the texts attributed to Clement of Alexandria, in which he claims that Jesus felt no pain, i.e. he wasn't really human--and his body, if I remember Clement's argument correctly, required none of the usual human sustenance, food, water, etc....

I think it is quite difficult to understand Clement's notions, without first identifying our extant sources of his writings. This information is difficult to unearth. I have run across the name Rufinus, in the past, but, if I am not in error, again, Rufinus was a late fourth century translator from Greek to Latin. How then, do we know whether we are reading Clement, or the text of some guy two centuries later?
Now we depart the fourth century text of Rufinus, and travel to the 9th century, to read Photius. Really? Did Photius have access to texts written by Clement of Alexandria, which are no longer extant? What is the status of texts faithfully copied from Clement's original Greek version? Do any copies still exist? If we wished to learn about Chaucer, would we turn to Pier Paolo Pasolini's film Canterbury Tale, created 7 centuries after the original document was created?
:huh:

Iskander

I see that you are a person of lofty thoughts for whom only the highest standards are acceptable.I feel like the youngster brought down to earth by connoisseurs with the remark, ’how can you praise that one, you who has never dated a Sheila’.


Should someone who has written books on an esoteric subject, delivered lectures, written articles and like Paul discussed the same unfathomable subject with cross-eyed –curved-fingered lovers of Sheila, should this one pioneer not be included in the list of contemporary inhabitants of same labyrinth?