Could you believe that your current religion is wrong?

[shunyadragon]

The dying and rising god paradigm has been smashed in academic study. See J.Z. Smith's work Drudgery Divine.

There are clearly two sides to this argument, and no, J. Z. Smith did not 'smash' the dying and rising god(s) paradigm.

A good critical review of this work is Comparing Ancient Religions. A Discussion of J. Z. Smith's 'Drudgery Divine' by Hans G. Kippenberg

I have read both and Kippenberg clearly shows Smith's work is an 'apologist' work, and not an objective evaluation of the possible relationship of early Christianity and Judaism with Pagan mystery religions. Yes, there are differences, but these differences do not preclude a relationship as Kippenberg describes in detail.

[One Bad Pig]

You still believe in the dark ages?

[Adrift]

There are clearly two sides to this argument, and no, J. Z. Smith did not 'smash' the dying and rising god(s) paradigm.

A good critical review of this work is Comparing Ancient Religions. A Discussion of J. Z. Smith's 'Drudgery Divine' by Hans G. Kippenberg

I have read both

I don't believe you.

and Kippenberg clearly shows Smith's work is clearly an 'apologist' work, and not an objective evaluation of the possible relationship of early Christianity and Judaism with Pagan mystery religions. Yes, there are differences, but these differences do not preclude a relationship as Kippenberg describes in detail.

Where does Kippenberg demonstrate that Smith's work "is clearly an 'apologist' work, and not an objective evaluation?" Certainly Kippenberg disagrees with Smith's conclusion, but far from showing that his is an 'apologist' work he states,

The study of J. Z. Smith is convincing in detecting hidden assumptions in the study of ancient religions. In this regard it is a great break-through.

Also, the fact that Smith's work has its critics, in no way, shape, or form means that it did not have the type of impact/influence in academia that psstein suggests it did. I can't think of a great work that hasn't come under critique in some form or another, and any monkey can use Google to find them.

By the way, where are you and first floor getting the idea that Smith is an apologist? Ehrman calls Smith, "one of the most eminent and distinguished historians of religion walking the face of the planet," and I don't see anything about him anywhere being an apologist.

[Adrift]

You still believe in the dark ages?

He's trolling.

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe you.



Where does Kippenberg demonstrate that Smith's work "is clearly an 'apologist' work, and not an objective evaluation?" Certainly Kippenberg disagrees with Smith's conclusion, but far from showing that his is an 'apologist' work he states,

The study of J. Z. Smith is convincing in detecting hidden assumptions in the study of ancient religions. In this regard it is a great break-through.

Also, the fact that Smith's work has its critics, in no way, shape, or form means that it did not have the type of impact/influence in academia that psstein suggests it did. I can't think of a great work that hasn't come under critique in some form or another, and any monkey can use Google to find them.

By the way, where are you and first floor getting the idea that Smith is an apologist? Ehrman calls Smith, "one of the most eminent and distinguished historians of religion walking the face of the planet," and I don't see anything about him anywhere being an apologist.

The point is clear Smith presents a one side selective evaluation of the comparison, and it does not not 'smash' the dying and rising god(s) paradigm.

Source: A Discussion of J. Z. Smith's 'Drudgery Divine' by Hans G. Kippenberg p. 223

. . . if the description of the ancient religions is stripped from the bias of Protestant-Catholic controversies. If we abandon this forced point of view, we also revise the demarcation of the data.

© Copyright Original Source

[Adrift]

The point is clear Smith presents a one side selective evaluation of the comparison, and it does not not 'smash' the dying and rising god(s) paradigm.

Source: A Discussion of J. Z. Smith's 'Drudgery Divine' by Hans G. Kippenberg p. 223

. . . if the description of the ancient religions is stripped from the bias of Protestant-Catholic controversies. If we abandon this forced point of view, we also revise the demarcation of the data.

© Copyright Original Source

What exactly are you trying to prove with this snippet, and how does it make Smith an apologist?

[robrecht]

But, just to be clear, you do believe that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, right? And that historically the disciples did witness (and in some cases touch) the risen Jesus literally, correct?

Yes, I do. We've discussed this before. I do not believe that we can explain the mysterious ways in which Jesus' or our resurrected spiritual bodies will exist in eternal life and how exactly Paul or other witnesses of the resurrected Christ experienced this reality and I think the evangelists' narratives illustrate their inability to comprehend this reality fully. Clearly they are presenting something different and much more mysterious than a reanimated corpse.

[shunyadragon]

What exactly are you trying to prove with this snippet, and how does it make Smith an apologist?

Foolish, there is no issue of proof here! Kippenberg here clearly refers to religious controversies for a 'forced point of view.' That is an apologist argument. What other reason would Smith propose a one sided 'forced point of view?'

Kippenberg further challenges this 'one sided forced point of view' without options.

Source: A Discussion of J. Z. Smith's 'Drudgery Divine' by Hans G. Kippenberg p. 223

My second remark addresses the evaluation of the theory in the light of data. Similarities Smith tells us, exist only in the head of the observer. He writes in italics; "All comparisons are properly analogical" (p. 51) They do not permit conclusions regarding origins of these similarities. Why not I would ask? it is the scholar Smith replies, who makes this cohabitation, not the processes of history. Why not the processes of history? I would be inclined to insist. Smith warns us that the options of borrowing did disguise and obscure the scholars interests. I would agree, but raise the question anyway. Is this sufficient argument to remove a whole option from our research strategies?

© Copyright Original Source

It is clear that Kippenberg presents a more open and unbiased view of the relationship between Judaism, early Christianity and the Pagan mystery religions. He presents a preferred academic alternatives does make 'one sided forced points of view' concerning these relationships. I believe that in this historical period of the Middle East no one religion or sect existed in isolation from the others.

[psstein]

The idea of the "Dark Ages" has been almost completely discredited by modern historiography.

The rest of your remark is incoherent rambling.

[One Bad Pig]

He's trolling.

Yup. And I'm responding by laughing at him.

[psstein]

There are clearly two sides to this argument, and no, J. Z. Smith did not 'smash' the dying and rising god(s) paradigm.

A good critical review of this work is Comparing Ancient Religions. A Discussion of J. Z. Smith's 'Drudgery Divine' by Hans G. Kippenberg

I have read both and Kippenberg clearly shows Smith's work is an 'apologist' work, and not an objective evaluation of the possible relationship of early Christianity and Judaism with Pagan mystery religions. Yes, there are differences, but these differences do not preclude a relationship as Kippenberg describes in detail.

J.Z. Smith is a secular Jew who has been very outspoken about the importance of being critical and independent of faith traditions. Only a hack like Carrier would call him an apologist.

Treyve Mettinger, who still thinks the dying and rising god paradigm has some validity, thinks that Jesus' Resurrection is completely different from it.

Smith did smash the paradigm. I work in the field. I know the literature. Nobody talks about dying and rising gods anymore.

[rogue06]

Yup. And I'm responding by laughing at him.

[psstein]

Most of the parallels are strained at best. Many of them post-date Christianity and are reactions to Christian belief...

[psstein]

Christian apologists like to think so.

J.Z. Smith is, to my knowledge, a secular Jew. He's about as far from an apologist as you can get.

Dying and rising gods used to be a topic of discussion in academic study of religion. They're not anymore. Nobody talks about it as a useful paradigm. For example, the Descent of Ishtar, which was thought to make Ishtar a "dying and rising god," doesn't have Ishtar dying.

[shunyadragon]

J.Z. Smith is a secular Jew who has been very outspoken about the importance of being critical and independent of faith traditions. Only a hack like Carrier would call him an apologist.

Being a Jew does not make him immune from being an apologist. He would also be defending the belief that Judaism is not influenced by Pagan mystery religions. It was definitely a 'one sided forced point of view' as documented by Kippenberg. You have not responded with a coherent argument response to the citations by Kippenberg.

Treyve Mettinger, who still thinks the dying and rising god paradigm has some validity, thinks that Jesus' Resurrection is completely different from it.

I have not read this previously, as I have the other sources. To believe something is definitely different from presenting a forced one point of view without options. In my initial review Tryggve's writing, my conclusion is, you will have to cite him specifically if you chose to use him as reference to support your case.

Smith did smash the paradigm. I work in the field. I know the literature. Nobody talks about dying and rising gods anymore.

Oh Yeah! . . . and Napoleon won the battle of Waterloo.

The problems with this bogus claim are clearly documented in Kippenberg's critique. You have made no specific rebutal that refers to the argument presented by Kippenberg.