Could you believe that your current religion is wrong?

[robrecht]

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. ...

But do you think it likely that he is an apologist for the resurrection of Jesus? Isn't that the issue under discussionhere?

[Adrift]

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.

The "forced point of view" that Kippenberg is referring to isn't necessarily Smith's. Your reading comprehension, as usual, sucks.

[firstfloor]

He's trolling.

Posting here is a bit like feeding crocodiles.

[firstfloor]

something Mark did not even try to do, who just left us hanging

you seem to be reading his mind!

[psstein]

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.

Except he's non-practicing and, as far as I know, secular. Kippenberg's work states that the study of ancient religions has historically been understood as Protestant vs. Catholic, which I agree with... hence the awful work done in the early 20th century on the nature of Judaism...

You're talking about things you don't know particularly well.

[psstein]

The "forced point of view" that Kippenberg is referring to isn't necessarily Smith's. Your reading comprehension, as usual, sucks.

I agree with what Kippenberg is saying! I'd bet that Smith does as well, by the way.

Too much study of ancient religion has served as a proxy for Protestantism vs. Catholicism. Read the liberal quest for Jesus' work and you'll find plenty of it, except Judaism stands in the place of Catholicism.

[Adrift]

I agree with what Kippenberg is saying! I'd bet that Smith does as well, by the way.

Too much study of ancient religion has served as a proxy for Protestantism vs. Catholicism. Read the liberal quest for Jesus' work and you'll find plenty of it, except Judaism stands in the place of Catholicism.

Yep, In case you're curious, here's the greater context...

Source: Comparing Ancient Religions. A Discussion of J. Z. Smith's 'Drudgery Divine' by Hans G. Kippenberg

Smith has chosen the study of Mystery religions as an example of the obstinate impact that tacit assumptions make on comparative studies and the distortions produced by them. Like a good doctor Smith's diagnoses the disease. This disease has it roots in a long history of theological bias deriving from Protestant apologetics against Catholics. In these controversies ancient Mystery religions played the same role that sacraments perform in religions such as Catholicism. Well-known Protestants of different professions agreed that the early Church lost its genuine character by adapting to the Mystery religions. Because of this background the issue of similarities between pagan religions and ancient Christianity became a battlefield of hidden theological wars.

. . .

First, the evaluation of the data: J. Z. Smith maintains repeatedly (for example on p. 118) that it is not the data but aspects of the approach which are the main problem in comparing ancient Christianity and the Mystery religions. I would like to raise the question: How is this possible if the choice of data is as dependent on theoretical assumptions, as the author himself shows? I would like to point in this regard to the demarcations he gives to the notion 'Mystery religions.' He completely neglects the Orphic tradition though it has left its obvious imprints on Jewish and Christian literature and iconography. What is his reason for doing so? I suspect that it has to do with the aims Smith is pursuing. Orphic notions and pictorial images were used by Jews and Christians to attribute to their religions a particular meaning that had pagan origins. If we would evaluate the historical impact of Mystery religions of Judaism and Christianity, the Orphic Mysteries are important. But Smith is evidently not interested in instances of dependence but of independent analogies. The polemical issue of sacraments delimits the range of data he chooses for comparison.

According to my view the body of data do not and cannot remain the same if the description of ancient Mystery religions is stripped from the bias of Protestant-Catholic controversies. If we abandon this forced point of view, we also have to revise the demarcation of the data. If we evaluate the data in light of Deissmann's alternative then the case of Orphism requires our attention as an example of "borrowing." Smith is certainly right in doubting the value of this mode. It assumes distinctions that are too precise between Jewish, Christian and pagan religions. The historical sources testify to the contrary. Take for example the ancient Jewish notion of martyrdom. A recent Dutch study has convincingly demonstrated that it was created by using Greek political ethics idealizing dying for the ancestral laws of a political community (patrioi nomoi). A Greek political concept was adopted to attribute to Jewish religion a meaning in accordance with the ancient political communication on religion. In ancient society there existed a common store of pragmatic meanings given to religions with regard to the civil constitution of ancient towns. If we evaluate the data in the light of the fundamental alternative dependent or independent parallel then the range of data Smith has chosen in his study should be broadened. To depict David as Orpheus, as was done in the synagogue of Dura-Europos, attributes to Jewish religion a meaning that is dependent on pagan sources as well as on a Jewish re-interpretation of David.

© Copyright Original Source

(The bolded bit is where shunya believes Kippenberg paints Smith an apologist.)

[One Bad Pig]

Posting here is a bit like feeding crocodiles.

Yes, inasmuch as the moon is a bit like green cheese.

[robrecht]

you seem to be reading his mind!

Busman''s holiday !

[shunyadragon]

But do you think it likely that he is an apologist for the resurrection of Jesus? Isn't that the issue under discussionhere?

Actually he does not indicated he is an apologist for the Resurrection of Jesus. He is an apologist against the influence of Pagan mystery religions on Judaism and Christianity. The main problem is his 'one sided forced point allowing for no alternatives,' that Kippenberg describes. I object to the outragous conclusion that psstein asserts that J. Z. Smith that dying and rising god paradigm has been smashed in academic study. I like Kissenberg and consider that the argument is not one sided, and scholars are far from agreement J. Z. Smith's conclusions.

[shunyadragon]

Yep, In case you're curious, here's the greater context...

Source: Comparing Ancient Religions. A Discussion of J. Z. Smith's 'Drudgery Divine' by Hans G. Kippenberg

Smith has chosen the study of Mystery religions as an example of the obstinate impact that tacit assumptions make on comparative studies and the distortions produced by them. Like a good doctor Smith's diagnoses the disease. This disease has it roots in a long history of theological bias deriving from Protestant apologetics against Catholics. In these controversies ancient Mystery religions played the same role that sacraments perform in religions such as Catholicism. Well-known Protestants of different professions agreed that the early Church lost its genuine character by adapting to the Mystery religions. Because of this background the issue of similarities between pagan religions and ancient Christianity became a battlefield of hidden theological wars.

. . .

First, the evaluation of the data: J. Z. Smith maintains repeatedly (for example on p. 118) that it is not the data but aspects of the approach which are the main problem in comparing ancient Christianity and the Mystery religions. I would like to raise the question: How is this possible if the choice of data is as dependent on theoretical assumptions, as the author himself shows? I would like to point in this regard to the demarcations he gives to the notion 'Mystery religions.' He completely neglects the Orphic tradition though it has left its obvious imprints on Jewish and Christian literature and iconography. What is his reason for doing so? I suspect that it has to do with the aims Smith is pursuing. Orphic notions and pictorial images were used by Jews and Christians to attribute to their religions a particular meaning that had pagan origins. If we would evaluate the historical impact of Mystery religions of Judaism and Christianity, the Orphic Mysteries are important. But Smith is evidently not interested in instances of dependence but of independent analogies. The polemical issue of sacraments delimits the range of data he chooses for comparison.

According to my view the body of data do not and cannot remain the same if the description of ancient Mystery religions is stripped from the bias of Protestant-Catholic controversies. If we abandon this forced point of view, we also have to revise the demarcation of the data. If we evaluate the data in light of Deissmann's alternative then the case of Orphism requires our attention as an example of "borrowing." Smith is certainly right in doubting the value of this mode. It assumes distinctions that are too precise between Jewish, Christian and pagan religions. The historical sources testify to the contrary. Take for example the ancient Jewish notion of martyrdom. A recent Dutch study has convincingly demonstrated that it was created by using Greek political ethics idealizing dying for the ancestral laws of a political community (patrioi nomoi). A Greek political concept was adopted to attribute to Jewish religion a meaning in accordance with the ancient political communication on religion. In ancient society there existed a common store of pragmatic meanings given to religions with regard to the civil constitution of ancient towns. If we evaluate the data in the light of the fundamental alternative dependent or independent parallel then the range of data Smith has chosen in his study should be broadened. To depict David as Orpheus, as was done in the synagogue of Dura-Europos, attributes to Jewish religion a meaning that is dependent on pagan sources as well as on a Jewish re-interpretation of David.

© Copyright Original Source

(The bolded bit is where shunya believes Kippenberg paints Smith an apologist.)

He is an apologist opposing the influence of Pagan mystery and religions on Judaism and Christianity.

[shunyadragon]

Except he's non-practicing and, as far as I know, secular. Kippenberg's work states that the study of ancient religions has historically been understood as Protestant vs. Catholic, which I agree with... hence the awful work done in the early 20th century on the nature of Judaism...

You're talking about things you don't know particularly well.

the main point here is your outrageous conclusion that J. Z. Smith's book that the dying and rising god paradigm has been smashed in academic study. It is not a matter of knowing anything particularly well to know that your argument has strong bias of an apologist, and Kissenberg's assessment is valid that J. Z. Smith's argument is a 'one-sided forced point of view' and does not reflect a valid academic argument.

Based on your outrageous conclusion I question your bias and broader academic knowledge of alternatives agreeing with only those sources that agree with you.

My initial statement is apparently over looked by you, I said there is more than one side to this argument.

[robrecht]

Shuny, do you understand the meaning of the word 'apologist'? Because one effectively defends a scholarly opinion, do you think that makes one an 'apologist'? Do you consider yourself an 'apologist'? You initially said that 'Kippenberg clearly shows Smith's work is an 'apologist' work'. Do you have any citation of Kippenberg referring to Smith as an apologist?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, do you understand the meaning of the word 'apologist'? Because one effectively defends a scholarly opinion, do you think that makes one an 'apologist'? Do you consider yourself an 'apologist'? You initially said that 'Kippenberg clearly shows Smith's work is an 'apologist' work'. Do you have any citation of Kippenberg referring to Smith as an apologist?

I used the word 'apologist,' because it is a defense of religious position. I consider Kippenberg's argument valid regardless.

[psstein]

the main point here is your outrageous conclusion that J. Z. Smith's book that the dying and rising god paradigm has been smashed in academic study. It is not a matter of knowing anything particularly well to know that your argument has strong bias of an apologist, and Kissenberg's assessment is valid that J. Z. Smith's argument is a 'one-sided forced point of view' and does not reflect a valid academic argument.

You totally missed Kippenberg's point.

Look, it's not a matter of what you want to be true or not. In the early-mid 20th century, there was a lot of discussion about dying and rising gods. It was considered a very useful explanatory paradigm, just like the attempt to distinguish Judaism by its focus on the Law vs. Christianity's focus on works and faith. '

Smith's work challenged that paradigm in such a significant way that it's no longer considered a useful way of understanding the religions of the ancient world. I didn't deny that a minority of scholars exists who think it useful. However, what Smith (and subsequent scholars) did is examine the data and then understand that many (if not all) of the dying and rising gods either a) don't really die or b) don't really rise in any real way.

This is a fair review of Mettinger's work, in my opinion. Look at it yourself. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002-09-07.html

Believe me, I know the literature that disagrees with me rather well...