Commenters on this post need to learn something about Stith Thompson's famous (in its academic realm, at least) Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, or at least the basic gist of its ideas, along with the ATU, mentioned at the same Wiki link. If they did, they wouldn't post such stupidities, even if they're not fundagelical. Either that, or they need to have lived somewhere in the United States, or abroad, where they've had close contact with indigenous peoples.

==

Actually at AskBibleScholars, but someone bitching about the "Stockholm school" of biblical criticism when they surely mean the Copenhagen school of Old Testament/Tanakh criticism.

==

No we don't know that P52 is from the current Gospel of John, contra this thread (as well as contra the Wiki link earlier in the sentence), whether you date it fundagelical early, or with a later date. Could be from the Egerton Gospel or similar. Could be, given John's long evolutionary history to its final form, from a pre-final version of John, and thus not "canonical John."

==

Someone wanting to date Luke circa 70-80 CE, followed by ex-Mormon referencing an old comment where he adopts Alan Garrow's "Didache as Q" idea? The same Garrow who claims the Didache is even older than I Thessalonians, or that he can precisely date Revelation based on Vesuvius destroying Pompeii? I laugh.

==

Both Hot_Basis and Extispicy (surprisingly) are wrong here about the derivation of YHWH. I stand by the Theological Wordbook of the OT and others that derive it from the old Midiniate HWY, "to storm, blow or thunder," and tie that to the "Midianite hypothesis," with YHWH being a Midianite Zeus sitting atop an old volcano similar to Olympus.

==

Another poster writing a systematic theology question in violation of rules, this one about the stereotypical OT god of hate vs NT god of love (a stereotype perpetuated by Bart Ehrman in his most recent dreck), and not being taken down, as of the time of writing. And, I don't just blame lazy mods, I blame posters. The rule about not invoking theological beliefs is clearly stated on the right-hand rail of the homepage.

==

Nope, "House of David" does not imply a Historical David. A second commenter in support is also wrong. This no more implies a historical David than mentions of "house of Atreus" in Greek myth (or if there's an old stele, herm or whatever that has "House of Atreus" on it) imply an actual Atreus. Also, and further ignored by everybody in comments on the whole post? Israeli archaeologists plumping for a historical David with a big kingdom are often doing so in the service of Zionism.

==

And, I find out why SmartFool believes this shit. He's a conservative evangelical apologist, per this comment citing favorably Dale Allison. And ugh, he's also now a moderator. That means that site sucks more canal water.

==

A junior Naugrith and another Nazi, r/BobbieBobby. And, by their feed, a general idiot on religious issues, as well as a massive Nazi on comment-deletion at Academic Biblical.

==

Oh: Since this is just one sub, or two if I count AskBibleScholars, on Reddit, versus the Gnu Atheist nutters at OnlySky on a separate website, I'll probably keep doing this!