Ted Hoffman

Asclepius was the son of Apollo according to Greek mythology. Among Greek fables, Alcestis, the play by Euripedes which contains the death of Asclepius, is a Greek Tragedy. These plays and stories in Greek mythology were instructive rather than historical. It is a tragedy to think the characters in the play, Like Asclepius, are historical. For Christs sake Euripedes wrote 19 plays!. Is GDon going to demand evidence for the mythical quality of other characters in the play like Zeus and Apollos?

To be sure, regarding Asclepius' legend: "Greek fables and dramas are crafted to teach humanity ethical conduct. Asclepius represents the tradition of resurrection as in the Egyptian Osirian rites and the school of Thoth. The moral of this story is to remind healers that they are servants of nature who rules the cycle of birth, life and death."
The Legend of Asclepius
It is amazing how far back we are willing to go just to defend the historicity of Jesus. In fact, I am taken aback.
On Greek Tragedy and Euripidean Tragedy

Even the euhemerization that GDon implied, applied to mythical figures that were later physicalized. Apotheosization is the deification of historical characters upon death. It was a Roman practice and they oft did it to their Emperors. I do not know whether Greeks practiced it.

Yes, some early Greeks took these myths as true, but as early as Plato in the 5th-4th century BCE, some recognized them to be myths. In my own community, the Legend of Lwanda Magere is believed by many to be true. It doesn't mean Lwanda Magere was historical - some just like the story because it captures their imagination and accept it uncritically. When those "once upon a time" stories are told, there is normally no caveat lector indicating that the stories are myths (probably because people would lose interest if they knew beforehand that the story is bollocks) - so some people swallow them line hook and sinker unless educated otherwise. In fact, when I studied Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, I had classmates asking in which country Verona is. It doesn't mean squat.

My God!

the_cave

I apologize, I had thought it was the standard position.

Well, I'm certainly no expert, just an interested amateur, but the fact that chapters 6-11 appears to have circulated independently is important. Also the fact that chapter 6 is preceded by a title ("The vision..."). Furthermore, Isaiah dies at the very end of chapter 5. Suddenly, he is alive again at the beginning of chapter 6. And finally, the "Testament of Hezekiah" (3:13-4:22) seems to be referencing or summarizing some story that it seems the reader is expected to be familiar with. In fact, it seems to be summarizing 6-11! Though there is some extra stuff that seems to echo the Gospel of Peter, so it seems like there must have been some larger story that combined a narrative like 6-11 with the Gospel of Peter. This is conjecture; I've never read anyone suggest this. Anyway, it seems like 6-11, or some earlier but similar text, was in fact written first.

However, I have checked out Jonathan Knight's study of it, and he agrees with you. So I'm reading it, and keeping an open mind.

Well, it just seems to me that 1-5 is a little more definite in its language on where Beliar lives. 6-11 is more unclear in its language, that is in chapters 10 and 11. So, the latter is more confused than the former. However, 3:13-4:22 seem to muddy the waters a bit, because the story of the crucifixion seems to assume an actual, earthly event. Now if this is actually an independent tradition, I guess you could say that chapters 1-5 minus 3:13-4:22 do seem to clearly place Beliar in the vault, and do not necessarily suggest that the Beloved descended to earth. So it's a convoluted question.

(As further evidence that 3:13-4:22 are talking about an earthly career for the Beloved, 4:6 says "And he [Beliar] will have his own way in the world over everything: he will act and speak like the Beloved and will say, It is I who am the Lord, and before me there has been no other." The notes in H. F. D Sparks' compilation "The Apocryphal Old Testament" state that the B manuscript says "...he will make himself like the Beloved..." If Beliar is acting and speaking and making himself like the Beloved while he is on earth, doesn't this seem to suggest that the Beloved himself was on earth?)

Not sure what this question means, but if you're asking if I think there was a sort of map of these heavens, I guess my uninformed opinion is no. There was a set of common assumptions about what the heavens were like. Maybe there were various texts that described it.

If you're asking if I think there was a sort of originating "Descent of the Beloved" text, there may well have been. Perhaps 6-11 is it. I don't know.

At this point I'm not sure what to make of it! The notes in the Sparks' compilation I referenced earlier say that only the A manuscript reads "descend to the vault of heaven and to the world." Manuscripts B and C read "descend to the vault of the heaven of the world." The Latin and Slavonic texts simply read "and you will be in the world." I don't see any good way of deciding which is the original phrasing. But, if you're right, and they're different places, and A is the best text, doesn't this suggest that the Beloved is descending first to the vault/firmament, and then to the earth?

Well, it seems to in 10:8 (which I just quoted). Again, manuscript A reads "...descend to the vault of heaven and to the world: descend to the angel in Sheol, but to Haguel you shall not go." Leaving aside the fact that the Latin and Slavonic texts leave out "but to Haguel...", it seems like Sheol is the Beloved's final destination. But he is also commanded to descend to "that world", which seems to be an additional stop after the firmament. So in this reading, they're treated as different places.

Ok, fair enough.

Well, 6-11, unless you're right and it's one text, in which case the whole thing is confused.

I was extrapolating from the standard myth that Sheol is below the earth. That is, I was assuming the text adopts a standard interpretation of Sheol. If it doesn't, it is unique as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think it's obvious that the firmament and Sheol are synonymous. If they are, then yes, here "the angel in Sheol" and "the ruler of this world" are synonymous. But if the firmament and Sheol are not synonymous, then these personages are different. I don't see how one can determine that the firmament and Sheol are the same place from the text.

Amaleq13

It seems to me that the "kick off" can be found in the purpose of the figure in the stories. He explains the origin of medical knowledge as well as the "moral" that Ted mentions. He seems to me no different from the various gods to whom the origin of various aspects of civilization are attributed except that he is eventually connected to history.

IMO, a possible "kick off" for the belief that came to be Jesus Christ would have been a desire to reinterpret traditional messianic beliefs in the face of the seemingly unending domination by Rome.

I think the phrase "know for a fact" is going to be problematic. The historicity of Moses is certainly questioned and he would be an excellent example of a fabricated founder-figure if that could be established as true.

I absolutely agree that Paul is both "puzzling" and "unusual". It would be great if there existed some contemporary comments on him but, as Vinnie has suggested (at least I think it was him), the importance of Paul in the 1st century may have been considerably less than in subsequent centuries.