GakuseiDon

This goes towards Doherty's position. The question is: where did Paul place the crucifixion? It was either above the firmament or below.

My argument is: It couldn't be above the firmament, because I doubt that Paul could have believed that Satan could have acted in that way there. So it had to be below the firmament, where Satan was regarded as "prince of the powers of the air".

So, if below the firmament, was it above the earth or on earth? I argue that it can't have been above the earth, because of Paul emphasizes Jesus being in the flesh a number of times, and there is no record of a belief of being in the flesh above the earth and below the firmament, nor of any actions like crucifixion on such people.

This is so mind-bogglingly obvious, I'm surprised that anyone takes Doherty seriously. If he wants to claim that Paul had his own unique ideas about the nature of the cosmos, then that's fine, but it is also unfalsifiable. But since Doherty has claimed that Paul holds to beliefs that were in general circulation at the time, I think this enormous hole in his theory basically blows it out of the water. It is as refuted as any copycat ideas that rely on a "virgin-born and crucified Mithras".

That's not to say that Jesus wasn't mythical. But Doherty's version just doesn't stand up. The mystery is why so few of his supporters investigate the details of his theory. (Using mythicist-style paranoia, I could say that it is because "they are afraid to look into it because it threatens their belief" -- or insert equivalent reverse-"apologists are afraid because..." reason here)

The idea that demons influence humans is an old one. Imagine that the Son of God had died in a traffic accident, or by being stepped on by a camel. How could this have happened? I'm sure that this would have been put down to a Satan-inspired traffic accident, or Satan-inspired camel. (A Cujo for the ANE ) Diseases were thought to be the work of demons or God. Paul thought that ultimately he was in a fight with Satan and demons. So why not Christ? The Lord of Glory killed by a mere Roman ruler??? Bah! It was Satan who was behind it.

Peter Kirby

This deserves its own article. Could you write one?

--
Peter Kirby

Toto

This is why we encourage you not to try to read other people's minds.

The issue has come up before, and I will not try to speak for Doherty, but he has said before when this question was raised that the 1st century ideas about the nature of the cosmos are very alien to our modern way of thinking, and it takes some mental gymnastics to get into their frame of mind - but once you do, you will realize that questions like "was it in the air" don't make any sense.

You say Again, not speaking for Doherty, there is a much simpler solution: all the references to "in the flesh" were inserted by the anti-Marcionite or anti-docetist factions. The author of the Pauline letters, (call him Paul for short) was not writing about a "fleshy" savior.

Doherty perfers to accept the more mainstream version of what is authentic in Paul's letters, and he has an alternative explanation for the meaning of "kata sarka." I won't get into that here.

Peter Kirby

No! The point he makes is that the mental gymnastics are all Doherty patent pending, not derived from "1st century ideas about the nature of the cosmos." Is the first century cosmology alien to our thinking? Yes. Is Doherty's putative cosmology alien to the first century? That is the question, and it hasn't been adequately answered. Hell, it hasn't been adequately recognized as a question.

--
Peter Kirby

Toto

Yes, and to answer the question about 1st century thinking, you would really have step back into that framework, which is why I have tended to avoid making an independent judgment on the matter.

But Richard Carrier seems to think that Doherty has a case.

Peter Kirby

Are we limited to weighing opinions and biases? Can't we get some data on this point?

--
Peter Kirby

jgibson000

Well, if you are going to make an appeal to authority, I -- and others with more Greek expertise and grounding in Neoplatonism and in the texts that ED and RC appeal to -- think that he doesn't. And why should Carrier be viewed as the expert here? Please don't cite his academic credentials. Show me (publication record?) where he has shown himself -- and where professionals in the field of classical studies/ancient philosophy have recognized/referenced him - as someone who knows what he is taking about on these particular matters.

In any case, on the KATA SARKA issue, RC has argued very very badly.

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

I am only bringing in Carrier to indicate that Doherty might have a case that should not be dismissed as cavalierly as GakuseiDon wants to. I am not expressing any opinion on Doherty's view of 1st century cosmology.

Peter Kirby

But whether Doherty has a case is empirical. His entire corpus is online, including his book in PDF (or at least the book was--his book is still empirical too in any case). So why not quote where Doherty has made his case?

--
Peter Kirby

Toto

If I get time to research it on Doherty's site, I will post a quote. (Or perhaps Doherty will drop by.) But I am actually thinking of a post on the JM list from some years ago.