GakuseiDon

I created this thread a few months ago that looked at the points I raised above: "Plutarch, Doherty, Carrier and the world of myth". I've thought of summarizing my views on this and Doherty's views on Second Century writings into an article, but it is dependent on my revamping my website. I've committed myself to complete other writing projects, but that hasn't been going so well -- I keep spending time back here. Satan's influence, perhaps. :devil:

IIRC, you yourself once found Doherty convincing. Did you believe then that the Romans of that time thought that their gods acted in a non-earthly world, a world where Mithras killed the bull and Attis was castrated? If so, was that solely on Doherty's say-so?

GakuseiDon

It's not a question of "Could they have thought that way?" Of course they could have. My question is "Is there evidence that they thought that way?" AFAICS the answer is "no". In fact, from what I've read, they placed the activities of their gods on earth.

Doherty has misrepresented my views on this a few times. He states that my objection is that the Roman views don't make sense. But it isn't about whether it makes sense or not, it is about what the evidence tells us.

That's a possibility. But I imagine that if you were seriously going to make that claim, you would provide evidence to that effect. Nor would you find fault with anyone asking you to provide such evidence. Now imagine someone saying that people asking for such evidence are showing a "lack of imagination". That's what I see Doherty doing.

This is the claim that I believe Doherty has failed to backup (slightly paraphrased):

For the average pagan, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, and Attis could be castrated.

Do you think that this represents the beliefs of the average pagan?

GakuseiDon

It isn't cavalier. I spent a year looking over Doherty's comments before responding to his thoughts on Second Century writings, and another year before responding on the "fleshly sublunar realm" issue.

I've also responded to Carrier's sublunar incarnation comments here: "Plutarch, Doherty, Carrier and the world of myth". Carrier believes that Plutarch is stating that some people thought that Osiris was incarnated in a sublunar realm. I disagree.

Now, there isn't much material that needs to be reviewed -- you just need to read the relevant comments in Plutarch, which I've provided links for. Then cross-reference them with what Carrier is claiming Plutarch says. It shouldn't take more than an hour or two.

Would you like to tell me if Carrier is correct on that score? Does Plutarch provide support for a sublunar incarnation and/or death of Osiris?

GakuseiDon

Well, since this has been split out, I'll expand a little on why I regard this point as important.

The claim that Doherty makes is this:

For the average pagan, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, and Attis could be castrated.

(I've slightly editted Doherty's comment to focus on "the average pagan" part, since I wanted to avoid having the discussion revolve around passages in Paul and the Pauline authors) I just haven't seen any evidence that "the average pagan" believed this. Carrier believes that Plutarch suggests this, but I believe he is wrong, as per the link I gave earlier.

I've certainly seen where pagan writers place the activities of their gods on earth. But is there any evidence "the average pagan" believed that their gods actually carried out their myths in a vast unseen spiritual realm, i.e. a realm where Mithras killed a bull, Attis was castrated, Osiris was dismembered by Set?

And if there isn't, what is the impact on Doherty's theory? AFAICS, it starts to crumble like a pack of cards.

It's said that scholars refuse to look into Doherty's ideas. But I've found few mythicists who are interested in looking into Doherty beyond his comments about Paul (Doug Shaver is one exception). The assumption seems to be that Doherty is correct about what the average pagan believed. I'd like to question that assumption, and I hope that mythicists will also. Note: this is not the first time I've extended this invitation!

Peter, IIRC, you yourself once found Doherty convincing. Did you believe then that the Romans of that time thought that their gods acted in a non-earthly world, a world where Mithras killed the bull and Attis was castrated? If so, was that solely on Doherty's say-so?

Toto

Let me give a brief summary of my position. Doherty is not a cult leader and does not have followers. He has made IMO a significant contribution to the study of Christian origins. But this does not mean that his every word needs to be correct.

His view of what the "average pagan" believed about the structure of the universe is not as far as I can see the lynchpin of his entire theory. His theory is built on a holistic reading of early Christian literature and an attempt to make sense of it.

I think that you are overvaluing the importance of this issue because you think that the references in Paul's letters to a human savior are indisputable in their historical accuracy and their meaning. I think they are of dubious value in proving anything. Doherty has attempted to deal with them by describing a sub-lunar realm where demons rule and imaginary saviors can be crucified. Maybe he's right, but maybe's he's working too hard, and all the references in Paul to kata sarka are best explained as anti-Marcionite interpolations - interpolations that were deliberately imprecise, so as not to offend too many early Christians.

But since I don't find this issue to be THE lynchpin, I have not taken the time to immerse myself in the details of 1st century thinking. I am rather wary of your attempt to pin these pagans down on exactly where Mithras killed the bull - I expect many pagans would not come up with a ready answer if you asked them, and might find you a bit strange to pose the question.

GakuseiDon

What is his contribution, in your view?

I don't think that proving Doherty wrong on what pagans believed proves historicity. It doesn't really even disprove Doherty's Jesus -- Doherty could still be right about Paul and early Christian writings.

But what it does do is take away the plank that I think convinces most people that Doherty is correct: "the pagans all believed that their gods acted in a world of myth, so why not the early Christians?" Instead, IMO it should be "the pagans didn't believe that their gods acted in a world of myth, so why think that the early Christians did?"

Now, it could be that the early Christians alone had this view. If so, then Doherty should reframe his argument that way. But then he would need to abandon his use of "Middle Platonism" to support his interpretations of early Christian writings, e.g. from here:

"Paul in Galatians 4:4 tells us that Christ was "born of woman". (Note that he never gives the name of Mary, or anything about this "woman." Nor does he identify the time or place of this "birth".) The mysteries may not have had the same range of sacred writings to supply their own details, but the savior god myths contained equally human-like elements which were understood entirely in a mythical setting. Dionysos too had been born in a cave of a woman."

So, rather than appealing to the views of the day, Doherty will need to have to say that Paul had a unique view of "born of woman". But the problem with such views is that they start sounding ad hoc, and can be impossible to falsify.

I want to stay away from Paul, since that has been done elsewhere. I want to concentrate on the pagan side, to see if there is anything there to support Doherty. After we've done that, we can come back to Paul.

So then, let's look at that. Check my comments and Carrier's comments about Osiris's incarnation and dismemberment according to Plutarch, and see who is right. Or if anyone believes that Doherty is correct in thinking that the pagans thought that their gods acted in a "vast unseen spiritual realm", let's look at the evidence.

krosero

This is interesting, Toto, but as usual I've got a question

If all these references to Christ's flesh, body, suffering and blood are anti-docetic interpolations, then Paul's original letters had nothing of the kind, and his sects did indeed believe in an unearthly Christ crucified in the heavens -- if I follow your thinking on this correctly.

I'm not sure, in other words, how anti-docetic interpolations mean that Doherty no longer has to work to make Paul's sects believe what others supposedly believed about Mithras and Attis. You suggested he is perhaps working too hard in that goal, but doesn't your anti-Marcionite solution leave Paul's sects exactly as Doherty conceives them? Doesn't it, in fact, leave them even more mythicist, since they would then have nothing about corporeality in their epistles?

This is a bit vague, but is your suggestion that HJ Christians made their interpolations imprecise so as not to offend Paul's original sects and their belief in an unearthly Jesus? Have I read you correctly, that the HJ Christians wanted to use the word "flesh" to combat Marcion but did so in such a way that Christ could still be seen as unearthly?

Kevin Rosero

Toto

What is the question here? Or what is the problem?

It's like a political party's platform. A little bit of language gets inserted for one particular constituency, a little bit for another. The whole thing might not be consistent, but that is a hobgoblin of little minds.

krosero

You and Don were discussing whether the sublunar realm theory was correct, and I thought you were allowing the theoretical possibility that the theory was incorrect when you wrote, "Maybe he's right [about the sublunar realm], but maybe's he's working too hard, and all the references in Paul to kata sarka are best explained as anti-Marcionite interpolations." I take it from your last answer that you still hold Paul's sects to believe in that sublunar crucifixion. I just misread you.

I'm not seeing the analogy with a political party platform as helpful, particularly because such platforms are often mere conveniences, full of insincerities, vagueness, and inoffensiveness. But if what we're looking at is a serious struggle against Marcion, then what you need to propose is language that does not fool around but is polemical, and effectively so.

If the word "flesh", and similar words, did not tell Marcion's followers that Jesus partook of real human flesh on the earth, and merely signified that he COULD have partaken of real human flesh on the ground, but might also have been a semi-corporeal spirit crucified by demons in the air, then it hardly seems possible that this language would have been effective at all. I mean, Marcion and the proto-orthodox both had Jesus appearing on the earth; but you're suggesting that the proto-orthodox added words to Paul's letters (letters that Marcion was seen as appropriating) which could not even lock Jesus down on the ground, and gave him no more flesh than a heavenly Christ might have had, when the extent of Christ's "flesh" was the very bone of contention with Marcion.

If we do try to keep the party platform analogy, I guess it means that the proto-orthodox were keen not to offend Paul's original sects. But I don't know why the proto-orthodox would have wanted not to offend their belief in an incorrect idea; if they wanted to convert them from an incorrect idea, they had no choice but to label the idea as incorrect. Why give people, if you want to convert them, sufficient room to remain in their belief and not come over to your very different (even incompatible) idea?

In politics, yes, you leave people enough room so that they vote for you and you don't push their buttons too much; but in these matters, people called each other heretics, anti-Christs, etc.

Kevin Rosero

rlogan

You can't even have a logical discussion with modern christians on god and heaven and the juxtaposition of these against discernable reality.

Is the trinity held together chemically? Or is it more a matter of electo-magnetic attraction?

I just don't find much value in trying to pin down logically these religious beliefs because they are mumbo-jumbo to begin with.

I certainly don't agree with this:

For me, this is the part of Doherty that makes my eyes glaze over, not something that gets my attention.

I don't see "Christ crucified" necessitating a human Christ any more than Loki being banished by Odin necessitates a human Loki or a Prometheus needing to be human because Zeus chained him to a rock.

This is the mumbo-jumbo world of religion, not history - and I frankly do not see where there is any workable criticism of Doherty here. Whether these make-believe things are an inch above or an inch below mean sea level is not even a pertinent question, for lack of better wording.

The idea of sacrificing Christ is an important innovation, and yes you will not find that elsewhere. That is the unique appeal of Christianity and why it is a new religion.

But it does not necessitate knowing the street address of the crucifixion.