GakuseiDon

This is a look at Richard Carrier's review of the Jesus Puzzle. Carrier's positive review of Doherty's theory is often held up as validating the theory. Since Carrier suggests in his review that there is something to Doherty's proposed "fleshly sub-lunar realm", and I have not found any evidence for such a belief in ancient times, I have had grave reservations about Carrier's review. I explain in more detail below.

Avi (who is sympathetic to Doherty's theory) has kindly agreed to review my comments, to ensure that they are reasonable and fair, and can be backed up. I invite others to do the same, keeping the focus on Carrier's review if possible. However, this thread has been set up with the expectation that avi and myself will be involved in an extended conversation, while the issues are being investigated. As both avi and myself will be busy over the holiday period, we plan to take our time in responding. So this thread may not be active for weeks at a time.

I'm an amateur, with no training in this field and no knowledge of the ancient languages. I do have a great interest in the metaphysics of early Christians and pagans. From what I've read, I am confident that Doherty's theory is not supported by the literature of the time, and in fact contradicts what we know of how people thank back then.

Yes, death, corruption and decay occurs in the sublunar realm. That is consistent with beliefs at that time. It is important to note that the "sublunar realm" was actually the area that extended from under the moon down to the earth. That's the area that undergoes death and decay. So technically "sublunar incarnation" includes incarnation on earth. However, Doherty uses "sublunar" to mean the area under the moon and above earth. I assume that Carrier is using the term similarly. So the question then arises whether incarnation into flesh could occur above the earth in that "sublunar realm".

Before continuing, I'll give a short "Metaphysics 101":

The ancients believed that there were four elements: earth, water, air, fire. (Some proposed a fifth one: ether. Ether was an element some thought existed mostly above the firmament. Others denied the existence of ether.)

All things in the area from earth to moon was made up of those four elements. Flesh, for example, was composed of mostly earth and water, with some air and fire thrown in [1]. Daemons were made of air and/or fire [2].

Each element had its own characteristic. Earth and water were 'heavy' elements that went downwards. Aire and fire were 'light' elements that went upwards [3].

Because flesh consisted of 'heavy' elements -- earth and water -- it naturally went downwards. Thus humans lived on earth. Daemons, being composed of air and fire, were able to float around in the sky. Some daemons, however, had incorporated a little earth, and so they were earth-bound, and had to float around statues [4].

The notion that Christ (or anyone else) could have flesh and blood and be incarnated in the air is unprecedented in the literature, AFAICS. If Paul had the typical views of his day, and he wrote that Christ existed in the flesh, then almost certainly he believed that Christ was on the earth.

** Of course, if Paul had atypical beliefs for his day, anything is possible. My argument only works if Paul had the typical beliefs of his day. This is consistent with how Doherty places Paul's beliefs.

I'm curious whom Carrier is addressing here. I don't know anyone who suggests that "kata sarka" ("according to the flesh") is "supposed to emphasize an earthly sojourn". However, "kata sarka" does suggest an earthly sojourn, since flesh -- being made from 'heavy' elements earth and water -- are naturally attracted to the earth.

Again, I'm not sure why Carrier is saying that Paul is trying to "emphasize" something by using "kata sarka". It's usage appears to be fairly clear. Ben C Smith has compiled a number of examples of "kata sarka" on his webpage here. Examples include:

Aristotle, History of Animals 17:

"Of the viscera the liver in some animals becomes fatty, as among fishes is the case with the selachia, by the melting of whose livers an oil is manufactured. These cartilaginous fish themselves have no free fat at all in connection with the flesh [κατα σαρκα] or with the stomach."

Josephus:

"But, when they are set free from the bonds according to the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward."

I would say that "kata sarka" can ONLY apply to someone who walks the earth. As I wrote earlier, the notion that "flesh" existed above the earth is unprecedented in the literature.

And that is all there is on "kata sarka". What that "good case" is, Carrier doesn't say. Having read "Jesus Puzzle" myself, I am unaware of Doherty making any case for flesh existing above the earth, much less a good one.

Carrier then moves onto giving examples, presumably to support the idea of "sublunar incarnation", involving Inanna and Osiris.

Note that this is still under the heading of "The Sublunar Incarnation Theory". But nowhere does Inanna provide an example of a sublunar incarnation. In fact, Carrier doesn't describe any incarnation at all. How this becomes a "proof of concept" is beyond me.

Carrier seems to indulge in listing parallels to Jesus, providing key words like "food of life", "water of life", even "shepherd". But none of this has anything to do with incarnation. Perhaps Carrier wants to list similarities for reasons not to do with the "sublunar incarnation theory"; if so, then his reasoning is not immediately clear. Doherty himself does not go into trying to find parallels between myths in his book.

That gods came to earth (or even under the earth) and died and resurrected is not disputed. The question is whether gods could incarnate in the flesh above the earth is the idea that needs support.

In a chapter entitled "Sublunar incarnation theory", it is interesting that the example Carrier gives is of someone who does not incarnate in the sublunar realm. I have to ask: Why does Carrier need to offer this particular analogy at all? Why not use an example of an incarnation in the sublunar realm from Doherty's book? The answer is clear: Doherty has no example of a sublunar incarnation.

The text for Plutarch's "Osiris and Isis" starts here. Nowhere in Plutarch's work does he write that it is "in the "outermost areas" (the "outermost part of matter") that "some believers imagine Osiris being continually dismembered and reassembled". Certainly most of the words are there, but Carrier has rearranged those words to make Plutarch say something he does not say.

I invite ari and anyone interested in this to confirm whether Plutarch suggests that "some believers imagine Osiris being continually dismembered and reassembled" in a sublunar realm or not.

Again, nowhere does Plutarch write that believers thought that Osiris is "incarnated" in the sublunar heaven and actually dies and resurrects there. Again, I invite ari and others interested to see if Plutarch does write that. Carrier has referenced the sections, so it shouldn't take too long to find them.

I'll pause here for now, so that people mught be able to research my points for themselves.
__________________________________________________ ________________

[1] http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/emp.htm

Empedokles : Flesh is the product of equal parts of the four elements mixed together, and sinews of double portions of fire and earth mixed together, and the claws of animals are the product of sinews chilled by contact with the air, and bones of two equal parts of water and of earth and four parts of fire mingled together...

[2] http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html

But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the Spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen, not at all by others

[3] http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plut....html#chapter9

Aristotle saith that, if we simply consider things in their own nature, the earth only is to be judged heavy, and fire light; but air and water are on occasions heavy and at other times light.

The Stoics think that of the four elements two are light, fire and air; two ponderous, earth and water; that which is naturally light doth by its own nature, not by any inclination, recede from its own centre; but that which is heavy doth by its own nature tend to its centre; for the centre is not a heavy thing in itself.

[4] http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plut....html#chapter9

Aristotle saith that, if we simply consider things in their own nature, the earth only is to be judged heavy, and fire light; but air and water are on occasions heavy and at other times light.

The Stoics think that of the four elements two are light, fire and air; two ponderous, earth and water; that which is naturally light doth by its own nature, not by any inclination, recede from its own centre; but that which is heavy doth by its own nature tend to its centre; for the centre is not a heavy thing in itself.

Steven Carr

GDON
Since Carrier suggests in his review that there is something to Doherty's proposed "fleshly sub-lunar realm", and I have not found any evidence for such a belief in ancient times....

CARR
So where was the Jerusalem above that Paul talks about?

And where were the heavenly things kept ,of which Hebrews says there were copies on earth?

Jeffrey Gibson

You seem to be assuming that the ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ that Paul speaks of in Gal. 4:26 is in his mind something spatial. Can this be maintained in light of the fact that he contrast (note the δὲ ) this Jerusalem with τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ?

Is that actually what Hebrews says of τῶν ἐπουρανίων?

And please do not cite an English translation of some text in Hebrews to "prove" this. Show me on the basis of the Greek text how the author of Hebrews makes this claim.

Jeffrey

Solo

Try heaven. :huh:

Jiri

GakuseiDon

The OP seems to be my draft rather than finalized version. Not that there was much difference, mostly a few spelling corrections and a few more titles.

One thing I need to correct: The reference for [4] (daemons that contain earth or water are earth-bound due to their weight) should have been the following:

[4] http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hortation.html

How, then, can shades and demons be still reckoned gods, being in reality unclean and impure spirits, acknowledged by all to be of an earthly and watery nature, sinking downwards by their own weight, and flitting about graves and tombs, about which they appear dimly, being but shadowy phantasms?

Steven Carr

Which one? Paul talks about the third heaven. How many heavens were there?

GakuseiDon

Yes, that's right. There is a difference between the sub-lunar realm and heaven. I think Steven is confusing the two realms.

Toto

Before I split this, would GDon care to explain how this thread differs from this one on Middle Platonism:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=245333

Doherty himself showed up at post #44 to give an extensive rebuttal to GDon, expanded on in posts 50 and 59. And I think I said everything in that thread that I have thought about posting in this one.

In fact, I suggest that you go back and read that thread and tell me what is new about this one.

GakuseiDon

I'm trying really hard to avoid nuances of sarcasm, Toto, so please don't take it that way, but: The difference between a thread devoted to "Richard Carrier's review of Doherty's 'Jesus Puzzle'", and a thread on Middle Platonism generally that doesn't look into Carrier's review, is that the first one is about Carrier's review. If there is another thread devoted to Carrier's review, by all means merge them. But this thread is on the points raised in Carrier's review, not Doherty's book.

This would, I suspect, by obvious to anyone else who has read the other thread. I've been trying to understand where you are coming from, Toto, since your 'hyperbolic' misrepresentation of my views and your more recent "no-one has raised a serious argument against Doherty except that no scholars accept it". Let me guess what you are thinking this time: "Here's Gakuseidon crapping on about the sublunar realm yet again, blah blah blah, snore snore snore, just like all the other threads. They are all just the same, might as well merge them." Am I close to the mark? In this case it would be a shame, since avi and I plan specifically to go over Carrier's review, as I outlined in my OP.

The differences:

1a) In the other thread, Doherty says he admits that he has no direct evidence for the existence of a "fleshly sublunar realm"
1b) Carrier, in his review, offers two examples -- neither of which constitute evidence, as per my OP.

2a) Doherty finally confirms what I had suspected for a while: that Doherty wasn't saying "the pagans thought that there was a fleshly sublunar realm, and this is support for the idea that the proto-Christians did also", but he was saying the OPPOSITE: "the Christians thought in terms of a fleshly sublunar realm, and this is support for the idea of a Platonic reorientation within the pagan mystery cults".
2b) Both Carrier's examples are from the pagan side, and I suspect he would be surprised from which direction Doherty believes the evidence came.

Note that Carrier doesn't take his examples from Doherty's book. Why does he need to use new examples as "proof of concept"? The answer is obvious: Doherty had no examples as "proof of concept".

So, if -- as I maintain -- there is no evidence for Doherty's "fleshly sublunar realm", what about those examples in Carrier's review? That's what this thread is for. IMO Carrier is wrong that his two examples constitute "incarnation in the sublunar realm". In the first example, he doesn't say where Inanna is incarnated at all. In the second example, Plutarch doesn't say what Carrier says he says, i.e. "some believers imagine Osiris being continually dismembered and reassembled" in a sublunar realm.

It's all there. If you want to spend 30 min, you can confirm this for yourself. But in my experience Jesus Mythicists don't usually check into details, which was why I was so happy when avi volunteered to check this out with me, and make sure I am representing Carrier fairly, and to keep me honest. Carrier has concentrated on the key points in Doherty's book, so it provides a good litmus test. Regardless of whether Carrier's points supporting Doherty are demonstrated to be right or wrong, they offer a good case for a relook at Doherty.

Toto

But the only point that you pick out of Carrier's review seems to be the sublunar realm.

The second sentence in your OP mentions the sub-lunar fleshy realm. You mention no other point of disagreement. What am I to think?

Yes. Over a year ago, Doherty explained that he had no direct evidence of this sublunar fleshly realm, but that it was an inference supported by indirect evidence. That's why Carrier didn't take his examples from Doherty's book. Did you remember this thread before I gave you the link? Why do you keep repeating that Doherty has no direct evidence of the sublunar fleshy realm and avoid Doherty's indirect evidence?

I think it is clear that Carrier is not offering evidence, just analogies of this sort of thinking, to show that Doherty's scheme is not totally outlandish.

Carrier: In the essay linked there, Carrier notes Now is this the point you want to discuss? Carrier's use of Plutarch as an analogy to Doherty's scheme?