GakuseiDon

Then the debate will revolve endlessly around a handful of passages in Paul and the AoI. As I've always said, if Doherty's position was that Paul and other early Christians had their own unique cosmology, then there is nothing that will refute it. It doesn't matter how wrong Doherty is on any other point AFAICS.

Doherty's view is that early Christians saw Christ arriving in the sublunar realm as a spirit (as per the AoI) and there crucified by Satan. There is nothing in the literature that I know of that absolutely rules that out, but it does appear to be an unprecedented concept. Doherty relies on an interpretation of passages in the AoI to show a "platonic" relationship between humans in the sublunar realm with demons(!) in the sublunar realm. Again, this is unprecedented AFAIK, but I don't know anything that rules this out. If Doherty sticks to those passages and simply rejects criticisms of his other points as irrelevant, then he can't be refuted as far as I can see.

We have (for example) Philo's Moses as a model on one side, and Doherty's unprecedented cosmology on the other. No-one seems to have believed what Paul believed either before or after Paul. To me, the evidence points more strongly in one direction, but as a layman I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for this, and nor should they.

Well, let's put it this way -- From everything that you've read in this forum, has Doherty been found incorrect on ANYTHING up to date, IYO?

"The Middle Platonists" doesn't cover early Christian writings. What do you expect to find in it that might impact on Doherty's theory? I can't think of anything -- can you?

Doug Shaver

I don't know about endlessly, but considering the level of passion on both sides, I expect the debate will last beyond the lifetime of anybody now posting in this forum.

I don't remember any suggestion by Doherty that their cosmology was unique. To the contrary, I believe it is central to his argument that it was not unique, that it was already in the intellectual air of the time.

I have not been keeping a scorecard. Maybe someone has caught him out on some incidental point. I just don't know. But I've said more than once that I've not yet seen anyone, either in this forum or anywhere else on the Web, successfully challenge him on any crucial fact or identify any fallacy in his argument.

According to Doherty, Paul and others who shared his particular version of Christianity got their cosmology from Middle Platonism. I expect to find out whether any Middle Platonists had a cosmology that was anything like what Doherty says it was.

EarlDoherty

The rumors were right. I was dead. But I decided to come back to tell you all that there was no sign or memory of an historical Jesus in the afterworld. Heaven isn’t all it’s cracked up to be (no sex and the TV shows suck) and Hell isn’t all that bad if you can put up with all the televangelists. Satan thought it was quite funny that he was dragged into the Gospels as a protagonist for the fictional Jesus of Nazareth. “No way I’d give a guy like that the whole world when I’m having so much fun in it myself!” He’s such a kidder….

Once or twice a week I have checked in to follow this thread. I jotted a few notes for a possible response, but so far I have had neither the time nor the energy to get involved. The only thing I want to say at this point…well, there are two things. One is that I am very reluctant to engage in any further debate with Don. Everything he has raised in this thread we’ve been over ad nauseum. He ignores or simply fails to understand the responses I’ve given to his timeworn objections. I’ve long admitted that we have no crystal clear description of the Middle Platonic interpretation of the myths of the Hellenistic savior gods. There are no explicit writings from the mysteries, not the least because such things were forbidden to be set down, and if any were, the Christians destroyed them along with the cults themselves. However, the passage from me which Don quoted

summarizes my position, that we have indicators of the Platonic thinking that came to be applied to the mysteries (including in Plutarch, which Carrier is astute enough to recognize), and the principal indicators are laid down in The Jesus Puzzle, Appendix 6 “The Location of the Myths of the Savior Gods and of Christ”. Almost all of these Don has simply ignored or failed to address properly. And I have argued many of them at length in past debates here.

If Doug is looking for confirmation in Dillon’s The Middle Platonists for elements like the structure of the Platonic universe, corruptibility and incorruptibility, activities of spiritual beings, etc., he’ll find a certain amount of that. If he’s looking for confirmation that the savior gods themselves operated as I claim and specifically that they did their stuff below the moon (which I don’t necessarily claim as a universal outlook), he won’t. Dillon and Middle Platonist philosophers didn’t cover that end of things. If the latter were at all interested in the cults (and there is no guarantee they were), they didn’t discuss the subject with that kind of openness and clarity. (The clearest document we have on that score is the Ascension—maybe Hebrews comes in second.) But taking all the philosophical and cosmological factors and clues into account, we can conclude that by and large the sacrifice of Christ and the other savior gods (in other words, their “myths”) were regarded as taking place NOT on the material earth, though I have said that not all cult followers may have thought the same thing. (Look at the variety in Christian thinking today on all manner of topics! It’s ludicrous to appeal to some kind of ‘standard’ in the thinking of the time as a way of discrediting a mythicist position.) We certainly don’t know whether there was a literal fixation in all sects about “above or below the moon” such as we see in Don’s protestations.

Following on that, it hardly matters if the “sublunar realm” included earth. I suppose it did; I don’t have a copy of the official Middle Platonic Encyclopedia published in the first century handy. After all, below the moon is “corruptibility” and that certainly includes earth. But this doesn’t rule out that both spiritual and material are encompassed beneath the moon, or that different ‘locations’ (I apologize for confusing Don by employing the word “dimension”) and differing activities, both material and spiritual, could be envisioned within that sublunar region, and the Ascension clearly demonstrates that, despite Don’s and others’ refusal to see it.

Michael, Doug and “youngalexander” made some insightful contributions to this thread, and I hope they continue. I've always got more to learn. As for someone’s suggestion that Don had “refuted” me in past debates—on the Ascension? on Minucius Felix? Give me a break! In fact, it frustrates me no end that Don regularly pops up here on the IIDB (and, I gather, elsewhere) saying the same things he has said before, as though these debates had never taken place, that I had never addressed his contentions or have no answer to them. He styles this thread as a “Missing Evidence” despite the fact that I have presented a good deal of justification for drawing the conclusions I have, in both The Jesus Puzzle and here. “Evidence” does not have to entail ironclad proof; there are many routes to a conclusion. But one would not know it by the way Don has presented things. All this is not to say that he is not a gentleman. Unfortunately, that does nothing to improve his openness to new and unorthodox ideas. But then, closed minds are endemic in a field like this.

Someone said that their eyes glazed over when they contemplated my case for the location of the mythical Christ’s sacrifice. Well, my eyes glazed over at algebra in high school, but that didn’t make algebra a crock, and I doubt I would have gotten much sympathy if I’d declared to the teacher that I wasn’t going to bother with it because it made my eyes go funny. Ancient world philosophy is anything but coherent and sensible by our standards, but the whole age subscribed to it, so we should be hesitant about rejecting interpretations that fit within that philosophy simply because it is largely unintelligible to the modern scientific mind, or because it does uncomfortable things to beliefs we've since come to adopt.

And speaking of closed minds, while I’m here maybe I’ll sound off on another recent exchange some of you may remember. Ben protested that he didn’t take up a challenge I offered about a year ago because all those ‘silences’ and curiosities and outright exclusions of an historical Jesus in the Pauline writings (as itemized in my Sound of Silence website feature) perturbed him not a whit—not if they were multiplied a hundredfold. And why was he so confident? Because the two of us “inhabit different conceptual universes”! What does that mean? Does it mean anything? Can anyone tell the difference between such a justification and a simple cop-out? I’m afraid I can’t. Why is he here defending an historical Jesus if he refuses to engage the arguments of a leading mythicist? To indulge in a comfortable fireside discussion where nothing is allowed to be too disturbing and no one’s feathers get ruffled? Is that what it means to be “professional”? The editor of the Fourth R was undoubtedly being professional when he passed up a chunk of money to bring some cutting-edge life to his complacent magazine that is quickly becoming irrelevant.

Ben’s comment reminds me of Brian Trafford in that memorable ‘debate’ I had with him several years ago. He refused to discuss certain passages in the Pauline epistles because “I can read”! He could read what they “obviously” said and meant, and there was no necessity to consider other viewpoints. I guess he lived in the same conceptual universe as Ben does, although I wouldn’t mind a scientific outline of the laws of nature in that universe. If mine operates on laws of rationality and not bringing a priori judgments to a text, I guess his operates along different lines. And while Ben and others have certain passages they like to appeal to, the difference is I’ve engaged with those passages at every challenge, offering alternate explanations while bringing elements of the larger picture to bear on them. What if I simply said, “Oh, those usages of kata sarka, that old brother of the Lord thing, they don’t bother me one bit. Couldn’t care if they appeared in every paragraph. I live in a different conceptual universe where those terms mean nothing.”

And by the way, I’m still looking forward to Kevin’s detailed refutation of my “Refutations” article. (In fact, if Ben had actually read that article, he might have been less sure about his statement that Mara bar Serapion was almost certainly referring to Jesus.)

All the best,
Earl Doherty

krosero

Hi Earl. This little comment of yours is not particularly provocative, but there's a possible trend here which I'd like to nip in the bud.

You may have to wait a long time for a detailed refutation, from me, of your article: I never intended to produce a detailed refutation of it and have tried to make my lack of interest in doing so very clear to you each time we've mentioned it on these boards. The last thing I said about it was that any response I might make to points raised in your essay --

I've tried to indicate that your essay covered a lot of ground -- it is not just about the historiography of MJ-HJ debates (which remains the least interesting topic for me), but really a re-statement of your mythicist model across the line, covering many topics -- and that as such, I found much there worth responding to. And I hope to respond to much of that material in future pieces, for instance on my blog (though I have not had much time to finish anything lately, for which I can comfortably say I'm sorry; I've enjoyed debating with you in the past and I can see you're looking for people to tackle your ideas).

Now please notice that on my blog, I've tackled your model of Christian origins by theme (for instance, "born of woman"), not by essay; that is my style. I hope to have more to say about aspects or themes in your work, and I will probably critique your arguments by quoting your essay, your book, your debating posts. But I do not intend to produce a direct refutation of your essay for the sake of producing a direct refutation of your essay.

And if I get badgered about it again, I am just as likely not to do it merely on principle.

I thought all that was clear, but if it has not been, I fully take responsibility: that's a small price to pay for a future misunderstanding. There have been a few misunderstandings between us, on both sides. And I half-suspect that a future misunderstanding will look like this: You will say that no one refuted your essay, not a single scholar, and that even Kevin promised a full-length refutation and never delivered it -- when in fact I have never intended or promised such a thing.

I thought that was worth nipping in the bud; if I've been unclear, you can feel free to PM or email me for clarification (my email address is at my blog).

Is this an attempt to provoke someone into reading your piece? That is certainly what it looks like.

Kevin Rosero

youngalexander

A few further thorts upon this. While I would not personally use 'dimension' in this context, when I see Doherty doing so I would just read 'realm' or 'non earthly place' or some such. I do not like sublunar much either because it seems to invoke a specificity which I doubt that the 'average pagan' had. Furthermore, how does one incorporate such notions as the sun rising 'enkindled' from the waters, or the Sun giving birth, or Hermes playing 'droughts' with the Moon? The Gods of Olympus may have been dispatched by Plato, but to what extent had this filtered down to the masses by Plutarch’s time? Above the moon amongst the fixed stars - immutability. Below - decay. Would the ‘average pagan’ really have had a fixed idea of such locations? No doubt various handwaving justifications might be forthcoming, but I think that even to ask this question is to miss the point.

None of this stuff bears close examination because it is based upon navel gazing and not tested observation. I note that the Jan 2007 Scientific America article “What is a Planet” contains a pre-1543 list as; earth, moon, mercury, venus, sun, mars, jupiter and saturn. M M and Magic adds the fixed stars and God, making 10 spheres in all, each having a particular influence upon the soul, and generally interacting with one another. The problem is from our point of view that such pre-scientific schema are not tested against any independent criteria, such as nature. Consequently the ancients could hold all sorts of contradictory ideas and did, as Plutarch repeatedly demonstrates in his essay.

I am sufficiently familiar with the outpourings of the religiosi, from creationists to new age crystal worshipers to realise that many people are quite at home with self-contradictory positions which fly in the face of physical evidence. If this is true of the 21st C, how much more so of the 1st few C, when fantastic beings and events were simply part of everyday life? For instance, Robert Graves writes in the introduction to his translation of Apuleius’ “The Golden Ass”
Even St Augustine writes doubtfully:’Apuleius either reported or invented his transformation into asinal shape’; and Lactantius in his “Divine Institutes” is distressed that the miracles of Apuleius, like those of the gymnosophist Apollonius of Tyana, are quoted by anti-Christian contraversialists as more wonderful than those of Jesus Christ.

Yet Apuleius’s use of the ass in a philosophical and religious tale of his progression to the dedication of his life to the worship of Isis, was because the ass was sacred to Set and was thus ‘the most hateful of all beasts’ to Isis. Graves comments
In Apuleius’s day the ass typified lust, cruelty and wickedness, and Plutarch – from whom he claimed descent – had recorded an Egyptian festival in which asses and men with Typhonic colouring (ie., sandy-red like a wild ass’s coat) were triumphantly pushed over cliffs in vengeance for Osiris’s murder.

Now, where is the allegory in all of that?
If highly educated Christians believed such fantasies, what prospect for 'average pagans'?

It is plainly both. A worldly Plutarch, knowledgeable in the 'higher mysteries' is relating the story of Isis & Osiris to Clea, a cultured and intelligent woman, priestess at Delphi. He tells Clea to interpret the 'traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort’ as allegoric. I have already agreed that it is so, twice.

However, I have also pointed out that it is by no means clear just what Plutarch knows about Egyptian beliefs. Furthermore, are we to suppose that this blanket statement can be taken to apply to all Egyptians? That the ‘average pagan’, an illiterate peasant, was capable of recognising these traditions as allegoric?

In fact, Plutarch tells us that this is not the case.
20 These are nearly all the important points of the legend, with the omission of the most infamous of the tales, such as that about the dismemberment of Horus and the decapitation of Isis. There is one thing that I have no need to mention to you: if they hold such opinions and relate such tales about the nature of the blessed and imperishable (in accordance with which our concept of the divine must be framed) and if such deeds and occurrences actually took place, then
Much there is to spit and cleanse the mouth,
as Aeschylus has it. But the fact is that you yourself detest those persons who hold such abnormal and outlandish opinions about the gods.

So there were people who held these outlandish opinions. If this is so, then how many more ‘average pagans’ would have held the not so outlandish opinion that the traditional tales were history?

Indeed, in your post#76 which brought me into this, there is the quote from Eudoxus re Osiris’ various birthplaces. Before that, and following from the quote above is
not the least important suggestion is the opinion held regarding the shrines of Osiris, whose body is said to have been laid in many different places. For they say that Diochites is the name given to a small town, on the ground that it alone contains the true tomb; and that the prosperous and influential men among the Egyptians are mostly buried in Abydos, since it is the object of their ambition to be buried in the same ground with the body of Osiris. In Memphis, however, they say, the Apis is kept, being the image of the soul of Osiris, whose body also lies there. and so forth leading to the Eudoxus passage.

Of these multiple tombs Brandon (Osiris:M M & Magic) says that the myth relates;

In order to promote the worship of Osiris, she [Isis] then made exact replicas of his body and entrusted them severally to colleges of priests to bury in their local centres – this is obviously an attempt to explain the fact that several places in Egypt claimed to have the tomb or some relic of Osiris.

The point is that Egyptians (& very likely Graeco-Romans) believed non-allegoric outlandish things about Isis & Osiris. Including that Osiris was actually buried at various places. If this was allegory, why would such an explanation be necessary and why would the ‘prosperous and influential’, the very types to most readily understand the myth as allegory, be so keen on associative burial?

True, as anyone who has read the Plutarch essay will know, they believed a whole variety of other things.
For whom? You read too much into this. The ‘wanderings and dismemberings’ are not literal for Plutarch, I am not at all sure about the birth passage for he gives no alternative. He tells us that Isis is a principle of Nature and blessed and imperishable, but that does not explain from whence she arose. As for the ‘Egyptians’ (& Greaco-Romans?), the more educated and worldly may have believed this, but as for the ‘average illiterate pagan peasant’ and ‘average prosperous and influential pagan’ – we have seen that a good many did take it literally. Or was it that they perceived of these events in "the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven"?
Yes, I know, buried on earth – but we have not got to Osiris ‘coming to the moon’ and much else as yet. First we need to return to Empedocles, but that will have to wait.

Well, as I have sed, I refuse to get hung up on ‘sublunar’. As my previous sentence indicates I think that the Plutarch passage gives plenty of scope for ‘extending upwards’, but I would like to develop that in due course.

I do not wish to be picky, but I think that ‘guess’ is probably where it is at. It is difficult to figure out what many a contemporary writer means when discussing these matters. It strikes me as damn near impossible to understand the ancients, given the various filters of time, purpose, mindset, etc. The entire Isis & Osiris myth had undergone a considerable evolution from ancient Egypt to contemporary (with Plutarch) Greco-Roman times. Britannica Enc. of World Religions (2006);
In the Pyramid Texts (c. 2350 - c. 2100 BCE), she is the mourner for her murdered husband, the god Osiris…
a goddess of protection
a great magician, whose power transcended that of all other deities
invoked on behalf of the sick
protected the dead
her nature became increasingly diverse

The cult of Isis spread throughout Egypt.
By Greco-Roman times she was dominant among Egyptian goddesses. Her cult reached much of the Roman world as a Mystery Religion. With Isis went Osiris and Horus the child, but Isis was the dominant figure.

Apuleius was a priest of both Isis and Osiris. In his “The Golden Ass” he gives a detailed description of the consecration ceremonies of the Isis Mysteries. In the introduction by translator Robert Graves the religious principles of Apuleius are given.
The first was that men are far from equal in the sight of Heaven, its favour being reserved for the well-born and well-educated, … that only such can be admitted into the divine mysteries and so mitigate their fear of death by a hope of preferential treatment in the after-world. Slaves and freedmen cannot possibly acquire the virtue, intelligence or discretion needed to qualify them for initiation into these mysteries, even if they could afford to pay the high fees demanded.

Even the free poor were imbued with ‘ill-luck’, his second principle was that ill-luck was catching, and thus to be avoided. In short the ‘average pagan’ was on the outer. Poor, illiterate and burdened with toil, they had no notion nor time for high falutin’ theories of existence.

This raises an important point which I have had as my central understanding of Plutarch’s discourse with Clea. They both have the perspective of an initiate in a Mystery Religion. Clea is a priestess at Delphi. Plutarch was a priest at Delphi and more than once refrains from more detailed description lest he reveal the ‘hidden mysteries’. His understanding of the myth is thus very far removed from its original formulation, which is what he is relating to Clea in the early part of his essay. It is also undoubtedly more ‘advanced’ than that of the average pagan who would tend to take the traditions at face value. Even perhaps more worldly than that of a raw initiate, who, while having received the primary information from the ”revealer of holy things” during the initiation rites, was as yet unschooled in the deeper meaning of the mysteries.

Again from Britannica;
Secret cults of the Greco-Roman world that offered to individuals a way to feel religious experiences not provided by the official public religions are termed mystery religions. They originated in tribal ceremonies that were performed by peoples in many parts of the world. But, … initiation in Greece became a matter of personal choice. The mystery religions reached their peak of popularity in the first three centuries CE.
……………
Besides community initiations, there were ceremonies for individual persons of deeper religious longing. Such persons were called Orphics after Orpheus… supposedly the author of sacred writings,… and they dealt with such subjects as purification and the afterlife.

Plutarch is clearly concerned with these higher matters and pours scorn upon the naïve beliefs of those who accept the traditions for what they are. This is increasingly the case as the essay progresses, as his themes are developed. In the beginning, which is all that we have considered thus far, he is mostly content to relate the traditions, while taking the odd swipe here and there. Yet who is it that holds to these traditions? Somebody must, else why bother mentioning them. I would contend that it was ‘average pagans’. Furthermore it is in the form of the Mystery Religion of Isis that Plutarch would have been most familiar with them for that is the contemporary form that he would have encountered.

Britannica under – Mystery Religion Theology
One of the central subjects in mystery writings was cosmogony – the theory of the origin or creation of the world. In the Hermetic treatises [Egyptian setting for Eastern religious elements with Platonic, Stoic and Neo-Pythagorian philosophies], {and other mystery writings}…, the cosmogony was modeled after Plaro’s Timaeus, and it always dealt with the soul and the soul’s subsequent fate.

It is also interesting to consider another brief section of the Britannica from – Mystery Religions and Christianity
In theology the differences between early Christians, Gnostics, and non-Christian Hermetists were slight. In the large library discovered at Naj Hammadi, in upper Egypt, in 1945, Hermetic writings were found side-by-side with Christian Gnostic texts. The doctrine of the soul taught in Gnostic communities was almost identical to that taught in the mysteries: the soul emanated from the Father, fell into the body, and had to return to its former home. The Greeks interpreted the national religions of the Greek Middle East chiefly in terms of Plato’s philosophical and religious concepts. Interpretation in Platonic concepts was also the means by which the Judeo-Christian set of creeds was thoroughly assimilated to Greek ideas by the early Christian thinkers Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Thus, the religions had a common conceptual framework.

This looks to me to be uncannily like Doherty’s Middle Platonism was ‘in the Aer’. It clearly bears a great deal more upon the real intent of Plutarch’s essay, than any supposed description of Egyptian allegories.

Let’s not. H is far too early for our Christian development, Plutarch used him little according to the translater of I & O, and I acknowledge your boldings, after all, Plutarch states this re Dionysus and the dating is - problematic.

The reason that I do not (necessarily) accept that the various birthings took place upon Earth, is that the initial ‘draughts game’ etc could not possibly have, and there is nothing to suggest that the subsequent births did! On the contrary, a reasonable reading would suggest that they took place in the same location as the ‘consorting’ etc. Wherever that may have been.

I took up your challenge to explore the pagan writings of Plutarch on Isis and Osiris GDon because it struck me that it was a reasonably narrow field in which I might apply my limited knowledge. Thus far I am inclined to say that your supposition that such an exploration would lead to no evidence for Doherty’s thesis is unfounded.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl,

I agree that there is probably no point engaging in any further debates, and we've probably covered all the evidence.

I should point out that I didn't actually start this thread, nor did I give it its title, though I don't disapprove of it. This thread was split out when someone asked about entities "confined to an intermediate Platonic sphere", and I responded. In part of my response, I wrote:

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.

The thread developed from there. I was glad to participate since it was actually looking at beliefs of the pagans, which you use in quite a few places to support your theories about Paul. It's an area people are reluctant to discuss, and the debate inevitably (and frustratingly) turns back to Paul. I think Vork clearly spells out why in an earlier post in this thread:
And that's why even those who say "I don't agree with Doherty in everything" basically shrug their shoulders at any rebuttals: for them, you have already all but proven your case. It's really just a matter of the rest of us catching up. Your interpretation of Paul and the other early writers are enough.

But the problem there is that, time and again, you appeal to pagan beliefs to bolster your interpretations of Paul and co. If (as I argue) your appeals are invalid, then you would need to (for a start) re-evaluate your case. Of course, I believe that your case falls apart like a pack of cards, but I know that (unfortunately) I'm not going to convince anyone who thinks that "Doherty has all but proven his case!" -- at least until they start examining whether your appeals to pagan beliefs are valid.

I gave an example on the first page of this thread that demonstrates what I mean above. I quoted you from your website:

"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."

Now, if the evidence shows that pagans believed that their gods were either born on earth or were allegorical (thus never existed at all), then IMO that would damage your point. And what would we have left? We'd have a number of examples where "born of woman" is used to indicate mortality. And we'd have no examples where "born of woman" was supposed to have taken place above the earth (allegorical examples don't count since we both believe that Paul wasn't writing allegories). We'd have examples of gods being born of women on earth, and none "elsewhere".

Of course, Paul may have had his own unique views on the subject -- we can't rule that out. If the evidence is strong enough elsewhere, we would have to conclude that. And since those who believe that "Doherty has all but proved his case!" do believe that the evidence is strong elsewhere, they don't worry about this. The fact that "born of woman" overwhelmingly supports historicity can be ignored.

The same goes for "born a little lower than the angels", "tribe of Judah", "seed of David", "in the flesh", etc. From memory, you said that some pagan gods were thought to have ethnicity, so we shouldn't be surprised that Hebrews claims this (if I've misrepresented you on this, I apologise). Yet the reason that they thought that they had an ethnicity was because it was thought that they were born on earth.

If you want to use pagan beliefs as a guide, then anyone born of woman, in the flesh, and as the descendent of someone living earlier has to have been born on earth. If you want to claim that Paul had his own unique views, then you need to find some evidence for it, otherwise it just appears as special pleading. You just don't have that evidence I'm afraid. But it appears that it is irrelevent even if you are "wholly wrong" on what pagans believed. That's a nice position to be in, especially for someone appealing to pagan beliefs for support.

Ben C Smith

I am not here mainly to defend an historical Jesus. Even in my biggest debate with you I was not defending an historical Jesus. I was arguing against your reading of a text.

You, Earl, heard not one word from me on the matter of you declining to participate in my Ascension of Isaiah thread. Not once did I intimate that you were afraid to debate me, or that you were copping out, or any of the things that I have heard from you now several times since. You are free to debate whom you wish to debate, and I will never force you.

I gave you (one or two of) my reasons for not debating you because you asked me for them. I admit I now regret having given you any reason at all. It has apparently fed your misguided notion that I owe you an explanation for declining to participate in any given debate with you. This is the last I will say on a matter that should have been dropped months ago.

I had indeed read your bit about it in response to Van Voorst (though not before I had posted my page on my website). Which part of that section answers the arguments on my Mara bar Serapion webpage?

Ben.

GakuseiDon

If part of Doherty's position hinges on what the "average pagan" believed, then I don't think that asking what they believed is missing the point.

Either there is evidence for what they believed, or there isn't. If there isn't, then how can Doherty appeal to what the average pagan believed? If there is, then let's see how closely that supports Doherty.

Remember, it is Doherty who has made the claims. It's so frustrating! Why does Doherty get a free pass on this? People here have said, "Oh, it doesn't matter. What is important is what Paul meant". Fair enough, but then let's see what Doherty's case looks like without his appeals to pagan beliefs (assuming of course that I am right that there is nothing there to support him)

Sure, and I can't rule out that they thought exactly how Doherty claims they thought. But for heaven's sake, let's at least examine the evidence before coming to the conclusion one way or the other. Either we can understand where pagans thought that the gods acted, or we can't understand.

Well, what did they believe? If we don't know what they believed, what value then Doherty's statements on the beliefs of "the average pagan"?

I think you may have misunderstood where I was coming from. From what I've read, some pagans thought that the gods acted on earth, some thought that the stories were allegorical (so didn't happen at all). I suppose it is much like how some modern Christians think that Genesis is allegorical, and some think it is literal. But because modern Christians believe some fantastic things, it doesn't mean that we should believe that they thought that Genesis took place in another "dimension" -- unless there was some evidence to back up that Christians are making that claim.

But why even think that they perceived the stories of their gods recorded events in "the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven"? It isn't in the text, is it? Plutarch didn't think so -- he didn't think the stories happened at all, and Osiris was a pure god sitting outside matter. The Egyptians he talked about didn't think so -- they thought Osiris lived and died on earth. Granted, Plutarch may be wrong abaout what the Egyptians believed, but we can't assume the "gods acted in the sublunar realm" concept without something to back it up. I just don't see anything backing Doherty up on this.

Sure, no problem. But I think that eventually we will need to define that region, and to do this we need to use the writings of the authors of the time. Contradictory views are fine, as long as there is some evidence to back them up. What I don't think is useful is the idea that "they could have thought anything, therefore they may have thought this". Let's look at the evidence first. If the evidence all points to beliefs of the stories of their gods as being allegorical or taking place on earth, then that is evidence that Doherty is wrong to appeal to pagan beliefs.

But... isn't this a dilemma for Doherty??? How can he claim for support the beliefs of "the average pagan", if that is the case? Why can't some detractor simply repeat what you wrote above, and say that Doherty is begging the question?

Can we say then, that Doherty's appeal to pagan beliefs is misguided, since it is "damn near impossible to understand the ancients"?

Yes, and this is an important point. It looks like Plutarch is using those myths and trying to give a "philosophically pleasing" aspect to them, when the culture in which the original myth developed had no such concept.

I agree. But I've never argued that Plutarch held the same beliefs as the Egyptians he is decrying. Indeed, the value of Plutarch is that he describes quite a few beliefs on the same myth. While it is possible he may have ignored the "average pagan's" belief, I don't think it is likely.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean. How does Doherty's Middle Platonism differ from what we already know of Middle Platonism?

As I explained earlier, either the stories were thought to have taken place on earth, or the stories had some allegorical meaning, and thus weren't thought to have happened at all.

I think that the first thing we need to do is decide whether we can get some view of what pagans believed back then, or whether we should just throw our hands in the air and say that the task is impossible.

If it is the former, then let's see what we can understand. If it is the later, then perhaps we can agree that Doherty is wrong to use the beliefs of the "average pagan" to support his view.

I believe it is the former, and that from what we do understand the evidence is against Doherty on his idea of where pagans placed the stories of their gods. I see nothing to support Doherty so far, other than "it may be possible they thought that way", though other posters seem to have coupled this with "it isn't possible to understand what they thought".

youngalexander

The point that you are missing is that location is a physical concept requiring space-time coordinates. It is essentially a modern idea in the way that you insist that it be used. The 'average pagan' did not have such a concept. You cannot insist upon some consistent meaning for the location of "unseen spiritual realms" because the ancients did not have one. As I shall demonstrate below.
I meant that since "In theology the differences between early Christians, Gnostics, and non-Christian Hermetists were slight. ... Thus, the religions had a common conceptual framework." Which I quoted from Britannica Enc. of World Religions (2006), clearly indicates that such ideas were part of the general theological thought of the time, and that is what Doherty is suggesting.

You are prompting me to re-read a lot of stuff which I have collected over the years. Apuleius was a real hoot after 40yrs, and I found it strangely moving and highly instructive when he gets serious in the last few chapters. I have also been delving into "The Nag Hammadi Library" Gen. Ed. James M Robinson, Harper & Row (1978) that I first read 25 yrs ago - barely understanding a word then. Some of it is a great deal clearer now, altho there is still plenty to make rlogan's eye's glaze.

So, some examples of pagan. Middle Platonic aeons and their occupants.

However, first: from Middle Platonism"In addition to these 'mainstream' philosophers, the Middle Platonic period includes the more esoteric systems of the Gnostics, the Corpus Hermeticum and the Chaldaean Oracles, all involving an 'astral piety' with a notion of planetary powers and intra-cosmic daemons mediating between humanity and the highest cosmic deities."
Secondly, quotes from the 'introduction' are from the book above, not the links below.

Eugnostos the Blessed is a religio-philosophical epistle written by a teacher to his disciples. It exhibits no Christian influence. The introduction continues
"The main intent ... seems to have been to establish the existence of an invisible, super-celestial region beyond the visible world - a region not reflected in the speculations of philosophers".
Perhaps we might say that "the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm"? In any event
Inhabiting that region are four principal divine beings: the unbegotten Father; his androgynous image, Immortal Man; Immortal Man's androgynous son, Son of Man; and Son of Man's androgynous son, the Saviour. Each of these divine being has his own sphere or aeon, and numerous attendant and subordinate beings. ...
In addition, significant Middle Platonic philosophical tendencies are present ..., and suggest that it was composed sometime in the first two centuries C.E.".

All the immortals, whom I have just described, have authority - all of them - from the power of Immortal Man and Sophia, his consort, who was called 'Silence', who was named 'Silence' because by reflecting without speech she perfected her own majesty. Since the imperishabilities had the authority, each provided great kingdoms in all the immortal heavens and their firmaments, thrones (and) temples, for their own majesty.

Some, Indeed, (who are) in dwellings and in chariots, being in ineffable glory and not able to be sent into any creature, provided for themselves hosts of angels, myriads without number for retinue and glory, even virgin spirits, the ineffable lights. They have no sickness nor weakness, but it is only will: it comes to be in an instant. Thus were completed the aeons with their heavens and firmaments for the glory of Immortal Man and Sophia, his consort: the area which <contained the pattern of> every aeon and their worlds and those that came afterward, in order to provide the types from there, their likenesses in the heavens of chaos and their worlds.

So we have pagan, Middle Platonic, celestial realms, containing the pattern for those who came afterwards, "their likenesses in the heavens of chaos and their worlds".

The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth is a Hermetic tractate in the form of a dialogue between a teacher and pupil. The Eight and Ninth refer to spheres around the earth where the divine influence is felt, unlike the lower spheres where less benign powers reside.
"At death the soul would journey through the seven spheres, and after successful passage it would reach the eighth and ninth, the levels where the soul could experience true bliss. Furthermore, the eighth and ninth spheres can also indicate advanced stages of spiritual development. The tractate possibly assumes yet another sphere, a higher, tenth sphere, where God himself dwells...

Its Hermetic character is emphasized by the name Hermes as well as the similarities to other Hermetic documents; in addition the dualistic, Gnostic themes and the mystery elements should not be ignored. Finally, certain affinities with Middle Platonism suggest a date of composition in the second century C.E.".

"Lord, grant us a wisdom from your power that reaches us, so that we may describe to ourselves the vision of the eighth and the ninth. We have already advanced to the seventh, since we are pious and walk in your law. And your will we fulfill always. For we have walked in your way, and we have renounced [...], so that your vision may come. Lord, grant us the truth in the image. Allow us through the spirit to see the form of the image that has no deficiency, and receive the reflection of the pleroma from us through our praise.

Thus the "father" Hermes, instructs an initiate the "son" in secret knowledge that leads to an ecstatic experience of the eighth and ninth. The Codex VI follows with a brief Hermetic Prayer of Thanksgiving and then continues with an excerpt from;

Asclepius 21-29 and "may very well have been meant to be juxtaposed with the Hermetic Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth". In any event, it is a dialogue between Hermes Trismegistus and an initiate Asclepius. After a good deal of discussion of matters pertaining to Egypt "the tractate closes with a discussion of individual eschatology; after death the soul is judged, and rewarded or punished accordingly".

Listen, Asclepius! There is a great demon. The great God has appointed him to be overseer or judge over the souls of men. And God has placed him in the middle of the air, between earth and heaven. Now when the soul comes forth from (the) body, it is necessary that it meet this daimon. Immediately, he (the daimon) will surround this one (masc.), and he will examine him in regard to the character that he has developed in his life. And if he finds that he piously performed all of his actions for which he came into the world, this (daimon) will allow him ... (1 line missing) ... turn him [...]. But if he sees [...] in this one [...] he brought his life into evil deeds, he grasps him, as he flees upward, and throws him down, so that he is suspended between heaven and earth, and is punished with a great punishment. And he will be deprived of his hope, and will be in great pain.

"And that soul has been put neither on the earth nor in heaven, but it has come into the open sea of the air of the world, the place where there is a great fire, and crystal water, and furrows of fire, and a great upheaval. The bodies are tormented (in) various (ways). Sometimes they are cast down into the fire, in order that it may destroy them. Now, I will not say that this is the death of the soul, for it has been delivered from evil, but it is a death sentence.

The Paraphrase Of Shem begins with "Shem's rapture to heaven. Shem tells about an ecstatic experience during which his mind was seperated from his body as if in sleep. He was caught up to the top of creation close to the supreme being, the Light.
...
The Paraphrase Of Shem is a non-Christian Gnostic work ... The tractate proclaims a redeemer whose features agree with those features of New Testament Christology which very well may be pre-Christian in origin".

Well, that is hardly the case with the above.

I would say that the examples above demonstrate that we can determine what some pagans were thinking and that their thorts involved an 'astral piety' with a notion of planetary powers and intra-cosmic daemons mediating between humanity and the highest cosmic deities.

Now, how does that differ from "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?

Clearly they are the same. There really was 'something in the Aer'.

GakuseiDon

YA, from what I can see, the passages you give go against Doherty, not for him. I'll try to explain why below.
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. I fully agree that there were "unseen spiritual realms", and these were located above the firmament. No doubt about it. There is little consistency about what was above the firmament, except that it was (somehow) a realm of purity, where God / the gods resided. Doherty doesn't place the crucifixion there, for the reason that no demons could roam free there.

Now, between the earth and the moon is a different matter. This is where "the prince of the powers of the air" lived. I say that "the prince of the powers of the air" lived in the air, not in some location that was unknown in time and space. The air actually was a "spiritual" realm, but then air and fire was regarded as a spiritual substance.

Most of your quotes below appear to support daemons living in the air.

It doesn't. But that isn't the part I am questioning. This is the quote from Doherty:

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.

Note the highlighted sentence. You see, Paul's Jesus breaks bread, he was born of a woman, etc. The pagans believed that their gods, who performed similar actions, lived on earth. If Paul had similar beliefs, then he would have believed that the events took place on earth. (Both Doherty and I have ruled out that Paul was writing allegorically about Christ being crucified)

Have a look back on page 3 of this thread. Vork made the comment that the actions described by early Christian writers were "certainly was not on earth, or they would have made that plain -- which they never do. Ben Smith made the excellent point that "Paul, for one, attributes to Jesus things such as being born, having ancestors, breaking bread, drinking from a cup, getting crucified, and being buried. You seem to be saying that, if Paul really wished to locate these activities on earth, he would have done so explicitly. Why does this not work the other way round? Why can it not be said that, if Paul really wished to locate these activities in the heavens, he would have done so? Why, IOW, is heaven the default location for these activities?"

This goes back to where pagans placed the activities of their gods. I totally agree that they placed the activities of daemons in the air around them, but what about their gods? The myths described their gods getting born, performing actions and getting killed -- but where were they placed? Was it on earth? Was it in the air? Were they regarded as just stories (allegorical or otherwise), and so didn't happen at all?

If Doherty is going to appeal to pagan views, then Paul placed Jesus on earth. (This would rule out Doherty mythicism, though not others like Wells mythicism). If pagan beliefs don't support Doherty, then he needs to re-evaluate his case where he uses pagan beliefs for support.

What is 'aer', and how does it differ from 'air'?