andrewcriddle

I should add that there seems doubt as to whether or not Albinus himself actually held a developed doctine of the spiritual or astral body.

IF the Didaskalikos is really by Albinus, it would imply that he simply held that souls in the heavens have stars as vehicles/chariots, while on earth they have mortal bodies to fulfil the same purpose. Proclus attributes a more developed doctrine to Albinus but he may be anachronistic.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

Sure, but my point is that there is no use wondering whether Paul was influenced by pagan "sub-lunar mythic plane" concepts if those concepts never seemed to have existed in the first place. That's the parallel I'm trying to draw with "crucified Mithras" proponents. If those proponents can't establish that there was a "crucified Mithras" in the first place, how useful is any discussion on how that influenced early Christianity?

True, my analogy fails at that particular point.

One of my favorite sci-fi writers. I was paraphrasing him there.

As for those earlier threads from two years back: Notice how I am asking for evidence that pagans thought the way that Doherty claims, and notice how Doherty keeps dragging it back to Paul and Ascension of Isaiah. Now, that's perfectly fine. If Doherty wants to build his case from those documents, I have no problem. But Doherty is making claims about what "the average pagan" believed. Look, he is claiming that "We can interpret Paul through common Middle Platonic beliefs", correct? IF that is the case, then it becomes important to establish that pagans thought that way in the first place. Did they? No, AFAICS they didn't.

If we are agreed that Doherty has no evidence that the average pagan thought that there was a "vast unseen spiritual realm" where "a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, and Attis could be castrated", then we are fine. If we are not in agreement, then I have to ask you for his evidence. Seriously, what else can I do???

If you say that it was a mix of beliefs back then, so all we can say is that we can't assume that Doherty is wrong, then that's as good as an admission that Doherty has no evidence for his claims about pagan beliefs in a "sublunar realm". Again, that's fine, but let's be clear about it.

GakuseiDon

Thanks for the clarification, Andrew. I was wondering if I'd misread you on this.

Reading through Plutarch, I suspect the reason for the increasing esoteric interpretations was because he was following his four "species of rational beings" categories, which were (in descending order): (1) gods, (2) daemons, (3) heroes, and (4) humans. To my eyes, he appeared to be examining the myths around Isis, Osiris and Tryphon from the perspective of each category, starting from "humans", and finds the greatest truth in viewing Osiris at the top level -- a pure god, where the myths are allegories of cosmic forces.

EarlDoherty

I see that Don is once again back to offer his same old objections. Perhaps it’s time for me to step in and clarify things. Hopefully, I can get this issue onto a proper track where my viewpoint (and Don’s interpretation of it) is concerned. I’m willing to do this because, although I am reluctant to take time away from work on the Second Edition, I have seen that the whole of Part Four of my book, “A World of Myth and Savior Gods,” needs some reorientation, and this should help in that process.

(Two initial points to clear up: I have never said that Mithras was crucified. And I hate parsnips, so I’m not looking to butter them.)

In his long history of challenging my views in this area, Don has focused with obsessive singularity on one paragraph in my book. He says he is “examining the pagan side of Doherty’s argument”, but in reality it is simply that one statement, because he has essentially ignored the larger picture presented by the material throughout the book which supports that statement. He has also more or less ignored many of the arguments I have presented in response to him in past threads here.

[Digression: I am going to assume—I don’t remember—that Don has actually read The Jesus Puzzle. After all, he is one of my most ardent opponents, so I presume he would not undertake the challenges he has over the years (not just on his sublunar fixation) without actually reading the whole of my book. I will assume other challengers who regularly dump all over the mythicist theory and mine in particular have also not presumed to do so without reading the book. That, of course, includes Jeffrey Gibson—oh no, wait. Jeffrey has often given evidence that he challenges without reading what it is he is challenging, as in recent circumstances which led to my withdrawal from the IIDB (this is just a temporary cessation of that), when he made an accusation about my Hebrews website article which was not only completely wrong but demonstrated that his implication that he had read it was in fact not true… But, as I said, I digress.]

Now, I see that Don has not re-quoted that statement in my book in this thread, but I think I remember it as the following. If it wasn’t, this one contains essentially the same idea.

(Subsequent insertion: In his latest posting, Don has quoted the phrase "a vast unseen spiritual realm" where "a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, and Attis could be castrated". It is certainly familiar, but I can’t find that in my book (unless my search function isn’t working properly). Has he taken it from a website article?—which would be evidence indeed that he has not read the book. (I’ve put over half a million words in public view, don’t expect me to remember where every one is located.))

For a while now I have realized my miscalculation in presenting this statement as I have. And to that extent, I suppose Don was justified, at least initially, in raising a query. I felt that my ‘claim’ that Middle Platonism as applied within mystery cult thinking justifies such a conclusion would be seen as feasible in the light of the entire presentation within that part (Four) of the book, plus Appendix No. 6 “The location of the myths of the Greek savior gods and of Christ.” I did make attempts in the past to call Don’s attention to this material, but he never relaxed his obsessive hold on that one paragraph. Now I see that the reader needs to be directed to that conclusion in a more obvious and nuanced fashion.

The statement itself is too stark. Unfortunately, it implies that there is direct evidence from pagan writings to demonstrate it. Of course, over the years I have acknowledged to Don that this is not the case. While I have often pointed out and argued for “indicators” of such a view, there is no clear and direct statement about any particular pagan mystery cult deity which says that devotees or philosophers regarded the activities of its myth as taking place in the spiritual dimension, in heavenly layers above the earth (whether above or below the moon). I have endeavored to explain this by pointing out that we possess virtually no writings about the cults which explain the meaning of the myths themselves, since this was verboten. Certainly none from the average believer or ‘apostle’ of the cult. What we have are a few writings by philosophers who bring an allegorical interpretation to the myths, Plutarch being the most notable, virtually the only one from the turn of the era period, which is why we rely so much on Isis and Osiris. Even there, however, as Richard Carrier has pointed out, there are a couple of indications that Platonic-type renderings of the myth do indeed point to a heavenly location for them. As well, I have explained that the myths of the savior gods began as primordial myths, activities initially set in a distant or primordial time on earth, and that it is unrealistic to expect that, after centuries of this, when Platonism began to have its effects on them, that they would be deliberately recast into a new heavenly setting, or that suddenly everyone would start viewing and talking about those myths in such a revised setting. Plutarch, as I said, implies this, but we have nothing else to tell us whether they did or not. That changeover, in the minds of most, may have been imperfect, with the influence of the old primordial way of seeing things still operating to prevent a complete reorientation toward a Platonic interpretation.

Incidentally, where do we in fact see such a complete reorientation? In early Christianity, in the non-Gospel record. (It helps, of course, to have the relatively copious record we do for it.) Paul’s and the other epistle writers’ presentation of the acts of Jesus are not presented as primordial or on earth in history. We don’t get any markers in the latter direction once we’ve eliminated 1 Thess. 2:15-16 as an interpolation which critical scholarship largely does (I’m not going to reargue that), or accept 1 Timothy 6:13 as a second century product. In other words, there is no “primordial myth” phase to Pauline Christianity, because it is of too recent vintage, having no roots in an older earth-based myth. (That earth-based myth only emerges in the Gospels, which come later; it cannot be demonstrated to precede Paul.) In fact, there is very little myth whatsoever in terms of the type of details we find in the savior god myths. All we get is basic “death and resurrection” mythology (plus Paul’s lone Lord’s Supper myth) and ambiguous terminology using words like “flesh,” “blood,” “body,” etc. (And if any of you are still at the stage of maintaining that these terms can only apply to earthly things, after all that has been said on this board, not just by me, you are too hopeless to engage with.)

I have demonstrated that the early Christian “mythology”, such as it is, can easily fit into the heavenly myth category. All this is particularly illustrated by Hebrews. Not only is there no earthly myth in Hebrews (despite desperate attempts to read one into it), nothing like the primordial myths of the cults and no activities of Jesus in a setting that could be identified with earth, it presents a heavenly myth of Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (scholars like Attridge notwithstanding who try to force that square peg into an earthly round hole, which my article has discredited). Hebrews (as in 5:7 and 10:5) and other epistles (as in 1 Peter 2:22) also present us with a scriptural myth, that is, mythical activities of Christ which are drawn from scripture, as though scripture is the window onto such a spiritual, mythical world of Christ.

I have pointed out the example of Mithras, whose myth is an astronomically based one (David Ulansey is not the first to champion such an interpretation, though he does the best job of it and it makes more sense than any other; I find that those who dump on Ulansey—with little concrete justification—tend to be those who are anxious not to admit that cultic mythology can be placed in the heavens). Does Don think that such a cult created an earth-based myth? Or is such a myth by nature a heavenly-world occurrence? The ancient world possessed a whole category of astral religions. Many Gnostic and other salvation cults focused on the idea of ascents through the layers of heaven to achieve salvation. The Descending-Ascending Redeemer myth is found in Gnosticism and even in Christianity, such as in the Philippians hymn. Generally speaking, Gnosticism is regarded as a syncretism between Jewish and pagan thought. Its mythology is vertical, not horizontal back into history. All these arguments and indicators I have brought up before (and most are touched on in my Appendix 6), but they make absolutely no impact on Don. The entire thinking of the age points strongly to a Platonic spiritual-material world system, yet none of this is allowed to be used as indicators of the same orientation within pagan mystery-cult thinking. He can still maintain “that Doherty has no evidence that the average pagan thought that there was a "vast unseen spiritual realm" where "a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, and Attis could be castrated.” Anyone who can claim that the ancients did not envision a “vast unseen spiritual realm” where divine activities took place, or from which pagan savior gods are to be excluded even in the heart of the Middle Platonic period, simply cannot be engaged with. If Jewish and (proto-) Christian documents of that era are full of such clear and striking evidence, (even were it presumed that pagan writings are not), is he proposing that this phenomenon was unique to Jewish thinking?

Don is right, I have many times tried to appeal to his reading abilities in regard to the Ascension of Isaiah, and what it tells us in chapters 7, 9 and 10 about the location of Christ’s activities and what can go on in various layers of the universe. It all falls on deaf ears. Yes, I realize that the Ascension is not a pagan writing, but the two cultures were not on different planets; they shared much the same general thought-world, especially where cosmology was concerned, even if there were differences in detail (such as the number of the heavens, or where exactly Paradise or God was located). The Ascension gives pretty clear evidence of a heavenly sacrifice of a descending Son, and there is no good reason not to take this as one of those ‘indicators’ of how equivalent saviors in other cultures were contemporaneously viewed. Modern democracy and communism may be different philosophies, sometimes involving different cultures, but do we not all live in the same world with common outlooks where basics like science, cosmology and the behaviour of natural laws are concerned? To maintain that evidence of a type of thinking in one culture cannot provide evidence for much the same in another contemporary one which shared the same space is simply nonsense. I have tried to create a picture of ancient-world interrelated thinking and shared ideas. It is like claiming that Christianity was not a product of its time, a traditional scholarly view, mercifully, which went out the window a few decades ago.

I have repeatedly said that we do not necessarily have to assign to early Christian thought every specific detail of the celestial structure envisioned by general Platonism (which itself possessed some variety over time). We can identify influences from platonic thought on Paul, but not always specifics, so it is pointless for Don to bog himself and all of us down in trying to challenge those specifics. Yes, there was a mix of beliefs when you get down to the nitty-gritty. But it was all variations on a set of themes which were more or less common, evolving in subtle ways throughout the millennium of Hellenism and the Roman Empire but maintaining an identifiable underlying structure. This is why we can also appeal to philosophers like Sallustius and Julian in the 4th century to cast some light back on the thinking of Middle Platonism.

Don complains that somehow my ‘supporters’ (and naturally they don’t necessarily agree with everything I say) are following me like cows, ‘trusting’ in my reliability while they chew contentedly on their cud. I sincerely hope that they have managed to find in my writings, supplemented by their own knowledge, more substantial evidence for my conclusions than Don seems to perceive. In fact, I might express the same concerns about him. For years he has blithely claimed that I have no evidence for pagan beliefs in a spiritual realm where gods and demons live, cavort and do their divine thing, which would hardly exclude the divine activities involved in mystery cult soteriology. How many barnyard animals does he have on his side who simply trust in his declarations? And how many attempts am I supposed to make in the face of his repeated mantra “There is no evidence!”?

I think what has to be basically understood is that the whole “Platonic-style location of the savior god myths, including Christ” is a proferred interpretation of the evidence. If that evidence were as plain as day, with clear references to such (which is what Don demands), there would be no need for interpretation. New Testament research, in virtually every category of study, is a matter of interpretation based on the evidence we do have. That includes, of course, the fact, nature and meaning of an “historical Jesus.” In my heavenly Christ (R J Hoffmann—he of The Jesus Project allegedly devoted to determining the viability of an HJ—referred to it dismissively as the “cosmic Christ”) I am offering an interpretation, backed by evidence and—hopefully—sound argument.

Mayan historical studies, by way of analogy, are faced with the paramount question, why did the Mayan civilization crumble overnight and abandon its cities? As I understand it, for the longest time it has been thought that agricultural failure was responsible. There are apparently problems or shortcomings with this theory and lately the idea has been put forward that a ‘heavenly’ event played a role, namely the arrival of debris from a disintegrating comet. (Or something like that, I’m going on imperfect memory from a TV program.) But the principle applies to my point here. I can make a statement in relation to the comet scenario which I feel is backed by evidence. Then Don comes along and says, wait a minute, we have found no inscription recording the falling to earth of those heavenly fragments. All I can say is, that’s true, but I had no intention of implying that, and sorry if you took that meaning. But you’ve ignored all those other indicators in your obsession with being shown that inscription.

When I say words to the effect that ‘pagan savior cults in this period placed the activities of their deities in a spiritual, heavenly dimension’ this is not “speculation” but an interpretation of evidence (which includes parallels in the Christian evidence) employing argument. If the evidence and argument is good, this is no less worthy an exercise than anything done in studies of the Gospels and the historical Jesus (assuming, of course, a lack of prejudice toward the former and the presence of a spirit of inquiry). What I needed to do in regard to that statement that Don continues to seize on, is make the process of deduction clearer, rather than imply (as he interprets it) that it is supported by direct statements to that effect in the extant record.

Don acknowledged the “damn good point” made by Amaleq. In any field of study, if the prevailing paradigm or elements of it no longer stand up to scrutiny, if there are features of the evidence which can now be seen as unsupportive of, or in contradiction to, the established paradigm—and the early non-Gospel record is full of such things, and not just in the form of ‘silences,’ crying out for a different paradigm—then this is already an argument in favor of alternatives. Indeed, it is incumbent upon all to present and consider those feasible alternatives. That is the essential process and motivation inherent in mythicism (and not some rabid, atheistic agenda, perpetrated by charlatans and ignorant lunatics). Those who have planted themselves in the middle of the road to block its progress at all costs, whether with insult, ridicule, misrepresentation, or dishonest, disruptive and delaying tactics, are not scholars, much less open-minded individuals interested in arriving at a potentially better understanding of history.

This posting has been less about arguing the specifics of the case and more about clarifying my approach, especially in regard to the issue Don keeps raising. I am not committing myself to an extended exchange here, as I am exceedingly anxious to have my second edition published before the end of the year. The necessary work has been much greater than anticipated, and several impediments have cropped up along the way (such as the occasional health issue, a sprained wrist, and now my aged mother’s failing condition which requires personal attention). I have just completed a very much expanded chapter on Josephus, which I think I will post on my website ahead of time. (It contains things which I never included before, such as the question of Eusebius as the possible interpolator of the Testimonium and a detailed look at Robert Eisler’s notorious ‘portrait’ of Jesus and how it developed; the Antiquities 20 passage is examined in much more detail, including a surprising observation on its attestation which I don’t think anyone has taken note of before.) The second edition seems to have repeatedly followed this pattern, moderate ‘revisions’ to a given section expanding far beyond the limits intended, so that now I have to decide whether to enlarge the book substantially or present the new edition in conjunction with designated website material, relying on the reader to consult both for the fullest picture.

Needless to say, I will waste little time on Jeffrey’s antics or others like him who offer nothing of substance.

P.S. But wonder of wonders! I see that Don and I actually have something we can heartily agree on. Jack Vance is the greatest!

Earl Doherty

Toto

Nice to see you here, Earl. Here's that quote:

Part Two of the JesusPuzzle

GDon quotes the full passage in a Theology Web thread.

Amaleq13

For clarity's sake, the point Don was acknowledging as "damn good" was yours, Earl (ie what Paul doesn't say in comparison to the Gospels) not mine.

Jeffrey Gibson

Often? How many times exactly? And in which messages specifically?

Jeffrey

spamandham

Earl, something to consider in your latest book if you have not already, from a potential consumer....

I know you and RM Price are on cordial terms. It would be interesting to see how your most recent refinements to your ideas are affected by the removal of passages from Paul that represent him as earthly, yet are contentious among scholars. I suspect you are already familiar with these, but if not, he would be a great resource to consult on that.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl, good to see you here again!

Just to clarify: yes, you haven't claimed Mithras was crucified AFAIK. I was comparing your presentation of evidence of pagan beliefs with those of the like of Freke&Gandy and Acharya. My point was that it was no use wondering how a crucified Mithras (as claimed by some mythicists) influenced Christianity if there is no evidence that people of the day thought that Mithras was crucified. To emphasise: if the claim is that certain pagan beliefs influenced Christianity, then we need to establish that those certain pagan beliefs existed in the first place.

My concern is that you've read certain ideas into early Christianity, then extrapolated them back into pagan beliefs, and THEN claimed support for your ideas about early Christianity by saying that they conform to pagan beliefs. I think we all agree that, if you were doing this, it would be circular logic.

To avoid that, I started concentrating on what you were saying about pagan beliefs. I found (IMHO) that the evidence to substantiate your claims wasn't there, so I started to press you for that evidence. To my annoyance, you kept dragging this back to Paul, Hebrews, AoI, etc. And I guess that, to your annoyance I kept trying to drag you back to your claims about pagan beliefs.

"Simply that one statement"? Well, I have your book in front of me. There is more than one statement, and if you have references that support those specific statements I can't find them. All you do is throw to Plutarch and Sallustius, who placed the myths on earth as allegorical representation of cosmic forces.

Let's look at some of your statements in your book (taken from "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ", Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999. Paperback edition)

Italics in the original, bolding done by me:

p. 16:

It is important to realize that the many references in the epistles to the "death" or "rising" of Christ are not, in themselves, references to physical events on earth or in history. They, along with a handful of 'human' sounding terms, are part of the myth of the Son; they relate to the activities of this divinity in the supernatural realm... this is a view that would have been perfectly at home in the philosophical and mythical thinking of the time. It was, in fact, a view shared by a whole range of pagan salvation cults, each of which had its own savior god who had performed deeds in the mythical world. Like Paul's Christ, savior gods such as Attis and Osiris had been killed; like Paul's Christ, Osiris had been buried (after being dismembered); like Christ on the third day, Adonis and Dionysos had been resurrected from death. All these things were not regarded as historical; they had taken place in the world of myth and higher reality.

You provide no references or sources to back up your claims of pagan beliefs here to show that the pagan beliefs placed those activities "in the supernatural realm".

p. 98:

Instead of looking back to archaic beginnings, religious ritual could reach into that parallel, upper dimension and find its paradigms, its spiritual forces, right there. In this higher world, the myths of the mystery cults and of earliest Christianity were placed. Here the savior god Attis had been castrated, here Mithras had slain the bull, here Osiris had been dismembered. (For more sophisticated thinkers like the first century Plutarch and the fourth century Sallustius, such mythical stories were not literal, but merely symbolic of timeless spiritual processes which the human mind had difficulty grasping.)

No references to back up your claims in bold. On Plutarch and Sallustius: You and I both agree that Paul didn't appear to be speaking allegorically. The allegorical view wasn't that the myths took place in a "higher world", but that they didn't take place at all. Instead, the myths on earth were thought to explain the actions of cosmic forces. Since Paul wasn't speaking allegorically, and (IYO) he didn't place the myths on earth, I don't see the relevance of Plutarch and Sallustius.

Did anyone speak allegorically about activities in the higher world? I think we both agree that the question doesn't make much sense. Did any pagan speak about the activities actually occurring in the higher world? Now, that is the question that I'd like to see answered.

So, what relevance is provided by quoting two philosophers who DIDN'T think the way you claim that Paul thought?

p. 122:

The Greek salvation myths inhabit the same mythical world [as Paul's Christ]. They too can spin stories about their deities, born in caves, slain by other gods, sleeping and dining and speaking. None of these activities were regarded as taking place in history or on earth itself.

No references. On this last, I think there is plenty of evidence that they regarded the possibility that their gods actually existed on earth, regardless of whether they believed they performed the miracles that the poets described. I'll produce one passage below (I have others but don't want to make this post longer than necessary).

Now, I will repeat again that this doesn't mean that some people COULDN'T have thought the way you are claiming, but it shows why such claims really need to be validated.

Here is Tacitus, writing around 110 CE, writing about Saturn, Jupiter and Isis:
http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html

"Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries."

Probably because you keep dragging it back to Paul and Christian writings. I want to validate that the PAGANS believed what you claim they believed. If you are using Christian writings to show what pagans believed, then you need to be careful to avoid the circular logic that I pointed out above.

In Appendix No. 6 you reference Plutarch, Julian the Apostate, Sallustius and Apuleius, and then Paul and the Ascension of Isaiah. Basically you show that there was a belief in a "higher world", and some people thought that the earth-based myths were allegorical representations of cosmic forces (i.e. order and chaos vying in the higher and lower worlds). Neither of these points are in question. Somehow though you conflate them together to suggest that the MYTHS were thought to have happened in this higher world.

Earl, let me ask you: Did Plutarch, Julian, Sallustius or Apuleius believe that the activities of the gods took place in a higher world? I would say they didn't. If I am right, how do they support such thinking?

I also direct interested readers to Doherty's Appendix No. 6, to see if he offers support on pagan belief that their myths were carried out in a non-earthly world.

I appreciate that. But there is an 'urban myth' that you do provide such evidence. Not your fault, I know, but when people start making claims about "sublunar realms" or "spiritual dimensions" and I question them on whether they have evidence for this, they refer me to your book. Like it or not, some people are more certain about your conclusions than you are.

I think you have clarified this up above. I don't mind speculation that is clearly marked speculation. I think there are enough counter-examples to your speculation to show you are on the wrong track, but that is my personal (and very amateur) position, and I don't want anyone to take my word for that. However, there are some who believe that it is established that pagans really did believe as you claim they did. They don't know that the evidence isn't there, that you are using 'indicators', etc. Again, that's not your fault.

That would be very useful. Not for me -- I already know that you have no clear evidence to support you -- but for those readers of yours who do believe that you have such clear evidence.

:notworthy:

EarlDoherty

Thanks for a considered and polite response, Don.

There are certainly points to be responded to, but my main concern is that you are still maintaining much the same thing as you always have. You still say essentially that I have provided no evidence, meaning evidence that is direct and unequivocal, and in my last posting here (as I have done many times in the past) I made an admission of this. When are you going to accept that and stop making that specific demand?

I’m glad to see that you’ve actually got my book and that you’ve broadened your focus on more than the one passage. But all those passages say more or less the same thing, so my remarks apply to them all. And the lack of direct references for those statements is again the basic point I made that this is a matter of interpretation of the entire ancient world evidence, including early Christianity, which as I said needs to have that line of argument in regard to those statements better laid out in that part of my book, even if the material itself is pretty much all there. (Perhaps those who refer you to my book have seen that.)

However, let me address a few of your contentions. You make much of the fact (which I spelled out myself in my earlier post) that Plutarch (1st c.) and Sallustius (4th c.) interpret the myths as allegory. That, of course, does not preclude, as I have often said, that the average devotee of the cults who are not sophisticated philosophers did not also see things allegorically. In fact, that is quite unlikely. So I don’t see the relevance of your objections to my use of Plutarch and company. I also think it quite valid, in the absence of any writings from those average devotees or apostles of the cults, to draw evidence of such non-allegorical views from the Christian side of things, whether Paul or writers like Hermas, or the Gnostics with their heavenly Pleromas, etc.

I also have to question your implication that Plutarch and Sallustius were allegorizing myths that they regarded as taking place on earth (as opposed to them interpreting myths that, naturally, they would acknowledge were traditionally regarded as having taken place on earth). There is no evidence of that, and in fact their statements would imply the opposite. Sallustius speaks of the myths being allegories of timeless spiritual processes; they hardly regarded those processes as ‘events’ that took place on earth in some physical dimension. Plutarch, as we all know from repeated discussion of the point here in the past, speaks of a ‘legend’ that Isis and Osiris performed their reactions “repeatedly,” which (as Carrier also pointed out) speaks to a spiritual dimension, and hardly a physical repetition. Julian the Apostate, too, as I say in Appendix 6, “envisioned an intermediate layer of the universe in which divine beings or essences take on the characteristics of the material world.”

Your thinking is a bit skewed here, and I’ve brought this up before. We can readily imagine sophisticated philosophers like Plutarch, Sallustius and Julian reinterpreting the myths as allegories. But, contrary to what I seem to remember you once claiming, this does not mean that they thought nothing at all happened. It’s just that, as Plutarch says, the things that “happened” were not literally as the myth recounts. But as Sallustius says, what “happened” were “timeless spiritual processes.” That is not “nothing.” So I ask you, how can “timeless spiritual processes” happen on earth? If the myth was not literally those earth-based legends Plutarch is anxious to reinterpret, how did his ‘reinterpretation’ happen on earth? Do allegories literally happen on earth? Philo is a parallel, though not a precise one. When he allegorizes the Old Testament, he doesn’t present his allegories as literal earthly happenings, they are mystical meanings and spiritual significances which often operate in the spiritual dimension. One of the best examples is his reinterpretation of the creation myth in genesis. The second one he interprets in Middle Platonic fashion, that God created the heavenly image of himself, the Heavenly Man, as a first step in creating humanity. That first step is hardly something that took place on earth.

As for the average, non-sophisticated philosopher, there is even less reason to think that they could imagine their cultic myths as not actually having happened in any way. While they do have all that traditional weight of primordial-based mythology, what I am claiming is that even they suffered a certain degree of reorientation of their myths into a Platonic type of thinking, into a salvation mythology whose activities and relationships were vertical. My “evidence” for that is not direct, since we have no such writings that would contain such analyses from pagans. But we do have “indicators” and we definitely have such “evidence” from Christian and proto-Christian writings. And if nothing else, you can hardly maintain that if Christians (and Gnostics, for that matter) were capable of such thinking, such reorientation along Platonic lines of their salvation religions, that pagan devotees of the mystery cults were not.

As you point out, Paul (and I’ve certainly expressed this opinion before) is not an allegorist. He has what we might call a ‘literal’ view of the matter of Christ’s crucifixion and suffering in the spiritual world at the hands of the demon spirits, so he doesn’t fall into the same category as Plutarch. But to repeat again one my main points, different types of views about the behaviour of spiritual entities can be surveyed to come to some judgment about what certain ones of them are liable to have thought as well, especially when evidence within the early Christian record points to such a degree of commonality, including in Paul. One of your tactics seems to be to try to eliminate all those indicators on the grounds that they are not exactly like the object in question. I don’t accept that.

However, I will appeal to something resembling your stance in the matter of your quote of Tacitus as alleged proof that pagan writers did not regard the activities of gods as taking place in a spiritual dimension. It is legitimate to make a distinction between salvation activities of the turn of the era period when Middle Platonism was in full bloom, and the traditional Greek and Roman myths (meaning legends, or using the term “mythology” in the traditional sense of ‘Greek mythology’). I would hardly claim that everything from Homer to Hesiod to the whole of ancient world discussion of what gods and goddesses, or legendary kings and queens of the distant past, are traditionally said to have done, were all transported to the spiritual upper world, reproducing the entire landscape of the Mediterranean (below the moon?) where all these things were now regarded as having happened. That would be ludicrous on my part, and I certainly hope you don’t seriously think I am advocating that. (By the way, note that part of your Tacitus example really works against you, since Jupiter hardly drove Saturn from his throne on earth, unless you want to maintain that Tacitus regarded that throne as physically located on the upper slopes of Mt. Olympus. Do you?)

What I am advocating is a reorientation of viewpoint in regard to the mysteries and their cultic myths under the influence of Platonism, an overlay if you like on the older, primordial-earth oriented traditional views of the ancient myths. To justify such an interpretation, I have marshalled all sorts of evidence and indicators from both pagan and Christian writings which you apparently don’t accept as legitimate. That is your prerogative, but it simply means that we’ve reached an impasse and further discussion would seem to be pointless.

I also object to your indulgence in semantic tactics. “Speculation” could apply to almost any interpretation put forward by even mainstream scholarship. And since you balked at my use of the word “evidence” to apply to anything which was not clear-cut with unmistakeable evidence, I tried to nuance the idea by using the word “indicators” which you are now trying to disparage. It is not a case of “They don’t know that the evidence isn’t there, that you are using ‘indicators’.” The indicators are the evidence and they are as good evidence as much of what is appealed to in this field to arrive at interpretive judgments. (So a slap on the wrist for that.)

Earl Doherty