Brother Daniel

The modernity of the idea resides in the use of the word "dimension". Does Doherty use that word in such a context? I doubt it; his description of the "world of myth" in your quotations seems to indicate, clearly enough, that this "airy fleshy" realm (in your words) is literally "up", between the earth and the moon, and not something to be found by tripping off through another dimension as in the Twilight Zone.
Again, I'm not so sure that Doherty is calling for a "separate dimension". As you say, "Daemons lived in the air". So the question here is whether the ancients' view of the world allowed for events "in the air" that might be described in ways that are similar to events on the earth. In other words, is there room in "the air" for a "world of myth" along the lines Doherty has described?

Far from being a modern idea to imagine such a thing, it is a modern idea to dismiss it. We know that you can't climb a magic beanstalk and find a castle on a cloud. But did the ancient pagans know that? Both the sublunar and supralunar realms are "up" from here, and both are realms of mythical activity, even in your descriptions of them.

You may still be right in claiming (contra Doherty) that "the only place that 'fleshy' activities could have taken place was on the earth itself". I don't know. But I don't see anything in your numerous quotations of Plutarch, interesting as they are, to support your claim. These all appear to be statements of support for the allegorical view (of the stories of the gods etc.) over the literalist view, or else elaborations or explanations of the allegorical view.
"As can be seen"?? Maybe so, somewhere in Plutarch, but not in the quote you provided!

There's no "smoking gun" here. You would have been better off if you had merely stated (a) that you see no evidence of a "world of myth" (where "fleshy" activities could occur) above the surface of the earth, and (b) that you would have expected to find evidence in Plutarch, had there been any to find. (Of course, we could respond in Holding style by saying that there was "no need" for Plutarch to spell out something so obvious. But I digress.)

I'll blunder ahead with an insufficiently supported opinion (without any suggestion that anyone ought to give a hoot what I think): I feel that Doherty has made his job unnecessarily difficult by divorcing the "world of myth" from the surface of the earth. If ancient mythical stories are typically set on earth to begin with, as you suggest, then a relatively trivial series of misunderstandings could easily change the Jesus story from a myth that is merely "known" (perhaps through visions, or through an idiosyncratic reading of scripture) to a series of events that are assumed to have been witnessed by a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend. In a nutshell: By bringing Attis and Osiris down to earth, you bring the "world of myth" much closer to the world of mistaken history - and thereby strengthen the MJ case.

So keep it up.

GakuseiDon

I've been arguing for the idea that the sublunar realm was "literally up" from the start; it was Earl who had been arguing against this, at least originally. For example, here he is implying that the sublunar sphere was separated in some way:

If what intervened was a life on earth, in full view of those in the sublunary realm (after all, that is what Don is claiming, that it was all one sphere, and if humans could see what was going on among the evil angels simply “by looking up” then one presumes the demons could see what was happening on earth simply “by looking down”)...

And I would agree with that! His latest view AFAIK is this:

It is admittedly impossible to nail down with any precision the exact viewpoint early Christians held in regard to the death of their mythical Christ, except that it took place in a dimension not our own, in "some other place," as one IIDBer put it.

I don't dismiss it out of hand. I dismiss it because (1) there is no evidence for it in pagan writing that I know about, (2) it appears to go against what the pagans believed about the sublunar realm.

I could be wrong on both counts, of course, but I haven't seen evidence to the contrary in pagan writings.

Plutarch is useful because he gives a variety of views, not just his own. I suggest that he wouldn't have left out an "Osiris was dismembered in the sublunar realm" if he had been a version that was known to "the average pagan".

Not sure I get what you mean. Where is Osiris being incarnated or dismembered in the sublunar realm in Plutarch?

Fair point. (a) and (b) is pretty much what I'm claiming. Whether that constitutes a "smoking gun" or not, I'll leave to others to decide.

Shall do Thanks for your comments.