Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Well, let's look at one piece of new material (at least, new to me). On p 151 on your paperback edition, you write:

A certain Arideus [in Plutarch's "On the Delay of Divine Justice"] is carried in a vision to a higher realm among vast stars. Within that realm are caverns and trees and flowers.

I thought, "Really? Caverns and trees and flowers in the Sublunar Realm? Doesn't sound right. Anything containing earth or water has a natural inclination towards the ground, according to the ancients. What on earth is Plutarch saying?"

So I looked up Plutarch's work, which is fortunately on-line. Here is what he says:
http://www.archive.org/stream/plutar...0plut_djvu.txt

When the friend of Thespesius had thus spoken, he led him rapidly to a certain place that appeared immense, toward which he moved directly and easily, transported on light-beams as on wings, — until, coming to a large and deep cavern, he was deserted by the force that had borne him, and he saw other souls there in a like condition. Clustering together like birds, they flew round the chasm in a circle, but did not dare to cross it. Within, it resembled the caves of Bacchus, like them diversified with boughs of trees, and living green, and flowers of every hue; and it exhaled a soft and mild breeze, wafting up odors of wonderful sweetness, and producing an effect similar to that which wine has on those who drink it freely.

That's the cave reference. The spirits are obviously above it, "clustering together like birds" and being affected by odors "wafting up". But is the cave itself up in the air?

The writer continues:

The spirit said that by this opening Dionysus went up to the gods, and afterward led Semele up by the same way, and that the place is called Letlie [should be "Lethe"].

Lethe is the Place of Oblivion, which is in the Underworld. Semele of course was Dionysus' mortal mother, whom he rescued from Hades. So the cavern can hardly be detached from the ground. In fact, it extends upwards from the Underworld!

Now, what happens when these souls start to breath the moistured air?:

He did not suffer Thespesius to remain there, though he wanted to stay, but took him away by force, teaching him at the same time, and telling him how the mind is melted and soaked by sensual pleasure, while the unreasoning and body-like part of the soul, being thus nourished and made fleshly, calls up the remembrance of the body, and from that remembrance wakes a desire and longing that draw it toward another birth, or genesis, which is so called as being an inclination toward the earth in the soul that is thus weighed down and water-logged.

So: the "water-logged" soul has an "inclination towards the earth". What would have happened had the soul remained above the cavern? He would have dropped back down to earth, to be reborn. (He certainly wouldn't have dropped into a sky cave to be reborn!)

And this helps illustrate the issue I have with Doherty's Sublunar Incarnation Theory. Anything taking on flesh -- which is earth and water, according to the ancients -- has a natural inclination towards the ground. See also Clement of Alexandria:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hortation.html

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

Now, those who are convinced by Doherty can just ignore what I wrote above. It is, after all, the same point as I've been making all along. So if I've been wrong all those other times, I must be wrong here.

For those who are on the fence: the cites are there to allow you to check what I've been saying. Hopefully my review will allow those interested to do that also.


It's going to look something like the above. See how two lines from you requires quite a bit of analysis. The review is going to be huge.

Earl, you are incorrigible. You simply can't be corriged.

Originally Posted by dog-on

Of course, here lies a problem.

So, let's look at the evidence itself.

Originally Posted by dog-on

We will start with Paul.

Were his works ever contested in antiquity?

Originally Posted by dog-on

What is the oldest copy we have?

Originally Posted by dog-on

Do we have any copies of his letters, individually and not in collected form?

Originally Posted by dog-on

Do the earliest copies of the epistles, that we have, also contain letters now thought to be written by someone other than Paul?

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

OK.


I don't really know.


I don't know.


I don't know.

I know this one! Yes.

Originally Posted by dog-on

To the final point, do you think that the earliest copies of the epistles containing forgeries is prima facie evidence that the works of Paul may have been tampered with, at least to some degree?

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I accept the common wisdom that some passages have been tampered with, yes.

Originally Posted by dog-on

Ok. So with that in mind.

How good are the epistles as evidence for what they convey, not as evidence that someone wrote them?

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

As far as I understand common wisdom: pretty good. I'm not aware that anyone argues that the seven letters usually attributed to Paul are untrustworthy as to content. Most of what he wrote in those letters is generally believed to be coming from someone writing in the mid First Century.

Originally Posted by dog-on

Great. Why? What is the belief based on, exactly?

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Based on tradition, backed up by hints gleaned from various letters, IIUC.

Originally Posted by dog-on

I see, but we can't be sure as to the content itself due to the tampering issue, right?

Originally Posted by dog-on

And by tradition, do you mean Christian tradition, ie. the tamperers?