GakuseiDon

I picked out the specific examples he used in his review. I'll get to the rest of his article later, but we need to establish if the examples Carrier used say anything about "sublunar incarnation". I think this is important to establish before going to the rest of the article. Even more: it is EASY to establish, someone just needs to investigate whether my points are correct or not.

What does it even matter? This thread is on Carrier's review. My OP is about Carrier's review. I want to discuss the points raised in Carrier's review. It's his claim; I want to test it.

I DISCUSSED Doherty's indirect evidence in the other thread. I'm quite happy to discuss this with you further on another thread. But I don't want to do it on this thread. I want this thread to be on Carrier's review. :banghead:

Yes, and I am questioning Carrier's use of analogies, amongst others points he raises in his review. That's why I want this topic to be on Carrier's review.

Specifically, I want to discuss Carrier's comments in his review, for example where he says that "some believers imagine Osiris being continually dismembered and reassembled" in the "outermost part of matter", etc.

Can we PLEASE discuss Carrier's review now?

Toto

I quoted the sections of Carrier's review that discuss Plutarch. He gives precise references.

Why don't you start by stating whether you think his quotes are erroneous, or if they are accurate but not good as an analogy, or why you think there is a problem.

GakuseiDon

He does indeed. It makes it easy to check.

As I've said, Plutarch doesn't say what Carrier claims he says. I've asked people to check for themselves, since it doesn't take long. But I'm happy to do it, if you will answer these questions, which we can use as a benchmark:

1. What does Carrier claim about Inanna incarnating in the sublunar realm?
2. What does Carrier claim about Osiris incarnating in the sublunar realm?

Then I will pull out the references he gives, and we can go over them together.

Toto

Carrier does not say that Inanna incarnated in a sublunar realm, just that and that this "resembles" Doherty's thesis about the origins of Christianity.

I have previously quoted what Carrier writes about Plutarch, from two different essays.

So put your cards on the table. What exactly is wrong with what Carrier says?

GakuseiDon

In fact, Carrier doesn't say where Inanna was incarnated (in carne, in flesh) AT ALL.

Yes, she dies in the underworld and not "on earth". But why is that relevant? Romans believed that they could descend into the underworld near Lake Avernus, amongst other places. So there is no problem with people and gods going there. The question is about whether incarnation can happen in a "fleshly sublunar realm". That is in fact the very title of that section: "The Sublunar Incarnation Theory". But Carrier offers no sublunar realm -- not even an incarnation for that matter.

It seems to me that Carrier is impressed by the Inanna myth for the many similarities it shows to the Jesus story. That's why he includes themes like 'three days', 'water of life', 'shepherd'. Perhaps they do suggest influence on the Jesus story, though for those things it doesn't matter whether he was historical or not. They are irrelevant to showing a "sublunar incarnation".

The full story of Inanna's descent into the underworld can be found here: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm

The bottom line is this: Carrier offers no incarnation and no sublunar realm in his Inanna example.

Let's look at his second example: Plutarch's Osiris.

Carrier puts words together from different passages to try to make Plutarch say what he doesn't say. I don't accuse Carrier of doing this deliberately btw, but it probably comes from confirmation bias.

Here are the passages that Carrier presents. If I leave anything out, please let me know:

Let's break the above up into discrete passages. Again, if I miss any, please let me know.

... [Osiris] is a God "far removed from the earth, uncontaminated and unpolluted and pure from all matter that is subject to destruction and death," (382f)

I agree. The "true" Osiris is above matter, and pure.

Plutarch also says "that part of the world which undergoes reproduction and destruction is contained underneath the orb of the moon, and all things in that are subjected to motion and to change" (376d).

Again, true. The sublunar realm -- stretching down to earth in this case -- is subject to change and decay.

It is there, in the "outermost areas" (the "outermost part of matter"), that evil has particular dominion, and where some believers imagine Osiris being continually dismembered and reassembled (375a-b)

Now, is this true? Carrier cites 375a-b. Let's look at the original passages in Plutarch: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Osiris*/D.html

I'll highlight the pertinent areas:

Some think the seed of Woman is not a power or origin, but only material and nurture of generation.321 To this thought we should cling fast and conceive that this Goddess also who participates always with the first God and is associated with him in the love322 of the fair and lovely things about him is not opposed to him, 375but, just as we say that an honourable and just man is in love if his relations are just, and a good woman who has a husband and consorts with him we say yearns for him; thus we may conceive of her as always clinging close to him and being importunate over him and constantly filled with the most dominant and purest principles. 59 But where Typhon forces his way in and seizes upon the outermost areas, there we may conceive of her as seeming sad, and spoken of as mourning, and that she seeks for the remains and scattered members of Osiris and arrays them, receiving and hiding away the things perishable, bfrom which she brings to light again the things that are created and sends them forth from herself.

The relations and forms and effluxes of the god abide in the heavens and in the stars; but those things that are distributed in susceptible elements, earth and sea and plants and animals, suffer dissolution and destruction and burial, and oftentimes again shine forth and appear again in their generations. For this reason the fable has it that Typhon cohabits with Nephthys323 and that Osiris has secret relations with her;324 for the destructive power exercises special dominion over the outermost part of matter which they call Nephthys or Finality.325 But the creating p143and conserving power distributes to this only a weak and feeble seed, cwhich is destroyed by Typhon, except so much as Isis takes up and preserves and fosters and makes firm and strong.326

Here Plutarch offers two allegories using the story of Osiris, Isis and Typhon. In the first, the allegory involves Love: Osiris the husband is just; Isis the good wife is pure. But when Typhon breaks into the outermost areas of the relationship, then she appears sad, and she seeks to put things back together.

In the second allegory, the story represents the earth and sea and plants and animals. The story played out by Osiris, Isis and Typhon shows how those things suffer dissolution and destruction (Typhon), but will often shine forth and regenerate (Isis).

So, what is the "outermost part of matter which they call Nephtyys or Finality? Is it a 'sublunar realm'? No. In fact, it is the outmost parts of the land beside the mountains and bordering on the sea. Plutarch had in fact referred to this earlier in his work, here:

The outmost parts of the land beside the mountains and bordering on the sea the Egyptians call Nephthys. This is why they give to Nephthys the name of "Finality,"228 and say that she is the wife of Typhon. Whenever, then, the Nile overflows and with abounding waters spreads far away to those who dwell in the outermost regions, they call this the union of Osiris with Nephthys,229 which is proved by the upspringing of the plants.

So, "outermost part of matter" is NOT the sublunar realm, and believers do NOT "imagine Osiris being continually dismembered and reassembled" there, as Carrier suggests.

Continuing... Next, Carrier writes:

As Plutarch describes their view, "the soul of Osiris is everlasting and imperishable, but Typhon oftentimes dismembers his body and causes it to disappear, and Isis wanders hither and yon in her search for it, and fits it together again," because his body is perishable and for that reason is "driven hither from the upper reaches" (373a-b). In other words, for these believers Osiris is "incarnated" in the sublunar heaven and actually dies and resurrects there, later ascending beyond to the imperishable heavens

Again, lets look at the appropriate passages (373a-b) to see if they suggest that some believed that "Osiris is "incarnated" in the sublunar heaven and actually dies and resurrects there":

Isis is, in fact, the female principle of Nature, and is receptive of every form of generation, in accord with which she is called by Plato304 the gentle nurse and the all-receptive... she serves p131them both as a place and means of growth, but inclines always towards the better and offers to it opportunity to create from her and to impregnate her with effluxes and likenesses in which she rejoices and is glad that she is made pregnant and teeming with these creations. For creation is the image of being in matter, and the thing created is a picture of reality.

It is not, therefore, out of keeping that they have a legend that the soul of Osiris is everlasting and imperishable, but that his body Typhon oftentimes dismembers and causes to disappear, and that Isis wanders hither and yon in her search for it, and fits it together again;305 for that which really is and is perceptible and good is superior to destruction and change. The images from it with which the sensible and corporeal is impressed, and the relations, forms, and likenesses which this take upon itself, like impressions of seals in wax, are not permanently lasting, but disorder and disturbance overtakes them, being driven hither from the upper reaches, and fighting against Horus,306 whom Isis brings forth, beholden of all, as the image of the perceptible world. Therefore it is said that he is brought to trial by Typhon on the charge of illegitimacy, as not being pure nor uncontaminated like his father, reason unalloyed and unaffected of itself, but contaminated in his substance because of the corporeal element. He prevails, however, and wins the case when Hermes,306 that is to say Reason, testifies and points out that Nature, by undergoing changes of form with reference to the perceptible, duly brings about the creation of the world.

In this allegory, Plutarch represents the Isis-Osiris story as an allegory of nature. Isis is the female principle of nature, allowing growth and creation and inclines towards the good (Osiris). While Osiris's soul is "everlasting and imperishable", Osiris's body -- the 'good' on earth -- Typhon often dismembers and causes to disappear. Isis wanders around to search and fits it back together again. But this is only temporary, for despite that the image of the 'good' that is impressed on the corporeal world, disorder and disturbance overtakes them, being driven from 'the upper reaches', and fights against Horus, who is the image of the perceptible world.

Again, there is nothing here that says "for these believers Osiris is "incarnated" in the sublunar heaven and actually dies and resurrects there". Carrier appears way off the mark here.

Final passage...

Plato, says Plutarch, "calls this class of beings an interpretive and ministering class, midway between gods and men, in that they convey thither the prayers and petitions of men" (361c) and Isis and Osiris were such, but were later exalted into the heavens as full gods (361e).

True, no problems there. Daemons who showed themselves to be pure or worthy were able to ascend into the true heavens as full gods. But this is not relevant to "sublunar incarnation".

Carrier is correct sometimes. but when it comes to the most important parts -- "sublunar incarnation and resurrection" -- AFAICS Carrier has not read Plutarch correctly.

Solo

Paul did not write Hebrews, nor does the author of the epistle seem concerned with such esoterica as numbered heavens.

For the Jewish mystics of Merkabah, seven heavens were the standard layering of the celestial hierarchy.

Some have suggested that Paul's reference is to the pseudepigraphical Testament of Levi, in which the third heaven would be the heaven of judgment beyond which the soul may not rise while having a material body. The reference in 2 Cr 12 would have been likely read by the subscribers as 'been there, done that, got my diploma'.

Whether the popular understanding in the early church of the third heaven (the realm of the clouds, the realm of the stars, the abode of God), has the same source as Paul or is derived from speculations on what Paul meant, I don't know either.

Jiri

Toto

OK, GDon, Carrier did not locate an "actual" sublunar sphere in Plutarch. (Note that he thinks Plutarch did not give an accurate account of what people really believed.) I do not read him as ever claiming anything like a sublunar incarnation for Inanna.

That is probably why he speaks of "resemblances" and "allegory" and "his theory fits the ancient milieu well," and does not claim a slam dunk proof.

You may take this up with Carrier if you want. Or wait for his book to come out next year and see if he still takes this view.

Look at how Christians read the Hebrew scriptures - inaccurately and/or creatively, to find meaning that the Jews never saw there. Are you surprised that their thinking might not conform exactly to Plutarch's Platonism?

Please let this be the last thread on the sublunar sphere on this board.

GakuseiDon

Good, I'm glad we agree. But a sublunar incarnation is what he says is there. He even gives passages for where it can be found, but when you look it isn't there.

Yeah, well, I don't think Carrier gives an accurate account of what people believed either, but that is neither here nor there. It's the evidence that is important.

So why does he give this as an example under the heading "The Sublunar Incarnation Theory"??? He regards it as "proof of concept", but no-one argues that gods and men couldn't travel to the underworld.

The difference is this: If you argue that Jesus incarnates in the underworld, there would be no problem according to the metaphysics of the day. (See my references in the OP regarding their views of the four elements).

Now, apply the same metaphysics to the idea of Jesus incarnating in the sublunar realm. The first thing that would happen is that Jesus would say, "Holy crap!", shortly before he starts tumbling down. If he is lucky, he might be able to grab onto crystals stuck in the firmament dome, and pull himself up into the true heavens through the doors in the dome.

Read his review, and it's pretty clear what he is claiming:

As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form... his theory is entirely compatible with Jesus "becoming a man of flesh and blood," that is, in the sublunar sphere of heaven

But it isn't compatible at all. Doherty admits he has no direct evidence for it (I'm still happy to go over his indirect evidence -- which is basically crap IMHO -- if you like), and Carrier's "proof of concept" examples don't offer any evidence either, despite Carrier saying explicitly that the Osiris one does.

Yeah, I'll wait for the book. Shouldn't be critical until then Thanks, Dave31. Meanwhile, people will no doubt continue to point to Carrier's review as somehow offering validation to Doherty's "fleshly sublunar realm" theory, despite the fact that it doesn't.

Look, if you want to point people to Carrier's review because you believe it helps to validate Doherty's theory, then isn't there a certain onus on you to ensure (at least to your satisfaction) that Carrier's review does help validate Doherty's theory? If I've been able to offer any doubts about the value of Carrier's review, I hope you will continue the investigation yourself. As I said, it's not a difficult process. Plutarch's "Isis and Osiris" and the Inanna myth can both be found on-line. You can easily confirm for yourself.

I'm examining what Carrier actually claims Plutarch wrote. But Carrier is mistaken. What Christians make of it is irrelevant to this thread AFAICS.

You know, I'm both amused and outraged by your request -- a curious emotion. If you agree to question Doherty or anyone else who pops up making claims about incarnation in the sublunar realm, I'll be more than happy to stop posting on this topic.

Toto

Because he is discussing Doherty's Sublunar Incarnation theory.

Give me one example of someone pointing to Carrier's review as validating that particular detail in Doherty's theory.

Carrier is trying to describe what Christians actually might have believed. The claim is not that Christians took their view of reality from Plutarch, just that Plutarch is contemporary evidence that gives some indication, however inaccurate, of how first century thinkers viewed the world.

Doherty has not popped up here making claims about he sublunar realm, nor has anyone else.

I do not regard the details of the sublunar realm as necessary to Doherty's overall thesis. If Doherty is wrong on this point, that does not prove that his basic thesis is wrong, much less that there was a historical Jesus.

I haven't even gotten through Doherty's latest book (I've been so busy moderating. ) His arguments are too detailed to reproduce here, but also more nuanced than someone reading this thread might realize. And he still does not take the easy way out and declare kata sarka to be an anti-Marcionite interpolation - which would just make things so much simpler.

Yellum Notnef

I can't believe I just read another thread about a fleshy sublunar realm.

It doesn't matter to me what it does or doesn't validate since the very idea is about the dumbest thing I ever heard.