GakuseiDon

Yes, I agree that if C is true, then D is irrelevant. However, if C has a dependency on D, then it is weakened if D is found to be false.

Doherty's case is affected only so far as he relies on pagan ideas to support his view of Paul. Since he does indeed do this (examples earlier in this thread), in my view his case is affected.

I'm not sure what you mean by "less like Jupiter". But Paul's usage of "in the flesh", "born of woman", etc, means IMHO that Paul is placing Jesus on earth. If Doherty's "dimension in the sphere of flesh" disappears, then I can't see anything that would justify having Paul placing Jesus anywhere than on earth except for special pleading, e.g. "Oh, Paul had his own concepts about 'born of woman'". It's possible I suppose, but unfalsifiable.

I'm tackling this from the pagan side since Doherty refers quite often to pagan beliefs, particularly "Middle Platonic" beliefs, for support on his views about Paul. If he is wrong, then those parts of his argument relying on pagan beliefs need to be re-evaluated. None of this will effect those who believe that Doherty has already proven his case from Paul alone, though. A grok is as good as a nod to a blind bat (with apologies to Monty Python!)

jakejonesiv

These are proto-orthodox redactions. The Marcionite version does not contain them. Even Earl has admitted the possibilty.

Hi Don,

Thanks for having the patience to answer my questions. Yes, I think that we have a misunderstanding because we seem to be arguing in circles. Hopefully, we can get the situation clarified.

I think you are saying that all myths that were deemed to have occured on earth were believed to be literally true, and that all other myths were not true.

I think you are arguing that the above statement is true regardless of whether the myth occurs in classical mythology, the mystery religions, Christianity, or Judaism.

I think you are arguing that if a myth was said to occur on earth, it always has a historical kernal of truth.

I think you are arguing that in the minds of the inhabitants of the Roman empire in the first few centuries CE, (whether they be pagans, Jews, or Christians), all had had mutaully exclusive categories of belief:
It was either literally true or had an allegorical or symbolic meaning, but could never have both.

I don't think that you make any distinction between educated pagans, who would tend to regard all stories of gods as non-literal, and uneducated pagans who were likely to believe any damn fool thing.

I think that anytime you see the word "flesh" (SARX), you automatically conclude that the entity referenced was a literal, historical human being.

I think you assume that the Pauline Epistles (at least the so-called seven genuine epistles) were written by St. Paul around the middle of the first century, and that no significant changes were made to this body of work between the time of alleged composition and the earliest extant texts.

Can you clarify the above points where I am wrong about your postion?

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Hi, GDon.

I was wondering whether a bit of rephrasing would help your location argument, since I have seen some confusion on some of these threads as to what (I think) you mean to say.

If I understand you correctly, you are not saying that ancient pagans interpreted all myths as having either occurred on earth or not occurred at all, since of course some myths are set in the heavens. It seems to me that what you are saying (and please correct me if I am mistaken here) is that all the pagans for which you have found any evidence one way or another interpreted their myths as having either occurred exactly where they seem to be set or not occurred at all (the allegory option).

IOW, in the myth of ascension to heaven (such as that of Hercules) the ascender always seems to begin on the earth and then end up in heaven, as if there were a very real geography between earth and heaven. And this kind of myth, if I understand you correctly, the ancient pagans of which we are aware did not conceive of as having happened anywhere else other than earth and heaven, in that order, and of course the various layers in between.

So, when (for example) Revelation 12.7 says that Michael and the dragon conducted a war in heaven, you take heaven as the actual site of this war (unless it is just an allegory), right?

Because I think some of your fellow debaters are under the impression that all it takes to puncture your balloon is to find a myth set in the heavens.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben!

Thanks for help out here. You have a good knack for bringing clarity to a discussion.

Yes, I think you have accurately described what I have been thinking, because it is exactly what GDon wrote here.

I think that GDon is trying to a priori rule out Earl Doherty's theory that Jesus was crucified in the heavens by asserting that no myth that occured in the heavens was believed.

I think if GDOn concedes that myths set in the heavens could really have been believed to occur, then his argument against ED becomes considerably more nuanced.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Thanks.

GDon sometimes leaves the qualifiers out, but elsewhere he makes quite clear that he is talking about things that either are or are not appropriate activities (in the mind of ancient pagans) for the space above the earth and below the firmament.

Is that how you read him? If that is what he is saying, then I disagree with him.

I think, however, and he can certainly correct me here, that he is affirming the purported geographical features of the myths, provided they are taken literally, not figuratively. If the myth appears to be set in heaven, I think he will agree that many pagans thought it really took place in heaven. If the myth appears to be set on earth, I think he will agree that many pagans thought it really took place on earth.

I think you are misreading him here. (And if I am the one misreading him, I beg him to correct me on the matter.)

Ben.

GakuseiDon

So, proto-orthodox scribes put in redactions like "in the flesh" because it supported a proto-orthodox position? Then, doesn't this impact Doherty's case that it was used to describe entities in "the dimension in the sphere of flesh"? Wouldn't proto-orthodox scribes avoid such expressions if that was the case?

Not quite. Ben states my position clearly. Stories of gods that were placed on earth were thought to have occured on earth or were non-literal (e.g. allegorical, symbolic, or just legends). They weren't placed in another "dimension". Stories that were set in heaven were thought to have occured in heaven or were non-literal (e.g. symbolic).

I'm concentrating on the pagan writings as close to the time of Paul as possible.

No. It might be just a legend. My objections to Doherty doesn't rule out Wells mythicism, for example.

No. Some writers regarded early gods as being real people, but with legendary additions.

Doherty is the person who introduced the term "average pagan". On most matters people believe the prevalling opinions of the time, which are often (though not always of course) set by educated people. I think we should only make a distinction if the evidence goes that way.

I think the evidence goes that way, especially if the proto-orthodox used such terms to combat Marcionism as you claimed at the top. If the proto-orthodox inserted such terms, what would that imply about the word "flesh" in your opinion?

No, I haven't really expressed an opinion about that as far as I remember. I've been responding to points raised by Doherty.

GakuseiDon

Hi Ben. Yes, you are correct. But I can see that I've caused some confusion by leaving out the qualifiers in some posts, as jakejones pointed out. Thanks for the clarification!

jakejonesiv

I see. I had thought you were making a larger point than merely opposing Earl.

Jake Jones IV

GakuseiDon

Nope. I'm looking at whether evidence from pagan writings supports Doherty's "dimension in the sphere of flesh" concept for Paul. I can't rule out that other types of mythicism are valid, so even if Doherty is wrong that doesn't mean there was a historical Jesus.

Earlier you said that Paul's comments like "in the flesh", etc, were "proto-orthodox redactions. The Marcionite version does not contain them. Even Earl has admitted the possibilty."

1. Where does Earl admit this possibility?
2. Are you saying that expressions like those indicate a belief in historicity, i.e. an earthly existence?

Ben C Smith

Doherty expressed interest in treating such phrases as proto-orthodox insertions in a post from last summer. He seemed to be arguing two separate things:

1. Phrases like born of a woman, original to Paul, are good ways to indicate mythical activities in a sublunar sphere.
2. Phrases like born of a woman, interpolated into Paul, are good ways to indicate normal human activities on earth.

One excerpt:

Ben.