DCHindley

Like I do with a lot of books, I look first at the Index and Bibliography, just to get a feel for what the author has read (or at least cracked open for a peek) and what subjects he finds of interest.

As I have said before, I'll give Earl credit for having closely watched a number of online discussion boards as I can see a large number of subjects and authors/books I know were discussed on Crosstalk2, Synoptic-L and Jesus Mysteries. His interests cover a really broad range of subjects, many of which are obscure. How many people have read Darnell & Fiensy's translation of Hellenistic Synagogue Prayers in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha? Unfortunately, you didn't cite the translators as the source for the commentary on the influence of Philo seen in them, or mention OTP as the source where this work was to be found in English. He has at least had the fortitude of tracking down a copy Robert Eisler's extremely hard to find Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist and appears to have read it. His reference a rather large number of tertiary sources (modern commentaries) must have required the taking of an unbelievable number of well organized notes to keep it all straight. The Index and Bibliography are in correctly style. Bravo!

On the issue of tertiary sources, modern authors account for 132 of the 487 subjects in the index (27%)! These probably should be separated from the subject index into an index of modern authors referenced. Even so, this does suggest that Earl might be relying too much on tertiary literature for his understanding of the subjects at hand.

In the Bibliography, ancient authors account for only 8 out of the 203 authors cited (8%). It would have been helpful to have an index of ancient works cited (NT, OT, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Greek and Roman works, including chapter & verse or section).

I am in the process of highlighting the points that have to do with cosmology and structure of the world and Platonism in general, and hope to get that far by the end of this weekend. I still haven't received an e-mail about the inter-library loan I requested on Platonic cosmology, so I need to check on this. Fun fun.

Until then ...

DCH

DCHindley

Well,

Obviously I did not get to this as quickly as I had hoped. Regardless, I did manage to go through and hilight passages or terms that reference Plato/Platonism, and what he terms the Sublunar realm (in the Index but not in the Body of the book itself). Again, I will have to say that Earl had done a really astonishing amount of reading.

From the books on Platonism I had managed to obtain from the local University library, it is clear that he has read up on the relative history of the various Philosophical schools. However, I was disappointed to see him early on assuming his "vertical" concept of cosmology separating an inperishable/spiritual heavens from a perishable/materialistic world, with the dividing point being just below the orbit of the moon which inhabits the lowest level of the heavens.

I would have really liked to see this assumption fleshed out a lot more clearly, considering it is a key concept in Earl's interpretation of the construction of the Christian Jesus myth.

This kind of close up analysis of ancient cosmology, especially as seen by Plato, his Academy and the later Middle Platonists, and as seen by Stoics (since this has a bearing on the Logos theology expressed by Philo and early Christian literature (Gospel of John & Hebrews), would help support Earl's interpretation.

I'll try to do this myself in the upcoming week or so, time willing.

DCH

EarlDoherty

I'm not sure what caused your "disappointment". Are you disputing the principle itself of the imperishable vs. perishable division of the universe, with the dividing point at the moon, as something that was not believed in generally during the era of (Middle) Platonism? On what basis? I think the evidence for that general cosmological principle (though it could be fudged occasionally in practice) is quite secure.

What do you mean by the term "assumption"? That it is not based on evidence? Or that I didn't supply enough? Perhaps you found the layout of my evidence problematic. I would like to point out that, essentially, the entire first half of both my books is the presentation of a complex picture of beliefs both within earliest Christianity (the Christ cult) and background philosophy/cosmology both Jewish and pagan, a picture which presents a set of puzzle pieces which I have argued can be assembled into a belief by the Pauline cult that their spiritual Son/Christ was sacrificed in the heavens (though not necessarily thought of as specifically below the moon, though it could have been). Because of its complexity, the layout may have proven challenging. But the conclusion was anything but an "assumption."

Thanks,
Earl Doherty

DCHindley

Hi Earl,

The "disappointment" is in the fact that you immediately assumed this vertical world view - including your understanding that what is above is reflected in what is below - before you had presented evidence to support it. Dillon's book, The Middle Platonists, which I can clearly tell you have studied, discusses the evolution of Middle Platonist thought about the nature of the Receptacle (the world of time & place, as opposed to the abstract world of the Ideas and God itself) and what kind of elements and souls properly belong to each region of it. I'm having difficulty finding anything about a what is below being an image of what exists above. Parallels to Jewish concepts of a heavenly worship of God in the highest heaven being the pattern for the earthly worship carried out by the priests as prescribed by the Law is not the same thing IMHO.

Personally, I think you should have kept the title Jesus Puzzle. I think it would have been better for you to lay out the pieces of the puzzle first, then reflect upon it a bit, before putting it all together. You present your fitting together of the puzzle first, then here and there give reasons for your solution.

I found out that the OhioLink library I have privileges with had an out of date e-mail address for me, so the book I ordered on Plato's Cosmology was sent back after I did not come in for it. Now corrected and re-ordered. Once I have that, I'll see if I can organize my own thoughts on the influence of Platonism, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism on the development of Christianity and Gnosticism.

This is important to me as my own has-to-be-wrong theory that Christianity and Paulism were independent movements that merged in the late 1st or early 2nd century CE requires me to explain how Christianity's High Christology could have formed, without recourse to the option that a Christian Paul came up with it by reinterpreting previously received tradition.

It is my hunch that the Gnostic myth of a divine Aeon descending into the material world to rescue certain souls trapped there by an ignorant Creator god, is a sister to the Christian myth of a good God sending his divine son to earth to save faithful souls from the ruler of this world. The former is much closer to Platonic thought about the nature of the universe than the latter, but this may reflect influence from an intellectual versus a popular understanding of a Platonic inspired redeemer myth.

DCH