James The Least

I'd like to hear more about that. It seems to me that both of our two main sources for "Hellenistic Judaism," Philo and Josephus, have been "Christianized." The latter, not just in the Testimonium, but throughout his books.

mountainman

I have looked at this before but cannot locate my notes. Here is a google index with some brief mentions. If I find the notes I will post them. They may be in an old thread in the archives.

One of the books at the top of the index reports that the Christians cited Philo as "Philo the Bishop". This is blatant fabrication. Eusebius indulges in further fabrication by stating Philo met Peter in Rome. Philo makes an interesting study, and is one of the sources for the therapeutae, whom Eusebius would have everyone believe were primitive christians. The more likely scenario is that the therapeutae were an entire class of temple assistants and servants who staffed the numerous networks of pagan temples scattered throughout the Roman Empire until the epoch of Constantine the Great, who tore them down and built basilicas.

DCHindley

Atheos,

Philo attempted to modify Middle Platonic concepts of the first principals which cause the cosmos to operate as it does. Plato and the middle platonists saw three principals: The One, the Two, and the Craftsman (Demiurge), with the latter fashioning the cosmos out of always existing matter by use of Idea/Forms that reside in the mind of the One. Plato set out this concept of godhead in the dialogue Timaeus.

What Philo did was change the principals so that the One (the Jewish God) creates matter from nothing, then fashioning it by means of his own Reason (Logos). There is one place in his writings where he depicts this Logos as if it was a god in itself, and this is sometimes called "two Gods" although Philo might see it as an intermediary angel.

You can download copies of D T Runia's doctoral dissertation, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 2 vols 1983, at:
http://dspace.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/15502?mode=full

DCH

GakuseiDon

Yes, I've seen it. From your link to your page on my J:NGNM review, you appear to state that Carrier doesn't quite mean incarnation when he uses that term. You write:

Don is being his usual stickler self here, demanding an identical parallel or it's no cigar. First of all, he is being overly literal in regard to the term "incarnation."

What is the meaning of "incarnation", in your view? And how am I being "overly literal" by describing that we would expect it to have something to do with "taking on flesh"?

One thing I like about Carrier is that he attacks bad arguments by mythicists, including Kersey Graves-style mythicists who try to create parallels with Christianity by appropriating Christian-sounding words and claiming that they fit pagan gods (for example, describing gods as being "virgin-born" when they really mean "miraculously born")

So when Carrier writes here that Plutarch describes one of the myths of Osiris as "Osiris descends to the sublunar air, becomes incarnate, dies, and is restored to life", I take him to mean that Osiris takes on "flesh", of one sort or another.

Here is how Carrier describes your theory, in his "The Sublunar Incarnation Theory" section (note the use of the word 'Incarnation' there!) of his review of the Jesus Puzzle (my bold):

[Doherty's] theory is entirely compatible with Jesus "becoming a man of flesh and blood," that is, in the sublunar sphere of heaven, since, as Doherty explains several times, he had to in order to die and fulfill the law (only flesh can die, and be subject to the law, and blood was necessary for atonement).

Given that Carrier refers to "kata sarka", Innana's "flesh" and an "incarnated" Osiris in "The Sublunar Incarnation Theory" section, it seems strange if Carrier doesn't have "flesh" in mind for the use of the word "incarnation".

So, how do you describe Carrier's use of the word 'incarnation'? From your page on my review of J:NGNM (my bold):

Changing form as one descends into a lower level of the heavens is not incarnation, nor is the descent of Inanna into the underworld. The term is being loosely used by Carrier to signify the descent into a lower world, and the changes that this entails. Nor does it have to be specifically below the moon, in either case.

(In Carrier's talk, at around the 20 min 5 sec mark, Carrier says "On the most plausible mythicist theory, this incarnation, death and burial [of Jesus] took place in outer space just below the orbit of the Moon." So at least Carrier has that location of "below the Moon".)

Then, later in the same article, you reiterate:

And it sounds like Don is again insisting that he won't accept anything but a literal meaning of the word "incarnation."

If the claim is "Osiris incarnates" (see my Carrier quote above), then it is reasonable to expect to see the idea of Osiris taking on "flesh" of one sort of another. And it just isn't there. In fact, as far as I can see, your comment "The term is being loosely used by Carrier to signify the descent into a lower world", suggests you agree with my point that the idea of Osiris taking on "flesh" is not in sight.

Is there anything I've missed out in your response on the Osiris incarnation question, Earl?

Remember we are looking at Carrier's views here, so this is new stuff we are playing with. From my perspective, one of the frustrations of debating you is the ad hoc nature of your claims and the lack of evidence for your position. You can claim basically anything and most of your readers won't know enough to do anything but accept it.

But the above example is clearcut. So "incarnation" means "to signify the descent into a lower world and the changes that this entails", and my insistence that it means "taking on flesh" is "overly literal"? No, I'm sorry. You and Carrier can't go on about "kata sarka" and "sarx" and then not expect "flesh" to be involved in the definition somewhere.

Anyway, if "incarnation" is being used by Carrier in the way you describe it, then you and I agree that Plutarch does NOT describe Osiris as being incarnated. So case closed on that point.

I'll go on with the next claim by Carrier on Osiris when I get a chance (which won't be for a few days).

gurugeorge

I was a bit puzzled by that too. Since Carrier refers to his own book for a reference to that, I checked it. Here's the passage in Not The Impossible Faith:-

So it looks like Carrier is reading the Septuagint word Ἰησοῦ (usually coyly translated as "Joshua") as Jesus. A name most exalted, indeed.

Another way of making the same point, which I often do, would be to use "Joshua" to refer to the NT character normally known as "Jesus"

And why not indeed? Why should it be surprising that there was the idea of a Jesus-as-celestial-archangel among the pre-Diaspora Jews?

(If you combine the above line of thought with what April DeConick says about the development of Gnosticism from earlier Jewish ideas about Angels as divine intermediary figures, in her 13th gospel book, and further combine that with the researches of Margaret Barker, I think a broad picture starts to emerge of what a hypothetical pre-existing Jesus cult might have been about: a mystical/visionary remnant of an earlier Jewish Temple cultus. The very earliest form of Christianity is just this: people communicating with this divine being, having hallucinations of him. Paul is one of those. Then later, the myth gets "euhemerized" - i.e. it's brought down into a specific historical context on earth. I'm also pleased to see Carrier taking up my emphasis on the concept of "euhemerization" as a key concept in all this business )

GakuseiDon

Thanks for that, gurugeorge. Carrier's rather dramatic claim is that Philo tells us "that there was a pre-Christian belief in a celestial being actually named 'Jesus'".

Carrier appears to be using Philo's "On the confusion of tongues". I've highlighted the parts he used in his comments above in this passage by Philo:

I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"{18}{#zec 6:12.} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

This is Zechariah 6:11-12:

11 Take the silver and gold, make an elaborate crown, and set it on the head of Joshua (Jesus) the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 Then speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying:

“Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH!
From His place He shall branch out,
And He shall build the temple of the Lord;"

Philo doesn't mention "Joshua/Jesus" at all. The "actual name" that Philo gives is "East". It's interesting, but how does Philo's metaphorical reading of Zech show "that there was a pre-Christian belief in a celestial being actually named 'Jesus' (Joshua)"? Anyway, looking at the passage, Philo appears to be describing Adam, not Joshua the son of Jehozadak.

EarlDoherty

As usual, you are focusing on semantic questions, which are about the most useless kind there is. The literal understanding of "incarnation" is to be translated into a human on earth, with human flesh. Carrier is using "incarnation" (or suggesting it be so used) as descending to a lower level where one takes on an inferior form or substance within the realm of corruptibility. You refuse to accept the word in any application other than the literal one. Fine, that's your prerogative, but it makes any discussion pointless.

Plutarch never uses the word "flesh" for this form or substance, neither does Julian. That proves nothing. It's certainly nothing to make the fuss you make over it. I've always agreed that the use of the word "flesh" in the sense of 'spiritual flesh' by Christian and proto-Christian writers is characteristic of *their* language, not of any pagan writer. Osiris doesn't have to take on "flesh" to have Plutarch recounting essentially the same mythical idea as the Christian one.

As usual, you focus on some technicality and worry it to death like a dog with a bone as though you are making some very telling point which destroys the mythicist theory, or mine. And nothing will wrest that bone away from you. That is why I refuse to get into any extended debate with you.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Earl, this is where I am coming from: When Carrier states that "Osiris descends to the sublunar air, becomes incarnate, dies, and is restored to life" (my bold), he is obviously describing it to parallel how he sees the mythicist Jesus' story play out. I think most people know the literal meaning of "incarnation", and those who have been following the mythicist debate knows the extended arguments over "sarx" and "kata sarka". So Carrier does appear to be stating that Osiris had taken on flesh of some sort.

The problem is, the statement as written is not accurate. Does it destroy the mythicist case? No, not at all. Is it worth pointing out? To me it is. Carrier has a section in his original review of "The Jesus Puzzle" on "The Sublunar Incarnation Theory". People know I think you are wrong on the whole "fleshly sublunar realm" concept, so I don't think anyone is surprised to see me question Carrier's description of Osiris being "incarnated" in the sublunar air.

We are both refusing to get into extended debates with each other, and spending an extended amount of time doing it! But I'm hoping to pull in others interested in the conversation, to the extent of asking you questions about actual details of your theories.

You may be right when you wrote:

Changing form as one descends into a lower level of the heavens is not incarnation, nor is the descent of Inanna into the underworld. The term is being loosely used by Carrier to signify the descent into a lower world, and the changes that this entails.

While I'm not sure that this fits with Carrier's views on the need to take on flesh in order to die (see his review of TJP), it is irrelevent to the bone I am picking at, which is that there is no incarnation (in the literal sense of the word) of Osiris in a sublunar realm in Plutarch. (There is no death, burial or resurrection of Osiris in the sublunar air in Plutarch either, but that's for another day).

gurugeorge

OK, on listening to the lecture again, Carrier's exact words are:- "[Philo] tells us this [...], he tells us that there was a pre-Christian Jewish belief in a celestial being actually named Jesus." The emphasis is Carrier's. It seems he means "tells us" in the scholarly sense (i.e. upon exegesis), and the way he says "actually named Jesus" it seems likely that he means "the celestial being Philo is talking about is actually named Jesus" (i.e. in Zechariah); but it comes across as him claiming that Philo says there was a celestial being named Jesus.

The name given by the Lord to Jesus in Zechariah in the LXX here is ἀνατολή, which is the same word as used in Philo here. So the Lord names Jesus "Anatole".

Philo is clearly talking about an entity who is called "Jesus" by Zechariah, and Philo clearly describes Zechariah's "Jesus", also dubbed "Anatole" by the Lord, as "that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image".

(i.e., to be clearer, Carrier should have said "a study of Philo tells us ...", but I don't think he's saying anything that isn't backed up by the texts)

aa5874

Well, your statement is not really logical. No Apologetc source that quoted Zechariah claimed Jesus was Crucified in the Sub-Lunar.

It is so amazing that a person can appear completely logical when arguing against fundamentalist but use the very same absurd arguments to support their position.

The Jesus story is placed on earth based on the NT Canon and his trial BEFORE Pilate is claimed to have happened in Jerusalem when Caiaphas was High Priest.

It makes ZERO sense to blame the Jews for the Rejection and crucifixion of Jesus if he was EXECUTED by non-human beings and Non-Jews.