Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 08-28-2011, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Doherty's claims about Paul's Jesus are different from his claims about the context in which such a Jesus could have arisen. Even if he is proved totally wrong about the Middle Platonists -- and I have no doubt that sufficient vindictiveness coupled with the usual historicist defender bad faith and appeals to negative sociological judgments about Doherty's thesis can accomplish that -- it means nothing. Paul's obvious worship of a Cosmic Savior figure still remains a fact -- just one that Doherty has failed to adequately contextualize.

I don't understand the mindset here. Let's assume that Doherty's theory is now mainstream, and completely non-controversial. Wouldn't trying to determine how Christianity arose from the philosophical background still be on the agenda?

I kind of see what you mean. You mentioned Lamarckism, but a more appropriate analogy would be Stephen Jay Gould's "punctured equilibrium" which challenges Darwin's concept of "gradualism". Regardless of whether punctured equilibrium or gradualism is true, in no way does it counter evolution as a fact, even if creationists like to use it that way.

Similarly, even if Middle Platonist beliefs don't support Doherty, it may not disprove Doherty's overall theory.

However, if Doherty invokes it to support the idea that Hebrews "embod[ies] the fundamental principles of Middle Platonism", what should we do? Is it worth Doug Shaver or any other supporter's time to investigate the claim, even if Doherty's overall theory is right?

GakuseiDon · 08-28-2011, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Yes, of course, Doherty's silences are not merely "there are no concrete references there" but instead go further to note that Paul refrains from mentioning the historical Jesus where the logic of the situation inevitably demands it, as in 1 Cor 7 where he is giving instructions on marriage or in Romans where he says we should listen to the Authorities, god's representatives on earth. These silences resound throughout the Christian literature of the period.

That logic is seriously flawed, and Doherty uses it throughout his work. The flaw has nothing to do with MJ or HJ, it's just bad logic.

Consider for a moment that we don't know for sure how much of the Gospels accurately reflect either the sayings or actions of Jesus, if at all. That's the ideal way to start, correct?

The logic you are proposing is this:

1. We don't know whether Jesus said or did the things described in the Gospels.
2. If Jesus had said X, then Paul would have quoted Jesus on X
3. Paul didn't quote Jesus on X

Therefore: Well what, exactly? Isn't the conclusion "Jesus didn't say X" the logical conclusion? What else would you conclude?

If you want to argue that Paul, whose focus was on Gentiles, must have inevitably quoted Jesus at some point, then this is an argument from personal incredulity. It certainly needs to be substantiated by something.

Doherty simply repeats this logic through his book. "If the Gospels are true..." Well, what if the Gospels AREN'T true? It's just appealing to the false dichotomy between "Gospel Jesus" and "Mythical Jesus".

There's no doubt that the question of why Paul and the early Christian record doesn't appeal to sayings by Jesus is a good one, but we need more than appeals to "human nature", arguments from personal incredulity and bad logic.

Toto · 08-28-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

The logic you are proposing is this:

1. We don't know whether Jesus said or did the things described in the Gospels.
2. If Jesus had said X, then Paul would have quoted Jesus on X
3. Paul didn't quote Jesus on X

Therefore: Well what, exactly? Isn't the conclusion "Jesus didn't say X" the logical conclusion? What else would you conclude?

You could conclude that the gospels are not at all reliable.

Quote:

If you want to argue that Paul, whose focus was on Gentiles, must have inevitably quoted Jesus at some point, then this is an argument from personal incredulity. It certainly needs to be substantiated by something.

You mean something more than the usual patterns of humanity - where people quote the words of important people? What difference would it make that Paul's focus was on the gentiles?

Quote:

Doherty simply repeats this logic through his book. "If the Gospels are true..." Well, what if the Gospels AREN'T true? It's just appealing to the false dichotomy between "Gospel Jesus" and "Mythical Jesus".

Historicists have no other source for the historical Jesus than the gospels, properly massaged by their criteria. That's the point of Ehrman's lectures. Without the gospels, there is no historical Jesus worth talking about.

Do you contend that there was a historical Jesus who lived, died, inspired followers, and then the followers managed to forget every relevant detail about his life, after which other followers invented an entire history for him?

Quote:

There's no doubt that the question of why Paul and the early Christian record doesn't appeal to sayings by Jesus is a good one, but we need more than appeals to "human nature", arguments from personal incredulity and [allegedly] bad logic.

What more do you need?

aa5874 · 08-28-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

....Doherty simply repeats this logic through his book. "If the Gospels are true..." Well, what if the Gospels AREN'T true? It's just appealing to the false dichotomy between "Gospel Jesus" and "Mythical Jesus".....

Well, if the Jesus stories are NOT true then "Paul" was a LIAR or a False witness and the Jesus stories would be considered Myth fables.

1Co 15:15 -

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not....

Fiction stories cannot be accepted as the source of the "historical Jesus".

Once the Jesus stories are NOT true then they can be accepted as MYTH fables like the multiple Myth fables of antiquity.

Marcion's Phantom Myth fable is no different to the Jesus story. They ALL AREN'T true but BELIEVED to be TRUE figures of history. Even a Phantom.

DCHindley · 08-28-2011, 09:20 PM

One of the other resources I looked at besides Dillon is R T Runia's work Philo Of Alexandria And The Timaeus Of Plato (1983) vol 1
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/15502

The Timaeus, for those who do not know, is a Dialogue of Plato in which he places his own concepts about the creation of the cosmos in the mouth of one Timaeus.

Runia sez:

The following list gives a selection of the main problems of interpretation which gave rise to controversy.*

(1) Is the creational event to be regarded as an act which takes place in time or does it symbolize an eternal process of genesis?

(2) What is the identity of the demiurge and what is his relation to the world of the ideas?

(3) How are we to conceive the nature and activity of the receptacle?

(4) What is the relation between the analysis of reality in the Timaeus and the metaphysics presented in books VI & VII of the Republic and the so-called Unwritten doctrines?(4)

(5) Is Plato's evaluation of the cosmos and its parts (especially the celestial beings) in the final analysis positive or negative?

(6) How is man's soul related to the cosmic soul, the demiurge and the ideas?

*The list is similar to the one compiled by Dillon 6-7, but looks more to the problems raised in later Platonism than those discussed in the circle of Plato's immediate successors. For example, the problem of how 'any combination of immaterial triangles can create solid substance' (Dillon's fifth) was not a hot topic in Middle Platonism.

Later he says:

The following list gives, in very general terms, those philosophical doctrines found in Middle Platonism which are almost wholly derived from the Timaeus and its interpretative tradition.

(1) The doctrine of the three principles - God, the ideas, matter. On this doctrine the entire edifice of the philosophical systematics is built.

(2) Theology. The highest god is a transcendent nous, reminiscent of Aristotle's Unmoved mover. He creates only indirectly, by inciting the second god (i.e. the rational part of the cosmic soul) to action. Plato's demiurge is thus split in two.

(3) The ideas. The ideas are considered transcendent real entities, but their function is more 'physical' than epistemological, i.e. to serve as paradigm for the cosmos and all its natural parts (ta kata fusin).

(4) The ideas as God's thoughts. The ideas as transcendentalia are located in God's nous as the object of his thought. Creation takes place when God looks to his thoughts as cosmic paradigm.

(5) Matter. The Platonic receptacle is interpreted under the influence of Aristotelian ulh and Stoic ousia. It is the unformed, quality-less substrate out of which the cosmos is created. A tendency towards (mild) dualism, in which matter is regarded as a source of evil, is sometimes encountered.

(6) Creation. Under the influence of Plato's account the structure of reality is explained in a creationistic way, even if a literal creation is denied.

(7) Cosmogony. The question of whether the genesis did or did not take place in time (i.e. whether the Timaeus should be read literally or not) was endlessly discussed. The division between literalists (Plutarch, Atticus) and nonliteralists (the majority) is fundamental in Middle Platonism.

(8) The theme of divine Providence. God's providential activity is explicitly affirmed, and efforts were made to correlate it with the problems of fate and free will. God is, by definition, never the cause of evil.

(9) The cosmic soul. The important role of Plato's cosmic soul is retained. But note two modifications: its functioning is portrayed very much in terms of the Stoic Logos; it can be regarded as irrational and as awakened and made rational by the creating god.

(10) Cosmology. A hierarchy of living beings, much more complex than that of the Timaeus, is introduced under the influence of the Old Academy. [cf. Dillon 30-32] There is much interest in demonology and much indecision as to whether to accept a fifth element. [emphasis mine]

(11) Man's soul. The doctrine of the tripartition and trilocation of the soul is retained, but it is considered that essentially the soul has two parts, to logikon and to alogon.

(12) The telos. The doctrine of man's end in life is a part of ethics. It is summed up in the Platonic slogan omoiwsis qew found in the Theatetus. By reading it into the Timaeus, it is connected with the conception of qewria.

What I found most interesting is how he described the reception of Platonic cosmology among the learned and the wanna-bes of the day:

It would be a serious mistake, however, to conclude that the Timaeus was only read and studied by professional philosophers or students of philosophy. The very fact that it was regarded as the 'Platonists' Bible' meant that its influence inevitably filtered down to men of letters and even those who had received only a smattering of learning. Indeed the Timaeus was the only Greek prose work that up to the third century A.D. every educated man could be assumed to have read. This is well illustrated by the citations and allusions in early Christian writers such as Clement of Rome, Athenagoras, Justin, Theophilus, the author of the Cohortatio ad Graecos, Minucius Felix, few of whom one would wish to describe as genuine students of philosophy.

Gotta go to bed (tomorrow is my son's 1st day of 6th grade, catching the bus around 7:00am)

DCH

DCH

maryhelena · 08-28-2011, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Why not join in on the investigation? That is, see whether Doherty is right or wrong?

Because it doesn't matter. For two reasons.

Here's why. Let me take a circuitous route.

By the beginning of the 19th century, scientists had already come to understand that species had changed over time. The problem was explaining that change. Models of this change, such as Lamarckism, were proposed. When these ideas were disproved, nobody gave up on the fact of change.

Facts are different from the models that explain these facts.

Similarly, in the US everyone has noted a curious fact, a long-term drop in violent crime. Numerous explanations have been proposed, none has gained widespread currency, as I understand. Nevertheless, the fact of crime decline remains a fact.

Facts are different from the models that explain them.

Doherty has identified a curious fact in Paul: he doesn't know anything about a human being named Jesus. Paul instead seems to be referring to a Cosmic Savior figure, complicated by later interpolation by the usual Christian forgers and fraudsters of the day. Doherty has further proposed a context or a model for understanding that fact that involves a certain understanding of the Middle Platonists.

Doherty's claims about Paul's Jesus are different from his claims about the context in which such a Jesus could have arisen. Even if he is proved totally wrong about the Middle Platonists -- and I have no doubt that sufficient vindictiveness coupled with the usual historicist defender bad faith and appeals to negative sociological judgments about Doherty's thesis can accomplish that -- it means nothing. Paul's obvious worship of a Cosmic Savior figure still remains a fact -- just one that Doherty has failed to adequately contextualize.

But there is another problem with the whole "Middle Platonist turn" that is, I think, more fundamental. Its wrongness doesn't lie in Doherty's or Gibson's understanding of a bunch of second-century intellectuals building fulsomely incorrect fantasies in the sky, but in the very fact that these intellectuals building fantasies in the sky were working with a totally different set of beliefs than the people who converted to early Christinsanity. I doubt very much that the ordinary Joe Wine-Amphorae of the second century thought of his ideas about the way the Cosmos worked in any clear-cut way. Rather, my experience is that ordinary folk beliefs tend to be cheerfully shallow, plastic, syncretic and internally contradictory, all of which the intellectual class finds messy and distasteful (Paul's letters often strike me that way). Such folk beliefs don't make sense to outsiders because consistency is the hobgoblin of intellectuals with the time on their hands to build castles in the air, especially modern westerners for whom internal consistency in moral and intellectual matters is a powerful cultural preference. And from that period of the 1-3 centuries, the Laputans are all we really have.

In other words, using the Middle Platonists as a context for Paul is like GDon of 4000 AD trying to understand the multiverse of Moorcock's Sailor on the Seas of Fate through the lens of the quantum alternate realities proposed in late 20th century physics textbooks. GIGO.

Which is why, though I frequently re-read Doherty, I always skip the discussion about the Middle Platonists. It. just. doesn't. matter.

Vorkosigan

This is a very much needed post - thanks, Vorkosigan.

GakuseiDon · 08-29-2011, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

The logic you are proposing is this:

1. We don't know whether Jesus said or did the things described in the Gospels.
2. If Jesus had said X, then Paul would have quoted Jesus on X
3. Paul didn't quote Jesus on X

Therefore: Well what, exactly? Isn't the conclusion "Jesus didn't say X" the logical conclusion? What else would you conclude?

You could conclude that the gospels are not at all reliable.

But that's already established -- see No. 1.

So what else can you conclude?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

If you want to argue that Paul, whose focus was on Gentiles, must have inevitably quoted Jesus at some point, then this is an argument from personal incredulity. It certainly needs to be substantiated by something.

You mean something more than the usual patterns of humanity - where people quote the words of important people?

Yes, exactly. Something we see missing from much of the first two centuries of early writings. Why does "Acts" give little to no quotes from the historical Jesus, for example? It goes against what we would expect, wouldn't it? Or Tertullian's "Ad nationes". Or most of the letters by Ignatius. Etc, etc. And why this "lack of a sense of history" about almost everything?

As Doherty says in "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":

Another aspect is the fact that in almost all the [Second Century] apologists we find a total lack of a sense of history. They do not talk of their religion as an ongoing movement with a specific century of development behind it, through a beginning in time, place and circumstances, and a spread in similar specifics. Some of them pronounce it to be very "old" and they look back to roots in the Jewish prophets rather than to the life of a recent historical Jesus. In this, of course, they are much like the 1st century epistle writers. (Page 477)

I think appealing to "human nature" may be misleading, in that you are using modern Western thinking in trying to determine how a culture 2000 years ago would have expressed themselves. Obviously something was going on back then that determined how they wrote, that extended beyond the question of Jesus, regardless of whether he was historical or not. At the least, it is anachronistic to assume how they would have written.

Toto · 08-29-2011, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You could conclude that the gospels are not at all reliable.

But that's already established -- see No. 1.

So what else can you conclude?

You didn't follow my train of thought. If the gospels are totally unreliable, there is no way to find or reconstruct the historical Jesus.

Quote:

...

. Why does "Acts" give little to no quotes from the historical Jesus, for example? It goes against what we would expect, wouldn't it?

It is about what one would expect if there were no historical Jesus, and the mythical Jesus had not been completely "fleshed" out when the first draft of Acts was written.

Quote:

Or Tertullian's "Ad nationes". Or most of the letters by Ignatius. Etc, etc. And why this "lack of a sense of history" about almost everything?

Because Christianity was not based on the historical events that it claimed. It was based on reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of the Jewish Wars. Early Christians decided that Jesus had to have had a human and divine nature, and looked for the details in the Scriptures when they wanted them.

Quote:

...

I think appealing to "human nature" may be misleading, in that you are using modern Western thinking in trying to determine how a culture 2000 years ago would have expressed themselves. Obviously something was going on back then that determined how they wrote, that extended beyond the question of Jesus, regardless of whether he was historical or not. At the least, it is anachronistic to assume how they would have written.

We can see how histories were written in the Roman Empire, and the gospels do not read like histories or biographies of actual people.

You've been appealing to this vague "something that was going on" for some time. You don't seem to have made any progress in identifying it. I would suggest that the reason there is no history in these early Christian writings is that there just was no history.

And don't try to pretend that the second century writers were historicists in the modern sense. They believed that Jesus was a historical character for theological reasons, not because they had any historical evidence.

Steven Carr · 08-29-2011, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

And finally Paul provides few historical markers about anything.

To translate this into English, Paul talks about the life of Abraham, Sarah etc, but not episodes in the life of Jesus.

Hebrews talks about people who reject messages , but , of course, uses Old Testament examples.

Hebrews talks about people who betray valuable things for a pittance , but , of course, uses Old Testament examples.

Jude talks about Enoch, Moses, Sodom, anybody except Jesus.

James uses Old Testament examples, and never refers to anything Jesus had done.

When people say Paul provides few historical details about anything, what they mean is that early Christians used the Old Testament for a source of what to write about, rather than these fabled oral traditions of Jesus, which didn't serve their purpose of providing suitable subjects to discuss.

dog-on · 08-29-2011, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

And finally Paul provides few historical markers about anything.

To translate this into English, Paul talks about the life of Abraham, Sarah etc, but not episodes in the life of Jesus.

Hebrews talks about people who reject messages , but , of course, uses Old Testament examples.

Hebrews talks about people who betray valuable things for a pittance , but , of course, uses Old Testament examples.

Jude talks about Enoch, Moses, Sodom, anybody except Jesus.

James uses Old Testament examples, and never refers to anything Jesus had done.

When people say Paul provides few historical details about anything, what they mean is that early Christians used the Old Testament for a source of what to write about, rather than these fabled oral traditions of Jesus, which didn't serve their purpose of providing suitable subjects to discuss.

I am always amazed that revelation via the writings is so hard for people to accept, especially when it is stated point blank by the author and that everything written by the author, basically, confirms this to have been the case.

08-28-2011, 09:20 PM	#35
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	D T Runia on Middle Platonism One of the other resources I looked at besides Dillon is R T Runia's work Philo Of Alexandria And The Timaeus Of Plato (1983) vol 1 http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/15502 The Timaeus, for those who do not know, is a Dialogue of Plato in which he places his own concepts about the creation of the cosmos in the mouth of one Timaeus. Runia sez: The following list gives a selection of the main problems of interpretation which gave rise to controversy.* (1) Is the creational event to be regarded as an act which takes place in time or does it symbolize an eternal process of genesis? (2) What is the identity of the demiurge and what is his relation to the world of the ideas? (3) How are we to conceive the nature and activity of the receptacle? (4) What is the relation between the analysis of reality in the Timaeus and the metaphysics presented in books VI & VII of the Republic and the so-called Unwritten doctrines?(4) (5) Is Plato's evaluation of the cosmos and its parts (especially the celestial beings) in the final analysis positive or negative? (6) How is man's soul related to the cosmic soul, the demiurge and the ideas? The list is similar to the one compiled by Dillon 6-7, but looks more to the problems raised in later Platonism than those discussed in the circle of Plato's immediate successors. For example, the problem of how 'any combination of immaterial triangles can create solid substance' (Dillon's fifth) was not a hot topic in Middle Platonism. Later he says: The following list gives, in very general terms, those philosophical doctrines found in Middle Platonism which are almost wholly derived from the Timaeus* and its interpretative tradition. (1) The doctrine of the three principles - God, the ideas, matter. On this doctrine the entire edifice of the philosophical systematics is built. (2) Theology. The highest god is a transcendent nous, reminiscent of Aristotle's Unmoved mover. He creates only indirectly, by inciting the second god (i.e. the rational part of the cosmic soul) to action. Plato's demiurge is thus split in two. (3) The ideas. The ideas are considered transcendent real entities, but their function is more 'physical' than epistemological, i.e. to serve as paradigm for the cosmos and all its natural parts (ta kata fusin). (4) The ideas as God's thoughts. The ideas as transcendentalia are located in God's nous as the object of his thought. Creation takes place when God looks to his thoughts as cosmic paradigm. (5) Matter. The Platonic receptacle is interpreted under the influence of Aristotelian ulh and Stoic ousia. It is the unformed, quality-less substrate out of which the cosmos is created. A tendency towards (mild) dualism, in which matter is regarded as a source of evil, is sometimes encountered. (6) Creation. Under the influence of Plato's account the structure of reality is explained in a creationistic way, even if a literal creation is denied. (7) Cosmogony. The question of whether the genesis did or did not take place in time (i.e. whether the Timaeus should be read literally or not) was endlessly discussed. The division between literalists (Plutarch, Atticus) and nonliteralists (the majority) is fundamental in Middle Platonism. (8) The theme of divine Providence. God's providential activity is explicitly affirmed, and efforts were made to correlate it with the problems of fate and free will. God is, by definition, never the cause of evil. (9) The cosmic soul. The important role of Plato's cosmic soul is retained. But note two modifications: its functioning is portrayed very much in terms of the Stoic Logos; it can be regarded as irrational and as awakened and made rational by the creating god. (10) Cosmology. A hierarchy of living beings, much more complex than that of the Timaeus, is introduced under the influence of the Old Academy. [cf. Dillon 30-32] There is much interest in demonology and much indecision as to whether to accept a fifth element. [emphasis mine] (11) Man's soul. The doctrine of the tripartition and trilocation of the soul is retained, but it is considered that essentially the soul has two parts, to logikon and to alogon. (12) The telos. The doctrine of man's end in life is a part of ethics. It is summed up in the Platonic slogan omoiwsis qew found in the Theatetus. By reading it into the Timaeus, it is connected with the conception of qewria. What I found most interesting is how he described the reception of Platonic cosmology among the learned and the wanna-bes of the day: It would be a serious mistake, however, to conclude that the Timaeus was only read and studied by professional philosophers or students of philosophy. The very fact that it was regarded as the 'Platonists' Bible' meant that its influence inevitably filtered down to men of letters and even those who had received only a smattering of learning. Indeed the Timaeus was the only Greek prose work that up to the third century A.D. every educated man could be assumed to have read. This is well illustrated by the citations and allusions in early Christian writers such as Clement of Rome, Athenagoras, Justin, Theophilus, the author of the Cohortatio ad Graecos, Minucius Felix, few of whom one would wish to describe as genuine students of philosophy. Gotta go to bed (tomorrow is my son's 1st day of 6th grade, catching the bus around 7:00am) DCH DCH

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.