GakuseiDon

Andrew, I was wondering what do you meant by "weird"? I thought that treating the myths as allegory was a common view during the "Middle Platonism" period? Tatian writes about 80 years after Plutarch, complaining about this view:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html
I know that Metrodorus was an Epicurean, but he wrote around 2nd C BCE. So I had thought (perhaps foolishly?) that the allegorical viewpoint of Plutarch would have been regarded as mainstream by then?

Toto

Do you understand what is meant by an urban legend? It does not appear that you do. One person writing a book does not produce an urban myth. If you think he is wrong, just say so. You don't have to drag anyone else into it.

Here you are accusing Doherty of lacking sources, and you can't get that straight.

Doherty cites John Dillon, The Middle Platonists. He cites Philo and various Jewish cosmological theories. He says that the thinking of this era was not precise - do you dispute this?

Doherty participated in this thread and cites some pagans.

We seem to be repeating arguments from this thread.

So far you have failed to establish that Doherty has any rabid supporters like the notorious A or that your comparison is anything other than a diversion from real issues.

You have also not shown that Paul was a coherent Middle Platonist philosopher, or that you have a more coherent explanation of what Paul wrote.

Amaleq13

IMO (and based on my own reaction), the realization of what Paul doesn't say in comparison to the Gospels has a significant impact that artificially enhances the credibility of the rest despite the lack of specific supporting evidence.

GakuseiDon

Yeah, that's the key to it, I think. People look at how Doherty describes Paul's writings and say "Oh my God, it all makes so much sense! Paul views Christ just like the pagans viewed their gods -- the actions were carried out in a sublunar realm!"

When people read Freke & Gandy's description of Osiris-Dionysus, they say "Oh my God, it all makes so much sense! Paul's Christ is just another version of the mystery religion gods!"

But there is a big difference between Freke&Gandy and Doherty. Freke&Gandy's many references have been generally examined and exposed. Doherty's references have not -- yet -- been generally examined and exposed (with apologies to Jack Vance).

Anyway, I'll start a new thread soon.

GakuseiDon

Actually, I thought "urban myth" is the best phrase for it.

I'm saying that he doesn't present any evidence that pagans thought that their myths were carried out in a sublunar realm. Your explanation that "the thinking of this era was not precise" actually demonstrates that. This is one of the reasons that he gives for WHY he can't present evidence for it.

He actually pulls back references to show that some writers regarded the myths as allegories, and then implies that this suggests that they thought that the myths took place in a sublunar realm. But it's comparing apples with oranges. That's why I strongly recommend going through his references.

The comparison isn't with regards to rabid supporters, merely people accepting his view about what pagans thought back then, despite no-one else -- either scholars or the writers back then AFAIK -- knowing about such a belief.

If you want to argue that Paul MIGHT have thought that way, regardless of the beliefs of the pagans of that time, then I will agree. I also can't rule out that some people believed that Mithras was crucified as well. I just don't regard it as my problem.

Amaleq13

My response to Doherty was also enhanced by my prior exposure to Crossan's view of the "Divided Tradition" and Mack's description of the multiple reactions/interpretations of Jesus by the earliest believers.

What is comes down to for me is that the evidence is a mess rather akin to a Rorschach inkblot.

GakuseiDon

Yes, agreed. I think the same point is used to support a number of mythicist positions. And for good reason -- it is a damn good point. But as the old saying goes, "sweet words butter no parsnips". It doesn't help support speculation about what pagans believed (like a Mithras crucified, or "fleshly sublunar realms"). That's one reason why my focus changed to examining the pagan side of Doherty's argument.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I humbly suggest that we see the Jesus in there that we want to see, and that this isn't just restricted to theists.

Toto

You miss the point here. People read how Doherty separates the Jesus of the gospels from the Jesus in Paul and shows how people read the gospel Jesus details back into Paul, and realize that he is right - Paul doesn't actually say much if anyting about a historical Jesus. Then they try to figure out what Paul actually said, and whether the apparent references to an earthly Jesus are enough to show a HJ, or if there is a better explanation of all the facts. The sub-lunar mythic plane is one explanation, but there are others.

You are misrepresenting this as well. Freke and Gandy draw on a long line of mythicists and historians of religion from The Golden Bough on who say that Jesus is just another dying and rising fertility representative - that's the "urban legend" part. That idea has permeated the culture. But if you read their book, they merely point out the parallels without basing any conclusion on them - the comparisons are just an introduction to their main thesis and their attempt to establish their version of Gnosticism as the true Christianity.

So what were you doing in all those earlier threads? (And who is Jack Vance?)

andrewcriddle

Hi GakuseiDon

First of all I carefully said, seems weird, I was referring to the impression made by Plutarch on a modern reader, not the impression made on Plutarch's contemporaries, nor the absolute soundness or unsoundness of what Plutarch is doing.

I entirely agree that the allegorical method was very widely accepted in Plutarch's time. However Plutarch's attempt to find abstruse cosmological truths in the ancient myths seems IMO a step beyond what Tatian is talking about, where the myths are interpreted as realy being about the everyday world. I don't think a contemporary of Plutarch would have found his use of allegory at all weird as such. However, a contemporary might have found decidedly unusual, the way in which Plutarch in Isis and Osiris goes through one allegorical interpretation after another, with the interpretations tending to become more and more esoteric as the discussion goes on.

Andrew Criddle