jgibson000

OK. But what you care or don't care about is not the issue so far as I can tell. It's the validity of Earl's claims and whether there is any actual evidence from the ancient world to support it and mor importantly, whether Earl has misread and misrepresented the "evidence" he adduces for his claims abut where the crucifixion of Jesus took place according to Paul. Your caring or lack thereof is irrelevant.

The closest antecedent to "it" was your reference to Doherty. So it wasn't that I was confused, but that there was a disjunction between what you might have intended to say and what you actually said given the syntax of what you wrote.

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon

Why even respond, then? Doherty made a claim, I am questioning it. Fair enough that you find the whole thing gibberish, but can't Doherty's explicit claims about what "the average pagan" believed be examined?

Doherty make claim. GDon respond. That is all.

Well, that's nice. But that isn't the topic that I've brought up. I'm talking about Doherty's explicit claims about what "the average pagan" believed. I've made it clear a few times that I'm not interested in looking at the Christian side of the equation at the moment. If you'd like to contribute to that discussion, fine. But you have the noisest set of glazed-over eyes I've ever met.

Johnny Skeptic

How about responding over at the GRD Forum in the thread that I started at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=190587? Do you intend to make any more posts in that thread? At the GRD Forum, you have aptly demonstrated that philosophy is not one of your strong suits. You have embarrassed yourself. Perhaps you should stick to debating Biblical Criticism and History, but I do not mind if you wish to embarrass yourself further at the GRD Forum.

Sorry for the interruption, folks.

GakuseiDon

I was sleeping, Johnny. Sheesh! I'm in Australia. Timezones are different. If I don't respond for 8 hours or so, please forgive me.

Johnny Skeptic

Fair dinkum (no problem), mate.

Doug Shaver

I think your entire post was an excellent analysis, Michael.

Ever since I read the Jesus Puzzle, I've thought there were two main questions that any theory of Christian origins has to answer: (1) Was there a real Jesus, and (2) if not, then what the dickens was Paul babbling about?

I think Doherty's response to (1) very solid. I have seen all manner of historicists, from atheist to fundamentalist, do their damnedest to rebut it, to absolutely no avail.

As for (2), we might never know for sure. I found Doherty's thesis pretty convincing at first. It still looks very plausible to me, but I'm not so sure about it any more. As you say, though, it doesn't have to be right for doubt about Jesus' historicity to be justified.

youngalexander

The question of location is;
(1a) whose views are we referring to,
(1b) can we identify the location of the intended action, and
(1c) whether this location is meaningful, or in what sense is it meaningful to those who held the view, or anyone else (eg. Plutarch) who cites it or comments upon it.

In respect of (1a), it is useful to consider the Translator's Introduction
Plutarch’s account has some dependence upon that of Diodorus Siculus in the 1stC BCE. According to S.G.F.Brandon in Osiris: Man Myth & Magic;

Their accounts must, inevitably, be treated with much caution; for it is unlikely that they had any direct access to Egyptian records, and they were concerned to rationalize and philosophize what they had learned from their Egyptian guides and interpreters.

Furthermore, they were

composed according to contemporary Graeco-Roman taste

Thus Plutarch's essay is composed for the most part from ideas and quotes derived from others - 'they say'. Occasionally he names a contributor, Empedocles, Eudoxus for example, but mostly they are anonymous. These pagan views are often in conflict and Plutarch makes various summary comments upon them. In short he expresses his view but rarely, but when he does it follows a consistent set of themes – as per Brandon above. We could, for the purposes of this discussion, regard these various contributary views as a cohort from which an average pagan view might be constructed. We would however need to bear in mind that they have passed through a Plutarchian filter, in addition to that of the various sources from whence they were derived.

Since Plutarch has undertaken this compilation he necessarily has a much broader understanding of the subject than most of his contributors and contemporaries. Furthermore, he is literate, widely read, travelled and born to a prominent family. The vast majority of his contemporaries were none of these. He is therefore an atypical pagan, likely an outlier from the average.

For (1b) we find that in some views specific locations are given, in others quite general locations and in still others, no location. The latter category has a subset in which the location is not stated, but may be more or less readily deduced.

In consideration of (1a & 1b), we should be rather circumspect in attributing a view to anyone unless specifically named. This is particularly the case with Plutarch himself. The fact is that he rejects some of the views he presents, increasingly so towards the end of the essay. Mostly he applies a consistent rationalising philosophy to a range of views to produce a (to him) more insightful view. Sometimes he endorses a view, because it is in line with his own unifying ideas.

Thus (1c); when consideration of location is made we should bear all of the above in mind. For instance, GDon would have us believe that Plutarch has a settled view of the location of "Osiris -- whom he undoubtedly places on earth". Yet does he? Plutarch certainly relates the part of the myth which is set on earth. However, prior to that Osiris and his confreres are born. Where does that take place? Later Plutarch describes numerous other views and mythic progressions in which Osiris is certainly not on earth. In fact he is in a variety of places, according to the views which Plutarch presents. However, what does Plutarch himself think about this? Does it matter in which specific location a variant of the myth places Osiris? Is ‘where’ meaningful to Plutarch?

(2) I stated in post#81 that I was here to argue my brief and that of no one else. That includes Doherty. My brief chiefly concerned whether GDon’s interest in ‘location’ was a meaningful one for an ‘average pagan’ (whatever that is). However, since he has not taken the subtle hints of my previous posts, I have decided to argue the point at length. During the course of this it has occurred to me that,
While this may, or may not, have applied to the more sophisticated Plutarch, he provides ample evidence that it did for many whose views he presents.

I place one caveat upon this however. I take the word ‘unseen’ in the ‘spirit’ that, whilst the bulk of the spiritual world is indeed unseen (& from our perspective unseeable), those parts of the natural world (eg. moon, sun & stars) which are also imbued with spirit, are part of that spiritual realm. The pagans whose views Plutarch presents certainly thought so, and it must be so if we extend “ever upward through the various layers of heaven”.


After some preliminary observations, Plutarch gives Clea some sage advice in section11:
Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related... Nor, again, do they believe that the sun rises as a new-born babe from the lotus, but they portray the rising of the sun in this manner to indicate allegorically the enkindling of the sun from the waters…
I do so agree, but as we have seen from the remarks of the translator and Brandon, it is by no means certain that Plutarch knows this. Furthermore, which particular Egyptians is he referring to? A knowledgeable elite, or an average pagan? What is clear is that Plutarch does not take them literally. It is highly unlikely that this applies to ‘average pagans’.

There are two more interesting aspects to this passage. Firstly, the wanderings and dismemberments obviously refer to the Osiris myth after he is born. Plutarch makes no mention of his birth or the births of gods in general in section11.
Yet he does not take this literally, as you yourself have stated and which was the point of my previous post. Plutarch places Osiris on earth, it is an allegory and his ideas concerning Osiris are otherwise developed.

Secondly (note my alternate bolding), what is being allegorised? The ”enkindling of the sun from the waters”. This is a primary theme of Plutarch’s philosophy. I have already quoted the relevant section in post#80.
This is but one example Plutarch’s tendency “to rationalize and philosophize what [he] had learned from [his] Egyptian guides and interpreters”. We encounter this again when he tells us what he really thinks about Osiris and more especially Isis.


Plutarch then begins to relate the Osiris myth, in section12, which I quoted in my post#81.
They say that the Sun, when he became aware of Rhea's intercourse with Cronus, invoked a curse upon her that she should not give birth to a child in any month or year; but Hermes, being enamoured of the goddess, consorted with her. Later, playing at draughts with the moon, he won from her the seventieth part of each of her periods of illumination, and from all the winnings he composed five days, and intercalated them as an addition to the three hundred and sixty days. The Egyptians even now call these five days intercalated and celebrate them as the birthdays of the gods.

(1a) They say – who are they? The Egyptians, Graeco-Romans? What manner of pagan? Average pagans by any chance? Why would they not be? It is beyond credence to suppose that nobody believed this stuff. That everyone who encountered it recognised immediately that – here is allegory! Your average pagan was an illiterate peasant who toiled mightily, travelled little if at all and was beholden to his patron. He did not go in for higher criticism because he had neither the education, time nor inclination.

Merry Christmas! A time when Nativity scenes abound. Some of us reckon them to be allegoric, poetic – whatever. Certainly not historic. Try telling that to the next ‘average christian’ that you meet. Yet she will be far better educated, with vastly greater access to information than the average pagan was.

(1b) In post#81 I asked you where you thought that these various intercourses, curses, amourations, consortings, draught games, intercalations and births of gods took place. You have replied by referring to section11 and that Plutarch tells us what it means. Well, no, he does not. It is not at all clear that he regards this as allegoric. If so, what does he think the reality is? Surely he is not an atheist? However, even if he does regard the birth traditions as allegoric, it does not follow that your average pagan did.

Plutarch does not tell us where this takes place, but we may easily deduce that it is in that ‘unseen spiritual realm’. You can hardly claim that it is on earth, concerning as they do the Sun, moon and various gods & titans.

(1c) Thus do we not have “average pagans” contemplating the “unseen spiritual realm”? As a bonus, we also have Plutarch either in agreement with ‘average pagans’ or not regarding these locations as ‘meaningful’. And an atheist to boot!

They relate that on the first of these days Osiris was born, and at the hour of his birth a voice issued forth saying, "The Lord of All advances to the light."
Again, the clear implication is that this occurred in the “unseen spiritual realm”.

But some relate that a certain Pamyles, while he was drawing water in Thebes, heard a voice issuing from the shrine of Zeus, which bade him proclaim with a loud voice that a mighty and beneficent king, Osiris, had been born; and for this Cronus entrusted to him the child Osiris, which he brought up.
A variation in birth location? Does it matter? It still involves the unseen (but not unheard) spiritual realm, and Cronus must transport him to Pamyles in Thebes.

On the next two days Apollo and Typhon are born. Again the implication is in the “unseen spiritual realm”.

On the fourth day Isis was born in the regions that are ever moist
A location, but what does it mean? I have already noted that the editor has made various disparate suggestions of vegitation, Nile and sea, to which we might add cloud.

There is also a tradition that Osiris and Arueris were sprung from the Sun, Isis from Hermes, and Typhon and Nephthys from Cronus.
Who held to these traditions? Average pagans. Where did they place the births, clearly in the “unseen spiritual realm”.

Then Plutarch continuous at section13 and relates the wanderings and dismemberment of Osiris upon earth, Isis actions and so forth.

The trouble is GDon, that not all of the myths take place on earth. Furthermore, it is Plutarch who regards these wanderings on earth as allegoric, not the average pagan. In fact, it is not at all clear whether, or to what degree, he regards the birth traditions various as allegoric. Be that as it may, it is quite clear that the average pagan did have the view with respect to the birth traditions that the myths of the gods were supposed to have taken place in an "unseen spiritual realm". At least, according to Plutarch.


I shall call a halt here and post. Thus far we have only examined the first page of the Plutarch article. There is plenty of good stuff to come.

GakuseiDon

How would someone rebut Doherty, IYO? What would it take?

GakuseiDon

Hi youngalexander! I'm glad to see your post. Very few people really care to look into the pagan views of the gods, so I'm glad to discuss this topic. I hope others will come in with their own comments (though with data from primary sources rather than "What Doherty said just feels right!")

Anyway, one reason why I felt that what Doherty said just didn't feel right was what I learned in my debates with Doherty on Second Century apologists. These apologists included attacks the pagans and how they viewed their gods. I've included some comments below:

Tatian's Address to the Greeks

If you speak of the origin of the gods, you also declare them to be mortal.

For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory...

Linus was the teacher of Hercules, but Hercules preceded the Trojan war by one generation; and this is manifest from his son Tlepolemus, who served in the army against Troy. And Orpheus lived at the same time as Hercules...

Tatian's first comment is interesting: "If you speak of the origin of the gods, you also declare them to be mortal". Were the gods who had an origin in the sublunar realm mortal? NOtice also that Tatian seems to believe that the pagans thought that the gods were either on earth or were allegorical.

Minucius Felix:

For all the writers of antiquity, both Greek and Roman, have set forth that Saturn, the beginner of this race and multitude, was a man. Nepos knows this, and Cassius in his history; and Thallus and Diodorus speak the same thing. This Saturn then, driven from Crete, by the fear of his raging son, had come to Italy, and, received by the hospitality of Janus... His son Jupiter reigned at Crete after his father was driven out. There he died, there he had sons. To this day the cave of Jupiter is visited, and his sepulchre is shown...

Minucius Felix gives a number of earlier authors who believe that the gods were on earth.

When I turned from the Second Century apologist writings to Doherty's thoughts on First Century Christian writings, I felt that Doherty wasn't representing pagan beliefs on their gods accurately. From what I'd seen, the pagans placed the activities of their gods either on earth, or above the firmament, or as allegorical/poetic, so didn't occur at all. So, with that background, my reply to your comments:

Yes, that is an excellent idea.

Yes, I agree. We can't assume that what Plutarch reports necessarily represents the views of the Egyptians themselves.

Yes, again I agree.

Here you have misunderstood me, though I can see why. I wrote that: Plutarch ends that section by continuing on about Osiris -- whom he undoubtedly places on earth: I then quote Plutarch on that myth. But I should have worded that better.

I certainly don't believe that Plutarch himself believed in the myth. To quote myself from here, "Plutarch gives his own view: Osiris is a pure god,"uncontaminated and unpolluted and pure from all matter"".

I don't think so. Certainly the question of "where" wouldn't have mattered if the stories were allegorical or poetry. Where the myths were regarded as taken place on earth, again it probably wouldn't have mattered, unless it needed further explanation.

I appreciate that you are here to argue your own brief, but I'm a bit concerned that you are adopting Doherty's terminology without adopting his meaning. I can only see confusion coming out of this. One of the frustrations of debating Doherty is that he uses terms without clearly identifying a meaning, or the meaning changes depending on the argument. One of my examples comes from here: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset26.htm. Doherty describes the "spiritual dimension", but does it include the earth, or is it in some other dimension altogether? Compare this:

Suffering and death could also take place in the spiritual dimension, on the part of spiritual beings, although such 'corruptible' things could only take place in the realm of corruptibility, the lower reaches of the spiritual dimension, namely below the moon, which also included the material realm of the earth itself.

with this:

It is admittedly impossible to nail down with any precision the exact viewpoint early Christians held in regard to the death of their mythical Christ, except that it took place in a dimension not our own, in "some other place," as one IIDBer put it. Apologists like to jump on this and claim that this discredits the entire theory. But they don't just win by default. What they fail to acknowledge is that the early record is full of indicators in such a direction, that it makes a good fit with the philosophy and cosmology of the time, and is supported by close parallels with mystery cult mythology

What makes "a good fit"? That the "unseen spiritual dimension" included earth, or that it was a dimension "not our own" and in some other place entirely? The problem is that anyone reading the above would be impressed: it is a good fit with the cosmology of the times! It is supported by close parallels with mystery cult mythology! I question that the evidence is there to support Doherty on either of these points, at least with regards to where pagans placed their gods.

Unfortunately this side of Doherty's theory seems to get ignored or swepted away, since everything inevitably comes back to Paul and early Christian writings. It's fair enough that those should be the main focus, but it is also worth pointing out that Doherty time and again claims that pagan beliefs support his version of early Christianity (as the above quote shows). I'd like to suggest that this simply isn't the case, and if I am right, then Doherty needs to reframe his case accordingly.

To go back to the topic you raised: I would prefer NOT to call it an "unseen spiritual world". Can we leave it as "sublunar realm"? This is the area from earth to moon, though depending on context it can mean that area above the earth. Let's avoid use of words of "spiritual world" or "dimension" unless backed up by the text.

Yes, as I wrote earlier, I think you mistook my view on this (though that was because I was unclear).

Yes, all good.

Since (1a) deals with "whose views?", I would say that it certainly appears that Plutarch is talking about Egyptians generally, at least in this case. I discuss this further below.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily follow. As you wrote, it is reasonable to assume that Plutarch wrote through a cultural filter. Even if Plutarch thought the stories were allegorical, that doesn't mean that the average pagan (or rather, in this case, the average Egyptian) also did. But this appears to be a claim that Plutarch makes, as I explain below. If there is other information on what Egyptians thought of their own beliefs, it would be interesting to see it.

There is nothing there to show that these events happened in the "unseen spiritual realm", if by that you mean the sublunar realm. Let's look again at what Plutarch says just above it:

Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related.

Is this Plutarch's view of the myth, or Plutarch's view of what the Egyptians believed? It is plainly the latter:

The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal's watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom[/b]... So also Ochus, the most cruel and terrible of the Persian kings..., the Egyptians called the "Sword"; and they call him by that name even to this day in their list of kings. But manifestly they do not mean to apply this name to his actual being; they but liken the stubbornness and wickedness in his character to an instrument of murder. If, then, you listen to the stories about the gods in this way, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically

For better or worse, Plutarch's "them" in the passage above can only be applying to the Egyptians AFAICS.

That's not to say that this is the only thing that the Egyptians believed about the gods, even according to Plutarch. But since Plutarch immediately talks about the Sun giving birth after the above passage, then we need to ask what Plutarch means by "If you listen to the stories about the gods in this way..." -- but in what way? A dog could be given the name "Hermes" if it was intelligent. A man could be called "sword", not because he was a sword, but because it best reflected his character. Plutarch believes that the stories of the gods could be interpreted in that way. The names stood for something else. The stories aren't literal accounts, in a sublunar realm or outside of a sublunar realm.

Now, as you wrote earlier, this doesn't mean that the Egyptians themselves believed that, though Plutarch certainly seems to think so. But let's assume that the Egyptians thought differently. Why then is the only other thing that they could have thought of about this myth was that it occurred in a sublunar realm? Because there is evidence that other people thought so? But that is the very thing that we are trying to find!

Personally, my guess is that the myth is much older, and nothing to do with "Middle Platonic" sublunar realms. But by the time the myths reached Plutarch's time, the "allegorical" interpretation had become popular. Even so, I can't see anything there to do with sublunar realms.

Let's look at Herodotus, who visited Egypt five centuries earlier:
http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/Text/book2b.htm

[2.144] Of such a nature were, they said, the beings represented by these images - they were very far indeed from being gods. However, in the times anterior to them it was otherwise; then Egypt had gods for its rulers, who dwelt upon the earth with men, one being always supreme above the rest. The last of these was Horus, the son of Osiris, called by the Greeks Apollo. He deposed Typhon, and ruled over Egypt as its last god-king. Osiris is named Dionysus (Bacchus) by the Greeks.

[2.145] The Greeks regard Hercules, Bacchus, and Pan as the youngest of the gods. With the Egyptians, contrariwise, Pan is exceedingly ancient... I have already mentioned how many years intervened according to the Egyptians between the birth of Hercules and the reign of Amasis... But from the present day to the time of Bacchus, the reputed son of Semele, daughter of Cadmus, is a period of not more than sixteen hundred years; to that of Hercules, son of Alcmena, is about nine hundred; while to the time of Pan, son of Penelope (Pan, according to the Greeks, was her child by Mercury), is a shorter space than to the Trojan war, eight hundred years or thereabouts.

Herodotus also wrote that the tomb of Osiris could be found in the city of Sais.

How accurate Herodotus was regarding what the Egyptians believed may be questioned, but if he can be believed, he is saying that the Egyptians placed Osiris (and the other gods) on earth. If the myth of the sun giving birth to Osiris existed at the time Herodotus wrote, then Herodotus not mentioning it may be because he regarded it as allegorical. But more evidence would be required to establish this.

Why? Why couldn't that voice have spoken on earth?

Again, why? The voice is heard on earth. I can't see why it involves the sublunar realm.

Again, why?

Again, why? Remember, that would mean that they believed that the events actually happened in the sublunar realm. Is there anything to support that the Egyptians held such a belief at the time the myths were created?

In the thread that I gave the link to earlier, I suggest that Plutarch is using his "four species of rational beings" to show the different perspectives on the myth, that is: Osiris as man, Osiris as hero/demigod, Osiris as daemon and finally Osiris as true god (which is Plutarch's own personal view). "Osiris as daemon" probably comes closest to the notion of activity in the sublunar realm, so if you are going to find evidence for this, that would be the place.

All good stuff! I look forward to what you can find out.

Final thought: Up to now, we have been looking at the Roman ideas of their gods. Eventually we will need to move the discussion on to how they viewed daemons, who they thought lieved on earth and the sublunar realm. But I'd like to finish the discussion on the gods first.

youngalexander

Tatian is rather an odd bod to reference in this context! From the Catholic Encyclopedia
It is sed about Tatian
Seems a trifle contrary.
Perhaps, however, Man Myth & Magic: Saturn (E.D.Phillips) does not confirm this in as much as the origin of Saturn, and his apparent correspondance with Cronus, is quite obscure. I could give the quotes, but scholarship seems not to agree. Furthermore, the Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology says
When they moved to continental Greece, however, the Aegean divinities took on a Hellenic aspect beneath which their original physiognomy disappeared. Thus what we know about the Aegean pantheon is reduced to very little.
I was in Crete in april. On 20th Apr we visited amongst several other places; Malia (Minoan Palace), Panagia Kera (13C Xian triple isled church with finest frescoes on Crete), ancient 7C Lato (Dorian), Lisithi Plateau and were just too late for the Diktian Cave - birthplace of Zeus.

I was being careful to adopt your quoted version.
I stated in a previous post that I find 'theological speak' difficult to comprehend. Here is an example. I am a physicist. I have an understanding of 'dimension', just as I have an understanding of 'energy'. Yet, I encounter many divers usages of these terms which do not accord with my understandings. My problem is, that if I encounter those terms in a scientific context, then I know what they mean. In a theological (or other) context...? There seems to be no consistency or definition. As for 'spiritual', personally I try not to use it, since to be quite frank, I do not know what it means.

After a few years reflection, and observation of considerable debate (notably by yourself), I certainly think that this question needs tightening up.
Um, well the reason for my direct quote (of you - quoting Doherty), and the caveat, was to avoid 'sublunar'. I am more than happy to drop 'spiritual dimension' provided that we are considering "the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven". Seems to cover both geo and helio-centric perspectives.

I'll take up the rest tomorrow, perhaps.