Doug Shaver

Normal to whom? It is simply beside the point what speakers of English in the 21st century take those words normally to mean. What matters is what the Greek words from which they are translated would have meant to speakers of Greek in the first century.

I pretend to no knowledge on that point, but I have read Dillon's The Middle Platonists (or via: amazon.co.uk) twice now, and I'm not done analyzing it yet. It is very dense, and I have time issues. One thing that is perfectly clear to me, though, is that, assuming Dillon knows what he's talking about, Earl's proposal as to what Paul was thinking could not be more plausible. Furthermore, assuming that Dillon knows what he's talking about, Paul's readers would have gotten every point Paul was making without his having to make certain explicit distinctions that we moderns do need spelled out for us.

I'm not claiming that Dillon proves Earl is right. All I'm claiming is that Dillon's research establishes prima facie credibility for Earl's hypothesis. What Earl says Paul and his readers were thinking is something that first-century people with minimal philosophical education very well could have thought.

Something else I'm not claiming: that "could have happened" implies "certainly happened." At this point, all I'm doing is rebutting either "could not have happened" or "not plausible that it happened."

GakuseiDon

Interestingly I got the opposite impression from Dillon's book. I actually emailed Dillon himself (he is still active as a university professor) about Doherty's theories a couple of years ago when I was writing my review. I don't think he understood my description of Doherty's theory (which is interesting in itself), so I didn't use his comments in my review. But maybe that was my fault rather than Doherty's theories being nonsense. (To be honest I don't think it was my fault.) This is one reason I urge Doherty to put parts of his theories into peer-review. Why not show that pagan beliefs included such concepts? Or why not send them to Dillon for his evaluation?

Doug, if Dillon's book supports Doherty's theories, don't you agree that it makes sense for Doherty to go to Dillon for him to validate them, at least on the pagan side? Wouldn't that be a tremendous boost for his theories?

I'll note that Doherty quotes Dillon exactly three times in his book (twice referring to the same quote), none of them in support of Doherty's understanding of Middle Platonism. To me, Dillon's book is yet another nail into the coffin of Doherty's theories on the pagan side of the equation.

Anyway: Can you point to Dillon where he supports, say, the idea that man/flesh/"seed of [David/anyone else considered historical]" existed in the form of an entity who was killed above the earth ? I agree his work is dense, since it is a survey of the beliefs of major Middle Platonists over several centuries rather than a methodical discussion of Middle Platonism per se. But if you can remember which MPist supported this, and how, that would be appreciated, and I will definitely look into it.

I do think that investigating the pagan side would be productive when evaluating Doherty's theories. All too often the focus is on Paul, with Doherty's views on pagan beliefs simply accepted. I don't think your reading on Dillon is accurate, but if you point me in the right direction I'll look into it, and if there is any ambiguity I'm happy to email Dillon again to confirm with him, and put the results here. I'm happy to work with you via PM or email if you'd prefer that.

Vorkosigan

The main problem was already identified in the first post. 99% of your references are simply references to items that took place in the myth that the early Christians deduced from reading Scripture. For example, several of your items in 2 Cor (which I randomly opened, apologies for not being more systematic)... here's your list:

2 Corinthians, 13 chapters
* He suffered 1:5
* He was sinless 5:21
* He became poor 8:9
* He was meek and gentle 10:1
* He was crucified. 13:4
* He died. 3 additional verses

"He died" we can simply toss as the issue is not whether he died but where/how and saying "he died" tells us nothing about that. Similarly, Paul saying that Jesus' suffered does not refute Doherty's position -- what it shows is that you, like almost everyone who responds to it, has never taken the time to understand it. Rather, a good Dohertian would ask: how come Paul gives all these references to Jesus' experiences but without a single concrete particular. Far from refuting Doherty, 2 Cor 1:5 supports him, for Paul can constantly refer to these events without discussing them in any detail.

One thing Doherty asks you to do is drop the mainstream interpretation as the default interpretation, and instead treat each verse neutrally, as you would in a case where a major and powerful social group did not have a vested interest. In this case, instead of treating each line neutrally, you carry around the default interpretation in your head without really realizing it. One could just as well ask why in the alleged 92 examples you refer to there are no cases of detailed and concrete references to the actions of a person who existed and took action on earth.

In other words, what you needs is a reference in Paul that clearly and unequivocally distinguishes between the Doherty and Mainstream interpretations.

For the rest, it might be a good idea to read the footnotes in Bibles. I use the USCCB because it often crosslinks to the OT and has footnotes that give pocket summaries of scholarly positions. For example in 2 Cor 8:9, the USCCB notes:

* [8:9] The dialectic of Jesus’ experience, expressed earlier in terms of life and death (2 Cor 5:15), sin and righteousness (2 Cor 5:21), is now rephrased in terms of poverty and wealth. Many scholars think this is a reference to Jesus’ preexistence with God (his “wealth”) and to his incarnation and death (his “poverty”), and they point to the similarity between this verse and Phil 2:6–8. Others interpret the wealth and poverty as succeeding phases of Jesus’ earthly existence, e.g., his sense of intimacy with God and then the desolation and the feeling of abandonment by God in his death (cf. Mk 15:34).

So...heh...no earthly reference at all here, but a complex metaphor.

Similarly, for 2 Cor 5:21, the USCCB references Isa 53:6-9. As Doherty has observed, the story of Jesus is drawn from the Christian interpretation of Isa 53. No examples of Jesus' sinlessness are given ("Once, when Jesus was in X he refrained from doing Y, you should do that to!"). Ditto for meek and gentle, also a feature of Isa 53. Note that no accompanying concrete reference to Jesus' meekness and gentleness is given. Christ, in Paul's letters, is simply treated as an idealized figure to which all virtue is imputed.

If I have time -- and we are getting a Category 4 typhoon tomorrow so I may have lots of time -- I'll do the whole list you've provided.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I wish Doherty had never mentioned that, it leaves him open to the kind of bad faith attacks that defenders of Christianity so often engage in.

TedM

This is a line of investigation that makes a lot of sense as it addresses the thinking that modern minds including my own have such a problem with. Doug and Don, Please do share any of the relevant findings with us here.

Vorkosigan

The Middle Platonists are a giant red herring. Even if you totally disproved Doherty's understanding of them it would not affect his thesis about Paul one whit. If Dillon showed no support for Doherty it would not have any effect on his thesis, whereas if it supported Doherty it would provide support. The quest into the Middle Platonists is merely a search for ad hominem attacks on Doherty and his thesis.

Vorkosigan

DCHindley

GDon,

I've been reading Dillon as well (I've checked it out of the library over 3 months now) and agree with you.

If anything, the Platonists in general saw a universe in which the first principals (The One, the Dyad, and the universal Ideas/Forms) existed in an immaterial supercelestial state (no time or space).

The perceptible universe (which is what KOSMOS, the "Adornment", refers to), which was fashioned by a preexisting Demiurge (a Craftsman) from equally preexisting unformed chaotic matter using the Forms as templates, to create elements and things (and we ignorantly think Craftsman made only tools for Sears & Roebuck).

In this KOSMOS the World Soul and animated souls, also fashioned from the unformed matter, which take the form of Gods (resident in the stars and planets), Demons (ranging from good to bad) occupying the Sublunar realm between heavens and earth serving as intermediaries or messengers, and Human Souls. As animated souls die or otherwise cease to exist they are recycled (reincarnated), and ideally all animated souls will eventually reincarnate up to the level where they can reside with the gods in their stars.

Each region of the KOSMOS has its own structures and features, and Plato speculated that in the superlunar heavens where the true gods exist there were fields, rivers, seas, rocks, trees, houses, etc, made of this pure ether, which they can see just fine but we cannot discern from our vantage point. The things of the earth are just courser and made of cosmic sediment.

In the superlunar heavens where the gods exist (NOT the One, Dyad, or Ideas/Forms, and the Demiurge) the substrate is pure ether. These gods are not necessarily the same as imagined in popular human myth, and Plato seemed to doubt that they had any direct contact with the earthly realm. These Gods perform the operational functions needed to keep the KOSMOS running (stars and planets in their orbits made time possible, and somehow regulate the laws of nature.

The air of the sublunar realm, being purer stuff, is still not the purest. The Middle Platonists expanded the idea of an intermediate area where Demons reside, and there they imagined levels (also called Heavens) with differing kinds of Demons, and differing organization invisible to the human eye. As these demons have direct contact with the earthly realm, carrying out functions transmitted to them by the real gods in the highest heavens, humans worship them as gods.

At the lowest place in the KOSMOS is the Earth itself as we experience it. The earth (including waters & seas) is sort of like sediment in this medium of elements. This is where human and animal souls exist (birds are included here as the earth is where they rest).

While it is true that Plato and most Platonists in general think that the Gods reside in a world similar in form (but not substance) to ours, I do not see any suggestion that Platonists imagined the earthly realm is somehow a copy of the heavenly realm. In fact, the differeng substance of all levels of the universe are fashioned by the prexistent Demiurge/Craftsman from the same prexistent chaotic matter, all using the same Ideas/Forms from the supercelestial realm as patterns (if there is any copying going on, it is on this level).

What this means is that any earthly representation of a universal drama must be based on something found among the Ideas/Forms in the supercelestial realm, and this is how the Gnostics saw things.

DCH

maryhelena

:thumbs:

TedM

I think that earth is a natural default location for where someone described as being a 'man', having 'flesh and blood', having been crucified, etc.. would have lived. I think that is true regardless of whether the man was completely derived from scripture or was a character in a fictional play. Therefore, I think it is highly unlikely that Paul did not say otherwise if that was the case--too many opportunities existed for him to do so in which he did not. That's my objection to the whole 'other sphere' argument. That's a silence that I think should be taken more seriously by those that are considering Doherty's theory.


While your math is off some, I would agree that much of that can be deduced/derived directly from scripture--especially Isaiah 53 (without Isaiah 53 my case would be much much stronger). This however would not be surprising in the historical Jesus scenario either since the scriptures were the source for the expectation of a human-like Messiah in the first place--ie any human that was a candidate would have to have met some of the criteria derived from scripture.

You can save yourself some time by not going through the entire list, but here are some references that I question whether they were really derived from scripture:

*crucifixion. This is the form of death and I see no direct scriptural support. The only support that I found given was by Paul in Galations 3 where he quotes an OT verse that says "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." This would seem to be an implausible inspiration for the method of death of the Messiah. Paul makes an attempt to explain how Christ 'became our curse' in place of the 'curse of the law' but it seems contrived to fit the OT instead of the other way around.

The few references NT to Christ being hung on a tree would appear to be an attempt to retrofit the crucifixion with this OT verse. That is, it looks more like the OT reference is derived from a non-OT form of death (crucifixion) instead of the form of death being derived from the OT.

If the form of death were derived from scripture what would one have come up with? I wonder--outside of Isaiah 53 what one would come up with? I don't know of much. If one DOES look at Isaiah 53 one sees references to suffering, being pierced, crushed, oppressed, afflicted, oppressed, and afflicted. All fairly general stuff--except for the piercing. It also refers to him being despised, rejected by mankind, a man of suffering and familiar with pain, and being taken away by judgment.. I can see how the passion story could be derived from that, but nothing specifies crucifixion. Is it close enough to justify widespread adoption of a crucified Messiah without their actually have been a man crucified?

*The two passages about the Lord's brothers do not appear derived from scripture.

*The entire Lords supper event. I do not know of any scriptural support for it, for the words Jesus spoke, or for the indication that he was 'bretrayed/handed over/lifted up' on the same night.


So, in addition to the lack of references to parallel universes and other spheres derived from scripture, there are some references to Jesus' life that also appear to not be derived from scripture.

TedM

I'm not sure what you mean by unstable references.

I agree.


The part I bolded seems to me to suggest that Paul is talking about God sending his son at an appropriate time AFTER the nation of Israel had existed and been under the law, so while your interpretation is creative and I know Israel is sometimes referred to in the OT as God's Son it seems more likely that Paul here really is talking about Christ, as is the way it is typically interpreted. It is through that Christ that the Jews have the ability to become adopted sons of God just like Christ had become.


ok so far..


Sorry, but I fail to see any comparison by Paul here. What does Paul do or say here that makes you think he is making a comparison?

Ted