zaitzeff

I could be wrong, but do we have the following:

several people accepted a free copy of a book from Peter Kirby on the condition that they write a critical review of it, arguing that there really was a man named Jesus who did some or all of the things the gospels or Paul says.
Several of them received the book, but then, decided not to write a rebuttal, and instead, paid Kirby for the book. Now, there are two additional people,
but neither of them have written their reviews/rebuttals?

well, I'd be happy to have a free copy of the Doherty book and I would write in defense of HJ. I am a liberal Christian believer and I am fully able to write a review, even if, amalek13 would not be convinced! (Amalek13 and I had several months of discussion on this very issue in a different forum.)

Layman

I did not participate in Peter Kirby's offer. I bought a copy of Doherty's book many moons before that. However, I did recently write a review for Amazon, so perhaps that is of what you write.

I also recently helped Bede with some reviews of websites and books relevant to the Jesus Myth:

Bede's Library List of Links to sites about the Jesus Myth and Historical Jesus

Bede's Library List of Books for and against the Existence of Jesus

And I have done a few blogs on Doherty and the Jesus Myth:

Doherty and the Passion Narrative

According to the Scriptures According to Doherty

Jesus, Paul, and Abba Father

Nothing New Under the Sun

Prior to the reviews and the blog I wrote several articles about the Jesus Myth in general and Earl Doherty in particular:

A History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth

Earl Doherty's use of the Epistle to the Hebrews (and Part 2)

Scholarly Opinions on the Jesus Mythologists

Earl Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition

Earl Doherty on Christian use of the Hebrew Bible

Earl Doherty's use of the phrase "According to the Flesh"

Other projects and work are dominating my time right now, though I may still blog on this subject from time to time.

Ted Hoffman

Thank you Layman,
Doherty has decided to put aside some time and deal with critiques of his work so in a couple of weeks, his responses will be up on his website.
Richard Carrier, who has given the most definitive review and critique of Doherty's work, has himself been disappointed at the sloppy job some of Doherty's critics have done. Below, I share with you a counter-critique Carrier wrote regarding Bernard Muller's critique of Doherty and Muller's critique of Carrier.

It is noteworthy that Muller's critique comes accross as a classic case of an amateur trying to criticize an expert in an area the amateur is ill-informed in. A number of times, one can only feel sorry for Muller because, despite his earnest efforts, it is clear he is groping in the dark and has no idea what went past him. It reminds me of the fine rebuttal Celsus recently did with Bede's work on Dever - Dever Again . Bede undertook the task with truckloads of zeal but with no background and almost zero knowledge in that field of study. Celsus stepped in and wiped the floor with Dever - who Bede was using as a scholarly authority. I don't know where that left Bede but his original aricle is now pock-marked, leopard-like, with question marks. Talk about punching holes!

Doherty will start with Muller's critique and Carrier's critique then perharps yours after that. As you can see, outside you and Muller, Doherty's critics have backed out ingloriously. I am not even sure Rick Sumner can still argue against Doherty's interpretation of kata sarka - especially after going through Carrier's write up below. Rick can correct me here if I am wrong.

I already dealt with your critique Layman. I hope you have refined it since I last looked at it so that your criticism doesn't suffer the kinds of weaknesses Muller's criticism does. That would be so boring. I note that in apologetics business, you do not bother to put links to criticisms of the articles you have written, or alternatively append the criticisms at your site. I think that is unfortunate, especially where such fine minds are engaged in such non-respectable work.

The work below shows that Mythicists are not in bad company after all.

Here is Carrier on Muller's Critique - dated April 26, 2004. Enjoy. [AFAIK, it is not in the internet]

Carrier: I just took a look at Muller's piece again. I had once before perused his website, and I must say I find this one article *slightly* more organized and concise than the rest (though not by much). But since others are asking me to comment on that specifically, I think it merits more comment than I've given Muller before. This is just a running, loose commentary off the cuff. I don't intend to bother formalizing it for publication. At most I hope it inspires Muller to improve his work(as also Doherty). I also go in order--so I only get to Muller's criticism of me near the end, even though before then I will be repeating things he claims to refute.

2.1
I agree with Muller (hereafter M.) that "the question remains: how could a descendant of David not be considered an earthly human?" See in my review (http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...uspuzzle.shtml) Problem 6 in Appendix 1. I am sure Doherty has more ground than Muller thinks, since I know there are some vague cases of allegorical personages, and the concept makes sense from the ancient POV. But I would like D. to produce some good examples (outside Xianity) of heavenly counterparts being allegorized as historical personages and as descendants thereof. That would do a lot to move me more towards his camp. Hebrews establishes the conceptualization of heavenly parallels to earthly entities (like the Temple and High Priest), but not quite to historical personages or at least lineages, and at any rate it would be nice to have evidence external to Xianity anyway. [This paragraph also covers most of what M. writes in his Part 2]

But Muller is wrong to imply there is no evidence the "higher and lower worlds" view "was believed by anyone in the first three centuries." The evidence for that is solid. See my quotation of Plutarch on Osiris in my review of Doherty as just one little example (and below for M.'s attempt to "refute" it)--but it is found all over the place *especially* in the first three centuries, as all scholars agree, and there is no reasonable doubt that Paul shared the view (it perfectly explains 1 Cor. 15 and links Paul to Philo). However, it does seem M. is confused about just what that view was (as shall become apparent later), and if one sifts through his confusion, there is still a valid point M. makes, with which I have always agreed: a lot of D.'s evidence is compatible with both D.'s thesis *and* certain forms of historicism, and that is why I remain agnostic. What I mean will become clear below.

Muller makes two important mistakes here.

(1) Muller seems to think it significant that Plato only "vaguely" described the celestial-terrestrial dichotomy (e.g. Symposium 202e-203a, Timaeus 90, etc.). It apparently is unknown to him that this was a doctrine formally articulated by *Aristotle* (in the *De Caelo*, among extant works), after Plato (who clearly had the idea, but like everything else, never formalized it), which became a mainstay of *Middle* Platonism, the Platonism of the very first three centuries. It was also adopted by some Stoics, and retained by all Aristotelians (and Paul has more in common with Aristotle than Plato, e.g. both Paul and Aristotle do not believe in an immortal soul, very much unlike Plato). But for a prime example of the Middle Platonic development of the idea, see the Pseudo-Platonic dialogue Axiochus (esp. 365e-366a), the De
Mundo of (probably) Apuleius, the De Motu of Cleomedes, and others.

(2) Muller thus makes the mistake of thinking "the Platonic heaven" was "an upper space inhabited by ethereal 'universals'," etc. That isn't quite correct. First, Plato also envisioned physical intermediary deities that mediate between man and God (Symposium 202e-203a). But more importantly, it is the Middle Platonic view that Doherty is talking about, which is not a realm of universals (which are *not* ethereal, but literally without substance *or* location, at least per se). The Middle Platonic heavens are a material, physical place, with
actual entities that live there and move between them (cf. Paul's trip to the 3rd Heaven in 2 Cor. 12; and just about anything Origen has to say on the subject). Indeed, this was a fundamental of Roman-period magic, which was entirely demonic, i.e. based on summoning and binding invisible demons that live in the aer (as opposed to natural magic, an invention of the early Middle Ages to bypass Christian accusations of Satanism).

2.1 NOTES

D. "Here is the way Paul puts it in Romans 6:5: 'For if we become united with him in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall be also in [{] the likeness of his [}] resurrection.' [NASB] M. "However the Greek does NOT have what shows between my brackets"

That is irrelevant. As anyone competent in Greek will tell you, the fact that the noun "resurrection" is in the genitive case in the apodosis of a conditional *entails* the implied insertion of the tô homoiômati from the protasis. In other words: the word *is* there. The sentence makes absolutely no grammatical sense (it becomes literal gibberish) unless tô homoiômati goes with both nouns, and that was in fact standard Greek practice. Now, that does not mean D.'s *interpretation* of this sentence (not included here) is correct. But it does mean Muller is way off base to attempt this particular criticism. Indeed, it makes him look much more amateurish than D. A Greek scholar would rightly conclude that M. doesn't know what he is talking about. Though M. concedes this in his introduction, that only means he is aware of the fact that he is out of his element.

On the other hand, I agree with M.'s analysis in this note regarding what Paul was talking about. The evidence is extensive from many letters that Paul often talks this way, allegorizing current realities in the language of future death and resurrection. This is actually very Orphic of him--or rather it is a clever way to syncretize Orphic and Jewish mysticism. The Orphics also regarded our current bodies as already dead, because of their being weighed down by sin (as did Philo), etc. But this does not knock down D.'s argument in the way M. thinks.

Because this Orphic connection actually serves to connect what M. is saying to what D. is saying. So it may well be that *both* D. and M. are correct. An important bridge is the anthropological analysis provided by Evan Fales in our forthcoming book _Jesus Is Dead_. In short, Paul is talking about abstract sociological realities in the here and now, while D. is saying those had exact heavenly parallels.
Thus, what D. is saying can actually entail what M. is saying (via Fales) and therefore what M. is saying doesn't actually rebut D, though it does show that D.'s isn't the only credible interpretation.

2.2

This is another example of arguments going rather badly for M. as a result of not having the requisite background experience in the relevant field.

2.2.1

"Here I do not see Attis in any upper world: he lives on earth!"

But if M. knew what he was talking about, he would know that there were at least three schemes of explanation understood by intellectuals in
antiquity: the literal, the poetic, and the metaphysical (this was explicitly stated by Varro, Philo, Vitruvius, etc.). For a sterling example, see Plutarch's discussion of the Osiris myth in On Isis and Osiris--the whole thing, not just the parts M. wants to read. There
Plutarch surveys all three ways of reading the Osiris myth (and indeed, several versions within each), one of which is of an actual historical king named Osiris who lived on earth. But another is the very heavenly being that D. is talking about. And Plutarch says this was the *true*
story, kept from the ignorant masses and related to initiates and intellectuals. This latter same sentiment is repeated in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and other authors, so we know it was widespread. Thus, citing an example of a literal reading of a myth does nothing whatsoever to counter the claim that the same myth had a metaphysical reading that was believed to be more true. And that "truer" reading always involved the heavenly aspect of the myth. A really impressive example is articulated by Ulansey in his book on Mithraism.

Still, M. is right to be skeptical of citing an Attis parallel. I am not aware of good evidence for a heavenly Attis in the earlier period--though if it is out there, I would love to see D. present it. There probably was a heavenly conception of the Attis cycle then, but I do not know if any records of it have survived. It therefore seems a bad example, IMO. But for Osiris and Mithras there is no doubt: we have clear evidence that they and their mythic action existed in the heavens in the "truest" conception, i.e. that of initiates and intellectuals of the day.
-

M. says "I am musing here, but the (religious) belief may have started from a local boy (abandoned after birth), who, prevented to marry the girl he was in love with, went crazy, castrated and killed himself. Good enough to start a legend, with cultist consequences!"

Actually, there is a historical account something like this in Lucian's _On the Syrian Goddess_ (not of Attis, a Phrygian deity, but a parallel cult in Syria). However, the underlying myth is extraordinarily ancient--it derives from the Inanna-Tammuz cult of Sumeria, dating at least to 1700 B.C. In the Sumerian tablets, Inanna kills Tammuz as a deal to escape hell by trading her lover for herself (this idea of switching exists in other cults in the Greco-Roman period, esp. the Dioscuri). Castration isn't specified, and the narrative is not at all like what Lucian gives. But the Sumerian women would weep on the day of his death, and this practice is attested in the OT (I think Ecclesiastes). I suspect the cult involved a cycle of successive deaths and resurrections of Inanna and Tammuz, corresponding to the exchange of seasons, but I can't be sure. At any rate, Attis cult was similar, yet involved a lot of weird things in Roman times (carrying trees around Italy, etc.), and priests castrated themselves (as did the Syrian deity described by Lucian, which links Attis to the Sumerian cult)--so the castration myth probably symbolized some social objective that was served by a castrated priesthood, rather than an actual historical event.

Similarly, Ulansey explains the probable origins of the Mithra legend. His analysis is brilliant, and certainly correct. There can be no doubt the concept was celestial--Ulansey's thesis explains in one fell swoop all the odd features of the many examples in stone we have of the tauroctony, which is why we can be sure he's right. And the Mithraic salvation concept perfectly aligns with Middle Platonic views of the heavens as the superior realm (indeed, it connects strongly with the "presentist" cosmology of Plotinus, which held that our souls ascend the heavens, the higher the more enlightened, even as we think we are still living on earth).
-

2.3

"However his main argument comes from epistles ('Ephesians' & 'Colossians') not written by Paul but later by others, as stated by Earl himself (p.13)"

That isn't relevant--the fact that, e.g., Ephesians says "the prince of the powers of the air," proves that the term referred to demons among Christians of the 1st century. 1 Enoch also uses the phrase "principalities and powers" to refer to demons (1 Enoch 61:10, 89:59-90:15). Thus, Doherty has ground to suggest that this may be what Paul, too, is doing. I agree this is not a *proof*, but it is *plausible*. Both M. and D. need to distinguish more carefully between evidence *for* a theory and evidence that a theory successfully *explains* (and evidence that supports a background element of a theory--e.g. that people then could refer to demons of the aer as principalities and powers, etc.).

"Furthermore, according to Paul, 'this age' has only one godly entity, 'the god of this age' (2Co4:4), likely Satan (Ro16:20)."

Paul does not say "only" there, so M. has not made his case. Paul certainly believed in a multitude of daimones (demons) just as he did angels. Even so, whether it is daimones that Paul means when he speaks of powers and rulers and so on is indeed unclear--one of the reasons I am agnostic about D.'s thesis. The D. thesis *can* account for the evidence, but is not thereby proved.

2.4

"a very peculiar translation of 'kata sarka', "in the sphere of the flesh", (normally rendered as "according to the flesh")"

D.'s is closer to the actual Greek. See my remarks in my review.

"Even for 'en sarki' ("in flesh") (1Timothy3:16), Doherty claims it 'can be translated in the sphere of the flesh' (with the sphere being that material lower heaven!)."

He is right--it can be so translated--but then it could also be translated as M. has in mind, too. What I think M. is missing the point of is how truly bizarre the phrase en sarki is. If Paul wanted to say that Jesus became flesh, there were many more common ways to say this. I am not aware in fact of en sarki ever being used of a God's incarnation (usually it is epiphaneia or some such). On the other hand, I think D. downplays too much the fact that "in the sphere of flesh" can still mean a literal incarnation on earth (more on this below)), so again it is impossible to decide what Paul meant here, at least in isolation.

"Does 'in flesh' ('en sarki') really mean in another world?"

It always means in this world (everything below the orb of the moon), which can mean having a body in the aer or on earth. The context is the Aristotelian scheme: everything below the orb of the moon is both "in the sphere of the flesh" and, literally, made of flesh. And that obviously includes ordinary people like you and me--though also demons of the aer (Osiris being a clear example, per Plutarch). Thus, even on D.'s understanding it is not entailed that Jesus was *not* literally here on earth. That is only *possible*--to argue that it *is* the case requires a broader thesis resting on a wider range of evidence, which to be fair D. does seek to provide. He does not rest his case on any isolated piece of "evidence" like this. Hence his theory must be evaluated as a totality, against the totality of evidence, not picked at item by item, out of the larger context. I explain this in my review, and I've explained it to M. in private before.

"Nowhere in this section (pages 103-105) Doherty proves a mythical theme existed during Paul's times about 'descending gods'. Certainly, there were many stories about the Greek gods descending/ascending, in different human forms, but that is from the top of mount Olympus to the earth below and back. And on the theme of 'descending/ascending god', if Jesus was earthly and also later believed to be a pre-existent and then resurrected Deity, of course we would have a descent and ascent!"

I agree D. needs to document his background better--see my Problem 1 in Appendix 1 of my review for example. But here D. is still correct and M. is quite wrong. First of all, hardly anyone thought the gods literally lived on Olympus. Anyone familiar with the literature of the period will know that the gods were almost universally conceived as living in heaven or hades and sometimes ascending/descending from there. Plutarch's account of Osiris is a clear case, and directly links to Plato's discussion of divine intermediaries in the Symposium. But there are many other texts that establish the same point. All bona fide scholars of ancient religion agree. There is no doubt that Jews and Pagans both had a place for a middle kind of deity who mediated between the celestial region and the terrestrial, between god and men. And many descend and reascend, not to Olympus, but, literally, to Heaven.

Besides Osiris, who does exactly that, Romulus is another unmistakable example--and one whose pageant of incarnation and ascension was publicly celebrated in Rome in the 1st centuries BC and AD, without any doubt (we have it from Livy, Ovid, Plutarch, etc.). He is a heavenly being who descends, incarnates on earth, establishes an empire, is killed by a conspiracy of leaders, resurrects, and ascends back to heaven. However, unlike Plutarch's "true" Osiris, this is a literal historical event and takes place on earth (as far as the sources say at any rate). Even so, I seriously doubt there really was a historical Romulus. And the "true" Osiris incarnates and dies in the aer, not on earth, so he cuts a perfect parallel for D.'s thesis (and in fact there are many other bizarre parallels between Osiris and Christ, but also between Romulus and Christ).

Still, again, M. is right in an important sense: D.'s ideas in this case are as compatible with a historical Jesus as not (as we see from the different treatment of Romulus and Osiris by one and the same author: Plutarch). Hence I am agnostic. The fact is, the whole scheme D. describes is true, but could be mapped onto a real person. It didn't have to be, but it could be. And that only means D.'s thesis is possible--not certain.

"But does not death indicate a mortal fleshy condition? Were mortal human-looking beings known to live in a world above the earth?"

Yes. Again, Plutarch's "true" account of Osiris is an example: he becomes mortal flesh and dies in the aer "many times" (which obviously does not mean Osiris appears among men again and again). But, yes, again, the same language can also mean one became a man on earth, a la Romulus. Paul specifies neither. So we can't decide on that observation alone (hence D. brings out other converging arguments, e.g. curious silences, the diverging views of the apocrypha, etc.).

2.5

Neither M. nor D. has a slam dunk case with the Ascension of Isaiah. I will explain in detail.

On the one hand, M. would do well to actually read it:

7.9. And we ascended to the firmament, I and he, and there I saw Sammael and his hosts, and there was great fighting therein and the angels of Satan were envying one another. 10. And as above so on the earth also; for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is here on the earth. ... 6.13. And the angel who was sent to make him see was not of this firmament, nor was he of the angels of glory of this world, but he had come from the seventh heaven. ... 7.13. And afterwards he caused me to ascend above the firmament, to heaven (i.e. the first heaven).

So D. is right: the "firmament" is the aer, the space between earth and heaven, and in the f. there is a parallel for everything on earth (Is. ascends from earth to the f. and sees Satan and his demons fighting there, and Is. is told everything on earth has its parallel in the f., and there are angels of the f., etc., and angels are by definition intermediary deities, etc.). To be precise, other texts show that holy things actually have their higher parallels in the levels of heaven (e.g. the Garden of Eden and the New Jerusalem have their parallels in the 3rd heaven, as attested in the Talmud and various Xian texts, while the Throne and Tabernacle of the Temple has its parallel in the 7th heaven--being the most holy thing on earth naturally its parallel has the highest and thus purest place in the cosmos).

This is well-known to scholars of Jewish Second-Temple theology. Genesis 1:6-9 says "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."

Thus, the "firmament" is what divides the waters below (the sea) from the waters above (the higher levels of heaven). So when Is. ascends to the firmamnent, there can be no doubt this is where he is going, and that D.'s point about parallels between things on earth and in the heavens is explicitly stated here (and is pretty evident from Hebrews as well--though see below).

Then:

10.7. And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, saying to my Lord Christ who will be called Jesus: 8. "Go forth and descend through all the heavens, and thou wilt descend to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go."

So again D. is right: Jesus was to descend to the *firmament*, then Sheol, *not* earth. Earth is never mentioned here (the phrase "that world" refers to Sheol, or at most the whole sphere below the moon, not earth specifically--see below). One might say that "technically" Jesus had to pass earth to get to Sheol, but that does not mean he stopped on earth, and it is certainly not said here that he did or was even supposed to--he is told to go to the f. and then Sheol. Period. An exact parallel is found in the Sumerian Inanna tablets: Inanna descends from heaven to the underworld--skipping earth right by. She is incarnated in hell, killed, crucified, raised from the dead (in hell) with the water and food of life after three days, then ascends back to heaven, again skipping earth. This is pretty standard stuff in ancient cosmology and theology.

It continues:

10.9. "And thou wilt become like unto the likeness of all who are in the five heavens. 10. And thou wilt be careful to become like the form of the angels of the firmament. 11. And none of the angels of that world shall know that Thou art with Me of the seven heavens and of their angels. 12. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called the heavens, and their angels and their lights, unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world, and the world that is dominated by them: 13. For they have denied Me and said: 'We alone are and there is none beside us.' 14. And afterwards from the angels of death Thou wilt ascend to Thy place. And Thou wilt not be transformed in each heaven, but in glory wilt Thou ascend and sit on My right hand. 15. And thereupon the princes and powers of that world will worship Thee." 16. These commands I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.

This is unmistakable: Jesus only arrives in disguise among the demons of the f., and they are the the "princes" he will judge and destroy and who deny God, and from *there* Jesus ascends. The text goes on to describe how Jesus follows his orders and then descends through each level of heaven in turn, transforming himself at each lower stage to take the relevant form there (vv. 10.17-28). This is where D. gets his thesis, and he is right--about what this text is saying, at any rate. Whether this text was a development upon an original creed that had once been mapped onto a real man, or whether this represents the original creed which was then euhemerized into a real man, is another issue altogether, and one I have not yet seen resolved. As far as I can see, all are viable interpretations of all the evidence we have.

Then, finally:

10.29. And again He descended into the firmament where dwelleth the ruler of this world, and He gave the password to those on the left, and His form was like theirs, and they did not praise Him there; but they were envying one another and fighting; for here there is a power of evil and envying about trifles. 30. And I saw when He descended and made Himself like unto the angels of the air, and He was like one of them. 31. And He gave no password; for one was plundering and doing violence to another.

Remember: Is. saw this fighting earlier, and was told it had parallels on earth. And he explicitly calls the f. the aer, and says that is where Jesus ended up (here he says, point blank, he is like angels of the aer--not like men on earth). Now, the following section is widely recognized to be a later Christian interpolation. D. is not making that up: most scholars are in agreement about this, and it is pretty clear they are right. As Müller rightly puts it, there is "an interruption in the flow of the narrative, at 11.2-22, which again proves to be an interpolation; it reports on Mary and Joseph, the birth of the Saviour and his crucifixion" (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, pp. 604-605). If you read it, it is clearly not in the same style or flow of the narrative, and adds what is not mentioned in the orders given to Jesus earlier. Moreover, the narrative flow is restored by skipping the interpolation. To wit (11.1 + 11.23-24):

11.1 AFTER this I saw, and the angel who spoke with me, who conducted me, said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz; for for this purpose have I been sent from God." ... [? excised text ?]... 23. And I saw Him, and He was in the firmament, but He had not changed Himself into their form, and all the angels of the firmament and the Satans saw Him and they worshipped. 24. And there was much sorrow there, while they said: "How did our Lord descend in our midst, and we perceived not the glory, which we see has been upon Him from the sixth heaven?"

Then he reascends, repeating the narrative flow of the earlier section. It is clear from these passages that the original text did not have a section where Jesus went *past* the f. and incarnated on earth (rather than the aer)--the surprise of the demons makes less sense otherwise (because they don't mention him passing them, and the earlier orders said he was to judge and overcome *them*, not any powers on earth, etc.).

I am quite certain D. is right here--he has the majority of scholars behind him, including the top experts on this very text. So M. is wrong to criticize D. for this. But M. is right when he suggests the possibility that the re-interpolation text might be a later celestialization of an originally terrestrial Jesus, or might have been a pre-Christian Type that was then mapped onto a real Jesus who died under Pilate, etc. The case can't really be decided, IMO. Both views are plausible. D. does have the edge that his thesis is a simpler explanation of various bizarre silences in Paul, but the simpler hypothesis is not always true. So if D. has anything over the alternative, it is a small lead, as I have said, which is not enough to settle the matter in his favor, IMO. It only produces agnosticism. D. and I disagree about this, but I can only tell you the way things seem to me.

2.5.3

"And I saw when He descended [below the firmament!] and made Himself like unto the angels of the air"

Notice that every time before he identifies the destination, but here he does not--except when he names only one location: the aer. Earth is nowhere mentioned. The aer corresponds to the lower level of the f. (it is the last stop above the "lower waters" that God has separated out from the f.). Still, one can imagine that this was at some point mapped onto an angel who went all the way down to earth (through Docetism).

"that world [earth...]: to the angel in Sheol you will descend [after death...]"

Wrong again. "That world" refers to the whole region (see below) and in particular Sheol (standard forward pronoun). Earth specifically is never mentioned, so it cannot possibly be the object of any pronoun here. Likewise, the descent to Sheol is not "after" death but rather *is* death--it indicates that Jesus is to die, which *entails* descending to Sheol (see below).

"In the two closest previous occurrences of 'that world', at 9:20 & 9:26, the expression means 'earth' only."

First, words must be read in context: a pronoun takes the meaning of the nearest available object. M.'s argument here is like saying every time I say "that man" I mean the same man I referred to in a previous chapter, instead of the man I just mentioned, or will then mention. That is just silly. No language on earth functions that way.

Second, 9:20 does not refer to earth per se. Instead, the f. is alluded to. See 9:14: "the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son..." Where is this "god"? In the f., in the aer (this is explicitly stated at 10.29 and 10.10-12, where "that world" is unmistakably the f.). It certainly does not say it is on earth.

M. is probably confused by the fact that "this world" is everything below the orb of the moon, i.e. everything under the first heaven. Thus, its contents include the f., the aer, and the earth and even Sheol (everything subject to decay--and hence Satan rules over all of these as one unit--at least until Jesus triumphs over him). That is why one can certainly see ambiguity here--to be in "that world" can mean being in the aer, the f., or on earth. In that one respect M. is right,
since D.'s thesis is not entirely proved here. It could be consistent with it, yes, but the text is also consistent with the notion of mapping this celestial story onto a real man (whether the celestial Type pre-existed a real Jesus or not).

I am surprised, though, that M. appears so confused about this, since he seems to understand it. He himself says: "the firmament is never considered a world on its own, but sometimes (only) a part of the one including earth (and the air above)." That isn't exactly true (the firmament was always distinguished from the earth--cf. Genesis, and the earlier part of the Asc. of Is.), but the phrase "this world" does indeed include all these things as one unit. Why M. doesn't realize how this undermines his own argument I can't explain. For if what he here says is true (and it is), then when "that world" is used it means all those things as a single world, not just "earth." M. himself seems to be aware of this, so I can't explain why he then engages the fallacy of reducing "that world" to only "the earth."

2.5.4

"Satan can kill people on earth also"

Correct. Satan rules over the whole region below the orb of the moon--and that includes the f., the aer, the earth, and Sheol (which is why we need Jesus to escape Sheol). See 1 Cor. 15: only at the second coming will this reign of Satan be destroyed. That is why Paul talks about death being an enemy to be completely defeated. He means decay: i.e. the fact that everything below the orb of the moon is subject to decay, which is due to Satan (or allegorically equated as Satan--as Fales believes). That very fact will be abolished, because everything in that realm will be destroyed--and so Satan will no longer have anything over which to rule. Satan himself will then be subjugated (or destroyed--it is not clear). But the fact that Satan rules over this entire region below the heavens does not mean he does not conduct his business from his throne in the firmament, just as God conducts his from his throne in the 7th heaven. Thus, to defeat Satan you have to go to his throne, which the text says is in the f., not on earth. So obviously that is where Jesus has to go. He could hardly interact with and defeat Satan by going to Los Angeles when Satan is in New York!<G>

But, again, M. is certainly right that Jesus could be "killed" on earth by a Satan in the f. And since everything on earth is paralleled in the f., I can certainly see how a Xian could map this celestial battle with Satan onto a historical Jesus--both happening at once. Therefore, D.'s thesis fits and explains the evidence (contra M.), but is not thereby proved (pro M.).

2.5.5.

"Satan and his evil angels can also be on earth"

Ironically, M. didn't notice that this refutes his earlier contention that there was no evidence of descending & ascending deities. He is correct here: Satan, before his Fall, was indeed a mediary deity who routinely descended from heaven to earth and ascended back again. The Book of Job proves it.

The Book of Job, of course, refers to pre-fall Satan. After the Fall (which took place before Xianity but after Job's day), Satan refused toreascend to the hall of the lord and instead decided to do things for
himself below the moon and thus rule there. In ancient Jewish Angelology this is intelligible, since the angels were granted godlike
powers and sent below to do God's bidding (since it was vulgar to even imagine God himself taking on a body or mingling with corrupt matter, hence he had to carry out his will through intermediaries--indeed, some Jewish sects took the logical step of believing that creation itself was accomplished by such a mediary). Thus, once an angel decided not to obey God anymore, he could indeed set up rule down here, thus necessitating God's plan of sending another mediary to depose the rebel. It should be clear how the Fall of Satan, a pre-Xian idea, *requires* a descending savior myth. Thus, it is hardly any surprise that several such myths would be formulated. This is a fact routinely overlooked by Evangelicals who think Xianity just came out the blue and was completely novel and unexpected. To the contrary, it was inevitable. Still, one could map such a celestial event onto a historical man--though one didn't have to. So either is possible.

"4:2 "... Beliar [Satan] the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament [to earth] ..."

Another universally recognized Xian interpolation (3:13-4:22 certainly did not exist in the Maccabeean original!), and thus useless for making M.'s point. Indeed, chs. 1-5 actually come from a completely different text--only later merged with 6-11. Had M. actually conducted himself like a scholar, he would know this. Heck, it is stated even in standard references! Can't M. at least consult Eerdman's or the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church or something, anything, before writing his uninformed opinions? I chastise for a reason: D.'s thesis deserves better scholarship from its critics.

"Earl writes on page 107: 'this hanging is something performed by 'the god of this world,' meaning Satan.' But the hanging in question is never said to be done by Satan"

M. is right that D. is misleading here. It is not literally true that Satan does the hanging (any more than Pilate or Herod or Caiaphas did), but his agents. M. is at least right that this can mean people on earth. But it can also mean demons. So D. is not thereby refuted. Both are possible, and I don't see adequate evidence to decide between them.

"And as we saw, no hanging occurs when the Son is going down through the firmament."

Probably because the relevant passage was excised when the interpolation was inserted in its place. Unless 9:14 is also an interpolation, we should expect the hanging to take place between 10:31
and 11:23, but all we have is the Xian forgery there now. So we can't say what had been there originally.

"According to Doherty, 'Mark' just replaced the flying demons of 'Ascension of Isaiah' "by new, humanized demons: the Jews.'!"

That is his thesis, yes. And it certainly is plausible that the pre-interpolated text of Asc. of Is. predates Mark (or even Xianity itself). The earlier half (ch.s 1-5, minus interpolation) almost certainly does (it likely dates to the Maccabeean period, as most
scholars agree). One should keep distinct what is D.'s *thesis* and what is his evidence *for* that thesis and what is just evidence that his thesis merely *explains*. Those are three different things, and should not be confounded. I point out in my review of D. that D.
himself sometimes confounds them, and I recommend there that he make them more distinct in future editions.

I should add that I am fairly well convinced that Mark did not even imagine himself writing history. His entire story was, I am sure, consciously contrived myth. I have buko evidence supporting that view--I had long resisted it, but my conversion by a flood of evidence
is now complete. There is no doubt in my mind. When you realize this, as I have, then D.'s thesis sounds a lot more plausible than it would
to someone still blindly stuck to the idea that Mark is preserving some sort of historical record. It is possible he is taking some bits and
pieces from a real history (and thus it is, as I've said, still possible there was a real Jesus, etc.), but 99% of everything in Mark is definitely fiction, aimed at telling a "higher truth" through symbol
and metaphor. It takes extensive familiarity with the evidence for this conclusion before you can really see how powerful that evidence is, and how certain my conclusion. I deliver a lot of it in one chapter in the
forthcoming anthology _Jesus Is Dead_ (as does Fales, in that same anthology, for Matthew). But one could write an encylopedic treatise on
the evidence--it would take a life's work to present it all!

"But on page 108, when the Sheol of 'Ascension of Isaiah' needs to be above earth (so the Son does not go too far down!) we have: 'Outside of this one passage [in ch.11], the Son's activities seem to relate
entirely to the spirit realm, layers of heaven extending through the firmament and including Sheol.' If the location becomes against your theory, change it!"

This I think is unfair to D., whom I do not think was doing what M. alleges. But D. is vague enough here to confuse the likes of M., so I would certainly recommend clarity in future editions. I am sure D. means just what the ancients imagined of Inanna: that she descends past
earth. It does not mean she ever stopped there. And this is entailed by ancient theology: if Jesus went to the f. and died there, he would *have* to descend to Sheol. For that is what death *means*.

We do not literally see a man who dies on a tower visibly descend through the ground into Sheol, nor do we see him stop half way down and walk around on the earth, like something undead, then die "again" and go to Sheol! Likewise, if Jesus died in the f., we would not see his deceased spirit descend through the earth into Sheol, nor would it make any sense for that spirit to stop on earth and die again. Thus, M.'s critique of D. here seems terribly misinformed and confused. D. is not saying anything implausible here--indeed, what he is saying follows necessarily from what we know about ancient cosmology. *If* Jesus died in the f. then he *had* to descend past earth into Sheol, just as an ordinary man who dies on a mountain or in a balloon would have to do--but this would be a descent of an invisible deceased spirit, which would certainly not stop and be reincarnated on earth and die a second time. That is illogical!

Now, one can still take issue with the initial premise (that Jesus died in the f. rather than on earth). But I see nothing but a stalemate on that point. No trustworthy text is clear on this point either way. Not Paul. Nor the pre-interpolation Ascension of Isaiah.

2.6

[Note that I have some doubts about the authenticity of Romans as a Pauline letter. At best, it has been seriously toyed with. But that's another matter.]

2.6.1

I can't follow M.'s argument here at all. I see no way to get from Rom. 9:31-33 that Jesus was crucified on earth. The passage is fully consistent with only the Gospel being on earth, not the crucifixion itself. M. seems not to understand the difference. The Gospel is a stumbling block, not the literal, historical crucifixion of Jesus. After all, the latter no longer exists--it is in the past--so you can't trip over it (and even if you did stumble over a physical cross left on Golgotha with a physical Jesus still on it, that would still have nothing to do with what Paul is talking about). You can only trip over
the story, the message, about this crucifixion and what it means. Thus, the subject is the Gospel, not the crucifixion itself. Obviously the Gospel was placed in Zion. That does not mean Jesus was. Sure, it is consistent with both possibilities. But that gets us nowhere.

2.6.2

[M. claims to be citing Rom. 15:26-27 , when in fact it is 11:26-27 that he quotes--I am sure this is just some typo, but it should certainly be corrected]

First, Zion has a heavenly counterpart (Heb. 12:22) and in fact Zion was a common name for the Heavenly Jerusalem, meaning the New City that would descend from the heavens and replace the earth when earth (including the Old Jerusalem) is consumed by fire. Second, Zion is also a racial term. To come "out of Zion" means to come from the race of the Jews. It does not always mean coming from any literal physical place. And indeed, this is a more plausible explanation for why Paul transfers the "to" to become an "out from." An even more plausible explanation is that Paul is again talking about the Gospel, not Jesus per se.

Indeed, Paul is actually doing what he often does: mix several different verses together into one. Here, he has combined not only the two verses M. identifies, but also Isaiah 2:3: "And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." Thus, the "one who redeems" is the Logos, the Word of the Lord, i.e. the Gospel, which comes out of both the heavenly and the earthly Jerusalem.

Not certainly. But Plausibly. So, again, stalemate.

2.7

M. is correct that D. is citing the wrong verse in support of his argument as to where the sacrifice takes place. But apart from that valid criticism, M.'s critique is not entirely apt. To wit:

"And from which translation does 'the real sanctuary' come from? 'real' is not in the Greek!"

Yes it is. D.'s translation has confused M. again. The word is alêthinês ("real, true, genuine"). It is certainly in that verse--though, as M. later rightly notes, it modifies tabernacle, not holy places. This still supports D.'s lesser point that Jesus is the Heavenly Priest in the "True" Tabernacle (i.e. the real Jerusalem Temple in Heaven), but D.'s translation is misleading, at least in that it has confused his own critics, and is not relevant to where the sacrifice takes place. On the one hand, M. is clearly out of his element here. But D., too, needs to be more rigorous.

"Let's also note 'Hagion' does not necessarily mean 'sanctuary' (which can be understood as 'temple'!)."

But the context is undeniable. Hebrews engages lengthy comparisons between Jesus and the earthly High Priest--there can therefore be no doubt that the Temple is meant here (the use of tabernacle confirms the point). See also below.

"Furthermore, sacrifices in the old Jewish system took place always outside any tabernacle."

No, they took place inside it: Hebrews 9:6-8. There is an outer and an inner tabernacle. The sacrifice takes place in the outer and the blood is taken to the inner, where it must be poured on the altar. Only the High Priest can enter the inner tabernacle. See 9:11-21 for how this relates not only to 8:1-2 but to D.'s entire thesis of parallels in heaven for earthly things, and, incidentally, for the fact that the sacrifice takes place there:

"I do not see here (or in the whole of 'Hebrews'!) a 'sacrifice' occurring in heaven (at the right hand of God!). And there is no mention of execution, cross or altar in these two verses."

The blood of the Lamb must be sprinkled on the altar. All readers would have *known* that--they didn't need to be told. Hebrews 9 definitely says Christ's blood was sprinkled on the Heavenly Altar. That certainly implies he was sacrificed in the Heavenly Outer Tabernacle. See Hebrews 9:23-24 - Christ is the "better sacrifice" who cleanses the "copy" in heaven of the altar on earth, who did not enter the earthly tabernacle but the heavenly one. Indeed, Hebrews 10 struggles to argue from ch. 9 that this is the very reason why Christ only had to be sacrificed once: because, being heavenly, and performed on the *true* altar, it is permanent, unlike the earthly sacrifices. After all, the "better versions" of things are always in Heaven. That is made clear throughout Hebrews, and of course by 8:1-2, which is why D. cites it (but also see 9:11).

Again, M. is wrong. But D. can't prove that this was not mapped onto an earthly counterpart. Yes, there is a heavenly sacrifice, but maybe that only paralleled a real one on earth. I don't see any way to decide one way or the other. I also have some problem with the fact that Jesus is supposedly killed in the firmament, yet the tabernacles should be in the 7th Heaven. So there seems to be different conceptions of what happened to Jesus between Hebrews and the Ascension of Isaiah, and it might be a strain to combine them. That does not mean D.'s thesis is fundamentally wrong--after all, D. argues that there were many different Heavenly Jesus movements, so we should not be surprised to find them developing different doctrines. But it does show what I have said all along: we are much more ignorant than either D. or M. let on. We don't really know all we need to know to decide the question of whether there was a historical Jesus.

On the other hand, I think M. could be right that Jesus carries his blood up through all the heavens, and therefore D. should say that the sacrifice takes place in the firmament here, rather than in the outer tabernacle. But without the ability to interrogate the author of Hebrews, who can say?

"the counterpart of Doherty's 'higher world' (the heavens) is earth itself . No other 'world' is mentioned (1:10, 12:26)."

M. should certainly know better. As he himself suggests, the firmament, air, earth, and Sheol are all one world (this world) and Hebrews uses the plural "heavens" for a reason (there are many, and they are indeed distinct from "this world"). So all I see is stalemate here. The sinners can be the demons or their counterparts and agents on earth.

"Where is the spiritual & eternal sacrifice?"

Again, I think M. misunderstands D., though D. is certainly confusing here. I believe D. is not saying the sacrifice is cyclicly repeated like other myths (e.g. Osiris) but that its effect lasts forever. There is no doubt that Hebrews said it only happened once, and that it happened in history, a good long time after the first covenant was established, and prior to our own time in history, and that its effect is eternal. If D. thinks otherwise, I don't see why he needs to. His thesis is perfectly compatible with a once and past event. After all, Satan's fall was a once and past event, yet clearly not something that happened on earth. And Jesus's sacrifice is precisely what was necessitated by Satan's fall, so we should expect standard notions of sympathetic magic here: the cure must resemble the disease (a common notion in ancient medicine). Thus, if Satan fell only to the aer, not to become anyone on earth, you would expect that is where Jesus must go, too. That, again, does not prove this was so, but it sho ws the plausibility inherent in D.'s thesis.

"The Spirit is eternal, not the sacrifice. And the later is not qualified as spiritual. And no translation can possibly have the sacrifice as 'spiritual, eternal, ...', according to the Greek."

I agree. This is not the only place where D. is a little muddled. Though his point has merit, he does not always make the best argument for his own case--or perhaps sometimes misuses evidence. This is a good example of that. The context does support D., not M. But D. is wrong to claim that Heb. 9:14 literally says what D. claims.

"In conclusion, there is no evidence in 'Hebrews' the 'sacrifice' happened in the heavens....But there are some clues pointing to earth."

Neither is true. There is *some* evidence for heaven, but it is vague. And the clues that point to "earth" actually only point to the whole sublunar realm. Thus, the case remains undecided. D.'s thesis is neither challenged nor proved by Hebrews, taken in isolation.

2.8

"Earl goes back to non-Christian Sallustius (no quote presented) and Julian 'the Apostate' (both 4th century authors!), providing this passage: 'the substance which is subject to change mingles with the passionless revolving sphere of the fifth substance.' (Orations V, 165c) which would be the only quotation with some relevance in the whole book!"

Again, as I myself said in my review, D. does not do the job he should as far as establishing his background assumptions. D. is certainly correct, and M. is certainly wrong. I can vouch for that, having read extensively in ancient literature and scholarship on ancient religion. But M. is right to be concerned that D. doesn't bring out the evidence, evidence that really does exist, that confirms D.'s claim. Plutarch articulates D.'s thesis in no uncertain terms (M.'s critique is quite wrong--see below). And he is not alone. A full discussion is also in the Talmud, in Philo, in the Axiochus, and in various other texts and authors. There is ample "external evidence about his idea of the fleshy/demonic lower heaven as written before (or during) Paul's days." So by claiming otherwise M. only makes himself look like he doesn't know what he is talking about. Probably because he doesn't.

Now to M.'s criticisms of me:

2.8.3.1

"Let's check about these outermost areas and where Osiris was dismembered:"

M. again engages in the same ridiculous violation of the rules of reading comprehension by taking a use of the same adjective on a different noun in a completely different chapter as indicating that the same noun is meant elsewhere. That is absurd. When Plutarch talks about "outmost parts of the land" he is clearly not talking about the "outmost parts of matter." Those are completely different concepts. M.s argument is like proving that because I say "outermost parts of Los Angeles" in one passage that therefore when I say "outermost parts of New York" I am really talking about Los Angeles. Huh? Yeah. That's just plain silly. It is even sillier considering that the concepts Plutarch is voicing are all over the ancient literature, and the context in Plutarch is clear--to anyone who actually reads the whole thing, and not just snippets.

"It looks to me the outermost areas are regions around Egypt, called Nephthys, and the remains of Osiris are dispersed in Egypt."

M. needs to actually read the whole book. Plutarch, first, gives several different schemes (historical, metaphysical, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes them as different, not the same thing--he even says the metaphysical is the correct one. Second, Pl. clearly discusses the use of terms like Nephthys as allegorical. If M. had actually read the text, he would know that Nephthys is not foremost a place--she is a goddess! She represents Finality and Victory (355f). Thus she can be attached allegorically to all sorts of things. The attachment of her name to the Outlands is one allegory--hence also the earth is called Isis and the air Horus and aspects of the Nile Osiris (in the same section M. quotes). Thus, Plutarch is not talking here about the heavenly Osiris, where he says he and Isis are intermediary gods between heaven and earth. Again, Plutarch relates several *different* interpretations of the myth. M. seems to think they are all the same one. Only someone who did not read the whole book would make that mistake.

Plutarch switches schemes and explains what he disagrees with in preceding sections and what he really believes at 374e (note earlier, at 369d-e he introduces the idea of mediator deities, too). Thence:

"The relations and forms and effluxes of the God abide in the HEAVENS and in the STARS, but those things that are distributed in susceptible elements, EARTH and sea and plants and animals, suffer dissolution and destruction and burial, and oftentimes again shine forth and appear again in their generations...for the destructive power exercises special dominion over the outermost part of MATTER which they call Nephthys or Finality"

Can there be any doubt what Plutarch is talking about? No.

2.8.3.2

a) M. really is confused here. The sublunar heaven is the firmament, which is indeed a part of everything below the moon. Yes, I used the word heaven in the modern, not ancient sense (the first "heaven" in the ancient sense was above the sublunar aer--though the OT does not yet make that distinction). But M. should know that. At any rate, his criticism is completely irrelevant to my actual point: that Osiris dies and rises in the aer. That it happens "often" means it cannot be a historical person Pl. is now talking about.

b) and c) Again, ignoring the actual structure and point of Plutarch's book, M. cites a discussion of another scheme as if it applied to a completely different scheme discussed later in the book. Plutarch is relating what different groups of people believed. To cite what some believed as an example of what others believed is wholly invalid, and indeed goes against the very point of Plutarch's book. I strongly urge M. to read the whole book--front to back. Only then will he understand what is going on here.

d) Why did M. omit the introductory sentence? "This idea at the present time the priests intimate with great circumspection in acquitting themselves of this religious secret in trying to conceal it: that this god Osiris is the ruler..." Doesn't that make clear that Plutarch is now talking about a completely different scheme of interpretation, and not the same one he discussed earlier? Why doesn't M. know this?

"But he himself is far removed from the earth [downward!]"

Oh dear no! Plutarch is chastising the "majority of people" for believing the wrong thing! Go back and read the context. Thus, he is not saying that Osiris is really far below--but far above! He is saying that the people are *wrongly* disturbed by the idea he is below. Indeed, he could not say in one place that everything below the moon is subject to decay, and then say that below the earth everything is "uncontaminated and unpolluted and pure from all matter that is subject to destruction and death"! That would be a direct self-contradiction. *Only* the heavens ever qualify for the latter description (without exception in ancient literature). Further, the verb "far removed" means set apart from--so it cannot mean *in* the earth (and Plutarch certainly believed earth was a sphere, so anything below earth is literally *inside* earth).

The following discussion of bodies and souls also exactly matches that of the Axiochus and of Philo, and thus clearly repeats the Middle-Platonic view of two levels of the cosmos (which I will note again: ALL SCHOLARS OF ANCIENT COSMOLOGY AGREE IS A FACT). Likewise, Plutarch is a Platonist, and all Middle-Platonosts believe all souls *ascend*, not descend--i.e. Plutarch himself does not believe in Hades. He only relates what *others* believe when he discusses the equation of Osiris and Hades ("they say...").

2.8.3.3.

"It does not seem these sinful demigods ("[s.26] daemons") have a home in the lower heavens!"

Nor did I ever say that of Osiris. Mediating deities *by definition* mediate, i.e. travel, between both. That is why Osiris descends below the moon then dies then re-ascends above the moon. He does not "live" below the moon. There is a completely different class of demon that lives there--in Pagan Magic, the daimones of the aer which could be bound by spells; but in Jewish myth, those that submit themselves to Satan's dominion. Jews, and Xians, believed *all* demons were such.
Though pagans would respond that what Jews and Xians call angels were in fact the very daimones that pagans mean by, e.g., Osiris, Jews and Xians would have rejected Plutarch's claim that Osiris was an angelic mediary and insisted that Osiris actually lived and stayed below the moon and served Satan--this is clear from Athenagoras, for example. As to the demons who serve Satan living and battling in the aer, the Ascension of Isaiah is explicit, as I've already shown.
"Why would the early Christians imagine an upper world as more real & pungent than their earthly one?"

This is explained by Middle Platonic (and Jewish) writers: this world was subject to change, decay, chaos, and seemed to cause all manner of evil; God is good and created everything; therefore there must be a superior, perfect world not subject to change, decay, chaos, and evil; and that must be the heavens (the only thing left, and the only thing that seems not subject to change, decay, chaos or evil--besides, elevation is a universal human notion of superiority: no culture has ever imagined a "better" world below the earth, all have imagined it *above*).

"Up to the point they took the crucifixion 'automatically' happened up there, even if Paul never wrote it did (but indirectly indicated 'Zion'!)."

I have to say this sentence is unintelligible.

"Why did Paul never state Jesus' death in an upper world/lower heaven?"

If his audience already knew, why would he say? After all, he only ever writes to people who had already been orally evangelized. Thus, most of the fundamentals of doctrine were already in place. For example, when some Corinthians doubt the resurrection, only then does Paul engage an elaborate explanation of how there are two worlds, one of decay one of indecay, the former was earth and the latter heaven, and the resurrected get bodies in the latter (cf. 2 Cor. 5; after being sucked up "into the aer" per 1 Thess. 4), as Jesus must have, too. Since no one ever seems to have doubted the death of Jesus (even the Corinthian faction did not deny that *Jesus* had been resurrected, only that we would be), there was never an occasion for Paul to elaborate on where Jesus died (as we can suppose Paul would have if he had to prove Jesus had died--as it is, he simply says it is proven by scripture, as if his audience already agrees).

But I agree: it would be better if we'd had such a discussion from Paul. Though it is no challenge to D. that we don't have such, it would certainly prove his case if we found one. But there is no reason to expect one. Indeed, even if it existed, the triumphing church would have supressed it (and one might note that the original first letter to the Corinthians, cited by Paul in 1 Cor., has indeed vanished!).

"Why did he never specify the crucifixion was not on earth, more so when many were crucified there?"

Same as above: this would have been one of the first things explained to the Evangelized, so it would never come up in letters, unless by happenstance (e.g. baptism of the dead).

"And because of the flimsy substantiation of 'Doherty's world' in all of the ancient literature (four centuries of it!), wouldn't that raise a major (controversial!) issue after being learned from Paul (or others) as where Jesus suffered the cross & died (and out of sight from humans!)? Of course, it would! Then why don't we observe the apostle dealing with it in his epistles, where he just did that with many others?"

What controversy? No controversy would arise until *after* Jesus was euhemerized--which on D.'s thesis didn't happen until after Paul. Some of the dubious letters do mention myths being contrived, but don't state what those myths argued--they only tell readers to ignore them tout court as corrupt, worldly, and demonic nonsense. Yes, I would sure like to know what those myths and contrivances were that these epistles attack without describing! But as far as Paul's letters go, euhemerization does not appear as an issue--nor its reverse. That neither proves nor refutes D. As I've said: we weren't lucky enough to get a smoking gun for *either* side of the debate.

"For me, Doherty's theory crashes to the ground right there, because of lack of external testimonies about the mythical lower heaven and the silences of Paul (& 'Hebrews') about it."

Competent historians read documents in context: that means, understanding what Paul and his readers would have taken for granted. The fact that demons resided in the aer is one of those facts--as again: ALL SCHOLARS WHO STUDY THIS SUBJECT AGREE.

Now, it is correct that this does not prove D.'s case. Even though Paul surely believed in a firmament and aer that resides between earth and the moon (the border of the 1st heaven), and surely believed demons lived there, it does not follow that this is where he imagined the passion as taking place. That is only *consistent* with what Paul says--which D. is right to note is a bit curious: you would think Paul would have said something more concrete about the life and times of Jesus, etc. (see below). Surely, his congregations would be asking him things about the real Jesus all the time, so there is indeed a problem for historicists to explain why none of his letters ever answer any such questions or even hint at their existence. Now, one might come up with theories to explain this. But those theories will all be at least as ad hoc as anything in D.'s thesis. Two ad hoc theories? I see no way to decide between them.

And D. is right that his theory is less ad hoc here. Unlike the "heavenly scheme" D. theorizes, which would be a *foundational* doctrine and thus *certainly* already explained to Paul's congregations from day one and thus have no cause to appear in his letters, debates and natural human curiosity about a *historical* Jesus would not be foundational at all, but would constantly arise out of the blue and have to be dealt with. A classic example is 1 Cor. 15, where actual eyewitness reports and statements from Jesus himself about the nature of his resurrection body could not fail to come up *if they existed*--therefore, we can be fairly certain they did not exist. Now, that proves the case pretty strongly for a resurrection in heaven rather than on earth (and I have a lot more evidence for just that), but unfortunately for D. that is still compatible with a historical Jesus who *died* on earth.

What D. finds curious is that if Jesus died on earth, this would entail that all sorts of biographical and verbal facts about him would *certainly* come up in debates over Church doctrine *and* in natural human curiosity about the greatest man that ever lived. So it is indeed bizarre that neither ever came up, in a way that it is not bizarre that the location of Jesus' death never came up, if it took place in heaven--since that would already be a settled matter of foundational doctrine.

Part 2:

I have no major quibble with what M. argues in Part 2. It is correct that D. needs to make a stronger case (i.e. present more analogous evidence) for his reinterpretation of the usual historicist prooftexts, esp. the meaning of Davidic descent and fleshly existence. But M. still makes some mistakes there that need correcting (though I will continue to note sometimes where M. is nevertheless correct).

"This seems to be largely due to his (inaccurate) translation: 'the gospel concerning his Son who arose from the seed of David ...' (Ro1:3) That's partly from the RSV, but the Greek does NOT have 'the gospel' and 'who' (& 'arose' is Earl's own translation)!"

The Greek most definitely *does* have those words. The subject of the clause in 1:3 is the "Gospel" of 1:1. Anyone who reads Greek would know that. Likewise, the Greek says "tou huiou autou tou genomenou," lit. "the son, his, the one (i.e. son) who came to be." It is perfectly legitimate to translate "his son, the one who" as "his son, who" -- this is called the definite article in the attributive position, and the meaning is identical.

As for "arose," that is a valid translation of genomenos, which is a very ambiguous word with wide scope in its possible meanings. It literally means "become" but connotes any of the following with equal frequency: "be / is" or "happen / take place" or "arise / come about" or "be born / be created / come into being" or "show up / be present." D.'s choice is not contentious.

However:

"The digression starting by 'come of David's seed ...' is linked to 'his Son' and not likely to 'God's glad tidings'"

That is certainly correct. But I am not aware of D. saying such a thing. D. is saying that the whole unit "his son come from David's seed" is part of the content of the Gospel. That is certainly correct on the Greek. So I don't fathom M.'s point here.

"And why would a descendance [sic] from David be 'good news' for Gentiles?"

That isn't the good news. That is what the good news is *about* (peri). The good news is in 1:4-6.

"To conclude, it is highly improbable Paul meant he found 'come of David's seed' from the scriptures (and had to claim it!), as Doherty contends."

I couldn't disagree more. The Greek is unmistakable: the Gospel (1:1) is what was presaged in the OT (1:2) and the content of that Gospel is described in the whole of 1:3-4 (and probably also as the basis for 1:5-6). That's what the Greek says. Period. This also has strong support elsewhere (cf. Rom. 16:25-26; Eph. 3; one sees a hint in 2 Cor. 3:12-18-4:4; etc.).

Though this certainly does not prove D.'s thesis, it does indeed agree with it. And it is in fact *probable* that Paul meant he found the content of the Gospel in the OT. Of course, historicists don't dispute that--they all agree that the entire content of the Gospel was presaged
in the OT. The question is whether that is all there was to it (as D. theorizes) or whether this was treated as prophecies that were mapped onto a real person named Jesus (as historicists contend).

"the Greek did not have brackets or punctuation"

Note that this is not entirely true. Rather, most scholars don't trust the punctuation in the mss. since it is so varied among them and it seems scribes took a very free hand in changing it to suit themselves. But there is definitely punctuation in many Greek mss. Whether there is any in this particular passage, in any of the extant mss., and whether, if there is, there is any agreement on it among the mss., would require looking at those mss., since printed editions do not include such things. This has no bearing on the present argument, since there is nothing contentious about D.'s translation (per above). But it is well worth keeping in mind--laymen often repeat the misnomer of "no punctuation" (when scholars say this, they mean none that we trust--though most scholars mistakenly go too far: for such punctuation *is* important for telling us how the *scribe* understood a passage, which is not a trivial fact).

"Doherty is treating that 'possibly accurate' 'suggestion' from 'a translation' as if it were a piece of primary evidence."

I agree. Hence my admonition in my review that he needs to make a more careful distinction between theory, evidence, and explanatory fit.

"But Doherty does not stop here. He contends 'according to the spirit' can also be translated as 'in the sphere of the 'spirit'' (and from NO 'suggestion' by anyone else!)."

I'm sure he could find someone--and I wish he would. As I've said, he could do more to adduce scholarship supporting him and establishing his claims with evidence.

For myself: D.'s translation is plausible on the Greek and is implied by Paul's discussion in 1 Cor. 15, which uses abstract nouns to refer to the realm of the spiritual body as the realm of indecay, glory, immortality, etc., and he distinguishes flesh vs. spirit as between earth and heaven. So Paul would certainly have *understood* the idea of being in the realm of spirit vs. the realm of flesh. It is also worth mentioning that spirit was often invisible. Paul says so in 2 Cor. 4-5 (and various places in 1 Cor.), for example, and his view of Spirit accords very closely with the Stoic notion, that Spirit was an invisible divine substance that permeated the entire universe, top to bottom. But stars were pure spirit bodies, and thus being a spirit did not entail invisibility. Even so, one could plausibly see Paul as distinguishing flesh and spirit as between things seen and things unseen. A lot more could be said about that (the evidence is extensive, but not decisive). But it lends plausibility to D.'s thesis--though again does not prove it. The latter point is where I agree with M. here. For example, even if Paul was saying "in the sphere of," that is still compatible with a historical Jesus--whose actions were later interpreted as having *effects* in the different spheres. Likewise, "in the sphere of the flesh" still includes earth, and thus is compatible with an earthly sojourn, so even if D. is co mpletely right in his translation, his thesis is not thereby proved. It is only made compatible with the evidence. I myself am quite certain that Jesus was indeed raised *in heaven*. So "in the realm of the spirit" would refer to something that happens only in heaven. But whether Jesus *died* on earth or in the aer, cannot be ascertained from the statement that he died in the realm of flesh, since it includes both. In that respect, M.'s criticism is on target.

"Don't we have a clear expression of incarnation here?"

Again, D. does not dispute incarnation. He only places it in the aer instead of on earth. Thus, it is off base to point to texts proving incarnation. That does not resolve the issue.

"May I say Copernicus came with (a lot of) solid evidence for his theories, when Doherty can only be doubtful about 'Jesus as born of woman' and fling 'feathers' at it."

This is a good analogy--because it isn't true!<G>

The Copernican system actually did a slightly worse job of predicting planetary movements than Ptolemy's system, and actually had no new data
to work from (at least none any different than what P. had). Instead, it was easier to calculate those movements via C. than via P., which was its primary appeal. But P.'s system also failed to agree with

observations in important respects--a fact P. himself admitted!

One of the lesser known reasons C.'s system became popular was that allegiance to Aristotelian laws of motion was waning at the time (those laws would eventually be destroyed by Galileo--who set out to discredit them on purpose, though he undoubtedly got the idea from his practical work in artillery, and got the motivation from his refutation of the two-worlds cosmology with telescope observations). That was in fact the reason P. had rejected heliocentrism: his only scientific arguments against it were that it was impossible given the laws of motion as they were then thought to be. He otherwise expressed an *attraction* to heliocentrism and conceded that it would do a good job of explaining planetary motions--if only it were physically possible. For until Galileo, no one had proved it possible (though ruminations in Philopon, probably drawing on atomist physics, did create a spark of doubt at the dawn of the Dark Ages).

With that background you can see how good an analogy M. has chosen: at the time of its invention there really was no evidence confirming C.
over P., or vice versa. Both worked well enough (indeed, P. worked slightly better, though C. was easier), and there was no evidence refuting either. That is exactly how I see the present debate: D. can see the earth as going round the sun, historicists can see the sun as going round the earth, and both work fine, both have problems that require equally ad hoc solutions, and neither faces any greater challenge in the evidence than the other. The one difference is that Copernicus got his Galileo. I don't see any possibility of Doherty getting his--because there is no more evidence left to gather. It has been lost forever. Galileo could at least refute Ptolemy by demonstrating the law of inertia and the phases of Venus. We will never have any such evidence to find in D.'s case. So the debate will forever
remain at the stage of C. vs. P. In other words, unresolved.

"In any case, Paul was clear about not referring to a real human female here."

I should emphasize that I agree--the passage in question only provides a proof-of-concept, not a proof of D.'s thesis. Again, an important distinction both M. and D. need to learn to make.

"all other women in Paul's letters are earthly ones, including the two right after Gal4:4, the biblical Hagar and Sarah"

Actually, this is not so certain. What Paul is saying must be read in the same context as Philo's "Migration of Abraham," for example, where braham's journey is regarded as a metaphor for the journey of the soul. On that reading, Abraham is *not* a historical person, but merely a symbol, a mythic figure. Now, it is unclear whether Philo believed both, or whether he did think there was never a real Abraham. But the latter is certainly a plausible position to take, and many did take it, as Plutarch discusses those who take such a position regarding Osiris, for example (equating him with natural forces).

The Stoics almost as a rule (and Plutarch refers to this fact in that very same book) held that there were no historical persons by the names of any of the gods, but that these are merely allegories for natural and social forces and functions. And it has long been recognized that Paul sounds very much like a Stoic in some of his reasoning and beliefs and language (of all the schools, he sits tightly between the Stoic and Aristotelian, and far away from every other).

So it is *possible* that Paul does not believe there really was a Hagar and a Sarah. It is also possible that he believed they existed, but that the OT does not relate stories about them as much as about the heavenly ideals they represented. That is certainly how Philo viewed the OT: whenever something didn't make sense to him logically or historically, he says point blank that it therefore must be an allegory for a spiritual truth and not a historical fact. We know even Rabbinical Jews thought this way. For example, the Talmud preserves a fascinating debate about whether the mass resurrection in Ecclesiastes really took place--one school of rabbis argues it is mere allegory, another argues that it really happened, and proceeds to name contemporary descendants of those raised.

So the case is, again, not resolved. If Paul can imagine Hagar as an allegory for a greater spiritual truth, even if he could also at the same time believe she was a real historical person, could he not also imagine being "descended from Hagar" as an allegory as well? For example, Plutarch describes how some imagined the progeny of gods like Isis and Osiris, or Osiris and Nephthys, as being mere symbols of certain natural or spiritual phenomena, and not as literal children of literal gods (and he certainly makes it clear that these children were not imagined as historical persons).

So D. is not out on a limb here. But he is also not standing in any unassailable fortress, either. I would like to see much clearer examples and analogies proving his claim that someone in antiquity could speak the way he alleges Paul spoke. And even then, M. is right that Paul takes care to explain he is using allegory here, so one can legitimately ask why he never specifies this when speaking of Jesus. That is no slam dunk--as I've already noted, D. has a ready response that can explain Paul's silence here, and it is actually a more plausible one than historicists give to explain away all the *historicist* silences in Paul. But overall, I don't see the scales tipping very far either way.

In the same fashion, all the rest of M.'s points in this page are non-decisive. D. can advance plausible reasons to read things a different way, just as historicists can advance relatively plausible reasons to explain Paul's odd expressions and omissions.

"but he never wrote 'of the Lord' in a similar context. If Paul wanted to express James was a Christian, why didn't he wrote 'James, brother in the Lord'?"

Because Greek is a very rich language, and Paul often changes idiom. It is the same ambiguity in 1 Cor. 9:5. But I agree that D. needs to adduce for us more clear cases that prove the idiom in use within the 1st two centuries.

RE: Jos., AJ 20.200: "why would an interpolator identify a 'James' as Jesus' brother"

Both D. and M. are not quite correct here.

The fact is, this happens *all the time*. Some manuscripts (to name one I am working on: the Weights and Measures of Epiphanius) are lousy with what are called interlinear interpolations: scribes routinely made notes in the margins and between the lines in texts they copied, and then later scribes mistook this as indicating text that was accidentally left out. Because no standard system of symbols arose, there was in fact no way to tell the difference. And thus later scribes saw these notes and innocently "corrected" the text when they copied it, by inserting the supposedly excluded text. No intention by either scribe was responsible--just an honest mistake. There are many instances of this happening in the NT mss. Most have been weeded out of printed editions by sound textual analysis, but some remain as disputed passages.

Thanks to my work on Epiphanius (and Syncellus) and my training under Leonardo Taran at Columbia, I have a lot of familiarity with this kind of error. And the Antiquities passage has a few hallmarks of this. First, "the one called the Christ" is exactly the kind of thing a scribe would add as an interlinear note here--to remind him and future readers that the Jesus mentioned is Jesus Christ (exactly as we would do today with an informative footnote). Second, the words and structure chosen are exactly the ones that would be used in an interlinear note (just a participial clause--remarkable brevity for something that would otherwise spark a digression or cross-reference, had Josephus actually written those words). Third, the phrase is (apart from a necessary change of case) identical to that of Matthew 1:16. These three facts do not prove the case, but together they establish reasonable doubt.

In short, it is almost certainly the case that Josephus wrote "the brother of Jesus, by the name Jacob." But it is not certain that he wrote "the one called Christ." After all, Josephus mentions many men named Jesus.

D. is right that there was opportunity (a Christian scribe any time before Eusebius could have made the mistake, and we know for a fact that Eusebius was using a *Christian* library, the one founded by Origen, so its texts would likely have been copied out by Christian scribes).

[indeed, Origen himself may have been the one to make the note in the margin: it is notable that when Origen references this passage in his Commentary on Matthew, he does not make it clear that the phrase was actually in Josephus; moreover, Origen seems to be confused: Josephus never says what Origen actually alleges he did about James, but (a) he says something convoluted that inverts what Origen was saying, but of another man named *Jesus*, a high priest, cf. Jewish War 4.325, and (b) Josephus wrote often in his Life about a Jesus the brother of Justus, and one can imagine Origen thought this was James ("the Just"), since that is what he claims, and thus erroneously equated this with James the brother of the Lord, and somehow got this crossed in his mind with what Josephus said about that high priest named Jesus in 62 A.D.]

But D. is wrong:

"Doherty speculates that 'James by name' was originally on its own."

That is actually very unlikely on the Greek as we have it. As it stands, it is grammatically *impossible*. Though it is possible a scribe changed the grammar, that would be very unusual, because the phrase is unusual (lit. "for him the name was James")--and as a rule, scribes don't change their text to make it more difficult or complex, but almost always to make it simpler. And there would be no need to change it for an interpolation. So I think we can be 90% certain that Josephus wrote "the brother of Jesus for whom the name was James." The "called Christ" is what is suspect.

In particular:

"And a motivation of Josephus for naming Jesus (the so-called Christ) may well be to associate him with a breaker of the law."

Problem (1): Josephus never says Jesus broke the Jewish law (he explicitly says he was condemned by Pilate, not the Sanhedrin), yet this reference is to the Jewish law (and at any rate accuses James, not Jesus).

Problem (2): If that were his intent, Josephus would normally provide a cross-reference (because the reference is in a different book, which meant a different scroll, so the reader would need to know which scroll to go back and look in).

Problem (3): If that were his intent, then also logically *this* is where we would expect the book 18 "digression" on Jesus (the fact that it is placed in book 18 is strange--it makes sense to a forger, because that placement is chronologically correct, but Josephus did not follow chronology in digressions--he often refers back and forward in time, often considerably). In other words, if Josephus meant the reference to Jesus to explain why James is being accused, it would be most typical of Josephus to explain that *here*, not two whole books away, and without any cross-reference.

Problem (4): the supposed reference almost certainly did not exist anyway (Josephus did not write a word of the reference in book 18--I have several good reasons supporting that claim, which most laymen are unaware of, but I'll leave that for another time; but even on the common view that Josephus wrote the shorter redaction, that redaction does not contain any epithet "Christ," thus making the alleged cross-reference here unintelligible).

Problem (5): there are several men by the name Jesus in the works of Josephus, one being a very famous criminal (captain of a band of robbers in Galilee) and a close friend of Josephus himself (they fought in the war together), so if his intent was to allude to a criminal Jesus without cross-reference or explanation, he would more likely be alluding to *this* Jesus, not Jesus Christ, *even if* Josephus mentioned a Jesus under the epithet Christ in book 18.

Problem (6): without a cross-reference or explanation, normally such a reference would be to someone mentioned nearby, and we have one: the Jesus he intended is probably the very one named at the end of this very narrative--Jesus the son of Damneus, the man named high priest in
62 A.D. (just a couple of lines later). This is rendered more probable by the fact that the narrative is about the misuse of office of the high priest Ananus and the outcry at his unjust trial of James. The fact that the response to his abuse by the Romans was to depose him and replace him with Jesus would make sense here: the subtext would be that Ananus was persecuting his rival by attacking his brother, and the Romans achieved justice by punishing Ananus, and redressed his offence,
by giving the office to his enemy, the man whose brother he'd killed (not an uncommon idea of justice back then). Thus, the otherwise unexplained reference to Jesus is hereby explained--as is the odd method of calling the punished man first and foremost the brother of a certain Jesus.

"Then he proceeds 'The second suspicious aspect of the reference to Jesus is that it comes first in the text.'. But Josephus did just that a few times:"

I agree with M. that "brother of Jesus" was almost certainly what Josephus wrote. But M.'s examples could be problematic--they might not
share the same unusual Greek structure. Of course, you would have to read Greek to find out. I won't bother checking since I find the point moot. But this is the sort of argument laymen like M. should avoid unless or until they have an expert check it for them.

"The audience of Josephus in the 90's, the educated Romans, were most likely aware of Christians"

This is disproved by Pliny's letter to Trajan--both of them certainly very in-the-know, yet both seem largely clueless about Xians. Pliny had to torture some female Deacons even to find out what the religion was about (and Tacitus probably got his information from Pliny). And that was in 110 A.D. It is certainly not the case that Josephus would assume his readers knew what he was talking about. Before the turn of the century, most wouldn't. Some leading persons would (certainly Domitian, the last Flavian, under whom Flavius Josephus completed the Antiquities), but I suspect an author like Josephus would not write an inside note--he would write for posterity. And posterity would expect a digression. Josephus had digressed on less momentous and better known things. So why not this? That is a legitimate question.

"Once again, despite Doherty's efforts, the evidence points strongly to a human Jesus on earth."

In conclusion, I think neither M. nor D. is correct: the evidence does not point "strongly" either way. All the evidence M. adduces is vague (incl. in the material I skipped, which I have no great quibble with), and explicable on D.'s thesis, but not proof of D.'s thesis. Whereas all the evidence D. adduces is also compatible with certain historicist theories, and though his notice of the lack of evidence is a challenge to historicists, it is by no means something they can't explain away just as D. explains some things away. I see only a stalemate, with at best a slight edge to D., but not enough to sway anyone from agnosticism.

And M. should see what I mean. He himself says:

"It is obvious Paul and the author of 'Hebrews', in their letters, did not care about the earthly Jesus"

I agree. But it is precisely that fact that D. is right to note is rather bizarre. Why would no one, not even anyone in his congregations, care about the historical and biographical facts of Jesus? Why, indeed, would disputes over any of those facts *never* arise in any of those congregations, even though countless other disputes did, requiring detailed corrections from Paul? I agree with D.: that is just weird.

This doesn't prove D.'s case, but it is more easily predicted by it, and it creates reasonable doubt. Conversely, D. does not have any smoking gun to clinch his case. Paul never outright says Jesus only resided in the heavens. It is not that we should expect him to (this would already have been conveyed orally before any of his recipients received a written letter from him), but that there could have been such remarks in passing (e.g. his attestation of baptism for the dead--a casual offhand remark that is very revealing), so we are at best unlucky not to have one (though again one wonders what was in that lost letter to the Corinthians).

Be well.

Richard Carrier

Vorkosigan

Muller describes his own methodology:

• "My approach, as an investigative and critical historian, will appear radically new. The research was not based on studying extensively scholarly works; but instead by inquiring about contextual facts, scrutinizing primary sources, getting free from past indoctrinations and, above all, doing a lot of thinking. Never interested in learned opinions, lofty intellectualism, slick rhetoric, agenda-driven "studies" or ill-validated theories (click here for the newest of those!), I strived to discover the bottom of things, the facts and the bare truth, as naive as it may sound."

Ted Hoffman

He was gambling with serious work. You dont get to employ philosophy and mental fancy footwork when confronting historical and textual issues.

Metaphysics and logic cannot make up for historical research.

Vorkosigan

Hooray! I independently came to the same conclusion years ago. Lee Edgar Tyler trashed the idea here. I'll see if i can dig up the thread.

Here it is. Ah, what a tyro I was/am/will be for many years to come....

Killer Mike

I have a question. Are there any reviews of the "jesus never existed" idea from top of the line mainstream scholarship? What Im interested in is a professor from an accredited university like say Harvard or Yale who has taken the time out of his/her busy schedule to write in a peer reviewed journal.

Ted Hoffman

What is Jesus Never Existed? Is that supposed to be a book title?

Forget reviews, Robert Price, who was a New Testament Professor at Drews University, wrote the blurb of The Jesus Puzzle. Richard Carrier's review is as thorough as it gets (Carrier has an M.A. and M.Phil. Ancient History, Columbia University and has translated works in Ancient Greek).

Thomas L. Thompson[/URL] is a professor. IBE, University of Copenhagen. He got a B.A. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1962 and undertook graduate studies in ancient Near East and biblical studies and got a PhD: Temple University in 1976.

He is a professor of Biblical Studies and Religion and professor of Old Testament. He has written a book titled The Messiah Myth and he argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed.

andrewcriddle

Richard Carrier's review posted in this thread is so long as to make a point by point response difficult.

However, I would like to comment on the Ascension of Isaiah.

IIUC it is agreed that in its present form the AoI dates from the mid to late 2nd century CE and clearly speaks of a Historical Jesus. However it is clearly a composite work with passages of various dates with various revisions.

Section 6-11 probably existed originally separate from section 1-5 with its clear references to a Historical Jesus, and the references to a Historical Jesus in section 11 may be secondary.

Hence an original version of 6-11 without unambiguous references to a Christ present upon Earth is quite possible, though IMO less likely than the alternative.

It would however be unlikely that the author of such a hypothetical original version of AoI believed that Christ died in a spiritual realm.

The whole logic of AoI is that Christ as 'protective camouflage' takes on the forms of the beings present in the successive levels of reality, through which he descends. IF AoI held that Christ died in human form then this death was almost certainly regarded as occurring on this Earth, which is the only region where by AoI's logic it would be appropriate for Christ to assume human form.

It is formally possible that the original form of AoI (unlike either Paul or the existing form of AoI) regarded Christ's death as not occurring while in human form at all. However, this is not IMO at all likely.

Andrew Criddle

Layman

Does this mean he will respond to BM? Who else is out there? I thought he had already responded to J.P. Holding. And he told me he wouldn't be responding to my articles. Who am I missing?