EarlDoherty

This is all extremely peculiar. Why in Darwin's name is GDon bothering to go back to a 7-year old review by Carrier and arguing about what it says about The Jesus Puzzle when he has had my new book for at least a month in which all this material is discussed in hugely greater length and detail? The whole idea of a new expanded edition is to address criticisms and questions that have been raised since the first one. GDon has not spent one word on presenting any of the new material devoted to what he is discussing and objecting to here, despite the fact that I have directly addressed so many of these old (and tired) objections in the new book. I even quote him (from an IIDB posting) at one point.

From the same old tired language he has been using for years ("fleshly sublunar realm" for example), one would think he has not even bothered to read the new book yet. I'm glad to have his $39.95, but really, what was the point? Why is he here if he hasn't had any interest in reading what I have to say on the subject ten years later?

Nor am I going to take the time to explain anything to him. I am in the midst of a move (where I will shortly have steady access to the Internet again) and am coping with an ailing elderly mother crisis. I agree with Toto, Don is not saying anything new from what he has said for years. I guess I shouldn't expect anything meaningful out of the review he has said he will do of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.

By the way, the new book is up on Amazon now. (I also find it curious that outside of Don no one I recognize from IIDB/FRDB has seen fit to order a copy from me directly, despite it being available for two months, this from a group supposedly devoted with near obsessive interest--on either side--in the mythicist question. The present thread should be regarded as an utter waste of time, and I will not get involved in it.)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Sorry, Neil. I'm not used to finding you here. And there may be one or two others, perhaps, that I've overlooked as having acquired the new book. (Toto, as a valued moderator very useful over the years, received a free copy.)

Of course, Jeffrey has his own (free) copy. Shall we await a substantive review from him, in which he grapples knowledgeably with my arguments? Or will it be another endless list of questions and demands for more info? Incidentally, to undercut Jeffrey's favorite criticism, I have to confess that I mispelled R. Joseph Hoffmann's name, with only one 'n'. (Of course, that couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.)

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl. You emailed me on 31-Oct that you'd posted the book out, but I'm still waiting for it to arrive unfortunately. Since sea mail takes up to 8 weeks between America to Australia, I'm hoping it will arrive some time soon, at least before Christmas.

I started this thread after Toto pointed out Carrier's review on another thread recently, and avi (who is sympathetic to your theory) said he was interested in reviewing both Carrier's review as well as your new book. So I suggested we start on Carrier's review. After that, we will tackle your book, which I'm very much looking forward to.

We shall see. I hope my review will be completed early in 2010, though I plan to take my time to go through any new references that you've provided so it might be later. I will email you when it is on my website. Hope all is well with your mother.

Switch89

Has anyone bothered to contact Richard to see what he has to say about all this?

Toto

If you think he needs to know about this thread, you can email rcarrier at infidels.org

GakuseiDon

If you have time, I'd like your thoughts on the points that I raise. Do they seem fair? Have I misrepresented Carrier at all? It shouldn't take too long, since the references are on-line, so it is easy to check. While I would welcome Carrier's response, I'd also like others to check what I've written, if they have an interest in this topic.

Carrier's review is a good starting point for those who want to look into some aspects of mythicism for themselves, since Carrier has cited his sources and given passage locations. It would take about 30 min to confirm whether I am right or not.

maryhelena

OK, Don - as far as my non-academic brain can tell - your right!

Carrier has not brought forth evidence to show incarnation in a sublunar realm. His use of the Innana mythology as an ancient example of the dying and rising god mythology is one thing - but to transfer, for want of a better word, that underworld mythology to the subunar world is a very big step. Not to say it can't be done - its all intellectualizing after all - but there are, by all accounts, some missing steps, documents, written sources, in the assumed transfer process: Steps that would need to show that a re-think on the make up of the sublunar world was developing. Otherwise, it could just be one of those quantum leaps, DNA mutation type of things...

However, lets give Carrier his due: So, as far as incarnation re, 'kata sarka', is concerned - perhaps its back to square one? i.e. take your pick between a historical Jesus of Nazareth or a purely mythical Christ. But is that really the only two choices?

GakuseiDon

Thanks, maryhelena.

Yes, that's right.

Yes, that's an important point. My criticisms are only valid if we assume that Paul is following the beliefs of his day, based upon what we know from the extant writings. If the Doherty theory requires Paul to have his own unique spin on terminology, then this would need to be taken into consideration.

The problem is, Carrier doesn't show any examples of "kata sarka" that might be useful for Doherty's theory. In other words, there are no examples of "kata sarka" which is compatible with the idea of Jesus NOT walking the earth. And here is why:

As per my OP, the 'heavy' elements earth and water naturally go downwards towards the centre of the Earth. 'Light' elements like air and fire go upwards. Flesh is made from earth and water (with a little air and fire included), which is why creatures with flesh are on the earth. Daemons are made from air or fire, which is why they can fly and live in the air. However, some 'impure' daemons contain a little of the 'heavy' elements like earth or water, which is why they are earth-bound, as we see in this passage:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hortation.html

How, then, can shades and demons be still reckoned gods, being in reality unclean and impure spirits, acknowledged by all to be of an earthly and watery nature, sinking downwards by their own weight, and flitting about graves and tombs, about which they appear dimly, being but shadowy phantasms?

You are correct -- they are not. And despite the claims of one person on this board, who unfathomably continues to misrepresent what I claim, even if Doherty is wrong that doesn't mean "QED historical Jesus". It just means that one version of mythicism is wrong. Others may well be right. For example, G.A. Wells' myth theory handles the "kata sarka" issue and the silence in Paul without problem.

maryhelena

Thus, so it seems to me, you want to hold on to the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person - and thus, therefore, 'kata sarka' is a term that applies to the flesh and blood of Jesus of Nazareth. Now that, to my mind, is taking just about as big a jump as Carrier has done with his article on Doherty's fleshly sublunar sphere. Yes, a fleshly element can be assumed as being referenced with 'kata sarka' - as Carrier does not deny - but the jump from that to a historical Jesus of Nazareth is one very big jump...and as of now, no historical evidence to support such an assumption.

Here is a possible scenario - a scenario that does not seek to put any fleshly references involving 'kata sarka' into a sublunar realm. (not of course ruling out any intellectuallizing or spiritualizing in the NT storyline).

Imagine a historical person X - someone who lived during the time of the gospel date stamp. For some reason, this historical person X was viewed as having relevance to an interpretation of OT prophecies. Stories about this historical person X began to be spread around - his sayings, his gospel, his good news, began to be collected by his friends. (Q?) Historical person X dies. His friends, ( a male for the sake of this argument) his followers, develop a storyline about historical person X - a storyline that interprets the relevance of historical person X in primarily spiritual terms. Something along the lines of Paul's Cosmic Christ. Later, an origin story was developed - an origin story that re-told the early beginnings of Christianity - an origin story backdated to the historical time period when the new awakening, the new perspective, began to take hold - around the time period in which historical person X lived. An origin story created with the aid of the new understanding - and using mythology and prophetic interpretations. An origin story that created Jesus of Nazareth - most probably post 70 CE.

In this scenario, 'kata sarka' can well be used with reference to a flesh and blood human being - historical person X - but not to the mythological man Jesus of Nazareth of the gospel origin storyline.

Indeed, Doherty's theory may indeed have some problems - but, as you so rightly say, these do not in any way undermine the mythicist position - a position which holds that Jesus of Nazareth was a figurative or mythological creation and not a historical flesh and blood human being.

What Earl has done is attempt to put this issue center state - and mythicists, of whatever stripe, are surely indebted to him for his tireless endeavors in this regard.

GakuseiDon

No worries.

Because this is a look at Carrier's review. Toto linked to Carrier's review on another thread, and someone was interested in reviewing it with me.

If Carrier is wrong, that doesn't mean that you are wrong. But I think Carrier's examples don't offer support for a "Sublunar Incarnation". The first example -- Inanna -- has no incarnation much less a sublunar one. The second example -- Plutarch's Osiris -- also offers no incarnation in a sublunar realm.

I'd be interested in your opinion here, Earl. Is my OP correct? And have I representated Carrier fairly?