with contributions from Richard Carrier
| Higher & Lower World |
Rulers of this Age |
Kata Sarka |
Ascension of Isaiah |
| Epistles to the Hebrews |
Descendant of David |
Born of a Woman |
Brother & Josephus |
"What we have here is a failure of imagination."
This recent phrase from another context (the U.S. Senate's 9/11 hearings) sums up a key aspect of the opposition to the Jesus Myth case. There has been a lot of discussion lately in cyber circles about the lack of serious and professional rebuttal to the mythicist position. I think we can dismiss the common claim that this is due to the abysmal nature of the case to be made for the non-existence of an historical Jesus and the fact that all scholars and historians have studied the matter so thoroughly they can only conclude it is not worth the bother to rebut. An earlier website article ( Challenging Doherty: Critiquing the Mythicist Case ) demonstrated that if anything is "abysmal," it is the state of affairs within the ranks of mainstream New Testament scholarship, where there is a notable lack of proper understanding of the mythicist case and effective arguments to be brought against it.
And so, the challenge has been taken up by the non-professional scholar and informed 'amateur' on the Internet. There are many, apologists and liberals alike, who have become quite educated (meaning largely self-educated) in biblical research, collectively amassing an astonishing degree of sophisticated knowledge and proficiency in the field. I would cast aspersions in principle on none of it, and indeed count myself among the ranks. I enjoy the advantage of having published an influential book and having gotten in on the bottom floor (1996) with a groundbreaking website, but I have learned a lot from the Internet community over the years, and still do. It is impossible for one person to investigate and absorb all there is to know in this field, or to investigate all possible interpretations, and the presence of several discussion boards on the Internet where issues like the existence of Jesus are often minutely examined and argued, is invaluable.
Thus, challenges to The Jesus Puzzle — and support for it — have come largely from these ever-expanding circles. And because a comprehensive presentation of the counter-arguments to be drawn against those challenges will entail ideas that others have contributed or have enlarged upon in relation to my own, this series of responses will be, in some respects, a combined effort. That is, in the course of addressing the rebuttals to The Jesus Puzzle, I will bring in the comments of others, quoting and acknowledging those supporting sources. Since "corroboration" of my claims, interpretations and translations is regularly demanded, usually with the implication that I stand in some deluded isolation in regard to them, I am only too happy to offer such support and, in some cases, to allow others to make arguments for me.
As most are no doubt aware, there have been no books by mainstream critical scholars in the last half century devoted to examining or debunking the position that no historical Jesus existed, and certainly not my own. However, several critiques of The Jesus Puzzle (book and website) have been posted on the Internet, not all of them by Christian apologists with confessional interests. One that has received a good deal of attention is that of Bernard Muller.
Bernard Muller is an amateur in the technical sense (as am I, though with a university background in ancient history and classical languages). He is not an apologist
and has no confessional axe to grind, but his site offers an interpretation of the figure of Jesus which is purely historical. At the same time, he has undertaken an
aggressive critique of my book,
The Jesus Puzzle
. His two-part critique is at:
Geocities Muller 1
and
Geocities Muller 2
I wish the quality of this critique were more professional, both in style and content. In general, it is poorly written, though that may be due in part to English not
being his first language. But that's no excuse for the sophomoric rhetoric and a disorganized method of argumentation. Nor does his lack of knowledge and proficiency in
ancient philosophy and the Greek language justify the naively confident, often supercilious tone. My focus, however, will be on the strength and legitimacy of his
arguments against
The Jesus Puzzle
. To go back to my opening quote, Muller's biggest problem is a "failure of imagination," in that what he himself cannot conceive must not be; so much of what he argues
is from the position of personal incredulity.
About a year ago, Richard Carrier of Columbia University and the Internet Infidels (see my
comments
on his review of
The Jesus Puzzle
elsewhere on this site, and which I will be referring to occasionally here), at someone's request, circulated an e-mail to a few people in which he provided a lengthy
commentary on Bernard Muller's critique of my book. I will be quoting extensively from that commentary as part of my response to Muller, and also commenting on certain
aspects of it. I will also be quoting from a few posters on the Internet Infidels discussion board (Biblical Criticism and History section) who have contributed
pertinent criticisms of Muller's critique.
After some complimentary remarks on what he
does
agree with in regard to
The Jesus Puzzle
, Muller focuses on the points he will challenge. I will be quoting most of his text, but I will mark hiatuses, and the odd insertion of my own will be in italics in
square brackets. (Muller's text, with his color scheme preserved, will be indented, while quotes from Richard Carrier and others will be in red, also indented.)
| Higher & Lower World |
Rulers of this Age |
Kata Sarka |
Ascension of Isaiah |
Epistles to the Hebrews |
Descendant of David |
Born of a Woman |
Brother & Josephus |
|
|
|||||||
Let's go over this by looking primarily at chapter 10 (Who Crucified Jesus?), pages 95-108....
Actually, the Platonic heaven was very vaguely described by Plato, as an upper space inhabited by ethereal "universals", "forms"/ "ideas", representing "images" of earthly things, and by an "unknowable" creator god, the Demiurge.
Back in ch . 10, Doherty keeps broadening this concept and importing some more from mystery cults, claiming counterparts in heaven of anything earthly, including events. Then he theorizes more and more, combining his pagan "true sacred past" world of myths with Judeo/Christian ones, introducing a partition of the heavens and an upper world (above the earth and below God's heaven), the home of demon spirits: "In this upper world, too, Christ has been crucified at the hands of the demon spirits." Here, the fleshy would meet the spirits, the material coexists with the ethereal, and all of that with only traces of flimsy "evidence" for back up. He finally declares: "For example, Christ had to be "of David's stock" (Romans 1:3), for the spiritual Son was now equated with the Messiah, and the clear testimony in scripture that the Messiah would be a descendant of David could not be ignored or abandoned." (p.99 )
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 his 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....[F]or a prime example of the Middle Platonic development of the idea, see the Pseudo-Platonid 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....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)....
That modern scholars take the layered universe of Middle Platonism as a given can be seen in many commentaries. John Dillon, in his The Middle Platonists (e.g., p.26) refers to several philosophers, from Xenocrates to Plutarch, as envisioning a division between the "superlunary and sublunary spheres" with different beings, forces and characteristics assigned to each —imperfect and evil ones associated with the latter, different grades of good and pure spiritual beings distributed up through the former. Many New Testament commentaries present the layered universe concept, those on Ephesians in particular. For example, C. L. Mitton ( Ephesians , p.148), in discussing the reference to Christ ascending "above all the heavens" (4:10), defines the upper realm as a series of storeys one above the other, the abode of spiritual powers intermediate between man and God, with God's dwelling above them all. In Jewish piety, there were seven heavens, or eight depending on how one included God's own sphere; the whole idea was imprecise and variable, not unlike most ancient theories and myths.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament deals with these concepts regularly, as in Vol. I, p.165 under " aēr ": "According to the ancient conception of the earth, the sphere of the air reaches to the moon, where the ethereal region of the stars commences. The Greek made a distinction between the impure element of air and the purer ether, thus finding in the former a place of abode for imperfect spirits..." Under " arxē " (rulers, authorities, in a spiritual sense [and mostly if not all evil]): "Their abode is now the epourania (Eph. 3:10), which is obviously the lowest of the different heavenly spheres (cf. 2 C. 12:2) from which skotos [the darkness] comes into this world (Eph. 6:12). The powers of the air, i.e., of the lowest heavenly sphere, have, somewhat schematically, separated God and man until the coming of Christ... [Vol. I, p.483] ." Aristotle's discussion of the universe's structure in De Caelo , as mentioned above by Carrier, is referred to in TDNT Vol. III, p.872, under " kosmos ": "The cosmos is for him a spherical body at the heart of which, surrounded by the spheres of the world and heaven, is the spherical earth, which Aristotle regards as unmoved."
The latter entry in the TDNT also makes other significant comments relevant to our purposes. "The story of the kosmos concept...ended, like that of Greek philosophy generally, in Alexandria. Here both the term and the concept were adopted by Judaism and brought into the Greek Bible...Both these achievements of intellectual history are represented by Philo...a sign [of] how significant the Greek concept was and how concerned [Philo] was to harmonise Jewish biblical faith and Greek philosophy in the understanding of the world and its relationship to God [p.877]." And [p.887]: "There are no distinctive NT cosmological conceptions. The NT shares all its views on the structure and external form of the world with the systems of the contemporary world. Hence it is possible to explain the details of NT cosmology only with the help of our knowledge of these systems. If it is asked, then, what is the cosmological or scientific content of various NT passages, the principle is no longer valid that Holy Scripture is its own interpreter."
In other words, the philosophy underlying Christianity was a product of its time. It did not exist in some splendid isolation, dependent on some theologically pure and timeless basis —especially one that will conveniently harmonize with our own modern outlook and preferences. (See my opening comments in Chapter 18 of The Jesus Puzzle , p.175.) I only wish commentators and critics would keep that in mind when questioning the links between Christian doctrine and ritual, and other religious expressions of the Hellenistic age. As the TDNT writer on kosmos says [p.887, n.70], there is an "indissoluble connection between religious proclamation and cosmological theory," and while referring specifically to Mithraism, he notes that the principle is "instructive" in regard to Christianity. The essential point in regard to my own work which I want to make here is this: in interpreting the concepts of early Christian theology, we risk missing the entire meaning if we don't take into account the cosmological ideas of the culture within which these writers moved, if we choose to reject any interpretation based on those concepts, simply because we don't like them or find them alien. Partly from ignorance of the subject, partly from standing at the very different cosmological vantage point of our modern era, Muller and others dismiss what to their minds seems outlandish. But this is what The Jesus Puzzle attempts to do, place early Christian thought, as expressed in the documents, within the cosmological setting of the period. The result is surprisingly fruitful, consistent, and anything but ad hoc . To claim that references such as "of David's seed" in Romans 1:3 or "born of woman" in Galatians 4:4 can only refer to human, earthly features, is to ignore that cosmological background which saturated turn-of-the-era thinking. It is truly "a failure of imagination."
The curious thing about Muller's dismissal of "some mythical upper world" is that he later goes on to discuss in great detail the Ascension of Isaiah, with its accounts of Christ descending through the various layers of the heavens and performing certain actions within them. This document is perhaps the best and most vivid example we have from that period of the very principle he is rejecting, and I will be addressing it later, in response to Muller's and Carrier's extensive discussion of it. And while he spends a few words on my Appendix 6 in The Jesus Puzzle , "The location of the myths of the Greek savior gods and of Christ" in which I argue for an upper world (rather than primordial past) interpretation of early Common Era mythology about the activities of savior figures found in several documents, he seems to have absorbed very little of it.
But to return to the essence of Muller's objection, his inability to conceive of certain features accorded to Christ by early Christians like Paul as referring to a non-earthly setting:
Muller's question "Why would the 'Messiah' Jesus be different?" is misdirected, because it is tied to his (and everyone else's) preconceptions. Priestly and scribal Judaism placed its myths (of the patriarchs, the Exodus, etc.) in supposed historical time, but Diaspora and Hellenistic Judaism, which is the milieu out of which Christianity arose, was far more attuned to Greek influence. One must first ask, what sort of "messiah" was envisioned by the earliest Christ cult, and once that is established (or theorized from the evidence), one then asks whether or how the features and passages under discussion might fit into such a picture. If spiritual beings populate the heavens, if "truer" primary forms of things in the material sphere are found in the spiritual one (the essence of Platonic philosophy), if figures and processes in the spirit world are the counterpart to those on earth, as in the relationship between the Righteous One in heaven and the righteous ones on earth in the Similitudes of Enoch (see especially chapter 51 and 53), then we have a basis on which to fit such features as "of David's stock" and "born of woman." (To which basis we can add the entire mythological ethos of the Hellenistic savior cults). I'll have more to say on this, but first, here is Carrier's reaction to Muller's comment:
Carrier is right, it would be nice. And I'm sure that if neither he nor I can produce a parallel to this specific sort of case, it may well not exist. But he is overlooking one thing. The uniqueness of Romans 1:3 (which so many people tend to fixate about) is almost certainly dependent on something which is not operative in any other venue, namely a reading of the Jewish scriptures. I will not repeat here my many arguments in many places for seeing this statement by Paul as something he has derived from those scriptures, informing us in the preceding verse that this is part of the "gospel of God about his Son" as found in the prophets. Paul (or perhaps some liturgical source he is drawing on) has "read" scripture within that conceptualization milieu Carrier speaks of, something not restricted to Christian thought. In doing so, he may well have gone where no man did before, since, as Muller quotes from TJP , Christ had to be "of David's stock" (Romans 1:3), for the spiritual Son was now equated with the Messiah, and the clear testimony in scripture that the Messiah would be a descendant of David could not be ignored or abandoned." (p.99 ). I sincerely hope that no one, including Carrier, will reject a priori a possible new idea by a given writer simply because it had never been thought or expressed by anyone else before him. (The same principle applies to the idea of a crucified Messiah.) Once again, Muller's question "How could a descendant of David not be considered an earthly human?" is misdirected and governed by his own outlook's limitations. Rather, one needs to ask, Why and on what basis might Paul have applied such a concept to his heavenly Christ? If there is a feasible answer to that, one that fits into the cosmological and philosophical conceptions of the time, then we have no need, or right, to reject it out of hand.
Moreover, Carrier himself is probably asking the wrong question. I don't think we should see Paul as "allegorizing" his Christ as an historical personage or as a spiritual descendant of an earthly man, any more than Philo was allegorizing his Heavenly Man as an earthly man. The Heavenly Man had his own existence and integrity as a spiritual entity. I don't know the full nature or extent of Paul's Platonic ground, how integrated into his thinking were those philosophical and cosmological conceptions. I don't know to what extent he might have comprehended how his heavenly Christ could have borne a relationship to David, spiritual or material. He could certainly be guilty of some convoluted deduction, and it often depended on his own examinations of scripture, as in Galatians 3:16 where he interprets God's promise to Abraham's "seed" as meaning Christ himself. In any case, we have evidence throughout the New Testament and non-canonical early writings that scripture was the source of all manner of ideas about Christ, that Christ was regarded as speaking from scripture, that scripture opened a window onto a spiritual, revealed world. (Hebrews, Revelation, 1 Clement and Barnabas contain good examples of this.) The mistake the modern mind makes, in trying to conceptualize this view of Christ in the heavenly world, is to over-literalize, which makes it harder for our minds to accept. I often get comments from readers about the difficulty they have in visualizing, let's say, Christ breaking heavenly bread with heavenly disciples at a heavenly table (as in 1 Cor. 11:23-6), or there being a whole chain of spiritual begettings from a heavenly David to the heavenly Jesus as his descendant. But writers like Plutarch show us that we don't need to take things quite so literally, or to impute a necessary literal conception of such things to Paul. In fact, the very stereotypical nature of the phrase " kata sarka " would indicate that for the early epistle writers it was the 'relationship' to the material sphere which was of primary importance in understanding the actions of Christ and their location in the lower reaches of the celestial sphere which were associated with the fleshly world. Paul shows no need or interest in trying to spell out those activities in any kind of literal manner, and when the writer of Colossians speaks in 2:15 of Christ on his cross "discarding the cosmic powers and authorities like a garment, making a public spectacle of them and leading them as captives in his triumphal procession," this is neither an earthly scene nor one intended to be taken literally even in the spiritual realm. When the writer of 1 Peter in 2:21-24 describes the example provided by the suffering Christ, he quotes no historical traditions but offers a selection of phrases from Isaiah 53. It is not necessary to think that he envisioned them as literal descriptions of the sacrifice Christ underwent, especially as they are meant to constitute directives for imitative behavior by his readers. 1 Clement, too, in chapter 16, recounts the tale of Christ's humility in suffering and death by quoting the whole of the same Suffering Servant song, but the author hardly regarded this as the equivalent of literal history. It was, in fact, an account by "the Holy Spirit" since it came out of scripture, and it was followed by an account by Christ himself in his own words in the form of passages from Psalm 22 (since they are phrased in the first person). None of these passages, openly scriptural, are ever equated with historical events as fulfillment of such 'prophecies' (they are never identified as such). Since scholarship does not rush to label these passages as intended literal descriptions by their writers, why do they think it necessary to do so in the case of Romans 1:3, which is equally clearly derived from scripture, if only because Paul so states it?
This is not the spot to rehash " kata sarka " though there will be occasion to do that later. But before going on to Muller's next section, I will comment on a general remark by Carrier in regard to Muller's understanding of the Platonic universe. He says: "However, it does seem Muller is confused about just what that view was...and if one sifts through his confusion, there is still a valid point [he] makes, with which I have always agreed: a lot of Doherty's evidence is compatible with both Doherty's thesis *and* certain forms of historicism, and that is why I remain agnostic." Carrier will enlarge on that subsequently, as will I, but here I will simply add a caution to this claim. Such compatibility cannot be presented in isolation; those forms of historicism must be compatible with all the evidence. I will try to show why Carrier's continued agnosticism is not as justified as he suggests.
Systems of Soteriology
"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]
In other words, the spiritual force set up by the acts of the deity in the primordial past or higher reality impacts on the devotee in the present in the parallel process . Death creates a "death," resurrection creates a "resurrection.""
However the Greek does NOT have what shows between my brackets (so much for the "pattern" !).
Returning to Muller at the point left off above:
Ro6:4 NASB "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death , so that as Christ was raised from the dead ..., so we too might walk in newness of life ."
And here the "resurrection" of Christians is not a "likeness" of the alleged one of Christ, but the passage into a new (but still earthly) life, right after the baptism/"death". This is also explained in the following verses 6:6-14, including :
Ro6:7 NASB "for he who has died [been baptized] is freed from sin."
Ro6:10-11 NASB "For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin , but alive to God in Christ Jesus."
Doherty is "interpreting" out of context (and using favorable -- but misleading -- translation) in order to back up his mythicist case, as he does often.
And we know now why Paul used "likeness" (once!) in Ro6:5!
First, Carrier:
Well, to some extent, I'm going to have to disagree with both of them. Muller, first of all, has seized (as he so often does) on some individual word or phrase, derives some significance from it which he thinks undercuts or destroys my case, then runs with it without giving it any more careful consideration. The essential parts of the passage, from Romans 6:2-8 (adding verse 11 later), go like this, and I'll use the NASB translation:
"...How shall we who died [ apethanomen , aorist (past)] to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized [ ebaptisthēmen , aorist] into his death? Therefore we have been buried [ sunetaphēmen , aorist] with him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk [aorist subjunctive] in newness of life. For if we have become [ gegonamen , perfect (past)] united with him in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall be [ esometha , future] also in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin....Now if we have died [ apethanomen , aorist] with Christ, we believe that we shall also live [ sudzēsomen , future] with him."
If Muller's analysis were correct, we should expect to find that all of the parallel images Paul is drawing would be expressed in a past tense. Those relating to death and burial are. Paul's thought is that believers who have undergone baptism have, in homologic fashion, also undergone a death and burial. This mystic parallelism is the basic way ancient sacramentalism functions (about which I will say more shortly), and is found throughout much of the relevant literature of the period. But if when referring to resurrection, Paul were merely speaking of an already-achieved symbolic effect, something in consequence of baptism, as Muller alleges, there would have been no reason not to phrase those references in the past tense as well; in fact, it is difficult to see why he would have phrased them in the future if that was the extent of his meaning. Now, he admittedly muddles things a bit by linking the raising of Christ with his idea (in v. 4) of walking in newness of life, which is related to the present. He repeats a similar idea in verse 11: "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." But there is no impediment to seeing Paul's complex of parallels as entailing both present and future consequences. In fact, at the conclusion of the whole passage (6:22-23), things seem to fall into place: "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end [outcome, result], eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Here, the "sanctification" is immediate, with the future result being "eternal life," something Paul would hardly speak of as already having been achieved in the present lives of believers (and for other reasons I will outline presently).
That future element is unmistakable in verse 8, "But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him." That this is something that hasn't happened yet is indicated by the idea of "belief." Note that no thought of this necessity for belief is expressed in regard to the parallel "death" with Christ. That, and the burial, are stated as a given; they have already taken place. Here in verse 8, the believer must have faith that the "living" with Christ will take place —at some time in the future —and is no doubt a reference to resurrection. But we also need to go beyond this one passage and determine whether Muller's declaration of what Paul means in 6:5 squares with his general outlook on resurrection and the "when" of its location —in other words, to avoid "interpreting out of context," which is the very thing he has accused me of doing.
First, let me say that I don't know what Carrier is referring to by "evidence from many letters that Paul often talks this way, allegorizing current realities in the language of future death and resurrection." For one thing, Paul never speaks of the death of believers in association with Christ in any future sense. Certainly in the Romans 6 passage under discussion the "death" as a consequence of baptism is entirely a past development, even if it is a continuing state. It is something the initiate has undergone already. If Carrier has a different context in mind (I don't know offhand what it would be), it would be irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not sure in what way his "Paul is talking about abstract sociological realities in the here and now" (or quite what this means) differs from the "exact heavenly parallels" to these which he suggests I am talking about. As far as I can see, the death and resurrection of the believer is and will be, for Paul, a spiritual/mystical consequence of their linkage with Christ and his corresponding experiences. That the "death" is not literal but only symbolic, while the resurrection will be more literal, to a new existence in a spiritual body and kingdom, should not matter. Both are the benefits to be enjoyed by the baptized initiate and it makes sense to link them together.
But how does Paul express himself in general about the resurrection of believers, and is it compatible with Muller's claims? Let's bring in some scholarly commentary on the Romans passage to guide us (another "context" which Muller seems to have neglected to consult). Here is what C. K. Barrett has to say ( The Epistle to the Romans , p.116), with my own comments in square brackets:
"Baptism implies such a total commitment to Christ that it carries with it this double union with him, in death and in resurrection. Of the second clause, Paul writes only 'We shall be of his resurrection also'. The whole framework of the preceding clause [as Carrier has pointed out] must be repeated: Through the likeness of his resurrection (the other aspect of baptism) we shall be joined with his resurrection; that is, we shall be raised with him. Paul breaks the parallelism by using the future. This might be a purely 'logical' future, as in the proposition: If A is true than B will follow. But this would not agree with the undoubtedly temporal future of v. 8 [and elsewhere]. In fact, Paul is always cautious of expression which might suggest that the Christian has already reached his goal [emphasis mine], and to say in so many words 'We have died with Christ and we have been raised with Christ' would be to invite if not actually to commit the error condemned in 2 Tim ii.18."
Paul W. Meyer, in Harper's Bible Commentary , is another who recognizes the future character of Paul's idea of resurrection (p.1147), as does C.E.B. Cranfield in the new International Critical Commentary ( Romans , p.306).
That passage in 2 Timothy (2:18) is a condemnation of those "who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already." In fact, that seems to be the very position of Paul's rivals in Corinth to which he devotes so much attention in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians. In chapter 4, he openly condemns it through irony and sarcasm: "Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!" Elsewhere, Paul is unambiguous about his interpretation of the resurrection of believers: it is a future one. As in Philippians 3:10-11: "that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead"; and verse 21: "and from heaven we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body..." In 1 Corinthians 15:22, Christ is the first to be resurrected, then in Christ "all shall be made alive [in the sense of revivifying]" —but "each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ." As Barrett notes, Paul is ever anxious not to convey that the resurrection has already happened. Muller is confusing the "new life" lived in Christ as a consequence of baptism with the future resurrection which is consequent on Jesus' own resurrection; the former is immediate (and never uses the term "resurrection" to describe itself), while the latter — though available to the believer because he has undergone baptism —only comes into effect in the future.
Lest we have lost sight of it through this somewhat lengthy rebuttal, the purpose in Muller's objection to my interpretation of Romans 6:5 was to eradicate any possible "mythical" significance in what Paul is saying. In conjunction with that, he wants to eliminate my concept of the mechanism by which the parallelism of resurrection is effected. I have called it a "pattern of likeness" which produces a guarantee of the parallel effect of one upon the other. (Muller is wrong in stating that Paul uses the term "likeness" only in 6:5; it reappears in 8:3, where he says that God sent his Son in the "likeness" —same Greek word —of sinful flesh: apparently this is a significant part of the concept, inserted in a context where it seems peculiar and unnecessary. The same applies to a further usage when Paul quotes the hymn of Philippians 2:6-11 in which an as-yet unnamed deity descends in the "likeness" of humans to undergo death.) Incidentally, The Translator's New Testament seems alone in recognizing the element of "guarantee" in translating 15:20: "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead. This is the guarantee that those who have died will be raised also." And it enlarges upon that in the Notes: "Firstfruits were thus also a first instalment, carrying the promise of more to come."
Muller would have done well to research this idea first, before rejecting it out of hand (no doubt a case of "personal incredulity"). One of the books that played an important role in shaping my thinking in these matters was John J. Collins' The Apocalyptic Imagination . There, the concept of parallel guarantee is laid out. Here he is discussing the Similitudes of Enoch, with its Son of Man figure in heaven who has a paradigmatic relationship with an 'elect' on earth. (It will also serve to enlarge on my earlier discussion about parallel entities between heaven and earth.) In this quotation from pages 149-150, I will pare down to the essence of the picture (emphases are mine):
"This close connection between the individual Son of Man and the community of the righteous has led some scholars to invoke the allegedly Hebrew conception of corporate personality....There is no room for doubt that the Similitudes present the "Son of Man" as an individual figure distinct from the community... As Sjoberg has remarked, he is not a man, at least not in the usual sense of the word, but is rather a heavenly being . A closer analogy is found with the patron deities of nations in Near Eastern mythology. These deities have a representative unity with their peoples, although they are definitely distinguished from them....We have argued above that the "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7 should be understood in this sense, as the heavenly counterpart of the faithful Jews. The Similitudes differ from Daniel insofar as the human community is not identified in national terms but as the "righteous" or the "chosen."....Yet the correspondence between "the Chosen One" and the community of the chosen is analogous to that between [the archangel] Michael and Israel or any other mythological counterpart of a group or nation.
" There is a parallelism of action, or "structural homologue" [a phrase attributed to G. Theissen] between the earthly and heavenly counterparts. In Daniel "the son of man stands parallel to the (people of the) saints (of the Most High). His exaltation means their exaltation ." [George Nickelsburg, in Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life, p.77.] Similarly in 1 Enoch the manifestation of the "Son of Man" figure entails the triumph of the righteous ....The hiddenness of the Son of Man corresponds to the sufferings of the righteous community and the hidden character of their destiny. The structural homologue between the Son of Man and the community is thus complete. Although he does not share their suffering, the pattern of hiddenness and revelation is common to both....
In short, The Son of Man is not a personification of the righteous community, but is conceived, in mythological fashion, as its heavenly Doppelgänger [double]. Now it is characteristic of mythological thinking that such a Doppelgänger is conceived to be more real and permanent than its earthly counterpart and prior to it in the order of being. (See M. Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, 3-6.)"
While Collins does not use or call attention to the word "likeness" in this context, the meaning is patently there. Parallelism, when one element guarantees the other, cannot do other than function in a pattern of likeness, and the fact that Paul uses this very word in the context of a 'guarantee' in Romans 6:5 clearly illustrates this. What kind of principle lies behind this concept? As Collins points out in regard to the Similitudes, there is a parallel association between heavenly and earthly counterparts, the former (the Son of Man/The Righteous One/The Elect One — he is variously titled) bestowing exaltation on the earthly group linked with him; but he lacks the element of having suffered (as does the heavenly counterpart figure in Daniel and 4 Ezra). We need move only to Revelation to find that element added. There, the "Lamb" bears "the marks of slaughter upon him" (5:6). For that reason, he is worthy to break the seals on the scrolls (5:9), he is worthy to receive "all power and wealth, wisdom and might, honour and glory and praise" (5:12). And by that blood (sacrifice), he "purchased for God men of every tribe and language, people and nation....(who) shall reign upon the earth" (5:10). But that purchase was not universal, it is the exaltation of an elect. And there is no theory here of vicarious atonement. Rather, it is the raw parallelism that is operating between the Lamb and his elect. As he is exalted, those linked with him follow in his path.
That early concept of soteriology is embodied in the christological hymn of Philippians 2:6-11. There a divine being humbles himself, descends and takes on a "likeness" to humans (it is never stipulated that he actually became one, and no elements of an earthly career are offered), and undergoes death. Because of this ( dio ), he is exalted to heaven, given a name of power and receives obeisance from all in heaven and earth and the underworld. Suffering leads to, produces, exaltation. There is no hint of an atonement doctrine here, of a redeeming sacrifice. The implication that is present, however, is that this process is guaranteed for the believer, in parallel with the Jesus of the hymn. Otherwise, what would be the point for the community which fashioned this piece of liturgy?
The rationale behind this might seem curious. While the idea of unity with the god is shared with the mystery cults, and the dying and rising mytheme itself is widespread, is there a more specific reason why a sectarian group with a Jewish background or connection would envision a heavenly being achieving exaltation through the pathway of suffering and death? In the absence of an atonement dimension, why would that be necessary? What theological precedent would lie behind such a concept? It doesn't seem to parallel any conceptions of sacrifice; nothing is done as a scapegoat, or on behalf of, or because of past misconduct on anyone's part. Revelation 5:9 implies that the significant consequence of the Lamb's death was not expiation of sin, but the exaltation of certain people to the position of priests and rulers upon the earth. (The sole reference in 1:5 to the Lamb's blood "freeing us from our sins" is incidental, and may simply mark the necessity for forgiveness as a prerequisite for receiving the benefits of exaltation.) This, in fact, is the standard Jewish apocalyptic expectation of Israel's own exaltation. The implication is that the Lamb is a "paradigm" to Israel's destiny: We (the Jews) have suffered, even to the ultimate, in obedience to God (as the hymn's verse 8), but we are destined to be exalted to the highest position, with our enemies bowing their knee to us —just as the author of Daniel formulated it in his scene in heaven with the "one like a son of man" symbolizing the saints of Israel. In keeping with the ancient idea to see human events as having their counterpart in the world of the supernatural, a representative figure in the latter sphere had to have undergone this same destiny. He suffered and was exalted, just as the Jews have suffered and will be exalted. It was a simple matter for human need to create divine reality: as our heavenly champion has undergone this, we in turn are guaranteed to undergo it, in that pattern of likeness. The doorway to this privilege is a sacramental one, through baptism, though prior to Paulinism it would seem that the doorway could be entered only by an elect, which all sectarian groups consider themselves to be.
We might note another aspect to this picture. In those documents expressing Jewish apocalyptic, from Daniel, to 1 Enoch, to Revelation, one finds a reflection of the Jewish conviction: We have the only God, he must be intending great things for us, we have suffered and endured defeat and subjugation, ergo, this must be the avenue to the inevitable exaltation. As the sacrificed Paschal lamb was the avenue and guarantee of our deliverance from Egypt, so here (in Revelation) is the heavenly Lamb who has been slaughtered and emerged triumphant. In traditional Jewish thought, the Exodus was the great past paradigm for the future: in the same way will God deliver us. (No doubt the legend was created and perpetuated to fill this need: the wish-expectation required a past paradigm in order to guarantee the future parallel.) But this Exodus paradigm existed in a past that could be styled primordial, since while nominally historical it was essentially legendary (especially when we know now from archaeology and other research that it never happened). When full-blown apocalypticism came along, that primordial past was replaced by the heavenly realm: the new paradigm (the one like a son of man, the sacrificed Lamb) now existed in the upper world. Whether this was the direct effect of Platonism or simply a continguous development reflecting current trends of thinking, it parallels the thinking of the mystery cults and the placement of their myths and savior figures.
Paul (perhaps the first?) has added the element of vicarious atonement. That he is the first to do so may be implied by the statement of his gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3. Once one realizes that he has received his gospel "from no man" but through revelation (Galatians 1:11-12), then his declaration that "Christ died for our sins" might be seen as his innovation, though there is always the possibility that he is claiming more than his due. He also declares that his gospel is supported by scripture, which probably means it was derived from it —"according to the scriptures" (which I have argued can entail such a meaning) . Paul's soteriology thus contains a mix of elements; he has grafted a new skin onto an old body, producing problems for himself and headaches for modern interpreters and theologians. But at base it is still the "paradigmatic parallel" system based on unity with the savior god, the same principle that drives the Hellenistic mystery cults.
But I have left Mr. Muller cooling his heels a little too long. Let's return to his critique of The Jesus Puzzle . His next section I will deal with briefly: a lengthy quoting of myths from various mystery deities, Attis, Mithras and Osiris, which he claims are set on earth. Of course, he is right. Most of these gods go back far beyond the advent of Platonic views of the universe. Their myths were originally placed in a primordial, distant past, the "sacred past" of mythologists like Campbell and Eliade. Their terminology was earthly (caves, rivers, trees). Once the Platonic concept of higher and lower worlds took hold, with its idea of the primary, true counterparts of earthly things and processes being located in the spiritual realm there was a shift in thinking about those earlier myths. Unfortunately, we have very little writings to go on to indicate that shift, and those we do have are generally by philosophers; we can't be sure how the ordinary initiate to the cults came to understand their myths. But Plutarch (1st century CE) states the principle very clearly. Addressing his audience, Clea, in Isis and Osiris (ch.11/355B; Loeb edition, p.29), he cautions her: "You must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related." They are allegories, and he goes on to so interpret them. Clear statements like this are not encountered (to my knowledge) again before the 4th century, and Muller makes much of my appeal to two 4th century writers, Sallustius and the emperor Julian, claiming that this is too late. But this ignores the fact that the evidence we do have indicates a continuous Middle to Neo-Platonic interpretation of these myths, from Plutarch to Julian. Since Plutarch is virtually contemporaneous with Paul (and Paul was certainly a sophisticated thinker, in tune with the ideas of his day), Muller's attempt to discredit an attribution to Paul of this type of interpretation of the Christ myth simply fails.
Here is what Carrier has to say:
In his epistles, Paul used the word "rulers" ('archon') in two other verses :
a) The "rulers" ('archon') are human authorities in 'Romans', and not even considered "bad":
Ro13:3-6 NKJV "For rulers ['archon'] are not a terror to good works, but to evil....
b) 1Co2:6-7 NKJV "However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers ['archon'] of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,"
Here, the rulers do not have God's wisdom (but only Paul & his Christians did!).
Furthermore, according to Paul, "this age" has only one godly entity, "the god of this age" (2Co4:4), likely Satan (Ro16:20) (Paul used "demons" (' daimonion ') only for pagan gods (1Co10:20-21), not for evil angels, the later ones never acknowledged in his authentic epistles). Therefore Paul had probably human authorities in his mind, but it is likely he included also Satan, considering 2Co4:4 ( "The god of this age has blinded the mind of the unbelievers ..." ).
I note also the emphasis of the verse is on an unspecified God's plan being at work. The larger context is about human wisdom versus God's one, and the role of the Spirit. The identity of these rulers is of no consequence for Paul's argument: no details were required.
The fact that a word can be used in more than one sense nullifies any claim that it must always have the same meaning. "Archons" could refer to earthly authorities and it could refer to "evil spirits" as in Matthew 9:34 and elsewhere in the Gospels. Ignatius uses a phrase identical to Paul's with "ruler" in the singular: " tou arxontos tou aiōnos toutou " (of the ruler of this age, referring to Satan : Ephesians 17:1, and elsewhere). Bauer's Lexicon notes: "Many would also class the arxontes tou aiōnos toutou 1 Cor 2:6-8 in this category."
Muller fails to take into account a dominant idea of this period. From The Jesus Puzzle (p.101): "The term aiōn , age (or sometimes in the plural "ages") was in a religious and apocalyptic context a reference to the present age of the world, in the sense of all recorded history. The next, or "coming" age was the one after the Day of the Lord, when God's kingdom would be established. One of the governing ideas of the period was that the world to the present point had been under the control of the evil angels and spirit powers, and that the coming of the new age would see their long awaited overthrow. (For a discussion of the present and future "ages" of the world, see TDNT , Vol.1, p.204-207.)
Muller tries to argue that because the plural "rulers" as supposedly applied to spiritual beings can be found only in 1 Cor. 2:6 and 8 in Paul, it cannot be so interpreted, as all the other clearly spiritual ruler references are in the singular, and they imply there is "only one godly entity, likely Satan." Carrier remarks that
As for Muller's position that my main evidence comes from Ephesians and Colossians, and thus any appeal to Paul himself is nullified, this is a non-sequitur. As Carrier notes:
"Here in Eph 2:2,3 the influence of the flesh is coordinated with the influence of the 'authority of the air,' viz. the devil as head of a troop of spiritual forces. They conduct their operation in the present age. 'Flesh' does not function in this passage as an explanation or definition of what the author means by 'the authority of the air' or 'spirit.' The author is here describing two different kinds of 'powers,' one internal with respect to man and the other external, but both intent on exerting their dominion over man in this present age."
Muller notes the use of the identical phrase " archontōn tou aiōnos toutou " two verses preceding 1 Corinthians 2:8, suggesting that here it implies earthly rulers. I suggest it is quite the opposite. Paul says that "we speak of...not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away." In light of that usage of the term "age" discussed earlier, and the idea of the "passing away" of those who rule it, namely the evil spirits, Paul's reference is much more likely to be to spiritual figures. (The idea of earthly rulers as a whole "passing away" is a poorer fit.) When combined with Ephesians 3:10, in which pseudo-Paul refers to the hidden wisdom of God being revealed to the "rulers and authorities in the heavens," we have an almost perfect pairing. The rulers of 2:6-8 have also been in ignorance, and both passages speak of this wisdom of God as having been hidden "from the ages," a term associated with the ruling evil spirits. There comes a point when, even if nothing has been 'proved' in a mathematical sense (a very unrealistic requirement), one can no longer deny probabilities. As I note in The Jesus Puzzle (n. 46), a good number of scholars consider "rulers of this age" to be a reference to spiritual powers; one of those scholars (Paul Ellingworth) is of the opinion that they are in the majority ( A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians , p.46).
And Earl keeps mentioning a peculiar modern translation of ' kata sarka ', "in the sphere of the flesh" (normally rendered as "according to the flesh"), as if it was primary evidence for his fleshy upper world. 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/spiritual lower heaven!). So now, "... God has been manifested in flesh ..." (1Ti3:16 Darby) (see also 1Pe4:1) takes a whole new meaning!
But then, considering:
" ... some who think of us as walking according to flesh [' kata sarka ': would Paul be accused to walk in some lower heavens? Is it a realistic proposition?] . For walking in flesh , we [Paul & his helpers] do not war according to flesh [' kata sarka ': Doherty's demonic upper world? Hardly so considering the context!] . For the arms of our warfare [are] not fleshly, but powerful according to God to [the] overthrow of strongholds." (2Co10:3-4 Darby)
"... but [in] that I [Paul] now live in flesh , I live by faith ..." (Gal2:20 Darby)
"not any longer as a bondman, but above a bondman, a beloved brother [ Onesimus , the slave of Philemon] , specially to me [Paul] , and how much rather to thee, both in [the] flesh and in [the] Lord?" (Phm1:16, Darby)
Etc. (Ro2:28 ,8:9 ; Gal6:12; Php1:22,3:3,4)
does "in flesh" ('en sarki ') really mean in another world?
Once again, Muller makes the mistake of ignoring the principle that the same word or phrase can have more than one meaning and application, and of declaring that because it means one thing in one set of instances, it must mean it in all. He declares that " kata sarka " is "normally rendered" as "according to the flesh." True enough, but what does this mean? Translators tend to opt for that "normal" translation simply because in so many instances they don't know how to render it in a way that makes the meaning clearer. (When they do take a chance, they usually include the word "human" which is an arbitrary reading into the phrase of the concept of earthly incarnation.) Once again, Muller argues from a position of personal incredulity, as he cannot understand how this phrase can at times refer to the spiritual world, and particularly "in the sphere of the flesh." Carrier responds:
[From that review:] "The actual phrase used, kata sarka , is indeed odd if it is supposed to emphasize an earthly sojourn. The preposition kata with the accusative literally means "down" or "down to" and implies motion, usually over or through its object, hence it literally reads "down through flesh" or "down to flesh" or even "towards flesh." It very frequently, by extension, means "at" or "in the region of," and this is how Doherty reads it. It only takes on the sense "in accordance with" in reference to fitness or conformity (via using kata as "down to" a purpose rather than a place), and thus can also mean "by flesh," "for flesh," "concerning flesh," or "in conformity with flesh." I have only seen it mean "according to" when followed by a cited author (e.g., "according to Euripedes," i.e. "down through, or in the region of Euripedes"), so it is unconventional to translate it as most Bibles do (a point against the usual reading and in favor of Doherty's). Even the "usual reading" is barely intelligible in the orthodox sense, especially since on that theory we should expect en sarki instead...[A]ll the common meanings of kata with the accusative support Doherty's reading: Jesus descended to and took on the likeness of flesh. It does not entail that he walked the earth. It could allow that, but many other strange details noted by Doherty are used to argue otherwise. At any rate, he makes a pretty good case for his reading, based on far more than this."
In regard to my rendering " en sarki " also as "in the sphere of the flesh," Carrier remarks [returning to his commentary]:
Further to Muller's doubts about en sarki referring to another world, Carrier goes on:
(1) As a body, these references never link Christ with an historical time, place or earthly identity.
(2) They are not present alongside other references which do provide such links or identification.
(3) In many cases, they would be peculiar ways of referring to an earthly life or person.
(4) This peculiar language and lack of clear historical references is a universal phenomenon, found throughout early Christian literature in many documents and many authors.
(5) Such references not only *can* be interpreted in a mythical, spiritual world context, they are very consistent when so interpreted.
This situation points strongly in the direction of the mythicist position. It fits the overall paradigm and the evidence, and thus it is not ad hoc to interpret such phrases accordingly. The same cannot be said of the denial position, such as that of Muller. Once again, I have to maintain that on balance of probability, the two positions are not equidistant from the center.
There is another consideration in regard to this language which has not so far been examined. There is no doubt (as some acknowledge) that the " kata sarka / (en) sarki " phraseology (along with other usages of sarx , as in Colossians 1:22 and 24) is very peculiar if it is being used to describe Jesus' life on earth — and exclusively. How, then, was such a strange convention established and how did it become so pervasive? From Paul to pseudo-Paul to Hebrews to 1 Peter to the Johannine epistles to the Pastorals, they all use the same terms. One might understand a single writer adopting such words out of his own idiosyncrasy to refer to Jesus' life or human descent, but how would it get passed on and retained by so many? Would it not have run up against resistance or simple lack of reception in the minds of those who would have preferred to be more direct, who would have had their own natural inclination to refer to Jesus' life in more clear and standard ways? Moreover, it is doubtful that the author of Hebrews enjoyed any influence from Pauline circles, and even the community of 1 Peter shows no direct dependence on Pauline thought. The Johannine writings betray their own isolation. What, then, were the channels of the spread of this dubious language? In the context of a movement based on an historical person, can we envision how the situation we find in these documents could have arisen? I cannot. What does make sense is that the movement developed in the context of belief in a mythological Christ according to the principles of Middle Platonism. A verbal convention would be needed, and could develop and spread throughout a diverse, amorphous movement, to refer to that dual activity, the two aspects of the relationship of the descending-ascending god to his environment. No adverse tendencies would mitigate against adopting such expressions.
We see it stated most plainly in 1 Peter 3:18: "He was put to death in the flesh ( sarki ) but made alive in the spirit ( pneumati )." I have translated that to refer to "in the sphere of the flesh" and "in the sphere of the spirit," in those two parts of the Platonic universe. A god could not be seen to suffer in his pure spirit form, or in the upper realms of pure spirit, and so had to descend to levels associated with flesh where he took on (the likeness of) fleshly forms and could suffer and die (the concept found in Plutarch and Julian, and the Ascension of Isaiah). That this passage in 1 Peter is akin to a formulaic expression is indicated by its very brevity and stereotypic language. Try to envision the writer of this epistle (even if he isn't the apostle Peter) having an entire tradition in his mind of Jesus on earth, with all that that entailed in terms of teachings and activities, crucifixion on Calvary and resurrection from a nearby tomb, and then referring to that death and rising so austerely, devoid of all sense of historical circumstance. The circumstances he does refer to are purely mythological: Christ's visit (3:19) to the dead spirits (no mention of appearances to the living), and arriving at the right hand of God in heaven "after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him" (3:22, compare Col. 2:15).
That formulaic "flesh/spirit" dichotomy appears throughout the epistles. In the hymn of 1 Timothy 3:16, the "mystery of our religion" has the descending/ascending savior (not "God" as Muller would have it) manifested (a revelation word) en sarki , then vindicated/justified (i.e., exalted out of suffering) en pneumati . Once again, as in 1 Peter, all the references to this figure are mythological. He was "seen by angels" (no mention of humans), "proclaimed among nations" (no proclaiming by himself), and "believed in by the world" (an object of faith, not historical experience). The more famous hymn of Philippians 2:6-11 has the same flesh/spirit dichotomy (though it doesn't use the terms themselves), descending to the realm of flesh and taking on its "likeness," then ascending to the realm of spirit (heaven) to be exalted . In Romans 1:3/4 " kata sarka " and " kata pneuma " are set beside each other, the content of both being demonstrably derived from scripture, the former from messianic prophecy, the latter from Psalm 2:7-8.
Was this particular language convention confined to Christianity? Carrier (and others) are always encouraging (or challenging) me to find parallel usages in non-Christian literature. I admit I have yet to do so, but should this be considered unusual, or even a problem? It might very well be confined to Christian writings, but remember that we have no comparable body of writing for other religions. Plutarch prefers the terms "soul" and "body" when speaking of the two aspects of Osiris: as in chapter 54 when he speaks of the legend "that the soul of Osiris is everlasting and imperishable, but that his body Typhon oftentimes dismembers and causes to disappear..." Here, body must be a spiritual one , for (as Carrier points out) the repeated death and dismemberment places such activity in the mythological realm. We can regard it as the equivalent of the epistles' flesh , and it demonstrates that the idea of a god's body/flesh could be conceived of as undergoing spiritual experiences, including death and rising, in spiritual settings. That same chapter (54) also discusses the dichotomy between the imperishable and permanent, superior to destruction and change — where the soul of Osiris dwells — and the perceptible world of the corporeal, where things are subject to "disorder and disturbance," including the death of Osiris' "body" —which indicates that the world of the corporeal must encompass a spirit dimension. When we get to Julian (who also does not use "flesh" in the epistolary manner, unfortunately), the Attis myth is interpreted (165) as the god representing the imperishable cause in the higher realm descending to the sphere of matter ("beneath the region of the moon") where, by mingling with it, he produces creation and generation in the material realm. But that mingling is fatal to him, and through his castration and death, he reascends to rejoin Cybele, his consort, restoring himself (and his initiates) to imperishability. This is simply another form of the death and resurrection myth, and its kinship with the descending/ascending motifs of Christian writings is unmistakable. All this is thoroughly Platonic —and all of it is gibberish, in that it bears no relation to reality.
Whereupon, we return to Muller.
And do we have any example of an ancient god descending to the air only (not all the way down to earth or the underworld!), and experiencing pain, blood & death? As it is usually the case, Doherty does not provide the primary evidence to support his claim. Personally I know of none. Who does?
And on the theme of "descending/ascending god", if Jesus was earthly and also later believed to be a pre-existent and then resurrected heavenly Deity, of course we would have, as an implied consequence, descent and ascent!
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 Doherty's thesis.
Still again, Muller is right in an important sense: Doherty'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 Doherty describes is true, but could be mapped onto a real person. It didn't have to be, but it could. And that only means Doherty's thesis is possible —not certain.
But does not death indicate a mortal fleshy condition? Which ancient god would have met death when in a physical (but not flesh & blood) human shape?
Carrier is one who has that understanding, but he has set limits on his commitment which I think are unjustified. He is correct in saying above that my "scheme is true but could be mapped onto a real person." But that's only in theory, since his comparison of the dual treatment of Romulus and Osiris by Plutarch with the situation in the New Testament is lacking in one important aspect. A writer like Plutarch makes it clear (though not to Muller) what he is doing; he states the earth-based myth and explains its meaning in terms of the heavenly version. He lays out his dual approach. Neither Paul nor any other New Testament epistle writer does that, and it is conspicuous by its absence. That all these authors and hymn writers would express themselves in this peculiar, ambiguous way without any clarification for the reader, while at the same time never providing the earthly version of Jesus' life, is, I maintain, not feasible if they were really speaking of a recent man. Carrier, in noting that the same language can apply to both a world above the earth and to becoming an actual man on earth, says "Paul specifies neither." But in a very real sense, he is wrong. Paul does indeed specify. He (as well as others) specifies by portraying his object of worship in terms of a spiritual, transcendent figure, without equating it with an historical man; he believes in a Son of God, not that anyone was the Son of God. He and others describe this Son in terms of Logos and Wisdom philosophy; the "interpretation" of Jesus of Nazareth which scholars have insisted on reading into these descriptions is never hinted at. Paul and others state in no uncertain terms that their Christ is a "mystery," a secret long-hidden by God and revealed in the present time through scripture and the Holy Spirit. In describing the advent of this Son in their own time, the verbs are of revealing, making known, manifesting, not coming to earth and living a life. In describing the beginnings of their revelatory faith movement, the gospel and the calling, the teaching and appointment of apostles, are all by God; debates are never argued or settled in terms of what Jesus taught or did in his ministry. This revelation of Christ and the gospel, fulfilling the age-old promise of God, is often phrased in such a way as to leave no room for an intervening Jesus figure; he is excluded from the scene and the ongoing course of salvation history. And when he is spoken of as due to arrive at the imminent Parousia, there is no mention of him having been on earth previously, in recent history, in Paul's own lifetime.
This total picture, with the observations made above about that handful of human-sounding terminology centered on kata sarka , placed within the context of Middle Platonic mythicism, can spell only one thing. Nothing has been mapped onto a real person, certainly not one who had just lived and supposedly left his mark on the world, generating a new faith movement. Everything in that picture fits; nothing is ad hoc . The paradigm is whole. It spells, I maintain, the failure and invalidity of agnosticism on the question of Jesus' existence. If we can't make a choice based on balance of probability in a case like this, we will never commit ourselves to anything.
If I may switch metaphors in mid-stream, I will borrow a phrase from Gilbert Murray ( Five Stages of Greek Religion ). What we have here is "a failure of nerve."
Carrier's comments on Muller's treatment of The Ascension of Isaiah were extensive, and I have a fair amount to say on my own behalf. Carrier also quoted whole passages of the Ascension, which will serve as reproductions of the text, parts of which I will occasionally repeat. Muller begins:
This text appears to be composite, originally Jewish parts recycled with Christian insertions & additions. Here is Doherty's own appraisal: "... the several surviving manuscripts differ considerably in wording, phrases and even whole sections. It has been subjected to much editing in a complicated and uncertain pattern of revision." But later Earl will "guess" which parts are reliable and early! (which happen to be the ones fitting his agenda!!!)
2.5.1 Dating of 'the
Ascension of Isaiah':
It is normally dated 150-200 in its final (Christian) edition; that's
some
three to four generations after Paul's times, and well after the
writing of
gospels, and during the Gnostic era!
2.5.1.1. This dating is somewhat justified by
strong Docetist
innuendoes in the Christian parts (except
a)
b) 10:17 to 10:30: the Son keeps changing his physical appearance in
order not
to be detected when he goes down through the lower heavens and below.
c) Mary gives birth without experiencing labour
pain
(
d)
a) 3:13 "He should before the sabbath be crucified"
b) 3:14: the sepulchre is watched.
c) 3:16: the sepulchre is open by angels "on the third day".
d) 11:2-5,15 "And they took Him, and went to
f) 11:19-20 "... they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him ... In
[This is absurd. The text does not say this, especially in the midst of an historicist insertion about a Jesus born and died on earth, with no docetic features. The verse in question is translated: "In Jerusalem, indeed, I saw how they crucified him on a tree..." Where Muller gets the idea —or the wording — that Isaiah himself is crucified as a substitute for Jesus is beyond comprehension. I am tempted to compare him with Don Quixote (or is it Connecticut Yankee?), who "dashes madly off in all directions."]
Second, the dating of the document is far more complex than Muller lets on. Again, dating the final composite version (coming at the end of a long and complex history of redaction and additions, with multiple manuscript lines, etc.) to the latter part of the second century, even if it were accurate, is of no value in determining what any given passage might have meant to the original writer or earlier editors. Besides, such a dating is not universal. Michael Knibb, translator and commentator on the Ascension of Isaiah in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol.2, p.143-176) dates the Martyrdom around the end of the first century CE, while the Vision, its date being "more difficult to determine," he places in "the second century" [p.149-150]. The joining of the two parts may not have occurred, he suggests, until the third or even the fourth century.
Third, it is by no means necessary to interpret the passages and references Muller highlights as having a docetic significance. In fact, there is a notable lack of any attention to docetism in this entire document. If the descending Son in chapter 9 taking on a human "form" is docetic, then so is the pre-Pauline hymn in Philippians 2:6-11. Moreover, some of the 'forms' taken on by the Son as he passes through the levels of heaven are angelic, which hardly relates to docetism. The principle of a divine being taking on the 'forms' of the spheres he is traversing is an aspect of the descent mythology under discussion. It was a concept that existed quite independently of principles of docetism, and really has nothing to do with it. When the demons of the firmament who hang the Son on a tree "think that he is flesh and a man" (9:13) the issue is his identity, the Son disguising himself so that his true identity is not recognized, not the issue inherent in docetism, that Christ was of phantom flesh rather than genuine flesh, so that he did not really suffer or take on the weaknesses of matter.
Fourth, Muller fails to take into account that 11:2-22 is almost certainly a later interpolation, based on Gospel-like traditions —though at a primitive level. (Carrier concurs, and even Muller at one point identifies the passage as an interpolation, so it's all very confusing.) I argue this in Appendix 4 of my book [p.308f], which Muller seems to ignore. (He may not agree with it, but he at least has to take it into account. To make the sort of snide remark —found throughout his critique —he does in accusing me of "guessing" about the reliability of various parts of the Ascension according to my own "agenda" is not only gratuitously insulting, it's unbecoming of anyone claiming to be a serious scholar.) Thus, pointing to Gospel features in those interpolations within both portions of the Ascension is irrelevant to the arguments I make in regard to other chapters of the Vision.
8:18 "And there they [angels of the 6th heaven]: all named the primal Father and His Beloved, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit, all with one voice."
Let's note this "Beloved" one is later identified as "the Lord Christ, who will be called "Jesus" in the world" (9:5) (as in 10:7 "... my Lord Christ who will be called Jesus") and also "the Son" (
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).
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..."
Thus, the "firmament" is what divides the waters below (the sea) from the waters above (the higher levels of heaven). So when Isaiah ascends to the firmament, there can be no doubt this is where he is going, and that Doherty's point about parallels between things on earth and in the heavens is explicitly stated here (and is pretty evident from Hebrews as well).
Then:
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.
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: Isaiah saw this fighting earlier, and was told it had parallels on earth. And he explicitly calls the firmament 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. Doherty is not making that up: most scholars are in agreement about this, and it is pretty clear they are right. As Muller 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 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 firmament 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 Doherty is right here — he has the majority of scholars behind him, including the top experts on this very text. [Knibb himself, though, hedges here, and suggests that the 11:2-22 passage was part of the original text, for reasons which don't make much sense — see my Appendix 4 in The Jesus Puzzle.] But Muller is right when he suggests the possibility that the pre-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, in my opinion. Both views are plausible. Doherty does have the edge in that his thesis is a simpler explanation of various bizarre silences in Paul, but the simpler hypothesis is not always true. So if Doherty 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, in my opinion. It only produces agnosticism. Doherty and I disagree about this, but I can only tell you the way things seem to me.
It may be slightly more feasible that the original "Vision" was taken from a 'non-Christian' source (though one that would clearly be of a 'proto-Christian' nature, illustrating lines of development) and applied to an existing terrestrial Jesus figure (whether authentic or only imagined). In that case, the interpolation and possibly the insertions of the name Jesus — and perhaps Christ — could have taken place at that point. But I similarly question whether such an editor taking over an external document would not have reworked key passages such as those under discussion here, to reflect his awareness of Jesus' life on earth. On the other hand, my judgment has been that when a community already possesses a document which is its own product, and its ideas toward some of the subject matter in it evolve, insertions tend to be made but not wholesale revision of all the earlier material; the latter is simply reinterpreted. (I have argued this in regard to the evolving stages of Q, and in the case of the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers. For the latter, see my Supplementary Article No. 5: Tracing the Christian Lineage in Alexandria.)
Incidentally, that interpolation is certainly of a primitive nature, and must reflect very early views of an historical Jesus. It would be interesting to speculate whether it is based on some Ur-Gospel piece of writing which the later canonical Gospels have left behind. The "nativity" scene in 11:2-15 cannot be dependent upon those of Matthew or Luke. The infant is born in Mary and Joseph's house in Bethlehem, it arrives unexpectedly (the birth causes "astonishment" to Mary), and there are none of the details we find in Matthew and Luke's renditions. The rest of the interpolation is very brief, making cursory reference to the performance of "signs and miracles in the land of Israel and Jerusalem," and to the crucifixion and resurrection in this way:
11.19. And after this the adversary [Satan] envied him and roused the children of Israel, who did not know who he was, against him. And they handed him to the ruler, and crucified him, and he descended to the angel who (is) in Sheol. 20. In Jerusalem, indeed, I saw how they crucified him on a tree, 21. and likewise (how) after the third day he rose and remained (many) days... 22. And I saw when he sent out the twelve disciples and ascended.
The identity of the "ruler" in verse 19 is not specified, though Knibb opines: "a word normally translated 'king,' but it is presumably Pilate who is meant (cf. Mt 27:2)." It certainly is a presumption on Knibb's part, but it's quite possible this interpolation comes from a time when the earthly crucifier of Jesus was not necessarily regarded by all as having been Pontius Pilate. Certainly, the rest of the material here is decidedly uninformative and very primitive in detail. Indeed, some of its features are barely a step above the pre-interpolation stage, and there are signs of those features simply growing out of features of the latter, as though the latter are being reworked to provide material for the new picture being formulated. We have the "envy" of the children of Israel (compare the envy of the demons), the descent to Sheol immediately after death (fulfilling God's directions for the Son's sojourn to the lower heavens), the crucifixion "on a tree" by the ruler (compare the hanging "upon a tree" by the evil angels of the firmament in 9:14), the motif of "not knowing who he is" now transferred to the children of Israel. There is also a notable disruption of sequence between verse 20 and 21. After crucifixion he descends to Sheol; then the interpolator (or later editor) backs up and speaks further of his crucifixion and gives him a resurrection after three days and a period on earth (which period varies between manuscripts); finally (v. 22) the appointment of apostles and an ascension is added. Curiously, throughout this entire passage, the name Jesus is not used once. Speculation on this would be just that, but one wonders if this is a good indicator that Knibb is right in suggesting that the names "Jesus" and "Christ" were added to the entire document only later, and that this interpolation comes quite early (barely before the mental ink was dry on the idea of an historical incarnation of the "Son"), continuing in the thought patterns of the earlier stage of the Vision of Isaiah. Although it is difficult to postulate what sort of relationship the ideas of the interpolation might have had with the creation of the Gospel of Mark, there is one other connection that could be put forward. I have suggested that there is no way to tell what name the later stages of Q used for the founder figure it introduced into the sayings collection. It may not have been "Jesus" and another name may only have been converted to Jesus when the synoptic Gospels incorporated the Q traditions. Did the earliest ideas of an historical figure not entail the name "Jesus" as the Ascension of Isaiah might suggest?
To return to Muller:
a) In 'the Ascension of Isaiah', is the Son arrested in the firmament?
b) If Satan and his evil angels are involved in the crucifixion, does that mean it was not on earth?
2.5.3. The Son goes through the firmament to earth:
This is according to these verses:
10:29-31 "And
again [from 1st heaven] 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. And I saw when He descended [below
the firmament!]
and made
Himself like unto the angels of the air...."
[Carrier:] 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 firmament (it is the last stop above the "lower waters" that God has separated out from the firmament). Still, one can imagine that this was at some point mapped onto an angel who went all the way down to earth (through Docetism).
10:8 "Go forth and
descent through all the heavens [that
would include the air between earth and moon!], and you will descent to the
firmament and that world
[earth: see note a) below]: to the angel in Sheol
you will descend [after death]...."
[Carrier:]
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.
Notes:
a) In the two closest previous
occurrences of "that world", at
- 9:20-23 "Show
me how
everything which is done in that world [earth, confirmation
later] is here
[7th
heaven] made
known." And whilst I [Isaiah] was still speaking with him,
behold one of the angels who stood nigh, ...
who had raised me up from the world [earth:
ch.7:2-3].
Showed
me a book,
and he opened it, and the book was written, but not as a book of
this world [not written on earth]. And he gave (it) to me and
I read it,
and lo! the deeds of the children of
- 9:24-26 "And I [Isaiah] saw there many
garments laid up [in the
highest heaven],
and many thrones and many crowns. And I said to the
angel: "Whose are these garments and thrones and crowns?" And he said
unto me: "These garments many from that world [Christians] will receive [in
the
future!] believing in the words of That One,
... and they will
observe those things, and believe in them, and believe in His cross:
for
them are these laid up.""
All
occurrences of "world" from
[Carrier:] First, words must be
read in context: a pronoun takes the meaning of the nearest available
object. Muller'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 firmament is alluded to. See 9:14: "the god
of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son..." Where is
the "god"? In the firmament, in the aer
(this is explicitly stated at 10.29 and 10.10-12, where "that world" is
unmistakably the firmament). It certainly does not say it is on earth.
2.5.4. Satan can kill people on earth also (from heaven!):
The OT book of Job demonstrates the belief that Satan could inflict havoc on earth and have a long reach, with or without leaving heaven....
[Carrier:] Correct. Satan rules over the whole region below the orb of the moon — and that includes the firmament, the aer, the earth, and Sheol (which is why we need Jesus to escape Sheol). See 1 Cor. 15: only at the second coming [Paul never states, here or anywhere else, that Jesus' future coming will be a "second coming" — Carrier, like so many others, has read this into the epistles] 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). 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 seventh heaven. Thus, to defeat Satan you have to go to his throne, which the text says is in the firmament, not on earth. So obviously that is where Jesus has to go....
But again, Muller is certainly right that Jesus could be "killed" on earth by a Satan in the firmament. And since everything on earth is paralleled in the firmament, I can certainly see how a Christian could map this celestial battle with Satan onto a historical Jesus — both happening at once. Therefore, Doherty's thesis fits and explains the evidence (contra Muller), but is not thereby proved (pro Muller).
Chapter 9 is virtually as clear, and this would be the time to look at some of it in detail. From verse 13 to 17 it reads (taken from the translation by M. Knibb in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha):
9.13: The Lord will indeed descend into the world in the last days, (he) who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man. 14. And the god of that world will stretch out his hand against the Son, and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. 15. And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed even from the heavens so that it will not be known who he is. 16. And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise [lit., "ascend" notes Knibb] on the third day and will remain in that world for five hundred and forty-five days. 17. And then many of the righteous will ascend with him, whose spirits do not receive (their) robes until the Lord Christ ascends and they ascend with him.
The flow of this passage is somewhat uneven, suggesting redaction somewhere along the line. Knibb is of the opinion that the reference to remaining in the world for 545 days "may be an addition to the text." Both of the other manuscript lines do not have it, and it may have been inserted by a later editor influenced by gnostic sources since, as Knibb notes, the time period fits Valentinian and Ophite beliefs. As in chapter 10, there is no specific mention of earth in these verses. It is the "god of that world" (Satan) and his minions who do the hanging; it is they who do not know who he is. His identity is concealed from "the heavens," no inclusion of earth being specified. The point I made earlier about bringing common sense to one's interpretation of a document applies again here: If the writer of this passage knew of a life on earth for the Son, he could hardly have failed to indicate it in some way. If he knew or believed that human rulers had actually performed the physical crucifixion, in history, it is not feasible that he would confine himself to describing it solely in heavenly terms, at the hands of a heavenly agency, within a context of descent and ascent which never includes earth. The phrase "they will think that he is flesh and a man," if not docetic (and I have argued against that above), indicates that he was not a man in the mind of this writer, relegating the idea to the context of descending deities taking on the forms of each "world," each sphere through which they pass. Even the reference to the 545 days is not specified as on earth, but only "in that world," betraying again that lack of focus on earth itself. Considering that the Valentinians (at least at the time of their Gospel of Truth) seem to have had no sense of an historical Jesus — not even a docetic one — the possible borrowing of this idea from them does not of itself necessarily indicate the concept of a human man.
It might be asked: if this is the firmament, encompassing the first spirit level of the aer, as well as the earth, why did the Son adopt the "form" of a human man and not one of the angels of the firmament, since in all the other spheres he simply assumes the form of an angel of that level? In fact, in 10:30, upon the Son entering the firmament, Isaiah says that "I saw when he descended and made himself like the angels of the air, that he was like one of them." They failed even to notice him, being too busy with their own warring. At some point subsequent to this, the Son adopts the form of a human, and that is when they perceive him and proceed to dispatch him on the tree. Thus, the human form was necessary; Satan would hardly be moved to hang up what he thought was one of his own angels. But there is another necessity involved. The paradigm principle, the homologic parallel I discussed in Part One, reflected in early Christian writings like the hymn of Philippians 2:6-11, required the god not only to descend to the 'fleshly' territory but to assume the form of those linked to him, of those he would "save" (in this case, of the revived spirits in Sheol who would ascend with the Son). Thus the Son's assumption of human form does not require that he actually descended to earth itself. Again, if that was the writer's thought, some indication of that life on earth would have emerged in the text. We can see that it emerged in no uncertain terms when a later editor added twenty verses to chapter 11 to reflect that very idea of an earthly life. These considerations cannot simply be ignored or dismissed in order to hold onto a theoretical principle that the whole thing, with all its focus on the heavens and silence about earth, could still be "mapped" onto a human man. Not only does my thesis explain the evidence, the evidence supports the thesis, and I think Carrier's distinction between the two — while it does exist — is a little too adamantly pressed at times. Again I will say, we cannot bring in the word "proof" with its connotations and demands in other contexts and hold out for agnosticism while ignoring the balance of probability. And where this document is concerned, I maintain that we are in a position of virtual certainty.
One might press the questions associated with this picture of ancient soteriology even further, and ask, what would a being disguised as a human man be thought to be doing in the firmament, and why would Satan attack him for no good reason? Of course, that's the way those miserable demons are, and the overriding requirement would be that the Son had to be killed while in the form of his believers, and anyway not much in ancient philosophy really makes a lot of sense to our modern minds. I have no idea how any rational person even at that stage could have believed that any of this bore a relation to reality (other than allegorical, as the more sophisticated philosophers tended to view things). No writer ever tries to explain how the homologic parallel principle works — certainly not Paul in Romans 6. But then, we face a similar situation in regard to atonement sacrifice and the forgiveness of sin effected by the shedding of blood, principles at the heart of Christian soteriology, then and now. Does anyone understand how the slaughter of animals and the burning of their blood on the altar served intercessionary purposes for a sanguinary Yahweh, or why the slaughter of the Son of God on Calvary was needed to redeem the world's sins? No writer, Old Testament or New, ever attempts an explanation. It is simply part of the philosophical and ritual landscape, going back to primitive beginnings in the mists of prehistoric times. Too many in our society even in the 21st century are still tied to those primitive beginnings.
Both Muller and Carrier are being picayune over a little detail in 9.14:
a) 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 / the_god_of_this_world, neither in Paul's epistles, nor 'Ascension of Isaiah'. Doherty is therefore misleading here.
Apparently it is not only the demons who have failed to understand. On the basis of misread and misinterpreted trifles like these, Muller thinks to hang me on some tree (even if I don't claim the title of Lord of glory):
Muller, from 9:14, suddenly jumps without warning (and without clarity) to chapter 10:
10.30. And I saw when he descended [into the firmament] and made himself like the angels of the air, that he was like one of them. And he did not give the password, for they were plundering and doing violence to one another. 11.1. And after this I looked, and the angel who spoke to me and led me said to me, "Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz, because for this purpose I was sent from the Lord".... 11.23. And I saw him, and he was in the firmament but was not transformed into their form. And all the angels of the firmament, and Satan, saw him and worshiped.
Clearly, there is something missing between 11.l and 11.23. (The space is taken up now with the interpolation.) The original text breaks off when the Son has just entered the firmament during his descent, and picks up again when he is reentering the firmament (from Sheol) for his ascent back to heaven. For Muller to point to the missing hanging by Satan in this situation, as though this somehow eradicates it from chapter 9 (by homologic parallel perhaps), where there is no interpolation, is crudely disingenuous. In chapter 9, all that takes place between the hanging in the firmament and the rising after three days is the 'plundering of the angel/prince of death,' a reference to the descent into Sheol to claim the spirits of the righteous who ascend with him back to heaven. Since chapter 10-11 is an enlargement on the whole descent and ascent process, we may assume that in the missing portion above, there was a fuller account of the hanging in the firmament and the descent into Sheol to rescue the dead. Accordingly, this is the point where the editor decided to place his interpolation of a life for the Son on earth, and the original material had to be jettisoned.
Incidentally, what do we find at this point in the two other manuscript lines? I'd better mention here that there are three classes of surviving manuscripts of the Ascension: Ethiopic, second Latin, and Slavonic. The first is thought to be based on one Greek text, the other two on a different Greek text. (Note that there are no extant mss. of any earlier Greek versions.) There are notable differences between the Ethiopic on the one hand, and the second Latin and Slavonic on the other. One of the reasons why most scholars on the Ascension (but not Knibb) regard the interpolation as just that, is because it is missing in the Slavonic and second Latin manuscripts. They would hardly have removed this passage if it had been there in the original. However, there is a brief verse in the gap in both the Latin and Slavonic, and it is the same. It runs like this (following on 11:1): "...to show you all things. For no one before you has seen, nor after you will be able to see, what you have seen and heard. And I saw one like a son of man, and he dwelt with men in the world, and they did not recognize him." Now, neither the Latin nor the Slavonic is considered dependent on the other, so this passage must be taken from an earlier version on which they both depended, but on which the Ethiopic did not. It is interesting that the second sentence of that 'filler' has the look of an insertion itself, but an extremely primitive one. It states nothing more than the basic idea that the Son become "one like a son of man," that is, human, and dwelt in the world. First of all, that this sparse statement was ever substituted for the longer Ethiopic interpolation —which would seem to be required by Knibb's position —is simply not feasible. What it seems to be is an interpolation somewhere back along the line out of which the Latin and Slavonic grew, even earlier than the Ethiopic which represents a more detailed development of the idea that the Son had been to earth. So we actually have two reflections of the evolution of the thought of this document, and both of them involve the insertion of the idea of an earthly incarnation for the Son. This is the evolution of the historical Jesus before our very eyes, and cannot fit into Carrier's option of the whole thing being mapped onto a figure who was regarded as historical from the very beginning.
But to go on. Muller's confusion and misrepresentation reaches a peak here:
"Near the bottom ... lay humanity's sphere, the material earth; only Sheol or Hades, the underworld, was lower."
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,
[reference to part of "Chapter 11", according to Doherty. However, relating to earthly surroundings, there is a second one:
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!
Let's go back to the book of Job:
Job1:7 NKJV "And the LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?" So Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.""....
[Carrier:] Ironically, Muller 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 Christianity but after Job's day), Satan refused to reascend 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 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-Christian 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 Christianity just came out of 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.
This exclusive focus on the heavenly realm, with Christ as a heavenly agent and mediary, is especially evident in the Pauline corpus and in Hebrews. The Son is described exclusively in terms of his Platonic character as creator and sustainer of the universe (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15-20, Heb. 1:1-3), with no identification with an historical man. The Son's prominent role in salvation is through the process of defeating the demon spirits (as in Col. 2:15 and the Ascension of Isaiah) and restoring the unity of the two parts of the universe, which Satan and his evil angels had sundered in this present "age" of the world (Eph. 1:10). One of the major motifs in the epistle to the Hebrews is the superiority of the Son to the angels. The angels were God's intermediaries in the past, the Son is the new intermediary; God spoke formerly through the prophets, now he speaks through the Son. But that superiority is demonstrated solely through scripture; there is no mention of the Son's incarnation to earth or his powerful deeds there. The "voice" of the Son in his earthly ministry is never sounded, only the voice in scripture, which is to say, in the new interpretation of scripture. Revelation and the power of the Holy Spirit, operating largely through scripture, is the sole driving force of the Christian version of the savior myth. Over the context of its time, Christianity with a mythical Christ fits like a glove. Agnosticism — at least where the cultic stream represented by Paul is concerned — is not justified.
And Muller doesn't let off beating a dead horse:
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] ..."
by his sacrifice on the cross....
This is confirmed by:
- 1Co1:23 YLT "... Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block ['skandalon', also translated as "offenc(s)e" or "scandal"] ..."
- Gal5:11 NKJV "... the offense ['skandalon'] of the cross ..."
Finally, Muller addresses the significance of the term "Zion" as used by Paul in Romans:
'Zion' in the OT
All over the OT, 'Zion' is referred many times, as indicating an earthly place, either the heartland of the Jews (including or excluding Jerusalem), or the holy city itself, or part of the later: that is the temple mount, also called mount Zion, or the "city of David", on the ridge southwards. Here are some examples (all quotes from the NKJV): [Muller lists close to a dozen examples]....
Note: in the OT,
On page 120, Doherty valiantly declares: "No other New Testament document so clearly illustrates the higher and lower world thinking of Platonic philosophy as the epistle to the Hebrews." Then he continues: "The writer places the sacrifice in heaven itself, in "the real sanctuary, the tent pitched by the Lord and not by man" (8:2)".
Let's observe the whole aforementioned verse (with the preceding one):
Heb8:1-2 YLT "And the sum concerning the things spoken of [is]: we have such a chief priest [Jesus], who did sit down at the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens, of the holy places ['Hagion'] a servant, and of the true tabernacle [tent, shelter], which the Lord did set up, and not man,"
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. Just that Jesus, as the Lord in heaven, is a servant/minister of the holy places & "true" tabernacle.
And from which translation does "the real sanctuary" come from? "real" is not in the Greek!
With this proper understanding (and I will illustrate it further by appeal to other verses as we go along), one can see that the "sacrifice" which this writer envisions cannot take place anywhere but in heaven. He is hardly saying that Christ brought his own blood into the sanctuary of the temple on earth. Throughout chapters 8 and 9 he is comparing the two acts in the two sanctuaries by the two High Priests, heavenly and earthly. His whole point is that the heavenly one is superior, and that it supplants the earthly one. The "old covenant" is being replaced by a new one (8:7-13). In this, Hebrews shares a general motif found in many Christian expressions of the early period, that Christ's sacrifice, wherever it might be located, has introduced a new era in which old practices are made obsolete and need to be set aside, such as the Temple cult and even the very Law itself. But this particular writer (and he is part of a community which has already adopted such an outlook) has his own special 'take' on the supplanting process; no other surviving document makes such a comparison between the heavenly and earthly Temples or places such exclusive focus on Christ's sacrifice as his act of bringing the blood into the heavenly sanctuary. Commentators often express surprise at this unique approach to christology, wondering "where it could have come from," but they fail to see that this is simply another indicator of the variety of independent development on the Christ-belief scene of the first century, none of it derived from a single point and doctrine of origin (no Big Bang), nothing to constitute a strange "deviation" from an established norm. That the source of this particular interpretation is entirely from scripture, the author makes abundantly clear throughout the whole document.
Because the two "sacrifices" by the two High Priests are located in two different realms, one in heaven the other on earth, we can now see the full import of the verse that comes up almost immediately, 8:4, that "smoking gun" I have often called attention to and which commentators regularly pussyfoot around: "Now if he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts which the Law prescribes, [adding the first part of verse 5:] though they minister in a sanctuary which is only a copy and shadow of the heavenly." [NEB translation] Verse 5 is another indicator of the Platonic viewpoint which saturates Hebrews. Why would the writer say this unless he is locating the sacrifice of the heavenly High Priest (Christ) in the heavenly temple, indicating its superior status — which is the whole point of the epistle? To go back to verse 4 itself, the dichotomy has to be seen as consistent, that is, that the temple High Priest exists and acts on earth, while the heavenly High Priest exists and acts in heaven. (The issue of the exact translation of 8:4 I cover in my book and in my website article on Hebrews — see link below — and will not repeat here.) Here we can see that if this writer's Christ had been on earth at all, this would have presented a big difficulty for his Platonic picture of the parallel between the two High Priests. If any of Christ's redeeming act had taken place on earth (and how could Calvary not be introduced into the picture?), the purity and 'lesson' of his whole exercise would have been compromised, and at the very least would have required clarification. As it is, the writer betrays no hint that anything disturbs his finely drawn contrast between earth and heaven.
As for alēthinēs, Carrier is of course correct that it can equally be translated as "true" or "real." My translation, "in the real sanctuary, the tent pitched by the Lord and not by man," was taken from the NEB, which is a translation I consistently gravitate to, as it attempts to convey the inherent, common sense meaning of a passage rather than simply adhering to the literal — although I sometimes find it guilty of reading Gospel associations into certain texts. Here, it is not off the mark (and it illustrates my point about the NEB), since there is hardly a distinction required in this verse between "sanctuary" and "tent," ("holy places" and "tabernacle" are the words used by Muller and Carrier), and thus "real" can, and should, be applied equally to the word sanctuary. "Tent," grammatically speaking, is simply in apposition to "sanctuary." Essentially, the writer is using both words to refer to the same thing. The only other translation I have seen which uses the word "real" instead of "true" is the Canadian Bible Society's Good News for Modern Man, though I doubt that they have done so with Platonic implications in mind. On the other hand, Spiros Zodhiates, in his The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, (p.122) does recognize the Platonic implications: "skēnē alēthinē (tabernacle) means the heavenly temple, after the model of which the Jews regarded the temple of Jerusalem as built (Heb. 8:2)." Other commentators (whom I will have occasion to mention later), have fully recognized Hebrews' Platonic basis.
Thus, contrary to Carrier, this translation is not misleading, and it is relevant to the location of the sacrifice. Both terms refer to the heavenly temple, and that is where the writer will go on to locate Christ's own sacrifice as heavenly High Priest. (Note that the NEB's "tent" as translating skēnēs — which is its basic, original meaning since the primitive Hebrew sanctuary for the Ark of the Covenant was a portable tent — is right on the money. The earthly side of the comparison between the two sanctuaries is not in terms of the Temple in Jerusalem, but rather the "tent" version supposedly set up in Sinai during the Exodus, another indicator that the writer is thoroughly immersed in scripture rather than history or current reality.)
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 Doherty's entire thesis of parallels in heaven for earthly things, and, incidentally, for the fact that the sacrifice takes place there.
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 [Carrier's phrasing here is misleading: the heavenly altar is not the copy of the one on earth, but vice-versa], who did not enter the earthly tabernacle but the heavenly one. Indeed, Hebrews 10 struggles to argue from chapter 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 Doherty cites it (but also see 9:11).
Again, Muller is wrong. But Doherty 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....
Heb9:24 YLT "for not into holy places made with hands did the Christ enter -- figures of the true -- but into the heaven itself, ..."
Therefore Christ would have brought his "blood" (figuratively) from outside the heavens: "... who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, ..." (Heb4:14 Darby).
And sins are never suggested to be committed by demonic powers, those later ones not even acknowledged in the epistle, except for one reference to the devil (singular!): Heb2:14. Instead, sins concern earthly humans.
....The sinners can be the demons or their counterparts and agents on earth.
Alternatively, if Jesus is said to have endured hostility—or rebellion, if the thought is a conscious parallel to the use of the word in Numbers—on the part of sinners, meaning that he suffered in order to redeem rebellious sinners (whether sinners against himself or against themselves), the whole idea may have been introduced in order to make a comparison to the believers in what the writer now urges upon them. Verse 4 goes on to say: "In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." Just as Jesus suffered on account of sin, this too is the experience of believers, though their sufferings have not gone as far as his. But they too should endure, just like Jesus. The writer rounds out his little homily by offering words of encouragement. Where are they taken from? Not from any voice of Jesus on earth, but once more from scripture, in Proverbs 3:11-12, a reference to God disciplining his sons.
Heb9:14 Darby "how much rather shall the blood of the Christ, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God, purify your conscience from dead works to worship [the] living God?"
Where is the spiritual & eternal sacrifice?...
I agree. This is not the only place where Doherty 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 Doherty, not Muller. But Doherty is wrong to claim that Heb. 9:14 literally says what Doherty claims.
9:14. How much greater [than the blood of goats and bulls] is the power of the blood of Christ; he offered himself without blemish to God, a spiritual and eternal sacrifice....
Some of the older commentators on Hebrews (before more recent scholars began to shy away from such insights, perhaps realizing their danger) fully recognized the Platonic nature of the epistle writer's thought. James Moffat, in the International Critical Commentary (1924) says (p.xliii, and I'll quote him at some length as there are several features here pertinent to our discussion):
"When the author writes that Christ 'in the spirit of the eternal' (9:14) offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, he has in mind the contrast between the annual sacrifice on the day of atonement and the sacrifice of Christ which never needed to be repeated, because it had been offered in the spirit and — as we might say — in the eternal order of things [my emphasis]. It was a sacrifice bound up with his death in history, but it belonged essentially to the higher order of absolute reality. The writer breathed the Philonic atmosphere in which the eternal Now over-shadowed the things of space and time, but he knew this sacrifice had taken place on the cross, and his problem was one which never confronted Philo, the problem which we moderns have to face in the question: How can a single historical fact possess a timeless significance?"
The first thing one notices, of course, is that Moffat takes a Platonic meaning from the text itself but imposes the historical dimension which is not taken from the text, but is rather read into it. Of course, every commentator does this. It is amusing that Moffat, here and further on in his Introduction, has to admit that the "problems" inherent in the text relate to issues surrounding the incarnation and presumed historical event: "[H]ow is the Sonship compatible with the earthly life? — these are problems which remain unsolved" (p.xlix); and: "he [the author of the epistle] does not succeed in harmonizing its implications about the incarnate life with his gnōsis of the eternal Son within the higher sphere of divine realities" (p.l). No wonder the author fails to solve these "problems"! He never addresses them. He never shows a sign that they exist for him. They are problems created by the imposition of the Gospel Jesus on documents which don't know of any such figure. In that last phrase just quoted, "his gnōsis of the eternal Son within the higher sphere of divine realities," Moffat inadvertently demonstrates the sum total of the writer's knowledge, the sole basis of his faith and christology: it is the product of revealed gnōsis about a Son who existed in that higher realm of "reality." Once we see and admit that, the entire epistle and all its elements fall into place.
Moffat has also touched (in the long quote above) on the point of the "once" of Jesus' sacrifice, as does Carrier:
Before looking at the key passage (9:24-26), let's glance back to an earlier one which introduces the idea of "once": (7:27) "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself." (RSV). If the reader will recall the argument earlier, this act of "offering" is not the death on a cross (wherever it might have taken place), but the entry of Jesus into the heavenly sanctuary and the offering of his blood on the altar to God. This must be, since (as we see here in 7:27) it constitutes the parallel comparison between the action of the high priest on earth and that of Jesus. The only point of comparison presented is the entry into the tabernacle. Therefore, the offering is the act in the heavenly sanctuary. This is the key to the understanding of this epistle, and if one insists on bringing Gospel preconceptions to the document, one will forever miss it.
That this "offering" takes place in heaven is demonstrated in a further passage, 10:11-12: "And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God" (RSV). There can be little doubt that the writer's horizon here is entirely confined to heaven. Immediately after Christ makes his offering, he sits at God's side. There is no intervening resurrection, no ascension through the heavens (even from the firmament). At the very least, even if such elements cannot be necessarily ruled out as prior happenings, the definition of the offering itself must be confined to a heavenly event, the entry into the heavenly sanctuary. The "offering" is the same thing as the "sacrifice." Understanding what the author has in mind by the act of offering, where it is located, is part of the key, as we shall see.
The main reason why the author has styled the 'event' of Christ's sacrifice as "once for all" is not because it happened in history, but because he is contrasting it with the performance of the high priest's duties on earth. Here and in several other passages (e.g. 9:12, 9:25) he makes a point of noting that the temple priests perform their sacrifices repeatedly; however, Christ has to do this but "once" only, because his blood, his sacrifice, is superior, perfect; his blood has "greater power" (9:14) than the blood of goats and bulls. His sacrifice need be performed only once, and it has eternal efficacy. That translation Muller disputed, "a spiritual and eternal sacrifice," comes immediately after this thought in 9:14, and thus the NEB's attachment of "eternal" to "sacrifice" is justified: it is fully in keeping with the writers "once for all" declaration, because the sacrifice itself is eternal, both in its Platonic performance and in its effects. As at other points and in other contexts in the epistle, the writer is at pains to demonstrate how Christ as High Priest is the superior element, thus supplanting the old systems and readings of scripture. All sects believe they have uncovered the correct, newly inspired interpretation of the truth.
Now we can go on to the key passage, 9:24-26, and again I'll use the RSV: "24. For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear [the verb emphanidzō) in the presence of God on our behalf. 25. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; 26. for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared [the verb phaneroō] once for all at the completion of the ages to abolish sin by his sacrifice.
With the proper understanding of the writer's concept of sacrifice and offering and where it is located, we can see all the elements of this epistle's thought in the above three verses. There can be no doubt that Christ "enters" a heavenly sanctuary, of which the one on earth is a Platonic copy, and the "appearing before God" is this heavenly entry to offer his blood ("on our behalf"). Most important is what this does for verse 26, that central verse which Carrier and others use to interpret an historical venue for Jesus' sacrifice, taking "appeared...at the completion of the ages" as a reference to Jesus' incarnation in recent history. But it is not. The act of "appearing" throughout these verses relates to one thing: Jesus' sacrifice, which is synonymous with his entry into the heavenly sanctuary to make his offering to God. The "appearing" in verse 26b is not some sudden shift to a general reference to Christ's birth or life on earth, something which is never touched on when discussing the sacrifice (or indeed at any other point in the epistle). The "appearing to abolish sin" of the latter verse is in the same category as the "appearing before God" of the earlier verse 24 (the two verses use verbs that have similar meanings). All of it takes place in heaven.
And the verb "appeared" in verse 26: "Phaneroō" is strictly a 'revelation' word, in keeping with the standard sort of expression found throughout the epistles when they speak of Christ in the present time: not coming to earth or living a life, but being revealed. To this idea he has attached his phrase "once," which here may not be the same prime fit as in all the other cases, in that elsewhere it is the sacrifice which is performed "once for all," while here it is the revelation. But that this is an anomaly must be accepted in any case, since its application is not to the sacrifice, no matter how one might interpret phaneroō. Perhaps he was led to apply "once" to the present-day revelation because of its singular and unprecedented nature. Few writers are always perfectly consistent in their use of language.
Let's also look at the first part of verse 26, whose significance is usually overlooked in discussing the passage: "for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world." That this thought could only be applied to heaven should be evident. The concept of dying repeatedly on earth throughout history would have been nonsensical, and he would hardly have introduced it. To style it as repeating "since the foundation of the world" places it in a mythological setting. What he is saying is that Christ would not have to undergo his redeeming act on a regular basis in the spiritual realm. Perhaps he is consciously repudiating the more pagan concept of a savior god's "repetition" of his act of dying and rising — the "always is so," something timeless and constant (à la Plutarch's interpretation of the Osiris myth and Sallustius' similar reading of savior god mythology, all of it ultimately based on the agricultural / astronomical cycle). But the inclusion of the word "suffer" in this sentence indicates that for this writer the entire scope of Christ's actions, the entire redeeming process which has abolished sin, has taken place in the heavenly world — even the death itself (the "on the cross" of 12:2).
And we can go further. That the writer does not have any earthly event in mind in this entire passage is indicated by the verse coming shortly after. 28a says: "So Christ was offered once to remove men's sins..." We have identified the idea of "offering" as attached to the entry of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary to offer his blood to God. The "once" is back where it belongs. But 28a is also a virtual restatement of 26b: "he has appeared once for all at the completion of the ages to abolish sin by his sacrifice." The removal or abolition of sin is tied in the latter to the act of sacrifice and in the former to the act of offering. But these are synonymous, for the act of offering is the act of sacrifice. Thus the reference to "appearing" (being revealed) at the completion of the ages is further demonstrated to be a reference to the heavenly event. Nowhere is anything earthly in view.
This passage happens to lead into the one reference (verse 28b) in all the epistles which many claim implies that Christ is "returning" to earth, that he will be coming a "second time" to bring salvation (referring to the Parousia). But the "second time" word can also mean "next," removing any thought of a return. I discuss this in the Epilogue of my article on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I recommend that the reader investigate the whole of this article for a fuller discussion of the arguments made here, and other aspects of the epistle which demonstrate a lack of knowledge of an historical Jesus or an event of salvation on earth.
Muller and Carrier conclude their attention to Hebrews:
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. Doherty's thesis is neither challenged nor proved by Hebrews, taken in isolation.
The Epistle to the Hebrews demonstrates, perhaps more than any other document, the necessity to remove Gospel preconceptions from one's mind before approaching it. Muller has shown that trying to impose historical paradigms on it leads to a host of difficulties and contradictions, whereas a mythicist viewpoint imposes only unity and consistency. That this writer and his community could create such a majestic soteriological structure, such a fantastic view of spiritual reality, entirely out of scripture and philosophical concepts, demonstrates the extent such forces and sheer imagination could play in the religious inventions of the era. (We need to carry this realization with us when we go to Paul; it will make it easier to see and accept that he, too, is presenting his view of spiritual reality, from a Son who is "of the seed of David" because scripture tells him so, to a crucifixion in the heavens at the hands of demon spirits, "the rulers of this age.") Once the picture the author of Hebrews is presenting is clearly seen, not only does everything fit into a largely Platonic conception within the religious philosophy of the time, one can see the great void that exists about anything concerning a Jesus on earth. And that void extends throughout the epistle. I'll be delving into the latter area in Part Three.
Note: the translation in brackets seems the most accurate, if not elegant.
What the NEB has done is simply substitute "this salvation" for the "it" of the second sentence to clarify the antecedent. Is Muller denying that the "it" refers back to the "salvation" of the first sentence? Is he saying that by inserting the word "this," the NEB (and myself by quoting it) have foisted an invalid or misleading meaning on the sentence? It would seem so, for he is claiming that I am reading the NEB's "this salvation" as referring to the "whole christology" of Hebrews, whereas if it were rendered (more accurately?) as "a salvation" it would not. What can one do with argumentation like this? It is almost too grotesque to get one's mind around. In any case, I would argue that the salvation spoken of — in either sentence 1 or sentence 2 — does include the whole christology of the epistle. That is the author's concern in Hebrews: to lay out this christology and impress it upon his readers. Why would he not have it in mind in making this statement about the original message, no matter where it came from? No believer would ever think or admit that the philosophy of his sect did not go back to its genesis; this is a universal characteristic of all sects after a certain amount of time has passed. The author begins chapter 2 by saying: "We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away," and he goes on for eleven more chapters arguing the validity of what was "heard" at the group's formation and since passed on. (I have demonstrated in Supplementary Article No. 7 that this refers to a revelatory experience from God and not to the teaching of Jesus in an earthly ministry.) Muller argues that the "great salvation" is simply to be taken as Jesus promising "a salvation" without specifics, with the author of Hebrews filling in the blanks later from his own idiomatic reading of scripture — all of this tortured argumentation designed to get around my remark about Jesus not teaching the unique christology of the epistle.
Apparently, silence for Muller evaporates as a difficulty too, for the silence on Jesus' earthly voice is all explainable by the author not "caring" about the specifics — even in chapter 2, when he wishes to show that Jesus regarded all men as his brothers, and he draws on exclusively biblical sayings to illustrate this, despite having several usable sayings in the Christian oral tradition (if we are to trust the Gospels). Here, too, scholars are vexed for explanations of this strange situation.
Heb5:7 Darby "Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety;)"
By that time (more so after reading my first page), I think my readers will agree that "in the days of his flesh" relates to a Jesus on earth (and not in Doherty's heaven!). And here, Jesus speaks and is heard (this time allegedly to/by God).
Difficulties evaporate, too, when one simply ignores — right in the text which one is critiquing — the arguments put forward in support of my position. Note 59 of The Jesus Puzzle points out that the content of what Jesus has done "in the days of his flesh" (the supplications and entreaties with cries and tears) is taken from scripture — according to more than one scholar. Just as the "voice" of the Son, which Hebrews places in such prominence, is taken exclusively from scripture, so too does 5:7 indicate a mythological outlook on what the Son has done "in the days of his flesh." Finding every feature accorded to the Son solely in scripture, with nothing drawn from history (not even in the opening chapters when the author proves the Son superior to the angels) should do anything but make Muller confident that his readers will "agree" that Jesus is an entity who was recently on earth, with a wealth of historical tradition now attached to him.
And here
is something that Earl does not
address in his book, about a very human Jesus:
Heb2:14-18 Darby "Since
therefore the children [Christians/"brethren",
according to 2:12-13] partake
[Greek perfect tense: should
read
"partook"] of blood
and flesh, he [Jesus] also, in like manner [paraplēsiōs], took part in the
same [Jesus was as much flesh & blood as the
contemporary Christians. An unequivocal confirmation follows:], ... Wherefore it behoved him
in all
things to be made like to [his] brethren, ... , to make
propitiation
for the sins of the people; for, in that himself has suffered [Greek second perfect: the suffering is
over with!],
being tempted, he is able to help
those that are being tempted [on
earth!]."
Note: in 4:15 Darby "For
we have not a high priest not able to sympathize with our infirmities,
but tempted
[Greek perfect tense] in all things in like
manner
...", Jesus has already been
tempted.
And where would this "testing" (the same as the one affecting
earthlies!) have been? In the demonic fleshy mid-world (between
heaven and
earth) or the highest heaven? Or on earth, known for its "flesh and blood"
"brethren", subjected to
temptations (similar of the ones faced by a human Christ in the past)?
Michael Turton commented on the above passage:
Again, the problem remains despite
rhetorical questions. Where did
the temptation take place? On earth? Then why is there no example or
context
for this "temptation"? The author of Hebrews is not averse to giving
examples -- in the next chapter he talks about Moses, discusses
"hardening
of hearts" and then gives a historical example -- it happened in the
wilderness! Similarly, in 8:5 Moses again appears, and again the time
and
context of the event are given. Hebrews 11 is one long list of concrete
events
in the Old Testament. "By faith....." he keeps repeating. This, of
course, is yet another silence, for Hebrews does not refer to even a single
event in the NT where faith is prominent -- for example, the woman with the
menstrual problem who heals herself just by touching Jesus, the
centurion of
Matthew 8:10 -- a really potent case, for Jesus avers that this
gentile beats
all the jews in faith, the paralytic of Matthew 9, the next healing of
the
daughter in Matthew 11, the blind man in Mark 10...the list is long,
and all
are ignored by Hebrews. Why? The pattern is clear. Hebrews does not
know this
story.
The author explained (at length!) how Jesus became "High Priest" (by the sacrifice of himself), but did not about "Apostle", likely because it was already known....
Once again, Muller imposes a
universal definition and usage on a word. And what of Jesus as "High
Priest"? The entire discussion of this identification places Jesus as
High Priest in heaven. He
performs his duty as High Priest in
heaven. The sacrifice was one made in the heavenly sanctuary. Whatever the
author has in mind by calling Jesus an "Apostle," there is no
impediment to seeing this characterization as having a heavenly
application, just as the term "High Priest" does.
And to
whom would he have preached?
To Jews, according to Paul:
Ro15:8 Darby "For
I [Paul]
say that Jesus Christ became a minister ['diakonos'] of [the] circumcision
[Jews] for [the]
truth of
God, ..."
Note: "became" (root
'ginomai') can be translated as "came to pass" or
"happened" (according to Strong). The verb is in the Greek perfect
tense; therefore the action has been completed in the past.
"...Romans 15:8-9. But standard translations tend to read more into these verses than is evidently there. Is Paul saying that Christ ministered to the Jews? Literally, the wording is: "Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs." Is this a reference to an earthly ministry? Who knows, with such a cryptic statement? In fact, the verb/participle is in the perfect tense, has become, which has a 'present' ongoing implication. Paul could simply be saying that the spiritual Christ, operating in heaven, is now servant to the Jews, working on their behalf and for the conversion of the gentile. This is pretty weak stuff to support an historical Jesus."
Apparently Muller's understanding of English grammar is no better than his understanding of Greek grammar. The essential characteristic of the perfect tense in both languages is that it depicts an action which started in the past but has a continuing effect in the present. To say that "Christ has become a servant to the Jews" is primarily to make a statement about his present capacity. This focus on the present, on a Jesus who "is" an Apostle, a High Priest, a minister to his people, is fully in keeping with the universal outlook and expression of all the early Christian correspondence, canonical and otherwise, and in keeping with the blind eye turned on anything to do with the history of a recent Jesus of Nazareth.
Michael Turton had this comment on Muller's above passage:
Hello? Where does the
passage in Hebrews say Jesus preached? Nowhere.
Bernard has once again back-read the gospels into Hebrews. Calling
Jesus an
"apostle" does not mean that he actually preached. Further, 'Paul' --
or some early Christian -- tells us what an apostle is:
- 2 Corinthians 12:12 The
things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done
among you with great perseverance.
In other words, Jesus is an apostle
because he provided us with signs, wonders,
and miracles, not because he preached. Bernard's thrust has once more
gone
astray.
Heb7:14 Darby "For it is clear that
our Lord has sprung out of
Juda [as David], as to which tribe
Moses spake
nothing as to priests."
Doherty comments on that through
note
44, on page 340.
Once again we have the negative rhetorical back-reading of the gospels into Hebrews. "...But does someone claimed to be (truly or through scriptures) "sprung" from an Israelite tribe (or David, or Abraham) preclude the past existence of that person? Of course not." Bernard is right. It does not preclude past existence. However, it does not establish it, which is what Bernard claims Hebrews is doing. Doherty's point is that Jesus' descent is indicated clearly in the scriptures relied upon by the early Christians. Therefore, Jesus' descent is derived from the OT. Ipso facto, Hebrews cannot be used here as evidence of Jesus' real existence. Bernard's subsequent discussion of "prodelos" is simply idle chit-chat unrelated to the topic at hand. He has failed to adduce any positive evidence that Hebrews knows the descent of Jesus out of some historical understanding rather than OT midrash. He has simply adduced his historicist bias, and appealed to our unconscious sharing of historicist assumptions.
Doherty writes: "there is no appeal to
historical
facts, or apostolic traditions concerning Jesus of Nazareth, no
reference to
Joseph and Mary, no mention of his lineage ..."
This is typical of Earl, who
presupposes
every reference to a human-like Jesus should come with many details
attached.
But why would the author digress on that here? His purpose is to
demonstrate
Jesus was not from the tribe normally assigned the priesthood, the
Levites, as
Doherty points out: "The
point is, Christ must be of a new line in order to create a new order
of
priesthood." And why should
more
details be supplied when 'Jesus from the tribe of Judah' is already
"manifest"? More so if Jesus, as a descendant of David (and father
Jesse), was already "known" by Christians (see Ro1:3 & Ro15:12)!
Let's note here the author "explained" many things in the epistle,
such as Jesus was pre-existent, the Son of God and, above all,
performed the
ultimate Sacrifice for sins (all of that new for his audience,
according to
Heb6:1-3). But the "manifest" descendance from the tribe of Judah
comes out of the blue and is never "demonstrated": in all likelihood,
the writer knew it was already allowed by his audience.
Bernard at last makes
an argument in the last sentence of this passage:
"...it is very likely the writer knew that was already accepted by his
audience." This is simple speculation. Bernard also writes
dismissively:
"This is typical of Earl, who presupposes every reference to a
human-like
Jesus should come with many details attached." But why not? We see that
whenever Hebrews refers to other humans -- Moses -- it frequently
supplies
details and examples. Of Jesus we get nothing. Moreover, adding Paul in
support
of Hebrews cannot help Bernard, for if Jesus' ancestry is midrash in
Hebrews,
it is midrash in Paul as well -- Doherty's entire point! Piling on
quotes doth
not an argument make. Bernard needs to show that some other route
than
OT proof-texting is the origin of this idea.
Heb9:26 Darby "But now once in the consummation of the ages he has been manifested [Greek perfect tense] for [the] putting away of sin by his sacrifice."
But "has been manifested" is in the Greek perfect tense and consequently this action happened and was completed in the past! And not too long ago because of "now"! Other actions about Jesus depicted in 'Hebrews' with verbs in the (Greek) perfect tense include: sufferance (2:18), temptation (4:15), separation from sinners (7:26), opposition from sinners (12:3) and perfection (unto others) through the "sacrifice", "For by one offering he has perfected in perpetuity the sanctified" (10:14 Darby).
Once again,
Muller misunderstands the perfect tense, stating an incomplete and
misleading definition. The perfect is not primarily concerned with
signifying a completed act
in the past, which by itself would normally be expressed with the
aorist. The essential reason for using the perfect is to
emphasize a continuing result in the present. ("My son has been made a
lieutenant" is concerned with his present status, not with the past
when where or how of that promotion.) To say that something has
been "completed" in the past is significantly erroneous, because it
ignores the "continuing-in-the-present" dimension. Thus, the use of the
perfect here is meant to elucidate a present state of affairs, with no
specific nature conferred on the time or place of its initiation. Also,
as Turton says:
Once again we detour
into a discussion of what the Greek means. Bernard manages
to write a whole paragraph on verb tenses without ever once considering
what
the verb "manifesting" means! How is it that Jesus is
"manifest?" Why not "walked on earth" or better yet
"born to Mary?" Why is such a vague verb used? Bernard's discussion
simply goes right by that point. Whether it happened in the past or not
is
irrelevant -- the issue is where Jesus was manifest, and on
that issue
Hebrews is silent indeed.
Heb8:4-5a Darby "If then indeed he were [Greek imperfect tense] upon earth, he would not
even be [imperfect] a priest, there being
[Greek present tense] those
who offer [Greek present tense]
the gifts
according to the law, (who serve [present]...)"
In
Appendix 5, pages 310-312, Doherty calls
it a "startling
verse" because the imperfect
tense
in "he were" "is
strictly a past tense" (as
rendered
by "if he had been on earth"). But he admits "the meaning is probably
present, or
at least temporally ambiguous, much like the conditional sense in which
most
other translations render it
[as quoted]".
That does not prevent Doherty to go into his usual speculations, some
founded
on argument from silence, such as the author should have specified
"now" (but did not!). That leads him to say: "making the statement at all seems
to preclude the idea that Jesus had ever performed a sacrifice in the
earthly
realm." (back to where he
started!).
I'll counteract that:
A) According to the overall
context, Jesus "upon
earth" is a supposition of an
action
happening at the same time as for the priests officiating in the
temple, in
the present (relative to when the epistle was written).
First of all,
this is not correct. To claim that the "if...would be"
comparison is thought of exclusively as meaning in the present is not at all
established by the context. This is the issue under debate, and to
simply declare it the way one would wish it to be is begging the
question. In fact, it is grammatically incorrect to imply that it must
have a present context. But don't take my
word for it. This is what Paul Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.405) has to say:
"The second
difficulty concerns the meaning of the two occurrences of ēn. The imperfect in unreal
conditions is temporally ambiguous, so that NEB [which is the translation I quote in The
Jesus Puzzle] "Now if he had been on earth, he would not even
have been a priest" (so Attridge) is grammatically possible. [So much for Muller's declaration. Then Ellingworth goes on, and note the
basis for his reasoning: the preconception that Jesus had been on
earth, which forces him to judge the situation according to that
preconception.] However, it goes against the context, in at
least apparently excluding Christ's present ministry, and it could also
be misunderstood as meaning that Jesus had never 'been on earth.' Most
versions accordingly render: 'If he were on earth, he would not be a
priest at all'."
The "context" for
Ellingworth is the Gospel story, as he admits. We
can see right here a prime example of how the Gospels are read into
the epistles, even when the language of the epistle fails to justify
it. In any case, Ellingworth has noted that the construction in 8:4
is temporally ambiguous and admits the grammatical possibility of the
NEB
translation, so Muller's subsequent exercise in offering several
examples of the "if...would" construction in an attempt to demonstrate
a solely
present meaning is an exercise in futility. What Muller needs to do is
to read more widely in New Testament scholarship, rather than
charging off in his own direction, driven by his conviction of
infallibility.
Now, this does
not mean that one could not
read the 8:4 phrase in the
present tense. In fact, I state right in the Appendix Muller is
addressing that "the meaning is probably present, or at least
temporally ambiguous." That's my starting point, and to be more
specific, I think the author had both
past and present in
mind. My
argument does not rest on the phrase being meant solely in a
past sense, as though I am claiming that the author is specifically
declaring that Jesus was never on earth. Muller so often fixes on
some aspect of my discussion and tears at it like a pitbull,
while missing other elements and wider implications. This is the case
here.
He has gone no further than the question of the literal translation of
two verbs, and then declares: "That should put to rest Doherty's
speculations on the matter." In fact, my Appendix has several
paragraphs analyzing the context of 8:4, arguing that the writer cannot
have a past historical Jesus in his mind, all of which Muller simply
ignores. The basics of that argument can be found in the Epilogue to my
Supplementary Article No. 9 on Hebrews and in
my Sound of Silence feature: Hebrews
8:4. To these I will add here some further comments I made in response to Richard Carrier's review of The Jesus Puzzle:
"I am not sure (nor are some scholars—see below) about the certainty with which Carrier makes his statement about the “ei…an” clause in Hebrews 8:4. Most cases would bear out the general principle that with an imperfect in both parts of the statement, the sense is of a present (contrafactual) condition; and that in conveying a past condition, the aorist would be used. But what of a continuing condition that extends from the past into the present? None of the aorist examples I can find convey that sense, only the sense of a specific condition limited to the past. What formula would be used to convey an ongoing condition, one existing for some time and still existing? I suggest it would be the one using the imperfect, which is a tense in itself that entails an ongoing quality. Thus an “ei…an” statement using the imperfect tense could in certain cases be ambiguous....
This ambiguity, entailing a condition extending back into the past, also makes sense in the context. I have asked why the writer would trouble to make a statement confined only to the present when in fact one part of the statement was supposedly contradicted by a recent past situation, and the reason now used to justify the statement itself also existed in that past situation. In other words, the “if he were on earth” clause is contrafactual, not true; yet it was supposedly very true in the recent past. No cognizance of this conflict is hinted at; the writer does not say something like “if he were now on earth.” Then, the reason for the conditional statement itself, that “if he were on earth he would not be a priest,” is implied as being because there are already priests here to do the job. But there were earthly priests in the past to do the job, including at the time when Jesus was supposedly on earth conducting his role as High Priest, which is Hebrews’ central characterization of him. If he wouldn’t be a priest “now” because there are human priests present on the scene, making him redundant or creating a conflict, why is it that he wasn’t rendered redundant or in conflict in the recent past, when those same priests should have rendered him so? Why would the writer of Hebrews choose to make such a trivial statement applying to the present, when its very opposite was true in the much more important situation of the recent past?
Ellingworth goes on to state: “The argument
presupposes,
rather than states, that God cannot establish two priestly institutions
in competition [that is, the earthly priests and Jesus as High
Priest].”
In fact, the passage as a whole stipulates that those earthly priests
perform
earthly duties and sacrifices, while Jesus the High Priest has his own
duties and sacrifices, which chapters 8 and 9 place in a heavenly
setting
and category. Yet Ellingworth fails to perceive the contradiction
involved,
that the same conflict (between heavenly and earthly priests) would
have
existed in the recent past, something the writer of Hebrews should have
been aware of and at the very least should have felt constrained to
clarify."
*
Muller wraps up his critique with an overblown
presentation of all the tired old explanations for why Paul and the
other early writers are so silent on the historical Jesus: that he
didn't care about the earthly man, that the epistles were "occasional"
and anyway everyone already knew everything there was to know about the
human Jesus (and of course there was no controversy among Christians
anywhere on matters of faith and morality which would have necessitated
appealing to what Jesus had said or done in his ministry). For Muller,
there would have "no incentive for (Paul) to digress on a rather
unsignificant lower class Jew with a short public life in a small rural
area," making one wonder how such an insignificant non-entity could
have been turned into the transcendent Son Christ Jesus of the
epistles, a point Muller does not address. Finally, Muller once again
trots
out his pièce de
résistance:
the
absurdity of the whole idea of a "celestial fleshy realm" which no
scholar today has ever heard of let alone accepts, a fantasy which
apparently is my own
invention entirely, a "lower heaven (which) would have generated storms
of
controversy" in ancient times. He concludes:
On these
matters, Doherty either ignores,
overlooks, doubts or harasses the primary evidence. He is prone to use
inaccurate translations and biased "mythicist" interpretations, many
on dubious latter texts, in order to claim his points. He cannot find
half-decent attestations about belief in antiquity of a "lower fleshy
heaven" (far from that!), so crucial for his position. To substitute
for
the lacks, Earl relies on rhetoric, agenda-driven dating, arguments
from
silence, assumptions and convoluted & largely unsubstantiated
theories
(with hypotheses stacked on each other!). Through such a horrific
"methodology", the chances of him being right are insignificant.
So much confidence based on so much ignorance!
Then
Earl writes: "Is
it a piece of historical information? If so, it is the only one Paul
ever give
us, for no other feature of Jesus' human incarnation appears in his
letter."
Shock!!! I'll answer that later ...
Then
Doherty actually does not
address the
issue of a human Jesus straight on, but drifts away from it by
questioning the
meaning of "God's gospel" --not one
from Jesus-- (I agree with that), the historicity of 'Son of David',
the origin
of 'Son of God' and finally by introducing his concept of the fleshy
lower
heaven. Nothing much is related to the "incarnation"; only some
"explanation" is thrown against it, such as:
"... for scripture was full of predictions
that
the Messiah would be descended from David. In reading these, Paul would
have applied them to his own version of the Christ, the Christ who
is a
spiritual entity, not a human one."
So now human ancestry was assigned to Jesus by Paul, even if the later
(allegedly) thought Christ was never an earthly man! Does that make
sense? Of
course not. If angel Gabriel is thought to be a spiritual entity, you
do not
make him a descendant of Moses!
Furthermore, Earl's argumentation is dependant on Paul being the first
one to
claim Christ's ancestry from David. Is is realistic?
According to the Pauline letters, there were many other
apostles/preachers
(1Co1:12,9:2-5; 2Co11:5,13,23a,12:11; Php1:14-17; Gal1:6-7), some "in
Christ" before Paul (Ro16:7), some preaching different 'Jesus'
(2Co11:4),
and all of them Jew (2Co11:22-23a): in this context, what are the odds
on Paul
making this "discovery"?
This is so disjointedly presented, full of confusion and misreadings, it is very difficult to respond. So I'll match Muller's approach and make several points haphazardly. No one would claim that the angel Gabriel is descended from Moses, not because the idea is supposedly ludicrous, but because nowhere in scripture is this suggested. And who said Paul was the first to draw the conclusion that Jesus was descended from David? How is my argument dependent upon this? There are some scholars who think Paul may even be quoting a piece of hymnic liturgy here. It matters not whether this idea was original to Paul (though it may be), just that he believed scripture indicated that his Christ bore some relationship to David. Since scripture does indeed make such a connection, and since prevailing philosophy regarded the upper world as containing parallels to all things earthly, this is hardly "throwing an explanation at it." Muller also misapplies the idea of parallels in the heavenly world. No one is saying that Paul regarded the spiritual Christ as a descendant of the earthly David, or that this descendancy was literal in the earthly sense, only that in some way, in the workings of the higher, "real" and "primary" world, some relationship existed which scripture revealed. Carrier calls for some explication on my part of the meaning of Davidic descent in Paul's mind, but I don't know how he thought about it. When I read something like the 5th Oration by Julian, I understand the words and the philosophic principles involved, but the ideas are so alien to my own outlook on the universe, it is difficult to comprehend how Julian's own mind could accept and understand them. Thus, I am not in a position to say (and I suspect none of us are) how Paul specifically understood his scripture-based idea that the divine Christ he believed in was related to David. (I have also pointed out previously that since such an idea was based on the Jewish scriptures, we cannot expect to find a similar idea reflected in pagan writings about their savior gods, even if we did possess more of such writings.)
Michael Turton on the Internet Infidels discussion forum "Biblical History and Criticism" had this to say about Muller's above paragraph:
The opening paragraph of Bernard's analysis contains not a single argument against Doherty, it is merely a heap of rhetoric, using words like "drifts" and "obsessively" to evoke emotional rather than rational responses in the reader, or conclusory rhetoric "Does that make sense? Of course not!" as if this were an argument. Unfortunately, Bernard does not tell us here why this does not make sense.
Turton goes on in regard to:
Is
there
nothing else about a human Jesus in 'Romans'? Of course not, but all of
the ensuing verses from 'Romans'
are ignored in Doherty's book:
A) Ro15:12 Darby "And again, Esaias says,
There shall
be the root of Jesse [David's
father], and one
[Christ,
according to Paul]
that arises, to rule over [the] nations:
in him shall [the] nations hopes."
Here Jesus' alleged
descendance from
David is reiterated.
B) Ro8:3 Darby "... God, having sent his
own Son,
in likeness of flesh of sin ..."
Don't we have a clear
expression for
incarnation? See here for an
explanation on
"likeness".
C) Ro9:4-5a YLT "Israelites, ... whose
[are]
the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the
flesh
..."
Here Jesus is from
Israelites, "according
to the flesh".
Who else are Israelites? Paul, according
to Ro11:1, quoted later, and also many of his contemporaries, by
flesh:
Ro9:3b-4a NASB "... my brethren, my
kinsmen
[Paul's] according
to the flesh,
who are Israelites ..." Did Paul think himself and
his
brethren/kinsmen lived "in
the sphere of the flesh",
some upper world above earth? NO!
Bernard's arguments here contain only misunderstandings and misinterpretations. First, he claims "....all of the ensuing verses from 'Romans' are ignored in Doherty's book." Bernard clearly does not understand Doherty's point. If the first reference to Jesus being of David's stock (in Romans 1) can be shown to be symbolic, then all subsequent references to it are similarly symbolic. Thus, simply piling on more quotes, as Bernard does here, will not make Doherty's arguments disappear. Bernard must come up with compelling reasons to reject them, either on linguistic or content grounds. In any case, Doherty spends several pages in several places discussing the problem of Jesus' alleged Davidic ancestry (82-85, for example). Finally, there is a telling Doherty-style silence here. If Jesus had really been born of David, Paul, after all, knew his brother, James. All Paul had to do was cite his personal knowledge of the family of Jesus and firmly link Jesus to the mortal sphere. But no, Paul's ideas come from divine revelation. Doherty has a very strong argument here, and Bernard's rhetoric cannot dismantle it.
Bernard then goes on to say: "B) Ro8:3 Darby '... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ...' Don't we have a clear expression of incarnation here?" Merely asking this question does not refute Doherty's point. Bernard would have to demonstrate that the word likeness here means something other than what it very plainly says. All Bernard does here is use an emotional appeal to invite the reader to fall back on the biases built in by 2000 years of historicist exegesis. He does not make an argument based on logic, content, linguistics, or history anywhere in these remarks.
More often than not, Muller
simply settles for drawing the most
ludicrous parallel he can come up with and then by ridiculing it,
thinks he has
discredited my position. First of all, kata sarka is one of the
most recurring phrases in the Pauline corpus, with all manner of
meaning. (Muller has
already been
called to task for assigning the same meaning in all circumstances to
some
particular word or phrase with variant application.) No one would claim
that its usage
in
Romans 9:3 in regard to Paul's own kinfolk signifies "in the sphere of
the
flesh" or is identical to its usage in Romans 1:3, no matter what the
latter's meaning. In fact, if Muller had bothered to think a little
longer
about this particular verse and consult a number of translations, he
might
have
concluded why Paul inserted it here. If all Paul was concerned with was
making a reference to his fellow Jews, he would have had no need to
insert kata
sarka at all. Why did he do so? Probably for clarification. Once he
used
"brothers" to refer to those of his own race, perhaps he felt the
need to make it clear he was not referring to Christian "brothers"
in the sense of fellow believers, and so he added "my kinsmen according
to
the flesh." If Muller had consulted the NEB, or the NIV, or the RSV, or
the (often useful) Translator's New Testament, he would have
found
translations like
"my natural kinsfolk," "those of my own race," "my
kinsmen by race," and "my own flesh and blood," all translations
which reflect their recognition of what Paul meant by kata sarka
on this
occasion.
If one looks carefully at the following verses here (9:4-5), which
Muller and
others regularly appeal to, one finds that the words actually fall far
short of
saying that Christ is of "human descent" in regard to his "human
ancestry," the sort of phrases which regularly appear in translations.
In
fact, Christ is simply tacked on at the end of a long list of things
that are
the 'property' of the people of
In the crucial matter of the meaning of Romans 1:1-4, Muller has the
following
to say, and Carrier responds:
Doherty
postulates "from
the
seed of David" is
part
of "God's
gospel" (drawn
from the scriptures by Paul, as
Earl contends). 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 huious autou tou genomenou," literally,
"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."
Doherty's choice is not contentious.
However [quoting Muller]: "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 Doherty saying such a thing. Doherty 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
Muller's point
here.
To conclude, it
is highly
improbable Paul meant he just found "come of David's seed" from the scriptures (and had
to divulge 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.
I've reproduced the
Muller-Carrier exchange here at some length because it
should help clarify things for many who make claims similar to
Muller's, that
Paul simply doesn't mean what he clearly seems to say, and which
Carrier agrees
he does say. But Carrier is nevertheless fuzzy on a couple of points.
First of
all, his statement about "historicists" is hardly accurate, and
contains a contradiction. I'm certainly not aware of all historicists
(which
presumably includes New Testament scholars) agreeing that Paul found
the content
of his gospel in the Old Testament. In fact, they are usually at pains
to claim
that he "received" it from previous apostles, those who had known the
historical Jesus. They hardly agree that the kata tas graphas
of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 conforms to my own suggested meaning, that
scripture was the source
of Paul's doctrines about the Christ rather than a prophecy of them.
Carrier
reverts to the universal interpretation of things when he says that
they agree
the content of Paul's gospel was "presaged" in scripture, but
this is not the same thing as deriving the gospel from it. Now,
if all
Carrier means by 'found the content in the OT' is that it was presaged
there,
this is hardly contentious and doesn't serve to support me against
Muller.
Carrier also
misses the huge anomaly I have pointed out in regard to this passage,
that if
information about Paul's gospel of the Son were 'pre-announced' in
scripture,
this would be a pre-announcement of Jesus himself, his life and saving
acts.
But Paul makes no such connection. Scripture forecast the gospel,
nothing else. He imposes no human man between the
content or
prophecy of scripture and his own derivation of the gospel from that
scripture, leading to the conclusion that he knew of no historical
Jesus. Of
course, he does this sort of thing all through his letters, and so do
the writers who came
after him, forging epistles in his name. (The best example is in Titus
1:3.)
And Doherty keeps obsessively
interpreting anything as concerning an entirely mythical Jesus: again
for him, "according to the flesh"
becomes "in the sphere of the flesh",
with the "sphere" being "the
lowest heavenly sphere, associated with the material world"! The translation as "in
the sphere of the flesh" is according to Doherty "a suggestion put forward by C. K.
Barrett." He adds "Such a
translation is, in fact, quite useful and possibly accurate."
No doubt! Doherty is treating that "possibly
accurate" "suggestion" from "a
translation" as if it were a piece of primary evidence.
Carrier
says that he agrees, but both are getting a little carried
away. In all
discussions of the possible translation of kata sarka, I
present
Barrett's suggestion as simply making possible my interpretation, as an
"explanatory fit" with my theory. But that's all I need. I am hardly
claiming to prove my case by thinking to show that this is the only
possible
translation. People like Muller lose sight of the fact that so much of
the
argument commonly made against me (and of course he does this himself)
is based
on assorted claims that this-or-that cannot possibly mean
such-and-such, or
allow such-and-such an interpretation. (It's like the creationist
claiming that
life could not possibly have evolved in the primeval soup without
divine
direction.) All I have to do is demonstrate that it could (which in the
matter
of evolution, scientists have), that such-and-such a meaning is possible,
either by demonstrating it technically (as Carrier has frequently done
for me)
or by appealing to a respected scholar who himself allows for such a
meaning, even if he doesn't draw my conclusions from that meaning.
I'm sure he could find
someone
—
and I wish he would....For myself,
Doherty'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.
Before
commenting, I'll reproduce what Muller says following shortly on
his previous remark:
But what did Barrett mean by
"sphere" in that context? Here it is:
"The preposition
here
rendered 'in the sphere of' could also be rendered 'according to,'
and
'according to the flesh' is a common Pauline phrase; in this verse,
however,
Paul does not mean that on a fleshly (human) judgment Jesus was a
descendant of
David, but that in the realm denoted by the word flesh (humanity)
he
was truly a descendant of David."
C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, page 78.
Barrett never meant a fleshy heaven, in any context. Not even close!
Of course Barrett didn't mean by
his translation that Christ was a descendant of David in a fleshly
heaven. I never claimed he did. I was simply making use of Barrett's
translation in my own context, and there's nothing illegitimate in
that. But it's curious that Muller makes a very selective quotation of
Barrett's text from his Romans commentary. Barrett provides his
translation of both passages
in question immediately preceding Muller's quote:
"in the sphere of the flesh, born
of the family of David;
in the sphere of the Holy Spirit, appointed Son of God."
I wonder that Muller overlooked
this preceding sentence (set apart and in bold print from the rest of
the text) when he claimed that I have used "in the sphere of the
spirit" with "NO suggestion from anyone else". (Incidentally, the
passage from Barrett's text is found on page 20, not page 78 as Muller
has it.)
But let's not stop there.
Naturally, Barrett regards 1:3 as referring to Jesus'
descent-from-David status as a man, not as a heavenly being. And what
does he envision for verse 4? He says (p.20),
" 'In the sphere of the Holy Spirit
he was appointed Son of God.' This translation is not universally
accepted. For 'in the sphere of' see above [referring to the earlier
part of his text discussed above]. 'The Holy Spirit' is
literally
'spirit of holiness', and this has been taken to refer not to the Holy
Spirit, but to Jesus' own (human) spirit, marked as it was by the
attribute of holiness."
Clearly, Barrett does not accept
this common understanding, since it would not be compatible with his
'in the sphere of' translation, and he goes on to discuss the point
without an
abundance of clarity (p.20-21). In fact, what exactly is Barrett's
specific understanding of his "in the sphere of the Holy Spirit" is not
all that clear either. He has failed to see that the meaning, the
location, entailed in his phrase "in the sphere of the spirit" should
be determined by the actions attached to it: namely, Jesus being
declared Son of God in power (by/as a result of the resurrection of the
dead
—
presumably his
resurrection, although the actual words cryptically say "by
a resurrection of dead persons"). More importantly, that meaning should
also be determined by the overall implication in the passage (1-4),
that these actions by Christ are to be found in (derived from) scripture,
as Paul tells us.
Thus the assumption ought not to be that the ambiguous "spirit"
reference can somehow apply to an earthly Jesus or an earthly context,
but rather should be seen as located in heaven, in the realm/sphere of
the spirit. And scripture ought to be surveyed to find exactly what
passage may have produced this idea. As far as I know, no one before
myself (and certainly not Barrett, who gets bogged down in the question
of whether this couplet of verse 3-4 is pre-Pauline and whether it had
an anti-adoptionist agenda) has suggested that the whole of verse 4 has
simply been derived from Psalm 2:7-8:
"I will tell of the decree of the
LORD:
He said to me, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession...' "
Here, surely, is Romans 1:4's
designation of
Jesus as
Son of God, plus the "in power," which is extended to having the Son
receive lordship over all in earth and heaven following his death and
resurrection, a common idea in the
epistles (e.g., Phil. 2:10-11). With this convenient and rather obvious
scriptural source for
verse 4, taken in conjunction with the statement in verse 2 that Paul's
gospel was to be found in scripture itself, there is no impediment, and
a lot of persuasive reason, to interpret verse 4 as a heavenly event,
which would make the "in the spirit" a reference to a location, a
"sphere," namely heaven, and not some attribute of Christ.
All of which makes it very likely that verse 3 conforms to the same scriptural context as everything else, namely that the Son's relationship to David is also something derived from scripture, and has no more historical import than verse 4.
I think enough has been said in
this area. Since Muller's text is so disorganized, any further attempt
at a response may well bring a case of fatigue upon both writer and
reader, so I will pass over the remainder of Muller's and Carrier's
discussion in regard to Romans, and move on to Galatians 4, with its
"born of woman."
3.2.3.
By examining the whole of Galatians3:15-4:7,
can we figure out what kind of woman Paul
was thinking for Gal4:4?
Paul started by making a claim: "But to Abraham
were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he does
not say, And to seeds, as of many;
but as of one, And to thy seed; which is
Christ."
(3:16 Darby)
That seems to refer to Genesis17-22 but it
is never specified here according to Paul's
words. Anyway, the promise is about inheritance
(3:18) for all (Gentiles and Jews --3:28-29,3:8,14)
but the former is supplanted by the Law "until the
seed [Christ] came ['erchomai',
clear expression of the first
coming!] to whom the promise was made"
(3:16,19). Then everyone would be liberated
from the Law by Christ (3:22-24,3:13) and
"the promise, on the principle of faith of
Jesus Christ, should be given to those that believe."
(3:22), allowing Paul's Galatians to be
God's sons & heirs and honorary seeds
of Abraham (3:29,4:7,3:7).
Paul's reasoning, his exegesis of
scripture, in chapters 3 and 4 of Galatians probably reflects the most
convoluted thinking and argumentation in all of his letters. But his
purpose should be clear. He needs a way to assign God's "promise" to
Abraham to his gentile readers, his converts in Galatia. After all,
centuries of Jewish mythology clearly assigned that
promise to the Jews themselves, as descendants of Abraham. Paul's
Galatian converts were not Jews. How, then, to make them (and
gentile Christians in general) the genuine recipients of that promise?
He does
this by reinterpreting the idea of Abraham's "seed" (sperma). Because the word in
scripture (passim, in Genesis) was singular, Paul claims it refers to a
singular individual (3:16). He identifies that individual as Christ.
Now, this is more than a bit absurd, in that the content of God's
promises to Abraham would hardly be applicable to Jesus Christ as one
human individual, let alone as the divine Son of God. And while
the
"seed" in Genesis is certainly in the singular, it is a collective
singular; indeed, "seeds" could never be used in the plural in such a
context, as it would make no sense. A person's descendants are
collectively referred to in the singular when using the "seed"
terminology. So Paul is blatantly reaching here, and no amount of
'spinning' by New Testament commentators can make it seem
sensible
or acceptable.
The object of Paul's sleight of
hand becomes clear by the end of chapter 3. Through faith, his readers,
and all who have been baptized into Christ, have become "sons of God"
and have "put on Christ" (3:27). They are all "one in Christ Jesus"
(3:28). To drive the conclusion home, he says: "If you belong to
Christ,
then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Christ interpreted as Abraham's (singular) "seed" has served the
purpose of providing a link between Abraham and those who Paul claims
are the true heirs of the promise to Abraham, namely Christians. This,
of course, is in keeping with the central claim of the Christian sect,
continuing to this day, that God rejected the Jews and transferred his
favor onto believers in Christ.
Thus Paul's sight is fixed upon
Christians. It is they who are the "seed" and they who have "come" and
inherited the promise made to Abraham. The "seed" as Christ is simply a
stepping-stone. Thus Muller's claim that we can tease out an historical
Jesus in Paul's mind from all of this is falling into the trap that
Paul's
very self-serving exegesis has left behind. Let's see how we can avoid
the pieces of that trap. First of all, what is it that has "come" in
the present time, as Paul presents it? Follow this succession of verses
(using The Translator's New Testament):
19.
Why then was the Law necessary
at all? It was introduced to show what transgressions are, but it was
to last only until the 'seed' should come to whom the promise had been
directly made....
23. Before faith came we were
held imprisoned under law until the faith
which was to come should be revealed. 24.
And so the Law has been like
a guardian escorting us to Christ, that we might be made right with God
through faith; 25. but now
that faith has come we are no longer under a
guardian.
In verses 23 and 25, what has "come" in the present time is faith, faith in Christ Jesus. It is not Jesus who has come. No historical figure is inserted between the centuries-old Law and the coming of faith. Verse 24 makes that sequence clear: the Law as a precursor leads not to Christ himself as an historical man, but to faith in Christ; Law is followed by — supplanted by — revelation, and faith in that revelation. This is the pattern constantly repeated throughout Paul's epistles, from Romans 1 on. If Paul still has "Christ" in mind in verse 19 as his definition of the "seed," it is only as a symbol, a link to those inheritors of the promise, the true seed he is so at pains to create, namely those who have been baptized into Christ (v.27). Paul has made it clear elsewhere that he regards the baptized believer as part of the body of Christ, and this mystical concept serves to join Christ and the body of believers into the collective "seed" he speaks of throughout this chapter. There is thus no way for us to separate those two wedded elements in Paul's mind and declare exactly what he has in mind as "coming" in verse 19. In any case, we can take any thought of Christ "coming" in the same way that it is presented throughout the New Testament epistles, namely as a spiritual figure that has been "revealed" in the present time, through scripture and the Holy Spirit.
Verse 22 says this: "But scripture
has established that everything is imprisoned by sin so that the
promise, based on faith in Jesus Christ, might be given only to those
who have faith." Here, Paul can no longer sustain the charade that the
object, the recipient, of the promise
—
as he manipulated it in 3:16
—
is
Christ himself. Rather, the promise falls on the Christian, through faith in Christ. The link to
Christ is symbolic and mystical. There is nothing to suggest that it
has anything to do with a recent human man who was himself the supposed
"seed" of Abraham and recipient of the promise. Throughout this entire
passage,
Paul spends not a word in describing or enlarging upon the recent
earthly activities of Christ as "seed" of Abraham, the one who had
supposedly
played such a role in salvation history, thus making Muller's
declaration here simply a reading of the Gospel background into the
thought of the epistle:
What remains is for the Son/Christ to come as the seed of Abraham, that is as a Jew and earthly human (as other seeds of Abraham, like Paul, as previously discussed), in order to enable the promise.
In fact, Paul's silence is an
almost outright exclusion. If a Jesus on earth had been the principal
agent of transition between the Law and the new system of salvation,
Paul could hardly have failed to provide some hint of such an idea in
his elaborate exegesis in this chapter, some reflection of the earthly
career of Abraham's "seed." And note Paul's somewhat
cryptic contrast in verses 19 to 20:
"19.
...[the Law] was transmitted by
angels and by the hand of an intermediary. 20. Now where only one party
is acting there is no need for an intermediary. And God is one."
The elements of this passage have
most commentators scratching their heads, and interpretations have been
legion. But even though the reference in verse 20 seems to relate most
directly to the event of God making his promise to Abraham, it comes in
the larger context of the transition from the old to the new, from the
Law to salvation in Christ as fulfillment of that promise. How can Paul
leave this anomalous idea hanging in the air? Where is the intermediary
Son of God,
Jesus of Nazareth, preaching in his own person the new salvation,
preaching
himself as the channel to that salvation? If Paul highlights the giving
of the Law as something done by God through intermediaries, through
angels and (apparently) Moses, if he implies a contrast of quality
between the Law and the promise based on one using intermediaries and
the other not, how can he do this without taking into account the idea
of Jesus on earth being God's own intermediary in the giving of the
Law's
replacement and the fulfilling of the promise? Paul's contrast here
would certainly be compromised. Yet clearly, there is no problem for Paul. It is faith in Christ that has
supplanted the Law, and this faith has come not through any historical
intermediary but by revelation, directly from God; all of it is
fully
in keeping with the contrast Paul has expressed between the Law and the
promise.
In regard to Muller's comments on
Christ as the "seed" of Abraham, and the "coming" of that seed
(3:16-19), Michael Turton on IIDB had this to say:
Bernard takes this passage to say the verb 'come' here implies a first coming on earth. Nowhere is that present in this passage. The whole discussion is an abstract discussion of the Law and Christ. "Came" here simply represents the appearance of Jesus in our reality, not necessarily on earth. If Paul had meant come on earth, he would have said it. Bernard is simply back-reading the story of the Gospels into Paul, invoking his and the reader's unconscious assumptions -- the ones Doherty wants you to give up -- in interpreting these passages. Pulling a whole history on earth out of a single verb is the ultimate in historicist desperation....
Now, this is actually a very interesting take on 3:16. While I'm not quite ready to commit to it, such an interpretation would get Paul out of an awkward exegetical jam. Grammatically, it could work, and since the close association in Paul's mind and argument between Christ and believers linked to him makes them both equally the personification of the "seed" of Abraham, we could so interpret Paul's thought behind the words. Paul has stressed the "coming of faith" and the appearance, if you will, of those who believe in Christ, an entity revealed only now by apostles like himself. In that sense, then, Christ has clearly "come" in the present time. We need see no thought of a coming by Christ in the flesh in recent history.
Gal4:4 YLT "... God sent forth His Son, come ['ginomai'] of a woman, come under the law"
In chapter 12, page 123-125, Doherty comments on "born of woman" from Gal4:4. He admits this passage "most suggests that he [Paul] has a human Jesus in mind."
But then he goes to work, starting by "God sent his own Son", but "forget" to take in account Ro8:3 Darby "... God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin ..." (the "sent" Son is not a spirit, as Earl argues (p.123) (& why would a woman be needed for the Son to "become" a spirit)! See also here for an explanation on "likeness")!
His convoluted argumentation does not disprove anything and looks rather like a series of red herrings. He is trying to raise doubts by way of speculative suppositions, using expressions "this can be taken", "seem", "not necessarily tied", "do not have to be seen" & "one interpretation that could be given" in order to counteract the obvious.
And any writing/myth known during Paul's time is considered a likely inspiration, such as Isa7:14 and Dionysos' birth, as if no man were born of woman in antiquity!
If I had used expressions which were more definite, rather than these "speculative suppositions," I would no doubt have been accused of making firm declarations based on little or weak evidence. The point in dealing with passages like Galatians 4:4 is not to "prove" that they have meanings entirely in keeping with the mythicist position, but that they can enjoy alternate interpretations and do not have to be seen as conforming to traditional readings. It is the fact that something has for so long been regarded as "obvious" which is what must be counteracted. The language I use in arguing such passages, and which Muller so disdainfully dismisses, is the proper approach. (The question of "likeness" in regard to other passages has been discussed in my Part Two of this response.)
Before focusing in on the central passage of Galatians 4:4-7, let's see how Muller brings in a later passage, the "allegory" of 4:21-31.
Richard wrote: "I am surprised he doesn't point out the most important support for his position: the fact that Paul actually says in the same letter that one woman he is talking about is allegorical, representing the "heavenly" Jerusalem, not an actual woman (Gal. 4:23-31)."
Carrier is correct into mentioning the allegorical woman in Gal4:26-27 (even if 'woman' is never spelled out!), but the whole passage (Gal4:24-27) is presented as an allegory. It is only here that Paul used the word-root 'allegoreo' (allegory) and also 'sustoicheo' (correspond) in all his epistles. Therefore he indicated the ensuing verses should not to be taken literally, including the "our mother" in 4:26 (the heavenly Jerusalem) and the "her" in 4:27 (as a quote from Isa54:1, where she is Jerusalem). In any case, Paul was clear about not referring to a real human female here. He did not even employ the word 'woman'!
And he never said the woman in Gal4:4 stands for the heavenly Jerusalem! Furthermore, all other women in Paul's letters are earthly ones, including the two right after Gal4:4, the biblical Hagar and Sarah (not named but identified as the "freewoman") (Gal4:21-25).
Having said this, I will agree that a general form of "support" may be derived from the allegory passage, in the sense that all of Paul's imagery throughout these chapters is concerned with symbolic relationships, not history let alone historical individuals, and all of it is designed to further his purpose here, namely to identify his Christian (and largely gentile) readers with the proper seed of Abraham and set them apart from traditional interpretations so as to make them the true inheritors of God's promise. (Verses 28-29 and 31 return like a kind of summation to the theme that Paul's readers are the children of the promise.) It follows that we should see his reference to Christ "born of woman" as also furthering that purpose.
Muller declares that all other woman in Paul's letters are earthly ones, including the two in the Galatians allegory, which is simply falling once again into the trap of making all variable usages of a term conform to a single definition. Besides, the "woman" in Galatians 4:4 is not given a name, and she is not identified with any character (literary or otherwise) whom Paul can be shown to have known. The "woman" of 4:4 is simply generic. She is there to serve the overall purpose, to characterize the "son" in a certain way as part of Paul's argument. The question is, what is that characterization, and can he have achieved it by assigning Christ to a woman in a mythological sense, based on an application of scripture?
It has often been pointed out that there seems little reason why Paul should have bothered in Galatians 4:4 to specify Christ as "born of woman." Why would such an obvious 'fact' need stating? To some extent, it's a valid question, but it needs to be answered in the context of the passage. That passage runs, using the NEB translation:
"3. ...During our minority we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe, 4. but when the term was completed [lit., when the fullness of time came], God sent his own Son, born of (a) woman, born under (the) law, to purchase freedom for the subjects of the law, 5. in order that we might attain the status of sons. 6. To prove that you are sons, God has sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son, crying 'Abba! Father!' 7. You are therefore no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then also by God's own act an heir."
There are a lot of pitfalls in this passage, buried mines which make it treacherous to simply charge ahead, as people like Muller do, declaring that it can all mean only one thing. It is, as I have admitted and as Muller throws back at me, the passage in all the epistles which most seems to suggest that Paul has a human Jesus in mind, but it is by no means that straightforward. Earlier in this response to Muller, I discussed at some length the idea of paradigmatic parallel, the foundation of so much of the soteriological thinking of the time. Just as the savior god or heavenly champion was thought of as representing or experiencing things in common with those he was linked to, thus guaranteeing common beneficial results such as resurrection and exaltation, the idea of being "born of woman" can be seen as part of that commonality. So could "born under (the) law" (the definite article does not appear in the Greek, though it may be understood). Paul's purpose in making this statement would be to strengthen the paradigmatic parallel: as Jesus took on our nature, our 'slavery' under the law, he is best placed to achieve our freedom from it. But is it an earthly, human nature and slavery he has taken on? Or is this simply part of the mythological picture painted throughout the epistles, and indeed throughout the entire salvation thinking of the era? Is it a "taking on" in that pattern of "likeness" we find emphasized in both Christian/Jewish and pagan writings where savior deities are concerned? Muller is at pains to dismiss my interpretation of "likeness," but it is not so easily got rid of. It is repeatedly emphasized in places where it should be unnecessary, misleading or redundant, as in the 'descending' half of the Philippians christological hymn, or Romans 8:3, or the Ascension of Isaiah 9. The entire concept of descending redeemers (recurring in gnostic texts) is dependent on them receiving 'bodies' and performing/suffering things that are human-like but not specifically physical and historical. Savior god mythology casts them in the likeness of human experiences which (according to Plutarch) belong to the mythical and spiritual realm, not the earthly historical sphere. The paradigmatic parallel — as for example between the Righteous One/Messiah Son of Man in heaven and the righteous on earth in the Similitudes of Enoch — is based on the relationship between heaven and earth, between spiritual and earthly manifestations. There is no impediment to interpreting Galatians 4:4 in the same vein.
If a good argument can be made to see the "of David's seed" in Romans 1:3 as something mythological, as derived from scripture, if the descending-ascending redeemer of the Philippians hymn can be seen as conforming to gnostic mythology about non-human savior figures (as in The Apocalypse of Adam and The Apocryphon of John), then Galatians 4:4 should be no tougher a nut to crack. Paul affirms Jesus' issuance from woman and slavery to the law because it serves his soteriological picture; it further links Christ with those who are made sons and given freedom from the law. It is another piece of his overall argument in these chapters designed to make his readers the object and inheritors of the promise, through Christ. Consider the earlier verse 3:13. "Christ bought us freedom from the curse of the law by becoming for our sake an accursed thing; for Scripture says, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'." If the mythicist argument can make a good case for regarding such a 'hanging' as a mythical/spiritual event (as it has in regard to passages like 1 Corinthians 2:8, Colossians 2:15, the Ascension of Isaiah 9:14, and even Hebrews with its sacrifice in heaven), if it can point to scripture as the source of belief in such an event, (as in 1 Peter 2:22 and 1 Clement 16 and certain statements in the epistle of Barnabas, as well as Paul's own statements concerning "tas graphas" and God himself as the source of his gospel about the Christ), then Christ being "born of woman" is no further a reach. If Christ in a mythical context can take on a cursed nature, he can take on genesis 'from woman.' If Paul regards him as taking on this cursed nature as part of Christ's assumption of paradigmatic features to facilitate the process of salvation, he can regard him as taking on genesis from woman for the same purpose, especially when he has scripture telling him so in both cases.
>One critic claimed: "The Jewish law is binding on the descendants of Abraham. It does not apply to angels or demons or divine effluences. If Jesus was born under the law, then Jesus was born into a Jewish family." Yet Jesus, as a divine effluence, took on the cursed nature of Deuteronomy 27:26, expanding its meaning beyond that relating to the fate of Hebrew criminals (another case of Paul casting his divine Christ according to scriptural sources). One has to be careful about declaring that ideas have very restricted limits and can never undergo evolution and wider application. Casting a glance back to Part One, this is indeed "a failure of imagination."
1. When did God "send his own Son"? Once again, it is uncanny how Paul can consistently fail to use words which would locate Jesus in historical time, let alone his own recent past. "In the fullness of time" is pretty woolly, and in fact probably applies to the idea of the fullness of the time in which God had allowed the Jewish Law to have force. (The NEB opts for this meaning in its "but when the term was completed," referring to the period of enslavement to the Law.) When that term had expired, what arrived? Not Jesus himself, but as Paul has just stated it (3:23 and 25), faith in him. At God's appropriate time, he revealed his Son through apostles like Paul (as it is represented in passages like Galatians 1:16, Romans 16:25-27, Colossians 2:2, 2 Timothy 1:10, Titus 1:3), the Son who is described as a former secret long-hidden.
2. What precisely did God send? "God sent his own Son" may be ambiguous, but verse 6 is not: "To prove that you are sons [lit., because you are sons], God has sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son..." The latter looks like an enlargement on the previous thought, and both are assigned to the present time, which would make the "sending" of the Son only that of his spirit. The two verbs of 'sending' are identical, and it is the same verb commonly used when speaking of the "sending" of the Holy Spirit, or of spiritual beings such as angels or Wisdom.
3. Who was acting in the present? Consider this succession of ideas through verses 4 to 7:
"God sent his own Son...to purchase freedom for [lit., in order that he might redeem] the subjects of the law, in order that we might attain the status of sons....You are therefore no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then also by God's own act an heir."
Grammatically speaking, there is an ambiguity in the first two phrases, in both English and Greek. "God" is the main subject, and could be said to govern the entire sentence. Thus, it could be God himself who is the subject of the verb "purchase" or it could be the "Son." And yet, that ambiguity is surely resolved by the later phrase. The stated purpose of sending the Son (or his spirit) was to make believers "sons" of God. In verse 7, Paul identifies that result as due to an act of God, not the Son. The sense of the entire passage thus makes God the one who has "redeemed/purchased freedom." So Paul supposedly has God send the Son to earth, but doesn't present him as the one performing the redeeming act while he is there. The only context in which this makes sense is that the Son did not come to earth and live the Gospel events, but that God himself — drawing on Christ's death and rising in a spiritual dimension, at an unspecified time or in a timeless setting — is the one who has been responsible for redemption, by revealing Christ and his supernatural activities in the present time and making the resultant benefits available to those who have adopted faith in him, courtesy of Paul's preaching. This is the mode of expression found throughout the epistles.
Apologetic 'explanations' that since Jesus is God, or acting on God's behalf, it is legitimate for Paul to say that God does everything, are hardly compelling. I suggest that this is not the way the human mind works and does not explain the universal blind eye turned toward Jesus as the primary agent in their own time, which all the early writers seem to suffer from. Such an explanation is simply an apologetic ploy, and a pretty lame one at that.
4. When was Christ "born"? Those two phrases qualifying the Son, "born of woman, born under the Law," are descriptive of the Son, but not necessarily tied to the present 'sending.' (See E. D. Burton, International Critical Commentary, Galatians, p.216f.) They have no necessary temporal relation to the verb "sent" and do not have to be seen as present occurrences. Thus they present no impediment to the scenario outlined in point 3.
5. And what of the word "born" as it is consistently translated? In fact, Paul does not use the normal, everyday word for giving or undergoing birth here, which would be "gennaō". Instead, he uses "ginomai" (as he does in Romans 1:3 in speaking of the Son "coming/arising" from the seed of David). Ginomai has a broad range of definition, as Carrier has pointed out, and "being born" is only one meaning of many. I have suggested that the use of ginomai may be indicative of Paul having something more in mind than simple human birth, but I could go further and say this: If Paul meant that Jesus was born of a human mother, he should have had no reason not to use the verb gennaō, which means just that. Consequently, we can conclude the strong likelihood that by using ginomai, Paul must be referring to something OTHER than birth by a human woman.
This conclusion is strengthened when we compare Paul's uses of gennaō vs. ginomai throughout his letters. Let's look at the other occasions in the Pauline corpus where birth is referred to:
- Romans 9:11 - [referring to Rebecca's children] "...but before they were born, when they had as yet done nothing good or ill..." Here Paul uses gennaō.
- 1 Corinthians 4:15 - "In Christ Jesus I became your father [lit., I gave birth to you] through the gospel." Here, even in a figurative context, Paul uses gennaō.
- Galatians 4:23, 24 and 29 - This the Sarah/Hagar allegory discussed above. In the three places in which Paul expresses the idea of birth — even within a declared allegorical context — he uses gennaō.
THE ONLY OCCASIONS WHEN HE USES GINOMAI TO REFER TO AN APPARENT 'BIRTH' ARE THOSE TWO REFERENCES TO CHRIST: in Romans 1:3 in being "born of David's seed" and in Galatians 4:4 in being "born of woman/under the law." (For the hymn in Philippians 2, see below.) In the entire corpus of early Christian writings, both inside and outside the New Testament, there is no other case of the usage of "ginomai" to refer to human birth, including that of Jesus. For Paul to make this distinction in terminology must be significant, and must mean something to him. The most compelling conclusion is that in both these cases regarding Christ he was not referring to human birth.
It is intriguing that, while modern translations opt for the word "born" in rendering the "genomenon" of verse 4, the older King James Version renders it "made of woman, made under the Law," and similarly uses "made" in Romans 1:3, even though it has no compunction about using "born" in translating gennaō, such as in the allegorical passage about the sons of Abraham later in Galatians 4. Now, I'm not suggesting that King James' translators shared my mythicist views, but might they instinctively have realized that this unusual use of ginomai by Paul in these two places seems to set them apart? I would call attention to Paul's reference to Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45. The King James has it: "The first man Adam was made [egeneto, from ginomai] a living soul..." Naturally, Adam was never "born" from a woman, so gennaō was not an option, but this and the Galatians 4 use of ginomai suggest that for Paul they are both in the realm of mythology. The very mythological hymn of Philippians 2 also uses ginomai in verse 7: "(KJV)...and was made in the likeness [that pesky "likeness" again] of men." This (as yet unnamed) descending deity undergoes no suggestion of "being born" — which term the KJV again avoids, though modern translations often do not. That verse of the hymn also introduces the idea of the descending deity taking on the "form of a slave," a concept in common with the 'enslavement' to the Law implied in Galatians 4. There is a commonality of thought through all this, and it is anything but clearly related to earthly history. Contrast this with the Gospel writers who consistently use gennaō to express birth, including that of Jesus, as in Matthew 2:1: "After Jesus was born (gennaō) in Bethlehem of Judea..." Even John the Baptist, among those "born of woman" in Matthew 11:11 (following Q), undergoes that process courtesy of the verb gennaō. And Luke, of course, follows suit (1:35, 1:57, 7:28).
In the wider literature, we find a rare use of ginomai to signify "born," but in the vast majority of cases, it is gennaō. The Septuagint (LXX) has several occurrences of the phrase "born of woman," but to point these out in English (as Christopher Price on the IIDB has done) is irrelevant, since the critical question is: what verb is being used in the Greek? In cases like Job 14:1 and 25:4 or Sirach 10:18, it is gennaō, which only serves to highlight the difference from Galatians 4:4 and lead to the conclusion that Paul's divergence from the norm must mean something. If it is claimed that "born of woman" is an idiomatic phrase in the Hebrew Bible (with which Paul was certainly familiar), why did he alter that idiom and substitute a different verb in not one but two places when he referred to Jesus' supposed human birth? In any case, when a key word in an idiom is changed, it is no longer the idiom.
In those few places in the LXX where ginomai is used for 'birth' there is a definite distinction in its context, as in Tobit 8:6: "Thou madest Adam and gavest him Eve his wife for a helper and stay; of them came (ginomai) mankind." Here the thought is a general "arising from" rather than individual birth. And in 1 Esdras 4:16: "Women [speaking in general] have borne the king and all the people that bear rule by sea and land." While neither of these cases is mythological in a Platonic context, there is a subtle affinity with Paul's two usages, and it does not entail a specific birth in recent history.
Thus, Muller and others have overlooked the most critical distinction of all between the "born of woman" of Galatians 4:4 and the "born of woman" in the allegory of Galatians 4:21f, and indeed in all other places: Paul's refusal to use the normal verb for human birth in the former, even though he and everyone else was quite comfortable using it in all other instances. In any case, claiming that the meaning of a word or phrase in one place must govern its meaning in all other places is a common apologetic fallacy, and fails to take into account differing circumstances and the evolution of ideas. We can extend that fallacy to the objection that since the myths of the savior gods (such as Dionysos in regard to being born of a human woman) meant one thing at an earlier time, at had to have the same meaning and application at all later times. Plutarch's presentation of the different ways of interpreting the myth of Osiris, both earthly and spiritually in Middle Platonic fashion, with his relegation of the earthly version to the realm of mythical allegory, discredits this argument. The fact that the idea of Dionysos being born of a woman (and note I have never said that the literature uses this specific phrase of him) was formulated at a time when this was believed literally, does not preclude that at some later time such literalness had evolved to myth and allegory.
These five points create a strong impediment to those who would declare that Galatians 4:4 sounds a death knell for the mythicist case. In fact, forming a coherent picture as they do, in conformity with so much else that we find expressed in the New Testament epistles, they can be said to contribute in a positive manner to the conclusion that Paul and the other early epistle writers believed only in a mythical Jesus.
I have in the past pointed out that certain deities in savior god mythology were spoken of as having been born of woman, as for example Dionysos. Critics have countered that such myths were placed on earth and not in the heavens, and that the 'woman' was regarded as having actually lived, even if in the context of primordial legend. This is true — originally. But as Platonic philosophy took hold through the Hellenistic period, such myths became transplanted to a spirit dimension, even while keeping much of their original expression as rooted in a distant earthly past. This evolution of myth can be seen in one of the documents of the New Testament: the Book of Revelation. The Apocalypse of John contains a wealth of mythology derived from a wide spectrum of ancient myths both Jewish and pagan. And virtually all of it is placed in the heavens. Like those visionary ascents to the spiritual realms so common during the period, such as in Daniel, the Ascension of Isaiah and the Similitudes of Enoch, Revelation has moved its mythology from earth to heaven, from the material to the spiritual. The myth we need to consider here is that of chapter 12:
"1. And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun... 2. and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.... 5. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, and her child was caught up to God and to his throne..." [NASB]
Commentators like John Sweet (Revelation, p.193f) and R. Beasley-Murray (The Book of Revelation, p.192f), have identified the background to the mythology of chapter 12. Sweet says: "It is widely agreed that the story told in chapter 12 represents a Jewish-Christian adaptation of what can only be described as an international myth, current throughout the world of John's day. No single tradition can account for all the features of the chapter." A primary source seems to be the Greek myth of the birth of Apollo from the goddess Leto, but elements of the Babylonian creation myth are also present, along with Persian and Egyptian features. As well, the woman and child represent longstanding Jewish themes: the woman as "the ideal glorified Israel" (Sweet), as "Mother Zion bringing forth the messianic Deliverer of God's suffering people" (Beasley-Murray). No matter how one wishes to interpret the mythical imagery of Revelation, it is representative of ancient mythological thought, and it has nothing to do with history, let alone the Mary and Jesus of the Gospels.
And how pathetic it is to see commentators like Sweet and Beasley-Murray twist the text into knots, wringing these verses like a wet rag, in an attempt to squeeze from them some drop of history, some distillation of the Gospels, on which they could be based. According to Sweet (p.195), "The whole life of Jesus from conception to ascension is condensed in these few words ['caught up to God']." "It may seem strange," he says, "that his death and resurrection, normally the centre of the story, are not actually mentioned, but John is writing for the church, which knows it..." Beasley-Murray goes further, throwing rationality to the wind (p.199-200): "Not a few expositors maintain that since it was impossible for a Christian to represent Jesus as exalted to heaven as soon as he was born, the 'birth' must be interpreted as the death and resurrection of Jesus....(John) is content to let the narrative of the deliverer's birth and rapture to heaven stand without modification, for his readers were all aware that Jesus, prior to his ascension, had a life and ministry among men, and experienced a death and resurrection." Well, if the "church" were aware of such things, it was certainly not through the channels of any non-Gospel writing of this period, for they are all, including Revelation, silent on such events on earth from start to finish. When a passage can be made to "stand for" anything which the commentator wishes to read into it, silence and contrary meaning obviously evaporate as a difficulty. Unfortunately, this is the methodology of much of New Testament scholarship and is a measure of the seriousness and honesty which has been applied to dealing with the mythicist case.
The vocabulary of Revelation 12 includes neither gennaō nor ginomai (the words used instead relate to tiktō, to bear), but this is the birth of a divine child from a "woman" taking place in a mythical context, and whether it is pure allegory or an expression of common mythological thinking, there is nothing by which we can make a clear distinction between this "born of woman" and that of Galatians 4. More than the allegory of 4:21f, and regardless of the issue of vocabulary, this scene in the Book of Revelation provides undeniable support for a purely mythological interpretation of Paul's "born of woman."
(The correspondent I mentioned above who pointed out my blind spot in regard to Revelation 12 was James Barlow, who submitted an essay on the Doherty-Muller debate containing some interesting reflections on the mythicist case and "born of woman." I have included an edited version here: "Realizing the Mythicist Case: Doherty vs. Muller")
Well, we don't "know" that Marcion mutilated Luke and Paul's letters. That's the main issue under debate in regard to Marcion's use of Luke and Paul. Some scholars have concluded the opposite, that the first two chapters of Luke were not present in the version used by Marcion, which could well have been an Ur-Luke. It is certainly true that Marcion would not have liked certain passages in the Luke we have, but if there were as many as we find in the canonical version, and if the Lukan Gospel had been linked with an already written Acts of the Apostles, it becomes doubtful that Marcion would have been attracted to using Luke at all. Scholars blithely declare that Marcion made these wholesale deletions from Luke, but if the latter was a well-known Gospel by his time, it would surely have been difficult to get away with such mutilations. As for Price's claim that Matthew's birth narrative was widely circulated prior to Marcion, I have no knowledge of any evidence on which this is based.
Quotations were made on the IIDB regarding arguments for "born of woman, born under the law" as a 2nd century post-Marcion Catholic redaction, but those taken from the Dutch Radical Van Manen I found of mixed efficacy. Von Manen finds a particular difficulty in the apparent contradiction that Galatians 4 has Christ already under the "curse" of the Law from birth, yet he becomes a "cursed thing" only by mounting the cross in Galatians 3. I find this somewhat forced as an incompatibility (it's holding a letter writer to far too strict a standard), and in any case it is fairly easily absorbed within the mythicist scenario. Von Manen's strongest argument is based on the grammatical nature of the phrase, in that the "born" participle is in the aorist, implying that these characteristics of the Son — born of woman and born under the Law — were already existing when he was "sent." Von Manen put this down to a miscalculation by a later editor who didn't appreciate the anomaly he was creating, but in fact this observation is fully supportive of a Pauline origin within the mythicist scenario. Since God is sending only the "spirit" of his Son at the present time, and the two "legomenon" features are mythical, then they were indeed in effect prior to the present "sending" of the Son — which was not a birth at all in the historical sense. Thus the interpolation option is at best only a possibility and cannot, in my view, be convincingly demonstrated.
Before leaving "born of woman," we should note another interesting observation made by Michael Turton on IIDB:
Bernard's argument
further demands that we take the meaning of
"sons" in Galatians 4 to be historical when it refers to Jesus, but
allegorical when it refers to humans. In fact Gal 4 is one long
allegory on
Abraham, sonship, and the Law. Note that Paul uses "according to the
flesh" here in a symbolic sense. Abraham has two sons, both by human
women, and both born by sexual intercourse and a trip down the birth
canal. But
he distinguishes them by their relationship to the Law...
- 23 But he [that was] of
the maid servant was born according to flesh, and he [that was] of the
free woman through the promise.
In the next two sections of his critique, Muller tackles my comments on "brother of the Lord" and Josephus. I have no intention of rehashing either of these subjects here. They have been done to death, and neither of them are resolvable. But they don't have to be. The mythicist option needs merely establish that, in the case of "the brother of the Lord" we can arrive at nothing but ambiguity, and in the case of Josephus we can never arrive at a position of reliability in regard to the claim that Josephus wrote something about an historical Jesus. Each one of us can decide on the relative strengths of both sides of the argument in either case, but neither Josephus nor Galatians 1:19 can be used to prove the existence of Jesus or discredit the mythicist option.
Carrier replies:
I'd love to, but I can't pull corroboration out of a hat. There are many things in the early Christian literature we don't possess parallels for in other areas. This does not preclude us from doing our best to make deductions based on what we have. I postulated that the Jerusalem sect around James could have referred to itself as "brothers of/in the Lord." Muller ridiculed the idea, claiming (on no known grounds) that this would have been understood by their fellow Jews as "brother of Yahweh," something that would have been sacrilegious. And he compared it with the case of Caligula:
Note: the closest equivalent
of that title, as related in ancient writings, is one that Caius
(Caligula)
attributed to himself:
Josephus' Ant., XIX, I, 1, "He
also asserted his own divinity, and insisted on greater honors
to be
paid him by his subjects than are due to mankind. He also frequented
that
temple of Jupiter which they style the Capitol, which is with them the
most
holy of all their temples, and had boldness enough to call
himself the
brother of Jupiter."
Maybe a self-deified Roman emperor could claim being the brother of a
god (and
survive for a while!), but what about a regular Jew regarding God, in
Jerusalem? Simply preposterous.
What
is "preposterous" is to claim that anyone, Jew or otherwise, would
think that a group calling itself "brothers of the Lord" meant that
they were calling themselves siblings
of God. Such a name would simply be interpreted as signifying
membership in a brotherhood devoted to
God. How Muller in all seriousness can come up with such bizarre
straw men and think that this constitutes scholarly rebuttal is a
genuine mystery.
Muller has inadvertently provided
the very reason why a later scribe could have felt impelled to insert
an identification for James in Galatians 1:19, namely because he
believed that there was
another James on the scene and he feared that the reader of Paul might
be confused as to which one was being referred to. I say "later"
because in the early epistles there is no evidence for a "James,
brother of John." In fact, Paul a number of times refers to a John, but
never to a brother of his by any name. The interpolation would have
been made at a time
—
probably in
the latter 2nd century
—
when the
original James had come to be regarded as the sibling of Jesus, and the
inserted phrase, meaning "sibling," was one that was currently applied
to him. It would have been very natural for a copyist to add "the
brother of the Lord" to the text or as a gloss in the margin (later
inserted into
the text), in order to differentiate James the Just from James
brother of John.
For a fuller discussion of
Galatians 1:19, see my Reader Feedback 22, response to Gerry.
Fifteen years is a long time (actually it was closer to 25), and Tacitus' alleged knowledge of Christians could have been of recent vintage, dependent on newly-circulating hearsay in Rome by and about Christians and their reputed founder. (Some scholars regard this as likely the source of Tacitus' information; for example, Norman Perrin in his The New Testament: An Introduction, p.407.) There is also the question of whether the Tacitus passage is genuine. A persecution by Nero tied to the great fire of 64 CE is not mentioned by Christian commentators for centuries, a very perplexing silence. As for Pliny, he knows surprisingly little about Christians, according to his letter to Trajan (if that is genuine as well). Carrier remarks on Muller's claim that educated Romans were aware of Christians:
When Muller pans my suggestion that "a man named James" could have stood on its own in Antiquities 20 (without the entire phrase "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ") Carrier somewhat agrees:
I'm not sure I follow Carrier's line of argument here. It is immaterial what scribes do "as a rule" in other situations, especially those in which interpolations are not involved. Here, if the scribe had to alter the grammar in order to make the interpolation, he would do so in whatever way was necessary; as well, we have no way of knowing if he was also forced to drop one or more words. Thus, Carrier cannot really tell whether or not there was a need to change the phrase "whose name was James" in order to insert the reference to Jesus.
Muller traps himself in an "I want it both ways" situation. He claims that the interpolator of the "lost reference" copied the (genuine) phrase in Antiquities 20 "for the sake of making his bit look authentic!" And yet he has also argued that the similarity of phraseology to other quotations from Josephus makes the reference in chapter 20 authentic. The point is, as Muller declares in his first remark, interpolators who regularly copy the works of any writer are quite capable of mimicing their style, so any argument for authenticity based on conformity of style is accordingly rendered invalid.
Based on his grammatical argument above, Carrier is very confident that Josephus wrote "the brother of Jesus, by the name Jacob." And he could be right, especially as he regards this "Jesus" not as the Jesus of the Christians, but as some other Jesus whom Josephus has already named — and there have been many of them. This is an idea that G. A. Wells has voiced, and it would explain why so little is said about him, and nothing about any connection with a Christian sect. It simply was not James the Just Josephus was talking about. I would add that, in this case, the inserted phrase "the one called Christ" would most likely have been a marginal gloss added by a scribe who did think Josephus was referring to the Christian Jesus (and James) and wanted to make this clear — the same motive and process I suggested earlier in regard to "the brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19. As a gloss, this would not have been the place or occasion to add more information about Jesus, laudatory or otherwise.
Muller concludes, and I'll let Michael Turton respond:
....But it is apparent that Bernard's arguments are weak indeed; they are 90% rhetoric, and include blatant errors of interpretation, as well as historicist biases and assumptions that render them impotent against Doherty.
I would direct the reader to my lengthy article on all these aspects of the Josephus question, including the longer Testimonium Flavianum: Josephus Unbound.
Richard Carrier commented that in
Plutarch's
Isis and Osiris
(written around 90-100), "it is there, in
the
"outermost areas" (the "outermost part of matter"), that
evil has particular dominion, and where Osiris
is
continually dismembered and reassembled (375a-b)."
Let's check about these outermost
areas and
where Osiris was dismembered:
- "[s.38] The outmost parts of the land beside the
mountains and
bordering on the sea the Egyptians call Nephthys.
... Whenever, then, the Nile overflows and with abounding
waters spreads
far away to those who dwell in the outermost regions ..."
....
It looks to me the outermost areas are
regions
around
Muller 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,
Plutarch clearly
discusses the use of terms like Nephthys as allegorical. If Muller 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...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. Muller seems to think they are all the same one. Only someone who
did not
read the whole book would make that mistake....
a) Plutarch
never used the expression "sublunar heaven", nor did he mention
any
world/heaven below the moon and above the earth:
"[s.63] that
part of the world which undergoes
reproduction and destruction is contained underneath the orb
of the
moon, and all things in it are subjected to motion and to change
through the four elements: fire, earth, water, and air."
This part of the world is just like
earth and
the air above it!
....
The ancients (as Aristotle and
Ptolemy) thought
the moon was the most outward (in the earth direction) celestial body.
The sun
was understood in an orbit beyond the one of the moon, among the
planets moving
between the moon and the firmament. And the "fixed" stars were on the
firmament in front (or part) of "the prime mover sphere". In any
case, the firmament was considered behind the moon and therefore not sublunar.
Muller is
really confused here.
The sublunar heaven is the firmament, which is indeed a part of
everything
below the moon...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 Plutarch is talking
about....
d)
For
Plutarch, the final resting place of Osiris
is below
the polluted earth, and not into the heavens:
"[s.78] ... this
god Osiris
is the ruler and king of the dead, nor is he any other
than the
god that among the Greeks is called Hades and Pluto. But
since it is
not understood in with manner this is true, it greatly disturbs the
majority of
people who suspect that the holy and sacred Osiris
truly dwells in the earth and beneath the earth, where are hidden
away the
bodies of those that are believed to have reached their end. But he
himself
is far removed from the earth [downward!],
uncontaminated and unpolluted and pure from all matter that is subject
to
destruction and death ..."
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)....
e) Plutarch is however very much confusing
when handling
different concepts & traditions, some of them mythical, and lacks
consistency through his rather incoherent narration.
2.9.
Conclusion:
I do admire Earl's rhetorical skills but I rely on the evidence first.
And from
ancient pagan writings before Julian's times (331-363), there is no
testimony
presented in 'the Jesus Puzzle' about the concept of an upper world
between
heaven & earth, where the fleshy meets demonic powers, a place
where Jesus
would have been crucified. After years of research, Doherty was unable
to flesh
out the evidence for it....Furthermore, all the texts cited by Doherty
(and
Carrier) were not written before Paul's times.
With
these remarks, Muller demonstrates the full extent of his ignorance,
and his
basic reliance on the argument from personal incredulity. He himself
cannot
imagine such a view of an upper world, and he is so uninformed about
Middle
Platonic philosophy
—
indeed, the
central philosophy of the entire
era
—
that he
does not realize that this is precisely the way the ancients
viewed the
spiritual versus the earthly parts of their universe. The upper world
was
indeed "more real and pungent" than the one they moved in, as
divorced from reality as that may have been. Incidentally, though the
outlook
is not the same (since cosmological views of the universe are now much
different and our scientific knowledge vastly superior), Muller
overlooks a
close parallel among modern believers. We might ask the question, how
can
today's Christians
—
and
religious believers generally
—
imagine an
upper
world
(Heaven) more primary, important and eternal than the world they
experience in
their earthly lives, the only lives we can be certain of? There is no
more
concrete evidence today for the existence of Heaven than the ancients
had for
their own view of a layered world of the spirit above the earth. In
both cases,
it has been entirely the product of the mind. In ancient times,
philosophers
had very little else to go on but their own intellects, and
unfortunately, they
brought too many unsubstantiated assumptions and cockeyed axioms to the
exercise of those intellects. Today, we ought to know better.
Muller's remarks do not deserve the polite explanation Carrier
provides, as
though anyone who purports to study the rise of Christianity and its
philosophical context in contemporary culture should need to have such
an
answer provided. At this particular point, we are first and foremost
concerned not with
whether Paul
or any other early Christian placed Jesus' death in the upper world,
but rather
with the most basic outlook on reality that had been developing for
centuries
before Paul came along. Without knowledge of the latter, we can never
arrive at
an accurate judgment of the former. As Carrier puts it:
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*).
One can see how unsubstantiated axioms so misled the ancient intellect. Change, decay (which is really a step in the ongoing course of evolution and 'rebirth') was axiomatically judged as inferior and undesirable. If an all-high God existed (and few could conceive otherwise) he must be impervious to such things and transcendent from them. Then the universe had to be structured to give him a place to live, intermediaries between himself and the world had to be established, explanations for the world's evil and its separation from the imagined perfection of the spiritual realm invented, until a vast and unwieldy superstructure was erected which few philosophers could free themselves from, none of which bore any relation to reality. Out of that milieu grew Christianity, and it is only with a knowledge of that cosmology that Christianity can be understood (as well as evaluated). Muller asks:
Why did Paul
never state
Jesus' death in an upper world/lower heaven?
Why did he never specify the
crucifixion was not
on earth, more so when many were crucified there?
Actually, Paul did state it, in an indirect
way. If the crucifixion had
been
on earth, if the event was remembered by people still alive, some of
whom had
been Jesus' followers with whom Paul was still in contact, why would
Paul state
that Jesus' death was a matter of faith?
In 1 Thessalonians 4:14, he
says:
"We believe that Jesus died and rose again..." The place of
crucifixion in Colossians 2:15 looks like demon territory. In Romans
10:9, he
says: "If you believe that God raised (Jesus) from the dead..." Why
is there an appeal to faith here? Couldn't Paul draw on the witness of
many
that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead? In 1 Corinthians 15:12-15, he
rhetorically allows for the possibility that Jesus was not raised if
the human
dead are not raised, and that they have all been deceived by God. This
sounds
like a gospel message dependent solely on revelation from God himself.
The so-called
"appearances" in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 look like visions, both in
their language and because of Paul's inclusion of his own vision in the
list
without any
differentiation (he does the same in 9:1). Paul never points to
historical
facts or
traditions to justify faith in Jesus' dying and rising, nor for
describing
anything else about his divine Son of God, including the manner and
agency of
his
crucifixion (the "rulers of this age" of 1 Corinthians 2:8). If there
is such a void on historical time,
place
and agents in regard to Jesus' redeeming act, where else can he place
this
'event' except outside earth and history?
Carrier presents a little different twist on Paul's silence:
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.
But those "fundamentals" were in place on a
much broader scale than
any earlier evangelizing by Paul. They were virtually a given in the
philosophical and religious atmosphere of the time. The deaths of the
Hellenistic savior gods took place not on earth or in history; they
inhabited mythical
settings. Philosophers had already created the upper dimension where
divine
intermediaries revealed and rescued. Paul did not need to explain to
his
prospective converts that Jesus had died in the spiritual world. Nor
would
anyone likely have questioned it. It was part of the natural order of
things,
and no more needed or invited explanation than did the concept of
animal
sacrifice
to God and the gods as practiced in Jewish and pagan religion. Nowhere
in the
Old or New Testament does anyone explain how blood sacrifice operates
to do
what it supposedly did, not even in the epistle to the Hebrews where
these
processes are stated but not justified or elucidated. Today, do
evangelists and
preachers explain the "soul" to their audiences, despite referring to
it ad nauseum?
As Carrier points out, Paul, when faced with the Corinthians' doubt
about human
resurrection, does engage (1 Corinthians
Carrier goes on to say:
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).
I must disagree with most of this. As I
have pointed out, more than one
passage
indicates that "faith" is required to accept both the death and
resurrection of Jesus, and there is evidence in 1 Corinthians that
indeed some
Corinthians denied that (the spiritual) Jesus had even been crucified.
The issue
between the
factions at
Carrier is somewhat contradictory in his final statement above. If
there was no
necessity to demonstrate that Jesus had died, presumably because
everyone knew
and accepted it, why would Paul even bother to "prove it by
scripture"? What is the significance of his "kata tas graphas"
in 1 Corinthians 15:3 and 4? The standard interpretation is that he is
saying
Jesus' death and rising fulfilled scripture, but this is an
idea he
develops nowhere else, despite his fixation on the sacred writings. I
have
suggested that the phrase means "according to the scriptures" in the
sense of scripture telling us these 'facts'. Thus, scripture
is the source
of Paul's information about the Christ, not historical tradition. In
fact, Paul declares in Galatians 1:11-12 that he got his gospel solely
through
revelation. That is why faith is needed for believers to accept both
the
death and
the
rising.
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?
Both Carrier and myself have
demonstrated that the substantiation
of
"Doherty's world" is anything but flimsy in ancient literature. If it
was a given in the background of most religious thought of the time,
for Paul
to provide some statement or explanation of it would have been
superfluous. With
that in mind, we might consider the significance of Ignatius' repeated
insistence on the 'fact' that Jesus had been born of Mary and crucified
by
Pontius Pilate. If these were well-known facts in the background (and
how could
they not be?), what reason would Ignatius have had for insisting on
them? How could some Christian missionaries be going about not preaching such a Christ, as he
says? The
answer is that Ignatius was not
stating long-known historical details but
rather new
developments in the evolution of the mythical Christ into the
historical Jesus,
and not everyone agreed with it. (I have argued elsewhere that Ignatius
cannot simply be countering docetic doctrines about an historical
Jesus.)
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. Actually, and looking only at Paul's (seven)
authentic
epistles (both Earl & myself agree on those) and 'Hebrews', the
evidence is
much stronger towards earth and
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 Doherty'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...
No, but it sure helps. Without that knowledge of Paul's "sure" beliefs, we haven't a chance of properly interpreting passages like 1 Corinthians 2:8.
...That is only *consistent* with what Paul says — which Doherty 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. 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 Doherty's thesis. Two ad hoc theories? I see no way to decide between them.
What makes an "ad hoc theory"? Technically, what makes something "ad hoc" is a specific relationship to the purpose for which the 'ad hoc' thing has been formulated, and it is sometimes given the derogatory implication of being slanted to serve that purpose, that it only has application in regard to the specific end in mind. When we use it in this field, it is often implied that each 'ad hoc' explanation is isolated, a kind of desperate measure to come up with some explanation, that each one doesn't form a good fit or a good combination with other ad hoc explanations on other points. I don't know if Carrier has all this negative implication in mind here, but let's assume he does (it certainly fits his stated situation regarding historicist explanations of Paul's silence). Is my theory ad hoc? Are its elements lacking consistency and good fit between themselves? Carrier constantly emphasizes the fact that my evidence is *consistent* with my theory but doesn't thereby prove it, and I'll of course agree to that. But this very consistency speaks volumes. When each explanation of a passage or problem inherent in the record enjoys consistency and agreement with all the others, when each makes good sense while those of the other side make less so (as Carrier implies by his use of descriptives like "strange" and "bizarre"), when together they form a logical paradigm that covers every aspect of the evidence, whereas the other side's picture does not (giving me the "win" in the Argument to the Best Explanation, as Carrier has admitted), then we are definitely not dealing with two equally weak "ad hoc" theories, between which there is no basis on which to make any kind of choice. And in fact, Carrier goes on to offer a limited acknowledgement:
And Doherty is right that his theory is less ad hoc here. Unlike the "heavenly scheme" Doherty theorizes, which would be a *foundational* doctrine and thus *certainly* already explained to Paul's congregations from day one [much earlier than that if it was a part of their religious and philosophical culture] 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....What Doherty 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.
These are some comments on Bernard Muller's Review of Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle".
Muller's long review addresses a few arguments in Doherty's thesis. To start off, wrt "Higher and Lower Worlds", Ascension of Isaiah alone is enough to show there were higher and lower worlds - Muller fails to deal with Doherty's arguments regarding the redaction of AoI, the evolution of Jesus that is evident via the redaction of AoI. He simply takes a tangent and beats it to death and wears down the hapless reader to nod tiredly in agreement.
Under "The higher world of Attis, Mithras and Osiris", in spite of the literalist reading out of historical context that Muller valiantly employs on the texts, he does present a few challenges to the interpretation of the relevant texts.
On "The rulers of this age" (archons), Muller basically picks the interpretation he prefers and avoids dealing with the arguments made by Doherty, or the problems with his preferred interpretation. This is deceptive. On "Descending gods", Php2:6-11 is unassailable so Muller scores no points there. He employs a gospel reading to Pauline epistles and misses the point from start to finnish because he fails to shed off the gospel mindset. Muller's alternative hypothesis lacks explanatory power - for example, is it a coincidence that Paul failed to mention Joseph, Pilate, Mary and other historical details regarding Jesus? Why does Paul doggedly rely on revelation and the OT for teachings while never on Jesus? Why the silence regarding a HJ in extra-biblical sources?
Muller's review is also incomplete and he should perhaps have used an appendix to flesh out the details of his arguments, then make the arguments more concise. Muller fails to handle the second century writings that support Doherty's thesis. Muller instead dwells for an interminable length on Plutarch, Osiris, Mithras, archons, higher and lower worlds, Antiquities 20 and Pauline epistles.
He fails to handle arguments regarding Q (lack of Jewish voice in CST), he fails to address GThom, He fails to handle arguments regarding the intermediary son as found in Shepherd of Hermas and Odes of Solomon, Minucius Felix, second century silence, the writings of the apostolic fathers, the fact that almost every significant item in the gospels can be traced back to the OT and so on.
What Muller does is pick a few parts of Doherty's work and dwell on them at length while leaving out 'developmental' arguments. Its like someone breaking off one leg of a table then arguing that sonce there is no flat top attached to it and other legs for stability, its therefore just a piece of wood and not a leg of a table. Muller, for example, barely touches on the second century silence and uses that gap to make a rhetorical point:
| ...three pages of
convoluted rhetorical speculations leading to some
mythical upper world, with nothing suggesting it was believed by anyone
in the first three centuries. |
Regarding Jesus being son of David, the very first Gospel (Mark) tells us Jesus was not the son of David. The genealogies in Luke and Matthew also clearly strain to fabricate a Davidic kinship for Jesus and they still get it wrong! We know that the latter evangelists were trying to historicize prophecy.
A HJ materialized towards the end of the first century/early second century. In the second century, there was no consensus on a HJ as we see on the works of Minucius Felix, Epistle to Diognetus (that even goes further to say God never sent anyone on earth), Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Tatians Address to the Greeks and so on. In the early third century, Constantine converted, gnostic currents were stamped out of christianity, councils were held and documents destroyed.
Some people, like Paul, believed in a MJ - an incarnated god. Others, like the Shepherd of Hermas show belief in "the son" - an intermediary saviour figure. Redacted texts like Ascencion of Isaiah demonstrate to us how the figure of HJ evolved over time. How the demons (archons) were replaced later with the "ruler" and how the ruler later became Pilate. They show us how Christ became Jesus and how a tree became a cross. The Christian beliefs were varied and its false for Muller to claim that "nothing suggesting it [a mythical Jesus] was believed by anyone in the first three centuries"
Muller employ's empty rhetoric generously:
| ...meandering fuzzy discussion...Doherty lacks accuracy...Doherty harasses the primary evidence...Doherty is prone to use inaccurate translations and biased "mythicist" interpretations, many on dubious latter texts, in order to claim his points...Doherty provided three pages of convoluted rhetorical speculations... |
Muller uses Darby's translation, NASB and YLT - shuffling between them, picking one when it favours his argument, abandoning it when it doesn't. This is a shoddy method of argumentation.
Muller, who claims to be a humanist, uses phrases like 'non-Christian Sallustius', against sources that do not agree with his point. One wonders what "non-Christian" has to do with an early source - is the review written for a Christian audience?
| Doherty is unable to present any external evidence about his idea of the fleshy/demonic lower heaven as written before (or during) Paul's days. |
Empedocles 492-432 BC "there exist daimones("souls"), divine beings that have fallen from a superior world into this world and exist clothed in the "foreign robe of the flesh." here
Plato, Gnostic ophite sect etc.
| On the border between the intelligible and sensible realms as both a barrier and link between them (so J. Dillon),[8] is Hecate, a sort of diaphragm or membrane (frg. 6 des Places), the life producing fount (frgg. 30 &32 des Places) from which the World Soul flows (frg. 51 des Places). Finally, there is the world of Matter, springing both from the Intellect and the Father (frgg. 34-35 des Places)....the Valentinians posited an upper Limit (Horos) separating Bythos from his subordinate aeons including Nous. |
J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 200 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 394-395. here
IMO, Muller's review, compared to the ones I have seen, is the best effort at going down to the sources and challenging the mythicist hypothesis as advanced by Doherty. I would suggest he structures it, condenses the arguments and have loopy footnotes or appendix if that is what it takes, otherwise, in its current state, it makes for tiresome reading.
Jacob Aliet