Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 4 of 12: Section 4.3 Plutarch's Osiris

[GakuseiDon]

Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 4 of 12: Section 4.3 Plutarch's Osiris

Threads in this series

	Thread title	Link
1	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 1 of 12: Sections 1 thru 3, What I liked and didn't like	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10555
2	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 2 of 12: Section 4.1 Epiphanius's Nazorians	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10557
3	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 3 of 12: Section 4.2 Ascension of Isaiah's Celestial Crucifixion	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10562
4	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 4 of 12: Section 4.3 Plutarch's Osiris	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10565

In this thread, I'll look at Carrier's claim about a sublunar incarnated Plutarch's Osiris. This is a draft so formating will be rough. Any feedback welcomed!

Next we'll look at Carrier's claim about Plutarch's Osiris.

[SLIDE]

ARGUMENT: Plutarch wrote that Orisis assumed a body of flesh in the sublunar firmament (page 544)

ANALYSIS: Plutarch never makes that statement, nor does Carrier directly quote Plutarch to that effect

VERDICT: Carrier's statement is WRONG.

CONTRIBUTION: Background knowledge

Carrier states several times in OHJ that many in ancient times believed that Osiris assumed a body of flesh in the sublunar firmament, where he was killed by Typhon/Set, then resurrected and raised to the heavens.

Examples:

[SLIDE]

OHJ, Page 172
As surveyed for Element 14, Plutarch is explicit about the cosmic ver­sion of the Osiris myth: he says Osiris actually incarnates and actually dies (albeit in outer space; but he dies, too, as Plutarch admits, also in the myth that places his death on earth at a single time in history) and is actually restored to life in a new supernatural body (just as Jesus was, as Paul thoroughly explains in I Cor. 15)

OHJ, page 186:
Thus, for exam­ple, Plutarch tells us that Isis and Osiris were originally 'great demons·[daimones], which he explains are neither gods nor men but something in between, being divine but also incarnate, which come in varying degrees of good and evil...

OHJ, p. 544
Likewise that Jesus had a 'body' to sacrifice, from which could pour 'blood', is exactly what minimal mythicism entails: he assumed a body of flesh in the sub lunar firmament so that it could be killed, then returned to the upper heavens from whence he came. Exactly as the Ascension of Isaiah describes Jesus did, and just like what many believed happened to Osiris (Elements 14 and 31 ).

OHJ, p. 612-3
... we can tell that in earliest documented Christian belief, Jesus began as what conservative Jews would have called an archangel (angels often being hailed as 'lords' like Jesus), descending to assume the body of a man, possibly no further than sublunar space (as was the case for Osiris: Element 37; and for the Jesus found in the earlier redaction of the Ascension ofIsaiah: Chapter 3, §1), where he was mocked and killed and buried by Satan and his sky demons...

Carrier made the same comment in 2022 on the Mythvision Podcast episode "Why People Don't Understand Mythicism MUST WATCH!":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4-v1oERzto

From 18 mins 45 secs in:

[Carrier] ... Plutarch says yes but all that's front allegory, it's all symbolism meant to prevent outsiders from understanding the truth. The truth is that Osiris was actually killed by the equivalent of Satan in the outer space below the moon. It's basically the exact same model that I think Doherty is right about for Jesus. I think they borrow the same idea. Osiris actually descends, becomes incarnate in a body of flesh and is killed by Set up in the heavens and then resurrects, becomes triumphant and ascends again...

The problem is, nowhere does Plutarch write that Osiris took on a body of flesh in the sublunar realm. Plutarch does give various interpretations of the Osiris/Isis myth. For example, that Osiris incarnated on earth, where he was killed and later resurrected. Or that Osiris and Isis were daimons who, due to their virtue, became gods. Or that the myth was an allegory, where Osiris is the Nile consorting with Isis, the fretile Earth, while Typhon is the sea into which the Nile discharges its waters and is lost to view and dissipated.

But nowhere does Plutarch write that Osiris took on a body of flesh and incarnated in the sublunar realm. And nowhere does Carrier cite where Plutarch writes this. I went through his citations. (Show earlier slide). When Carrier refers to Elements 14 and 31, I read through them and didn't find a direct quote. Similarly with the other citations Carrier gives. In fact, I spent a lot of time reading through Plutarch's Osiris and Isis, and I didn't find any statement where Osiris "actually incarnates and actually dies" "in outer space". The closest one I found was the idea that daimons were good and bad beings who share "in the nature of the soul and in the perceptive faculties of the body", and Osiris and Isis were good daemons whose virtue made them gods. But there was no actual taking on of a body of flesh or incarnation in those passages.

I remember arguing with someone online about this. He ended up agreeing with me that it looked like Plutarch didn't write about a sublunar incarnated Osiris. He suggested that possibly Carrier had made his own translation of Plutarch. I later thought that "yes, possibly Carrier did make his own translation of Plutarch. Possibly he made his own translation of Ascension of Isaiah as well. And possibly he made his own translation of Epiphanius. Not to mention his own translations of scholars and critics whom he cites on his blog."

Note that Ascension of Isaiah and Plutarch's Osiris and Isis are the only examples Carrier examines where the god incarnates above the earth. But it seems Carrier has misread both his sources. [Show slide with "actual" and "exact" comments about AoI and Plutarch's Orisis]

In actual fact, both texts support the god dying on earth. Carrier notes the similarities of certain passages in those texts to those that can be found in the letters of Paul and other early writers. But now those similarities would appear to implicitly support a Jesus on earth.

How does this affect Carrier's thesis? Let's look again at Carrier's Minimal Mythicist Theory formulation:

[SLIDE]

1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspi­
ration (such as prophecy, past and present).

3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.

4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.

5. Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

Let's examine Item 3. Are there any celestial deities believed to have been incarnated in a supernatural realm? There don't appear to be any examples of incarnated deities in a sublunar realm, so examples are starting to get thin on the ground, no pun intended.

But what does Carrier mean by "supernatural realm"? He defines it like this:

[SLIDE]

page 55
The only alternatives to it taking place in a 'supernatural realm'. But the latter could have been imagined to be in outer space or on earth and still conform to minimal mythicism as I have defined it

page 563
The original 'revealed' death and burial could have been imagined as occurring on earth and still be (from our perspective) mythical, if, e.g., the passion sequence was 'revealed' to have occurred somewhere like the Garden of Eden, a place no one knew the actual location of and thus where no ordinary witnesses could have been available

So if Jesus took on a body of flesh in a mythical place on earth then that would still be a mythical Jesus. I agree. Carrier is correct on that point. Another alternative is Jesus incarnating and being crucified in Hades, much like the Inanna myth. That would also be a mythical Jesus.

But the problem there is that those alternatives undercut a lot of Carrier's analysis throughout his book, where he is comparing a celestial Jesus with a historical one. How would Carrier's redaction of the Ascension of Isaiah -- where "Jesus is commanded to go straight to the firmament and die" -- now fit into a minimal mythicist position where Jesus incarnated and was crucified in Hades or a mythical earthly location? If he switched his mythicist model, wouldn't his redaction of Ascension of Isaiah now count as odds against the new model?

To me, the lack of incarnated gods in the sublunar realm undercuts Item 3 of his Minimal Mythicist Theory, in that he either has to admit there are no examples there, which weakens his theory; or he has to abandon the idea and rework his Theory so that it involves an alternative "supernatural realm". And that would mean a different hypothesis and redoing the analysis from scratch.

Next up is Section 5, where I go over Carrier's use of Bayes Theorem and question the validity of his approach. Not sure when it will be up. Probably a few weeks as it's a fairly involved subject. The ones after that, the remaining seven, are quite short though.

[Giuseppe]

I disagree strongly on this point. Plutarch is clear about where Typho has more influence:

For the utmost and most extreme parts of matter, which they call Nephthys and the end, is mostly under the power of the destructive faculty;

(Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 59)

...just as it is implicit that there is where Typhon kills Osiris:

But where Typhon falls in and touches upon her extreme parts, it is there she appears melancholy, and is said to mourn, and to look for certain relics and pieces of Osiris, and to array them with all diligence;

The place where Seth enters in action (presumably: against Osiris) is the same place where Isis is going to look for the pieces of the body of Osiris.

So, while I am not interested to prove where Osiris assumes the body of flesh, etc, I am rather sure that there is evidence of (the belief, in Plutarch, of) a celestial death of Osiris in outer space.

• As to Epiphanius, I agree with you that he doesn't talk about Nazarenes, but even so the fact remains that the Talmud places Jesus hundred years before and that is objectively an anomaly for historicity.

• As to Ascension of Isaiah, I agree with you that it describes an earthly context.

[GakuseiDon]

I disagree strongly on this point. Plutarch is clear about where Typho has more influence:

For the utmost and most extreme parts of matter, which they call Nephthys and the end, is mostly under the power of the destructive faculty;

(Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 59)

...just as it is implicit that there is where Typhon kills Osiris:

But where Typhon falls in and touches upon her extreme parts, it is there she appears melancholy, and is said to mourn, and to look for certain relics and pieces of Osiris, and to array them with all diligence;

The place where Seth enters in action (presumably: against Osiris) is the same place where Isis is going to look for the pieces of the body of Osiris.

So, while I am not interested to prove where Osiris assumes the body of flesh, etc, I am rather sure that there is evidence of (the belief, in Plutarch, of) a celestial death of Osiris in outer space.

Thanks for your feedback, Giuseppe. My point focuses on Carrier's claim that Plutarch wrote that Osiris took on a body of flesh/incarnated into the sublunar realm. It's an important point for its resonances to passages in Paul. So even granted the above, my point still stands: no "body of flesh/incarnation" above the earth, only on it. How then to read Paul?

Still, as I wrote at the end of the OP: even if there was no incarnation, mythicism can still stand. But it won't be the same Minimal Mythicist Theory proposed by Carrier (see his Item 3), and I believe he'd need to rethink his approach.

But it's good feedback, and I'll have to have a rethink how I word this in the OP, and make updates appropriately. Thank you!

• As to Epiphanius, I agree with you that he doesn't talk about Nazarenes, but even so the fact remains that the Talmud places Jesus hundred years before and that is objectively an anomaly for historicity.

• As to Ascension of Isaiah, I agree with you that it describes an earthly context.

Thank you, much appreciated! I'll talk about Carrier's use of the Talmud in Part 6 of my review. Coming soon. Stay tuned!

[nightshadetwine]

deleted

[nightshadetwine]

Thanks for your feedback, Giuseppe. My point focuses on Carrier's claim that Plutarch wrote that Osiris took on a body of flesh/incarnated into the sublunar realm. It's an important point for its resonances to passages in Paul. So even granted the above, my point still stands: no "body of flesh/incarnation" above the earth, only on it. How then to read Paul?

Still, as I wrote at the end of the OP: even if there was no incarnation, mythicism can still stand. But it won't be the same Minimal Mythicist Theory proposed by Carrier (see his Item 3), and I believe he'd need to rethink his approach.

Plut. De Iside 59: "But where Typhon forces his way in and seizes upon the outermost areas, there we may conceive of her as seeming sad, and spoken of as mourning, and that she seeks for the remains and scattered members of Osiris and arrays them, receiving and hiding away the things perishable, from which she brings to light again the things that are created and sends them forth from herself.
The relations and forms and effluxes of the God abide in the heavens and in the stars ; but those things that are distributed in susceptible elements, earth and sea and plants and animals, suffer dissolution and destruction and burial, and oftentimes again shine forth and appear again in their generations. For this reason the fable has it that Typhon cohabits with Nephthys1 and that Osiris has secret relations with her2; for the destructive power exercises special dominion over the outermost part of matter which they call Nephthys or Finality.3 But the creating [p. 143] and conserving power distributes to this only a weak and feeble seed, which is destroyed by Typhon, except so much as Isis takes up and preserves and fosters and makes firm and strong"

If I'm understanding Plutarch correctly here, I can see how this could be interpreted as Osiris's body being killed/dismembered in the "outermost areas" of matter. I think this is a passage where Plutarch describes Osiris as something similar to the logos. The "relations", "forms", and "effluxes" of Osiris abide in the heavens while the aspects that suffer dissolution and destruction i.e. his body, is associated with matter. Plutarch seems to be saying that the destructive power i.e. Typhon (who kills Osiris), is most powerful over the "outermost part of matter". I'm not quite sure what Plutarch means by "outermost part of matter". He could be talking about the "area" that is just above the earth? The "sub-lunar" realm?

[GakuseiDon]

If I'm understanding Plutarch correctly here, I can see how this could be interpreted as Osiris's body being killed/dismembered in the "outermost areas" of matter. I think this is a passage where Plutarch describes Osiris as something similar to the logos. The "relations", "forms", and "effluxes" of Osiris abide in the heavens while the aspects that suffer dissolution and destruction i.e. his body, is associated with matter. Plutarch seems to be saying that the destructive power i.e. Typhon (who kills Osiris), is most powerful over the "outermost part of matter". I'm not quite sure what Plutarch means by "outermost part of matter". He could be talking about the "area" that is just above the earth? The "sub-lunar" realm?

On the one hand, I don't want to derail the point of the OP. On the other hand, I love discussing this stuff!

Just to get it out of the way: from the point of my OP, do you see that part of Plutarch you quoted as supporting Carrier's statements:

• "Osiris actually descends, becomes incarnate in a body of flesh and is killed by Set up in the heavens", or
• "[Jesus] descending to assume the body of a man, possibly no further than sublunar space (as was the case for Osiris..."

Anyway, my points below are not connected to my OP!

Plutarch writes about the myths from various perspectives: Osiris as man on earth, Osiris as daemon, Osiris as god, Each one is seen through the lens of a general principle: Osiris is the main source, Isis is that which is made fertile from that source, and Typhon is the dissipater.

For example: Osiris = Nile, Isis = Vegetation generation from the waters of the Nile, Typhon = drought. But they represent terms that could be applied to anything: wind, sun, love, as per below: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... html#T366b

As they regard the Nile as the effusion of Osiris,​225 so they hold and believe the earth to be the body of Isis, not all of it, but so much of it as the Nile covers, fertilizing it and uniting with it.​226 From this union they make Horus to be born. The all-conserving and fostering Hora, that is the seasonable tempering of the surrounding air, is Horus, who they say was brought up by Leto in the marshes round about Buto;​227 for the watery and saturated land best nurtures Bthose exhalations which quench and abate aridity and dryness.

The outmost parts of the land beside the mountains and bordering on the sea the Egyptians call Nephthys. This is why they give to Nephthys the name of "Finality,"​228 and say that she is the wife of Typhon. Whenever, then, the Nile overflows and with abounding waters spreads far away to those who dwell in the outermost regions, they call this the union of Osiris with Nephthys,​229 which is proved by the upspringing of the plants. Among these is the melilotus,​230 by the wilting and failing of which, as the story goes, Typhon gained knowledge of the wrong done to his bed. CSo Isis gave birth to Horus in lawful wedlock, but Nephthys bore Anubis clandestinely. However, in the chronological lists of the kings they record that p95 Nephthys, after her marriage to Typhon, was at first barren. If they say this, not about a woman, but about the goddess, they must mean by it the utter barrenness and unproductivity of the earth resulting from a hard-baked soil.

39 1 The insidious scheming and usurpation of Typhon, then, is the power of drought, which gains control and dissipates the moisture which is the source of the Nile and of its rising

Then onto the page containing the passage you cited: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... is*/D.html

... assign to Isis the name of Earth and to Osiris the name of Love and to Typhon the name of Tartarus...

Some think the seed of Woman is not a power or origin, but only material and nurture of generation.​321 To this thought we should cling fast and conceive that this Goddess also who participates always with the first God and is associated with him in the love​322 of the fair and lovely things about him is not opposed to him, 375but, just as we say that an honourable and just man is in love if his relations are just, and a good woman who has a husband and consorts with him we say yearns for him; thus we may conceive of her as always clinging close to him and being importunate over him and constantly filled with the most dominant and purest principles. 59 1 But where Typhon forces his way in and seizes upon the outermost areas, there we may conceive of her as seeming sad, and spoken of as mourning, and that she seeks for the remains and scattered members of Osiris and arrays them, receiving and hiding away the things perishable, Bfrom which she brings to light again the things that are created and sends them forth from herself.

The relations and forms and effluxes of the god abide in the heavens and in the stars; but those things that are distributed in susceptible elements, earth and sea and plants and animals, suffer dissolution and destruction and burial, and oftentimes again shine forth and appear again in their generations. For this reason the fable has it that Typhon cohabits with Nephthys​323 and that Osiris has secret relations with her;​324 for the destructive power exercises special dominion over the outermost part of matter which they call Nephthys or Finality.​325 But the creating p143 and conserving power distributes to this only a weak and feeble seed, which is destroyed by Typhon, except so much as Isis takes up and preserves and fosters and makes firm and strong.326
...
they record that in the so‑called books of Hermes it is written in regard to the sacred names that they call the power which is assigned to direct the revolution of the Sun Horus, but the Greeks call it Apollo; and the power assigned to the wind some call Osiris and others p147 Serapis; 376and Sothis in Egyptian signifies "pregnancy" (cyesis) or "to be pregnant" (cyein): therefore in Greek, with a change of accent,​335 the star is called the Dog-star (Cyon), which they regard as the special star of Isis.

Finally, Plutarch tells us what's really going on!:

To put the matter briefly, it is not right to believe that water or the sun or the earth or the sky is Osiris or Isis;​343 or again that fire or drought or the sea is Typhon, but simply if we attribute to Typhon​344 whatever there is in these 377that is immoderate and disordered by reason of excesses or defects; and if we revere and honour what is orderly and good and beneficial as the work of Isis and as the image and reflection and reason of Osiris, we shall not be wrong.​

The last paragraph is the key. Anything can be rewritten as being about Osiris, Isis and Typhon. In the part which has "the outermost part of matter", it seems to refer to something affecting "earth and sea and plants and animals" which causes them to "suffer dissolution and destruction and burial", i.e. drought, or fire, or the sea. It's not anything happening purely in a sublunar realm, as it's something affecting the earth, sea, plants and animals. That's my 2 cents, anyway.

[nightshadetwine]

Just to get it out of the way: from the point of my OP, do you see that part of Plutarch you quoted as supporting Carrier's statements:

• "Osiris actually descends, becomes incarnate in a body of flesh and is killed by Set up in the heavens", or
• "[Jesus] descending to assume the body of a man, possibly no further than sublunar space (as was the case for Osiris..."

I think Plutarch is just giving a Platonic interpretation of the Osiris story. He's associating certain cosmic "forces" and occurrences in nature with the deities in the story. So in his interpretation, Osiris just represents certain forces and natural phenomena.

[GakuseiDon]

Just to get it out of the way: from the point of my OP, do you see that part of Plutarch you quoted as supporting Carrier's statements:

• "Osiris actually descends, becomes incarnate in a body of flesh and is killed by Set up in the heavens", or
• "[Jesus] descending to assume the body of a man, possibly no further than sublunar space (as was the case for Osiris..."

I think Plutarch is just giving a Platonic interpretation of the Osiris story. He's associating certain cosmic "forces" and occurrences in nature with the deities in the story. So in his interpretation, Osiris just represents certain forces and natural phenomena.

That's right. In those cases, there is no "descending". When Osiris is a man, he starts as a man. He doesn't descend from the heavens and become a man. When Osiris is a daemon, he starts as a daemon. He doesn't descend from the heavens to become a daemon. When he is presented as the Nile, he starts as the Nile. He doesn't descend from anywhere to become the Nile.

Also, the myth always contains (1) Osiris, (2) Isis and (3) Typhon. Sometimes Horus as well. I'd love to know what passage or passages Carrier is using to get his interpretation from, and whether he sees Isis also descending and becoming incarnate in a body of flesh.