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]
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]
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:
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]
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]
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.
[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
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...
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).
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
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.