Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Gday,

Bernard Muller wrote:to Kapyong,
Who do you know, before Doherty, described the air as the realm of FLESH, or part of the realm of FLESH?

Well, consider these quotes from the ancients who divided the sphere into two categories :

• Above the Moon
• Below the Moon

Cicero, The Dream of Scipio, 1st C.BC wrote: In the lowest Sphere the Moon revolves illumined by the rays of the Sun. Below [the Moon] in truth nothing exists which is not subject to death and decay, save indeed the Souls, which by the gift of the Gods are bestowed upon the human race. Above the Moon all things are eternal,

Plutarch, Isis and Osiris. 1st C. wrote: for 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

Plutarch, On the Failure of Oracles, 1st C. wrote: The power comes from the gods and demigods, but, for all that, it is not unfailing nor imperishable nor ageless, lasting into that infinite time by which all things between Earth and Moon become wearied out, according to our reasoning.

Philo, On Abraham, 1st C. wrote: ...the light in heaven is unalloyed and free from any admixture of darkness, but in the sublunary atmosphere it is mingled with dark air.

Philo, On the life of Moses, 1st C. wrote: Now of the three elements, out of which and in which all the different kinds of things which are perceptible by the outward senses and perishable are formed, namely, the Air, the water and the Earth, the garment which reached down to the feet in conjunction with the ornaments which were attached to that part of it which was about the ankles have been plainly shown to be appropriate symbols; for as the tunic is one, and as the aforesaid three elements are all of one species, since they all have all their revolutions and changes Beneath the Moon.

Pliny Elder, History 2, 1st C. wrote: Above the Moon all is pure and lightsome continually.

Chaldean Oracles, 2nd C. wrote: The Chaldæans assigned the place of the Image, the vehicle of the irrational soul, to the Lunar Sphere; it is probable that by the Lunar Sphere was meant something more than the orb of the Moon, the whole sublunary region, of which the terrestrial Earth is, as it were, the centre

Epiphanius, Panarion I, 4th C. wrote: As well [Pythagoras] distinguished between what is Above the Moon which he called immortal, and what is Below [the Moon], which he called mortal.

Epipanius, Panarion I, 4th C. wrote: Aristotle the son of Nicomachus [said] that things Above the Moon are subject to divine providence, but that what is Below the Moon is not ruled by providence but borne along by some unreasoned motion. But he says there are two worlds, the world above, and the world below, and that the world above is immortal while the world below is mortal.

Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica 15, 4th C. wrote: Aristotle: the part of the world Beneath the Moon may be affected by change, and the things terrestrial therein are doomed to perish.

Julian, On the Mother of the Gods, 4th C. wrote: Attis, therefore, the intelligible Power, the holder together of things material Below the Moon, having intercourse with the pre-ordained Cause of Matter, holds intercourse therewith, not as a male with a female, but as though flowing into it, since he is the same with it.

Sallust, On the Gods and the World, 5th C. wrote: Fortune has power Beneath the Moon, since Above the Moon no single thing can happen by fortune.

This gives a picture like so, not from NASA, from Kapyong :


This gives a clear picture that above and below the moon was a definite division - and the description of below the moon perfectly fits with what can be called 'flesh', with the above being 'spirit'.


More to follow ...

Gday all,

Following on from above, next we consider how the Air is between the Moon and the Earth :

Philo, On the Creation, 1st C. wrote: For the Air is in a manner spread above the empty space, since having mounted up it entirely fills all that open, and desolate, and empty place, which reaches down to us from the regions Below the Moon.

Plutarch, On the Failure of Oracles, 1st C. wrote: Now if the Air that is between the Earth and the Moon were to be removed and withdrawn, the unity and consociation of the universe would be destroyed, since there would be an empty and unconnected space in the middle;

Nag Hammadi, Asclepius wrote: Listen, Asclepius! There is a great demon. The great God has appointed him to be overseer or judge over the souls of men. And God has placed him in the middle of the Air, between Earth and heaven. Now when the soul comes forth from (the) body, it is necessary that it meet this daimon.

(Note the demon of the Air - like the Prince of Powers of the Air who crucified Jesus.)

The sublunar sphere is distinct :

Porphyry, On Images, 3rd C. wrote: There are also nine Muses singing to his lyre, which are the (one) sublunar sphere, and seven spheres of the planets, and one of the fixed stars.

The Air is a separate region with layers (at least upper and lower) just beneath the Moon, and adjacent to the Earth :

Philo, The Special Laws, 1st C. wrote: the rulers being all the bodies which are in heaven, such as planets and fixed stars; and the subjects being all the natures Beneath the Moon, hovering in the Air and adjacent to the Earth.

Plutarch, The Plays of Homer, 1st C. wrote: The top part of the Air is finer and more distant from the Earth and its exhalations.

Julian, The Caesars, 4th C. wrote: But just Below the Moon in the upper Air he had decided to entertain the Emperors.

So there is a region of Air just beneath the Moon, with at least two layers, giving a picture like so :



This gives us two themes :

• below the moon is corruptible
• below the moon is Air, (then Earth)

Combine these two ideas together and we get the Air being in the realm of corruption and change - i.e. 'fleshly'.

Kapyong

Gday all,

Following on from above - what happened in the Air ?

Philo, On Dreams, 1st C. wrote: This Air is the abode of incorporeal souls, since it seemed good to the Creator of the universe to fill all the parts of the world with living creatures. On this account he prepared the terrestrial animals for the Earth, the aquatic animals for the sea and for the rivers, and the stars for the heaven; for every one of these bodies is not merely a living animal, but is also properly described as the very purest and most universal mind extending through the universe; so that there are living creatures in that other section of the universe, the Air.

Philo, On the Giants, 1st C. wrote: Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels; and they are souls hovering in the Air.
...
It is therefore necessary that the Air also should be full of living beings. And these beings are invisible to us, inasmuch as the Air itself is not visible to mortal sight.

Plutarch, On the face in the Moon 28, 1st C. wrote: All souls, whether without mind or with it, when it has issued from the body is destined to wander in the region between Earth and Moon but not for an equal time.

Lucan, 1st C. wrote: 205 Now darkness came upon their wondering gaze, Now daylight pale and wan, their helmets wreathed In pallid mist; the spirits of their sires Hovered in Air, and shades of kindred dead Passed flitting through the gloom.

Testament of Solomon, 1st-5th C. wrote: Testament of Solomon, son of David, who was king in Jerusalem, and mastered and controlled all spirits of the Air, on the Earth, and under the Earth.

Augustine, City of God, 4th C. wrote: And these fables mystically signified that Juno was mistress of the Air, which they suppose to be inhabited by the demons and the heroes, understanding by heroes the souls of the well-deserving dead. But for a quite opposite reason would we call our martyrs heroes,--supposing, as I said, that the usage of ecclesiastical language would admit of it,--not because they lived along with the demons in the Air, but because they conquered these demons or powers of the Air,

We can see that the Air is filled with demons and spirits and the souls of the dead. Actions occur there to do with death, punishment and rebirth. And there are things in the Air as well :

Plutarch, Vision of Arideus, 1st C. wrote: when the souls of the dead come up from below, they form a fiery bubble as they cleave the air; ...
...
Moreover, he said, there were certain lakes that lay parallel and equidistant one from the other, the one of boiling gold, another of lead, exceeding cold, and the third of iron, which was very scaly and rugged. By the sides of these lakes stood certain Daemons, that with their instruments, like smiths or founders, put in or drew out the souls of such as had transgressed either through avarice or an eager desire of other men’s goods....
...
The last thing he saw was the souls being modified for rebirth. They were being wrenched and reshaped into all kinds of living creatures by specialist artisans, who were using a combination of tools and blows to join and force together some parts, twist others back, and obliterate and eliminate others altogether, so as to make the souls fit different characteristics and ways of life. And he saw among the others Nero's soul, which was in a bad way, not least because it had been run through with red-hot nails.

Macarius Magnes, Apocritus, 4th C. wrote: So invisible spirits which flew in the Air, which Isaiah sang of as flying serpents, demanded white and transparent sacrifices of birds, seeing that the Air chances to be bright, and filled with light for the manifestation of the things that are below.

So the Air is filled with demons and spirits, it is a region of corruption and decay, and actions happen there to do with death and rebirth - sounds just like the Carrier/Doherty thesis to me.

Kapyong

Gday,

bcedaifu wrote:

Kapyong, describing the epistles of 'Paul' wrote:We know, fairly well, that they date to sometime in the first century.

Nah, that's not right friend. Nope. Not at all. Please show me ONE piece of evidence supporting the claim that 'Paul' wrote anything in the first century.....
ONE piece. That's all I ask for. Good luck with that.

How about Paul sneaking out of Damascus during the reign of Aretas IV (2 Corinthians 11:32-33)

bcedaifu wrote:It is very difficult to produce authentic documents, especially from phantoms. 'Paul' wrote in the late second century, not the first, well AFTER, the gospels had been created. Personally, my money is on Origen of Alexandria, as author 'Paul'.

OK, what evidence do you have that Paul was written by Origen ?
Please show me ONE piece of evidence supporting that claim.
How do you explain Paul's silence on Gospel stories ?


Kapyong

Gday,

outhouse wrote:No use trying to complicate the matter, think too deep, or over anylize it. Critical examination is fine, but as it stands the man has more then enough historicity to determine a Galilean walked and taught taking over Johns movement.

But yet, when examined closely, the alleged evidence fades away like mist in the morning sun...


Kapyong

Gday all,

Earlier, GakuseiDon quoted from the Latin text :

AofI wrote:[11.2] And I saw one like a son of man, dwelling among men, and in the world, and they did not know him.

I can confirm my copy of Charlesworth has this passage.

andrewcriddle wrote: FWIW Vision of Isaiah provides an English version of the short Latin/Slavonic text form.
Andrew Criddle

Checking this I also see the passage at chapter 6 :

AofI wrote:[6.2] And I saw one like a son of man, dwelling among men, and in the world, and they did not know him.

(Note that this is where the other MSS breaks into a mini-Gospel about Jesus, Joseph and Mary etc.)

So it does rather look like a descent to earth, even if described very briefly. I have to agree with GakuseiDon - this does look like a document describing a descent to earth rather than to the Air beneath the Moon.

Kapyong

outhouse wrote:the man has more then enough historicity to determine a Galilean walked and taught taking over Johns movement.

The same method of argument was once used to prove the Exodus really happened -- at an abnormally low tide. And the same method to prove that Jesus really did "walk on water" -- he was on a sand-bank and it was dark and disciples mistook him for being on deep water.

The method is called rationalisation of the narrative. There is not one whit of evidence in the gospels that Jesus "took over" John's movement. The simplest explanation of the narratives as we have them is that John's preaching is created as a literary foil. If you want to go beyond the narrative and assume a whole lot of other stuff then that is complicating the question. Simplest explanation is to look at the literary evidence and its literary sources and in the absence of any other controls to go with those.

Gospel fiction in other words.

So I'm reading Chapter 9, Part 4, p.375-78... on the supposed lack of historical Jesus references in Paul's trial scenes in Acts (as though that's somehow a big deal). Carrier spends the entire chapter dismissing Acts as historical fiction. Which is fair enough. I think most scholars realise that. But then in this section he tries to argue that these trial scenes may contain historical nuggets because they don't seem like the kind of thing Luke would make up - e.g. Carrier: "One argument for this being the case is the remarkable disparity between these trial accounts, and speeches and sermons that take place elsewhere. If Luke were simply fabricating the whole thing, these accounts should be consistent..." (p.378)


... Hang on... Isn't this the Criteria of Dissimilarity?? Carrier spent his whole last book complaining how unproductive such criteria is, but now it's OK for him to use??

I'm enjoying this book. It's definitely the best mythicist book out there. But when I read parts like this (and there have been numerous similar examples) I still feel he's being just as inconsistent (if not more so) in his methodology as those he criticizes when attempting to argue for his 'heavenly realm crucifixion' hypothesis. If he's not going to allow other scholars to look for historical nuggets in the gospels and acts using the Criteria of Dissimilarity (despite their overall unreliable qualities), then he should be consistent and deny himself the privilege.

The Crow wrote:Gospel fiction in other words.

No. Certainly not. "Gospel fiction" is a conclusion, not an assumption as you seem to presume is behind the argument.

I am addressing the fundamental method of approaching any ancient literature and various sources. It is only in biblical studies that theology and traditional assumptions underpinning a theological view of history that we find the set up of its own unique methods that are grounded the assumptions of this theological view of history.

We see a document containing a narrative. Do we just assume that the narrative should be rationalized as genuine history or based on history? On what grounds should we make such an assumption? How does it work in other areas of ancient history? I don't think very many have ever stopped to think through this question.