| Kirby's blog and sundry essays about early Christianity. |
Christian Origins is dedicated to publishing articles distinguished by their attention to detail and reasoned approach. A gamut of viewpoints are presented in essays by laymen and scholars. Send an e-mail to Peter Kirby with ideas for an article or book review. Thanks! |
Review of Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle"
by Bernard Muller (Sep. 13, 2004)
Bernard Muller is the author of a commendable website titled Jesus, A Historical Reconstruction.
This page is out of date. Please go to Bernard's website for the latest and greatest. I am keeping this up only because it is in the search engines. Please update your links to point to Bernard's site.
Doherty has a response to Bernard Muller's critique here.
1. General introduction:
Some months ago, Peter Kirby asked me to
write a review of Earl's book (subtitled
'Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?').
At that time I had some acquaintance with
the mythicist theories: I read most of Earl's
web site and due to my participation on the
"Jesus Mysteries" list, I got into
two debates with Doherty himself. But I never
read his book, that is until I did it a few
weeks ago.
But first, let me present myself: I am an
ex-Christian, now a humanist, but also certain a
(little and rather embarrassing) "historical
Jesus" existed. Why? Because of years
of independent research, mostly based on
the primary evidence. Following that, I generated
an extensive book-sized web site, titled
Jesus, a historical reconstruction, which also includes many related issues.
I also want to say I am not a scholar and
my knowledge of ancient languages is close
to be not existent. But in view of their many
different opinions & theories, scholars
may not be the best qualified to work on
the "(a)historical Jesus"! And
I do care about translations: I use all the
tools at my disposal to avoid errors. For
more information about me and my methodology,
please consult this page. Now let's go back to Doherty's The Jesus
Puzzle.
From my standpoint, there are many things
I agree with Earl about early Christianity.
Among them, heavenly "myths" (&
others), imports from the Old Testament & Hellenism,
the Platonic/Philoic influence, the progressive
& dissimilar development of Christian
beliefs and, above all, the non-existence
of a historic Jesus. On these items, 'the Jesus Puzzle'
makes good points, more so against a
Jesus starting single-handily either a religion,
sect or movement through his own preaching
or/and deeds. No wonder Christian scholars,
from conservative to liberal, are reluctant
to engage Doherty!
However, I do not intend here to review the
points of agreement, not even all the ones
I oppose: that would be too much of a task.
Rather, I will concentrate on the main items
of divergence: the crucifixion in some lower
"fleshy" heaven and the denial
of an earthly Jesus. Therefore I will proceed
towards debunking Earl's related arguments
by revealing the lack of evidence behind
his key hypotheses. Furthermore, I will present
primary data (unmentioned in the book!),
all of which very damaging for Doherty's
theories, but pointing to a flesh & blood
Jesus crucified on earth (even Jerusalem!).
And all of that by consulting mainly Paul's
authentic epistles ('Romans', '1&2Corinthians',
'Galatians', 'Philippians', '1Thessalonians'
& 'Philemon') and 'Hebrews' (both Earl
& I agree on those being pre-gospels).
Note: among the other points of divergence, I explained my position on "Q" (a stratified "Q" is capital for Doherty's overall "reconstruction") and the gospels, concerning dating and make up (follow the internal links for dating through the internal evidence). See also this page of mine for the post-crucifixion "beginning of Christianity".
2. Who crucified Jesus and where did that
happen?
Let's go over this by looking primarily at
chapter 10 (Who Crucified Jesus?), pages
95-108. The subject is also on Earl's web
site, as "Supplementary Articles - No. 3", same title but different verbose. Later
I will address Doherty's arguments on 'Hebrews'.
2.1. Higher and Lower Worlds:
In chapter 3, there is a brief section where
Doherty comments on the two worlds concept
in the Platonic mind: the upper one (above
the earth), domain of the spiritual and the
invisible, and the lower one, mainly earthly,
perishable and unperfected.
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)
That comes after 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.
And the question remains: how could a descendant
of David not be considered an earthly human?
More so because Doherty admitted earlier
Moses and Abraham (an ancestor of David!)
were thought to have lived on earth. And
according to the OT, David himself had many
male descendants, the royal ones certainly
described to be flesh & blood men. Why
would the "Messiah" Jesus be different?
In his epistles, did Paul explain a "Son
of David" does not have to be born on
earth? The answer is NO.
Note: on pages 99-100, Doherty writes: "The absorption of the spiritual power
generated by the Deity and his acts is accomplished
through a pattern of "likeness." Here is the way Paul puts it in Romans 6:5:
"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"!). And Earl arbitrarily takes Paul's explained imagery (used by the apostle in order to make a
point -- 6:12-14) as if it were mythical
statements: the "parallel" death of Christians
is not a true death, but their baptism, considered
here by Paul as terminating a prior sinful
life, as stated in the preceding verse:
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!
2.2. The higher world of Attis, Mithras and
Osiris:
On page 98, Doherty postulates "In this higher world, the myths of the mystery cults and of earliest
Christianity were placed. Here the savior god Attis had been castrated, here Mithras had slain the bull, here Osiris had been dismembered ..."
Is is true? Let's now examine the stories
of Attis, Mithras and Osiris. Because I am
not an expert on ancient mythology, I'll
rely on the writings of others.
2.2.1 Attis:
As drawn from this web site:
"The story goes that when one of Zeus'
would-be sex partners rejected him, Zeus
wouldn't take no for an answer. While his
victim, Cybele, slept, the great philanderer
spilled his seed on her. In time she gave
birth to Agdistis, a hermaphroditic demon
so strong and wild, the other gods grew afraid.
In their terror they cut off his male sexual
organ and from its blood sprang an almond
tree.
The river Sangarius had a daughter named
Nana who ate the fruit of this almond tree.
When, as a result, she delivered a boy child nine months later, she put the child aside to be exposed.
But infant death was not to be his fate.
Taken care of by the shepherds, he soon became healthy and handsome --
so handsome his grandmother, Cybele, fell
in love with him.
The boy, Attis, wasn't aware of Cybele's
love, but what would it have mattered? In
time, he saw the king of Pessinus' beautiful daughter, fell in love, and wished to marry her.
The goddess who grew insanely jealous and
angry, drove Attis mad for revenge. Running
crazy through the mountains, he stopped at the foot of a pine-tree. There, while he rested, he castrated and
killed himself. From his blood sprang violets while the tree took care of his spirit.
Body and spirit might have been safe, but
still his flesh would have decayed had not Zeus stepped in to aid Cybele in
Attis' resurrection."
Here I do not see Attis in any upper world:
he lives on earth! And he castrates himself.
I also wonder how Doherty considers Attis
as a savior god (if not through only a 4th century author, emperor Julian "the Apostate"
--p.104). PS: some primary evidence against Earl's speculations:
Despite the variations in the legend, according to Julian "the Apostate" (a favorite author of Doherty!), Attis appears, grows up and lives on earth (no castration in some upper world, as Earl's claims!). From Julian's 'Oration upon the Mother of the Gods' (Orations V) (262-263):
"... him [Attis] who, as fable tells, was exposed by the side of the streams of the river Gallos, and there grew up, and afterwards, when he had got tall and handsome, became the favourite of the Mother of the Gods [Cybele], and she committed to his care all other things, and placed upon his head the star-bespangled cap. ... the Mother of the Gods allowed this minion of her's to leap about and dance ... he [Attis] is said in the fable to have descended into the cave ["of the earth" (280)], and conversed with the nymph
[then had intercourse with her (265), then castrated himself (after realizing he betrayed his love for Cybele by loosing his virginity! 264), then (resurrection) "returning, as it were, out of the bowels of the earth" (270)] ..."
Note: however, on page 104, Doherty writes about: "(in Orations V, 165) Attis' descent to the lowest spirit level prior to matter, undergoing his death by castration ..."
But, in Julian's writing, the "descent" (263,266,269,270,280) is into a cave (on earth!), as I just exposed, and the starting point is earth!
And, much earlier, around 150CE, this is what Pausanias wrote in 'Description of Greece', 7, 17, 9-13:
"The people of Dyme have a temple of Athena with an extremely ancient image; they have as well a sanctuary built for the Dindymenian mother and Attis. As to Attis, I could learn no secret about him, but Hermesianax, the elegiac poet, says in a poem that he was the son of Galaus the Phrygian, and that he was a eunuch from birth. The account of Hermesianax goes on to say that, on growing up, Attis migrated to Lydia and celebrated for the Lydians the orgies of the Mother; that he rose to such honor with her that Zeus, being wroth at it, sent a boar to destroy the tillage of the Lydians. Then certain Lydians, with Attis himself, were killed by the boar, and it is consistent with this that the Gauls who inhabit Pessinus abstain from pork. But the current view about Attis is different [the legend then got considerably embellished!],
the local legend about him being this. Zeus, it is said, let fall in his sleep seed upon the ground, which in course of time sent up a demon, with two sexual organs, male and female. They call the demon Agdistis. But the gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ. There grew up from it an almond-tree with its fruit ripe, and a daughter of the river Sangarius, they say, took of the fruit and laid it in her bosom, when it at once disappeared, but she was with child [virgin conception!]. A boy was born, and exposed, but was tended by a he-goat. As he grew up his beauty was more than human, and Agdistis fell in love with him. When he had grown up, Attis was sent by his relatives to Pessinus, that he might wed the king's daughter. The marriage-song was being sung, when Agdistis appeared, and Attis went mad and cut off his genitals, as also did he who was giving him his daughter in marriage. But Agdistis repented of what he had done to Attis, and persuaded Zeus to grant that the body of Attis should neither rot at all nor decay [resurrection?].
These are the most popular forms of the legend of Attis. ..."
2.2.2 Mithras:
The story of Mithras is more confusing, composite
and not well known. It shows a lot of evolution (and differentiations)
from its origin in Persia to the Roman cults
in the 2nd & 3rd century, when various forms of Mithraism
became very popular. Greek scholar Plutarch and Italian poet Statius, both writing around 80CE, are the first known western authors to mention it. The later described Mithras as one who "twists the unruly horns beneath the rocks of a Persian cave" (Thebaid 1.719-20). Many tales about Mithras can be contemplated but the following rendition of the legend appears to be fairly middle of the road. From this web site (Wikipedia):
"Mithra was born of a mother-rock by a river under a
tree. He came into the world with the Phrygian
cap on his head (hence his designation as
Pileatus, the Capped One), and a knife in
his hand. It is said that shepherds watched his birth.
The hero-god first gives battle to the sun,
conquers him, crowns him with rays and makes
him his eternal friend and fellow; nay, the
sun becomes in a sense Mithra's double, or
again his father, but Helios Mithras is one
god. Then follows the struggle between Mithra
and the bull, the central motif of Mithraism.
Ahura Mazda had created the wild bull (see
aurochs), which Mithra pursued, overcame,
and dragged into his cave. This wearisome journey with the struggling
bull towards the cave is the symbol of man's
troubles on earth. Unfortunately, the bull
escapes from the cave, whereupon Ahura Mazda
sends a crow with a message to Mithra to find and slay
it. Mithra reluctantly obeys, and plunges
his dagger into the bull as it returns to
the cave. Strange to say, from the body of
the dying bull proceeds all wholesome plants
and herbs that cover the earth, from his
spinal marrow the corn, from his blood the
vine, etc.
The power of evil sends his unclean creatures
to prevent or poison these productions but
in vain. From the bull proceed all useful
animals, and the bull, resigning itself to death, is transported to the heavenly spheres. Man is now created and subjected to the
malign influence of Ahriman in the form of
droughts, deluges, and conflagrations, but
is saved by Mithra.
Finally man is well established on earth and Mithra returns to heaven. He celebrates a last supper with Helios
and his other companions, is taken in his
fiery chariot across the ocean, and now in
heaven protects his followers. For the struggle
between good and evil continues in heaven
between the planets and stars, and on earth
in the heart of man."
The story is fairly
disjointed and appears to be a combination
of Persian legends with accretions from Hellenism,
Christianity, Gnosticism, etc., making it the
basis of a complex mystery cult with earthly
& cosmic elements. And let's not forget
also that the specifics about "Roman" Mithraism are known to us from few
texts & varied visual representations (appearing not earlier than the late 1st
century)! But it looks Mithras is born on
earth and slays the bull here, at least originally.
For further info about Mithraism, I recommend this extensive web site.
2.2.3 Osiris:
There are many variations on the story about
Osiris and Isis. I got this simplified one
from this web site:
"From Geb, the sky god, and Nut, the
earth goddess came four children: Osiris,
Isis, Set and Nepthys. Osiris was the oldest
and so became king of Egypt, and he married his sister Isis. Osiris
was a good king and commanded the respect of all who lived
on the earth and the gods who dwelled in
the netherworld. However, Set was always
jealous of Osiris, because he did not command
the respect of those on earth or those in
the netherworld. One day, Set transformed
himself into a vicious monster and attacked Osiris, killing him. Set then cut Osiris into pieces and distributed
them throughout the length and breadth of Egypt. With Osiris dead, Set became king of Egypt,
with his sister Nepthys as his wife. Nepthys,
however, felt sorry for her sister Isis,
who wept endlessly over her lost husband.
Isis, who had great magical powers, decided
to find her husband and bring him back to
life long enough so that they could have
a child. Together with Nepthys, Isis roamed the country, collecting the pieces of her husband’s
body and reassembling them. Once she completed
this task, she breathed the breath of life
into his body and resurrected him. They were
together again, and Isis became pregnant
soon after. Osiris was able to descend into the underworld,
where he became the lord of that domain."
Here again, the story of Osiris & Isis
occurs on earth and not in some higher world.
Note: I have primary evidence later on this
page indicating Osiris was believed alive and later killed & dismembered on earth (from Plutarch's Isis & Osiris, written
80-100CE). Here are two samples, from the aforementioned writing:
Section 13 "One of the first acts related of Osiris in his reign was to deliver the Egyptians from their destitute and brutish manner
of living. This he did by showing them the
fruits of cultivation, by giving them laws,
and by teaching them to honour the gods.
Later he travelled over the whole earth civilizing it without the slightest need
of arms, but most of the peoples he won over to his way
by the charm of his persuasive discourse ..."
Section 16 "... The traditional result of Osiris' dismemberment is that there are many so-called tombs of Osiris in Egypt; for Isis held a funeral for each part when she had found it."
So how can Doherty claim "In this higher world, the myths of the mystery cults and of earliest
Christianity were placed. Here the savior god Attis had been castrated, here Mithras had slain the bull, here Osiris had been dismembered ..."?
2.3. The rulers of this age:
Doherty is making a center piece of 1Corinthians2:6-8,
trying to demonstrate that for Paul "the rulers" are heavenly authorities. However his main
argument comes from epistles ('Ephesians'
& 'Colossians') not written by Paul but
later by others, as stated by Earl himself
(p.13). This would nullify his argumentation: pseudo-Pauline letters simply cannot be trusted to represent Paul's thoughts & beliefs.
And Paul never specified "the rulers" ('archon') as heavenly powers, but once (Ro13:3) described them as "down to earth" authorities!
Here is my viewpoint on this matter. But first, let's look at the verse in question:
1Co2:8 NKJV "None of the rulers ['archon'] of this age understood
it [God's wisdom], for if they had, they would not have crucified
the Lord of glory."
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. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing."
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.
2.4. Descending gods:
Doherty goes back on theorizing. To supply
some evidence, he calls on two 4th century writers, Sallustius and emperor Julian "the
Apostate"; but they lived no less than
three centuries after Paul!
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?
Note: on my next page (about Jesus' humanity), I have more evidenced criticism against Earl's interpretation of 'kata sarka'.
Nowhere in this section (pages 103-105) Doherty
proves a mythical theme existed during Paul's
times about "descending gods".
Actually, even if Earl claims "the concept of the "descending
redeemer" seems to have been a persuasive idea during the
era", he has to admit next "the evidence for the pre-Christian period
is patchy and much debated." And Doherty does not provide any example!
Certainly, there were many stories about
the Greek gods descending/ascending, in different
human forms, but it is from the top of high
places, like mount Olympus, to the earth below.
Earl appears to agree: "To undergo such things ["pain, blood, death"], the god had to come down to humanity's territory." However later, he theorizes this "humanity's territory" was thought to include the air between earth
and moon. Really! Were human beings living
there? Which ones settled in the air?
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?
Note: as I will show later, the Jewish scriptures
and the NT consider the domain of the clouds
and the flying birds as part of the heavens.
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!
After quoting Php2:6-11 "... Bearing the human likeness, revealed in human shape, he humbled himself, and in obedience accepted
even death ..." (NEB), Earl remarks that "this divinity took on a likeness to
base, material form, but never does it say
that he became an actual man, much less give
him a life on earth."
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?
Furthermore Paul wrote Jesus had been a man (as Adam),
without any word invoking "likeness":
1Co15:21-22 Darby "For since by man [came] death, by man also resurrection of [those that are] dead. For as in the Adam all die, thus also in the Christ all shall be made alive."
Ro5:15 Darby "... much rather has the grace of God,
and the free gift in grace, which [is] by
the one man Jesus Christ, abounded unto the many."
And because the Son is an eternal heavenly entity
for Paul, then expressions like "human likeness" and "human shape" would be expected in order to describe the
incarnation as atypical/abnormal/temporary.
a) See Jewish author Philo of Alexandria,
(died 45-50), 'On dreams', I, (238) "God at times assumes the likeness of the angels, as he sometimes assumes even
that of men"
b) See Philo 'Questions and answers on Genesis',
I, (92) "... these giants were sprung from ... angels and mortal women; for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and
then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume
the human shape; [and then fathered children with mortal women on earth (extrapolated from Ge6:4):] as they did on this occasion, when forming connexions with women for the production of giants."
c) See Acts14:11-12 NKJV "Now when the people saw what Paul had
done, they raised their voices, saying in
the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker."
d) See 4:2-3 of 'the Ascension of Isaiah'
(quoted next in 2.5.1.2) where Beliar (Satan),
from the firmament, comes down to earth as
Nero (through an earthly mother!) "in the likeness of a man".
e) See Tatian (around 165), 'Address to the
Greeks', chapter XXI:
"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor
utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man."
f) See Melito of Sardis (160-177):
"On these accounts He came to us; on
these accounts, though He was incorporeal,
He formed for Himself a body after our fashion ... being carried in the womb of Mary, yet
arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading
upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing
as an infant ..."
"This is He who took a bodily form in the Virgin, and was hanged upon the tree,
and was buried within the earth ..."
2.5. The descent of the Son:
For Doherty, the main evidence about a descending
Son/god is "in a Jewish/Christian piece of writing
called the Ascension of Isaiah". He asserts "here we can find corroboration for
this picture of a divine Son who descends
into the lower reaches of the heavens to be crucified by the demon spirits."
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 3:13-4:22). Let's review them:
a) 9:13 "... He has descended and been made
in your form [Isaiah], and they will think that He is flesh and is a man."
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 (11:14).
d) 11:17 "And I saw: In Nazareth He sucked the
breast as a babe and as is customary in order
that He might not be recognized." (Jesus does not require food: typical 2nd
century Docetism)
Note: the Christian interpolations look very
much dependant on the gospels, more so Matthew's
(and very likely Peter's, written in the 2nd century):
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 Nazareth
in Galilee."
f) 11:19-20 "... they delivered Him to the king, and
crucified Him ... In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree" (in true Docetist fashion, Isaiah is substituted
to Jesus on the cross! For Gnostic Basilides (120-140),
it is Simon of Cyrene --Irenaeus, AH, I,
24, 4)
2.5.1.2. The following passage strongly alludes to
Nero executing Peter (64-68). But the martyrdom
of Peter under Nero appears in Christian
literature not earlier than towards the end of
the second century!
4:2-3 "After it is consummated, Beliar 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 in the likeness
of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother [Agrippina]: who himself (even) this king will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the
Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into
his hands."
2.5.1.3. Here is a clear expression of the Trinity, which, outside pertaining to baptism(s), became documented only in the latter part of the second century:
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."
2.5.1.4. In his vision, when in the 7th heaven, Isaiah sees "holy Abel", Adam and Seth (chapter 9). This is very much Gnostic, more so for Seth, a minor figure in the OT, but most important in second century Christian Gnosticism, as evidenced in the Apocryphon of John (120-180). Also in the aforementioned work are the "seven heavens", a belief shared by the many Gnostic followers of Valentinus (120-160). Furthermore, none of the named "righteous" alive in the highest heaven are Jews and the God there has no "Jewish" hints (Isaiah is not even presented to him!). He is like the universal God of the main Gnostics (Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, etc.). And according to Irenaeus, the doctrine of the Gnostic Ophites & Sethians incorporated a descent through the seven heavens (to earth!) by Christ taking different forms along the way ('Against Heresies', I, XXX, 12).
But do the Christian additions confirm that
the Son gets crucified "into the lower reaches of the heavens", as Earl contends? Let's look at the evidence.
2.5.2 Where is the Son crucified in 'the
Ascension of Isaiah'?
It is obvious that in chapter 11 the crucifixion
occurs in Jerusalem (11:19-20 previously
quoted). But what about the other Christian passages?
a) 3:13-4:22: "the children of Israel" "torture" the Son and have him "crucified with wicked men" and then "buried in the sepulchre"(3:17). It does not look we are in the lower
reaches of the heavens here, with the demon
spirits! Then we have "the twelve [disciples] who were with Him" (3:14) "will teach all the nations and every
tongue of the resurrection" (3:18. According to Ac2:4-41). This is earth!
b) 9:13-17: that's the key passage for Doherty.
Note: according to him (no reason given!), it is one of two passages which "seem" to come from an "earlier strata" and written "probably towards the end of the first century".
But in it we read:
9:16-17 "[After "they will crucify Him on a tree" (9:14)] And when He hath plundered the angel of
death, He will ascend on the third day, ... And then many of the righteous will ascend with Him, whose spirits do not receive their garments
till the Lord Christ ascend and they ascend with Him."
These righteous can only be dead ones (under
the guard of "the angel of death"). So the joint ascension of "the Lord Christ" and those righteous has to start from earth
(at the highest!).
Let's note that on page 96, Doherty places
Sheol in the underworld but still maintains, ten pages later: "... this Son is to descend to the lower world, where he will be killed and rise, rescuing the souls of the righteous dead from Sheol as he reascends to the highest heaven."
My questions to Earl: where is that "lower world", in which the Son is killed and then rises? From where are the righteous ascending?
Are they not ascending with the Son?
However Doherty claims "Thus the crucifixion is something perpetrated
by the supernatural powers and takes place in the spiritual world." And earlier, on the same page (p.107), he
wrote "To undergo his fate, the Son will descend
to the firmament where Satan and his evil
angels dwell."
I replied to that already. But there is still
more evidence against Doherty's assertions.
Let's reveal them by answering these questions:
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, and He was like one of them. And He gave
no password; for one was plundering and doing
violence to another."
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, but to Haguel [hell] you will not go."
Notes:
a) In the two closest previous occurrences
of "that world", at 9:20 & 9:26, the expression means
"earth" only.
- 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 Israel were written therein, and the deeds of those
whom I know (not), my son Josab. And I said: "In truth, there is nothing
hidden in the seventh heaven, which is done in this world [earth again].""
- 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 9:20 to 10:7 are for (only) the earth. Why would the next "world" (at 10:8) mean the firmament or the air below it? More so when, in the 'Ascension of Isaiah', the firmament (or the air below) is never considered a world on its own!
b) Scholar Richard Carrier, in his critique
on this article of mine, admits the Son goes
through the (main) firmament, according to
"Ascension of Isaiah' (10:29-31, previously
quoted):
"The aer [air] 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)."
- But there is nothing in 'Ascension of Isaiah'
suggesting the Son stops in mid-air and the
author thought about the waters of Genesis.
And the lower waters, that Richard is alluding
to, are the seas, on earth, not hanging
between the later and the moon.
Darby 1:9-10: "And God said, Let the waters under
the heavens be gathered together to one place,
and let the dry [land] appear. And it was
so. And God called the dry [land] Earth,
and the gathering together of the waters he called
Seas."
- Would the alleged Docetist inspiration
date this particular passage well into the
2nd century?
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. According to an arrangement between
Satan and God, Satan is allowed to test Job
and to destroy everything dear to him (his
cattle, servants and children).
a) 1:15: Satan employs the Sabeans to steal
animals and to kill servants.
b) 1:16: Satan sends fire from the sky and
burns sheep & servants.
c) 1:17: Satan uses the Chaldeans to take
the camels and to murder servants.
d) 1:18-19: Satan arranges for a mighty wind
to kill Job's own daughters and sons.
And the Christian interpolator probably knew
about 'Job'. Let's consider:
Job1:11 NKJV ""But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he [Job] has, and he will surely curse You to Your
face!" And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold,
all that he has is in your power; only do
not lay a hand on his person." So Satan
went out from the presence of the LORD."
and, from 'the Ascension of Isaiah':
9:14 "And the god of that world [Satan] will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is."
Note: here, Satan will eventually identify the Son and take action against him; but the "they", who are the ones actually doing the "hanging", do not know him! It does not look Satan and the others belong to the same clique! But, according to the synoptic gospels, the Romans would qualify for the "they"!
2.5.5. Satan and his evil angels can also
be on earth:
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.""
and 'the Ascension of Isaiah':
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] ..."
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. And as above so on the earth also ..."
Note: in the gospels, 'Satan on earth' is featured in the 'temptation in the desert' (Mt4:1-11,Lk4:1-14) and Lk22:3 (NIV "Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, ...", enabling the arrest leading to the crucifixion).
So all the main arguments of Doherty for
a crucifixion in some demonic lower heaven,
as appearing in his section "the descent
of the Son" in chapter 10, are unfounded.
And that goes against the evidence from the
ancient text of Earl's own choosing!
Note: in his meandering fuzzy discussion in order
to suggest Jesus is crucified on the firmament
(despite the clear-cut evidence against it!)
Doherty lacks accuracy (purposely?):
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. And as we saw, no hanging
occurs when the Son is going down through
the firmament.
b) Also on page 107, Earl affirms "As in 1 Corinthians 2:8 and Colossians
2:15, one of the Son's tasks will be the
conquest of the demon spirits." However, '1Corinthians' does not say that
at all:
1Co2:8 (NKJV): "None of the rulers of this age understood
it [God's wisdom], for if they had, they would not have crucified
the Lord of glory." Nowhere here there is a mention of conquest
of spirits. Col2:15 does say it (but not
written by Paul, according to Earl, myself
and many critical scholars).
c) Doherty keeps referring to the analogies
(true or not!) with 1Co2:8. Did he occur
to him the authors(s) of 'Ascension
of Isaiah' may have known about Paul's epistle?
Remark: according to Doherty, "Mark"
just replaced the flying demons of 'Ascension
of Isaiah' "by new, humanized demons: the Jews."!
d) On page 96, Earl places Sheol below earth
(as believed in antiquity):
"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: 3:13-4:22]
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!
2.6. Is there evidence in Paul's epistles
about the crucifixion on earth?
Yes, there is (twice!). It may not be very
direct, but this evidence is much more
Doherty can offer in favor of his own demonic
world!
Note: the second case is more straight forward than the first.
2.6.1. Ro9:31-33 Darby:
"But Israel, pursuing after a law of righteousness, has not attained to [that] law. Wherefore?
Because [it was] not on the principle of faith, but as of works. They have stumbled at
the stumblingstone, according as it is written, Behold, I [God] place in Zion a stone of stumbling and rock of offence ['skandalon']: and he that believes [has faith] on him [Christ] shall not be ashamed."
a) What "is written" is parts of Isa8:14 & Isa28:16, with
significant rewriting by Paul in order to
fit his purpose:
- Isa8:14 NKJV "He [the Lord God] will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense [NOT translated as 'skandalon' in the LXX!] to both the houses of Israel, as a trap
and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
- Isa28:16 NKJV "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold,
I lay in Zion [Jerusalem] a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a
sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily.""
For Paul, the "stone of stumbling" and the "rock of offence" for the Jews is Christ ("For Christ is [the] end of law for righteousness to every one that believes." Ro10:4 Darby)
by his sacrifice on the cross ("... for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." Gal 2:21 NKJV)
whom the Jews are still refusing ("For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, have
not submitted to the righteousness of God [brought about by Christ!]." Ro10:3 Darby).
b) 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 ..."
- Generally Ro10-11 (about Jews not acknowledging
Christ), as in the next quote:
Ro11:9-10 NASB "And David says: "Let their table
[Israel's] become a snare and a trap, and a stumbling block ['skandalon'] and a retribution to them. Let their eyes
be darkened to see not, ...""
Note: Paul quoted accurately Ps69:22-23 with
only one exception: he added up 'skandalon'.
Finally, about the Law (with the associated
righteousness) being replaced by one of faith
in Christ & God:
- Php3:9 NKJV "... not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;"
c) And despite all the deletions and changes,
Paul kept "in Zion".
2.6.2. Ro11:26-27 Darby
"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "the Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from
Jacob [Israel (Ge32:28)]; for this is My covenant with them [Jews], when I take away their sins.""
a) Once again, what "is written" is a combination of parts from two OT passages,
with alterations by Paul in order to fit
his agenda (the Jews will convert, even if
they didn't so far!):
- Isa59:20-21a NKJV ""The Redeemer [here, it is God himself!] will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," Says the LORD."As for Me,"
says the LORD, "this is My covenant with them: ...""
- Isa27:9a NKJV "Therefore by this the iniquity of Jacob will be covered; and this is all the fruit of taking away his sin: ..."
b) For Paul, the "Deliverer" (savior) of the Jews is undoubtedly Christ,
by his death for atonement of sins. This
is corroborated by:
- Ro3:9 NKJV "... we have previously charged both
Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin ..."
- Gal4:4-5a YLT "God sent forth His Son, come of a woman,
come under law, that those under law [that would include Jews!] he may redeem, ..."
- Gal1:3b-4a NKJV "... Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us ..."
- Ro5:8b Darby "... we being still sinners, Christ has died for us."
c) And again, Paul kept "Zion" despite his rewriting. But why did he substitute
"to" by "out of"? Likely because the one (Christ) coming "to" Zion NOT being yet the "Deliverer", that is prior to his redeeming act "out of" (from) Jerusalem.
'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. Here are some
examples (all quotes from the NKJV):
2Sa5:7 "Nevertheless David took the stronghold
of Zion (that is, the City of David)."
1Ki8:1 "Now Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD from the City of David, which is Zion."
Ps2:6 "Yet I [David] have set My King on My holy hill of Zion."
Ps48:1-13 "Great is the Lord, and greatly to be
praised in the city of our God, in His holy mountain. Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion ..., the city of the great King. God is in her palaces; He is known as her
refuge. ...
We have thought, O God, on Your lovingkindness,
in the midst of Your temple. ...
Walk about Zion, and go all around her. Count her towers; mark well her bulwarks; consider her palaces; that you may tell it to the generation following."
Isa1:7-8 "Your country is desolate, your cities
are burned with fire; strangers devour your
land in your presence; and it is desolate,
as overthrown by strangers.
So the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a hut
in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city." (in 701 B.C.E., the Assyrian army devasted Judah, including its cities, except for Jerusalem which was saved. Same situation for the next quote)
Isa10:24 "Therefore thus says the Lord God of
hosts: "O My people, who dwell in Zion, do not be afraid
of the Assyrian. ..."
Isa64:10-11 "Your holy cities are a wilderness, Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation.
Our holy and beautiful temple, where our
fathers praised You, is burned up with fire;
And all our pleasant things are laid waste." (in the second part of 'Isaiah', the Babylonian army had destroyed Jerusalem. Same situation for the next quote)
Jer26:18 "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the
days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spoke
to all the people of Judah, saying, 'Thus
says the Lord of hosts:"
"Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins,
..."'"
Note: in the OT, Zion is never described
as a (mythical) heavenly place.
2.7. 'Hebrews' and the sacrifice in heaven:
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!
Let's also note 'Hagion' does not necessarily
mean "sanctuary" (which can be
understood as "temple"!). Furthermore,
sacrifices in the old Jewish system took
place always outside any tabernacle.
Here, I have to address a point that Richard
Carrier raised on the critique of my page:
"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."
First Heb9:6-8 never even suggests what Richard
claims:
Darby "Now these things being thus ordered,
into the first tabernacle the priests enter
at all times, accomplishing the services;
but into the second, the high priest only,
once a year, not without blood, which he
offers for himself and for the errors of
the people: the Holy Spirit shewing this,
that the way of the [holy of] holies has
not yet been made manifest while as yet the
first tabernacle has [its] standing;"
Actually 'Hebrews' itself opposes Carrier:
Heb13:11-12 NKJV "For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate."
All over the OT, and in the temple of Jerusalem,
sacrifices were performed outside, on altar(s) in the open:
Ex40:6-7 Darby "And thou shalt set the altar of burnt-offering before the
entrance of the tabernacle of the tent of
meeting. And thou shalt set the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar, and shalt put water in it."
Ex40:33 Darby "And he set up the court round about the tabernacle and
the altar, and hung up the curtain of the gate of
the court. And so Moses finished the work."
1Ki8:64 Darby "The same day the king hallowed the middle of the court that was before the house of Jehovah; for there he offered the burnt-offerings, and
the oblations, and the fat of the peace-offerings, because the brazen altar that was before Jehovah was too small to receive the burnt-offerings,
and the oblations, and the fat of the peace-offerings."
2Ki21:4b-5 Darby "... Jehovah had said, In Jerusalem
will I put my name. And he built altars to all the host of heaven in both courts of the house of Jehovah."
Josephus' Wars, V, V, 1 "the plain at the top was hardly sufficient
for the holy house and the altar"
Wars, V, V, 6 "Before this temple stood the altar"
Note: the altar referred above was for animal
sacrifice. Another altar (the one of incense)
was inside the outer tabernacle/sanctum,
but was not used for fleshy killings. And
there was no altar into the inner tabernacle/sanctum.
Then Doherty goes on: "the act of bringing his [Christ's] own "blood" to the heavenly sanctuary" "portrayed as a higher world counterpart to the action of the high priest on earth".
But the (bringing of) "blood" is
a sign the sacrifice happens before the Son enters the "true" holy
places, which, according to the following
verse, is heaven itself:
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).
Important remark:
In the scriptures (of which the author of 'Hebrews' had an extensive knowledge!), the domain of the winds, clouds & flying birds/fowls is considered part of the heavens (Greek root 'ouranos' in the LXX, as in previously quoted Heb4:14,8:1,9:24):
Ge1:20
Ge1:26 YLT "And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'"
Ge1:28,1:30,2:19,2:20,6:7,7:3,7:23,9:2; Dt28:26; 1Sa17:44,17:46,21:10, 1Ki16:4
1Ki18:45 KJV "And it came to pass in the mean while, that the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel."
Job20:6; Ecc10:20; Jer4:25,7:33,15:3,16:4,19:7; Eze29:5,31:6,32:4,38:20; Da4:12,4:21,7:13; Hos4:3,7:12; Zep1:3
According to the above, "... passed through the heavens ..." (Heb4:14) would require earth as the starting point!
Note: the synoptic gospels and 'Acts' acknowledge the same:
Mk4:4 YLT "and it came to pass, in the sowing, some fell by the way, and the fowls of the heaven did come and devour it;"
Mk4:32
Mk14:62 KJV "And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Mt6:26,8:20,13:32,24:30,26:64; Lk8:5,8:58,13:19; Ac10:12,11:6
Let's also say that crucifixions
(a non-religious execution) were NOT set
in any Jewish sanctuary (including the sacred
grounds surrounding it!). And in 'Hebrews',
Jesus is mentioned to have been crucified: 6:6 & 12:2 "Jesus ... endured [the] cross, having despised [the] shame ..." (Darby)
Notes: in 'Hebrews',
a) the counterpart of the earthly sanctuary
(holy places) is heaven.
b) the counterpart of Doherty's "higher world" (the heavens) is earth itself. No other
"world" is mentioned (1:10, 12:26).
c) right after 12:2, where Jesus endured the cross, the next verse exhorts: "For consider well him who endured so great contradiction from sinners against himself ..." (12:3 Darby). Where were these "sinners"
opposing Jesus? Considering Heb7:25-26 NASB,
"... He [Jesus] always lives to make intercession for them
[Christians], ... a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners ...", the sinners are not in the highest heaven!
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 (Heb2:17,3:13,5:1-3,7:27,8:12,10:2-4,16-17,26,11:25,12:1,4).
d) the tense of "has passed" (4:14), "endured" (12:3) and "separated" (7:26) is perfect in the Greek (or second perfect, which is
the same): "the perfect tense in Greek corresponds
to the perfect tense in English, and describes
an action which is viewed as having been
completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated."
(Strong)
Further on, Doherty declares "He [the author of 'Hebrews'] has said that Christ's sacrifice is "spiritual, eternal and unblemished" (9:14)". If the sacrifice is spiritual & eternal,
it has to be mythical, isn't it? But first,
let's check the verse:
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?
The Spirit is eternal, not the sacrifice.
And the later is not qualified as spiritual.
And no translation can possibly have the
sacrifice as "spiritual, eternal, ...", according to the Greek. If there is no
evidence supporting your case, that's not
a reason to create some!
Furthermore the following verses specify
the "sacrifice" happened once only,
in the past:
Heb7:27 NASB "sacrifice ... for this he [Jesus] did once, having offered up himself;"
Heb10:14 Darby "For by one offering he has perfected [Greek perfect tense] in perpetuity the sanctified." (the sacrifice occurred already!)
Heb9:26 Darby "But now once in the consummation of the ages he has been manifested [Greek perfect tense, unnoticed by Doherty: p.37] for [the] putting away of sin by his sacrifice." (the "manifestation" & sacrifice
have been completed in the near past!)
and it is not exactly "spiritual":
Heb10:19-20 NASB "... by the blood of Jesus, the new and living way which he has dedicated
for us through ... his flesh."
In conclusion, there is no evidence in 'Hebrews'
the "sacrifice" happened in the
heavens, despite Doherty's best imaginative
effort & rhetoric. But there are significant
clues pointing to earth. And then, why the
author did not specify the heavens or a lower
heaven/upper world for Jesus' crucifixion?
Why did he consider consistently only two
worlds, heavens and earth (1:10), the former including the firmament (11:12)?
2.8. Miscellaneous notes:
2.8.1 Comments on Appendix 6 "The location
of the myths of the Greek savior gods and
of Christ" (p.312-316):
Doherty refers to Plutarch (wrote 80-100)
but the quote from this author does not say
anything about the "location".
However his citation from Apuleius (2nd century) 'the Golden Ass' (a comic/erotic novel!)
does include "the gods of the under-world, and the gods of the upper-world". But the original Latin does not have 'world'
in it: "deos inferos et deos superos". And once again, Earl goes back to Sallustius (no quote presented)
and Julian "the Apostate" (both
4th century authors!), providing this cryptic passage: "the substance which is subject to change
mingles with the passionless revolving sphere
of the fifth substance." (Orations V, 165c)
which would be the only quotation with some trace of
validity in the whole book!
I also note 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. For the years afterwards
up to Julian's times, we are provided with
only a few doubtful whiffs (to be generous!).
2.8.2. Comments on Notes about Chapter 10 (p.340-342):
Note 46: Doherty lists modern scholars & ancient
writers (Origen & Marcion) who believe
the "rulers" of 1Co2:8 to be supernatural powers. But,
a) this is not primary evidence.
b) conservative Christians (and Marcion)
regard(ed) 'Ephesians' & 'Colossians' as
authentically Pauline, and had to take in
account Eph3:9-10 & Col2:15.
c) modern era writers with "mythicist"
tendency would obviously call for cosmic
entities.
d) Paul simply did not identify these rulers.
2.8.3. Comments on Richard Carrier's review on Doherty's book:
2.8.3.1. 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 ..."
- "[s.59] But where Typhon forces his way in and seizes
upon the outermost areas ..."
- "[s.59]... the outermost part of matter which they call Nephthys ..."
- "[s.18] Typhon [the king of Egypt], who was hunting by night in the light of the moon, happened upon it [the chest containing Osiris' body, which
Isis found in Byblos (s.16)]. Recognizing the body he divided it into fourteen parts and scattered
them, each in a different place. Isis learned
of this and sought for them again, sailing through the swamps in a boat of papyrus ... The traditional result of Osiris' dismemberment
is that there are many so-called tombs of Osiris in Egypt; for Isis held a funeral for each part when she had found it."
It looks to me the outermost areas are regions
around Egypt, called Nephthys, and the remains
of Osiris are dispersed in Egypt.
2.8.3.2. Carrier also contended "In effect, Osiris is "incarnated" in the sublunar
heaven and actually dies and resurrects there" and "Isis and Osiris were such, but were
later exalted into the heavens as full gods (361e)". Let's check again the evidence from Plutarch's
Isis and Osiris:
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!
Once again, I go back to Richard Carrier's
critique:
"The sublunar heaven is the firmament, which is indeed a part of everything below the moon. Yes, I used the word heaven in the modern,
not ancient sense (the first "heaven"
in the ancient sense was above the sublunar
aer--though the OT does not yet make that
distinction)."
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.
b) Osiris dies on earth, in Egypt specifically:
"[s.13] Typhon, having secretly measured Osiris'
body and having made ready a beautiful chest
of corresponding size artistically ornamented,
caused it to be brought into the room where
the festivity was in progress. ... Typhon
jestingly promised to present it to the man
who should find the chest to be exactly his
length when he lay down in it. They all tried
it in turn, but no one fitted it; then Osiris
got into it and lay down, and those who were
in the plot ran to it and slammed down the
lid, which they fastened by nails from the
outside and also by using molten lead. Then
they carried the chest to the river and sent it on its way to the sea through the
Tanitic Mouth."
Osiris dies when sealed in the chest which
is carried to the Nile and let floating to
the Mediterranean sea. It lands near Byblos (Phoenicia/Lebanon):
"[s.15] Thereafter Isis, as they relate, learned that the chest had been cast up by the sea near the land of Byblus and that the waves had gently set it down in the midst of a clump of heather."
c) Prior to his death, Osisis is described as
the rightful king of Egypt, and not "incarnated" in any sublunar
heaven:
"[s.13] One of the first acts related of Osiris in his reign was to deliver the Egyptians from their destitute and brutish manner
of living. This he did by showing them the
fruits of cultivation, by giving them laws,
and by teaching them to honour the gods.
Later he travelled over the whole earth civilizing it without the slightest need
of arms, but most of the peoples he won over to his way
by the charm of his persuasive discourse combined with song and all manner of music."
"[s.21] Eudoxus says that, while many tombs of Osiris are spoken of in Egypt, his body lies in Busiris; for this was the place of his birth;"
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 [bodies, NOT souls!] of those that are believed to have reached
their end. But he himself is far removed from the earth [downward! See later], uncontaminated and unpolluted and pure
from all matter that is subject to destruction
and death ..."
For a confirmation, Plutarch equated Osiris
with Hades, the ruler of the underworld in Greek mythology (via Dionysus!):
"[s.28] Heraklitus the physical philosopher says:
"Hades and Dionysus are the same ..." people are inclined to come to this
opinion. ... it is better to identify Dionysus with Osiris"
Plutarch also specified where the dead's
souls would go:
"[s.29] In fact, Plato says that Hades is so named because he is a beneficent and
gentle god towards those who have come to
abide with him. Morever among the Egyptians many others of the proper names are real
words; for example, that place beneath the earth, to which they
believe that souls depart after the end of
this life, they call Amenthes ..."
and when they would meet Osiris:
"[s.78] ... when these souls are set free and migrate into the realm of the invisible and the unseen, the dispassionate and the pure, then this god [Osiris] becomes their leader and king ..."
e) Plutarch is however very much confusing
when handling different concepts & traditions,
some of them mythical, and lacks consistency
through his rather incoherent narration.
For example, "for Nephthys is that which is beneath the earth and invisible" (s.44). Here Nephthys is the invisible/unseen underworld, the home of the souls.
2.8.3.3. Finally Carrier quoted from 'Isis and Osiris':
"Plato, says Plutarch, "calls this
class of beings an interpretive and ministering
class, midway between gods and men, in that
they convey thither the prayers and petitions
of men"(361c)".
I am not objecting to that, but let's inquire
where those beings, more so the bad ones,
would reside according to Plutarch's writing:
"[s.26] Empedocles says also that the demigods must pay the penalty for the sins
that they commit and the duties that they neglect:
Might of the Heavens chases them forth to
the realm of the Ocean; Ocean spews them
out on the soil of the Earth, and Earth drives
them straight to the rays of the tireless
Sun, who consigns them to Heaven's whirlings;
thus one from another receives them, but ever with loathing"
It does not seem these sinful demigods ("[s.26] daemons") have a home in the lower heavens! That would go against Doherty's unsubstantiated theory:
"The lowest level of the spirit realm was the air, or "firmament," between the earth and the moon. This was the domain of the demon spirits" (p.103)
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.
From the Christian side, 'the Ascension of
Isaiah' (a text tainted with Gnosticism)
does mention the firmament "where dwelleth the ruler of this world" (10:29), but Satan & his evil angels'
rule extends to the earth also. And in any
case, the Son is not crucified there, but
rather on earth, as already explained through the
internal evidence.
Furthermore, all the texts cited by Doherty
(and Carrier) were not written before Paul's
times.
Why would the early Christians imagine an
upper world as more real & pungent than
their earthly one? Up to the point they took
the crucifixion "automatically"
happened there, even if Paul never wrote
it did (but indirectly indicated "Zion"!).
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?
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?
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
Zion (Jerusalem) than for the firmament or
that mysterious "world".
And we did not consider the related issue
of the "flesh & blood" earthly
Jesus yet! That comes next.
3. Do Paul & 'Hebrews' not mention an
earthly Jesus?
On this topic, I'll review all the bit &
pieces addressed by Doherty and also flesh
out the evidence he "forgot". Once
again, I'll work on what Doherty (and myself)
considers pre-gospels texts, mostly Paul's
seven (genuine) epistles ('Romans', '1Corinthians',
'2Corinthians', 'Galatians', 'Philippians',
'1Thessalonians' & 'Philemon') and 'Hebrews'.
3.1. Jesus as the Son of David (and seed
of Abraham):
In chapter 8, on pages 82-84, Doherty works
on Romans1:1-4:
Ro1:1-4 Darby "Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, [a]
called apostle, separated to [set apart for] God's glad tidings, (which he had before promised by his prophets
in holy writings,) concerning his Son (come of David's seed according to flesh,
marked out Son of God in power, according
to [the] Spirit of holiness, by resurrection
of [the] dead) Jesus Christ our Lord;"
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"?
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 only occurrence of "gospel" ("glad tidings" Darby) in Ro1:1-8 is in the first verse,
and, two later, does not likely affect "from ... David", itself part of a digression about "his Son". Furthermore "separated to [set apart for] God's glad tidings" (with verse 2 as its addendum) is a clause
on its own, about an action which happened
and is already completed (because of the
Greek perfect tense of the verb).
Finally, by skipping over the two extensions
(as shown in the Darby translation), the
syntax of Ro1:1-6 may be rendered as such:
"Paul,
bondman of Jesus Christ,
[a] called apostle,
separated [in the past] to God's glad tidings, (which ...),
concerning [now!] his Son (come ...) Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom we have
received grace and apostleship in behalf
of his name, for obedience of faith among
all the nations, among whom are *ye* also
[the] called of Jesus Christ:" Darby
Notes:
a) "concerning ..." looks to be a clause on its own, related
to "Paul", part of a multi-part flamboyant announcement and not
an addendum on what immediately precedes.
b) The digression starting by "come of David's seed ..." is linked to "his Son" and not likely to "God's glad tidings" (assuming "his Son" is!). And why would a descendance from David
be "good news" for Gentiles?
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. More to come ...
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.
But Doherty does not stop here. He contends
"according to the spirit" can also be translated as "in the sphere of the "spirit"" (and from NO "suggestion" by anyone
else!). On the next page (85), that opens
the way for the concept of the two heavenly spheres, the one of the "flesh" (where
Jesus is crucified) and, above, the one of
the "spirit" (where the heavenly
Jesus and God reside)!
Not bad for only one word from a suggested translation!
My dictionary includes in its definition
for 'sphere': range, field of action, province,
etc. My thesaurus shows domain, field, realm,
way of life, etc. Did Doherty consider those?
Obviously not!
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!
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!
D) Ro5:15 Darby "... much rather has the grace of God,
and the free gift in grace, which [is] by
the one man Jesus Christ, abounded unto the many."
Notes:
A) "according to the flesh" ('kata sarka', also translatable as "by
flesh"), relative to human & earthly
origin, is also used by Paul in:
Gal4:23 NKJV "But he [Ishmael, whose father is Abraham)] who was of the bondwoman [Hagar] was born according to the flesh ['kata sarka'], and he [Isaac] of the freewoman [Sarah, Abraham's wife] through promise [from God, but still fathered by Abraham]," (according to Ge16:1-16,21:2-5).
Does "according to the flesh" entail that "sphere" in the lower
heavens?
B) For Jesus, Paul used "come/came"
(root 'ginomai', which most "normal" translation would be "become")
(Ro1:3, Gal4:4) instead of "born"
(root 'gennao'), most likely in order to
take in account the belief about Christ's
pre-existence (well in evidence in 'Romans'
and 'Galatians'): "born" would
imply Christ was not existing before his
human birth, but "come/made" suggests
incarnation. Paul used the same expression in Gal4:4 Darby "... God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law".
C) In other Paul's epistles, there is more
evidence about Jesus being from Israelites
& Abraham, and again a man (as Adam), none of it mentioned by Doherty:
Gal3:16 Darby "But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he [God] does not say, And to seeds [of Abraham], as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ."
1Co15:21-22 Darby "For since by man [came] death, by man also resurrection of [those that are] dead. For as in the Adam all die, thus also in the Christ all shall be made alive."
Who else is of the seed of Abraham in 'Romans'?
a) Ro11:1 Darby "I [Paul] say then, Has God cast away his people [Israel]? Far be the thought. For *I* also am an Israelite, of [the] seed of Abraham, of [the] tribe of Benjamin."
So "flesh & blood" earthly
Paul is also from the seed of Abraham!
b) Ro9:7 NKJV "nor are they all children because they [Jews of Israelite descent] are the seed of Abraham ..."
Most Jews were also from the seed of Abraham
during Paul's days!
Outside of 'Romans', other Abraham's seed
('sperma') are also human & earthly,
as for Paul's Christians in Galatia (figuratively
only), Jews and Paul himself:
D) Gal3:29 NKJV "And if you [the recipients of the epistle] are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to ['kata'] the promise."
E) 2Co11:22 NKJV "Are they [other apostles] Hebrews? So am I [Paul]. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I."
So I think Doherty should reconsider "no other feature of Jesus' human incarnation
appears in his letter"! And we have ample evidence the seeds of
Abraham and descendants of Israelites (such
as Paul) were all understood as earthly humans.
Why would it be different for Jesus?
But why did Paul suddenly announce the Son
(Jesus) "come of David's seed according to flesh", when he never made use of it next (except
much later and briefly in Ro15:12)? And when
Paul never depicted Jesus as King? And right
at the very beginning of his epistle?
Paul was addressing a remote audience whom
he never met (except a few, according to
Ro16:3-16a), but expected his letter to be
read also by/to Jews (Ro2:17, etc.). Such
a statement would immediately attract their
attention (favorably). But what about the
others, the Gentiles? Could Paul have taken
the risk to turn them off early on by claiming
a (very much) Jewish attribute (unheard of before, according to Earl), and not even
necessary for his ensuing discussion? Of
course not!
Therefore, Jesus, as "Son of David", had to be already
widely allowed, and Paul knew it. So he could
mention it, out of the blue, without upsetting
(or confusing!) anyone.
Note: in the front of his epistle (up to
2:17), it seems Paul tried to soften up his
Jewish audience:
a) "concerning his Son (come of David's seed according to flesh,)" (Ro1:3 Darby)
b) "marked out Son of God in power, ...
by resurrection of [the] dead" (Ro1:4 Darby)
It appears here there is no pre-existence
for the Son, who is revealed only by his
(alleged) resurrection.
c) Jesus is never identified as solely "(the)
Lord".
d) From 1:10 to 2:15, there are twenty-four
mentions of "God" in a row, with
no Jesus/Son/Lord/Christ in between.
It is only after alluding to God's wrath
to come and writing "in [the] day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my glad tidings, by Jesus Christ." (2:16 Darby) that Paul confronted the Jews
about the Law and circumcision.
3.2. Jesus as from a woman:
3.2.1. Doherty on Galatians4:4
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!
Doherty ventures "National gods were often regarded as having the same lineage as the nation
itself, which is one interpretation that could be given to Christ as "born" under the Law [as a Jew]."
But he does not give any example for these
"national" gods with their lineage (personally I know
of none).
Finally Earl goes into some flamboyant rhetoric,
calling for "dramatic reversal, even on the order
of something like the Copernican revolution
in astronomy" to change our views on Jesus' human origin.
May I say Copernicus came with evidence for his theories, when Doherty
can only be doubtful about 'Jesus as born
of woman' and fling "feathers"
at it.
3.2.2. Comments on Richard Carrier's review on Doherty's book about Galatians4:4
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).
I quote the passage in question now. Judge
for yourself:
Gal4:24-27 Darby "Which things have an allegorical sense; for these are two covenants: one from mount
Sinai, gendering to bondage, which is Hagar. For Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which [is] now, for she is
in bondage with her children; but the Jerusalem above is free, which is our
mother. For it is written,
Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break
out and cry, thou that travailest not; because
the children of the desolate are more numerous
than [those] of her that has a husband."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).
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. So we have:
Gal4:4-7 Darby "but when the fullness of the time was
come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman [as an earthly human], come under law [as a Jew], that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship. But because
you are [Greek present tense] sons ... So you are [present again] no longer bondman, but son ..."
So Paul was thinking about an earthly "flesh
& blood" mother! And Christ had
already come and gone (1:1)!
3.3. James as brother of the Lord (Jesus):
3.3.1. Comments on Galatians 1:19
In chapter 6, page 57, Doherty tackles the
problem caused by "James, the brother of the Lord" (Gal1:19). Here is the whole passage:
Gal1:18-19 Darby "Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance
with Peter, and I remained with him fifteen
days; but I saw none other of the apostles,
but James the brother of the Lord."
First, Doherty states the term "brother(s)"
('adelphos', also translated as "brethren")
appears often in Paul's epistles to indicate
'Christian(s)'.
Certainly, and even nowadays, it is used
extensively in the fields of religion, cult,
ethnicity, labor union, monastic institution,
etc., in order to indicate the ones in the
same group (of yours). It also confers a
notion of equality, similarity & close association.
Then Doherty claims that "brother of the [Greek 'tou'] Lord" has the same meaning than "brothers in the [Greek 'en'] Lord" (as appearing only in Philippia |
