For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Mcreal]

Margaret Barker

Temple Imagery In Philo:
An Indication Of The Origin Of The Logos?

Originally published in W. Horbury, ed, Templum Amicitiae:
Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel
(JSOT Press: Sheffield, 1991), pp. 70-102.​

There is now a renewed interest in the angels of pre-Christian Judaism, especially in the Great Angel, the Son of Man figure. There are various theories as to its origin and therefore its importance; the most significant, I believe, was Dix’s when he saw in the Great Angel a later development of the Angel of the Presence of Yahweh. The compound nature of the Great Angel is one of the more puzzling features, but if all seven archangels (or all four, there are variant traditions) were aspects of the one Great Angel, just as we know the later angels had many names, then we should perhaps have the beginning of an understanding.

Israel’s earliest religion was not monotheistic. There was an elaborate cult of heavenly beings, though only fragments of that cult now survive. It was not until the exile, under the influence of the Second Isaiah and the Deuteronomists that the great diversity of older traditions came to be combined, or rather fused. The result of this was that Yahweh took over the roles which had formerly been those of both Yahweh and El Elyon, and a massive re-interpretation of the older traditions was begun. Not everyone accepted the new monotheism; those who transmitted the traditions now found in the Apocalypses retained many older beliefs, the most significant of which, for our purposes, was the belief that Yahweh was not the High God but one of the sons of God. He was a Holy One, the Holy One of Israel (Isa. 4.1 et passim). He was Israel’s patron angel.

The Qumran text of Deut. 32.8 differs significantly from the MT, but not from the LXX.10 The MT now says that the nations were allocated according to the number of the sons of Israel; the Qumran reading is ‘the sons of El’. Since the LXX has the very similar ‘angels of God’, it appears that the MT has lost the idea of the sons of God, and with it, the idea that Yahweh was one of them. The implication of this older reading was known to the writer of the Clementine Recognitions:

For every nation has an angel, to whom God has committed the government of that nation; and when one of these appears, although he be thought and called God by those over whom he presides, yet, being asked, he does not give such testimony to himself. For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these he hath appointed angels as princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God (Rec. 2.42).​

Here we have clear evidence from a time later than Philo of the survival of a belief that the ‘God’ of Israel was in fact an archangel, the chief of the sons of El.


There is considerable evidence from a variety of sources and periods to suggest that this belief in Yahweh as the angel of Israel, the ‘second God’, was not confined to a small or eccentric group. First, there are the two figures in Daniel 7 ...

Second, there persisted a controversy over the two powers in heaven ...

R. Idi had said that the LORD meant Metatron, the angel mentioned in Exod. 23.21, of whom it was said ‘My name is in him’. Segal comments:

We learn from this defence that the heretics, in rabbinic eyes, were seen to confuse an angel with God.​

We also learn that the angel, the second deity, was called Yahweh.

Third, there was a widespread belief in two Yahwehs; where the two traditions had mingled, both the High God and the Angel were called Yahweh. Thus Metatron has some very interesting names in 3 Enoch; he is called Yahoel and the Lesser Yahweh.


The first-century Ascension of Isaiah also knows of two Yahwehs. Knibb translates thus:

And I saw how my LORD and the angel of the Holy Spirit worshipped and both together praised the LORD (Asc. Isa. 9.40).​

This implies that both the Father and the Son were known as Yahweh, since Asc. Isa. 10.7 reads:

And I heard the voice of the Most High, the father of my LORD as he said to my LORD Christ who will be called Jesus, ‘Go out and descend through all the heavens...’15​

Yahweh was invariably linked to the human form.

Fourth, in al-Qirqisani’s account of Jewish sects he mentions the Magharians, a pre-Christian group, who understood the anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew Bible to refer not to God himself, but to the great angel who had created the world. This angel not only created; he also gave the Law, inspired the prophets and ruled as God’s agent.

Thus far, in texts from many traditions ranging over some seven centuries from the second BC to the fifth AD, we have discovered a second divine figure named Yahweh or the Lesser Yahweh who assumed human form and was believed to have been the human figure in the Hebrew Bible. He was the creator, the lawgiver, the one who went between earth and heaven and the general of the host. The later rabbis were opposed to this belief and argued against it; and the MT suggests that a sensitive text has been altered.

In several of the non-canonical texts Yahweh appears as the Great Angel.

http://jbburnett.com/resources/barker/barker_logos in philo.pdf

In a group of non-canonical texts "the angel is a human figure, a high priest, king and warrior. He is chief of the Host of the Most High, the heavenly scribe, and the guiding angel of the faithful."

The heavenly king was represented on earth by the Davidic king. We shall never fully understand what lies beneath some of the more obscure statements about the ancient kings, but we can at least look at what is there. The king sat on the throne of Yahweh and was worshipped with him (1 Chron. 29.20, 23; cf Pss. 11.4; 45.7; Mic. 2.13, and the close links thought to exist between Ps. 2 and Dan. 7). The king was the son of Yahweh; this. is how the manifestation was described. How this sonship was achieved or symbolized we do not know. No supernatural birth was envisaged (1 Chron. 28.6), but the variant readings of Isa. 9.6 suggest angelic status.

... A comparison with Ezekiel 28 suggests that the Davidic king joined the princes of the other nations in the garden of God; cf. Daniel 7 where the ascent to heaven precedes the enthronement.24 The earliest known account of such an ascent experience is in 1 Enoch 14, and the setting for the ascent is clearly the heavenly temple, of which the temple in Jerusalem was the earthly counterpart. Enoch was commissioned to take a message of judgment. We know from 4QShirShabb25 that the temple functionaries had heavenly counterparts; in the days of the monarchy the king had also had the two roles; he had been the man-like representation of Yahweh the Angel, the King of Israel. It was this ancient manifestation in the king which was remembered in all the later descriptions of the crowned and sceptred angel. Later tradition gave this role to Moses. In his drama Exodus, the tragedian Ezekiel described how Moses ascended to the presence of God and was there made God and King; he reigned as God’s agent. Cf. Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.155-58.

If the king represented Yahweh, we may find in the king’s roles some of those of Yahweh. The Davidic king, for example, was a priest. Whatever Ps. 110 means, it does show that the royal house was associated with the Melchizedek figure, and 11QMelch implies that this same Melchizedek was believed to function as Yahweh on the Day of Judgment, for texts which in the Old Testament refer to Yahweh, in 11QMelch refer to Melchizedek. This could have been an innovation; or it could have been a traditional understanding of those passages. Either way, the royal priesthood is associated with Yahweh.

The Davidic king was ‘the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89.37)...

http://jbburnett.com/resources/barker/barker_logos in philo.pdf

Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple was a clear expression of a new theology, and showed the older beliefs being rejected.

But will God indeed dwell on earth? Behold heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built (1 Kgs 8.27).​

Any idea of the visible presence of God was abandoned and the Older anthropomorphism was replaced by abstract ideas: ‘You saw no form; there was only a voice’ (Deut. 4.12).

...in the Shepherd of Hermas, the Name of the Son of God and the Son of God are synonymous; both support the whole creation (Sim. 9.14).

The Hermas text brings us to the second aspect of the Name; whether thought of as a heavenly being or as the sacred letters it was associated particularly with the work of creation.

The Wisdom of Solomon shows that Philo’s own community had had a Logos of their own for some time, and the figure is familiar.

Philo says that the Logos has many names:

...God’s First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were. And many names are his, for he is called, ‘the Beginning, and the Name of God, and His Word and the Man after His image, and ‘he that sees’, that is Israel (Conf Ling. 146).​

Philo’s Logos was a deity of some sort; he refers to the Logos as a second God when discussing Gen. 9.6:

For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe, but (only) in that of the second God, who is His Logos (Quaest. in Gen. 2.62).​

Philo’s name for the greater deity is the Most High and the Father, that is, the ancient El Elyon, Father of the sons of God. What was originally meant by ‘humans being made in the image of God is not known, but one could guess that God was envisaged in human form by whoever said it. Such anthropomorphism caused considerable disquiet among later interpreters who had come to reject the anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew Bible. Philo, too, makes a characteristic shift; it was the rational part of man, he said, which was formed as an impression of the Logos

Regarding

"Any idea of the visible presence of God was abandoned and the Older anthropomorphism was replaced by abstract ideas: ‘You saw no form; there was only a voice’ (Deut. 4.12)'​

it seems that there was a theology of anthropomorphism, then that was abandoned, and it would seem that Christianity re-introduced anthropomorphism theology.

 

[Mcreal]

Yes, but the 'reality' that was then believed, if we accept this view of things, was that Jesus was executed on Earth by evil human beings.

Yes, but " the 'reality' that was then believed" was still a belief: ie. an abstract idea had become narrative that was then reified as reality.

 

[Craig B]

Regarding

"Any idea of the visible presence of God was abandoned and the Older anthropomorphism was replaced by abstract ideas: ‘You saw no form; there was only a voice’ (Deut. 4.12)'​

it seems that there was a theology of anthropomorphism, then that was abandoned, and it would seem that Christianity re-introduced anthropomorphism theology. ​

Christianity reintroduced human sacrifice, but in a "vicarious" and idealised form. The victim gradually becomes less human and more divinised, finally entirely so; and the procedure had to be conducted only once; and people at all times afterwards may profit from it, without repeating it.

But nonetheless some psychological need for a performance of human sacrifice is made manifest in Christian soteriology.​

 

[Mcreal]

The Doherty/Carrier hypothesis is that Paul literally believed that Jesus was crucified in outer space. Well, what WE'd call outer space, anyway.

Sort of. Doherty's & Carrier's use of the term 'outer space' has been misleading b/c in those days the levels of heaven were inside 'the firmament'.

Using the term 'outer space' is misrepresenting those times, and making it harder for people today to understand what Doherty and Carrier have been saying (ie. Doherty & Carrier have made it easier for their propositions to be both misrepresented and to be misunderstood).

 

[Mcreal]

Christianity reintroduced human sacrifice, but in a "vicarious" and idealised form. The victim gradually becomes less human and more divinised, finally entirely so; and the procedure had to be conducted only once; and people at all times afterwards may profit from it, without repeating it.

But nonetheless some psychological need for a performance of human sacrifice is made manifest in Christian soteriology.

I agree

(or at least mostly agree: I'm not sure there are or have been many 'victims'.
Jesus is portrayed as having been resurrected 'in the flesh' ie. in his human form).​

 

[Craig B]

I agree

(or at least mostly agree: I'm not sure there are or have been many 'victims'.
Jesus is portrayed as having been resurrected 'in the flesh' ie. in his human form).​

Yes, I can see the ambiguity in what I wrote. I meant that he became entirely divine; but I didn't mean to imply that he was divested of the entirety of his human aspect, according to Christian belief. He was entirely human and entirely God. I know it's absurd, but that's what they believe.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, but " the 'reality' that was then believed" was still a belief: ie. an abstract idea had become narrative that was then reified as reality.

That begs the question. Was the execution of Jesus, as a physical belief, derived from an abstraction passing then through a stage of narration, and then reification. Or did it really happen?

Was there ever a time when it was believed to have happened in one or other of the "heavens", rather than down here on Earth? Basically, these are the things we're discussing here.

 

[Mcreal]

I meant that he became entirely divine; but I didn't mean to imply that he was divested of the entirety of his human aspect, according to Christian belief. He was entirely human and entirely God. I know it's absurd, but that's what they believe.

Yes, I understand that (though had wondered if you were invoking various aspects of gnosticism or aspects of demonization of those not following the law).

The narratives and the effects on belief of Christians are not affected whether Jesus was based on an anthropomorphized angel or a deified human Jesus (ie. apotheosis)

 

[Mcreal]

Was there ever a time when it was believed to have happened in one or other of the "heavens", rather than down here on Earth? Basically, these are the things we're discussing here.

Given the lack of references to a Jesus in the early Christian texts, I think so.

Was the execution of Jesus, as a physical belief, derived from an abstraction passing then through a stage of narration, and then reification. Or did it really happen?

With respect, I think you've muddied the waters there e.g. 'physical belief' is an oxymoron.

If the initial idea was activities of and preaching by a celestial angel (and maybe other celestial angels), and things that might have happened to that celestial angel, particularly a celestial crucifixtion, then those ideas are abstracts / abstractions.

Those ideas could have been shared and narrated.

Then the narratives (oral or written, or both) could have become to be about an entity said to be a real person - that is where the reification / hypostatization (ie. anthropomorphization) could be said to have happened.

aka 'euhemerization', after Euhemrus who is said to have written narratives about the gods Zeus or Uranus as humans on earth​

 

[GDon]

Sort of. Doherty's & Carrier's use of the term 'outer space' has been misleading b/c in those days the levels of heaven were inside 'the firmament'.

Using the term 'outer space' is misrepresenting those times, and making it harder for people today to understand what Doherty and Carrier have been saying (ie. Doherty & Carrier have made it easier for their propositions to be both misrepresented and to be misunderstood).

Doherty never used the term "outer space" in his books. Only Carrier does, and it is a ridiculous term that can only confuse, since it amalgamates the lower and upper heavens into one.

Doherty is more precise on that count, though even he sometimes uses "the heavens" in a similar way. The issue at stake is that the lower heavens (under the Moon basically) is the realm of corruptibility. The upper heavens are not. Things that go on in one realm may not necessarily metaphysically occur in the other. Doherty will write about roads and trees "in the heavens", suggesting that the ancients thought that there were those things were in the lower heavens. But that is not the case.

In 2011, I wrote a long review on Doherty's book "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" where I go into details. It starts here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/JNGNM_Review1.html

No precise sorry, Mcreal.

 

[Mcreal]

... it is a ridiculous term that can only confuse, since it amalgamates the lower and upper heavens into one.

I agree. And, with today's understanding of outer space, it makes conception much harder (which is a pity. b/c understanding the ancients' theology per se is interesting of itself).

Doherty is more precise on that count, though even he sometimes uses "the heavens" in a similar way ... Doherty will write about roads and trees "in the heavens", suggesting that the ancients thought that there were those things were in the lower heavens. But that is not the case.

Yes, he seems to have been somewhat ambiguous, too.

The issue at stake is that the lower heavens (under the Moon basically) is the realm of corruptibility. The upper heavens are not. Things that go on in one realm may not necessarily metaphysically occur in the other.

Yes^.

In 2011, I wrote a long review on Doherty's book "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" where I go into details. It starts here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/JNGNM_Review1.html

No precise sorry, Mcreal.

Cheers.

 

[dejudge]

Where then must we seek evidence? Eh, is this the best we can do? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140602.htm
Contra Faustum 2

Faustus of Mileve^WP was a Manichaean bishop of the fourth century. He is now remembered for his encounter with Augustine of Hippo, in Carthage around 383. He was from Milevis, Numidia (modern Algeria). From a poor, pagan background, he had become a highly reputed teacher, preacher and debater.

Augustine, a Manichaean at that time, questioned Manichaean teachers in Carthage to find answers, but repeatedly was told that Faustus would have them. Once Faustus made himself available, Augustine was extremely impressed with his rhetoric abilities and discipline, but soon learned he did not have the answers to his questions ...​

So we examine the historicity of Jesus by perusing a fourth century dispute between Augustine and a Manichean bishop!?!
Manichaeism^WP was not Christianity and entertained heterodox ideas about Jesus, which have nothing to do with the earlier thinking of the first Christians.

However, the Manichaeans believed he was wholly divine. He never experienced human birth as notions of physical conception and birth filled the Manichaeans with horror and the Christian doctrine of virgin birth was regarded as equally obscene.​

Manichaeans were a sect of Christians whose leader was called Mani.


People in antiquity who believed in stories of Jesus Christ were called Christians whether or not they were from the sect called Manichaeans, Cerinthians, Basilidians, Justinians, Valentians, followers of Marcion, Menander or from any of the multiple Christian sects.



http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Dialogue with Trypho

(For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names....

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

First Apology

......Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils....... And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator........ All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians...

Celsus in "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen claimed or implied that Christians had that one name in common although there were multiple sects.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/04163.htm


Origen "Against Celsus 3.12

In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying that “when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party;” and further, that “being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it.

And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects.” ......

 

[vridar]

I can understand the focus on the question of a "heavenly crucifixion" but at the same time I do keep wondering what the relevance of that question has for the question of Jesus' historicity.

Surely even if it were finally decided that Paul believed Jesus had been crucified on earth how would that affect the historical question of whether Christianity did in fact begin with a historical Jesus?

Would we just say "Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it"?

Or even if it were decided Paul believed in a heavenly crucifixion of some sort, does that of itself negate the possibility of Christianity having begun with a historical Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

Christian writings including letters under the name of Paul clearly state that the Jews killed Jesus the Son of God, God Creator, the Lord from heaven--the firstborn of the dead.

Here is a partial list of ten Christian writers who claimed that the Jews killed Jesus--God's Son without a human father--the Logos--God Creator--the Lord from heaven--the son of the Ghost--the firstborn of the dead.

1. Aristides "Apology"--the Jews killed Jesus after he came down from heaven.

2. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho--the Jews killed Jesus the Ghost/God/Man.

3. Irenaeus' Against Heresies" ---the Jews killed Jesus, the son of the Ghost.

4. Tertullian--Answer to the Jews--the Jews killed Jesus--God in the flesh.

5. Origen--Against Celsus 1.47--the Jews killed Jesus, the son of the Ghost.

6. Hippolytus-Treatise Against the Jews-the Jews killed Jesus, the Son of their own God.

7. Acts 5.30---the Jews killed Jesus--the Son of God.

8. 1 Thesalonians 2.14-15---the Jews killed Jesus--the Lord from heaven.

9. Lactantius--On How the Persecutors died---the Jews killed Jesus--the son of God.

10. Chrysostom--Against the Jews--the Jews killed Jesus--God Creator, the Logos.

It is extremely important to understand the chronology of the Jesus story ---that the Jews killed Jesus [God in the flesh who came down from heaven].

The Jewish Temple fell first then the Jesus story was fabricated.

The fiction story [the propaganda] that the Jews killed Jesus--the Son of God, the Logos, the firstborn of the dead was given the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

People who believed the non-contemporary fiction stories of Jesus were called Christians which is no different than today.

People today who believe the fiction stories of Jesus [wholly or in part] claim they are Christians or "historicists" without historical evidence.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@dejudge
Regarding "killed". One common use of the word at the time was in the sense of repealing a law or a custom or such. Kind of like now you'd say that Congress "killed" a bill. You know, as opposed to actually Kill Bill

Now I wouldn't know if that's what got Paul confused, or not. But he does write about having delusions of reference and Cotard's delusion, not to mention his hallucinations where he even asks questions of Jesus and receives answers, plus other behaviours that make a pretty strong case IMHO for paranoid schizophrenia. So let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if his delusional brain took something like the Jews "killing" their chance at a messiah by disobeying the law, to mean a more literal killing someone.

@vridar
Well, IF Paul imagined it being in the various levels of heavens all along, then obviously it he's not talking about a historical Jesus in the sense of what we'd call a historical person. We don't believe ancient space-men to be historical persons.

Personally I'm content to leave it as: the way back in time, towards a Jesus, leads to Paul, who was talking about the guy in his hallucinations, not about a historical guy he learned about. In fact, he repeatedly claims that he didn't learn anything from other humans about the Jesus he's talking about. Whether an actual guy called Jesus was crucified (and it was such a common name that probably hundreds of Jesuseseseses were crucified at various points), that's not the guy that Paul tells us anything about.

So, yeah, personally I'm not all that fussed about where his Jesus was crucified. While an interesting question, no doubt, it still doesn't change that we're talking about Hallucination Jesus rather than Historical Jesus.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I have made the point before. Jesus is treated as a sacrifice, a perfect sacrifice which makes the imperfect sacrifices of animals performed by earthly priests superfluous thereafter. If it is imagined to have happened in the celestial realm, and to have been perfect, it must have been made in the celestial temple. Recall that at the moment it was made on Earth, the curtain of the earthly temple was rent. The purpose of the place had come to an end. It is not to be supposed that the heavenly temple underwent the same indignity on account of Jesus' sacrifice. Therefore it must have happened there. It was perfect, final. So if it happened in the heavens, it wasn't in some "sublunary" dump.

Well, the same reasoning would apply to earthly Jesus then, innit? I mean, if he's the perfect sacrifice to God, it would also make sense for him to be sacrificed in the Temple in Jerusalem, rather than on some stinky mass execution field on some God-forsaken hill outside town. (The vertical stakes would have been fixed in the ground already, and probably a lot of them, and already stained by the flesh and blood of countless rebels scourged and nailed on them.) It's not exactly a holy temple altar, is it?

I mean, gMark even has a reenactment of the two goats ritual from Leviticus 16, one released into the wild and one sacrificed, with his Jesus and Barabbas episode. Not only it's not in the temple, and his blood isn't taken behind the temple curtain like Leviticus 16:15 commands for that sacrifice to actually atone for the sins of the community (although Matthew does have the curtain ripping when Jesus dies and is bled by the Roman soldier, so I guess the space behind and in front of the curtain are no longer separated,) but it's even at the wrong time of the year.

All of that being on some dump place instead of in the temple didn't even faze the Xians, though, did it? I don't really see a problem if it's in a heavenly dump instead of an earthly dump. Why is an earthly dump more acceptable? It's still a dump.

That said, see that thing about intensional vs extensional contexts. The part quoted above is YOUR reasoning, not Carrier's. And of course you're completely entitled to do it and argue that Doherty's and Carrier's execution in a heavenly dump doesn't seem like it would fit the bill. It's a fair argument even. What you can't do is put that together with what Carrier actually says, and act as if the result is HIS claim. HE didn't say that the execution happened in the 7th heaven in God's temple.

 

[vridar]

Let me respond with a passage from GDon's interesting linked material.

... I would think that the idea of Satan and demons going into the celestial temple in the upper heavens to kill Jesus goes against everything I understand about the thinking of the time. Carrier simply can't be right about that.​

That seems entirely obvious to me. The idea of such a proceeding is too incongruous, not to say bizarre, to be entertained even for a moment.

It certainly is an obvious absurdity. Run with it. Guaranteed to provide critics with hours of fun.

Meanwhile ---- I have no idea who argues any such thing. I have never heard that argument before, certainly not in any of the major mythicist works I have ever read.

But don't let that stop anyone making the most of their time with that funny and absurd straw man.

 

[vridar]

Doherty's & Carrier's use of the term 'outer space'

I believe only Carrier uses the term. I am sure Doherty is/would be absolutely horrified at its use. He is very conscious of avoiding such anachronistic language.

 

[vridar]

This idea that Carrier "must" somehow argue for the absurd idea of Satan ascending to the celestial temple to sacrifice Jesus is nothing more than bar-room fantasizing.

It is surely clear that the theology of Hebrews is not Paul's, but has closer affinities to certain ideas found in Revelation. And in Revelation we also find the Lamb slain at the heavenly altar. A consideration of Paul's attacks on certain apostles suggests that the gospel he opposes is the one that preaches the sort of Christ found in Revelation.

If we get back to the basics of the earliest evidence for what eventually emerged as Christianity -- as per Burton Mack especially, picked up by Earl Doherty -- we find that there really was a "riotous diversity" of pre-Christian ideas.

To try to concoct some sort of unity out of all of those pre-Christian texts and then even to go further by imputing that bizarre chimera to the subtext of Carrier and Doherty really does suggest a lack of seriousness.

(Not that I mean to defend either Carrier or Doherty in all their arguments. But it's best if we criticize the arguments they really do make.)

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I would add that I don't really see it in Paul that Jesus is a blood sacrifice. Even the poem in Philippians is not really saying it was a sacrifice to God. On the whole, Paul seems to be just stating the most common denominator of the dying and rising saviour gods theology: Jesus died and rose again, and as a result death has no more power over him, but he has power over death.

It's in fact so basic and barebones, it's almost abstract.

Plus, generally, Paul seems to be more into discarding the Law wholesale. His Jesus more like bypasses and obsoletes the Law, by becoming the one that can give you life, while the Law was only able to give you death. The Law is there just to make it clear why you're only deserving death.

Where he connects the OT scriptures with Jesus is in finding hidden references to Jesus, and promisses which actually secretly meant Jesus or his church. Not in making Jesus be the perfect example of sticking to the literal meaning of those scriptures.

So I'm not sure why he'd want Jesus to keep the Law by enacting the perfect sacrifice.

In fact, I'd even go on a limb and submit the hypothesis that, basically, the relationship between Jesus and the Law may well have been the same as between Jesus and Death. Remember the part where he becomes obedient to death, but then defeats death by not staying dead? Well, I'd say that quite overtly that's what he's doing to the Law. He becomes above it, and able to bypass it entirely for you.

So I don't see why Jesus would have to be sacrificed to God in God's temple, in Paul's theology (since that's basically what Carrier is discussing), since there is no real indication that Paul was even seeing it as that kind of "lamb of god" sacrifice.