Did Jesus Die in Outer Space?

[GakuseiDon]

I'm not saying you have to interpret these lines any particular way. But I am saying that a distinct plausibility is there, that the parallelism of heaven and earth regarding the crucifixion isn't what McGrath is assuming that it is. If that premise can't be more than one plausible assumption, the rebuttal isn't as strong as it could be.

I think the point is this: If we assume there are copies of things in the firmament on earth (which I personally have strong doubts about) such that a crucifixion in the firmament would expect to have some parallel on earth (whether metaphorical or not), then it is a question of whether the earthly part is missing in the text. The earliest versions -- Slavonic and Latin -- have a docetic type of Christ on earth that representing a belief that exists in known literature. But Carrier constructs an even earlier version which supports his version of mythicism, but which does not appear to be representive of a belief in known literature. The question is whether Carrier's reasons for attempting to 'reconstruct' that earlier version are valid or not.

[Peter Kirby]

The earliest versions -- Slavonic and Latin -- have a docetic type of Christ on earth that representing a belief that exists in known literature. But Carrier constructs an even earlier version which supports his version of mythicism, but which does not appear to be representive of a belief in known literature. The question is whether Carrier's reasons for attempting to 'reconstruct' that earlier version are valid or not.

Okay... I see.

So McGrath's point is to say that Carrier has mishandled the Ascension of Isaiah.

[junego]

<snip>

So ISTM McGrath's "gotcha" just doesn't fit current understanding of the worldview of 1st century Roman Empire even if it's filtered through a Jewish sect.

This is McGrath's "gotcha" argument against the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory.

McGrath:
There is, however, a common element of ancient thought which has important implications for the understanding of Ascension of Isaiah. In 7:10 we read, “And as above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what (is) in the firmament is here on earth.” As Carrier notes, “the narrative goes out of its way to explain that the firmament contains copies of everything on earth.”[23] And yet, presumably because of his aim to present a case for mythicism, Carrier does not discuss the natural implication of this: that even if the celestial Beloved only descended as far as the firmament, and was crucified there by demons, this would mirror some corresponding occurrence on earth.

my boldingn

...a common element of ancient thought which has important implications for the understanding of Ascension of Isaiah. In 7:10 we read, “And as above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what (is) in the firmament is here on earth.

I don't see that McGrath is misrepresenting ancient thought here......
What I do see is that McGrath needs to follow through on this himself. i.e. if he upholds such a view, that the likeness of what is in the firmament is mirrored on earth - then he can't go on to say, which he has done in his article, that Carrier's reading of the text "seems to me unlikely"..

Carrier, of course, likewise, can't choose a heavenly crucifixion and deny an earthly crucifixion. Both crucifixion needs to be addressed.

Actually McGrath is at least grossly misunderstanding the argument & "ancient thought", plus Carrier's words, as quoted from pg 45, are a bit confusing and unclear. When Carrier says "the firmement contains copies of everything on earth" I'm almost positive he doesn't mean exact copies of every rock, cat, person, olive, temper tantrum, case of measles, etc on earth is duplicated in the firmament/Satan's realm/under the moon (because that is the area AofI & Carrier are talking about here, not the upper heavens where the perfect exemplars of things are supposed to exist.) Death, decay and disruption existed in the firmament and were mirrored on earth, but did not exist in the upper heavens.

For example when Titus Demon punches Lucius Demon in the nose in the firmament the Greco-Roman middle Platonists didn't believe that somewhere on earth Titus Roman was punching Lucius Roman in the nose. So, no, there wouldn't have to be a duplicate crucifiction of the exact same entity under the moon and again on the sueface of the earth. All that was required was for the celestial Christ to descend to the only realm (under the moon) where death existed so he could be killed...once. Hypothetically that could have happened on the surface of the earth as a "historical" man or as a Docetic "seeming" man.

This is only one point in the Doherty-Carrier hypothesis. Evidence and arguments that celestial Christ was actually killed between earth and the moon in outer space are related but separate.

[GakuseiDon]

So McGrath's point is to say that Carrier has mishandled the Ascension of Isaiah.

Maybe not "mishandled", but rather the onus is on Carrier to show that the reasons for his reconstruction that support mythicism are stronger than what is apparent in the earliest texts. Anything can be proposed (like Philosopher Jay's metaphorical crucifixion on earth), but the S/L texts as we have them do seem to support a known belief, in this case doceticism.

By the way, I was bemoaning the fact that my conversations with Doherty on Ascension of Isaiah on the earlier board have been lost, but I did find this on Doherty's website, where he is responding to my review of his book J:NGNM: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesDonJNGNM.htm

• ... the Ascension is a document that underwent many editings and insertions over the course of its development, in its several manuscript lines, and to base any allegedly slam-dunk argument based on nitty-gritty wording in such a document is a shaky procedure...

This was in response to my pushing him on the earlier board on the implications of "in your form" in the texts. Eventually Doherty conceded that it implied an earthly landing of the Beloved. As Doherty writes in the link above (my bolding):

• One assumes (insofar as we can pinpoint meanings imbedded in a document full of editings and amendments that are very hard to pin down in any exact way) that 'in your form' was indeed, in the mind of that particular editor (probably one subscribing to docetism, as in the nearby phrase 'they will think that he is flesh and a man'), a reference to human form and probably a reference to earth.

Probably best at this point that we go over Carrier's reasons for the need to reconstruct an earlier version of the S/L texts, to see how strong they are. Anyone willing to do this? I'm happy to do this, but won't have time to get to it for a few days. (Probably best to be done by someone who supports Carrier on this point also, to avoid charges of misrepresentation.)

[MrMacSon]

... The earliest versions -- Slavonic and Latin -- have a docetic type of Christ on earth that representing a belief that exists in known literature. But Carrier constructs an even earlier version which supports his version of mythicism, but which does not appear to be representative of a belief in known literature. The question is whether Carrier's reasons for attempting to 'reconstruct' that earlier version are valid or not.

Versions of what?

[Peter Kirby]

So McGrath's point is to say that Carrier has mishandled the Ascension of Isaiah.

Maybe not "mishandled", but rather the onus is on Carrier to show that the reasons for his reconstruction that support mythicism are stronger than what is apparent in the earliest texts.

I just wanted to be clear that the subject is the Ascension of Isaiah. It is a blow to Carrier's use of the text as evidence for his larger argument. It means very little to anyone who hasn't leaned on the Ascension of Isaiah for anything. The meaning that is there is to undermine an argument from Carrier.

I guess I'm hoping for something more. We need the historicity case to be made as strongly as it can, hopefully someday soon.

Probably best at this point that we go over Carrier's reasons for the need to reconstruct an earlier version of the S/L texts, to see how strong they are. Anyone willing to do this? I'm happy to do this, but won't have time to get to it for a few days. (Probably best to be done by someone who supports Carrier on this point also, to avoid charges of misrepresentation.)

I trust you to be fair, and you haven't disappointed at all. Take your time.

[MrMacSon]

[.
We need the historicity case to be made as strongly as it can, hopefully someday soon.

The historicity of Jesus? or, the historicity of a particular text?

[Peter Kirby]

[.
We need the historicity case to be made as strongly as it can, hopefully someday soon.

The historicity of Jesus? or, the historicity of a particular text?

The historicity of Jesus.

[MrMacSon]

Cheers. I thought that's what you mean't, but wanted to be sure.

A significant problem is the 'Jesus of the Gaps' has contracted to virtually nothing now there has been greater discussion & analysis of the previously-asserted extra-biblical 'evidence' - Josephus, Tacitus etc. now shown to be inadequate.

[Peter Kirby]

But the best possible case could put the critics on their heels. It could show that Tacitus wrote about Jesus and that this is more likely if Jesus were historical. It could revive the Josephus argument. It could pull the rug on attempts to find Christians without a belief in a historical Christ crucified under Pilate. Most importantly, it could show that the Gospels make the most sense if they are about a historical person. But somebody needs to do the hard work to make that best possible case.