Did Jesus Die in Outer Space?

[maryhelena]

Seems a fairly sound rebuttal from McGrath.

Yep, methinks it's Round 1 to McGrath.....

[maryhelena]

I found it interesting that McGrath seems prepared, almost, to concede the point that Ascension of Isaiah could reference a heavenly type crucifixion - while simultaneously upholding a terrestrial realm crucifixion.

Now...............all we need is for Carrier to concede the point that a heavenly celestial crucifixion does not negate a terrestrial crucifixion - and a way out of the historicist v mythicist deadlock might be on the cards. History mattered to the gospel writers - the Carrier-Doherty mythicists can't keep running away from that reality.....

There is absolutely nothing in Ascension of Isaiah indicating the crucifixion was not on earth. I wonder where anybody can read the crucifixion happens in the celestial realm.

Well, Bernard, it looks like McGrath is willing to consider that option - although, eventually, not going with it. However, McGrath's point is that even if the Ascension of Isaiah could be read (and after all this is interpretation we are dealing with not rocket science....) it does not negate an earthly crucifixion. In fact it requires it.

This is a huge step forward for McGrath - and a knock down blow for the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory about a historicized Pauline celestial Christ figure. This Carrier-Doherty theory is unnecessary and does the ahistoricist/mythicist position a disservice.

[maryhelena]

Did Jesus Die in Outer Space?

• Open the pod bay doors Hal.
  I'm sorry Jesus. I can't do that.

It is interesting seeing this response to Carrier and Doherty by McGrath.
Thanks MH! The central text here is the "Ascension of Isaiah".

A terminus post quem is the earliest time the event may have happened, and a terminus ante quem is the latest.
The terminus post quem for the "Ascension of Isaiah" is the late first century. What is the corresponding terminus ante quem ?

Be well,


LC

Ascension of Isaiah

The book Ascension of Isaiah is one of the Pseudepigrapha.[1] Theories as to the date of its composition place it in a range from the late 1st century AD to the beginning of the 3rd century AD.

[GakuseiDon]

However, McGrath's point is that even if the Ascension of Isaiah could be read (and after all this is interpretation we are dealing with not rocket science....) it does not negate an earthly crucifixion. In fact it requires it.

It's not a question of interpretation but reconstruction. The later Ethiopic and earlier Slavonic/Latin versions of AoI don't support a heavenly crucifixion. They would seem to place it on earth. That's not a question of interpretation. But Carrier has reconstructed a version of AoI that supports his heavenly crucixion view. As Carrier writes on page 44:

• A Jesus who is killed by Satan in the sky and then only appears to men in revelations (as the citation of Bar. 3.38 implies was going to happen) had to be erased. One redactor just deleted it and tinkered a little with the then-ad­joining verses (the text that appears in the Latin and the Slavonic), while another just replaced it with a more desirable and orthodox gospel (which is the text that appears everywhere else).
  
  Given widespread evidence of Christian fabricating and tampering with texts, this should not be surprising (see Chapter 4, Element 44; and Chapter 7, §7).

The problem, which McGrath explains well, is that even if there were a comment about a heavenly crucifixion, if Carrier is going to rely on "as above so below" as stated in AoI, then Carrier needs to show how that doesn't apply to an earthly crucifixion. (Interestingly, GA Wells made a similar criticism about Doherty's use of a similar claim.) But we don't even need to go there. More importantly, we have evidence of docetic beliefs which fit what we see in the Slavonic/Latin versions. Is there a need to reconstruct from that an even earlier version? That's the question.

(For those interested, Andrew Criddle created a thread on the original form of the Ascension of Isaiah a few months back here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=750&p=15704)

[maryhelena]

However, McGrath's point is that even if the Ascension of Isaiah could be read (and after all this is interpretation we are dealing with not rocket science....) it does not negate an earthly crucifixion. In fact it requires it.

It's not a question of interpretation but reconstruction. The later Ethiopic and earlier Slavonic/Latin versions of AoI don't support a heavenly crucifixion. They would seem to place it on earth. It's not a question of interpretation. But Carrier has reconstructed a version of AoI that supports his heavenly crucixion view. As Carrier writes on page 44:

• A Jesus who is killed by Satan in the sky and then only appears to men in revelations (as the citation of Bar. 3.38 implies was going to happen) had to be erased. One redactor just deleted it and tinkered a little with the then-ad­joining verses (the text that appears in the Latin and the Slavonic), while another just replaced it with a more desirable and orthodox gospel (which is the text that appears everywhere else).
  
  Given widespread evidence of Christian fabricating and tampering with texts, this should not be surprising (see Chapter 4, Element 44; and Chapter 7, §7).

The problem, which McGrath explains well, is that even if there were a comment about a heavenly crucifixion, if Carrier is going to rely on "as above so below" as stated in AoI, then Carrier needs to show how that doesn't apply to the crucifixion. (GA Wells made a similar comment about Doherty's use of similar claims.) But we don't even need to go there. More importantly, we have evidence of docetic beliefs which fit what we see in the Slavonic/Latin versions. Is there a need to reconstruct from that an even earlier version? That's the question.

(For those interested, Andrew Criddle created a thread here on the original form of the Ascension of Isaiah a few months back here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=750&p=15704)

Thanks, GDon, for this clarification.

However, "we don't even need to go there" , re a heavenly crucifixion, is a moot point. Surely, it works both ways:

“And as above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what (is) in the firmament is here on earth.”

This works both ways. An earthly crucifixion requires a corresponding heavenly/celestial crucifixion. A heavenly/celestial crucifixion requires an earthly crucifixion. Neither McGrath nor Carrier can pick one way and discard or ignore the corresponding crucifixion. Sure, how a heavenly crucifixion actually corresponded to an earthly crucifixion is open for debate - but that one reflects the other in some way seems to be the thrust of the above quote from the Ascension of Isaiah. The Jerusalem below and the Jerusalem above......

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. This is reminiscent of what we find depicted or hinted at in a number of Docetic texts. While the earthly Jesus is crucified, the real Jesus is seen above the cross, a spiritual being whom they cannot harm, laughing at the fools who think they have genuinely crucified him.

[MattMorales]

Just for argument's sake: Would the crucifixion of Jesus in the firmament necessarily need to correspond to the crucifixion of a person on earth? Could it not correspond to the slaughter of Yahweh's "son," Israel, with the destruction of the temple?

[maryhelena]

Just for argument's sake: Would the crucifixion of Jesus in the firmament necessarily need to correspond to the crucifixion of a person on earth? Could it not correspond to the slaughter of Yahweh's "son," Israel, with the destruction of the temple?

One can make any argument that takes ones fancy....

Perhaps it's best to make an argument that has some plausibility of being demonstrated.

Was there a historical crucifixion, an execution by Rome, that could be used as a basis for the gospel Jesus crucifixion story?

Antigonus II Mattathias

Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[4] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[5]

It's the heavenly, celestial, crucifixion that is the complicated issue. i.e. what was envisioned by that idea? Whatever it was it would have been bound by the 'spiritual' understanding of that time and place. Today, one can re-interpret that 'spirituality' in a context that would have more meaning for our 21st century minds.

“And as above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what (is) in the firmament is here on earth.”

Mind and matter. Body and spirit. The one, the body, is earth bound. The mind roams free while subject to having it's outdated mental images 'crucified when they no longer serve any utility. Life, death and rebirth are aspects of our intellectual evolution - not our physical bodies.

[perseusomega9]

Just for argument's sake: Would the crucifixion of Jesus in the firmament necessarily need to correspond to the crucifixion of a person on earth? Could it not correspond to the slaughter of Yahweh's "son," Israel, with the destruction of the temple?

Or similar to Hebrews where Christ's sacrifice is the Heavenly Sacrifice and animal sacrifices are the earthly?

[maryhelena]

Just for argument's sake: Would the crucifixion of Jesus in the firmament necessarily need to correspond to the crucifixion of a person on earth? Could it not correspond to the slaughter of Yahweh's "son," Israel, with the destruction of the temple?

Or similar to Hebrews where Christ's sacrifice is the Heavenly Sacrifice and animal sacrifices are the earthly?

Come now - what is the symbol of Christianity - is it not a man on a cross?

[Charles Wilson]

Acts 1: 9 - 11 (RSV):

[9] And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
[10] And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
[11] and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Why, oh why, is this set of verses in Acts? "Jesus" could have disappeared in a haze of multi-colored lights, a fireball. He might have just...DISAPPEARED.
Quick! Let's call NASA and have them scan the Heavens to see if they can find "Jesus" still ascending. We should be able to plot accelerations and vectors and find out where he might be.

This is nonsense. BTW, careful reading of these verses states that "Jesus" was merely "Lifted Up". Vespasian would have been lifted up. Titus would have been lifted up. They would have been carried off in a cloud all right...A cloud of dust as they left the flattened Jerusalem.

...But, no. There is Earth and there is Heaven and the Pauline Duality reigns here. Only God can go between the two. 'N when he does, he has to "RIse!" and ascend to Heaven. It's a Set Piece. To argue a Heavenly (Only) Crucifixion is to pick a Political Side. Death to Docetism! No, no! Death to Anti-Docetism!

See what happens when you make stuff up?

CW