Carrier at SBL

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Carrier at SBL

Post by Bernard Muller »

Peter Kirby wrote:
In other news, now we also have a retrospective on the debate in Azusa:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6917
From the aforementioned blog post:
Waters evidently did not grasp the distinction between celestial as supra-lunar, and the firmament as the region of space below the moon, which was the realm of flesh (yet was still known to extend hundreds of thousands of miles). Exactly as the earlier redaction of the Ascension of Isaiah says was the location of the crucifixion.
But AoI never said that the firmament (or the air below it) is the location of the Crucifixion:
http://historical-jesus.info/100.html
neither 'Hebrews':
http://historical-jesus.info/96.html
neither 1 Corinthians 2:8:
http://historical-jesus.info/68.html

But Paul implied the Crucifixion happened in the Jewish heartland:
http://historical-jesus.info/19.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Carrier at SBL

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bernard Muller wrote:
Even the Ascension of Isaiah is difficult to consider obscure, especially when Andrew Criddle has recently presented evidence here that it was quoted in the 2nd/3rd century text Acts of Peter as being words of a "prophet.
But what are the odds that AoI (even in a version chosen by mythicists) would be available in the 30's or 40's or 50's (or at least representative of early Christianity beliefs then)?
How does one calculate such a figure in reality, and not simply in your views?
Bernard Muller wrote:Close to zero, in my views.
http://historical-jesus.info/100.html

Cordially, Bernard
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:
criticized Carrier’s use of “relatively obscure texts” (like the Ascension of Isaiah and Philo)
If Philo of Alexandria and the Ascension of Isaiah are considered "relatively obscure texts," that's hardly to be considered a fault of Carrier. Seems much more like a fault of Waters. Pretty amazing quote, actually, particularly when applied to Philo. I wonder whether any scholars of Philo in the audience were a little hurt. Even the Ascension of Isaiah is difficult to consider obscure, especially when Andrew Criddle has recently presented evidence here that it was quoted in the 2nd/3rd century text Acts of Peter as being words of a "prophet." You don't get to be a prophetic text by being irrelevant or obscure.

Or is this code for "not in the Bible," and therefore not theologically important? No, it couldn't be that. I shouldn't have said it.
One possible constructive response to Richard Carrier's book would be increased discussion of the potential importance of works such as the Ascension of Isaiah for understanding early Christian belief.

Andrew Criddle
This is a good point. In my opinion, though, and I know he might protest that he doesn't, Carrier leans on this text too much to make his point. I thought Doherty's approach of canvassing many works for building up his picture of a 'heavenly Christ cult' was a more sound way to go about it, even though Doherty ended up being too greedy and drawing too many texts into his purview in that regard (IMO).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Carrier at SBL

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Peter,
Peter Kirby wrote:
Bernard Muller wrote:
Even the Ascension of Isaiah is difficult to consider obscure, especially when Andrew Criddle has recently presented evidence here that it was quoted in the 2nd/3rd century text Acts of Peter as being words of a "prophet.
But what are the odds that AoI (even in a version chosen by mythicists) would be available in the 30's or 40's or 50's (or at least representative of early Christianity beliefs then)?
How does one calculate such a figure in reality, and not simply in your views?
Bernard Muller wrote:Close to zero, in my views.
http://historical-jesus.info/100.html

Cordially, Bernard
So what are your odds in your views? with evidence, please.

BTW, according to Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book 1:
5, 2 He created also seven heavens, above which they say that he, the Demiurge, exists. And on this account they [Heretics] term him Hebdomas, and his mother Achamoth Ogdoads, preserving the number of the first-begotten and primary Ogdoad as the Pleroma. They affirm, moreover, that these seven heavens are intelligent, and speak of them as being angels, while they refer to the Demiurge himself as being an angel bearing a likeness to God
That would explain why those 2nd century heretics would find a fully Jewish 'Ascension of Isaiah' to their liking and as a text fit for their Christian Gnostic/Docetic interpolations, as I demonstrated here: http://historical-jesus.info/100.html.

Carrier dates the AoI between 64 AD and early second century, and more precisely at about the same time than the book of Revelation (around 95 AD) (OHJ, page 37, footnote 2), well after the time of Paul and earliest Christians, and most likely after some of the gospels were available (Carrier sets gMark before gMatthew, in the 70's or 80's, and gMatthew itself in the 80's or 90's: OHJ, page 266).
And then I do not agree with such an early dating for AoI, or such a late dating for the gospels, but that's another matter.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Carrier at SBL

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bernard Muller wrote:to Peter,
Peter Kirby wrote:
Bernard Muller wrote:But what are the odds that AoI (even in a version chosen by mythicists) would be available in the 30's or 40's or 50's (or at least representative of early Christianity beliefs then)?
How does one calculate such a figure in reality, and not simply in your views?
Bernard Muller wrote:Close to zero, in my views.
http://historical-jesus.info/100.html

Cordially, Bernard
So what are your odds in your views? with evidence, please.
I don't know. First we'd have to clarify which we are talking about, the Ascension of Isaiah in its first recension or some "beliefs" represented in it (as these are not the same thing). Then we'd have to figure out how we propose to calculate the figure.

Requesting some "views" that contradict your "views" is just asking to pile speculation on speculation.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply