Richard Carrier on McGrath's 'Did Jesus die in outer space?'

[Robert Tulip]

Jesus died in the sky.

Recognising that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, I acknowledge my knowledge on this debate is only partial. I have a copy of On The Historical Jesus but have not read it, and have not read the Ascension of Isaiah.

Nonetheless, as I have explained in the In Defence of Astrotheology thread, there is persuasive evidence that Jesus was imagined as dying in the sky (not in ‘outer space’), in terms of the broad ancient mythic practice of using constellations as maps for stories. We have no reason to think Christianity would not have used this practice, but the received stories have a massive lacuna regarding what those stories were. I think we can reconstruct them from the fragmentary clues available.

Conceptualising Jesus Christ as the anthropomorphisation of the Sun, as the pre-existent Logos and as Alpha and Omega provides a simple direct correlation with the observed precession of the spring equinox point into a ‘new age’ in 21 AD, imagined as the incarnation of the word. This point is the model for the Chi Rho cross. What is extraordinary in sleuthing through the evidence is how compelling this story is but how assiduously it was apparently hidden, both by advocates and enemies, for rival motive of protection and suppression.

This astrological matter is the central missing piece of Carrier’s sky puzzle, which it seems he is blind to as a result of accepting the disdain that modern scientific logic displays towards mystical traditions, even where those traditions contain an entirely rational core.

[Peter Kirby]

Incidentally, and speaking of such, I am wondering if someone can unpack the full meaning of this crucial sentence, with examples from the text: "Ascension of Isaiah emphasizes that what happens on the firmament is mirrored in the terrestrial realm."

That seems to be the view of McGrath, Carrier and Doherty.

Or not, in the case of Doherty.

http://vridar.org/2015/03/05/mcgrath-on ... ment-69999

I am not sure where some people get the idea that the principle of likeness between heaven and earth involves the concept that every event on earth has a counterpart in heaven, or vice-versa. McGrath is one who seizes on that idea, and G. A. Wells was another who offered it in dispute of me. I have never advocated such a thing, and I see no evidence for it in the record. Yes, certain specific things in heaven have their counterpart on earth, such as the heavenly and earthly tabernacle, or the heavenly and earthly Jerusalem, but the idea hardly extends to every conceivable event. No ancient writer believed that because Caesar crossed the Rubicon on earth, a heavenly Caesar also did so in heaven.

Ascension of Isaiah 7 (often quoted) simply states “As above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what is in the firmament is here on earth.” Nations war on earth, so too do the demon hosts in the firmament. There are trees on earth, so also are there trees in heaven, and a host of other natural things (see 2 Enoch, for example). Crucifixion takes place on earth, so also can it take place in heaven. But that does not mean that every specific crucifixion on earth is mirrored by a specific crucifixion in heaven. McGrath’s argument in this regard is fanciful.

Also, for McGrath to use the phrase “die in outer space” mirrors the prejudice he feels toward the concept, and the lack of understanding he has for it in ancient thought. “Outer space” in such a context implies a pejorative dismissal, almost relegated to “beyond reality”. The layers of heaven in Platonic thought were anything but beyond reality, but an integral part of it. And for McGrath or anyone else to claim that the concept of the firmament does not necessarily exclude earth, has not read the literature carefully. To think that something like the Ascension could imply that its “firmament” could include earth, with earth itself actually being the intended locale and yet never make specific reference to that locale, is pipe-dreaming. (The interpolation in chapter 11 served to remedy that omission, but even there the ‘earthly’ references mirror previous heavenly references and were created out of them, not out of historical tradition. The interpolation following the birth scene is a literary construction inspired by the heavenly precursor in the earlier stage of the document.)

I would also say that the recent studies on the Ascension of Isaiah mentioned on Vridar offer analyses which often are not backed up by carefully considered evidence in the document, as for example by showing ignorance of the point made in the final part of the previous paragraph above.

Earl Doherty

I believe they are all wrong on this, since it doesn't make sense in terms of the philosophical beliefs of the time.

And it's a very important question, isn't it?

All I'm saying is that your talents are wasted acting merely as a referee for YAUMCS (yet another unenlightening McGrath-Carrier spat)...

Not that I'm trying to stop you from performing such a service. And it does have some value.

But consider that some very interesting things were left by the wayside simply because they weren't relevant to scoring (e.g., whether Carrier and McGrath are possibly both wrong).

It's the same story in the case of the comment, "Obviously a crucifixion in Sheol is as useful for mythicism as crucifixion in outer space, but McGrath is clear about what he is examining." I don't especially care who's right and who's wrong; I am far more interested in what's right and what's wrong.

[GakuseiDon]

Fair points, Peter. And don't worry, I'll only be a part-time YAUMCS referee.

I do think this particular discussion is important, since if we remove the "Jesus died in outer space" plank from Carrier's Mimimal Mythicism, then the whole thing collapses (though of course other forms of mythicism not relying on that might well be correct.) I'd like to see Carrier and McGrath have a long polite debate on this topic, with no referees required at all. I'd also like to see World Peace in my time. Neither seems likely.

(ETA) There is also a lot of information on this board in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1018

[maryhelena]

Incidentally, and speaking of such, I am wondering if someone can unpack the full meaning of this crucial sentence, with examples from the text: "Ascension of Isaiah emphasizes that what happens on the firmament is mirrored in the terrestrial realm."

GakuseiDon: That seems to be the view of McGrath, Carrier and Doherty.

Or not, in the case of Doherty.

http://vridar.org/2015/03/05/mcgrath-on ... ment-69999

I am not sure where some people get the idea that the principle of likeness between heaven and earth involves the concept that every event on earth has a counterpart in heaven,

One does not need to subscribe to such an idea to maintain that the idea of a heavenly 'crucifixion' requires a parallel crucifixion on earth. It's a crucifixion that is at issue not whatever hundred and one other elements one chooses to bring into the argument....

or vice-versa. McGrath is one who seizes on that idea, and G. A. Wells was another who offered it in dispute of me. I have never advocated such a thing, and I see no evidence for it in the record. Yes, certain specific things in heaven have their counterpart on earth, such as the heavenly and earthly tabernacle, or the heavenly and earthly Jerusalem, but the idea hardly extends to every conceivable event. No ancient writer believed that because Caesar crossed the Rubicon on earth, a heavenly Caesar also did so in heaven.

What has Caesar got to do with the gospel story about an earthly crucifixion.......

Ascension of Isaiah 7 (often quoted) simply states “As above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what is in the firmament is here on earth.” Nations war on earth, so too do the demon hosts in the firmament. There are trees on earth, so also are there trees in heaven, and a host of other natural things (see 2 Enoch, for example). Crucifixion takes place on earth, so also can it take place in heaven. But that does not mean that every specific crucifixion on earth is mirrored by a specific crucifixion in heaven. McGrath’s argument in this regard is fanciful.

Every specific crucifixion on earth to be mirrored by a specific crucifixion in heaven?

It is only one earthly crucifixion, that of the gospel figure of Jesus, that is required, in a Jerusalem below and a Jerusalem above scenario, to have a heavenly counterpart, a heavenly reflection. One Jerusalem below crucifixion not the many that have taken place.....

I find this argument from some ahistoricists/mythicists to be nothing more than a failure of logic. Upholding a 'heavenly crucifixion' does not require them to deny an earthly crucifixion as being relevant to the gospel crucifixion story. Yes, of course, only a heavenly 'crucifixion' can have primary value - a once for all time removal of value from animal sacrifices to the supreme value of spiritual sacrifices - intellectual sacrifices (old ideas 'sacrificed' on the alter of intellectual evolution).

There are two crucifixion stories in the NT. The Pauline heavenly/cosmic/spiritual/intellectual sacrifice: ''I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.'' The 'heavenly crucifixion' produces a new man - an intellectual man, a man driven by intellect. The crucified gospel Jesus story reflects a historical tragedy. An historical tragedy that led to a new spiritual/intellectual comprehension. Not a resurrection of a physical man but a 'resurrection, a new life in 'Christ' - a new intellectual framework that would produce values of benefit to humanity.

---------------------------
(for anyone to imagine that a flesh and blood human sacrifice has supreme value is not just to denigrate ones humanity - it is also to label the gospel writers as anti-humanitarian. Logic dictates that that is not what the gospel writer were doing. The gospel writers were reflecting, in their Jesus crucifixion story, historical tragedy; they were not reflecting anti-humanitarian theories regarding human, flesh and blood, sacrifices having supreme salvation value.....When a theological interpretation of the gospel crucifixion story becomes anti-humanitarian - time to check ones premises.....)

[Speusippus]

But IF that was the case -- if that is what AoI means in 7.10 -- and Carrier sees that AoI has Christ crucified in the firmament, then that must map to some event on earth. Carrier seems to suggest that the Yom Kippur event is the earthly equivalent, if I read his blog post correctly where he writes "the earthly copy of Jesus’ sacrifice in heaven is the Yom Kippur ritual". But given that AoI posits the descent and crucifixion of the Beloved as a future event (with respect to Isaiah), I don't see how that applies.

I don't see the problem--if the singular event in the heavens maps onto a cyclical event on Earth, then the heavenly event being "in the future" w.r.t. Isaiah doesn't make it impossible that its mapping is the Yom Kippur ritual.

Edited to Add: I do not understand what's wrong with the quote function in this post. I've used the "quote" tag in exactly the same way it's used in other posts AFAICT.

[MrMacSon]

I do not understand what's wrong with the quote function in this post. I've used the "quote" tag in exactly the same way it's used in other posts AFAICT.

It goes weird for first time users; there may be a code-thing or something you need to tweak in the User Control Panel.

[Peter Kirby]

I do not understand what's wrong with the quote function in this post. I've used the "quote" tag in exactly the same way it's used in other posts AFAICT.

It goes weird for first time users; there may be a code-thing or something you need to tweak in the User Control Panel.

It's the "Disable BBCode" checkbox under options right below a post. I typically fix it for new members' posts, and it will be fine.

Welcome aboard!