...Crucified before Jerusalem was founded...

[Giuseppe]

OK, the primal Adam falls from Adam. How is that an explicit reference to anybody actually dying?

For since the foundation of the doctrine with them is the man Adam, and they say that concerning him [the man Adam] it has been written, "Who shall declare his generation?" learn how, partly deriving from the Gentiles the undiscoverable and diversified generation of the man, they fictitiously apply it to Christ.

(Hyppolitus, V, 7)

"Who shall declare his generation?" is a quote of Isaiah 53.8 :

He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare His generation? For He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of My people was He stricken.

Translation ERV is very free but the sense is even more clear:

He was taken away by force and judged unfairly. The people of his time did not even notice that he was killed. But he was put to death for the sins of his people.

(In other terms, the first apostles derived from Isaiah 53.8 the ''fact'' that the death of Jesus was not seen by any witness, not even by his same killers)

The conclusion is very logical:

Hyppolitus is evidence that an ancient Gnostic sect believed that the Primal Man (=Jesus Christ) was seized by the Archons and ripped to shreds.

Only the Archons could kill the primal Man before the creation of the world.


Or do you think that Pilate was so old?


What is important, at least for me, is that I can even concede that these Gnostics were II CE. It is sufficient to prove at least a single example of a celestial crucifixion in the past (I or II CE) to prove the mythicist thesis in his entirety.

[robert j]

Curiously it is just Clement of Alexandria who claims the identity Primal Man = Jesus:

The identity of Adam and Jesus seems to have been taught in the original form of the Clementine writings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon

The link and the citation you provided here are associated with the Clemetine Recognitions and Homilies and not with Clement of Alexandria. These are different works by a different author.

Therefore this confirms that the reading of :

found his coming and his death and the cross and all the other torments which the Jews inflicted on him, and his resurrection and assumption into the heavens before Jerusalem was founded, all these things that had been written,

...as meant by his original author, is the same reading made by robert j.

Just to be clear, the translation of this passage from Clement of Alexandria in my post was from Bart Ehrman and J.K. Elliott ---

In the other thread to which you provided a link on your OP, robert j wrote:

Note: This translation is by J.K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, and is used by Bart Ehrman in his, Lost Scriptures --- Books That Did Not Make It Into The New Testament, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.238.

I'm not joining the debate here --- I just wanted to provide some clarification.

[Giuseppe]

OK, thanks, therefore I give up to derive my case from the Clement quoted by robert j.

More precisely, my point with the Clement's quote is that, even if Clement was evidence of a crucifixion before the foundation of Jerusalem (and if he is, I cannot know), that crucifixion is clearly an allegory of a more spiritual/celestial myth.

I continue to think that the Primal Man described in Hyppolitus as the cornerstone of ''foundation of Zion'' is precisely the Primal Man while he falls down, i.e. while he is killed by Archons.

In the precise moment when the Primal Man is (allegorically) ''put as cornerstone of Jerusalem'', (really) he becomes enslaved as ''inner man'' inside the skull (Hyppolitus calls it ''fortress of teeth'') of any human being.

The material skull is allegory of ''the formative brain from which the entire family is fashioned''.

Hence the origin of the Golgotha (''Place of the skull'').

It cannot be a coincidence that the place of the death of a divine being is in both the cases a ''skull''.

The lowest state of Jesus in Paul	The lowest state of the Primal Man in Hyppolitus
''when he humbled himself, ... by a death of cross''	when he is placed ''as a rock at the foundations of Zion''
(according to Gospels) ...on the ''place of Skull''	''The rock is interposed (within) the teeth, as Homer says, "enclosure of teeth," that is, a wall anti fortress, in which exists the inner man, who thither has fallen from Adam, the primal man above''

[Giuseppe]

So Carrier in OHJ, p. 572 :

Paul likewise says God put 'in Zion a stone of stumbling'
although anyone who trusts in it will not be ashamed (Rom. 9.33); but he
is quoting scripture here (not citing a historical fact), and the context is the
Torah and the gospel (Rom . 9.30-32), not Jesus. Thus Paul does not mean
Jesus was crucified 'in Zion' as some sort of geographical fact. Even if Paul
believed he had been (as could be the case on minimal historicity), that is
not what Paul is talking about here. The subject is not Jesus at all, but the
old Torah law that Jews were still trying to obey, yet could never succeed at
(Rom. 9.30-1 0.6). They are thus stumbling over the gospel's concept that
faith succeeds where works fail (9.32), as God intended (9.33); but it was
still Paul's hope that the Jews would be saved (Rom. 10.1 ). It is thus the
gospel that originated 'in Zion'. And even that is not geography but ethnography:
he simply means it originated within Judaism.

Carrier had already said that, in a criticism against Bernard:

I can't follow Muller's argument here at all. I see no way to get from Romans 9:31-33 that Jesus was crucified on earth. The passage is fully consistent with only the Gospel [Paul's preaching message, which I usually spell with a small 'g'] being on earth, not the crucifixion itself. Muller seems not to understand the difference. The Gospel is a stumbling block, not the literal, historical crucifixion of Jesus. After all, the latter no longer exists—it is in the past—so you can't trip over it....You can only trip over the story, the message, about this crucifixion and what it means. Thus, the subject is the Gospel, not the crucifixion itself. Obviously the Gospel was placed in Zion. That does not mean Jesus was. Sure, it is consistent with both possibilities. But that gets us nowhere.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesMuller2.htm

Doherty continues to say:

the scandal, the stumbling-block, is the fact of "Christ crucified," not simply some interpretation of it, and certainly not the significance or divine identity of the man who had supposedly undergone this crucifixion in Jerusalem.

This view of Doherty fits with what we read from Hyppolitus, where
the 'rock put as foundations of Zion' is the primal Adam while he is enslaved as inner man inside any material man. The enslavement or fall of the divine being assumes logically the form of a violent death by hand of spirit demons.

[Giuseppe]

According to a Christian tradition, Adam was buried at the foot of the cross, on the Golgotha.

But was this tradition post-Gospel? Surely yes but not totally.

If the Primal Adam had to create the world by his death (by hand of demons), then it is natural to find already allegorized his death by the allusion to him as "rock of foundation of Jerusalem". In other terms, the true Jesus (=the primal man named "Jesus") was not above the Golgotha, but inside it.

[Bernard Muller]

This passage in OHJ is the result of an intense discussion I had on one of Carrier's blogs a significant time before OHJ was published.
I have my arguments on the subject here: http://historical-jesus.info/19.html (Is there evidence in Paul's epistles about the Crucifixion on earth? Yes)

Paul likewise says God put 'in Zion a stone of stumbling'
although anyone who trusts in it will not be ashamed (Rom. 9.33); but he
is quoting scripture here (not citing a historical fact), and the context is the
Torah and the gospel (Rom . 9.30-32), not Jesus.

Quoting scriptures (more so if they are cut & paste & modified in order to fit) can describe historical facts about Jesus, or John the Baptist, or other persons & things. It's used many times all over the NT and other early Christian texts.

Thus Paul does not mean
Jesus was crucified 'in Zion' as some sort of geographical fact. Even if Paul
believed he had been (as could be the case on minimal historicity), that is
not what Paul is talking about here. The subject is not Jesus at all, but the
old Torah law that Jews were still trying to obey, yet could never succeed at
(Rom. 9.30-1 0.6).

Sorry, it it not the old Torah Law because :
A) Ro 9:31-33 "But Israel, pursuing after a law of righteousness, has not attained to [that] law. Wherefore? Because [it was] not on the principle of faith, but as of works. They have stumbled at the stumblingstone, according as it is written, Behold, I [God] place in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence ['skandalon']: and he that believes [has faith] on him [Jesus. See 10:11 below where Paul used the same quote, eleven verses later] shall not be ashamed ['ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται']."

Ro 10:9-11 "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from among the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart is believed to righteousness; and with the mouth confession made to salvation. For the scripture says, he that believes on him [definitively Jesus here] shall not be ashamed ['ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται']."

B) If we replace "the stumblingstone" by the old Torah law, as Carrier would wish, then we have:
"But Israel, pursuing after a law of righteousness, has not attained to [that] law. Wherefore? Because [it was] not on the principle of faith, but as of works. They have stumbled at the old Torah law, according as it is written, Behold, I place in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence: and he that believes on it shall not be ashamed."
Now we have those who believe in the old Torah law shall not be ashamed. That's certainly not what Paul meant.

They are thus stumbling over the gospel's concept that
faith succeeds where works fail (9.32), as God intended (9.33); but it was
still Paul's hope that the Jews would be saved (Rom. 10.1 ). It is thus the
gospel that originated 'in Zion'. And even that is not geography but ethnography:
he simply means it originated within Judaism.

Now, suddenly, the old Torah law is replaced by Paul's gospel concept. However Paul certainly would never say his gospel of faith prevailing over works originated in Zion or/and within Judaism.

Carrier had already said that, in a criticism against Bernard:

I can't follow Muller's argument here at all. I see no way to get from Romans 9:31-33 that Jesus was crucified on earth. The passage is fully consistent with only the Gospel [Paul's preaching message, which I usually spell with a small 'g'] being on earth, not the crucifixion itself. Muller seems not to understand the difference. The Gospel is a stumbling block, not the literal, historical crucifixion of Jesus. After all, the latter no longer exists—it is in the past—so you can't trip over it....You can only trip over the story, the message, about this crucifixion and what it means. Thus, the subject is the Gospel, not the crucifixion itself. Obviously the Gospel was placed in Zion. That does not mean Jesus was. Sure, it is consistent with both possibilities. But that gets us nowhere.

Nowhere in the NT it is said Paul made efforts to propagate his gospel within Zion.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Bernard, I think that Carrier doesn't mean ''the old Torah'' as the rock put in Zion. In my view, he and Doherty think that the preaching of a crucified Christ is the rock of stumbling. The continued observance of the ''old Torah'' by Jews becomes what makes that rock (the crucified Christ) a rock of stumbling. If Christ is crucified (therefore putting and end for the Law), then why do the Jews follow still the Torah? This is precisely the stumbling.

Nowhere in the NT it is said Paul made efforts to propagate his gospel within Zion.

It is false. In 1 Corinthians Paul says that the preaching of a crucified Messiah is a scandal for the Jews. And the Jews are within Zion.

[Giuseppe]

I continue to think that the passage of Hyppolitus:

The expression "rock," he says, he uses of Adam. This, he affirms, is Adam: "The chief corner-stone become the head of the corner. For that in the head the substance is the formative brain from which the entire family is fashioned. "Whom," he says, "I place as a rock at the foundations of Zion." Allegorizing, he says, he speaks of the creation of the man. The rock is interposed (within) the teeth, as Homer says, "enclosure of teeth," that is, a wall anti fortress, in which exists the inner man, who thither has fallen from Adam, the primal man above. And he has been "severed without hands to effect the division," and has been borne down into the image of oblivion, being earthly and clayish.

is evidence of a pre-christian or post-christian cult of the celestial death of the Primal Adam.

Surely not a historicist death, because it is assumed that the Primal Adam is crucified (and only in another places the identity is made between the Primal Adam and Jesus by these same heretics).

[Giuseppe]

Now I understand why Carrier insists so much about the coincidence-too-much-greath-to-be-such of a Philo calling LOGOS a guy named Jesus in Zechariah.

The facts are the following:

1) We have evidence that the Primal Man was considered a celestial being killed in heaven before the creation of the world according to a heretic sect quoted in Hyppolitus.

2) according to Hyppolitus, that heretic sect was pre-christian, but according to the entire consensus of scholars (+ Bernard) that heretic sect was post-christian.

3) the consensus recognizes that only Philo and only the hermetic works (jewish-hellenistic) talked about the divine Primal Man during the I century CE.

THEREFORE:
If one accepts the conclusions of the consensus (and Carrier does), the only way to link the Jesus of Paul with the later mythological Anthropos (and his celestial death) is to appeal to Philo's Primal Man via the Philo's quoting of Zechariah's passage about Jesus.

The sequence of events (per Carrier) would be the following:

1) worship of the Primal Man in Jewish-Hellenistic circles (but without a celestial death),
2) the Primal Man is named Jesus by both the early Christians and Philo,
3) the Primal Man becomes later a gnostic concept.

Note that prof Price takes another way: he continues to believe, against the consensus, that the Gnostic Primal Man's concept was derived by Paul because it is already found during all the I CE in proto-gnostic circles.

The sequence of events (per Price) would be the following:

1) worship of a Gnostic Primal Man in Jewish-Hellenistic circles with already a celestial death,
2) the Primal Man is named Jesus by the early Christians

According to the historicist Christian consensus, the sequence of events is the following:

1) worship of the Primal Man in Jewish-Hellenistic circles (but without a celestial death),
2) the Primal Man is named Jesus by the early Christians but NOT by Philo,
3) the Primal Man becomes later a gnostic concept (with a celestial death).

[Giuseppe]

I find that Carrier is aware of the ''problem'':

What distinguishes Christianity's talk of the 'two Adams' from Philo's talk of
the 'two Adams', apart from Philo's own Platonizing tendencies, is that
Christianity claimed a special fate for the celestial Adam (he descended
from the heavens to die and rise from the dead), and placed it as a
historical event-· presumably a recent historical event, portending
that the 'end was nigh'...

(OHJ, p. 199, my bold)

In Philo there is the Primal Man but there is not the celestial crucifixion. Hence the need, by Carrier, to give so much weight on the ''impossible coincidence'' between the Christian Jesus and the 'presumed' Philonic ''Jesus''.


I see that the problem may be resolved thanks to Hyppolitus's mention of a Primal Man (very often identified with Jesus by the heretics) fallen and enslaved by demons - and therefore killed - before the creation of the world.

The problem is that these Gnostics are put all in II CE by the consensus (even if NOT by Hyppolitus, pace Bernard). But it is a very probable fact that they conceived the fall of Adam/''Jesus'' as a 'historical' celestial death (being before the same creation of the world, at best case coinciding with it) by hand of evil archons.


Therefore I have two possibilities before me: to follow Carrier (and his Philo's argument) or to follow Price (and his Gnostic argument).