Carrier confutes Norelli about the pocket gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Carrier confutes Norelli about the pocket gospel

Post by Giuseppe »

So dr. Carrier about Outer Space goes to confute Litwa:

“Likewise,” Litwa says, “crosses do not hover in the heavens,” evidently unaware of all the ancient reports of entire armies and thrones and gardens ‘hovering in the heavens’, “they are sunk in the soil,” evidently unaware of all the soil ancient Jews believed could be found in many levels of the heavens, particularly in the firmament, the zone of all corruption. “Men of flesh dwell on earth,” Litwa insists. Except when they don’t: many a human sorcerer and sage could fly (or even, like Isaiah or Elijah, be carried by angels or other creatures), and Philo reports the firmament was full of beings of mortal flesh residing at all levels.

What is more interesting, is that Carrier argues strongly for Norelli being entirely wrong about considering the "pocket gospel" in Ascension of Isaiah as original:


Similarly, Litwa claims that I “did not address any of Norelli’s arguments” for the “pocket gospel” depicting the Jews killing Jesus being an interpolation in the Ascension of Isaiah. That’s not actually true. As far as I can tell, the case I do make for it does counter Norelli’s. But since Litwa won’t tell us what my case was, or what Norelli’s was, or what in Norelli’s case my case doesn’t already answer, what use is there in Litwa even mentioning any of this? This is again irresponsible, lazy, and completely useless to everyone. Indeed Litwa is so inexplicably careless here that he claims “on earth…the angels crucify Christ” in this “pocket gospel,” when no such thing happens—which is precisely what contradicts the earlier text. Unlike what the angel tells Isaiah earlier on, the interpolated text unequivocally says “the children of Israel” were roused “against” Jesus, “not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king and crucified Him.” How does Litwa not know what the very text he is talking about says? Or why it’s peculiar—after supposedly having read my list of all the things that are, in fact, peculiar about it?

(my yellow, original bold)

I can't imagine that Norelli has escaped just this detail, so fatal against his argument.

But it is a FACT.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier confutes Norelli about the pocket gospel

Post by Giuseppe »

Sic stantibus rebus, wonder if a case may be made for a radical dichotomy:
  • The belief that angels crucify Jesus
AUT
  • The belief that men crucify Jesus
These two beliefs are incompatible and mutually exclusive. The text is clear. In both Ascension of Isaiah and in 1 Corinthians 2:8. The specific act of crucifixion is done by angels, not by men.

Where could the angels have a so high freedom of action excluding men from that same action?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier confutes Norelli about the pocket gospel

Post by Giuseppe »

In 9.14 "they" are demons:
And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

...while in the pocket gospel "they" are the "children of Israel":

And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).

(11:19)

The contradiction introduced by the interpolation is evident also for another reason.
  • In the original text, the sequence is:
    god of that world ---> demons ---> crucifixion
    The Son is delivered only one time directly to his death.
  • In the pocket gospel the sequence is:

    the adversary ----> children of Israel ----> king ----> children of Israel ----> crucifixion.

    The Son is delivered two times, before to a human king and only after to his death.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

"from" or "of" the world which is hidden from the flesh

Post by Giuseppe »

Now this is interesting.

And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not from this world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh.

(Ascension of Isaiah 6:15)

I wonder if the same passage can be translated so:

And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not (a vision) of this world but (a vision) of the world which is hidden from the flesh.

(Ascension of Isaiah 6:15)

This would place ipso facto anything hallucinated by Isaiah as having place in Outer Space.

Is there someone who may give me the original Greek of the verse? Thanks in advance.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier confutes Norelli about the pocket gospel

Post by Giuseppe »


Not (yet) hath been manifested he shall be in the corruptible world]

(Ascension of Isaiah 8:26)

Which means that, in the mind of the author, the first time the Son descends is to descend to Outer Space, not the Earth. In other terms, the Son has never visited the Earth.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: "from" or "of" the world which is hidden from the flesh

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 5:30 am Now this is interesting.

And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not from this world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh.

(Ascension of Isaiah 6:15)

I wonder if the same passage can be translated so:

And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not (a vision) of this world but (a vision) of the world which is hidden from the flesh.

(Ascension of Isaiah 6:15)

This would place ipso facto anything hallucinated by Isaiah as having place in Outer Space.

Is there someone who may give me the original Greek of the verse? Thanks in advance.
I realize that my suspicion is correct. 6:15 reads:

but the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not of this world, but of the world that is hidden from his flesh (of man).

The Latin version has made it clear for me:

Visio quam videbat, non erat de seculo hoc, sed de abscondito omni carni.

This implies clearly that also the crucifixion was not of this world, as any item of the vision.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply