Weakness of Carrier/Doherty Heavenly Sacrifice

[TedM]

robert, thanks very much for the info. Certainly is interesting. Why do scholars believe the words you quotes are 2nd century and not from a 1st century writing?

[robert j]

TedM wrote,

Why do scholars believe the words you quotes are 2nd century and not from a 1st century writing?

Several possible reasons. Some might accept or promote the apologetic translations I warned about. Some might disagree with my opinion that the passage in Book 6, chapter 6 of the Stromata consists of Clement's own paraphrasing from the Preaching shaded by his firmly entrenched 2nd century gospel traditions. Some many disagree with the way I delineated the other passages --- the way I separated what I believe to be direct quotations of the Preaching from Clement's running commentary.

Any one or more of such disagreements could open the door to claims that the Preaching does include terminology and/or doctrines that would betray 2nd century (or perhaps post-war) traditions.

I can take this opportunity to elaborate on the apologetic translations that I have repeatedly warned about. There are two locations. In my post above I mentioned some on-line translations of the Stromta that are guilty of the apologetic translations. But the books in print I listed have what I believe to be the more accurate translations of the Preaching passages from the Stromata in those two locations, including a book by Bart Ehrman.

One location is often found in Book 6, chapter 15 of the Stromata, where the suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Christ take place “before Jerusalem was founded”. This translation accurately reflects the extant text. The apologetic translations eliminate this troublesome concept by substituting “before Jerusalem was … “captured” or “destroyed” or “judged”. One translation I've seen gives the more accurate translation, but notes that the intended meaning is “before the NEW Jerusalem was founded.”

The other example is found in Book 6, chapter 5 where the translator faces a dilemma --- the need to choose between the lesser of two doctrinal problems. Several translators make what I believe to be the correct decision, including the translation provided by Bart Ehrman,

“If then any of Israel will repent and believe in God through my name, his sins shall be forgiven him: and after twelve years go out into the world, lest any say, 'We did not hear'."

This translation poses a devastating problem for church tradition --- from the words of Peter, no less. It contradicts the great commission found in the very first book in the New testament, in Matthew 28:16-19 where the recently risen Christ instructs the 11 disciples to, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations.” See also Acts 1:8. Clement's paraphrasing in Book 6, chapter 6 appears to be an attempt to gloss-over this doctrinal problem.

Rather than face such a contradiction, apologetic translators made the other choice using a difrent arrangement of the phrases,

"If any one of Israel then, wishes to repent, and by my name to believe in God, his sins shall be forgiven him, after twelve years. Go forth into the world, that no one may say, We have not heard."

It certainly is odd for a believer to have to wait 12 years before his sins are forgiven --- but evidently apologetic translators chose to deal with a little oddity rather than face a devastating contradiction.

robert j.

[TedM]

I don't see how an apologetic viewpoint would lead one to think it is a 2nd century work. Clearly he is referencing a work that he thinks preceded him and came directly from Peter. There must be a reason why scholars don't think he was getting his material from an authentic work.

[outhouse]

The characterization of the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Christ as a heavenly event --- as taking place in a cosmic, spiritual realm --- is, in my opinion, a significant weakness in the Carrier/Doherty school of Christ Myth thought.
.

Correct.

Ity is not only weak, it has no real following with any credibility what so ever.

Most of it can only be used by perverting the original text used, out of context.

I’ve previously discussed my working premise that the earliest believers in the Christ found their story by means of allegorical interpretations, by finding previously hidden meanings in the scriptures --- and that Paul learned the details about this scriptural discovery from Cephas (Peter).

I think there are to many problems running down this road. More then Carrier or Doherty face.


Just for starters.

It is doubtful a Galilean Peter is the same one from Pauls epistles. And Paul founded and started nothing here.

[andrewcriddle]

Several possible reasons. Some might accept or promote the apologetic translations I warned about. Some might disagree with my opinion that the passage in Book 6, chapter 6 of the Stromata consists of Clement's own paraphrasing from the Preaching shaded by his firmly entrenched 2nd century gospel traditions. Some many disagree with the way I delineated the other passages --- the way I separated what I believe to be direct quotations of the Preaching from Clement's running commentary.

Any one or more of such disagreements could open the door to claims that the Preaching does include terminology and/or doctrines that would betray 2nd century (or perhaps post-war) traditions.

I can take this opportunity to elaborate on the apologetic translations that I have repeatedly warned about. There are two locations. In my post above I mentioned some on-line translations of the Stromta that are guilty of the apologetic translations. But the books in print I listed have what I believe to be the more accurate translations of the Preaching passages from the Stromata in those two locations, including a book by Bart Ehrman.

One location is often found in Book 6, chapter 15 of the Stromata, where the suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Christ take place “before Jerusalem was founded”. This translation accurately reflects the extant text. The apologetic translations eliminate this troublesome concept by substituting “before Jerusalem was … “captured” or “destroyed” or “judged”. One translation I've seen gives the more accurate translation, but notes that the intended meaning is “before the NEW Jerusalem was founded.”

This is not an apologetic translation but a conhectural emendation See Note 3437 in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vi.xv.html where what is going on is made clear.

The text in the only surviving independent manuscript (there is IIUC a later copy) reads κτισθῆναι was founded the emendation is κριθῆναι was judged/condemned etc Other emendations have been suggested.

I'm not sure what the original read but it is hard to make sense of the prophets foretelling the death of Jesus at the hands of the Jews before Jerusalem was founded.

Andrew Criddle

[Stephan Huller]

but it is hard to make sense of the prophets foretelling the death of Jesus at the hands of the Jews before Jerusalem was founded.

However if you have a group of modern interpreters who begin with the assumption that the gospel is senseless irrationality and the earliest Christians were mentally retarded it is easy to grab on to every potential 'error' in the writings of the early Church to confirm one's pre-existent prejudices.

[robert j]

Andrew Criddle wrote,

This is not an apologetic translation but a conhectural emendation See Note 3437 in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vi.xv.html where what is going on is made clear.

Call it what you will. The translation presented at this site is “... previous to the capture of Jerusalem.” The word “capture” is footnoted, and footnote 3437 reads ----

“If we retain the reading of the text, we must translate “founding,” and understand the reference to be to the descent of the new Jerusalem. But it seems better to change the reading as above.”

They admit that “founding” is the correct translation, but changed the reading because “it seems better”.

robert j.

[andrewcriddle]

Andrew Criddle wrote,

This is not an apologetic translation but a conhectural emendation See Note 3437 in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vi.xv.html where what is going on is made clear.

Call it what you will. The translation presented at this site is “... previous to the capture of Jerusalem.” The word “capture” is footnoted, and footnote 3437 reads ----

“If we retain the reading of the text, we must translate “founding,” and understand the reference to be to the descent of the new Jerusalem. But it seems better to change the reading as above.”

They admit that “founding” is the correct translation, but changed the reading because “it seems better”.

robert j.

The point is that if a long text from the ancient world survives only as a single late manuscript and/or direct copies thereof, it will always have numerous significant errors.

Any competent editor/translater of such a text has frequently to decide whether to stick with what the manuscript actually says or to emend because the manuscript reading seems wrong. A good editor/translater will add a footnote explaining what they have done. Which is what happened here. There are several other examples in the ANF translation of Clement where this has occurred, some probably right some probably wrong.

FWIW modern scholars such as Marcovich believe that the 19th century early 20th century editors of Clement of Alexandria were too reluctant to introduce conjectural emendations. Marcovich's text of Clement emends frequently.

Andrew Criddle

[robert j]

Andrew Criddle wrote,

Any competent editor/translater of such a text has frequently to decide whether to stick with what the manuscript actually says or to emend because the manuscript reading seems wrong.

“Seems wrong” according to what criteria? Because it doesn't fit with the Gospel traditions? In that case, changing the reading of an extant text that may represent earlier tradition, so that it does fit later church traditions, is apologetic manipulation.

Providing a footnote to express an opinion is one thing, but changing the extant text is something else entirely. The extant texts provide the evidence in our investigations --- we should not stand for tampering with the evidence.

robert j.

[TedM]

As long as there is a footnote and an explanation then I don't see the problem. It can still be examined for alternative understandings, just as you are doing.