Does Richard Carrier ignore that some "Gnostics" were mythicists?

[Giuseppe]

I don't like when Richard Carrier writes:

MacDonald was stymied. I think he expected me to cite the Gnostics in support of my thesis, as they were less hostile to the idea of revelation as a source of knowledge than the Orthodoxists were (here using “Orthodoxist” only in the political, not the literal, sense, as I define it in OHJ, p. 64). Because MacDonald wanted to point out that “those Gnostics,” and he singled out the views represented in the early medieval manuscripts recovered at Nag Hammadi, “don’t deny that Jesus was a historical person, but rather that it’s like you said, that Jesus takes on a human form,” like, wears a fake body, but still interacting in Earth history (he here seems to mean Docetism, not Gnosticism; though Docetism has a similar problem). But as I had noted, all “Gnostic” texts he could possibly mean are in fact late derivations from the canonical Gospels and teachings, and MacDonald quite agreed. So they are on the wrong side of “historical causality” here: they are a product of the historicizing pedigree, not a predecessor to it. So they are of no use in reconstructing the origins of Christianity. Anything we find earlier than that (from 1 Clement to the Ascension of Isaiah) conspicuously lacks any clear references to a historical Jesus

Judge by yourself:

The Church Fathers attacked the Valentinian belief about the Cosmic Cross placed in heaven.


I had reported the precise quotes where it is even said that the 'superior Christ' SUFFERED on that cosmic cross.

I think that you are able to find alone these passages I mean.

Therefore, if you are intellectually honest, then you have to abandon by yourself this line of argument.

ADDENDA:

The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form. In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images — Christians themselves being indeed nothing but imaginary beings!

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0314.htm

But, in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the Æon, nor did it take place in similar circumstances [i.e. in OUTER SPACE].

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103220.htm

[rgprice]

Yeah, he's wrong on that.

In spite of Ben's concerns, I still read Philippians 2:6-11 as the earliest account of Jesus, an account that tells of an unnamed deity (the Word) descending from heaven to take human form. However it exactly came about, there is an interaction with the idea of a second God and Isaiah 53. The Suffering Servant was unnamed with a mysterious identity. Somewhere, the Suffering Servant was identified with the second God, be it the Word or some other concept.

The Word ends up making the most sense I think, because that also explain the name Jesus, which also comes from Philo. So, the idea of a deity descending from heaven and taking human form is, IMO, the very earliest concept of Jesus. It's right there in the Christ Hymn. IMO John 1 makes explicit the association of the Christ Hymn with the Word. John 1 is essentially the Christ Hymn told through the words of Philo.

So yeah, I think Carrier is wrong on that. The Lord descending from heaven and taking human form is the starting point of Jesus mythology. I also agree with Doherty, though, that Hebrews put's the sacrifice of Jesus back up in heaven, however I don't think was a universal view. I think originally Jesus was said to have been crucified on earth.

But nevertheless, the power of Jesus' sacrifice was intimately tied to the fact that he was actually a deity. Jesus' sacrifice had the significance that it did, because he was a pure figure who had descended from heaven. The fact that Jesus was unborn, as Hebrews states, is what made him worthy of the sacrifice.

This is the problem that the virgin birth was designed to handle. The theology required that Jesus be a pure unborn sacrificial figure, so in order to make Jesus a human born of a woman, they had to invent the virgin birth to try and retain his required purity. This is also why the theology would never have worked going the other direction. The earliest theology required a pure unborn sacrificial offering. The earliest theology wouldn't have worked in regard to the crucifixion of a real normal person -- corrupted by origin in the material world.

[Giuseppe]

I think originally Jesus was said to have been crucified on earth.

I disagree on this. An earthly crucifixion would be ipso facto conceived as a Roman crucifixion (hence easily used by apologists - I consider Ben one for that matter - as a kind of Trojan Horse of historicity?).




Note how much past mythicists have localized the original crucifixion precisely in heaven.

Some clue of a celestial crucifixion is found also in the Gospels.

Try to remove 'Synagogues' from Luke 12:11-12 and you gain a mythicist Logion:

“When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

...insofar it fits perfectly the situation of the soul who has to ascend beyond the archontic Gate-keepers in lower heavens: the only original 'rulers and authorities' who are meant in the original Logion.

Apocalypse of James 1:8.30

I taught you what to say before the archons

See also Epiphanius Panarion, 26:13.

The equivalent passages (Mark 13:9-11;
Matthew 10:17-19) have euhemerized even more the original entirely mythical context of the Logion.

If the archons are localized in heaven in their function of gate-keepers and punishers of ascending Christians, then also the crucifixion by only archons (1 Cor 2:8) had to be accordingly localized in heaven.

[Giuseppe]

Additional evidence that the crucifixion was in outer space is also found in 1 Peter 1:20:

He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake

....that has to be interpreted so:

He was chosen to be crucified before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake

[maryhelena]

Additional evidence that the crucifixion was in outer space is also found in 1 Peter 1:20:

He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake

....that has to be interpreted so:

He was chosen to be crucified before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake

I find this whole argument over an earthly, fleshly crucifixion and a heavenly, 'outer space' crucifixion to miss the point. The point being that the NT has two crucifixion stories. The gospel crucifixion story is placed on terra-firma and the Pauline crucifixion story is based in heaven, in 'outer space'. i.e. Paul's crucifixion story is intellectual, it is philosophical not physical.

The gospel crucifixion story set upon terra-firm is asserting the necessity of physical reality - in the case of the gospel story - the relevance of history, of time and place. (and no, not a 1 or 3 year history but an era of history that the gospel writers found to be relevant to the story they want to tell).

Yes, of course, there is a connection between the physical and the intellectual.....a connection illustrated in the gospel story with the resurrection idea. But, in actuality, it's a two way street. Our physical reality influences what we think and our imagination can give us bursts of inspiration now and again. So..... JC goes up to heaven and he comes down again......we are dealing with logic here not miracles or dreams and visions.....

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

As for Soter (Jesus), he remained in Christ to the last, impassible, incapable of injury, incapable of apprehension. By and by, when it came to a question of capture, he departed from him during the examination before Pilate. In like manner, his mother's seed did not admit of being injured, being equally exempt from all manner of outrage, and being undiscovered even by the Demiurge himself. The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form. In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images — Christians themselves being indeed nothing but imaginary beings!

The superior Christ is a spirit who inhabited the carnal Jesus. That spirit departed from him (carnal Jesus) during the examination before Pilate. Nothing here saying the carnal Jesus was not crucified on earth.

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

I disagree on this. An earthly crucifixion would be ipso facto conceived as a Roman crucifixion (hence easily used by apologists - I consider Ben one for that matter - as a kind of Trojan Horse of historicity?).

In reality, the original concept was likely not well defined to begin with. He descended, he took on the likeness of a man, he was crucified. No doubt this was always vague, and perhaps always conceived of differently by different people. On earth, in heaven, in the ether, whatever... Whatever the case may have been, it was Isaiah 53 that narrated the event.

[Giuseppe]

it was Isaiah 53 that narrated the event.

even included the point of crucifixion.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

Even they themselves acknowledge that it was the suffering Christ, and not Judas, who came to [the endurance of] passion. How, then, could Judas, the betrayer of Him who had to suffer for our salvation, be the type and image of that Æon who suffered?
But, in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the Æon, nor did it take place in similar circumstances.

The passion of Christ was not similar to the passion of the Æon. That's because the Æon passion did not take place in similar circumstances: the Æon passion was associated with Judas.

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

it was Isaiah 53 that narrated the event.

even included the point of crucifixion.

From that this, this is quite interesting:

Philo, ON THE POSTERITY OF CAIN AND HIS EXILE, 61:
that the body must be thought akin to the souls that love the body, and that external good things must be exceedingly admired by them, and all the souls which have this kind of disposition depend on dead things, and, like persons who are crucified, are attached to corruptible matter till the day of their death.

This suggests the possibility that the "crucifixion of Christ" could have originally referred not to a means of execution, but the means of incarnation. Christ was "crucified" when he descended from heaven and took on a material body. The "crucifixion" was the process of vivification.

I'm not proposing that as the origin of the concept, but it is a very interesting idea.