Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

[neilgodfrey]

Question: Who are the scholars that hold the viewpoint that the "pocket gospel story" is suspicious?

In 1994 Norelli pointed out that his view that the "pocket gospel" was part of the original text was exceptional and that "many other scholars" clung to the view that it was "suspicious".

p. 256 in Norelli's Studi:

Nel Commento ad AI 11 ho ampiamente cercato di dimostrare che contro l’opinione sostenuta ancora da molti studiosi - la narrazione relativa alla nascita e alla vicenda terrena di Gesù in 11,2-22, assente nelle versioni SL,, fa parte del testo originario di AI 6-11:

=

In the Commentary on AI 11 I have extensively tried to demonstrate that against the opinion still supported by many scholars - the narration relating to the birth and earthly life of Jesus in 11: 2-22, absent in the SL versions, is part of the original text of AI 6-11:

[Giuseppe]

When Norelli writes:

In definitiva, le frasi che in SL2 stanno al posto di 11,2-22
appaiono l'opera di un revisore che, eliminando un testo
giudicato insostenibile sia per il carattere sospetto delle sue
fonti (testimonia apocrifi), sia soprattutto per il deciso doce-
tismo, ha fabbricato l'allusione alla vicenda terren:t del
Diletto (indispensabile tra discesa e ascesa) mediante poche
frasi ispirate a passi neotestamentari e del resto abbastanza
mal suturate con quanto precede e quanto segue.

...I think that Carrier has already his answer (beyond if right or wrong) against it, since Carrier wrote:

And attempts to explain this away are illogical: for example, any “anti-docetist” who disagreed with the content of that pocket gospel would just change or delete the few specific details they didn’t like, not delete the entire thing, so this hypothesis cannot explain the complete absence of this gospel from those other manuscripts;

Shortly after, Carrier considers 'dumb' this argument.


The second argument by Norelli reads as follows:

Una sorprendente conferma del carattere originario di
11,2-22 viene dalla fortissima probabilità - a mio avviso,
praticamente la certezza - che questo brano, benché non
compreso nella versione di A I 6-11 utilizzata dai catari,
fosse tuttavia conosciuto da questi ultimi, come mostra una
predica del << perfetto •> Guillaume Belibaste riferita da
Arnaud Sicre nel registro d'inquisizione di Jacques Four-
nier (1). Se ne veda la dimostrazione in Norelli, Studi, c.
15. Questo episodio non doveva tuttavia essere noto a Beli-
baste nel contesto dell'A/, ma in quello più generale della
tradizione dell'insegnamento cataro. Il testo primitivo
dell'AI, con 11,2-22, doveva dunque essere noto agli elabo-
ratori delle dottrine bogomile in oriente, e ciò sia che la
revisione rappresentata da SL2 sia opera bogomila, sia che
sia opera ortodossa (2).

Frankly, it escapes me why the Cathars (sic) have to have a voice in this matter, given their enormous chronological distance from the second century CE. Elsewhere, we have seen that 'some of the Cathars' placed the crucifixion in outer space, but Carrier has never imagined to use their witness as mythicist argument.

Something that, in terms of mere prejudices (but it may be only mine), goes against Norelli, is his strict closeness with Pesce, a proponent of the idea that in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 Paul meant only earthly authorities. So both may have a not-so-secret interest in removing the Ascension of Isaiah as part of the early evidence going against the idea that the killers were mere humans.

[John T]

Question: Who are the scholars that hold the viewpoint that the "pocket gospel story" is suspicious?

Suspicious of what?

1. That it is the work of a docetic cult?
2. That it dates to the time of Ignatius of Antioch who was martyred in Rome 107 CE?
3. That it was written by more than one author over the span of 100 years?
4. That early Christians believed it was actually Isaiah that was crucified and not Jesus?

I have no problem with scholars trying to identify the author(s) and date(s) of original composition of Ascension of Isaiah but to give it any credence just because Carrier thinks it proves his crack pot theory is to admit you are easily fooled by narcissistic cranks.

[Giuseppe]

to give it any credence just because Carrier thinks it proves his crack pot theory is to admit you are easily fooled by narcissistic cranks.

about narcissistic cranks, so Carrier describes one of them:

Yeah. That’s Neal Sendliak. As you can tell from watching that after reading this article here, he appears to be mentally ill. He cannot follow simple trains of thought, blanks on a lot of pertinent information, gets a lot wrong, and is confused about almost everything. He has also gone on a campaign of harassment on a number of platforms over this. He seems to be undergoing a mental health crisis. I recommend disengaging, and if he harasses you on any platform, block him.

[neilgodfrey]

When Norelli writes:

In definitiva, le frasi che in SL2 stanno al posto di 11,2-22
appaiono l'opera di un revisore che, eliminando un testo
giudicato insostenibile sia per il carattere sospetto delle sue
fonti (testimonia apocrifi), sia soprattutto per il deciso doce-
tismo, ha fabbricato l'allusione alla vicenda terren:t del
Diletto (indispensabile tra discesa e ascesa) mediante poche
frasi ispirate a passi neotestamentari e del resto abbastanza
mal suturate con quanto precede e quanto segue.

...I think that Carrier has already his answer (beyond if right or wrong) against it, since Carrier wrote:

And attempts to explain this away are illogical: for example, any “anti-docetist” who disagreed with the content of that pocket gospel would just change or delete the few specific details they didn’t like, not delete the entire thing, so this hypothesis cannot explain the complete absence of this gospel from those other manuscripts;

Unfortunately Carrier's response misses the primary argument of Norelli for the originality of the pocket gospel. Norelli's argument is based on a very comprehensive literary and thematic analysis and structure of chapters 6 to 11.

As I said in another post, moreover, the docetic character of 11:2-22 goes beyond a few lines here and there that can be modified.

Norelli's core argument is not at all "illogical" and Carrier has simply ignored it, presumably unaware of it as presented in articles across the Commentary and the Studi.

On a related tangent, I suspect the argument for placing chapters 6 to 11 to the late first century is based largely on the assumption that the canonical gospels, at least the synoptics, were completed by then -- and 11:2-22 does not know the gospels (contra those commentators who assume its knowledge of Matthew). If we remove the gospels to the mid second century as I think is more justifiable, then the AI might also be seen as another response, in part, to Marcionism, as Markus Vinzent has suggested.

[John T]

to give it any credence just because Carrier thinks it proves his crack pot theory is to admit you are easily fooled by narcissistic cranks.

about narcissistic cranks, so Carrier describes one of them:

Yeah. That’s Neal Sendliak. As you can tell from watching that after reading this article here, he appears to be mentally ill. He cannot follow simple trains of thought, blanks on a lot of pertinent information, gets a lot wrong, and is confused about almost everything. He has also gone on a campaign of harassment on a number of platforms over this. He seems to be undergoing a mental health crisis. I recommend disengaging, and if he harasses you on any platform, block him.

I think Carrier got confused with Neal Sendliak and Joe Biden. Perhaps you can e-mail Richard and ask him to make the appropriate name correction.

Thanks in advance.

[Giuseppe]

the AI might also be seen as another response, in part, to Marcionism, as Markus Vinzent has suggested.

Surely the arguments supportive of the Vinzent's position are cogent:

As in Marcion, the coming into the world happens unexpectedly (Mary is astonished), as in the blink of an eye, without birth pains and with a womb ‘found as formerly’, although AscI admits that Mary had conceived, yet insists on her virginity. Interestingly, AscI even reflects the conflict about the nature of the saviour’s appearance to this world and the discussion about the birth story. Some claim that Mary as a Virgin gave birth, while many support the AscI’s view, that she has not borne a child, had no labour pains. Like Marcion, AscI endorses the unexpectedness of the arrival and the blindness of the people, although restricting the not-knowing to the time ‘whence He was’ coming.

(my bold)

[Chrissy Hansen]

Unfortunately Carrier's response misses the primary argument of Norelli for the originality of the pocket gospel. Norelli's argument is based on a very comprehensive literary and thematic analysis and structure of chapters 6 to 11.

As I said in another post, moreover, the docetic character of 11:2-22 goes beyond a few lines here and there that can be modified.

Norelli's core argument is not at all "illogical" and Carrier has simply ignored it, presumably unaware of it as presented in articles across the Commentary and the Studi.

On a related tangent, I suspect the argument for placing chapters 6 to 11 to the late first century is based largely on the assumption that the canonical gospels, at least the synoptics, were completed by then -- and 11:2-22 does not know the gospels (contra those commentators who assume its knowledge of Matthew). If we remove the gospels to the mid second century as I think is more justifiable, then the AI might also be seen as another response, in part, to Marcionism, as Markus Vinzent has suggested.

Goes back to my comment that I don't think Carrier is actually aware of Norelli's arguments, and I don't think he can actually handle Italian. He never cites any of Norelli's cases (or Norelli by name, in fact, he never even includes the Corpus Christianorum volumes in his bibliography for OHJ), and he displays no awareness of these positions. He only ever rebuts to Knight, and he does so largely by strawman, i.e., the claim that it is just a few bits and pieces of the pocket gospel that are docetic and a redactor wouldn't need to excise the whole thing.

He claims to have addressed Norelli, and only cites him three times, and never once actually responds to his arguments, and his blog posts further my position that he isn't actually familiar with Norelli's case, or is simply unwilling to take on the task of actually responding to him.

Tangent, but I tend to think personally that the AoI is reliant on Matthew and Paul's epistles. Which explains various elements in the text.

[John T]

I watched a bit of Neal Sendliak's take down of Carrier on YouTube. No wonder Richard doesn't want you to watch it or if you do, you better dismiss everything Neal says as some kind of kook.

It's not just that Neal exposes one lie after another that Carrier tells. But I think this is what bothers Carrier the most. To paraphrase Neal on the Gnostic Informant, at the 28:25 mark.

Playbook of Carrier. Take context from things instead of trying to figure out or teach you what the truth is. Carrier is trying to argue for mythicism and that is all he does. He is the polar opposite of the Christian Fundamentalist. They don't care what the truth is, or the facts are. They are just arguing for their side. That is what mythicism does. That is, seek any and every-way to twist stuff to make mythicism look like it is true. Find all the possible outs that Jesus did not exist and exploit them.

https://youtu.be/AjecNuY4UEY

[dbz]

Carrier thinks it proves his crack pot theory...

No, Carrier does not hold AoI "proves"—ahistoricity is more probable—then historicity, rather it alters the balance by ~10%.

I only assign the effect of the Ascension a Bayes’ factor of 4/5 against historicity in my a fortiori column (and even just 1/2 in my a judicantiori column: p. 357), and even that is not for the Ascension, but the combination of the evidence in the Ascension with the evidence in Ignatius, so if we teased out the Ascension by itself, its Bayes’ factor would be even lower.

Note how small a factor 4 in 5 is. It barely makes a dent against the probability of historicity.

• Carrier (5 March 2015). "McGrath on OHJ: A Failure of Logic and Accuracy". Richard Carrier Blogs.