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

[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.

[John T]

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.

Well, I consulted my Magic 8 Ball and it says Carrier is 100% wrong and Bayes says he is 123.4% wrong or what ever figure you want to believe.

Figures lie and liars figure but Carrier takes it to a whole new level.

[neilgodfrey]

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)

Yes, that's the MV argument I was referring to, only I found it as a chapter in a book edited by Bremmer et al. MV is saying, in part, that the AscIsa's Messiah was prophesied by the OT prophets -- contra Marcion.

[John T]

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)

Yes, that's the MV argument I was referring to, only I found it as a chapter in a book edited by Bremmer et al. MV is saying, in part, that the AscIsa's Messiah was prophesied by the OT prophets -- contra Marcion.

Don't forget Neil, the Gnostics back then made money selling pseudo-esoteric secrets to the elite woke.

How is that any different than the woke liberal Neo-athiest today?

Some scams by greedy/evil people just never go away. That is, give me your money and I will teach you that you are god but you still have to do what I say.

[GakuseiDon]

... the Gnostics back then made money selling pseudo-esoteric secrets to the elite woke.
...
Some scams by greedy/evil people just never go away. That is, give me your money and I will teach you that you are god but you still have to do what I say.

That's such an important point. IMHO people back then, like Paul, Marcion, the Gnostics, were selling something and that perspective needs to be kept in mind. It's like historians in a thousand years time trying to decipher the metaphysical ideas behind Christianity through the lens of Benny Hinn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV88GrTjrkg (1 min 50 secs)

IMHO the promotion of magic spells, charms and secret texts that imparted esoteric secrets, had a great effect on the development of earliest Christianity, since that was part of the cultural background that it was created in. I can imagine the AoI being sold in various versions with the cultural equivalent of steak knives added on as a bonus.

[andrewcriddle]

........................

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.

The Cathars provide evidence as to the original form of the Archetype of the Slavonic/Latin version of the Ascension of Isaiah. If (as IMO probable) the Archetype contained the pocket Gospel then arguments that this passage is secondary are based on internal grounds without solid external support.

Andrew Criddle

[Giuseppe]

........................

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.

The Cathars provide evidence as to the original form of the Archetype of the Slavonic/Latin version of the Ascension of Isaiah.

It continues to escape me why the Cathars have to count in this question, even if there is evidence of their possession of a text of AoI with the pocket gospel in it: how can we be so sure that their text was the original one?

[andrewcriddle]

........................

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.

The Cathars provide evidence as to the original form of the Archetype of the Slavonic/Latin version of the Ascension of Isaiah.

It continues to escape me why the Cathars have to count in this question, even if there is evidence of their possession of a text of AoI with the pocket gospel in it: how can we so sure that their text was the original one?

It is reasonably clear that the Cathar text is related to the Slavonic/Latin text type rather than the Ethiopian text type. If the Ethiopian text type and part of the Slavonic/Latin text type contain the pocket Gospel then the simplest explanation is that the Archetype of all surviving versions contained the pocket Gospel and that it has been secondarily lost in most of the witnesses to the Slavonic/Latin text type.

Andrew Criddle

[Giuseppe]

and that it has been secondarily lost in most of the witnesses to the Slavonic/Latin text type.

why was it lost? Was it a mere coincidence that the loss regarded precisely the pocket gospel?

[andrewcriddle]

and that it has been secondarily lost in most of the witnesses to the Slavonic/Latin text type.

why was it lost? Was it a mere coincidence that the loss regarded precisely the pocket gospel?

Possibly it was lost because of its rather weird nature.

Andrew Criddle