They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 9:50 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 9:10 pmparticularly the original Ascension of Isaiah, where the crucifixion is predicted to take place in the Firmament
Again: please state things correctly rather than give misleading statements. Droge's reconstruction of the earliest text might have the crucifixion being predicted in the firmament, but no actual extant text has that. I have no problems with speculation, but label facts as facts and speculation as speculation please.
It is not true. We know that the Firmament is the terminus ante quem of the Son's descent from the prophecy the Angel gives to Isaiah.
No, we don't know that because it isn't true. At least, not in the extant texts. Maybe in Droge's reconstruction, but not in the extant texts. The Ethiopic has the Beloved descending to "the firmament and the world" [in mundo]. It then writes how the angel appeared in the "world" to Joseph. The L2 and Slavonic texts also have the Beloved descending "in mundo":

From L2: 10.8 Exi et descende de omnibus coelis et sis in mundo et vade usque ad angelum, qui est in infernum
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pmDroge's words:

Next, Isaiah’s angel-guide tells him to watch as Christ begins to transform himself and descend through the seven heavens and finally into the Firmament.

(my bold)
It's not Droge's words you should be quoting here, but the AoI's. That's what I've done. Would you like to give the actual words of the AoI and then compare it with Droge's version of what it says?
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pmGakuseiDon may be correct to claim that the episode that describes the fulfillment of the prophecy is absent and therefore any reconstruction of it is purely speculative.
It's more than that. In the presumed earlier texts S/L2, the Beloved descends lower than the firmament and into the air. It's not just that the crucifixion isn't mentioned, it's that there is no room for it to happen in the firmament. Any reconstruction needs to remove what is already there in order to work.
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pmBut GakuseiDon is wrong when he claims that we can't infer, from the explicit prophecy spoken by the angel-guide, that the terminus ante quem of the entire mission is the Firmament, hence very probably the place of the crucifixion.
It's easy enough to prove: give me the actual words from any extant text to show that. Quoting Droge when he's wrong is a waste of time.

If you want to quote Droge's words, please check to make sure that he is correctly using the extant texts. If his words are based on his own reconstruction, then call it like that. Don't call it the "original" text. It's misleading. Present your sources honestly as the author's speculation and I promise I'll leave you alone. Nothing wrong with speculation as long as it is presented as that.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 11:16 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 9:50 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 9:10 pmparticularly the original Ascension of Isaiah, where the crucifixion is predicted to take place in the Firmament
Again: please state things correctly rather than give misleading statements. Droge's reconstruction of the earliest text might have the crucifixion being predicted in the firmament, but no actual extant text has that. I have no problems with speculation, but label facts as facts and speculation as speculation please.
It is not true. We know that the Firmament is the terminus ante quem of the Son's descent from the prophecy the Angel gives to Isaiah.
No, we don't know that because it isn't true. At least, not in the extant texts. Maybe in Droge's reconstruction, but not in the extant texts. The extant texts say "and the world" [in mundo].

From L2: 10.8 Exi et descende de omnibus coelis et sis in mundo et vade usque ad angelum, qui est in infernum
You are mentioning 10:8:

Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

"that world" is referred of course to the Firmament itself.

By "prophecy of the Angel-Guide", Droge means this (9:14-15):

14. 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.

15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.

The "heavens" are the only places where Jesus is shapeshifter. "Earth", or "Jerusalem", are not mentioned.

The strict connection "being shapeshifter"/"heaven" prevents you a priori from assuming an earthly crucifixion.

So the passages 10:14-15:

14. And afterwards from the angels of death Thou wilt ascend to Thy place. And Thou wilt not be transformed in each heaven, but in glory wilt Thou ascend and sit on My right hand.

15. And thereupon the princes and powers of that world will worship Thee."

...reiterates the point of the prophecy:
  • 1) Jesus transforms himself only in each heaven.
  • 2) The crucifixion is assumed to be one of a Jesus who transforms himself
  • 3) Therefore, the crucifixion is assumed to happen in a heaven.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 11:42 pmYou are mentioning 10:8:

Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html
That's the Ethiopic text, which has Jesus born on earth to Mary and crucified on earth, and in which "the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world" to stop Joseph putting away Mary when she became pregnant (11.4). I doubt the text meant that Joseph went into the firmament.

In the presumed earlier Slavonic/L2, the word "firmament" isn't there at all. It's just "descent to the world". I gave the Latin for the L2 to show that in my earlier response.
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 11:42 pm"that world" is referred of course to the Firmament itself.
That's just silly, even without the context. With the context, the Beloved clearly descends below the firmament and spends time on earth in all three extant versions. The crucifixion is placed on earth in the Ethiopic, and is missing from the extant Slavonic/L2. Since the context of the Slavonic/L2 has the Beloved descending below the firmament without crucifixion and THEN the gaps appear, it looks like the crucifixion wasn't placed in the firmament in those texts.

I'll leave it there. Perhaps Droge's approach is more nuanced, so I can't comment there. Anyone looking at the texts can see you are wrong about what the text says, so you can't do much harm there. But please stop calling Droge's reconstruction "the original". I think you'll agree that that isn't accurate. Thanks.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Tue May 18, 2021 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 3:30 am That's the Ethiopic text
Prof Droge means precisely that:

With only slight alterations, I follow the translation of Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” 156–76 (see n. 34 above), which is based on the Ethiopic text.

(my bold)

GakuseiDon wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 3:30 am which has Jesus born on earth to Mary, and in which "the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world" appeared to Joseph (11.4). I doubt the text meant that Joseph went into the firmament.
The etiopic text mentions Firmament as the last terminus ante quem for the Son's descent.

GakuseiDon wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 3:30 am In the presumed earlier Slavonic/L2, the word "firmament" isn't there at all. It's just "descent to that world". I gave the Latin for the L2 to show that.
Your question was for a text of Ascension where mention is made about the Firmament as terminus ante quem for Jesus' descent and accordingly I have given it.
GakuseiDon wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 3:30 am
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 11:42 pm"that world" is referred of course to the Firmament itself.
That's just silly, even without the context. With the context, the Beloved clearly descends below the firmament and spends time on earth in all three extant versions.
I am done with your intellectual dishonesty, then. I have shown that:
  • Prof Droge is based on the etiopic version where Firmament is mentioned in the Angel-Guide's prophecy
  • Prof Droge's only assumption is that the pocket gospel (the short soujourn of the Son on the earth) is an interpolation
  • Prof Droge (based on the prophecy reported in 9.14-15), claims that the Firmament is the terminus ante quem for Jesus's descent in lower heavens, hence excluding ipso facto the earth or "Jerusalem" as place of crucifixion... ...and proving in the same time the interpolated character of the passages called by Carrier 'pocket gospel'.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Giuseppe »

Great point by prof Droge:

The fact that in the prophecy of the Angel-Guide the Firmament is mentioned as terminus ante quem for Jesus' descent in the lower heavens, is the best evidence that the passages where a short soujorn on the earth is mentioned are an interpolation.

Another great point made by prof Droge:
  • 1) the so-called pocket gospel (== the passages where an earthly crucifixion is described) says that Jesus is killed because he has drawn attention to himself by doing "wonders and prodiges".
  • 2) But the prophecy of the Angel-Guide claims clearly that the Son should never show his divine origin, not even by doing "wonders and prodiges".
  • 3) the point (1) is in contradiction with the point (2). Therefore: the pocket gospel is an interpolation.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13591
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Secret Alias »

Lord of glory in Armenian is փառքի տեր.
Aleph One
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Post by Aleph One »

So on the topic of the original post (i.e. the lord's glory). I'm not sure anyone else has emphasized this but, in the paper, Droge suggests (in one case, at least) that the "glory" is Jesus's true, un-disguised form, after he has shed it, in the AoI-style heavenly descent/ascent narrative. It made me wonder whether uses of "glory" elsewhere in early christendom could be hints at belief in this type of cosmology. Anyway here's the part:
Droge wrote:“The Adversary envied him, and roused the Children of Israel against him, not knowing who he was. And they handed him to the Ruler [Pilate?] and crucified him.”55 Isaiah then adds, “In Jerusalem, indeed, I saw how they crucified him on a tree, and likewise (how) after the third day he rose and remained (many) days.”56 Christ then ascends in glory (i.e., no longer in disguise) through the cosmos to the seventh heaven, where he is enthroned at the right hand of God.57
And on a side note I found one argument in Droge's paper strangely unconvincing: That the 1 Corinthian verses in question definitely did not appear in Clement's (or whoever's) version because 1 Clement quotes a different version of a scriptural quotation also found in 1 Cor, and doesn't make mention of the discrepancy. :confusedsmiley: The part of 1 Clement with the quotation (1 Clement 34.8) isn't even connected to the part about Paul's letter (1 Clement 47) and in any case there are varying versions of scriptural quotations all the time that the church fathers let pass without mention.
Droge wrote:What, finally, can we say about the date of our passage? At a minimum, it must postdate 1 Clement (c. 100–140 CE),74 whose author claims to know of a single letter of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Clem. 47:1–3), but who, curiously enough, seems unaware that Paul’s letter contained the very same “scripture” quotation (1 Cor. 2:9) that the author of 1 Clement also happened to cite, yet cited differently (1 Clem. 34:8).75 This is all the more puzzling in light of the information the author supplies about Paul and Apollos at 1 Clem. 47:1–3. What he says there makes it certain that he had read 1 Cor. 1–4, and so should have known that Paul had cited the same “scripture” at 1 Cor. 2:9; known about it, that is, if 2:6–16 had been in his copy of 1 Cor. That he does not know about it, and cites a different version of it independently, can only mean that our passage was not in the edition of the letter read by the author of 1 Clement. In light of this, I am inclined to fix the date of composition for our passage somewhere around 140 CE, which is a date that also accords with most of the other comparanda we have found.76
I actually found much in the rest of the paper very interesting but that one point really stood out for me (unless there's an angle i'm missing).
Post Reply