John 3: 13 No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
Is it a reply to the following claim:
2 Corinthians 12: 2 I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
No, it is not anti-pauline. It is against the Ascension of Isaiah, of which the goal is to prove that the same descent of the Son was predicted by a prophet of YHWH (who heard in advance about that descent), against Marcion who claimed that such descent was unexpected and recent from an alien totally unknown Father.
Hence, to reiterate the point that the Son was totally unknown and unexpected (=surprising), the marcionite or cainite author is disposed to sound "anti-pauline", as you say.
rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:52 am
Is this a specific anti-Pauline charge:
John 3: 13 No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
Is it a reply to the following claim:
2 Corinthians 12: 2 I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
If so, what is the broader agenda of the writer?
Playing as an advocate for harmonizing those accounts, Paul's claim is set after Jesus's statement, which does not say "No one can ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." Therefore, the 2 sentiments are not contradicting.
Of course, a more conspiratorially minded reader might suspect an Ur-John in which Jesus said "No one can ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man", but I personally am wary of such arguments, even though they may seem attractive.
ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:10 pm
Playing as an advocate for harmonizing those accounts . . .
Why would anyone want to do this? It is not the scholarly approach. The scholarly approach is to accept the evidence as we have it -- not to try to rationalize our own models into it to make it "harmonize". That's an apologist's agenda.
No, the scholarly approach is to study each of the pieces of evidence within broader contexts and see what each means and if we then find that they apply to different situations then we have an evidence-based reason for our conclusion. We can then, rationally, say that they do not contradict. But to simply avoid that sort of study and begin with an apologetic assumption that we have to rationalize some ad hoc way they can be harmonized is not scholarly and has no place in a serious discussion based on rational principles.
ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:10 pm
Playing as an advocate for harmonizing those accounts . . .
Why would anyone want to do this? It is not the scholarly approach. The scholarly approach is to accept the evidence as we have it -- not to try to rationalize our own models into it to make it "harmonize". That's an apologist's agenda.
No, the scholarly approach is to study each of the pieces of evidence within broader contexts and see what each means and if we then find that they apply to different situations then we have an evidence-based reason for our conclusion. We can then, rationally, say that they do not contradict. But to simply avoid that sort of study and begin with an apologetic assumption that we have to rationalize some ad hoc way they can be harmonized is not scholarly and has no place in a serious discussion based on rational principles.
You are perfectly right; I apologize for my attempted levity, which was not conveyed through text easily enough.
My central point, devoid of humour, is that Paul's claim is set after Jesus's statement, which does not say "No one can ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." Therefore, the 2 sentiments are not contradicting.
A reader might suspect an Ur-John in which Jesus said "No one can ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man". Or a reader might interpret Jesus's words as having that meaning. Or a reader might interpret Jesus's words as subtly indicating that Paul and Jesus were the same person at some level - cf., Paul's reference to "Christ who lives in me" [Galatians 2:20].
rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:52 am
Is this a specific anti-Pauline charge:
John 3: 13 No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
Is it a reply to the following claim:
2 Corinthians 12: 2 I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
If so, what is the broader agenda of the writer?
One work to consult if you haven't already done so is Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. 2nd edition. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. DeConick is also useful: Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literatu. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. They are especially valuable as sources for a range of views.
The essential point that I get from them is that John 3:13 has nothing to do with Paul directly but it is directed against Jewish mystics who looked to Moses as their "patron saint". Moses was the figure par excellence who in Jewish traditions ascended to heaven and back again.
John is in 3:13 is a polemical statement against those mystics. The same gospel uses Moses typology throughout -- another indicator that it is attempting to replace those Moses-ascent-mystics.
Ephesians 4:7b Of Christ ... 8 Therefore it is said, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." (Ps 68:18) 9 (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
I think these passages (John 3:13 & Ephesians 4:7-10 are connected in some way. My opinion would be that this occurred when the NT started to be sold as standard sets, say around mid to latter half of the 2nd century CE, Just before Irenaeus. I'll have to find my copy of Trobisch's First Edition of the New Testament to see if he takes note of it, as he does point out several "links" that connect the various sets (e,a,p,r).
DCH
rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:52 am
Is this a specific anti-Pauline charge:
John 3: 13 No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
Is it a reply to the following claim:
2 Corinthians 12: 2 I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:52 am
Is this a specific anti-Pauline charge:
John 3: 13 No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
Is it a reply to the following claim:
2 Corinthians 12: 2 I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
If so, what is the broader agenda of the writer?
One work to consult if you haven't already done so is Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. 2nd edition. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. DeConick is also useful: Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literatu. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. They are especially valuable as sources for a range of views.
The essential point that I get from them is that John 3:13 has nothing to do with Paul directly but it is directed against Jewish mystics who looked to Moses as their "patron saint". Moses was the figure par excellence who in Jewish traditions ascended to heaven and back again.
John is in 3:13 is a polemical statement against those mystics. The same gospel uses Moses typology throughout -- another indicator that it is attempting to replace those Moses-ascent-mystics.
And such a framework would, if accepted serve to legitimize Paul's claimed ascensions - because Paul was (supposedly) operating after Jesus who, in GJohn 3:13, did not say that the Son of Man (whom I presume in GJohn is Jesus) was the only person who would be capable of ascending to and returning from heaven, but only that no one had done so before he had.