Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Gday all,

GakuseiDon wrote:Hi Kapyong, Thanks for taking the time to look through my evaluation. Just on one point:

Kapyong wrote:Reading through this confusing document (the AoI), here is what I see :

Firstly, in 10.7 we hear the command to Jesus:

Ascension wrote:Go and descend through all the heavens, descend to the firmament and to that world, even to the angel in the realm of the dead, but to Hell you shall not go.

That seems pretty clear to me that there is no earthly visit intended there initially.

The text has "descend to the firmament and to that world." Wouldn't "that world" include the earth?

No, I don't read it like that.
I think it's just an example of scriptural repetition - like the donkey, even a colt the foal of a donkey.

So I read this as saying :
Descend to the firmament, yea even unto that world [the firmament]

GakuseiDon wrote:Note the following quote you provided from AoI from the Latin version (my bolding below):

Ascension wrote:that everything be revealed to you. For before you no one ever saw. nor after you will anyone be able to see. what you have seen and heard'. [11.2] And I saw one like a son of man, dwelling among men, and in the world, and they did not know him. "

I'm not sure what Latin word is being used for "world" in those passages, but I'm not aware of any usage that excludes the earth.

Actually, I agreed that passage indicated an earthly visit.

All-in-all, I think you are right about the AoI.


Kapyong

cienfuegos wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:cienfuegos, do you have the specific page where Carrier makes that^ point?

In his discussion of Hebrews, beginning on P. 540 where he points to AoI's similarity to Hebrews and onto p. 541. I believe in Chapter 3 he deals in more detail with Hebrews. This point is essential to the Carrier-Doherty "outer space" hypothesis. By failing to mention it in his review, I believe McGrath has engaged in borderline fraud, potentially leading people astray by not mentioning key elements of the argument he is reviewing. As an academic and scholar, he has a professional responsibility to honestly present an argument that he critiques. He fails that by allowing just the sort of interpretation as has been taken on this forum.

I find that to be a feature of McGrath. I get the impression he is a bit of a doofus when it comes to logical argument, or his attempts at them; though it could be a strategy to avoid key points of others, or distract from others' key points; or both.

I don't have Carrier's book, as there did not seem to be any compelling new arguments uncovered or addressed by others; but now wish I had it.

Carrier wrote:...here [Hebrews 8.1-5] we're told that Jesus not only performed his sacrifice in the celestial temple....but that he had to do so...We're also told here the same thing Isaiah was told in the Ascension: that everything on earth has a duplicate version of it in the heavens.The implication is that Jesus' blood must have been spilled on the heavenly duplicate of God's altar; not on earth, where there are already priests making blood sacrifices, which are less effective than celestial ones.

That is interesting b/c it explains the Carrier-Doherty 'celestial Jesus' better than I have seen explained elsewhere.

As does this -
.

Bertie wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote: 2. He states that the phrases 'they will think that he is flesh and a man' (9.13) and he shall 'descend in your form' (8.26) are both missing from the Latin version, which are "the only statements outside the pocket gospel that refer to Jesus becoming like a man." (page 42). In this, Carrier is wrong. "In your form" appears in 9.13. I think that Carrier has been led astray by Doherty here, as I noted in my post above.

But wait, Carrier's translation of 9.13 is: "...And after he has descended and become like you in appearance, they will think that he is flesh and a man."

So what you have as "in your form", he has as "like you in appearance", no?

And "like you in appearance" is not a problem for his interpretation at all.

Thanks GakuseiDon, Kapyong and Bertie,

Some advances in the discussion.

I could be mistaken but it looks very much to me like a docetic escape hatch which may be used by the consistent application of the hypothesis of an MJ to the interpretation of this most critical and highly obscure text of the AoI.

Andrew Criddle has already pointed out in his thread on the original form of the Ascension of Isaiah, questions that need to be addressed in order to identify "the original form" of this text, and also that the dating of this text is also highly critical to this entire discussion. Now we are seeing the English translations of specific phrases in some "original form" of some obscure text with an unknown provenance being pivotal in argumentation. Sometimes it is helpful to stand back from the big picture.

AFAIK Carrier has used this text on the basis of an early date (and also coupled with the historical Paul) in his "background evidence" which AFAIK has a chronological cut-off point somewhere in the 2nd century. Consequently if the AoI is late, he cant (AFAIK) use it as part of his set of background arguments. A late date of this text for the HJ position is neither one way or the other, because the text is being treated as one of the poor relatives of the Old Testament canonical books (which was subsequently updated by a non canonical Christian), and not a wonderfully crafted Ptolemaic Jesus Story in its own right.

How knowledgeable in astronomical, scientific and theological matters was, for his time and epoch, the author of the ascension of Isaiah?

Oh wait !!! The story was written in two parts in two different centuries. Of course! Who needs Occam?


PTOLEMY (c.90 to c.168 CE) WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy

• Claudius Ptolemy (/ˈtɒləmi/; Greek: Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαῖος, Klaudios Ptolemaios, [kláwdios ptolɛmɛ́ːos]; Latin: Claudius Ptolemaeus; c. AD 90 – c. 168) was a Greco-Egyptian writer of Alexandria, known as a mathematician, astronomer, geographer, astrologer, and poet of a single epigram in the Greek Anthology.[1][2] He lived in the city of Alexandria in the Roman province of Egypt, wrote in Greek, and held Roman citizenship.[3] Beyond that, few reliable details of his life are known.
  
  The Almagest is the only surviving comprehensive ancient treatise on astronomy.

THREAD: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah .... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=750

THREAD: On dating the Gnostic literature (including "The Ascension of Isaiah") after 325 CE .... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=771


Be well,



LC

John T wrote:

perseusomega9 wrote:I haven't read Carrier's book, but I wouldn't be surprised to find McGrath has missed important/misrepresented clues in Carrier's book.

That seems to be the standard excuse from the Carrier fan club.

Cognitive Dissonance: Rejection of facts that is inconsistent with one's own false beliefs.

Gnosticism is to early Christianity as astrology is to astronomy.

Except I show above that persueusomega's suspicion is justified.

Kapyong wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote:The text has "descend to the firmament and to that world." Wouldn't "that world" include the earth?

No, I don't read it like that.
I think it's just an example of scriptural repetition - like the donkey, even a colt the foal of a donkey.

So I read this as saying :
Descend to the firmament, yea even unto that world [the firmament]

That's an interesting point. I checked another translation, and it had "You shall descend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol..."

I then checked the Latin and Slavonic versions in their Latin that can be found here. The Latin used for 10.8 is: "Exi et descende de omnibus caelis et sis in mundo et vade usque ad angelum, qui est in inferno." The Google translation can be found here.

Interestingly enough, "firmament" ("firmamentus") doesn't appear to be in the 10.8 passage of S/L at all.

Is there a reason why that you think "world" is limited to "firmament" only in that passage?

...here [Hebrews 8.1-5] we're told that Jesus not only performed his sacrifice in the celestial temple....but that he had to do so...We're also told here the same thing Isaiah was told in the Ascension: that everything on earth has a duplicate version of it in the heavens.The implication is that Jesus' blood must have been spilled on the heavenly duplicate of God's altar; not on earth, where there are already priests making blood sacrifices, which are less effective than celestial ones.

That is interesting b/c it explains the Carrier-Doherty 'celestial Jesus' better than I have seen explained elsewhere.

Except that Carrier is wrong when he said AoI has "everything on earth has a duplicate version of it in the heavens". The only duplication in AoI is about where the angels of Satan are fighting each other: Firmament, duplicated on Earth. And there is no mention of any God's altar in Hebrews and AoI.
And the spilling of animal blood in Hebrews is not on the altar but inside the tabernacle (that is after the sacrifices had been performed somewhere else).
This earthly tabernacle/temple is duplicated in Hebrews as the whole of God's heaven, not a building of any type:
Heb 9:24 "For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf."

More here: http://historical-jesus.info/96.html

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:

Carrier wrote:...here [Hebrews 8:1-5] we're told that Jesus not only performed his sacrifice in the celestial temple....but that he had to do so...We're also told here the same thing Isaiah was told in the Ascension: that everything on earth has a duplicate version of it in the heavens.The implication is that Jesus' blood must have been spilled on the heavenly duplicate of God's altar; not on earth, where there are already priests making blood sacrifices, which are less effective than celestial ones.

MrMacSon wrote:That's interesting b/c it explains the Carrier-Doherty 'celestial Jesus' better than I have seen explained elsewhere.

Except that Carrier is wrong when he said AoI has "everything on earth has a duplicate version of it in the heavens". The only duplication in AoI is about where the angels of Satan are fighting each other: Firmament, duplicated on Earth. And there is no mention of any God's altar in Hebrews and AoI.

Bernard, Carrier was essentially talking about Hebrews 8:1-5

I think this is beside the point -

Bernard Muller wrote:And the spilling of animal blood in Hebrews is not on the altar but inside the tabernacle (that is after the sacrifices had been performed somewhere else).

This earthly tabernacle/temple is duplicated in Hebrews as the whole of God's heaven, not a building of any type:

• Heb 9:24
  "For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf."

as highlighted by the other Hebrews passages that cienfuegos quoted

Hebrews 8:1-6:

1 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”[a] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

Hebrews 9:
11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

cienfuegos wrote: It is explicit here that Christ's sacrifice was performed in the "greater and more perfect tabernacle" which "not a part of this creation." This tabernacle is juxtaposed against the "blood of goats and bulls." The 'crucifixion' on earth was not of a man, but of animals. The mirror image is not a human crucifixion, it is the temple sacrifice vs. the celestial sacrifice.

Gday all,

GakuseiDon wrote:That's an interesting point. I checked another translation, and it had
"You shall descend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol..."

That's an interesting translation - I think it confirms my view that it's just repetition.

GakuseiDon wrote:Is there a reason why that you think "world" is limited to "firmament" only in that passage?

Essentially I think the phrase 'that world' is referring back to 'the firmament' mentioned previously, not to the earth which isn't mentioned there.

Kapyong

cienfuegos wrote:
<snip>
It is explicit here that Christ's sacrifice was performed in the "greater and more perfect tabernacle" which "not a part of this creation." This tabernacle is juxtaposed against the "blood of goats and bulls." The 'crucifixion' on earth was not of a man, but of animals. The mirror image is not a human crucifixion, it is the temple sacrifice vs. the celestial sacrifice.

There. I think that about does that one in.

Nonsense....."crucifixion".............."of animals". Now I've heard it all.....

Gday all,

Here is an interesting quote from Irenaeus (Book 1, Ch. 7.2)
with regard to the debate about things above mirroring things below.

Irenaeus wrote:...It follows, then, according to them, that the animal Christ, and that which had been formed mysteriously by a special dispensation, underwent suffering, that the mother might exhibit through him a type of the Christ above, namely, of him who extended himself through Stauros, and imparted to Achamoth shape, so far as substance was concerned. For they declare that all these transactions were counterparts of what took place above.

Two things leapt out at me -
firstly, that the suffering was an exhibition of the type of Christ Above,
secondly, that these things were counterparts of what took place above.


Kapyong