Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Gday all,

I'd like to go over some examples of this "As above, so below" theme.

Firstly, Hebrews -

Hebrews 8.3 wrote: 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.

Verse 5 is clear - earthly priests serve at a sanctuary that is a "copy and shadow" of what is in heaven.

Hebrews 8.23 wrote:It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

Again, the earthly sanctuary is a "copy of the true one".

Next, the passage from AoI :

Ascension 7.10 wrote: And as it is above, so is it also on the earth, for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is also on the earth

On earth we have things that are of the "likeness of that which is in the firmament".

There is a passage in the Hermetica, supposedly from the Emerald Tablet, that goes like so :

Hermetica wrote:That which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above, for the performance of miracles of the One Thing.

Again, clear mirroring - "That which is above is the same as that which is below" and vice versa even.

Then that intriguing passage from Irenaeus :

Irenaeus Heresies Book 1 Ch.7.2 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.

A (lower) Christ underwent a suffering that was a "type of the Christ above".
And also that "all these transactions were counterparts of what took place above."

One specific example of this copying is the Jerusalem above (viz the Jerusalem below). Paul mentions it in Galatians :

Galatians 4:24 wrote:which things are allegorized, for these are the two covenants: one, indeed, from mount Sinai, to servitude bringing forth, which is Hagar; 25 for this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and doth correspond to the Jerusalem that now [is], and is in servitude with her children, 26 and the Jerusalem above is the free-woman, which is mother of us all,

And Hebrews also mentions it :

Hebrews 12:22 wrote:But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, 12:23 to the general assembly and assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven,

Many later Christians picked up on this theme of the heavenly Jerusalem - Hippolytus, Origen, Tertullian, Apocalypse of Paul, Ambrose of Milan, Athanasius, Augustine, Eusebius, Gennadius, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Rufinus.

What can we learn from all that ?
* The theme of the earthly being a copy of the heavenly is found as early as the 1st century.
* This theme is repeated by various writers, especially the heavenly Jerusalem idea.
* At least one group apparently saw the earthly Christ as a copy of a Christ Above

Kapyong

If a human Jesus were ever to find himself in outer space (hey, it happened to Enoch), without an environmental suit, he would surely die. Of course, he would probably not have so found himself, yet he did die while on the face of the earth. In short, it does not matter whether it was in outer space or on the face of the earth on a cross. The question "Did Jesus Die in Outer Space?" did not need to be asked, as the answer is moot.

DCH

John T wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:But the best possible case could put the critics on their heels. It could show that Tacitus wrote about Jesus and that this is more likely if Jesus were historical. It could revive the Josephus argument. It could pull the rug on attempts to find Christians without a belief in a historical Christ crucified under Pilate. Most importantly, it could show that the Gospels make the most sense if they are about a historical person. But somebody needs to do the hard work to make that best possible case.

I thought Bart Ehrman already did that in: "Did Jesus Exist?".

Peter Kirby wrote:

John T wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:What makes you think so?

Ehrman gives many examples that Jesus did exist.

Give us a couple "examples," then.

I would highly recommend Carrier fans and mythicist read, "Did Jesus Exist" but I strongly suspect they won't.

Does that mean that you've read it?

No reply?

Gday all,

Here are a few more quotes conerning what's below being a copy of what is above :

Philo, On Drunkeness, (133) wrote: For since the Creator has in every instance made one thing a model and another a copy of that model, he has made the archetypal pattern of virtue for the seal, and then he has on this stamped an impression from it very closely resembling the stamp.

Everything has a model and is a copy of that model.

Philo, Life of Moses II, (65) wrote: the most excellent kind of creatures, namely, of men, man having received the supremacy over all earthly creatures whatsoever, being a kind of copy of the powers of God, a visible image of his invisible nature, a created image of an uncreated and immortal Original.

Man is a kind of copy of the powers of God.

Wisdon of Solomon, 9.8 : wrote: Thou hast given command to build a temple on thy holy mountain, and an altar in the city of thy habitation, a copy of the holy tent which thou didst prepare from the beginning.

The earthly temple and altar is a copy of the holy tent [above].

Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 53 wrote: for birth is an image of existence in Matter, and that which is born is a copy of that which is.

Everything born is a copy of that which is.

Apocalypse of Abraham 44 : wrote: And He said, "Hear Abraham, for that which you see is the Temple, a copy of that which is in the heavens,

The earthly Temple is a copy of the heavenly again.

Teachings of Silvanus, (Nag Hammadi) wrote: For everything which is visible is a copy of that which is hidden.

Everything is a copy.

Eusebius, Demonstration, Book 4, Ch.15 wrote: So then he introduces the High Priest, as he did all the other elements, and anointed him with earth-born unguents, working out a Christ and a High Priest of shadow and symbol, a copy of the Heavenly Christ and High Priest.

In the last quote we see a late example of Christ being considered a copy of the Christ Above, the "heavenly Christ". Not that this argues for as mythical Christ, I just thought it was interesting.

So there's a major trope of a heavenly Temple/Jerusalem, along with a general belief in a Platonic Above/Below dichotomy, and even the unusual idea of the suffering Christ below being a type or copy of the Christ above.


Kapyong

Hi all,

I have a problem with using the term "Outer Space." Wikipedia tells us "The term outer space was used as early as 1842 by the English poet Lady Emmeline Stuart-Wortley in her poem "The Maiden of Moscow".[28] The expression outer space was used as an astronomical term by Alexander von Humboldt in 1845.[29] It was later popularized in the writings of H. G. Wells in 1901.[30] The shorter term space is actually older, first used to mean the region beyond Earth's sky in John Milton's Paradise Lost in 1667."

We should remember that people in the First century thought that if they went up the right mountain, they could reach the sky or firmament that it held up and pick a bunch of stars to carry back down.

I think that the term "Invisible Platonic realm" might be better.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Bertie wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote:Note that the S/L versions explicitly state the form that the Beloved takes in each level. It states that the Beloved had the form of creatures in the firmament when in the firmament; and had the form of creatures in the air when the Beloved descended into the air from the firmament. So where would the Beloved have the form of a human? That's the issue

Ah, this is the point that I missed; thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome! Based on that, do you think that the Ascension of Isaiah supports a view of a crucifixion in outer space?

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi all,

I have a problem with using the term "Outer Space." Wikipedia tells us "The term outer space was used as early as 1842 by the English poet Lady Emmeline Stuart-Wortley in her poem "The Maiden of Moscow".[28] The expression outer space was used as an astronomical term by Alexander von Humboldt in 1845.[29] It was later popularized in the writings of H. G. Wells in 1901.[30] The shorter term space is actually older, first used to mean the region beyond Earth's sky in John Milton's Paradise Lost in 1667."

We should remember that people in the First century thought that if they went up the right mountain, they could reach the sky or firmament that it held up and pick a bunch of stars to carry back down.

I think that the term "Invisible Platonic realm" might be better.

Except that Richard Carrier does not think that Jesus was crucified in any Platonic realm. Carrier does a good job of defining his terms in OHJ. He writes on page 63:

• I shall mean by outer space everything above the atmosphere as pres­ently known. In ancient understanding this included (a) everything in or under the 'firmament' (also known as the aer or 'sublunar sphere') extending above the highest visible clouds all the way to the orbit of the moon, and (b) all the heavens beyond (also then known as the 'aether' or 'ethereal realm'). The notion that any of this region may have been a vacuum did exist at the time. but only as a controversial theory rejected by most reli­gious cosmologists, and only embraced typically by atomists and others generally hostile to the supernatural. Most people of the time thought the aer extended all the way to the moon (while everything beyond that was filled with a breathable 'ether'), when in fact (as we now know) the real atmosphere extends only a minuscule fraction of that distance.
  
  So when they spoke of beings and events 'in the air', they were often speaking of what we mean by outer space. This is even more obvious when they spoke of beings and events in the spheres of heaven above the moon. Accordingly, if an ancient author was speaking of what we call outer space, I will say 'outer space'. This does not mean I attribute to them a modern knowledge of the extraterrestrial vacuum. lt only means they were thinking of realms beyond the terrestrial domains of mountains, clouds, and birds. For it was already common knowledge among the educated of the time that the moon's distance from the earth was hundreds of thousands of miles (see Element 34). So when they used terms that we often translate as 'air', they were often not referring to what we mean by 'the air' today but a far more vast and frightening realm of fantastic possibilities, which many thought was trafficked by gods and filled with strange animals or spirits (see Ele­ments 36-38).

My only concern with how he uses the term is that it doesn't distinguish between the area under the moon (where corruption and death can occur) and the area above the firmament (the area of incorruption). Those are two vastly different areas in terms of ancient thought. We had a debate on the old IIDB board a few years back where we tried to determine a more accurate terminology. I would go for "lower heavens" and "higher heavens" myself. Carrier's theory is that Jesus was crucified in the lower heavens.

Kapyong wrote:What can we learn from all that ?
* The theme of the earthly being a copy of the heavenly is found as early as the 1st century.
* This theme is repeated by various writers, especially the heavenly Jerusalem idea.
* At least one group apparently saw the earthly Christ as a copy of a Christ Above

The one very, very important thing to keep in mind when saying that "the earthly" is "a copy of the heavenly" is that (AFAIK) the location of the perfect things in "the heavenly" is in the upper heavens. That is not a controversial idea, so "Jerusalem on earth" is a copy of the "Jerusalem in heaven" is consistent with ancient thought.

But AFAIK the idea that things on earth were copies of things in the lower heavens is unprecedented. Carrier introduces a concept of "half-corrupt imitations" to explain this. He cites two sources: both anti-Christian apologetics books rather than scholarly books. That in itself may be okay, but both Bernard Muller and I have checked those two books (one each), and there doesn't appear to be anything in those cites that supports such an idea.

So, when giving examples of things on earth being copies of things in heaven, it would be really useful if you specify whether the things in heaven are above the firmament ("upper heavens" or "real heavens") or below (the zone of corruption.) Otherwise things get in a muddle.

BTW, this is what Carrier writes on the relationship between earth and the firmament on p. 194 (my bolding below):

• There are even versions of earthly things in the firmament, as we learn in the Ascension of Isaiah 7.10, which says, 'as it is above, so is it also on the earth, for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is also on the earth'. Although those things would not be the perfect models, which resided only in the perfect heavens above, but half-corrupt imitations, in between the models above and their earthly copies below.

I have no idea what he means by "half-corrupt imitations" in the firmament. I argue that the "likeness on earth" relates to envy and war, referred to in 7.9. Satan and demons are half-corrupt imitations? The envy and war in the firmament is a half-corrupt imitation of what is happening on earth? Sounds very strange indeed!

But, to emphasize: I agree that there was an ancient school of thought that the things on earth are (imperfect) copies of things in the (perfect) upper heavens. But I disagree that there was a school of thought that the (imperfect) things on earth were (imperfect?) copies of things in the lower heavens. That's the thing I would be interested in seeing examples of, and to me, that's the thing that is missing. So when giving examples, it would be useful if you could identify what level of the heavens are being referred to. I think you will quickly see the pattern.

Kapyong wrote:Gday all,

I'd like to go over some examples of this "As above, so below" theme.

Firstly, Hebrews -

Hebrews 8.3 wrote: 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.

Verse 5 is clear - earthly priests serve at a sanctuary that is a "copy and shadow" of what is in heaven.

Hebrews 8.23 wrote:It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

Again, the earthly sanctuary is a "copy of the true one".

Next, the passage from AoI :

Ascension 7.10 wrote: And as it is above, so is it also on the earth, for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is also on the earth

On earth we have things that are of the "likeness of that which is in the firmament".

There is a passage in the Hermetica, supposedly from the Emerald Tablet, that goes like so :

Hermetica wrote:That which is above is the same as that which is below, and that which is below is the same as that which is above, for the performance of miracles of the One Thing.

Again, clear mirroring - "That which is above is the same as that which is below" and vice versa even.

Then that intriguing passage from Irenaeus :

Irenaeus Heresies Book 1 Ch.7.2 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.

A (lower) Christ underwent a suffering that was a "type of the Christ above".
And also that "all these transactions were counterparts of what took place above."

One specific example of this copying is the Jerusalem above (viz the Jerusalem below). Paul mentions it in Galatians :

Galatians 4:24 wrote:which things are allegorized, for these are the two covenants: one, indeed, from mount Sinai, to servitude bringing forth, which is Hagar; 25 for this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and doth correspond to the Jerusalem that now [is], and is in servitude with her children, 26 and the Jerusalem above is the free-woman, which is mother of us all,

And Hebrews also mentions it :

Hebrews 12:22 wrote:But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, 12:23 to the general assembly and assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven,

Many later Christians picked up on this theme of the heavenly Jerusalem - Hippolytus, Origen, Tertullian, Apocalypse of Paul, Ambrose of Milan, Athanasius, Augustine, Eusebius, Gennadius, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Rufinus.

What can we learn from all that ?
* The theme of the earthly being a copy of the heavenly is found as early as the 1st century.
* This theme is repeated by various writers, especially the heavenly Jerusalem idea.
* At least one group apparently saw the earthly Christ as a copy of a Christ Above

Kapyong

We can learn that the NT has two stories. 1) the Jerusalem above has it's own celestial christ figure crucified. 2) the Jerusalem below has it's own flesh and blood christ figure crucified.

This means it is not necessary to go anti-scientific and uphold a theology where a human man is morphed into a spiritual/heavenly figure in order to offer up the 'salvation value' of his human blood. That nonsense interpretation of the NT story can be jettisoned to the museum of historical curiosities.

What this means for the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory is that this theory has to start to deal with the gospel story of a crucifixion on earth. Since the gospel figure of Jesus is ahistorical, options for a human flesh and blood crucifixion model, a historical crucifixion that is reflected, mirrored, in the gospel story are:

1) George Wells


2) Cassius Dio


3) Josephus: Life

Kapyong wrote:Gday all,

Here are a few more quotes conerning what's below being a copy of what is above :

Philo, On Drunkeness, (133) wrote: For since the Creator has in every instance made one thing a model and another a copy of that model, he has made the archetypal pattern of virtue for the seal, and then he has on this stamped an impression from it very closely resembling the stamp.

Everything has a model and is a copy of that model.

Philo, Life of Moses II, (65) wrote: the most excellent kind of creatures, namely, of men, man having received the supremacy over all earthly creatures whatsoever, being a kind of copy of the powers of God, a visible image of his invisible nature, a created image of an uncreated and immortal Original.

Man is a kind of copy of the powers of God.

Wisdon of Solomon, 9.8 : wrote: Thou hast given command to build a temple on thy holy mountain, and an altar in the city of thy habitation, a copy of the holy tent which thou didst prepare from the beginning.

The earthly temple and altar is a copy of the holy tent [above].

Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 53 wrote: for birth is an image of existence in Matter, and that which is born is a copy of that which is.

Everything born is a copy of that which is.

Apocalypse of Abraham 44 : wrote: And He said, "Hear Abraham, for that which you see is the Temple, a copy of that which is in the heavens,

The earthly Temple is a copy of the heavenly again.

Teachings of Silvanus, (Nag Hammadi) wrote: For everything which is visible is a copy of that which is hidden.

Everything is a copy.

Eusebius, Demonstration, Book 4, Ch.15 wrote: So then he introduces the High Priest, as he did all the other elements, and anointed him with earth-born unguents, working out a Christ and a High Priest of shadow and symbol, a copy of the Heavenly Christ and High Priest.

In the last quote we see a late example of Christ being considered a copy of the Christ Above, the "heavenly Christ". Not that this argues for as mythical Christ, I just thought it was interesting.

So there's a major trope of a heavenly Temple/Jerusalem, along with a general belief in a Platonic Above/Below dichotomy, and even the unusual idea of the suffering Christ below being a type or copy of the Christ above.


Kapyong

Indeed, "a major trope" that is fundamental in understanding the difference between the gospel story and the Pauline story.

Thanks for posting these quotes.