EarlDoherty

Do you think I can read the minds of every crazy proto-Christian group who imagined the Son was killed by the demon spirits in the heavens? Do you expect me to be able to give you a detailed account of each of their systems, especially from a document which is in the state the AoI is in? Do you really expect any of those systems to make consistent sense or to be amenable to the kind of literal scientific analysis you want to bring to them?

The phrase in ch.9 “become like you in form and they will think he is flesh and a man” makes the most sense as a gnostic amendment, probably in the first part of the second century. That leaves statements about the Son descending to the firmament and being ‘hung on a tree’ by the ‘god of that world’. Does it say what form he was in? Not that I can see. What did the writer imagine exactly? I don’t know, he doesn’t say.

We turn to chapter 10, and see the Son being instructed to descend the layers of heaven and take on the form of the angels in each layer. When he enters the firmament (below the moon, though this is not specified) he continues the pattern and takes on the form of the evil angels. He continues by saying that “And I saw when he descended and made himself like the angels of the air, that he was like one of them. And he did not give the password, for they were plundering and doing violence to one another.”

Are you really claiming to read this as though the descent involves two separate stages below the moon, one the firmament, the other the air, two separate groups of evil angels both of whom are plundering and doing violence to one another? (You sound like Matthew, scripture mentioned both a donkey and a colt so Jesus has to ride two animals into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.) This is ridiculous. The firmament and the air refer to the same thing, the author (typical of a Jewish writer) is essentially repeating himself; these texts are not great literature, they are not only not rational they are poorly constructed and reflect anything but a scientific ordered mind. If you like, verse 29 could have in mind the entry into the firmament, with its specific reference to the evil angles “on the left” to whom the Son gave the password, then verse 30-31 sees the Son amongst the angels who were in the center of the firmament, not on the left. I don’t know. I don’t expect a text like this to make sense. But it makes even less sense to imagine that the writer is giving us two separate below-the-moon spheres above the earth. I can’t imagine you would insist on such an interpretation.

This is not Paul. For all I know, maybe this group envisioned he was killed while having the appearance of the evil angels. It doesn’t specify outside that probable gnostic addition. (Incidentally, 8:10, "...being transformed until he resembles your appearance and your likeness" is missing from the Lat2 and Slav.) The key point is, he was able to undergo suffering and death, which are human characteristics, and thus his paradigmatic role was intact. Besides, there isn’t in this document anything about an atoning sacrifice; the Son undergoes death in order to ‘plunder the angels of death in Sheol’ and rescue the souls of the righteous which is distinctive line of thought we find scattered throughout the record. It is actually inconsistent with some of the Pauline thought-world. All of which goes to show the great variety of uncoordinated ideas during the period.

The other bottom line is that it is even more ridiculous to imagine that this group and this piece of writing came out of anything resembling the orthodoxy you claim. If chapter 11 is removed as an interpolation, how can you imagine that the Gospel scenario or an incarnation to earth would leave virtually no imprint anywhere, let alone have to be read into one uncertain phrase here, or one supposed implication there, as you regularly try to do? That makes the least sense of all.

So yes, it was a trick question. And I make no guarantee that I will continue this discussion.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

I see. And then later in the same post you highlight AoI's idea of an area of airy demons as "ridiculous", despite that being what the text has? That is not consistent.

I can't tell you how frustrating it is trying to make sense of your adhoc arguments and speculative solutions, since when I question you, you come up with the above. My question is simple: You believe that the original layer of AoI/VoI did not contain "in your form" or similar. So isn't it natural to ask what form IN YOUR VIEW the Son was crucified? Don't you think people would ask this question, even if mythicism became mainstream and your theories accepted?

If you don't know, then you don't know. But how do you make sense of it without, well, trying to make sense of it?

Again: the Slavonic/Latin versions have "like you in form" in Ch. 9. If that represents a reference to earth (as you yourself admitted earlier), then the very next passage ("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") clearly supplies both form (human!) and location (earth!)

So, on the one hand, we have your adhoc and speculative arguments, 'backed up' by "we can't know what they thought, but believe me that this is what they thought! And it agrees with my theories!"

And on the other hand, we can look at the text itself, and see that it makes sense as is. Simply apply Occam's razor, and we're done.

Yep. Because that's what the text says.

Please read my first quote from you at the top of this post.

Earl, that's what the text says. And I can see it fitting into the beliefs of the day. I have read one ancient text (which I can't recall offhand) that separated the air into two parts: the lower part was called 'wet air', which contains clouds, etc; while the upper part nearer the sun was 'dry air'. When the world is made up of four elements -- either, water, air and fire -- you can see how such a division would make sense. Also, the higher heavens were thought to have layers, with the ruler at the top and subservient angels below. Such a division between the firmament (containing the rulers) and the air could also exist.

But putting that aside, I'll let the readers decide whether the author thought in terms of two distinct areas. Here is the text:

10:29. And again He descended into the firmament where dwelleth the ruler of this world, and He gave the password to those on the left, and His form was like theirs, and they did not praise Him there; but they were envying one another and fighting; for here there is a power of evil and envying about trifles.
30. And I saw when He descended and made Himself like unto the angels of the air, and He was like one of them.
31. And He gave no password; for one was plundering and doing violence to another.

Two areas, and two forms! Is it a duplication, like you suggest? Could be! But how do you rule out that there was not two areas? Because it is "ridiculous"? See the top. How do you find that two areas is ridiculous for the thinking of the day? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm actually interested in how they thought back then. If you have read something on this, I'd be interested if you could point me to a reference. Thanks.

Wouldn't this in itself support the idea of a "human form"?

In fact, let me quote you on this very point from your website (my emphasis):

It might be asked: if this is the firmament, encompassing the first spirit level of the aer, as well as the earth, why did the Son adopt the "form" of a human man and not one of the angels of the firmament, since in all the other spheres he simply assumes the form of an angel of that level? In fact, in 10:30, upon the Son entering the firmament, Isaiah says that "I saw when he descended and made himself like the angels of the air, that he was like one of them." They failed even to notice him, being too busy with their own warring. At some point subsequent to this, the Son adopts the form of a human, and that is when they perceive him and proceed to dispatch him on the tree. Thus, the human form was necessary; Satan would hardly be moved to hang up what he thought was one of his own angels.

Ah yes, another document, another thought-world. To paraphrase Occam, "do not multiply thought-worlds unnecessarily."

And that's what it comes down to. A bunch of adhoc arguments on your side; a nice clean explanation on the other side.

Oh c'mon. Don't just keep making stupid accusations about what I claim. PLEASE quote me. I have the courtesy to quote you. Please return the courtesy.

Anyway, back to the point: Read my last post on this thread. I claim that, after the Jewish originals, the second level of editing was done by gnostics. Only after that do we have the proto-orthodox additions.

Simple. He is one of your "minimal echo" Christians (see below), those who have come to believe in the incarnation, though without benefit of having had contact with a written Gospel. To quote you from "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", p. 124 (my emphasis):

The only context in which the extant state of the Latin/Slavonic text is understandable is if the writer knew virtually nothing about a life on earth, but only the bare concept itself, in its most primitive stage (more "primitive" than Knibb's evaluation of chapter 11); perhaps he is an early editor introducing the idea into the text, though without benefit of having had contact with a written Gospel.

You refer again to these "minimal echo" Christians later in your book (my emphasis):

If Ignatius had no written Gospel, and never identifies circulating oral or apostolic traditions about Jesus' ministry and passion, the orthodox scenario faces an astonishing situation. The bishop of Antioch, living in the foremost Christian center in the eastern Mediterranean, almost on the outskirts of Galilee and Judea, seemingly has no access to knowledge about Jesus' life, ministry and death beyond the basic biographical data he puts forward. (Page 301)

And

Thus, dating Mark around 90, with Matthew following perhaps a decade or so later, would mesh with Ignatius (and others), living some distance further north, hearing the echoes of such writings some time early in the 2nd century and finding the idea of an historical Christ an appealing concept. We must remember that he was part of a Son of God faith movement which had no central organization and no network of common doctrine and communication. A slow, patchy spread of the Gospel idea over succeeding decades makes sense... (Page 404)

The AoI author was part of the "slow, patchy spread of the Gospel idea", and like Ignatius, knew next to nothing about Jesus' life on earth. Does that explanation make sense?

Thus, again, no need to appeal to unknown Christianities. One quick snip of Occam's razor, and all is good.

I'll put your answer down as "don't know what form", even though on your website article you state "Thus, the human form was necessary; Satan would hardly be moved to hang up what he thought was one of his own angels", while at the same time (correct me if I am wrong please) you don't believe that "in your form" was part of the original layer. Thanks.

GakuseiDon

To the FRDB mythicists: I'm probably as sick of arguing with Doherty, with his adhoc arguments and continually stupid accusations about what I claim without even the courtesy or decency to quote me, as he is sick of arguing with me, with my clearcut well thought-out points and the slicing and dicing of his bad adhoc arguments.

I'm happy to bow out from responding to him at all. I've been doing it too many years. His speculation is a waste of time to dwell on, but I just hate seeing the horrible twisting of ancient thinking he does to fit into his theories. "Incarnation is not REALLY incarnation". "Under the orb of the moon doesn't include the earth". :facepalm:

Can some of you start questioning him about his arguments, if you are interested in his theories and there are some things that seem unclear to you? That can only be for the good. Of course you will probably get 'the treatment' from Doherty at some point, but in trying to clear up points you find unconvincing or weak, either Doherty's points will be disproved, or the bad points of his arguments will be corrected and so his theories will be strengthened. Both would be good (though obviously I prefer the former!)

I've asked Dave31 to do the same with Acharya S's theories. I don't think he will. I hope some of you can do that with Doherty's theories.

EarlDoherty

When Matthew portrays Jesus as riding two animals, do we accept it “because that’s what the text says!”? Is that how you approach ancient texts?

Two areas of the firmament and air? Then why, in chapter 7’s account of the ascent, is there no such duality in Isaiah’s progress? Why is the first step in the ascent stated as “And we went up into the firmament” with only one set of angels struggling and envying one another? What does that do to the probability I suggest that the repetition in ch. 10 is simply that, repetition?

Lat2 & Slav. (corresponding to 9:12) have “when he descends and is like you in form” and yet in the Ethiopic, no such phrase is attached to the “when he descends”. Rather, it says: “until the Beloved descends in the form in which you will see him descend.” Now which version do you think is the more primitive? The woolly one in the Ethiopic, or the more specific one in the Lat/Slav which specifies the form is like Isaiah’s?

The ‘life on earth’ description in Chapter 11 cannot be found in the Lat/Slav, with only a “dwelled among men” (which says no more than has been said for personified Wisdom). The similar reference in 8:10 to “until he resembles your appearance and your likeness” is not found in the Lat/Slav either. So what does this suggest for the phrase “and is like you in form” in 9:12 of the Lat/Slav? To me it suggests insertion (such insertions need not be consistent between manuscript lines or between every place in each manuscript).

There is nothing ad hoc about any of this.

And yes, you uncover from a decade-old writing on my website a viewpoint which I may have changed or rethought since then, sometimes spurred by discussions like this. (This is partly my own fault, as I am too busy, or lazy, to go over a quarter-million word website and regularly bring everything up to date.) But why not go on what I say and argue NOW, rather than try to use what I said ten years ago as a disproof of what I am now arguing? I swear, if Einstein had written in an early paper “E=mc cubed” you would try to use that to disprove that his later “E=mc squared” was wrong and relativity is disproven.

“A nice clean explanation on (your) side?” You really expect anyone to take this seriously? And I don’t see why your “Jewish originals…gnostic additions…orthodox (Gospel-based) layer” pattern somehow proves me wrong. (It's not incompatible with my own, though I don't know how you prove the gnostic comes before the orthodox.) It still lacks an HJ at the beginning, it still earlier presents a Son who descends to be killed by the demons, and only later is an earthly dimension envisioned, whether by Gnostics or historicists.

And yes, others will get the same treatment from me if they simply parrot your ‘arguments’ and debating style.

Earl Doherty

anethema

It is infuriating to the casual reader, which i consider myself to be, to hear Gakusei Don expect Earl Doherty to build something approximating a logical edifice from the obvious quicksand of these ancient texts. Hoffmann has posted something from 100 years ago suggesting the same thing, maybe Don saw it there? Just because the edifice has been upright for some centuries doesnt mean its foundation is sound. Has anyone checked out that tower in Pisa lately, it seems to be getting closer and closer to collapse.

GakuseiDon

Nothing adhoc??? Let's look at your first sentence above:

The ‘life on earth’ description in Chapter 11 cannot be found in the Lat/Slav, with only a “dwelled among men” (which says no more than has been said for personified Wisdom).

We have the Son descending, changing form at each level to match the form of the creatures at each level, and then "dwelled among men". To which you respond "which says no more than has been said for personified Wisdom". If this is not an adhoc response, then what is? Did your examples of personified Wisdom change forms to suit each locale as it descended? Sure, it might be possible it means "dwelled in spirit form among men", but why is that possibility stronger than the obvious one? Your not explaining, that's explaining away.

And what cult or sect believed that the Son (even if in a personified Wisdom form) had been crucified by Satan, descended to Sheol to release the spirits there, and descended back up to heaven again, sometime after Isaiah had died? Can we compile a list of candidates, Earl? How many thought-worlds does that make now? How many different undocumented beliefs have you proposed to prop up your analysis of each document? (A serious suggestion: Why not keep a list of cults with their various thought-worlds, and link them to the documents or editting layers? E.g. Cult A: Wrote earliest layer of AoI. Believed X. Cult B: Wrote Shepherd of Hermas. Believed Y. That might be a useful analysis.)

As for the rest of your quote:

The similar reference in 8:10 to “until he resembles your appearance and your likeness” is not found in the Lat/Slav either. So what does this suggest for the phrase “and is like you in form” in 9:12 of the Lat/Slav? To me it suggests insertion (such insertions need not be consistent between manuscript lines or between every place in each manuscript).

But this is not evidence of anything. I can suggest interpolations as well, and thus make the 'original' text say whatever I want. The fact is that the Lat/Slav version we have has the Son changing form at each level, and includes the idea "like you in form", and "dwelled among men". Sure, anything is possible. Maybe there are interpolations galore. But what we have is pretty clear: all versions of the Vision of Isaiah suggests a belief in a Son who descended from the highest heavens came in human form, dwelled among men, was crucified and died, then descended to Sheol, and then ascended up to heaven again. All this at some time after Isaiah had been killed.

Maybe there was an earlier version that had the Son killed by Satan in the firmament: fair enough, anything is possible. But there is no need for such an earlier layer. It doesn't provide extra explanatory power for what we see in the Slav/Latin versions.

Of course, I don't deny that you are free to change your mind at any time. In fact, it is a sign that you have an open mind and are open to the evidence, and I agree it does not suggest that you are currently wrong.

But it is like your change of mind of "born of woman" in Paul. In The Jesus Puzzle, you said it was compatible with the language of myth. But later, on a thread here in Jun 2006 called "Born of woman" (I don't have a link sorry, just a saved copy), you stated (my emphasis):

“Born of woman” would be a natural insertion in Galatians (let’s say around the middle of the 2nd century to counter docetics like Marcion and others) to make the point that Jesus was in fact a human man from a human mother.

Again, fine, but we now have the interesting situation of historicists using the language of myth in defense of proto-orthodoxy. Rick Sumner noted:

Either the evidence indicates that the verses are to be read as you suggest they are, or the evidence indicates that they are interpolations...

If you're so ready to fluctuate between the two by virtue of convenience, arguments on specific passages begin to look suspiciously ad hoc.

When you protested, Rick responded:

Surely you realize how that looks to the reader, especially one who is not sympathetic to your conlusions? You are indicating that you are prepared to utterly reverse your position in order to switch to another position, that still points to the same conclusion. To suggest that this looks ad hoc is not, as you suggest, persecuting you. It's the same criticism anyone who engaged in such a thing should expect. It's the same criticism, for example, many offer against Crossan when he switches up the emphasis he places on embarasmment.

In the same spirit: When you wrote 10 years ago on your website that "the human form was necessary", as follows (my emphasis):

It might be asked: if this is the firmament, encompassing the first spirit level of the aer, as well as the earth, why did the Son adopt the "form" of a human man and not one of the angels of the firmament, since in all the other spheres he simply assumes the form of an angel of that level? In fact, in 10:30, upon the Son entering the firmament, Isaiah says that "I saw when he descended and made himself like the angels of the air, that he was like one of them." They failed even to notice him, being too busy with their own warring. At some point subsequent to this, the Son adopts the form of a human, and that is when they perceive him and proceed to dispatch him on the tree. Thus, the human form was necessary; Satan would hardly be moved to hang up what he thought was one of his own angels.

... do you think you were wrong? If I argued that "in your form" was probably in the earliest layer as "the human form was necessary; Satan would hardly be moved to hang up what he thought was one of his own angels", how would you argue against it?

Compare "the human form was ** necessary **" with your response to my question earlier in this thread "In what form do you think the original version of AoI had the Son being crucified in, if not in human form?" You responded: "Do you think I can read the minds of every crazy proto-Christian group who imagined the Son was killed by the demon spirits in the heavens?" Well, ten years ago you could... when it was convenient.

If your new position is NOT adhoc, you should be able to point to the texts or reasoning that changed your mind. Otherwise, as Rick noted, it is just a position of convenience. I.e. it seems that if "in your form" was in the original, then "the human form was necessary". If it wasn't in the original, then maybe he was in evil angel form, but "he was able to undergo suffering and death, which are human characteristics, and thus his paradigmatic role was intact." It all seems so adhoc!

Anyway, as I said before, I'm happy to stay out of all further debates with you, unless you 'invite' me in, as you did here.

GakuseiDon

I actually have a lot of sympathy for someone in Doherty's position. He is trying to build a case from texts that have passed through and been updated by multiple hands, undoubtedly tweaked by orthodox scribes along the way. So I think some slack such be given to him in the exploration of his new paradigm. But for every Galileo, there are a thousand Erich Von Danikens. Which side does Doherty fit into? No secret how I would vote.

This isn't because I expect him to build something approximating a logical edifice from the obvious quicksand of these ancient texts. My position has always been: Is Doherty's theories consistent with the thinking of the time? If they are, then this is a point in his favor. If they are not, and Doherty claims that they are, then this needs examination. It is at this point that Doherty starts pushing (IMHO) a load of speculation and adhoc arguments. See above, plus the recent "Richard Carrier" thread where he mangles Plutarch on the topic of where Osiris was killed. Unfortunately, his readers tend to take his speculation at face value.

Richard Carrier, while generally agreeing with Doherty's theories, wrote that Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" was "90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth)". Is this something that the casual reader can discern? I doubt it.

Anyway, it's largely moot. Richard Carrier will be owning the debate in the near future when his new book comes out. Even though he will be building from Doherty's theories, I think his words will take precedent over Doherty's. So Doherty will slowly fade into irrelevance.

Grog

To tell the truth, I have never understood Doherty on the heavenly sacrifice issue. I sort of get it, but I don't understand the insistence on the death of Jesus not being on Earth. I do not think a mythicist position rests on this and actually detracts from other areas where I think Doherty is illuminating.

I've never read Paul the same after reading his Jesus Puzzle, and probably the most profound impact any observation in any subject area on me was when I read Doherty's opening paragraph on Romans.

Not being able to understand this point of the heavenly sacrifice very well, it's hard to argue with it. To me, Paul reads as though he believes that at some point in history, Jesus did descend to Earth and took human form.

I think the belief was that Jesus had been on Earth, just as the heavenly High Priest Melchizedek had once been on Earth, in a mythical, non-historical past. I think in Paul's thought, there was not much of a distinction between events that "really" happened in the past and events that occurred in a "mythical" or "allegorical" past (see Galatians 4:24).

aa5874

So you do understand Doherty after all???

It is most remarkable that Doherty could make such a massive error when there is NO evidence whatsoever to show the Pauline letters had any influence on the authors of the Canonised gospels.

The very reading of the short-ending gMark to gJohn totally contradicts Doherty where Jesus was a water walker and transfigurer and unknown as Christ in gMark and the Upgraded to God the Creator and the UNIVERSAL Savior of Mankind by Sacrifice in gJohn.

The short-ending gMark Jesus is NOT a Universal Savior, NOT a leader of a New religion, just a Rejected Son of God that was crucified because of the EVIL Jews.

In gMark, if it was NOT for the EVIL Jews, Pilate would have Released Jesus.

That is the gMark story.

The NT Canon is not about a sub-lunar crucifixion.

Apologetic sources attributed to Tertullian that used the Pauline writings BLAMED the crucifixion of Jesus on the EVIL Jews.

An Answer to the Jews Aologetic sources that used the Pauline writings claimed the Son of the Ghost and God the Creator was DELIEVERED to death by the Jews--Not archons.

EarlDoherty

And I largely agree with this. Mark had no direct influence from Paul, just from the general cultic Christ movement which was preached around the eastern Mediterranean by many more apostles than Paul, and this was only secondary to the influence of the Q-type sect which Mark was a part of. There is virtually nothing of the specifically Pauline soteriology and cosmic Christ to be found in the Gospels. But that doesn't mean that Paul and his authentic letters did not precede Mark. I'm sure they did.

Earl Doherty