Kapyong

I just re-read your review, and indeed I think you are right, your blue table suggests he did descend to earth after all. The AoI is not as helpful as I thought initially.

K.

DCHindley

That is the text of a paper presented at the SBL International Conference in Rome, 7/04/09: D. Jeffrey Bingham, "Irenaeus and Hebrews." Bingham is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. DTS is super conservative evangelical (in USA terms) bordering on fundamentalist but not quite crossing the line.

If one looks closely, Bingham is intent on showing that Irenaeus was aware of Hebrews, although not actually quoting it. At the same conference, he also headed a session on the formation of the canon. For those who don't know (and I do not mean you, Andrew), Hebrews is commonly thought to have been added to the Pauline corpus somewhat after the 13 letter corpus was circulated.

For conservatives, it is bad enough that the Pauline pastorals and the General Epistles seem questionable on internal grounds, but they at least were in circulation before Hebrews makes its appearance. If the former class of books are deutero-canonical, Hebrews is trito-canonical.

DCH

EarlDoherty

Not too fast, K. Actually, I recall answering Don's claim that the language in AoI 9 indicates that Jesus must have descended all the way to earth, here on FRDB a few years ago. I've searched my own copies of postings and can't find it. And I'm hopeless at locating these things through Search here on the forum. Maybe Toto would help me out, being much more experienced on doing that? (Or maybe Don himself, who probably has a record of every single thing I've said over the years, even if he tends to ignore them and pretend that they were never said.)

But I'll say this right now. Don first appeals to chapter 10 which gives a sphere by sphere, heaven by heaven, account of the descent. But where in that account does the writer specify an entry into earth and taking on the form of a human? Nowhere. One can't read that as present in the chapter 11 "earthly sojourn" because that whole chapter is generally regarded as an interpolation. It is not present in the chapter 10 descent description. In fact, earlier in that chapter (10:8-11) pointedly leaves it out. The Father directs the Son to descend through the heavens as far as the firmament, and then the very next reference is to the sphere of Sheol. No earth, no taking on humanity.

Now, do you think Don is unaware of that? Do you think he has not subjected the AoI to the minutest examination and is simply not informing anyone that the situation in Chapter 10 as a whole does not support what he claims we should read into 9:13? I hardly think so.

And what of that 9:13 reference?

Let's look at 12-15: "The Lord will indeed descend into the world in the last days, (he) who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man. And the god of that world will stretch out [his hand against the Son] and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed even from the heavens so that it will not be known who he is....he will rise on the third day and will remain in that world for 545 days."

The first thing to note, which translator Knibb does (in OT Pseud. II, p. 170, note 'v'), is that the 545 days is undoubtedly a gnostic addition to the text at some later point, since the figure has gnostic application. Then we look at the italicized clause above with its gnostic-sounding "think he is flesh and a man" and see the same gnostic character. Considering that without that clause (Knibb even opines that all references to "Christ" and "Jesus" are secondary and added later), the text reads properly from the son descending "into the world" (not a reference to earth itself) to "the god of that world" laying hold of the Son and hanging him on a tree. Was Pilate a "god"? This is a reference to Satan and his minions who do their work in the firmament. And right after that we have the statement that his identity was concealed "from the heavens", not from anyone on earth.

Ergo, and Don knows this, because I've stated it more than once before, the phrase containing "become like you in form" is likely not authentic to the surrounding phase of the texts (and Don knows that this is a heavily edited document), which, in conjunction with the clear situation in ch. 10, is entirely in terms of heavenly spheres and adopting the form of angels, and being killed by the evil angels, not on earth by humans.

Don't let Don pull the wool over your eyes, Kapyong. He's very good at that, and my life is a constant struggle to keep him honest (though with no lasting success).

(And now, of course, I've probably recalled and repeated everything I said in answer to him in that response of a few years ago I mentioned above. But it would still be nice to have proof that I actually have laid out all this to him before, just so he can't claim he didn't know it.)

Earl Doherty

Toto

There's an archived thread on the AofI from 2005 here. (The archival process seems to have not recognized the close quote from Microsoft word.)

aa5874

Please, it really does NOT matter who D. Jeffrey Bingham is. The reconstruction of the past has NOTHING whatsoever to do with qualifications but 100% to do with Credible DATA.

We have "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and it is clear that the supposed author did NOT ever make any reference to an Epistle to the Hebrews.

It is most remarkable that the author named the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, ALL the Pauline letters to the Seven Churches, the Epistles to Timothy, the Epistle of Peter and the Apocalypse of John but NOT the Epistle to the Hebrews.

GakuseiDon

Earl, the thread I think you are referring to is from early last year, called "The Vision of Isaiah as mythicist text". It is four pages long, and involved Kapyong, you, me, Andrew Criddle and DCHindley, and some others: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=296954

Out of interest: In what form do you think the original version of AoI had Christ being crucified in, if not in human form?

gurugeorge

Earlier you asked for evidence via later disagreement; I tried to show how it's plausible to see the existing evidence in a way that suggests that there could have been disagreement, and what it might look like (i.e. the disagreement between "heretics" (both gnostics and docetists) and proto-orthodoxy, "heretics" being in fact earlier).

Whether both the earlier "heretics" and later proto-orthodoxy believed in an earthly Christ - that's the whole thing under debate. Trying to dig into the earliest sources to see what they really say, for themselves, without interpreting into them tropes from a later, more unified Christianity.

Myself, I waver, sometimes I'm convinced by Doherty that the earliest Christ figure is substantially celestial, other times I think "Joshua the Messiah" was at first just a revised concept of the Messiah, and that he had an earthly aspect to his myth merely because the Messiah myth itself had an earthly aspect.

In either case, there's still precious little to suggest that there was ever a real human being answering to the name "Jesus" and fitting any elements of the biography found in the gospels.

aa5874

You seem to have been sucked into accepting Pauline writings are credible while still maitaining that the Pauline writings were corrupted with Multiple authors and interpolations.

The evidence is overwhelming against the veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writings are anti-Marcionite compositions. They are NOT from the 1st century and that is PRECISELY what the DATED evidence shows.

EarlDoherty

This is a trick question, right?

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

No, though to be fair to you I should perhaps have written "Son" instead of "Christ". But I would have thought it is an obvious question, actually. Let me expand why I think the question is important. I will then re-ask the question at the end (though using "Son" instead of "Christ". If there is anything I get wrong below, please let me know. Quotes below are from the thread link given above.

1. "In your form" is present in the Ethiopian as well as Slavonic/L2 versions. According to you (my emphasis):

One assumes (insofar as we can pinpoint meanings imbedded in a document full of editings and amendments that are very hard to pin down in any exact way) that "in your form" was indeed, in the mind of that particular editor (probably one subscribing to docetism, as in the nearby phrase "they will think that he is flesh and a man"), a reference to human form and probably a reference to earth.

This, and other references (see other thread), suggest that the Son came to earth. As Andrew Criddle put it:

Given that the Latin/Slavonic text refers earlier to the crucifixion and death of the Son, I think the reference to 'dwelling with men in the world' must imply that the death of the Son is also supposed (in the present form of this text) to occur among men upon earth.

I think that is fairly solid: the Ethiopian and Latin/Slavonic texts support a descent to earth. There is no version of AoI that doesn't support this.

2. However, you have discerned an EARLIER layer that we don't have. This undocumented layer supports your idea that the Son didn't descend to earth (though the Son does descend to Sheol). In this layer, "in your form" does not exist. It is an interpolation, probably by a later gnostic editor. From this current thread, you wrote:

Ergo, and Don knows this, because I've stated it more than once before, the phrase containing "become like you in form" is likely not authentic to the surrounding phase of the texts (and Don knows that this is a heavily edited document), which, in conjunction with the clear situation in ch. 10, is entirely in terms of heavenly spheres and adopting the form of angels, and being killed by the evil angels, not on earth by humans.

3. But "not on earth" leaves two locations given explicitly in AoI:
(1) the Firmament
(2) the air.

You seem to suggest that Christ was crucified in the Firmament, without taking on human form. From this thread, you note (using 10:8-11) (my emphasis):

The Father directs the Son to descend through the heavens as far as the firmament, and then the very next reference is to the sphere of Sheol. No earth, no taking on humanity.

However, in the AoI we now have, the Son also travels through the sphere of "the angels of the air." (10:30-31)

So I'm guessing you would think that the sphere of "the angels of the air" is a later addition? But then, the firmament level would need to be changed as well, since it doesn't have a crucifixion scene. From AoI, Chapter 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.

I would love to see what your proposed original layer must look like.

No doubt you will come out with your usual ridiculous accusations and crap on about what I have claimed (without the decency of quoting me making those claims) and how you have refuted me numerous times, blah, blah, blah. I will be ignoring such content-free rants, as usual.

A brief summary of your position of "whose hands" were involved in the development of the Vision section (ignoring any Jewish original and intermediary editions) would be:
1/ Christ Myth Christian editor (your proposed 'original' layer)
2/ Gnostic editor
3/ Proto-orthodox editor

To me, your original layer is unsupportable. There is no evidence for it. Unless there is evidence for it, a neat application of Occam's razor can remove it.

But I'm interested if you think there was a version of early Christianity that thought that the Son was crucified in the form of the Firmament devils. On the other hand, if the Son was in human form while being crucified in the Firmament, why do you think the passage containing "in your form" is an interpolation?

Thus, to repeat my question above, which is NOT a trick question:

In what form do you think the original version of AoI had the Son being crucified in, if not in human form?