Ted Hoffman

Link to Carrier's article

Ted Hoffman

The concept of Jesus as a nameless pre-existent God descending to a realm is in Phillipians 2:6-11 and Ascencion of Isaiah (which is in EarlyChristianwritings.com) shows the levels/ spheres of existence from heaven down to the earth with archons/demons like Belias occupying them and Jesus descending them.

I think Paul had in mind Philo's heavenly man (am man in flesh, but incorruptible flesh - unlike that of Adam - the one "from dust").

With the meaning of archons settled (scholars that support Doherty's reading outnumber those that oppose it), kata sarka falls into place and fits like a condom.

As far as archons/ "princes of this world" is concerned:
Scholars that support Doherty's interpretation
1. Conzelmann 2. W. J. P. Boyd 3. C. K. Barrett 4. Paula Fredriksen 5. Jean Hering 6. Delling7. S. G. F. Brandon. 8. Paul Ellingworth9. Thackeray 10. Schmiedel. 11. J. H. Charlesworth and *cough* 12. Earl Doherty.

Scholars that support earthly interpretation
1. M. Pesce 2. A. W. Carr 3. T. Ling 4. Archibald Robertson5. Alfred Plummer6. William Orr7. James Walther 8. Gene Miller 9. and Leon Morris.

Haran

I suppose my main point is that it would have been better, in my opinion, to say "In the Pauline epistles, it can mean ....".

The usages I have seen of kata sarka and en sarki appear to mean physical flesh in "our earthly realm". I don't agree with Carrier's assessment of the word kata, other than it is a remote possibility (though I am unsure of the "comparison sense" that he talks about - can't find that sense in any of my grammars), and I suspect that his position with respect to this issue is a minority position.

I'm afraid that I am not familiar enough with Doherty's full argument with respect to this other realm. And I am not sure what, exactly the argument is with respect to the word archons. The word, by itself, simply means rulers. I'm not sure where the rest of the phrase "princes of this world" comes from and I am unaware of where the "supporting scholars" voice their opinions. Unfortunately, there is a lot here for me to check on and I don't know if I have the time. It might be interesting though. If you care to provide more information. I will also pull Charlesworth off my shelf and read the ascension of Isaiah and what he says about it. I would like to point out that, according to Peter's website, that Charlesworth states: "The first writing {Martyrdom} is Jewish, dating from around the second century B.C., and the other two are Christian, having been composed around the end of the second century A.D. A few scholars think that all three compositions already existed in the first century". It seems another minority position. Is it not questionable whens someone's position is built on so many minority positions? Seems like an unstable foundation to me.

Ted Hoffman

You know, carrier gave Doherty's work the most thorough assesment known. If you disagree with his conclusions, it would help if you attempted to present your objections or alternative interpretations.

"In the Pauline epistles, it can mean ...." is still fine because Hebrews 8:4 tells us Jesus was never on earth when it states that "If Jesus were on earth, he would never have been a High Priest". This speaks volumes about the location of Jesus' "heavenly" sacrifice.

Johannine expressions, with their high Christology, still appear to have used Mark as a touchstone, so Pauline epistles represent writings that weren't tainted with the synoptic materialism.

Of course you do. But suspicions don't add up to much. Carrier writes: "In short, all of the common meanings of kata with the accusative support Doherty's reading".

I have some knowledge of Greek (however rudimentary). So do you. Carrier writes:
" The preposition kata with the accusative literally means "down" or "down to" and implies motion, usually over or through its object, hence it literally reads "down through flesh" or "down to flesh" or even "towards flesh." It very frequently, by extension, means "at" or "in the region of," and this is how Doherty reads it."

Do you agree with this? Which part of this do you want to Challenge?

He adds: "I have only seen it mean "according to" when followed by a cited author (e.g. "according to Euripedes," i.e. "down through, or in the region of Euripedes"), so it is unconventional to translate it as most Bibles do (a point against the usual reading and in favor of Doherty's). Even the "usual reading" is barely intelligible in the orthodox sense, especially since on that theory we should expect en sarki instead."

Focus on these two passages and compile your objections.

This is not a major handicap. Just focus on what Carrier has written and see what you can come up with.

Use the Search facility and search for the key word "archon" in thread titles in BC & H. You will find a thread Kirby started on the subject. The interpretation of the word archon piggybacks to and disambiguates the interpretation of horde of other terms and expressions - with kata sarka just being one of them.

Minority/majority opinion is irrelevant. What is important is the correct interpretation.

Regarding AoI, M. Knibb says [as referenced by Doherty] in The old Testament Pseudiepigrapha that ideas like "rising on the 3rd day" were borrowed from gnostic sources and are later additions. (p.170) and alludes that the names "Jesus" and "Christ" are later additions. In any event, its clear that AoI was redacted.

andrewcriddle

The standard version of the AoI refers to Matthews account of the nativity (chapter 11 of AoI) and cannot possibly be 1st century.


Many of the references to Jesus in the standard form of the AoI may possibly be a result of later redaction (it partly depends on the relation of the Ethiopic version to other versions) but the whole idea of ascending and descending through multiple heavens is second century CE rather than earlier.

Other parallels

2 (Slavonic) Enoch probably 2nd century possiby much later.

Apocalypse of Abraham certainly after the destruction of Jerusalem probably 2nd or 3rd century

Testament of the 12 Patriarchs is in its Christian version 2nd century there is an earlier Jewish version found at Qumran but this seems to lack the reference to the multiple heavens.

Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 2nd century.

There are also parallels from Hermetic and Gnostic works from Nag Hammadi and other sources generally dated to the 2nd century or later

The Rabbinic parallels probably go back to the late 2nd or early 3rd centuries.

There is a particularly close parallel in the Epistula Apostolorum which is almost certainly 2nd century.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Alan Segal writes:

• http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/year25/8802.shtml
  Philo can speak of Moses as made into a divinity in several places. In exegeting Moses' receiving the Ten Commandments, Philo envisions an ascent, not merely up the mountain but to the heavens, describing possibly a mystical identification between this manifestation of God and Moses by suggesting in his Life of Moses and Questions and Answers on Exodus that Moses attained to a divine nature through contact with the divinity.
  
  .....
  
  The Parables may be later; so they are not good evidence. However, Enoch 90 is undoubtly pre-Christian and it uses the same terminology of transformation. Morton Smith claims to have made a discovery which will anchor these experiences firmly in the first century. In 4QMa of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran, Morton Smith sees evidence to translate this passage: "[El Elyon have found me a seat among] those perfect forever,/ a mighty throne in the congregation of the gods./ None of the kings of the east shall sit in it/ and the nobles shall not [come near it.]/ No Edomite shall be like me in glory. / And none shall be exalted save me, more shall come against me./ For I have taken my seat in the [congregation] in the heavens,/ and none [find fault with me.]/ I shall be reckoned with gods/ and established in the holy congregation."

Hang on, I'll post some more from others.

Vorkosigan

James Tabor

Ascent to Heaven in Antiquity

CX

I have nothing to add to Haran's excellent comments. I'm simply posting my agreement to add the weight of "bipartisan support".

Ted Hoffman

Haran claims:
1. "it seems that the surface understanding of "pinchable flesh" or "human bodily flesh" would be correct."

As I said, it may "seem so" in texts influenced by gospel tradition - and Haran referenced Acts and John.

Is Philo's 'heavenly man' also having pinchable, corruptible flesh? What about a docetic Jesus per Marcion?

As far as Pauline epistles are concerned, kata sarka doesnt necessarily yield pinchable flesh. Haran is yet to respond to Carrier's arguments regarding the whole expression.

2. Haran claims that "Others seem to be placing these words on a Procrustean bed to force them into fitting their unfounded theories."
This is imputing motive, and is a fallacious argument.

I have great difficulty appreciating why you would characterize what Haran posted as "excellent".

andrewcriddle

I entirely agree that the idea of heavenly ascent and transformation is pre-Christian, what I was talking about is the idea of multiple heavens one on top of each other with journeys and transformations between one heaven and another heaven, which IMO is post-Christian though not necessarily derived from Christianity.

Another indication of lateness in AoI may be the very vivid description of the trance in which Isaiah ascends up into heaven while his body remains on earth. (chapter 6 of AoI). The earlier heavenly ascents tend to blur whether they are talking about a bodily ascent or a spiritual ascent. With the development in the 2nd century of interest in 'theurgic' techniques for relating to the divine, accounts give a clearer picture of what they claim actually happened.

(One other indication of the date of AoI is the clear reference to Nero in chapter 4 Though this only requires a late 1st century date not a 2nd century one.)

Andrew Criddle