AoI 10:12 and 2 Cor 4:4 : this world = the outer space ?

[Giuseppe]

Clearly the verse 10:12 is making a distinction between the construct ''that world'' and the construct ''the world''.

12. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world [the outer space], and the world [the earth] that is dominated by them:

The distinction works even if you replace ''that world'' with ''this world'', since in any case always two worlds are named.

This means that everywhere we have the construct ''this world''/''that world'' in AoI or in Paul, then the outer space has to be meant, and not the earth.

See 2 Corinthians 4:4 :

The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

The sense would be that the unbelievers cannot ''see'' the crucifixion of the Son (=the gospel preached by Paul) in the outer space. Only the Christian apostles can ''see'' it.

As corollary, the famous verse 10:14 of AoI is so interpreted:

10:14. And the god of that world [=the outer space] 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.

[Giuseppe]

I confess this is my criticism of the Ben's comment:

In all of these passages there is little doubt as what this world means; it means the world of human beings, a world under the present dominion of an evil prince.

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=172403

Basing on AoI 10:12, I am not so sure that this earthly world is meant behind the construct ''this world''/''that world'' in 10:14 and in Paul.

[Ben C. Smith]

I confess this is my criticism of the Ben's comment:

In all of these passages there is little doubt as what this world means; it means the world of human beings, a world under the present dominion of an evil prince.

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=172403

Basing on AoI 10:12, I am not so sure that this earthly world is meant behind the construct ''this world''/''that world'' in 10:14 and in Paul.

Criticize all you want, but your reconstruction has the "prince(s) of this/that world" being god(s) of one world ("outer space", an affectation which I despise for its deafness to how the ancients thought) but ruling another (the earth). That makes little sense to me. Surely gods rule the worlds they are god of.

Also, both the second Latin and the Slavonic translations agree with my reconstruction, not yours, which is based upon an English rendition of the Ethiopic version, a language which I do not know and I suspect you do not either.

[Bernard Muller]

I agree with Ben: http://historical-jesus.info/69.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Where is the problem? The demons are from their world (air or Outer Space) but rule another world: the Earth.
The distinction is necessary insofar the air is full only of demons (and therefore there is not a different kind of beings on which to rule) while this Earth is full of human beings on which to rule. Demons rule on humans, not on demons.

[Ben C. Smith]

Where is the problem? The demons are from their world (air or Outer Space) but rule another world: the Earth.
The distinction is necessary insofar the air is full only of demons (and therefore there is not a different kind of beings on which to rule) while this Earth is full of human beings on which to rule. Demons rule on humans, not on demons.

There is no problem with the demons being from somewhere. The issue is that they are said to be the gods of somewhere. If you do not see the problem, so be it, but in order to make your hypothesis worth considering you really need to deal with the original languages: or at least deal with all of the available texts (Latin and Slavonic included) rather than just one of them (the Ethiopic).

[Giuseppe]

I see that the differences, in the various translations (Latin, Slavonic, Etiopic) of the passage 10:12 and 10:14 are only between God(s) ''of this world'' and God(s) ''of that world''.

So the sense may be different.

I explain better. A meaning may be the following (as described above):

10.12. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world [the outer space], and the world [the earth] that is dominated by them:

10:14. And the god of that world [=the outer space] 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.

The sense would be that Jesus will destroy the place of residence of the demons (the air) and also the world ruled by them (the earth). They are two distinct sub-lunary worlds, but the first world is inhabited by them (the demons), the second world is ruled (by them). The possibility of an earthly crucifixion is still open in this interpretation, even if made less probable from the fact that the in verse 14 the construct ''this''/''that'' seems to restrict the action of the demons to only one world: the one inhabited by them (the air).


But another (different) meaning may be the following:

10.12. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of this world [the earth], and the world [the outer space] that is dominated by them:

10:14. And the god of this world [=the earth] 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.

The sense would be that the earth is the world that adores the demons, while the air is precisely the world ruled by the demons (ruled = inhabited).
In this case, the god of this our world - the earth - kills Jesus. And the balance inclines toward an earthly crucifixion.

IN CONCLUSION...
What I am saying is that the verse 10, by his (very fortunate ) distinction between two worlds, prevents you from suspending the judgment about which world is meant in verse 14, totally beyond the occurrence of ''this''/that'' in the original version.

[Ben C. Smith]

I see that the differences, in the various translations (Latin, Slavonic, Etiopic) of the passage 10:12 and 10:14 are only between God(s) ''of this world'' and God(s) ''of that world''.

That is not correct:

10.12 (Latin 2): ...et iudicabis principem illius seculi et angelos eius et mundi rectores.
10.12 (Slavonic, Latin translation from Norelli): ...et iudicabis principem et angelos eius et mundum dominatum (ab) iis.

[Giuseppe]

I see that the differences, in the various translations (Latin, Slavonic, Etiopic) of the passage 10:12 and 10:14 are only between God(s) ''of this world'' and God(s) ''of that world''.

That is not correct:

10.12 (Latin 2): ...et iudicabis principem illius seculi et angelos eius et mundi rectores.
10.12 (Slavonic, Latin translation from Norelli): ...et iudicabis principem et angelos eius et mundum dominatum (ab) iis.

So it is a very mistranslation: ''world'' for ''aeon''.

You are right, as usually.

[Ben C. Smith]

I see that the differences, in the various translations (Latin, Slavonic, Etiopic) of the passage 10:12 and 10:14 are only between God(s) ''of this world'' and God(s) ''of that world''.

That is not correct:

10.12 (Latin 2): ...et iudicabis principem illius seculi et angelos eius et mundi rectores.
10.12 (Slavonic, Latin translation from Norelli): ...et iudicabis principem et angelos eius et mundum dominatum (ab) iis.

So it is a very mistranslation: ''world'' for ''aeon''.

You are right, as usually.

Thanks for that. Just to be clear, the Ethiopic version itself is still consonant with your interpretation; you would just have to explain the other two translations and sort of reconstruct a stemma for the development of the text and ideas therein.

For my part, I am still quite convinced that no crucifixion in heaven, in the air, near the moon, or anywhere else above the surface of the earth is envisioned in any part of the extant text of the Ascension of Isaiah. I think that, in order to read a superterrestrial crucifixion out of the text, one has to desire very much to find it there in the first place. However, the text is full of little tensions and the like, and I have been casually thinking over the past few months in terms of an original text or tradition standing behind the extant text having a crucifixion in Sheol. This hypothesis would explain why, in 10.8, the descent is described as originating in in the upper heavens and ending, not on earth ("that world"), but in Sheol: the earth comes across as just another waystation, like the lower heavens and the firmament. The hypothesis would also highlight the similar structure of this descent and that of Inanna or Ishtar, not to mention other heroic journeys to the underworld in myth and legend. Finally, it would also jive pretty well with certain verses from the NT epistles which seem to envision Jesus' primary work as happening in the underworld (rather than on a terrestrial cross). I am not sure of it by any means, but I think it is more likely than a crucifixion above the ground.