Re: MARTYRDOM AND ASCENSION OF ISAIAH (1st - early 3rd century AD) Questions
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:35 pm
GakuseibDon,
I am still going through what you wrote because you brought up a good parallel with the fighting in both realms.
So it makes sense that he means And as he saw fighting on the firmament, so he saw fighting on earth. But the author does not leave it at that. To interpret his second statement as "for the likeness of that FIGHTING which is in the firmament is here on the earth", would make the whole second statement redundant. So instead, Isaiah is giving a general principle. He us saying that as there is fighting on the firmament, so he saw it on earth BECAUSE the likeness of one matches the other. When he makes this second statement he does not refer to the likeness of any one thing alone (eg. fighting) that is the same on both planes, so instead he is making a general observation or principle about the general likeness of affairs on both planes. And in that case, his general statement about mutual correspondence really begs the question of why such matching would exist. The answer seems to be that he is referring to a Platonic principle, because Plato and Greek philosophy seem to have some idea about mirroring on planes. Plus, something like this shows up in the Odes and I cited alot of authors who talk about this on my Odes thread. But still, the Asc. Isa. seems to have a special version of the rule because it us mirroring earth with the firmament rather than with an ideal heavenly plane...... So he is certainly at least alluding to some philosophical principle but he doesn't seem to explain exactly why the likenesses of the things on the firmament and earth would match.
In other words, instead of saying that the fighting matches both places because of the results of Fall, or because the angels of the firmament influence what happens on Earth, or because of some other specific theological explanation, he just says the likeness of what is on the firmament matches what is on Earth. And that sounds like a general statement, and it is actually ambiguous without more explanation. Because it's not actually true necessarily that what is on the firmament matches what is on Earth. For example, there are waterfalls and gold mines and parrots and dogs and humans on Earth. To say that everything in the firmament matches those things does not sound like what Jews or Christians or Greeks who helped to the classic idea of the firmament would think about the firmament. Instead he probably means in particular that spiritual things that happen on one plane happen on the other. But, why should that be the case? I guess that you could respond to me that he is just making a general observation, since he has been on both planes and is able to make an assessment like that. I think that this is actually your basic answer to me. And that might be fine except it sounds so much like known philosophical phrases and sayings like as above so below and the likeness of one matches the likeness of the other. So it looks like he is alluding to those philosophical sayings, which could explain why he doesn't go into more detail about why those two planes should mirror each other. The audience would already be familiar with the philosophical principle that he was referring to and therefore he did not need to explain it to them when he used the saying.
I am still going through what you wrote because you brought up a good parallel with the fighting in both realms.
So it makes sense that he means And as he saw fighting on the firmament, so he saw fighting on earth. But the author does not leave it at that. To interpret his second statement as "for the likeness of that FIGHTING which is in the firmament is here on the earth", would make the whole second statement redundant. So instead, Isaiah is giving a general principle. He us saying that as there is fighting on the firmament, so he saw it on earth BECAUSE the likeness of one matches the other. When he makes this second statement he does not refer to the likeness of any one thing alone (eg. fighting) that is the same on both planes, so instead he is making a general observation or principle about the general likeness of affairs on both planes. And in that case, his general statement about mutual correspondence really begs the question of why such matching would exist. The answer seems to be that he is referring to a Platonic principle, because Plato and Greek philosophy seem to have some idea about mirroring on planes. Plus, something like this shows up in the Odes and I cited alot of authors who talk about this on my Odes thread. But still, the Asc. Isa. seems to have a special version of the rule because it us mirroring earth with the firmament rather than with an ideal heavenly plane...... So he is certainly at least alluding to some philosophical principle but he doesn't seem to explain exactly why the likenesses of the things on the firmament and earth would match.
In other words, instead of saying that the fighting matches both places because of the results of Fall, or because the angels of the firmament influence what happens on Earth, or because of some other specific theological explanation, he just says the likeness of what is on the firmament matches what is on Earth. And that sounds like a general statement, and it is actually ambiguous without more explanation. Because it's not actually true necessarily that what is on the firmament matches what is on Earth. For example, there are waterfalls and gold mines and parrots and dogs and humans on Earth. To say that everything in the firmament matches those things does not sound like what Jews or Christians or Greeks who helped to the classic idea of the firmament would think about the firmament. Instead he probably means in particular that spiritual things that happen on one plane happen on the other. But, why should that be the case? I guess that you could respond to me that he is just making a general observation, since he has been on both planes and is able to make an assessment like that. I think that this is actually your basic answer to me. And that might be fine except it sounds so much like known philosophical phrases and sayings like as above so below and the likeness of one matches the likeness of the other. So it looks like he is alluding to those philosophical sayings, which could explain why he doesn't go into more detail about why those two planes should mirror each other. The audience would already be familiar with the philosophical principle that he was referring to and therefore he did not need to explain it to them when he used the saying.