“Likewise,” Litwa says, “crosses do not hover in the heavens,” evidently unaware of all the ancient reports of entire armies and thrones and gardens ‘hovering in the heavens’, “they are sunk in the soil,” evidently unaware of all the soil ancient Jews believed could be found in many levels of the heavens, particularly in the firmament, the zone of all corruption. “Men of flesh dwell on earth,” Litwa insists. Except when they don’t: many a human sorcerer and sage could fly (or even, like Isaiah or Elijah, be carried by angels or other creatures), and Philo reports the firmament was full of beings of mortal flesh residing at all levels.
What is more interesting, is that Carrier argues strongly for Norelli being entirely wrong about considering the "pocket gospel" in Ascension of Isaiah as original:
Similarly, Litwa claims that I “did not address any of Norelli’s arguments” for the “pocket gospel” depicting the Jews killing Jesus being an interpolation in the Ascension of Isaiah. That’s not actually true. As far as I can tell, the case I do make for it does counter Norelli’s. But since Litwa won’t tell us what my case was, or what Norelli’s was, or what in Norelli’s case my case doesn’t already answer, what use is there in Litwa even mentioning any of this? This is again irresponsible, lazy, and completely useless to everyone. Indeed Litwa is so inexplicably careless here that he claims “on earth…the angels crucify Christ” in this “pocket gospel,” when no such thing happens—which is precisely what contradicts the earlier text. Unlike what the angel tells Isaiah earlier on, the interpolated text unequivocally says “the children of Israel” were roused “against” Jesus, “not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king and crucified Him.” How does Litwa not know what the very text he is talking about says? Or why it’s peculiar—after supposedly having read my list of all the things that are, in fact, peculiar about it?
(my yellow, original bold)
I can't imagine that Norelli has escaped just this detail, so fatal against his argument.
But it is a FACT.