Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

[andrewcriddle]

The 2nd century date of AoI is one of the things that most mythicists and most historicists agree on. I admit the direct evidence is not conclusive.

Thanks for the honest admission that the direct evidence in inconclusive. The earliest manuscript evidence seem to be Sahidic fragments.
This earliest direct evidence is dated around 350 to 375 CE.

I should have noted that the descent of Jesus from the heavenly regions in Pistis Sophia usually dated to the 3rd century CE probably borrows from the related account in the Ascension of Isaiah

Andrew Criddle

[Bernard Muller]

Here is my conclusion of my blog post: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... 1-p105.htm

It seems to me the original Greek text was entirely Jewish and then slightly interpolated (9:14,16) by a Christian. Then two interpolators, separately, on two different copies, added more different additions/insertions, some of them overtly Christian in nature. These two resulting copies may have been furthermore interpolated.

The original Greek text, even after being added on with its few "tentative" Christian-like interpolations, did not have "Son", "first-begotten", "Jesus" or "Christ" in it.

Therefore, I think the ascent of Isaiah and descent & then ascent of the Beloved were not originally Christian. But later, probably in the 2nd century, when Docetism was adopted among some Gnostic Christians, the original Jewish Greek text got manipulated in order to serve the Christian cause.

I know that this thinking is very much far removed from Dr. Carrier's observations in OHJ on 'the Ascension of Isaiah':

The 'they' who will think he is a and not know who he is and kill him are only ever said to be Satan and angels. No other subject is mentioned for that pronoun, nor is any other implied. God clearly intends Jesus to do nothing more than go to the firmament, and for no other reason than to be killed by Satan and his sky demons, rise from the dead and conduct affairs there for over a year (doing what, it's not said), and then ascend to heaven. In other words, instead of conducting a ministry on earth, Jesus is commanded to go straight to the end and die, and rise from the dead, and then remain where he had for a year and a half (9.16; cf. 10.12-14; although the duration is omitted some versions), and then ascend to the heavens. The 'tree' on which is crucified (9.14) is thus implied to be one of the 'copies' of trees that we are told are in the firmament (7.10).

Of course, even with all its (highly suspected) interpolations, the text of 'Ascension of Isaiah' does not say what I bolded from page 41 of Carrier's 'On the Historicity Of Jesus' (OHJ). This is just pure speculations.

Furthermore, Paul indicated Jesus' crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews, among Jews:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[Leucius Charinus]

The 2nd century date of AoI is one of the things that most mythicists and most historicists agree on. I admit the direct evidence is not conclusive.

Thanks for the honest admission that the direct evidence in inconclusive. The earliest manuscript evidence seem to be Sahidic fragments.
This earliest direct evidence is dated around 350 to 375 CE.

I should have noted that the descent of Jesus from the heavenly regions in Pistis Sophia usually dated to the 3rd century CE probably borrows from the related account in the Ascension of Isaiah

The dating of Pistis Sophia includes the 4th century.

Pistis Sophia is an important Gnostic text discovered in 1773,[1] possibly written between the 3rd[2] and 4th centuries AD.[3] The remaining manuscript, which scholars place in the late 4th century,[4] relates the Gnostic teachings of the transfigured Jesus to the assembled disciples (including his mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Martha), when the risen Christ had accomplished eleven years speaking with his disciples. In it, the complex structures and hierarchies of heaven familiar in Gnostic teachings are revealed.

[andrewcriddle]

The dating of Pistis Sophia includes the 4th century.

Pistis Sophia is an important Gnostic text discovered in 1773,[1] possibly written between the 3rd[2] and 4th centuries AD.[3] The remaining manuscript, which scholars place in the late 4th century,[4] relates the Gnostic teachings of the transfigured Jesus to the assembled disciples (including his mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Martha), when the risen Christ had accomplished eleven years speaking with his disciples. In it, the complex structures and hierarchies of heaven familiar in Gnostic teachings are revealed.

chapter 109 of Pistis Sophia reads.

And Mary answered and said: "Now, therefore, my Lord, hast thou then not brought mysteries into the world that man |277. may not die through the death which is appointed him by the rulers of the Fate,--be it that it is appointed one to die by the sword or die by the waters or through tortures and torturings and acts of violence which are in the law, or through any other evil death,--hast thou then not brought mysteries into the world that man may not die with them through the rulers of the Fate, but that he may die by a sudden death, so that he endure no sufferings through such kinds of death? For they are exceedingly numerous who persecute us because of thee, and numerous those who persecute us because of thy name, in order that, if they torture us, we may speak the mystery and straightway go out of the body without having endured any sufferings at all."

This is widely taken as a reference to the persecutions of Christians in the 3rd and/or very early 4th century.

Andrew Criddle

[Leucius Charinus]

The dating of Pistis Sophia includes the 4th century.

Pistis Sophia is an important Gnostic text discovered in 1773,[1] possibly written between the 3rd[2] and 4th centuries AD.[3] The remaining manuscript, which scholars place in the late 4th century,[4] relates the Gnostic teachings of the transfigured Jesus to the assembled disciples (including his mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Martha), when the risen Christ had accomplished eleven years speaking with his disciples. In it, the complex structures and hierarchies of heaven familiar in Gnostic teachings are revealed.

chapter 109 of Pistis Sophia reads.

And Mary answered and said: "Now, therefore, my Lord, hast thou then not brought mysteries into the world that man |277. may not die through the death which is appointed him by the rulers of the Fate,--be it that it is appointed one to die by the sword or die by the waters or through tortures and torturings and acts of violence which are in the law, or through any other evil death,--hast thou then not brought mysteries into the world that man may not die with them through the rulers of the Fate, but that he may die by a sudden death, so that he endure no sufferings through such kinds of death? For they are exceedingly numerous who persecute us because of thee, and numerous those who persecute us because of thy name, in order that, if they torture us, we may speak the mystery and straightway go out of the body without having endured any sufferings at all."

This is widely taken as a reference to the persecutions of Christians in the 3rd and/or very early 4th century.

Looking at this for the first time Mary appears to be asking the resurrected JC for a secret password to avoid suffering in the ever-present persecution.

Other non canonical texts have a similar theme eg: In the NHC 5.3 First Apocalypse of James, Jesus dispenses Gnostic Passwords to James on how to ascend to the seventy-second heaven - a late instruction course on the appropriate passwords for the maximum ascension after crucifixion.

72nd heaven ?????

[Leucius Charinus]

A terminus post quem is the earliest time the event may have happened, and a terminus ante quem is the latest.

It seems that many scholars are happy to run with a 2nd century A terminus post quem, but what is their terminus ante quem ?

The terminus ante quem for the AoI seems to be the later 4th century, in accordance to the physical fragments and the mentions by Jerome and Epiphanius.

Date of Ascension of Isaiah (3: M.A. Knibb) .... http://vridar.org/2011/02/13/date-of-as ... -isaiah-3/

Date of the Vision of Isaiah (the Ascension) chapters 6 to 11

Jerome refers to 11:34
Epiphanius quotes 9:35f
Hence “this part of the Ascension was in existence, at the latest, by the end of the third century A.D. But it is probably much older than the third century.” (p. 150)

How does Knibb cite Jerome and Epiphanius (from the late 4th century) and then state (essentially) that the terminus ante quem is the end of the 3rd century?

I don't understand the logic here. Surely on the basis of these two late 4th century citations the terminus ante quem is the late 4th century?

I think it is important to discuss the dating of this text (its earliest AND latest dating) because of its importance to the arguments of Doherty and Carrier.

[Leucius Charinus]

Carrier on the role of text of the Ascension of Isaiah in the historicity of Jesus debate in support of myth.

Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8028.shtml

Of these Osiris presents the most apt theological parallel: as Plutarch explains in his treatise on the cult, in public stories Osiris was placed in history as a historical king subsequently deified, but in private exegesis these were explained as allegories for the actual truth of the matter, which was that each year Osiris descends and becomes incarnate and is slain not on earth, but in the lower heavens, and then rises from the dead and reascends to power in the upper heavens, having gained power over death by this cosmic ritual, which he then shares with his earthly devotees. In the earliest redaction we can reconstruct of the Ascension of Isaiah this appears to be exactly what was imagined to happen for Jesus, only once for all, not yearly.[5]

On this theory, when Paul says “the scriptures” tell us that Jesus “died” and “was buried” and only then was he ever “seen” by Cephas and the apostles (1 Cor. 15:3-5), he means exactly what he says. Just as in this and all other summaries of the gospel Paul provides (from here to Philippians 2) there is no mention of a ministry, or of Jesus being seen by anyone (much less anyone taught and hand-picked by him in life), because these things did not yet exist in Christian conception. They would be allegorical fictions contrived later by the authors of the Gospels. When Paul wrote, the death and burial of Jesus were known only from hidden messages in scripture, just as Romans 16:25-26 says. And this knowledge was facilitated by this Jesus then at last appearing to the apostles to inform them of all this, and what it meant. In fact, being thus visited by the celestial Christ is what secured one’s status as an apostle (1 Cor. 9:1; Gal 1:11-12).

Just as Satan was declared the Archon “of the powers of the air” (Eph. 2:2) and the God “of this Age” (2 Cor. 4:4), so when Jesus is said to have been crucified by the “Archons of this Age” (1 Cor. 2:8), we might be seeing what would later be described in the earliest redaction of the Ascension of Isaiah: a reference to Satan and his demons crucifying Jesus, not the Jews and Romans. And just as Adam was in some accounts buried in the heavens (as in chapter 40 of the Greek text of the Life of Adam and Eve), so possibly was Jesus imagined to have been. The incarnation, in a body of Davidic flesh, still would have been imagined as necessary to fulfill scripture. But as depicted in the Ascension of Isaiah, this would have happened in “the sky.”

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi Andrew,

Regarding your suggesting .... that the current text of chapter 11 in the Ethiopic may be closer to the original form of chapter 11 than the current text of chapter 11 in the Old/Slavonic/Latin which may have been modified in the medieval period ... Here is some info (which may or may not be useful) from the following URL:
http://www.monotheism1.org/fragments_of ... nt.html#49

• 49. The Ascension of Isaiah
  
  Knowledge from the Antique Age about the existence of the ­Ascension of Isaiah­ is available in several places.
  
  1. The birth story of Jesus in the ­Ascension of Isaiah­ is from the first part of the 1st century AD, and a part also of the ­Infancy Gospel of James­ (late 2nd century AD).
  
  2. The statement at ­Ascension of Isaiah­ 11:16—that the descent and nativity of the “Beloved” were hidden from the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of this world—certainly looks like an earlier form of a passage in ­Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians­ 19:1 (c.107AD)—(Mary’s virginity was hidden from the prince of this world; so was her child-bearing, and so was the death of the Lord.).
  
  3. The presence of prophets is mentioned side by side with that of pastors and presbyters at ­Ascension of Isaiah­ 3:27, a Jewish-Christian characteristic that reappears in the ­Shepherd of Hermas­ (between 140-155AD) and the Didache­ (between 100-150).
  
  4. The Resurrection is described in terms very similar to those at ­Gospel of Peter­ 13:55-57 (c.150AD)—(And they went and found the sepulcher open: and they drew near and looked in there, and saw there a young man sitting in the midst of the sepulcher, of a fair countenance and clad in very bright raiment, which said unto them: Wherefore are ye come? Whom seek ye? Not him that was crucified? He is risen and is departed; but if ye believe it not, look in and see the place where he lay, that he is not here: for he is risen and is departed thither whence he was sent. Then the women were affrighted and fled.).
  
  5. The words of ­Ascension of Isaiah­ 11:14—(And another prophet saith, honoring the Father: Neither did we hear her voice, neither did a midwife come in.)—are actually quoted in ­Acts of Peter­ 24 (c.150-200AD)—(And another prophet saith, honoring the Father: Neither did we hear her voice, neither did a midwife come in.), and so must have predated that work.
  
  6. Irenaeus of Lyons (d.c.200AD, ­Against All Heresies­ I:30) describes a Gnostic movement, possibly Ophite, as providing the best parallel to the ­Vision of Isaiah­ portion of the ­Ascension of Isaiah­; but does not name the book he used.
  
  7. Origen of Alexandria (d.c.254AD, ­Commentary on Matthew­ 10:18)—(And Isaiah is reported to have been sawn asunder by the people; and if any one does not accept the statement because of its being found in the Apocryphal Isaiah,)—provides a reference by name to the ­Ascension of Isaiah­.
  
  8. Mention of the ­Ascension of Isaiah­ occurs at ­Apostolic Constitutions­ 6:16. (latter half of the 4th century AD)—(And among the ancients also some have written apocryphal books of Moses, and Enoch, and Adam, and Isaiah, and David, and Elijah, and of the three patriarchs, pernicious and repugnant to the truth.).
  
  9. Epiphanius of Salamas (d.403AD) refers to the ­Ascension of Isaiah­ at ­Panarion­ 40:2.
  
  10. Cedrinus the Byzantine (fl. 11th century; very little is known about his life; he may have been a monk), in his ­Synopsis Historiarum­ (which ends with the year 1057AD), records that in a ­Testament of Hezekiah­, Hezekiah says that the Antichrist will rule for three years and seven months (1290 days). This so closely resembles the figures at ­Ascension of Isaiah­ 4:2 (3 years, 7, months, 27 days, for a total of 1317 days), that the ­Ascension of Isaiah­ is held to be Cedrinus’ source. [So Charles (op.cit.­, 28, 32-33) who suggested that the period of time is supposed to be 1335 days according to the Julian calendar.] However, since both Cedrinus’ number (1290) and that recorded at ­Ascension of Isaiah­ 4:4 (1335) appear in the ­Received Daniel­ (1290 at Daniel­ 12:11, and 1335 at ­Daniel­ 12:12)—(And from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.)—it would seem that the ­Received Old Testament­ book should be regarded as the source of both figures, and that the testimony from Cedrinus the Byzantine about the existence of a Testament of Hezekiah­ provides merely the indication of a book other than the present Ascension of Isaiah­, ­and­ that he had no idea of its contents.
  
  
  The ­Ascension of Isaiah­ has survived the destruction of Antiquity in parts of six languages (completely only in Ethiopic), as follows:
  
  An Analysis of the Discovered Fragments of the Ascension of Isaiah in Terms of Language, Location, and Publication Information
  
  GREEK chapters 2:4-4:4 Grenfell & Hunt, ­Amherst Papyri­ I, 1900.
  GREEK chapters 6-11 Charles, ­Ascension of Isaiah­, 1900.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  LATIN chapters 2:14-3:13 Mai, 1828; Migne, ­Patrologia Latina­ XIII, 1844-1835, cols. 629-630; Charles, 1900. The Latin was translated from (so ANF) a now lost Slavonic recension.
  LATIN chapters 6-11 . Gieseler, 1832; Charles, 1900; in Venice, 1922
  LATIN chapters 7:1-19 Mai, 1828; Migne, 1844-1845; Charles, 1900.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  SLAVONIC chapter 6-11 Charles, 1900 (Latin translation of the Slavonic); more undoubtedly in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament­ II, 1913, 155-162.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  COPTIC chapters 1:1-5 Lacau, ­Le Museon­ LIX, 1946, 453-467.
  COPTIC chapters 2:3-12 Lefort, ­Le Museon­ LI-LII, 1938-1939, 24-32, 7-10—the text does not give the volume numbers; this is my assumption. (H).
  COPTIC chapters 3:25-28 Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 5:7-8 Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 6:7-11 Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 7:12-15 Lefort, 1938-1939.
  COPTIC chapters 7:10-15 Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 7:28-32 Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 8:16-17 Lefort, 1938-1939; Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 9:9-11 Lefort, 1938-1939; Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 9:28-30 Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 10:9-11 Lefort, 1938-1939; Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 10:17 Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 11:14-16 Lacau, 1946.
  COPTIC chapters 11:24-31 Lefort, 1938-1939.
  COPTIC chapters 11:35-40 Lefort, 1938-1939; Lacau, 1946.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  DANISH chapters 1-5 Hammershamid (­De Gammeltestamentlige Pseudepigrafer­ III, Oslo, Lund, and Copenhagen, 1958, 303-315).
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ETHIOPIC the entire work Charles, 1900. Schmithals (­The Apocalyptic Movement: Introduction and Interpretation­, Nashville, 1975, 206) says this was a work used particularly in the Ethiopian church.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  HEBREW For connections between the ­Acension of Isaiah­ and the ­Dead Sea Scrolls­ see Flusser (“The Apocryphal Book for Ascension Isaiae and the Dead Sea Sect” in ­Israel Exploration Journal­ III, Jerusalem, 1953, 30-47).

I am sorry for having to persistently ask the question about a reasonable terminus ante quem for this text. It appears that everyone is far more vitally interested in the terminus post quem for the "Ascension of Isaiah" - held to be late first century. I can completely understand why authorship events of the first or second centuries are more appealing to practically everyone. However I believe it is important to also provide a corresponding terminus ante quem.


At present I would suggest that the terminus ante quem for the Ascension of Isaiah is 350 CE on the basis of the following.

Is this a reasonable estimate?

Date of the Ascension of Isaiah (2: H.F.D. Sparks) ... http://vridar.org/2011/02/13/date-of-th ... -isaiah-2/

• Sahidic fragments dated around 350 to 375 preserve two leaves from opposite ends of a single codex, assuring us that the Ascension from chapters 1 to 11 was known at this time. If we are prepared to allow a reasonable margin for the circulation of the work in Sahidic before our particular MS was copied, for its translation into Sahidic from Greek, and for its circulation in Greek after final editing, we are taken back to AD 350 as the latest possible date.

Be well,



LC

[andrewcriddle]

At present I would suggest that the terminus ante quem for the Ascension of Isaiah is 350 CE on the basis of the following.

Is this a reasonable estimate?

Date of the Ascension of Isaiah (2: H.F.D. Sparks) ... http://vridar.org/2011/02/13/date-of-th ... -isaiah-2/

• Sahidic fragments dated around 350 to 375 preserve two leaves from opposite ends of a single codex, assuring us that the Ascension from chapters 1 to 11 was known at this time. If we are prepared to allow a reasonable margin for the circulation of the work in Sahidic before our particular MS was copied, for its translation into Sahidic from Greek, and for its circulation in Greek after final editing, we are taken back to AD 350 as the latest possible date.

Be well,



LC

A/ This is the latest possible date for a version of the Ascension of Isaiah containing chapters 1-11.

B/ A version with chapters 6-11 almost certainly circulated substantially earlier.

Andrew Criddle

[Leucius Charinus]

This is a revised version of an old FRDB post.

I thought it might be relevant because of the recent debate about Richard Carrier's use of this text.

It's pivotal.

But I don't quite understand all of your argument (see below).

First some background. AoI goes back to the 2nd century CE. It survives in various translations. It has 2 forms, a long form with 11 chapters and a short form with chapters 6-11. Scholars agree that 6-11 was originally separate the only real debate is whether or not 1-5 are an expansion of 6-11 or an originally independent text or texts.

The long version is complete in Ethiopic with fragments in other languages. The short version is complete in Old Slavonic and in a Latin text published in the 16th century from a lost manuscript, and there are fragments in other languages.

OK so far. The source I provided above also mentions a Coptic source. What is known about this?

The Old Slavonic/Latin version was used by the Cathar/Bogomil dualists.

Both versions in their present form have Christ present on this earth but the account in the short version is very brief while the long version has a detailed account with a strange version of the birth of Christ. The present form of the long version of the life of Christ on earth seems prima-facie secondary, and this seems confirmed by its absence in the Old Slavonic/Latin.

However, this conclusion is apparently mistaken, and is contradicted by evidence of Cathar usage of the short (chapters 6-11) version. An Inquisitor notes that in a Cathar heretical text

DO you have a date and a source for this?

and he came down from heaven and
appeared as a new born child in Bethlehem. and it seems
they said that the said heretic said That Blessed Mary was thick, as if she were pregnant And later the said boy appeared to the side of her and it was thought that her thickness had been dissolved it was said that she had borne a son. However she had not carried him in the belly or given him birth. So the boy appeared in Bethlehem, and in the hearing of many it was ratified, that the prophet, whom Isaiah had foretold was going to come, had come. They heard that there came three kings
every man in his place, and they came together at the same time

(my dodgy translation)

This is clearly based on the long version of chapter 11 of Ascension of Isaiah and seems to indicate that the original Latin version of 6-11 contained the full form of chapter 11. If so it seems likely that the original (Greek) version of 6-11 had the full form of chapter 11. Possibly chapter 11 was shortened in the Slavonic tradition because it was regarded as unsound and the surviving Latin has been assimilated to the Slavonic.

I'm sorry but I am not following your argument here. Could you summarise it? How does this contribute to understanding the original Greek form, since Coptic, Latin and everything else are AFAIK presumed secondary to the Greek. Thanks.


Be well,


LC