Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

[neilgodfrey]

A New (Completely Revised) Look at the Ascension of Isaiah
http://vridar.org/2015/01/08/a-new-comp ... of-isaiah/

• •The account of the birth of the Beloved to Mary in Bethlehem is not a late addition but was original to the vision chapters (6-11). That means The Beloved did indeed descend to earth and was crucified on earth — unrecognized by the demons.

Am I mistaken here? Doesn't this interpretation of AoI - Jesus descends all the way to Earth (in disguise?) - represent evidence against the Carrier/Doherty interpretation of this text as an "Outer Space" Jesus - who did not descend to Earth.



LC

Norelli does not indicate that there is any new evidence to support this interpretation. By evidence I mean the texts known from the Ethiopic manuscript and any other overlaps.

But Norelli does have a new interpretation of the evidence. My French is very rusty and I only have his brief summary publication to work with. I have only more or less made a superficial reading of about half of the book so far. I have not yet read his (French) translation of the classical Ethiopic text.

Norelli's interpretation certainly is at odds with the view that the "Beloved One" did not touch earth but was crucified by the warring demons above the earth. I will be posting more of the reasons for his interpretation in future posts on my blog.

[GakuseiDon]

A New (Completely Revised) Look at the Ascension of Isaiah
http://vridar.org/2015/01/08/a-new-comp ... of-isaiah/

• •The account of the birth of the Beloved to Mary in Bethlehem is not a late addition but was original to the vision chapters (6-11). That means The Beloved did indeed descend to earth and was crucified on earth — unrecognized by the demons.

Am I mistaken here? Doesn't this interpretation of AoI - Jesus descends all the way to Earth (in disguise?) - represent evidence against the Carrier/Doherty interpretation of this text as an "Outer Space" Jesus - who did not descend to Earth.

As someone who knows both Carrier's and Doherty's interpretations probably better than most: If the birth of the Beloved to Mary in Bethlehem is in the original, then most definitely "yes."

But even as they stand, the S/L versions represent evidence against Doherty's views from both books. Doherty seems to have missed that "in your form" appears in all versions of the AoI. Later, in discussions with me on the old FRDB in 2011, he conceded that the S/L versions contained "a reference to human form and probably a reference to earth." Doherty does go on to say that "even this is not secure" since "certain gnostic documents like the Apocalypse of Adam contain descriptions of redeemer figures and their activities which are so fantastic that they seem to inhabit some other kind of reality". I link to that discussion on FRDB in my review of his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", but the FRDB link in my review is dead now unfortunately.

Carrier seems to have made the same mistake as Doherty in missing "in your form" in OHJ, though I'm working from memory there. I haven't time to go through his book at the moment. But (again from memory) he reconstructs a version whereby a possibly docetic Christ spends time on earth after crucifixion in 'outer space'. So it may not be critical to his theory. But I may not be representing Carrier accurately here. Perhaps someone with more time can tease out the information from his book. Still, the above is all moot if Jesus being born on earth was part of the original.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I link to that discussion on FRDB in my review of his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", but the FRDB link in my review is dead now unfortunately.

Talitha kum!

[neilgodfrey]

I link to that discussion on FRDB in my review of his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", but the FRDB link in my review is dead now unfortunately.

Talitha kum!

And the reply to the original review and the exchange between Doherty and GDon on FRBD.

[GakuseiDon]

I link to that discussion on FRDB in my review of his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", but the FRDB link in my review is dead now unfortunately.

Talitha kum!

Thanks KK. That is the link to my review of Doherty's book on my "Reviews" page -- but that link is fine. The link that is now dead is the one that is actually in that review. As part of an update to the discussion on AoI, I linked to Doherty's response on FRDB. But Neil has found the response in the first link he gives just above (thanks Neil) I would prefer the link to FRDB itself, since a number of people were involved in the discussion and you can see how the discussion flows, so if anyone knows how to find it, I'd appreciate it if you can let me know.

I've quoted Doherty's response in the first link Neil provided above to my "in your form" comment below. Doherty writes:

• Don will discuss Plutarch's Isis and Osiris in greater detail later in his review, but now he takes time out to address his favorite document (and mine, too!), the Ascension of Isaiah. On the Freethought Rationalist Discussion Board he recently became fixated on the phrase "in your form" in chapter 9. In his review he had focused on this as an allegedly unmistakable reference to the descending Son being at some point on earth if he was seen as adopting human form, since if crucified in the firmament, he would supposedly have adopted the form of the evil angels of that location. But the Ascension is a document that underwent many editings and insertions over the course of its development, in its several manuscript lines, and to base any allegedly slam-dunk argument based on nitty-gritty wording in such a document is a shaky procedure (as it is in the early Christian record generally). At this very point in the text (in chapter 9), there is an apparent insertion by some Gnostic editor in regard to Christ remaining "in that world for 545 days." On an FRDB "Vision of Isaiah" thread, I had this to say, and I'll let it stand as a response to this part of Don's review:
  
  • One assumes (insofar as we can pinpoint meanings imbedded in a document full of editings and amendments that are very hard to pin down in any exact way) that 'in your form' was indeed, in the mind of that particular editor (probably one subscribing to docetism, as in the nearby phrase 'they will think that he is flesh and a man'), a reference to human form and probably a reference to earth. However, not even this is secure, since certain gnostic documents like the Apocalypse of Adam contain descriptions of redeemer figures and their activities which are so fantastic that they seem to inhabit some other kind of reality, one reminiscent of some of the sources I've quoted in my 'World of Myth' chapter in JNGNM, rather than anything down-to-earth. And look at Revelation 12. Virgins giving birth in the heavens, where they are pursued by dragons. Hardly a simple earthly scene, what?
    In any case, the 'in your form' tells us nothing about what the rest of the document and its prior states envisioned for the death of the Son.

I'm not interested in going through any of Doherty's arguments again. But Doherty finds a few equivalences between the AoI and the writings of Paul and other mythicist writings. If the AoI is 'flipped' from a mythicist text to a (probably) 'historicist' text, then those equivalences potentially also are 'flipped', possibly becoming significant for supporting historicitiy over mythicism. The same applies for any similar equivalences proposed by Carrier.

[maryhelena]

I link to that discussion on FRDB in my review of his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", but the FRDB link in my review is dead now unfortunately.

Talitha kum!

Thanks KK. That is the link to my review of Doherty's book on my "Reviews" page -- but that link is fine. The link that is now dead is the one that is actually in that review. As part of an update to the discussion on AoI, I linked to Doherty's response on FRDB. But Neil has found the response in the first link he gives just above (thanks Neil) I would prefer the link to FRDB itself, since a number of people were involved in the discussion and you can see how the discussion flows, so if anyone knows how to find it, I'd appreciate it if you can let me know.

I've quoted Doherty's response in the first link Neil provided above to my "in your form" comment below. Doherty writes:

• Don will discuss Plutarch's Isis and Osiris in greater detail later in his review, but now he takes time out to address his favorite document (and mine, too!), the Ascension of Isaiah. On the Freethought Rationalist Discussion Board he recently became fixated on the phrase "in your form" in chapter 9. In his review he had focused on this as an allegedly unmistakable reference to the descending Son being at some point on earth if he was seen as adopting human form, since if crucified in the firmament, he would supposedly have adopted the form of the evil angels of that location. But the Ascension is a document that underwent many editings and insertions over the course of its development, in its several manuscript lines, and to base any allegedly slam-dunk argument based on nitty-gritty wording in such a document is a shaky procedure (as it is in the early Christian record generally). At this very point in the text (in chapter 9), there is an apparent insertion by some Gnostic editor in regard to Christ remaining "in that world for 545 days." On an FRDB "Vision of Isaiah" thread, I had this to say, and I'll let it stand as a response to this part of Don's review:
  
  • One assumes (insofar as we can pinpoint meanings imbedded in a document full of editings and amendments that are very hard to pin down in any exact way) that 'in your form' was indeed, in the mind of that particular editor (probably one subscribing to docetism, as in the nearby phrase 'they will think that he is flesh and a man'), a reference to human form and probably a reference to earth. However, not even this is secure, since certain gnostic documents like the Apocalypse of Adam contain descriptions of redeemer figures and their activities which are so fantastic that they seem to inhabit some other kind of reality, one reminiscent of some of the sources I've quoted in my 'World of Myth' chapter in JNGNM, rather than anything down-to-earth. And look at Revelation 12. Virgins giving birth in the heavens, where they are pursued by dragons. Hardly a simple earthly scene, what?
    In any case, the 'in your form' tells us nothing about what the rest of the document and its prior states envisioned for the death of the Son.

I'm not interested in going through any of Doherty's arguments again. But Doherty finds a few equivalences between the AoI and the writings of Paul and other mythicist writings. If the AoI is 'flipped' from a mythicist text to a (probably) 'historicist' text, then those equivalences potentially also are 'flipped', possibly becoming significant for supporting historicitiy over mythicism. The same applies for any similar equivalences proposed by Carrier.

GDon, I think this might be the link you are looking for. Your above quote is from post #172.

Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man

http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearch ... od+nor+man

You will have to sign in with your FRDB username and password. If someone was not on FRDB they might have to sign up at the new Talk Freethought and then use that username and password to access the archives of FRDB.

[GakuseiDon]

GDon, I think this might be the link you are looking for. Your above quote is from post #172.

Doherty's Response to GDon's Review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man

http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearch ... od+nor+man

You will have to sign in with your FRDB username and password. If someone was not on FRDB they might have to sign up at the new Talk Freethought and then use that username and password to access the archives of FRDB.

Thanks Mary, but that isn't the one. But by searching the archives I was able to finally track it down. The link to Doherty's response (in a thread started by Kapyong called "The Vision of Isaiah" in 2011) is here:
http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearch ... 954&page=6

I also found in the archives a short thread started by Ben C Smith from 2006 called "The location of the events in Ascension of Isaiah 9.14 (redux)", where he looks at Doherty's views, here: http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearch ... p?t=172403

Very interestingly, Ben C Smith made the exact same criticism of Doherty's point that I did some 5 years later, though his is much better laid out and expanded with additional points. (Ben is familiar with Latin and Greek; my knowledge is zero.) He even alludes to Norelli, though only to a book he editted.

I've reproduced the pertinent part of his OP analysis below. Some notes:

1. Where Smith refers to "triply attested material", he means the Ethiopic, the Slavonic and Latin2. The Ethiopic has been presumed to be the later version, containing Gospel material in Chapter 11 about Jesus being born to Mary, etc. The Slavonic and Latin versions have been presumed to be earlier, and don't contain the Chapter 11 Gospel material.
2. In his analysis below, for the 9.13 passage Smith uses "in your likeness" whereas in my review I used "in your form". Both refer to "in specie vestra", which is found in all three versions.

http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearch ... p?t=172403

Here is the (briefer) Latin version:

• And the angel said to me: They do not receive them until the son here first gives them their thrones and crowns, when he will be in your likeness [in specie vestra], and the prince of that world will extend his hand against the son of God and will kill him, and hang him on a tree, and he will kill him not knowing who he is.

The Slavic version does not differ much from the Latin for our purposes; it too has the phrase in specie vestra (in your likeness). Since I am proving my point only with triply attested material, I cannot use much of the longer Ethiopic version. But I can and will use the triply attested statement that the son will be in the likeness of Isaiah and his fellow human beings (vester means yours, the embedded you being plural) when he is killed.

I have already noted that the Vision mentions many cosmological locales (seven distinct heavens, the firmament, the air, the earth, sheol). Once we realize, however, the simple matter that the son will look like a human being when he is killed, we can easily eliminate all but one of these locations, because one of the main themes of this work is that, in his descent, the son will take on the form of each level he is currently passing through.

I think that sheol can be eliminated by default, since that is where one would go after being killed, not before. But the rest of the locales can be eliminated directly from the text. Recall that we are looking for a locale in which the beloved looks like a human.

Christ dwells in the seventh heaven, and he descends into the sixth heaven without transforming in 10.17-19. He cannot yet look like a human, since he has not transformed at all. In 10.20 he descends into the fifth heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there. In 10.21-22 he descends into the fourth heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there. In 10.23-24 he descends into the third heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there. In 10.25-26 he descends into the second heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there. In 10.27-28 he descends into the first heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there.

So far he has assumed the likeness only of the heavenly angels. He does not yet look human, and he is not yet dead.

In 10.29 he descends into the firmament and assumes the form of the angels there. In 10.30-31 he descends into the air and assumes the form of the angels of the air.

The text at this point takes a time out. Chapter 10 has come to an end; chapter 11 begins with the angelic guide pointing out the importance of what is happening in the vision:

• And after these things the angel said to me: Understand, Isaiah, son of Amoz, for on this account I was sent by God.

By process of elimination we can already tell that the beloved is going to be killed on the earth. He has to be killed while in the form of a human, and he is not in human form in the firmament, nor is he in human form in the air; in both of those locales he takes on the appearance of the angelic inhabitants around him.

But all three of our versions make it even more explicit. The Latin and Slavic versions say in 11.2:

• And I saw one like unto a son of man, and (A) he was dwelling with men in the world [in mundo], and (B) they did not know him.

(Why did men not know him? For the same reason the angels had not known him when he assumed angelic form; he has assumed human form. Refer back to 9.13!)

The Ethiopic version is even more explicit, removing most of 11.2 according to the Latin and Slavic and putting in its place a somewhat lengthy infancy narrative (11.2-17, of somewhat primitive quality) followed by a shorter account of his miracles, his crucifixion in Jerusalem, his resurrection, and his ascension (11.18-22). This longer version, then, (A) presumes that Jesus was in human form on earth and thrice (B) states that he was not recognized for who he really was (11.14, 17, 19), covering the central points of 11.2 in the Latin and Slavonic; we have our triple attestation. It is earth where Christ takes on the form of a man; therefore, it is earth where Christ is killed.

I daresay that, even if we did not have that stipulation in 9.13 that the son would take on human form, the earth would still have to be the site of his killing. In 10.30-31 the son has descended through the firmament safely and into the air, with no danger in sight yet. In 11.2(-22) he has descended the rest of the way to where men dwell. If earth is not the site, then I do not know what is.

It is, of course, possible that the original Christian text of Vision 9.12-14 portrayed the killing of the son of God somewhere other than the earth, and that later Christian scribes rewrote that setting by making readers connect the dots, as I have done, between 9.13 and 10.17-31 and 11.2, but, if so, I am not sure we can recover the original story. At least, I would like to see the argument that tries. As the matter stands, the death of the beloved in 9.14 has to occur on the earth, IMVHO.

Not sure what the full implications are if the above is correct for Carrier's reconstructed AoI, since he takes a slightly different approach to Doherty. But it would be interesting to investigate. As I wrote earlier, when a text is 'flipped' from a mythicist text to a (probably) 'historicist' text, then any equivalences made to support mythicism in other texts potentially also become 'flipped.'

[andrewcriddle]

A New (Completely Revised) Look at the Ascension of Isaiah
http://vridar.org/2015/01/08/a-new-comp ... of-isaiah/

• •The account of the birth of the Beloved to Mary in Bethlehem is not a late addition but was original to the vision chapters (6-11). That means The Beloved did indeed descend to earth and was crucified on earth — unrecognized by the demons.

Am I mistaken here? Doesn't this interpretation of AoI - Jesus descends all the way to Earth (in disguise?) - represent evidence against the Carrier/Doherty interpretation of this text as an "Outer Space" Jesus - who did not descend to Earth.



LC

Norelli does not indicate that there is any new evidence to support this interpretation. By evidence I mean the texts known from the Ethiopic manuscript and any other overlaps.

But Norelli does have a new interpretation of the evidence. My French is very rusty and I only have his brief summary publication to work with. I have only more or less made a superficial reading of about half of the book so far. I have not yet read his (French) translation of the classical Ethiopic text.

Norelli's interpretation certainly is at odds with the view that the "Beloved One" did not touch earth but was crucified by the warring demons above the earth. I will be posting more of the reasons for his interpretation in future posts on my blog.

Norelli argues for the birth narrative being original in Ascensione di Isaia : studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi my argument is heavily based on Norelli's book.

(Checking back, my original version of this argument on FRDB explicitly referenced Norelli, but I left out the reference to Norelli when I rewrote my argument for this thread.)

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

[
Norelli argues for the birth narrative being original in Ascensione di Isaia : studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi my argument is heavily based on Norelli's book.

(Checking back, my original version of this argument on FRDB explicitly referenced Norelli, but I left out the reference to Norelli when I rewrote my argument for this thread.)

Andrew Criddle

That work is no longer accessible online, either. Do you have a copy of your arguments?

[andrewcriddle]

[
Norelli argues for the birth narrative being original in Ascensione di Isaia : studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi my argument is heavily based on Norelli's book.

(Checking back, my original version of this argument on FRDB explicitly referenced Norelli, but I left out the reference to Norelli when I rewrote my argument for this thread.)

Andrew Criddle

That work is no longer accessible online, either. Do you have a copy of your arguments?

Forum: History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Thread: The Latin text of Ascension of Isaiah
Post#:7535549 Date:Sat, 24 Aug 2013 09:27:35 -0500 Post Title:The Latin text of Ascension of Isaiah

The Ascension of Isaiah survives in two forms.
a/ Represented primarily by the Ethiopic consists of chapters 1-11
b/ Represented by Latin and Slavonic consists of chapters 6-11
It is generally accepted that 6-11 originally circulated independently of 1-11 as in form b/.

Form b/ has a very abbreviated version of chapter 11 with much less reference to the life of Christ upon earth. (although there is some.) It has been claimed, e.g. by Earl Doherty, that the long version of chapter 11 in Form a/ is late and that the original had even less reference to the life of Christ upon earth than that found in form b/.

However there may be problems with the text of form b/ here. Our evidence for the relevant section of chapter 11 in form b/ comes from late medieval Slavonic manuscripts and a Latin text of unclear origin. The Latin and Slavonic are in reasonably close agreement but their precise relationship is unclear. It has been suggested that the Latin is a translation from Slavonic rather than Greek although most scholars disagree. It does seem that the survival of form b/ is linked to its use by Bogomil/Cathar dualists although the text itself does not show clear evidence of modification in a dualist-friendly way.

I have been reading the Italian scholar Enrico Norelli on the Ascension of Isaiah (or trying to do so my Italian is weak) and he notes thatt here is an important reference to the Ascension of Isaiah in the records of the Inquisition of Jacques Fournier (See Montaillou).

Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters
Quote:
et descendit de coelo et
apparuit ut puer natus de novo in Bethlehem. Et videtur
ipsi loquenti, quod dictus haereticus dixit, qnod beata Ma-
ria fuit grossa, ac si esset praegnans. Et postea dictus puer
apparuit juxta eam, et existimavit, quod grossities ejus dis-
soluta fuit, quod dictum filium peperisset; cum tarnen eum
non gestasset in ventre, nee eum peperisset. Et postquam
sie dictus puer apparuit in Bethlehem, auditum fuit et nar-
ratum per multos, quod propheta, quem praedixerat Isaias
esse venturum, venerat. Quod audientes tres Reges venerunt
singuli de loco suo et convenerunt simul

Quote:
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 hesitant translation using Google translate.)

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.

Andrew Criddle