Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Earl Doherty wrote:[If] we can accept that the bare alternative verse of the Latin/Slavonic version is closer to the original, we can hardly believe that this represented a knowledge on the part of that writer or editor about an earthly Jesus and a Gospel-like story attached to him. What would have prompted him to deal with it in such a perfunctory fashion? He has gone into such minute detail about the descent of the Son through the heavens and his dealings with the spirit entities which inhabit the non-material spheres. When he gets to the climax of the Son's descent involving an incarnation on earth, if he knows an entire story containing a wealth of tradition (from the Gospels or otherwise) he is hardly likely to reduce it to a single anti-climactic phrase "he dwelt with men" which tells us nothing. A writer composing a work about Isaiah's vision of the Son's descent could not fail to include something about his life on earth.
The issue with that is that I don't think earliest Christianity was overly concerned about Jesus's life on earth. That came into focus towards the end of the Second Century. AoI is about how the Beloved descended through the heavens and (arguably) arrived on earth without being noticed by anyone, including angels:

Chapter 9:
14. And the god of that world 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.
15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.
...
Chapter 10:
24. And those who kept the gate of the (third) heaven demanded the password, and the Lord gave (it) to them in order that He should not be recognized. And when they saw Him, they did not praise or laud Him; for His form was like unto their form...
26. And I saw when He made Himself like unto the form of the angels in the second heaven, and they saw Him and they did not praise Him; for His form was like unto their form...
27. And again I saw when He descended into the first heaven, and there also He gave the password to those who kept the gate, and He made Himself like unto the form of the angels who were on the left of that throne, and they neither praised nor lauded Him; for His form was like unto their form.
29. And again He descended into the firmament where dwelleth the ruler of this world, and He gave the password to those on the left, and His form was like theirs...
30. And I saw when He descended and made Himself like unto the angels of the air, and He was like one of them.
...
Chapter 11:
19. And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).


This metaphysical explanation for why a god came to earth without being recognised seemed to be an important point for early Christianity. I don't think Earl Doherty was ever able to break free from the notion that the historicist position meant emphasising the life of a Gospel Jesus rather than focusing on the significance of the death of Jesus.
Earl Doherty wrote:On the other hand, we can tell nothing about the envisioned nature of this 'dwelling with men in the world,' for it is substantially the equivalent of the declaration that personified Wisdom came to earth and dwelt among men—and where Wisdom was concerned, no material incarnation was envisioned. (p. 124)
Except that AoI specifies that the Beloved will appear in the form of Isaiah, in other words, a man. So this implies at least a docetic form appearing on earth.
dbz wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:52 pmN.B. Per "et vidi similem filii hominis et cum hominibus habitare et in mundo, et non cognoverunt eum". It may be an anachronism to translate "et in mundo" as and in the world. Given the commentary of Vitruvius on cosmology "unum a terra inmane in summo mundo ac post ipsas stellas septentrionum" in reference to the firmament.
see previous post
#144787 wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 12:34 am
IIUC, "mundus" meant "the world", in the sense that we use it. So not just the earth's surface, but also the earth and surrounding atmosphere as well, depending on the context. So "mundus" might well incorporate the earth, the air and up to the firmament. But I'm guessing it wouldn't mean just "firmament". (A reminder that I have no knowledge of ancient languages). But regardless of the meaning of "et in mundo" in the AoI, the Son of Man is clearly living on earth amongst men.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by Giuseppe »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 2:03 pm

I have for some time been thinking that Justin Martyr is also evidence of "testimonia" -- a list of various notions about the messiah on the basis of a range of interpretations of biblical passages.
The idea of a collection of 'testimonia' or "memories of the apostles" that preceded the gospel of Mark was held by Prosper Alfaric (Origines sociales du christianisme).
The evolution would be, per Alfaric:

testimonia ---> gospel of Mark ----> gospel of Marcion ----> Matthew ---> John --->Luke-Acts

Two basic features of the testimonia is the baptism by John and the birth. Alfaric denied the historicity of the Baptist, seeing the baptism as an invented Essene confirmation of Jesus as the true heir of the essenism (symbolized by John).

But insofar one sees birth and baptism as anti-marcionite features by excellence, obviously, the existence itself of those testimonia preceding the first gospel is put virtually in dubio.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by schillingklaus »

Alfaric is terribly naive by assuming such a linear evolution, as opposed to Jean Magne. It is indispensable to turn over every stone and rip all texts apart at their seam to make sense of them.

Essenian origin of baptism is false, as Essenes are pro-nomianistic while baptism can be traced to anti-nomianism.

The basic feature to get anything gospel-like statred are the mass feedings as they inviate the eucharist, the most regular ritual of Christianity. This must be considered as the thread of Ariadne.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:15 am
But insofar one sees birth and baptism as anti-marcionite features by excellence, obviously, the existence itself of those testimonia preceding the first gospel is put virtually in dubio.
Maybe, I don't know. If Justin's list in his Trypho dialogue is any guide, it looks like the evangelists felt at liberty to pick and choose from the list as their needs required. But we are working with bubbles on the surface of an ocean with no idea what lies below and is causing those bubbles.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by Sinouhe »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:15 am The evolution would be, per Alfaric:

testimonia ---> gospel of Mark
I agree with this model.
We can find testimonias in the Qumran Litterature.
But i would add the epislte of Barnabas between the Testimonia and Mark.

This epistle contains verses that looks lîke testimonias especially in connection with Isaiah 53 and psalm 22 which seems primitive in comparison with Mark. Then if im correct, Mark built the passion narrative using Barnabas and Psalm 22
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by Giuseppe »

Sinouhe wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:09 am
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:15 am The evolution would be, per Alfaric:

testimonia ---> gospel of Mark
I agree with this model.
We can find testimonias in the Qumran Litterature.
But i would add the epislte of Barnabas between the Testimonia and Mark.

This epistle contains verses that looks lîke testimonias especially in connection with Isaiah 53 and psalm 22 which seems primitive in comparison with Mark. Then if im correct, Mark built the passion narrative using Barnabas and Psalm 22
so you think that the first euhemerizer of the mythical Jesus was the original author of those testimonia, with Mark adding only details (and possibly, among them, the name of Pilate).

As I have said, the only obstacle that would prevent me from joining fully the Alfaric's view is the impression of anti-marcionism I feel istinctively in reading about a baptism of Jesus by John.

How much is a coincidence having someone who invented innocently the baptism before Marcion and having someone who used tendentiously that same baptism against Marcion?
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by Sinouhe »

so you think that the first euhemerizer of the mythical Jesus was the original author of those testimonia, with Mark adding only details (and possibly, among them, the name of Pilate).
In my view i see

1/ Paul
2/ Testimonia
3/ Barnabas
4/ Mark

In this order.

There are also several anonymous epistles in the NT that I put before Mark but which are not interesting for our topic.
As I have said, the only obstacle that would prevent me from joining fully the Alfaric's view is the impression of anti-marcionism I feel istinctively in reading about a baptism of Jesus by John
I don't interpret the baptism in that way. For me it is a question of 3 prophecies that Mark makes Jesus fulfill:

- the spirit that is poured out on Jesus being a fulfillment of Isaiah 11:2 + isaiah 42:1 where Jesus incarnates the servant of Isaiah.

- Mark identifies John with Elijah. In doing so, he makes his text fulfill the prophecy of Malachi 4:5 which announces the return of Elijah before the coming of the Messiah.

- The baptism of the people is certainly another prophetic fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10 and Ezekiel 36:25, two texts that Mark uses extensively and very regularly in his gospel.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by schillingklaus »

EpBar is late forgery, as proved by Stuart G Waugh. The testimonia are a superstition as much as Markan prioritism.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by Sinouhe »

schillingklaus wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 8:27 am EpBar is late forgery, as proved by Stuart G Waugh. The testimonia are a superstition as much as Markan prioritism.
It's not that simple no.

Jay Curry Treat in The Anchor Bible Dictionary
Although Barnabas 4:14 appears to quote Matt 22:14, it must remain an open question whether the Barnabas circle knew written gospels. Based on Koester's analysis (1957: 125–27, 157), it appears more likely that Barnabas stood in the living oral tradition used by the written gospels. For example, the reference to gall and vinegar in Barnabas 7:3, 5 seems to preserve an early stage of tradition that influenced the formation of the passion narratives in the Gospel of Peter and the synoptic gospels.

Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (Walter de Gruyter 1995), vol. 2, p. 281;
"It cannot be shown that he knew and used the Gospels of the New Testament. On the contrary, what Barnabas presents here is from 'the school of the evangelists'. This demonstrates how the early Christian communities paid special attention to the exploration of Scripture in order to understand and tell the suffering of Jesus. Barnabas still represents the initial stages of the process that is continued in the Gospel of Peter, later in Matthew, and is completed in Justin Martyr."
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Carrier v. Litwa: What Did the “Ascension of Isaiah” Originally Say?

Post by andrewcriddle »

GakuseiDon wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 1:27 am
dbz wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 12:34 am The architect Vitruvius, who lived in the first century AD, included some comments on cosmology in his treatise On Architecture, written in Latin. He wrote:
[...unum a terra inmane in summo mundo ac post ipsas stellas septentrionum...]
Here is a translation of the passage:
The universe is the total conception of the whole system, and the firmament with its ordered constellations. It rolls continually round the earth and sea, on the furthest poles of its axis. For there the power of nature like an architect, has contrived and placed the poles at the top of the universe and behind the very stars of the Great Bear, and the other opposite, under the earth in the regions of the south; and there has constructed rims of wheels (which the Greeks call asides) round centres as in a lathe, about which the firmament for ever rolls. Thus the middle of the earth and sea is set by nature in the central place.
Curiously enough, although the word 'firmament' appears in the English translation, there is no mention of the word firmament in the original Latin text. Apparently, in the time of Vitruvius, the word 'firmament' did not refer to the sky.


Douglas E. Cox. "Report on the Firmament". creationconcept.info. Retrieved 25 October 2022.

Interesting. I don't know what to make of that. AoI clearly has the Beloved descending from the 7th heaven, down to the 6th, etc, finally to the 1st heaven, then down to the firmament ('firmamentum' in the Latin versions), then descending to the lower sky, and then the comment about the Son of Man dwelling amongst men in the world. Maybe 'firmamentum' meant firmament from the Second Century CE? I don't know, but the meaning is clear in AoI: the firmament is below the 1st heaven and above the lower air.
A/ The Latin version of the later part of the Ascension of Isaiah is probably medieval Latin (It is possibly a translation from Slavonic).
B/ firmamentum for the firmament of the heavens is found in Tertullian c 200 CE
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... irmamentum

Andrew Criddle

EDITED TO ADD

There is a much older Latin translation L1 surviving only in fragments, covering parts of the early and middle portions of AoI. IIUC this uses Solidamentum where the later Latin L2 has Firmamentum.
Post Reply