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

[Giuseppe]

The words

“And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not from this world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh.”

...don't refer to the place where the seer was (when he received the vision), but to the content itself of the vision: the events descrived in it will happen in "the world which is hidden from the flesh", surely not the earth.

It would be interesting to know how Norelli answers to this explicit denial of an earthly sojourn for the Son.

If it is such an explicit denial then the word translated as "from" will have to mean "about" -- the vision is about some hidden world. But if the vision is "from" a hidden world, then that would seem to cohere with the motif of Isaiah being shown things that no human eye etc has ever seen ... his body is next-to-lifeless while he is in a trance as his "soul" or whatever is taken up to a world hidden from humanity, and it from that world that the vision is given him.

I have not checked the original Latin but I am sure already now that the "from the hidden world" sounds more a genitive possessive than a different specification. The object of the vision is of a hidden world.

[dbz]

A central teaching of Gnosticism was that the soul, in this life or after death, ascends through spheres towards a higher form of existence, the pleroma. The spheres were guarded by gatekeepers, who demanded a passport or password (σύμβολον, σημεῖον, χαρακτήρ) – esoteric knowledge only acquired by few. The idea of the password is found in several late antique texts influenced by Gnosticism. In the possibly second-century text called the Ascensio Isaiae, God the Father orders Christ to descend to earth through the seven gates of Heaven disguised as an angel, so that the angels who keep the gates do not recognise him. From the third gate downwards the angels demand a password, which Christ gives, so as not to be recognised. The procedure is introduced with the following or a similar formula: And those who kept the gate of the (third) Heaven demanded the password (māxlaft), and the Lord gave (it) to them. The Coptic fragment has <σημ>ειον (sign), the Slavonic translation znamenije, the Latin character. In this passage the gatekeepers are angels and they are in the service of God, ensuring that only the worthy enter the gates of Heaven. However, they seem to have acquired a certain degree of autonomous authority: it appears that it is not possible for God to order his angels to let somebody through without asking questions.

The Gnostic terminology of gatekeepers and passport/password is used in one of the earliest patristic mentions of tollkeepers, the Stromateis (literally “patchwork”) written by Clement of Alexandria around the year 200 CE:

[The pure in heart] exhibits as a sacred symbol (σύμβολον) the bright impress (χαρακτήρ) of righteousness to the angels that wait on the ascension [...]. For those, who demand toll (τέλος), detain those who bring in any worldly things, who are burdened with their own passions. But him that is free of all things which are subject to duty, and is full of knowledge (πλήρη γνώ- σεως), and of the righteousness of works, they pass on with their good wishes, blessing the man with his work.

As in the Ascensio Isaiae, the gatekeepers are angels. God is completely absent, but the fact that the angels are benign to the righteous implies that they are in God’s service. The Gnostic discourse permeates the text: the virtue that humans practice is compared to a permit, and the virtuous is “full of knowledge”. However, the biblical discourse of righteousness of works puts the privileged, esoteric character of the “passport” into perspective.

(pp. 606–607)

Afentoulidou, E. (2020). Space and Power in Byzantine Accounts of the Aerial Tollhouses (PDF). In Cultures of Eschatology (pp. 603-615). De Gruyter Oldenbourg.

25-28. Et in secundum et in primum transfigurans se in singulos eorum. Ideo non cantabant ei, nec adorabant, apparebat enim illis similis eorum, ostendebat enim characterem per singulos coelos custodibus portarum.

[10.29]

29. Descendit autem in firmamentum et ibi dedit signa,
    et forma erat ejus sicut illorum, et non glorifieaverunt eum, l'et non eantaverunt ei.
30. Et descendit ad angelos, qui erant in hoc aére, sieut unus ex eis.
31. Et non dedit "eis" signum [et non cantaverunt].

(p. 132 & p. 133)

Charles, Robert Henry (1900). The Ascension of Isaiah: Translated from the Ethiopic Version, Which, Together with the New Greek Fragment, the Latin Versions and the Latin Translation of the Slavonic, is Here Published in Full. A. & C. Black.

More intelligible perhaps:

29. Descendit autem in firmamentum.
30. Et ad angelos qui erat in hoc aére sieut unus ex eis.
31. Et non dedit eis signum et non cantaverunt.

[dbz]

Surpassing Paul’s vision of 2Corinthians where he only reached the third heaven, Isaiah ascends to the seventh (AscI): ‘I indeed say unto thee, Isaiah: No man about to return into a body of that world has ascended or seen what thou seest or perceived what thou hast perceived and what thou wilt see’ (AscI VIII 11). Isaiah explicitly states that he saw ‘the holy Abel and all the righteous’ in the seventh heaven, and also that he ‘saw Enoch and all who were with him, stript of the garments of the flesh, and... in their garments of the upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great glory’, but he does not simply contradict Marcion’s oppoinion [sic.], but adds that Enoch and those with him ‘sat not on their thrones, nor were their crowns of glory on them’ (AscI IX 8-10).
(p. 92)

Vinzent, M. (2010). Give and Take amongst Second Century Authors: The Ascension of Isaiah, the Epistle of the Apostles and Marcion of Sinope. Studia Patristica, 50, 105-129. see: Vinzent. 6881279. academia.edu.

Give_and_Take_amongst_Second_Century_Aut.pdf

(259.76 KiB) Downloaded 39 times

[andrewcriddle]

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.

Thanks Andrew, that's interesting. (I've never heard of "solidamentum", it sounds like a metal in the Marvel/DC cinematic universe!)

Apparently goes back to Novatian 3rd century CE.

Nam et in solidamento caeli luciferos solis ortus excitauit For even in the solidity of the sky he awakened the lucifers of the rising sun

Andrew Criddle

[dbz]

Norelli writes that “Et vidi similem filii hominis…” depends on three verses in the New Testament.

Ora, a me pare che l’intero periodo
et vidi similem filii hominis et cum hominibus habitare et in mundo, et non cognoverunt eum
(così L2 ; trascurabili le varianti di S) dipenda in realtà da tre versetti neotestamentari…

Norelli, Enrico (1995). Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius (in Italian). Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum (CCSA 8). Turnhout: Brepols. p. 536. NOW FORMATTED

• As I understand, Norelli also holds that “Et vidi similem filii hominis…” is an interpolation in the L2 and S.

What other interpolations were made concurrent with “Et vidi similem filii hominis…”, in order to present it with the hallmark of fidelity?

It is possible that 10.29–31 was merely a single descent to the Hellenistic Greek aére (firmament being a Latin novelty for the concept of aére) and perhaps it originally was:

29. Descendit autem in firmament.
30. Et ad angelos qui erat in hoc aére sieut unus ex eis.
31. Et non dedit eis signum et non cantaverunt.

And then was interpolated in conjuction with “Et vidi similem filii hominis…” to:

[10.29]

29. Descendit autem in firmamentum et ibi dedit signa,
    et forma erat ejus sicut illorum, et non glorifieaverunt eum, l'et non eantaverunt ei.
30. Et descendit ad angelos, qui erant in hoc aére, sieut unus ex eis.
31. Et non dedit "eis" signum [et non cantaverunt].

(p. 132 & p. 133)

Charles, Robert Henry (1900). The Ascension of Isaiah: Translated from the Ethiopic Version, Which, Together with the New Greek Fragment, the Latin Versions and the Latin Translation of the Slavonic, is Here Published in Full. A. & C. Black.

• It is then possible that per E, a secondary interpolation was made—on top of the primary interpolation.

[dbz]

Xenocrates divided the sensible universe into the realm above the moon (the supra-lunar) and the realm below the moon (the sub-lunar). It is unclear whether he added a further division to include a purely intelligible realm, or considered the One and the Dyad as occupying the highest sphere above the stars. Above the moon there exists the seven planets, which Xenocrates considered to be divine, along with the stars and the pure fire that is the base element of the universe. The realm below the moon he believed to be occupied by daemons.

"Platonism, Middle", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy".

[M]ortals can attain to nature of “demons” or demigods and live in the “sublunar realm” and some of these can go further to become divine and live in the highest plane.

Godfrey, Neil (9 March 2010). "Ancient beliefs about heavenly realms, demons and the end of the world". Vridar.

[T]he ‘firmament’ (also known as the aēr or ‘sublunar sphere’) extending above the highest visible clouds all the way to the orbit of the moon . . . Most people of the time thought the aēr extended all the way to the moon (while everything beyond that was filled with a breathable ‘ether’), when in fact (as we now know) the real atmosphere extends only a minuscule fraction of that distance.

Carrier (16 October 2022). "M. David Litwa, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Problem of Incompetent Scholarship". Richard Carrier Blogs.

In a similar fashion to the Middle Platonists and the Oracles, Plotinus viewed the material world to be the domain of Hades. Like those of the Platonic tradition before him, he considered the stars and planets to be visible gods, beneath whom—in the sublunary sphere—existed hosts of aerial daimons who bridged the gap between mankind and the gods.

(p. 70)

Curry, Patrick; Rowlandson, William (2013). Daimonic Imagination: Uncanny Intelligence. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-5012-4.

By occupying the middle space between divinity and mortality, the daimonic realm establishes a clear hierarchy and separation between gods and humans and highlights the gap between them. Humans cannot interact directly with the gods; but through the intermediate position of daimons, the two realms are bound together (Plato, Symp. 202e). Platonic writers of the Roman era expand on Plato’s description of daimons as intermediaries between gods and mortals. Apuleius describes daimons as “living beings (animalia) by species, rational ones by nature, emotional in mind, aerial in body, eternal in time” (Apuleius, De deo Socr. 13.3 [Jones, LCL]). The first three of these features they share with humans, the last they share with the gods, and the fourth—occupying the middle space between heaven and earth—is unique to them.

Sharp, Matthew T. (2022). "Courting Daimons in Corinth: Daimonic Partnerships, Cosmic Hierarchies and Divine Jealousy in 1 Corinthians 8–10." (PDF) In Demons in Early Judaism and Christianity, pp. 112-129. Brill.

Most of the Jewish and Christian works discussed so far presuppose that there are three or seven heavens. The main options for the origin of the notion of three heavens are: (1) it is an inner Jewish development, based on the phrase “heaven of heavens” in the Hebrew Bible, or (2) it was borrowed from one of the typical Babylonian pictures of the universe. Given the basically rhetorical use of the Hebrew phrase and the extensive contact of Jews with Babylonian culture, the second option is more likely. The use of the terms “lower” and “upper heaven” and the presence of a heavenly sea in the Testament of Levi support this conclusion. The major options for the origin of the motif of seven heavens are: (1) it was borrowed from the Greek world-picture involving seven planetary spheres, or (2) it was borrowed from Babylonian magical tradition. Since the later recension of the Testament of Levi and the other relevant works discussed do not connect the seven heavens with planetary spheres, the second option is more likely. I would now like to turn to texts that explicitly link the seven heavens and the seven planets.

(p. 46)

Collins, Adela Yarbro (1996). Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-10587-4.

Aristotle takes up Plato’s four elements as constituents of the sensually perceptible world. According to their respective natural weight, they arrange themselves one over the other in four concentric sublunar spheres, with Earth as the heaviest and lowermost, Fire as the lightest and uppermost clement, and Water and Air in between. Additionally, the immutable Aether. performing a circular movement, creates the supralunar sphere of the stars (Aristotle 1960)...
[...]
[In] the pseudo-platonic dialogue Epinomis, written in the fourth century BC. This text proposes a model in which the cosmos is made up of the elements arranged in concentric spheres. Each element accommodates specific creatures deriving from it for the most part... Fire is the uppermost sphere, home to the “visible gods,” or stars; next is Aether, home to the “divine spirits,” or demons, who act as go-betweens between gods and humans, in accordance with Plato's concept of daimon; next is Air, home to an “Air-born race” with functions resembling those of the demons; next is Water, home to “semi-divine” creatures, possibly the nymphs (Taran 1975: 287); the lowermost sphere is that of the Earth, home to man (Plato 1955: 984b-985b).

(pp. 4–5)

Kramer, Anke (2017). "Cultural History of the Four Elements §. THE FOUR ELEMENTS FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD". In Duerbeck, G; Stobbe, U; Zapf, H; Zemanek, E (eds.). Ecological Thought in German Literature and Culture. Lexington Books. pp. 3–16. ISBN 978-1-4985-1493-4.

[MrMacSon]

https://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2022/ ... le-christ/

[dbz]

https://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2022/ ... le-christ/

In some ways, it’s odd that there is the level of animosity between them, given that they agree on so much; Litwa is not a mythicist, but his books show why the Gospels and Christian traditions about Jesus are legendary and dripping with mythological archetypes.

---

Adair, Aaron (5 November 2022). "Litwa Carrier Bible Christ". Fleeing Nergal, Seeking Stars.

Carrier is depicted as a very undesirable person. If Brodie wore a halo Carrier spouts horns. Carrier is not even introduced as a scholar. He is introduced, rather, as “an American writer”. Across three full pages Litwa steadily creates an image of Carrier that is

• intellectually fickle: (. . . but did not undergo a thorough education in either Bible or church history. At age fifteen, he became a philosophical Daoist after picking up the Daodejing in a bookstore. By age twenty-one, he had shifted into secular humanism. . . . An associate encouraged him to read the Bible from cover to cover. Carrier obediently did so, using the New International Version translation (produced chiefly by Evangelical scholars). “When I finished the last page,” Carrier reported, “though alone in my room I declared aloud: ‘Yep, I’m an atheist.’” . . . . Carrier’s cavalier dismissal of the Bible. . . .)
• yet also inflexible and rigid: (Carrier’s thinking is rationalistic, black and white, and seemingly untouched by developments in postmodern philosophy over the past thirty years. . . )
• psychologically disturbed: (In his Daoist phase, in fact, Carrier had profound visions . . . He left open whether it was a hallucination or a “supernatural encounter.”)
• with a deep-seated personal hatred of God and Jesus: (Carrier’s atheism can be described as a virulent hatred of the biblical God. . . . According to Carrier’s characteristically heated language, the God of the Old Testament is a “demonic monster . . . worthy of universal condemnation, not worship. . . . (Interestingly, Carrier’s interpretation of Yahweh as a daimon accords with ancient gnostic Christian views.))
• extremist, superficial and fringe: (responding to the extremes of Fundamentalism with equally extreme views . . . Carrier’s scholarship exists, it would seem, to prove Christianity (or Carrier’s understanding of it) wrong. . . . . he uses seemingly scholarly methods and arguments to deny the historicity of Jesus. He is a trained scholar, even if he exists on the fringes of the academic guild.) — (all quotes from pages 33 to 35)

---

Godfrey, Neil (18 November 2019). "Review, part 2 (Damnation upon that Christ Myth Theory!) : How the Gospels Became History / Litwa". Vridar.

[Giuseppe]

Thanks for the link.
I read and agree fully with the part in bold:

I think Richard Carrier is both the best and worst advocate for the Christ Myth Theory.

Factually, I find far more often than not, the evidence is as he suggests, and his deductions reasonable. He is certainly good at arguing the case, and in debates he is very able in responding, even when there are completely different starting premises than is normal (i.e., his dialogue/debate with Jack Bull). However, in written form in particular, he is all fire and brimstone.

"Gilgamesh"'s criticism of Carrier's "fire and brimstone" fails to note that the alternative is to make to pass the false idea that some historicist, only in virtue of the fact that Carrier has not defined him "insane" etc, has been "able" to confute mythicism. So I am ok with Carrier also on that point, insofar he doesn't define "insane" also the scholars who figure on this list.

[Giuseppe]

Carrier insists that Norelli has been fully confuted by him:

None of that evidence pertains to the manuscripts. So it’s “non evidence.” I only address pertinent evidence. A lot of Norelli is like this. Tons of conjecrures and non sequiturs, none of it connects to any of the actual evidence pertaining.

In OHJ I only address evidence. Not dozens of pages of useless conjectures. Until Notelli gets some evidence, there is no reason to respond to what he says. It’s just random musing at that point, a waste of word count.

See my more fullsome comment on this above.