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.
dbz
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

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

Post by dbz »

  • My idiosyncratic translation of 10.29–31 which appears to be—garbled in the Latin and Slavonic?
dbz wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:18 pm

29. And he descended into the firmament.
30. And to the angels who were in this air, he was one of them.
31. And he gave them no sign, and they did not sing.

“What could Jesus have done to cause himself to be hated and killed if he remained unrecognized in the lower heaven?”
Enter the ontological domain of demonic control, the realm of their domain, without providing the ‘signum’–passport, as expressly given in L2 Asc. Is.
  • He remained unrecognized….


The original “good news” was “the Beloved will come from heaven to free the souls of the dead and take them to heaven. Believe it now or believe it later. The end.” (Asc. Is. L2)

Earl Doherty without doubt was the major contributor to the Jesus myth perspective from the 1990s through to the early 2000s. I highly respected his grasp of both the big picture and the detail, his clear-headed engagement with the scholarship, and his alertness to valid logical reasoning. His discussion of the Ascension of Isaiah in The Jesus Puzzle and again and in greater depth in Jesus Neither God Nor Man have been mainstays in my own attempts to learn more about that ancient text.

James Barlow has delved into the Asc. Isa. in even more detail since and finds even more support for Doherty’s view that it contains evidence of a heavenly crucifixion of Jesus and that its passage of an earthly sojourn of Jesus in one manuscript is a later addition.

dbz
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

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

Post by dbz »

dbz wrote: Sun Oct 23, 2022 8:38 am ..."internal analysis" is only germane to the "Vision of Isaiah". N.B. Norelli’s dating (Carrier concurring) the "Vision of Isaiah" as the earliest component in a chronologically disparate composite document.
In the context of the "Vision of Isaiah", What is the DOMAIN of demonic control?
  1. The demon native realm: aére
  2. The human native realm: terra firma
  3. realm: aquae
  4. The native realm of infernals: ignis
EDIT wrote:Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:40 pm [F]or the Galatians the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου were the four elements of the universe which the Galatians venerated as gods, a veneration that involved calendrical observances (De Boer 2007:218). Here the elements have not become principles of existence but deities worshipped as if existing. (p. 4)
Roth, Dieter T. (2014). "What ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ are the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου?". HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies. 70 (1): 8 pages. doi:10.4102/hts.v70i1.2676.

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 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:51 amA/ 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!)
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 »

dbz wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:25 pmIn the context of the "Vision of Isaiah", What is the DOMAIN of demonic control?
  1. The demon native realm: aére
  2. The human native realm: terra firma
  3. realm: aquae
  4. The native realm of infernals: ignis
In the Vision of Isaiah, the domain of the demons is from the firmament downwards, at least down to earth. The Beloved descends through the various levels of heaven and ends up on earth where he wasn't recognised, according to all three extant texts (Ethiopic, Latin2 and Slavonic),

The progression goes like this:

(9.13) The Beloved will descend and "be made in your [Isaiah's] form", i.e. in the form of a man.
(9.14) The "the ruler of that world" will stretch out his hand against his son and hang him on a tree and kill him, "not knowing who he is".
...
(10.24) The Beloved descends to the 3rd heaven, isn't recognised, and his form was like their (angels in the third heaven's) form
(10.25) The Beloved descends to the 2nd heaven, isn't recognised, his form was like theirs
(10.26) The Beloved descends to the 1st heaven, isn't recognised, his form was like theirs
(10.27) The Beloved descends to the firmament, isn't recognised, his form was like theirs. This is where the "ruler of the world" is.
(10.28) The Beloved descends to the air, isn't recognised, his form was like theirs
...
(11.2) The Beloved descends to the earth and isn't recognised, presumably because his form was a man's (as suggested by 9.13 above). The Latin reads: "Et uidi similem filii hominis, et cum hominibus habitare, et in mundo, et non cognouerunt eum",

In the Slavonic/L2 texts there is a break and then it cuts to the Beloved ascending into the firmament. In the Ethiopic, we have the pocket Gospel.

Presumably what is missing in the S/L2 texts is the ruler of that world hanging the Beloved in the form of a man on a tree "not knowing who he is", as predicted by 9.13-14. So the domain of the ruler of that world in AoI is from the firmament down to the earth, and possibly below.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dbz
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

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

Post by dbz »


[10.17–28 descent via seven heavens]
17 And so I saw my Lord go forth from the seventh heaven into the sixth heaven.
18 And the angel who conducted me [from this world was with me and said unto me: “Understand, Isaiah, and see how the transformation and descent of the Lord will appear”.
19 And I saw, and when the angels saw Him, thereupon those in the sixth heaven praised and lauded Him ; for
He had not been transformed after the shape of the angels there, and they praised Him and I also praised with them.
20 And I saw when He descended into the fifth heaven, that in the fifth heaven He made Himself like unto the form of the angels there, and they did not praise Him (nor worship Him); for His form was like unto theirs.
21 And then He descended into the fourth heaven, and made Himself like unto the form of the angels there.
22 And when they saw Him, they did not praise or laud Him; for His form was like unto their form.
23 And again I saw when He descended into the third heaven, and He made Himself like unto the form of the angels in the third heaven.
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.
25 And again I saw when He descended into the second heaven, and again He gave the password there; those who kept the gate proceeded to demand and the Lord to give.
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.
28 But as for me no one asked me on account of the angel who conducted me.

[10.17–28] per "The Ascension of Isaiah (english translation)". On the way to Ithaca. 7 August 2012.

[My idiosyncratic translation of 10.29–31 which appears to be—garbled in the Latin and Slavonic.]
29. And he descended into the firmament.
30. And to the angels who were in this air, he was one of them.
31. And he gave them no sign, and they did not sing.

[11.1–∞ ] is possibly interpolated.
Last edited by dbz on Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

The stoicheia point to the cult of the Elechesaites.`
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 »

James Barlow does an acute remark:

vi. 15 (L1, L2)
“And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not from this world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh.”


(Musn't it therefore exclude the xi. 2-22 scenario?
)
vi. 15. (p. 46) "The vision…was not from the world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh."
See Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle; The Source of Paul's Gospel) on Paul's extensive and crucial metaphysical notion ἐν σαρκί -- "according to the flesh." Interestingly, if xi. 2-22 is part of the original Vision, one must ask how the seer could have experienced it, if the vision was from another, utterly hidden world entirely. Hence L1 (G1) – "hidden from his flesh," though idiomatic, Charles has altered to "the flesh" in deference to L2 (G2)'s "all flesh," denoting ontological categories of existence rather than a personalized epistemology idem per idem. Verse 15 supports the contention 2-22 was added later, since L2 has "hidden from all flesh."

(my bold)
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:53 pm James Barlow does an acute remark:

vi. 15 (L1, L2)
“And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not from this world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh.”


(Musn't it therefore exclude the xi. 2-22 scenario?
)
vi. 15. (p. 46) "The vision…was not from the world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh."

Here is how the vision is described in the Ethiopic:

8.10. And as he was speaking in the Holy Spirit in the hearing of all, he became silent and his mind was taken up from him and he saw not the men that stood before him.
11. Though his eyes indeed were open. Moreover his lips were silent and the mind in his body was taken up from him.
12. But his breath was in him; for he was seeing a vision.
13. And the angel who was sent to make him see was not of this firmament, nor was he of the angels of glory of this world, but he had come from the seventh heaven.
14. And the people who stood near did (not) think, but the circle of the prophets (did), that the holy Isaiah had been taken up.
15. And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not from this world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh
.
...
9.1 AND he took me into the air of the seventh heaven, and moreover I heard a voice saying: "How far will he ascend that dwelleth in the flesh?" And I feared and trembled.
...
11.34 And this angel said unto me: "Isaiah, son of Amoz, it is enough for thee;... for thou hast seen what no child of flesh has seen.
35. And thou wilt return into thy garment (of the flesh) until thy days are completed. Then thou wilt come hither."


So it seems that the vision was seen by a mind that wasn't in the flesh and had been taken up to heaven.
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 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:14 pm So it seems that the vision was seen by a mind that wasn't in the flesh and had been taken up to heaven.
so what? :scratch:
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.
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: Fri Oct 28, 2022 3:54 am 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.
Post Reply