Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 3 of 12: Sections 4.2 Ascension of Isaiah's Celestial Crucifixion

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

Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 3 of 12: Sections 4.2 Ascension of Isaiah's Celestial Crucifixion

Post by GakuseiDon »

Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 3 of 12: Sections 4.2 Ascension of Isaiah's Celestial Crucifixion

Threads in this series
Thread titleLink
1Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 1 of 12: Sections 1 thru 3, What I liked and didn't likeviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10555
2Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 2 of 12: Sections 4.1 Epiphanius's Nazoriansviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10557
3Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 3 of 12: Sections 4.2 Ascension of Isaiah's Celestial Crucifixionviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10562

Third one in my proposed video series on Youtube. I know that Carrier doesn't have many fans here, so some are getting sick and tired of these threads, but the good news is... only nine more threads to go! :)

The content of Ascension of Isaiah is something that has been often argued over on this board, so this probably won't be a surprise to many. I think there is general consensus here that Carrier is simply wrong on how he reads AoI. So I'm preaching to the converted. But a knowledgeable group!

I've probably made mistakes below, especially with the Latin, which I know nothing about. If anyone has any feedback, please comment.

Since I'm planning this to be a transcript, it hasn't been given a lot of formatting. I'll do some additional fixing up eventually. Not sure how to best represent it on screen though.

So, on to the script!

The Second Century work "the Ascension of Isaiah" is often used as a text confirming the idea that there were Christians who believed in a Jesus who was crucified in a celestial realm. The idea was popularised by Earl Doherty and then carried forward by Carrier. The topic comes up on many podcasts, often in discussions with Carrier. Unfortunately most podcast interviewers don't have much idea about its contents and about how radical Carrier's proposed reconstruction is. So I thought a deep-dive into the Ascension of Isaiah was necessary.

Carrier doesn't use the work to contribute much to the odds for mythicism, but it is an important text for background knowledge. Here I'll investigate two threads:

1. An examination of what is in the three extant texts: Ethiopic, Slavonic and Latin2
2. An examination of Carrier's proposed redacted/reconstructed version

Before starting, let's note that there is very little online support for Carrier's view. In an interview with Edouard Tahmizian on the Freethinker Podcast on Youtube in Oct 2022, Dr Robert M Price explains how he can't see what Carrier sees in the Ascension of Isaiah:

From Freethinker Podcast "Legendary Interview With Edouard Tahmizian & Dr. Robert M. Price (4th Interview)!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjj4ar3-iws

54:10 [Dr Robert M Price:] "That's crazy talk. There's a Heavenly sperm bank and David was a donor? What on Earth??? But he's got to get out of Romans 1:3-4, because he holds the pre-critical view that all the Epistles are written by Paul, at least the big seven. Or this thing that the Ascension of Isaiah speaks of a Celestial crucifixion of Jesus - I have looked through that again and again, he must have a different translation than I do. I don't know where he finds that. I mean, he's a brilliant guy but I just... these are serious errors in my opinion"

So let's have a look:

[SLIDE 1]
ASSERTION: In the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus is commanded to go straight to the firmament and die (page 41)

ANALYSIS: Carrier has misread the text by missing the significance of "in your [human] form" in each of the three extant texts.

VERDICT: Carrier's statement is WRONG.

CONTRIBUTION TO ODDS Background knowledge

Carrier's assertion is that in the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus is commanded to go straight to the firmament and die is wrong. However, all extant versions show Jesus, also called "the Beloved" within the text, descending to earth without dying.

[SLIDE 2]
ASSERTION: In Carrier's reconstruction of the original Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus assumed a body of flesh in the sublunar firmament where he was killed (page 544)

ANALYSIS: The extant texts clearly shows Jesus descending past the firmament and down to earth without crucifixion. In order for Carrier to make his reconstruction, he has to remove key passages that disprove his thesis of Jesus being killed in the firmament. Carrier fails to explicitly lay out the text for his proposed original redacted text, which makes it difficult for the reader to compare against the extant versions.

VERDICT: WRONG/PUSHBACK. The extant texts refute the idea of a death in the sublunar firmament. Carrier needs to demonstrate that he has valid reasons to remove extant passages that show his thesis is wrong. He needs to produce what the reconstruction actually looks like.

Carrier examines the state of the extant texts and proposes that there was an earlier original redaction where Jesus dies in outer space. However, as I'll show, Carrier has to remove existing passages to do this. The extant texts are explicit -- and I'll repeat that, they are explicit -- that the Jesus figure descends to earth without dying. Carrier spends about 10 pages of OHJ analysing the text to build his reconstruction, but never actually provides the full text on what the reconstruction looks like.

At the least, I'd like to see him showing the text as we have it side-by-side with the text that he proposes was there originally. It's quite remarkable that he hasn't done this.

First, lets take a look at Carrier's claims:

page 41:
In other words, instead of conducting a ministry on earth, Jesus is commanded to go straight to the firmament and die, and rise from the dead, and then remain where he had died for a year and a half (9.16; cf. 10.12-14; although the duration is omitted from some versions), and then ascend to the heavens.

p. 321
Remember, too. the Ascension of Isaiah (Chapter 3, §1): there, in its ear­lier recension, Jesus will descend to the orbit below the moon, take on a body of flesh, and be killed by the Prince of This World and his demonic minions 'without knowing who he is', because that fact is kept 'hidden from the heavens'.

page 351
The Ascension of Isaiah is another example of this: we can tell the origi­nal redaction had Jesus die in outer space (it therefore was composed by a Christian sect who clearly adopted what I am calling minimal mythicism),

page 544
Likewise that Jesus had a 'body' to sacrifice, from which could pour 'blood', is exactly what minimal mythicism entails: he assumed a body of flesh in the sublunar firmament so that it could be killed, then returned to the upper heavens from whence he came. Exactly as the Ascension of Isaiah describes Jesus did, and just like what many believed happened to Osiris (Elements 14 and 31).

page 545
As the Ascension of Isaiah explains (Chapter 3, §1), Jesus had to pass through the many gates of heaven to reach the firmament and be killed by Satan and his demons

page 563
Jesus would have been buried in a grave or tomb somewhere above the clouds, just as Adam was (Element 38). He would likewise have been abused and crucified there, by Satan and his sky demons (Element 37), just as the earliest discernible redaction of the Ascension of Isaiah imagined.

page 570
... since as we saw in the Philippians gospel (in §4), in order to die Jesus had to be clothed in a human body, which the Ascension of Isaiah originally placed in outer space.

I'll give a brief overview of the text, and then take a deeper dive into what the extant texts say. This may be boring for some people, so settle in! The Ascension of Isaiah issue pops up on various websites discussing mythicism as a kind of proof text, and most of them use Carrier's own readings rather than what's actually there.

The Ascension of Isaiah was originally composed sometime in the First or Second century CE. Carrier believes that the earliest version in fact was probably composed around the very same time as the earliest canonical Gospels were being written. It can be divided into three sections: Isaiah, the Old Testament prophet, is taken up in spirit form by an angel, up until the Seventh Heaven.

First Isaiah is shown a vision of the demon Beliar descend from the firmament and become the Roman Emperor Nero, whom then kills St Peter, though Nero and Peter are not named.

Then Isaiah is shown a vision of the Beloved descending to earth, where he is shown to take on the form of a man called Jesus Christ, and he is crucified and ascends up to the firmament and then up through the heavens, back to the Seventh one. That last vision is called the Vision of Isaiah, and that's what we will be looking at now.

The version described above is known as the Ethiopic, and if you find an English translation on-line, it'll almost certainly be that version. There are two other extant versions of the Vision of Isaiah, and they are known as the Latin2 and the Slavonic. Whether the final version had one author or three, or which of the three -- Ethiopic, Latin2 or Slavonic -- was written first are important questions, but ones that I won't go over here.

First, lets look at the Ethiopic. I'll be using R.H.Charles' English translation that can also be found here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

9.13 "when He has descended and been made in your form"
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.

10.8 "Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go.
10.9 And thou wilt become like unto the likeness of all who are in the five heavens.
10.10 And thou wilt be careful to become like the form of the angels of the firmament [and the angels also who are in Sheol].


To explain, Isaiah is told that the Beloved will descend and be made in Isaiah's form, that is, human form. The Beloved is then ordered to descend down through the seven heavens, then into the firmament, and then to the world, and also to Sheol but not to Haguel. There is argument about the location of Sheol. More about that later.

You'll note that the Beloved is told to take on the form of the creatures at each level so he isn't recognised. This reflects an important trope in early Christianity: how the Son of God came to earth but the whole world didn't know about it. Not even the angels in the heavens knew according to the Ascension of Isaiah. Imagine someone today claiming that Christ had in fact returned, but he did it twenty years ago. The first question that'll be asked is: why didn't the whole world know about it? I'd suggest that the claimant might respond: it was done secretly! And only the pure (like the claimant) knew. The "it was a secret!" excuse is a theme that can be seen in Paul, Ignatius and other early writings. I'll discuss this further in this video when we look at Carrier's arguments involving Ignatius.

I'll summarise the descent as it is portrayed in the Ethiopic text. Note that the Beloved doesn't start changing forms until he descends to the 5th Heaven. Apparently the angels in the 6th and 7th levels of heaven were trustworthy, but those angels in the 1st to 5th heavens? Forget 'em! Blabber-mouths!

Descent of the Beloved in the Ethiopic:

ChapterLocationForm at Location
10.205th HeavenForm of 5th Heaven creatures
10.214th HeavenForm of 4th Heaven creatures
10.233rd HeavenForm of 3rd Heaven creatures
10.262nd HeavenForm of 2nd Heaven creatures
10.271st HeavenForm of 1st Heaven creatures
10.29FirmamentForm of firmament creatures
10.30AirForm of air creatures
11.8EarthForm of a man (born as a baby)

Then comes what is called the "Pocket Gospel". The highlights include:

11.18 Jesus's ministry as an adult
11.19 Satan rouses the Jews against Jesus, "not knowing who He was". Jesus is crucified and descends to Sheol.
11.23 Jesus begins his ascent to the firmament and then through the heavens in his now glorious form


The Ethiopic version is clear: Isaiah is told the Beloved will descend in human form, and Satan will cause him to be crucified by "them", not knowing who he is. What we see in Chapters 9 and 10 -- being made in human form and then being crucified -- is matched in Chapter 11. Carrier correctly notes that some of the predictions in earlier chapters, like God's voice sounding through the heavens, is missing suggesting there may be gaps in chapter 11. But they aren't relevant to the explicit expression of the forms the Beloved takes in each level as he descends to earth.

There is simply no place in the extant text of Ethiopic for the crucifixion to occur in the air or firmament. The Beloved only takes on human form on earth. If he took on human form and was crucified in the firmament, why descend into the air in the form of the air creatures? For Carrier to be correct, he'd have to chop out a lot of the extant text, and he never produces any reason to do this that I can see. I urge people to read Carrier's arguments for themselves on this.

Now, for those of you who are across this issue, you'll probably be jumping up and down right now! Hang on, you'll say. Carrier isn't working from the Ethiopic text, but from the Latin2/Slavonic texts. Many scholars believe that the Latin2/Slavonic texts were earlier than the Ethiopic and so more likely to be closer to the original version. Don't they support Carrier's reconstruction? The answer is a firm "no". We see the same pattern in those texts that we do in the Ethiopic. The main difference is that the "Pocket Gospel" is missing, so the Beloved gets to earth but the ministry and crucifixion scenes are missing. The Beloved goes from being a human on earth dwelling amongst men, to rising to the firmament and then the upper heavens in his glorious form. So let's go through it.

The extant forms of the Latin2 and Slavonic texts are in Latin. They are very similar but there are some minor disagreements over wording. Those minor disagreements don't affect the subject under discussion. The Latin texts don't exist in complete English translations, so I'll give the Latin and then the English text. I am using R.H.Charles work "Ascension of Isaiah", which contains the Latin texts. I'll note that I don't know anything about Latin. I won't try to pronounce the Latin parts too much, since I don't want to accidently summon a demon.

I'll reproduce the text along side of the Ethiopic so you can see how they match:

Ethiopic:

9.13 "when He has descended and been made in your form"
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.

Latin2/Slavonic:

9.12-13 And [the angel] said to me: They [will] not receive it until this son [descends] and introduces these thrones and crowns for the first time, when he will be in your form.
Dixitque mihi [angelus]: Non receperunt [recepiunt] modo, donec [descendet] filius hic primum istos introducet thronos et coronas, quando erit in specie vestra,
(past tense. Slavonic has 'recepiunt', which is present tense), "descendet" in Slavonic but only implied in Latin2

9.14 And the ruler of that world will stretch out his hand against the son [of God] [and kill him] and hang him on a tree and kill him without knowing who he is.
Et princeps mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium [dei] [et occidet illum] et suspendet illum in ligno et occidet nesciens, qui sit.

Here we see a similar prediction: the Beloved will descend in human form, then Satan ("princeps mundi illius" will kill him not knowing who he is. Satan seems to be more directly involved here, but he kills the Beloved when he is in human form.

Ethiopic:

10.8 "Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go.
10.9 And thou wilt become like unto the likeness of all who are in the five heavens.


Latin2/Slavonic:

10.8 Come forth and come down from all the heavens and be in the world and go as far as the angel who is in hell
Exi et descende de omnibus coelis et sis in mundo et vade usque ad angelum, qui est in infernum

10.9 Transfiguring you according to their form.
Transfigurans te secundum formam illorum.

Again we see a similar prediction. In the Ethiopic, the Beloved is ordered to go "to the firmament and that world", while in the Latin2/Slavonic the Beloved is ordered to go to "that world" (in mundo). The usage of "in mundo" is also used as the domain of men, as I'll point out.

Then we see the same descent as in the Ethiopic. I'll put them side-by-side:

LocationBeloved form (Ethiopic)Beloved form (Latin2/Slavonic)
5th HeavenForm of 5th Heaven creaturesForm of 5th Heaven creatures
4th HeavenForm of 4th Heaven creaturesForm of 4th Heaven creatures
3th HeavenForm of 3rd Heaven creaturesForm of 3rd Heaven creatures
2nd HeavenForm of 2nd Heaven creaturesForm of 2nd Heaven creatures
1st HeavenForm of 1st Heaven creaturesForm of 1st Heaven creatures
FirmamentForm of firmament creaturesForm of firmament creatures
AirForm of air creaturesForm of air creatures
EarthForm of a man (baby)Form of a man "dwelling amongst men"

The difference is in Chapter 11. The Ethiopic contains "the Pocket Gospel", with Jesus's minstry and crucifixion, and then ascension in his now glorious body.

Chapter 11 in the Latin2/Slavonic (full contents):

11:1 And after this the angel said to me: Understand, Isaiah son of Amos; In this I was sent by God to show you everything. For no one has seen before you, nor will he be able to see after you, what you have seen and heard. And I saw the likeness of a son of man, dwelling with men and in the world
Et post haec dixit mihi angelus : Intellige, Ysaias fili Amos ; in hoc missus sum a deo omnia tibi ostendere. Nec enim ante te quis vidit, nec post te poterit videre, quod tu vidisti et audisti. Et vidi similem filii hominis, et cum hominibus habitare et in mundo

11:19. And they did not recognize him.
Et non cognoverunt eum.

11:23. And I saw him ascending into the firmament, and he was not transfiguring himself according to their form
Et vidi ascendentem in firmamentum, qui non erat secundum formam transfigurans se...


The key here is that the Beloved, in the likeness of a son of man, is dwelling with men and in the world (in mundo) and they did not recognise him.

So, what is in the missing section? We don't know for sure. But it almost certainly contained the Beloved being crucified by Satan, as per the earlier predictions in Chapters 9 and 10. I suggest the following questions and answers represent what we'd expect to see in the missing text:

* Where was the Beloved commanded to go, presumably to be killed? "To the world" (in mundo, 10.8)
* Where would the crucifixion have been? According to the prediction, "in the world" and while "in your (human) form" (9:12-13).
* Where is the Beloved in human form? "Dwelling with men and in the world" (in mundo, 11.1).

There has been speculation about what was in the missing text. One theory is that the missing text may have contained a story about a docetic Jesus, who descended as an adult man. So it may have been a "Pocket Marcion Gospel", which was then removed by proto-orthodox editors.

Another theory is that the Beloved descended into Sheol and was crucified there, much like the Inanna myth.

Others have speculated that Sheol was in the air, which is consistent with ancient views of the demon-haunted earth. As Carrier points out, any crucifixion in a "supernatural realm", whether above or below the earth, still counts toward mythicism. But it suffers the same problem as Carrier's reconstruction, as too much has to be changed without good reason to make it fit.

The bottom line is that there is no room for a celestial crucifixion in any extant text of the Ascension of Isaiah. It's hard though for the reader of OHJ to see this, as remarkably Carrier has not explicitly laid out the text of what his proposed redacted original looks like. Usually when someone proposes a redacted version of a text, they lay it out so that it can be examined. Carrier does not do this.

For those of you with Carrier's book, try to create the actual text of his proposed redaction. It will be an informative exercise, and you'll come away with an appreciation of just how bad Carrier is in laying out an argument.

Any feedback welcomed! Next one is on Plutarch's Osiris.
Post Reply