Does the Ascension of Isaiah condemn Peter and not Judas?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Does the Ascension of Isaiah condemn Peter and not Judas?

Post by Giuseppe »


2. After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother: who himself (even) this king.

3. Will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

Note the sequence of cause-effect:
  • Jesus dies and rises.
  • The 12 apostles "have planted a plant" (presumably: in all the world)
  • Beliar "will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted".
  • Beliar will possess one of the 12.
The Betrayer couldn't be Judas, since the gospels agree about the fact that Judas betrayed Jesus before the others apostles had found communities in the diaspora. At contrary, there is here a Theological Betrayal.

Paul is not one of the 12: hence, the betrayer who is meant can only be Peter, hence explaining why Mark has Jesus who calls Peter "Satan".
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the Ascension of Isaiah condemn Peter and not Judas?

Post by Giuseppe »

Now, surely the original Ascension of Isaiah is not pauline, even if Paul probably believed the same myth expressed by the Ascension of Isaiah (it is the core argument of Mythicism, isn't it?).

So, how is it possible that a Jewish-Christian text attacks Peter, ignoring completely Paul or Judas?

A possibility is that, after the facts of Antiochia reported in Galatians 2, Peter abandons the other two Pillars and he becomes a follower of Paul. Hence: Peter betrayes the mythical Jesus of the original pillars.
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Does the Ascension of Isaiah condemn Peter and not Judas?

Post by rgprice »

I agree that this does not attack Judas, but it also isn't certain that it attacks Peter either. None of "the Twelve" are named, and its possible that AI was written prior to any Gospels that named the disciples. It could be that AI is the earliest narrative, and in that narrative the "the Twelve" are unidentified.

If this section of AI was written shortly after the death of Nero (the slayer of his mother), then it could have been during the First Jewish-Roman War, or shortly after. And wouldn't the prophecy that Nero would return be something relevant to the time shortly after his death?

If this part of the text if from the second century, then one may conclude that it does refer to Peter. But if this is from the first century it could predate any identification of "the Twelve".
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the Ascension of Isaiah condemn Peter and not Judas?

Post by Giuseppe »

An alternative possibility is that

Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.

...has to be read not as a moral failure (à la Judas being tempted by Satan), but as Satan (personified as Nero) capturing 'one of the Twelve': a reason in more to think that Peter is meant as the apostle captured by Nero, as late tradition claimed, presumably just after the Great Fire of Rome.

Hence, yes, probably that part is a Gospel-based interpolation.
Post Reply