Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8020
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:18 pm

GakuseiDon wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:23 pm

Dr Carrier does propose something along those lines, as I quote him in my OP. But as Tim O'Neill notes, Carrier appears to brush this off. Why it being a rewrite of Baruch invalidates the earthliness of the setting defies logic, though it is consistent with Carrier's confusion between "earthly therefore historical".
What you don't realize is that the dwelling on earth could refer to Jesus revealing to the apostles what has to happen next in heaven.

In addition to this, I think that, in the light of the alternative verse of AoI:

...and the Prince of this world killed the his son and hanged him on a tree and killed him without knowing who is...

...the tree (where Jesus's corpse is hanged) may be on the earth, but the killing of Jesus happens in the lower heavens. This can allow a burial for the corpse after his show on the tree.

EDIT: note that the need of a burial for Jesus survives in the gospels, where Joseph of Arimathea satisifies that need.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8020
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:40 pm

If I understand well this thread, GDon is arguing that the verse

And I saw one like a son of man, dwelling among men, and in the world, and they did not know him.

was found in the original AoI.

Whereas Neil remembers that this is debated:
Charles concludes that the L2 words are not original to the Ascension of Isaiah (it was originally composed in Greek) and Norelli finds evidence that the line has been taken from passages in the New Testament Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John. The L2 manuscript passage is omitted from all English translations of the Ascension of Isaiah that I have seen. Tim provides his viewers with none of this pertinent information.
https://vridar.org/2018/10/24/response- ... of-isaiah/

If the verse shows knowledge of Gospel informations (and it shows, per Norelli), then the case is closed: it is an interpolation. GDon (and O'Neill) can't argue for an earthly view of the death of Jesus in AoI on the basis of that verse.

The AoI can be discussed (about the question of earth versus heaven context) only assuming that it is a text independent from any Gospel information.

That is the same reason why Paul is so important for the mythicists.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 930
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by GakuseiDon » Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:42 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:40 pm
If I understand well this thread, GDon is arguing that the verse

And I saw one like a son of man, dwelling among men, and in the world, and they did not know him.

was found in the original AoI.
One issue is what is meant by "the original AoI". That's why I thought I'd lay out the map of where the extant texts come from in the OP. The verse you give above was found in the L2 and S texts, but not in the E text. (The English translations are usually based on E). Dr Carrier also works from the assumption that the verse is found in the L2 and S texts.
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:40 pm
Whereas Neil remembers that this is debated:
Charles concludes that the L2 words are not original to the Ascension of Isaiah (it was originally composed in Greek) and Norelli finds evidence that the line has been taken from passages in the New Testament Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John. The L2 manuscript passage is omitted from all English translations of the Ascension of Isaiah that I have seen. Tim provides his viewers with none of this pertinent information.
https://vridar.org/2018/10/24/response- ... of-isaiah/
Neil's comment is a bit confusing here. The English translations come from E, which doesn't have the L2 and S key passage. Since Carrier's analysis is based off of L2 and S, I don't understand the significance of Neil's comment. Tim O'Neill's information on what is seen in L2 and S is pertinent AFAICS.
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:40 pm
If the verse shows knowledge of Gospel informations (and it shows, per Norelli), then the case is closed: it is an interpolation. GDon (and O'Neill) can't argue for an earthly view of the death of Jesus in AoI on the basis of that verse.
Whether it is an interpolation or not is irrelevant to the point I am making on what we see in the extant texts.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6215
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:44 am

From R.H. Charles (1900) -


INTRODUCTION

§ 6. The Latin Version L1 (ii.I4 - iii.13, vii.1—19) and L2 (vi —xi). [p. xviii]

There were two Latin versions, one of which L2 embraces vi.—xi., the other L1 only ii.14 — iii.13, vii.1—19.

The former was printed by Antonius de Fantis at Venice, in 1522, from a manuscript now unknown, and reprinted by Giessler in a Gottingen program (Vetas Translatio Latina Visionis Iesaiae, 1832), and by Dillmann as an appendix in his edition of 1877.

As I have been unable to get access to the Venice edition, I have re-issued the version, as it appears in Dillmann’s edition, with certain corrections and critical notes.

Now as regards the two fragments of L1, these were first discovered and edited by Mai in 1828 (Scriptornm Vetermn Nova Collectio, III. part ii. 238, 239) from the codex rescriptus of the Acts of Chalcedon, Vat. 5750, the original writing of which belongs to the fifth or sixth century. His work unhappily was somewhat inaccurate and defective, but these shortcomings are now set right in the texts presented on pp. 87—92 and 102—108. For the corrections in question I am indebted to the less weighty divergencies between EL1 and SL2, that is; between G1 and G2 in this chapter, but the above instances are sufficient to establish our contention.

We have now to show that throughout the rest of vi.—xi, where L1 fails us, S L2 agree against E alike in their additions and their omissions. Only the more important passages will be noticed. Thus S L2 agree in more or less large additions in v.11. 37, viii.3, ix.15, I6, 17, 20, 23, 29, 36, 42, x.I5, xi.34, 36, 40. Again, they agree in giving short summaries instead of the Ethiopic text of x.25—28, xi.27-30, and especially in omitting the very important passage in E, i.e. xi. 2—22, with the exception of a single phrase in xi.19.
.
.
§ 7. The Fuller Text of G1 as a Rule is Derived from G [bottom p. xxi]

In certain passages S L2 present a shorter text than E. If S L2, in other words G2, represent faithfully the text as it stood in the archetype G, then it is clear that in such passages the fuller text of E or G1 is the work of the editor of G1 ...
.
.
pp. xxii-xxiv -
. . .
We must next deal with the very important passage xi.2—22. This passage which is found in E goes back to G1, since phrases from verses 19, 20 reappear in the Greek Legend, ii.39. But it goes back further still and is derived from the archetype G . We must now give the grounds for this view. First its subject-matter is quite in keeping with the context before and after; for from x.8 to xi.19 the concealment of the real nature of Christ is the underlying thought of the entire passage.

Next from the command which Isaiah hears given to Christ to descend to the earth and to Sheol (x), and afterwards to ascend there from (x.14), we naturally expect Isaiah to witness these events in the vision in xi., seeing that he witnesses all else that is mentioned in x.8—14. But the genuineness of xi.2—22 is still more apparent if we consider that, in the short account of G2, in xi. there is not a single reference to the crucifixion, descent into Sheol, and resurrection on the third day, though from ix.12—17 we cannot do otherwise than expect a definite portrayal of these events in the vision. Thus in the latter passage it is told that Christ will descend to earth and assume human form that owing to the instigation of the prince of this world men will rise up against Him and crucify Him, not knowing who He is.’'

Thereupon He will descend into Sheol (this clause is peculiar to S L2) and rise again on the third day—and send out His Twelve Apostles (this last clause is peculiar to S L2)—and ascend into heaven.

Now if we turn to xi. 2-22 this is just what Isaiah sees in vision: Christ is born of the Virgin, but the nature of the birth is to be told to none (xi.2-16). Then He works great miracles and the Jews roused by the adversary crucify Him in Jerusalem, ‘not knowing who He is.’ Thereupon He descends into Sheol (xi.18-20). And on the third day He rises again and sends forth His Twelve Apostles and ascends into heaven (xi. 21, 22)1.
  1. We should observe also that xi.14 is quoted in the Actus Petri, xxiv, xi .16, by Ignatius ad Ephes, and xi.11 most probably by Protev. Iacobi, xx.4.

In the light of the above facts the genuineness of xi.2—22 as an original constituent of G can hardly be disputed. And now if we turn to the passage which the editor of G2 has substituted in its stead, our convictions are, if possible, further strengthened. It runs: 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". I9. Et non cognoverunt eum. 23. Et vidi ascendentem in firmamentum.’

The words enclosed in " " are peculiar to S L2. Of these the greater part, i.e. 'Nec enim ante te vidisti et audisti,’ appears to be based on viii.1.

In the next place the words 'Et non cognoverunt eum' have occurred before (ix.14) in all versions in reference to those who crucified Christ, and in xi.19 in E this significance is preserved where the same phrase recurs. In S L2, however, this phrase is given a setting and a relation which are foreign to it so far as our authorities go. We have already dwelt above on the thorough inadequacy with which the earthly life and destinies of the Messiah are treated in S L2. We conclude, therefore, that xi.2—22 are derived from G, the archetype, and that here, as in x.25—28, xi.27—30, the editor of G2 has abridged the text of G.


§ 8. The Slavonic Verson (= S)
< . . . snip . . . >

pp. xxv-xxvi -

I have already shown (p. xxi) that S is made from the same Greek text as L2, i.e. G2. It is, however, more faithful and full than L2. Thus where L2 omits words, phrases, or even whole sentences, as in vii.29b, 30, viii.28, ix.2, 20, x.14, 18, 29, xi.23, the lacunae are supplied by S in agreement with E. Thus, these passages that are lost in L2 go back to the archetype G.

As regards the phrases and passages peculiar to S L2 — vii.12, 33, 37, viii.28, ix.2, 4, 20, xi.15, 29, xi.1, 34 — it is impossible, in most cases, to say categorically whether they appear for the first time in G2 or went back to G ...


Finally, the phrase 'cum hominibus habitare' in S L2 xi.1/I reappears in Greek Legend, ii.1/I τοΐς άνθρώπιος συναναστρέφεσθαι. Hence this phrase, though lost in E, was most probably in G1 and therefore in G. The phrase in S L 2 xi.1/I that immediately precedes, 'vidi similem filii hominis,’a may also be primitive though unattested by any derivative of G1.
  1. cf. Rev. i.13 ; xiv.I4 ; 4 Ezra vi.1 (Syriac and Ethiopic versions).

via downloadable pdf https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/downl ... 243612.pdf

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8020
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:13 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:42 am
. Dr Carrier also works from the assumption that the verse is found in the L2 and S texts.
so you argue from the false assumption that Carrier would continue (!) to defend a mythicist reading of "dwelling amon men etc" (as he does in the his book) even if he came now to know the recent academic argument by Norelli to consider that verse as an interpolation (and as such not even worthy of being considered anti-mythicist evidence).

Neil's words are entirely clear:
Charles concludes that the L2 words are not original to the Ascension of Isaiah (it was originally composed in Greek) and Norelli finds evidence that the line has been taken from passages in the New Testament Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John. The L2 manuscript passage is omitted from all English translations of the Ascension of Isaiah that I have seen. Tim provides his viewers with none of this pertinent information.
https://vridar.org/2018/10/24/response- ... -of-isaiah

Whether it is an interpolation or not is irrelevant to the point I am making on what we see in the extant texts.
can you be more clear here?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by Kapyong » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:00 am

Ohayo GakuseiDon and all :)

Just had a Jungian gold-bug moment which I thought I'd share -

Around the time I caught this thread, I was also looking into the Song of Roland, (an epic poem about a battle from Charlemagne's time, but written a few centuries later, just before the first Holy Grail literature), following up that odd phrase 'the childe Roland to the dark tower came'.

Anyway,
the key MSS is in old French from the mid 12th C., and buried in the text on occasion is this oddity :
Image

AOI

Kapyong

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7858
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:15 am

Kapyong wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:00 am
Ohayo GakuseiDon and all :)

Just had a Jungian gold-bug moment which I thought I'd share -

Around the time I caught this thread, I was also looking into the Song of Roland, (an epic poem about a battle from Charlemagne's time, but written a few centuries later, just before the first Holy Grail literature), following up that odd phrase 'the childe Roland to the dark tower came'.
"Childe Roland to the dark tower came." I have done a bit of poking around about that phrase before, too. :cheers: (I have also secretly wished to own my own "slughorn.")
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 930
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by GakuseiDon » Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:57 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:13 am
Whether it is an interpolation or not is irrelevant to the point I am making on what we see in the extant texts.
can you be more clear here?
I honestly don't think I can, but I'll try. Dr Carrier's argument is based on what is in the extant S and L2 texts, to analyse the implications.

So think of it like this:
1. Dr Carrier makes an argument based on what is in L2 and S
2. Tim O'Neill (and I as well) is critical of Carrier's argument on what is in L2 and S
3. Neil Godfrey is critical of Tim O'Neill's criticism on what is in L2 and S

Whether the key passages were interpolations or inserted by celestial fleshy beings themselves is not relevant to the argument going on around Carrier's use of the extant texts, i.e. what is in the extant texts of L2 and S, and what are the implications?
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:13 am
Neil's words are entirely clear:
Charles concludes that the L2 words are not original to the Ascension of Isaiah (it was originally composed in Greek) and Norelli finds evidence that the line has been taken from passages in the New Testament Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John. The L2 manuscript passage is omitted from all English translations of the Ascension of Isaiah that I have seen. Tim provides his viewers with none of this pertinent information.
https://vridar.org/2018/10/24/response- ... -of-isaiah
No, that is not clear. Read the section on that Vridar blog post under "But what the farnarkling is he [Tim O'Neill] talking about?" Neil Godfrey describes searching through English translations of AoI to find he can't see the key verse from L2. But he doesn't say whether the English translations are of the E, L2 or S texts. The problem is that English translations are almost certainly those of the E text. So you wouldn't expect to find the L2 passage in question there in the first place.

That showed to me that Neil didn't appear to understand the significance of what Tim O'Neill was saying. That was the inspiration for this new thread: to provide the background information for where the extant texts came from. That's not to end the discussion about Dr Carrier's argument using AoI and their implications, but to get the discussion off to a solid start.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7858
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:05 pm

GakuseiDon wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:57 pm
No, that is not clear. Read the section on that Vridar blog post under "But what the farnarkling is he [Tim O'Neill] talking about?" Neil Godfrey describes searching through English translations of AoI to find he can't see the key verse from L2. But he doesn't say whether the English translations are of the E, L2 or S texts. The problem is that English translations are almost certainly those of the E text. So you wouldn't expect to find the L2 passage in question there in the first place.

That showed to me that Neil didn't appear to understand the significance of what Tim O'Neill was saying. That was the inspiration for this new thread: to provide the background information for where the extant texts came from. That's not to end the discussion about Dr Carrier's argument using AoI and their implications, but to get the discussion off to a solid start.
To be fair, he says that this reaction (what, and which translation, is Tim talking about?) was his first thought. He later acknowledges that the line comes from the L2 text. But he seems to err here:

Carrier is quoting, or rather he is translating, a section from what is known as the “second Latin” or L2 manuscript that varies significantly from the main manuscripts that normally serve as the basis for English translations. This particular L2 passage is not found in any other manuscript of the Ascension of Isaiah and is not found in any easily accessible English translation of the AoI that I know of.

It is not true that this line comes only from L2; it is also present in S, as your OP rightly insists.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6215
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:40 pm

1. Dr Carrier makes an argument based on what is in [both] L2 and S
I understand that Carrier's argument is based in part or full on what others have said about that L2 and S and the way/s L2 and S appear to have been redacted.

GakuseiDon wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:57 am

Richard Carrier describes the phrase at 11.2 in the following way, on page 43:

This new version of 11.2a describes a kind of earthly sojourn, but in an absurdly brief fashion. This actually looks like a rewrite of the Jewish scrip­ture of Bar. 3.38, where God himself was 'seen on earth and conversed with men', which would sooner suggest a revelatory experience was going to be described. Hence it's notable how this Ascension text transforms Baruch: it does not have Jesus converse with men or seen by men, but has him only among men yet completely unknown to them. Ascension Isaiah 11.2 also rewrites Dan. 7.13, saying that what Isaiah saw was 'one like a son of man', the one who in Daniel appears among the clouds and will receive an eternal kingdom over the whole universe (Dan. 7.14).

a What new version is he referring to? (I do not own 'OHJ?')

GakuseiDon wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:57 am

Carrier goes on to explain that the gap in L2 and S between 11.2 and the following passage shows that something has been removed from the L2/S texts, for example the fulfilment of the prophecies leading up to the Jesus dying and then rising. In this, he is undoubtedly correct. The question is: what was there originally? Carrier gives his view on page 45:

It would appear the redactor who produced this version of the text was trying to erase an account of Satan's reaction, and likewise that of the warring angels of the air and the firmament. He has likewise removed the account of God's celestial voice summoning the stars, and what Jesus did in the year and a half (or whatever period) before he ascended and was recognized (as we were told to expect in 10.12-15). Also deleted is any mention of the men Jesus was supposed to bring with him (9.17; or in the Latin, his 'sending' of 'heralds' throughout the earth). Undeniably, a lot has been removed-probably because it could not be gelled with the historicizing account embraced by later Christians who were preserving this text. A Jesus who is killed by Satan in the sky and then only appears to men in revelations (as the citation of Bar. 3.38 implies was going to happen) had to be erased. One redactor just deleted it and tinkered a little with the then-adjoining verses (the text that appears in the Latin and the Slavonic), while another just replaced it with a more desirable and orthodox gospel (which is the text that appears everywhere else).

Carrier goes on to write more on his reasons for why he thinks his reconstruction is plausibleb, which is interesting but too lengthy to put here. He does believe his reconstructed redacted version "where Jesus never dwells on earth" can be seen in other texts used by early Christians (page 322):

But just as the Ascension of Isaiah was doc­tored by inserting a standard historicist gospel narrative in the middle of it, we can presume the Gospel that Ignatius, Irenaeus and Justin were using had similarly been modified to tack-in the details involving Pontius Pilate, Herod the Tetrarch, and John the Baptist and other such elements. But like the Ascension of Isaiah, this clearly did not completely hide the fact that the original narrative was in accord with the earlier redaction of the Ascension of Isaiah, in which Jesus never dwells on earth, but is born and dies secretly in heaven, and then reveals himself after his resurrection, as a brilliant light surpassing all.

... In S and L2, we see Jesus "dwelling among men." It is only in Carrier's reconstructed versionb that Jesus never dwells on earth and is crucified in the air.

(There is also the question of "in your form" appearing in L2 and S and its implications for an earthly sojourn, but I won't cover that here at this time.)

Are there any variant texts that I have left out, or scholarly studies that might help to shed light on L2 or S, from an earthly/celestial Jesus perspective?
b Does Carrier use other scholars to support this?

Post Reply