Ultimate Ascension of Isaiah thread

[GakuseiDon]

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.

I don't blame Neil Godfrey for being confused as he is perhaps not so familiar with the background to the texts. Thus my OP. Tim O'Neill mentions that there are different versions of AoI (E, S and Latin), and Dr Carrier on page 43 states that he is using the Latin text, so if Neil was familiar with the texts he would have been careful about which texts to search. I'm assuming Neil is not aware that most English translations are based on E. But that does play into Tim O'Neill's point: most people arguing about the intricacies of AoI are not familiar with the texts, and thus those reading Dr Carrier's book come away with the idea that AoI does in fact support a celestial crucifixion more strongly than it actually does.

[GakuseiDon]

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.

Not the celestial crucified Jesus part, no. He refers to other scholars about the gap in XI indicating something missing, but that isn't controversial. It's what he thinks feels the gap that is controversial, and not supported by any scholar AFAIK.

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.

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

The Latin2 text.

... 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.

b Does Carrier use other scholars to support this?

No.

[Ben C. Smith]

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?')

He is referring to the L2/S version, which has a very brief summary in which the Beloved is living among men. This version replaces the "pocket gospel" which is found in E.

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?

No, unless you count Doherty. Carrier has scholarly support for the notion that 11.2-22 in E is secondary, and he has both overlapping and separate scholarly support that 11.2 in L2 and S are secondary; but no one else mentioned by Carrier, except for Earl Doherty, thinks that the crucifixion happened in the air in this text.

[MrMacSon]

Cheers Gents.

So, to take these (which align) -

This is how I understand the texts in question, both extant and not extant:

G --> G1 --> L1, E
G --> G2 --> L2, S {--> RCRT}

[Where] RCRT = Richard Carrier's Reconstructed Text, as per his book "On the Historicity of Jesus"
.

From R.H. Charles (1900) -

Introduction

§ 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 ...
.

I presume Carrier's proposition is something like -

G --> G1 --> L1, E (L1 only embraces ii.14 — iii.13, vii.1—19, according to Charles; p. xviii)

• 1. G --> {RCRT} --> G2 --> L2, S

or

• 2. G --> G2 --> {RCRT} --> L2, S

probably 2?

(he seems to like eccentric propositions, doesn't he?)

[MrMacSon]

This seems to sum up Carrier's propositions and argument (?) -

Carrier...explain[s] that [a likely] 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:

... 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 [might have] 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).

[GakuseiDon]

• 1. G --> {RCRT} --> G2 --> L2, S

or

• 2. G --> G2 --> {RCRT} --> L2, S

probably 2?

Yes, that probably represents better than what I have in my OP. I put {RCRT} at the end since I wanted to indicate that Dr Carrier's reconstructed text came from an analysis of S and L2, rather than imply it developed after S and L2. In terms of timing, then it might be better represented as:

G {RCRT} --> G1 --> L1, E
G {RCRT} --> G2 --> L2, S

Where the original source Greek text was the celestial Jesus Christians, and the two streams represent separate editing traditions by historicizing Christians. But that's a guess -- Dr Carrier might have other ideas, based on the number of steps it took to get to G1/G2.

[MrMacSon]

Yes, that probably represents better than what I have in my OP. I put {RCRT} at the end since I wanted to indicate that Dr Carrier's reconstructed text came from an analysis of S and L2, rather than imply it developed after S and L2.

I figured that: it was reasonable b/c he is working back (but then I had to try to put it in chronological context).

Almost -

• G --> G2 --> {RCRT} <--> L2, S

or

• G --> {RCRT} <-- G2 <-- L2, S

to come up with a possible: G --> {RCRT} --> L2, S (ie. RCRT could be G2)

as well as -

Where the original source Greek text [G] was [produced by] the celestial Jesus Christians, and the two streams represent separate editing traditions by historicizing Christians. But that's a guess -- Dr Carrier might have other ideas, based on the number of steps it took to get to G1/G2.

I think if Joseph B Tyson (and his mentor Knox), BeDuhn, Trobisch, Vinzent, Klinghardt, and Shelly Matthews, and perhaps others, are right about the direction of Marcion --> Luke (and one or two other canonical gospels) then the likelihood that a lot of 'inter-testamentary' texts such as the Ascension of Isaiah (and the Gospel of [Judas] Thomas) contributed to the development of the books in the New Testament increases, and that could provide better premises and arguments for a historical Jesus than present arguments based on the canonical Gospels being written 70-90 AD/CE.