Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 02-03-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I have posted the following on Neil Godfrey's blog page addressing the Ascension of Isaiah:
.................................................. .....................................

It is important to realize that while I would maintain that the Latin/Slavonic versions represent earlier states of the text than the Ethiopic (that’s the key consideration here), I am hardly saying that the former represent in all respects the “original” text, an unfounded assumption which Don is relying on to make the most of his “like you in form.” We have no clear way of knowing how much later editing is also present in the Latin/Slavonic texts, which are themselves based on an earlier Greek text of uncertain relationship to the one behind the Ethiopic.

I hardly think that this single uncertain phrase is the giant-killer of all the other indicators in the Ascension of a heavenly death for the Son which Don would like it to be.

Earl Doherty

Hi Earl

Just to clarify.

Do you accept that in its present form the Latin/Slavonic text of the Ascension of Isaiah regards the death of the Son as occurring on Earth ?

(I agree that the Latin/Slavonic does not necessarily represent the original text.)

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey · 02-03-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Neil Godfrey has started to analyze the AoI

I hope the word "analyzing" the Ascension of Isaiah is not taken as indicating I am going to go into it in great depth. My primary purpose in this initial post was to make it easier (for me at least) to follow what appears to be here-and-there-back-and-forth-staggerings of the text's settings and thematic units.

I want to follow up with something a bit more technical on the different layers and editings, but will be limited by what I can glean from a few basic commentaries like those found in Charles', Hennecke's, Sparks' volumes. Have not yet been able to access Knibb's.

EarlDoherty · 02-04-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewCriddle

Do you accept that in its present form the Latin/Slavonic text of the Ascension of Isaiah regards the death of the Son as occurring on Earth?

The simple answer is no, but your question needs to be nuanced. The bulk of the Lat/Slav text does not regard the death of Son as having been on earth, because that bulk (similar to the Ethiopic) comes from an earlier form of the document which did not. However, certain elements of later editing may do so. Something like Don’s much-publicized “in your form” could well be a Gnostic product envisioning a docetic Son on earth. But the key line in the Lat/Slav follows on 11:1, in place of the ‘historical’ episode/interpolation 11:2-22 in the Ethiopic:

Quote:

“ ‘…to show you all things. For no one before you has seen, nor after you will be able to see, what you have seen and heard.’ And I saw one like a son of man, and he dwelt with men in the world, and they did not recognize him.”

As I say in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.124:

Quote:

At the same time, if we can accept that the bare alternative verse of the Latin/Slavonic version is closer to the original, we can hardly believe that this represented a knowledge on the part of that writer or editor about an earthly Jesus and a Gospel-like story attached to him. What would have prompted him to deal with it in such a perfunctory fashion? He has gone into such minute detail about the descent of the Son through the heavens and his dealings with the spirit entities which inhabit the non-material spheres. When he gets to the climax of the Son’s descent involving an incarnation on earth, if he knows an entire story containing a wealth of tradition (from the Gospels or otherwise) he is hardly likely to reduce it to a single anti-climactic phrase “he dwelt with men” which tells us nothing. A writer composing a work about Isaiah’s vision of the Son’s descent could not fail to include something about his life on earth.

The only context in which the extant state of the Latin/Slavonic text is understandable is if the writer knew virtually nothing about a life on earth, but only the bare concept itself, in its most primitive stage (more “primitive” than Knibb’s evaluation of chapter 11); perhaps he is an early editor introducing the idea into the text, though without benefit of having had contact with a written Gospel. On the other hand, we can tell nothing about the envisioned nature of this ‘dwelling with men in the world,’ for it is substantially the equivalent of the declaration that personified Wisdom came to earth and dwelt among men—and where Wisdom was concerned, no material incarnation was envisioned.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle · 02-04-2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewCriddle

Do you accept that in its present form the Latin/Slavonic text of the Ascension of Isaiah regards the death of the Son as occurring on Earth?

The simple answer is no, but your question needs to be nuanced. The bulk of the Lat/Slav text does not regard the death of Son as having been on earth, because that bulk (similar to the Ethiopic) comes from an earlier form of the document which did not. However, certain elements of later editing may do so. Something like Don’s much-publicized “in your form” could well be a Gnostic product envisioning a docetic Son on earth. But the key line in the Lat/Slav follows on 11:1, in place of the ‘historical’ episode/interpolation 11:2-22 in the Ethiopic:

Quote:

“ ‘…to show you all things. For no one before you has seen, nor after you will be able to see, what you have seen and heard.’ And I saw one like a son of man, and he dwelt with men in the world, and they did not recognize him.”

As I say in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.124:

Quote:

At the same time, if we can accept that the bare alternative verse of the Latin/Slavonic version is closer to the original, we can hardly believe that this represented a knowledge on the part of that writer or editor about an earthly Jesus and a Gospel-like story attached to him. What would have prompted him to deal with it in such a perfunctory fashion? He has gone into such minute detail about the descent of the Son through the heavens and his dealings with the spirit entities which inhabit the non-material spheres. When he gets to the climax of the Son’s descent involving an incarnation on earth, if he knows an entire story containing a wealth of tradition (from the Gospels or otherwise) he is hardly likely to reduce it to a single anti-climactic phrase “he dwelt with men” which tells us nothing. A writer composing a work about Isaiah’s vision of the Son’s descent could not fail to include something about his life on earth.

The only context in which the extant state of the Latin/Slavonic text is understandable is if the writer knew virtually nothing about a life on earth, but only the bare concept itself, in its most primitive stage (more “primitive” than Knibb’s evaluation of chapter 11); perhaps he is an early editor introducing the idea into the text, though without benefit of having had contact with a written Gospel. On the other hand, we can tell nothing about the envisioned nature of this ‘dwelling with men in the world,’ for it is substantially the equivalent of the declaration that personified Wisdom came to earth and dwelt among men—and where Wisdom was concerned, no material incarnation was envisioned.

Earl Doherty

Hi Earl

Thank you for your reply.

Given that the Latin/Slavonic text refers earlier to the crucifixion and death of the Son, I think the reference to 'dwelling with men in the world' must imply that the death of the Son is also supposed (in the present form of this text) to occur among men upon earth.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 02-05-2011, 09:53 AM

The Ascension or Vision of Isaiah is NOT relevant to the Pauline writings. The Pauline writings are CANONISED therefore are NOT at all HERETICAL.

The PAULINE WRITINGS must be Compatible with the Doctrine of the Roman Church and their CREEDS.

The Canonised Pauline writings are COMPATIBLE with the NICENE Creed and MUST have been used to FORMULATE it.

Quote:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.

And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.

And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

The Pauline Jesus was SENT by God made of a woman, betrayed in the night, crucified died and was raised from the dead.

"PAUL" and over 500 people are WITNESSES to the resurrected Jesus in the Pauline writings. That is ALL.

No Gospel author wrote that Jesus was CRUCIFIED in heaven but that he was crucified on earth and it was because Jesus was supposedly crucified on earth that he CLAIMED he would RETURN after he ascended.

EarlDoherty · 02-05-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewCriddle

Given that the Latin/Slavonic text refers earlier to the crucifixion and death of the Son, I think the reference to 'dwelling with men in the world' must imply that the death of the Son is also supposed (in the present form of this text) to occur among men upon earth.

It might be "supposed" to have been in the mind of the Lat/Slav editor who added the 11:2 line about dwelling with men in the world, but even that is unsure. As I pointed out, the phrase may have had much the same significance as saying that Personified Wisdom "dwelt among men." And as I also said, it is difficult to envision that if such an editor had any kind of view or developed tradition that Jesus had lived and died on earth, that he would have limited his treatment of that life and death to the virtual void on such a topic that is found in the Lat/Slav manuscripts. Someone in that ms tradition would surely have added some kind of interpolation along the way such as we find in the Ethiopic 11:2-22.

In any case, it really is a moot point even if that editor and his contemporaries did interpret the document they possessed as meaning that the Son had lived and died on earth. After all, we all know that from most of the 2nd century on, Christian commentators interpreted the Pauline letters as containing references to an historical Christ. That doesn't prevent us from interpreting Paul without that imposed later interpretation and coming to the conclusion that in fact he was not talking about an earthly Jesus.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon · 02-05-2011, 04:54 PM

Earl, given what you have written about, where does descend "in your form" in 9.13 of S/L, as we have it, fit in IYO? The forms and locations are explicitly given by the editor: the Beloved has the form of firmament creatures when in the firmament, and the form of creatures of the air when in the air. So what is the implication of "in your form" in 9.13?

GakuseiDon · 02-05-2011, 09:53 PM

Oops! That should have been, "Earl, given what you have written above..."

EarlDoherty · 02-06-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don

Earl, given what you have written above, where does descend "in your form" in 9.13 of S/L, as we have it, fit in IYO? The forms and locations are explicitly given by the editor: the Beloved has the form of firmament creatures when in the firmament, and the form of creatures of the air when in the air. So what is the implication of "in your form" in 9.13?

One assumes (insofar as we can pinpoint meanings imbedded in a document full of editings and amendments that are very hard to pin down in any exact way) that "in your form" was indeed, in the mind of that particular editor (probably one subscribing to docetism, as in the nearby phrase "they will think that he is flesh and a man"), a reference to human form and probably a reference to earth. However, not even this is secure, since certain gnostic documents like the Apocalypse of Adam contain descriptions of redeemer figures and their activities which are so fantastic that they seem to inhabit some other kind of reality, one reminiscent of some of the sources I've quoted in my "World of Myth" chapter in JNGNM, rather than anything down-to-earth. And look at Revelation 12. Virgins giving birth and dragons in the heavens. Hardly a simple earthly scene, what?

In any case, your "in your form" tells us nothing about what the rest of the document and its prior states envisioned for the death of the Son. So please don't jump on it as though you've scored some kind of slam-dunk "gotcha!"

Incidentally, I'm working on the second installment of my response to your review, which I should have ready for posting in a day or two.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon · 02-06-2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don

Earl, given what you have written above, where does descend "in your form" in 9.13 of S/L, as we have it, fit in IYO? The forms and locations are explicitly given by the editor: the Beloved has the form of firmament creatures when in the firmament, and the form of creatures of the air when in the air. So what is the implication of "in your form" in 9.13?

One assumes (insofar as we can pinpoint meanings imbedded in a document full of editings and amendments that are very hard to pin down in any exact way) that "in your form" was indeed, in the mind of that particular editor (probably one subscribing to docetism, as in the nearby phrase "they will think that he is flesh and a man"), a reference to human form and probably a reference to earth.

Earl, thank you for "probably". But in the extant Latin/Slavonic text, what else can "in your form" and "dwelling with men in the world" mean? Working from the extant Latin/Slavonic text, is there another option?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Incidentally, I'm working on the second installment of my response to your review, which I should have ready for posting in a day or two.

I'll look forward to reading what villainy I've been up to recently.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2011, 04:54 PM	#57
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Earl, given what you have written about, where does descend "in your form" in 9.13 of S/L, as we have it, fit in IYO? The forms and locations are explicitly given by the editor: the Beloved has the form of firmament creatures when in the firmament, and the form of creatures of the air when in the air. So what is the implication of "in your form" in 9.13?

02-05-2011, 09:53 PM	#58
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Oops! That should have been, "Earl, given what you have written above..."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.