EarlDoherty

I am going to create a new thread (oh boy, first time I’ve had a chance to do that!), since I think it is best to put this in a thread that features “The Ascension of Isaiah� in the title. First, let me pick up a couple of points from GakuseiDon’s last posting in the old thread (“Reply to 3 of Carrier’s claims against Muller…�) which will help lead into my discussion of the Ascension.

And yet, what would you say the demons are closer to? The nature and bodies of material humans, or the nature and ‘bodies’ of heavenly creatures? Obviously, it’s the latter. So even if they inhabit the sublunar realm, they are more closely akin to those beings that live in the supralunary realm, even if they behave and undergo things related in counterpart fashion to the material sphere. They are part of the sublunary realm (whether in a “separate� sphere or not, take your pick) because they have been banished there, tied to the realm where they can themselves suffer and do violence as is their nature, and because they have taken up residence there to divide earth from heaven, which is one of the things the crucified Christ is going to correct. Note that as far as the Ascension is concerned, the principal tasks of Christ are to deal with the demons, and to rescue the souls of the righteous from Sheol, both of which entail activities that are in non-human locales. It stands to reason, then, that Christ need only take on a form that functions in those particular locales, which is to say non-material (though closely related to fleshly forms in the sense of resembling them and their capacities).

You state that the demons, in possessing “heavenly versions of earthly bodies� as noted by the TDNT, do not possess heavenly bodies “in the sense of being similar to the heavenly creatures above the firmament.� But surely this is a contradiction. What is the definition of a “heavenly body� if not something related, or “similar to� the heavenly creatures in general? Otherwise it wouldn’t be called a heavenly body. It is a heavenly body cast, somehow, similar to the form of an earthly one, but it is still heavenly. It is still a spirit, and as such behaves as a spirit, but with certain capabilities that are associated with the material sphere, such as the ability to suffer. But it suffers as a spirit; it is the spirit form taking on certain capacities of the material. And it suffers at the hands of spirit entities, not human ones. None of this, of course, bears any sense in light of modern science and rationality, but it’s the way the ancients saw things, and it enabled them to postulate a spiritual deity who could suffer as a redeeming act, as long as he descended to that area below the moon which the demons inhabited and took on a spirit form which entailed those human-like capacities. More than this wasn’t necessary, and when that descending deity was eventually brought all the way to earth itself and incarnated in human flesh, it introduced a new dimension of divine activity that was not originally envisioned or needed. That progression we can see in the Ascension, to which we now turn.

I’m going to do things in reverse order, addressing chapter 11 first, as it is best to demonstrate the strong likelihood that the chapter 11 scene on earth is a later addition to a document that shows many signs of revision and interpolation.

The translator and commentator on the Ascension of Isaiah in the The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Michael Knibb (vol. 2, p.143-176) suggests that the chapter 11:2-22 passage is authentic to the original text, but his argument makes little sense (see below). First of all, there are three classes of surviving manuscripts of the Ascension: the Ethiopic, second Latin, and Slavonic. The first seems to be based on one Greek text, the other two on a different Greek text. There are notable differences between the Ethiopic on the one hand, and the second Latin and Slavonic on the other (the latter two including only the second section, the Vision of Isaiah, chapters 6 to 11). There is no reason to think that either one of those preceding Greek texts was itself the original, as they too could have undergone revision in their preceding development. The earliest we can possibly date any of the existing versions is the 4th or 5th centuries, and that only for fragments, so there was certainly scope for changes preceding the texts we have.

Following two ‘visionary’ descriptions of the descent of the Son in chapters 9 and 10 (the first is an account of the future event, but mainly the key portion of it involving the crucifixion in the firmament, the second is an account of the Father’s instructions to the Son for that descent, followed by the descent itself through the various layers of heaven in full detail—we’ll compare those two shortly), we are led into the scene on earth in this way. In the Latin/Slavonic class of manuscripts it proceeds, picking up from the final verses of chapter 10:

10:30-31: And I saw when he descended and made himself like the angels of the air, that he was like one of them. And he did not give the password, for they were plundering and doing violence to one another. 11:1: And after this I looked, and the angel who spoke to me and led me said to me. “Understand, Isaiah, son of Amoz, because for this purpose I was sent from the Lord.�…

Here, as Knibb relates in note ‘a’ (p. 174), “Lat2, Slav add ‘…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.’ Lat2, Slav thereafter omit the whole of vss. 2-22.�

For comparative purposes at this point, that omitted passage, 2-22, begins this way, picking up from the last phrase common to both manuscript lines, as above:

“…because for this purpose I was sent from the Lord. [verse 2:]And I saw a woman of the family of David the prophet…�

Now, which one should we consider to be closer to the original? Knibb, as I said, suggests (p.154) in regard to the 11:2-22 passage, that “the primitive character of the narrative makes it difficult to believe that it did not form part of the original text.� But this is hardly compelling, or even sensible, since no reason suggests itself as to why subsequent versions of the text would cut it out. Knibb also suggests (p.146) that it was “revised� because of its “legendary features.� But since when have we seen Christian editors show aversion to “legendary features�? And if it did somehow strike them negatively as “primitive� or “legendary,� experience shows that editors always revise (if anything, expanding and making things more detailed), not slash to virtually nothing. What editor would have been willing to sacrifice a 20-verse account of the Son on earth and replace it with a simple “and he dwelt with men in the world, and they did not recognize him�?

Not only common sense tells us that the Lat/Slav version is the more primitive and the 2-22 is an enlargement of the idea (whether directly derived from that version or from a common ancestor or ancestral idea), such a progression conforms to the overall pattern we see in the documentary record as a whole: the introduction of basic concepts of a Christ on earth being expanded to add more detail. That progression we can see reflected and paralleled in 1 John’s bare “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh� to Ignatius’ basic biographical details about the coming flesh, to an expanded (but still primitive and pretty bare, based on scripture) use of life-on-earth motifs in the epistle of Barnabas, to the ever widening appearance of elements of the Gospel story as the second century progresses. That progression is epitomized in the difference between the two ‘versions’ of the Ascension. And even the content of the interpolation itself, as we shall see, shows a primitive state of ‘knowledge’ over which the later Gospels, as we have them, are an advance.

Another consideration: If we can accept the almost guaranteed likelihood that the bare verse of the Lat/Slav version is closer to the original, this can hardly represent the knowledge on the part of that writer or editor of an entire tradition about an earthly Jesus and a Gospel-like story attached to him. For what on earth would prompt him to deal with it in such a perfunctory fashion? He goes into such minute detail about the descent of the Son through the heavens and his dealings with the spirit entities that inhabit the non-material spheres. When he gets to the climax of the Son’s descent, his incarnation on earth, if he knows an entire story containing a wealth of tradition (from the Gospels or otherwise) is he going to reduce it to a single anti-climactic phrase “he dwelt among men� which tells us virtually nothing? Why would Isaiah’s “vision� not encompass the life on earth, if that is where the great salvific act took place? That makes no sense whatsoever. The only context in which it makes sense is if the writer or editor knew virtually nothing in detail about a life on earth, but only the bare concept itself, in its most primitive stage, and he is introducing it into the text. A later stage, in which more developed ideas are available, is introduced in the interpolation passage.

What happens if we delete not only the interpolation 2:22, but the brief mention of a life among men of the Lat/Slav which is equivalent to the former? We get this progression from 11:1 to 11:23:

And after this I looked, and the angel who spoke to me and led me said to me, “Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz, because for this purpose I was sent from the Lord…[--- ]…And I saw him, and he was in the firmament, but was not transformed into their form. And all the angels of the firmament, and Satan, saw him and worshiped. And there was much sorrow there as they said, “How did our Lord descend upon us, and we did not notice the glory which was upon him, which we (now) see was upon him from the sixth heaven?�…

What was in the hiatus? What else but the descent, after death at the hands of those angels of the firmament, into Sheol where he remained for three days (as described in chapter 9) after which he ascended with the souls of the righteous. At that point, he reenters the firmament in the opposite direction, this time not in disguise, and those angels now recognize him. If what intervened was a life on earth, in full view of those in the sublunary realm (after all, that is what Don is claiming, that it was all one sphere, and if humans could see what was going on among the evil angels simply “by looking up� then one presumes the demons could see what was happening on earth simply “by looking down�), thus they should have been well aware of the identity of the Son operating on earth—even if only at the point of his emergence from the tomb—making their surprise on his reascent into the firmament puzzling to say the least.

That missing hiatus is not only accounted for in chapter 9, as we shall see, it is pointed to by the primary purpose of the Son’s descent: to raise the righteous of Sheol (and make possible a similar rising of the righteous who shall die in the future), to inherit their destined thrones and crowns in heaven. This is to be accomplished by the victory the Son will achieve over the evil angels (thanks to their own complicity), and the “plundering of the angel of death� (9:16). That is the focus of the whole vision (to which there is a very strong parallel in the Similitudes of Enoch in regard to the guaranteed fate of thrones and crowns for the righteous who believe in the Righteous One in heaven, though there is no descent or sacrifice in that document). Thus the interpolated career on earth in 2:22 stands out like a sore thumb, having no preparation outside itself.

In regard to that interpolation, the bulk of it, curiously, is taken up with a rather primitive Nativity story, in which Jesus is born in Mary and Joseph’s house in Bethlehem (no manger, shepherds, angels, Herod or magi), to a Mary who has not been forewarned or was even aware that she was pregnant—an obviously more primitive version than either of the Gospel Nativity stories. A few verses are then devoted to mentioning the performance of “great signs and miracles in the land of Israel� (no examples given), to the children of Israel being roused against him, handing him to the ruler (no one specified, though Knibb “assumes� it is Pilate), and he is crucified on a tree in Jerusalem and rose after three days. The sequence of events in these few verses is clearly garbled, and shows that the passage was tinkered with after the initial insertion, as a little more detail ‘emerged’ into various editors’ consciousness. The seams and discontinuities are very evident:

And after this the adversary envied him and roused the children of Israel, who did not know who he was, against him. And they handed him to the ruler, and crucified him, and he descended to the angel who (is) in Sheol. In Jerusalem, indeed, I saw how they crucified him on a tree, and likewise (how) after the third day he rose and remained (many) days. And the angel who led me said to me “Understand, Isaiah.� And I saw when he sent out the twelve disciples and ascended. [Followed by, “And I saw him and he was in the firmament,� which links back up with the pre-interpolated text.]

Not only is this disjointed, things out of sequence and crudely put together, it betrays no usage of independent historical traditions, but is rather a reworking of motifs that were present in the pre-interpolated, pre-historicist stage of the document itself. The adversary (Satan) envying, the children of Israel not knowing who he is, crucifixion on a tree in Jerusalem, the rising after three days, are all motifs that have been taken over from the mythical stage and simply reworked into a primitively put together historicist version. This pattern of developmental evolution (it’s a pretty basic form of literary criticism) is found in many guises not only in this document, but in the documentary record as a whole, consistently and logically supporting the mythicist paradigm.

Once this principle of insertion of a career on earth is recognized, the rest of the document falls into place. We can see that chapter 9, with its focus entirely on what happens to the Son in the firmament, is pre-historicist. Chapter 10’s focus on the Father’s instructions leaves out all mention of the Son on earth. It is nowhere so evident as in 10:8-16:

Go out and descend through all the heavens. You shall descend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol, but you shall not go as far as Perdition. And you shall make your likeness like that of all who (are) in the five heavens, and you shall take care to make your form like that of the angels of the firmament and also (like that) of the angels who (are) in Sheol….

Note that there is absolutely no mention of a stop on earth, let alone anything to do there, and to claim (as some have) that this is implied is desperation in the extreme. The Son having hidden his identity from those angels, will then be summoned by the voice of the Father. At that point,

you may judge and destroy the princes and the angels and the gods of that world, and the world which is ruled by them, for they have denied me….

The Son’s work relates entirely to the demon spirits, who are to be ‘destroyed’ along with their realm. The “world� referred to is the sublunary realm as a whole, including Sheol, and the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice is to destroy the power and power base of the evil demons (a prime concept in primitive Christianity, as we can see in the Pauline corpus). But while such a “world� can be said to encompass the earth, the instruction hardly includes the destruction of the earth itself (even figuratively) or the rulers of the earth. The Son’s mission relates entirely to the spiritual aspects of that “world�, which again is another indicator that distinctions are made within the sublunary realm, and that the spiritual dimension of it can be singled out and treated separately. Following that mission against the spirit powers in the spirit dimensions (including Sheol), the Father says:

And afterwards you shall ascend from the gods of death to your place, and you shall not be transformed in each of the heavens….

No mention is made, nor room given, for a sojourn and activity on earth, and this parallels our reconstructed original above, without the interpolation, from the firmament at the end of chapter 10 down into Sheol (excised once the reference to earth was inserted) and back up into the firmament in the latter part of chapter 11. Seen in this way, the two passages follow in lockstep.

Now in our regressing progress we can go back to chapter 9, and see that this details what happens to the Son in the firmament and how he deceives the angels of the firmament, is sacrificed unwittingly by them, dies into Sheol and there rises to plunder the angel of death and reascend with the righteous, who receive their thrones and crowns when they reach the seventh heaven:

And he said to me, “They do not receive the crowns and thrones of glory—nevertheless, they do see and know whose (will be) the thrones and whose the crowns—until the Beloved descends in the form in which you will see him descend. The Lord will indeed descend into the world [the sublunar realm, although as Knibb points out, ‘into the world’ is omitted from some manuscripts] in the last days, (he) who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man…

The quoted text to this point is different in the Lat/Slav line, rearranged and somewhat simplified, and the reference to “Christ� and “they will think he is flesh and a man� is not included. We have already seen evidence that the text has been much edited and tinkered with in places, and this is more evidence that we cannot trust anything in particular in this document to reflect the original, much less base arguments for orthodoxy on any specific wording. In a footnote on 9:5, Knibb voices the possibility that “all references to ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ in chapters 6-11 are secondary�—that is, added later (note ‘g’, p.170).

…And the god of that world will stretch out [his hand against the Son], and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed even from the heavens so that it will not be known who he is. And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise [lit., ‘ascend’ so Knibb notes, which would thus seem to remove it from orthodox resurrection] on the third day…

For that last sentence, Lat/Slav has: “And he will seize the prince of death, and will plunder him, and will crush all his powers, and will rise on the third day.� This makes it even clearer that the Son’s purpose, and what he does prior to his ‘rising’, is nothing on earth, much less the Gospel events, but dealing with the evil spirit forces who up to this time have controlled the souls of the dead, now freed. If Jesus had lived on earth, if his career was perceived as anything resembling the Gospel events and meaning, this total and exclusive focus on what he does in the spirit world would not be possible.

Note that this action takes place entirely in the heavens. “The god of that world� (meaning Satan) stretches out his hand, and “they� hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. Since the next verse goes on to elucidate that this descent and true identity of the Son is declared to be concealed “from the heavens,� this ties the idea to the preceding. It is not figures on earth who do the hanging, but Satan and his demons, who do not recognize the Son. All the references throughout these passages outside the interpolation to “concealing� his identity through assuming native forms refer only to the angelic inhabitants of each region, not to any humans. It simply is not feasible to suggest that the crucifixion takes place on earth in view of such passages. (Or that Satan is “stretching out his hand� to earth, as Ted suggested—which is really “stretching� things!)

…and will remain in that world for five hundred and forty-five days…

A clear insertion, based on Valentinian and similar gnostic doctrine that, as Knibb points out (note ‘v’, p.170) “believed that Jesus remained with the disciples after the resurrection for eighteen months (i.e., approximately 545 days).�

…And then many of the righteous will ascend with him, whose spirits do not receive (their) robes until the Lord Christ ascends and they ascend with him. Then indeed they will receive their robes and their thrones and their crowns, when he has ascended into the seventh heaven.

I don’t claim to know the Ethiopic vocabulary here, but I am going to assume the probability that the word for “ascend� in the latter verses is the same as the word Knibb translates as “rise� in the earlier verse, indicating the imposition of his own Gospel-oriented slant on what can increasingly be seen as something quite different from standard ‘orthodoxy’. In fact, I will point out something else in that vein which may not have occurred to those who try, or even unintentionally tend, to view everything through orthodox-colored glasses. There is indeed something very primitive and even “non-Christian� about all this. Where is the sense of universality in the underlying soteriology, where is the atonement concept we associate with standard Christianity? It is not there (it’s not even intimated in the Gospel-like interpolation). What we have is a simple rescue operation on the part of the Son, freeing prisoners from the clutches of the evil angels who control the lower parts of the universe and prevent access to heaven. One might even style it ‘proto-gnostic’ in that respect, with the descending Son related to the descending Redeemer of some Gnostic sects though on a more primitive level. The atmosphere of the ‘righteous inheriting their destined thrones and crowns in heaven’ is strongly sectarian, the salvation of an elite, which to me bears resemblance to some of the thought found in Revelation, and in the Similitudes of Enoch. If “Jesus� and “Christ� are later additions, as Knibb opines, we would not even be able to label this document ‘Christian’ but an example of Jewish sectarianism (within the broad “intermediary Son� tendency I have discussed elsewhere) that was itself ‘proto-Christian’ much as the Odes of Solomon is, or the Shepherd of Hermas. We thus have yet another example, another puzzle piece, in the picture of uncoordinated diversity in intermediary Son belief, none of which goes back to a Jesus of Nazareth, but becomes gradually drawn like filings to a magnet into the Gospel-story gravitational field, with editings and insertions performed as features of that field multiply and expand.

Finally, I have already pointed out that the language of chapter 7 implies a perceived distinction, at least for certain practical purposes, between various regions of the firmament. “As above [here referring to the firmament], so also on earth.� This defines the two as in some way separate, with counterpart entities and features. This in itself supports that principle of ‘paradigmatic guarantee’ I have put forward in regard to mythical Jesus and other savior-god soteriology. That separation between layers of the sublunary region is even more clearly stated in 7:28:

And again he took me up into the fourth heaven, and the height from the third to the fourth heaven was greater than (from) earth to the firmament.

For this writer (who, unlike Ocellus, is presenting his picture in the context of religious belief regarding a Son who is killed in the heavens—in other words, it’s from the horse’s mouth in the only race and racetrack we need to be concerned with), there is clearly a distinction between the earth and the firmament.

In conclusion, I want to comment on someone’s question (I think it was Ted): why, if the descending Son was in disguise, resembling the denizens themselves of that region, would Satan and the demons have killed him? This might be a good question, but only in the context of our modern rationality. I’m sure the writer, and the thought circles he represents, couldn’t have answered that question to any rational person’s satisfaction, certainly not to we who attempt to subject it to logical literary analysis. But it requires the same sort of insight that we ought to bring to all questions of this sort. We have to judge the development of such ideas not by their logicality, but by what led to the formation of these patterns of belief, as in the idea that the heavenly Christ had to be said to be “of David’s stock.� In regard to the Ascension, we might trace a pattern of development in this way. Salvation by God can only be provided through an intermediary divine figure, his own emanation, or Son. The mechanism of that salvation has to be a sacrifice. (The “why� of that is never explained.) To undergo that sacrifice, the Son must descend into a region where that is possible. There must be an agency performing that sacrifice: who else but evil spiritual forces? But chief among that sacrifice’s purpose is the destruction of those evil spirits, which are the agency of evil and misfortune in the world (God himself cannot be held responsible for it). Thus the spirits have to unwittingly perform the killing, which is made possible by their not recognizing his true identity, nor receiving warning of his approach. Aside, perhaps, from the rationale that evil spirits by nature do evil things, it probably did not trouble those who put all this together that they provided no ostensible or logical reason for the demons to kill this unknown passerby who entered their territory. No more than they were troubled by the larger question of why the Son’s killing would effect the release of the Righteous. Let’s not look for consistent logicality in religious doctrine—of any era.

And I guess I have to, once again, apologize for the length of a post. Perhaps now, if Don and others are so inclined, as I am sure they will be, we can take it apart and address individual pieces. And as I’ve said before, I would welcome comments from other observers as well, if they have ideas or judgments to contribute, so that it does not amount to simply me against the apologetic contingent.

TedM

You've given much food for thought. It's hard to even know what questions to ask without knowing exactly what is in each of the versions..

Something I don't understand is why the Lat2/Slav version would omit any reference in Chapter 11 to the crucifixion, the descent to Sheol, the plundering of the angel(s) of death there (which was the PURPOSE), and the ascent back into the firmament, and replace those things with the short verse about the son of man on earth.

Chapter 9 references all 4 things.
Chapter 10 references the last 3

Are those things in the Lat2/Slav version? If so:
Assuming some kind of re-working, why remove 4 references in chapter 11 and not in chapters 9 and 10? And why replace it with a verse that leaves him unrecognized on earth, followed by a verse where he is recognized in the firmament and then worshipped?

Have others noticed and commented on this strange version??


Can we with great certainty determine what the original text really said or didn't say? If not, what if we assume for the moment that the document was originally a story about a heavenly being (perhaps a high-ranking angel) who descended into the devil's worlds, and won a war against him, and that it had nothing to do with a crucifixion or rising from the dead? Such a story only has some vague similarities to Christianity.


Then, Christianity comes along, some of the similarities of AOI to Christianity are noticed, and some people decide to "update" the prophecy to become one about Christ. How can we know whether interpolations reflect an EVOLUTION of Christianity as opposed to various attempts by different interpolators to incorporate the gospel story onto a story about a spiritual battle in spiritual worlds, with some interpolators being more overt than others? In other words, is it not possible that what might appear to be an early Christian reference to a non-historical Jesus is really just the result of attempts to incorporate a historical Jesus into a story that doesn't involve events on earth? If so might not the result be a mix-match of events in both spiritual and fleshly realms, the emphasis being dependant on the preference of the interpolator, as well as his sensitivity to the need for AOI to retain the appearance of a prophecy by Isaiah some 750 years before Christ?

ted

EarlDoherty

Ted has posed some thoughtful and intelligent questions. I have myself wondered why the Lat/Slav version would show only that brief, rather cryptic reference to 'one like a son of man' on earth (not to be confused with the Q/Gospel "THE Son of Man"), unrecognized, assuming that something more in keeping with a parallel to those points Ted lists was cut to make way for it. Any suggestion would only be speculative, and the idea that the presumed missing material might have dropped out by mistake seems unlikely.

We might be thrown back on speculating that the very original version didn't in fact have much of anything here regarding the crucifixion and the actual rescue of the righteous from Sheol because it had been covered in previous passages, and perhaps at this point the original author wanted to simply focus on the descending progression through the spheres and the reverse ascent. It may be the reaction of the spirits he is interested in here, their ignorance on the way down, their recognition on the way back up. The latter he certainly devotes a vivid passage to. As I said, any 'explanation' would be speculative.

First of all, I think Ted has gone too far. Because a specific reference to the crucifixion is missing at the chapter 10 to 11 juncture does not mean that it is likely missing everywhere else. Postulating that the term "Christ" is a later addition does not mean that the whole idea of crucifixion is missing. That would gut the document almost to the point of vapidity. I would say that it was indeed an agent of God that descended, but almost certainly a "Son" (the focus on the Son idea throughout the Vision can hardly be gutted entirely). In other words, an "intermediary Son." And the focus on the rescue of the righteous and especially the destruction of the evil powers virtually requires the sacrifice idea to make such things possible. (A close parallel to the latter certainly exists in Paul.)

Anyway, this is my point. Whether you want to style this document "Christian" in some way, or more specifically "proto-Christian" it speaks to the overall picture I have tried to create, of a very diverse and almost amorphous tendency toward a type of religious belief which took many forms and expressions. The Ascension, I believe, demonstrates that some of the basic ideas behind the Christ story could exist in a primitive form with no connection to an historical figure, let alone a Gospel Jesus of Nazareth. And the evolution of the document in the direction of encompassing the addition of such a figure simply shows that what was to become the dominant expression of that broad amorphous tendency eventually imposed itself on everything else.

But one can't take refuge in thinking that the role played by this 'dominant expression' rescues the historicity of its central character and events. Rather, the overall picture, offering all these individual components that exist behind the Gospel story (not just in the Ascension), is an indicator that it was out of this kind of diversity that the Gospel concept itself coalesced. This is far more likely than that many different sects and doctrines relating to an intermediary Son across the empire arose which had little or no connection with each other, while at the same time one particular phenomenon based on an historical man happened to arise as well which embodied them all.

What we have here is a classic case of the evolution of ideas coming from many different sources (even if under a common, broad umbrella) developing into a form which tied them all together and took a new leap in translating them into the story of an imagined historical figure.

P.S. By the time I posted this, I noticed that Ted has rather extensively changed the final part of his post, so that the latter part of my quote from him above no longer appears. But I will let this post stand as is.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl. I don't have the background to analyse your comments on what the AofI may have contained originally I'm afraid, so I won't be able to comment on that. I'll just respond to the point addressed to me.I agree! And this is addressed in the AofI itself:

17. And I saw: In Nazareth He sucked the breast as a babe and as is customary in order that He might not be recognized.
18. And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem.
19. And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him

Christ on earth was noticed by Satan, though it took Christ working great signs and wonders in order for that to happen. Satan is obviously not omniscient, and even after noticing Christ, didn't recognise him for who he was.
Well, either way, the devil certainly noticed Christ while he was on earth, didn't he? So I'm not sure how this helps you. From 11:23, it looks like they didn't see Christ after crucifixion until after he actually started to ascend.

TedM

This site http://100.1911encyclopedia.org/I/IS...CENSION_OF.htm describes just how complicated a task it is to try and determine what the original AOI was like. I’m not going to take the time to attempt it. Therefore, what follows may be of no value for reasons known to scholars but not myself.


Earl, above I questioned whether or chapters 6-11 might have originally been a story about God’s agent from heaven coming down, destroying evil in the domain of evil, and then going back to heaven, without reference to a cross, or a descent to Sheol, or even Christ. You responded by saying that would require a major gutting of the document. I might suggest that the absence of mention of a crucifixion and descent to Sheol in Chapter 11 of the Lat2/Slav version would qualify as a serious gutting. When I mentioned these absences you responded with agreement that it is a surprising absence, and that maybe the author preferred to focus on the descent/ascent aspects of the story.

Because it does seem very odd that significant aspects of the events prophesied in chapter 9 aren’t reflected in Chapter 11, including mention of the ascent with those who had been dead AFTER the alleged interpolation, perhaps certain aspects of the accounts in Chapter 9 or 10 are part of the Christian re-working.

What if the original AOI was a story about the expected Messiah coming down only to the spirit world of demons in the firmament, having a battle, and then ascending back--enabling the righteous to receive their crowns and garments and to sit on their thrones? What if a creative thinker decided that the Messiac passages about a one whose “origin is from old, from ancient days� (Micah) and who would be victorious over those kingdoms of the world was an allegory about a heavenly being who would come down and wage war on the evil forces that control this world?

But, what if this vision says nothing of the being being the Son of God, or a crucifixion, or a descent to Sheol, or an ascent accompanied by believers? Would it not be feasible that THOSE aspects were LATER interpolated by Christians who mapped on ideas that came out of orthodox Christianity, which had been inspired by an actual man who had been crucified, and who was thought to have been the Messiah?


Note Chapter 7:9-12 AOI describes the evil state below the firmament, yet there is no reference to death, or the purpose to destroy death.

Below, I’ve highlighted in different colors certain sections of chapters 6-11, RH Charles’translation, as follows, which may have been interpolations that--when removed--leave us with an original Jewish document as described above:

Son, blue.
References to being in the flesh, green
Crucifixion, sacrifice red
Descent to Sheol, orange
Righteous ascent with heavenly being, purple
References to the Holy Spirit, bold
11:2-22, yellow

CHAPTER 6
The Vision Which Isaiah the Son of Amoz Saw:
In the twentieth year of the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah, came Isaiah the son of Amoz, and Josab the son of Isaiah to Hezekiah to Jerusalem from Galgala.
2. And (having entered) he sat down on the couch of the king, and they brought him a seat, but he would not sit (thereon).
3. And when Isaiah began to speak the words of faith and truth with King Hezekiah, all the princes of Israel were seated and the eunuchs and the councillors of the king. And there were there forty prophets and sons of the prophets: they had come from the villages and from the mountains and the plains when they had heard that Isaiah was coming from Galgala to Hezekiah.
4. And they had come to salute him and to hear his words.
5. And that he might place his hands upon them, and that they might prophesy and that he might hear their prophecy: and they were all before Isaiah.
6. And when Isaiah was speaking to Hezekiah the words of truth and faith, they all heard a door which one had opened and the voice of the Holy Spirit.
7. And the king summoned all the prophets and all the people who were found there, and they came. and Macaiah and the aged Ananias and Joel and Josab sat on his right hand (and on the left).
8. And it came to pass when they had all heard the voice of the Holy Spirit, they all worshipped on their knees, and glorified the God of truth, the Most High who is in the upper world and who sits on High the Holy One and who rest among His holy ones.
9. And they gave glory to Him who had thus bestowed a door in an alien world had bestowed (it) on a man.
10. And as he was speaking in the Holy Spirit in the hearing of all, he became silent and his mind was taken up from him and he saw not the men that stood before him.
11. Though his eyes indeed were open. Moreover his lips were silent and the mind in his body was taken up from him.
12. But his breath was in him; for he was seeing a vision.
13. And the angel who was sent to make him see was not of this firmament, nor was he of the angels of glory of this world, but he had come from the seventh heaven.
14. And the people who stood near did (not) think, but the circle of the prophets (did), that the holy Isaiah had been taken up.
15. And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not from this world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh.
16. And after Isaiah had seen this vision, he narrated it to Hezekiah, and to Josab his son and to the other prophets who had come.
17. But the leaders and the eunuchs and the people did not hear, but only Samna the scribe, and Ijoaqem, and Asaph the recorder; for these also were doers of righteousness, and the sweet smell of the Spirit was upon them. But the people had not heard; for Micaiah and Josab his son had caused them to go forth, when the wisdom of this world had been taken form him and he became as one dead.

CHAPTER 7
AND the vision which Isaiah saw, he told to Hezekiah and Josab his son and Micaiah and the rest of the prophets, (and) said:
2. At this moment, when I prophesied according to the (words) heard which ye heard, I saw a glorious angel not like unto the glory of the angels which I used always to see, but possessing such glory ad position that I cannot describe the glory of that angel.
3. And having seized me by my hand he raised me on high, and I said unto him: "Who art thou, and what is thy name, and whither art thou raising me on high? for strength was given me to speak with him."
4. And he said unto me: "When I have raised thee on high [though the (various) degrees] and made thee see the vision, on account of which I have been sent, then thou wilt understand who I am: but my name thou dost not know.
5. Because thou wilt return into this thy body, but whither I am raising thee on high, thou wilt see; for for this purpose have I been sent."
6. And I rejoiced because he spake courteously to me.
7. And he said unto me: "Hast thou rejoiced because I have spoken courteously to thee?" And he said: "And thou wilt see how a grater also that I am will speak courteously and peaceably with thee."
8. And His Father also who is greater thou wilt see; for for this purpose have I been sent from the seventh heaven in order to explain all these things unto thee."
9. And we ascended to the firmament, I and he, and there I saw Sammael and his hosts, and there was great fighting therein and the angels of Satan were envying one another.
10. And as above so on the earth also; for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is here on the earth.
11. And I said unto the angel (who was with me): "(What is this war and) what is this envying?"
12. And he said unto me: "So has it been since this world was made until now, and this war (will continue) till He, whom thou shalt see will come and destroy him."
13. And afterwards he caused me to ascend (to that which is) above the firmament: which is the (first) heaven.
14. And there I saw a throne in the midst, and on his right and on his left were angels.
15. And (the angels on the left were) not like unto the angels who stood on the right, but those who stood on the right had the greater glory, and they all praised with one voice, and there was a throne in the midst, and those who were out he left gave praise after them; but their voice was not such as the voice of those on the right, nor their praise like the praise of those.
16. And I asked the angel who conducted me, and I said unto him: "To whom is this praise sent?"
17. And he said unto me: "(it is sent) to the praise of (Him who sitteth in) the seventh heaven: to Him who rests in the holy world, and to His Beloved, whence I have been sent to thee. [Thither is it sent.]"
18. And again, he made me to ascend to the second heaven. now the height of that heaven is the same as from the haven to the earth [and to the firmament].
19. And (I saw there, as) in the first heaven, angels on the right and on the left, and a throne in the midst, and the praise of the angels in the second heaven; and he who sat on the throne in the second heaven was more glorious than all (the rest).
20. And there was great glory in the second heaven, and the praise also was not like the praise of those who were in the first heaven.
21. And I fell on my face to worship him, but he angel who conducted me did not permit me, but said unto me: "Worship neither throne nor angel which belongs to the six heavens - for for this cause I was sent to conduct thee j- until I tell thee in the seventh heaven.
22. For above all the heavens and their angels has thy throne been placed, and thy garments and thy crown which thou shalt see."
23. And I rejoiced with great joy, that those who love the Most High and His Beloved afterwards ascend thither by the angel of the Holy Spirit.
24. And he raise me to the third heaven, and in like manner I saw those upon the right and upon the left, and there was a throne there in the midst; but the memorial of this world is there unheard of.
25. And I said to the angel who was with me; for the glory of my appearance was undergoing transformation as I ascended to each heaven in turn: "Nothing of the vanity of that world is here named."
26. And he answered me, and said unto me: "Nothing is named on account of its weakness, and nothing is hidden there of what is done."
27. And I wished to learn how it is know, and he answered me saying: "When I have raised thee to the seventh heaven whence I was sent, to that which is above these, then thou shalt know that there is nothing hidden from the thrones and from those who dwell in the heavens and from the angels. And the praise wherewith they praised and glory of him who sat on the throne was great, and the glory of the angels on the right hand and on the left was beyond that of the heaven which was below them.
28. And again he raised me to the fourth heaven, and the height from the third to the height from the third to the forth heaven was greater than from the earth to the firmament.
29. And there again I saw those who were on the right hand and those who were on the left, and him who sat on the throne was in the midst, and there also they were praising.
30. And the praise and glory of the angels on the right was greater than that of those on the left.
31. And again the glory of him who sat on the throne was greater than that of the angels on the right, and their glory was beyond that of those who were below.
32. And he raised me to the fifth heaven.
33. And again I saw those upon the right hand and on the left, and him who sat on the throne possessing greater glory that those of the forth heaven.
34. And the glory of those on the right hand was greater than that of those on the left [from the third to the fourth].
35. And the glory of him who was on the throne was greater than that of the angels on the right hand.
36. And their praise was more glorious than that of the fourth heaven.
37. And I praised Him, who is not named and the Only-begotten who dwelleth in the heavens, whose name is not known to any flesh, who has bestowed such glory on the several heaves, and who makes great the glory of the angels, and more excellent the glory of Him who sitteth on the throne.

CHAPTER 8
AND again he raised me into the air of the sixth heaven, and I saw such glory as I had not seen in the five heavens.
2. For I saw angels possessing great glory.
3. And the praise there was holy and wonderful.
4. And I said to the angel who conducted me: "What is this which I see, my Lord?"
5. And he said: "I am not thy lord, but thy fellow servant."
6. And again I asked him, and I said unto him: "Why are there not angelic fellow servants (on the left)?"
7. And he said: "From the sixth heaven there are no longer angels on the left, nor a throne set in the midst, but (they are directed) by the power of the seventh heaven, where dwelleth He that is not named and the Elect One, whose name has not been made known, and none of the heavens can learn His name.
8. For it is He alone to whose voice all the heavens and thrones give answer. I have therefore been empowered and sent to raise thee here that thou mayest see this glory.
9. And that thou mayest see the Lord of all those heavens and these thrones.
10. Undergoing (successive) transformation until He resembles your form and likeness.[/b]
11. I indeed say unto thee, Isaiah; No man about to return into a body of that world has ascended or seen what thou seest or perceived what thou hast perceived and what thou wilt see.
12. For it has been permitted to thee in the lot of the Lord to come hither. [And from thence comes the power of the sixth heaven and of the air]."
13. And I magnified my Lord with praise, in that through His lot I should come hither.
14. And he said: "Hear, furthermore, therefore, this also from thy fellow servant: when from the body by the will of God thou hast ascended hither, then thou wilt receive the garment which thou seest, and likewise other numbered garments laid up (there) thou wilt see.
15. And then thou wilt become equal to the angels of the seventh heaven.
16. And he raised me up into the sixth heaven, and there were no (angels) on the left, nor a throne in the midst, but all had one appearance and their (power of) praise was equal.
17. And (power) was given to me also, and I also praised along with them and that angel also, and our praise was like theirs.
18. And there they all named the primal Father and His Beloved, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit, all with one voice.
19. And (their voice) was not like the voice of the angels in the five heavens.
20. [Nor like their discourse] but the voice was different there, and there was much light there.
21. And then, when I was in the sixth heaven I thought the light which I had seen in the five heavens to be but darkness.
22. And I rejoiced and praised Him who hath bestowed such lights on those who wait for His promise.
23. And I besought the angel who conducted me that I should not henceforth return to the carnal world.
24. I say indeed unto you, Hezekiah and Josab my son and Micaiah, that there is much darkness here.
25. And the angel who conducted me discovered what I thought and said: "If in this light thou dost rejoice, how much more wilt thou rejoice, when in the seventh heaven thou seest the light where is the Lord and His Beloved [whence I have been sent, who is to be called "Son" in this world.
26. Not (yet) hath been manifested he shall be in the corruptible world] and the garments, and the thrones, and the crowns which are laid up for the righteous, for those who trust in that Lord who will descend in your form. For the light which is there is great and wonderful.
27. And as concerning thy not returning into the body thy days are not yet fulfilled for coming here."
28. And when I heard (that) I was troubled, and he said: "Do not be troubled."

CHAPTER 9
AND he took me into the air of the seventh heaven, and moreover I heard a voice saying: "How far will he ascend that dwelleth in the flesh?" And I feared and trembled.
2. And when I trembled, behold, I heard from hence another voice being sent forth, and saying: "It is permitted to the holy Isaiah to ascend hither; for here is his garment."
3. And I asked the angel who was with me and said: "Who is he who forbade me and who is he who permitted me to ascend?"
4. And he said unto me: "He who forbade thee, is he who is over the praise-giving of the sixth heaven.
5. And He who permitted thee, this is thy Lord God, the Lord Christ, who will be called "Jesus" in the world, but His name thou canst not hear till thou hast ascended out of thy body."
6. And he raised me up into the seventh heaven, and I saw there a wonderful light and angels innumerable.
7. And there I saw the holy Abel and all the righteous.
8. And there I saw Enoch and all who were with him, stript of the garments of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great glory.
9. And there I saw Enoch and all who were with him, stript of the garments of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great glory.
10. But they sat not on their thrones, nor were their crowns of glory on them.
11. And I asked the angel who was with me: "How is it that they have received the garments, but have not the thrones and the crowns?"
12. And he said unto me: "Crowns and thrones of glory they do not receive, till the Beloved will descent in the form in which you will see Him descent [will descent, I say] into the world in the last days the Lord, who will be called Christ.
13. Nevertheless they see and know whose will be thrones, and whose the crowns when He has descended and been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man.
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.
15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.
16. And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day, [and he will remain in that world five hundred and forty-five days].
17. And then many of the righteous will ascend with Him, whose spirits do not receive their garments till the Lord Christ ascend and they ascend with Him.
18. Then indeed they will receive their [garments and] thrones and crowns, when He has ascended into the seventh heaven."
19. And I said unto him that which I had asked him in the third heaven:
20. "Show me how everything which is done in that world is here made known."
21. And whilst I was still speaking with him, behold one of the angels who stood nigh, more glorious than the glory of that angel, who had raised me up from the world.
22. Showed me a book, [but not as a book of this world] and he opened it, and the book was written, but not as a book of this world. And he gave (it) to me and I read it, and lo! the deeds of the children of Israel were written therein, and the deeds of those whom I know (not), my son Josab.
23. And I said: "In truth, there is nothing hidden in the seventh heaven, which is done in this world."
24. And I saw there many garments laid up, and many thrones and many crowns.
25. And I said to the angel: "Whose are these garments and thrones and crowns?"
26. And he said unto me: "These garments many from that world will receive, believing in the words of That One, who shall be named as I told thee, and they will observe those things, and believe in them, and believe in His cross: for them are these laid up."
27. And I saw a certain One standing, whose glory surpassed that of all, and His glory was great and wonderful.
28. And after I had seen Him, all the righteous whom I had seen and also the angels whom I had seen came to Him. And Adam and Abel and Seth and all the righteous first drew near and worshipped Him, and they all praised Him with one voice, and I myself also gave praise with them, and my giving of praise was as theirs.
29. And then all the angels drew nigh and worshipped and gave praise.
30. And I was (again) transformed and became like an angel.
31. And thereupon the angel who conducted me said to me: "Worship this One," and I worshipped and praised.
32. And the angel said unto me: "This is the Lord of all the praise-givings which thou hast seen."
33. And whilst he was still speaking, [b]I saw another Glorious One who was like Him[b], and the righteous drew nigh and worshipped and praised, and I praised together with them. But my glory was not transformed into accordance with their form.
34. And thereupon the angels drew near and worshipped Him.
35. And I saw the Lord and the second angel, and they were standing.

36. And the second whom I saw was on he left of my Lord. And I asked: "Who is this?" and he said unto me: "Worship Him, for He is the angel of the Holy Spirit, who speaketh in thee and the rest of the righteous."
37. And I saw the great glory, the eyes of my spirit being open, and I could not thereupon see, nor yet could the angel who was with me, nor all the angels whom I had seen worshipping my Lord.
38. But I saw the righteous beholding with great power the glory of that One.
39. And my Lord drew nigh to me and the angel of the Spirit and He said: "See how it is given to thee to see God, and on thy account power is given to the angel who is with thee."
40. And I saw how my Lord and the angel of the Spirit worshipped, and they both together praised God.
41. And thereupon all the righteous drew near and worshipped.
42. And the angels drew near and worshipped and all the angels praised.


CHAPTER 10
AND thereupon I heard the voices and the giving of praise, which I had heard in each of the six heavens, ascending and being heard there:
2. And all were being sent up to that Glorious One whose glory I could not behold.
3. And I myself was hearing and beholding the praise (which was given) to Him.
4. And the Lord and the angel of the Spirit were beholding all and hearing all.
5. And all the praises which are sent up from the six heavens are not only heard, but seen.
6. And I heard the angel who conducted me and he said: "This is the Most High of the high ones, dwelling in the holy world, and resting in His holy ones, who will be called by the Holy Spirit through the lips of the righteous the Father of the Lord."
7. And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, saying to my Lord Christ who will be called Jesus:
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.
9. And thou wilt become like unto the likeness of all who are in the five heavens.
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].
11. And none of the angels of that world shall know that Thou art with Me of the seven heavens and of their angels.

PURPOSE
12. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order
that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world, and the world that is dominated by them:
13. For they have denied Me and said: "We alone are and there is none beside us."

14. And afterwards from the angels of death Thou wilt ascend to Thy place. And Thou wilt not be transformed in each heaven, but in glory wilt Thou ascend and sit on My right hand.
15. And thereupon the princes and powers of that world will worship Thee."

16. These commands I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.
17. And so I saw my Lord go forth from the seventh heaven into the sixth heaven.
18. And the angel who conducted me [from this world was with me and] said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah, and see the transformation and descent of the Lord will appear."
19. And I saw, and when the angels saw Him, thereupon those in the sixth heaven praised and lauded Him; for He had not been transformed after the shape of the angels there, and they praised Him and I also praised with them.
20. And I saw when He descended into the fifth heaven, that in the fifth heaven He made Himself like unto the form of the angels there, and they did not praise Him (nor worship Him); for His form was like unto theirs.
21. And then He descended into the forth heaven, and made Himself like unto the form of the angels there.
22. And when they saw Him, they did not praise or laud Him; for His form was like unto their form.
23. And again I saw when He descended into the third heaven, and He made Himself like unto the form of the angels in the third heaven.
24. And those who kept the gate of the (third) heaven demanded the password, and the Lord gave (it) to them in order that He should not be recognized. And when they saw Him, they did not praise or laud Him; for His form was like unto their form.
25. And again I saw when He descended into the second heaven, and again He gave the password there; those who kept the gate proceeded to demand and the Lord to give.
26. And I saw when He made Himself like unto the form of the angels in the second heaven, and they saw Him and they did not praise Him; for His form was like unto their form.
27. And again I saw when He descended into the first heaven, and there also He gave the password to those who kept the gate, and He made Himself like unto the form of the angels who were on the left of that throne, and they neither praised nor lauded Him; for His form was like unto their form.
28. But as for me no one asked me on account of the angel who conducted me.
29. And again He descended into the firmament where dwelleth the ruler of this world, and He gave the password to those on the left, and His form was like theirs, and they did not praise Him there; but they were envying one another and fighting; for here there is a power of evil and envying about trifles.
30. And I saw when He descended and made Himself like unto the angels of the air, and He was like one of them.
31. And He gave no password; for one was plundering and doing violence to another.

CHAPTER 11
AFTER this I saw, and the angel who spoke with me, who conducted me, said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz; for for this purpose have I been sent from God."


2. And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah.
3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.
4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.
13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."
14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was.
15. And they took Him, and went to Nazareth in Galilee.
16. And I saw, O Hezekiah and Josab my son, and I declare to the other prophets also who are standing by, that (this) hath escaped all the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of this world.
17. And I saw: In Nazareth He sucked the breast as a babe and as is customary in order that He might not be recognized.
18. And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem.
19. And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).
20. In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree:
21. And likewise after the third day rise again and remain days.
22. And the angel who conducted me said: "Understand, Isaiah": and I saw when He sent out the Twelve Apostles and ascended.




23. And I saw Him, and He was in the firmament, but He had not changed Himself into their form, and all the angels of the firmament and the Satans saw Him and they worshipped.
24. And there was much sorrow there, while they said: "How did our Lord descend in our midst, and we perceived not the glory [which has been upon Him], which we see has been upon Him from the sixth heaven?"
25. And He ascended into the second heaven, and He did not transform Himself, but all the angels who were on the right and on the left and the throne in the midst.
26. Both worshipped Him and praised Him and said: "How did our Lord escape us whilst descending, and we perceived not?"
27. And in like manner He ascended into the third heaven, and they praised and said in like manner.
28. And in the fourth heaven and in the fifth also they said precisely after the same manner.
29. But there was one glory, and from it He did not change Himself.
30. And I saw when He ascended into the sixth heaven, and they worshipped and glorified Him.
31. But in all the heavens the praise increased (in volume).

32. And I saw how He ascended into the seventh heaven, and all the righteous and all the angels praised Him. And then I saw Him sit down on the right hand of that Great Glory whose glory I told you that I could not behold.
33. And also the angel of the Holy Spirit I saw sitting on the left hand.
34. And this angel said unto me: "Isaiah, son of Amoz, it is enough for thee;... for thou hast seen what no child of flesh has seen.
35. And thou wilt return into thy garment (of the flesh) until thy days are completed. Then thou wilt come hither."
36. These things Isaiah saw and told unto all that stood before him, and they praised. And he spake to Hezekiah the King and said: "I have spoken these things."
37. Both the end of this world;
38. And all this vision will be consummated in the last generations.
39. And Isaiah made him swear that he would not tell (it) to the people of Israel, nor give these words to any man to transcribe.
40. ...such things ye will read. and watch ye in the Holy Spirit in order they ye may receive your garments and thrones and crowns of glory which are laid up in the seventh heaven.
41. On account of these visions and prophecies Sammael Satan sawed in sunder Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet, by the hand of Manasseh.
42. And all these things Hezekiah delivered to Manasseh in the twenty-sixth year.
43. But Manasseh did not remember them nor place these things in his heart, but becoming the servant of Satan he was destroyed. Here endeth the vision of Isaiah the prophet with his ascension.


As one can see, removal of only small number of verses is needed to get back to a very simply story of Messiac triumph in the spirit world. Whether this is a pre-curser to orthodox Christianity, or a document that was modified to introduce orthodox concepts which originated from real events on earth, seems to me to be a very difficult question to answer.

Comments?

ted

EarlDoherty

Ted, I have to admire the dogged work you seem to be putting into several threads over the last few weeks. As to your theoretical 'reconstruction' of the Ascension 6-11, I suppose anyone determined or clever enough could alter a relatively few verses and turn it into any number of alternate stories. So it's a little difficult to evaluate your particular exercise.

One required standard, however, is that the end result conform to some broader set of ideas we can identify elsewhere, or can fit into a scenario that can be argued on a broader front, such as I've done in relating my interpretation of the Ascension to many other aspects of the general Jesus-myth scenario. I can't see that you've done this with the case of your "messiah coming down to battle the demon spirits of the firmament". You would have to outline a context for the creation of such a story and what purpose it would serve for the sect that created it. Then you would have to find parallels for such an idea in other documents and compare them. You would also have to present a case that your interpretation of it was more compelling and demonstrable than mine.

Otherwise, it seems to me you are just out on a limb with an interesting product, but with no way of proving anything.

TedM

The idea of a Messiah coming down into the firmament and doing things is one you have argued for. The only difference I see with what I've come up with is the idea that instead of being crucified there he did battle there against evil forces. Since doing battle with the opponents of Israel was one of the expectations for the Messiah, it seems that the idea that it take place against their spiritual opponents in the firmament, is not that much different than the idea of a Sacrificial Servant Messiah being sacrificed in that same firmament via a crucifixion. Both result in a victory over evil as a result of actions taken by the Messiah.

The crucifixion is actually a more advanced idea theologically since the victory over evil is not a direct victory (as in battle), but is a victory over the power claimed for evil over death. In addition, a battle victory was more in keeping with the traditional Jewish Messiah expectations than was a Messiah that dies.


As stated before, I don't know enough about the conclusions by the scholars on this document. My idea may not be realistic given what scholars have determined. If it isn't precluded by their findings, then I think it should be considered for the following reasons:

1. As shown above, it would not have require a large amount of Christian interpolation to advance it to the present form, as compared to the amount already alleged to be interpolated.

2. The Lat2/Slav absence of references in Chapter 11 that tie back to Chapter 9 is better explained by the idea that the Christian interpolator removed a more primitive battle scene than a MORE advanced Christian scene of crucifixion, defeat of death, and resurrection with saints.

3. The basic concepts are a subset of your proposed evolution of Christianity anyway, are they not?: Messiah descent, Messiah victory in the invisible world found in the firmament, Messiah ascent. I think you have argued for early belief in a uncrucified Messiah elsewhere (the Didache comes to mind).


If this is a valid idea, then the possibility remains that the AOI looks the way it does now because a real person (Jesus) was mapped onto it with varying levels of sophistication, resulting in the mixture of ideas now represented. In such a scenrio he would have been mapped onto it because it was believed that he had fulfilled the prophecy, which the orthodox Christians would then have believed was written in allegory form.



Having said all of this, I'm not sure I buy into it, and still see the crucifixion in AOI as happening on earth, given the references to "that world", Satans "stretched hand" , and emphasis on Jesus taking on the same form as Isaiah, ie human flesh. I don't find the arguments regarding the primitive nature of 11:2-22 to have much strength since one of the goals of writing prophecy AFTER THE FACT might be to make parts vague enough to appear primitive. Why some is detailed (Mary and Joseph) and others not (an unspecified king and unspecified miracles) could be due to multiple interpolators or the whims of the writer as opposed to a lack of an evolved tradition at the time of writing.

ted

krosero

It may surprise you, Earl (I’m going to call you by your first name since I’m doing so with everyone else), to hear that I find at least some of the reasoning in your opening post to be correct. Let me get to that after posing a question for you.

My first question is about chapter 9, verses 12-13:

Isaiah is told, in short, that these men in spiritual garment will receive thrones and crowns when the Beloved “has descended and become like you in form�. A literal translation, Knibb notes, is “like your form.�

Now, when Isaiah hears “your form�, he will think of himself. He, or the reader, will think of a mortal human form. I know what the usual response has been for this: that the Son can take on human “likeness� in the heavens. I don’t deny that such a likeness was thought possible, between human beings and spiritual beings. What I want to know is why Isaiah is told “your form�. Why is he not told in 9:13 that Abel and Enoch will have crowns and thrones when the Son descends into the realm of the gods who rule the world and takes on “their form�? Instead what we see in the document is the idea that the Son will first deceive and then destroy these powers. We hear – not in 9:13, but elsewhere – that he takes on their form, to deceive them.

If the underlying idea is that Abel and Enoch will reap the fruits of the final victory when the Son takes on the form of the demons in order to encounter them, then the Son should be said in this verse to take on “their form� (a phrase that is used in the document to refer, not to humans, but to the angels who inhabit the firmament and the heavens). Instead it says that the Son’s victory happens when he takes on “your form�. And when the Son takes on the form of the firmament’s powers, it is to deceive them (as clarified only two verses later, in verse 15), not to engage them. I know that you are proposing an engagement with angelic powers in the firmament, but you’ve said yourself that it’s been “excised� from our current texts.

As a supporting argument I would add that there is a distinction, or difference, in this document between the form of mortals on the earth and the form of angels in the firmament. When Christ descends into the firmament and encounters its angels, he is in their form. He so closely resembles them that he goes unnoticed (10:29-31). Isaiah needs an angel to conduct him so that he is not asked for passwords (10:28); presumably human mortals are rarely, if ever, seen ascending through the firmament or the heavens. So why is Isaiah told that the human beings he has seen in the seventh heaven – Abel, Enoch and “all the righteous� – will receive their crowns when the Son descends into “your form�?

The orthodox answer is that the Son’s descent into human form gives victory and power to humans (that is a truly believable “paradigmatic guarantee�). In the mythicist model, the ancient reader was supposed to know that “your form� means a form that includes angelic powers of the firmament where human mortals never reside and rarely climb without foreign assistance.

Let me list what I think are the main verses supporting the non-mythicist reading:

Now I want to address the question of what the original version contained.

I can see why you would argue that 11:2-22 is an “enlargement of the� one-verse summary of the Son’s earthly life that appears in the Lat/Slav version. You argue further that the one-verse summary appeared about the time that people were starting to conceive of an HJ, after a putative MJ Vision of Isaiah had already been composed. But there are several problems with this thesis.

You object to the idea that the Lat/Slav version should have cut rather than expanded. You ask why a Christian editor would abandon a 20-verse account of the Son’s life on earth only to replace it with a one-verse summary. Yet you’ve noted yourself that 9:12-13 is “rearranged and somewhat simplified, and the reference to ‘Christ’ and ‘they will think he is flesh and a man’ is not included.� So this version, which drops 11:2-22, is seen elsewhere to simplify and even to drop. As you say, it also drops the first five chapters.

I checked out some other views. Jonathan Knight, in The Ascension of Isaiah (1995), writes about the tendency of the Lat/Slav version to abbreviate. He refers to the two texts that were built on it, L2 and S (or 2nd Latin and Slavic), and suggests that “both versions were based on an abbreviated text of the Ascension of Isaiah which circulated in the patristic period� (p. 24). He elaborates:

R.H. Charles, in Ascension of Isaiah (1900), gives other examples of abbreviation. He writes:

It also turns out that the Lat/Slav version drops one of your key phrases, “from earth to the firmament�, in 7:28, which you have been using as evidence that this author thought there was a distance between earth and the lowest part of the firmament.

At any rate, all these examples of excisions and abbreviations serve as evidence that authors did not always expand or even keep the length of the texts in front of them.

The next problem I see is that the opening 5 chapters of the Ascension, known as the Martyrdom of Isaiah, contain a very developed HJ narrative, in 3:13–4:22, sometimes called the Testament of Hezekiah: an apocalypse referring to Nero’s persecution. This Christian addition to the originally Jewish work refers more than once to Isaiah’s vision of the descent through the many heavens and a detailed HJ life on earth.

Knibb says on p. 148 of his introduction that “3:13 clearly alludes to chapters 6-11, and there are also a number of other links between 3:13–4:22.� The vision of the Son’s descent was therefore known to the author of 3:13–4:22, which Knibb dates on several grounds to the end of the 1st century. Therefore, by around the year 100, an HJ author referred to Isaiah as having a vision of the Beloved descending all the way to earth and having a detailed career, with a detailed aftermath for the Church. The full HJ version of chapters 6-11 existed very early, in contrast with your thesis.

Then we encounter the problem that TedM brought up. The 20 verses of 11:2-22 contain more than the life of the Son, which you describe as sticking out as a sore thumb without preparation outside itself. It also contains three elements that the text has prepared in 9:14-16, namely the crucifixion, the plundering of the angel of death in Sheol (for that see also 10:8), and the ascension.

And without those elements, as you say, there is an unexplained hiatus. First the Son arrives unnoticed in the firmament. Then he is being praised in the firmament. The passages do not flow if you take out the interpolation; they flow if you keep it. One way or another, it’s obvious that the heart of the story, the climax, is missing.

In sum, because the document predicts the Son’s transformation into “your form� three times (8:10, 8:26, 9:13), and because the early passage in 3:13–4:22 refers to a Vision of descent into a life on earth, I propose that the original Vision in chs. 6-11 included a transformation into human form like Isaiah’s.

You say that the Son can hardly be meant to “judge and destroy� the earth or its rulers, and that he is meant only to destroy the demons. The text does speak of judging and destroying “the world which is ruled by them," but as you imply, while judgment can apply to everything under the moon, wholesale destruction cannot. However, this cuts both ways. The Son’s mission cannot be to destroy the firmament, anymore than to destroy the earth. In fact, your argument is that the firmament contained counterparts to common things on earth, so there was a whole world in the firmament to destroy. I think you would agree with me, then, that “destroy� cannot be a literal and blanket doom.

You say that the Son’s purpose is “nothing on earth,� but you’re including the descent to Sheol as part of the story. The Son’s purpose is therefore at least inside the earth, so to speak. I’m not making a purely literal objection; hear out the argument. The angel of death, as you say, controlled the souls of the dead. In fact he seems to reside in Sheol, though as a power and not as a captive: “You will ascend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol� (10:8); “And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day…� (9:16). In Sheol, then, after his own death, the Son will come into contact with the angel of death and defeat him. If the Son’s death is upon Pilate’s cross, then the encounter(s) in the underworld takes place before the third day comes, as the Ascension of Isaiah and orthodox Christianity have always said.

And this is why it’s strange when you argue that the Son’s purpose clearly cannot be “on earth� (presumably you mean the surface of the earth). It is far from clear. If the Son were said to encounter the angel of death in the firmament (where battle is ongoing), then the case would be stronger that the Son was never meant to do anything on earth, since his mission was excluded from ever descending that far. But in the story’s core that you accept, he is in fact descending that far, and farther; he’s encountering the angel of death in Sheol. Whether he stopped, so to speak, on the surface of the earth, is a question that we are disputing, of course. Read on for that.

This conclusion is too dogmatic for me. A Gnostic or proto-gnostic text (which you say the Ascension could be) would focus very naturally on spiritual events. Any platonically minded author would do so as well. An orthodox author who was mystically minded could do so – and you have said many times that this was a mystically minded age. Leaving aside mystical thought, any orthodox author, wanting to build on a known gospel story, would add to it certain elements that he would concentrate on, and in this case his focus was the descent and ascent (you have said yourself this could have been what the author wanted to focus on).

There is another way to look at it. You’ve likened this story to a rescue, and I think it’s not a bad analogy. Let’s go with it, and think of a hero figure whose purpose is to rescue hostages in a bank that’s been seized by gunmen. Like the Son, our hero is directed by a higher authority to carry off the rescue. Their natural focus is quite necessarily on the question of the opposition. The hostages themselves are not enemies or, strictly speaking, obstacles. It’s as if someone tells the hero figure to rescue hostages. Then, as a very important aside, he says, “Now, about the gunmen. Conceal yourself so they don’t stop you.� At that point, whatever needs to be said about gunmen will focus on gunmen, not on hostages.

True, we hear no directions about what to do on earth. I do not consider this a problem in a vision about descent and ascent; I consider anything else to be understood context. This document is not a presentation to pagans. It looks very much like something for converted Christians – an elaboration on their faith, though mystical means that will reveal what they do not yet know.

If they held to a mythicist crucifixion, then you should apply your standard. The Son is told that he will be summoned from Sheol and he will destroy the principalities, but why don’t we hear anything about how the Son must get there by stopping in the firmament and allowing himself to be killed, on a cross?

The passage in question, giving directions to the Son, is simply about concealment: it says that the descent will be hidden “even from the heavens�, and the plain sense here is that no one in the heavens will note the descent and passing of this figure, since they do not recognize the figure. As noted above, the warring angels do not even ask for a password.

And this brings me to another objection. In verse 11:24, the powers of the firmament are asking incredulously, “How did our Lord descend upon us, and we did not notice the glory which was upon him, which we (now) see was upon him from the sixth heaven?� Why do they not say, “How did our Lord descend upon us, and how did we crucify him, and not know who he was?� Shock at being deceived by the descent should hardly be the only, or even the first, thing on the minds of those who realized they have crucified the Lord.

As I noted, the text speaks of the descent being unnoticed because the identity is concealed. It ALL goes right past the eyes of the demons. You are suggesting something more like a “stop� in the firmament, wherein some powers stop their continual fighting to kill the Son, who thereafter defeats at least one great power and at some point reveals his true identity. But nowhere does the text speak of a “stop� for these events, or any kind of “stop�, in the firmament: there is no stop on the way down or the way back up. To paraphrase your words about a sojourn on earth: “No mention is made, nor room given, for a sojourn and activity� in the firmament. But all the texts we do have speak of a stop, with specific encounters, in Sheol. And all the present texts make some mention of a sojourn on the surface of the earth.

I find the “stretching out� of the hand to be a strong allusion to distance of some kind. When God is said to stretch out his hand, we all know what that means: he is somewhere, and the object to which he is stretching out his hand is elsewhere. That’s Biblical imagery. If the Ascension was at all in tune with Biblical imagery (as the association with characters in the book of Isaiah strongly suggests), then Satan really is stretching out his hand to a thing that is not where he is. No doubt you will say that he is merely stretching out his hand to another part of the firmament; I would find it more convincing if Satan were simply said to locate and overcome the Son in the heavens, rather than “stretching out� his hand.

On the question of ancient diversity, here is where I think your work has been strongest. I don’t mean that I’m in agreement with all the ways you reconstruct the elements of the diversity. And many authors today are talking about diversity. But I do think you have a point when you argue that Jesus of Nazareth could not have given rise to every element that we see in early Christianity. (This could be a straw man argument on your part, but the historicist paradigms, especially the older ones, might in fact speak about Jesus starting everything). I think it should be a truism by now that these elements were there already. Gnosticism, for instance, predates Christianity. Its various forms had more than one savior figure, you’ve told us. Well, it follows naturally that Christ was sometimes identified as a savior figure in certain Gnostic strands. Identification of a new figure with an old one goes on all the time. The Hebrews probably identified the gods of their antiquity as one, and called him the one true God. The first Christians identified Christ with the Jewish God. The Logos got identified with Christ. Identification between myriad gods occurs profusely in Hinduism. In India, Christ himself is sometimes said to be the latest incarnation of Vishnu; and in other ways they make room for him. Just as surely, the ancient world made room, when they wished, for Christ, in their mythologies. But Jesus, if he existed, would have been spoken about in pre-existing categories. And Jesus, if he existed, could easily stimulate new ideas or thoughts based on the pre-existent paradigms. You have said yourself that the historicist Gospels were in fact a strand added to the environment. Whether the Gospels present history, or midrash, is another matter from the question of which of the later elements of Christianity can be correctly attributed to the Gospels.

In short, you’re right about the diversity. But in the case of the existence of Christ, diversity proves nothing but itself.

I have a question for you. Your analogy speaks of a rescue operation, but that analogy fails to evoke the central part of this whole drama, the crucifixion, which you place in the firmament and historicists place on earth. Perhaps the analogy will hold if we speak of a rescue accomplished as Sydney Carton did it in “A Tale of Two Cities�: disguising himself as the intended victim in order to take his place. You have this idea in your description above: the Son “is sacrificed unwittingly by them, dies into Sheol and there rises�.

Do we have evidence that a spirit assaulted in the firmament by other spirits (as in the ongoing war) died in the sense that humans died? I mean that human bodies remained on earth after death while the soul was thought to descend into Sheol; that belief is attested in the Ascension. Where do we have evidence that a spirit defeated above would “die into Sheol�? And is this what the ancients thought? Did they imagine that this spirit had to separate from its “fleshly� component and then descend to Sheol, to join men and women like Abraham, Miriam, Socrates and so forth?

krosero

Earl, concerning this quote from the Ascension, you write:

Is it actually Knibb’s opinion that “Jesus� and “Christ� are later additions? This is his footnote in full:

The way I read it, Knibb is not opining that these names were added later, but rejecting that option, presumably because there are problems with it. I hear Knibb saying that Ascension 8:7 (in the E version but not in the Lat2 and Slav version, per his note on that verse) and Rev 19:12 speak of a secret name, and that Ascension 9:5 expresses the same idea.

krosero

This quote from Earl’s opening post above proposes a “separation between layers of the sublunary region.� Let me try to summarize a few things about the debate concerning the firmament and the heavens, which is at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=143542 ("Reply to 3 of Carrier's claims against Muller regarding Doherty's thesis").

Don has been saying that everything underneath the (universally attested) dome holding up the heavens was the same world, in the sense that it was the world which humans and demons shared. Demons could fly in the air, certainly, but they “shared� the earth’s rocky surface and Sheol with humans, and were thought to “share� human bodies, in the sense of demonic possession. This is a world of sharing, not of separate counterparts. Demons and humans share envy. They share warmaking. One side (the demons), attacks the other (human beings). This is not like saying that earthly things have heavenly counterparts. Above the dome of the firmament, Platonists believed things to exist which were the reflecting counterparts of things on earth. That is very different from a world in which demons and human beings merely were vying with each other.

Furthermore, the Platonic forms were idealized and abstract, as Don has been saying – he pointed out the contrast with demons, which were thought to inhabit a realm along with fleshly creatures not because they were ideal and distant counterparts, but because they were the closest things to human corporeality and sinful fallenness.

Earl has given other examples, such as Attis, which Don showed to be allegorical. What Earl needs is a literalized story about Attis that took place in the firmament; and then of course, its connection to Christianity would need to be established. And in the meantime we need to see a literalized version of Mithra sharing a cultic meal in the sky. (The heavens above the firmament will not do, since that is not a realm attainable by demons, who crucified Christ in the mythicist model). Hong Hsiu-chuan (someone from a very different time and place) was given a sword and told to kill demons – which does not contradict the traditional reading of what the ancients believed about demonic wars.

The “heavenly Jerusalem� is said in Revelation to descend from heaven – that is, from above the firmament. Whether Jews and Christians believed it to be merely abstract perfection, I don’t know, though I doubt it: they believed that bodies had already been taken up to heaven and that bodies would rise there again.

So the world beneath the dome certainly had distinctions: Sheol; the earth’s surface; and the “firmament,� the air underneath the dome. I think Earl misrepresented Don’s view as having “no distinction whatever between the earth and the firmament� and as thinking about them as “precisely the same region.�

So I think Don is right in suggesting that there’s no evidence, except in modern conceptions like Buffy (and Narnia), for a "reality that is near or overlaps our own". A world accessible to a few human beings through a porthole, a psychological experience, or a hidden border, in which things go on that are very much like ordinary human experience except filled with magic and supernatural activity, is very much a modern idea. I think Earl is right to say that scientific knowledge has made it impossible for human beings thinking of such worlds to place them in the depths of Sheol or in the heights of outer space. Personally, I think that Christianity had something to do with those scientific achievements, and that Christianity’s embrace of a spiritual rather than a realm in literal heights and depths does away with the last vestiges of the pagan tendency to think that God was “in� material matter. Already in the Bible, Ezekiel was saying that God was not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but in the “still small voice� (1 KINGS 19:11-18).

But I do think there’s evidence in the Ascension for Earl’s distinction between regions of the sub-lunar air.

I noticed that two descents, and two passwords, are spoken of. I looked up R.H. Charles’ Ascension of Isaiah (1900), and he gives support to the idea of a two-tiered world below the firmament. Speaking of the two key verses, 10:30 and 10:31, he says (p. 74):

Now, his work is from 1900. I did not see his opinion repeated in Knibb or in Knight. Charles himself, you can see, says that a distinction is not supported by 7:9-10, where Isaiah’s first step upward is “into the firmament.� And there is also the fact that the Son, in the versions we have, ascends from earth straight to the firmament.

Perhaps no password has ever been established in the lowest air, because the angels of that region are just too busy fighting to do it – and the author really does not think of the space between earth and the dome as really separate things each requiring a separate password. But Knibb’s translation would seem to indicate that a password had been established, and was simply not asked for. His translation speaks of “the� password in the locale of the angels of the air, so I’m not sure.

One clue I would suggest is that Isaiah speaks of entering the “air� of the sixth heaven in 8:1, and he follows 15 verses later with, “And he took me up into the sixth heaven.� This pattern repeats itself in 9:1, where he is led “into the air�of the seventh heaven, followed 5 verses later by “And he took me up into the seventh heaven.� It seems that Isaiah begins surveying each heaven upon reaching its “air�, and then experiences a moment where he is lifted higher into the heaven to see more things. If this is the author’s way of thinking, then the “air� just above the earth, in 10:30-31, is just the lowest air of the firmament. This lowest air can be seen by anyone on earth who cares to look into it; but a deeper look would require an actual ascent, and that is provided by the angel when he first lifts Isaiah. This would make sense of why Isaiah does not comment on the “air�, and then separately “the firmament,� when he first ascends: he sees the lower air everyday. It is the higher things, where Satan is seated and his hosts are found to be fighting, that he needed the angel’s assistance to see.

And when Isaiah says in 7:10, “as above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what is in the firmament is here on earth,� he simply seems to be using Platonic language to describe his realization that war takes place above just as it does below. Crucifixion was a characteristic of human war. Was it thought to be a characteristic of wars above the earth? It’s an interesting idea, in its own way, but I do not believe there is any evidence for it.

In the end, I’m doubtful that the Ascension really thinks of two separate tiers between the earth and the first heaven (apart from the top of the dome, which apparently was regarded throughout the ancient world, not as a tier or region, but as a hard structure supporting the heavens). If the original author did think this way, that would show some of the diversity of ancient views.

However, I do know that a two-tiered system in the Ascension cannot work for Earl’s thesis. Isaiah speaks of a descent first into the firmament, requiring a password, then a further descent to the angels of “the air,� where “the password� is not requested. If this means that the author thought that the air adjacent to the earth was separate from the firmament, then we need to remember where he has placed Earl’s “counterparts�: in the firmament, not the lower air. “… for the likeness of what is in the firmament is here on earth.�

If Earl proposes that the Son was crucified in the firmament, and that the firmament is just one of the "layers of the sublunary region," then the Son in Isaiah’s vision has descended too far. He’s gone right past the firmament to the lower air, where Isaiah assigns no counterparts (other than the self-evident one of constant war), and where there would be acute problems with placing counterparts to things like crucifixions, meals, and burials. If the response to this is that the lower air, where no password was requested, is simply part of the firmament that Isaiah refers to when referring to “counterparts� – that the lower air is included in the entire sublunar region between the earth and the dome – then this amounts to a concession that “the firmament� is both adjacent to the earth, and not removed from earth at a great physical distance (a distance that Earl sees in 7:28). Then we return to the picture of humans and demons sharing the dirt, bodies, fire, water and air of Sheol and the sublunar region.

A final note on 7:28, the verse where Earl sees a distance described between the earth and the lower beginnings of the firmament. As I wrote in my reply above to the opening post, the Lat/Slav version drops the key phrase, “from earth to the firmament�. Now, I don’t think this dropping of the phrase is meaningful in a version which has a consistent tendency to abbreviate. I think that “from earth to the firmament� was probably in the original story, just as I’ve argued that the Son’s long sojourn on earth, 11:2-22, was attested in the original. But Earl has used the absence of 11:2-22 to show that the long sojourn did not exist in the original. Consistency here, barring other considerations, would require doing the same for the phrase, “from earth to the firmament.�