GakuseiDon

FYI: I think that the Ascension of Isaiah is strong evidence against Doherty. See my review of Doherty's book, "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" and the section where I look at the Ascension of Isaiah here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...view4.html#4.2

EmmaZunz

Interesting.

I think Jesus was about to be attacked by the "angels of the air" when the historicist interpolated the Gospel tradition:

10:29. 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.

11:1 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."

Those angels of the air must be evil angels (i.e. demons) because they are doing violence to each other, just like in the layer one above where the "ruler of this world" dwells. They might be about to turn and see Jesus making himself look like a man and set upon Jesus, thinking he is a man.

Then when the risen Son ascends, he ascends first to the layer of heaven where the "Satans" are (therefore presumably from the air):

11:23 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.

Note that at 10:29, the text has already called this layer directly above the air the "firmament" and now does so again. (Although the overall text is a little bit confused over what it calls each layer.)

So the original text makes sense with Jesus' sacrifice happening in the air.

I might suggest that, if the original text had had Jesus' sacrifice occurring on earth, such a detail would most likely have been retained by the historicist scribe. Instead, he has totally wiped out the original and inserted the Gospel tradition over it.

The text also says: "6:15. And the vision which the holy Isaiah saw was not from this world but from the world which is hidden from the flesh."

That suggests he did not see things happening on earth, though I accept this is a fairly weak argument.

Jesus could have flesh in the air, be crucified in the air, be crucified on a tree (9:14), do anything earthly-like there, since: "7:10. And as above so on the earth also; for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is here on the earth."

That fits with Earl's counterpart idea.

Unfortunately the scribe has wiped out the most important part of the story, so we can't be entirely sure, which is a big shame.

I agree that "9:13b they will think that He is flesh and is a man" reads like an interpolation. There is no referent for the "they" pronoun that makes sense, but that might just be the English translation. If "they" refers to demons and evil angels though, that would make good sense.

9:12b also looks like a candidate for interpolation to me: "12. And he said unto me: "Crowns and thrones of glory they do not receive, till the Beloved will descend in the form in which you will see Him descend [will descend, I say] into the world in the last days the Lord, who will be called Christ."

EmmaZunz

*Thinking about this...*

GakuseiDon

The problem is that the text doesn't say that. It clearly says that Jesus came into the air and took on their form. Now, it is possible that the original text then went on to have Jesus take on the form of a man in the air as well, but there are no textual variants that say that as far as I know. And it wouldn't fit the progression outlined: In the Second Heaven, Jesus took on the form of Second Heaven angels; similarly in the First Heaven; similarly at the Firmamant; similarly in the air. So where would he take on the form of a man? I think that "in the air" is a low probability answer. Neither the Slavonic nor L2 have this, and Doherty has stated that they "probably" contain a reference to earth. That's why I see the AoI as a strong text against Doherty's sublunar crucifixion idea, since the forms of the creatures are clearly designated at each level. As I write in my review, Doherty needs to invoke the unseen hand of an unknown editor changing an undocumented text to counter the implications of this.

When he ascends, he is recognised by the creatures to whom he gave the passwords on the way down. These creatures are regretful that they didn't recognise the Beloved on the way down. The creatures of the air didn't notice him on the way down, so the Beloved didn't give any password to them. Presumably they either didn't notice him on the way up, or they weren't regretful about missing him on the way down (since no passwords were required).

GA Wells actually addressed this point, arguing that this would mean there had to have been a crucifixion on earth if that were true:

Doherty likewise holds that Paul speaks of Jesus 'in exclusively mythological terms'. I have never -- in spite of what some of my critics have alleged -- subscribed to such a view: for Paul does, after all, call Jesus a descendant of David (Rom. 1:3), born of a woman under the (Jewish) law (Gal.4:4), who lived as a servant to the circumcision (Rom. 15:8) and was crucified on a tree (Gal.3:13) and buried (I Cor. 15:4). Doherty interprets these passages from the Platonic premiss (sic) that things on Earth have their 'counterparts' in the heavens. Thus 'within the spirit realm' Christ could be of David's stock, etc. But, if the 'spiritual' reality was believed to correspond in some way to a material equivalent on Earth, then the existence of the latter is conceded.

But I don't think it has anything to do with the crucifixion, but rather to do with the envying and fighting between the angels of heavem and how that compares to events on earth. The passages around 7.10 are these:

7.9. 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."

So it was the fighting and envying between the angels of Satan that was happening above. What is happening on earth? According to an earlier passage:

3:22. And there will be much contention on the eve of [His advent and] His approach...
26. And there will be much slander and vainglory at the approach of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from many...
28. On account of the spirit of error and fornication and of vainglory, and of covetousness, which shall be in those, who will be called servants of that One and in those who will receive that One.
29. And there will be great hatred in the shepherds and elders towards each other.
30. For there will be great jealousy in the last days; for every one will say what is pleasing in his own eyes.

The author is saying that the hatred and jealousy among the Christian leaders of his day is a reflection of the fighting and envy amongst the angels of Satan in the firmament.

EmmaZunz

In Sheol (hell) is a possibility, instead of Earth.

After all, the redactor seems to have regarded the descent into Sheol as the main action of the third segment of the text (assuming the descent mentioned at 3:13 is part of a big interpolation into that first part of the text, as it seems to me):

4:21. And the descent of the Beloved into Sheol, behold, it is written in the section, where the Lord says: "Behold my Son will understand."

That line "where the Lord says: "Behold my Son will understand."" doesn't actually reappear in the text as it apparently should, so perhaps it is in the missing section that has been replaced by the HJ interpolation.

God's instructions to the Son also specify that he must go to the angel in Sheol. In fact, according to these instructions, Sheol seems to be the key location. Perhaps the Son was crucified there and then completed his mission of overthrowing the power of the demons and of hell:

10:7. 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 descend through all the heavens, and thou wilt descend 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.

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."

Does "that world" in 10:8 mean earth? I don't know. Could the demons' places be called their "world"?

I accept you have made a very interesting argument. It'll take me a little while to decide if you are right.

The section from chap. 3 you mentioned is usually taken to be interpolation, isn't it? God knows what is original and what isn't in this text.

aa5874

Again, you have constantly manipulated the term "historical Jesus". HJers are claiming that THEIR Jesus was and existed as an ACTUAL human being born by sexual union who did NOT resurrect.

The Jesus of the Codices and Apologetic sources was claimed to be BORN of the SEED of God, Born of a Holy Ghost of God.

1. No author of the NT supports or described an "historical Jesus".

2.Apologetic sources do NOT support or argue for an "historical Jesus"

3. There is an ON-GOING SEARCH for an historical Jesus by SCHOLARS themselves.

Why can't you FAIRLY deal with the matter???

Why do you PERSIST in manipulating the term "historical Jesus"???

In the Canon, Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

In the writings of of Justin Martyr, Jesus was produced WITHOUT Sexual union.

It would appear everyone here UNDERSTAND the term "historical Jesus" EXCEPT YOU.

You are WASTING time.

Please PROVIDE a credible source of antiquity which STATES Jesus was a KNOWN human being, was NOT Divine, and was born by sexual union.

The BLATANT SEARCH for an historical Jesus was INITIATED because it was ACCEPTED that the Jesus of the Codices was NON-HISTORICAL.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

Please, the ground work has already been LAID--the historical Jesus was either LITERARY FICTION or PURELY ESCHATOLOGICAL.

If you don't want to use the term historical Jesus properly then Why are you posting???

You CREATE confusion.

You very well known that NO-ONE is looking for the DIVINE Jesus in the Codices

Please OBSERVE the proper use of the term "historical Jesus" and READ "The Quest for the Historical Jesus"

SCHOLARS are LOOKING for a NON-DIVINE Jesus that was born by SEXUAL UNION.

Please, just Go and Help them.

EmmaZunz

@GDon

I'm splitting my response on Ascension of Isaiah into a new thread.

JonA

There is not mentioning a definite historical Jesus and then there is mentioning a definite mythical Jesus.

In which category does 'the regular pattern of epistles in the first and early second century' fit?

aa5874

The Quest for an historical Jesus by Scholars blatantly implies that Jesus of the NT is Non-historical so there is NO need for any complex arguments.

There is either a Quest or there is NOT.

There is a DOCUMENTED QUEST for an historical Jesus so we don't need to be going in CIRCLES with HJers.

Let HJers GO in their vicious circles in THEIR QUEST.

We have what appears to be a MERRY-GO-ROUND where HJers are going nowhere FAST.

How in the world can the same people who are LOOKING for someone can simultaneously claim they have found who they were looking when they are STILL SEARCHING????

We have the Mythological description, the Divine description of Jesus in the NT so where can we find the actual biography of an Historical Jesus???

In the same NT???

HJers need to take some time out.

The NT is NOT a reliable source and it was the very NT that INITIATED the QUEST for an historical Jesus.

gurugeorge

Some mythicists would say "based on", others would say "similar to"; I'd say the latter has more plausibility.

IOW, rather than anybody consciously copying anybody, it's more a case of an idea that's "in the air" that has multiple instantiations.

Like our present-day "New Age". There's no fixed dogma, just a bunch of loosely-associated ideas with a "family resemblance". In our time, one of the main ideas is the magical power of the individual, in those ancient times, one of the main ideas was that of a divine being or divine intermediary who could vouchsafe one's individual salvation (as opposed to the types of deity that came before, which were mainly spirits of the culture, the ancestors, the tribe, etc.)

The "evolution" to a historical Christ isn't really that big a step - after all, in those days many believed in the historical reality of their myths, and some of those myths included periods of sojourn on earth among mortals, and interaction with mortals.

The crucial idea was simply a made-up factoid by a sub-sect, that their proposed divine figure had, during his period of sojourn on Earth, been known personally by the founders of that sub-sect.

That's what makes the whole nonsense seem more solidly historical than parallel cases in other myths.

A lie concerning lineage, by a sub-sect who wanted to one-up the other sub-sects, in order to bring "the movement" into some sort of coherent spiritual and money-gathering unity.

And eventually the lie became dogma.