Ben C Smith

[This is a repost from a couple of days ago. Many thanks to Andrew Criddle for sending me a copy of my original post; what I had saved on my hard drive was in a less developed form.]

In this thread I intend to investigate the location of the events described in Ascension of Isaiah 9.14. But first some preliminaries....

This passage comes in the second section, called the Vision of Isaiah (chapters 6-11); the first section is called the Martyrdom of Isaiah (chapters 1-5). Both sections obviously derive from the same fount of tradition about the prophet Isaiah, but were originally separate works; they have been redacted in common, but they almost certainly do not share a common original author.

The Vision is attested in three versions: Latin, Slavic, and Ethiopic. The former two appear to represent the same stream of transmission; the latter represents a separate stream. There are also Coptic fragments of the work which attest to a line here and a passage there in this section; it appears to me, by a scan of their contents, that the Coptic fragments represent the same stream as the Ethiopic version.

The text I am using for this exercise is Ascensio Isaiae, Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum 7, edited by Norelli, et alii, in two volumes (texts and commentary). I originally ordered this book via interlibrary loan so as to access Martyrdom 4.2-3 (a passage about the Neronian persecution) in the Greek, but decided, while I was at it, to look into Vision 9.14, too, based on some remarks I have read from mythicists on this board. Pages 353-441 of the texts volume contain a very useful synopsis of the various versions across the length of the text. The synopsis is entirely in Latin, either the original Latin for the Latin version or a modern Latin for the Slavic, Ethiopic, Coptic, and (for the Martyrdom) Greek versions. I know Latin and Greek, but not Ethiopic, Slavic, or Coptic, so I am relying on the modern Latin translation for those versions. The commentary is in Italian, so my access to it is extremely limited.

I have done some searching on this forum for mythicist and historicist arguments on this passage. My original plan was to pick out an entire post or two to respond to, but the posts I was able to turn up always seemed to be arguing in media res, answering questions and solving problems that, to my eyes, appear to have had deep roots in past debates between the various posters. So I decided rather to forge my own path and make the positive case for earth as the location of the events of 9.14 in and according to all extant versions of the Ascension of Isaiah. I do so in at least indirect response to the following statement made several months ago:

The reason I am forging my own path here, rather than simply responding to the above quotation piece by piece, is because I cannot find the rationale for some of the more crucial statements in the paragraph.

Example 1: The quote about the god of that world, or Satan, stretching out his hand is supposed to mean that the action takes place entirely in the heavens. But I do not see it. The god of the world, or Satan, in Judeo-Christian thought is said both to dwell somewhere over the earth (either in the air or in the firmament) and to do his dirty work on earth. While the claim in this quotation might hypothetically be true, the wording of the line itself certainly does not make it true, as I think we shall see below.

Example 2: The claim is made that all references to concealing the identity of the son refer only to angelic beings, not to humans. Yet all three of our versions claim that the son will assume human form, and all three of our versions claim that humans did not recognize him. I do not understand how these references are ignored. Elsewhere in the same post Doherty flirts with the notion of excising one of those references...:

...but nowhere actually mounts an argument that these references should be excised. AFAICT, it ever remains at the purely hypothetical level (what happens if).

It would not surprise me if the detailed argumentation needed to sustain these claims has indeed taken place somewhere, but I do not know where as yet. If it was in the book, The Jesus Puzzle, then I confess I have not read it. Perhaps just a snippet or two from the book will put my entire argument here in its place, and I would welcome the correction.

The passage at issue, of course, is 9.14:

And the prince [or god] of that [or this] world will extend his hands against his son, and they [or he] will hang him on a tree, since they will not know who he is.

The three bracketed phrases above reflect the different versions. (A) The representation of the Ethiopic has deus, god, whereas the Latin and the representation of the Slavic have princeps, prince or ruler. Basically, in my view, prince is Johannine (see John 12.31; 14.30; 16.11) while god is Pauline (see 2 Corinthians 4.4). But I do not think this variant will affect my argument. (B) The Latin has mundi illius, that world; the Slavic has mundi huius, this world; the Ethiopic has istius mundi, that world. Where English has only two degrees of demonstrative (this and that), Latin has three degrees (this thing next to speaker, that thing next to the hearer, and that more remote thing next to neither the speaker nor the hearer). (C) The Latin and Slavic have singular verbs (suspendet, occidet); the Ethiopic has plural verbs (inicient, suspendent). But I do not think this variant will affect my argument, since I am willing at this point to live with the actions being blamed either on Satan directly or on Satan indirectly through others (whether angelic or human); what matters here is the location of the events.

There are other variants, too, but they seem insignificant to the matter at hand. It is accordingly not always easy to determine what was in the original text. But I am going to base my actual argument in this post only on those things that all three versions attest.

The Vision mentions many cosmological locations, including seven distinct heavens, the firmament, the air, the earth, and sheol. And I think that, of all these locales, I can prove that the events of this verse are supposed to take place on the earth.

Before I launch my argument proper, I think it best to handle a possible objection. Some may suppose either that (A) the different demonstratives used in the different versions might indicate some confusion as to which world is meant or that (B) the reference to that world has to be a reference to some place other than earth, where humans dwell. Such a supposition would be perhaps understandable, yet easily dispelled. What follows here is not a direct argument that the earth is intended in 9.14; rather, if my actual argument later in this post is valid, this part of it will serve to ward off some possible objections made on arbitrary grounds.

For the simple fact is that each of our versions uses the same expression as in 9.14 elsewhere to signify the earth, where humans dwell. That is, the Latin of 9.14 is mundi illius, and the Latin version elsewhere uses that expression of the earth; the representation of the Slavic of 9.14 is mundi huius, and the Slavic version elsewhere uses that expression of the earth; the representation of the Ethiopic of 9.14 is istius mundi, and the Ethiopic version elsewhere uses that expression of the earth. The different demonstratives (this or that), in other words, need not cause us much alarm here. The use of each depends on the perceived geographical or conceptual relationship of the place itself to either the speaker or the hearer.

In the Latin version of 7.24, for example, it is said that the memory of that world (istius mundi, demonstrative of second degree) is unheard of in the third heaven. Then, in 7.25, Isaiah asks his angelic guide: Is nothing from that world (illo mundo) heard of here? Notice the change of demonstratives between 7.24 and 7.25. In 7.24 Isaiah is addressing the reader, who is still presumably on the earth; and he uses the demonstrative of the second degree because the earth is conceptually nearest the reader. In 7.25 Isaiah is addressing the angel who is escorting him through the heavens; and he uses the demonstrative of the third degree because the earth is conceptually near neither Isaiah himself nor the angel. That is the real Latin; in the modern Latin representations of the Slavic and Ethiopic a similar kind of logic can usually be detected.

To return to 9.14, then, whether the writer uses this or that would depend on the perspective he is adopting.

Latin: The mundi illius (that world) of the Latin probably reflects the fact that the angel is narrating these future events to Isaiah while both are in the heavens; hence the demonstrative of the third degree. The same demonstrative is used in 8.11, for instance, of this same version when the angel tells Isaiah that no one destined to return to the flesh of that world (in carne illius mundi) has ever seen what Isaiah has seen; again in 8.23 of this version when Isaiah begs not to be returned to that fleshly world (mundum illum carnalem); again in 9.26 of this version when the angel informs Isaiah that many from that world (de illo mundo) will believe in the word of the one to be named, meaning Christ. All of these instances of the third degree clearly mean earth, the abode of human beings like Isaiah.

The notion that the world of human beings is currently ruled by an evil prince (Satan, Belial, Mastema, the devil, or what have you) is a very common one. It appears in 1QS from the Dead Sea scrolls (1QS 1.18 and 1.23-24 speak of the testing that will occur and of the sins that will be committed during the dominion of Belial, בממשלת בליעל, and 1QS 2.19 says that the priestly instructions given are to endure all the days of the dominion of Belial, כול יומי ממשלת בליעל). It appears in the Jewish pseudepigrapha. It appears in the New Testament (in Matthew 4.8-9 = Luke 4.5-6, for example). It appears in the church fathers. Take as an example Origen, Against Celsus 7.17:

Και ουδεν ατοπον και αποτεθνηκεναι τον ανθρωπον και τον θανατον αυτου ου μονον παραδειγμα εκκεισθαι του υπερ ευσεβειας αποθνησκειν, αλλα γαρ και ειργασθαι αρχην και προκοπην της καταλυσεως του πονηρου και διαβολου, πασαν την γην νενεμημενου.

And there is nothing absurd in a man having died and in his death being, not only an example of death endured for the sake of piety, but also the first blow in the conflict which is to overthrow the power of that evil one, even the devil, who had gained control of the entire earth.

If these parallels have any bearing on the present question at all, the prince of that world in Vision 9.14 would be the prince of the world of men.

Slavic: The mundi huius (this world) of the Slavic, assuming that the translation is reasonably on target here, steps out of the textual situation and rather reflects the usual wording of the phrase (prince of this world), seen from the perspective of a human on earth, despite its immediate context. The prince of this world is a Johannine phrase, found in the Latin Vulgate as princeps huius mundi in John 12.31 and as princeps mundi huius in John 14.30; 16.11. This world is also a fairly common phrase in its own right, finding a place in John 8.23; 9.39; 11.9; 12.25; 13.1; 18.36 (×2); 1 Corinthians 3.19; 5.10; 7.31; 1 John 4.17.

Confer 2 Corinthians 4.4, about the god of this age, which passage Marcion was able to use to good advantage, according to Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.11.9a:

Scimus quosdam sensus ambiguitatem pati posse de sono pronuntiationis aut de modo distinctionis, cum duplicitas earum intercedit. hanc Marcion captavit sic legendo: In quibus deus aevi huius, ut creatorem ostendens deum huius aevi alium suggerat deum alterius aevi.

We are quite aware that some passages are open to ambiguity, from the way in which they are read, or else from their punctuation, when there is room for these two causes of ambiguity. The latter method has been adopted by Marcion, by reading the passage which follows: In whom the God of this world [or age], as if it described the creator as the God of this world [or age], in order that he may, by these words, imply that there is another God for the other world [or age].

In all of these passages there is little doubt as what this world means; it means the world of human beings, a world under the present dominion of an evil prince.

This is not the only spot in the Slavic version in which the earthly perspective is adopted. In 7.24, for example, Isaiah is in the third heaven, but conceptually steps outside of the vision for a moment to note that memory of this world (mundi huius), clearly his own usual world, is unknown in that part of the heavens; likewise in 10.29 he says that the prince of this age (princeps saeculi huius) sits in the firmament.

Ethiopic: The istius mundi (that world) of the Ethiopic reminds one of the istius mundi of 8.11, where Isaiah is told that no man destined to return to the flesh of that world (istius mundi) has seen what he has seen. In both cases the demonstrative of the second degree is used, hopefully because the Ethiopic in both cases is the same or similar, possibly because, conceptually speaking, the world of flesh is a locale nearer to Isaiah in intrinsic relationship than to the immortal angel accompanying him. In any case, it cannot be maintained that istius mundi in 9.14 must indicate some region other than the world of human beings, for it clearly indicates that very region in 8.11.

Let me take this opportunity to draw another connection between concepts, some of which are quite foreign to our own sensibilities. In 6.13 Isaiah claims that the angel escorting him was not one of the angels of the firmament, nor from among the angels of glory of this world, but rather was from the seventh heaven. But what exactly is an angel of this world? I think it would be one of the angels in the air (Latin angelos qui erant in hoc aere) mentioned in 10.30. Just as birds are usually associated with the sky or the air, yet also belong to the earth (Genesis 1.22; 7.21), so these angels of the earth would actually inhabit the air just above it; they would not be limited to walking the surface of the earth like humans.

These concepts are connected in Ephesians 2.2 (Vulgate), discussing sins and trespasses:

...in quibus aliquando ambulastis secundum saeculum mundi huius, secundum principem potestatis aeris, huius spiritus qui nunc operatur in filios diffidentiae.

...in which you formerly walked according to the age of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of this spirit that is now operating amongst the sons of disobedience.

Ephesians 2.3 goes on to affirm that the writer and his readers were once counted among those sons of disobedience. In other words, the prince of the power of the air holds sway over (many) human beings, and to be one of those humans in his power is to walk according to this world. This is but another instance of the prince of this world motif. In Job 1.6-7 Satan convenes with the sons of God (the angels), presumably in a location not on the earth, and tells God that he has been roaming the earth and walking upon it.

I have given numerous examples of the evil prince ruling over the earth from the New Testament and the fathers, but one does not have to stray very far from the present text to find a sterling example. The first section of the text, the Martyrdom, is explicit. In the Coptic version of 1.3 the prince of this world is mentioned as one of the themes of the text (and the editors have emended the Ethiopic text to match); in 2.4 Beliar is called the angel of iniquity, the dominator of this world, who took especial delight in Jerusalem under Manasseh, strengthening that wicked king to spread magic and divination and fornication, and to persecute the just (2.5).

Again, if these parallels mean anything at all for 9.14, it is that the world in the expression prince of this [or that] world is earth, the habitation of human beings.

[Note: In what follows I have corrected the verb tenses, which I had originally corrected in a second post.]

But my central argument does not depend on parallels from other sources. It depends solely on the triple attestation of what is perhaps the main theme of this second section of the Ascension of Isaiah, to wit, the unrecognizability of the beloved, Christ, in his descent through the cosmological layers of the ancient universe. I think that we can systematically pinpoint exactly where the events of 9.14 take place. I offer here a wider view, namely 9.12-14, according to the Ethiopic version (underlining mine):

And he said to me: Crowns and thrones of glory they do not receive now (but they see and know whose the thrones will be, and whose the crowns) until the beloved descends in the likeness in which you will see him when he descends. The Lord will descend therefore in the last days, he who is to be called Christ after he descends and has been made according to your likeness [secundum speciem vestram], and they will suppose him to be flesh and human. And the god of that world will extend himself with his hand against his son, and they will lay their hands over him and hang him on a tree, since they do not know who he is.

Here is the (briefer) Latin version:

And the angel said to me: They do not receive them until the son here first gives them their thrones and crowns, when he will be in your likeness [in specie vestra], and the prince of that world will extend his hand against the son of God and will kill him, and hang him on a tree, and he will kill him not knowing who he is.

The Slavic version does not differ much from the Latin for our purposes; it too has the phrase in specie vestra (in your likeness). Since I am proving my point only with triply attested material, I cannot use much of the longer Ethiopic version. But I can and will use the triply attested statement that the son will be in the likeness of Isaiah and his fellow human beings (vester means yours, the embedded you being plural) when he is killed.

I have already noted that the Vision mentions many cosmological locales (seven distinct heavens, the firmament, the air, the earth, sheol). Once we realize, however, the simple matter that the son will look like a human being when he is killed, we can easily eliminate all but one of these locations, because one of the main themes of this work is that, in his descent, the son will take on the form of each level he is currently passing through.

I think that sheol can be eliminated by default, since that is where one would go after being killed, not before. But the rest of the locales can be eliminated directly from the text. Recall that we are looking for a locale in which the beloved looks like a human.

Christ dwells in the seventh heaven, and he descends into the sixth heaven without transforming in 10.17-19. He cannot yet look like a human, since he has not transformed at all. In 10.20 he descends into the fifth heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there. In 10.21-22 he descends into the fourth heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there. In 10.23-24 he descends into the third heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there. In 10.25-26 he descends into the second heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there. In 10.27-28 he descends into the first heaven and assumes the likeness of the angels there.

So far he has assumed the likeness only of the heavenly angels. He does not yet look human, and he is not yet dead.

In 10.29 he descends into the firmament and assumes the form of the angels there. In 10.30-31 he descends into the air and assumes the form of the angels of the air.

The text at this point takes a time out. Chapter 10 has come to an end; chapter 11 begins with the angelic guide pointing out the importance of what is happening in the vision:

And after these things the angel said to me: Understand, Isaiah, son of Amoz, for on this account I was sent by God.

By process of elimination we can already tell that the beloved is going to be killed on the earth. He has to be killed while in the form of a human, and he is not in human form in the firmament, nor is he in human form in the air; in both of those locales he takes on the appearance of the angelic inhabitants around him.

But all three of our versions make it even more explicit. The Latin and Slavic versions say in 11.2:

And I saw one like unto a son of man, and (A) he was dwelling with men in the world [in mundo], and (B) they did not know him.

(Why did men not know him? For the same reason the angels had not known him when he assumed angelic form; he has assumed human form. Refer back to 9.13!)

The Ethiopic version is even more explicit, removing most of 11.2 according to the Latin and Slavic and putting in its place a somewhat lengthy infancy narrative (11.2-17, of somewhat primitive quality) followed by a shorter account of his miracles, his crucifixion in Jerusalem, his resurrection, and his ascension (11.18-22). This longer version, then, (A) presumes that Jesus was in human form on earth and thrice (B) states that he was not recognized for who he really was (11.14, 17, 19), covering the central points of 11.2 in the Latin and Slavonic; we have our triple attestation. It is earth where Christ takes on the form of a man; therefore, it is earth where Christ is killed.

I daresay that, even if we did not have that stipulation in 9.13 that the son would take on human form, the earth would still have to be the site of his killing. In 10.30-31 the son has descended through the firmament safely and into the air, with no danger in sight yet. In 11.2(-22) he has descended the rest of the way to where men dwell. If earth is not the site, then I do not know what is.

It is, of course, possible that the original Christian text of Vision 9.12-14 portrayed the killing of the son of God somewhere other than the earth, and that later Christian scribes rewrote that setting by making readers connect the dots, as I have done, between 9.13 and 10.17-31 and 11.2, but, if so, I am not sure we can recover the original story. At least, I would like to see the argument that tries. As the matter stands, the death of the beloved in 9.14 has to occur on the earth, IMVHO.

But I welcome insight into any mitigating details I may have missed.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

If we are considering the variant versions of the 'Ascension of Isaiah' we should probably consider the Greek 'Legend of Isaiah' which sometimes follows the Greek underlying the Latin/Slavonic tradition and sometimes the Greek underlying the Ethiopic.

It is obviously a drastic rewrite of the 'Ascension of Isaiah' but may go back to an early stage of its text.

It is online in English translation at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/oth...)%20translated

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Good point, Andrew. Norelli et alii include the Legend of Isaiah in their texts volume.

Here are some snippets from that work (English from the link you provided, slightly formatted; I have only scanned the Greek so far, but will review it in more detail later to make sure there are no translational anomalies that need handled). 2.37-42:

And as he said these things to me I heard the voice of the great and exalted God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose glory I was not able to see, saying to my Lord and Christ who is called Jesus in this world: Go out, child, and descend heaven by heaven quietly. And you will descend also into that world which is ruled by the idols from of old, and those that worship them, who derided me and said: We are gods, and beside us there is no other god! Just so will you descend even to the angel of Hades in Jerusalem; he will not depart until you die. And it will be that when you are killed by them, you will ascend here. Then you will sit at my right hand and all the angels will worship you, archangels, thrones, lordships, princes, powers, and all the powers of the heavens, and all the hosts of the heavens will know that you are Lord with me of these seven heavans and of all the powers.

2.43:

And thus he went through quietly in order, and the remaining heavens in such a form and came through into the earthly and mortal world with the blessing of the father as the Lord himself alone willed.

If we count this text, I think we get quadruple attestation for earth as the location of the crucifixion.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
So the question is is Mr. Doherty's assertion that the crucifixion was not on terra firma on terra firma? Or, put another way, does Mr. Doherty have grounds for saying the crucifixion did not have grounds?

Or, for those who need Points sharply explained (like Jeff), does Mr. Doherty Overstate when he says:

"It simply is not feasible to suggest that the crucifixion takes place on earth in view of such passages."

and does Agent Smith Overstate when he says:

"As the matter stands, the death of the beloved in 9.14 has to occur on the earth, IMVHO."

Something to keep in mind here is that The Ascension of Isaiah is a very dishonest work, even by Early Church Father standards. The Christian Editor has taken "Isaiah", a very Naturalistic, Works oriented, non-messianic and Contemporary peace and Converted "Isaiah" into a very Supernatural, Faith oriented, Messianic and Prophetic work. The Type of Superstitous nonsense found in "The Ascension" is exactly what the Historical "Isaiah" was Reacting against. We therefore have very little Intergrity associated with this work and the Likelihood of Combination of different works and Forgeries increases Exponentially.

Let me Reveal my Bias here. Thinking of all the Historical Jewish Sons murdered because of the above one mythical son that "The Jews" knew who he was even though they didn't know who he was and were ordered to forget what they were ordered to remember and save the evidence they were told to get rid of makes me Nazerous.

Regarding the Likely Where of 9:14 one should start with the offending Verse:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ascension.html

"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."

In order to express Certainty as to the Where of this Verse (Earth vs. Firmament/Heaven/Spiritual World) it would need to show Multiple Explicit references as to Location. I don't see a single Explicit reference here as to Location. Therefore, I think Ben is right that Mr. Doherty's "It simply is not feasible to suggest that the crucifixion takes place on earth in view of such passages." is an Overstatement. I also think that Ben has a lot more Implications from surrounding Verses that The Location is Earth than Mr. Doherty has that the Location is Not Earth. The problem with this Type of subject matter is that you can never be sure of the Figurative content of individual phrases. Mr. Doherty is probably right that the Original has been Edited towards an Earthly presentation but how do you Prove with Certainty how much? To the extent you doubt the Intergrity of the Text you create Uncertainty towards Any conclusion. Another big picture problem with Mr. Doherty's conclusion is that Isaiah would be receiving a Revelation of a Revelation. Not how it usually works.

In my opinion Mr. Doherty would be better off toning down the claimed Significance here like he does at TJP:

http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp03.htm

"I would argue that the Ascension of Isaiah may reveal an evolution from a spiritual Christ operating in a supernatural setting, to a physical Christ living a life in an earthly setting. A document is being periodically revised (by multiple redactors in different versions) to reflect new developments in thought and doctrine, even if not every detail is always brought up to date. The Ethiopic manuscripts can contain a brief account of Jesus' life on earth and yet not have descriptions of the Son's descent enlarged to include an earthly dimension. Perhaps it was felt to be implicit—as some modern scholars would assume."

He should only be claiming that there is evidence that some elements of the supposed crucifixion were also happening at a Spiritual level as well as Earthly level and the popularity of this belief may have been greater in earlier Christianity.

Ben, you know I think your Conclusion as to the Significance of the ending of "Mark" is unreasonable and we both know what would happen if you accepted that "Mark" intended to convey that the original disciples were complete and final Failures. But here I think you are close to Spot On (I just think your Definite conclusion is a little Overstated as well). Nice work though, I enjoyed it and I appreciate your effort here.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Well, of course, Mark is your chosen weapon to shoot down Christendom where it stands, right?

Yes, I would have to get rid of all the Peter icons in the shrine hidden behind a secret panel in my closet.

Well, I did add that IMVHO part.

Many thanks for your kind words, Joe. The following is, I think, very astute and worthy of repetition:

Ben.

Oh, and I am not at all sure what exactly you meant by calling me Agent Smith... but I kind of liked it.

JoeWallack

JW:
Hmmm. I don't normally do this but just for you Benjamin I'll give you a brief Revelation. Close your Eyes. Consider the Relationship of Smith to The Matrix and the Origin of his Name.



Joseph

Rick Sumner

Earl has waxed lyrical about the bankruptcy of the historicist position and their failure to address his article (43 000 words!) rebutting positions few of us endorse as substantial (really now, who has engaged the Jesus Myth in a meaningful fashion and feels obligated to defend the superficial arguments of RT France?).

With that in mind, I can only presume that since Ben is arguing against Earl's position (while France certainly doesn't represent mine), that Earl does in fact intend to respond to it. I'm hopeful that a little bump up will draw attention to what I'm sure is a simple oversight.

I would, quite candidly, like to see this addressed.

Regards,
Rick Sumner