GakuseiDon

Kapyong, I also hope that you see my point about referring to the firmament and earth as "platonic counterparts" as not being consistent with the thinking of that time. Doherty appears to have supported my idea of calling the relationship a "comparision" rather than "counterparts" (though Doherty would need to confirm that). Anyway, just to let you know I wasn't trying to dodge the question or simply gainsay Doherty.

DCHindley

The only "version" linked previously was R H Charles' translation, and it was Andrew Criddle, not GD. Good luck trying to distinguish the expansions and contractions of S & L² as opposed to the fuller Ethiopic using the footnotes in the translation of M. A. Knibb in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol 2, pp 143-176).

Wouldn't it be easier to use Charles' edition, as it gives an ecclectic English translation based on the fuller Ethiopic translation, and also gives the text of the Ethiopic, Latin² and the Latin of the Slavonic (S) translations. From these you can determine what is in and is not in the Latin S & L² versions, and make adjustments to Charles' eclectic text.

Now create a 3 column table with Charles' eclectic translation in column 1, then copy it to column 2 & 3. Now, go down the L2 and S texts in Charles (I'll assume that you can make sense of the Latin by using dictionaries, and that you will ignore the Ethiopic as very few have this language under their belt), and omit or add verbiage as needed, on the basis of the footnotes.

You can copy & paste from the pdf of Charles' edition linked by Andrew.

Now you have a revision that is not in copyright and can be published at will. If you use Knibb's, he or Charlesworth will likely sue you.

DCH

Kapyong

Gday,

Thanks for your helpful comments, DCHindley.

And apologies to Andrew Criddle.


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

A spiritual crucifixion - like Paul says :
"that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin."

Christ is crucified by Satan in the lower heavens, so Paul's 'old man' is spiritually crucified on earth.

Paul says : "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. "

Obviously Paul was NOT literally crucified, but in some metaphorical of spiritual sense. Paul frequently refers to a crucifixion which is obviously NOT literal :

"Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts. "

"But far be it from me to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. "


Paul gives several such examples of a religious or spiritual crucifixion down here on earth.


K.

mountainman

But how does one differentiate a "mythicist text" from a "gnostic text"?
Certainly we can be sure we are not dealing with any historical text.

For example, there are other MSS in which a story is told of Jesus descent into the pit of Hell itself (eg: gNicodemus), and there are other MSS classified amidst the NT apocrypha as "Visions" and/or "Apocalypses".

Are these to be seen as "mythicist texts"?

The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of James - First
The Apocalypse of James - Second
The Apocalypse of Paul - and fragments
The Apocalypse of Peter - and fragments (*R)
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Paul
The Revelation of Peter
The Vision of Paul

How is one to differentiate a "mythicist text" from a "gnostic text"?

aa5874

The Pauline Jesus in the NT cannot be about some other spiritual Jesus. All the books of NT are about the same entity, Jesus the God/man.

"Paul" was not a "heretic" according to the Church and Church writers identified "heretics" and wrote books about heretics.

Justin Martyr, "Irenaeus", Hippolytus, and Tertullian mentioned or wrote books about heretical Christians but did not include "Paul".

A heavenly Jesus would be regarded as heresy by the Church.

The Pauline story is rather simple. "Paul" "saw" and "heard from" JESUS after he was raised from the dead.

BUT, HE DID ADMIT HE LIED FOR THE GLORY OF GOD. See Romans 3.7

spamandham

My take on this in the past has been that Paul uses the word "crucify" roughly the way we use the word "subdue". I'm not so sure it's intended in religious sense at all.

I have been subdued with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me.

Those who belong to Christ have subdued the flesh with its passions and lusts.

But far be it from me to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been subded to me, and I to the world

Toto

Neil Godfrey has started to analyze the AoI

mountainman

Well done Neil.

I will be interested in a discussion of the dating.
What is the earliest manuscript evidence?
Who cites from this text first?
It looks similar to the stories in the Nag Hammadi Codices.

EarlDoherty

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

A good example of Don seizing on whatever technicality he can. My statement, “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,” is indeed NOT present in the Latin/Slavonic manuscripts. Or anything like it. The latter lack the reference to Christ, as well as the key phrase about flesh and a man, which was my focus in that passage (JNGNM, p.122). Don’s ringing accusation “Doherty is wrong!” is thus a misleading overstatement. Yes, one phrase imbedded in that Ethiopic verse is present in the Latin/Slavonic, and perhaps should have had more specific attention. Nevertheless, it can be encompassed in my remarks directed at the phrase “they will think he is flesh and a man,” something I dealt with in a thread on FRDB a few weeks ago. Namely, that the Ethiopic phrase is a later insertion “to reflect a docetic milieu,” similar to the nearby line about remaining in the world for 545 days.

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

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

Earl Doherty