Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
04-11-2012, 09:36 PM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
It would depend on what else you think might be in the intermediate text, as well as the literature at large. Did they think that there were trees in the air above the earth and below the firmament? If so, I agree that the location of "They will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is" is not clear. |
|
04-12-2012, 02:26 AM | #12 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 98
|
But then if they thought the crucifixion was on earth or anywhere else, why not put it in chap. 11 in L/S?
I guess there's no reason to think the redactor of 9:14 didn't mean it to be on the earth. But I think 9:14 has very little to do with the text itself. It's just a solitary little comment. Quote:
|
||
04-13-2012, 07:05 AM | #13 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Pete's attempt to discuss the dating of the AofI has been split off.
|
04-13-2012, 10:14 AM | #14 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 98
|
LOL.
Anyone have an opinion on my theory? Basically I'm suggesting from the text that 9:14 about the "god of that world" killing the "Son" was an interpolation at some point. It's in both manuscript traditions, but I suggest it doesn't fit with the rest of the text. It disturbs the flow of 9:13-15 - although this passage has clearly been much disturbed by different editors. Some of you guys understand the manuscript differences in this passage a lot better than I do. It uses the term "Son", which is not the term the Vision uses up till that point for its hero, who is referred to as the "Beloved" or "Elect One". It uses the term "the god of that world" which has not been used before that point to refer to any of the devils (10:12 has it in plural though). If 9:14 is unoriginal, then there is no other authentic evidence in the Vision that the original had a slain saviour figure. If there was a crucifixion or sacrifice originally in chapter 11, that would lead to the very unusual and unlikely conclusion that the Latin/Slavonic editor has removed that detail. So I suggest there was originally no crucifixion or sacrifice in chapter 11. The instructions of God to our hero in 10:8-13 make no mention of any suffering or sacrifice to be undergone. So the original vision had a non-sacrificial, un-crucified saviour figure who merely disguised himself as an angel (or maybe a man, depending how you judge the parts of the text that suggest human form) to go under-cover in Sheol and rescue the dead souls from the demon powers. Thoughts? Comments? |
04-13-2012, 02:40 PM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Where it makes sense is that it explains that God is going to send His agent to rescue the souls in Hades. A Platonic remote and unchanging God wouldn't do this Himself, so it makes sense that God would send an agent. And naturally this would be prophecized by one of the Hebrew prophets! It wouldn't take much to see this as the role of the Messiah, and for later Christians to then adopt this role for Jesus. I suspect that this "breaking souls out of Hades" is related to the saints breaking out of their tombs in Matthew (though those were bodies and not spirits). Where I have difficulty is: why is this hidden from the heavens and the world? That is, breaking out the souls from Hades appears to be something that God would do at the end. If the pre-Christian (and presumably Jewish) author thinks that this has already happened, what event is being referred to? If the Vision is of some future event, then I can't see why the author would believe that the event is hidden. That Christ didn't usher in the End Times but came in disguise appears to be a post-ad hoc rationalization after Christ was crucified and the End Times didn't actually occur. The author wouldn't have that mindset, as far as I can see. So, do you see the original text as being about a Rescue that occured, or one that is still to occur? If the former, what event does the author refer to? Why would the author explain how the Beloved broke into Hades and rescued the souls as something that had already occurred? If the later, why is the Beloved's descent hidden? (Note that none of the above touches on the HJ/MJ debate! This is the part I really enjoy: discussing how ancient people thought of their world.) |
|
04-13-2012, 04:39 PM | #16 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 98
|
No idea! What had Isaiah seen - the action itself in the present or a vision of a future action? I suppose a vision of the future and he is supposed to keep it quiet: see 11:38-9. Of course mission security has been potentially compromised by revealing the secret to a mortal!
I think this is an early version of the Harrowing of Hell that we get in dramatic form in the Acts of Pilate. My guess is this original Vision is pretty early. I think it's pre-Xian like you say. Doesn't even originally have name of Jesus or Christ. Or even Son I believe. V interesting. |
04-13-2012, 07:08 PM | #17 | |||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Time is being twisted. The author supposedly writes after the birth of Jesus under Tiberius, yet writes in the futuristic sense. Quote:
But are we dealing with a gnostic and/or Platonic author? The Platonic mysteries of all these layered "heavens" was not supposed to be revealed to outsiders or even new inititiates. There was some form of graduated development and teaching associated with this. They were not supposed to be written down. Secrecy was adhered to, similar to the Pythagoraeans. Perhaps something happened that forced them being written down in this fashion? Quote:
Quote:
All this is possible of course. But LOL apparently we are not permitted to discuss the hypothetical chronology of AoI in this thread. Quote:
With much shock and horror I tend to agree with many of GDon's comments about a "possible interpolation" and the questions he raises in post # 15. |
|||||||
04-13-2012, 08:00 PM | #18 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
What are "Platonic mysteries" of "layered 'heavens'" and how do you know that they were not revealed to new initiates? |
|
04-14-2012, 12:36 PM | #19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
It is more complicated than you think. Charles deduced that the surviving manuscripts of the Ascension of Isaiah were derived from two lost Greek versions, one preserved in Ethiopic translations (manuscripts a, b & c) and a fair Latin translation (L1), and the other Greek version is preserved by a fairly crappy second Latin translation (L2) and also a very good Latin translation of a lost Slavonic translation (the Latin translation of the Slavonic translation is designated mss S), which itself appears to have been very faithful to the Greek version it was based on. Charles' text is "ecclectic" and tries to reconstruct the lost original Greek which was the basis of the two Greek rescensions mentioned above. The rescension reflected by the Ethiopic mss and ms L1 is the "fullest", often including passages that are not found in mss L2 & S. There are also differences between manuscripts in the way they rendered the passages, sometimes significantly different. I'm going to give Charles' English translations of the Ethiopic and Latin translations of both these rescensions, so you can see just how wild the ride is goiing to be. I have marked with brackets "[ ]" the text of both the E/L1 or the S/L2translations where one has the text and the other doesn't, and marked with slashes "/" passages common to both rescensions that had significant differences in wording (oh, and there are some doozies). All this is derived from the footnotes and text from his 1900 English translation. The more recent 1985 Knibb translation was not used as his critical notes really didn't tell me anything at all about his sources. Boy do I love R H Charles' thoroughness (although I did catch a couple errors). What I'd recommend doing is look at the text that E/L1 has that are not in S/L2, and vice versa. Do the same with the way the E/L1 renders passages differently than S/L2. It is going to take you a while to get the sense of it, believe me. Then we can talk about whether 9:14 seems out of place. Cheers, DCH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
04-14-2012, 12:41 PM | #20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Here's Chapter 10
DCH |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|