EarlDoherty

Haven't I already answered these things? There is a mix of options, in that the original text assumes one thing, individual insertions by later editor(s) assume another. And even "dwelling with men in the world" can enjoy a range of interpretation, as I suggest in comparing it to language used of personified Wisdom.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

It is the interpretation of the Pauline writings by people of Antiquity and Church writers that is MOST significant. It is Clear by the Canonization of the Pauline writings that they were interpreted as being compatible with the teachings of the Church.

Once you interpret the Pauline writings to make them incompatible with the Church then you are in effect claiming that the Pauline writings were Heretical and was known to be Heretical.

The Canonical Pauline Jesus was compatible with the Gospel Jesus who was SENT by God and born of a virgin, without a human father, the Creator, equal to God, that was on trial and crucified under Pontius Pilate after meeting with the Sanhedrin and was RAISED from the dead.

GakuseiDon

But is there any need to consider personified Wisdom as a possibility, other than to support your views? (Even Tertullian talks about the teachings of "prime wisdom" on earth, even though he believed in a historical Jesus). It is clear that in the extant Latin/Slavonic text, the Beloved will "dwell with men in the world" and "in your form". I think the text is clearly against you in that it **explicitly** gives the form at each location, including in the firmament and the air, and the form of a man appears to be on earth. Let me be clear: I regard (for what it is worth) the AoI to be evidence AGAINST you rather than for you. The fact that you need to go to speculation about what an original text MAY have looked is hardly evidence of anything.

But let me emphasize: This not the end of the analysis. It is not even the beginning of the end of the analysis. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning of the analysis (OK, I stole this from some fat British guy). I hope that this will lead people to start asking questions about your theories. This can only be a good thing, since it will either come out that you have evidence on your side or you don't have evidence on your side.

And, while I emphasize that people shouldn't be concerned about the opinions of a know-nothing like myself, someone like Andrew Criddle is a different kettle of fish. He has the knowledge of the texts and the original languages that you need looking over your theories.

So, let's get into the analysis. What other options are offered by the extant Latin/Slavonic texts for "dwelling with men in the world" and "in your form", which you believe is supportable by evidence? And if you have to point to "certain gnostic documents like the Apocalypse of Adam", please give references. Let's get the analysis underway!

EarlDoherty

Don, you are one of those who is driving me around the bend. You seem incapable of absorbing anything I say, any argument I make. Any response of mine gets twisted back into your way of seeing things, and nothing ever gets dealt with in any conclusive fashion. I know, and everybody else knows, that you think the evidence in the AoI is against me. And you will refuse to see it any other way, even though you regularly get backed into a corner (on something like ch. 7's discussion of the firmament). Then you go on to some other thing, gnawing away at it ad nauseum like a deranged chipmunk until you've sucked that one dry. We have all recognized by now that this is your adopted strategy. Despite your 'admissions' of being a know-nothing, your tactic is to subject me (and other mythicists) to a kind of water torture until we simply throw up our hands and run off screaming into the night, at which point you can claim some kind of victory and style yourself the "slayer of Earl Doherty." By rights I should simply ignore you, and once I am through my response to your review I think that this is exactly what I will do.

Once again, you have perversely twisted what I responded to you. I did not say that personified Wisdom herself had anything to do with who might have been regarded in 11:2 of the Lat/Slav as dwelling on earth among men. I clearly said that a heavenly Son could have been regarded as dwelling on earth among men in the same way as personified Wisdom was. It was simply a comparison of concept.

You also twist your usage of the two phrases "dwell with men in the world" and "in your form" as though they exist in the mss side by side and make your argument accordingly. They do not! (Do I have to shout these things in order for them to have any impact on you?) They inhabit two very different places in the document, and may not--probably do not--represent simultaneous insertions by the same editor. Your appeal and claim that what you try to draw from them is "***explicit*** would be dependent on them being closely linked and unmistakeably identified as having the same background assumptions.

As for Andrew Criddle, I don't see him supporting these contortions and their like which you have recourse to. When he asks a question of me, I give him my answer and he--lo and behold--seems to understand it, and he goes on from there. Why isn't he here backing up your specific interpretations and claims against me? Why isn't he chiming in with your "sound and fury"?

No, Don, this is not the beginning, it is very close to the end.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Earl, I misunderstood your words "there are a mix of options." No further questions.

andrewcriddle

There is a very fragmentary text of the Ascension of Isaiah in the Coptic sub-Akhmimic dialect probably from the 4th century. Published by Lacau 1946 Museon 59 pps 453 to 467.

It is of interest that it has a few phrases from chapter 11 vs 14-16 of which the full (Ethiopic) version is I am unsure whether this passage about the birth of Christ is an interpolation in the original text (it has suspicious resemblances to the Protevangelium of James) but the presence of this passage in the Ancient Coptic version does indicate that if it is an interpolation then it is a very early one.

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty

Andrew,

When you say a few phrases from chapter 11, do you mean because the extant text is fragmentary and only those phrases are in existence or visible, or do you mean there is some kind of shorter version, fully intact, which contains some common phrases with the Ethiopic?

Earl Doherty

neilgodfrey

Now have the next part of this up. The Date of the Ascension of Isaiah (1)

It's the detailed discussion by R.H. Charles (1900) on the arguments for dating the different parts of the Ascension of Isaiah, as well as for dating when it first appeared in its present composite form.

mountainman

Thanks for that neil,

The dating seems to be based on "Eusebian mentions"

Here the dating is reliant upon mention by the crew of Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr and the unknown author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It would be interesting to examine one or two of these "all but certain" references to the text. The phrase above by R.H. Charles (1900) refering to Justin Martyr and stating " is all but certainly derived from our text" is ringing alarm bells for example.

Further on you mention the manuscript tradition itself:

So our earliest manuscript evidence is from the 5th century?

neilgodfrey

Parts 2 and 3 are there, now, too: that is, discussion by Sparks and Knibb.