Ascension of Isaiah as a mystic-visionary salvation myth

23 thoughts on “Ascension of Isaiah as a mystic-visionary salvation myth”

1. Neil, I had always thought that the Cathar and Bogomil heresies were synonymous. Are there differences?

   Reply

   1. Oh gosh, it’s years since I did medieval European history. But a quick consultation of Google seems to restore memories of Bogomils, tenth century Bulgaria, preceding the Cathari, twelfth century, southern France. According to the accounts of their enemies they were very similar, as you would of course know. I think it wss Knibb who used both terms in his discussion of the manuscripts and I followed that.

      Reply

      1. In the ninth century, the Greek church sent two missionaries, Cyril and Methodius, to teach Christianity to the Slavic nations. Cyril and Methodius developed a writing system (Old Church Slavonic) for the Slavic languages, and then the Greek church sponsored the translation of many Christian writings.

         Bright young people in the Slavic nations were selected to receive religious education in Greek religious institutions. There they learned to read Greek and to translate Greek writings into their own languages, using their new Slavonic writing system.

         Lots of various Greek writings — not only the Christian canon — were translated into Slavonic. Apparently, the Ascension of Isaiah existed as a Greek translation, and one of the Slavonic translators decided to translate or paraphrase all or some of it into Slavonic. The translator was not necessarily associated with any heretical movement.

         Reply

2. Hi Neil,

   You wrote: “As far as I can see in this text, the entire scope of activity of the Lord’s descent is within the spiritual sphere. The vision of Isaiah is into the world of heavenly powers and the conquest of those that lead humanity into strife and death. While I have disagreed with some of Earl Doherty’s specific arguments, I think he is right when he appeals to the Ascension of Isaiah as extra-canonical evidence of an early Christian belief in a saving act of the Lord (descent, death, conquest, re-ascent) occurred in a nonearthly setting.”

   But to arrive at that conclusion requires more than viewing “and he will be in your likeness” (9:13) and “one like a son of man” (11:1) as textual corruptions. One must also ignore the fact that nowhere does the text say that the Son will “skip over” the earth on his way from the firmament to Sheol. It seems a fair assumption that the author would have situated earth somewhere between the firmament and Sheol. To me it seems unlikely that, if earth was skipped over, there would be no express mention of it or reason given for the skip. Notice how the author takes care to point out that the Son will not visit “Perdition” (10:8). But, if your theory is correct, he skipped over the very world that Isaiah was from without a single word of explanation. Do you think the original text did contain an explanation? And do you know of any similar early texts where a heavenly traveler’s route goes through all the heavens and down to Sheol but deliberately omits a stop in this world?

   And, if I understand correctly, you don’t have any textual objection to verse 10:12 that says the Son will “judge and destroy the princes and the angels and the gods of that world, AND THE WORLD WHICH IS RULED BY THEM” (my emphasis). But, according to your theory, the Son never set foot down on earth. So it would seem to follow that it was in absentia that Son judged “the world which is ruled by them.” Do you now of any other early texts where the Son judges the world without actually visiting it?

   Reply

3. The Ascension of Isaiah specifies that Isaiah descended down from seventh to sixth to fifth to fourth to third to second to first level of Heaven and then to the Firmament. Then immediately is told the story of Joseph and Mary and the story of the birth and life of Jesus.

   There is no passage indicating a descent from the Firmament to the Earth. It seems that the Firmament contained places that were named Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, etc. and that were abstract counterparts to the places with the same names on Earth. Thus, the birth and life of Jesus took place on the Firmament, not on Earth.

   After Jesus rose from the dead, there was an ascension back up through the levels of Heaven, and this ascension took place not on Earth, but on the Firmament.

   [quote]

   After the third day I saw him rise again and remain for days. I saw when He sent out the Twelve Apostles and ascended. 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. And there was much sorrow there [in the Firmament], while they said: “How did our Lord descend in our midst, and we perceived not the glory [which has been upon Him], which we see has been upon Him from the sixth heaven?”

   And He ascended into the second heaven , and He did not transform Himself, but all the angels … worshipped Him and praised Him and said: “How did our Lord escape us whilst descending, and we perceived not?”

   [unquote]

   In other words, Isaiah saw Jesus send out the twelve apostles and then saw Jesus ascend into the first level of Heaven (not ascend up to the Firmament, because the ascension began from the Firmament — the ascension did not begin from the Earth). Then, after Jesus had ascended from the Firmament to the first level, then next Jesus ascended to the second level.

   Isaiah himself, watching from the Firmament, was able to perceive the ascension to the first level and then also the next ascension to the second level.

   Isaiah noticed that Jesus did not transform himself when he reached the first level. Isaiah was puzzled by Jesus’ failure to transform when Jesus reached the first level, so Isaiah watched further as Jesus ascended to the second level. At this point again, Isaiah perceived that Jesus did not transform.

   From this second observation, Isaiah deduced that Jesus would not transform before he reached the seventh level.

   Reply

   1. Hi Mike,

      I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you cutting out the descent to Sheol too? Or claiming that there was a Sheol counterpart in the firmament? Likewise, for the Son’ ascent with the righteous in Sheol (Enoch etc): Are you saying the righteous in Sheol had firmament counterparts? If so, why would the Son ascend with the firmament Enoch but leave the “real” Enoch in Sheol?

      I notice too that you prefer the “twelve apostles” of the Ethiopic version to the “He will send out preachers” of the Slavonic and Latin versions. Why do you consider “twelve apostles” to be more primitive than “preachers”?

      Reply

      1. The story says that Jesus descended to Sheol. Apparently, he could descend to Sheol without stopping on Earth.

         Paul wrote that there was a Jerusalem counter-part above Earth’s Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26). So, it is reasonable to deduce that there were similar counter-parts for Nazareth, Bethlehem, etc.

         I suppose that some people who experienced ascensions while they were alive eventually ended up in Sheol after they died, like most other people.

         With regard to your questions about “apostles”, I think that the inclusion of James into the religion’s leadership was followed by several important organizational changes: 1) new converts were no longer considered to experience valid mystical visions of Jesus Christ, 2) previous converts who were considered to be troublesome were downgraded or purged, 3) previous converts who were considered to be reliable and capable teachers were awarded the rank of “apostle” and thus authorized to travel and teach in places far beyond the leadership’s direct supervision.

         Thus the title “apostle” had nothing to do with any special relationship to Jesus Christ. None of the first Christians had any special relationship to Jesus Christ. For all of the first Christians, Jesus Christ was the main actor in a crucifixion-burial-resurrection drama that they perceived in a mystical experience.

         Rather, the title “apostle” indicated an organizational rank within the religion. A member who was an apostle was a member who was trusted and delegated by the religion’s leadership to teach in distant missions.

         There was a particular group called the “twelve apostles”. They were the religion’s first twelve converts. They were converted by Simon Peter. Jesus Christ appeared first to Simon Peter and then to another twelve. I speculate that these first 13 members climbed to the top of Mount Hermon and then experienced a mystical vision in which they visited the Firmament and saw the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These first members’ vision included an epilogue where Jesus Christ ascended from the Firmament.

         Since Simon Peter’s original recruitment of members was so slow (his first 12 recruitments might have happened over the course of many years), some improved method was approved, and so more than 500 new members were recruited more quickly during the subsequent period (perhaps also many years).

         After James was accepted into the leadership, validations of new mystical ended, and there was a purge of the membership, and the title “apostle” was awarded to some members. All the first 12 received the title of apostle and many of the subsequent 500 members also received that title.

         The Ascension of Isaiah seems to indicate that only the first 13 members (Simon Peter plus the 12) who actually climbed to the top of Mount Hermon and then mystically rose into the Firmament, perceived the ascension of Jesus Christ from the Firmament into the Heavens. (Apparently one of the first 13 did not eventually become an apostle.)

         The part of the mystical drama where Jesus Christ ascended from the Firmament into the Heavens was not part of the mystical experience of the next 500 members.

         The thirteen who did perceive the ascension were not “apostles” at the time of that mystical experience. They became “apostles” many years later, during the organizational reforms associated with James. One of those thirteen was not around any more when the “apostle” titles were awarded. Subtracting that one, there were twelve members who had 1) seen Jesus Christ ascend from the Firmament into the Heavens and 2) eventually received the title of apostle.

         Reply

4. If we uncover evidence of a reference to a visit to Isaiah’s world then we would have grounds for accepting such a visit. But the text is specific about each place along the itinerary. I find it inconceivable that the place where the most dramatic act occurred would be not mentioned. The god of this world (Satan) lives in the firmament. From there Jesus goes to Sheol. Everything is in the spirit dimension.

   The narrative does not seem to have any relevance for earthly living people. Those saved are all in the spirit realm — the souls of those in Sheol. There is no salvation for anyone “on earth”, apart from an assurance given to Isaiah himself.

   If there is a “gospel” here it is for the salvation of the dead through the defeat of the powers that put them there.

   Reply

   1. Yes, all the extant texts are “specific about each place along the itinerary.” But you dismiss all the ones that refer to this world as textual corruptions, whether they occur in the Ethiopic, Latin or Slavonic versions. Of course, I can’t prove that they’re not. So we’re at an impasse.

      Reply

      1. No, it is not me who is dismissing them. It is mainstream scholarship that does so. I did not repeat here all the critical apparatus in the translations of Charles, Sparks and Knibb, since to do so would be too painstaking a task for very little benefit. I tried to hit what for me are some salient points for a blog post. I recommend a study of the scholarly reference works such as those of Charles, Sparks and Knibb to see the detailed arguments for textual corruptions and interpolations.

         I suggest there is significance in the fact that the manuscript and textual evidence indicates (according to mainstream scholarly studies of the Ascension, not me) that all the references to the earthly sojourn or stopover are from later insertions. By scribes working on accommodating the narrative to what turned out to be an emerging orthodoxy?

         Reply

   2. The narrative does not seem to have any relevance for earthly living people. Those saved are all in the spirit realm — the souls of those in Sheol. There is no salvation for anyone “on earth”, apart from an assurance given to Isaiah himself.

      Simon Peter compared the salvation of human beings from the imminent burning of the Universe to the salvation of human beings from the Flood. In the case of the Flood, the number of saved human beings totaled eight.

      Another comparison was the saving of Lot’s family from the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah. In that case too, the number of survivors was perhaps around eight.

      Simon Peter recruited twelve people into his religion, and perhaps he thought that number was more than sufficient. After all, God the Father would need, after the destruction of the Earth, only a few human beings to serve as priests in the one Temple on Heaven’s seventh level.

      There also was an idea that Jesus Christ would descend again to the Firmament in order to conduct a war, right before the destruction of the Universe. This war would include a surprise attack by a selected group of Christians, who would rise from the Earth into the Firmament, where they would fight on Jesus’ side against the evil beings on the Firmament. The Earth Christians who survived that war on the Firmament would ascend up to Heaven’s seventh level, and then the Universe (everything below the seventh level) would be burned up. In this scenario too, the number of survivors might be quite small.

      The original ideas were that the number of saved human beings would be tiny — on the order of eight to twelve. Gradually, the ideas evolved so that the number of saved human beings grew to a much larger number — but still only a tiny portion of Earth’s human beings.

      The idea that Jesus Christ would save a large portion of Earth’s human beings — would save every human being who satisfied some moral criteria — was a very late idea.

      Reply

   3. I would argue that the narrative was also intended to have relevance for earthly living people. Else why would its author say that the Son, after rising on the third day, “will send out preachers?” One doesn’t send out preachers to preach things that are irrelevant to one’s audience. (Or is it your position that the preachers were to be sent out in the firmament?) And how could the Son’s conquest of the prince of this world not be relevant to those who actually live in this world? And especially since the fulfillment of the prophecy signaled that the last generation had arrived (Isaiah says the whole of the vision will be accomplished in the last generation).

      So I have no problem seeing the Ascension of Isaiah as the gospel that Paul preached. I think that Paul, believing he had received a personal revelation of the risen Son commissioning him to preach that gospel, would have had no problem developing it further in the way we see in the Pauline letters. The telltale indicator of his source is 1 Cor. 2:7-9 (“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden, which God ordained before the world unto our glory, which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”) where, in support, the passage brings forward a quote that is word for word what we find in 11:34 of the Latin/Slavonic version of the Ascension of Isaiah: “As it is written, ‘Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love him.”

      Reply

      1. I would argue that the narrative was also intended to have relevance for earthly living people. Else why would its author say that the Son, after rising on the third day, “will send out preachers?” One doesn’t send out preachers to preach things that are irrelevant to one’s audience. (Or is it your position that the preachers were to be sent out in the firmament?)

         I do not see that The Ascension of Isaiah story (or the Gospel story) explains clearly why God the Father sent his Son, Jesus Christ, down to the Firmament (or to Earth) in order to experience a crucifixion, burial and resurrection. The only reason that I see for such a wierd divine mission is that it reflects ancient Jewish practices of scapegoating, blood redemptions and animal sacrifices. Without some understanding of those ancient Jewish practices, the story wold not make any sense at all to modern people.

         So, the story in both versions (A of I and Gospel) includes an epilogue in which 12 disciples gather to see the resurrected Jesus Christ, who communicates a commissioning message to them, and then he ascends into the Heavens.

         If you read the commissioning statements in Matthew 28:18-20 and Luke 24:46-49, neither of them make much sense, in my opinion. They make sense only because elaborate doctrines have been concocted to try to make sense of them. The essence of the doctrines is that Jesus Christ was sent down to experience crucifixion, burial and resurrection because of beliefs that involved ancient Jewish practices of scapegoating, blood redemptions and animal sacrifices.

         If the story of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension originated as a mystical vision experienced similarily (but not identically) by a small number of people, then we should expect the reasoning in the story to be fuzzy. After all, it was a mystical vision. Of course, all the reasoning is fuzzy!

         And it was indeed because the story originated as a mystical vision with fuzzy reasoning that the story had to be retold as happening in reality on Earth and had to be explained with elaborate doctrines.

         Reply

5. Neil,

   Another observation. You wrote: “The phrase ‘become like you in form’ is not found in one Ethiopic manuscript (B) where the phrase “as you will see” is used instead (Sparks, p. 779). This phrase is found again in verse 15, indicating that it is part of the special revelation being given to Isaiah so that Isaiah is being privileged to understand and ‘see’ what even the angels of the different heavens fail to understand.”

   The presence of the phrase “as you will see” in verse 15 would provide a plausible explanation of how it happened to get lodged in verse 13. It’s akin to the common scribal error called homoioteleuton, caused by the scribe’s eyes skipping from one word to the same word on a later line. Charles points out, in fact, that in manuscript B “there are frequent omissions through homoioteleuton” (p. xv). But even allowing, for the sake of argument, the substitute phrase, I still don’t see how it would support Earl’s theory. Manuscript B reads:

   “He will indeed descend into the world in the last days — the Lord who will be called Christ after he has descended AS YOU WILL SEE, and they will think he is flesh and a man.” How can this verse in any way be used to support your contention that the Ascension of Isaiah provides “extra-canonical evidence of an early Christian belief in a saving act of the Lord (descent, death, conquest, re-ascent) that occurred in a nonearthly setting.”

   So we are left with the fact that, with the exception of the “B” reading above, all the Ethiopic versions, the Latin version, and the Slavonic version clearly say that the Son will be “in your form.”

   Reply

   1. “Into the world” is not in the Latin or Slavonic manuscripts, as I indicated in the post. The notion that the Lord would appear in the form of Isaiah’s flesh (if that is what it refers to, though by this time he is robed and like the angels), is anomalous given the rest of the narrative, and is part of a couple of verses that are corrupted in all manuscripts. We have no clarity at all about how the phrase emerged here from an original Greek manuscript, or how it might have fitted in with an original sentence.

      To make a case on this phrase, especially one that does not sit with the general drift of the narrative, is precarious, even courageous, I would think.

      This is not in the same ball park as comparing Greek manuscripts of a scrap of New Testament for which we have a host of manuscripts. The uncertainties here are so much the greater for reasons I mentioned.

      Reply

6. With respect to the textual corruptions, interpolations etc I can add that my personal bias is to find a way to justify the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah originally being a literary whole. all chapters 1 to 11, with but a few exceptions here and there. So I attempted to investigate one detailed discussion arguing for this, but found I could not accept its arguments. (One example to point to where I was coming from: T. L. Thompson, I think, suggests that our canonical Isaiah should be seen as a literary whole, and that the two halves normally assigned to different authors should be seen as the two sides of the same theological coin. But in the end I was forced to conclude that the evidence for major Christian interpolations were even stronger than for the longer ending of Mark being a late construct. Obviously I could be wrong, but I will need more than interpretations of a few words from what all scholars regard as corrupt texts before I am convinced.

   What adds to my doubts is that the words used to argue for an earthly stopover are righth where such a description, if it exists, would be of most interest to Christian trans-scribers. Why have they messed with it and given rise to incomprehensible passages for later copyists?

   Reply

   1. Neill, don’t get me wrong. I don’t deny that the text was messed with and that the messing around was done to accommodate the narrative to emerging orthodoxy. But that doesn’t mean that the original text had to have contained a crucifixion in the firmament. It could have contained a crucifixion in this world and yet still have been unacceptable to emerging orthodoxy.

      In the Ascension of Isaiah the descending Son’s main mission is to get himself mistakenly crucified by the prince of this world. How long of a stop on earth would be required for such a mission? No more than a few hours if, when he entered the world, the Romans were in the process of crucifying someone. He just had to transform himself to look like the guy getting crucified, switch places with him, and the mistaken crucifixion would soon be a done deal. Such a transfiguration deception would be completely in character for the Son who instantly transfigures himself when he enters each of the heavens in order to quickly pass unrecognized. And, as I’m sure you’re aware, the teaching of Basilides provides us with a very early claim regarding a similar transfiguration switcheroo: Jesus transforms himself and swaps places with Simon the Cyrenian.

      When evaluating the Ascension of Isaiah we have to avoid the temptation to think that any appearance of the Son on earth must have been of substantial duration; that it must have been at least close to what we see in the later gospels. It didn’t. He was basically sent to play a trick on the prince of this world. No need for the trick to take 33 years. When the Father sends the Son he gives no indication that the trick is going to take a lot of time. He doesn’t tell him to pack his bags, settle down in the world, get a job, preach to the people there, heal them, drive out the demons possessing them, work miracles, gather disciples etc, There’s none of that. His mission is to go and trick the prince of this world into crucifying him “not knowing who he is.”

      Obviously, a short appearance on earth for the Son would not have been acceptable later on when creative individuals starting writing the gospels that gave the Son a more substantial earthly existence. One way to fix the Ascension of Isaiah would have been to add a section like 11:2-22 (the solution in the Ethiopic versions). Another solution was to basically remove the offending material but not replace it with anything (the solution in the Latin/Slavonic versions). This latter solution kept the crucifixion on earth but definitely has a truncated look to it. And this is one reason scholars like RH Charles reject it: “We have already dealt above on the thorough inadequacy with which the earthly life and destinies of the Messiah are treated in S L2.” (p. xxiv of Charles book on the Asc. Isa.). Yes, the human existence of the Son is thoroughly inadequate when you’re expecting something more along the lines of the later gospels. But is it thoroughly inadequate when you compare it to the meager information that the Paulines provide regarding the Son’s time on earth?

      The textual corruptions present in the Ascension of Isaiah prevent a clear case being made one way or the other regarding where the Son’s crucifixion supposedly took place. But I would caution against automatically interpreting them to mean that the crucifixion must have occurred in the firmament.

      Reply

      1. After Jesus Christ experienced his crucifixion, burial and resurrection on the Firmament, there was no reason why he had to descend to Earth in order that the necessary information be communicated to human beings. The whole point of the Ascension of Isaiah story is that there was a satisfactory method for the information to be communicated to human beings. The method was that a prophet could climb an Earth mountain underneath a gateway to the Firmament and then rise up through the gateway into the Firmament (or further into the Heavens) and experience a mystical vision that would give him all the information that God thought the prophet needed. Then the human prophet would return to Earth and communicate the information to his fellow human beings.

         There was no similar method for human beings in Sheol to receive the information. Human beings in Sheol were imprisoned forever, and none of them were able to climb an Earth mountain and then pass through the gateway into the Firmament and Heavens. Therefore, Jesus Christ had to descend into Sheol (he did not need to stop on Earth) in order to communicate the necessary information to human beings in Sheol.

         Reply

      2. As in my earlier post at http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/jesus-crucified-by-demons-not-on-earth-the-ascension-of-isaiah-in-brief/ my reference is to lines such as 7:12 where it is stated that Satan, who lives and fights in the firmament, will be destroyed by the Beloved when he descends. That’s it. Everything else is reading something more into it, is it not?

         Reply

         1. Yes, if the references to “this world” and a Son “in your form” and “like a son of man” are in fact interpolations, as you claim. But not if those passages are the remnants of a crucifixion scene that was messed with because it was judged insufficiently orthodox on other grounds, correct?

            Reply

            1. The manuscript evidence leaves no doubt about “this world” not being original, being found only in the Ethiopic along with other obvious later Christian insertions. See http://www.tau.ac.il/~hacohen/AscJes/AscJesp%2038.html — This is also noted by Sparks and Knibb (whose translation is online, though without his footnotes).

               Reply

               1. We appear to be talking past each other. In the following passages from the Latin/Slavonic versions, how should “in mundo” be translated and understood:

                  “Et vidi similem filii hominis, et cum hominibus habitare et IN MUNDO, et non cognoverunt eum” (11:2, 22 in the Latin/Slavonic).

                  “Exi et descende de omnibus coelis et sis IN MUNDO et vade usque ad angelum qui est in infernum.” (10:8 in the Latin/Slavonic).

                  Reply

                  1. The passage I thought you were addressing, and that I have been addressing, is 9:13. That is where Knibb notes that “in the world” is missing from three major manuscripts and the texts I linked to show it is omitted from the Latin and Slavonic manuscripts used by Charles.

                     11:2-22 is of course not part of the original, yet Knibb and Sparks explain the passage you refer to (11:2, 22) as part of a summary of that longer passage. If so, this only testifies to the complex history behind the various manuscripts we are trying to work with.

                     Knibb on 10:8: “You shall descend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who is in Sheol.”

                     Charles (rev. by Barton) on 10:8: The two British Library Ethiopic manuscripts, B and C, read “descend to the vault of the heaven of the world”; the Latin and Slavonic, “and you will be in the world”.

                     The context suggests nothing happens in the world. The Beloved goes through the layers and is in each case transformed to be like an angel. So note 10:10

                     “You shall take care to make your form like that of the angels of the firmament and also like that of the angels of the angels who are in Sheol.”

                     No instruction to change into the form of flesh. It’s all acted out in the spirit world. Through the heavens, the firmament (of the world or through the world) and down into Sheol.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.