GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:49 am
Could this be a translation issue?
The English translation of the Ethiopic version: 9:14 (not 18:14):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html
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.
Do you have a link to the translation you are using?
The Latin2 version can be found here:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n199
Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidet nesciens qui sit.
According to Google Translate, it is "hang him on a tree and kill him without knowing who he is."
This gets complicated, apparently.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:06 am
This passage comes from
Ascension of Isaiah 18:14 and is different from that meant by GDon since it is found only in a Latin manuscript. At least, according to Marc Stéphane:
The Ascension of Isaiah, in a Latin manuscript, conforms with the standard Jewish law that an executed criminal’s body would be hung on a tree as a public warning; that is, the hanging of a body on the tree an act that followed the execution; this was the standard Jewish understanding of what it meant for a body to be cursed by hanging on a tree;
https://vridar.org/2018/10/13/jesus-fro ... ment-87809
There are two Latin versions. L
1 does not cover this portion of the Ascension. L
2 does, but derives from a single manuscript, according to R. H. Charles:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n21 (lefthand page). Charles states that this manuscript, now apparently lost, was printed in Venice in 1522, reprinted by Gieseler in 1832, and reprinted again by Dillmann in 1877.
The Internet Archive has Dillmann's 1877 edition:
https://archive.org/details/ascensioisa ... ll/page/80. (I cannot seem to access the 1522 or 1832 editions.) It shows the following:
Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et occidet illum, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidit nesciens qui sit.... So the killing is mentioned
twice in L
2, one instance of which is being taken as a scribal addition. You can see that Charles has the first instance bracketed in his edition:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n199, calling it "an obvious interpolation" in footnote 8.
The actual situation, then, is not nearly as simple as either the translations (which seem almost universally to omit the first instance and retain the second, except for that Spanish one, apparently) or the quick summary of Marc Stéphane would lead us to believe.
Also, the Ethiopic text at this point appears to be a bit of a mess:
https://archive.org/details/ascensioisa ... ll/page/42, with phrases absent in one manuscript which are present in another, not to mention at least one emendation.