AoI 9:14 is typically rendered something like this
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.
However the first part of the verse varies very widely
Ethiopic reads And the god of this world with the hand of his own son will stretch forth his hands against him and crucify him on a tree
Old Slavonic reads and the prince of this world because of his son, will stretch forth his hands against him, and crucify him on a tree and will slay.
Latin reads And the prince of the world shall stretch out his hand against the son of God and slay him and crucify him on a tree and will slay
Norelli argues that the partial agreement of the Ethiopic and Slavonic against the Latin implies an original text in which the God/Prince of this world (Satan) crucifies Christ by means of a human intermediary, his (Satan's) son, possibly to be identified with Herod.
andrewcriddle wrote:This is interesting.
From the Acts of Peter
But Peter said: Anathema upon thy words against (or in) Christ! Presumest thou to speak thus, whereas the prophet saith of him: Who shall declare his generation? And another prophet saith: And we saw him and he had no beauty nor comeliness. And: In the last times shall a child be born of the Holy Ghost: his mother knoweth not a man, neither doth any man say that he is his father. And again he saith: She hath brought forth and not brought forth.[From the apocryphal Ezekiel (lost)] And again: Is it a small thing for you to weary men (lit. Is it a small thing that ye make a contest for men)? Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb. And another prophet saith, honouring the Father: Neither did we hear her voice, neither did a midwife come in.[From the Ascension of Isaiah, xi. 14] Another prophet saith: Born not of the womb of a woman, but from a heavenly place came he down. And: A stone was cut out without hands, and smote all the kingdoms. And: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; and he calleth him a stone elect, precious. And again a prophet saith concerning him: And behold, I saw one like the Son of man coming upon a cloud. And what more? O ye men of Rome, if ye knew the Scriptures of the prophets, I would expound all unto you: by which Scriptures it was necessary that this should be spoken in a mystery, and that the kingdom of God should be perfected. But these things shall be opened unto you hereafter. Now turn I unto thee, Simon: do thou some one thing of those wherewith thou didst before deceive them, and I will bring it to nought through my Lord Jesus Christ. And Simon plucked up his boldness and said: If the prefect allow it (prepare yourselves and delay not for my sake).
This seems to be using the Ascension of Isaiah (or a similar work) to make claims similar to those reported of the Cathar (Belibaste) by the Inquisitor.
According to Norelli, it is a 'similar work' (or works) being used by both the Ascension of Isaiah and the Acts of Peter.
http://vridar.org/2015/05/09/more-on-th ... of-isaiah/
"Nor has the Acts of Peter borrowed from the AoI: the author of the Acts attributes the passages found in AoI to two different prophetic sources. Norelli concludes that both the AoI and Acts of Peter independently drew upon a similar set of passages used to prove the virgin birth was a fulfillment of prophecy." (emphasis added)
At the same time, even so, it would still indicate in favor of the ancient period for the composition of this passage in the Ascension of Isaiah.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:
According to Norelli, it is a 'similar work' (or works) being used by both the Ascension of Isaiah and the Acts of Peter.
http://vridar.org/2015/05/09/more-on-th ... of-isaiah/
"Nor has the Acts of Peter borrowed from the AoI: the author of the Acts attributes the passages found in AoI to two different prophetic sources. Norelli concludes that both the AoI and Acts of Peter independently drew upon a similar set of passages used to prove the virgin birth was a fulfillment of prophecy." (emphasis added)
In relation to this point I am not confident that I have done full justice to the original French text of Norelli here:
Quant au texte n° 6 des Actes de Pierre , il trouve une
correspondance litterale dans !’affirmation des habitants
de Bethlehem rapportee au v. 14 de l' Ascension. Sous
cette forme, la citation ne se trouve que dans ces deux
textes, ce qui oblige a supposer un rapport litteraire
entre eux. II est invraisemblable que l'Ascension depen-
de des Actes de Pierre , qui sont sans doute d’origine plus
tardive. Mais la dependance inverse est egalement
improbable, car les Actes de Pierre attribuent a deux
prophetes differents les testimonia 4 et 6 et ne les ont
par consequent pas tires de la meme prophetie d’lsaie.
De plus, les Actes de Pierre n’ont pas puise dans
V Ascension la phrase « Elle a engendre et n’a pas engen-
dre », en reunissant les deux enonces attribues a deux
groupes divers; en effet, cette citation se retrouve —
sous la meme forme «compacte » que dans les Actes et
non sous la forme d’un dialogue comme dans
l'Ascension — chez d’autres auteurs qui ne dependent
ni des Actes de Pierre , ni de l'Ascension.
If anyone with better French than I have has some idle moments and would like to translate that for me I would be very grateful.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
andrewcriddle wrote:This is interesting.
From the Acts of Peter
But Peter said: Anathema upon thy words against (or in) Christ! Presumest thou to speak thus, whereas the prophet saith of him: Who shall declare his generation? And another prophet saith: And we saw him and he had no beauty nor comeliness. And: In the last times shall a child be born of the Holy Ghost: his mother knoweth not a man, neither doth any man say that he is his father. And again he saith: She hath brought forth and not brought forth.[From the apocryphal Ezekiel (lost)] And again: Is it a small thing for you to weary men (lit. Is it a small thing that ye make a contest for men)? Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb. And another prophet saith, honouring the Father: Neither did we hear her voice, neither did a midwife come in.[From the Ascension of Isaiah, xi. 14] Another prophet saith: Born not of the womb of a woman, but from a heavenly place came he down. And: A stone was cut out without hands, and smote all the kingdoms. And: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; and he calleth him a stone elect, precious. And again a prophet saith concerning him: And behold, I saw one like the Son of man coming upon a cloud. And what more? O ye men of Rome, if ye knew the Scriptures of the prophets, I would expound all unto you: by which Scriptures it was necessary that this should be spoken in a mystery, and that the kingdom of God should be perfected. But these things shall be opened unto you hereafter. Now turn I unto thee, Simon: do thou some one thing of those wherewith thou didst before deceive them, and I will bring it to nought through my Lord Jesus Christ. And Simon plucked up his boldness and said: If the prefect allow it (prepare yourselves and delay not for my sake).
This seems to be using the Ascension of Isaiah (or a similar work) to make claims similar to those reported of the Cathar (Belibaste) by the Inquisitor.
According to Norelli, it is a 'similar work' (or works) being used by both the Ascension of Isaiah and the Acts of Peter.
http://vridar.org/2015/05/09/more-on-th ... of-isaiah/
"Nor has the Acts of Peter borrowed from the AoI: the author of the Acts attributes the passages found in AoI to two different prophetic sources. Norelli concludes that both the AoI and Acts of Peter independently drew upon a similar set of passages used to prove the virgin birth was a fulfillment of prophecy." (emphasis added)
At the same time, even so, it would still indicate in favor of the ancient period for the composition of this passage in the Ascension of Isaiah.
Cross-posted here:
http://vridar.org/2015/05/09/more-on-th ... ment-70743
It occurs to me that the reference to “two different prophetic sources” might not indicate that the Acts of Peter had a separate source other than the Ascension of Isaiah. It might mean that the Ascension of Isaiah was being used as a source for finding prophetic words by reverting the narrative itself, on the assumption that the narrative was prophetically predicted in any case.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:
It occurs to me that the reference to “two different prophetic sources” might not indicate that the Acts of Peter had a separate source other than the Ascension of Isaiah. It might mean that the Ascension of Isaiah was being used as a source for finding prophetic words by reverting the narrative itself, on the assumption that the narrative was prophetically predicted in any case.
Are you wondering if Acts of Peter's claim of two prophets derives from the narrative in the AoI? (Just seeking clarification of your idea.)
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Peter Kirby wrote:
It occurs to me that the reference to “two different prophetic sources” might not indicate that the Acts of Peter had a separate source other than the Ascension of Isaiah. It might mean that the Ascension of Isaiah was being used as a source for finding prophetic words by reverting the narrative itself, on the assumption that the narrative was prophetically predicted in any case.
Are you wondering if Acts of Peter's claim of two prophets derives from the narrative in the AoI? (Just seeking clarification of your idea.)
I am wondering if the author of the Acts of Peter would have assumed that there were prophetic utterances (sight unseen) foreshadowing the bits in the Ascension of Isaiah.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
What follows is a bit speculative, but we only have the relevant portion of the Acts of Peter in Latin translation.
I wonder whether an original reference to another prophecy has been translated throughout section 24 as another prophet
andrewcriddle wrote:What follows is a bit speculative, but we only have the relevant portion of the Acts of Peter in Latin translation.
I wonder whether an original reference to another prophecy has been translated throughout section 24 as another prophet
Andrew Criddle
Interesting suggestion. Thanks for pointing out that it's in translation.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:At the same time, even so, it would still indicate in favor of the ancient period for the composition of this passage in the Ascension of Isaiah.
I think this has already been mentioned in this thread but just to clarify.
We have a solid terminus ante quem for the long version of chapter 11 of before 400 CE.
A very fragmentary Akhmimic Coptic manuscript of the 4th century CE contains 11:15
And they took Him, and went to Nazareth in Galilee.
with a few words of the precedding and subsequent verses (14 and 16).
