Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

This is a revised version of an old FRDB post.

I thought it might be relevant because of the recent debate about Richard Carrier's use of this text.

First some background. AoI goes back to the 2nd century CE. It survives in various translations. It has 2 forms, a long form with 11 chapters and a short form with chapters 6-11. Scholars agree that 6-11 was originally separate the only real debate is whether or not 1-5 are an expansion of 6-11 or an originally independent text or texts.

The long version is complete in Ethiopic with fragments in other languages. The short version is complete in Old Slavonic and in a Latin text published in the 16th century from a lost manuscript, and there are fragments in other languages. The Old Slavonic/Latin version was used by the Cathar/Bogomil dualists.

Both versions in their present form have Christ present on this earth but the account in the short version is very brief while the long version has a detailed account with a strange version of the birth of Christ. The present form of the long version of the life of Christ on earth seems prima-facie secondary, and this seems confirmed by its absence in the Old Slavonic/Latin.

However, this conclusion is apparently mistaken, and is contradicted by evidence of Cathar usage of the short (chapters 6-11) version. An Inquisitor notes that in a Cathar heretical text
et descendit de coelo et
apparuit ut puer natus de novo in Bethlehem. Et videtur
ipsi loquenti, quod dictus haereticus dixit, qnod beata Ma-
ria fuit grossa, ac si esset praegnans. Et postea dictus puer
apparuit juxta eam, et existimavit, quod grossities ejus dis-
soluta fuit, quod dictum filium peperisset; cum tarnen eum
non gestasset in ventre, nee eum peperisset. Et postquam
sie dictus puer apparuit in Bethlehem, auditum fuit et nar-
ratum per multos, quod propheta, quem praedixerat Isaias
esse venturum, venerat. Quod audientes tres Reges venerunt
singuli de loco suo et convenerunt simul
and he came down from heaven and
appeared as a new born child in Bethlehem. and it seems
they said that the said heretic said That Blessed Mary was thick, as if she were pregnant And later the said boy appeared to the side of her and it was thought that her thickness had been dissolved it was said that she had borne a son. However she had not carried him in the belly or given him birth. So the boy appeared in Bethlehem, and in the hearing of many it was ratified, that the prophet, whom Isaiah had foretold was going to come, had come. They heard that there came three kings
every man in his place, and they came together at the same time
(my dodgy translation)

This is clearly based on the long version of chapter 11 of Ascension of Isaiah and seems to indicate that the original Latin version of 6-11 contained the full form of chapter 11. If so it seems likely that the original (Greek) version of 6-11 had the full form of chapter 11. Possibly chapter 11 was shortened in the Slavonic tradition because it was regarded as unsound and the surviving Latin has been assimilated to the Slavonic.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by GakuseiDon »

Am I understanding you correctly that the argument is that the longer Ethiopic version was first (or closer to the original), and the shorter Latin and Slavonic versions built off the longer version?
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Leucius Charinus »

andrewcriddle wrote:First some background. AoI goes back to the 2nd century CE.
Hi Andrew. Can you cite the evidence which is utilised to deduce that the "original form" of the AoI goes back to the 2nd century CE?
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

GakuseiDon wrote:Am I understanding you correctly that the argument is that the longer Ethiopic version was first (or closer to the original), and the shorter Latin and Slavonic versions built off the longer version?
The short version (chapters 6-11) was earlier than the long version (chapters 1-11).

However I am suggesting that the current text of chapter 11 in the Ethiopic may be closer to the original form of chapter 11 than the current text of chapter 11 in the Old/Slavonic/Latin which may have been modified in the medieval period.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

Leucius Charinus wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:First some background. AoI goes back to the 2nd century CE.
Hi Andrew. Can you cite the evidence which is utilised to deduce that the "original form" of the AoI goes back to the 2nd century CE?
The 2nd century date of AoI is one of the things that most mythicists and most historicists agree on. I admit the direct evidence is not conclusive.

There is enough knowledge of and translations of the AoI dating from the 4th century to make a date after 300 CE unlikely on external evidence.

The evidence for a 2nd century rather than a 3rd century date is not as clear. However Origen knows of a presumablt 2nd century Isaiah apocryphon that has at least some relation to our AoI and the type of material in AoI (Nero as Antichrist its peculiar angelology its legendary account of the birth of Jesus) has better parallels with 2nd century than with 3rd century material.

FWIW in the unlikely event of AoI being late 3rd century, its possible relevance to the mythicist argument would be much reduced.

Andrew Criddle
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by perseusomega9 »

andrewcriddle wrote:and he came down from heaven and
appeared as a new born child in Bethlehem. and it seems
they said that the said heretic said That Blessed Mary was thick, as if she were pregnant And later the said boy appeared to the side of her and it was thought that her thickness had been dissolved it was said that she had borne a son. However she had not carried him in the belly or given him birth.
Is this a play on Genesis where Eve is taken from Adam's side?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

perseusomega9 wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:and he came down from heaven and
appeared as a new born child in Bethlehem. and it seems
they said that the said heretic said That Blessed Mary was thick, as if she were pregnant And later the said boy appeared to the side of her and it was thought that her thickness had been dissolved it was said that she had borne a son. However she had not carried him in the belly or given him birth.
Is this a play on Genesis where Eve is taken from Adam's side?
The immediate source is this passage from AoI
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.
13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."
14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was.
15. And they took Him, and went to Nazareth in Galilee.
16. And I saw, O Hezekiah and Josab my son, and I declare to the other prophets also who are standing by, that (this) hath escaped all the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of this world.
Andrew Cridd;e
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Solo »

andrewcriddle wrote:
perseusomega9 wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:and he came down from heaven and
appeared as a new born child in Bethlehem. and it seems
they said that the said heretic said That Blessed Mary was thick, as if she were pregnant And later the said boy appeared to the side of her and it was thought that her thickness had been dissolved it was said that she had borne a son. However she had not carried him in the belly or given him birth.
Is this a play on Genesis where Eve is taken from Adam's side?
The immediate source is this passage from AoI
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.
13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."
14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was.
15. And they took Him, and went to Nazareth in Galilee.
16. And I saw, O Hezekiah and Josab my son, and I declare to the other prophets also who are standing by, that (this) hath escaped all the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of this world.
Andrew Cridd;e
Many thanks for this, Andrew ! What can I say, my mouth is wide open ! Wow ! Could this be the original version of of the nativity story ? Matthew certainly appears to argue with both the lack of a celestial sign and the absent princes, and Luke with the celestial sign. The blinding light issuing from the babe is preserved in the Protevangelion and the Infancy Gospel.

Thanks, again, you've made my day !

Best,
Jiri
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Bernard Muller »

I just completed another study on "Ascension of Isaiah', the "vision" part.
For the one interested, it is here:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... 1-p105.htm
It's a 'Beta' version subject to changes.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Leucius Charinus »

andrewcriddle wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:First some background. AoI goes back to the 2nd century CE.
Hi Andrew. Can you cite the evidence which is utilised to deduce that the "original form" of the AoI goes back to the 2nd century CE?
The 2nd century date of AoI is one of the things that most mythicists and most historicists agree on. I admit the direct evidence is not conclusive.
Thanks for the honest admission that the direct evidence in inconclusive. The earliest manuscript evidence seem to be Sahidic fragments.
This earliest direct evidence is dated around 350 to 375 CE.

andrewcriddle wrote:There is enough knowledge of and translations of the AoI dating from the 4th century to make a date after 300 CE unlikely on external evidence.

The evidence for a 2nd century rather than a 3rd century date is not as clear. However Origen knows of a presumablt 2nd century Isaiah apocryphon that has at least some relation to our AoI and the type of material in AoI (Nero as Antichrist its peculiar angelology its legendary account of the birth of Jesus) has better parallels with 2nd century than with 3rd century material.
Neil Godfrey has posted a few articles on various "theories" about the dating of AoI:

The Date of the Ascension of Isaiah (1: R. H. Charles) ... http://vridar.org/2011/02/12/the-date-o ... -isaiah-1/
For Charles this Martyrdom document should be dated to the first century c.e.
When the above parts were stitched together ... it is probable that the work of editing goes back to early in the third century, or even to the second
Date of the Ascension of Isaiah (2: H.F.D. Sparks) ... http://vridar.org/2011/02/13/date-of-th ... -isaiah-2/
Sahidic fragments dated around 350 to 375 preserve two leaves from opposite ends of a single codex, assuring us that the Ascension from chapters 1 to 11 was known at this time. If we are prepared to allow a reasonable margin for the circulation of the work in Sahidic before our particular MS was copied, for its translation into Sahidic from Greek, and for its circulation in Greek after final editing, we are taken back to AD 350 as the latest possible date. Sparks continues:

And the actual date is in all probability very much earlier. Indeed Charles committed himself to a date in ‘the latter half of the second century’ and went on to claim that the three ‘constituents . . . circulated independently as early as the first century’. Charles may very well be right. (pp. 780-1)
Date of Ascension of Isaiah (3: M.A. Knibb) .... http://vridar.org/2011/02/13/date-of-as ... -isaiah-3/
Date of the Vision of Isaiah (the Ascension) chapters 6 to 11

Jerome refers to 11:34
Epiphanius quotes 9:35f
Hence “this part of the Ascension was in existence, at the latest, by the end of the third century A.D. But it is probably much older than the third century.” (p. 150)

Acts of Peter 24 (dated to second half of second century) appears to quote Ascension 11:14.
Protoevangelium of James (dated around A.D. 150) contains similarities to the narrative of the miraculous birth in the Ascension 11:2-16.

It thus seems likely that the Vision comes from the second century A.D.
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
Post Reply