Origen of Alexandria (d.c.254AD, Commentary on Matthew 10:18)—(And Isaiah is reported to have been sawn asunder by the people; and if any one does not accept the statement because of its being found in the Apocryphal Isaiah,)—provides a reference by name to the Ascension of Isaiah.
Is this reference is derived from an old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew, or another source?
Be well
LC
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]
Origen of Alexandria (d.c.254AD, Commentary on Matthew 10:18)—(And Isaiah is reported to have been sawn asunder by the people; and if any one does not accept the statement because of its being found in the Apocryphal Isaiah,)—provides a reference by name to the Ascension of Isaiah.
Is this reference is derived from an old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew, or another source?
I'll try and restate my argument because I don't seem to have made it clear.
1/ From very ancient times the Ascension of Isaiah existed in two forms Short Form SFchapters 6-11 and Long Form LF chapters 1-11.
2/ SF is probably earlier than LF
3/ There is considerable divergence in the different forms of the Ascension of Isaiah about the account of the life of Christ in chapter 11.
4/ There are only three surviving versions of the Ascension of Isaiah which contain enough of chapter 11 to be relevant the Ethiopic LF the Slavonic SF and the Latin SF. The Ethiopic LF has a long and rather peculiar account of the birth life and death of Christ. The Slavonic SF and the Latin SF have only a very brief passage.
5/ The obvious conclusion is that the account in the Ethiopic LF of chapter 11 was never part of the SF. The problem is that the ultimate archtype of the Slavonic SF and the Latin SF is certainly not as old as the 2nd century but is at the oldest Byzantine, hence where the Slavonic SF and the Latin SF give one reading in chapters 6-11 and the Ethiopic LF gives another reading the Slavonic/Latin reading is not necessarily the original text of the SF.
6/ This problem is increased by the fact that the Latin SF goes back to a printed text based on a lost manuscript of unknown provenance. Some scholars suspect that the existing Latin SF is not simply a translation of a Greek text but has been assimilated to the Slavonic.
7/ The Slavonic SF and the Latin SF circulated among Bogomils Cathars and other heretical groups. We have evidence from inquisitorial reports of the use of the SF by heretics in Western Europe. The inquisitorial report I linked to provides good evidence that Cathars knew a heretical text with something like the Ethiopic LF version of the birth of Christ. This heretical text was presumably a Latin version of the SF. Hence the Latin SF known to Cathars c 1300 contained something like the Ethiopic LF version of the birth of Christ. Hence something like the Ethiopic LF version of the birth of Christ was apparently originally part of the SF of chapter 11 and appears to have been removed from our surviving SF presumably because of its weird nature.
andrewcriddle wrote:I'll try and restate my argument because I don't seem to have made it clear.
1/ From very ancient times the Ascension of Isaiah existed in two forms Short Form SFchapters 6-11 and Long Form LF chapters 1-11.
2/ SF is probably earlier than LF
All this appears to be reliant upon the theory of Robert Henry Charles (1855–1931). Charles has managed to convince everyone that the original form of this text consists of two separate authorships, joined together by a later Christian. What arguments have been made to the contrary, that it is in fact a single later work?
But for the moment, assuming Robert Henry Charles is on the right track ....
3/ There is considerable divergence in the different forms of the Ascension of Isaiah about the account of the life of Christ in chapter 11.
4/ There are only three surviving versions of the Ascension of Isaiah which contain enough of chapter 11 to be relevant the Ethiopic LF the Slavonic SF and the Latin SF. The Ethiopic LF has a long and rather peculiar account of the birth life and death of Christ. The Slavonic SF and the Latin SF have only a very brief passage.
5/ The obvious conclusion is that the account in the Ethiopic LF of chapter 11 was never part of the SF. The problem is that the ultimate archtype of the Slavonic SF and the Latin SF is certainly not as old as the 2nd century but is at the oldest Byzantine, hence where the Slavonic SF and the Latin SF give one reading in chapters 6-11 and the Ethiopic LF gives another reading the Slavonic/Latin reading is not necessarily the original text of the SF.
6/ This problem is increased by the fact that the Latin SF goes back to a printed text based on a lost manuscript of unknown provenance. Some scholars suspect that the existing Latin SF is not simply a translation of a Greek text but has been assimilated to the Slavonic.
7/ The Slavonic SF and the Latin SF circulated among Bogomils Cathars and other heretical groups. We have evidence from inquisitorial reports of the use of the SF by heretics in Western Europe. The inquisitorial report I linked to provides good evidence that Cathars knew a heretical text with something like the Ethiopic LF version of the birth of Christ. This heretical text was presumably a Latin version of the SF. Hence the Latin SF known to Cathars c 1300 contained something like the Ethiopic LF version of the birth of Christ. Hence something like the Ethiopic LF version of the birth of Christ was apparently originally part of the SF of chapter 11 and appears to have been removed from our surviving SF presumably because of its weird nature.
I suppose the Coptic fragments mentioned are not part of Chapter 11?
Which part of Chapter 11 specifically is this "weird part", and why is it weird ?
CHAPTER 11
AFTER this I saw, and the angel who spoke with me, who conducted me, said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz; for for this purpose have I been sent from God."
2. And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah.
3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.
4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
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.
17. And I saw: In Nazareth He sucked the breast as a babe and as is customary in order that He might not be recognized.
18. And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem.
19. And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).
20. In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree:
21. And likewise after the third day rise again and remain days.
22. And the angel who conducted me said: "Understand, Isaiah": and I saw when He sent out the Twelve Apostles and ascended.
23. And 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.
24. And there was much sorrow there, 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?"
25. And He ascended into the second heaven, and He did not transform Himself, but all the angels who were on the right and on the left and the throne in the midst.
26. Both worshipped Him and praised Him and said: "How did our Lord escape us whilst descending, and we perceived not?"
27. And in like manner He ascended into the third heaven, and they praised and said in like manner.
28. And in the fourth heaven and in the fifth also they said precisely after the same manner.
29. But there was one glory, and from it He did not change Himself.
30. And I saw when He ascended into the sixth heaven, and they worshipped and glorified Him.
31. But in all the heavens the praise increased (in volume).
32. And I saw how He ascended into the seventh heaven, and all the righteous and all the angels praised Him. And then I saw Him sit down on the right hand of that Great Glory whose glory I told you that I could not behold.
33. And also the angel of the Holy Spirit I saw sitting on the left hand.
34. And this angel said unto me: "Isaiah, son of Amoz, it is enough for thee;... for thou hast seen what no child of flesh has seen.
35. And thou wilt return into thy garment (of the flesh) until thy days are completed. Then thou wilt come hither."
36. These things Isaiah saw and told unto all that stood before him, and they praised. And he spake to Hezekiah the King and said: "I have spoken these things."
37. Both the end of this world;
38. And all this vision will be consummated in the last generations.
39. And Isaiah made him swear that he would not tell (it) to the people of Israel, nor give these words to any man to transcribe.
40. ...such things ye will read. and watch ye in the Holy Spirit in order they ye may receive your garments and thrones and crowns of glory which are laid up in the seventh heaven.
41. On account of these visions and prophecies Sammael Satan sawed in sunder Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet, by the hand of Manasseh.
42. And all these things Hezekiah delivered to Manasseh in the twenty-sixth year.
43. But Manasseh did not remember them nor place these things in his heart, but becoming the servant of Satan he was destroyed. Here endeth the vision of Isaiah the prophet with his ascension.
Be well,
LC
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]
Leucius Charinus wrote:
I suppose the Coptic fragments mentioned are not part of Chapter 11?
They don't cover the relevant bit of chapter 11
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Which part of Chapter 11 specifically is this "weird part", and why is it weird ?
CHAPTER 11
AFTER this I saw, and the angel who spoke with me, who conducted me, said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz; for for this purpose have I been sent from God."
2. And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah.
3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.
4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
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.
17. And I saw: In Nazareth He sucked the breast as a babe and as is customary in order that He might not be recognized.
18. And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem.
19. And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).
20. In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree:
21. And likewise after the third day rise again and remain days.
22. And the angel who conducted me said: "Understand, Isaiah": and I saw when He sent out the Twelve Apostles and ascended.
23. And 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.
24. And there was much sorrow there, 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?"
25. And He ascended into the second heaven, and He did not transform Himself, but all the angels who were on the right and on the left and the throne in the midst.
26. Both worshipped Him and praised Him and said: "How did our Lord escape us whilst descending, and we perceived not?"
27. And in like manner He ascended into the third heaven, and they praised and said in like manner.
28. And in the fourth heaven and in the fifth also they said precisely after the same manner.
29. But there was one glory, and from it He did not change Himself.
30. And I saw when He ascended into the sixth heaven, and they worshipped and glorified Him.
31. But in all the heavens the praise increased (in volume).
32. And I saw how He ascended into the seventh heaven, and all the righteous and all the angels praised Him. And then I saw Him sit down on the right hand of that Great Glory whose glory I told you that I could not behold.
33. And also the angel of the Holy Spirit I saw sitting on the left hand.
34. And this angel said unto me: "Isaiah, son of Amoz, it is enough for thee;... for thou hast seen what no child of flesh has seen.
35. And thou wilt return into thy garment (of the flesh) until thy days are completed. Then thou wilt come hither."
36. These things Isaiah saw and told unto all that stood before him, and they praised. And he spake to Hezekiah the King and said: "I have spoken these things."
37. Both the end of this world;
38. And all this vision will be consummated in the last generations.
39. And Isaiah made him swear that he would not tell (it) to the people of Israel, nor give these words to any man to transcribe.
40. ...such things ye will read. and watch ye in the Holy Spirit in order they ye may receive your garments and thrones and crowns of glory which are laid up in the seventh heaven.
41. On account of these visions and prophecies Sammael Satan sawed in sunder Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet, by the hand of Manasseh.
42. And all these things Hezekiah delivered to Manasseh in the twenty-sixth year.
43. But Manasseh did not remember them nor place these things in his heart, but becoming the servant of Satan he was destroyed. Here endeth the vision of Isaiah the prophet with his ascension.
Be well,
LC
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
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.
Is what I meant by the weird material.
It is certainly not an orthodox version of the birth of Christ and it is unusual even among legendary/unorthodox accounts. The Catholic Inquisitor certainly seems to have found the account shocking.
Thanks for the clarifications. Your original points now make perfect sense (see below).
andrewcriddle wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:Which part of Chapter 11 specifically is this "weird part", and why is it weird ?
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
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.
Is what I meant by the weird material.
It is certainly not an orthodox version of the birth of Christ and it is unusual even among legendary/unorthodox accounts. The Catholic Inquisitor certainly seems to have found the account shocking.
Yes that's weird alright. It seems to be highlighting the motifs of "Immaculate Birth" and "Mary remained a virgin" after giving birth to Jesus. These became political issues during the 4th and 5th century (I think involving Cyril and Nestorius). But the weirdness fits in perfectly well with truckloads of weird bits in other non canonical texts.
The author of the original Form had obviously read the canonical Gospels. The question is why didn't he just follow them? We know he didn't follow the gospels but instead invented his own "weird" sub-plot. Why? What was his agenda? Was it just recreational writing or was it something else?
IDK.
5/ The obvious conclusion is that the account in the Ethiopic LF of chapter 11 was never part of the SF. The problem is that the ultimate archtype of the Slavonic SF and the Latin SF is certainly not as old as the 2nd century but is at the oldest Byzantine, hence where the Slavonic SF and the Latin SF give one reading in chapters 6-11 and the Ethiopic LF gives another reading the Slavonic/Latin reading is not necessarily the original text of the SF.
6/ This problem is increased by the fact that the Latin SF goes back to a printed text based on a lost manuscript of unknown provenance. Some scholars suspect that the existing Latin SF is not simply a translation of a Greek text but has been assimilated to the Slavonic.
7/ The Slavonic SF and the Latin SF circulated among Bogomils Cathars and other heretical groups. We have evidence from inquisitorial reports of the use of the SF by heretics in Western Europe. The inquisitorial report I linked to provides good evidence that Cathars knew a heretical text with something like the Ethiopic LF version of the birth of Christ. This heretical text was presumably a Latin version of the SF. Hence the Latin SF known to Cathars c 1300 contained something like the Ethiopic LF version of the birth of Christ. Hence something like the Ethiopic LF version of the birth of Christ was apparently originally part of the SF of chapter 11 and appears to have been removed from our surviving SF presumably because of its weird nature.
Given that it is reasonable that the Cathars knew (or even god forbid were preserving) an heretical text,
within which date range do you think this "weird bit" might have been removed from the Latin version?
What does the manuscript tradition have to say about the location of the earliest "corrupted" Latin manuscript?
Tangentially, recent C14 tests on an Ethiopian Bible have indicated a 4th or 5th century date. So the Ethiopian tradition was alive quite early.
Interesting stuff.
Be well,
LC
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]
What does the manuscript tradition have to say about the location of the earliest "corrupted" Latin manuscript?
There is no surviving Latin manuscript of the short form of the Ascension of Isaiah.
The Latin text was printed in 1522 or thereabouts from a manuscript that no longer survives.
Leucius Charinus wrote:
I suppose the Coptic fragments mentioned are not part of Chapter 11?
They don't cover the relevant bit of chapter 11
I'm sorry I'm wrong here.
The Sahidic Coptic doesn't cover the relevant portion of chapter 11 but the very fragmentary Akhminic Coptic, (which is probably 4th century like the Sahidic), does, as you mentioned in a previous post, have part of chapter 11 14-16 i.e. part of the following
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.
And they took Him, and went to Nazareth in Galilee. And I saw, O Hezekiah and Josab my son
This indicates the antiquity of this narrative. However, both the Coptic versions are witnesses to the long form of the Ascension of Isaiah, which limits their value for the text of the short form.
What does the manuscript tradition have to say about the location of the earliest "corrupted" Latin manuscript?
There is no surviving Latin manuscript of the short form of the Ascension of Isaiah.
The Latin text was printed in 1522 or thereabouts from a manuscript that no longer survives.
Hi Andrew,
IMO whoever it was that was responsible for the Latin text printed edition in 1522 would have to be the primary suspect (or related to the prime suspect) - as being the person responsible for the removal of the "weird bit" from chapter 11 . Therefore it would be interesting to know more about this 1522 edition. Who was the publisher? Where did he get his source manuscript? Who else was related in these transactions? etc
Be well,
LC
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]
