Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

[andrewcriddle]

Norelli argues for the birth narrative being original in Ascensione di Isaia : studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi my argument is heavily based on Norelli's book.

(Checking back, my original version of this argument on FRDB explicitly referenced Norelli, but I left out the reference to Norelli when I rewrote my argument for this thread.)

Andrew Criddle

Norelli's argument is in Chapter 15 of Ascensione di Isaia : studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi pps 265-269. AI 11,5-13 nel catarismo.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

I have been reading the Italian scholar Enrico Norelli on the Ascension of Isaiah (or trying to do so my Italian is weak) and he notes thatt here is an important reference to the Ascension of Isaiah in the records of the Inquisition of Jacques Fournier (See Montaillou).

Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters
Quote:
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

Quote:
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 hesitant translation using Google translate.)

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

So Norelli's argument is primarily based on reconciliation of manuscripts, not on narrative or other structure?

I have yet to get into his French summary in detail. You may be able to throw more light on what I outline from that from your reading of this Italian work.

[andrewcriddle]

So Norelli's argument is primarily based on reconciliation of manuscripts, not on narrative or other structure?

I have yet to get into his French summary in detail. You may be able to throw more light on what I outline from that from your reading of this Italian work.

IIUC Norelli is using three types of argument.

1. Arguments about the very primitive nature of the birth story in AoI chapter 11 and its similarities with themes in the rest of AoI particularly chapter 3 are used to establish the early nature of the Ethiopic version of chapter 11.

2. There are arguments that the present detailed form of chapter 11 in Latin/Slavonic is late and influenced by the canonical NT. (This is something that Richard Carrier would agree with, although he would draw very different conclusions.)

3. There is (indirect) evidence of a Latin version of chapters 6-11 with a birth story similar to the Ethiopic.

From these arguments Norelli concludes that the Ethiopic version of chapter 11 is basically the original.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

2. There are arguments that the present detailed form of chapter 11 in Latin/Slavonic is late and influenced by the canonical NT. (This is something that Richard Carrier would agree with, although he would draw very different conclusions.)

Can you clarify how this is argues in favour of the nativity story in ch 11 being original to the AoI as per Norelli?

Thanks
N

[andrewcriddle]

2. There are arguments that the present detailed form of chapter 11 in Latin/Slavonic is late and influenced by the canonical NT. (This is something that Richard Carrier would agree with, although he would draw very different conclusions.)

Can you clarify how this is argues in favour of the nativity story in ch 11 being original to the AoI as per Norelli?

Thanks
N

There seem to be three possibilities.
a/ The original form of chapter 11 was roughly that of the Ethiopic
b/ The original form of chapter 11 was roughly that of the Latin/Slavonic
c/ The original form of chapter 11 was like neither. (Richard Carrier holds a version of c/)

Argument 2 is directed against possibility b/ and if valid will by common sense or Bayesian analysis increase (at least a little) the probability of possibility a/

Argument 1 supports the plausibility/probability of possibility a/

Argument 3 (which indicates that we have evidence of the existence of an alternative Latin version of chapter 11 which agrees with the Ethiopic) is directed against both possibility b/ and possibility c/

IIUC Norelli believes that arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to make possibility a/ likely while argument 3 confirms this.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

When I first encountered the new work being done on the AoI it was clear Norelli was a key player but I also had the impression that the new studies were being undertaken by a group of scholars.

Now I'm wondering the extent to which anyone other than Norelli was actually involved in the work on the AoI. Was it all Norelli?

Do you know anything about the details of who was who and doing what in this new effort?

[andrewcriddle]

When I first encountered the new work being done on the AoI it was clear Norelli was a key player but I also had the impression that the new studies were being undertaken by a group of scholars.

Now I'm wondering the extent to which anyone other than Norelli was actually involved in the work on the AoI. Was it all Norelli?

Do you know anything about the details of who was who and doing what in this new effort?

Apart from Norelli the team included Paolo Bettiolo, Alda Kossova Giambelluca, Claudio Leonardi. and Lorenzo Perrone.

IIUC Paolo Bettiolo was particularly concerned in making a modern Italian translation of the texts.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

The Old Slavonic, the earliest surviving manuscript of which dates from before 1300, lacks the weird bit, the original removal is probably related to the Old Slavonic history of the text.
The Old Latin was published in 1522 by Antonius de Fantis his source is apparently entirely unknown....

Andrew Criddle

I've been trying to look into the history of the Latin and Old Slavonic versions of the short form of the Ascension of Isaiah (the form with only chapters 6-11).

What follows is a rather speculative reconstruction.

1/ The short form of the AoI survived in Greek speaking circles and was translated into Old Slavonic around the turn of the Millennium. The Old Slavonic version probably differed from the Greek original.

2/ Shortly before the Millennium a heretical Christian dualist movement arose in Bulgaria known as the Bogomils. By 1100 CE a form of Bogomilism had developed in the Greek East particularly in the vicinity of Constantinople. Both the Bulgarian Bogomils and the Bogomils in Constantinople valued the AoI, the Bulgarians using the Old Slavonic form and the Greek speaking Bogomils the (original) Greek version.

3/ Before 1150 CE Bogomil ideas had been brought from Constantinople to Western Europe by Westerners who had visited Constantinople. This began the Cathar movement. Found mainly in Northern Italy and Southern France. Cathars in Italy and France both valued a Latin version of AoI translated from Greek.

4/ This version of AoI continued to be used in Southern France and may have been translated into Occitan. It contained a docetic version of the birth and life of Christ similar to that found in chapter 11 of the Ethiopic version of AoI.

5/ About 1200 CE Slavonic Cathar texts from Bulgaria were translated into Latin for the use of Italian Cathars. The clear example is the Interrogatio_Johannis or Secret Supper. It is possible, although there is no direct evidence, that the Latin version of the AoI used by Italian Cathars was corrected at this time on the basis of the Slavonic.

6/ The text published by Antonio de Fantis in 1522 in Venice is a version of the Latin text of AoI used by Italian Cathars, it lacks the docetic version of the birth of Christ in agreement with the Slavonic. This may indicate that it belongs to a textual tradition influenced by the contacts between Italian and Bulgarian Cathars/Bogomils c 1200 CE.

Andrew Criddle

[Peter Kirby]

The Old Slavonic, the earliest surviving manuscript of which dates from before 1300, lacks the weird bit, the original removal is probably related to the Old Slavonic history of the text.
The Old Latin was published in 1522 by Antonius de Fantis his source is apparently entirely unknown....

Andrew Criddle

I've been trying to look into the history of the Latin and Old Slavonic versions of the short form of the Ascension of Isaiah (the form with only chapters 6-11).

What follows is a rather speculative reconstruction.

1/ The short form of the AoI survived in Greek speaking circles and was translated into Old Slavonic around the turn of the Millennium. The Old Slavonic version probably differed from the Greek original.

2/ Shortly before the Millennium a heretical Christian dualist movement arose in Bulgaria known as the Bogomils. By 1100 CE a form of Bogomilism had developed in the Greek East particularly in the vicinity of Constantinople. Both the Bulgarian Bogomils and the Bogomils in Constantinople valued the AoI, the Bulgarians using the Old Slavonic form and the Greek speaking Bogomils the (original) Greek version.

3/ Before 1150 CE Bogomil ideas had been brought from Constantinople to Western Europe by Westerners who had visited Constantinople. This began the Cathar movement. Found mainly in Northern Italy and Southern France. Cathars in Italy and France both valued a Latin version of AoI translated from Greek.

4/ This version of AoI continued to be used in Southern France and may have been translated into Occitan. It contained a docetic version of the birth and life of Christ similar to that found in chapter 11 of the Ethiopic version of AoI.

5/ About 1200 CE Slavonic Cathar texts from Bulgaria were translated into Latin for the use of Italian Cathars. The clear example is the Interrogatio_Johannis or Secret Supper. It is possible, although there is no direct evidence, that the Latin version of the AoI used by Italian Cathars was corrected at this time on the basis of the Slavonic.

6/ The text published by Antonio de Fantis in 1522 in Venice is a version of the Latin text of AoI used by Italian Cathars, it lacks the docetic version of the birth of Christ in agreement with the Slavonic. This may indicate that it belongs to a textual tradition influenced by the contacts between Italian and Bulgarian Cathars/Bogomils c 1200 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Possibly speculative but also fascinating. Thanks for your work on this, Andrew!

It's a reminder that the texts we have are not just the texts that were originally penned; they're also the texts that were copied and used over centuries.

[neilgodfrey]

Thanks for your work on this, Andrew!

Seconded.

Ironically for me here is that I once belonged to a cult that boasted it's historical heritage through elements found among the Cathars and Bogomils. I probably devoured every scrap of information I could find about them years ago, so it's odd to find myself now returning to these same groups for entirely different associations.