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
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:An Inquisitor notes that in a Cathar heretical text
andrewcriddle wrote: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.
Hi Andrew,

Thank you for this important note.

As you noted in the original post, this is part of "The Inquisition Record of Jacques Fournier," apparently Bishop of Pamiers 1318-1325.

In particular, "Errores Manichaeorum: Confessio Raymundi Valsiera de Ax, haeretici conversi, super crimine haeresis."

Available here: https://books.google.com/books?id=EiUYA ... =RA1-PA161

Does it really seem "to indicate that the original Latin version of the Ascension of Isaiah contained the full form of chapter 11"?

To me, it seems to indicate that one of the versions (likely in Latin) of Ascension of Isaiah contained the full form of chapter 11.

We already know that some manuscripts attest XI, 2-22 and some do not.

You've suggested that the original Latin contained the passage, which was later removed under the influence of the Slavonic.

But it is just as possible that the original Latin did not contain the passage, which was a secondary addition to some form of the Ascension of Isaiah, which then influenced forms of the Ascension of Isaiah in other languages.

I fail to see how this really helps us resolve that question.

It appears to me that we need internal criticism; the manuscripts and quotations are insufficient evidence. If they are sufficient evidence, how so?

(I am updating this post because I now noticed your arguments made after the OP.)
The Ascension of Isaiah survives in two forms.
a/ Represented primarily by the Ethiopic consists of chapters 1-11
b/ Represented by Latin and Slavonic consists of chapters 6-11
It is generally accepted that 6-11 originally circulated independently of 1-11 as in form b/.

Form b/ has a very abbreviated version of chapter 11 with much less reference to the life of Christ upon earth. (although there is some.) It has been claimed, e.g. by Earl Doherty, that the long version of chapter 11 in Form a/ is late and that the original had even less reference to the life of Christ upon earth than that found in form b/.

However there may be problems with the text of form b/ here. Our evidence for the relevant section of chapter 11 in form b/ comes from late medieval Slavonic manuscripts and a Latin text of unclear origin. The Latin and Slavonic are in reasonably close agreement but their precise relationship is unclear. It has been suggested that the Latin is a translation from Slavonic rather than Greek although most scholars disagree. It does seem that the survival of form b/ is linked to its use by Bogomil/Cathar dualists although the text itself does not show clear evidence of modification in a dualist-friendly way.
This helps clarify matters quite a bit. I see now that the Ethiopic is longer than the Latin and the Slavonic, by the addition of chapters to the beginning, and not just by the addition of XI, 2-22. This helps me understand the text-critical situation better.

Now I understand why it is relevant that we might have a Latin witness to XI, 2-22 and not just the Ethiopic witness, which has a separate transmission in "longer form" (i.e., with the first chapters also, making it the Ascension of Isaiah and not just the Vision of Isaiah, which is just 6-11).
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.
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
Okay this is very interesting.

Thank you for the patient summary of these arguments.

Arguments 1 and 2 seem to be the kind of "internal" evidence that I believe is the most important type in this matter.

I wonder if anyone would accept my post below as a rebuttal to argument 3. If not, we have my words at the start of this post.

Certainly there could have been two Greek forms of the Vision/Ascension of Isaiah, one shorter 6-11 without the "pocket gospel" in ch. 11 (as in the Slavonic ms. and the Latin edition), and one longer with the same text as the Ethiopic.

Then there could easily have been two Latin forms of the Vision of Isaiah (ch. 6-11), one which is identical to the earliest Greek form of ch. 6-11, and another which has been revised with reference to the longer Ascension of Isaiah (an "assimilation" or text-critical correction).

That is, of course, assuming that there was a Latin form with XI.2-22, and it seems that the inquisitor is our only evidence of it.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:
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)
While this may be strained, I do wonder a bit how secure the identification is.

Elements of the story of The Inquisitor:

(1) Came down from heaven
(2) In Bethlehem
(3) Mary appeared to be pregnant but was not
(4) Baby boy appears, thickness of apparent pregnancy dissolves
(5) Mary did not give birth
(6) The prophecies of Isaiah ratified (verbally?)
(7) Three kings came
(8) Census ("every man in his place")
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 Mary, 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.
(1) Came down from heaven
(2) In Bethlehem
(3) Mary appeared to be pregnant (and was)
(4) Baby boy appears, Mary is as she was before pregnancy
(5) Mary did not give birth
(6) Verbal ratification (virgin birth and the prophecy of Isaiah thus denied - but it is the Ascension of Isaiah)
(7) No kings...
(8) No census...

It appears to be a fairly close match.

Protevangelium (Infancy Gospel of James)
XVII. 1 Now there went out a decree from Augustus the king that all that were in Bethlehem of Judaea should be recorded.
XIX. I And behold a woman coming down from the hillcountry, and she said to me: Man, whither goest thou ? And I said: I seek a midwife of the Hebrews. And she answered and said unto me: Art thou of Israel ? And I said unto her: Yea. And she said: And who is she that bringeth forth in the cave ? And I said: She that is betrothed unto me. And she said to me: Is she not thy wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was nurtured up in the temple of the Lord: and I received her to wife by lot: and she is not my wife, but she hath conception by the Holy Ghost.

And the midwife said unto him: Is this the truth? And Joseph said unto her: Come hither and see. And the midwife went with him.

2 And they stood in the place of the cave: and behold a bright cloud overshadowing the cave. And the midwife said: My soul is magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen marvellous things: for salvation is born unto Israel. And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.

And the midwife cried aloud and said: Great unto me to-day is this day, in that ! have seen this new sight. 3 And the midwife went forth of the cave and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not. And Salome said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I make not trial and prove her nature I will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth.

XX. 1 And the midwife went in and said unto Mary: Order thyself, for there is no small contention arisen concerning thee. Arid Salome made trial and cried out and said: Woe unto mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God, and lo, my hand falleth away from me in fire. And she bowed her knees unto the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob: make me not a public example unto the children of Israel, but restore me unto the poor, for thou knowest, Lord, that in thy name did I perform my cures, and did receive my hire of thee. 3 And lo, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying unto her: Salome, Salome, the Lord hath hearkened to thee: bring thine hand near unto the young child and take him up, and there shall be unto thee salvation and joy. 4 And Salome came near and took him up, saying: I will do him worship, for a great king is born unto Israel. And behold immediately Salome was healed: and she went forth of the cave justified. And Io, a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell none of the marvels which thou hast seen, until the child enter into Jerusalem.

XXI 1 And behold, Joseph made him ready to go forth into Judaea. And there came a great tumult in Bethlehem of Judaea; for there came wise men, saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews ? for we have seen his star in the east and arc come to worship him.
(1) Came down from heaven
(2) In Bethlehem
(3) Mary appeared to be pregnant (and was)
(4) Baby boy appears, as a light
(5) Mary gave birth
(6) The prophecies of Isaiah ("a virgin hath brought forth," etc.) ratified verbally
(7) Wise men came
(8) Census

Comparing the two:

The Ascension of Isaiah XI, 2-22 appears to be a closer match in respect of (4), where "her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived," and in respect of (5), that Mary did not give birth.

The Infancy Gospel of James appears to be a closer match in respect of (7), the wise men, and (8), the census.

What conclusion can we make? Can the inquisitor have had the Ascension of Isaiah in mind, when he mentions the three kings and the census? Contrarily, can he have had in mind the Protevangelium, when he writes the things he does regarding the birth?

Perhaps instead the inquisitor's heretic had a text that was modified from a text like the Protevangelium, especially in respect of (4) and/or (5).

We do indeed have infancy gospels, in Latin, that have been modified in a docetic direction, particularly in the Arundel manuscript.

https://books.google.com/books?id=sa3DAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA58
https://books.google.com/books?id=9vNTo0m08nkC&pg=PA108
https://books.google.com/books?id=f1upOyfAX44C&pg=PA96

This text has similar statements to the Ascension of Isaiah's "her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived."

"... no stain of blood has befallen the child, and no pain has appeared on her while delivering. A virgin has conceived, a virgin has given birth, and after giving birth has remained a virgin!"

"And I was concerned in my heart lest perchance there might remain inside the girl's wombs some residues to be cut free. ... And I approached the girl, touched her, and found her free from blood."

The Protevangelium, the Arundel manuscript, and the Ascension of Isaiah all contradict the inquisitor by saying that Mary was with child. The Ascension of Isaiah agrees with the inquisitor that Mary did not give birth, but they also all have a scene where "the said boy appeared to the side of her."

Ascension of Isaiah: 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.
And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.

Protevangelium: And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.

Arundel: Now I stood stupefied and marveling, and fear gripped me; for I was looking upon the astounding clarity of the brightness that was born. But that light, little by little withdrawing into itswelf, assimilated itself to the child, and in a moment the child came to be as children are normally born.

In summary, while the inquisitor's account that Mary did not give birth and that her "thickness dissolved" more closely matches the Ascension of Isaiah (moderately better), the fulfillment of the virgin birth prophecy matches the other two (slightly better), and the reference to the three kings and the census matches the other two (most strongly). These last two considerations seem to tip the reference in favor of seeing a Latin infancy gospel, similar to the Arundel manuscript perhaps, but in any case descended from the Infancy Gospel of James, as the source.

Now I know I am contradicting a great many able scholars by saying that, so I am interested in knowing where I have erred.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Peter Kirby »

Today I made a fuller extract of the inquisitor in order to see the context.
Circa vesperas cum reversi fuissent de vineis et bibissent,
dictus haereticus juxta ignem cum eis incepit praedicare
dicens: Pater sanctus dixit: non faciatis alteri, quod
tibi non vis fieri. Invenitur, quod, quando spiritus, quos
creaverat Pater sanctus, decepti ab inimico ejus modo supradicto
in alio sermone de coelo exierant, et inimicus Dei
induerat eos tunicis, id est corporibus, ut obliviscerentur de
gloria Dei, in qua aliquando fuerant, Pater sanctus videns
se depauperatum de spiritibus et quasi solitarium, et quod
cathedrae, in quibus dicti spiritus sedere consueverant,
vacabant, doluit et turbatus fuit de perditione suorum
spirituum et cogitavit intra se, qualiter spiritus, qui decepti
de coelo ceciderant et nono recordabantur de gloria coelesti,
quam habuerant, propter quod non affectabant illuc reverti,
possent iterum ad coelum reverti ad sedes suas.
Et tunc incepit scribere unum librum, quem composuit in
quadringentis annis, in quo libro scripta erant plene dolores,
angustiae, afflictiones, papertates, infirmatates, contumeliae,
injuriae, invidiae, odia, rancores et generaliter omnes
poenalitates, quae contingere hominibus possunt in hac vita.
Et continebatur ibi, quod ille, qui vellet sustinere omnes
praedictas poenalitates et docere, quod dictas poenalitates
sustineret, esset filius Patris sancti. Et cum incepit librum
dictus Pater sanctus, Isaias propheta incepit prophetizare,
quod una branca vel ramus debebat venire, qui redimeret
spiritus humanos. Et cum Pater sanctus dictum librum
composuisset, posuit eum in medio spirituum coelestium,
qui remanserant in coelo cum eo, et dixit: ille, qui
perfecerit illa, quae scripta sunt in isto libro, filius meus erit.
Et multi de spiritibus coelestibus volentes esse Patris sancti
filii et prae aliis esse honorati accesserunt ad dictum librum
et aperuerunt ipsum et legentes poenalitates contentas in
libro, quas opertebat pati eum qui vellet venire inter homines
et honorare humanum genus, postquam modicum in
dicto libro legerunt, cadentes spasmati deficiebant, et nullus
volebat dimittere gloriam, quam habebat, et supponere se
poenalitatibus hujus vitae, ut Dei filius esset. Quod videns
Pater sanctus dixit: Et non est aliquis de vobis, qui velit
esse filius mens? et tune unus de spiritibus astantibus, qui
vocabatur Johannes, surrexit et dixit, quod ipse volebat
esse filius Patris et complere omnia, quae scripta erant in
libro praedicto; et accedens ad dictum librum aperuit ipsum,
legit in eu quator vel quinque folia et spasmatus cecidit
juxta librum et stetit sic per tres dies et noctes; et deinde
expergefactus ploravit multum et, quia promiserat se completurum
illa, quae in dicto libro continabautur, et mentiri
non debebat, dixit Patri, quod ipse volebat esse ejus filius
et complere illa omnia, quae in dicto libro continebantur,
quantumcunque gravia essent illa; 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, ut ad dictum
puerum venirent et eum adorarent et munera, quae paraverant,
offerent; quorum unus portabat aurum, alter thus, tertius
myrrham; et cum fuerunt simul in via, ordinaverunt,
quod antiquior inter eos primus offeret, et junior inter eos
multum affectabat, primus offerre munus suum; propter hoc
dixit antiquiori, quod, si daret ei illum honorem, quod primus
offeret, ipse daret ei juventutem suam pro ejus senectute.
Et tunc dixerunt, quod, si haec propheta apparens
faceret, sclicet quod junior annis esset antiquus, antiquus
esset junior annis, cognoscerent, quod ipse erat ille propheta,
quem praedixit Isaias. Quod cum factuum fuisset,
iverunt, et stella duxit eos usque ad Bethlehem, et adoraverunt
dictum prophetam. Et dictum fuit eis, quod Herodes
volebat eos interficere, et quod non reverterentur per
terram ejus, sed per aliam viam, quia Herodes perpendens
occidit multos filios. Qui Dei Filius postea fuit baptizatus
per Johannem; deinde diabolus portavit eum regna mundi,
et dixit ei, quod omnia regna mundi sua erant, et quod omnia ei
daret, si in eum credere vellet. Cui respondens Dei Filius dixit:
Vade Sathanas, scriptum est in libro Patris mei, quod Dei
Filium non decipies. Deinde sustinuit multas poenalitates
hujus mundi et pradicavit et tandem, cum tempus advenit,
quod reverteretur ad Patrem, dixit discipulis suis: Ego veni
in mundum, et mundus me non cognovit; ego non sum de
mundo, nec mundus de me: et qui est meus, non est de
mundo, et qui est de mundo, non est meus; quia mundus
iste est maligni et inimici Dei, rectoris istius mundi,
et rector mundi nihil in me habet. Tunct etiam dixit apostolis
suis: amici mei et pusilli! tres carnes sunt, et vos non commedatis,
nisi de una, scilicet de carne aquae, quae nascitur
sine peccato et corruptione. Dixit etiam eis, quod tempus
erat, quod reverteretur ad suum Patrem, et dixit eis, quod
ipsi praedicarent verba sua, quae scripserat Pater propter
mundum, et quod propter nullam poenam vel tribulationem
mundi dimitterent ejus fidem, dicens, quod novem sunt
poenae, de quibus ipse volebat sustinere octo, et nonam
sustinerent ipsi, et in nona, quam sustinerent ipsi, daret eis
tantum de adjutorio, quod faciliter dictam poenam possent
tolerare. Deiude quando debuit capi, dixit eis, quod pro nulla
re, quae contingeret sibi vel eis, eum negarent, vel ejus
fidem dimitterent. Et Petrus respondet ei: quod, etiamsi
debert mori, non negaret ipsum, nec dimitteret.
Unedited Google Translate:
When we come back in the evening they would have been out of the vineyards and drunk, he was called a heretic, according to the fire with them, began to preach, saying, The Holy Father said: I do not do any of the other, that you do not want to be done. Now it is found that, when the spirits which had created the Father is holy, in another word, the above mentioned have been deceived by the enemy from the sky had gone out of his way, and the enemy of God, put on the coats of the them, that is, the bodies, to forget about the glory of God, in which they had been at any time, seeing the Holy Father and, as it were about the spirits themselves depauperatum solitary, and that the chair, in which the said spirits were wont to sit, spent their time, it was, he was troubled, and his soul was grieved for the loss of their
of spirits, and they reasoned among themselves, after what manner of spirit, of those who are deceived from heaven fallen to the ground, and in the ninth they were reminded of the glory of the celestial, which they had possessed, for the sake of that which is not there, do strive to return, they were able to return to their homes once again to the sky. And then he began to write a book, which he wrote in the four hundred years, in which were written the book full of grief, affliction, afflictions, papertate, infirmity, insults, injuries, envy, hatred, ill will and, generally speaking, all the penalties, which can happen to men in this life, . And it was contained there, that he would be willing to endure the penalties and to teach all of the foregoing, that the said penalties would withstand it, it would be the son of the Father of the Holy. And when they began to be called the book of the Holy Father, he began to prophetizare Isaiah the prophet, or a branch of it should have come to that one Person to person, none to redeem us of the human spirit. And as he was called by the Holy Father composed the book, he put him in the midst of the spirits of the heavenly bodies, who were left after them in heaven with him, and he said: the one who has accomplished those things which are written in this book, it will be my son. They want to be the Father of the spirits of the heavenly and holy Son And there were many more than others, have won for him, and when you read the book, and it was said to be honorable; they went to the penalties contained in the book, as if he wanted to come among men, and to honor him who should suffer, It behooveth the human race, after a little while they read the book in the said, you must fall down spasmati failing, and no one was willing to let go of the glory which he had with him, and to suppose him the penalties of this life, as it would be the son of God. That said, when he saw the Father is holy: And it is not one of you who wishes to be the son of the mind? and then, one of the spirits of those who stood by, who was called John, he got up and he said that he wanted to be the Son of the Father, and to complete all the things which were written in the book of the aforesaid; and he came to the words of the Book, opened it, and read in the book of the football and fell down by four or five leaves and spasm, and stood thus for three days and nights; and then I woke up, and she hath wept much, because he had promised himself to completion the things mentioned in the said book continabautur, and He should not have to lie, he said to the Father, his Son, and that he was willing to complete it to be all those things, which were contained in the said book, no matter how grievous would it be to them; he came down from heaven, and has appeared as a child is born of a new, and to Beth-lehem. And it seems, that was speaking to him, that he was called a heretic, he said, that they are the blessed Mary was the 'gross', as if it were a woman with child. And later said the boy appeared beside her, and he thought that the grossness of it was melted, it was said that she had a son; with the blessed manner, however, in the belly of him shall not be, nor should she. And so, after he called the boy appeared to him in Bethlehem, and the hearing and was told by many, that the prophet, whom Isaiah predicted was to come, he had come. When they heard of the three kings, they came every one from his own place, and they came together, it was said the child, in order to worship and to come, and to him the gifts which they had prepared, they shall offer; one of whom was wearing the gold, and the other frankincense, and myrrh for the third; when they were in the way and at the same time, they arranged, which is the oldest one of them is the first offering, and a lot of sought to become the younger among them, was the first to offer a gift to shine; Because of this, he said to the senior, that, if he gave him this honor unto himself, that the first offering, he would give his life for him in his youth to old age. And then they said, that, if this is the prophet, appearing to do so, it would be sclicet and junior years old, he was younger than the Ancient of years, they would know, that it was he, the prophet, which he cried by Isaiah. And when this had been done, they departed; and he led them all the way to the star of Bethlehem, said the prophet, and have worshiped it. And it was said to them, that Herod wanted to kill them, and that they were not to turn by means of his land, but by a different way, because it is precisely in view of Herod slew many children. Who, although he was the Son of God was baptized by John; and then the devil carried him by the kingdoms of the world, and said to him, that all the kingdoms of the world were her own, and that he should give all things to him, if he wanted to believe in him. No, 'said the Son of God, and said, Go not Satan, it is written in the book of my Father, that the Son of God will not be forgotten. After that he endured many of this world and of the penalties of the preached and at length, when the time came that he should return to the Father, said to his disciples: I am come into the world, and the world hath not known me; I am not of the world, nor the world of me: and he that is my God, not of this world, and who is out of the world, is not mine; because the world is the enemy of God, and this is the malign, the ruler of this world, and Ruler of the world, there is nothing in me. He is also said to the Apostles, saying: My friends and my little! three of the flesh, they will also not commedatis, Except it be for, namely, from the flesh of the water, which is born out of sin and corruption. He also said to them, that the time was that I had returned to His Father, and said unto them, that they should preach the words of his own, he had written, Father, for the sake of the world, and that for the sake of his faith with them no pain or dismiss the persecution of the world, saying that there are nine of the punishment, of the eight of them myself, and would have to bear it, and the ninth to sustain themselves, and in the ninth, which all bear the law to him, he would give them as much of the aid, which is easily able to cope with the said penalty. When it ought to have been taken afterwards, and said unto them, as he considered that nothing of this, for himself or for the things that happen to them, they denied him, or his faith in their conquest. And Peter answereth him, that, even if it is about to die, he did not deny it, neither would he let the.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote:When we come back in the evening they would have been out of the vineyards and drunk, he was called a heretic, according to the fire with them, began to preach, saying, The Holy Father said: I do not do any of the other, that you do not want to be done. Now it is found that, when the spirits which had created the Father is holy, in another word, the above mentioned have been deceived by the enemy from the sky had gone out of his way, and the enemy of God, put on the coats of the them, that is, the bodies, to forget about the glory of God, in which they had been at any time, seeing the Holy Father and, as it were about the spirits themselves depauperatum solitary, and that the chair, in which the said spirits were wont to sit, spent their time, it was, he was troubled, and his soul was grieved for the loss of their
of spirits, and they reasoned among themselves, after what manner of spirit, of those who are deceived from heaven fallen to the ground, and in the ninth they were reminded of the glory of the celestial, which they had possessed, for the sake of that which is not there, do strive to return, they were able to return to their homes once again to the sky.
This appears to be a cosmogony regarding spirits being trapped in bodies.
Peter Kirby wrote:And then he began to write a book, which he wrote in the four hundred years, in which were written the book full of grief, affliction, afflictions, papertate, infirmity, insults, injuries, envy, hatred, ill will and, generally speaking, all the penalties, which can happen to men in this life, . And it was contained there, that he would be willing to endure the penalties and to teach all of the foregoing, that the said penalties would withstand it, it would be the son of the Father of the Holy.
Four hundred years is a reference to Genesis 15:13, so this appears to be a reference to the book of Moses, the beginning of the Bible.
Peter Kirby wrote:And when they began to be called the book of the Holy Father, he began to prophetizare Isaiah the prophet, or a branch of it should have come to that one Person to person, none to redeem us of the human spirit.
This appears to refer, possibly, to Isaiah 11:1 and Romans 5:15.
Peter Kirby wrote:And as he was called by the Holy Father composed the book, he put him in the midst of the spirits of the heavenly bodies, who were left after them in heaven with him, and he said: the one who has accomplished those things which are written in this book, it will be my son. They want to be the Father of the spirits of the heavenly and holy Son And there were many more than others, have won for him, and when you read the book, and it was said to be honorable; they went to the penalties contained in the book, as if he wanted to come among men, and to honor him who should suffer, It behooveth the human race, after a little while they read the book in the said, you must fall down spasmati failing, and no one was willing to let go of the glory which he had with him, and to suppose him the penalties of this life, as it would be the son of God. That said, when he saw the Father is holy: And it is not one of you who wishes to be the son of the mind? and then, one of the spirits of those who stood by, who was called John, he got up and he said that he wanted to be the Son of the Father, and to complete all the things which were written in the book of the aforesaid; and he came to the words of the Book, opened it, and read in the book of the football and fell down by four or five leaves and spasm, and stood thus for three days and nights; and then I woke up, and she hath wept much, because he had promised himself to completion the things mentioned in the said book continabautur, and He should not have to lie, he said to the Father, his Son, and that he was willing to complete it to be all those things, which were contained in the said book, no matter how grievous would it be to them;
I'm not sure what this is about. There is no "John" in the Ascension of Isaiah, apart from an incidental reference to "the persecution of the righteous by Manasseh and [Belachira, and] Tobia the Canaanite, and John of Anathoth, an by (Zadok) the chief of the works" in 2:5.

I believe that this is most plausibly referring to John the Baptist (later on, in the inquisitor, John baptizes Jesus), telling about his pre-existence in the realm of spirits and his desire to "be the Son of the Father, and to complete all the things which were written in the book of the aforesaid."

The Infancy Gospel of James has Herod searching for baby John the Baptist ("But Elizabeth when she heard that they sought for John," "Now Herod sought for John").

There just might also be verbal contact here regarding "three days and three nights" (cf. Infancy Gospel of James 24, "three days and nights," which might have been copied in another context in something like Arundel--I need to find a full copy of that some day).
Peter Kirby wrote:he came down from heaven, and has appeared as a child is born of a new, and to Beth-lehem. And it seems, that was speaking to him, that he was called a heretic, he said, that they are the blessed Mary was the 'gross', as if it were a woman with child. And later said the boy appeared beside her, and he thought that the grossness of it was melted, it was said that she had a son; with the blessed manner, however, in the belly of him shall not be, nor should she. And so, after he called the boy appeared to him in Bethlehem, and the hearing and was told by many, that the prophet, whom Isaiah predicted was to come, he had come. When they heard of the three kings, they came every one from his own place, and they came together,
The originally-quoted passage.
Peter Kirby wrote:it was said the child, in order to worship and to come, and to him the gifts which they had prepared, they shall offer; one of whom was wearing the gold, and the other frankincense, and myrrh for the third;
Infancy Gospel of James, XXI
And the wise men saw the young child with Mary, his mother: and they brought out of their scrip gifts, gold-and frankincense and myrrh.
Peter Kirby wrote:when they were in the way and at the same time, they arranged, which is the oldest one of them is the first offering, and a lot of sought to become the younger among them, was the first to offer a gift to shine; Because of this, he said to the senior, that, if he gave him this honor unto himself, that the first offering, he would give his life for him in his youth to old age. And then they said, that, if this is the prophet, appearing to do so, it would be sclicet and junior years old, he was younger than the Ancient of years, they would know, that it was he, the prophet, which he cried by Isaiah.
I am not aware of a parallel anywhere.
Peter Kirby wrote:And when this had been done, they departed; and he led them all the way to the star of Bethlehem, said the prophet, and have worshiped it. And it was said to them, that Herod wanted to kill them, and that they were not to turn by means of his land, but by a different way, because it is precisely in view of Herod slew many children.
The Infancy Gospel of James has the star of Bethlehem and the slaughtering of children by Herod.

And he examined the wise men, saying unto them: What sign saw ye concerning the king that is born ? And the wise men said: We saw a very great star shining among those stars and dimming them so that the stars appeared not: and thereby knew we that a king was born unto Israel, and we came to worship him. And Herod said: Go and seek for him, and if ye find him, tell me, that I also may come and worship him. 3 And the wise men went forth. And lo, the star which they saw in ~he east went before them until they entered into the cave: and it stood over the head of the cave. And the wise men saw the young child with Mar~, his mother: and they brought out of their scrip gifts, gold-and frankincense and myrrh. 4 And being warned by the angel that they should not enter into Judaea, they went into their own country by another way. XXII. 1 But when Herod perceived that he was mocked by the wise men, he was wroth, and sent murderers, saying unto them: Slay the children from two years old and under.

The Ascension of Isaiah has neither.
Peter Kirby wrote:Who, although he was the Son of God was baptized by John; and then the devil carried him by the kingdoms of the world, and said to him, that all the kingdoms of the world were her own, and that he should give all things to him, if he wanted to believe in him. No, 'said the Son of God, and said, Go not Satan, it is written in the book of my Father, that the Son of God will not be forgotten.
The Infancy Gospel of James and the Pseudo-Matthew, which relies on the former, do not extend this far. But the Arundel 404 and Hereford mss. might.
Peter Kirby wrote:After that he endured many of this world and of the penalties of the preached and at length, when the time came that he should return to the Father, said to his disciples: I am come into the world, and the world hath not known me; I am not of the world, nor the world of me: and he that is my God, not of this world, and who is out of the world, is not mine; because the world is the enemy of God, and this is the malign, the ruler of this world, and Ruler of the world, there is nothing in me. He is also said to the Apostles, saying: My friends and my little! three of the flesh, they will also not commedatis, Except it be for, namely, from the flesh of the water, which is born out of sin and corruption. He also said to them, that the time was that I had returned to His Father, and said unto them, that they should preach the words of his own, he had written, Father, for the sake of the world, and that for the sake of his faith with them no pain or dismiss the persecution of the world, saying that there are nine of the punishment, of the eight of them myself, and would have to bear it, and the ninth to sustain themselves, and in the ninth, which all bear the law to him, he would give them as much of the aid, which is easily able to cope with the said penalty. When it ought to have been taken afterwards, and said unto them, as he considered that nothing of this, for himself or for the things that happen to them, they denied him, or his faith in their conquest. And Peter answereth him, that, even if it is about to die, he did not deny it, neither would he let the.
Some of this is drawn from the Gospel of John.

Some of this might be gnostic speculation on the "eighth" and the "ninth."

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/discorse.html

The ninth appears to be mentioned earlier also (Google-y guck): "and they reasoned among themselves, after what manner of spirit, of those who are deceived from heaven fallen to the ground, and in the ninth they were reminded of the glory of the celestial, which they had possessed, for the sake of that which is not there, do strive to return, they were able to return to their homes once again to the sky."

So, what benefit do we have from the larger context?

Well, we know that there is some stuff in this account that either has no known parallel, or that we must search more diligently to find it.

We also know that we can add points (9) and (10), the star of Bethlehem and the murder of the innocents by Herod, which are not found in the Ascension of Isaiah but which is found in the Infancy Gospel of James and in texts descended from it (Pseudo-Matthew, Arundel 404, Hereford, etc.).

I am led more and more to suggest that this does not prove knowledge of the Ascension of Isaiah, XI,2-22 or indeed the Ascension of Isaiah at all.

But I am also wondering where I went wrong, if I did...
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

Hi Peter

I' may try and make a more detailed reply later, but there is one point that needs clarifying.
It is quite certain that the Cathars in Western Europe did have access to a version of the Ascension of Isaiah. See for example Heresy and Literacy It is almost certain on textual grounds hat this was the version with chapters 6-11 not the version with chapters 1-11.

This does not prove that the material in the Inquisitor's report about the birth of Jesus comes from the Ascension of Isaiah, but it does make it prima-facie plausible.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

Note the refernces in the Inquisitor's report to the claims that the birth account fulfils what Isaiah prophesied. This could refer to an exegesis of canonical Isaiah but it may be more plausible as a reference to the Ascension.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Peter Kirby »

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. I understand that most who have looked at it have connected it with the Vision of Isaiah, and rather securely it seems, so I am interested in knowing why. Thanks.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:After that he endured many of this world and of the penalties of the preached and at length, when the time came that he should return to the Father, said to his disciples: I am come into the world, and the world hath not known me; I am not of the world, nor the world of me: and he that is my God, not of this world, and who is out of the world, is not mine; because the world is the enemy of God, and this is the malign, the ruler of this world, and Ruler of the world, there is nothing in me. He is also said to the Apostles, saying: My friends and my little! three of the flesh, they will also not commedatis, Except it be for, namely, from the flesh of the water, which is born out of sin and corruption. He also said to them, that the time was that I had returned to His Father, and said unto them, that they should preach the words of his own, he had written, Father, for the sake of the world, and that for the sake of his faith with them no pain or dismiss the persecution of the world, saying that there are nine of the punishment, of the eight of them myself, and would have to bear it, and the ninth to sustain themselves, and in the ninth, which all bear the law to him, he would give them as much of the aid, which is easily able to cope with the said penalty. When it ought to have been taken afterwards, and said unto them, as he considered that nothing of this, for himself or for the things that happen to them, they denied him, or his faith in their conquest. And Peter answereth him, that, even if it is about to die, he did not deny it, neither would he let the.
Some of this is drawn from the Gospel of John.
This thread should be interesting for mythicists and historicists alike seeing the two most influential mythicists (Doherty and Carrier) make use of this text to argue that Jesus died in outer space and did not do a gig on Earth. I made some earlier contributions related to trying to determine the methodology by which this text has been viewed as a composite series of authorships, and the dates of those authorships. As Andrew pointed out long ago an early dating is critical to the mythicists case, but nowhere near as important for the historicists case.

The quotations cited by PK are a fascinating collection of non canonical texts, some of the gnostic. It should serve to remind everyone that the non canonical collection of texts often cite other non canonical texts. This exercise highlights this general attribute of such texts (and this the modus operandi of authorship).
Some of this might be gnostic speculation on the "eighth" and the "ninth."

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/discorse.html

The ninth appears to be mentioned earlier also (Google-y guck): "and they reasoned among themselves, after what manner of spirit, of those who are deceived from heaven fallen to the ground, and in the ninth they were reminded of the glory of the celestial, which they had possessed, for the sake of that which is not there, do strive to return, they were able to return to their homes once again to the sky."
I would tend to agree with exploration. I'd also like to add that the 8th and 9th may also simultaneously relate to the following reconstruction of the Ptolemaic model of ancient cosmology. (Discussed in the thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=749 ).
  • Ptolemaic cosmology: The Eighth and the Ninth?

    9. [God]
    8. The Firmament
    ---------------------------------------- Above here are the fixed stars, the zodiac and the One

    7. Saturn
    6. Jupiter
    5. Mars
    4. Sun
    3. Venus (Paul's 3rd heaven) <<<<<<<============ Level 3
    2. Mercury
    1. Luna
    --------------------------------------- Above here are the sun, moon and planets (astronomy, cosmology)


    (Aether) <<<=== add 5th Element above the air and beneath the moon
    (Air) <<<====== Closest approach of the Doherty/Carrier MJ to the planet earth (1st or 2nd century CE)?
    (Water)
    (Earth)
    (Hades?) <<<=== ???

    ----------------------------------- Above here is the Earth and the elements of Nature (physics)

We also know that we can add points (9) and (10), the star of Bethlehem and the murder of the innocents by Herod, which are not found in the Ascension of Isaiah but which is found in the Infancy Gospel of James and in texts descended from it (Pseudo-Matthew, Arundel 404, Hereford, etc.).

I am led more and more to suggest that this does not prove knowledge of the Ascension of Isaiah, XI,2-22 or indeed the Ascension of Isaiah at all.

But I am also wondering where I went wrong, if I did...
I don't see anything wrong in this approach. Until recent times (except for the experts) the non canonical texts were not well published. Greater focus was reserved for the canonical texts. FWIW I see this area of "Gnostic Origins" as a fundamental question to be answered as a stepping stone towards explaining Christian origins. Also until recent times who could have string searched such a large collection of texts? What would the pre-21st century researchers have to do to have such an ability? Some hard yards with books and pens.

I understand Andrew is looking at the state of the evidence during the 12th century (or thereabouts). FWIW from what I read of the recent scholarship on this text, it seems to support that the AoI is not a composite text, but was written by one author. If this is the case, then what would be expected to happen is that later editors would cut bits and pieces out of, and/or rearrange the original. Particularly Latin editors cutting out bits they don't like.



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]
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote:This thread should be interesting for mythicists and historicists alike seeing the two most influential mythicists (Doherty and Carrier) make use of this text to argue that Jesus died in outer space and did not do a gig on Earth. I made some earlier contributions related to trying to determine the methodology by which this text has been viewed as a composite series of authorships, and the dates of those authorships. As Andrew pointed out long ago an early dating is critical to the mythicists case, but nowhere near as important for the historicists case.

The quotations cited by PK are a fascinating collection of non canonical texts, some of the gnostic. It should serve to remind everyone that the non canonical collection of texts often cite other non canonical texts. This exercise highlights this general attribute of such texts (and this the modus operandi of authorship).
Fair enough, I guess, but the thread is interesting without politicizing it as a "mythicist"-vs-"historicist" flashpoint. One thing at a time.
Leucius Charinus wrote:I don't see anything wrong in this approach. Until recent times (except for the experts) the non canonical texts were not well published. Greater focus was reserved for the canonical texts. FWIW I see this area of "Gnostic Origins" as a fundamental question to be answered as a stepping stone towards explaining Christian origins. Also until recent times who could have string searched such a large collection of texts? What would the pre-21st century researchers have to do to have such an ability? Some hard yards with books and pens.
Yes, perhaps, but I would hesitate to compare my memory against the encyclopedic knowledge of someone like Harnack or Lightfoot.
Leucius Charinus wrote:I understand Andrew is looking at the state of the evidence during the 12th century (or thereabouts). FWIW from what I read of the recent scholarship on this text, it seems to support that the AoI is not a composite text, but was written by one author. If this is the case, then what would be expected to happen is that later editors would cut bits and pieces out of, and/or rearrange the original. Particularly Latin editors cutting out bits they don't like.
Support or assume? These things can change like the seasons, and we're talking about the published opinions of no more than a dozen scholars. This is a wonderful opportunity to boldly ignore what "scholarship" says. Ad fontes!
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

I posted a link to some direct evidence of the use of the Ascension of Isaiah by the Cathars. I'll try and post further references later.

Assuming we accept that the Cathars knew the Ascension of Isaiah we have to ask whether they had alternative sources for a docetic Nativity story. It is unlikely that they had direct access to the Protoevangelium of James. There was a Latin translation but it has not survived due to official disapproval. Various Latin nativities have been influenced by the Protoevangelium. The most popular is Pseudo-Matthew but that is not docetic. The Cathars might potentially have had access to the Arundel Hereford type material
See J Compilation but I am doubtful whether it is a good parallel to the Inquisitor's report. (One issue is that James' 1927 translation possibly overemphasises the docetic nature of the material.)

The issue is not just whether there existed alternative sources for the Cathar nativity story, but how plausible is it that the Cathars would have had access to such possible alternatives.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:Yes, perhaps, but I would hesitate to compare my memory against the encyclopedic knowledge of someone like Harnack or Lightfoot.
These guys did not have computer systems and networks to assist their memory. I am not downplaying the merit of human memory, which may be attested from antiquity. I am merely suggesting that we are living in very interesting times. Studying BC&H to the extent that I have (just as an example) of the last x years would have required, prior to the last decade or so, the physical journeying to various libraries and museums all around the planet to view manuscripts, the purchase or temporary loan of stacks and stacks of books that would only be sourced at a State Library or University library level. Not to mention discussions etc - you get the drift.
Leucius Charinus wrote:I understand Andrew is looking at the state of the evidence during the 12th century (or thereabouts). FWIW from what I read of the recent scholarship on this text, it seems to support that the AoI is not a composite text, but was written by one author. If this is the case, then what would be expected to happen is that later editors would cut bits and pieces out of, and/or rearrange the original. Particularly Latin editors cutting out bits they don't like.
Support or assume? These things can change like the seasons, and we're talking about the published opinions of no more than a dozen scholars. This is a wonderful opportunity to boldly ignore what "scholarship" says. Ad fontes!
Hey you don't need to remind me about that. But isn't this text a classic example of clear evidence for the corruption of the sources by the church. (Just considering the Latin texts alone !!!). I applaud original thinking and realism. I have been very interested in trying to understand Andrew's ideas on this text, and all the associated discussion. Carry on.




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]
Post Reply