andrewcriddle wrote:An Inquisitor notes that in a Cathar heretical text
Hi Andrew,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.
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.)
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.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.
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.
Okay this is very interesting.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
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.