§ 6. The Latin Version L1 (ii.I4 - iii.13, vii.1—19) and L2 (vi —xi). [p. xviii]
There were two Latin versions, one of which L2
embraces vi.—xi., the other L1
only ii.14 — iii.13, vii.1—19.
The former was printed by Antonius de Fantis at Venice, in 1522, from a manuscript now unknown, and reprinted by Giessler in a Gottingen program (Vetas Translatio Latina Visionis Iesaiae
, 1832), and by Dillmann as an appendix in his edition of 1877.
As I have been unable to get access to the Venice edition, I have re-issued the version, as it appears in Dillmann’s edition, with certain corrections and critical notes.
Now as regards the two fragments of L1
, these were first discovered and edited by Mai in 1828 (Scriptornm Vetermn Nova Collectio
, III. part ii. 238, 239) from the codex rescriptus of the Acts of Chalcedon, Vat. 5750, the original writing of which belongs to the fifth or sixth century. His work unhappily was somewhat inaccurate and defective, but these shortcomings are now set right in the texts presented on pp. 87—92 and 102—108. For the corrections in question I am indebted to the less weighty divergencies between EL1
, that is; between G1
in this chapter, but the above instances are sufficient to establish our contention.
We have now to show that throughout the rest of vi.—xi, where L1
fails us, S L2 agree against E
alike in their additions and their omissions. Only the more important passages will be noticed. Thus S L2
agree in more or less large additions in v.11. 37, viii.3, ix.15, I6, 17, 20, 23, 29, 36, 42, x.I5, xi.34, 36, 40. Again, they agree in giving short summaries instead of the Ethiopic text of x.25—28, xi.27-30, and especially in omitting the very important passage in E, i.e. xi. 2—22, with the exception of a single phrase in xi.19.
§ 7. The Fuller Text of G1 as a Rule is Derived from G [bottom p. xxi]
In certain passages S L2
present a shorter text than E. If S L2
, in other words G2
, represent faithfully the text as it stood in the archetype G, then it is clear that in such passages the fuller text of E or G1
is the work of the editor of G1
pp. xxii-xxiv -
. . .
We must next deal with the very important passage xi
.2—22. This passage which is found in E goes back to G1
, since phrases from verses 19, 20 reappear in the Greek Legend
, ii.39. But it goes back further still and is derived from the archetype G . We must now give the grounds for this view. First its subject-matter is quite in keeping with the context before and after; for from x.8 to xi.19 the concealment of the real nature of Christ is the underlying thought of the entire passage
Next from the command which Isaiah hears given to Christ to descend to the earth and to Sheol (x), and afterwards to ascend there from (x.14), we naturally expect Isaiah to witness these events in the vision in xi
., seeing that he witnesses all else that is mentioned in x.8—14. But the genuineness of xi.2—22 is still more apparent if we consider that, in the short account of G2
, in xi. there is not a single reference to the crucifixion, descent into Sheol, and resurrection on the third day, though from ix.12—17 we cannot do otherwise than expect a definite portrayal of these events in the vision. Thus in the latter passage it is told that Christ will descend to earth and assume human form that owing to the instigation of the prince of this world men will rise up against Him and crucify Him, not knowing who He is.’'
Thereupon He will descend into Sheol (this clause is peculiar to S L2
) and rise again on the third day—and send out His Twelve Apostles (this last clause is peculiar to S L2
)—and ascend into heaven.
Now if we turn to xi. 2-22 this is just what Isaiah sees in vision
: Christ is born of the Virgin, but the nature of the birth is to be told to none (xi.2-16). Then He works great miracles and the Jews roused by the adversary crucify Him in Jerusalem, ‘not knowing who He is.’ Thereupon He descends into Sheol (xi.18-20). And on the third day He rises again and sends forth His Twelve Apostles and ascends into heaven (xi. 21, 22)1
- We should observe also that xi.14 is quoted in the Actus Petri, xxiv, xi .16, by Ignatius ad Ephes, and xi.11 most probably by Protev. Iacobi, xx.4.
In the light of the above facts the genuineness of xi.2—22 as an original constituent of G can hardly be disputed. And now if we turn to the passage which the editor of G2
has substituted in its stead, our convictions are, if possible, further strengthened. It runs: Missus sum a Deo "omnia tibi ostendere. Nec enim ante te quis vidit, nec post te poterit videre quod tu vidisti et audisti. Et vidi similem filii hominis et cum hominibus habitare et in mundo"
. I9. Et non cognoverunt eum
. 23. Et vidi ascendentem in firmamentum
The words enclosed in " " are peculiar to S L2
. Of these the greater part, i.e. 'Nec enim ante te vidisti et audisti
,’ appears to be based on viii.1.
In the next place the words 'Et non cognoverunt eum
' have occurred before (ix.14) in all versions in reference to those who crucified Christ, and in xi.19 in E this significance is preserved where the same phrase recurs. In S L2
, however, this phrase is given a setting and a relation which are foreign to it so far as our authorities go. We have already dwelt above on the thorough inadequacy with which the earthly life and destinies of the Messiah are treated in S L2
. We conclude, therefore, that xi.2—22 are derived from G, the archetype, and that here, as in x.25—28, xi.27—30, the editor of G2
has abridged the text of G.
§ 8. The Slavonic Verson (= S)
< . . . snip . . . >
pp. xxv-xxvi -
I have already shown (p. xxi) that S is made from the same Greek text as L2
, i.e. G2
. It is, however, more faithful and full than L2
. Thus where L2 omits words, phrases, or even whole sentences, as in vii.29b
, 30, viii.28, ix.2, 20, x.14, 18, 29, xi.23, the lacunae are supplied by S in agreement with E. Thus, these passages that are lost in
L2 go back to the archetype G
As regards the phrases and passages peculiar to S L2
— vii.12, 33, 37, viii.28, ix.2, 4, 20, xi.15, 29, xi.1, 34 — it is impossible, in most cases, to say categorically whether they appear for the first time in G2
or went back to G ...
Finally, the phrase 'cum hominibus habitare' in S L2
reappears in Greek Legend
, ii.1/I τοΐς άνθρώπιος συναναστρέφεσθαι
. Hence this phrase, though lost in E, was most probably in G1
and therefore in G. The phrase in S L 2
that immediately precedes, 'vidi similem filii hominis,’a
may also be primitive though unattested by any derivative of G1
- cf. Rev. i.13 ; xiv.I4 ; 4 Ezra vi.1 (Syriac and Ethiopic versions).