Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
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:(One issue is that James' 1927 translation possibly overemphasises the docetic nature of the material.)
Is this what you are talking about?

The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations, p. 127, by Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Plese

Image

Image

While I appreciate that both translations are valid translations, I do not agree with the editorial gloss that the difference in translation effects a substantial difference in what the story is saying. So not only is it just a "possible" "rendering," it is not very much "at odds" when it comes to the nature of the material.

(Whether we want to define the material as, in fact, "docetic," is another question, of course.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
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: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.
Pseudo-Matthew is not docetic or dualist in any way, so it is not the source that stands behind the infancy story in the inquisitor. However, that does not therefore mean that we should not give some attention to Pseudo-Matthew as part of the web of Latin infancy gospels that we know were circulating in western Europe.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compilation_J
Image

The Compilation J, and its Arundel and Hereford forms, descends from Pseudo-Matthew. The Arundel form also has influence from the Infancy Gospel of James (apparently through Compilation I), while the Hereford form has two other sources behind it that are absent in the Arundel form.

Has there actually been much scholarly work done on the provenance of Compilation J? Who exactly wrote it, and more importantly, from what theological perspective was it written? Who thinks it is not plausible that it was circulated among Bogomils or Cathars? Who thinks it is plausible? Why would anyone think it would not have been circulated among Cathars? Quite honestly, I did some searching today, and I could not turn up any firm positive or negative answers to any of these questions. I got bupkis. Perhaps you found a bit more, since you are questioning its plausibility. What have you found?
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.
I wonder about the validity of this issue, to the extent that it seems to assume the conclusion, i.e., that the Ascension/Vision of Isaiah that was in possession by the Cathars had a nativity story in the first place, thus allowing us to speak of "alternative" sources and how plausible access to the "alternatives" would be. As far as I am concerned, the section XI, 2-22 is every bit of much an "alternative," with no evidence of its use by Cathars outside of this very passage in the Inquisitor, given that our only evidence for it otherwise is in Ethiopic (and, I think, in the allusions of the 'Greek legend'). Petitio principii. Of course, if we knew the western Latin version (or even the Slavic version) of the Vision of Isaiah contained the XI,2-22 section, the probability that it is being mentioned here goes up, but that is just the matter under contention.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Peter Kirby »

The best argument seems to be that the Inquisitor's report is ultimately dependent on an Infancy Gospel descended from Pseudo-Matthew.

(1) ~P. It is not dependent on Pseudo-Matthew itself because Pseudo-Matthew cannot offer any of the elements that could be interpreted as heretical in the Inquisitor's report.
(2) J1. There are infancy gospels descended from Pseudo-Matthew that do have such elements that could have been interpreted as heretical in the Inquisitor's report.
(3) ~M. The Gospel of Matthew is insufficient to explain the narrative and verbal similarities of the Inquisitor's report to Pseudo-Matthew.
(4) ~I. The Vision of Isaiah is insufficient to explain the narrative and verbal similarities of the Inquisitor's report to Pseudo-Matthew.
(5) J2. There are infancy gospels descended from Pseudo-Matthew that do explain the narrative and verbal similarities of the Inquisitor's report to Pseudo-Matthew.
(6) (If ~P and J1 and ~M and ~I and J2, then Q.) If we cannot explain the heretical elements as deriving from Pseudo-Matthew, and if we can explain the heretical elements as deriving from other known apocrypha descending from Pseudo-Matthew, and if we cannot explain the story with reference to the Gospel of Matthew, and if we cannot explain the story with reference to the Ascension of Isaiah, but we can explain the story with reference to apocrypha known to descend from Pseudo-Matthew, then the most likely conclusion is that the Inquisitor's report is dependent on an Infancy Gospel descended from Pseudo-Matthew.
(7) (Q.) Therefore, the most likely conclusion is that the Inquisitor's report is dependent on an Infancy Gospel descended from Pseudo-Matthew.

This is not meant to be a rigorous proof, of course. It just seems to be the best conclusion available.

Many of the considerations have been adduced already and will not be repeated.

The Inquisitor has:
"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."

"And it was said to them, that Herod wanted to kill them, and that they were not to return by way of his land, but by a different way, for Herod, considering carefully, slew many children."
This adds to the story the idea that Herod wanted to kill the magi (in the inquisitor, kings), something not found in the Gospel of Matthew:
Matthew 2:16 Tunc Herodes videns quoniam illusus esset a magis, iratus est valde, et mittens occidit omnes pueros, qui erant in Bethlehem, et in omnibus finibus ejus, a bimatu et infra secundum tempus, quod exquisierat a magis. (Vulgate)

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.
Neither can it be found in the Infancy Gospel of James, for whatever that is worth.
Protevangelium 22. And when Herod knew that he had been mocked by the Magi, in a rage he sent murderers, saying to them: Slay the children from two years old and under.
We first find it in Pseudo-Matthew (sixth or seventh century?):
Videns autem Herodes rex quod illusus esset a magis, inflammatum est cor eius, et misit per omnes vias volens capere eos et interficere. Quos cum penitus invenire non potuisset, misit in Bethleem et occidit omnes infantes a bimatu et infra, secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis.

And when Herod saw that he had been made sport of by the magi, his heart swelled with rage, and he sent through all the roads, wishing to seize them and put them to death. But when he could not find them at all; he sent anew to Bethlehem and all its borders, and slew all the male children whom he found of two years old and under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the magi.
And again in the Arundel form:
97 Videns autem Herodes quod deluses est a magis, inflammatum est cor eius, et iratus uehementer misit per omnes vias querere et capere eos, quos cum penitus inuenire non potuisset, misit in Bethleem et occidit omnes infantes secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis. [Latin from MR James]

But when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, his heart was inflamed and, in his great anger, he sent his people out on every road to search them out and capture them. And since he was not able to find them at all, he sent soldiers to Bethlehem and killed all the children according to the time he had learned from the magi. [translation in Ehrman's book]
And again in the Hereford form:
97 Herodes autem rex cum cognouisset quod illusus est a magis, inflammatum est cor eius uehementer, et maximo furore succensus misit preoccupare omnes uias per quas eorum transitus esse sperabatur, ut ad se inuiti reducerentur. [Latin from MR James]

And when Herod the king, he knew that he was mocked of the wise men, and his heart hath been inflamed, vehement, and the greatest of them, by means of which the crossing of the roads to be furious and burned with all the sent preoccupare was hoped for, in order to get the unwilling would not be brought back. [Google translate]
Notice some of the verbal similarities between the Inquisitor and Pseudo-Matthew, in addition to the extra-canonical story elements that Herod sought to kill the magi and that Herod's men were sent out along the roads / that the magi had to avoid taking their way through his country:

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. And it was said to them, that Herod wanted to kill them, and that they were not to return by way of his land, but by a different way, for Herod, considering carefully, slew many children.
Videns autem Herodes rex quod illusus esset a magis, inflammatum est cor eius, et misit per omnes vias volens capere eos et interficere. Quos cum penitus invenire non potuisset, misit in Bethleem et occidit omnes infantes a bimatu et infra, secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis.And when Herod saw that he had been made sport of by the magi, his heart swelled with rage, and he sent through all the roads, wishing to seize them and put them to death. But when he could not find them at all; he sent anew to Bethlehem and all its borders, and slew all the male children whom he found of two years old and under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the magi.

Notice also that the Inquisitor's report leaves a logical gap in the story. What does the slaying of children have to do with the way that these three men returned home? Keep in mind that these are notes taken of actual speech, so we are only getting the speaker's words through a veil. The connection must have made a little more sense in the original speech, as it does in Pseudo-Matthew and in Compilation J.

However, since Pseudo-Matthew cannot be the source behind the Inquisitor's narrative generally, we are left with the most likely conclusion that the source behind the Inquisitor's narrative was an infancy gospel descended from Pseudo-Matthew, taking a slightly more heretical bent, like the infancy gospels that we know existed, in more than one recension, under the term "Compilation J."

Last but not least, reading the introduction to The Apocryphal Gospels today did give me this tidbit (pp. 115-116):
The earliest manuscript of the Gospel in either form is from Montpellier (Bibliotheque de l'Ecole de medicine, 55), known as M, and dating from around 800. It preserves the first twenty-one paragraphs of the Arundel recension (JAr). Even though this manuscript is at least three hundred years older than any of our other witnesses, Kaestli and McNamara judge that it does not preserve the earliest form of the text but represents a later, more heavily edited version. Other manuscripts available for the text are, for the Arundel recension, designated Z (twelfth century), L (1385), A (fourteenth century), V (fourteenth century), and W (fifteenth century); for Hereford recension (JHer), we have H and C, both of the thirteenth century. Full descriptions of the manuscripts are provided by Kaesti and McNamara (pp. 641-66).
The presence of a manuscript found in Montpellier, in southern France, dating AD 800, along with seven other manuscripts known of both recensions (dating from the twelfth to the fifteenth century), is enough to present to us the minimum standard of plausibility that the Cathars of the 14th century in southern France were using such a text.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by Peter Kirby »

This is not the only direct verbal parallel. The Inquisitor's notes begin the story of the birth of Jesus with:
Inquisitor wrote:et descendit de coelo et apparuit ut puer natus de novo in Bethlehem
Likewise, the the same expression is used in the story of the birth of Jesus in the Compilation J Arundel:
Arundel wrote:Sic autem nata est hec lux quemadmodum ros qui de celo descendit super terram.

et descendit de coelo et apparuit ut puer natus de novo in Bethlehemand he came down from heaven and appeared as a new born child in Bethlehem
Sic autem nata est hec lux quemadmodum ros qui de celo descendit super terram.Thus, in fact, was this light born as the dew that comes down from heaven to the earth.

This phrase is nowhere found in the birth story of XI, 2-22. While the word appears in the Ascension of Isaiah, it doesn't have any parallels that are as close.
Ascension of Isaiah wrote:descendit in sextum coelum
Ascension of Isaiah wrote:descendit in quartum coelum, et apparuit secundum formam illorum
Ascension of Isaiah wrote:Descendit autem in firmamentum
Ascension of Isaiah wrote:descendit ad angelos
Likewise, the word "apparuit" appears once in the Ascension of Isaiah (above), but not in the same context.

While it might just be one word, in fact it becomes five words when combined with the above "descendit de coelo" and "natus." Here the same five words appear in the same context, in a short passage, during the story of the birth of Jesus:

et descendit de coelo et apparuit ut puer natus de novo in Bethlehem. Et videtur ipsi loquenti, quod dictus haereticus dixit, qnod beata Maria fuit grossa, ac si esset praegnans. Et postea dictus puer apparuit juxta eam 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
Erat autem ipse infans solummodo circumfulgens uehementer, mundus et iocundissimus in respectu, quoniam totum pax pacans solus apparuit. In illa autem hora qua natus est audita est uox multorum inuisibilium una uoce dicencium 'Amen.' Et ipsa lux que nata est multiplicata est et de claritate luminis sui solis lumen obscurauit. Et repleta est hec spelunca lumine claro cum odore suauissimo. Sic autem nata est hec lux quemadmodum ros qui de celo descendit super terram. And the child himself was radiating intensely round about like the sun, clean and most pleasant to look at, because he appeared alone as peace bringing calm to everything. Now in that hour in which he was born, the voice of many invisible ones was heard, saying 'Amen' in unison. And that same newborn light was multiplied, and the clarity of its brightness darkened the brightness of the sun. And this cave was filled with clear brightness, together with a most sweet odor. Thus, in fact, was this light born as the dew that comes down from heaven to the earth.

Even the very crux of the passage in the Inquisitor, that the appearance of Mary's appearance of pregnancy "dissolved" after the child appeared (dissoluta), may have been suggested as a a kind of antonym from the statement of the Compilation J (Arundel) that the light that was born "assimilated" itself into the child (assimilauit). (No better explanation is found in the Ascension of Isaiah.)

Add this to what has already been adduced, naturally.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:(One issue is that James' 1927 translation possibly overemphasises the docetic nature of the material.)
Is this what you are talking about?

The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations, p. 127, by Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Plese

Image

Image

While I appreciate that both translations are valid translations, I do not agree with the editorial gloss that the difference in translation effects a substantial difference in what the story is saying. So not only is it just a "possible" "rendering," it is not very much "at odds" when it comes to the nature of the material.

(Whether we want to define the material as, in fact, "docetic," is another question, of course.)
Hi Peter

Thanks for tracking down the Latin.

I agree that the different translations don't substantially alter the issue. However the underlying idea seems to be that the child left the womb of Mary in an immaterial form and hence Mary remains physically virgin and then the child becomes more material (but not entirely so). This seems rather a different set of ideas than that in the Inquisitor's report and (probably) the Ascension of Isaiah.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote:This is not the only direct verbal parallel. The Inquisitor's notes begin the story of the birth of Jesus with:
Inquisitor wrote:et descendit de coelo et apparuit ut puer natus de novo in Bethlehem
Likewise, the the same expression is used in the story of the birth of Jesus in the Compilation J Arundel:
Arundel wrote:Sic autem nata est hec lux quemadmodum ros qui de celo descendit super terram.

et descendit de coelo et apparuit ut puer natus de novo in Bethlehemand he came down from heaven and appeared as a new born child in Bethlehem
Sic autem nata est hec lux quemadmodum ros qui de celo descendit super terram.Thus, in fact, was this light born as the dew that comes down from heaven to the earth.

This phrase is nowhere found in the birth story of XI, 2-22. While the word appears in the Ascension of Isaiah, it doesn't have any parallels that are as close.
Ascension of Isaiah wrote:descendit in sextum coelum
Ascension of Isaiah wrote:descendit in quartum coelum, et apparuit secundum formam illorum
Ascension of Isaiah wrote:Descendit autem in firmamentum
Ascension of Isaiah wrote:descendit ad angelos
Hi Peter

I am inclined to regard this as a verbal parallel but a different idea.
In the Ascension of Isaiah (explicit) and the Inquisitor's report (implied) Christ descends from God in heaven and appears in Bethlehem. The Arundel J Compilation is using a simile of dew descending from the sky to the earth. I don't think this is the same idea.

(The influence of Pseudo-Matthew is I agree likely but this was so well known as to be probable in any case.)

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

One problem with detailed parallels is that we have no Ancient Latin version of the birth narrative in the Ascension of Isaiah. The Latin text of this passage is a modern translation of the Ethiopic into Latin.

Norelli IMS and IIUC claims that the Ethiopic of AoI chapter 11 can and probably should be understood in a way closer to the Inquisitor's report than is apparent in the older translations. I don't currently have access to Norelli's argument but I will hopefully be in the Cambridge UL in a week's time.
Last edited by andrewcriddle on Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

Another parallel between the Inquisitor's report and the Ascension of Isaiah is this:

Inquisitor
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.


Ascension of Isaiah
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.
Both accounts have the idea of a public discussion in Bethlehem about the appearance of Christ.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
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:Norelli IMS and IIUC claims that the Ethiopic of AoI chapter 11 can and probably should be understood in a way closer to the Inquisitor's report than is apparent in the older translations. I don't currently have access to Norelli's argument but I will hopefully be in the Cambridge UL in a week's time.
That would be wonderful. :)

I would be glad to be convinced, one way or another.

Thanks for taking the time, naturally!
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:Norelli IMS and IIUC claims that the Ethiopic of AoI chapter 11 can and probably should be understood in a way closer to the Inquisitor's report than is apparent in the older translations. I don't currently have access to Norelli's argument but I will hopefully be in the Cambridge UL in a week's time.
That would be wonderful. :)

I would be glad to be convinced, one way or another.

Thanks for taking the time, naturally!
Norelli's argument pps 138 139 of L'Ascensione d'i Isaia studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi is basically that the Ethiopic for Mary being with child (substantive dens from the verb danes) primarily means to be gravid, to have the physical signs of pregnancy. Hence, Norelli argues, it need not imply that Mary is actually carrying a child in her womb merely that she has the physical signs of being pregnant.

If so it would be a parallel to the Cathar material, but Norelli's argument seems a bit speculative.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

There could be an original Greek ἐγκύμον literally to be heavy swollen, which could underly the Ethiopic and Cathar material.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Original Form of the Ascension of Isaiah

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote:Last but not least, reading the introduction to The Apocryphal Gospels today did give me this tidbit (pp. 115-116):
The earliest manuscript of the Gospel in either form is from Montpellier (Bibliotheque de l'Ecole de medicine, 55), known as M, and dating from around 800. It preserves the first twenty-one paragraphs of the Arundel recension (JAr). Even though this manuscript is at least three hundred years older than any of our other witnesses, Kaestli and McNamara judge that it does not preserve the earliest form of the text but represents a later, more heavily edited version. Other manuscripts available for the text are, for the Arundel recension, designated Z (twelfth century), L (1385), A (fourteenth century), V (fourteenth century), and W (fifteenth century); for Hereford recension (JHer), we have H and C, both of the thirteenth century. Full descriptions of the manuscripts are provided by Kaesti and McNamara (pp. 641-66).
The presence of a manuscript found in Montpellier, in southern France, dating AD 800, along with seven other manuscripts known of both recensions (dating from the twelfth to the fifteenth century), is enough to present to us the minimum standard of plausibility that the Cathars of the 14th century in southern France were using such a text.
FWIW (and it may not be worth much) the Montpellier manuscript is paleographically from a German scriptorium and ended up in France sometime in the Middle Ages.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply