Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Thus one Hieracas, an Egyptian heresiarch, grounded his position that Melchisedek (of whom it is said, Heb. vii.3, that he was like the Son of God, and abideth a priest continually) was the Holy Spirit, upon certain passages in chaps. ix. and xi. of the Ascension. "The angel showed me of all things before me, and said: Who is this on the right hand of God? And I answered: Thou knowest, O Lord. And he said: This is the Beloved. (I beheld one standing whose glory surpassed all things. . . . This is the Lord of all the glory which thou hast beheld.) And who is the other like unto Him coming on the left hand? And I answered: Thou knowest. This is the Holy Spirit that speaketh in thee and in the prophets. And He was like to the Beloved. (While I was conversing, I perceived another glorious being, who was like to Him in appearance. . . . The second which I saw was on the left hand of my Lord. And I asked: Who is this? And he replied: Worship Him, for this is the angel of the Holy Spirit who speaketh in thee and other saints. . . . I perceived that He sat down on the right hand of that great glory. I perceived likewise that the angel of the Holy Spirit sat down on the left hand.") Epiphanius says of the Archontici (a sect who held that the world was created by angels, and that there were seven heavens, each presided over by an archon or ruler) that they derive their tenets from the Anabatikon Hesaiou, and other apocryphal works. The statement on which they relied is found in the seventh and following chapters of the Ascension, where Isaiah's passage through the seven heavens, with their presiding angels, is described.

Secret Alias wrote:Thus one Hieracas, an Egyptian heresiarch, grounded his position that Melchisedek (of whom it is said, Heb. vii.3, that he was like the Son of God, and abideth a priest continually) was the Holy Spirit, upon certain passages in chaps. ix. and xi. of the Ascension. "The angel showed me of all things before me, and said: Who is this on the right hand of God? And I answered: Thou knowest, O Lord. And he said: This is the Beloved. (I beheld one standing whose glory surpassed all things. . . . This is the Lord of all the glory which thou hast beheld.) And who is the other like unto Him coming on the left hand? And I answered: Thou knowest. This is the Holy Spirit that speaketh in thee and in the prophets. And He was like to the Beloved. (While I was conversing, I perceived another glorious being, who was like to Him in appearance. . . . The second which I saw was on the left hand of my Lord. And I asked: Who is this? And he replied: Worship Him, for this is the angel of the Holy Spirit who speaketh in thee and other saints. . . . I perceived that He sat down on the right hand of that great glory. I perceived likewise that the angel of the Holy Spirit sat down on the left hand.") Epiphanius says of the Archontici (a sect who held that the world was created by angels, and that there were seven heavens, each presided over by an archon or ruler) that they derive their tenets from the Anabatikon Hesaiou, and other apocryphal works. The statement on which they relied is found in the seventh and following chapters of the Ascension, where Isaiah's passage through the seven heavens, with their presiding angels, is described.

What's it mean, Stephan?

Quant au texte n° 6 des Actes de Pierre , il trouve une
correspondance litterale dans !’affirmation des habitants
de Bethlehem rapportee au v. 14 de l' Ascension. Sous
cette forme, la citation ne se trouve que dans ces deux
textes, ce qui oblige a supposer un rapport litteraire
entre eux. II est invraisemblable que l'Ascension depen-
de des Actes de Pierre , qui sont sans doute d’origine plus
tardive. Mais la dependance inverse est egalement
improbable, car les Actes de Pierre attribuent a deux
prophetes differents les testimonia 4 et 6 et ne les ont
par consequent pas tires de la meme prophetie d’lsaie.
De plus, les Actes de Pierre n’ont pas puise dans
V Ascension la phrase « Elle a engendre et n’a pas engen-
dre », en reunissant les deux enonces attribues a deux
groupes divers; en effet, cette citation se retrouve —
sous la meme forme «compacte » que dans les Actes et
non sous la forme d’un dialogue comme dans
l'Ascension — chez d’autres auteurs qui ne dependent
ni des Actes de Pierre , ni de l'Ascension.

Your OCR software (?) produced some weird typos, but I think this is what it's saying:

In text No. 6 (?) of the Acts of Peter, there is a literal correspondence with the affirmation of the inhabitants of Bethlehem given in v. 14 of Ascension. This citation appears nowhere in this form other than in these two texts, which requires us to assume there is a literary connection between them. It is implausible that Ascension is dependant on the Acts of Peter, which certainly originated later. But dependence the other way is equally improbable, since the Acts of Peter attribute testimonia 4 and 6 to two different prophets; thus, they are not taken from the same prophecy by Isaiah. Furthermore, the Acts of Peter did not get the phrase "she hath brought forth and not brought forth", which connects the two statements attributed to two different groups, from Ascension. In fact, this citation is found in a more “compact” form, and not in the form of a dialogue as in Ascension, in the writings of other authors that were dependent neither on the Acts of Peter nor on Ascension.

By the way, I have Norelli's book and will start reading it (perhaps even translating it) when I have the time.

Peter Kirby wrote:

Secret Alias wrote:Thus one Hieracas, an Egyptian heresiarch, grounded his position that Melchisedek (of whom it is said, Heb. vii.3, that he was like the Son of God, and abideth a priest continually) was the Holy Spirit, upon certain passages in chaps. ix. and xi. of the Ascension. "The angel showed me of all things before me, and said: Who is this on the right hand of God? And I answered: Thou knowest, O Lord. And he said: This is the Beloved. (I beheld one standing whose glory surpassed all things. . . . This is the Lord of all the glory which thou hast beheld.) And who is the other like unto Him coming on the left hand? And I answered: Thou knowest. This is the Holy Spirit that speaketh in thee and in the prophets. And He was like to the Beloved. (While I was conversing, I perceived another glorious being, who was like to Him in appearance. . . . The second which I saw was on the left hand of my Lord. And I asked: Who is this? And he replied: Worship Him, for this is the angel of the Holy Spirit who speaketh in thee and other saints. . . . I perceived that He sat down on the right hand of that great glory. I perceived likewise that the angel of the Holy Spirit sat down on the left hand.") Epiphanius says of the Archontici (a sect who held that the world was created by angels, and that there were seven heavens, each presided over by an archon or ruler) that they derive their tenets from the Anabatikon Hesaiou, and other apocryphal works. The statement on which they relied is found in the seventh and following chapters of the Ascension, where Isaiah's passage through the seven heavens, with their presiding angels, is described.

What's it mean, Stephan?

It is generally accepted that the Ascension of Isaiah was widely used by fringe Christian groups in 4th century Egypt.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew Criddle hath penned, quoting an Inquisitor: " 'They heard that there came three kings every man in his place, and they came together at the same time' (my dodgy translation)
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."
This doesn't follow at all. Since there is NOTHING about the coincidental, simultaneous appearance of the three kings in Asc. Is. ch. 11 as it stands, the medieval group said inquisitor was referring to were using a textual version different from the text of the Vision inclusive of the 'pocket gospel' we know of; and in any case, medieval use of a text including it hardly can count as evidence for a claim it had to have been included in the original vision.

Othersonian wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:49 am Andrew Criddle hath penned, quoting an Inquisitor: " 'They heard that there came three kings every man in his place, and they came together at the same time' (my dodgy translation)
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."
This doesn't follow at all. Since there is NOTHING about the coincidental, simultaneous appearance of the three kings in Asc. Is. ch. 11 as it stands, the medieval group said inquisitor was referring to were using a textual version different from the text of the Vision inclusive of the 'pocket gospel' we know of; and in any case, medieval use of a text including it hardly can count as evidence for a claim it had to have been included in the original vision.

With reference to the three kings I suggested viewtopic.php?f=3&t=750&p=33162#p33162

This may support the idea that the Cathar sermon is partly based on popular legends of a non-gnostic non-docetic nature and partly on Cathar apocrypha such as the Ascension of Isaiah.

Andrew Criddle