The Literary Unity of the Ascensio Isaiae
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NOTES AND STUDIES 17 THE LITERARY UNITY OF THE ASCENSIO ISAIAE. AMONG the attractive things in Professor Burkitfs lectures on Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (1914) none can compare with his view of the unity of the Ascensio. For its tripartite character has been main- Downloaded from tained with an energy only surpassed, it may be, by that spent on the three divisions in man which were essential to the ancient students of his nature. That Psychology seems to later students to have made its divisions with an insensitive instrument; and the Schweich lecturer says that a simple writing can be made into a composite one by the http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ same means. He states these reasons for his criticism : (1) The story of Isaiah's martyrdom is ' an integral part of the Ascension constructed from the writer's knowledge of the early imperfect Greek translation of the Books of the Kings, supplemented here and there by stray fragments of Jewish lore'; (2) ' In the Ascension of Isaiah the idea that the End is the chief thing in history is crossed by the new Christian idea that it is the Incarnation of the Messiah, an event now passed, which is the chief thing in history'—it is the writer's attempt to fuse these two which at Stockholms Universitet on July 10, 2015 might start the view of the book's divided nature.1 Thus the Isaian Martyrdom is a Greek Christian Romance which was composed to give the Visions a semblance of historical context; and the Isaian Visions are an essay in pictorial Christology. These two parts stand to one another as introduction and introduced matter. Then they were com-* posed at the same time by a Christian writer. But their unity is more radical even than this view shews. The unity of the writing is religious as well as literary; and because both so-called Martyrium and Visio were inspired by the same early literary source for Christology. The book describes its own source; and with great care. This description is in Ascensio \v 21-22. It has been the custom of commentators and editors * to include that passage as a piece of the text, from iv 19 to v 1, which is to be marked with the judgement, an ' editorial addition'. The acuteness of its indication of literary source could be taken as being either against this opinion and for the originality of the passage, or it could mean that the hypothetical 1 Burkitt, 45-47, 73-74. » For example, the most recent English work on the Asansh thus deals with the passage, Charles Tkt AscmsioH of Isaiah, 1900, 37; Box TJu Asunsion of Isaiah, 1918 (the first title of this book is Tht Apocalyps* of Adam). VOL. XX. C l8 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES editor was an informed theological scholar. The passage is, however, the writer's justification for his Preface to the account of the Ascent And the idea of its being an interpolation appears to be not wanted. The passage runs:— 21.' And the descent of the Beloved into Sheol, behold, it is written in the section, where the Lord says: "Behold, my son will understand." And all these things, behold they are written [in the Psalms] in the Parables of David, the son of Jesse, and in the Proverbs of Solomon his son, and in the words of Korah, and Ethan the Israelite, and in the words of Asaph, and in the rest of the Psalms also which the Downloaded from angel of the Spirit inspired, 22. (Namely) in those which have not the name written, and in the words of my father Amos, and of Hosea the prophet, and of Micah and Joel and Nahum and Jonah and Obadiah and Habakkuk and Haggai and Zephaniah and Zechariah and Matachi, and in the words of Joseph the Just and in the words of Daniel.'1 There is a notable particularity about this passage. For the subject http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ of the ' Descent of the Beloved' is said to have been written in a certain section of a writing, and the whole subject of the book is said to have been attested therein by a long list of writers whose names are given one after another. What was the writing of which precise mention has been made? And what are its relations to the catalogue of names? The writing is the Testimonia adversvs Iudaeos? The Ascenno will approve this claim. Now it will be seen from the above citation that not only is a certain section mentioned, but also that a distinguishing at Stockholms Universitet on July 10, 2015 feature from it, in the shape of a testimonium, is quoted and related to the subject of the Beloved's Descent. Canon Charles thus comments on this testimonium: 'This quotation is taken from Isa. lii 13, where the LXX has l&ov (rwqa-n. 6 nalt fwv. Trait has been rendered " son " by the Ethiopic translator. It is hard to recognize in Isa. lii 13-liii any reference to his Descent in Hades. .. The LXX phrase [liii 8 A*-o TUV &yofxmv TOV Xaov fwv rjxOr) cis Odvarov] may have been interpreted in this way by early Christians.' But the writer of the Preface to the Ascensio knew that Isa. lii 13 was used by first-century Christianity in relation to the Lord's Descent A valuable TSsstimonia text like the De Fide Cathotica contra ludaeos of Isidore Hispalensis is a proof. For it says: 1 Quia pauper et abiectus in primo adventu suo venerit, sanctus Isaias sic indicat, dicens: Dicite, filiae Sion. Ecce rex tuus venit tibi iustus, 1 This is Canon Charles's translation. Concerning the textual difficulty: [in the Psalms] in the Parables of David . and in the Proverbs of Solomon, &c— perhaps the text should, read : ' Psalms of David . Parables of Solomon.' For the second title compare Salonius's writing In Parabolas Salomons (P. L. liii). That Father used writers who knew the ancient Christological source. 1 On the subject of Tatimoma see Rendel Harris and Vacher Burch Testimonies Parti, 1916; Bindley InUrprtltr, 1918, 210-319. NOTES AND STUDIES 19 et salvator, pauper, sedens super asinum indomitum.' * This testimonium is followed by others taken from Isa. liii and xlii. It is to be seen that the evidence fulfils exactly the demands for a writing which should have a section in it given up to the subject of the Descent together with a specified testimonium for that subject, and that these should be repre- sentative of the literary source of the Ascensio. The suspicion that a temporal paradox is meant by speaking of the first and quoting the seventh century can be easily taken away. The Cyprianic Jestimonia, for example, under the heading Quod humilis in primo adventu suo venire/,* quotes Isa. liii and xliL Each one who hands on the anti- Downloaded from Judaic document becomes in a sense its editor; for he selects from the original what testimonies he shall keep. It seems plain that they were never numerous under their several headings; but the copyist at least does drop one here and there. Isidore' then is using the same Christo- logical material as the writer of the apocryphon, and it is arranged for http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ each of them in the same way. Moreover, the Cyprianic writing makes it certain that the grouping of the testimonies and the testimonies grouped under the heading mentioned in the Ascensio are not instances of curious agreement between Isidore and its author, but that both writers are drawing upon an inherited document.' Before the tests for a Testimonia base to the Isaian writing are carried further, it may be well to notice one other chief testimonium for the Ilols who came down. It will serve to shew the manner of His descent. This testimonium is Ecclus. iv 13, the irats vivrp (cat o-o^o?. Eusebius, in his Eclogae at Stockholms Universitet on July 10, 2015 Propheticae iii 4, shews that in it was thought to be inwrapt the truth of His descent and ascent, of how He came down in rags and overcame and in His ascent carried away the riches of life from the world of the dead. Whilst this is directly in union with the conception of the Beloved in the Ascensio, it is perhaps more interesting to follow certain glimpses of the literary genealogy of this testimony. Jerome's com- mentary In Eccl.'vt 13 preserves the fact that Victorinus and Origen agree in the comment which he makes on the passage.4 The comment is the same in nature as that in Eusebius,6 and is upheld by other 1 i 15. I; P.L. lzxxiii 47a C Compare especially Justin i Ap. 50, Tertullian Advtrsus Judaaa 14, and also see Origen Contra Ctteum i $$,S<Ucta in Psalmos ii 2. • ii 13. ' Barnabas Ep. v a ; Dial. Ath. and Zac. 380, Dial. Timothy and Aq. fol. 113 (ed. Conybeare) ; Justin Trypho 14. 8, 31. 2, 42. 2, 49. 2, 85. 1, 100. a, no. 2, 114. 2 ; Lactantius Dw. Inst. iv. 16 ; Athanasius dt Inc. 34 ; Isidore Hisp. dt Fidt Catholica &c. i 15. aff; Cyril of Jerusalem Cattdi. xiii 13; Chrysostom-Horn. Quod Dtus CMristus viii 6a6 (ed. Eton), Contra Iudatos iii, viii 341 ; Evagrius Alttrcatio vi 24. * P. L. xxiii 1050 B. 5 Jerome has, however, dropped the Sophia element in the argument which is kept by Eusebius. This phase is dealt with in my book, which is now nearly C a 2O THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Testimony matter.