Chapter 10 Critiqued:

• Doherty wrote: “A great amount of scholarly ink has been spilled over the meaning of ‘the rulers of this age’ (verses 6 and 8). In both pagan and Jewish parlance, the word archontes could be used to refer to earthly rulers and those in authority (as in Romans 13:3). But it is also, along with several others like it, a technical term for the spirit forces, the ‘powers and authorities’ who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate (usually cruel) of the earth, its nations and individuals…There has not been a universal scholarly consensus on what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 2:8, but many commentators over the last century, some reluctantly, have decided that he is referring to the demon spirits” (TJP:100-101).
• William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther wrote: “This world’s rulers…crucified the glorious Lord. The identification of these rulers is a difficult problem. As long ago as the third century they were identified with spirit powers; and they have been variously treated as demons, as angels, or as Gnostic aeons. In this connection, they are often associated with “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). It is true that Gnostic ideas early attached to statements such as this. Ignatius says (Ephesians 19:1) that the “ruler of this world (age)” did not notice the Lord’s death; and this was open to appropriation by Gnostics who interposed the aeons between the earthly Christ and his heavenly identity. Origen’s idea (De Principiis III iii) that the rulers had a wisdom of their own is beside the point here. There seems to be no convincing reason to interpret “this world’s rulers” as being any other than those who actually took part in the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus, and the wisdom they did not know was that their action would have a result exactly opposite to their intention: the ignominy of the cross was turned into the glory of redeeming lordship.
• There is evidence that Paul saw supernatural powers working in and through earthly powers (Romans 8:38; 1 Cor. 15:24; Col. 2:15), but his use of terminology is not conclusive, and Romans 13:1 should be evidence enough that he thought of earthly rulers as directly responsible to God. Moreover, throughout the Gospels demons and angels know very well who Jesus is; and no statement in the New Testament implies directly that supernatural beings effected the crucifixion. The nearest exceptions would be in John’s Gospel, where Satan enters Judas ( 13:27) and where Jesus speaks of the judgment of “the ruler of this world” ( 16:11); but these have to be placed over against the statements about the crucifixion (John 19:23 or even Acts 2:36), which tell of a very human act.
• There is no uniform meaning attached to mystery in the New Testament: see Mark 4:11; Romans 11:25, 16:25; 1 Cor. 15:51; Col. 1:26; II Thess. 2:7; Rev. 1:20, 10:7, 17:5,7. There is, however, a common element: secret information is made known by some special action of God. In I Cor. 2:7-8 it is quite reasonable to understand that Paul is saying that just as people to whom he preached took the message of the cross as a “scandal” or “foolishness,” so those who had been responsible for the crucifixion in the firs t place did not know what they were doing. Perhaps Paul deliberately uses terminology current in Corinth under the influence of mystery religions or Gnostic philosophy. It is quite another thing to maintain that his thinking was shaped or even seriously influenced by these pagan ideas, and it seems just as remote a possibility that the Corinthian church people he had just described were deeply or extensively involved in them” (TABCANT:164-165).
• “None of the rulers: the use of this strong expression does not deny the existence of a Nicodemus and a Joseph of Arimathea. It simply implies that all that is high and exalted among the Jews as well as the Gentiles in this world is in opposition to Jesus. What the Jews did in cooperation with Pilate is the manifestation of the spirit of this age over against Christ. Those who crucified Christ are the representatives of the rulers of this world, i.e., they are the powers who determine the character of this world. None does not refer to individuals but to the group. The apostles in Jerusalem expressed the same thought (Acts 4:27). The idea of knowing in this verse includes the idea of acknowledging, as is often the case. It designates an intentional spiritual act which forms the foundation for the whole behavior. That spiritual act is the main thing as is evident from the fact that Paul does not write: they crucified the Lord of glory for they did not acknowledge him, but on the contrary: they did not acknowledge Him as appeared from their crucifying Him” (COTFETCTET:65).
• “ hn oudeiz… egnwken. The hn must refer to sofian, ‘which wisdom none of the rulers of this world hath discerned.’ Ei gar. Parenthetical confirmation of the pervious statement. ‘Had they discerned, as they did not, they would not have crucified, as they did.’ It is manifest from this that the arxontez are neither demons nor angels, but the rulers who took part in crucifying the Christ” (TICCACECFESPC:39-40).
• “No wonder Paul can add a second relative clause to describe this wisdom: which not one of the rulers of this world age has known, for if they had known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Not only is it not theirs to begin with, originating, as it did, far higher and far earlier than theirs and sweeping on its sublime course far above their puny thoughts; but not one of them, rulers though they are in this world age, even “hath known” it, hath realized it in the past or at any time since and thus made it his own intellectually and spiritually when it was brought to him by God….The crucifixion of Christ is the final demonstration of the fact that the world’s highest representatives did not and do not know God’s wisdom. The Jewish and Roman political leaders are here referred to, but in Christ’s time the former were also the ecclesiastical rulers. They even had the Old Testament revelation to give them knowledge. Yet they did not know. All their guilty and fatal ignorance comes to the surface in the crucifixion of Christ, John 18:38; Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17; 13:17. The Jewish and the Gentile authorities of Christ’s day are typical in this respect. “World is world; wherever the world lets out its real self in its leaders, there Christ is killed, in Jerusalem and in Rome, everywhere, always.” Besser” (TIOSPFSEC:99).
• Charles Laymon wrote: “The phrase rulers of this age has also been variously interpreted. Some limit it to Pilate and the Jewish rulers of Palestine (cf. Acts 4:27-28; John 7:25-26), but Paul probably has in mind the invisible powers of the spirit world behind these governing authorities, influencing their actions and blinding their eyes to the truth (cf. 6:3; 11:10-12; 15:24; II Cor. 4:4; Rom. 8:38; Gal. 4:3; Col. 2:8). Beliefs such as these were shared by many writers of Paul’s day, non-Jews as well as Jews. Paul believes that the power of these spirit-rulers, like the present age, is short-lived, doomed by the event of the crucifixion of Christ (cf. 15:24-25; Rom. 8:18-25; Phil. 3:20-21)” (TIOVCB:798).
• Doherty wrote: “A prominent first century Christian idea was that Christ by his death had subjected all the spirit powers and authorities, both good and evil, to his control. In this light, Colossians 2:15 again places Jesus’ crucifixion in a supernatural milieu, for it is difficult to see any historical scene on Calvary contained in this idea: ‘On the cross he discarded the cosmic powers and authorities like a garment; he made a public spectacle of them and led them as captives in his triumphal procession.’ ( NEB)” (TJP:102).
• It is fascinating that Doherty would mention this passage, because it seems to convey a message counter to Doherty’s argument. For example, Jesus’ crucifixion is associated with the defeat of the demons in this passage, but not the demons’ crucifying Jesus in the heavenly realms, as Doherty insists.
• A direct translation from the Greek says something a bit different from Doherty's translation: “putting off the rulers and the authorities he exposed [them] with openness, triumphing [over] them in it” (TINASBNIVPNT:583).
• Charles Laymon wrote the following: “Christ’s death effects forgiveness and ushers in new life because it establishes God’s victory over the principalities and powers of the cosmos. The false teaching is still in the author’s mind, and against the doctrine of diverse cosmic potentates he urges once again the absolute supremacy of Christ. In him, i.e. Christ, may also be translated ‘in it,’ i.e. the cross. But the meaning is not greatly changed, for the idea is that in Christ’s triumphant death on the cross God has conquered the lesser lords of the cosmos; and like a victorious general he has disarmed the pretenders to power, parading them about for all to see their disgrace and impotence” (TIOVCB:861).
• Doherty wrote: (C.K. Barrett, as noted earlier, translates kata sarka in Romans 1:3 as ‘in the sphere of the flesh.’) Here Christ could assume counterpart characteristics of the visible world, undergo suffering and death at the hands of the spirits as a blood sacrifice, and be raised by God back to the highest heaven” (TJP:103).
  
  • However, the context of Barrett’s comment does not support Doherty’s interpretation all. C.K. Barrett makes no mention to a celestial realm or the heavens in connection to the phrase “in the sphere of the flesh.” In stark contrast to Doherty’s view, Barrett wrote:
    
    • “The preposition (kata) here rendered ‘in the sphere of’ could also be rendered ‘according to’, and ‘according to the flesh’ is a common Pauline phrase; in this verse, however, Paul does not mean that on a fleshly (human) judgement Jesus was a descendant of David, but that in the realm denoted by the word flesh (humanity) he was truly a descendant of David” (TETTR:18).
      
• Doherty wrote: “These are generally regarded as pre-Pauline, though no one has any idea who wrote them. Consider the hymn in Philippians 2:6-11: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death-even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (TJP:104).
• Doherty continued: “This is the early Christian epitome of the descending-ascending redeemer myth, and there is not a breath of identification with any Jesus of Nazareth. Three times does the hymn allude to the idea that this divinity took on a likeness to base, material form, but never does it say that he became an actual man, much less give him a life on earth. Instead, this deity descends to undergo death (some commentators fell that the phrase “death on a cross” is probably a Pauline addition, since it interrupts the pattern of the poetic lines) and is raised back to the highest heaven, where he is exalted” (TJP:105).
• It is extremely ironic that Doherty mentioned this pre-Pauline hymn, because this material is the earliest attestation to Jesus Christ literally becoming a historical human being, when the hymn is interpreted correctly, as will become evident below.
• Charles M. Laymon wrote: “The 2 nd verb, emptied, is crucial. The 2 phrases help interpret its meaning. “Empty” here means to take the status of a servant (lit. “slave”) and come into existence as a man. This whole complex of phrases speaks of the incarnation (lit. “enfleshment,” a word derived from John 1:14 but never actually used in the NT). The heart of the matter is the change of roles from divine authority to slave status, from the highest thinkable role to the lowest known” (TIOVCB:850).
• Laymon continued: “…The likeness of men is a way of saying that this one shared the status of man; it falls short of saying he became “just another man,” or that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14; cf. Rom. 5:14; 8:3). The point is that he who was equal to God now became equal with man. The language is hymnic and should not be pressed to mean that the Son of God did not become a real man but only like a man. Such literalism, advocated by some in the 2 nd cent., denied the reality of the incarnation and was rejected as heresy, for it turned the intent of the phrase upside down. The point is that God’s Son shared man’s plight, not that he became a “reasonable facsimile” of man” (TIOVCB:850).
• James Montgomery Boice wrote: “There is a similar contrast in two more passages of Scripture. Writing to the Romans, Paul says that Christ “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:3,4)….In exactly the same way, Galatians 4:4 says that “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” As the Son he was sent. But He became man. In Philippians, the meaning is identical. Paul writes that the one who was in the form of God and was God’s equal from all eternity took the form of a man at a particular moment in history. He took upon himself the form of a servant; He was made in man’s likeness.
• In these verses Paul uses three different words to describe what it meant for the eternal Son of God to become a man. The first word is the one translated by the English word “form” in the phrase “the form of a servant.” The Greek word is morphe, and it is precisely the word used earlier when it said that Christ was in “the form of God.” First in “the form of God,” now in “the form of man.” We noted in an earlier study that the Greek word morphe has different senses in Greek; it refers both to the inward character of a thing and also to the outward form that expresses its inward character. Hence, when Paul says that Christ took upon Him the form of a servant he means that Christ became man both inwardly and outwardly….
• ….The second word that Paul uses to describe the incarnation is the one translated “likeness.” Paul says that Christ was made in the “likeness of man.” The word morphe refers to man’s nature; the second word homoioma refers to the outward appearance of humanity. Jesus Christ did not just have a man’s feelings, or intellect, or outlook on life, but He looked like a man also. He was born a Jewish baby, and as He grew He looked like others of his race. From a physical standpoint also He was perfectly man.
• …The third word Paul uses is schema, and it occurs in verse eight. Paul writes that Jesus was found “in fashion as a man.” Here the thought is of conformity to human experience. Paul says that Christ was not only man inwardly in all His feelings and emotions, that He was not only man outwardly in the sense of physical likeness, but He was also man in the sense that He endured all that we endure in this world-its pressures, its longing, its circumstances, its influences for good and evil. Jesus knew all this. Consequently, there is nothing about being a man that was not also part of Jesus’ experience” (PAEC:138-139).
• William Hendriksen wrote: “Besides, from several New Testament passages in which one or the other or both of these words occur, generally as component elements in verbs, it is evident that in these given contexts morphe or form refers to the inner, essential, and abiding nature of a person or thing, while schema or fashion points to his or its external, accidental, and fleeting bearing or appearance” (NTCEOP:104).
• Gerald F. Hawthorne wrote: “And the expression, “in the likeness of a man” with the one that immediately follows, “in human form,” are not used with any intent by the hymn writer to water down the genuineness of Christ’s humanity, or to cast doubt on its reality. They are not meant to say that Christ only appeared to be a man or that he only took the outward form of a person as the Gnostics later were to claim. Rather, these two expressions link up in hymnic fashion with that other expression, “form of a slave” (v 7). Together they become a threefold emphatic reiteration of one fundamentally important idea-that Christ in the Incarnation fully identified himself with humanity, that he became truly human both in appearance and in thought and feeling, that he shared people’s plight genuinely” (WBTP :72).
• The New Testament scholar Dr. Ben Witherington III wrote: “The phrase ‘being found in form a human being’ is inexplicable if he had never been anything else other than a human being” ( TNTS:201).
• The New Testament scholar Dr. Ben Witherington III also wrote: “Philippians 2:6-11 is a story divided into two parts. In the first half of the hymn, which has a V patter (with preexistence, earthly existence, and existence in heaven after life on earth being the three nodal points making up the V), Christ is the actor who thinks and chooses and lives out a planned earthly existence. In the second half of the hymn, however, the story is about what God did for Christ as a result of his attitude and the actions leading up to and including his death. We have in this hymn an interesting juxtaposition of the imagery of preexistence, suffering servant, wisdom, and humility and exaltation” ( TNTS:202).
• The New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders wrote: “According to Philippians 2:5-11, Jesus was ‘in the form of God’ before he was born, but then he took on ‘the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men’. The passage continues, ‘and being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death’. God ‘highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name’, that is, Lord. Here, strikingly, the word ‘Son’ does not appear. Instead one gets ‘form’: Jesus was in the form of God, then he was in the form of a slave, that is, he was in human form. By emphasizing ‘form’, one might argue that Paul is saying that Jesus was neither truly divine nor truly human he was only in the form of each successively. This, however, would be to pick at words. Whatever the complexities of the wording, the passage basically states that Jesus Christ was pre-existent and was in some sense divine, but that he became human before being exalted even higher than he had originally been, to the status ‘Lord’” (P:81-82).
• The New Testament scholar James D.G. Dunn wrote: “Romans 7:7-11 is just a way of describing the character and plight of all men now, so Philippians 2:6-11 is simply a way of describing the character of Christ’s ministry and sacrifice” ( CMANTIODI:120).
• The New Testament scholar James D.G. Dunn also wrote: “In other words, Phil 2:6-8 is probably intended to affirm that Christ’s earthly life was an embodiment of grace from beginning to end, of giving away in contrast to selfish grasping of Adam’s sin, that every choice of any consequence made by Christ’s life and ministry had the character of a fallen lot freely embraced” ( CMANTIODI:121).
• Doherty wrote the following regarding 1 Timothy 3:16: “The shorter hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16 offers a similar descent-ascent pattern performed by a divine being: ‘He who was manifested in [flesh], vindicated in spirit, seen by angels; who was proclaimed among the nations, believed in throughout the world, glorified high in heaven.’ [ NEB] Once again there is no identification with a human man, and any suggestion of a ministry is pointedly lacking. This deity seems to have been seen only by angels and engaged in no proclaiming of his own. The ‘in flesh’ of the first line (en sarki) can be translated “in the sphere of the flesh,” as noted earlier. However, no Christian writer or hymnist expresses the view that the Christ myth is allegorical or symbolic. Paul seems to have very much believed in the divine Jesus’ literal suffering at the hands of the demon spirits” (TJP:105).
• This is another example of how Doherty has reversed the original meaning of a pre-Pauline hymn.
• Charles Laymon provides the reader with a different interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:16. Laymon wrote: “The meaning of this hymn is difficult because it has been removed from its original context. However, it seems to emphasize Christ’s incarnation, the vindicating power of his resurrection, his exaltation to heaven, and the spread of his gospel in the world. The simple formula stands in stark contrast to the elaborate system of eons advanced by the Gnostics. Moreover its insistence on the reality of the Incarnation is a refutation of the Gnostic view of flesh as evil, which denied the real humanity of Jesus” (TIOVCB:886).
• Doherty wrote the following regarding the Ascension of Isaiah: “The second section, the Vision of Isaiah (chapters 6-11), underwent its own evolution before being combined with the first, and it contains a detailed picture of the descent-ascent motif we have been discussing” (TJP:106).
• Jonathan Knight wrote: “My research thus yields the conclusion that the Ascension of Isaiah represents a development of the Christological tradition in the early second century. This development can be seen on a number of fronts. Descent and ascent are described more explicitly there than in first-century literature (including John). This is due in no small measure to the inclusion of the seven-storied cosmology against the general trend of primitive Christian literature” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:141).
• Doherty further wrote: “The community that wrote this, probably toward the end of the first century, lived in a world of apocalyptic expectation and revelation from the Holy Spirit (6:6f)” (TJP:106).
• Scholarly opinions vary in terms of when they conclude the Ascension of Isaiah was written (“Ascension of Isaiah”).
• In fact, the majority of scholars today believe that different portions of the Ascension of Isaiah were written in different stages, and all of these stages were not combined until a later time in history (“Ascension of Isaiah”).
• Again, Doherty wrote that Ascension of Isaiah was probably written “toward the end of the first century” (TJP:106).
• It is crucial to point out that “toward the end of the first century” was, according to Doherty, the same time Jesus was beginning to be written about as being a historical figure.
• For example Doherty wrote: “After the events ‘recorded’ in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus of Nazareth and the great panoply of characters surrounding him sleep in a silent limbo for many decades. Their ‘resurrection’ comes only at the beginning of the second century, when Mary and Pontius Pilate steal from the shadows onto the pages of Ignatius of Antioch’s letters. That resurrection is rather a whimper than a bang, for it would be many decades more before the Gospel events emerge fully into the light” (TJP:259).
• In other words, if one uses the dating that Doherty is utilizing to prove that Jesus was initially believed to have been killed by demons and not on earth one realizes that the Ascension of Isaiah was written around the same time in which there was clear historical attestation to the idea that Jesus was crucified during the time of Pontius Pilate.
• The absolute furthest Doherty could stretch his argument using the Ascension of Isaiah was that there may have been two views of regarding whether or not there was a historical Jesus around the end of the first century C.E.
• However, in light of modern scholarship pertaining to the Ascension of Isaiah, Doherty’s dating of the Ascension of Isaiah in the late first century is not warranted by strong evidence.
• Far from being written prior to Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, there is actually strong evidence that the Ascension of Isaiah was written after Ignatius of Antioch's death.
• Jonathan Knight wrote: “The Ascension of Isaiah shows the development of a distinctly Christian apocalyptic in that region in the period after the death of Ignatius” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:39).
• Jonathan Knight also wrote: “This text was written in the early second century CE and contains a wealth of material to interest scholars of primitive Christianity” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:11).
• Jonathan Knight also wrote: “The apocalypse was probably written between 112 CE and the death of Hadrian in 138 CE” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:33).
• “The consensus of research is now to set the Ascension of Isaiah in the early second century CE” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:33).
• Regardless of the speculated dates, however, the historical/manuscript testimony for the Ascension of Isaiah is the most important factor, which will now be discussed.
• Background Comments about the Historical/Manuscript Testimony to the Existence and Dating of the Ascension of Isaiah :
• “A major difficulty is that of establishing the original text of the apocalypse. The Ascension of Isaiah was written in Greek, but only a fragmentary Greek text (Gk) has survived” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:21).
• “Fragments of the apocalypse are found also in the Sahidic and Akhmimic dialects of Coptic. The Coptic translation, like the Ethiopic, preserves all eleven chapters of the apocalypse. This encourages us to suppose that that was its original form” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:26).
• “We must rely for the bulk of the apocalypse on the evidence of later translations, of which Ethiopic (E) is the most extensive” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:21).
• “The Ethiopic translation was made in the fourth century CE” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:23).
• “We possess two Latin translations of the Ascension of Isaiah (L1 and L2). These are of quite different character and scope. L1 covers 2.14-3.13 and 7.1-19 and it has close affinities with E” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:23).
• “It was found in a Vatican palimpsest (Vatic. Lat. 5750) and has recently been re-edited by C. Leonardi” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:23).
• “L1 forms part of the original writing of this palimpsest. It comes from the fifth or sixth century CE."
• “L2 is quite different from L1” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:24).
• “It (L2) was published in 1522 by the Venetian printer A. de Fantis from a manuscript that is now unknown, and republished by Gieseler in 1832” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:24).
• “L2 covers only chs. 6-11 (‘The Second Vision’) which it introduces with the title Visio, quam vidit Isaias propheta, filius Amos” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:24).
• “The Slavonic translation (S) also reproduces only Ascension of Isaiah 6-11 and has a similar introduction.”
• “The Slavonic version comes from the eleventh century CE” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:25).
• “It exists in two forms, the second of which is an abbreviation of the first” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:25).
• “The complete version is known from a twelfth-century Russian manuscript and from other later manuscripts” 1 (DBOTCSSTCAOI:25).
• “The relation between S and L2 has been a matter of dispute” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:25).
• “The relation between E and S and L2 in the Second Vision is a major difficulty for researchers. S and L2 reproduce only chs. 6-11 as if this material at one time circulated independently of the rest. These versions also have a marked tendency towards abbreviation” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:26).
• “Bori concluded from this that S and L2 represent a redacted version of the lost original and that E more accurately reproduces the Greek in that chapter (6)” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:26).
• “He (Bori) suggested that S and L2 suppressed the identification of prophecy with ecstasy because their parent was influenced by the mainstream reaction against the Montanist movement after c. 175 CE” (DBOTCSSTCAOI:26).
• “This is an important point for determining when the patristic redaction was made. It comes in all probability from the third century CE or perhaps from the early fourth” 2 (DBOTCSSTCAOI:26).
• “…This tends to confirm Bori’s suspicion that S and L2 represent a redaction of the Greek original and that E is the more reliable trident of the text. As in ch. 6, dogmatic considerations account for the omission of 11.2-22 in these later versions. Their parent evidently wanted to remove E’s docetism and its author excised the whole section as a consequence. I suspect that he also omitted chs. 1-5 because of their millenarian tendencies. Although L2 and S thus have a secondary character, this should not lull us into supposing that they are without value. The opposite is in fact the case. On occasion they reveal the true text where the E translator nods or errs (for example in 9.3)."
• Thus, the Ascension of Isaiah reveals nothing about the view of the nature of Jesus’ death prior to the end of the first century C.E., and no evolution of beliefs about the nature of Jesus’ death is portrayed.

Notes:

1. There is an edition of the Russian manuscript, with variants from a 14 th century CE Serbian manuscript, with variants from a 14 th century Serbian manuscript, by A. Popov, Opisanie rukopisei I catalog knigi tserkovnoi pechati biblioteki A.I. Khludova, ( Moscow, 1872). There is a further edition of the Russian manuscript by A.A. Sachmatov and P.A. Lavrov, Sbornik XII veka Moskovskago Uspenskago Sobora, I ( Moscow, 1899).

2. Jerome cited the conclusion of the apocalypse in the L2 version (Comm. In Is. 64.4).