Updated post

12 thoughts on “Updated post”

1. Neil, there appears to be two spelling typos, that should be: vidi, cognoverunt.

   The Latin original is found in part in R. H. Charles’ Ascension of Isaiah and in full in Paoli Bettiolo’s text and Enrico Norelli’s commentary:

   Et uidi similem filii hominis, et cum hominibus habitare, et in mundo, et non cognouerunt eum.

   Reply

   1. I copied and pasted the Latin text from the Italian publication, Bettiolo, Paolo. 1995. Ascensio Isaiae: textus. Turnhout: Brepols. (Does v in place of u represent an Anglicization of the Latin orthography? — (is orthography the right word?))

      Reply

      1. It is v per Bettiolo, Paolo; Norelli, Enrico (1995). Ascensio Isaiae: Textus. Turnhout: Brepols. p. 430.

         Reply

         1. 

            Reply

            1. • Page 231 is from section: La Visio Isaiaa dell’edizione curata a Venezia nel 1522 da Antonio de Fantis [This text was printed at Venice in 1522 and edited by Antonio de Fantis]

               Reply

      2. It is v per Dillmann, August, ed. (1877). “Visio Isaiae e Monacensi editionis Venetae exemplari descripta.”. Ascensio Isaiae, Aethiop. et Lat., cum prolegomenis, adnotationibus, additis versionum Lat. reliquiis, ed. al A. Dillmann. p. 82.

         Reply

         1. And per Gieseler, J. C. L., & Dieterich, H. (1832). Academiae Georgiae Augustae Prorector cum Senatu Sacra pentecostalia anni 1832 pie celebranda indicunt : Inest vetus translatio latina Visionis Jesaiae, libri V.T. pseudepigraphi. p. 18

            Reply

      3. Antonius De Fantis (1522). “Visio mirabilis Ysaie Prophete“. Opera nuper in lucem prodeuntia. Venice: J. de Leuco. p. 103–112.

         Et vidi similē filii hoīs, & cū hoībus hĩrare & I mūdo, & ñ cognouerŭt eŭ. —(p. 111–112)

         Reply

         1. My transcription:
            &
            vidi similem filii homis
            &
            cum hominus habitare in mundo
            &
            non cognoverunt eum

            Reply

            1. If it’s a big enough serious deal I will probably change it but my understanding, limited though it is I well know, is that there has been something of a teacup war over whether u or v is the appropriate letter. Tim might be horrified to hear me say this, but there are no divinely ordained commandments concerning grammar and orthography. The only justification for them today is to serve the interests of standardization since the advent of the printing press. With new technologies enough room for variability can (and is being) built into systems to cater for variations. 🙂

               I am delighted to have compiled the first Latin grammar in English to have banished the letter V from the Latin alphabet. It was never there.

               —- Morwood, James. 1999. A Latin Grammar. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. p. uii.

               Reply

               1. I see now that page 231 (above screen-shot), is ‘V’ in the upper case, ‘u’ in the lower case.

                  Reply

2. Tim O’Neill said

   … if you actually turn to the Ascension of Isaiah you read this:

   “And I saw one like the son of man (that’s Jesus, the messiah) dwelling with men and in the world and they did not recognize him.”

   Except ‘the son of man’ in the Ascension of Isaiah might not be the Jesus of Nazareth –

   ie. it is as likely (or, perhaps, even more likely) to be reference to another entity; perhaps a celestial, angelic being.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.