ISAIAH'SVISIONIN THE ASCENSION OF

ISAIAH AND THE EARLY CHURCH

INTERPRETERS have long noted the similarity between the vision
with which Isaiah's journey through the seven heavens in the
Ascension of Isaiah culminates and Origen's exposition of the
vision recorded in the sixth chapter of the canonical Isaiah.1 Both
are 'trinitarian' in the broadest sense of that term. 2 In the former,
Isaiah sees the Beloved and the angel of the Holy Spirit enthroned
to the right and left of God, while in the latter, the Seraphim are
identified with the Son and the Holy Spirit. In what follows I
will suggest that the 'trinitarian' portrait contained in the
Ascension of Isaiah and the exegesis of Isaiah 6 witnessed to by
Origen, and possibly others, are organically related; both having
evolved from the same Jewish Christian exegetical tradition. 3 I
will also argue that the author of the Ascension of Isaiah seeks
to correct this exegetical tradition in the direction of a more
'orthodox' Christology, and thus attests a developed form of the
exegetical tradition.

I. ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE EARLY C H U R C H

Isaiah's vision of God enthroned, surrounded by the six-winged

seraphim who sang to each other the Trisagion, exercised a power-
ful influence on the imagination of early Christians. The author
of the Revelation, for example, fuses Isaiah's Seraphim with
Ezekiel's Cherubim to construct his four living creatures who
1
E.g., R. H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah (London: A. & C. Black, 1900),
p. 1; G. Kretschmar, Studien zur friihchristlichen Trinitatstheologie (BHT 21;
Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1956), pp. 62—94; J. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish
Christianity, trans. D. Smith & J. A. Baker (London: Darton, Longman & Todd,
1964), pp. 134—40; M. Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma: An Historical
Study of its Problem, trans. S. G. F. Brandon (London: A. & C. Black, 1957),
p. 132; J. Knight, Disciples of the Beloved One: The Christology, Social Setting and
Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah (JSPS 18; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996), p. 32; and, most recently, R. D. Williams, 'Angels
Unawares: Heavenly Liturgy and Earthly Theology in Alexandria', in Studia
Patristica 30 (1997), pp. 350-63.
2
It should be stated from the outset that I use the terms 'trinitarian' and
'Trinity' in the broadest sense. I do not mean to imply that Origen or the author
of the Ascension, or any of the others discussed in this essay, were full-blooded
trinitarians in a Nicene sense.
3
Kretschmar's (Trinitatstheologie, pp. 71—8, 92—4) treatment is in many ways
similar to my own. In what follows, however, I will argue for a more direct
connection between the Ascension of Isaiah and Origen's exegesis than, it would
seem, Kretschmar allows for.
© Oxford University Press 1999
[Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol.50, Pt. 1, April 1999]
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 81
surround the divine throne and unceasingly sing the three-fold
'Holy' (Rev. 4:6b-8). Clement of Rome (iClem. 34:6-7) combines
Isaiah 6:3 with Daniel 7:10 to produce \iyei yap fj ypa<f>rj- Mvpiai
/nupidSej 7TapeiaTiy/ceiaav avrq), Kai x'Aiai xiAiaSej kXenovpyovv avrcp,
Kai ktciKpayov, jiyios, ayios, ayios Kvpios oafiawd, TrXrjprjs naaa rj KTIOIS
TTJS 80^77?
avrov. Clement found in this 'scripture' about the harmo-
nious worship of the angels a model for the divided church at
Corinth. Similarly, in order to emphasize the inexpressible holi-
ness of God, Tertullian (On Prayer 4) cites the ceaseless Trisagion
of the angels, albeit without any hint of the passage's larger
context.
When, however, Christians in the first two centuries asked about
the identity of the divine figure who appeared to Isaiah, more
often than not the answer was not the Father but the Logos. The
author of the Fourth Gospel, for example, alludes to Isaiah's
vision when he writes: ravra el-nev 'Haaias on eISei> TTJV 8o£av avrov,
Kai kXdXrjoev nepi avrov (John 12:41). Given the context, 'His glory'
clearly refers to the Son's glory, while the 'these things' points to
Isaiah 6:10, which John has just cited. The Fourth Evangelist
here, then, identifies the object of Isaiah's vision with the pre-
existent Christ. Because of his insistence that no one other than
the Son had ever seen the Father (1:18, 3:13, 5:37, 6:46; cf. 14:6),
the Evangelist could hardly have understood Isaiah 6 as a vision
of the Father. He can, however, quite happily see it as a vision of
the pre-incarnate Son. 4
Justin Martyr (Dial. 37:3, 64:4), in the middle of the second
century, and Irenaeus (Adv.Haer. iii.n.8), at its end, come close
to this when they both interpret the phrase from the LXX Psalter,
6 Kadrjfievos eni rwv Xepovfiiv, as a reference to the Word. 5 There
4
So most commentators. See e.g., R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John,
2 vols. (AB 29; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), pp. 486-7; C. K. Barrett, The
Gospel According to Stjohn, 2nd edn. (London: SPCK, 1978), p. 432; C. H. Dodd,
The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
!953)> P- 2 O 7; R- Bultmann, The Gospel of John. A Commentary, G. R. Beasley-
Murray, et al trans., (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), p. 452, n. 4;
R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, Cecily Hastings, et al trans.
(London: Burns & Oates, 1980) vol. 2, pp. 416-17.
Some witnesses change rqv Sofay avrov to nji' Sofar TOU Beoii, (/ 1 3 it1 Syr h
Cop"' (pbo) ' bo ) while Cod. D conflates the two readings: r-qv 8o£av TOO Beoii aiirov.
These readings cannot be regarded as original since they are (a) too meagerly
attested and (6) more explicit than the majority reading; it is more likely that a
scribe faced with an ambiguous text would introduce a more explicit reading than
vice versa.
5
In both Dial. 37.3 and 64.4 Justin cites Psalm 98:1-7 (LXX). Irenaeus, on
the other hand, cites Psalm 79:2 (LXX), but the key phrase (6 KaBrnievos k-ni TWV
Xepovfiiv) is the same in both passages.
82 D. D. HANNAH
was a great deal of confusion in certain segments of ancient
Judaism and early Christianity over the Seraphim and Cherubim
and they were often confused or coalesced.6 It may be, then, that
Justin and Irenaeus had Isaiah's vision of God surrounded by the
Seraphim in mind when they identify the Logos with the One
enthroned upon the Cherubim. The third chapter of the Epistula
Apostolorum 7 may offer a piece of corroborating evidence for it
envisions Christ enthroned on both the Cherubim and Seraphim,
as well as next to the Father: 'We know this: our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ [is] God and Son of God, ... the heavenly one who
is over the cherubim and seraphim and sits at the right hand of
the throne of the Father ...' 8
Irenaeus' one direct citation from Isaiah 6 is a quotation of
verse 5: 'According to this invisible manner, therefore, did they
[i.e., the Old Testament prophets] see God, as also Isaiah says:
"My eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts"' (Adv. Haer.
iv.20.8). Although on first glance it could appear that Irenaeus is
here referring to the Father when he speaks of the Old Testament
prophets seeing God, the phrase 'according to this invisible
manner' (secundum hanc ... rationem invisibilem) speaks against
this, as does the overall context. For just before this statement
Irenaeus asserts that during the Old Testament dispensation the
Son by means of visions not only revealed God to humanity, he
also at the same time preserved 'the invisibility of the Father'
(Adv. Haer. iv.20.7; cf- a l s o iv.20.5). Irenaeus similarly describes
the Father as 'the invisible of the Son' and the Son as 'the visible
of the Father' (Adv. Haer. iv.6.6). Indeed, for Irenaeus, the Father
will only be seen by humans in the eschatological 'Kingdom of
Heaven' (Adv. Haer. iv.6.5).
All this conforms to Justin's and Irenaeus' usual emphasis on
the utter transcendence of God the Father. For both it is the
6
Judaism: Philo De Deo 3-6; Christianity: Rev. 4:6b—8; Ep. Apost. 3; Tertullian
Adv. Marc, ii.22.
7
The Epistula Apostolorum is usually dated to the mid-second-century AD. SO
C. D. G. Miiller, 'Epistula Apostolorum', in W. Schneemelcher, (ed.), New
Testament Apocrypha, trans. R. McL. Wilson (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox
Press, 1991), vol. 1, p. 251; J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1993), p. 556; M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), p. 485. Thus, it is probably contemporary with
Justin.
8
The text does not explicitly state that Christ is 'enthroned' on the Cherubim
and Seraphim, but this is certainly the author's intention. Cf. the translations of
James, ANT, p. 486 and C. Schmidt, Gesprache Jesu mit seinen Jungern nach der
Auferstehung. Ein katholisch-apostolisches Sendschreiben des 2. Jahrhunderts (TU
43; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich's, 1919), p. 27. Schmidt, Elliott, and Miiller all point
to Dan. 3:54 LXX as a parallel.
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 83
Logos not the Father who appears to humans throughout Old
Testament history (Justin Dial. 56-61, 126-8; Irenaeus Adv.
Haer. iii.6.1-2). Furthermore, Justin asserts that God's omnipres-
ence rules out any notion that he can be confined to any single
location in the world (Dial. 127.1-3). Thus, although Justin only
cites or alludes to Isaiah 6 once (Dial. 75.3), and here only refers
to the prophet's answer 'Send me', it is probable that he also
understood the Logos as the subject of Isaiah's vision, just as he
also held that it was the Logos who appeared to Abraham at
Mamre, to Jacob at Jabbok, and to Moses in the bush.
One further example appears in a heretical sermon, falsely
ascribed to Cyprian, but known to scholars as De Centesima,
Sexagesima, Tricesima.9 This interesting, if neglected, text
describes Christ as the highest of the seven first created archangels
who was subsequently elevated to become the Son of God. He
also, as Lord Sabaoth, appeared to Isaiah (Isa. 6) and moves
among the six-winged creatures of John's vision (Rev. 4)10. The
preacher of this sermon was clearly more interested in the promo-
tion of continence within marriage and sexual ethics than in
Christology or trinitarian theology. Nonetheless, he or she clearly

9
First published by R. Reitzenstein in 'Eine fruhchristliche Schrift von den
dreierlei Friichten des christlichen Lebens', ZNW 15 (1914), pp. 60-90.
Reitzenstein dated this text to the end of the second century. A number of scholars
disagreed with this assessment and dated it to the fourth century; so e.g., both
H. Koch ('Die ps.-cyprianische Schrift. De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima in
ihrer Abhangigkeit von Cyprian', ZNW 31 (1932) p. 270) and G. Wohlenberg
('Eine pseudocyprianische Schrift iiber dreifach verschiedenen Lohn',
Theologisches Literaturblatt 35 (1914), p. 219). J. Danielou (The Origins of Latin
Christianity, trans. D. Smith & J. A. Baker (London: Darton, Longman & Todd,
1977). PP- 63^92), on the other hand, has demonstrated that this writing was
known and used by Cyprian. Thus, it cannot be later than the mid-third century.
Danielou follows Reitzenstein in opting for the late second century. P. F. Beatrice
(in A. di Berardino, (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Early Church, vol. i, trans.
A. Walford (Cambridge: Clarke & Co., 1992), p. 223) places it in the period from
the late-second to the mid-third century.
10
angelos enim dominus cum ex igne principum numero vii [creaturam filium dei
dicit contra catholicam fidem] crearet, ex his unum in filium sibi constituere, quern
Isaias dominum Sabaot [ut] praeconaret, disposuit. remansisse ergo repperimus sex
quidem angelos cum filio creatos, quos agonista imitatur ... nam et per Iohannem
reuelatorem sui atque mundi contestalur dicens: et uidi, inquid, quattuor animalia
habentia alas senas et figuram alterum ab altero dissimilem habentia. primum animal
ut leo, secundum ut homo, tertium ut uitulus, quartum ut aquila uolans. nee ignorandum
est igitur de hoc titulo, quod Christiani animalibus insistent, propter quod el alas senas
possident; quibus in medio dei filius graditur (II. 216—20, 233—7; following
Reitzenstein's numbering of lines.
The words, creaturam filium dei dicit contra catholicam fidem, printed in brackets
are, of course, a scribal gloss.
84 D. D. HANNAH
assumed that it was Christ and not the Father whom Isaiah saw
flanked by Seraphim.
I conclude then that the Fourth Gospel, Justin, Irenaeus and
Ps.-Cyprian all agree that the divine figure who appeared to Isaiah
was not the Father, but the Son.11 There is one possible exception
to this in Irenaeus' shorter work, The Demonstration of the
Apostolic Preaching, to which I will return later and discuss in
some detail because it seems to be in some sense related to the
exegetical tradition which identifies the Seraphim with the Son
and the Holy Spirit. Be that as it may, it is significant that the
Fourth Gospel, Justin, Irenaeus and Ps.-Cyprian all agree in
finding the pre-incarnate Christ, rather than God the Father, in
Isaiah's vision. They stand in contrast to the exegetical tradition,
found in Origen, which sees in the occupant of the divine throne
and in the two Seraphim the three members of the Trinity. Before
turning to Origen, I will first examine the Ascension of Isaiah as
the earliest surviving representative of this exegetical tradition.

II. T H E ASCENSION OF ISAIAH AS AN INTERPRETATION OF

ISAIAH'S VISION

I. The Unity and Date of the Ascension of Isaiah

In the past the Ascension of Isaiah was often viewed as a
composite document made up of two or three sources pasted
rather clumsily together.12 Today the trend is toward viewing the
apocalypse as a unity, composed by one author who, while perhaps
utilizing written or oral sources, clearly left his or her stamp on
the work as a whole. It is today generally agreed that only this
latter approach takes adequate account of the similar themes and
language found throughout the entire work.13 This is the view
which I take. I suspect, however, for reasons which I will discuss
in the course of this essay, that the legend of Isaiah's martyrdom
11
This may be implied in Ep. Apost. 3 as well.
12
So e.g., Charles, Ascension, pp. xxxvi-xliii. M. Knibb's introduction to his
translation ('Ascension of Isaiah', OTP, vol. 2, pp. 147-9) is an example of a recent
work which argues for a composite view of this apocalypse.
13
See esp. Bauckham, 'Gospel Traditions in the Ascension of Isaiah',
Unpublished Paper, 1983; M. Pesce, 'Presupposti per l'utilizzazione storica dell'
Ascensione di Isaia. Formazione e tradizione del testo; genere letterario; cosmologia
angelica', in Isaia, il Diletto e la Chiesa, M. Pesce (ed.), (Brescia: Paideia, 1983),
pp. 13-76; Knight, Disciples of the Beloved One, pp. 28-32. R. G. Hall ('The
Ascension of Isaiah: Community, Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity',
JBL 109 (1990), pp. 289-306) probably also fits best into this category. Although
he finds evidence for a number of written sources behind the Ascension, he
emphasizes its final unity as the work of one author.
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 85
at the hands of Manasseh may have existed in written form and
was used by the Ascension's author. When the Ascension was
viewed as a patchwork of various sources, there was a tendency
to date the final editing to the third or fourth centuries, 14 although,
to be sure, most of those who argued for such a date thought the
various sources to be much earlier—usually late first or early
second century. With the move toward viewing the work as a
whole there has begun to emerge a consensus which would place
the text in the early decades of the second century—or perhaps
slightly earlier.15

2. The Ascension of Isaiah as an Interpretation of Isaiah 6

While various differences exist between Isaiah's vision of God
recorded in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah and the
prophet's journey through the seven heavens in the Ascension of
Isaiah, there are certain indications that the latter is an interpreta-
tion of the former. First of all, it is certain that the author of the
Ascension of Isaiah knew and extensively used the canonical Book
of Isaiah.16 The following citations and allusions to the canonical
Isaiah demonstrate the importance of the Old Testament book for
our author. 17 At 4:21 the first line from the last of the so-called
'Suffering Servant Songs' (Isaiah 52:13) is cited according to the
LXX: 'Behold my Son shall understand' ('I8ov owrjo€i 6 irals JIAOU).
Shortly before Isaiah's martyrdom, when he is on trial before
King Manasseh, the prophet is accused of calling Jerusalem
'Sodom' and the Princes of Judah 'the people of Gomorrah' (3:10).
This is an allusion to Isaiah 1:10: 'Listen to the Word of the Lord,
you rulers of Sodom! Pay attention to the Law of God, you people
of Gomorrah.' In the seventh heaven, Isaiah's angelic guide refers
to 'the Great Glory' or God the Father as 'the Most High of the
high ones, who dwells in the holy world, who rests among the
holy ones' (10:6; cf. also 6:8). This recalls Isaiah 57:15 LXX: TdSe
Aeyei xvpios 6 viftiOTOS 6 ev viprjXols KO.TOLKWV TOV aiibva, ayios ev ayCois
ovofx,a avrw, Kvpios VI/JIOTOS ev ayiois avaTravo/jievos ... F u r t h e r , the
description of the robes, crowns and thrones laid up in heaven
14
So Charles (Ascension, pp. xliv-v); Knibb, 'Ascension of Isaiah', OTP, vol. 2,
pp. 149—50; and C. D. G. Miiller, 'Ascension of Isaiah', NTApoc, vol. 2,
pp. 604-5.
15
Hall, 'Community, Situation, Date', pp. 300-6; A. Acerbi, L'Ascensione di
Isaia. Cristologia e profetismo in Siria nei primi decenni del II secolo (Milan:
Vita e Pensiero, 1989), pp. 277-82; Pesce, Isaia, pp. 299-300; Knight, Disciples of
the Beloved One, pp. 33-9; and Bauckham, 'Gospel Traditions'.
16
On the Book of Isaiah in the Asc.Isa., cf. Acerbi, L'Ascensione, pp. 42-82.
17
Many of these quite clearly betray knowledge of the LXX and it was probably
this version of Isaiah the author knew.
86 D. D. HANNAH
for the righteous (Asc.Isa. 8:26; 9:9-12, 18) appears to be based
upon Isaiah 22:21—23 LXX. 18 The description of the Virgin
Mary's birth of the Christ-child in 11:2-14 apparently draws on
both Isaiah 7:14 L X X (ISoii r) napdivos kv yaarpi e£ei Kai re^erai
vlov, Kai KaAeoets TO ovojxa ai)Tov 'E/x/xavoi'^A)19 a n d 66:7 (irpiv fj TT)V
cbSivovaav TZKeiv, trpiv kXdelv TOV TTOVOV TWV WSCVCOV, k^€<f>vy>€v Kal '<kr€K€v
20
apaev) . Finally, the divine title 'the Great Glory' (Asc.Isa. 9:37,
10:16, n:32) 2 1 and the christological title 'the Beloved' could have
both arisen from reflection on the Greek translation of Isaiah. In
the case of the former, the Greek translator of Isaiah had a prefer-
ence for the term Sd£a, especially with reference to God. 22 In the
case of the latter, the term 'the Beloved' appears as a title in 5:1
and 26:17 °f t n e LXX version of Isaiah and at 41:8 in Aquila's
translation, although in each case it is a title for Israel rather than
the Messiah.
All of this demonstrates conclusively the importance of the
canonical Book of Isaiah for the author of the Ascension of Isaiah.
This being so, the identification of Isaiah's vision of the Great
Glory, the Beloved, and the angel of the Holy Spirit in the
Ascension of Isaiah with the vision of God on his throne sur-
rounded by the Seraphim in Isaiah 6 is tempting. Such an identi-
fication is supported by the following considerations. First, the
Great Glory appears to sit on a throne, as does the Lord in Isaiah
6:1. To be sure, the throne or sitting posture are never mentioned.
Nonetheless, they must be assumed for the following reasons.
Each of the five lower heavens is portrayed as having a strictly
parallel form. In the centre of each heaven a throne is set, occupied
by the ranking angel of that heaven. To this angel's right and left
are lesser angels, with those on the right of the throne possessing
greater glory than those on the left. In the sixth heaven this
structure no longer pertains because the sixth heaven and its
occupants are directly orientated toward the seventh heaven (8:7),

18
In this passage a certain Eliakim, a high official of King Hezekiah, is called
by God 'my servant' and is promised a robe, crown and throne. Cf. the comments
of A. Acerbi, L'Ascensione, pp. 55-6.
19
Regarding 'Emmanuel', cf. Asc.Isa. 11:10: ' . . . the Lord (or God) had come
into his ( = Joseph's) lot'. It must be admitted that in this instance the influence
of Isaiah 7:14 may have been mediated through Matthew 1:23.
N o t e also t h a t Isaiah 66:6 ((f>wvrj CK vaov, (jxuvq KvpCav avraTTohihovros avra-nohoaiv
TOIS avTiKeifievots) could have inspired the 7 i p fO of Asc.Isa. 11:11.
21
TLevi 3:4 {7] fieydXrj Sotja) and lEn. 14:20 (r] 8o£a f] fxeydArj) also employ this
title for the Deity.
22
Cf. Isa. 2:10, 19, 21; 4:2—6; 6:1; 30:27; 33:17; 40:5; 58:8; 60:1-2, 19. Cf. also
L. H. Brockington, 'The Greek Translator of Isaiah and His Interest in dOSA',
VT 1 (1051), pp. 23-32.
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 87
as if the sixth were the boundary or perimeter of the seventh
heaven, with the surpassing glory of the seventh heaven extending
into the sixth. T h e parallelism of the first five heavens implies
that the Great Glory, 'the Most High of the high ones', also sits
on a throne which stands in the midst of the seventh heaven, with
the Beloved on His right and the angel of the Spirit on His left.
The divine throne is further implied when the Beloved has
accomplished his mission and returns to the seventh heaven to sit
on the right hand of the Great Glory, while the angel of the Holy
Spirit sits on the left (11:32-3).
This recalls a second similarity with Isaiah 6. The Beloved and
the angel of the Spirit only sit in the seventh heaven once the
Beloved returns after his incarnation; before this they are explicitly
said to stand (9:27, 35). The Seraphim also stand (eloTiJKeioav)
about God's throne. In addition, just as the biblical Isaiah
emphasizes the Seraphim's chanting of the Trisagion, the author
of the apocryphal Isaiah portrays the Beloved and the angel of
the Holy Spirit together offering worship to the Great Glory
(9:40). Indeed the Beloved is said to be 'the Lord of all the praise'
offered in the seven heavens (9!32)23.
Another parallel, although it is not immediately obvious,
relates to the setting of the two visions. The canonical Isaiah
situates his vision in a temple as the altar in verse 6 makes
abundantly clear.24 It is probable that the Jerusalem Temple was
intended by Isaiah.25 However, by the first century AD it is not
at all unlikely that Isaiah 6 was being read as if it took place in
the heavenly temple. 26 Certainly Psalm 11:4 ('The Lord is in his
holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven') demonstrates that
a vision of God situated in a temple could be understood to refer
to the heavenly temple. Other examples include Enoch's vision
of God in 1 Enoch 14 (cf. also 39:12) and the Song of the Three

23
It is possible that 9:39, where the Beloved and the Spirit approach Isaiah and
strengthen him so that he can see the Great Glory, is intended as an interpretation
of the Seraphim touching Isaiah's lips with the live coal (Isa. 6:6—7). ' n both, one
of the attendants of the enthroned Figure approaches the prophet and enables him
either to see God (Asc.Isa. 9:39) or to endure his Presence (Isa. 6:5-7).
24
OXKOS (VV. 1, 4) does not tell against this, since OXKOS is often used for the
temple in the LXX; cf. e.g., 1 Kgs. 5:14; 6:1, passim; Isa. 2:2—3; 38:20, 22.
25
However, H. Wildberger (Isaiah 1—12. A Commentary, trans T. H. Trapp
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 262-3) argues that it is much more likely
that 'the heavenly dwelling place is meant'.
26
For the concept of a heavenly cultus in Second Temple Judaism, cf. Jub.
31:14; iQSb 4:24b—26; the Sabbath Shirot passim; TLevi 3:4-6; and 2Bar. 4:1-7.
Cf. also bHag 12b; bTaan 5a.
88 D. D. HANNAH
Children 53-6. 27 Philo seems to imply just such an understanding
when he writes with reference to Isaiah 6: 'This vision also
raised [and] lifted up the prophet Isaiah' (AiiT-q T] <j>avraaCa Kai
TOV TTpo<f>rJT7)v 'Haatav ht;eyeCpaoo. Siavearrjaev', De Deo 6) . A n d , of
course, the Ascension of Isaiah's vision is similarly set in heaven.
Finally, in both Isaiah 6 and the Ascension of Isaiah the vision
to the prophet functions as Isaiah's call. In the biblical book it
is his call to prophetic ministry, while in the Ascension it serves
to prepare him for martyrdom (1:6—13; I i : 4 : ) -
All the above parallels suggest that the author of the Ascension
of Isaiah intentionally took Isaiah 6 as the starting-point for his
or her own description of Isaiah's vision in the seventh heaven.
Another piece of corroborating evidence strongly supports this
conclusion. Although our author assumes the prophet Isaiah was
visited more than once by heavenly visions (3:31, 5:7, 14), he or
she also emphasizes on numerous occasions the thoroughgoing
uniqueness of the vision which makes up the second half of this
apocalypse. For example, as he begins his journey Isaiah describes
his angelic guide as far more glorious than the angels he is used
to seeing (7:2). In addition, it is this vision which causes Sammael
or Beliar to incite Manasseh against Isaiah and to bring about his
execution (1:6-13, 3 :i 3)- More significantly still, Isaiah's angelus
interpret twice (7:7—8, 8:8b-i2) describes the reason he was sent
to Isaiah. In the second of these the angel says:
But I say to you, Isaiah, that no man who has to return into a body of
that world [has come up, or seen], or understood what you have seen and
what you are to see, for you are destined in the lot of the Lord, the lot
of the tree ... (8:u-i2). 29
Isaiah's journey, then, is clearly of an unrepeatable nature. It is, in
the purview of the Ascension's author, the pinnacle of Isaiah's career
as a visionary. Isaiah has never before seen the Great Glory or the
T h e o d o t i o n reads: ev\oyq^j.evos el ev TOJ vaa> rrjs ayCas $6£-qs oov Kai vTrepvfjLVTjTos
Kai virepevooqos els TOVS atajyas. evXoyf}fj.evos el, 6 €7Ti{3Xe7Tcov afivaoovs Kadijfievos eiri
Xepovpiv, Kai aiverds Kai VTrepvtpovfievos els TOVS aiajvas. evXoyTjfxevos el eiri upovov rfjs
^aatXeCas oov Kai VTrepv^vr^ros Kai vTrepviftovp.evos els rods alwvas. evXoyqitevos el ev TLO
aTepecufiari TOV ovpavov Kai vp.vqrds Kai SeSo^aofxevos els TOVS alcbvas.
J. J. Collins (Daniel, (Hermeneia; Fortress Press, 1993), p. 205) denies that this
passage necessarily refers to the heavenly temple, but overlooks the import of kv
TOJ OTepeu>/j.aTi TOV ovpavov. Cf. C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The
Additions (AB 44; Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), p. 70.
28
De Deo has only been preserved in Armenian; the Greek is from Siegert's
retroversion of the Armenian. See F. Siegert, Philon von Alexandrien: Uber die
Gottesbezeichnung 'wohltatig verzehrendes Feuer' (De Deo) (Tubingen: Mohr
(Siebeck), 1988), p. 26.
29
Knibb's translation.
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 89
Beloved and never will again until he has left the body (cf. 11:34—5).
If this vision is not to be identified with that found in the sixth
chapter of Isaiah, then our author has simply ignored Isaiah 6. Given
the many allusions to and citations from the Book of Isaiah through-
out the Ascension, I find that an incredible position.
There remains, however, one difficulty. According to Isaiah
6:1, the vision occurred in the year that King Uzziah died. In the
Ascension of Isaiah, on the other hand, Isaiah's passage through
the seven heavens takes place some forty-seven years later, in the
twentieth year of the reign of King Hezekiah (Asc.Isa. 1:6, 6:1).
I do not believe, however, that this constitutes a major difficulty.
Placing the vision in the reign of Hezekiah serves the fictional
setting of Isaiah's martyrdom at the hands of Hezekiah's son,
Manasseh. Our author wishes to make this vision the catalyst for
Beliar moving against the prophet through Manasseh. This would
be impossible if the vision had taken place forty-seven years
previously. Once the vision and the martyrdom have been linked,
the former as the cause of the latter, the author felt the need to
bring them together temporally. It must also be stressed that
while our author uses the canonical Book of Isaiah, he or she does
so very liberally. Remember the allusions to Isaiah 1:10 and Isaiah
57:15 LXX cited earlier. They are clear allusions, but the author
felt free to restructure them according to his or her own purposes.
Our author, then, in order to link Isaiah's martyrdom to his vision
simply ignores the statement 'In the year King Uzziah died'. It
may be significant that something similar happens in the Isaiah
Targum and some Rabbinic sources (ExodR 1.34; Tan Zaw 13),
where the vision is dated not to the year of King Uzziah's death
but to the year that Uzziah was struck with leprosy.
I conclude, then, that the vision recorded in the second half of
the Ascension of Isaiah which recounts Isaiah's journey through
the seven heavens and which culminates in his seeing the Beloved
and the angel of the Holy Spirit enthroned on either side of the
Great Glory is an interpretation of the vision of God surrounded
by the Seraphim found in Isaiah 6.30 As such it is suspiciously
30
Cf. Williams, 'Angels Unawares', p. 356: 'The Ascension [of Isaiah] itself,
incidentally, does not raise the question of the identity of the seraphim in Isaiah
6; but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the picture of the Son and Spirit
standing (apparently) each side of the Father and singing hymns of praise to him
owes something to the vision of the prophet in the Temple.' Cf. similarly
Kretschmar, Trinitatstheologie, p. 78.
Williams and Kretschmar are correct as far as they go, but if my argument is
right we can go farther: The connection between Isaiah 6 and our apocalypse is
more direct; the author of the Ascension is consciously interpreting the biblical
vision.
90 D. D. HANNAH
similar to the exegetical tradition which I have already alluded to
and which I must now examine in detail.

III. T H E EXEGETICAL T R A D I T I O N

I. Origen
In a significant passage from the first book of his On First
Principles, Origen mentions two Old Testament texts which he
believed contained references to the Holy Spirit, Isaiah 6 and
Habakkuk 3:
The Hebrew used to say that the two six-winged seraphim in Isaiah who
cry one to another and say, 'Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord Sabaoth', were
the only-begotten of God and the Holy Spirit. And we ourselves think
that the expression in the song of Habakkuk, 'In the midst of the two
living creatures thou shalt be known' is spoken of Christ and the Holy
Spirit. (Princ. i.3.4)31
Origen clearly means to identify Isaiah's Seraphim with the Son
and the Spirit. This interpretation appears to have been a favourite
of Origen's who repeats it once later in the fourth book of On
First Principles (iv.3.14), twice in his homilies on Isaiah (i.2; iv.i),
and alludes to it once each in his Contra Celsum (vi.18) and his
commentary on the Gospel of John (vi.4.23). He also identifies
the Cherubim who cover the mercy-seat with the Son and the
Spirit, both in the passage from De Principiis, just cited, and in
his discussion of Romans 3:25—6 in his commentary on that epistle.
Four points should be noted. First, Origen never uses Isaiah 6 as
a proof-text for the existence of the Trinity. Rather, in each of
the passages in which he equates the Seraphim or Cherubim with
the Son and Spirit, he assumes the reality of the Trinity. This
fact is especially noteworthy in the passage from Contra Celsum,
a work in which Origen was preoccupied with apologetic concerns.
Here he simply states that the correct understanding of the
Seraphim of Isaiah's vision and the Cherubim of Ezekiel's is too
31
This passage is preserved both in Rufinus' Latin translation and in the
original Greek in Justinian's Ep. ad Mennam. The latter first: "EXtye Sc 6 'Efipalos
TCL zv TO) '//acua Suo Sepatftifx k^a-mipvya, KeKpayora erepov -npos TO erepov Kai Xdyovra'
Ayios aytos ayios Kvptos Eafiaiiid TOV p.ovoyevfj elvai Toil 6eoi) Kai TO TTVCV/XO. TO aytov.
7j[X€is 8c olofxeda on Kai TO £V TT) OJST) AfL^aKovu' ev fieau) 8vo l^aiajv yvajodiiarj nepi
XpiaTov Kai ayiov TrveuftaTos elprfTai. The Latin translation of Rufinus is as follows:
Dicebat autem et Hebraeus magister quod duo ilia Seraphin, quae in Esaia senis alis
describuntur clamantia adinuicem et dicentia: Sanctus sanctus sanctus dominus
Sabaoth, de unigenito filio dei et despiritu sancto essent intellegenda. Nos uero putamus
etiam Mud, quod in cantico Ambacum dictum est: In media duorum animalium (uel
duarum uitarum) cognosceris, de Christo et de spiritu sancto sentiri debere.
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 91
lofty a matter for 'the unworthy and irreligious who are not able
to understand the deep meaning and sacredness of the doctrine
of God'. 32
Second, despite what may seem an obvious implication of this
reading of Isaiah 6, Origen did not identify the Logos or the Holy
Spirit with angelic beings. Although Origen held to a form of
subordinationism, he believed the Son and the Holy Spirit to be
divine and not angelic—although to be sure the division between
the two spheres was not as sharply drawn for Origen as for later
Nicene theology. On numerous occasions he asserts that only the
Father, the Logos and the Holy Spirit possess absolute incorpor-
eality.33 All other rational beings including stars, angels, demons
and humans have some kind of body; stars, angels, and demons
possess ethereal bodies and humans terrestrial ones. In addition,
he also teaches the eternal generation of the Son34 and seems to
hold to the eternity of the Spirit as well.35 From these considera-
tions and from Origen's allusion to Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel I in
Contra Celsum vi.i8 it would appear that Origen regarded Isaiah's
Seraphim as symbols of the Son and the Holy Spirit and that he
did not deduce from the use of these symbols the conclusion that
the Son and the Spirit belonged to the angelic realm.36
My third point concerns Origen's source. In Princ. i.3.4 and
iv.3.14, Origen explicitly attributes his interpretation of the

32
Cels. vi.18; translation from H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), p. 331.
33
E.g., Princ. i.6.4; ii.2.2; iv.3.15. Cf. also the comments of H. Crouzel, Origen.
The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian, trans. A. S. Worrall (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), pp. 182—3.
34
E.g., Princ. i.2.9, iv.4.1; CommRom. 1.5; Homjer ix.4; Commjohn ii.2.18,
xiii.34.219.
35
Cf. Princ. i.1.3, i.3.3, i.3.2.
36
In Commjohn. i.31.218, Origen cites the phrase MtydXrqs JSOUATJS ayyeAos from
Isaiah 9.5 to support his contention that 'the Saviour accordingly became, in a
diviner way than Paul, all things to all, that he might either gain all or perfect
them; it is clear that to men he became a man, and to the angels an angel'. Indeed,
Origen leaves open the possibility that just as Christ suffered for humanity he will
one day suffer for angels {Princ. fr.30). This, however, does not imply a separate
'angelic incarnation', for Origen assumed that humans and angels shared the same
rational nature and were distinguished only by differing levels of perfection
(Commjohn. ii.23.144-8; Princ. iv.4.9). On this whole issue see J. W. Trigg, 'The
Angel of Great Counsel: Christ and the Angelic Hierarchy in Origen's Theology',
JTS NS, 42 (1991), p. 45; Crouzel, Origen, p. 193; and J. Barbel, Christos Angelos.
Die Anschauung von Christus als Bote und Engel in der gelehrten und volkstiimlichen
Literatur des christlichen Altertums, (Bonn: Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1941)
pp. 284-97.
92 D. D. HANNAH
Seraphim to 'the Hebrew' (6 'Efipalos),27 a person to whom Origen
refers on a number of occasions (cf. also Commjohn i.31 [34];
CommPs intro. =Phil. ii.3; CommEx = Phil. xxvii.7; SelGen. on
9.18 and 12.8). While Origen introduces various traditions with
designations like 'a noted man among the Hebrews', or 'the teacher
of the Hebrews' or 'a Hebrew', all of which may or may not
indicate the same individual, the term 'the Hebrew' (6 'Efipaios)
seems to point to a particular person. 38 Much debate has revolved
around this figure; was he a Jewish-Christian 39 or a non-Christian
Jew? 40 Nicholas de Lange argues for the latter, appealing to certain
parallels in Philo, especially Philo's designation of the Logos as
'God's First-Born' (6 -npwroyovos', Somn. i.215; Conf. 146; Agr.
51), a title not unlike the Hebrew's 'the only-begotten of God'
(TOV fiovoyevfj ... TOV Oeoii). De Lange also states that Philo 'often
finds occasion to speak of the holy Spirit'. 41 In fact, although
Philo refers often to 'the divine Spirit' (nvevixa Belov; e.g., Gig. 23;
QG iii.o,), the Philonic works which have come down to us do not
contain a single instance of the phrase 'the Holy Spirit' (weO/ua
ayiov), even though it can be found in the LXX (e.g., Isa.
63:10—11; Ps. 50:13). More importantly, de Lange cannot produce
a single Philonic passage in which the Seraphim of Isaiah's vision
or the Cherubim over the mercy-seat are identified with the Logos
and the holy Spirit, or even the divine Spirit. Rather, Philo
routinely identifies the Cherubim (Cher. 27-8; Her. 166; QG i.57),
and once the Seraphim (De Deo 6), with the Royal and Creative
Powers of God; the xvpios and the Beds- Indeed, Philo distinguishes
the Logos from these Powers represented by the Seraphim and
Cherubim (De Deo 5; Cher. 28; Fug. 101). The interpretation of
Origen's Hebrew is, in my opinion, so explicitly Christian as to
preclude a non-Christian Jewish source, such as Philo. However,
since Origen refers on several occasions to traditions he learned
from a Jewish convert to Christianity (Homjer. xx.2 = HomIsa
ix.i; SelEz. ix.4; HomNum xiii.5; Homjos. xvi.5), it is possible

37
Rufinus' translations 'the Hebrew master' (hebraeus magister) and 'the Hebrew
doctor' {hebraeus doctor) are probably best explained as examples of his paraphrastic
tendencies. The Greek has only 'the Hebrew'.
38
So also N. R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews. Studies in Jewish-Christian
Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1976), p. 26.
39
S o R. P . C. H a n s o n , Allegory and Event. A Study of the Sources and
Significance of Origen's Interpretation of Scripture ( L o n d o n : S C M Press, 1959)
p . 174; a n d Danielou, Theology, p p . 1 3 5 - 6 .
40
S o d e L a n g e , Origen, p . 4 3 .
41
D e L a n g e , Origen, p . 4 3 .
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 93
that Origen's 'Hebrew' was a former Jew who had become a
Christian.
Nonetheless, indirect Philonic influence on either Origen or the
Hebrew is not unlikely. First, while Philo's and Origen's under-
standings of the Seraphim and Cherubim are not equivalent, they
do correspond; Philo identifies both the Seraphim and the
Cherubim with the Royal and Creative Powers (De Deo 3-6),
which for Philo are God's two principal powers. Similarly, Origen
finds in both the Cherubim and Seraphim symbols of God's
principal powers, the Son and the Spirit (Princ. i.3.4; CommRom.
on 3:25-6). Second, both Origen {CommRom. on 3:25-6) and Philo
(Mos. ii.97) assert that the Hebrew word 'cherubim' means 'full
knowledge' (kTTiyvwois). Third, traditions which Origen elsewhere
attributes to 'the Hebrew' can also be found in Philo (e.g., the
explanation of why Canaan rather than Ham was cursed; cf.
Origen SelGen. on 9:18 with Philo LA ii.62). 42 Since references
to 'the Hebrew' date from Origen's Alexandrian period we may
assume that whoever he was, 'the Hebrew' probably resided in
Alexandria. Origen certainly knew Philo's works for he cites him
by name on three occasions (pels, iv.51, vi.21; CommMatt. xv.3
(on Matt. 19:12)), and alludes to him a number of other times
(e.g., Cels. v.55, vii.20; SelGen. 27; HomLev. viii.6; HomNum.
ix.5). 43 It is possible, then, that 'the Hebrew' was also familiar
with Philo's works. All this suggests that 'the Hebrew' could have
been influenced by Philo in his interpretation of the Seraphim.
While the evidence hardly leads to any incontestable solution and
a certain amount of speculation is inevitable, it seems likely that
Origen's Hebrew was a Jewish-Christian and that both he and
Origen had been influenced to some degree in their exegesis of
Isaiah 6 by Philo's identification of the Seraphim with God's two
principal powers.
If Origen had not explicitly attributed his equation of the
Seraphim with the Son and the Spirit to 'the Hebrew', one might
be tempted to conclude that he had read the Ascension of Isaiah
and found this identification there. Significantly, Origen four
times attributes the tradition of Isaiah being sawn in two to a
Jewish apocryphon (CommMatt. x.18 (on 13:57); Comm. ser. Matt.
on 23:37; EpAfric. ix; Homlsa. i.5). Nonetheless, I think it unlikely
that Origen knew our apocalypse, or at least he does not seem to
know it well. In his epistle to Africanus he cites the tradition of
42
D e L a n g e , Origen, p . 128.
43
See the full discussion of Origen's knowledge of Philo in D. T. Runia, Philo
in Early Christian Literature. A Survey (CRINT III.3; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993). PP- I57-83-
94 D. D. HANNAH
Isaiah's martyrdom and says that it 'is found in some apocryphal
w o r k ' ('iv TLVL aTTOKpvcf>oi TOVTO (peperai.). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e s t o r y of
Isaiah's martyrdom is the only portion of our text he seems to
know. Whenever he mentions an apocryphal Isaiah it is only in
connection with Isaiah's martyrdom. Nowhere does he cite or
allude to any other portion of the Ascension. It may be significant
that a passage which Jerome 44 found in both the Ascension
(Asc.Isa. 11:34 L 2 S) and in the Apocalypse of Elijah, Origen 45
only attributes to the Apocalypse of Elijah. However, this passage
only appears in one recension of the Ascension of Isaiah, and so
Origen's attribution of it to the Apocalypse of Elijah does not
prove that he did not know the Ascension of Isaiah. Finally, given
the many times he identifies either the Seraphim or Cherubim
with the second and third members of the Trinity, it seems incred-
ible that if Origen knew the whole of the Ascension he would not
cite its account of Isaiah's vision in support of this identification.
I conclude that Origen either knew only a written account of
Isaiah's martyrdom which was also used by the author of our
Ascension or he knew only an oral legend about Isaiah's martyr-
dom, which was current in his day, and the existence of 'an
apocryphal Isaiah' but did not know the latter first hand. Either
way he does not appear to have read the Ascension of Isaiah.
Thus, his only source for his exegesis of Isaiah 6 would appear
to have been 'the Hebrew'. 46
Finally, Rowan Williams 47 has argued persuasively that this
exegetical tradition influenced the Sanctus of the Pre-Nicene
Alexandrian liturgy. He bases his arguments on hints found in
the Liturgy of St Mark and the anaphora written by Serapion of
Thumis. Both seemingly identify the Seraphim with the Son and
Spirit when they term the Seraphim (Serapion) or the Living
Creatures (Liturgy of St Mark) Ti^iwrara ('most honourable'). 48
The eucharistic prayer of Serapion also presents the Son and

44
Conimlsa. lxiv.4.
45
Comm. ser. Malt. 117 (on M a t t . 27:9).
46
A . Acerbi has c o m e to a similar conclusion in his Serra Lignea. Studi sulla
Fortuna delta Ascensione di Isaia, ( R o m e : A V E , 1984), p p . 20—32. H e argues t h a t
Isaiah d i d n o t know t h e 'Vision of Isaiah' (Asc.Isa. 6 - 1 1 ) . H o w e v e r , Acerbi leaves
open the question whether or not the Jewish apocryphon, in which Origen read
of Isaiah's death, can positively be identified with Asc.Isa. 1—5. He appears to lean
in the direction of such an identification.
47
'Angels U n a w a r e s ' , esp. p p . 351—6.
48
Serapion's prayer also includes an exegesis of the Seraphim's six wings (Isa.
6:2) remarkably similar to that found in Origen's homilies on Isaiah {Homlsa. i.2).
Both Origen and the prayer assert that the Seraphim's wings covered the face and
feet of God, rather than their own face and feet.
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 95
Spirit 'hymning' the Father. If Williams is right, and I think it
very probable, then this means that our exegetical tradition
would have had a wide currency in Alexandria; far wider than
just Origen, his Hebrew Master and those Christians who read
Philo. While Williams seems to leave open the possibility that
this tradition influenced the liturgy before Origen, I do not think
that there is much to commend such a proposal. If such an
exegesis were known to Alexandrian Christians through their
regular worship, Origen would certainly have appealed to the
liturgy rather than his Hebrew teacher at Princ. i.3.4.
Nonetheless, Williams's main contention certainly stands: In
Egypt the identification of Isaiah's Seraphim and Habakkuk's
'Living Creatures' with the Son and the Spirit passed into the
liturgy sometime before Nicea. Perhaps, we would not be far off
to suggest that this took place, in no small part, due to Origen's
influence.49
I conclude, then, that Origen cites an exegetical tradition, a
tradition of which he is not the author. How old was this tradition
and, before it entered into the liturgy in Egypt, how widespread?
Did it originate with Origen's 'Hebrew', who appears to have
been his earlier contemporary? The similarities with the Ascension
of Isaiah strongly suggest that this tradition reaches back to the
beginning of the second century, and perhaps into the first. Two
other possible examples of this exegetical tradition support a date
earlier than Origen.

2. Irenaeus
The tenth chapter of Irenaeus' The Demonstration of the
Apostolic Preaching includes the following:
This God, then, is glorified by His Word, who is His Son for ever, and
by the Holy Spirit, who is the Wisdom of the Father of all. And their
Powers (those of the Word and of Wisdom), which are called Cherubim
and Seraphim, with unfailing voice glorify God, and the entire establish-
ment of heaven gives glory to God the Father of all.
Unfortunately this work has only been preserved in an Armenian
translation. However, it is a particularly literal translation which can

49
I was able to read Williams' article only after this essay had been accepted
for publication. I was gratified to find a great deal of agreement between Williams
and myself. I would like to record my thanks to Bishop Williams for sending me
an offprint.
96 D. D. HANNAH
be re-translated back into Greek with a fair amount of
certainty. 50 As the text now stands the Son and the Spirit are identi-
fied with neither the Cherubim nor the Seraphim; the latter are
merely powers of the Son and Spirit. Nonetheless, some have
thought the presence of a reference to both Cherubim and Seraphim
in this context suspicious. Lanne, followed by Danielou, argued:
There can be no question of various angelic powers, dependent on the
Word and the Holy Spirit, and called Cherubim and Seraphim... The
passage must be taken to mean that the Word and Wisdom, which are
powers of the Father, and are also called Cherubim and Seraphim, give
glory to God with their unceasing voice.51
Lanne's argument, however, is based on a series of emendations
which scholars of Armenian have found precarious at best.52
Furthermore, as we have seen, in Against Heresies (iii. 11.8) Irenaeus
interprets Psalm 79:2 LXX (6 Kadr^javos k-rri TWV Xepovfiiv) as a refer-
ence to the Logos. This creates an intolerable inconsistency if
Irenaeus here intended to equate the Logos and the Spirit with the
Cherubim. Thus, Lanne's reading of Irenaeus cannot stand.
Nonetheless, the appearance of the Cherubim and Seraphim in a
passage otherwise dedicated to the Trinity is surely significant, and
perhaps should raise our suspicions that Irenaeus has modified a
source or oral tradition which did present the Son and Spirit as the
Cherubim and Seraphim. This is especially so since Adv. Haer.
iii. 11.8 and Dem. 10 are the only references to Cherubim and Dem.
10 the only reference to Seraphim in the preserved works of
Irenaeus, 53 while on numerous occasions he discusses the interrela-
tionship between the members of the Trinity. This admittedly
speculative suggestion is supported by the following considerations.
First, Irenaeus portrays the Logos and the Holy Spirit as worship-
ping God alongside the heavenly host. This recalls not only Asc.Isa.
9:27-42, but Isaiah 6 as well. Second, in the immediate context
50
See A. Rousseau (ed. and trans.), Irenee de Lyon. Demonstration de la
Predication apostolique (SChr 406; Paris: Les Editions de Cerf, 1995), pp. 246-7.
His Greek reconstruction is as follows: '0 pev ovv ®eos OVTOS Sofa^ercu VTTO TOV
/loyov auroOj os eoTiv Vtos CLVTOV, StrjveKws, KQ-i VTTO TOV FIvevfjiaTOS TOV ayCov, 6 koriv
Eo^iCa TOV flarpos TWV OXWV.TOVTOJV Se at Svvdpeis TOV re Aoyou Kai rfjs Eorftias, OXTIVZS
KaXovvrai Xepovflip Kai Eepa^ifj., a-navorois (f>wvals So£a£ouai TOV @eov.
51
E. Lanne, 'Cherubim et Seraphim. Essai d'interpretation du chapitre 10 de
la Demonstration de saint Irenee', RSR 43 (1955), p. 530. I follow Smith and
Baker's translation in Danielou, Theology, p. 138.
52
So Rousseau, Demonstration, p. 248.
53
However, in a fragment of what may be a lost work of Irenaeus' On the Lord's
Resurrection, preserved in both Syriac and Armenian, Christ is termed 'the Chief
of the Cherubim' (Syriac) or 'the Charioteer of the Cherubim' (Armenian).
Translations in ANF vol. 1, p. 577; texts in W. W. Harvey Sancti Irenaei. Adversus
Haereses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857), vol. 2, pp. 461-3.
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 97
Irenaeus describes the seven heavens and implies that God, His
Word and Wisdom are situated in the seventh heaven; another paral-
lel to the Ascension of Isaiah. Finally, while Lanne's emendations
of the Armenian text may be questionable, the underlying Greek as
reconstructed by Rousseau would not need to be altered radically
to offer the required sense. Compare the following:
Rousseau's Text: Tovrwv 5e al Swd/xeiy rov re Aoyov Kai TTJS Zo<j>(as, alrives
xaXovvTai Xepovfiifj. /cat £epa.($>(ix ...

Suggested emendation: Tavra ok a! Swa^eis, o Aoyos Kai T) 2o(j>ia, aiTtves

KaXovvrai Xepovfiifx Kai ^epa^t'/L* . . .

Irenaeus then may be another witness to this same exegetical

tradition which saw in the Seraphim and Cherubim the Son and
the Spirit of God. If he is, he is an indirect witness. For he
corrects the tradition away from an explicit angel christology and
angel pneumatology.
Irenaeus' Demonstration was written thirty, or at most forty,
years before Origen's On First Principles,54 and the tradition he
inherited and corrected, if this is indeed the case, would be earlier
still. One other possible witness to the exegetical tradition I have
been examining could take us back to the early second century.

3. The Revelations of Elchasai

The Revelations of Elchasai, composed near the end of Trajan's
reign,55 contain a description of two gigantic angels of equal
dimensions identified as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit
(Hippolytus Ref. ix. 13.2-3). This work may be a product of a
syncretistic Jewish Christianity, 56 and then again it may have
originated in an otherwise unknown Jewish sect and only later
appropriated by certain circles within Christianity. 57 Unfor-
tunately too little of this interesting text has survived for us to
be certain of its origin. If it was written by a Jewish-Christian,
then the coupling of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as two
54
Demonstration was written after book iii of Adversus Haereses, and perhaps
after the whole of AdvHaer. If so, it cannot be earlier than 190. Cf. J. P. Smith,
St. Irenaeus. Proof ofthe Apostolic Preaching (ACW 16; London: Longmans, Green
and Co., 1952), pp. 6 and 117, n. 18. Origen's De Principiis, on the other hand,
dates from Origen's Alexandrian period and thus before 233. G. W. Butterworth
(Origen. On First Principles, (London: SPCK, 1936), pp. vii-viii) argues that it is
'not iater than AD 225'. Trigg (Origen, p. 91), following Nautin, places it in AD 229.
55
So G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelations of Elchasai (TSAJ 8; Mohr (Siebeck),
'985), pp. 190-2; and J. Irmscher (trans.), 'The Book of Elchasai', NTApoc,
vol. 2, p. 686. Cf. G. Strecker, 'Elkesai', RAC, vol. 4, pp. 1172-3.
56
So Strecker, 'Elkesai', RAC, vol. 4, p. 1185.
57
So Luttikhuizen, Elchasai, pp. 88, 128-9, 19°-
98 D. D. HANNAH
angels of immense girth could have arisen from reflection on the
Book of Isaiah. If the author read the sixth chapter of Isaiah in
the light of Isaiah 66:1 ('Thus says the Lord, "Heaven is my
throne and the earth is my footstool" '), he or she could have
concluded that the Deity was attended by beings of proportionate
size. There is, however, nothing in the preserved fragments of
this work to suggest that these angels were understood to be
Seraphim or Cherubim. Any connection, therefore, with the
exegetical tradition I am discussing must remain tenuous.

4. The Apostolic Constitutions

Finally, one late instance of our exegetical tradition should be
mentioned. It appears in a single passage of Book viii of the Apostolic
Constitutions, the so-called 'Apostolic Liturgy'. As in the Liturgy of
St Mark and Serapion's anaphora, here the best text of the Sanctus
presents the Son and the Spirit worshipping the Father and suggests
that they are to be understood as the highest of all the ranks of
angels.58 However, unlike St Mark and Serapion, this Sanctus distin-
guishes the Seraphim from the Son and the Spirit. It is generally
acknowledged that the author of the Apostolic Constitutions was an
Arian or a semi-Arian. This is, to be sure, either a late survival of

viii. 12.27: ' Y-nep -ndvuov OOI T) &o£a, AeoTrora TravroKparop. Zk -npooKvvzi -nav
aaatpiaTov xai ayiov rdyfxa' oe -npooKwel 6 fJapdKXr]TO5* npo Se TTO-VTUJV 6 ayios oov
rials 'Irjoovs 6 XptOTOS b Kvpios Kai Beds fjf+wv, oov Se dyyeXos Kai rfjs ovvdftcws
apXLOTpo.T'qyds Kai apxiepevs alojvtos Kai areXevTTjTOS' oe ITpooKuvovotv dvdptdfj.oi orpanai
ayyeXuiv, apxayycXajv, KvptOTrJTutv, 8p6vojv} a-p^ibv, k^ovaiuiv, Suvdjueajc, OTpancbv
aiaj^t'aji'* rd Xepoufiifi xai rd k^a-nripvya E^pai^ip. rats [Xtv SuatV KaraKaXv-movTa TOUS
TrdSaSj rat? Se Bvol rds «e(j>aXds, Tat? Se Svoi ir^To^va, Kal Xeyovra afia ^tAta? oiXidoiv
a.p^a.yyeXojv KO.1 /xupiats /xvptdotv ayyeXwv aKaranavOTcus KO-L aoiyrjTajs fiowoats, Kai 7rd?
6 Xaos a/xa zl-ndTw' "Ayios, ayios, aytos Kuptos EaflawQ, nXyp-qs 6 ovpavos Kai TJ yr) TTJS
Sotjrjs avrov'
This is the text as it is found in the most recent critical edition: M. Metzger
(ed.), Les Constitutions apostoliques, (SChr 336; Paris: Les Editions de Cerf, 1987),
vol. 3, p. 192. Metzger has followed the text of only two manuscripts, d (Vat. gr.
1506) and s (Athen. B.N. 1435), against all others. The majority of manuscripts
omit all mention of Christ and the Paraclete. However, not even the text of d and
s is c e r t a i n . T h e w o r d s a e -npoaKvvel 6 FlapdKX^ros ••• Kai dtos r^jithv h a v e b e e n e r a s e d
in manuscript s, but apparently are still visible. The phrase oe TrpoaKvvel 6
FlapaKX-qTos has been added by a later hand over an erasure in d. This means, I
think, that s is a copy of d, or of a descendant of d, after the erasure and the
secondary text was added. What the text originally contained is uncertain, but
Turner (JTS 16 (1914—15), p. 59) suggests that the original words identified the
Holy Spirit with an angel. He is followed in this by Metzger (Constitutions, vol. 3,
p. 193). The longer reading is surely original, as the other manuscripts have all
toned down the author's Arianism.
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 99
our exegetical tradition or 'a polemically conscious archaism',59 and
so of no help in ascertaining the tradition's earliest form or date.60

IV. CONCLUSIONS

I. The Ascension of Isaiah as a correction of the Exegetical

Tradition
I believe, then, a case can be made for an exegetical tradition
which interpreted Isaiah's vision of the Lord flanked by Seraphim
as a vision of the Trinity, running from the first decades of the
second century, as attested in the Ascension of Isaiah, to the
thirties of the third century, as attested in Origen. It even
reappears, in a modified form, in the fourth century in the Arian
or semi-Arian Apostolic Constitutions. This tradition stands out
because it contrasts with the majority view—attested in the Fourth
Gospel, Justin, Irenaeus, and Ps.-Cyprian—that the divine figure
who appeared to Isaiah was the Logos rather than God Himself.
To ask what relationship, if any, existed between these two tradi-
tions is, of course, to indulge in speculation. Did the 'trinitarian'
view originate as an attempt to correct the majority view? The
absence of any polemic in any of our sources makes this unlikely.
We cannot even be certain which tradition is the earlier. For
although the majority tradition appears at the end of the first
century in the Fourth Gospel, the other tradition may very well
be older than its first appearance in the Ascension of Isaiah.
Indeed, there is good reason to suspect that the author of the
Ascension was not the first to have found the Trinity in Isaiah 6.
The independence of Origen's Hebrew from the author of the
Ascension implies that at least in the Hebrew's day there was
another source for such an exegesis. If one accepts Irenaeus and
the Revelations of Elchasai as witnesses to this exegetical tradition,
albeit indirect ones, then the rich diversity of our witnesses sug-
gests that this tradition had widespread appeal and was used by
very different individuals and groups. This is confirmed by its
appearance in the liturgy of Alexandria.

59
Williams, 'Angels Unawares', p. 351.
60
Another late example may be found in On the Origin of the World (NHC
11.5) 105.20-31, which reads: 'Thereafter he created a congregation of angels,
thousands and myriads, numberless, which resembled the congregation in the
eighth heaven; and a firstborn called Israel—which is, the 'man that sees God';
and another being, called Jesus Christ, who resembles the savior above in the
eighth heaven and who sits at his right hand upon a revered throne, and at his
left, there sits the virgin of the holy spirit, upon a throne glorifying him.' This is
not only very late, probably fourth century, it also is distinctly gnostic.
100 D. D. HANNAH
Further, just as Irenaeus may have 'corrected' this exegetical
tradition in the direction of orthodoxy, something similar appears
to have taken place in the Ascension. While in the first and second
centuries Seraphim were often understood to be a kind of angel,61
the author of the Ascension of Isaiah avoids any implication that
the Beloved is an angel. The Beloved twice takes the form of
angel. First, in 9:30 he transforms himself into an angel,62 appar-
ently so that he can be worshipped by Isaiah. Second, during his
descent from the seventh heaven, as he enters each successive
heaven he transforms himself into the outward form of the angel
of that heaven so that he will not be recognized by its inhabitants.
It is evident, however, that these latter are disguises. Only the
outward form of the Beloved is changed and the purpose of the
successive transformations is clearly camouflage (see 9:15;
10:9-12). So the Beloved is twice transformed into the form of an
angel, but cannot be said to have become an angel. More import-
antly, that he must be transformed to appear as an angel presup-
poses that he is not an angel. Furthermore, the fact that the
Beloved receives worship from the whole company of heaven
implies that he should be ranged with the Great Glory on the
divine side of the divide between the Deity and creatures. This is
made explicit at 10:11, where the Father says to the Son: 'And
none of the angels of that world shall know that you are Lord
with me of the seven heavens and of their angels.' 63 All this
indicates that the author of the Ascension may have corrected the
exegetical tradition he or she inherited by moving away from an
identification of the Beloved with an angel.64
This, however, is not the case with the angel of the Holy Spirit,
61
Cf. iEn. 6I:IO, 71:7-8; TJob 50:2; ApocMoses 37:7; Irenaeus Dem. 10; Clement of
Alexandria Strom, v.6.36. See also M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jiidischen Engelglaubens
in vorrabbinischer Zeit (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck) 1992) p. 219.
62
Although L2 and S have Isaiah being transformed, rather than the Beloved (And I was
transformed and became like an angel'), the Ethiopic version, And he [i.e., Christ] was
transformed and became like an angel1, has now been confirmed by a Coptic manuscript.
63
See the arguments of R. Bauckham, 'The Worship of Jesus', in The Climax of Prophecy.
Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), pp. 140-8.
64
In two private conversations, Professor Richard Bauckham has questioned the persuas-
iveness of this argument by questioning its premise that Seraphim were, in the first and
second centuries, understood to be a kind of angel. He argues that both Cherubim and
Seraphim were held to be specific classes of heavenly beings, distinct from angels. Even if
this were so, it would not invalidate the point I am making. The fact that Origen's exegesis
of Isaiah 6 occasioned such opposition (cf. Jerome Commlsa. iii. 6.2; Justinian Ep. ad
Mennam) shows that the Seraphim were understood in Christian circles to have been
creatures, even if not angels, and that this 'creaturliness' was a problem for some. The
worship of the Beloved and the Holy Spirit demonstrates that for the author, with the Great
Glory, they differ fundamentally from the various kinds of creatures which populate the
seven heavens.
 ISAIAH'S VISION IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH 101
for the latter is explicitly termed an angel. Furthermore, even
though the angel of the Spirit receives worship alongside the
Beloved, the former is clearly subordinate to the latter. This is
evident (a) from the Holy Spirit's place on the left of God while
the Beloved is situated on his right (11:32—3); (b) from the fact
that the divine titles 'Lord' and 'God' are reserved for the Great
Glory and the Beloved and are never applied to the Spirit; and
(c) from texts like 10:11, which I have just cited, and 7:23: 'And
I rejoiced very much that those who love the Most High and his
Beloved will at their end go up there through the angel of the
Holy Spirit.' 65 Our author, then, is uncomfortable with an explicit
angel Christology and takes pains to avoid any such conception,
but finds an angel pneumatology much more palatable.

2. The Antiquity of the Exegetical Tradition

If I am correct in my supposition that the author of the
Ascension of Isaiah has corrected the exegetical tradition which
he or she inherited, then it must have originated before the
Ascension was written—perhaps sometime in the closing decades
of the first century. The fact that New Testament documents such
as the Gospel of Matthew (28:19) and Paul's two epistles to the
Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 12:4—6; 2 Cor. 13:13) contain triadic
statements suggest that such an early date is not impossible. This
means that already by the end of the first century or, at the latest,
in the opening decades of the second, Christians were reading the
vision of the sixth chapter of Isaiah in a 'trinitarian' manner.
DARRELL D. HANNAH
65
See the discussion in M. Simonetti, 'Nota sulla cristologia dell'Ascensione di
Isaia', in Pesce, haia, pp. 187—93.