1 The set of authorial possibilities suggested by Davila include proselytes, God-fearers, syncretistic Jews, sympathisers, varieties of Torah obedient early Christians, Judaising gentile Christians, as well as non- or quasi-Jewish Israelites such as Samaritans or Galileans (Davila, J. R., The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? (JSJSup 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 10–60Google Scholar).

2 Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha, 40.

3 Charles, R. H., The Ascension of Isaiah (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1900) xliv–xlvGoogle Scholar; Hammershaimb, E., Das Martyrium Jesajas (JSHRZ 2.1; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973) 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bauckham, R., ‘The Ascension of Isaiah: Genre, Unity, and Date’, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (NovTSup 93; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 363–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 381–2; Dochhorn, J., ‘Die Ascensio Isaiae’, Unterweisung in erzählender Form (ed. Oegema, G. S.; JSHRZ vi.1.2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005)1–46Google Scholar, at 25.

4 Most scholars now depart from the theory proposed by Charles (The Ascension of Isaiah, xliv) in which the Ascension of Isaiah comprises three discrete texts, the ‘Martyrdom of Isaiah’ (1.1, 2a; 2.1–8; 2.10–3.12; 5.1b–14), the ‘Testament of Hezekiah’ (3.13b–4.18) and the ‘Vision of Isaiah’ (6–11) (e.g. M. Pesce, ‘Presupposti per l'utilitazzione storica dell'Ascensione di Isaia’, Isaia, il Diletto e la Chiesa: visione ed esegesi profetica cristiano-primitiva nell'Ascensione di Isaia (Texte e Ricerche di Scienze Religiose 20; Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1983) 40–4). Bauckham, however, has rejected the dominant bipartite source-critical construction, adopted by Acerbi, Pesce and Norelli, arguing instead for compositional unity (‘Ascension of Isaiah’, 369–72).

5 R. G. Hall, for instance, argues that the descriptions of Isaiah's prophetic school in 1.1–13, 2.7–11, 3.6–12 and 6.1–7.1 present a (somewhat) cohesive picture; the school is dispersed following the passing on of a prophetic tradition, it sporadically gathers to note and disseminate revelations among the leaders, and it is favourable to the content of the ascent vision (‘The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity’, JBL 109 (1990) 289–306, at 296). Moreover, when juxtaposing these descriptions with AscIs 3.21–31, the picture of a small and alienated prophetic group emerges which is in conflict with rival groups (297).

6 Following D. Frankfurter, ‘Beyond “Jewish Christianity”: Continuing Religious Sub-Cultures of the Second and Third Centuries and their Documents’, The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christian in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ed. A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 131–43, at 136; E. Norelli, Ascensio Isaiae: commentarius (Corpus Christianorum: Series Apocryphorum 8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995) 49; A. Acerbi, L'Ascensione di Isaia: cristologia e profetismo in Siria nei primi decenni del ii secolo (Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1989) 246; Hall, ‘The Ascension of Isaiah’, 289–99.

7 All citations from P.Amh. i.1 are from B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Amherst Papyri, Being an Account of the Greek Papyri in the Collection of the Right Hon. Lord Amherst of Hackney, F.S.A. at Didlington Hall, Norfolk, vol. i:The Ascension of Isaiah and Other Theological Fragments (London: Oxford University Press, 1900) 4–14.

8 AscIs 3.31: καὶ ἐξαφήσουσιν τὰς προφητείας τῶν προφητῶν τῶν πρὸ ἐμοῦ καὶ τὰς ὁράσεις μου ταύτας καταρ[γή]σουσιν ἵνα τὰ [ὀ]ρέγμ[α]τ[α] τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν λαλήσωσιν.

9 On this point, Bremmer cites Herm. Vis. 3.5.1; Herm. Sim. 9.15.4, 16.5, 25.2; Herm. Mand. 11.1–21; Did. 11.3–12; Origen, Cels. 7.9, 11; 1 John 4.1–3; 2 Pet 2.1 (J. N. Bremmer, ‘The Domestication of Early Christian Prophecy and the Ascension of Isaiah’, The Ascension of Isaiah (ed. J. N. Bremmer, T. R. Karmann and T. Nicklas; SECA 11; Leuven: Peeters, 2016) 1–20, at 8–10). Cf. also D. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 209; E. Norelli, ‘The Political Issue of the Ascension of Isaiah: Some Remarks on Jonathan Knight's Thesis, and Some Methodological Problem’, Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols. Essays in Honor of François Bovon (ed. D. H. Warren, A. G. Brock and D. W. Pao; Boston: Brill, 2003) 267–82, at 269; Frankfurter, ‘Beyond “Jewish Christianity”’, 137.

10 Greg Carey, on the one hand, suggests that the Ascension of Isaiah exhibits an ‘early Christian polemic against Judaism’ (G. Carey, ‘The Ascension of Isaiah: An Example of Early Christian Narrative Polemic’, JSP 17 (1998) 65–78; see also B. Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) 537–8). Pierluigi Piovanelli, on the other hand, draws close associations between the Ascension of Isaiah and Jewish mysticism from the Hekhalot tradition. In this reading, the polemical element of the text reflects an internecine Jewish debate in which a small group seeks to defend communal practices in the face of neighbouring communities (P. Piovanelli, ‘“A Door into an Alien World”: Reading the Ascension of Isaiah as a Jewish Mystical Text’, Bremmer, Karmann and Nicklas, eds., The Ascension of Isaiah, 119–44, at 129–30; see also M. Henning and T. Nicklas, ‘Question of Self-Designation in the Ascension of Isaiah’, Bremmer, Karmann and Nicklas, eds., The Ascension of Isaiah, 175–98).

11 See e.g. R. Kraft, ‘Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions’, JSJ 32 (2001) 371–95, repr. in R. Kraft, Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts (JSJSup 137; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 35–60; cf. also R. Kraft, ‘The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity’, Exploring the Scripturesque, 3–33; Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha, 10–60; M. de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (SVTP 18; Leiden: Brill, 2003), esp. 18–28; Frankfurter, ‘Beyond “Jewish Christianity”’, 131–43, esp. 134–5. See also J. Z. Smith, ‘Fences and Neighbors: Some Contours of Early Judaism’, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (University of Chicago Press, 1982) 1–11, at 4.

12 Frankfurter, ‘Beyond “Jewish Christianity”’, 135–6, 139.

13 Frankfurter, ‘Beyond “Jewish Christianity”’, 137 (emphasis original).

14 Grenfell and Hunt, The Amherst Papyri, i.1. On P.Amh. i.1, see T. J. Kraus, ‘The P.Amh. I 1 (Ascension of Isaiah): What a Manuscript Tells about a Text and its World’, Bremmer, Karmann and Nicklas, eds., The Ascension of Isaiah, 387–402.

15 J. Verheyden, ‘L'Ascension d'Isaïe et l’Évangile de Matthieu: examen de AI 3, 13–8’, The New Testament in Early Christianity: la réception des écrits néotestamentaires dans le christianisme primitif (ed. J.-M. Sevrin; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989) 247–74, at 255, 264; cf. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 18–21. AscIs 3.13 (P.Amh. i.1 viii.16–ix.16): ἦν γὰρ ὁ Βελιὰρ ἐν θυμῷ [ἐ]πι Ἠσαίαν ἀπὸ τῆς [ὁρά]σεως καὶ ἀπὸ το[ῦ δει]γματισμοῦ ὅτι [ἐ]δειγμάτισεν τὸν [Σ]αμαήλ, καὶ ὅ[τι δι’ α]ὐτοῦ ἐφανε[ρώθη ἡ] ἐξέλευσις [τοῦ ἀγα]πητοῦ ἐκ [τοῦ ἑβδ]όμου οὐρα[νοῦ καὶ ἡ] μεταμόρφωσις αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ κατάβασις αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ εἰδέα ἣν δεῖ αὐτὸν μεταμορφωθῆναι ἐν εἴδει ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ὁ διωγμὸς ὅν διωχθήσεται, καὶ αἱ κολάσεις αἷς δεῖ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ αὐτὸν κολάσαι, καὶ ἡ τῶν δώδεκα μαθητεία, καὶ ὡς δεῖ αὐτὸν μετὰ ἀνδρῶν κακοποιῶν σταυρωθῆναι, καὶ ὅτι ἐν μνημε[ί]ῳ ταφήσεται (Grenfell and Hunt, The Amherst Papyri, i.10; cf. also P. Bettiolo, A. G. Kossova, C. Leonardi, E. Norelli and L. Perrone, eds., Ascensio Isaiae: Textus (CCSA 7; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995) 143).

16 E. Norelli, ‘L'AI e il vangelo di Matteo’, L'Ascensione di Isaia: studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi (Bologna: Dehoniane, 1994) 116–42.

17 Verheyden, ‘L'Ascension d'Isaïe et l’Évangile de Matthieu’, 265. There is, however, a Markan parallel that deserves attention (as Verheyden himself acknowledges). Mark 14.27 reads καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πάντες σκανδαλισθήσεσθε. As in the Matthean context, the verb σκανδαλίζομαι is used here in Mark 14.27 with the apostles as the subject. The fuller prepositional phrase in AscIs 3.14a (ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ) and Matt 26.31b (ἐν ἐμοὶ) may tip the scales towards a Matthean source behind AscIs 3.14a.

18 P.Amh. i.1 ix.22–x.7 (AscIs 3.15–16): καὶ ὡς ἡ κ[ατάβα]σις τοῦ ἀγγέ[λου τῆς] ἐκκησίας τῆ[ς ἐν οὐρα]νῳ … με … τος ἐν ταῖς ἐ[σχάταις ἡμ]έ[ραις], κα[ὶ] … ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ πν(εύματο)ς τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ Μιχαὴλ ἄρχων τῶν ἀγγέλων ἁγίων ὅτι τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀνοίχουσιν τὸ μνημονεῖον (Grenfell and Hunt, The Amherst Papyri, i.11).

19 See P. M. Edo, ‘A Revision of the Origin and Role of the Supporting Angels in the Gospel of Peter (10:39b)’, VC 68 (2014) 206–25.

20 Norelli, for example, is persuaded that both the descending angel in Matthew and the two angels in the Gospel of Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah arise from a tradition that was mutually used (and modified) by each of these three texts (‘L'AI e il vangelo di Matteo’, 150, contra W.-D. Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) 305). This view follows Norelli's wider perspective regarding the relationship between the Gospel of Matthew and the Ascension of Isaiah, namely that both texts utilise pre-Matthean sources.

21 Matt 28.19: πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. P.Amh. i.1 x.13–17 (AscIs 3.18a): μαθητεύσουσιν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη καὶ πᾶσιν γλῶσσαν (Grenfell and Hunt, The Amherst Papyri, i.11).

22 E. Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus: The Later Christian Writings (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1993) 55. Similarly, see E. Tisserant, Ascension d'Isaïe: traduction de la version éthiopienne, avec les principales variantes des versions grecque, latines et slave (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1909) 11; Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 18–21.

23 Verheyden, ‘L'Ascension d'Isaïe et l’Évangile de Matthieu’, 264.

24 Norelli, ‘L'AI e il vangelo di Matteo’, 162.

25 Matthew 15.13: ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· πᾶσα φυτεία ἣν οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος ἐκριζωθήσεται; P. Amh. i.1 xiv.6–9 (AscIs 4.3): ὁ βασιλεὺς οὗτος τὴν φυτ[ε]ίαν ἣν φυτεύσουσιν οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ διώξε[ι], … (Grenfell and Hunt, The Amherst Papyri, i.14).

26 Verheyden, ‘L'Ascension d'Isaïe et l’Évangile de Matthieu’, 254 n. 19. For Tisserant, the use of ‘vine’ as a description of Israel (Isa 5.7) reflects earlier Jewish traditions (Ascension d'Isaïe, 117). Similarly, Köhler, following Tisserant, suggests that the imagery used here is based upon ‘alttestamentlichen Vorbildern’ (Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums, 306 n. 2). As a result, Köhler remains sceptical of any Matthean influence in AscIs 4.3 (ibid., 306).

27 AscIs 1.7: ይቤሎ ፡ ኢሳይያስ ፡ ለሕዝቅያስ ፡ ንጉሥ ፡ ወአኮ ፡ ባሕቲቱ ፡ በቅድመ ፡ ምናሴ ፡ ዘይቤሎ ፡ ሕያው ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ዘኢተፈነወ ፡ ስሙ ፡ ለዝ ፡ ዓለም ፡ ወሕያው ፡ ፍቁሩ ፡ ለእግዚእየ ፡ ወሕያው ፡ መንፈስ ፡ ዘበላዕሌየ ፡ ይትናገር ፡ ከመ ፡ ኵሎን ፡እላንቱ ፡ ትእዛዝ ፡ ወእሉ ፡ ቃላት ፡ ይጸርዓ ፡ በኀበ ፡ ምናሴ ፡ ወልድከ ፡ ወበግብረ ፡ እደዊሁ ፡ በሥቃየ ፡ ሥጋየ ፡ አሐውር ፡ አነ ፡፡ (Bettiolo et al., Ascensio Isaiae: Textus, 47).

28 Although the Greek Legend is a later epitome of the Ascension of Isaiah, Norelli concludes that it remains a reliable witness to the Ethiopic text and is beneficial for exploring the Greek original (Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius, 30).

29 While the notion of a πνεῦμα speaking through an individual (or a group of individuals) is found frequently (see Barn. 10.2; Herm. Sim. 9.1; Did. 11.7; 11.12, Acts 1.7; 4.25, Zech 7.12; Neh 9.30; 2 Sam 23.2), the precise formulation of this idea in Matt 10.20 and AscIs 1.7 is uncommon.

30 See also Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums, 304 n. 2.

31 The correlation between AscIs 1.4 and Matt 3.17 is also flagged by M. Knibb (‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. ii (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday & Company, 1985) 143–76, at 156) and Hammershaimb (Das Martyrium Jesajas, 24)

32 Norelli, ‘L'AI e il vangelo di Matteo’, 115–66, esp. 165–6; idem, ‘La resurrezione di Gesù nell'Ascensione di Isaia’, CNS 1 (1980) 315–66.

33 Verheyden, ‘L'Ascension d'Isaïe et l’Évangile de Matthieu’, 247–74. See also J. Knight, Disciples of the Beloved One: The Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah (JSPSup 18; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 276–7.

34 Relevant here is the discussion in H. Koester, ‘Written Gospels or Oral Tradition?’, JBL 113 (1994) 293–7.

35 Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums, 308.

36 Cf. Tisserant, Ascension d'Isaïe, 203; Acerbi, L'Ascensione di Isaia, 150.

37 Cf. Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 56, who also notes Prot. Jas. 14.1.

38 Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums, 303–4; Acerbi, L'Ascensione di Isaia, 152–3; T. R. Karmann, ‘Die Jungfrauengeburt in der Ascensio Isaiae und in anderen Texten des frühen Christentums’, Bremmer, Karmann and Nicklas, eds., The Ascension of Isaiah, 370–4.

39 See Karmann, ‘Die Jungfrauengeburt in der Ascensio Isaiae’, 360.

40 Karmann, ‘Die Jungfrauengeburt in der Ascensio Isaiae’, 373: ‘Eine Leser, der die Vorgeschichte des Matthäusevangeliums kennt, wird diese bei der Lektüre der Ascensio immer wieder einspielen, und zwar vor allem an den Punkten, die man in gewisser Weise als Leerstellen bezeichnen könnte.’

41 Karmann, ‘Die Jungfrauengeburt in der Ascensio Isaiae’, 373: ‘Vielleicht sind die gerade erwähnten Leerstellen aber dennoch in gewisser Weise ein Indiz für literarische Abhängigkeit, und zwar wenn man sie als bewusste Leserlenkung des Autors interpretieren könnte.’

42 In AscIs 2.10 the prophets are περιβεβλημένοι (‘clothed’) in σάκκον (‘sackcloth’) and in 2.11 they only eat τίλλον[τε]ς ἐκ τῶν ὀρέων (‘plucking from the mountains’). In Matt 3.4, John the Baptist wears camel's hair (τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου) and eats locusts and wild honey (ἡ δὲ τροφὴ ἦν αὐτοῦ ἀκρίδες καὶ μέλι ἄγριον). They both dwell in the wilderness (ἔρημος) in the region of Ἰουδαία (cf. Matt 3.1 and AscIs 3.8: ἀπὸ βηθλεὲμ ἐκά[θι]σεν ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἐν τόπῳ ἐρήμῳ) (Hammershaimb, Das Martyrium Jesajas, 27 n. 10a).

43 See esp. Matt 9.3–7; 12.38–45; 15.1–14; 23.1–39.

44 Moreover, throughout the synoptic tradition, Jesus’ actions within the temple court play a central role in the progression of each narrative (see esp. P. Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 111–14; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 61–90).

45 Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 60–1; Norelli, Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius, 173–4.

46 The parallel passage in Luke 9.26 records a fairly similar concept: ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων. In light of the adjectival addition (τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων) in Luke and the mutual use of the possessive pronoun in both Matt 25.31 and AscIs 4.14 (መላእክቲሁ/mälaʾəktihu; οἱ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ), the association between Matthew and the AscIs is slightly stronger.

47 Verheyden, ‘L'Ascension d'Isaïe et l’Évangile de Matthieu’, 270: ‘L'auteur de AI trouve en Mt 4 une des références les plus explicites au combat entre le Bien-Aimé et le Satan.’

48 AscIs 5.10: እስመ ፡ አልብከ ፡ ፈድፋደ ፡ ዘትነሥእ ፡ እማእሰ ፡ ሥጋየ። (Bettiolo et al., Ascensio Isaiae: Textus, 75).

49 Hammershaimb, Das Martyrium Jesajas, 31. Matt 10.28: καὶ μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶμα, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι・ φοβεῖσθε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ.

50 AscIs 9.171: ወአሜሃ ፡ የዐርጉ ፡ እምጻድቃን ፡ ብዚኃን ፡ ምስሌሁ ፡ ዘመንፈሶሙ ፡ አልባስ ፡ ኢነሥኡ ፡ እስከ ፡ የዐርግ ፡ እግዚእ ፡ክርስቶስ ፡ ወየዐርጉ ፡ ምስሌሁ። (Bettiolo et al., Ascensio Isaiae: Textus, 103).

51 The question posed by Norelli (Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius, 470) reflects the interpretive difficultly surrounding AscIs 9.17, namely, is this corporate ‘ascension’ in 9.17 referring to a group resurrection akin to the Matthean narrative, or to an ascension from the earth into the seventh heaven (as in AscIs 9.18)? Despite the repeated use of the same verb, Norelli rightly suggests a shift in 9.16–18, in which 9.16–17a refers to the resurrection from the dead and 9.17b–18 to the ascension into the seventh heaven.

52 Verheyden, ‘L'Ascension d'Isaïe et l’Évangile de Matthieu’, 265: ‘La connaissance de Mt 27,51–53 est peut-être à la source de AI 9,17 (E), concernant l'ascension de beaucoup de justes avec le Seigneur après sa résurrection.’

53 Belkira testifies that Isaiah claimed to have ‘[seen] more than Moses the prophet’ (AscIs 3.8: βλέπω πλέον Μωυσῆ τοῦ προφήτου), countering Exod 33.20 (AscIs 3.9, ‘Moses said, “There is no man who can see the lord and live.” But Isaiah has said, “I have seen the lord, and behold I am alive”’; cf. 4 Bar. 9.19–21). Jesus and Moses are also counterpointed rather forcefully in Matthew, as Dale Allison has noted a narrative sequence in Matthew that has Mosaic overtones (D. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 268). The actual mode of execution is not as obviously imitative as in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, though the method of crucifixion and sawing were both used by the Romans. As noted by van Henten, Suetonius makes the claim that Caligula adopted the practice of sawing people in half (J. W. van Henten and F. Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity (London: Routledge, 2002) 93 n. 23; Suetonius Hist. Aug. Cal. 27.3; see also Carey, ‘The Ascension of Isaiah’, 77; Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 537). There may also be an imitative correlation between Isaiah's final insistence to Hezekiah that the king not reveal the content of Isaiah's vision to the ‘people of Israel’ (AscIs 11.39), the voice that tells Joseph and Mary not to reveal the vision they received to anyone in the nativity narrative (AscIs 11.11), and the Matthean Jesus’ insistence that his disciples should not tell anyone that he is ὁ χριστός (Matt 16.20) (cf. Norelli, Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius, 553–4). Lastly, Isaiah refers to his own death as a ‘cup’ prepared for him by God (AscIs 5.13). Jesus also refers to his death as a cup throughout the synoptic tradition (Matt 20.22/Mark 10.38; Matt 26.39/Mark14.36/Luke 22.42; cf. also Mart. Pol. 14.2; T. Ab. 1.3; 16.11–12; 17.16; 19.6, 16). This is therefore a non-exclusive parallel with the Matthean Jesus (see Hammershaimb, Das Martyrium Jesajas, 32; Knight, Disciples, 277 (though Knight does not mention any Synoptic parallels)).

54 Justin not only mentions the tradition of Isaiah being sawed in half, but also claims that Isaiah, particularly in the mode of his death, is a mystery of Christ (Dial. 120.5).

55 In his presentation of Jesus as an exemplar of patience, Tertullian picks up on the (analogous) description of Isaiah's self-restraint during the execution (cf. ‘neither cried aloud nor wept’ (AscIs 5.14)) in De patientia 14.1, noting, his patientiae viribus secatur Esaias et de domino non tacet (J.-C. Fredouille, De La patience (SC 310; Paris: Cerf, 1984) 106 (cited in Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 14 n. 11)).

56 In his comment on Matt 13.57 (οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ) Origen flags the tradition of Isaiah's martyrdom from ‘the apocryphal Isaiah’ (which is further substantiated with Heb 11.37 (ἐπρίσθησαν, ‘they were sawed in half’)); see R. E. Heine, The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St Matthew, vol. i (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018) 51–3. In his Letter to Africanus (9) the order of testimony is reversed and Heb 11.37 is shown to be truthful by means of reference to the tradition of Isaiah's death. In this context, Origen also employs the final ‘Woe’ found in Matt 23.29–38 as further testimony that Isaiah was killed.

57 See e.g. Matt 23.29–37; Acts 7.52; Heb 11.36–8; 1 Thess 2.15.

58 H. J. Schoeps, ‘Die jüdischen Prophetenmorde’, Symbolae Biblicae Upsalienses 2 (1943) 3–22; repr. in Aus frühchristlicher Zeit: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (ed. H. J. Schoeps; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1950) 126–43. Similarly, H. A. Fischel (‘Martyr and Prophet (A Study in Jewish Literature)’, JQR 3 (1947) 265–80, at 276–7) suggests that this motif became an established tradition in the early centuries ce. Regarding the rabbinic tradition, Fischel (‘Martyr and Prophet’, 271) identifies varying articulations of the motif, noting that the ‘words’ of the prophets are rejected (citing e.g. Lam. Rab. 24; S. ʿOlam Rab. 24; Pesiq. Rab. 153b), that all the prophets face persecution by their own people (citing Tanh. Mishpatim 12; Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 125af.; Lev. Rab. 13.2; Exod. Rab. 7; Lam. Rab. 4), and that the persecution of the prophets is used as the reason for the destruction of Jerusalem in the First Jewish War (citing Exod. Rab. 31; Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 14). See also G. S. Reynolds, ‘On the Qurʾan and the Theme of Jews as “Killers of the Prophets”’, al-Bayān 10 (2012) 9–32, at 17.

59 O. H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchung zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967) 64–80. Cf. 2 Kings 17.7–20; 2 Chron 36.15–16; Jer 7.25–6; 25.4; 26.5; 29.19; 35.15; 44.4–6.

60 Steck, Israel, 63–4.

61 Ps 106; Tob 3.1–6; Bar. 1–2; 3 Macc. 2.2–20.

62 Dan 9.5–19; Ezra 9.6–15; T. Levi 16.2; Josephus, Ant. 9.265–7, 281.

63 Steck, Israel, 110–215, esp. 209–15.

64 AscIs 5.15; Jer 26.21; 1 Kings 18.4; 19.10; 2 Chron 24.21; Neh 9.26.

65 AscIs 5.1; Jer 26.21; Liv. Pro. 3.2; 6.1.

66 E.g. Jub. 1.12; Jas 5.10; T. Levi 16.2.

67 Steck, Israel, 245: ‘Zwar ist das Gottesvolk großenteils als abtrünnig vorausgesetzt, aber es fehlen aus Element B die Momente: Umkehrmahnung, Gebotsübermittlung, Sendung zu Israel; zum gewaltsamen Geschick führt u.a. Jesajas Gerichtsankündigung, und Täter ist nich das Volk. Ich vermute vielmehr drei Traditionsschichten in MartJes, die dem Jesajageschick jeweils besondere Ausrichtung geben, aber mit der Tradition der generellen Aussage unmittelbar nichts zu tun haben.’

68 1 Thess 2.15; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 74; Justin Martyr, Dial. 95; Barn. 5.11.

69 Stephen Wilson has succinctly distilled the dual focus of the polemical element in Matthew, noting that the chief priests (οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς) and elders (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι) are presented in relation to the death of Jesus (Wilson points to Matt 16.21; 21.45; 26–8), whereas the conflict between Jesus, the Scribes (οἱ γραμματεῖς) and the Pharisees (οἱ Φαρισαῖοι) revolves around interpretation of Torah and group praxis (S. Wilson, Related Strangers, Jews and Christians 70–170 ce (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 51). See also J. A. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); A. J. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); H. van de Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2005); A. Runesson, ‘Rethinking Early Jewish–Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as Pharisaic Intragroup Conflict’, JBL 127 (2008) 95–132 (see esp. 9 n. 3); D. C. Sim, ‘Reconstructing the Social and Religious Milieu of Matthew: Methods, Sources, and Possible Results’, Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings (ed. H. van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg; Atlanta: SBL, 2008) 13–32, at 32; J. Verheyden, ‘Jewish Christianity, A State of Affairs: Affinities and Differences with Respect to Matthew, James, and the Didache’, Matthew, James, and Didache, 123–35, at 135; M. Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014). For a ‘soft’ reading of Matthew as extra muros, see P. Foster, Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel (WUNT ii/177; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); G. Stanton, ‘Matthew's Gospel and the Damascus Document in Sociological Perspectives’, A Gospel for New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992) 85–107. For critical engagement with this literature, especially the ways in which certain studies problematically conceptualize ‘Judaism’ as a site of comparison with Matthew, see D. A. Kaden, Matthew, Paul, and the Anthropology of Law (WUNT ii/424; Tübigen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 71–88.

70 Knowles, M., Jeremiah in Matthew's Gospel: The Rejected-Prophet Motif in Matthaean Redaction (JSNTSup 68; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 148–61Google Scholar.

71 In this parable, the landowner (οἰκοδεσπότης) sends his servants to the farmers of the vineyard (τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς γεωργούς), who beat (ἔδειραν), kill (ἀπέκτειναν) and stone (ἐλιθοβόλησαν) the servants (21.33–4). The use of δοῦλος in 21.34–6 suggests an association with the tradition of martyred prophets (cf. 2 Kings 9.7; 17.13; Jer 7.25; 26.5; 29.19; 35.15; 44.4; Ezek 38.17; Zech 1.6 and Num 12.8, as well as 5 Ezra 1.32; 2.1).

72 Kloppenborg, J. S., The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine (WUNT 195; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 181Google Scholar.

73 Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard, 181.

74 See n. 6.

75 Moss, C., The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.