HistoricalChristian.Faith

The "excised" descent-prophecy — a genuine early witness to the descent, or an apocryphal logion?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: plausible — once the case is divided in two. The reading this logion serves is that the descent was anticipated in a genuine prophetic tradition the early church received as Scripture, in a period when the Jewish text really was being revised, sometimes against readings Christians prized. In that form the reading is coherent, not ruled out, and partly demonstrable: the logion is attested independently by Justin and Irenaeus within a generation and across regions; Aquila's hyper-literal revision was displacing the Septuagint in exactly this period (Justin himself misread such a revision as malice at Isaiah 7:14); and the Qumran Isaiah scroll preserves, with the LXX, a reading at 53:11 that later fell out of every Hebrew manuscript — so a witness favourable to the Christian case dropping from the Jewish text is documented fact, not apologetic fantasy. What does not reach that level is the over-precise form of Justin's charge — that this exact line is an authentic canonical passage the Jews cut out of a scroll of Jeremiah (or Isaiah): it leaves no trace in the LXX (rendered centuries before any such motive), Irenaeus's own attribution floats between Isaiah, Jeremiah and no prophet at all, and Justin's "the Jews excised it" is a formula he also levels at passages that in fact survive. So the descent-witness reading is plausible; the specific "excised from a canonical scroll" provenance is not established — and the descent doctrine it was adduced for stands on other ground either way · advanced by Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 72, the excision charge) and Irenaeus (who quotes the logion six times as prophetic Scripture) — weighed against the text-critical mainstream, which classes the line itself an apocryphal testimonium

Related arguments: the descent — see also descent to the dead · the raising of the saints · the descent clause · relocation of Paradise · content of the proclamation · forerunner in Hades

This argument concerns the authenticity of a single proof-text — a one-line prophecy of Christ's descent to the dead that the second-century Fathers quote as Scripture but that no biblical manuscript contains — and is kept distinct from the descent-to-the-dead argument, which weighs the doctrine itself. The descent can be true (and is independently grounded) whether or not this particular logion is genuine Scripture; the question here is whether the logion is a genuine early witness to the descent — and how far the patristic claim that the Jews excised an authentic prophecy can be carried. Two things must be kept apart throughout, because they have different answers: Justin's general charge that the Jewish text was being altered (which the verdict tracks), and his particular charge that this exact verse was cut from a canonical scroll.

The claim

Cataloguing passages he says Jewish teachers have removed from the Scriptures to hide their witness to Christ, Justin adds the descent logion to the list:

And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: "The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation."

— Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 72 (titled, in the manuscripts, "Passages Have Been Removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah").¹ The argument the passage is adduced for is the descensus: here is a prophet, on Justin's reckoning, foretelling in so many words that the Lord would "descend to preach … His own salvation" to "His dead people … in the graves." Were the text genuine, it would be the Old Testament's most explicit anticipation of Christ's descent to the human dead — far plainer than the disputed Eph 4:9 ("the lower parts of the earth") or Ps 16:10 on which the doctrine otherwise leans. Justin makes the charge concrete and falsifiable: the excision was recent, he says, and the saying "is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out)."

Who advances it

The charge of deliberate excision is Justin's; the logion's standing as prophetic Scripture is underwritten above all by Irenaeus, who quotes it no fewer than six times across two works as the utterance of a named prophet, treating it as a settled testimony to the descent. Through Irenaeus it became a fixture of the early descent proof-base, and it is still occasionally produced — in popular and retrieval-minded surveys of the "lost texts" of the harrowing — as evidence that the descent was prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures and suppressed. Against this stands the text-critical and patristic mainstream, which finds the passage in no biblical manuscript and reads it instead as a free-floating Christian testimonium mistakenly ascribed to the prophets.

The witnesses

The logion is unusually well attested for an extra-canonical line — and that very spread of citation is what exposes its problem. Within a single author, Irenaeus, it is fathered on different prophets:

1. To Isaiah — "And that it was not a mere man who died for us, Isaiah says: 'And the holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulture; and He came down to preach His salvation to them, that He might save them'" (Against Heresies III.20.4).²
2. To Jeremiah — "As Jeremiah declares, 'The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved'" (AH IV.22.1) — agreeing with Justin's ascription.³
3. To no prophet in particular — woven anonymously into catalogues of messianic testimonies: Christ "remembered His own dead ones who had formerly fallen asleep, and came down to them that He might deliver them" (AH IV.33.1); "Others … said, 'The holy Lord remembered His own dead ones who slept in the dust, and came down to them to raise them up, that He might save them'" (AH IV.33.12); and, of the three days in the place of the dead, "as the prophet says concerning Him: 'And the Lord remembered His dead saints who slept formerly in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them, to rescue and save them'" (AH V.31.1).⁴
4. Back to Jeremiah — "And in Jeremiah He thus declares His death and descent into hell, saying: 'And the Lord the Holy One of Israel, remembered his dead, which aforetime fell asleep in the dust of the earth; and he went down unto them, to bring the tidings of his salvation, to deliver them'" (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 78).⁴

No two quotations agree word-for-word, and the prophet named is Isaiah once, Jeremiah twice, and left blank three times — the profile of a text recalled from memory or a proof-text anthology rather than transcribed from a scroll. (How much that profile proves is weighed below: by itself it is suggestive, not decisive — even the New Testament misattributes genuine prophecy.)

The case against the specific excision claim

1. It is in no surviving text of either prophet — and, crucially, not in the Septuagint. The logion appears nowhere in the Masoretic Jeremiah or Isaiah, nowhere in the Septuagint of either, and in no other version — the editors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers flag it at the point of citation as simply "wanting in our Scriptures … cited by Iren., iii. 20, under the name of Isaiah, and in iv. 22 under that of Jeremiah."⁵ The LXX is the decisive witness here, and it cuts directly against Justin's own account of the crime. He dates the excision to "a short time" before his day and pins it on the synagogue; but the Greek Jeremiah was rendered in the third–second century BC, generations before any anti-Christian motive could exist, and by translators whose work the Christians, not the rabbis, went on to prize. A line genuinely struck recently from the Hebrew ought still to stand in that older Greek; it does not. (And a line Justin says was "still written in some copies … in the synagogues" in his own lifetime ought to have left at least one such copy; none survives.)
2. The floating attribution corroborates a testimonia source — though it does not, by itself, prove the text uncanonical. That Irenaeus assigns the same sentence to Isaiah, to Jeremiah, and to no one — and never quite identically — is easiest to explain if he and Justin both drew it from a circulating collection of messianic proof-texts (a testimonia book) in which such logia travelled without secure provenance. The honest caveat is that misattribution alone is weak evidence: the New Testament itself fathers a quotation mostly from Zechariah on "Jeremiah" (Matt 27:9) and a composite of Malachi and Isaiah on "Isaiah" (Mark 1:2–3), and no one infers from that that the quoted lines are uncanonical — only that the writers cited from memory or from anthologies.⁶ So the wandering ascription shows how the Fathers came by the line (a proof-text collection, not a scroll), which is corroborating; the reason to doubt it is Scripture at all is its total absence from the manuscript tradition, point 1. (The well-worn suggestion that a Latin copyist simply miswrote "Isaiah" for "Jeremiah" at III.20.4 rescues one of the six citations at best, and not the anonymous ones.)⁷
3. Justin's "the Jews cut it out" is, in its checkable instances, a formula that misfires. In the same breath Justin charges the Jews with excising a "from the wood" clause from Ps 96:10, a sentence from "Esdras" about the passover, and — in the very list that carries the descent logion — the Jeremiah saying "I was like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter … let us lay wood on His bread." That last corresponds to Jeremiah 11:19, which has not dropped out of the text: it stands in MT and LXX alike (the dispute there is over how to vocalise and read the surviving Hebrew, not over a deletion). And the Ps 96:10 "from the wood" (a ligno) clause runs the charge the wrong way: the mainstream judgment is that it is a Christian liturgical gloss that entered the Old Latin Psalter, not an original reading the Jews removed — Justin appears to be nearly the only Greek writer to quote it at all. His excision formula is thus applied both to passages that demonstrably survive and to a clause that was added on the Christian side, which badly undercuts its evidential weight for a passage that has vanished entirely.⁸

What can be said for it

The logion is not a late forgery, and Justin's underlying instinct is not baseless — both deserve their full weight before the verdict.

The text is early and independently received. It is attested independently of Justin by Irenaeus, in Gaul, within a generation, and was evidently regarded as authoritative prophecy across the second-century church — so something was in circulation early and widely. It is possible the saying derives from a now-lost Jewish apocryphon, or is a midrashic expansion of a real prophetic kernel (Isaiah's "thy dead shall live," 26:19; Hosea 13:14; Ezek 37) crystallised into a descent oracle. On the most generous reading, the Fathers were not inventing but transmitting an inherited text they sincerely took for Scripture.

And Justin's general charge is partly demonstrable, not paranoid. The second century was exactly the period in which the Jewish Greek Scriptures were being revised away from the old LXX that Christians had made their own: Aquila of Sinope produced (c. 130) a famously literal Greek version that displaced the Septuagint in the synagogue, and Justin himself elsewhere reads such a revision as malice — he treats the rendering "young woman" for "virgin" at Isaiah 7:14 as a Jewish corruption, not knowing it was Aquila's.⁹ He misdiagnoses the mechanism, but he is reacting to a real phenomenon: a contested, shifting text in which the Jewish and Christian Scriptures were visibly diverging. More strikingly still, the suspicion that a reading favourable to the Christian case could simply fall out of the later Hebrew is no longer merely conceivable — Qumran has shown it happening. The Great Isaiah Scroll (with the LXX) reads "he shall see light" at Isaiah 53:11, a Christologically apt reading that has dropped out of every later Hebrew manuscript. So "the Jewish text once held more than it now does, including matter useful to Christians" is a documented fact, not an apologetic fantasy; on the bare question of whether such loss can occur, Justin is vindicated.¹⁰

But the boundary holds. The very evidence that rescues the phenomenon marks the limit of the particular claim. The genuine cases of a lost Christian-favourable reading — Isaiah 53:11 above all — survive in the LXX and at Qumran; that is precisely how we know they were lost from the Hebrew. This logion survives in neither. The same scholar who grants, "in the light of the Qumran scrolls, that some tampering with controversial texts was practised by the Jews," concedes in the same breath that "it is strange that no trace of this text is found in the LXX of Jeremias, if what Justin alleges is true."¹⁰ That is the crux. A reading the Jews trimmed from the Hebrew in Justin's century should still stand in the pre-Christian Greek; this one is missing there too. So the most that the steelman secures is the most generous reading already stated — an inherited extra-canonical logion the Fathers sincerely took for prophecy — which is exactly the apocryphal-testimonium verdict, not "an authentic passage the Jews excised from Jeremiah/Isaiah."

Assessment

Plausible — once the reading is taken in the form that does the real work, and kept apart from the over-precise form that does not. Is the reading this logion serves credible — that it is a genuine early witness to the descent, received as prophecy by the second-century church in a period when the Jewish Scriptures were being revised, sometimes against readings Christians prized? Yes: it is coherent, not ruled out, and partly demonstrable. The text is attested independently by Justin and Irenaeus within a generation and across regions; the revision it presupposes is real (Aquila's contemporaneous literal version was displacing the Septuagint, and Justin himself misread such a revision as malice at Isaiah 7:14); and the loss of a Christian-favourable reading from the Hebrew is no longer merely conceivable but documented — the Qumran Isaiah scroll keeps, with the LXX, the "he shall see light" of 53:11 that every later Hebrew manuscript drops. On the bare question of whether such a witness could arise and be lost, Justin is vindicated. Is the over-precise form of his charge established — that this exact line is a canonical passage cut from a scroll of Jeremiah or Isaiah? No, and the page should not be read as claiming it. That form is absent not only from the Hebrew but from the pre-Christian Septuagint, the one place a recently-excised line ought still to stand; Irenaeus's attribution wanders between Isaiah, Jeremiah and nothing, the mark of a logion drawn from a testimonia anthology; and Justin's excision formula, where it can be checked, lands on a verse that never left the canon (Jer 11:19) and on a clause ("from the wood," Ps 96:10) added on the Christian side. So the reading stands in its general form and falls in its specific one: plausible that the logion is a genuine early descent-witness reflecting a real textual milieu, not established that it is the excised canonical prophecy Justin took it for. Either way the loss of the strong claim costs the descent-to-the-dead argument nothing it cannot supply elsewhere — Acts 2:27/31, the broad patristic descensus, and the (themselves debated) Eph 4:9 and Ps 16:10. The honest verdict is not that the Fathers lied, nor that Justin's worry about a revised Jewish text was groundless, but that he trusted as canonical a text whose canonicity cannot be shown — while the textual situation he sensed was real.

Sources