Dependence of birth in Luke and Matthew on "VoI"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Dependence of birth in Luke and Matthew on "VoI"

Post by rgprice »

Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of Enrico Norelli's work on Ascension of Isaiah, nor do I read Italian. So I'm working from what I can gather from Vridar. https://vridar.org/2015/01/08/a-new-com ... of-isaiah/

Reportedly Norelli concludes that the Vision of Isaiah records a "birth" narrative regarding Jesus that was also known to the writer of Matthew, and that both Matthew and Vision of Isaiah are independent witnesses to this source.

I would add Luke to that as well. I'm not sure why Norelli doesn't. I can only assume it is because Luke's genealogy does not run through Mary, but rather Joseph.

However, if we compare the "birth" story in VoI to Luke, however, it seems quite apparent that canonical Luke is responding to the account in VoI.

2. And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah.
3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.
4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.
5. And he did not approach Mary, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.
13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."
14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was.
15. And they took Him, and went to Nazareth in Galilee.
16. And I saw, O Hezekiah and Josab my son, and I declare to the other prophets also who are standing by, that (this) hath escaped all the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of this world.
17. And I saw: In Nazareth He sucked the breast as a babe and as is customary in order that He might not be recognized.

Compare to Luke:

Luke 1:
39 Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

...

Luke 2:
4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, 5 in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. 6 While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; 11 for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”

15 When the angels had gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds began saying to one another, “Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger. 17 When they had seen this, they made known the statement which had been told them about this Child. 18 And all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them by the shepherds. 19 But Mary treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart. 20 The shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them.

21 And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

22 And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

So, in VoI we are told that Mary was never pregnant and the baby was never in her womb. We are told that she did not give birth, rather the child just appeared. The "appearance" of Jesus was unannounced and his identity remained secret.

Luke counters each of these points specifically. In Luke, we have a witness to the pregnancy of Mary in the mother of John. We are told explicitly that the child was in her womb. We are told explicitly that she gave birth. The birth of Jesus is announced immediately for all to know, including all of the powers of this world.

So, regardless of whether this narrative was known to Matthew and Luke from its current context or not, they both knew this narrative and were independently responding to it.

I think this best explains the similarities and differences between the birth stories of Matthew and Luke. They are both strikingly similar, yet have key differences. But their similarities can be explained by independent use of this narrative.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Dependence of birth in Luke and Matthew on "VoI"

Post by rgprice »

And actually I would add to this the introduction of John as well.

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

...

9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Vision of Isaiah:
21. And then, when I was in the sixth heaven I thought the light which I had seen in the five heavens to be but darkness.
22. And I rejoiced and praised Him who hath bestowed such lights on those who wait for His promise.
23. And I besought the angel who conducted me that I should not henceforth return to the carnal world.
24. I say indeed unto you, Hezekiah and Josab my son and Micaiah, that there is much darkness here.

25. And the angel who conducted me discovered what I thought and said: "If in this light thou dost rejoice, how much more wilt thou rejoice, when in the seventh heaven thou seest the light where is the Lord and His Beloved [whence I have been sent, who is to be called "Son" in this world.
26. Not (yet) hath been manifested he shall be in the corruptible world] and the garments, and the thrones, and the crowns which are laid up for the righteous, for those who trust in that Lord who will descend in your form. For the light which is there is great and wonderful.

So really, we can see that all three Gospels, Matthew, Luke, and John, appear to describe the origin of Jesus in ways that derive from the Vision of Isaiah.

Can it really be that Vision of Isaiah is late, and that this writer was some wizard who was capable of reacting to each of the canonical Gospel introductions, referring to each of them? Or is it far more likely that the Vision of Isaiah came first and that what we see in the Gospels are all reactions to Vision of Isaiah and different interpretations of it? John's introduction can certainly be seen as a succinct summary of the birth story in VoI.

14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was.

"The Word became flesh", and they "did not know Him"....
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Dependence of birth in Luke and Matthew on "VoI"

Post by GakuseiDon »

Just to add to your point about John 1, the Latin2/Slavonic texts of VoI seem to match John 1:9, 1:14: (from the Latin2 text:)

11.1 ... And I saw the likeness of the son of man, dwelling with men and in the world (Et vidi similem filii hominis, et cum hominibus habitare et in mundo)
<possible missing text>
11:19. And they did not recognize him. (Et non cognoverunt eum.)
<missing text>
11.23 And I saw him ascending into the firmament, and he was not transfiguring himself according to their form (Et vidi ascendentem in firmamentum, qui non erat secundum formam transfigurans se.)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Dependence of birth in Luke and Matthew on "VoI"

Post by Leucius Charinus »

rgprice wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:15 am And actually I would add to this the introduction of John as well.

///

So really, we can see that all three Gospels, Matthew, Luke, and John, appear to describe the origin of Jesus in ways that derive from the Vision of Isaiah.

Can it really be that Vision of Isaiah is late, and that this writer was some wizard who was capable of reacting to each of the canonical Gospel introductions, referring to each of them? Or is it far more likely that the Vision of Isaiah came first and that what we see in the Gospels are all reactions to Vision of Isaiah and different interpretations of it? John's introduction can certainly be seen as a succinct summary of the birth story in VoI.
This is identical to the issue of the priority of the Gospel of Thomas as prosecuted by Martijn. Are we dealing with (1) a literary wizard in the Thomas author who was capable of reacting to and recombining each of the canonical gospels? Or (2) did the Gospel of Thomas appear first and the gospels borrowed from that?

I have tended to argue that in dealing with the authors of much of the NT apocryphal material we are dealing with late (indeed Post Nicene) pernicious literary wizards (elites highly trained and philosophically educated) who were hell-bent on pulling apart the canonical material, recombining the material is various combinations and permutations and finally adding novel material of their own. Note also that that they recombined elements of the NT apocryphal writings into their mix.

However the direction of dependence is a thorny problem and IMO cannot be determined one way or another without further evidence being introduced.

Perhaps relevant to the direction of dependence issue is the shared material between the two NT apocryphal texts: the Ascension of Isaiah and the Gospel of Peter.
AoI wrote: 15. And the descent of the angel of the Christian Church, which is in the heavens, whom He will summon in the last days.

16. And that (Gabriel) the angel of the Holy Spirit, and Michael, the chief of the holy angels, on the third day will open the sepulchre:

17. And the Beloved sitting on their shoulders will come forth and send out His twelve disciples;
Gospel of Peter wrote: [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulchre.

[37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered.

[38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding).

[39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from the sepulchre, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them,

[40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens.
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Dependence of birth in Luke and Matthew on "VoI"

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:42 am
... the Vision of Isaiah records a "birth" narrative regarding Jesus that was also known to the writer of Matthew, and that both Matthew and Vision of Isaiah are independent witnesses to this source.

I would add Luke to that as well. I'm not sure why Norelli doesn't. I can only assume it is because Luke's genealogy does not run through Mary, but rather Joseph.
.
It might be worthwhile also considering in this group the Protevangelium of James/Jacob (aka the Gospel of James/Jacob or the Infancy Gospel of James)
  1. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html
  2. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm (this version gives some of the related biblical verses)


    ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BIBLE – PROTEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

    1. Content. The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke carry the story of Jesus back to His birth and to the birth of His forerunner, John the Baptist. The Protevangelium begins with the birth of Mary. The story starts with a wealthy but childless couple, Joachim and Anna. Publicly reproached because he alone has not begotten children in Israel, Joachim goes off sadly to the wilderness, where he remains forty days and forty nights. Mean-while his wife Anna mourns her childlessness. An angel appears to her (and also to Joachim), promising that her prayers will be granted. In due time the child is born and named Mary. At the age of three she is presented in the Temple, and remains there, nurtured like a dove and receiving food from the hand of an angel. When she reaches the age of twelve, the widowers of Israel are summoned together, and Joseph is chosen by a miraculous sign to take her under his charge. Leaving her in his home he goes off to his work of building. Mary is chosen with other virgins to weave a veil for the Temple, and during this time, the Annunciation takes place, followed by the visit to Elizabeth (cf. Luke 2). On his return after some months’ absence, Joseph finds Mary with child, but is reassured by an angel (cf. Matt 1:18ff.). The matter is reported to the high priest, and Mary and Joseph are subjected to trial by ordeal, from which they emerge unscathed. Following the edict of Augustus they travel to Bethlehem. Joseph finds a cave for Mary, leaves her in the care of his sons, and goes in search of a midwife. (Here there is a sudden switch to the first person, as Joseph describes the silence of all things at the Nativity.) After episodes concerning the midwife and the unbelieving Salome, the story continues with the visit of the Wise Men and the slaughter of the Innocents. It is Mary’s fear at the news that leads her to lay her child in a manger; John and Elizabeth are miraculous ly delivered, but Zacharias is murdered at the altar (he is thus identified with the Zechariah of Matt 23:35). The final paragraph gives the writer’s name as James. https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... lium-James
    .


    4. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by, saying: Anna, Anna, the Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive, and shall bring forth; and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world. And Anna said: As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God; and it shall minister to Him in holy things all the days of its life [1 Samuel 1:11]. And, behold, two angels came, saying to her: Behold, Joachim your husband is coming with his flocks. For an angel of the Lord went down to him, saying: Joachim, Joachim, the Lord God has heard your prayer. Go down hence; for, behold, your wife Anna shall conceive https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm



    8. ... Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judæa, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

    9. ... And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah [Numbers 16:31-33]; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping ...

    10. And there was a council of the priests, saying: Let us make a veil for the temple of the Lord. And the priest said: Call to me the undefiled virgins of the family of David. And the officers went away, and sought, and found seven virgins. And the priest remembered the child Mary, that she was of the family of David, and undefiled before God. And the officers went away and brought her ...

    11. ... And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood before her, saying: Fear not, Mary; for you have found grace before the Lord of all, and you shall conceive, according to His word. And she hearing, reasoned with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And shall I bring forth as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow you: wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of the Most High ...

    12. And she made the purple and the scarlet, and took them to the priest. And the priest blessed her, and said: Mary, the Lord God has magnified your name, and you shall be blessed in all the generations of the earth. And Mary, with great joy, went away to Elizabeth her kinswoman [Luke 1:39-40], and knocked at the door. And when Elizabeth heard her, she threw away the scarlet, and ran to the door, and opened it; and seeing Mary, she blessed her, and said: Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, behold, that which is in me leaped and blessed you [Luke 1:34, 44]. But Mary had forgotten the mysteries of which the archangel Gabriel had spoken, and gazed up into heaven, and said: Who am I, O Lord, that all the generations of the earth should bless me? [Luke 1:48] And she remained three months with Elizabeth; and day by day she grew bigger. And Mary being afraid, went away to her own house, and hid herself from the sons of Israel. And she was sixteen years old when these mysteries happened.
    ... ---
    17. And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judæa should be enrolled [Luke 2:1]. And Joseph said: I shall enrol my sons, but what shall I do with this maiden? How shall I enrol her? As my wife? I am ashamed. As my daughter then? But all the sons of Israel know that she is not my daughter. The day of the Lord shall itself bring it to pass as the Lord will ...

    18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a midwife in the district of Bethlehem ...

    https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
    .

However, if we compare the "birth" story in VoI to Luke, however, it seems quite apparent that canonical Luke is responding to the account in VoI.
  • That wouldn't surpise me. And, even though there's Lukan 'verses' in Prot.James, it wouldn't surprise me if Prot.James had been concurrent to Matthew and Luke or even preceded them.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Dependence of birth in Luke and Matthew on "VoI"

Post by MrMacSon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:21 pm However the direction of dependence is a thorny problem and IMO cannot be determined one way or another without further evidence being introduced.
At least you get something half-right for a change ie. yes, the direction of dependence is a thorny [issue], but there is 'evidence' ie. the texts. They just need evaluating wrt to each other and in the contexts of (i) when the bulk of the significant canonical texts might have been written and (ii) when they were likely to have been written
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Dependence of birth in Luke and Matthew on "VoI"

Post by Leucius Charinus »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:59 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:21 pm However the direction of dependence is a thorny problem and IMO cannot be determined one way or another without further evidence being introduced.
At least you get something half-right for a change
Thanks Mac. I half appreciate the half compliment.
ie. yes, the direction of dependence is a thorny [issue], but there is 'evidence' ie. the texts. They just need evaluating wrt to each other and in the contexts of (i) when the bulk of the significant canonical texts might have been written and (ii) when they were likely to have been written
"They just need evaluating" ... makes it sound so simple.

Yes I agree of course that what must be considered is both the evidence of the texts and the evidence for the chronology of the texts. Whether this contribution is useful or not I would also maintain that the texts themselves are capable as being arranged into three distinct classes:

1) Canonical NT
2) Apocryphal NT
3) Ecclesiastical History = "The Fathers"

When each of the texts within each of these classes were originally authored is critical to the reconstruction of "What happened?"

1) The canonical NT is thought to be authored between 40-150 CE (whether or not Marcion is involved)

2) The apocryphal NT is thought to be authored starting (traditionally) between 100-150 and continuing to be authored through to the later 4th century. However some texts like Thomas and the Ascension/Vision of Isaiah have been given the green light into the 1st century by some scholars.

3) The Ecclesiastical "History" of Eusebius was a product of the Nicene epoch and claims to have preserved -- by quotation and citation - almost a legion of the Fathers who extend from the later 1st century, through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Most of these Fathers function with a dual capacity. They are wearing two different hats.

In their capacity as Fathers of Orthodoxy these sources are used as witnesses to the orthodox canonical literature. In their capacity as Fathers of heresiology these sources are used as witnesses to the heretical non-canonical literature.

The thorny problem of literary dependence applies across and within all this stuff. And it may apply to the classes in general. (The traditional order of these classes being 1,2 3)

Perhaps the Vision of Isaiah and the Gospel of Thomas have priority over the canonicals. Perhaps vice verse. Perhaps there are lost proto-documents from which both these two texts have emerged. Evaluating the solution to this thorny problem is not straight-forward yet it is critical.
Post Reply