Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by Giuseppe »

Prof Arthur Droge argued for Ascension of Isaiah being reactionary against a previous Gnostic text and placing beyond any doubt the crucifixion in outer space. Just as 1 Cor 2:6-21 (=an interpolation from the same Gnostic sect).

He is probably correct, IMHO.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that if Asc. Of Isaiah is related to Revelation (as conceded by Norelli, too), then just as Revelation is against Gnostic Nicolaites, so also Asc. Of Isaiah has Gnostic enemies in view.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by neilgodfrey »

Earl Doherty, followed by Richard Carrier (and Arthur Droge?), made the case for the "pocket gospel" in the Ascension of Isaiah (11:2-22) being a late addition that replaced an original mention of a heavenly crucifixion.

Some of the main lines of argument for this case:
  1. the pocket gospel (11:2-22 narrating birth of Jesus, his miracle-working and crucifixion on earth) was not found in a couple of manuscript lines (one Latin one and a Slavonic one) but was only found in the Ethiopic manuscript.
  2. it is more likely that a relatively orthodox pocket gospel was added rather than dropped from an original work.
  3. other parts of the Asc of Isa seem to prepare readers to think that Satan himself, directly, will crucify the Beloved.
But against these arguments we have:
  1. Although the pocket gospel is not found in the Slavonic or "second Latin" manuscripts, historical "inquisition" records do inform us that the Cathars from the Slavonic region did know of the "pocket gospel" details. This passage must have been in their copy of the Ascension of Isaiah.
  2. The likely explanation for the passage missing from the Slavonic and a Latin manuscript is that the Church removed this pocket gospel because of its docetic flavour and support of heretical views of the Cathars. (This argument comes from Norelli.)
  3. Other parts of the Asc of Isaiah speak of the Beloved descending "to the world". One may interpret the world as including the firmament above, but given that the Asc Isa is very particular in the different layers of heavens and the firmament above the world, I think the "world" really does mean the world below the firmament. The Beloved is said to arrive in the world. The "pocket gospel" then relates Satan stirring up the Jews to lynch Jesus.
  4. If the pocket gospel is removed, we have an line saying that Isaiah is about to witness the like of which no man has ever seen or will see again -- that is we are led to expect something a bit more than just a descent and ascent through the heavens with a mid-air crucifixion as the turning point. The account of the miraculous appearance of Jesus "out of" Mary's womb (without actually being born - maintaining her virginity) and miraculous experiences on earth would seem to fit that introduction of a most unique vision better.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by Giuseppe »

I would add, supporting the outer space crucifixion:

4. the specific distinction between Sheol and Hell. The Son is prohibited from going to Hell, his extreme place being the Sheol: this distinction makes much sense if the Sheol is placed in outer space above the earth, while the Hell is placed under the earth. Hence the Son dies just before his descent to celestial Sheol, without descend more down (on the earth) unless by revelations to apostles.

Note that in Wautier's reconstruction of Marcion, the Son descends to Sheol (=Capernaum), and only after he ascends on the earth.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:09 am I would add, supporting the outer space crucifixion:

4. the specific distinction between Sheol and Hell. The Son is prohibited from going to Hell, his extreme place being the Sheol: this distinction makes much sense if the Sheol is placed in outer space above the earth, while the Hell is placed under the earth. Hence the Son dies just before his descent to celestial Sheol, without descend more down (on the earth) unless by revelations to apostles.
Sheol is everywhere else (note especially the Septuagint) designated as beneath the earth.

The pattern of descent is four-fold, and the cosmology has five layers with the world at the centre:

Heavens

Firmament

World

Sheol

Hades

The pocket gospel, which the Cathars knew even though the Church appears to have deleted it in the surviving Slavonic manuscript, states that the Beloved descended, went down, to Sheol from Jerusalem in the world.

But you can still hang on to the "outer space" crucifixion by agreeing with the Cathars that the world to which Jesus went, where he was "born" of Mary, etc etc, was actually another heavenly world above this one.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by rgprice »

I think the outer space stuff is a distraction, and it unfortunately implies that simply being set on earth confirms historicity, which is not at all the case. So at this point I see much of the outer space argument is harmful.

At any rate, however the birth narrative came to be, it is clear that the Pauline letters reflect no knowledge of it, while the Pauline letters do seem to be aligned with many other aspects of the narrative. So, I think this is evidence that a version of the Vision of Isaiah narrative existed that did not contain a birth narrative.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:25 am At any rate, however the birth narrative came to be, it is clear that the Pauline letters reflect no knowledge of it, while the Pauline letters do seem to be aligned with many other aspects of the narrative. So, I think this is evidence that a version of the Vision of Isaiah narrative existed that did not contain a birth narrative.
Is not this a bit circular?

I have always thought the "birth" account in AI is a perfect fit for Galatians 4:4. Galatians 4:4 says Christ was Made from or Happened Through a woman, not "born". That's what we read in the pocket gospel of AI: Jesus is inside Mary but then suddenly he isn't. Mary looks at him and is startled, wondering where he came from, it looks like.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by Giuseppe »

If "born by woman" is not an anti-marcionite bit, then nothing in the epistles can be considered anti-marcionite at all and the epistles are arrived to us totally genuine.

That it is an interpolation, all the past Mythicists agree, totally beyond any reference to outer space or less.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:02 am If "born by woman" is not an anti-marcionite bit, then nothing in the epistles can be considered anti-marcionite at all and the epistles are arrived to us totally genuine.

That it is an interpolation, all the past Mythicists agree, totally beyond any reference to outer space or less.
Maybe it is an interpolation and maybe it isn't. But even if it isn't, even if it is part of the original text, the fact remains that the word translated as "born" is not the word normally used for a natural birth. It is elsewhere understood to mean "made" -- a term that is not inconsistent with a docetic interpretation. Gal 4:4 does not actually say Jesus had a normal birth. It says Jesus came or appeared or was "built" via a woman.

The Ascension of Isaiah likewise narrates that Jesus was made through a woman. He was not born from Mary in the sense of passing through her birth canal. He just mystically moved from her womb to appearing in front of her. There's nothing 'historical" or natural about that process.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by rgprice »

Except that the evidence indicates that the part about born of/through a woman was missing from Marcion's Galatians anyway. And is that really all that could be expected if the writer(s) of the Pauline letters knew the whole birth narrative from the Vision of Isaiah? It contains the name Mary, Joseph and other details that one would expect to have shown up if "Paul" knew them. I'm more inclined to agree that Gal 4:4 is an interpolation. So again, I think the Pauline letters attest the basic VoI narrative, not including the birth story. In addition, I think that the writer of Mark knew the Vision of Isaiah narrative, but also makes no reference to the birth story. So it seems to me that a combination of Mark, and the Pauline attest to the Vision of Isaiah narrative, with no birth story.
Post Reply