I find it extremely difficult to take seriously the view that the AI was written as a midrashic-type code to justify a Teacher of Righteousness sect from Qumran. I can accept the overlaps of dualism and demonology and interest in prophecy and sharing of certain motifs with the opponents of Ignatius. However, he does not, as far as I am aware, surmise that the AI is drawing upon the Gospel of Matthew. What he does say is that the AI draws upon the same material used by the evangelist to create his nativity scene.rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:07 am @neil
Thanks for posting that. So what do you think? These distinctions have pretty big implications.
If Martyrdom of Isaiah is Qumranic, then it implies that Vision of Isaiah is also Qumranic, and could be the earliest Jesus narrative. But as Norelli would have it, Martyrdom and Vision of Isaiah are late and post-date other Gospels.
I have a hard time seeing how they could be products of later Christians. I've seen no other Christian works that use so much language that is so close to the Qumranic works. But even more, Vision of Isaiah aligns so well with Paul in ways that none of the other Gospels do.
To my mind, there are likewise some points in common between the AI and Gospel of Peter -- e.g. crucified by "the king", the Twelve sans Judas being sent out upon his resurrection, a special focus on Peter.
How it relates to Paul's writings, I scarcely know where to begin. If we assume Paul's letters and also think the sections in Paul that echo the AI are original to Paul then we can suggest that the ideas found in the AI were as early as Paul. But if Paul's letters or the relevant sections in Paul are late, then it follows that the ideas found in the AI were still contemporary with Paul but also late with Paul/the interpolations.
In other words, I want to do lots more reading of the various issues before committing myself. (I am expecting more material to arrive in coming months.)