Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

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

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by rgprice »

If we assume that Vision of Isaiah contains a narrative that existed prior to the writing of the Gospel of Mark, the question is, why was the Vision of Isaiah written or why was the narrative recorded in Vision of Isaiah developed?

Is it, like 2 Baruch, a reaction to the destruction of the Temple? Was it written in response to the actions of some real person who represented The Beloved? Why is Isaiah the one who has the vision? Is it responding to some other narrative? Was it originally written with the Martyrdom of Isaiah in mind?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by Giuseppe »

More than a reaction, it would work as a harmonization:
  • there is a birth, to satisfy growing catholicism,
  • there is docetism, to satisfy Marcion


Something of similar to Cerinthus's Christology: separationism and a higher god vs. the demiurge, but also a Jesus mere man son of Joseph and Mary and a pious observant of the Law.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by Giuseppe »

Why is Isaiah the one who has the vision?
Turmel says that the Fourth Gospel ("none has ascended to heaven, but only the Son") is a reaction against Ascension of Isaiah.
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 7:28 am 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. . . . . 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.
One may question whether this is an entirely consistent argument. If Gal 4:4 with its distinctive account of Jesus being "made" from a woman is evidence of knowledge of the Vision of Isaiah with its unique non-birth of Jesus through a woman, it is being rejected because there are not more references to the Vision. Yet if we take the point of Gal 4:4 -- that it is an explanation of how Jesus entered the Jewish world to do something about the Jewish law -- then don't we find here all that is necessary to make that point. In the VoI Mary is said to be the descendant of David, so It is through her that Jesus appears as a man to the Jews. The point of Bethlehem and Joseph and Nazareth would be quite extraneous to the point of Gal. 4:4 and would distract from the point of the reference of Jesus making his appearance to the Jews as one who appears to have flesh from a woman who is under the law.

I don't really have a stake in the argument as it relates to Marcionism or Paul's knowledge of the Asc of Isa -- but am trying to point out something your argument needs to address rather than dismiss.
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 9:26 am If we assume that Vision of Isaiah contains a narrative that existed prior to the writing of the Gospel of Mark, the question is, why was the Vision of Isaiah written or why was the narrative recorded in Vision of Isaiah developed?

Is it, like 2 Baruch, a reaction to the destruction of the Temple? Was it written in response to the actions of some real person who represented The Beloved? Why is Isaiah the one who has the vision? Is it responding to some other narrative? Was it originally written with the Martyrdom of Isaiah in mind?
All of these questions are addressed in Norelli's 700 page commentary. The Martyrdom of Isaiah, he posits, was written by the same sect that produced the Vision in order to address the problem of orthodox authorities clamping down on their visionary experiences. The author drew upon the known legend of Isaiah's martyrdom to apply it, vicariously, to the visionary sect now experiencing "persecution" of some kind. It was added to the Vision of Isaiah in order to confirm the authority of that Vision.
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 9:35 am More than a reaction, it would work as a harmonization:
  • there is a birth, to satisfy growing catholicism,
  • there is docetism, to satisfy Marcion


Something of similar to Cerinthus's Christology: separationism and a higher god vs. the demiurge, but also a Jesus mere man son of Joseph and Mary and a pious observant of the Law.
If it was meant as a harmonization it failed badly. If we follow Norelli et al then the pocket gospel was deleted from the "second Latin" and Slavonic copies of the AoI because of its evident heretical (docetic) nature.

The Asc of Isa castigates church authorities as tools of Satan for their rejection of visionary experiences. Again, that's hardly an attempt to "satisfy catholicism" - or "Marcionism".
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by rgprice »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:13 pm All of these questions are addressed in Norelli's 700 page commentary. The Martyrdom of Isaiah, he posits, was written by the same sect that produced the Vision in order to address the problem of orthodox authorities clamping down on their visionary experiences. The author drew upon the known legend of Isaiah's martyrdom to apply it, vicariously, to the visionary sect now experiencing "persecution" of some kind. It was added to the Vision of Isaiah in order to confirm the authority of that Vision.
When does he think it was written? What orthodox authorities? If VoI was written prior to any Pauline letter and prior to Mark or proto-Mark, then what orthodoxy existed to clamp down on anything? That there was any orthodoxy that could clamp down on anything or even needed to be respected doesn't real come into existence until the 3rd century. Does he think VoI is 3rd or 4th century apocrypha?

That VoI would somehow bolster Martyrdom implies that the Beloved it prophesied was well known and respected. But, VoI seems to contradict both Marcionite, Valentinian, and orthodox views. The only thing that VoI seem to align with is the Pauline letters. So, to me it seems like whatever VoI represents, its some view from prior to the writing of any Gospels, notwithstanding potential later interpolations. But, I don't necessarily see a need to consider any of VoI to be interpolations. And Martyrdom of Isaiah has nothing to do with Jesus, so how does it relate?
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 2:01 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:13 pm All of these questions are addressed in Norelli's 700 page commentary. The Martyrdom of Isaiah, he posits, was written by the same sect that produced the Vision in order to address the problem of orthodox authorities clamping down on their visionary experiences. The author drew upon the known legend of Isaiah's martyrdom to apply it, vicariously, to the visionary sect now experiencing "persecution" of some kind. It was added to the Vision of Isaiah in order to confirm the authority of that Vision.
When does he think it was written? What orthodox authorities? If VoI was written prior to any Pauline letter and prior to Mark or proto-Mark, then what orthodoxy existed to clamp down on anything? That there was any orthodoxy that could clamp down on anything or even needed to be respected doesn't real come into existence until the 3rd century. Does he think VoI is 3rd or 4th century apocrypha?

That VoI would somehow bolster Martyrdom implies that the Beloved it prophesied was well known and respected. But, VoI seems to contradict both Marcionite, Valentinian, and orthodox views. The only thing that VoI seem to align with is the Pauline letters. So, to me it seems like whatever VoI represents, its some view from prior to the writing of any Gospels, notwithstanding potential later interpolations. But, I don't necessarily see a need to consider any of VoI to be interpolations. And Martyrdom of Isaiah has nothing to do with Jesus, so how does it relate?
The Martyrdom, he posits, was composed in the second century in response to authorities clamping down on visions. The visionaries wanted to save their practices and their VoI document (6-11) that they had inherited from towards the end of the first century -- that's pretty standard early dating.

The Martyrdom was composed later in the second century --- it was attached to the earlier VoI as their flagship visionary document that they wanted to preserve against the authorities. There is no question, is there, that in the chapters 5-11 we find attacks on church authorities? It has been customary to say that these verses were a latter interpolation but that is debatable in N's view.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by neilgodfrey »

N points to Ignatius as evidence of ecclesiastical authorities seeking to clamp down on docetic ideas in Antioch -- the region that N posits for the AI.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

Post by perseusomega9 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:05 pm N points to Ignatius as evidence of ecclesiastical authorities seeking to clamp down on docetic ideas in Antioch -- the region that N posits for the AI.
I feel bad you have to do the brunt of the reporting since this is an Italian volume which you painstakingly worked through, but is this traditional Ignatius dating or just Ignatius in general regardless of date?
Post Reply