Passages that show Paul thought Jesus was pre-existent?

[neilgodfrey]

What do we make of the Ascension of Isaiah's account of the Beloved descending through the heavens to be "born" through Mary?

It seems a late development (after Paul) or an interpolation isn’t it ?

Even if a second hand was responsible for the "docetic" passage it nonetheless demonstrates that a "birth" through Mary was compatible with even a docetic interpretation of Jesus.

But Enrico Norelli in the scholarly edition of the AoI and related works presents a detailed analysis that concludes the birth and human(-like) career of Jesus was part of the original text. He addresses most of the English-language works we are familiar with but I haven't seen any work faulting his case yet. An explanation for the passage missing from some manuscripts is that an anti-docetist authority removed them.

[Sinouhe]

What do we make of the Ascension of Isaiah's account of the Beloved descending through the heavens to be "born" through Mary?

It seems a late development (after Paul) or an interpolation isn’t it ?

Even if a second hand was responsible for the "docetic" passage it nonetheless demonstrates that a "birth" through Mary was compatible with even a docetic interpretation of Jesus.

But Enrico Norelli in the scholarly edition of the AoI and related works presents a detailed analysis that concludes the birth and human(-like) career of Jesus was part of the original text. He addresses most of the English-language works we are familiar with but I haven't seen any work faulting his case yet. An explanation for the passage missing from some manuscripts is that an anti-docetist authority removed them.

Even if it is an authentic passage, it is a later text than Paul, when Christianity was not the same anymore. And I think also later than Mark and Matthew. Unless you think that it is this text that inspired Matthew's virgin birth and not the other way around?

[neilgodfrey]

What do we make of the Ascension of Isaiah's account of the Beloved descending through the heavens to be "born" through Mary?

It seems a late development (after Paul) or an interpolation isn’t it ?

Even if a second hand was responsible for the "docetic" passage it nonetheless demonstrates that a "birth" through Mary was compatible with even a docetic interpretation of Jesus.

But Enrico Norelli in the scholarly edition of the AoI and related works presents a detailed analysis that concludes the birth and human(-like) career of Jesus was part of the original text. He addresses most of the English-language works we are familiar with but I haven't seen any work faulting his case yet. An explanation for the passage missing from some manuscripts is that an anti-docetist authority removed them.

Even if it is an authentic passage, it is a later text than Paul, when Christianity was not the same anymore. And I think also later than Mark and Matthew. Unless you think that it is this text that inspired Matthew's virgin birth and not the other way around?

I think a pretty standard view, though not unanimous, is that AoI comes from around the turn of the century -- first to second, that is. But even so, if Christianity and "Judaism" don't really part ways until much later, might we not expect compatible concepts up until then?

I don't know if there was a straight line between Matthew's birth and that in AoI in either direction.

In the beginning the sources were without form and void, and darkness covered the deep.

[Sinouhe]

What do we make of the Ascension of Isaiah's account of the Beloved descending through the heavens to be "born" through Mary?

It seems a late development (after Paul) or an interpolation isn’t it ?

Even if a second hand was responsible for the "docetic" passage it nonetheless demonstrates that a "birth" through Mary was compatible with even a docetic interpretation of Jesus.

But Enrico Norelli in the scholarly edition of the AoI and related works presents a detailed analysis that concludes the birth and human(-like) career of Jesus was part of the original text. He addresses most of the English-language works we are familiar with but I haven't seen any work faulting his case yet. An explanation for the passage missing from some manuscripts is that an anti-docetist authority removed them.

Even if it is an authentic passage, it is a later text than Paul, when Christianity was not the same anymore. And I think also later than Mark and Matthew. Unless you think that it is this text that inspired Matthew's virgin birth and not the other way around?

I think a pretty standard view, though not unanimous, is that AoI comes from around the turn of the century -- first to second, that is. But even so, if Christianity and "Judaism" don't really part ways until much later, might we not expect compatible concepts up until then?

I don't know if there was a straight line between Matthew's birth and that in AoI in either direction.

In the beginning the sources were without form and void, and darkness covered the deep.

I read Norelli's book and found it unconvincing overall. It seems like an attempt to date this text to early Christianity to confirm that legends like Matthew's virgin birth were primitive ideas. In general I avoid giving too much importance to the ascension of Isaiah because it gives me the impression of being composite.

And I would be very surprised if the virginal conception was an idea already present at the time of Paul.

But, I consider Paul to be from the first century and Mark to be the first. I do not subscribe to the Marcion hypothesis. That's probably why…

[GakuseiDon]

Are there passages in 1 Enoch which I might have missed?

1 Enoch 62
7 For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,
And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,
And revealed him to the elect.

Thanks Sinouhe, I'll have a look at that. It's a passage Dunn doesn't refer to AFAICS. You've been very helpful, thanks again!

[neilgodfrey]

I read Norelli's book and found it unconvincing overall. It seems like an attempt to date this text to early Christianity to confirm that legends like Matthew's virgin birth were primitive ideas. In general I avoid giving too much importance to the ascension of Isaiah because it gives me the impression of being composite.

This book?

• Norelli, Enrico. L’Ascensione di Isaia : studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi. Bologna: EDB, 1994.

But, I consider Paul to be from the first century and Mark to be the first. I do not subscribe to the Marcion hypothesis. That's probably why…

I don't know what "the Marcion hypothesis" is in this context, sorry.

[MrMacSon]

What do we make of the Ascension of Isaiah's account of the Beloved descending through the heavens to be "born" through Mary?

It seems a late development (after Paul) or an interpolation isn’t it ?

The Ascension of Isaiah could be a unique, pre-canonical account.

And it could be arguable/debated whether the author of the Ascension of Isaiah intended for Mary to have *given birth* as a human normally would:

CHAPTER 11

1 AFTER this I saw, and the angel who spoke with me, who conducted me, said unto me: "Understand Isaiah, son of Amoz for for this purpose have I been sent from God."

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 May, 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, 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.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

---

eta:

Jesus’ birth is described as happening ‘straightaway’, in a manner that astonishes Mary (v. 8). No labour is mentioned; she simply ‘looks with her eyes’ and sees a ‘small child’ (vv. 8, 17). The language approximates what is found in a heavenly vision of the divine Son in the Coptic gnostic Apocryphon of John, wherein the seer recalls that ‘straightaway’ the heavens opened (20:19) and ‘behold, a little child appeared before me’ (21:4). Apparently, the idea is inspired by Isaiah 11:6–9, where ‘a little child’ features in utopian scenes of peace that symbolise the messianic age, which were read christologically in the second century by Irenaeus (Dem. 61) and Hippolytus (Elench. 6.42.2). The author’s choice of an Isaianic pseudonym indicates that the work is designed to be read in conjunction with Isaiah, and invites the attentive reader to notice such intertextual connections.

The possible influence of Isaiah 66:7–9 is also worth considering, since its image of personified Zion’s miraculously sudden birth—a figure for the swift restoration of the nation—signals divine saving action:

....Before she who was in labour gave birth,

....before the pain of her pangs came,

....she escaped and gave birth to a male.

The thought being developed there is that what seems implausible or even impossible—a swift return from Babylonian exile, a precipitous and painless birth—is nevertheless possible for God. A messianic reading of Isaiah 66:7 as a description of the messiah’s birth is attested in Targum Jonathan: ‘Before distress shall come upon her, she shall be delivered; before trembling shall come upon her, as pains upon a woman giving birth, her king shall be revealed.’

Irenaeus (Dem. 54) explicitly relates the prophecy to the inopinatus (‘sudden’ or ‘surprising’) manner of Jesus’ birth. It seems likely, then, that the Ascension of Isaiah’s portrait of Mary’s immediate and painless delivery is modelled on this Isaianic prophecy of the immediate and painless delivery of Zion, in order to signal its christological fulfillment. The logic is that Mary’s delivery is a special kind of delivery, because her son is no ordinary son; he is ‘the Lord Christ’ (4:13; 9:5, 17; 10:7).

Mary’s reaction to her sudden parturition is one of amazement: she is three times described as ‘astonished’ (Gǝʿǝz: ደንገፀ, dangaḍa). The term is theologically loaded ...

---

Emily Gathergood, Special Delivery: The Hidden Birth of Jesus in the Ascension of Isaiah 11
https://www.ancientjewreview.com/read/2 ... -isaiah-11

[MrMacSon]

Using language similar to that of 1 En. 48, ch. 62 reads:

• “For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High preserved him in the presence of his might, and he revealed him to the chosen. And the congregation of the chosen and the holy will be sown; and all the chosen will stand in his presence on that day” (62:7–8).

This statement extends the metaphor by stating explicitly from whom the Son of Man was hidden. The Son of Man was hidden not just “before the world was created” as 48:7 claims, but “from the beginning” of creation he was hidden from those who are not chosen, “the kings and the mighty and all who possess the earth” (62:3–6). It should also be noted that nowhere in BP is it explicitly stated that the preexistent messiah figure was created by the divine figure. It is only stated that the messiah figure “was hidden” and that the divine figure “revealed him.” This is a question for BP that may find its resolution by associating the messiah figure with wisdom.

Waddell, The Messiah: a Comparative Study of the Enochic Son of Man and the Pauline Kyrios, p.63

---

[ BP = Book of the Parables of Enoch ]

The chosen for Jesus of Nazareth would, of course, include those who were narrated as seeing Him post-resurrection. But it could also include those present at his crucifixion and perhaps also those present at his trial and even those at his passion.

The association with Wisdom is interesting too:

3.1.5 Association with Wisdom

The messiah figure is closely associated with Wisdom in BP. In what appears to be the redaction of an earlier wisdom tradition,44 the author(s) of BP claimed that Wisdom’s dwelling was in heaven:

..Wisdom did not find a place where she might dwell,
....so her dwelling was in the heaven.
..Wisdom went forth to dwell among the sons of men,
....but she did not find a dwelling.
..Wisdom returned to her place,
....and sat down among the angels.

..Iniquity went forth from her chambers,
....those whom she did not seek she found,
..and she dwelt among them
....like rain in a desert
....and dew in a thirsty land.
....(1 Enoch 42:1–2)

... “Wisdom went forth” is more suggestive of the Hellenistic point of view that wisdom was an “emanation” of the divine figure, than the claim of the LXX that wisdom was created: “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for his works” (.., Prov 8:22).

The authors of BP appear to have taken a polemical tone (see §2.2.2) against the Zadokite–Sadducean claim that wisdom resides in the Torah: “Wisdom did not find a place where she might dwell, so her dwelling was in the heaven.”

---

44 The text of 1 En. 42:1–2 gives the appearance of having been appended to the end of the first parable of BP (1 En. 37–44), along with a segment on astronomical secrets (1 En. 41:3–8; 43:1–4; 44:1), all of which do not appear to fit the rest of the narrative of the first parable.

[Sinouhe]

I read Norelli's book and found it unconvincing overall. It seems like an attempt to date this text to early Christianity to confirm that legends like Matthew's virgin birth were primitive ideas. In general I avoid giving too much importance to the ascension of Isaiah because it gives me the impression of being composite.

This book?

• Norelli, Enrico. L’Ascensione di Isaia : studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi. Bologna: EDB, 1994.

This one :

6B115FA2-D154-4CD2-8670-034F84B671EB.jpeg (157.46 KiB) Viewed 602 times

But, I consider Paul to be from the first century and Mark to be the first. I do not subscribe to the Marcion hypothesis. That's probably why…

[quote=Sinouhe post_id
I don't know what "the Marcion hypothesis" is in this context, sorry.

Those who support the Marcion hypothesis do not have the same dating for Paul's letters as those who support the Markan priority, do they?

[Sinouhe]

The Ascension of Isaiah could be a unique, pre-canonical account.

And it could be arguable/debated whether the author of the Ascension of Isaiah intended for Mary to have *given birth* as a human normally would:

Yes, there are some interesting verses. The descent from heaven also for the crucifixion obviously. But there are verses which seem to be not at all primitive and which call for caution concerning the dating.

Capture d’écran 2022-09-05 à 08.58.43.png (176.56 KiB) Viewed 588 times

I really don't think that these elements of fiction are the result of oral tradition so there are only two logical hypotheses to all these legendary elements in common :

- either Matthew depends on the ascension of Isaiah.
- Or Isaiah's ascension depends on Matthew.

And given the structure of the infancy narrative and all the details that refer to the prophets, I obviously think that it was Matthew who inspired Isaiah's ascension and not the other way around.

In addition, Joseph is totally absent from Mark. The birth in Bethlehem too.
It was an addition from Matthew to Mark. Nazareth is also totally absent from Paul. It appears for the first time in the Gospels.
The clarification that Mary is a woman of David's descent also seems to be an element to silence the controversy concerning the Davidic descent of Jesus when he is not the son of Joseph. This is in any case absent from Matthew.

There are too many uncertainties with this text and this particular passage seems to be late and dependent on the late gospel of Matthew.
That is why I prefer to be cautious and not use this text in my reasoning.