Passages that show Paul thought Jesus was pre-existent?

[MrMacSon]

I don't think the issue of whether G.Mark preceded Marcion's Evangelion or the date of Paul's letter have any bearing (though whether Paul's letters were edited in the Marcionite community might)

This has an impact because you have another chronology of the earliest sources and therefore you have to reconcile the Marcion hypothesis with the dating of the other texts;

I don't think the issue of whether G.Mark preceded Marcion's Evangelion or the date of Paul's letter have any bearing (though whether Paul's letters were edited in the Marcionite community might)

This has an impact on the dating of texts like Mark, Matthew, Ascension of Isaiahx or Paul.
You know this very well.

It's almost certain that G.Matthew, G.Luke and G.John post date G.Mark.

It's likely that G.Matthew, G.Luke and G.John also post-date G.Marcion.

Neither of these scenarios depend on the relative dating and thus relative priority of G.Mark and G.Marcion.
Nor do they depend on the relative dating of the Pauline letters - ie. relative to G.Mark - except, perhaps, if the Pauline epistles are [mostly or all] contemporaneous with G.Mark or G.Marcion.

x whether G.Mark preceded Marcion's Evangelion (or vice versa) is unlikely to have any bearing on the date/s of the Ascension of Isaiah

[perseusomega9]

I don't think the issue of whether G.Mark preceded Marcion's Evangelion or the date of Paul's letter have any bearing (though whether Paul's letters were edited in the Marcionite community might)

This has an impact because you have another chronology of the earliest sources and therefore you have to reconcile the Marcion hypothesis with the dating of the other texts;

I don't think the issue of whether G.Mark preceded Marcion's Evangelion or the date of Paul's letter have any bearing (though whether Paul's letters were edited in the Marcionite community might)

This has an impact on the dating of texts like Mark, Matthew, Ascension of Isaiahx or Paul.
You know this very well.

It's almost certain that G.Matthew, G.Luke and G.John post date G.Mark.

It's likely that G.Matthew, G.Luke and G.John also post-date G.Marcion.

Neither of these scenarios depend on the relative dating and thus relative priority of G.Mark and G.Marcion.
Nor do they depend on the relative dating of the Pauline letters - ie. relative to G.Mark - except, perhaps, if the Pauline epistles are [mostly or all] contemporaneous with G.Mark or G.Marcion.

x whether G.Mark preceded Marcion's Evangelion may not have any bearing on the date of the Ascension of Isaiah

This is where I am

[MrMacSon]

the relative dating of the Pauline letters - ie. relative to G.Mark

The proposition and supporting arguments that Mark's Jesus is based on the Pauline Paul seem/s reasonable

• a propostion put forward by rg price and now, it seems, by David Oliver Smith (at least)

[neilgodfrey]

1 the infancy narrative in G.Matthew? The fact that it's in Matthew and not the Asc. of Isaiah suggests G.Matthew could well be a later, further advance in the narrative.

AOI XI is a brief summary of the birth of Jesus (based on Matthew) since the ascension of Isaiah is intended to tell the life of Jesus before his incarnation. Not his stay on earth. This is the reason why AOI XI is rightly called "the pocket gospel".
This strongly suggests that AOI is based on the infancy narrative in Matthew which it loosely summarizes.

All of that is the standard line in the English language scholarship but I no longer accept it as quickly as I once did. That AoI XI is based on Matthew is open to question, I think. As for the AoI "intending" to tell the life of Jesus before his incarnation -- we actually learn next to nothing about his pre-incarnate life. It is about his descent and the reason for that descent -- or maybe that's what you were meaning anyway and I've misunderstood your point. Whether he is even "incarnate" is an open question in AoI 11, too.

It is possible to interpret AoI 11as something other than a summary of Matthew's nativity scene. It elaborates in detail and arranges settings that are entirely absent from Matthew and difficult to explain if it is in fact summarizing Matthew. I gave a few examples in the previous post. I'm not insisting on any particular interpretation -- only wanting to point out that the common view we have read may not be the last word.

I don't think the issue of whether G.Mark preceded Marcion's Evangelion or the date of Paul's letter have any bearing (though whether Paul's letters were edited in the Marcionite community might)

This has an impact on the dating of texts like Mark, Matthew, Ascension of Isaiah or Paul.
You know this very well.

Oi, go easy. "Know this very well"? That's not my quote. You have misattributed someone else's words to me. But I have been entirely sincere in my exchanges and wonder if they have been read with a tone that I never intended.

I wonder if we are getting sidetracked from the original point. I threw the AoI into the ring only to suggest that a human "birth" of a pre-existent being was not an impossible notion -- particularly in a context where certain Jewish writings appear to assume that pre-existent forms of patriarchs and Moses could be born in the flesh.

And I answered you that the ascension of Isaiah is not necessarily relevant since the passage (Chapter XI) in question is suspected by the majority of scholars, to have been interpolated late using Matthew. I don't see the problem in bringing up the subject?

No problem. Wonder if it might be better in a separate thread. I was only trying to get clear in my mind the main issue we are discussing.

I am still not sure what is meant by "the Marcion hypothesis", sorry. Now I have to add that I don't know what the "Mark hypothesis" is, either.

Why so much irony Neil? I don't understand what your irony is doing here.
Don't you know what the Marcion hypothesis is? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ospels.svg

The Markan hypothesis ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcan_priority

Moreover, you know that English is not my native language. I hope you won't go further into irony and point out my grammatical and spelling mistakes in your next post.

Okay, Sinouhe,... I do detect some heat here. You have misread me and quite badly, I think. I have no reason to be twisting anything against you. I was entirely sincere in my question. I thought we could engage in a cordial and friendly discussion. (And I was for a long time not aware that English was not your first language -- it took me some time to realize that, sorry.)

No, I really did not know what you meant by Marcion hypothesis or Marcan hypothesis. Sorry you took my words as ironical. But when you point to Klinghardt's Marcion hypothesis, I can understand what you are referring to now. I assume there are various hypotheses out there about the place of Marcion in Gospel "trajectories" etc. Ditto for Mark's place in the "synoptic problem".

Ah, if only the relevant academy would follow the sound principles of dating and source analysis as the classicists and historians. The consensus, I fear, is based on circularity. I prefer to work with the methods of the (non-biblical) historians.

Christian theologians have many faults and are really biased. I see no argument, however, that would lead me to reject Paul's first century epistles.

We disagree. Perhaps it would be a good topic in a separate thread. I have attempted to raise this question of methods a couple of times but those attempts have tended to fall flat, from memory. (It's not about "attacking" or "blaming" Christian theologians. They have inherited certain assumptions and methods and have rarely considered alternatives or understood the potential relevance of other methods. There are institutional reasons for that but that's another topic.)

These oddities could well indicate that the author of AoI was unaware of Matthew's explanatory narrative.

The oddities between the beginning of AOI and chapter XI are easily explained if we assume that it is an interpolation.

That would need to be argued.

If I understand your reasoning, you are invoking a hypothetical and unknown source to explain the similarities and differences between Matthew and AOI? I see a lot of similarities and differences between Luke and Mark, between Mark and Matthew, between John and Mark. Yet it is obvious that they are related. I think the same about AOI XI and Matthew 1.

No, I did not invoke a hypothetical or unknown source to explain the differences -- or at least I was not meaning to give that impression. The differences I pointed out, I tried to suggest, are not explicable as attempts to abbreviate or modify Matthew's narrative. They come from a different focus and set of narrative motifs entirely. And that this is so is supported by a comparison with the other "parallel" between them, the scene of the crucifixion.

The hypothetical source is the conclusion, not the precondition, of my argument. The similarities are most economically explained -- in the context of the specific differences that I have pointed out as not being in touch with Matthew at all -- by hypothesizing a common source. The argument itself is an analysis of the differences and attempts to explain them. Is Joseph and Mary's initial residence at Bethlehem and Joseph "coming into his lot" an abridgment or response to Matthew or an independent adaptation of a common source? What of Jesus being crucified by a king?

But I have absolutely no interest in a heated argument. I'm truly sorry you have interpreted my posts in that way. I guess it's time for me to back out of this discussion.

[schillingklaus]

MacDSon is only spreading the usual apologist propaganda. (Markan Prioritism) Others know that Mark's gospel is nowhere near early but dependent on lost common source gospels.

[Sinouhe]

1 the infancy narrative in G.Matthew? The fact that it's in Matthew and not the Asc. of Isaiah suggests G.Matthew could well be a later, further advance in the narrative.

AOI XI is a brief summary of the birth of Jesus (based on Matthew) since the Ascension of Isaiah is intended to tell the life of Jesus before his incarnation.a Not his stay on earth. This is the reason why AOI XI is rightly called "the pocket gospel".b
This strongly suggests that AOI is based on the infancy narrative in Matthew which it loosely summarizes.

a That first sentence is a non-sequitur ie. since the first premise does not follow the second. It's illogical.

b What it's called is beside the point, especially being based on faulty logic.

That "AoI XI is a brief summary of the birth of Jesus (based on Matthew)" is mere supposition (or merely an assertion or perhaps a proposition). Based on tradition and other faulty logic.

Aren't you playing with words here ?
This is not very relevant. So I'll try to make a perfect sentence in English that will better summarize my thought. And I'll stop there.

You :

"The fact that it's in Matthew and not the Asc. of Isaiah suggests G.Matthew could well be a later, further advance in the narrative".

Me : The fact that AOI appears to be a brief summary of the infancy narrative from Matthew suggests that it is a brief summary inserted into a text that was intended to tell of JESUS before his incarnation, not his earthly life.

I hope this is clearer. If it is not, I can do it for you in French.

[Sinouhe]

But I have absolutely no interest in a heated argument. I'm truly sorry you have interpreted my posts in that way. I guess it's time for me to back out of this discussion.

I really thought you were being ironic when you said that you don't know what the Marcion or Mark hypothesis is. It was obvious to me that it was Marcionite or Marcan priority.
I have no desire to argue on an internet forum so I am the one who is withdrawing from the conversation. I noticed anyway that some topics were sensitive here.

All the best.

[MrMacSon]

You :

"The fact that it's in Matthew and not the Asc. of Isaiah suggests G.Matthew could well be a later, further advance in the narrative".

Me : The fact that AOI appears to be a brief summary of the infancy narrative from Matthew suggests that it is a brief summary inserted into a text that was intended to tell of JESUS before his incarnation, not his earthly life.

I hope this is clearer. If it is not, I can do it for you in French.

• I'm with Neil:
  

  
  That AoI XI is based on Matthew is open to question, I think. As for the AoI "intending" to tell the life of Jesus before his incarnation -- we actually learn next to nothing about his pre-incarnate life. It is about his descent and the reason for that descent -- or maybe that's what you were meaning anyway and I've misunderstood your point. Whether he is even "incarnate" is an open question in AoI 11, too.
  
  It is possible to interpret AoI 11as something other than a summary of Matthew's nativity scene. It elaborates in detail and arranges settings that are entirely absent from Matthew and difficult to explain if it is in fact summarizing Matthew. I gave a few examples in the previous post. I'm not insisting on any particular interpretation -- only wanting to point out that the common view we have read may not be the last word.
  
  

• So I'll stick with:

  That "AoI XI is a brief summary of the birth of Jesus (based on Matthew)" is mere supposition (or merely an assertion or perhaps a proposition): [mostly] based on tradition ...