I wonder if there were Gnostic Jews who conflated Belial with the Creator? I don't know of such evidence, but it might seem to make sense. Possibly there were Jews like those at Qumran who considered Belial/Satan to be the "lord of this world", but still considered the God of Moses to be the Highest God and the Creator. Then perhaps "Gnosticism" was the change to seeing Belial as the Creator, truly the "god of the world", and then to a belief that Belial must have tricked Moses, leading the Jews onto mistakenly worshiping Belial? I don't know, I'm just trying to imagine some things.
I mean, it is odd that there are so many Qumranic writings that identify Belial/Satan as the "lord of this world" and Ascension of Isaiah does this too. But how can you be "lord of this world" if the world is created by the Highest God? Is the Highest God not the ruler? It seems like a theological viewpoint that would have been particularly open to dispute. It seems like a possibly "entry point" for Gnosticism.
Paul and the Vision of Isaiah
Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah
What about this from John:
This may have nothing to do the narrative of Isaiah, but maybe there is some relationship?
John 12:
37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
This may have nothing to do the narrative of Isaiah, but maybe there is some relationship?
Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah
I wonder about John 3:13:
It is directed against the Vision of Isaiah, really against any possibility that a Jewish prophet could be ascended to heaven to know the highest god, not YHWH).
Since proto-John is both anti-YHWH and anti-Mark, then it follows that the Vision of Isaiah is pro-YHWH and so also Mark.
I would like to hear more about proto-John being anti-Mark.
No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven
It is directed against the Vision of Isaiah, really against any possibility that a Jewish prophet could be ascended to heaven to know the highest god, not YHWH).
Since proto-John is both anti-YHWH and anti-Mark, then it follows that the Vision of Isaiah is pro-YHWH and so also Mark.
I would like to hear more about proto-John being anti-Mark.
Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah
Both the Apocryphon of John and the Vision of Isaiah contain similar and somewhat contradictory statements. In AJ, we are first told that the Creator announced that there was another god, but then told that the Creator was ignorant of any other gods.
In VI, we are told that the the "gods of the world" have said that there are no other gods beside them, but then they recognize the Lord, who comes from the God of the seventh heaven.
Regardless, both the demiurgical AJ and the non-demiurgical VI make a very similar point about the "god(s) of the world" not acknowledging the Highest God. In AJ it is clear that the "god of the world' is the Creator of the world. In VI things are less clear. I am not clear on the theology of the Qumranic group who also stated that Belair/Satan was the "lord of this world". How did Satan become the "lord of the world"? Why wasn't God Almighty the lord of the world? But there is a similar theme here, where the celestial rulers of the world do not acknowledging the existence of the Highest God.
While there are some differences, it does seem clear that there were multiple strains of Christ worship that viewed the role of Christ to be "defeating the god(s)/ruler(s) of this world". Yet in the Letter to the Hebrews and orthodox theology, the role of Christ is a sacrifice for the eternal atonement of sins. It seems to me that the "secrecy" theme, which is also evident in Mark, is related to the idea of defeating the ruler of this world. And this to me seems more in line with Pauline theology. The Pauline letters are more about how Jesus had overcome death and will defeat the forces of Satan. There is this statement in Romans:
But scholars have made the case that this is a non-Pauline interpolation and it is unattested in Marcion.
In VI, we are told that the the "gods of the world" have said that there are no other gods beside them, but then they recognize the Lord, who comes from the God of the seventh heaven.
Regardless, both the demiurgical AJ and the non-demiurgical VI make a very similar point about the "god(s) of the world" not acknowledging the Highest God. In AJ it is clear that the "god of the world' is the Creator of the world. In VI things are less clear. I am not clear on the theology of the Qumranic group who also stated that Belair/Satan was the "lord of this world". How did Satan become the "lord of the world"? Why wasn't God Almighty the lord of the world? But there is a similar theme here, where the celestial rulers of the world do not acknowledging the existence of the Highest God.
Apocryphon of John:
And when he saw the creation which surrounds him, and the multitude of the angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.' But by announcing this he indicated to the angels who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous?
...
"And the arrogant one took a power from his mother. For he was ignorant, thinking that there existed no other except his mother alone. And when he saw the multitude of the angels which he had created, then he exalted himself above them.
And when he saw the creation which surrounds him, and the multitude of the angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.' But by announcing this he indicated to the angels who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous?
...
"And the arrogant one took a power from his mother. For he was ignorant, thinking that there existed no other except his mother alone. And when he saw the multitude of the angels which he had created, then he exalted himself above them.
Vision of Isaiah:
12. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world, and the world that is dominated by them:
13. For they have denied Me and said: "We alone are and there is none beside us."
...
24. And there was much sorrow there, while they said: "How did our Lord descend in our midst, and we perceived not the glory [which has been upon Him], which we see has been upon Him from the sixth heaven?"
12. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world, and the world that is dominated by them:
13. For they have denied Me and said: "We alone are and there is none beside us."
...
24. And there was much sorrow there, while they said: "How did our Lord descend in our midst, and we perceived not the glory [which has been upon Him], which we see has been upon Him from the sixth heaven?"
While there are some differences, it does seem clear that there were multiple strains of Christ worship that viewed the role of Christ to be "defeating the god(s)/ruler(s) of this world". Yet in the Letter to the Hebrews and orthodox theology, the role of Christ is a sacrifice for the eternal atonement of sins. It seems to me that the "secrecy" theme, which is also evident in Mark, is related to the idea of defeating the ruler of this world. And this to me seems more in line with Pauline theology. The Pauline letters are more about how Jesus had overcome death and will defeat the forces of Satan. There is this statement in Romans:
Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
But scholars have made the case that this is a non-Pauline interpolation and it is unattested in Marcion.
Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah
So here is my major question about the Vision of Isaiah. Does the vision of Isaiah relate to the Suffering Servant?
Almost everyone sees the Vision of Isaiah as necessarily being "about Jesus" and thus a prediction from an ancient prophet about a recent issue. This would be typical, so it is understandable. However, the Martyrdom of Isaiah doesn't really relate to the present (yes a few people have tried to argue that its an encoded story about the Teacher of Righteousness, but this isn't widely accepted.)
What if the Vision of Isaiah was simply a story that provided a broader narrative around the Suffering Servant? I had already been viewing the Christ Hymn from Philippians as identifying the Suffering Servant with the "Word of God".
What if Vision of Isaiah is providing narrative around this idea that the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53 is a prophecy from Isaiah about a savior? Maybe that makes sense, maybe not, but it seems like an intriguing possibility. Why is Isaiah the prophet featured in this story? Why does the Christ hymn seem to share to many traits with Vision of Isaiah and Isaiah 53?
Almost everyone sees the Vision of Isaiah as necessarily being "about Jesus" and thus a prediction from an ancient prophet about a recent issue. This would be typical, so it is understandable. However, the Martyrdom of Isaiah doesn't really relate to the present (yes a few people have tried to argue that its an encoded story about the Teacher of Righteousness, but this isn't widely accepted.)
What if the Vision of Isaiah was simply a story that provided a broader narrative around the Suffering Servant? I had already been viewing the Christ Hymn from Philippians as identifying the Suffering Servant with the "Word of God".
“the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made” (The Special Laws I)
“the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being” (Questions and answers on Genesis II)
“for he is called the authority and the name of God and the Word, and man according to God's image” (On the Confusion of Tongues)
“[the] Word is continually a suppliant [(figure making a humble plea to someone in power or authority)] to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race” (Who is the Heir of Divine Things)
“Father of the world… [provides as an intermediary] his Son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins” (On the Life of Moses II)
“the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being” (Questions and answers on Genesis II)
“for he is called the authority and the name of God and the Word, and man according to God's image” (On the Confusion of Tongues)
“[the] Word is continually a suppliant [(figure making a humble plea to someone in power or authority)] to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race” (Who is the Heir of Divine Things)
“Father of the world… [provides as an intermediary] his Son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins” (On the Life of Moses II)
What if Vision of Isaiah is providing narrative around this idea that the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53 is a prophecy from Isaiah about a savior? Maybe that makes sense, maybe not, but it seems like an intriguing possibility. Why is Isaiah the prophet featured in this story? Why does the Christ hymn seem to share to many traits with Vision of Isaiah and Isaiah 53?
-
neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah
I suggest a heavy argument against such an idea can be found in the quite divergent viewpoints of the nature and means of salvation between the Suffering Servant and VoI texts.
If the Suffering Servant is read as a tool of salvation for Israel, as the one upon whom the people's sins are placed, then this must surely be seen as quite distinct from how salvation works in the VoI.
In the Vision of Isaiah, salvation comes about entirely in the demon realm and by means, entirely and exclusively, of the demons being tricked into killing the Beloved so he could rescue the righteous from Sheol. There is no vicarious bearing of sins on the part of the Beloved as there is in a Suffering Servant interpretation.
Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah
@Neil
Yeah, I agree. I had the same reservation as well. And see my prior post about these two divergent themes in Christian lore. The orthodox view reads more closely to the Suffering Servant, while the Gnostics and VI share the view of the savior defeating the "lord of this world" (whoever that may be). Its interesting that 1 Cor 15 shares the view of VI and Gnostics that Christ was to defeat the authorities.
Yeah, I agree. I had the same reservation as well. And see my prior post about these two divergent themes in Christian lore. The orthodox view reads more closely to the Suffering Servant, while the Gnostics and VI share the view of the savior defeating the "lord of this world" (whoever that may be). Its interesting that 1 Cor 15 shares the view of VI and Gnostics that Christ was to defeat the authorities.
Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah
Was Philo a closet supporter (or perhaps even the initiator) of a 'Two Powers in Heaven' 'revival' movement from which Christianity eventually (and potentially post Philo) evolved? If so, Philo may be even closer to the root of Christianity than whomever was the original Paul.
Last edited by lsayre on Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thoughts on Philo & Therapeutae
Are we certain Philo Judaeus is a "binitarian"?
A number of Church Fathers assumed the Therapeutae were Early Xians. IF we consider them both real and possible predecessors, a Date for their philosophy may prove useful.
I suppose Philo wrote DVC c.15 AD as a younger man and advocate: that he had studied w/ them c.5 BC and this writing is a recollection probably reworked at a later date. At Ch29 he indicates the antiquity of their philosophy, which may regress the 'Four-fold Hypostases of God Schema' back to c.100 BC. (Note: If it's not a clarification/elaboration, Philo may be contrasting a Four-fold Schema which was a popular alternative at the time of his writing.) Philo approves of the Therapeutae, but he seems to distance himself somewhat; he also mentions the dyadic "Father and Creator" in this work. This is inconsistent but may reflect a more conventional understanding or his own preference. At the very least in DVC competing Judaic allegorical systems are apparent, c.25 AD. Unfortunately (?) DVC raises many theological questions, however, which lack certain answers.
As stated here unequivocally, 'Being' is the 'God' that the Pythagorean Therapeutae worship. However, we need to remember that elsewhere Philo indicates other formulations, definite examples of 3-fold or 4-fold iterations of 'God'. This is illustrative of the Philonic context, a caution against gross oversimplification or blatant misunderstanding.
The Four-fold Hypostases of 'God':
1. Primordial Being: Unknown/Unbegotten Absolute Being
2. Monad (Logos): First Son, Creator, Author
3. Divine Reality: Noetic Paradigm of Creation
4. Henad: Cosmic Reality (Creation: 'Heaven and Earth')
A number of Church Fathers assumed the Therapeutae were Early Xians. IF we consider them both real and possible predecessors, a Date for their philosophy may prove useful.
I suppose Philo wrote DVC c.15 AD as a younger man and advocate: that he had studied w/ them c.5 BC and this writing is a recollection probably reworked at a later date. At Ch29 he indicates the antiquity of their philosophy, which may regress the 'Four-fold Hypostases of God Schema' back to c.100 BC. (Note: If it's not a clarification/elaboration, Philo may be contrasting a Four-fold Schema which was a popular alternative at the time of his writing.) Philo approves of the Therapeutae, but he seems to distance himself somewhat; he also mentions the dyadic "Father and Creator" in this work. This is inconsistent but may reflect a more conventional understanding or his own preference. At the very least in DVC competing Judaic allegorical systems are apparent, c.25 AD. Unfortunately (?) DVC raises many theological questions, however, which lack certain answers.
As stated here unequivocally, 'Being' is the 'God' that the Pythagorean Therapeutae worship. However, we need to remember that elsewhere Philo indicates other formulations, definite examples of 3-fold or 4-fold iterations of 'God'. This is illustrative of the Philonic context, a caution against gross oversimplification or blatant misunderstanding.
DVC 2: ἐπαιδεύθησαν θεραπεύειν #1: τὸ ὄν, ὃ καὶ #3: ἀγαθοῦ κρεῖττόν ἐστι καὶ #4 ἑνὸς εἰλικρινέστερον καὶ #2 μονάδος ἀρχεγονώτερον.
DVC 2: they are raised to worship 'Being' {#1: Προαρχή, Μονότης = Foresource, Monotes}, superior to 'The Good' {#3 Noetic Paradigm} and purer than 'The Unity' {#4 Ἑνότης The Henad: The All}, and primordial to 'The Monad' {#2 All-Source, One God}
DVC 2: they are raised to worship 'Being' {#1: Προαρχή, Μονότης = Foresource, Monotes}, superior to 'The Good' {#3 Noetic Paradigm} and purer than 'The Unity' {#4 Ἑνότης The Henad: The All}, and primordial to 'The Monad' {#2 All-Source, One God}
The Four-fold Hypostases of 'God':
1. Primordial Being: Unknown/Unbegotten Absolute Being
2. Monad (Logos): First Son, Creator, Author
3. Divine Reality: Noetic Paradigm of Creation
4. Henad: Cosmic Reality (Creation: 'Heaven and Earth')
Re: Paul and the Vision of Isaiah
Perhaps Christianity felt a need to back-date Jesus lifetime whereby to make it appear that Philo's conceptualizations with regard to 'two powers' came post, as opposed to coming pre-Jesus. And thereby to avoid some potentially serious embarrassment for the new Christian movement.
And perhaps Paul was invented as a (or the) founder of Christianity post the terminus of Philo's lifetime to the very same end. The Johannine community (or school) appears to have a closer affinity to Philo than for the Pauline community (or school), but that may have been by design also, wherein to further distance Philo from Christianity.
And perhaps Paul was invented as a (or the) founder of Christianity post the terminus of Philo's lifetime to the very same end. The Johannine community (or school) appears to have a closer affinity to Philo than for the Pauline community (or school), but that may have been by design also, wherein to further distance Philo from Christianity.