Paul and the Vision of Isaiah

[rgprice]

@Neil yeah. A big part of the problem also is that its very difficult to tell what may be part of later redactions and not. Who known how many layers of revisions the text we now posses had gone through? But certainly, many of the ideas seem more primitive than the canonical works.

Just to clarify and ensure we are on the same page -- I didn't mean to say that the AI is composed of different layers taken at different times from any of the above (Ode, Rev, etc), nor even do I mean to say that the AI is borrowing from those texts. What I meant -- and this is taken from my reading of just a part of Norelli's commentary -- is that I see whoever was responsible for the AI as embracing the beliefs, concepts, etc of those who also produced those other works. They very likely existed at least as early as the first century.

I agree, but for me the big issue is how it relates to Paul. On the one hand, I wouldn't think that AI would be so important to understand because, as you say, it may not have a directly linear relationship to the other materials. However, the fact that the savior of AI is so much closer to the savior of Paul is very significant. If we are trying to understand what "Jesus" was Paul talking about, where did his ideas come from, how did he envision Jesus and his sacrifice, etc., then, AI seems to get us much closer to finding answers to those questions.

This is why Roger's post on Simon got my interest. I'd read AI many times and noted the similarities between its ideas those of the Gospels, and how it could represent an evolution of ideas, etc., but I hadn't really made the connection before that the way the Pauline letters describe Jesus is almost identical to the way that AI described the Beloved, in ways that are different from the canonicals.

[MrMacSon]

... the fact that the savior of AI is so much closer to the savior of Paul is very significant. If we are trying to understand what "Jesus" was Paul talking about, where did his ideas come from, how did he envision Jesus and his sacrifice, etc., then, AI seems to get us much closer to finding answers to those questions

Some of the Valentinian stuff may be worth considering eg. the Gospel of Truth; I listened to David Brakke talk about the savior in it in his Great Course on 'Gnosticism' on Audible recently and thought it might be worth summarising or even transcribing wrt to AI (and maybe the NT), so might go back to it sooner rather than later

[rgprice]

Another, tangentially related thing I just realized: I had considered Luke's account of the birth of Jesus to be anti-Marcionite, but it may actually be in opposition to the birth account we find in AI. Firstly, the birth of Jesus is equated with the birth of John, to indicate that both are natural births. Both are granted by God, John being born to a mother too old to give birth (like Abraham's wife) and Jesus to a virgin. But the births are natural.

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”
...
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

Compared to:

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 that 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.

Who is reacting to who? I think clearly, one of the narratives is consciously addressing the other.

[lsayre]

Could Peter and Paul be but two aspects of Simon Magus? Perhaps something akin to the two sides of a coin. Isn't there a Patristic reference to Simon being OK with being called by just about any name one wishes to label him by?

[rgprice]

Could Peter and Paul be but two aspects of Simon Magus? Perhaps something akin to the two sides of a coin. Isn't there a Patristic reference to Simon being OK with being called by just about any name one wishes to label him by?

To some extent possibly. I think there were probably two different real people at some point. But clearly the identity of Peter and Paul got merged and mixed together over time. In Acts Peter is made to be more like Paul, taking over some of Paul's teachings, doing things that were purportedly done by Paul in his letters, etc. Likewise Paul was made to take on the positions of proto-orthodoxy, which seem to have been more attributed to Peter. Then we have the stories that both of them went to Rome and founded ministries there.

But, I think that virtually everything written about Peter is just fabricated. There seems to have been some real Peter/Cephas, but we know essentially nothing real about him. Even the idea that he was more conservative is conjecture. It's possible that even many of the mentions of him in the Pauline letters are actually either Marcionite or proto-orthodox interpolations, so who really knows anything about him? I'd say that everything written about him in the Gospel is just total fiction.

I don't know necessarily that anyone consciously conceived of Peter as an aspect of Simon, but its certainly possible that accounts associated with Simon were taken over by Peter. And of course Peter has epic battles against Simon in the Acts of Peter, where he essentially is portrayed as being comparable, but superior, to Simon.

[Giuseppe]

I don't know necessarily that anyone consciously conceived of Peter as an aspect of Simon

note that in the Fourth Gospel Peter is described as the "standing one"

Meanwhile, Simon Peter was still standing there warming himself

(18:25)

...just while he denies the Jesus who is suffering. Is there some irony with Simon Magus being exalted as the 'Standing one' ?

[rgprice]

Another way to possibly interpret the messianic secret in Mark, is as a statement to indicate that it was men who were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, not demons.

Vision of Isaiah essentially places the blame on the "lord of this world", Belial,, who did not recognize Christ. But according to Mark, the forces of Belial did recognize Christ, so it was not Belial who was responsible for the crucifixion. Rather, it was the humans beings, most specifically the Jews. This is reinforced when the Roman centurion recognizes Jesus as the son of God after the crucifixion.

So I think this does indicate that Mark is reacting to and commenting on the narrative we also see in Vision of Isaiah, (whether he knew if from that document or otherwise). And this is because Vision of Isaiah is a Jewish story, in which it is not Jews who are blamed for the crucifixion of Christ, but rather Belial. Mark says "No, it wasn't demons that did this, it was the Jews".

[Giuseppe]

There would be some analogy with Klinghardt's view that Mark removed Herod from the story of the trial he derived from Marcion (where both Herod and Pilate crucify Jesus).

In a similar way, you think that Mark removed the "king" from the trial (I assume the term "trial", here), found in Vision of Isaiah, replacing the "king" with Pilate.

Does this say us that both Mark and Marcion were based on Vision of Isaiah? My point is that the Vision of Isaiah obliged Mark to remove the "king", and obliged in about the same time Marcion to introduce both Pilate (inherited from Mark) and Herod (as the "king" inherited by the Vision of Isaiah).

[Irish1975]

Could Peter and Paul be but two aspects of Simon Magus? Perhaps something akin to the two sides of a coin. Isn't there a Patristic reference to Simon being OK with being called by just about any name one wishes to label him by?

I don't know necessarily that anyone consciously conceived of Peter as an aspect of Simon, but its certainly possible that accounts associated with Simon were taken over by Peter. And of course Peter has epic battles against Simon in the Acts of Peter, where he essentially is portrayed as being comparable, but superior, to Simon.

Not to be overlooked is the fact that Peter is introduced simply as "Simon" in all four Gospels, and (apparently) in Marcion's Gospel.

In gJohn, he is "Simon son of John," and originally a disciple of John the Baptist.

[rgprice]

@Gisueppe

Interesting proposition.

@Irish

Also interesting. Is it possible that in an earlier narrative Jesus ONLY meets Simon, and Mark is reacting to that narrative, indicating that Simon was actually Peter. He's equating the two in order to have his Peter appropriate the original role of Simon. That was actually kind of typical. We see this in other stories. Things that stand out to me in ancient literature and its interpretation are:

1) When it appears that an individual has many personalities and says contradictory things and was in many different places, these are indications that we are really dealing with multiple writers, not one person who was constantly changing their mind and going all over the place, etc.

2) When people are given multiple names or equated with multiple names, this is an indication of a story that is appropriating another story, in which the new writer has a character overtake the part of another character. In fact we see this in the "Old Testament" where God (El/Elohim/El Elyon) is equated with the Lord (Yahweh). Exodus 6 “2 I am the Lord [YHWH]. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty [El-Shaddai], but by my name the Lord [YHWH] I did not make myself fully known to them."

This happens in Exodus because the Deuteronomistic reformers were replacing all others Gods with Yahweh, and attributing the qualities of other god to Yahweh, and telling people who used to worship other gods that they were really worshiping Yahweh all along, and so to do that now.

So.. yeah, that seems kind of obvious and makes some sense. When Mark says that Simon was renamed to Peter, is Mark actually appropriating a different Simon? Further, is Mark appropriating a narrative in which the companion of Jesus was Simon?