Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8246
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:27 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:(What does expauerunt mean?)
Turn the u into a v: expaverunt, which means something like "they were afraid/amazed".
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:37 am

neilgodfrey wrote:So far it appears Norelli's judgement of the originality of the nativity scene is hangs on what the preceding text leads one to expect. My question is that if only the nativity episode fits the bill, then that would lessen the significance of the descent and ascent. I would have thought the detail with which the descent in particular is described tells us that in the author's mind that is indeed a most powerful event, bridging the gap between the lost and God and ending the power of the demons to bind the lost.

Is Norelli letting his Catholicism intrude upon the author's interest? But more to read and think through yet....
This passage is important to Norelli's case
A surprising confirmation of the original character of 11,2-22 comes from the strong probability - in my opinion, virtually the certainty - that this piece, although not included in the version of AI 6-11 used by the Cathars, however, was known by them, as shown in a sermon of the ''perfect•'' Guillaume Belibaste reported by Arnaud Sicre in the register of inquisition of Jacques Fournier C). Cfr. the demonstration in Norelli, Studi, c. 15. This episode, however, was not to be known by Belibaste in the context of AI, but in the more general teaching of the Cathar tradition. The primitive text of AI , with 11,2-22 , must therefore be known among the authors of the Bogomile doctrines in the East, and this in both cases, that the review represented by Bogomil SL2 is a Bomomile work , or that it is an Orthodox work).
There is a very long thread about whether the Cathars knew the Nativity passage.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=750

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2847
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by DCHindley » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:18 am

neil,

ex-păvesco , pāvi, 3,
I.v. inch. n. and a., to be or become greatly terrified, to be very much afraid; to be greatly frightened at or afraid of, to fear greatly (perh. not anteAug.).

I am not sure what all the abbreviations mean. tho.

DCH

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8246
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:37 am

DCHindley wrote:neil,

ex-păvesco , pāvi, 3,
I.v. inch. n. and a., to be or become greatly terrified, to be very much afraid; to be greatly frightened at or afraid of, to fear greatly (perh. not anteAug.).

I am not sure what all the abbreviations mean. tho.
I think:

v. inch. = inchoative (inceptive) verb
n. = neutral (weird synonym for "intransitive"); I really dislike this terminology, much prefer "transitive" and "intransitive"
a. = active (as opposed to deponent or passive)
perh. = perhaps (of course)
anteAug. = ante-Augustan (before Augustus) = either classic or Ciceronian

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:34 am

I find a recent academic article about ''the cosmology of the AoI'' that can be downloaded.

https://www.academia.edu/25734825/The_C ... _Framework

Now I start the reading.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by neilgodfrey » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:50 pm

andrewcriddle wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:So far it appears Norelli's judgement of the originality of the nativity scene is hangs on what the preceding text leads one to expect. My question is that if only the nativity episode fits the bill, then that would lessen the significance of the descent and ascent. I would have thought the detail with which the descent in particular is described tells us that in the author's mind that is indeed a most powerful event, bridging the gap between the lost and God and ending the power of the demons to bind the lost.

Is Norelli letting his Catholicism intrude upon the author's interest? But more to read and think through yet....
This passage is important to Norelli's case
A surprising confirmation of the original character of 11,2-22 comes from the strong probability - in my opinion, virtually the certainty - that this piece, although not included in the version of AI 6-11 used by the Cathars, however, was known by them, as shown in a sermon of the ''perfect•'' Guillaume Belibaste reported by Arnaud Sicre in the register of inquisition of Jacques Fournier C). Cfr. the demonstration in Norelli, Studi, c. 15. This episode, however, was not to be known by Belibaste in the context of AI, but in the more general teaching of the Cathar tradition. The primitive text of AI , with 11,2-22 , must therefore be known among the authors of the Bogomile doctrines in the East, and this in both cases, that the review represented by Bogomil SL2 is a Bomomile work , or that it is an Orthodox work).
There is a very long thread about whether the Cathars knew the Nativity passage.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=750

Andrew Criddle
Thanks. I was aware of this and it has been added to my list of stuff to be considered in "final" assessments. Hope to test every argument against its alternatives, with a fair whack of Bayes along the way. (Carrier's main fault, imho, was that he generally used Bayes on the broader picture and failed to apply it to a number of his supporting arguments/evidence.)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by neilgodfrey » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:45 pm

Para 2
We examine now the sentences that in SL2 are in place of v. 2-22 E. “In fact neither before you has anyone seen nor after you can anyone see what you have seen and heard” repeats 8.11, [as CHARLES, p. XXIV, had observed] where, however, this form fits much better in both the immediate context and in the large context.’
Question: Is Norelli saying that the proclamation of the uniqueness of Isaiah’s vision fits much better in the context of chapter 11 -- both the immediate context and the overall structural context of the AI? -- ie. 8.11’s instance is awkwardly placed?
“I saw one like a son of man” according to CHARLES, p. XXVI and XXVII and p. L, would be original; the editor of G1 (lost the founder of the revision of AI 6-11 preserved in ELI) would have eliminated it as, from the end of the first century, its use as a messianic title was avoided because it led one to assume the exclusive humanity of Christ, where the editor of G1 shows, on the contrary, traces of Docetism.
Here is the passage from Charles pp xxvi-xxvii that Norelli is referring to:
The phrase in SL2 xi. i that immediately precedes, 'vidi similem filii hominis,' [cf Rev. 1.13; 14.4; Ezra 6.1 in Syriac and Ethiopic versions] may also be primitive though unattested by any derivative of G1. The exclusion of such a phrase by the editor of G1 is quite intelligible ; for, from the close of the first century A.D., its use as a Messianic title was avoided, no doubt because it was thought to imply the exclusive humanity of Christ.
And from page L:
The use of the phrase 'One like a Son of Man.' This phrase, with a Messianic meaning, is found in the addition peculiar to S L2 in xi. i, but, as we have shown elsewhere (see p. xxvi), is most probably derived from the archetype G; for the use of such an expression subsequent to the first century of the Christian era is hardly conceivable. It is easy to understand its rejection by the editor of G1 as he shows signs of early Docetism. For other instances of its use see Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14.
Back to Norelli and Para 2:
The original text of 6-11 would have had, according to CHARLES, p. XXVI, also the subsequent expression cum hominibus habitare (I quote L2), located in Leg 2:11 ὁ μέλλων καταβαίνειν [thrust down] ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστρέφεσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας εἰδέας (1). The next sentence et not cognoverunt eum [=”and not recognize him’] (I quote L2) is put by Charles in parallel with the verse 19 E [''not knowing who he was'' ]; it recalls 9,14 that would contain the same idea (p. xxiv). This sentence does seem indeed to sum up the cause of the human ignorance about the Beloved in the world, so widely orchestrated in 11.2-22 and, in continuation of the angelic ignorance manifested into the descent through the five lower heavens.
The passage from the Greek manuscript (2.11) is
ὁ μέλλων καταβαίνειν [thrust down] ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστρέφεσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας εἰδέας
Norelli translates the last section of verse 2.11 of G1:
ma lo precipiterà da questo firmamento e lo caccerà nell'abisso di perdizione colui che scenderà dai cieli e s'intratterrà con gli uomini secondo il nostro aspetto, il Figlio di Dio.'
I am not clear how the Greek should be translated, especially its reference to ἀνθρώποις

Any help would be appreciated.

Another question:

Stress is placed upon the solitary character of Isaiah's vision. No-one has seen anything like it and no-one will see its like again. Does such a description fit better with:

a. Jesus being born and raised on earth and sending out twelve apostles?
or
b. the Beloved descending through the heavens to take on the form of flesh and harry hell?

Is not the point of a. that it be seen and experienced in reality by many of a future generation -- hence it could hardly be the subject of something no-one else will ever see, yes?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8246
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:21 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:Back to Norelli and Para 2:
The original text of 6-11 would have had, according to CHARLES, p. XXVI, also the subsequent expression cum hominibus habitare (I quote L2), located in Leg 2:11 ὁ μέλλων καταβαίνειν [thrust down] ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστρέφεσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας εἰδέας (1). The next sentence et not cognoverunt eum [=”and not recognize him’] (I quote L2) is put by Charles in parallel with the verse 19 E [''not knowing who he was'' ]; it recalls 9,14 that would contain the same idea (p. xxiv). This sentence does seem indeed to sum up the cause of the human ignorance about the Beloved in the world, so widely orchestrated in 11.2-22 and, in continuation of the angelic ignorance manifested into the descent through the five lower heavens.
The passage from the Greek manuscript (2.11) is
ὁ μέλλων καταβαίνειν [thrust down] ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστρέφεσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας εἰδέας
Norelli translates the last section of verse 2.11 of G1:
ma lo precipiterà da questo firmamento e lo caccerà nell'abisso di perdizione colui che scenderà dai cieli e s'intratterrà con gli uomini secondo il nostro aspetto, il Figlio di Dio.'
I am not clear how the Greek should be translated, especially its reference to ἀνθρώποις

Any help would be appreciated.
The word ἀνθρώποις is going with συναναστρέφεσθαι, which in the middle or passive voice can mean "to live with/alongside."

Here is the entire verse, 2.11, from the Greek Legend of Isaiah:

Καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς με· Οὐκ ἐγὼ κύριος, ἀλλὰ σύνδουλὸς σου εἰμί. Οὗτος δὲ ἐστιν ὁ κρατήσας τοῦ κόσμου, ὃν καταβαλεῖ ἐκ τοῦ στερεώματος τούτου καὶ εἰς ἀπωλείας έκπέμψει βυθὸν, ὁ μέλλων καταβαίνειν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστρέφεσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας εἰδέας, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.

I would somewhat literalistically translate:

And he said toward me: I am not Lord, but rather I am your fellow slave. But this one is he who rules the world, whom he will cast down from this firmament, and he will send out the depth into destruction; the one who is about to descend from the heavens and dwell among men according to our own images; the son of God.

Another question:

Stress is placed upon the solitary character of Isaiah's vision. No-one has seen anything like it and no-one will see its like again. Does such a description fit better with:

a. Jesus being born and raised on earth and sending out twelve apostles?
or
b. the Beloved descending through the heavens to take on the form of flesh and harry hell?

Is not the point of a. that it be seen and experienced in reality by many of a future generation -- hence it could hardly be the subject of something no-one else will ever see, yes?
I share what I perceive to be your skepticism that this section belongs to the original composition, but is not Norelli arguing that the secrecy motif (nobody recognized him) cancels out what one would have expected to be a public thing?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

enricotuccinardi
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:57 am

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by enricotuccinardi » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:04 am

neilgodfrey wrote: Question: Is Norelli saying that the proclamation of the uniqueness of Isaiah’s vision fits much better in the context of chapter 11 -- both the immediate context and the overall structural context of the AI? -- ie. 8.11’s instance is awkwardly placed?
No Neil, he is saying the opposite.
As you know Norelli wants to demonstrate the authenticity of 11.2-22 as found in E. Consequently the corresponding passage (below) as found in L2 (and in S) should be spurious.

nec enim ante te quis vidit, nec post te poterit videre, quod tu vidisti et audivisti. Et vidi similem Filii hominis, et cum hominibus habitare et in mundo, et non cognoverunt eum.

Briefly his arguments are the following.
Regarding the first sentence Norelli says that, as Charles have already pointed out, we can find the same concept in 8.11, where it fits much better in the context (consequently in ch.11 the sentence is awkwardly placed). Regarding the following sentences in the passage, Norelly thinks they are interpolations deriving from Ap. 1, 12-13, Gv 1,14 and Gv 1,10.
He doesn’t say anything about the third possibility (i.e. that both passages may be spurious) and above all about the common objections against the authenticity of 11,2-22.
It’s interesting what he says at the end: the episode of the Nativity was known by Belibaste not in the context of AoI but in the more general teaching of the Cathar tradition. Indeed, in the inquisitor’s report about the Cathars, the spirit who descends to Bethlehem is named John, he wants to be the Son of God and his nativity is narrated, not Jesus’. I would like to know how Norelli explains this. Maybe further information can be found in Studi, cap. 15, but unfortunately this book is currently unavalaible.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8308
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Ascension of Isaiah and the Nativity passage

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:14 am

Ciao Enrico,
Indeed, in the inquisitor’s report about the Cathars, the spirit who descends to Bethlehem is named John, he wants to be the Son of God and his nativity is narrated, not Jesus’.
Are we sure that the nativity of John is narrated?

It seems (but I can be wrong) that the Cathars did hate John the Baptist:

Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay in his Historia Albigensis written between 1212 and 1218, describes cathar beliefs:
...
They declared that all of the patriarchs of the Old Testament were damned; they asserted that John the Baptist was one of the greatest devils.

And they also said in their secret meetings that the Christ who was born in the earthly and visible Bethlehem and crucified in Jerusalem was evil; and that Mary Magdalene was his concubine; and that she was the woman taken in adultery of whom we read in Scripture [John 8:3].

Indeed, the good Christ they say neither ate nor drank nor assumed the true flesh, nor was he ever in this world except spiritually in the body of Paul.
http://www.cathar.info/cathar_beliefs.htm

Two possible options about what says precisely the inquisitor about the Cathar text in his hand:

1) The nativity of John is narrated and after it is described the apparent (docetic) nativity of Jesus.

2) or only the nativity of Jesus is narrated.


The text of the inquisitor derived from here (a very bad translation, indeed!) makes me to think that the option 1 would be correct:

And it is not one of you who wishes to be the son of the mind? and then, one of the spirits of those who stood by, who was called John, he got up and he said that he wanted to be the Son of the Father, and to complete all the things which were written in the book of the aforesaid; and he came to the words of the Book, opened it, and read in the book of the football and fell down by four or five leaves and spasm, and stood thus for three days and nights; and then I woke up, and she hath wept much, because he had promised himself to completion the things mentioned in the said book continabautur, and He should not have to lie, he said to the Father, his Son, and that he was willing to complete it to be all those things, which were contained in the said book, no matter how grievous would it be to them; he [John the Baptist?] came down from heaven, and has appeared as a child is born of a new, and to Beth-lehem. And it seems, that was speaking to him, that he was called a heretic, he said, that they are the blessed Mary was the 'gross', as if it were a woman with child. And later said the boy [Jesus is born docetically now, and not more John the Baptist is meant] appeared beside her, and he thought that the grossness of it was melted, it was said that she had a son; with the blessed manner, however, in the belly of him shall not be, nor should she. And so, after he called the boy appeared to him in Bethlehem, and the hearing and was told by many, that the prophet, whom Isaiah predicted was to come, he had come.
Suppose that my interpretation is correct, that the Cathar text says that apparently :

1) the angel John asks God to be him, John, the Son who must accomplish the mission in incognito.
2) But then the angel John despairs: he is not really suited to the mission.
3) John was born on Earth, in the earthly and visible Bethlehem.
4) Soon after, but only apparently, Jesus was born of Mary.

It may be a polemic against the nativity in Luke, where the birth of John precedes that of Jesus but there is not a competition between the two births, since John submits to Jesus already from the womb of Elizabeth.

What do you think?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply