Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:07 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:01 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:05 am
Your thinking is either that of a supergenius AI program from the future or that of a mental patient.
In the doubt, can we at least agree that Paul is the mental patient? :consternation:
On another front, when you suggest that the author of the Ascension evinces embarrassment at the delay of the parousia, which passage(s) are you talking about?
The feature of the not-knowledge of the identity of the victim by the his killers may be seen as similar to a feature of the 'docetic' death, viz the belief that the death of the victim was only apparent, since the victim was without body or - that is the same thing - another being was killed in the his place (and the killers don't know it).


For example, so prof Robert Price about the near-violation of Eve in The Hypostasis of the Archons:
"In those days only one virgin, Istahar by name, remained chaste. When the Sons of God made lecherous demands upon her, she cried: 'First lend me your wings!' They assented and she, flying up to Heaven, took sanctuary at the throne of God, who transformed her into the constellation Virgo" (Liqqute Midrashim, 156). 18 The same astrological myth underlies the wing-borne escape of the virgin from the dragon in Revelation 12, and in both cases it is clear that the original identity of the virgin was the goddess Ishtar (= "Istahar"), as is evident from the crown of stars, etc. Like Hera and the Gnostic Eve (= the Greek and Phrygian Hebe), the threatened woman is divine. But the difference between the stories of Istahar on the one hand and of Hera and Eve on the other is that Istahar experiences a last-minute clean getaway, while the other two share the revealing motif of the doubling of the original victim into both victim and escapee. If the story of Eve's near-violation as we read it in The Hypostasis of the Archons preserves an original tale in which she was never actual raped, why does it not read more like the story of Istahar--a simple escape? The doubling motif tells the tale: originally Eve was raped.
(my bold)
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_amorous1.htm

So, mutatis mutandis, the fact that the false Eve was raped (differently from other similar myths where the goddess escapes simply without need of a false victim in the his place), is evidence, for Price, of the embarrassment for an older version of the story: one where the true Eve was raped by the Archons.

Could something of similar be happened in the AoI ?

The fact that in AoI the Son was killed without being known by the his killers is evidence of embarrassment for an older version of the myth, one where the Son was killed by killers who knew him, since we have also evidence of other versions of the myth (for example: Basilides) where the Archons knew the identity of the Son but another person was killed in the his place.

So, insofar you see embarrassment for the death of the Son by the docetics à la Basilides (and I think that Ben already concedes the fact that for Basilides the real death of the Son was something of embarrassing), then you have to see an equivalent embarrassment at work in AoI for the Archontic knowledge of the Son.
Focus, Giuseppe. I am asking you which passages you have in mind in the Ascension when you say that the author is embarrassed by the delay of the parousia.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:22 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:07 am
Focus, Giuseppe. I am asking you which passages you have in mind in the Ascension when you say that the author is embarrassed by the delay of the parousia.
the simple fact that, according to the entire consensus (+ dr. Carrier), AoI was written after the 70 CE (I mean just: the AoI without the interpolated pocket gospel), is evidence that the delay of the parousia had to provoke some embarrassment by that time, don't you agree?

Ben, surely you concede that the Book of Revelation was written in the same time of the earliest version of AoI.

For example, so Matthew Ferguson about the embarrassment for the delay of the parusia as at the origin of the same Book of Revelation :
And, if Jesus had not ushered in cosmic judgement during his lifetime, then you would need to speak of celestial visions foretelling how he would do so in the future (such as what John of Patmos witnessed).
(my bold)
https://celsus.blog/2018/06/16/readers- ... han-jesus/

So, if embarrassment is behind Revelation, then it is also behind the AoI: the two texts are contemporaries.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:40 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:22 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:07 am
Focus, Giuseppe. I am asking you which passages you have in mind in the Ascension when you say that the author is embarrassed by the delay of the parousia.
the simple fact that, according to the entire consensus (+ dr. Carrier), AoI was written after the 70 CE (I mean just: the AoI without the interpolated pocket gospel), is evidence that the delay of the parousia had to provoke some embarrassment by that time, don't you agree?
So basically you had no passage in mind at all when you said that the author of the Ascension was embarrassed about the delay of the parousia.
Ben, surely you concede that the Book of Revelation was written in the same time of the earliest version of AoI.
I concede nothing. All of these unprovenanced texts are pretty wide open so far as times and places are concerned. Not to mention that both of the texts you mention may very well be layered documents, with concerns evident in one layer that are completely absent in another. If you have an argument to make that is based on the dates of these texts, then defend those dates.
So, if embarrassment is behind Revelation, then it is also behind the AoI: the two texts are contemporaries.
What about texts written after these two apocalypses? Do all Christian texts written after 70 come from a place of embarrassment over the delay of the parousia? Or is it just these two for some reason? (If the latter, what is the reason? If the former, then you have lots of other problems to contend with.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:04 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:40 am
So basically you had no passage in mind at all when you said that the author of the Ascension was embarrassed about the delay of the parousia.
No, but Kovacs says in the his article that that feature (=the archontic ignorance about the identity of the Son) is not found in other apocalytic books insofar there the ignorance is about the plans of God etc: simply I wonder about which could be the reason and hence the first (and more simple) answer I have found is the embarrassment for the delay of the parusia in AoI. I have assumed it also because it seems an obvious thing to say about a text dated in the interval [70 CE, 100 CE].

What about texts written after these two apocalypses? Do all Christian texts written after 70 come from a place of embarrassment over the delay of the parousia? Or is it just these two for some reason? (If the latter, what is the reason? If the former, then you have lots of other problems to contend with.)
Surely the second option. Ferguson says the reason for the presence of embarrassment in the Book of Revelation:
And, if Jesus had not ushered in cosmic judgement during his lifetime, then you would need to speak of celestial visions foretelling how he would do so in the future (such as what John of Patmos witnessed).
Also AoI ''speaks of celestial visions foretelling how the Son would do cosmic victory in the future''. And AoI was not written by Isaiah just as Revelation was not written by John of Patmos.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:07 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:04 am
What about texts written after these two apocalypses? Do all Christian texts written after 70 come from a place of embarrassment over the delay of the parousia? Or is it just these two for some reason? (If the latter, what is the reason? If the former, then you have lots of other problems to contend with.)
Surely the second option. Ferguson says the reason for the presence of embarrassment in the Book of Revelation:
And, if Jesus had not ushered in cosmic judgement during his lifetime, then you would need to speak of celestial visions foretelling how he would do so in the future (such as what John of Patmos witnessed).
Also AoI ''speaks of celestial visions foretelling how the Son would do cosmic victory in the future''. And AoI was not written by Isaiah just as Revelation was not written by John of Patmos.
What passages about cosmic judgment in the Ascension do you have in mind?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

perseusomega9
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:15 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:43 am
It is exhausting trying to understand your arguments. It sounds like you are trying to connect diminished eschatological hopes on the part of the author of the Ascension with the demons' not knowing who Jesus is in the Ascension, yet the connection itself eludes me completely.

Also, lacking a strong sense that the eschaton is nigh has nothing to do with whether a text is apocalyptic or not.
You could try my rule, don't read any Giuseppe posts unless it has over 4 responses, any less than 4 it's 99% likely it's just Giuseppe talking to himself

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:24 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:07 am
What passages about cosmic judgment in the Ascension do you have in mind?
The complete visibility of the Son is projected only in the future because of embarrassment for the previous version of the myth:
And I saw Him, and He was in the firmament, but He had not changed Himself into their form, and all the angels of the firmament and the Satans saw Him and they worshipped.

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?"

25. And He ascended into the second heaven, and He did not transform Himself, but all the angels who were on the right and on the left and the throne in the midst.

26. Both worshipped Him and praised Him and said: "How did our Lord escape us whilst descending, and we perceived not?"

27. And in like manner He ascended into the third heaven, and they praised and said in like manner.

28. And in the fourth heaven and in the fifth also they said precisely after the same manner.

29. But there was one glory, and from it He did not change Himself.

30. And I saw when He ascended into the sixth heaven, and they worshipped and glorified Him.

31. But in all the heavens the praise increased (in volume).

32. And I saw how He ascended into the seventh heaven, and all the righteous and all the angels praised Him. And then I saw Him sit down on the right hand of that Great Glory whose glory I told you that I could not behold.

33. And also the angel of the Holy Spirit I saw sitting on the left hand.

34. And this angel said unto me: "Isaiah, son of Amoz, it is enough for thee;... for thou hast seen what no child of flesh has seen.

35. And thou wilt return into thy garment (of the flesh) until thy days are completed. Then thou wilt come hither."

36. These things Isaiah saw and told unto all that stood before him, and they praised. And he spake to Hezekiah the King and said: "I have spoken these things."

37. Both the end of this world;

38. And all this vision will be consummated in the last generations.

39. And Isaiah made him swear that he would not tell (it) to the people of Israel, nor give these words to any man to transcribe.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:28 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:24 am
The complete visibility of the Son is projected only in the future because of embarrassment for the previous version of the myth.
That is obviously false. The Son/Beloved is completely visible already in his ascent after death. The entire vision is written up as if it were future, since it is supposedly what Isaiah saw several centuries before, but the entire descent and ascent are already completed from the author's perspective.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:29 am

If you thought that the ascent was something yet to happen in the future from the author's point of view, then no wonder you are so hopelessly confused about this text!
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:32 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:28 am
The Son/Beloved is completely visible already in his ascent after death.
but only for the Christians (like Paul) who saw the Risen Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply