Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:33 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:25 am
Yes, but Irenaeus doesn't use the word "crucified" there. He describes the same event, but says that Horos "purified and established" her. Why didn't he say she was "crucified", in your opinion?
Attention, please. Irenaues isn't describing the same event.

Who is "purified and established" is Sophia, as per:

And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established

...while who is "crucified" is not Sophia but more precisely the "her enthymesis", a distinct being from Sophia (even if related someway to her):
For her enthymesis (or inborn idea) having been taken away from her, along with its supervening passion, she herself certainly remained within the Pleroma; but her enthymesis, with its passion, was separated from her by Horos, fenced off, and expelled from that circle

Hence you can't even use the first passage to say that the second passage is mere allegory of the former.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 799
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by GakuseiDon » Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:14 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:33 am
GakuseiDon wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:25 am
Yes, but Irenaeus doesn't use the word "crucified" there. He describes the same event, but says that Horos "purified and established" her. Why didn't he say she was "crucified", in your opinion?
Attention, please. Irenaues isn't describing the same event.

Who is "purified and established" is Sophia, as per:

And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established

...while who is "crucified" is not Sophia but more precisely the "her enthymesis", a distinct being from Sophia (even if related someway to her):
So in fact it WASN'T Sophia who was crucified, according to Irenaeus? She was only purified by Horos? And it was her enthymesis that was crucified? If so, what was the point of crucifying her enthymesis? (Irenaeus doesn't describe it as a crucifixion either, by the way)
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:28 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:14 am
So in fact it WASN'T Sophia who was crucified, according to Irenaeus?
precisely.
She was only purified by Horos?
sure.
And it was her enthymesis that was crucified?
of course.
If so, what was the point of crucifying her enthymesis? (Irenaeus doesn't describe it as a crucifixion either, by the way)
Irenaeus uses the term "crucified", by you translated as "fenced off". The your question (and surprise) about the point of crucifying a Gnostic "aeon" X surprises myself about what you expected to read, in the his place. It is general knowledge the fact that the Gnostic myth was highly complex just as the Greek myths, populated by a lot of entities all rigorously mythological. Why is so important for you the fact that not Sophia, but an emanation of the emanation of an emanation (assuming that "emanation" is the correct term to be used here) called "enthymesis" was "crucified" in outer space? To my knowledge, the matter of dispute between us is to decide if there is or not in the Valentinian myth at least a celestial crucifixion of an entity in outer space.

Because, if it is there, then you should prove that it figures there only as symbolism. A very hard task, I think!
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:54 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:28 am
Irenaeus uses the term "crucified", by you translated as "fenced off".
The Greek of this entire section of Irenaeus comes from a very long extract quoted verbatim by Epiphanius in Panarion 31.9.1-31.32.9. But the Greek actually has ἀποστερηθῆναι ("to have been robbed"), not ἀποσταυρωθῆναι ("to have been fenced in"). It is the Latin translation that has crucifixam:

Epiphanius, Panarion 31.12.7: But her Resolve, with the passion, was separated and fenced off [Vaticanus and Marcianus: ἀποστερηθῆναι; critical emendation: ἀποσταυρωθῆναι; Latin translation of Irenaeus: crucifixam; Tertullian: crucifixam] by Limit, and once outside him was a spiritual essence <like> a sort of natural germ of an Aeon, but shapeless and without form because it understood nothing. And for this reason they call it a sterile fruit and a female.

Various editions of the Panarion, including Holl's influential version, emend ἀποστερηθῆναι to ἀποσταυρωθῆναι precisely because crucifixam is found in the Latin (both in Irenaeus and in Tertullian). As Harvey explains:

W. Wigan Harvey, Sancti Irenaei, Adversus Haereses, page 20: Ἀποσταυρωθῆναι must be the correct reading of which crucifixam is the translation. The meaning of the word used by Irenaeus was not perceived; it refers to σταυρός in the same sense as before, viz. a fence. Horus fenced out and kept away this Enthymesis from the Pleroma....

The Greek verb ἀποσταυρωθῆναι, in other words, is the emendation which best explains both the corruption ἀποστερηθῆναι and the Latin (mis)translation crucifixam; but it does not mean to crucify; it means to fence off or to erect a palisade; recall that the basic and original meaning of σταυρός is an upright pale or stake.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:10 am

It can't mean "fenced off" since the author has already used "separated", if he wanted to give the sense of a barrier.

her enthymesis, with its passion, was separated from her by Horos, fenced off, and expelled from that circle

That a cross of Death is meant is explained also by:

A.Orbe, La teologìa del Espìritu Santo 613-614, makes a probable cause for "offerer" or "sanctifier" because of the relation between reaping (karpoun) and offering (holokaustoun) in the LXX, and because Horos, who bears these names, is also Cross, which is, of course, related to sacrifice.

(my bold)
https://books.google.it/books?id=LUOskd ... os&f=false

I should find now where I have just read that "impaled"/"crucified" is in the original.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:30 am

Then, I have found that just the Holl alluded by Ben is confuted by a further study:
Codez Vaticanus and Codex Marcianus have aposterēthēnai ("was deprived of"), bt Lat. Iren. and Tertullian (Adv. val. 10.4 [CCL 2.762]) have crucifixam, supposing apostaurōthēnai which is certainly the original reading and was restored by Holl (GCS 25.104). However, here it does not mean "crucified" but "staked off" according to the original idea of stauros (see n. 22). It has this meaning in Thucydides 4.69; 6.101; and elsewhere. But F. C. Burkitt, "Dr.. Sanday's New Testament of Irenaeus, with a Note on Valentinian Terms in Irenaeus and Tertullian", JThS 25 (1924) 65-66, claims stauros as a palisade, but from the symbolism of the cross as a dividing principle between right and left. See Gal 5.24. Even so, Lat. Iren. and Tertullian would be correct with crucifixam.

(my bold)

https://books.google.it/books?id=LUOskd ... an&f=false

Hence Tertullian is correct to use "crucifixam", since what is symbolism is the idea of a palisade, what is the real fact is the cross of sacrifice and death. That is, crucifixion in outer space, pace Ben.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:01 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:30 am
Then, I have found that just the Holl alluded by Ben is confuted by a further study:
Codez Vaticanus and Codex Marcianus have aposterēthēnai ("was deprived of"), bt Lat. Iren. and Tertullian (Adv. val. 10.4 [CCL 2.762]) have crucifixam, supposing apostaurōthēnai which is certainly the original reading and was restored by Holl (GCS 25.104). However, here it does not mean "crucified" but "staked off" according to the original idea of stauros (see n. 22). It has this meaning in Thucydides 4.69; 6.101; and elsewhere. But F. C. Burkitt, "Dr.. Sanday's New Testament of Irenaeus, with a Note on Valentinian Terms in Irenaeus and Tertullian", JThS 25 (1924) 65-66, claims stauros as a palisade, but from the symbolism of the cross as a dividing principle between right and left. See Gal 5.24. Even so, Lat. Iren. and Tertullian would be correct with crucifixam.

(my bold)

https://books.google.it/books?id=LUOskd ... an&f=false
Far from confuting Holl, this passage is agreeing with him: apostaurōthēnai is the original reading, and it does not mean "crucified" but rather "staked off." Burkitt adds, however, that the symbolism of crucifixion (with the cross being in the form of a T) is essential to the image, since "the True Cross, of which the wooden Gallows of Golgotha was only the symbol," divides the lower realm (below the crossbar of the T) into left and right but leaves the upper realm (above the crossbar of the T) undivided.
It can't mean "fenced off" since the author has already used "separated", if he wanted to give the sense of a barrier.
Nonsense. "Separated" and "fenced off" do not mean the same thing: "separated" = put at a distance; "fenced off" = unable to come back.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:57 am

Burkitt refers to this passage in his brief article as a parallel for the Valentinian speculation described by Irenaeus:

Acts of John 98-99:

98 And having thus spoken, he showed me a cross of light fixed (set up), and about the cross a great multitude, not having one form: and in it (the cross) was one form and one likeness [so the MS.; I would read: and therein was one form and one likeness: and in the cross another multitude, not having one form]. And the Lord himself I beheld above the cross, not having any shape, but only a voice: and a voice not such as was familiar to us, but one sweet and kind and truly of God, saying unto me: John, it is needful that one should hear these things from me, for I have need of one that will hear. This cross of light is sometimes called the (or a) word by me for your sakes, sometimes mind, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Christ, sometimes door, sometimes a way, sometimes bread, sometimes seed, sometimes resurrection, sometimes Son, sometimes Father, sometimes Spirit, sometimes life, sometimes truth, sometimes faith, sometimes grace. And by these names it is called as toward men: but that which it is in truth, as conceived of in itself and as spoken of unto you (MS. us), it is the marking-off of all things, and the firm uplifting of things fixed out of things unstable, and the harmony of wisdom, and indeed wisdom in harmony [this last clause in the MS. is joined to the next: 'and being wisdom in harmony']. There are of the right hand and the left, powers also, authorities, lordships and demons, workings, threatenings, wraths, devils, Satan, and the lower root whence the nature of the things that come into being proceeded.

99 This cross, then, is that which fixed all things apart (al. joined all things unto itself) by the (or a) word, and separate off the things that are from those that are below (lit. the things from birth and below it), and then also, being one, streamed forth into all things (or, made all flow forth. I suggested: compacted all into ). But this is not the cross of wood which thou wilt see when thou goest down hence: neither am I he that is on the cross, whom now thou seest not, but only hearest his (or a) voice. I was reckoned to be that which I am not, not being what I was unto many others: but they will call me (say of me) something else which is vile and not worthy of me. As, then, the place of rest is neither seen nor spoken of, much more shall I, the Lord thereof, be neither seen.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10786
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:06 am

Ignoring Giuseppe's usual nonsense the idea seems to be that the physical cross witnessed on the earth hearkened back to a cosmic principle which began or was associated with the beginning of the universe.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:10 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:06 am
Ignoring Giuseppe's usual nonsense the idea seems to be that the physical cross witnessed on the earth hearkened back to a cosmic principle which began or was associated with the beginning of the universe.
Yes, exactly so.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply