2018-11-10

Updated post

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

I have updated the post discussing Tim O’Neill’s Non Sequitur discussion of the Ascension of Isaiah.

Response #3: Non Sequitur’s Tim O’Neill presentation, The Ascension of Isaiah

 

The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

12 Comments

  • db
    2018-11-10 12:57:46 GMT+0000 - 12:57 | Permalink

    Neil, there appears to be two spelling typos, that should be: vidi, cognoverunt.

    The Latin original is found in part in R. H. Charles’ Ascension of Isaiah and in full in Paoli Bettiolo’s text and Enrico Norelli’s commentary:

    Et uidi similem filii hominis, et cum hominibus habitare, et in mundo, et non cognouerunt eum.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2018-11-10 22:14:22 GMT+0000 - 22:14 | Permalink

      I copied and pasted the Latin text from the Italian publication, Bettiolo, Paolo. 1995. Ascensio Isaiae: textus. Turnhout: Brepols. (Does v in place of u represent an Anglicization of the Latin orthography? — (is orthography the right word?))

      • db
        2018-11-11 02:57:50 GMT+0000 - 02:57 | Permalink

        It is v per Bettiolo, Paolo; Norelli, Enrico (1995). Ascensio Isaiae: Textus. Turnhout: Brepols. p. 430.

        • Neil Godfrey
          2018-11-11 05:17:25 GMT+0000 - 05:17 | Permalink

          • db
            2018-11-11 08:30:02 GMT+0000 - 08:30 | Permalink

            • Page 231 is from section: La Visio Isaiaa dell’edizione curata a Venezia nel 1522 da Antonio de Fantis [This text was printed at Venice in 1522 and edited by Antonio de Fantis]

      • db
        2018-11-11 19:54:08 GMT+0000 - 19:54 | Permalink

        It is v per Dillmann, August, ed. (1877). “Visio Isaiae e Monacensi editionis Venetae exemplari descripta.”. Ascensio Isaiae, Aethiop. et Lat., cum prolegomenis, adnotationibus, additis versionum Lat. reliquiis, ed. al A. Dillmann. p. 82.

      • db
        2018-11-12 10:15:19 GMT+0000 - 10:15 | Permalink

        Antonius De Fantis (1522). “Visio mirabilis Ysaie Prophete“. Opera nuper in lucem prodeuntia. Venice: J. de Leuco. p. 103–112.

        Et vidi similē filii hoīs, & cū hoībus hĩrare & I mūdo, & ñ cognouerŭt eŭ. —(p. 111–112)

        • db
          2018-11-12 16:38:30 GMT+0000 - 16:38 | Permalink

          My transcription:
          &
          vidi similem filii homis
          &
          cum hominus habitare in mundo
          &
          non cognoverunt eum

          • Neil Godfrey
            2018-11-13 00:29:38 GMT+0000 - 00:29 | Permalink

            If it’s a big enough serious deal I will probably change it but my understanding, limited though it is I well know, is that there has been something of a teacup war over whether u or v is the appropriate letter. Tim might be horrified to hear me say this, but there are no divinely ordained commandments concerning grammar and orthography. The only justification for them today is to serve the interests of standardization since the advent of the printing press. With new technologies enough room for variability can (and is being) built into systems to cater for variations. 🙂

            I am delighted to have compiled the first Latin grammar in English to have banished the letter V from the Latin alphabet. It was never there.

            —- Morwood, James. 1999. A Latin Grammar. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. p. uii.

            • db
              2018-11-13 02:19:41 GMT+0000 - 02:19 | Permalink

              I see now that page 231 (above screen-shot), is ‘V’ in the upper case, ‘u’ in the lower case.

  • MrHorse
    2018-11-10 19:47:42 GMT+0000 - 19:47 | Permalink

    Tim O’Neill said

    … if you actually turn to the Ascension of Isaiah you read this:

    “And I saw one like the son of man (that’s Jesus, the messiah) dwelling with men and in the world and they did not recognize him.”

    Except ‘the son of man’ in the Ascension of Isaiah might not be the Jesus of Nazareth –

    ie. it is as likely (or, perhaps, even more likely) to be reference to another entity; perhaps a celestial, angelic being.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.