ignis ardens non comburens
- Thread starter alibey71
- Start date
Hello
I think it literally means ''a fire burning/glowing but not flaming''. The bush was glowing, but there were no flames - if my understanding is correct.
I wouldn't know why and how that symbolizes Mary's virginity according to theologians.
saluete amici!
I think the reference to the Virgin Mary is meant to signify that while the biblical accounts of course narrate her conception and bearing of the baby Jesus, her chastity and moral/sexual purity remained unsullied and intact.
Σ
Edited afterthought: after consulting a theologian-friend (herself a protestant), I have now satisfied myself that this notion of the Burning Bush story being a presage of the status of the Virgin Mary must be due to some eccentric mediaeval papal whimsy, for certainly it has no obvious or unambiguous biblical justification. But it does at least seem clear that ignis ardens, non comburens mean that the bush, while 'ablaze', was (in the words of the King James Bible) 'not consumed'.
I think the reference to the Virgin Mary is meant to signify that while the biblical accounts of course narrate her conception and bearing of the baby Jesus, her chastity and moral/sexual purity remained unsullied and intact.
Σ
Edited afterthought: after consulting a theologian-friend (herself a protestant), I have now satisfied myself that this notion of the Burning Bush story being a presage of the status of the Virgin Mary must be due to some eccentric mediaeval papal whimsy, for certainly it has no obvious or unambiguous biblical justification. But it does at least seem clear that ignis ardens, non comburens mean that the bush, while 'ablaze', was (in the words of the King James Bible) 'not consumed'.
Last edited:
No flames? I understand it just the other way around (and painters are on my side
)On the other hand, perhaps there is a little "whimsy" here, but certainly it is not "papal". See for example this beautiful page about russian and greek icons:
SPIRITS OF FIRE AND ICE: THE UNBURNT THORNBUSH ICON
Your satisfaction is unfortunately also without justification. "This notion", as you put it, is neither medieval nor papal in origin, being both earlier and from the Greek-speaking church. It is found in the "Homily on the Nativity of Christ" by the early church father St. Gregory of Nyssa (died c. A.D. 386): "What was prefigured at that time in the flame of the bush was openly manifested in the mystery of the Virgin, once an interval of time had passed. Just as on the mountain the bush burned but was not consumed, so also the Virgin gave birth to the light and was not corrupted. Nor should you consider the comparison to the bush to be embarrassing, for it prefigures the God-bearing body of the Virgin."
You are right, and I misinterpreted the two verbs - sorry.
So the correct meaning is ''a fire flaming but not consuming the bush".
saluete de nouo!
To Mr Sherman (# 5) multas gratias for the correction of my erroneous assumptions or inferences (in # 3). In the light of this evidence from Gregory of Nyssa, and of the splendid icon adduced by Quiviscumque (# 4), I am now moved to wonder how widespread this idea was in eastern and orthodox Christianity; we can probably never know whether this was an original interpretation by Gregory, or merely an existing commonplace (albeit alien to western, Latin, Christendom) to which in his Homily he was referring en passant.
Despite my mistakes, I take modest satisfaction from the fact that Gregory's exposition more or less agrees with my own original construal. Fascinating stuff!
Σ
To Mr Sherman (# 5) multas gratias for the correction of my erroneous assumptions or inferences (in # 3). In the light of this evidence from Gregory of Nyssa, and of the splendid icon adduced by Quiviscumque (# 4), I am now moved to wonder how widespread this idea was in eastern and orthodox Christianity; we can probably never know whether this was an original interpretation by Gregory, or merely an existing commonplace (albeit alien to western, Latin, Christendom) to which in his Homily he was referring en passant.
Despite my mistakes, I take modest satisfaction from the fact that Gregory's exposition more or less agrees with my own original construal. Fascinating stuff!
Σ
Last edited: