{"corpus":"steiner","locus":"GA 165/1916-01-16/p005","lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"text":"Now, in the early days of Christian development, there was still something of an echo of the old clairvoyant conceptual world, and one can say: when the Mystery of Golgotha went through the development of European and Near Eastern humanity , there were still many people who were really able to absorb the things that relate to the Mystery of Golgotha in echoes of clairvoyantly grasped concepts, which can actually only be understood spiritually. Only in this way can we understand that much of what was developed in the first centuries of Christianity to grasp the Mystery of Golgotha must have been incomprehensible in later times. When the older Christian teachers still used the echoes of the old clairvoyant concepts to grasp the Mystery of Golgotha, then, of course, these clairvoyant concepts remained incomprehensible to the later centuries in their actual essence. Basically, what is called gnosis is usually nothing more than the echo of old clairvoyant concepts. They tried to understand the Mystery of Golgotha with old clairvoyant concepts, and clairvoyant concepts were no longer understood later, only abstract concepts. Therefore, what Gnosis actually wanted was misunderstood. However, it would be very one-sided to simply say: There was a Gnosis that still had old clairvoyant concepts that went back to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries after the Mystery of Golgotha, and then came the unwise people who were unable to understand the Gnostics. It would be very one-sided to think in such a way. To work in a certain perfect sense with clairvoyant concepts belongs to a much older time than the time in which the Mystery of Golgotha occurred, to a much older time. And these clairvoyantly grasped concepts were already infected with Lucifer, that is to say, the old clairvoyant-conceptual grasping was already permeated with Lucifer, and this Luciferic permeation of the old clairvoyant conceptual system is Gnosticism. Therefore, a kind of reaction against Gnosticism had to arise, because Gnosticism was the dying old clairvoyant conceptual world, the old clairvoyant conceptual world already infected by Lucifer. This must also be borne in mind.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"title":"Second Lecture","site_heading":"Bridging Clairvoyance and Reason: The Trinity's Emergence","site_heading_note":"A heading the site wrote for this unit from a summary of it; not in the edition, and not the words of Rudolf Steiner or of the translator. Cite the unit by its title and locus, never by this heading, and do not quote it.","date":"1916-01-16","location":null,"word_count":347,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/165/1916-01-16/p005","alignment_confidence":"high","alignment_reason":"beads:identity","two_voice_volume":false,"translation_credit":{"scope":"unit","status":"established","translator":"Steiner Online Library","identified_edition":"SOL2025","book_title":"The Conceptual World and Its Relationship to Reality","publisher":"Steiner Online Library","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA165/English/SOL2025/19160116p01.html","evidence":"lecture_page_line","publisher_note":"The publisher is inferred from the edition code in this lecture's source URL, not stated by the source page. The translator IS verified for this lecture: its own source names the translator (evidence: the lecture's page, rsarchive's lecture list, or the cover of the book it was published in), and that page's text was matched against this unit (see match_score and source_url). Cite the translator with confidence; attribute the publisher only as probable."},"edition_coverage":{"de":["original"],"en":["English"]},"available_versions":[{"lang":"de","edition":"original","edition_basis":null,"is_original":true,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/165/1916-01-16/p005"},{"lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/165/1916-01-16/p005","paragraph_aligned":true}],"record":{"record_type":"unknown","scope":"volume","note":"How this text was taken down (shorthand transcript, listeners' notes or manuscript) is not on record here. Unknown is not an assurance of a stenogram: check the edition's own notes before resting an argument on one word.","evidence":null,"evidence_translation":null,"evidence_source":null},"paired_german":{"status":"paired","german":[{"locus":"GA 165/1916-01-16/p005","passage_number":5,"text":"Nun war in den ersten Zeiten der christlichen Entwickelung aber durchaus etwas von einem Nachklang der alten hellseherischen Begriffswelt vorhanden, und man kann sagen: Als das Mysterium von Golgatha durch die Entwickelung der europäischen Menschheit und der vorderasiatischen Menschheit hindurchgegangen ist, da waren noch viele Menschen wirklich fähig, in Nachklängen von hellseherisch erfaßten Begriffen die Dinge aufzunehmen, die eigentlich doch nur spirituell begriffen werden können, und die sich auf das Mysterium von Golgatha beziehen. Nur so können wir es begreifen, daß für die späteren Zeiten vieles unverständlich sein mußte, was in den ersten Zeiten, in den ersten Jahrhunderten des Christentums an Begriffen entwickelt wurde, um das Mysterium von Golgatha zu erfassen. Wenn die älteren christlichen Lehrer noch Nachklänge der alten hellseherischen Begriffe anwandten, um das Mysterium von Golgatha zu erfassen, so blieben natürlich diese hellseherischen Begriffe ihrem eigentlichen Nerv nach den späteren Jahrhunderten unverständlich, und im Grunde genommen ist das, was man Gnosis nennt, gewöhnlich nichts anderes als das Nachklingen alter hellseherischer Begriffe. Man versuchte, mit alten hellseherischen Begriffen das Mysterium von Golgatha zu begreifen, und hellseherische Begriffe verstand man später nicht mehr, nur abstrakte Begriffe. Daher verkannte man dasjenige, was die Gnosis eigentlich wollte. Nun würde man aber die Sache sehr einseitig ansehen, wenn man einfach sagen würde: Da gab es also eine Gnosis, die hatte noch alte hellseherische Begriffe, die noch bis ins 1., 2., 3. Jahrhundert nach dem Mysterium von Golgatha hereingingen, und dann kamen die unverständigen Leute, die nicht fähig waren, die Gnostiker zu verstehen. — Das wäre sehr einseitig, so zu denken. In einem gewissen vollkommenen Sinne mit hellseherischen Begriffen zu arbeiten, gehört einer viel älteren Zeit an als der Zeit, in die das Mysterium von Golgatha hineinfiel, einer viel älteren Zeit. Und diese hellseherisch erfaßten Begriffe waren schon ganz luziferisch infiziert, das heißt: das alte hellseherisch-begriffliche Erfassen war schon luziferisch durchdrungen, und diese luziferische Durchdringung des alten hellseherischen Begriffssystems, das ist die Gnosis. Es mußte deshalb eine Art Reaktion gegen die Gnosis entstehen, weil die Gnosis eben die aussterbende alte hellseherische Begriffswelt war, die schon von Luzifer infizierte alte hellseherische Begriffswelt. Das muß man auch ins Auge fassen.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"word_count":354,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/165/1916-01-16/p005"}],"english":["GA 165/1916-01-16/p005"],"method":"identity","confidence":"high","correspondence":"established","length_check":{"de_words":354,"en_words":347,"ratio":0.98,"partial":false},"pairing_state":"verified","verified":true,"evidence":["length","meaning","audit"]},"witness_completeness":{"ratio":1.02,"band":"comparable","note":null,"word_count":9551,"original_word_count":9343,"may_be_abridged":false},"witness_quality":{"translator":{"scope":"unit","status":"recorded","translator":"Steiner Online Library","identified_edition":"SOL2025","book_title":"The Conceptual World and Its Relationship to Reality","publisher":"Steiner Online Library","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA165/English/SOL2025/19160116p01.html","evidence":"lecture_page_line","publisher_note":"The publisher is inferred from the edition code in this lecture's source URL, not stated by the source page. The translator IS verified for this lecture: its own source names the translator (evidence: the lecture's page, rsarchive's lecture list, or the cover of the book it was published in), and that page's text was matched against this unit (see match_score and source_url). Cite the translator with confidence; attribute the publisher only as probable."},"entity_parity":{"status":"discrepancy","checked_against":["GA 165/1916-01-16/p005"],"missing_from_translation":[],"present_only_in_translation":["Christ"],"bead_confidence":"high","bead_length_ratio":0.98,"likely_cause":"unresolved","note":"NAME MISMATCH between this English passage and its German counterpart. A name the German carries is absent here (or a name appears here that the German does not carry). Two things cause this and they need telling apart: the translation really drops or reassigns what the original distinguishes, OR the paragraph alignment paired the wrong passages. `bead_confidence` does NOT settle which: this corpus's embedding aligner pairs topically-related paragraphs at full confidence, and a sampled high-confidence mismatch proved to be a wrong pairing. Read the German passages listed and confirm they are counterparts BEFORE drawing any conclusion about the translation."},"note":"quote_safe certifies the bytes of this text. This block is about the translation as a WITNESS: who made it, and whether it carries the same names as the original. See witness_completeness for how much of the original this witness holds."}}