I had wanted to delay this note on what Irenaeus meant till I had the original text of the book in a critical edition, but that could be a few weeks from now, and I have to get stuck into finishing the typing out of the list of corrections to typing mistakes in the text of your book with occasional remarks on the content or wording. So here is my note on the two obscure passages in Irenaeus that mention the term ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΝ.
First, to clear some debris out of the way. I deduce from Book I ch. XIV par. 5 that in the system described here it is the twenty-four letters of the Hebrew alphabet that are important, which means the classification of Greek letters in the editor’s notes in Book II ch. XXIV par. 2 can be disregarded. The term sacerdotales in the Latin translation renders the Greek word λειτοργικα, as was seen long ago. However, this word does not mean “Priestly” or “sacred”. In the right context, it means “liturgical”, no more than that. But this is not such a context, so the Greek word has its normal neutral meaning of “working”. These are then the ten WORKING letters of the Hebrew alphabet, that is, אבהויכלמנת. These are the letters used in prefixes, suffixes, and occasionally infixes. The editor has missed the point. I often wonder how far the knowledge of Hebrew extends amongst N.T. scholars or theologians. (I will explain the reference to fifteen another time. The editor is half right).
I have changed my mind about these words: “for Jesus in the ancient Hebrew language means “heavens” while again “earth” is expressed by the words sura asser. The word, therefore, which contains heavens and earth is just Jesus”. You know I thought them to be a mistaken gloss on Irenaeus’s argument, written by someone that did not know how to use the first three columns of the Hexapla. I still maintain the Hexapla has been used, and that later scribes have corrupted SRAU UARES to SURA USSER. I now think that if we suppose a more extensive corruption, the words do make sense and do fit into the argument, and were written by Irenaeus. This is what I think Irenaeus wrote in Book II ch. XXIV par. 2. I have paraphrased a bit here and there to bring out the connection of the parts of the argument. “Moreover [i.e. moving from the name Jesus treated in par. 1, and taking another instance of how their mixing of Hebrew and Greek is obviously fallacious] the name IHOYH [the Tetragrammaton graphemically transcribed, mistaken by a later scribe as an abbreviation of Ιησους], a specifically Hebrew word, contains, as the learned amongst them [those that attribute kabbalistic significance to the size of the letter yod] declare, [only] two letters and a half-letter [yod], yet this is the [name of the] Lord containing heaven and earth. [In the verse Genesis II: 6] IHOUH in the ancient Hebrew language [the Tetragrammaton graphemically transcribed, which a later scribe has read as Ιηου, an abbreviation of Ιησους] [[is followed by ΜΙΜΣ Σαμαιμ ]] meaning “heavens” and then “earth” is expressed by the words ΣΡΑΟΥ Οουαρες The word, therefore, which contains heaven and earth is IHOYH [misread by a later scribe as Ιησους]. Now, to get back to the Episêmon [the name given by them to the Greek name Ιησους] their explanation won’t work, and their numerical result [888] is made logically impossible. For, in their own language, the word Sôtêr, the Greek word [which would be a straight translation of Yeshu] has five letters; whereas the Hebrew word lying behind it, Yeshu, only has two and a half letters. The total they reckon up, eight hundred and eighty-eight, therefore has no basis [because the underlying Hebrew word won’t take you to the Greek form]. And while we’re on the subject, not even the CLASSIFICATION of the letters in Hebrew corresponds to Greek………………but most of all [i.e. even more convincingly than the example of the word Christ] the name which is above all others by which God can be referred to, which in actual utterance in Hebrew is uttered as Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu, [the unpronounceable Tetragrammaton] itself only has two letters [he and vav] and a half-letter [yod]. [He has forgotten that he occurs twice, but that is only a slip]. From this fact [which can be applied consistently] that the main names that matter in the two languages simply won’t match………… the unworkability of their calculations [as a whole] is undeniable.
My hypothesis of a misreading of the Tetragrammaton is made plausible by the way divine or important names were consistently abbreviated. A scribe would expect to see an abbreviated form of Iêsous in any group of letters suggesting the name.
The word Episêmon is never the name of the sixth letter of the Greek alphabet, which was originally called waw (the English w represents a letter waw or digamma here) and later, to avoid the need to write this very letter twice, was called digamma. However, this is not the point. The reference is to the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, as Irenaeus has seen. (but not the editor). The word Episêmon is an epithet of this letter in the system being described here. What is meant is that the Greek name IHCOYC with its six letters is a reminder of the importance of the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Irenaeus has some justification for thinking this kind of argument pretty stupid. Now, why does the system being described call it by that name? The word means an official stamp, the insignia on a coin showing its genuineness, a distinctive emblem, and so on. I think the answer is in the actual words quoted by Irenaeus in the first passage, Book I ch. XIV par. 4. Accordingly, it has a relationship to the importance of the letter vav in the system you have worked out, but the correspondence is by definition not exact. All the same, it still has the vital significance that it has in the system you have deduced, the difference seeming to me to be that it has not fallen from heaven. But is that difference only apparent?
