Boid on ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΝ

I think I can now see why Irenaeus went to so much effort to say in great detail that Hebrew and Greek are two different languages and that proper names from Hebrew can’t be connected to their equivalent in Greek to prove something. In Book I ch. XIV par. 4 he says the group in question said that the name Ιησους in Greek is the commonly known Επισημον, the identifying badge or seal or engraved symbol of their whole system, meaning that its numerical value is 888 and that by having six letters it points back to the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The significance of the number 888 and the Hebrew letter vav is known to all members. An Episêmon is by definition a sign or symbol recognisable by everyone, whether it be on a coin or the front of a building or a document. Irenaeus argues that the fact that the Greek form of the name has six letters is irrelevant, since the name is not native Greek but taken from Hebrew, and the Hebrew original Yeshu only has two letters and the half-letter. He also argues that the numerical value 888 of the Greek form of the name is irrelevant because the numerical value of Yeshu is quite different. His overall assertions are first that only the Hebrew form of any Hebrew name has any relevance; second that the Greek form can’t even be considered a reflection of the original, because there is no mechanism connecting them, for the obvious reason that the grammatical and phonetic structures of the two languages are not only different in outward form, but based on a different underlying system. By proving these two overall assertions at great length in Book II, he proves there is no need to refute each instance of attempted cross-reference. The most telling example of the principle behind these overall assertions is the Tetragrammaton, the most important of all names.

What seems to be meant in the quote here (Book I ch. XIV par. 4) from this group’s own writings is that the Episêmon must, by definition, be recognisable by all members. The Episêmon is the name IHCOUC as the sign of what all members know. There is another meaning of IHCOYC beyond the Epsêmon (par. 4). This meaning can be found only by first understanding a doctrine unknown to all except those that have been given secret knowledge (par. 4). This meaning is then explained (par. 5 onwards). It is based on the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, classified phonetically (par. 5). (Not Greek letters, as the editor thinks). There are similar phonetic classifications in known Kabbalistic texts. I think Irenaeus had this section of text in mind in Book II and that implicit in his argument there is the importance of the fact that the group he opposes agree that it is the nature of the Hebrew letters that reflects the process of creation, not the nature of the Greek letters. It follows that any Greek form of a Hebrew name is irrelevant unless it accurately reproduces the Hebrew original, which never happens, and on principle can’t happen. If you can only get your eight hundred and eighty-eight and reference to the Hebrew letter vav from the Greek form IHCOYC, then the Episêmon IHCOYC becomes meaningless or hollow. After that, everything else in the way of more secret doctrine literally has no basis, and therefore needs no specific refutation. (But he does give specific refutations for the sake of completeness).

I think there must have been some sect or group that connected the name Simon with the Hebrew and Aramaic siman and the Greek episêmon. I think it would imply that the founder was himself the visible siman, sign, of the siman, the symbol of the conceptual condensation of their system, is plausible. Look at John I: 14. If you read what the words actually on the page, it does not say that Jesus is the Unique (monogenous) emanating from (para) the Father It does not use the word Son. Even if the interpretative adjustment in some mss. in verse 18 of A Unique God to The Unique Son is an accurate interpretation in v. 18, and even if the Unique in v. 14 is the same figure, that does not mean v. 14 says that what has been seen actually IS this emanation, the second God, the unique agent of creation (not creator) of v. 2. It says that when they beheld Jesus, they beheld the kavod that shone from him, and it plainly says this kavod was LIKE the kavod of the Unique emanated from the Father. That means that this kavod was a POINTER to the kavod of God as creator. All this was said of Moses in the Torah. The difference is that they did not have to protect themselves and could look directly. See the argument in II Corinthians III & IV. This makes the title Simon suitable for Jesus. I know there were several important figures called Simon, but I wonder if this might have been a symbolic name used by the Church in Samaria. I wonder if the Simon of the earliest Christian references is a conflation of Dositheos and a Church in Samaria denying the authority of Simon Peter. That would make the Peter of the Clementines a fictional character deriving from older efforts of denial by the Roman Church of the Apostolic authority of Mark in Egypt, Phillip (and Foti Φωτη) in Samaria, Thomas in Syria, and so on; and then the Simon of the Clementines would be a fictional character derived from older hostility to the Jesus of the Church of Samaria. I mean this last phrase seriously. It would explain a lot of what is said about Simon Magus.

Your suggestion that the name Sextus behind Sakta might refer to the significance of the letter vav is plausible.

I think I can come up with an explanation of the use of the term ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ as a reference to some verses in the Torah. More on this in a few days. (Notice how the two gammas in the word Ευαγγελιον written in capitals look like the letter pi, and would be nearly indistinguishable from iota and tau together unless you already knew what was intended. This is a good instance of what I said a few months ago on corruption in copying due to the misreading of letters, and specially some combinations of letters).