Sunday, June 30, 2013
Monomoimus's Man and Son of Man
And this (= the single tittle of the iota) is what has been declared: "It pleased (God) that all fulness should dwell in the Son of man bodily." For such compositions of numbers out of the simple and uncompounded one tittle of the iota become, he says, corporeal realities. The Son of man, therefore, he says, has been generated from the perfect man, whom no one knew; every creature who is ignorant of the Son, however, forms an idea of Him as the offspring of a woman. And certain very obscure rays of this Son which approach this world, check and control alteration (and) generation. And the beauty of that Son of man is up to the present incomprehensible to all men, as many as are deceived in reference to the offspring of the woman. Therefore nothing, he says, of the things that are in our quarter of creation has been produced by that man, nor will aught (of these) ever be (generated from him). All things, however, have been produced, not from the entirety, but from some part of that Son of man. For he says the Son of man is a jot in one tittle, which proceeds from above, is full, and completely replenishes all (rays flowing down from above). And it comprises in itself whatever things the man also possesses (who is) the Father of the Son of man. [Philosophumena 8.6]
Esther J. Hamori on the איש Theophany [Part One]
Hamori devotes her attention to Gen 18:1-15 and 32:23-33 (per the Hebrew verse numbering), which each relate crucial encounters in the lives of the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob, respectively. She presents her case like a district attorney telling the jury what really happened. From the opening sentence in Chapter 1, she declares her interpretive thesis as fact, identifying an enigmatic figure in each narrative as being none other than Yahweh—with a mien so human as to hinder recognition as deity.
Three common aspects, says Hamori, warrant her studying the two Genesis stories together: 1) A character who appears “in person” is referred to as Yahweh/God; 2) The narrator designates him “as a ‘man’ . . . by the Hebrew word ’îš” (p. 1) or its functional plural, ’ănāšîm; 3) This figure engages in human physical activity – sitting and eating a meal, or participating in a wrestling match. Or as she puts it:
There are two biblical texts in which God appears to a patriarch in person and is referred to by the narrator as a “man,” both times by the Hebrew word îš. Both of these identifications of God as an îš are accompanied by graphic human description. As a result of the highly unusual nature of these depictions, each has been the object of widely varying interpretations. The figure defined as an îš who wrestles with Jacob (Genesis 32:23-33) has been identified in modern scholarship as an angel, a demon, a man, God, and various other alternatives. The three men )anašîm who visit Abraham, dine with him and announce the birth of his son (Genesis 18:1-15) have been understood as angels, gods, men, and more. However, while the identities of the )anašîm in each text have been much discussed, the texts sharing this unusual terminology have not been studied together with regards to this issue. It will be argued here that these two Genesis stories reflect the same phenomenon, that is, human theophany, or more specifically, the îš theophany.”
The peculiarity of Genesis 18, to which von Rad refers, and the equal peculiarity of Genesis 32:23-33, have led to a variety of interpretations regarding the îš in each story. Some scholars working with one text or the other do not consider the îš to be God. While some have specific opposing interpretations, others are either inconsistent or ambiguous in their identifications of the figures. In a discussion of Genesis 32, for instance, von Rad refers to Jacob's “encounter with God,” then to “the heavenly being,” and then to “the demon whom Jacob took on... this nocturnal assailant was later considered to be Yahweh himself. In his work on )eloh|m, Joel Burnett refers to Jacob's opponent as “God... portrayed in concrete and anthropomorphic terms,” as well as “elohim's messenger,” and “a divine being.” Other scholars share similar mixed interpretations.
In other cases, scholars working with either text—such as Seebass, Wenham, Speiser, von Rad, and others—have interpreted the term îš metaphorically, placing the words “man” and “men” in quotes repeatedly throughout their discussions. Indeed, there are two texts which describe Yahweh as an îš in a metaphor or simile. In Exodus 15:3, Yahweh is called an îš milhama, “man of war” or “warrior,” and in Isaiah 42:13, he is said to be like an îš milhama. The îš terminology in Genesis 18:1-15 and 32:23-33, however, is not used metaphorically. On the contrary, these )anasîm are described in graphic, physical human terms. [Esther J. Hamori, When Gods Were Men, p. 1 - 3]
Saturday, June 29, 2013
איש as God in Hosea Chapter 2
Plead with your mother, plead. For she is not My wife, neither am I her husband (איש) and let her put away her harlotries from her face, and her adulteries from between her breasts ... And she shall run after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them, and she shall seek them, but shall not find them; then shall she say: 'I will go and return to my first husband (איש) for then was it better with me than now ... And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call Me אישי, (my husband) and shalt call Me no more בַּעְלִי (my Lord)
Doesn't it now seem apparent that John chapter 4 is little more than a literary development of this material, especially if ΙΣ = אישו
He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” (John 4:16 - 18)
The interest is explicit in the Nag Hammadi text Exegesis on the Soul where a large section from Hosea chapter 2 is cited. The woman must have been understood to have finally recognized the Christian god as her husband (אישי).
This is certainly how the second century heretic Heracleon understood the material. Origen reports "The husband of the Samaritan woman mentioned by Jesus is her Fullness, so that, on coming with him to the Savior, she may obtain from him power and union and the mingling with her Fullness. For he was not speaking to her about her earthly husband and telling her to call him, for he knew quite well that she had no lawful husband. . . The Savior said to her, “Call your husband and come hither,” and meant by this her partner from the Fullness. . . In the spiritual sense she did not know her husband, in the simple sense she was ashamed to say that she had an adulterer, not a husband."
The early Fathers also took an interest in this chapter in Hosea because accompanying his recognition as husband there is the clear proclamation that the ritual observances of the Jews will also end - ""I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." (Hos. 2:13) In Adv. Marc. Book Five Tertullian makes clear the Marcionites used Hosea to frame their argument that the Christian god came to destroy Judaism. Immediately after the last citation - already referenced once in Book One - Tertullian adds "The institutions which He set up Himself, you ask, did He then destroy? Yes, (I respond), rather than any other."
The Heretical Alternative to the Pronunciation of ΙΣ as Ἰησοῦς
One of the most important discoveries in the history of the study of Jewish mysticism was Gershom Scholem uncovering of an earlier, variant text to the Bahir, a sacred, mystical text which is still very influential in Kabbalistic thought. What concerns us especially here is that this text, witness as early as the thirteenth century, helps explain for us a number of difficulties with assuming that אישו was the original name of the Christian god.
Now it would seem that I should go back to the beginning of our discussion in order to explain matters to anyone who has stumbled across this post for the first time (one of the unfortunate things about developing ideas in a blog). The earliest Christian writings make mention of a name above all names which associated with a divine being who visited mankind under Pilate and subsequently 'appeared crucified.' This name is commonly identified as 'Jesus' (Ἰησοῦς) but it is clear from the earliest manuscripts that the name was written ΙΣ.
There can be no doubt that ΙΣ was read as Ἰησοῦς by many early Church Fathers. The assumption must have been that the first and last letters of the name used by the LXX to translate יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. There can be no doubt that this was done by the third century CE. Nevertheless, as we have noted in previous posts, Irenaeus and the early rabbinic tradition identify the name of the Christian god as ישו. This stands very close to the parallel Marcionite name, written in Syriac letters as ISU according to the fourth century Church Father Ephrem the Syrian. The difference is here the 's' sound in each version of the divine name. The heretics retained a name which seemed to be a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς.
This is certainly what C W Mitchell thought when he translated Ephrem's text from the Syriac palimpsest. But I have been wondering ever since whether the Marcionites 'pronounced' the nomen sacrum (= ΙΣ) as ISU. Remember the idea isn't as crazy as it seems given that the orthodox pronounced it Ἰησοῦς. Either way, we see two letters on a page which hid other 'secret letters' - letters which were only revealed by pronunciation.
It has been argued by Hurtado and others that the nomina sacra derive their origins from the Tetragrammaton (= יהוה). But there is a key difference here - there are no 'secret letters' in the Jewish tradition. Much more likely in my mind is the idea that ΙΣ arose in the circles of the followers of 'Marcus' - the charismatic Christian leader reported at length in Irenaeus Against Heresies. It is there that we see repeated mention - and justification - of the existence of 'hidden letters' and sounds (stoicheia). As we mentioned in a previous post, the hidden letter likely added to the sacred heretical nomen sacrum was the episemon, the mystical sixth letter which dropped from the Greek alphabet at an early date and was connected with the Hebrew vav (also a mystical letter in Jewish kabbalah).
In another recent post, I noted that Irenaeus identifies vav as a 'half' (dimidia) letter. But we have to be careful to remind ourselves that this is Irenaeus talking. No other source - ancient or modern - speaks of vav in this manner. He is clearly echoing (or refuting) something put forward by his heretical opponents, and this would appear to be that that the last letter in the name of the Christian god was silent or secret.
It is worth noting that Irenaeus himself in the passage in question distinguishes 'sacred letters' and ordinary letters and speaks in terms of the latter being 'added' to the former:
No one has ever managed to make sense of any of this. The only clue that is available to us is the fact that this bizarre argument is made in the context of the heretics reading two letter name ΙΣ as a six letter word (Ἰησοῦς).
It is also palpably clear that, as we just noted, it is Irenaeus who took ΙΣ to be a 'two and a half letter' name ישו. The Marcionites by contrast pronounced ΙΣ as ISU which implies not only that the vav was 'hidden' for both Irenaeus and Marcion when reading sacred manuscripts but that the Greek name Ἰησοῦς may have interpreted as a disguise - a veil - for the real sacred name of the heretical tradition which was אישו. In other words, ΙΣ not only meant 'Man' (as 1 Cor 15:45 - 49) but quite specifically אישו pronounced 'eeshu' i.e. 'His Man,' God's person, the Man of God, a traditional Samaritan title for Moses.
Under this scenario we begin to understand the heretical view of their god. There were a group of Christians - the psychics - who were only capable of understanding god as a man named Ἰησοῦς. This understanding was absorbed into the mystical consciousness by noting that the letters of the name Ἰησοῦς added up to 888 and that this exact number appears in the first two words of the Song of the Sea (אָז יָשִׁיר a point recognized by Marqe in his Samaritan writings). Exodus chapter 15 is also interestingly enough, the very place the mystical concept of a heavenly איש is also brought forward - two lines later - יְהוָה, אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה.
Does all this come together somewhere? I believe it does. We have already noted that the Marcionites are identified by Ephrem as taking a deep interest in this name איש that appears Exodus 15:3. While all the writings of these mystical sects have pretty much disappeared they appear to have been preserved in a Jewish text called the Sefer HaBahir סֵפֶר הַבָּהִיר allegedly written in the first century CE. While no one believes the text is this early, Gershom Scholem, discovered an early variant text described as:
After noting "that the tenor of this text is completely in the spirit of the Hasidim" he cites the two versions of the text (the variant and the received) side by side one another.
As we are not interested in the received text I will only cite Scholem's discovered text from the thirteenth century:
It is important to note that the one divine name not represented in the surviving reference is the Tetragrammaton. In the parallel text which survives in the copies of the Bahir it is also missing from most manuscripts and we read instead "Then he said: I wish to give to my son the apartment which is called 'alef, but that which is called shin is also beautiful." Scholem provides a footnote here which notes "at the beginning of this paragraph Ms. Munich 290 also read: "That which is called yod is also beautiful." But these words are missing in old quotations. An old commentator even takes the trouble to explain why they do not figure in a text where they obviously belong."
Clearly there was a notion in the earliest traditions associated with the Bahir where איש is the 'name above all names - even יהוה. Indeed יהוה is the middle of three divinities that makes up the totality of the pleroma איש. Aside from the gnostic implications of this concept, it should also be noted that it has always seemed absurd the manner in which Christians identify an ordinary human name Ἰησοῦς as the 'name above all names.' With the aid of the Sepher haBahir we can at least begin to see why איש would have been written in a special way by the earliest Christian manuscripts i.e. ΙΣ. It was clearly regarded as higher than the Tetragrammaton, which as we know was traditionally written with special characters in early Jewish manuscripts.
Moreover it is important to note the discovery of the incantation bowl identified now as 1 Levene, CMB M163. The incantation includes an adjuration בשםיה דאישו דכבש רומא (in the name of Ishu who conquered Rome). The report in Ṭal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, Part 4 p. 38] reads again "this may be Jesus. His name is followed by "and in the name of his exalted father and the holy spirit" which may be an allusion to the trinity. Shaked (JSQ 1999) claims this is the only mention of Jesus in these bowl to date." Moreover we have also already made reference to the grave markers in Anatolia which identify the name of Jesus with the number ninety-nine (= ΙΣ). Little by little our alternative to the human identification of ΙΣ in Marcionite and heretical circles is coming together.
Scholem's discussion of the Sepher haBahir concludes:
I am not sure that we can completely agree with his analysis. Notice also that there are four kings that make up the cosmic man איש. There is clearly one 'silent letter' which would again explain the Marcionite pronunciation of the nomen sacrum as ISU (אישו). Still waiting for those middle period Samaritan prayers where אישו is mentioned too. Benny, are you reading this?
Now it would seem that I should go back to the beginning of our discussion in order to explain matters to anyone who has stumbled across this post for the first time (one of the unfortunate things about developing ideas in a blog). The earliest Christian writings make mention of a name above all names which associated with a divine being who visited mankind under Pilate and subsequently 'appeared crucified.' This name is commonly identified as 'Jesus' (Ἰησοῦς) but it is clear from the earliest manuscripts that the name was written ΙΣ.
There can be no doubt that ΙΣ was read as Ἰησοῦς by many early Church Fathers. The assumption must have been that the first and last letters of the name used by the LXX to translate יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. There can be no doubt that this was done by the third century CE. Nevertheless, as we have noted in previous posts, Irenaeus and the early rabbinic tradition identify the name of the Christian god as ישו. This stands very close to the parallel Marcionite name, written in Syriac letters as ISU according to the fourth century Church Father Ephrem the Syrian. The difference is here the 's' sound in each version of the divine name. The heretics retained a name which seemed to be a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς.
This is certainly what C W Mitchell thought when he translated Ephrem's text from the Syriac palimpsest. But I have been wondering ever since whether the Marcionites 'pronounced' the nomen sacrum (= ΙΣ) as ISU. Remember the idea isn't as crazy as it seems given that the orthodox pronounced it Ἰησοῦς. Either way, we see two letters on a page which hid other 'secret letters' - letters which were only revealed by pronunciation.
It has been argued by Hurtado and others that the nomina sacra derive their origins from the Tetragrammaton (= יהוה). But there is a key difference here - there are no 'secret letters' in the Jewish tradition. Much more likely in my mind is the idea that ΙΣ arose in the circles of the followers of 'Marcus' - the charismatic Christian leader reported at length in Irenaeus Against Heresies. It is there that we see repeated mention - and justification - of the existence of 'hidden letters' and sounds (stoicheia). As we mentioned in a previous post, the hidden letter likely added to the sacred heretical nomen sacrum was the episemon, the mystical sixth letter which dropped from the Greek alphabet at an early date and was connected with the Hebrew vav (also a mystical letter in Jewish kabbalah).
In another recent post, I noted that Irenaeus identifies vav as a 'half' (dimidia) letter. But we have to be careful to remind ourselves that this is Irenaeus talking. No other source - ancient or modern - speaks of vav in this manner. He is clearly echoing (or refuting) something put forward by his heretical opponents, and this would appear to be that that the last letter in the name of the Christian god was silent or secret.
It is worth noting that Irenaeus himself in the passage in question distinguishes 'sacred letters' and ordinary letters and speaks in terms of the latter being 'added' to the former:
in the Hebrew tongue, Jesus contains only two letters and a half ... [f]or these ancient, original, and generally called sacred letters (literae sacerdotales) of the Hebrews are ten in number (but they are written by means of fifteen), the last letter being joined to the first. And thus they write some of these letters according to their natural sequence, just as we do, but others in a reverse direction, from the right hand towards the left, thus tracing the letters backwards.(AH 2.24.2)
No one has ever managed to make sense of any of this. The only clue that is available to us is the fact that this bizarre argument is made in the context of the heretics reading two letter name ΙΣ as a six letter word (Ἰησοῦς).
It is also palpably clear that, as we just noted, it is Irenaeus who took ΙΣ to be a 'two and a half letter' name ישו. The Marcionites by contrast pronounced ΙΣ as ISU which implies not only that the vav was 'hidden' for both Irenaeus and Marcion when reading sacred manuscripts but that the Greek name Ἰησοῦς may have interpreted as a disguise - a veil - for the real sacred name of the heretical tradition which was אישו. In other words, ΙΣ not only meant 'Man' (as 1 Cor 15:45 - 49) but quite specifically אישו pronounced 'eeshu' i.e. 'His Man,' God's person, the Man of God, a traditional Samaritan title for Moses.
Under this scenario we begin to understand the heretical view of their god. There were a group of Christians - the psychics - who were only capable of understanding god as a man named Ἰησοῦς. This understanding was absorbed into the mystical consciousness by noting that the letters of the name Ἰησοῦς added up to 888 and that this exact number appears in the first two words of the Song of the Sea (אָז יָשִׁיר a point recognized by Marqe in his Samaritan writings). Exodus chapter 15 is also interestingly enough, the very place the mystical concept of a heavenly איש is also brought forward - two lines later - יְהוָה, אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה.
Does all this come together somewhere? I believe it does. We have already noted that the Marcionites are identified by Ephrem as taking a deep interest in this name איש that appears Exodus 15:3. While all the writings of these mystical sects have pretty much disappeared they appear to have been preserved in a Jewish text called the Sefer HaBahir סֵפֶר הַבָּהִיר allegedly written in the first century CE. While no one believes the text is this early, Gershom Scholem, discovered an early variant text described as:
one of these Hasidim, the afore- mentioned Ephraim ben Shimshon, (see p. 89 herein) [who] quotes a passage from the Bahir around 1240. His quotation is nothing other than an entirely different version of a passage found in the Bahir texts originating from Provence and Spain. In the ordinary text, Exodus 15:3, "God is a man ['ish] of war," is explained (section 18) by a parable to the effect that the three consonants of the word 'ish indicate the three supreme powers of God. According to the text of Ephraim ben Shimshon, however, there is no reference to the sefiroth, but to the three divine names Elohim, YHWH, Shaddai, and their rank.
After noting "that the tenor of this text is completely in the spirit of the Hasidim" he cites the two versions of the text (the variant and the received) side by side one another.
As we are not interested in the received text I will only cite Scholem's discovered text from the thirteenth century:
Bahir according to Ephraim ben Shimshon:
R. Simlai asked R. Rehumai: What is meant by the verse: a man ['ish] of war? He said him: I will relate to you a parable. It is like a king to whom a son was born. He went to a market and bought him a crown which he named 'alef. When another son was born to him, he went and bought him a crown which he named yod. When a third son was born to him, he went and bought him a crown and named it shin. When another son was born to him he took all of their crowns and made them into one and put it on the head of the fourth, and that signified 'ish, man. He said to him: How long will you still make of your words a mystery? He answered him: First, when Abraham came, He revealed Himself to him on account of the great love with which He loved him, by the name Elohim, which is 'alef. When Isaac came, He revealed Himself under the name of shaddai, and that is shin. But when God revealed Himself to Israel on the shores of the Red Sea, He took the initials of these three names and made a crown, and that is 'ish.
It is important to note that the one divine name not represented in the surviving reference is the Tetragrammaton. In the parallel text which survives in the copies of the Bahir it is also missing from most manuscripts and we read instead "Then he said: I wish to give to my son the apartment which is called 'alef, but that which is called shin is also beautiful." Scholem provides a footnote here which notes "at the beginning of this paragraph Ms. Munich 290 also read: "That which is called yod is also beautiful." But these words are missing in old quotations. An old commentator even takes the trouble to explain why they do not figure in a text where they obviously belong."
Clearly there was a notion in the earliest traditions associated with the Bahir where איש is the 'name above all names - even יהוה. Indeed יהוה is the middle of three divinities that makes up the totality of the pleroma איש. Aside from the gnostic implications of this concept, it should also be noted that it has always seemed absurd the manner in which Christians identify an ordinary human name Ἰησοῦς as the 'name above all names.' With the aid of the Sepher haBahir we can at least begin to see why איש would have been written in a special way by the earliest Christian manuscripts i.e. ΙΣ. It was clearly regarded as higher than the Tetragrammaton, which as we know was traditionally written with special characters in early Jewish manuscripts.
Moreover it is important to note the discovery of the incantation bowl identified now as 1 Levene, CMB M163. The incantation includes an adjuration בשםיה דאישו דכבש רומא (in the name of Ishu who conquered Rome). The report in Ṭal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, Part 4 p. 38] reads again "this may be Jesus. His name is followed by "and in the name of his exalted father and the holy spirit" which may be an allusion to the trinity. Shaked (JSQ 1999) claims this is the only mention of Jesus in these bowl to date." Moreover we have also already made reference to the grave markers in Anatolia which identify the name of Jesus with the number ninety-nine (= ΙΣ). Little by little our alternative to the human identification of ΙΣ in Marcionite and heretical circles is coming together.
Scholem's discussion of the Sepher haBahir concludes:
The two versions of the quotation (discussing Exodus 15:3) are instructive. The common version speaks of the three consonants mentioned, as other passages in the Bahir text suggest, as symbols of the three supreme sefiroth. 96 The second version, on the other hand, knows nothing of any such speculations and merely sees allusions to the names of God that were revealed to the Patriarchs and combined under the heading 'ish. The text of the Bahir was therefore treated in various ways: either the first version reflected the spirit of the Hasidic speculations on the names of God and was subsequently elaborated in accordance with the new, developing symbolism, or the received text had reached the Hasidim already in this form and was then revised in keeping with their simpler way of thinking [Scholem, Origin of the Kaballah p. 124]
I am not sure that we can completely agree with his analysis. Notice also that there are four kings that make up the cosmic man איש. There is clearly one 'silent letter' which would again explain the Marcionite pronunciation of the nomen sacrum as ISU (אישו). Still waiting for those middle period Samaritan prayers where אישו is mentioned too. Benny, are you reading this?
The Use of איש in Aramaic Documents From Egypt
Read it here. I also found a fascinating discussion about the Hebrew words ish איש and isha אשה and the question of their linguistic relationship here.
Is the Nomen Sacrum ΙΣ Merely a Transliteration of אִישׁ?
We start with the first example:
The problem here is that the while the אי is transformed into Ἰ the modern Greek pronunciation of Ἰώβ isn't quite right, akin to our English word 'of.' The next example is:
We have already established that by means of itacism that ήτα was pronounced 'ita' at the time of Jesus in the Middle East. I have avoided mentioning the other examples of this phenomenon.
Next, we have the Persian king:
Then there is the famous 'boot shaped' region:
Then there is the political term 'citizens with equal rights':
and also 'worthy, fit, wealthy':
This by no means scratches the entire list but I think demonstrates that אִישׁ might well stand behind the nomen sacrum ΙΣ. There is certainly nothing stopping it from a linguistic standpoint.
Ἰώβ = איוב
The problem here is that the while the אי is transformed into Ἰ the modern Greek pronunciation of Ἰώβ isn't quite right, akin to our English word 'of.' The next example is:
ήτα = איטא (Jastrow p. 47)
We have already established that by means of itacism that ήτα was pronounced 'ita' at the time of Jesus in the Middle East. I have avoided mentioning the other examples of this phenomenon.
Next, we have the Persian king:
Ἰσδιγέρδης = איזגרא(p. 46)
Then there is the famous 'boot shaped' region:
Ἰταλία = איטליא (Jastrow p. 47)
Then there is the political term 'citizens with equal rights':
ἰσοπολιτεία = אספלטייה (Jastrow p. 53)
and also 'worthy, fit, wealthy':
ἰχανός = איקנוס (Jastrow p. 54)
This by no means scratches the entire list but I think demonstrates that אִישׁ might well stand behind the nomen sacrum ΙΣ. There is certainly nothing stopping it from a linguistic standpoint.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Further Refining Irenaeus Testimony About the Heretical Name of God
I am reconsidering my efforts to reconstruct Irenaeus's discussion of the two 'two and a half letter' sacred names in Hebrew. As the text reads now the two words are ישו and ברוך. But this can't possibly be right because ברוך has four letters not three (let alone 'two and a half'). Furthermore scholars have struggled to identify the last letter. Roberts has shortened ברוך to ברך and argued that the י of ישו and the ך of ברוך are the 'half letters.' But this makes no sense, least of all because ברך is a verb ('to bless') rather than a noun ('blessed') and a proper name.
The passage in question is universally regarded as one of the most corrupt in all of Irenaeus. Indeed as we noted in our earlier post, the 'half letter' is elsewhere identified by Irenaeus as the episemon (= ו). As such it has to stand to reason that corruption has entered the passage again and the original text identified two 'Hebrew' words ישו and ברו where the ו in each 'name' is understood to be the 'dimidia' (= half letter) at the end of each word.
Of course the obvious objection to this reconstruction is - what the hell does ברו mean? The answer I suspect is Irenaeus took it to mean 'his Son' just as he read the ברא in Genesis 1:1 to mean 'the Son.' (Proof 43). It is always dangerous to reconstruct ancient misunderstandings like this. But it has to be said that Irenaeus's 'Hebrew' as reflected in the surviving manuscripts is simply a joke. Now most people take Irenaeus's reference to 'Hebrew' as meaning 'Aramaic.' But it is clear from the transcription in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching that Irenaeus is using the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter 1 rather than an Aramaic or Syriac translation.
Was Irenaeus reading the Hebrew text as Aramaic? This would boggle the mind in its complexity. The obvious way out is to claim that Irenaeus was totally incompetent in Hebrew. But there is a compromise position. The late Hebrew of Proverbs 31:2 uses בר to mean 'son'
To this end, the second 'two and a half' letter word cited by Irenaeus - i.e. ברו - must have been taken by him to be a late Hebrew noun or 'his Son.' This would explain, at least, in part where he got the crazy idea that 'the Son' appeared in Genesis 1:1.
Of course that is not the end of matters. Not by a long shot. We have to consider whether Irenaeus could actually read Hebrew. This seems unlikely given the fact that one would think that the rest of his reconstruction would leave Genesis 1:1 without a verb. But the text is so garbled it is hard to make sense of it:
Is 'basan' a new verb that has been added to the opening lines of Genesis? We simply can't be sure other than to say that 'samenthares' seems to transliterate 'and the earth.'
It is hard to say whether Irenaeus actually could read Hebrew. My sense is that he certainly thought he could read Hebrew and perhaps he knew a few basic rules of conjugation and grammar. To this end he may well have known that ברו = 'his Son' just as the heretics - and the Samaritans - knew that אִישׁו = 'his Man.' Seen from this perspective it is not surprising that Irenaeus put forward both ישו and ברו in his tirade against the heretical interest in the name of the Christian god. Over and over again in the first book of Against Heresies Irenaeus tells us that the heretics began with a quaternion (= i.e. four first principles). In other words, lurking in the background of his two examples of the divine name of the Christian god - ישו and ברו - is the actual term used by the heretics themselves i.e. אִישׁו
The passage in question is universally regarded as one of the most corrupt in all of Irenaeus. Indeed as we noted in our earlier post, the 'half letter' is elsewhere identified by Irenaeus as the episemon (= ו). As such it has to stand to reason that corruption has entered the passage again and the original text identified two 'Hebrew' words ישו and ברו where the ו in each 'name' is understood to be the 'dimidia' (= half letter) at the end of each word.
Of course the obvious objection to this reconstruction is - what the hell does ברו mean? The answer I suspect is Irenaeus took it to mean 'his Son' just as he read the ברא in Genesis 1:1 to mean 'the Son.' (Proof 43). It is always dangerous to reconstruct ancient misunderstandings like this. But it has to be said that Irenaeus's 'Hebrew' as reflected in the surviving manuscripts is simply a joke. Now most people take Irenaeus's reference to 'Hebrew' as meaning 'Aramaic.' But it is clear from the transcription in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching that Irenaeus is using the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter 1 rather than an Aramaic or Syriac translation.
Was Irenaeus reading the Hebrew text as Aramaic? This would boggle the mind in its complexity. The obvious way out is to claim that Irenaeus was totally incompetent in Hebrew. But there is a compromise position. The late Hebrew of Proverbs 31:2 uses בר to mean 'son'
מַה-בְּרִי, וּמַה-בַּר-בִּטְנִי; וּמֶה, בַּר-נְדָרָי
What, my son? and what, O son of my womb? and what, O son of my vows?
To this end, the second 'two and a half' letter word cited by Irenaeus - i.e. ברו - must have been taken by him to be a late Hebrew noun or 'his Son.' This would explain, at least, in part where he got the crazy idea that 'the Son' appeared in Genesis 1:1.
Of course that is not the end of matters. Not by a long shot. We have to consider whether Irenaeus could actually read Hebrew. This seems unlikely given the fact that one would think that the rest of his reconstruction would leave Genesis 1:1 without a verb. But the text is so garbled it is hard to make sense of it:
Now that there was a Son of God, and that He existed not only before He appeared in the world, but also before the world was made, Moses, who was the first that prophesied, says in Hebrew: Baresith bara Elowin basan benuam samenthares. And this, translated into our language, is: "The Son in the beginning: God established then the heaven and the earth."
Is 'basan' a new verb that has been added to the opening lines of Genesis? We simply can't be sure other than to say that 'samenthares' seems to transliterate 'and the earth.'
It is hard to say whether Irenaeus actually could read Hebrew. My sense is that he certainly thought he could read Hebrew and perhaps he knew a few basic rules of conjugation and grammar. To this end he may well have known that ברו = 'his Son' just as the heretics - and the Samaritans - knew that אִישׁו = 'his Man.' Seen from this perspective it is not surprising that Irenaeus put forward both ישו and ברו in his tirade against the heretical interest in the name of the Christian god. Over and over again in the first book of Against Heresies Irenaeus tells us that the heretics began with a quaternion (= i.e. four first principles). In other words, lurking in the background of his two examples of the divine name of the Christian god - ישו and ברו - is the actual term used by the heretics themselves i.e. אִישׁו
Vridar in the Wilderness: the Latest
From Neil by way of Facebook just now:
Joel Watts is not publicly claiming he sent me take-down warnings. I can assure everyone that I received absolutely no warning or take-down notice from either Joel Watts or Wordpress prior to Wordpress deactivating Vridar. None at all. I have asked Wordpress to tell me when they sent me a warning notice and they do not reply. I have checked my spam email and there is nothing from either Joel or Wordpress. Nothing. I did ask Wordpress for a copy of the take-down notice I was supposed to have received and they did send me that -- and I showed that in my alerts to other sites -- but there was no header to indicate when it was supposedly sent or to what email address. They have not replied to my requests to tell me when they supposedly sent me that notice. I received no notice whatever. If Joel says he sent me email notices I ask him to show copies of the emails with send address and times.
Neil Godfrey
Joel Watts is not publicly claiming he sent me take-down warnings. I can assure everyone that I received absolutely no warning or take-down notice from either Joel Watts or Wordpress prior to Wordpress deactivating Vridar. None at all. I have asked Wordpress to tell me when they sent me a warning notice and they do not reply. I have checked my spam email and there is nothing from either Joel or Wordpress. Nothing. I did ask Wordpress for a copy of the take-down notice I was supposed to have received and they did send me that -- and I showed that in my alerts to other sites -- but there was no header to indicate when it was supposedly sent or to what email address. They have not replied to my requests to tell me when they supposedly sent me that notice. I received no notice whatever. If Joel says he sent me email notices I ask him to show copies of the emails with send address and times.
Neil Godfrey
The Resurrection of Vridar (from David Blocker)
Stephan
Please consider adding this to your post: Some of the Vridar Blog is recoverable here :
Best regards
David
Please consider adding this to your post: Some of the Vridar Blog is recoverable here :
Best regards
David
The Passing of Vridar
It is with great sadness that I report that the mythicist blog Vridar has been taken down to day. I consider Neil to be a personal friend. We were both relegated to the 'conspiracy theorist' category at the Biblioblog Top 50. Neil of course had a much more popular and widely read blog than mine. Vridar consistently placed in the top five blogs at the Biblioblog forum while mine languished far below that. At some point a group of like-minded individuals decided to wage war on 'undesirable' blogs and this site was lumped together with his. That's how we started communicating.
It's not like we talked everyday. The truth be told we're friends on Facebook and that's about it. Nevertheless I always felt some sort of bond with Neil owing to the deliberate attempt to belittle him and his work. Apparently investigating the traditions which saw Jesus as wholly divine is forbidden in the Biblioblog community or a sign that you are mentally unbalanced.
In the last few days, Jim West had a hand in revamping the Biblioblog Top 50 and added new members to the lowest rung of hell in the Biblioblog universe. James Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since 1989 and R. Joseph Hoffmann (M.T.S. and Th.M. from Harvard Divinity School and D.Phil. from the University of Oxford) have been recent additions to the 'cellar.'
I am not going to get into who took down Vridar's blog and the circumstances surrounding those events. Anyone who wants can go to James McGrath's blog and see for themselves how this has played out. I will only say that I figured it out yesterday - long before Neil got confirmation from Wordpress. I knew who the perpetrator was and I called him out on it.
I am not going to invoke freedom of speech questions or academic freedom here. Instead I am going to note that a sociologist would say that the 'Biblioblog community' has all the hallmarks of a dysfunctional social order. It's Lord of the Flies revisited through a digital medium. It starts with a group get together to classify a small group as 'undesirable.' They are the butt of jokes and ridicule. The man who brought down Vridar did great personal harm to me, my livelihood and my family. But that was ignored in the cajoling that went on at the time.
There were posts like 'Stephen Huller is not a Biblioblogger.' No, maybe. But that was thanks to an arbitrary decision based on popularity. Neil wasn't a 'Biblioblogger' either. Now James Tabor and R. Joseph Hoffmann are excluded too. How could that possibly have been justified? I remember complaining about the academic credentials of many of the 'favored.' I noted that at least I had published an academic paper in a peer reviewed journal. Now top tier scholars are also made the subject the ridicule.
And the justification for all of this? Of course, it is 'to protect the academic integrity of the forum.' Or is it just a grouping reflective of Jim West and the decision-makers at Biblioblog Top 50. It doesn't matter at this point. The game of this group 'making sport' of weaker, 'lone wolf' bloggers has led to a situation where my friend Neil Godfrey has lost his life's work. Do I blame the actual perpetrator of these actions? To a degree, yes. But I think greater culpability lies with the Biblioblog community. Many of these people claim to be Christians. They are supposed to be living embodiments of Christ person on earth (at least before American's took over the Christian identity).
I think they should stop pretending to be Christians or change their ways. It isn't people like Neil Godfrey and me who are bringing Christianity into disrepute. It is the actions of those who claim to be 'of Christ' but show no signs of learning anything from his teachings.
It's not like we talked everyday. The truth be told we're friends on Facebook and that's about it. Nevertheless I always felt some sort of bond with Neil owing to the deliberate attempt to belittle him and his work. Apparently investigating the traditions which saw Jesus as wholly divine is forbidden in the Biblioblog community or a sign that you are mentally unbalanced.
In the last few days, Jim West had a hand in revamping the Biblioblog Top 50 and added new members to the lowest rung of hell in the Biblioblog universe. James Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since 1989 and R. Joseph Hoffmann (M.T.S. and Th.M. from Harvard Divinity School and D.Phil. from the University of Oxford) have been recent additions to the 'cellar.'
I am not going to get into who took down Vridar's blog and the circumstances surrounding those events. Anyone who wants can go to James McGrath's blog and see for themselves how this has played out. I will only say that I figured it out yesterday - long before Neil got confirmation from Wordpress. I knew who the perpetrator was and I called him out on it.
I am not going to invoke freedom of speech questions or academic freedom here. Instead I am going to note that a sociologist would say that the 'Biblioblog community' has all the hallmarks of a dysfunctional social order. It's Lord of the Flies revisited through a digital medium. It starts with a group get together to classify a small group as 'undesirable.' They are the butt of jokes and ridicule. The man who brought down Vridar did great personal harm to me, my livelihood and my family. But that was ignored in the cajoling that went on at the time.
There were posts like 'Stephen Huller is not a Biblioblogger.' No, maybe. But that was thanks to an arbitrary decision based on popularity. Neil wasn't a 'Biblioblogger' either. Now James Tabor and R. Joseph Hoffmann are excluded too. How could that possibly have been justified? I remember complaining about the academic credentials of many of the 'favored.' I noted that at least I had published an academic paper in a peer reviewed journal. Now top tier scholars are also made the subject the ridicule.
And the justification for all of this? Of course, it is 'to protect the academic integrity of the forum.' Or is it just a grouping reflective of Jim West and the decision-makers at Biblioblog Top 50. It doesn't matter at this point. The game of this group 'making sport' of weaker, 'lone wolf' bloggers has led to a situation where my friend Neil Godfrey has lost his life's work. Do I blame the actual perpetrator of these actions? To a degree, yes. But I think greater culpability lies with the Biblioblog community. Many of these people claim to be Christians. They are supposed to be living embodiments of Christ person on earth (at least before American's took over the Christian identity).
I think they should stop pretending to be Christians or change their ways. It isn't people like Neil Godfrey and me who are bringing Christianity into disrepute. It is the actions of those who claim to be 'of Christ' but show no signs of learning anything from his teachings.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Ossuary of Markeos and Ioudas with Greek inscription,
1 c. BCE-1 c. CE - Plain limestone ossuary, reconstructed; gabled lid too short for box, perhaps intended for a different ossuary. Greek inscription (a) incised to medium depth on one short side (rough-finished), 5 cm from the top rim and slanting down to the right. Above this inscription on rim, another Greek inscription (b) with very faintly incised letters (not all letters of ed. pr. still legible). A third Greek inscription (c) faintly scratched on the other short side (rough-finished), 6 cm from the top rim and slanting down to the right. Lunate sigma in all three inscriptions. Meas.: h 37, w 75, d 30 cm; lid: h 11 cm; (a): l. 22 cm, letters 3-5.5 (b): l. 22 cm, letters 3 cm; (c): l. 22 cm, letters 3-5 cm. Pres. loc: Beth Shemesh, IAA inv. no. 1975-667. Autopsy: 14 June 2007.
(a) ΜΑΡΚΕΟΣ
(b) ΜΑΡΚΑΕΟΣ
(c) ΙΟΥΔΑΣ
(a) Μάρκεος
(b) Μάρκαεος
(c) Ἰούδας
(a) Markeos.
(b) Markaeos.
(c) Ioudas.
fig. 23.3 (b) Comm.: Inscriptions (a) and (b), written in different hands, obviously refer to the same person, who had the common Latin nomen gentile Marcius, usually spelled Μάρκιος.Ἰούδας is the most common Greek version of Hebrew Yehuda. Given their placement on the ossuary, the two names probably represent two deceased relatives, rather than one man with the name Marcius Ioudas; Marcius may also be a distortion of the praenomen Marcus, but this is not likely. [source]
(a) ΜΑΡΚΕΟΣ
(b) ΜΑΡΚΑΕΟΣ
(c) ΙΟΥΔΑΣ
(a) Μάρκεος
(b) Μάρκαεος
(c) Ἰούδας
(a) Markeos.
(b) Markaeos.
(c) Ioudas.
fig. 23.3 (b) Comm.: Inscriptions (a) and (b), written in different hands, obviously refer to the same person, who had the common Latin nomen gentile Marcius, usually spelled Μάρκιος.Ἰούδας is the most common Greek version of Hebrew Yehuda. Given their placement on the ossuary, the two names probably represent two deceased relatives, rather than one man with the name Marcius Ioudas; Marcius may also be a distortion of the praenomen Marcus, but this is not likely. [source]
The Mystical Truth Hidden in the Name of the Christian God
I think I have taken sufficient time here to demonstrate that the evidence suggests it is quite possible - and indeed quite likely - that the earliest Christians pronounced the name of their god as 'Eesu' or 'Eesous.' Why does this matter? I think this strips away at an important layer in the traditional understanding of this 'Lord' as a Jewish teacher from Galilee named יְהוֹשֻׁעַ or יֵשׁוּעַ. Why so? There is in my mind a fundamental disconnect with respect to 'the historical Jesus' and the so-called 'mythical Jesus.' The fact that there are countless discussions on the internet about the relative value of each understanding has done little to further the discussion owing to the blind spots in each camps knowledge base.
The beginning of wisdom here is for both sides to acknowledge that there is little or no evidence for a critical fact. Human beings and divine beings did not share the same names at the turn of the Common Era. As I have noted here many times, angel names like 'Michael,' 'Gabriel' and the like were not used by people, just as human beings did not take divine names. To this end, a god named 'Joshua' should be an incredible difficulty for people who think about ancient religious traditions. Yet what seems to help it along is the fact that our culture developed from a set of Protestant assumptions which were in themselves little more than reactions against traditional 'Catholic' superstitions about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
It is incredible, even when you go back to the eighteenth century - as I did when doing research on D'Antraigues - you get a real sense of how reactionary history really is. Even today - even this very day - when for instance the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States. When you sift through the reaction to any historical event from the perspective of hovering over matters from 'an altitude of five thousand miles' it is fascinating to see how very little of the reaction comes from disinterested - even objective - parties.
Just as Protestantism was a historical reaction against Catholicism and so on down the line, there are very few writers in antiquity who provide us information about the religion from a disinterested perspective. So it is that no one ever quite articulates how unusual it is for a god - even the God - of Christianity to have been named Joshua. In recent times Richard Carrier has attempted to argue that Philo understood the Logos to have been so-named - a position which is easily rejected from the actual statements made by the Alexandrian writer.
Carrier is an activist scholar in the same way that there are 'activists' or partisans on the other side. I hope, by contrast that I attract a different type of intellectual at my blog. For if we are really to be honest with ourselves, Jerome's (or perhaps originally Origen's) acknowledgement of the precarious 'man-God' balance in early orthodoxy should serve as our starting point here. On the one hand, we read in the Commentary on Galatians that there were Marcionites and others who argued that Jesus was all God. On the other there were 'the poor' in understanding (again to borrow from Origen elsewhere in his writings) who understood Jesus in terms of only being a human being.
I have long said that anyone claiming to be a 'mythicist' should adopt Marcionite or related 'heretical' interpretation as their POV. Of course most of these individuals lack the discipline for an undertaking. They want to clandestinely use the 'mythical perspective' to help dismantle 'the historical Jesus' and thereby 'disprove' Christianity. Similarly for centuries now, ever since the Protestant reformation, there has been a tendency of modernists to see the divine nature of Jesus as something of an 'exaggeration' on the part of the 'overly enthusiastic' mob of early Christian believers.
While the vast majority of scholars in the field of early Christianity assume the existence of a historical Jesus person, they typically do so at the expense of his claims to divinity. Jesus can be Joshua - or even a 'Hellenized Jew' named Ἰησοῦς - but they refuse to acknowledge that there is still a disconnect with the core beliefs of their tradition. For it is impossible to believe on any level that the level of devotion we see given to 'the Name' of the Christian god could have been directed to the rather ordinary Hebrew appellation יְהוֹשֻׁעַ or even יֵשׁוּעַ
So that is the real difficulty. When Jesus speaks of others 'coming in his Name' or the frequent mention in apostolic writers of the power of 'his Name' we can be absolutely certain that the early Christians did not have in mind the common Hebrew appellation 'Joshua.' Irenaeus in fact makes this absolutely clear when he argues against the name for the Christian god used by his heretical opponents and to support the sacredness of ישו Of course, it has become fashionable now to reconcile the agreement between Irenaeus and rabbinic sources here so as to reinforce the notion that ישו was a further abbreviating of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (after all יֵשׁוּעַ is exactly that).
What is often ignored in this discussion is that Ephrem already provides us with an important missing clue. For he says that the Marcionites - those early believers whom Jerome and everyone else in antiquity identifies as understanding Jesus solely as a divinity - called up their God as Isu. There can be absolutely no doubt that Irenaeus's ישו bears some relation to the Marcionite Isu. Even Ephrem has abandoned this ישו and references his Lord as יֵשׁוּעַ The Syriac was pronounced by many ancient traditions as 'Isho' by the Nestorians and 'Yeshu' by Jacobites. But there is a clear attempt to move in the direction of associating the Christian god with the human savior of Israel (= Joshua).
It is important to note that 'Isho' was used not only by the orthodox, but also by the Manichaeans. Mitchell rightly notes that the Marcionite form 'Isu' must have been a direct transcription of the Greek name of the Christian divinity. However it is very significant to note that itacism was already present at the time of Marcion for there is no reference to the eta - i.e. IESU rather than ISU. Note also that Irenaeus says, while speaking of the Marcosians (a sect I have long argued is directly related to the Marcionites) that "transferring the name Jesus, which belongs to another language, to the numeration of the Greeks, they sometimes call it "Episemon," as having six letters, and at other times "the Plenitude of the Ogdoads," as containing the number eight hundred and eighty-eight."
The important thing to realize in the midst of Irenaeus is argument is that the heretics developed their mystical ideas from the Greek letters of the name of their god, in contrast to Irenaeus who remained rooted in 'Hebrew.' He goes on to say - rejecting their interest in Greek - that:
The fact that Irenaeus has such a poor grasp of 'Hebrew' should make us very suspicious of his claims about the name ישו. We should refrain from merely following our presuppositions and assuming what we think Irenaeus meant, rather than actually paying attention to what he says.
The key part of the discussion is the second last line - "the Father ... Bythus, in like manner, and not less Monogenes but pre-eminently the name which is above all others, by which God is called, and which in the Hebrew tongue is expressed by Baruch, which also contains two and a half letters." Clearly there is a great deal of corruption in the existing manuscript for 'baruch' (בָּרוּךְ) has four letters and cannot be thought of as a heavenly name in the way described. Just as 'sura usser' is a corruption of Genesis 2:4 a later scribe read Irenaeus's original reference to a three letter (two and half) name related to Jesus and wrote 'baruch.' What is that original name? The obvious answer is to shorten baruch to baru = 'sonship' a term that shows up in the early description of Basilides. What strengthens this argument is that Irenaeus reads Genesis 1:1 בָּרָ֣א as 'the Son.'(Proof 43)
To this end it should be clear that (a) Irenaeus wrote in Syriac and (b) the half letter in both 'yeshu' and 'baru' is the vav. Irenaeus also says that the heretics themselves identify the name of their god to contain 'two and a half' Greek letters - "as the learned among them declare, two letters and a half." To this end there should be no doubt that these heretics like the Syrian Marcionites of Ephrem understood the divine name to be ISU. Scholars have been misled to believe that the iota is the half (= dimidia) letter not realizing also that Irenaeus repeatedly makes clear that roots his discussion in Syriac (Hebrew) letter
Thus it is not surprising that when he discusses the Marcosian system earlier the Greek equivalent of vav (= episemon) is repeatedly identified as a half-letter. So we read it taught by Mark that "the number six (= episemon) had the power both of formation and regeneration" and "the double letters contain the Episemon number" (AH 1.14.6) and again directly cites Mark's words as "Consider this present Episemon Him who was formed after the [original] Episemon, as being, as it were, divided or cut into two parts, and remaining outside; who, by His own power and wisdom, through means of that which had been produced by Himself, gave life to this world, consisting of seven powers, after the likeness of the power of the Hebdomad, and so formed it, that it is the soul of everything visible." (ibid 1.14.7)
To this end, and this is critical, given that (a) the heretics themselves use the term 'half letter' (b) that half letter is the episemon, the sixth letter and (c) Irenaeus identifies it as the vav in Ishu and baru it stands to reason in the heretical system this sixth letter episemon would not show up in Greek spellings of the divine name. It is above all else a silent letter, 'unspeakable' hence the 'silence' of Truth in the description of Marcus. In this mystical system then the Syriac Isu must have been written in Greek as the nomina sacra = ΙΣ and was pronounced Ees. Undoubtedly many of the 'docetic' notions of a phantom Jesus was rooted in the hidden presence of the episemon in this name.
Yet the clearest proof of this understanding is the fact that Irenaeus spends so much time in his report refuting the heretical interest in the episemon with respect to the parable of the ninety-nine sheep. The discussion as it stands now is quite perplexing. The 'twelfth' is at once 'divided' again to make two sixes who are at once embodied in Judas and the woman with a menstrual flow (AH 2.20) but again connected "with the twelfth number, the sheep frisked off, and went astray; for they assert that a defection took place from the Twelfthness. In the same way they oracularly declare, that one power having departed also from the Twelfthness, has perished; and this was represented by the woman who lost the drachma, and, lighting a lamp, again found it. Thus, therefore, the numbers that were left, viz., nine, as respects the pieces of money, and eleven in regard to the sheep, when multiplied together, give birth to the number ninety-nine, for nine times eleven are ninety-nine. Wherefore also they maintain the word "Amen" contains this number." (AH 1.14.1)
In no uncertain terms there was a mystical understanding where the episemon was added back to the body of Greek letters (= 'restored') and augmented their value, transforming for instance 'ninety nine' into a hundred. Irenaeus focuses on the attempts of the heretics to read ΙΣ the name which actually appears in the earliest manuscripts as Ἰησοῦς which has six letters. Read for instance what Irenaeus says about this mystical 'adding' process. "They maintain for instance, that the letter Eta along with the Episemon fifteen are formed." But Eta is the seventh letter of the Greek alphabet so it is clear that the mystical idea being reinforced once again is that all the letters are augmented by one with the addition of the mystical episemon.
This is why we see in what immediately follows - "Eta being added to these, since its value is eight." It is supposed to be seven as we noted but now it has been transformed. In the next line this addition to the Eta or the 'Ogdoad' is likened by Mark to the process of the episemon transforming the ninety-nine. How so? Well, it stands as a strange coincidence - one which could not have been ignored by the heretics - that the actual name which appeared on the most ancient manuscripts that the letters of ΙΣ without the addition of the episemon add up to ninety nine. In other words, there can be no doubt that the heretics are reported by Irenaeus as holding that the episemon transformed the ΙΣ from ninety nine to the holy number one hundred.
As we shall demonstrate shortly there can be no doubt that is at once ΙΣ is supposed to be read as אִישׁ where indeed the mystical episemon is added to the 'son of Adam' described by the author of Genesis as an אִ֖ישׁ 'from the Lord' (Gen 4:1). This is also the origin of the connection between Judas and Cain and the sect of the Cainites. For the moment at least - and because I have to go - it is enough for us to demonstrate that this mystical interest in the ninety-nine from a fourth century gravestone in Anatolia:
One more ignored Marcionite citation may be in order:
It is enough to say that the reintegration of Judas into the sacred mysteries of earliest Christianity is essential to make sense of its meaning.
Note: I want to thank Andrew Criddle for making me aware of the existence of the gravestone.
The beginning of wisdom here is for both sides to acknowledge that there is little or no evidence for a critical fact. Human beings and divine beings did not share the same names at the turn of the Common Era. As I have noted here many times, angel names like 'Michael,' 'Gabriel' and the like were not used by people, just as human beings did not take divine names. To this end, a god named 'Joshua' should be an incredible difficulty for people who think about ancient religious traditions. Yet what seems to help it along is the fact that our culture developed from a set of Protestant assumptions which were in themselves little more than reactions against traditional 'Catholic' superstitions about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
It is incredible, even when you go back to the eighteenth century - as I did when doing research on D'Antraigues - you get a real sense of how reactionary history really is. Even today - even this very day - when for instance the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States. When you sift through the reaction to any historical event from the perspective of hovering over matters from 'an altitude of five thousand miles' it is fascinating to see how very little of the reaction comes from disinterested - even objective - parties.
Just as Protestantism was a historical reaction against Catholicism and so on down the line, there are very few writers in antiquity who provide us information about the religion from a disinterested perspective. So it is that no one ever quite articulates how unusual it is for a god - even the God - of Christianity to have been named Joshua. In recent times Richard Carrier has attempted to argue that Philo understood the Logos to have been so-named - a position which is easily rejected from the actual statements made by the Alexandrian writer.
Carrier is an activist scholar in the same way that there are 'activists' or partisans on the other side. I hope, by contrast that I attract a different type of intellectual at my blog. For if we are really to be honest with ourselves, Jerome's (or perhaps originally Origen's) acknowledgement of the precarious 'man-God' balance in early orthodoxy should serve as our starting point here. On the one hand, we read in the Commentary on Galatians that there were Marcionites and others who argued that Jesus was all God. On the other there were 'the poor' in understanding (again to borrow from Origen elsewhere in his writings) who understood Jesus in terms of only being a human being.
I have long said that anyone claiming to be a 'mythicist' should adopt Marcionite or related 'heretical' interpretation as their POV. Of course most of these individuals lack the discipline for an undertaking. They want to clandestinely use the 'mythical perspective' to help dismantle 'the historical Jesus' and thereby 'disprove' Christianity. Similarly for centuries now, ever since the Protestant reformation, there has been a tendency of modernists to see the divine nature of Jesus as something of an 'exaggeration' on the part of the 'overly enthusiastic' mob of early Christian believers.
While the vast majority of scholars in the field of early Christianity assume the existence of a historical Jesus person, they typically do so at the expense of his claims to divinity. Jesus can be Joshua - or even a 'Hellenized Jew' named Ἰησοῦς - but they refuse to acknowledge that there is still a disconnect with the core beliefs of their tradition. For it is impossible to believe on any level that the level of devotion we see given to 'the Name' of the Christian god could have been directed to the rather ordinary Hebrew appellation יְהוֹשֻׁעַ or even יֵשׁוּעַ
So that is the real difficulty. When Jesus speaks of others 'coming in his Name' or the frequent mention in apostolic writers of the power of 'his Name' we can be absolutely certain that the early Christians did not have in mind the common Hebrew appellation 'Joshua.' Irenaeus in fact makes this absolutely clear when he argues against the name for the Christian god used by his heretical opponents and to support the sacredness of ישו Of course, it has become fashionable now to reconcile the agreement between Irenaeus and rabbinic sources here so as to reinforce the notion that ישו was a further abbreviating of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (after all יֵשׁוּעַ is exactly that).
What is often ignored in this discussion is that Ephrem already provides us with an important missing clue. For he says that the Marcionites - those early believers whom Jerome and everyone else in antiquity identifies as understanding Jesus solely as a divinity - called up their God as Isu. There can be absolutely no doubt that Irenaeus's ישו bears some relation to the Marcionite Isu. Even Ephrem has abandoned this ישו and references his Lord as יֵשׁוּעַ The Syriac was pronounced by many ancient traditions as 'Isho' by the Nestorians and 'Yeshu' by Jacobites. But there is a clear attempt to move in the direction of associating the Christian god with the human savior of Israel (= Joshua).
It is important to note that 'Isho' was used not only by the orthodox, but also by the Manichaeans. Mitchell rightly notes that the Marcionite form 'Isu' must have been a direct transcription of the Greek name of the Christian divinity. However it is very significant to note that itacism was already present at the time of Marcion for there is no reference to the eta - i.e. IESU rather than ISU. Note also that Irenaeus says, while speaking of the Marcosians (a sect I have long argued is directly related to the Marcionites) that "transferring the name Jesus, which belongs to another language, to the numeration of the Greeks, they sometimes call it "Episemon," as having six letters, and at other times "the Plenitude of the Ogdoads," as containing the number eight hundred and eighty-eight."
The important thing to realize in the midst of Irenaeus is argument is that the heretics developed their mystical ideas from the Greek letters of the name of their god, in contrast to Irenaeus who remained rooted in 'Hebrew.' He goes on to say - rejecting their interest in Greek - that:
But His Greek name, which is "Soter" (Σωτήρ) that is, Saviour, because it does not fit in with their system, either with respect to numerical value or as regards its letters, they pass over in silence. Yet surely, if they regard the names of the Lord, as, in accordance with the preconceived purpose of the Father, by means of their numerical value and letters, indicating number in the Pleroma, Σωτήρ, as being a Greek name, ought by means of its letters and the numbers, in virtue of its being Greek, to show forth the mystery of the Pleroma. But the case is not so, because it is a word of five letters, and its numerical value is one thousand four hundred and eight. But these things do not in any way correspond with their Pleroma; the account, therefore, which they give of transactions in the Pleroma cannot be true. Moreover, Jesus, which is a word belonging to the proper tongue of the Hebrews, contains, as the learned among them declare, two letters and a half, (= ישו) and signifies that Lord who contains heaven and earth;(= Gen 2:4) for Jesus in the ancient Hebrew language means "heaven," while again "earth" is expressed by the words sura usser. The word, therefore, which contains heaven and earth is just Jesus. Their explanation, then, of the Episemon is false, and their numerical calculation is also manifestly overthrown. For, in their own language, Σωτήρ is a Greek word of five letters; but, on the other hand, in the Hebrew tongue, Jesus contains only two letters and a half. The total which they reckon up, viz., eight hundred and eighty-eight, therefore falls to the ground. And throughout, the Hebrew letters do not correspond in number with the Greek, although these especially, as being the more ancient and unchanging, ought to uphold the reckoning connected with the names. For these ancient, original, and generally called sacred letters of the Hebrews are ten in number (but they are written by means of fifteen), the last letter being joined to the first. And thus they write some of these letters according to their natural sequence, just as we do, but others in a reverse direction, from the right hand towards the left, thus tracing the letters backwards. The name Christ, too, ought to be capable of being reckoned up in harmony with the Aeons of their Pleroma, inasmuch as, according to their statements, He was produced for the establishment and rectification of their Pleroma. The Father, too, in the same way, ought, both by means of letters and numerical value, to contain the number of those Aeons who were produced by Him; Bythus, in like manner, and not less Monogenes; but pre-eminently the name which is above all others, by which God is called, and which in the Hebrew tongue is expressed by Baruch, which also contains two and a half letters. From this fact, therefore, that the more important names, both in the Hebrew and Greek languages, do not conform to their system, either as respects the number of letters or the reckoning brought out of them, the forced character of their calculations respecting the rest becomes clearly manifest.
The fact that Irenaeus has such a poor grasp of 'Hebrew' should make us very suspicious of his claims about the name ישו. We should refrain from merely following our presuppositions and assuming what we think Irenaeus meant, rather than actually paying attention to what he says.
The key part of the discussion is the second last line - "the Father ... Bythus, in like manner, and not less Monogenes but pre-eminently the name which is above all others, by which God is called, and which in the Hebrew tongue is expressed by Baruch, which also contains two and a half letters." Clearly there is a great deal of corruption in the existing manuscript for 'baruch' (בָּרוּךְ) has four letters and cannot be thought of as a heavenly name in the way described. Just as 'sura usser' is a corruption of Genesis 2:4 a later scribe read Irenaeus's original reference to a three letter (two and half) name related to Jesus and wrote 'baruch.' What is that original name? The obvious answer is to shorten baruch to baru = 'sonship' a term that shows up in the early description of Basilides. What strengthens this argument is that Irenaeus reads Genesis 1:1 בָּרָ֣א as 'the Son.'(Proof 43)
To this end it should be clear that (a) Irenaeus wrote in Syriac and (b) the half letter in both 'yeshu' and 'baru' is the vav. Irenaeus also says that the heretics themselves identify the name of their god to contain 'two and a half' Greek letters - "as the learned among them declare, two letters and a half." To this end there should be no doubt that these heretics like the Syrian Marcionites of Ephrem understood the divine name to be ISU. Scholars have been misled to believe that the iota is the half (= dimidia) letter not realizing also that Irenaeus repeatedly makes clear that roots his discussion in Syriac (Hebrew) letter
Thus it is not surprising that when he discusses the Marcosian system earlier the Greek equivalent of vav (= episemon) is repeatedly identified as a half-letter. So we read it taught by Mark that "the number six (= episemon) had the power both of formation and regeneration" and "the double letters contain the Episemon number" (AH 1.14.6) and again directly cites Mark's words as "Consider this present Episemon Him who was formed after the [original] Episemon, as being, as it were, divided or cut into two parts, and remaining outside; who, by His own power and wisdom, through means of that which had been produced by Himself, gave life to this world, consisting of seven powers, after the likeness of the power of the Hebdomad, and so formed it, that it is the soul of everything visible." (ibid 1.14.7)
To this end, and this is critical, given that (a) the heretics themselves use the term 'half letter' (b) that half letter is the episemon, the sixth letter and (c) Irenaeus identifies it as the vav in Ishu and baru it stands to reason in the heretical system this sixth letter episemon would not show up in Greek spellings of the divine name. It is above all else a silent letter, 'unspeakable' hence the 'silence' of Truth in the description of Marcus. In this mystical system then the Syriac Isu must have been written in Greek as the nomina sacra = ΙΣ and was pronounced Ees. Undoubtedly many of the 'docetic' notions of a phantom Jesus was rooted in the hidden presence of the episemon in this name.
Yet the clearest proof of this understanding is the fact that Irenaeus spends so much time in his report refuting the heretical interest in the episemon with respect to the parable of the ninety-nine sheep. The discussion as it stands now is quite perplexing. The 'twelfth' is at once 'divided' again to make two sixes who are at once embodied in Judas and the woman with a menstrual flow (AH 2.20) but again connected "with the twelfth number, the sheep frisked off, and went astray; for they assert that a defection took place from the Twelfthness. In the same way they oracularly declare, that one power having departed also from the Twelfthness, has perished; and this was represented by the woman who lost the drachma, and, lighting a lamp, again found it. Thus, therefore, the numbers that were left, viz., nine, as respects the pieces of money, and eleven in regard to the sheep, when multiplied together, give birth to the number ninety-nine, for nine times eleven are ninety-nine. Wherefore also they maintain the word "Amen" contains this number." (AH 1.14.1)
In no uncertain terms there was a mystical understanding where the episemon was added back to the body of Greek letters (= 'restored') and augmented their value, transforming for instance 'ninety nine' into a hundred. Irenaeus focuses on the attempts of the heretics to read ΙΣ the name which actually appears in the earliest manuscripts as Ἰησοῦς which has six letters. Read for instance what Irenaeus says about this mystical 'adding' process. "They maintain for instance, that the letter Eta along with the Episemon fifteen are formed." But Eta is the seventh letter of the Greek alphabet so it is clear that the mystical idea being reinforced once again is that all the letters are augmented by one with the addition of the mystical episemon.
This is why we see in what immediately follows - "Eta being added to these, since its value is eight." It is supposed to be seven as we noted but now it has been transformed. In the next line this addition to the Eta or the 'Ogdoad' is likened by Mark to the process of the episemon transforming the ninety-nine. How so? Well, it stands as a strange coincidence - one which could not have been ignored by the heretics - that the actual name which appeared on the most ancient manuscripts that the letters of ΙΣ without the addition of the episemon add up to ninety nine. In other words, there can be no doubt that the heretics are reported by Irenaeus as holding that the episemon transformed the ΙΣ from ninety nine to the holy number one hundred.
As we shall demonstrate shortly there can be no doubt that is at once ΙΣ is supposed to be read as אִישׁ where indeed the mystical episemon is added to the 'son of Adam' described by the author of Genesis as an אִ֖ישׁ 'from the Lord' (Gen 4:1). This is also the origin of the connection between Judas and Cain and the sect of the Cainites. For the moment at least - and because I have to go - it is enough for us to demonstrate that this mystical interest in the ninety-nine from a fourth century gravestone in Anatolia:
The fourth volume of the Inscriptions Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, which deals with the Roman province of Asia, is happily nearing completion : the fascicule 394 issued in 1925, under the editorship of G. Lafaye, comprises the addenda and corrigenda of the volume and the first part of the full indexes which are indispensable in a work of this nature. H. Grégoire is engaged in the preparation of the remaining instalments of his Recueil des Inscriptions Grecques Chrétiennes d'Asie Mineure 39S and we may hope that ere long this great undertaking also will reach its conclusion : meanwhile he has put forward attractive solutions of problems presented by two inscriptions, an epitaph from Mendechora which will be mentioned below and the heretical verses from Bash Hiiyiik published by W. M. Calder in Anatolian Studies, 76 ff.,39' in which Grégoire explains the TICAITPCIN (erroneously engraved for TICATICIN) as the Aramaic for 99, indicating the mystical name of Christ, Ἀμὴν, the numerical values of whose letters give a total of 99.
One more ignored Marcionite citation may be in order:
Our God is unaware of the character of the men he is promoting: and so is yours: he would not have promoted Judas the traitor if he had known before- hand (what he was to be). And as you affirm that in one place the Creator told a lie, there is a much greater lie in your Christ, for his body was not a true one. My God's cruelty has put an end to many: your god in his turn consigns to destruction those whom he omits to save. My God ordered a certain person to be put to death: yours desired himself to be killed, a murderer as well of himself as of the man by whom it was his will to be put to death. I shall prove to Marcion that his god has put to death a great many: for he made a murderer, who consequently must perish, unless it is the case that that people committed no sin against Christ. [Adv. Marc. 2.28]
It is enough to say that the reintegration of Judas into the sacred mysteries of earliest Christianity is essential to make sense of its meaning.
Note: I want to thank Andrew Criddle for making me aware of the existence of the gravestone.
Pronouncing Eta as Iota at Pompeii (79 CE)
Itacism, that is, the pronunciation of the Greek eta and of the various diphthongs with iota uniformly as i, and the trimming down of endings in -ius or -ios to -is, are quite general phenomena and recur, for example, in Pompeii. [Hermann Vogelstein, Rome p. 41]
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Was 'Camel Through the Eye of a Needle' a Third Century Church Reaction Against Itacisms in the Heretical Gospel?
25. easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. A hyperbolic comparison sums up the matter; again Jesus uses a grotesque figure. See 6:41–42; cf. Matt 23:24. The largest of Palestinian animals is compared with the tiniest of commonly known openings. Both “camel” and “eye of a needle” are to be understood literally. See O. Michel, TDNT 3. 592–594; S. Pedersen, EWNT 2. 609–611. In its own way, the comparison makes the same point as Jesus’ saying about the “narrow door” (13:24).
To avoid the grotesque in the comparison, some commentators have suggested other explanations of the saying—both of them improbable: (1) Some would understand the “eye of a needle” as the name for a small entrance in a city wall through which a camel might squeeze only with the greatest difficulty. See G. Aicher, Kamel und Nadelöhr, 16–21, for a list of those who have proposed such an explanation. Plausible as it might seem, no one knows of the existence of such a named tiny entrance. (2) Ever since the patristic period others have suggested that kámēlos, which in Roman and Byzantine times would have been pronounced káh-mee-los (by itacism, according to which an ēta was pronounced as an iōta), should be understood as kámilos, which means “rope, hawser, ship’s cable.” Indeed, a few mss., undoubtedly affected by this interpretation, even read kamilon (S, f13, 1010, etc.). This explanation was used by Origen, Catena, frgs. in Matt. 19.24 (GCS 41.166); Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. in Matt. 19.24 (PG 72.429D); Theophylact, Enarr. in Matt. 19 (PG 123.356D). See further J. Denk, “Camelus: 1. Kamel, 2. Schiffstau,” ZNW 5 (1904) 256–257; “Suum cuique,” BZ 3 (1905) 367; F. Herklotz, “Miszelle zu Mt 19,24 und Parall.,” BZ 2 (1904) 176–177; “Nachtrag,” BZ 3 (1905) 39. Again, plausible as it might seem, it takes something off the edge of Jesus’ words. Note that the rabbinic saying about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle (Str-B 1. 828) dates from the fourth century and may well be dependent on this gospel saying. Fitzmyer, J. A., S.J. (2008). The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV: Introduction, translation, and notes (1204). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Eta and Iota Were Indistinguishable at the Time of the Gospel
THE USE OF THE GREEK 'H' (ETA). Another usage points exactly in the same direction: that of the Greek letter 'H' (η) to denote the Egyptian long /e/. We know that the pronunciation of this letter as /I/ (thus falling together with the original long "I" and the older diphthong 'ei') , the so called 'itacism', developed relatively late, though at different times in different areas. For much of mainland Greece itacism seems to have become the rule during the fourth century B.C.E (with the notable exception of Attica)9. The Greek Koine as spoken in the Middle East seems to have held up on the change for some time. The Septuagint , written in Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy II (285- 247 B.C.E.) , still consistently transcribes the Hebrew /e/ with 'H', cf. 'Eliyyahu (אֱלִיָּהוּ Gk.'Elias Ἠλίας), etc. Only about 150 B.C. E. do misspellings of 'l' for 'H' begin to appear in the papyri. Therefore , though this criterion does not necessitate as high a date as the one the aspirate occlusives demand, , it places the use of the Greek script for writing Egyptian at 150 B.C.E. at the latest, and thus squarely in the pre-Christian era. [University of South Florida Language Quarterly, Volumes 10-14 p. 4]
A Clear Example of Itacism Using Eta at the Time of Polycarp
(4) 'Aννία 'Pήγιλλα 'Hρώδοv γvνή, τὸ φως της οἰkίας τίνος τα υτα τά Xωρία γέγοναν
Annia Regilla Hirodis uxor lumen domus cuius haec praedia fuerunt.
Annia Regilla, wife of Herodes, light of the house, to whom this estate belonged.
An interesting feature in example (4) is the representation of the Greek eta in the Latin version (Regilla, Hirodis). Ῥήγιλλα is the conventional way of writing Regilla ... This is easy to understand, as other Greek onomastic models such as Herakles/Hercules were so familiar that confusion between (E) and (i) rarely appeared in similar names in spite of the pronunciation. Therefore, the itacism in Hirodis is unexpected. The inscription (and others of this kind) was set up by Herodes Atticus after his wife's death to commemorate her and perhaps to dispel doubts that he had killed her.' The itacism informs us that the person who wrote the text had difficulty in transferring the Greek eta into Latin (Ῥήγιλλα = Regilla where eta-/e:/, Ἡρῴδης = Hirodis, eta=/i:/),' although Herodes was usually spelt correctly in Latin. The text, or at least part of it ... may have been planned by Herodes himself, since other texts of this kind have been found (e.g. Ameling 1983: ii no. 147=/G iii. 1417). [Martti Leiwo, From Contact to Mixture in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact Adn the Written Word p. 175]
χρηστός is Rendered Exclusively in the Nag Hammadi treatise on the Resurrection
It is also possible that, as in other Gnostic contexts, the name "Christ" is rendered exclusively with χρηστός in Treat.
Res. (43.37; 48.19; 50.1) in order to avoid any association of the true Savior with the Creator God or with a fleshly human being [James Robinson, The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Volume 3, p. 193]
Robertson on η and ι in New Testament Manuscripts
(c) THE CHANGES WITH η.
The changes between η and α, η and ε have already been discussed. η and ι. As already stated, originally H was merely the rough
breathing, but the Ionic psilosis left a symbol useless, and heta was called eta.2 Thus the new letter took the old long ε value in Ionic and Attic and also largely supplanted the long α where α became e. The Sanskrit used long a, the Greek η and the Latin either e or i. This new (in spelling) η (v/B.c.) gradually turned more to the i sound in harmony with the growing itacism of the language, though there was some etacism on the other hand.3 As early as 150 B.C. the Egyptian papyri show evidence of the use of ι for η.4 By the middle of the second century A.D. the confusion between η and ι, η and ει, ηι and ει is very general. By the Byzantine times it is complete and the itacism is triumphant in the modern Greek.5 Reinhold6 thinks that the exchange between η and ι was natural in view of the relation between η and ε and the interchange between ε and ι. As early as the fifth century B.C. the change between η and ι is seen on vases and inscriptions. But the Ptolemaic papyri show little of it and it is rare in the LXX MSS. א,AB (Thackeray, Gr., p. 85). In the N. T. times the interchanges between η and ι, η and ει, ηι and ει are not many. In 1 Cor. 4:11 W. H. read γυμνιτεύω, though L and most of the cursives have η. The N. T. always has
δηνάριον, though δινάριον appears very early.7 For κάμηλος in Mt. 19:24 and Lu. 18:25 a few late cursive MSS. substitute
κάμιλος (‘rope’), a word found only in Suidas and a scholium on Arist. But "it is certainly wrong,"8 a mere effort to
explain away the difficulty in the text, an effort as old as Cyril of Alexandria on Luke. For Κυρήνιος B9 it. vg. sah. have
Κυρῖνος, while B* has Κυρεῖνος and A has Κηρύνιος, a striking example of itacism, η, ι, ει, υ having the same sound in these MSS. The N. T. MSS. give σιμικίνθιον in Ads 19:12, but Liddell and Thayer both suggest σημ. as an alternative spelling like the Latin semi-cinctium. So also the best MSS. in Rev. 18:12 read σιρικός, though some cursives have σηρικός (like Jos. and others), and still others συρικός.9 Indeed in 1 Pet. 2:3 for χρηστός L and many cursives have Χριστός. The heathen misunderstood the word Χριστός and confounded it with the familiar χρηστός, pronounced much alike. Suetonius (Claudius 25) probably confused Christus with Chrestus. In Ac. 11:26, א have Χρηστιανούς, while B has Χρειστ. So in Ac. 26:28
א, has Χρηστιανόν for Χριστ., while B has again ει. The same thing occurs in 1 Pet. 4:16.
1. Thumb, Hellen., p. 92.
2. Hort, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. 63.
3. Thumb, Hellen., p. 98 f.
4. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 29. Cf. also Thumb, Hellen., p. 138. In Boeotia also η and ι interchange in ii/B.C. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 46. Mayser (Gr., p. 82) cites from a Hom. pap. of i/B.C. ἔθικε for ἔθηκε, and per contra (p. 84) ἀφήκετο
5. Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 47. He gives ἐπή for ἐπί from a Byz. inscr.
6. De Graec. Patr. etc., p. 41. Cf. also Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 34 f
7. Blass, Ausspr. d. Griech., pp. 37, 94.
8. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151.
9. Ib., refers to σιρικοποιός in Neap. inscr. (C. I. G. 5834). In the mod. Gk. η = ι in pronunciation. Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volkerspr., p. 2. W.-Sch. (p. 46) mention θήβην, θίβην, θείβην, in Ex. 2:3-6.
1. Thumb, Hellen., p. 92.
2. Hort, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. 63.
3. Thumb, Hellen., p. 98 f.
4. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 29. Cf. also Thumb, Hellen., p. 138. In Boeotia also η and ι interchange in ii/B.C. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 46. Mayser (Gr., p. 82) cites from a Hom. pap. of i/B.C. ἔθικε for ἔθηκε, and per contra (p. 84) ἀφήκετο
5. Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 47. He gives ἐπή for ἐπί from a Byz. inscr.
6. De Graec. Patr. etc., p. 41. Cf. also Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 34 f
7. Blass, Ausspr. d. Griech., pp. 37, 94.
8. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151.
9. Ib., refers to σιρικοποιός in Neap. inscr. (C. I. G. 5834). In the mod. Gk. η = ι in pronunciation. Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volkerspr., p. 2. W.-Sch. (p. 46) mention θήβην, θίβην, θείβην, in Ex. 2:3-6.
Itacisms With Eta and Iota in Greek Manuscripts of 1 Samuel
The full spelling has caused the reading χρηστοῦ in O through itacism; both 247 and 376 inconsistently use the orthography with eta and iota as well as the nomen sacrum: 1 Sam 2:10 χριστου 247, χρηστου 376; 2:35 χρηστου O; 12:3 χυ 247, χριστου 376; 12:5, 16:6 χρηστος O; 24:7 χρηστω, χρηστος O; 24:11 χς 247, χρηστος 376 (also A); 26:9 χν O; 26:11 χρηστον O; 26:16 χν 247, χρηστον 376; and 26:23 χρηστον O. [Tuukka Kauhanen, The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel p. 118]
Itacisms in the Fourth Century
The error of 'itacism' resulted in Greek because, as of the fourth century, the vowels eta, iota, and upsilon, and the diphtongs ei, oi, and ui, were all pronounced like long e in English. [The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies p. 142]
Itacisms in P46
Papyrus 46 - The significance of P46 from the Chester Beatty collection can hardly be overestimated. Dated with confidence about a.d. 200, it provides what is by far the earliest nearly complete text of Galatians ... The total number of variations comes to 136, but 44 of them consist of orthographic differences that have no intrinsic significance, and so we can dismiss them from further discussion except to note two matters. A full 17 of these differences are cases of itacism, in particular the use of the diphthong ei where the UBS3 text has i. [Moises Silva, The Text of Galatians in Scribes and Scripture, p. 18]
More Itacisms in Marcion
Luke xi 42 - κρίσιν = κλῆσιν Marcion according to Epiph. i 313, 332 and Ten. Marc, iv 27. Perhaps only due to an itacism and an easy interchange of liquids [Hort Westcott on Luke 11:42]
Itacism in the Earliest Hymns of Christianity
Our earliest reference to the singing of Christians as they shared the eucharistic meal identifies their song as Psalm 34. Could it even be that, as they sang "Taste and see that χρηστός (is) the Lord", it sounded to them very like, "Taste and see that χριστός (is) the Lord"? [Margaret Daly-Denton, Singing Hymns to Christ as a God, in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism p. 281]
Evidence of Itacism Among the First Christians
The word for gracious is chrestos, which, by a peculiarity of pronunciation called itacism, was pronounced exactly the same as Christos. There seems to have been in St. Peter's mind a play on words which would instantly suggest itself to his hearers; they knew by tasting the pure milk of the Logos, that Christos was chrestos ("sweet" or "gracious "). The word chrestos is found in Luke v. 39. In Luke vi. 35, there is an assonance — " God is gracious [chrestos] to the ungracious [acharistous]." The Christians, among themselves, dwelt on the fact that while "Christian" and "malefactor" were almost identical terms on the lips of the heathen, they were Chrestiani, or "children of graciousness," because they were Christianoi, or "children of Christ." [Frederic William Farrar, Texts explained p. 324]
Chrestos and Itacism
The Greek name (Chrestos), however, would have been pronounced Christos (by itacism) in Suetonius's day. [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary p. 37]Suetonius lived 70 - 130 CE which would imply to me at least that from the earliest possible period of recorded information about Christianity the name of the Christian god was pronounced 'Eesous.'
Marcion and Itacism
Now that I am focusing on this problem of the eta in the name of the Christian god, I am remembering a conversation I had with David Trobisch a while back. It is common knowledge that the Marcionites referenced their god as χρηστός rather than χριστός. Even Strong has this in their entry for the Greek word - "appears as a spelling variant for the unfamiliar Christus (Xristos). (In Greek the two words were pronounced alike.)" (F. F. Bruce, The Books of Acts, 368).
I noted to Trobisch that an old book on Christian inscriptions noted that there were far more references in the inscriptions to χρηστός rather than χριστός. In fact even χρειστός appeared more often than χριστός. The point here is that many people have noted that itacism must have been present in Christianity from a very early period. An example from Marcionitism:
I noted to Trobisch that an old book on Christian inscriptions noted that there were far more references in the inscriptions to χρηστός rather than χριστός. In fact even χρειστός appeared more often than χριστός. The point here is that many people have noted that itacism must have been present in Christianity from a very early period. An example from Marcionitism:
1 Corinth. ix. 8 Marcion reads εὶ οὐχὶ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα λέγει, whereas Epiphanius reads ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα λέγει. Here there appears to have been no falsification. Probably ἢ and εὶ were interchanged by itacism. [Samuel Davidson, A Treatise on Biblical Criticism: Exhibiting a Systematic View, Volume 2 p. 49]
Itacism in the Early Third Century Church
Only in Hippolytus and Epiphanius, the name "Elchasai"/"Elxai" begins with eta. In the other patristic Greek texts, the opening vowel is epsilon. The name of the sect is always (also in Epiphanius, see below) spelled with epsilon. This is noteworthy if we bear in mind that at the time the eta was commonly pronounced as i (itacism).[1] The difference under discussion is therefore more significant than the usual transcriptions in modern languages might suggest ... we may take it for granted that the eta-spelling of the name "Elchasai"/"Elxai" is attested by the earlier patristic reports (Hippolytus and Epiphanius; two independent witnesses, cf. above, pp. 174f), while the name-forms with epsilon occur in later sources.
[Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, the Revelation of Elchasai p. 180]
[1] Cf. F. Blass, A. Debrunner, F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 15th ed. 1979, §24
[Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, the Revelation of Elchasai p. 180]
[1] Cf. F. Blass, A. Debrunner, F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 15th ed. 1979, §24
The First Christians Pronounced Ἰησοῦς the Way Modern Greeks Do (= Eesous)
This is a surprisingly significant inquiry because there is just so much bad information about the pronunciation of Ἰησοῦς. It also allows, most significantly, for our identification of the Christian god 'Jesus' to be a disguise for the Enochian 'man' god or - in short - ΙΣ = אִישׁ. As I have said here many times before, the Marcionite Isu as referenced in the writings of Ephrem would go back to the Hebrew title 'His Man' (= God's person) a figure commonly found in the Hebrew prayers of the Samaritan Middle Period.
Iotacism and Itacism
Iotacism is the process by which a number of vowels and diphthongs in Ancient Greek converged in pronunciation so that they all sound like iota (= ee) in Modern Greek. In the case of the letter eta specifically, this process is known as itacism (from the resulting pronunciation of the letter's name as [ˈita]).
On Pronouncing the Name Ἰησοῦς
It has been the fate of this letter (iota = ι), as writers have remarked, to be the subject of as much controversy as any in the whole alphabet. Erasmus and his followers contended, that the ancients pronounced it like what they called long E in Latin; by which they meant a sound like a in our word fate. The Modern Greeks pronounce it like our ee; which is the sound given to it by the English, and which we have always been accustomed to give it. As far as respects ourselves, therefore, we have no dispute with the Modern Greeks about this letter. But the writers on the continent of Europe have generally considered that pronunciation as erroneous; it will, therefore, be necessary, to notice briefly the grounds, upon which the two modes are defended. That this letter at one period had a sound differing in some respects from that, which it now has in Greece, must be inferred from the description given of it by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, which is different from his description of the sound of Iota; and this latter indisputably had the sound of long e (or ee) in our language. In the Herculanean manuscripts too, the η is sometimes used by the copvist, through mistake, instead of Epsilon. But there is also a great mass of evidence tending to show, that about the commencement of the Christian era or not long afterwards, the η and ι were both pronounced alike; and, if we can ascertain the pronunciation of the language as far back as that period, it will be sufficiently near the classic ages of Greece, to satisfy the most fastidious ear of foreigners, as we are in respect to the language. The arguments on both sides of the question respecting the η, are very minutely stated (from various authors but not without remarks of his own) by Velastus, a Greek monk of the island of Chios, in the Dissertation to which I have before referred, and in which upwards of thirty quarto pages are devoted to this letter alone. [John Pickering On Greek Pronunciation, the North American Review June 1819 p. 106]
Isar: On Chiasms
In their book Information through the Ages: Literacy, Numeracy, and the Computer Revolution, Michael Hobart and Zachary S. Schiffman offer a broad picture of the phenomena with a special chapter (“Orality and the Problem of Memory”) devoted to the problem of memory in orality, in contrast to our notion in the era of technology: The term ‘memory’ evokes the image of a thing, a container for information, or the content of that container. Thus, from our literate viewpoint, the Iliad preserves the knowledge of the Trojan War. But in jumping to this conclusion, we lose sight of the Iliad as an oral phenomenon, as the singing of a song. It is not so much a thing as an act, a gestalt, uniting bard and audience in a shared consciousness. This phenomenon has little in common with that desiccated thing we literates call “memory.” In the world before writing, memory is the social act of remembering. It is commemoration.
Isar's point is very important even outside the study of cognitive psychology. Why was the Cross so holy in early Christianity? Because it represented the process of 'two becoming one.' Don't believe me? "His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility" [Ephesians 2:15, 16]
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Jesus on the Cross as Adam Kadmon
I think there is a danger inherent in critical scholarship to just end up destroying everything for the sake of destroying everything. I think a lot of the work trying to reduce Christianity down to 'myths' these days is utterly misguided. Our purpose is not to believe or disbelieve but simply to understand.
I am firmly convinced that the mystical core of Christianity couldn't have been stupid. It's not that I am a believer - I am not. It is just that Clement is too erudite to have wasted his time with something dumb. The real challenge of Secret Mark isn't the question of its authenticity. It is rather that the discovery exposes how limited our understanding of Christianity really is.
All the experts who claim that it is a forgery do so because it exposes how little they really know. Whereas someone like myself begins with the assumption that I don't know anything (as I wasn't brought up in a Christian home), the experts never gave up control over what Christianity is. Someone like Bart Ehrman for instance might have gone from a believer to an atheist but he never relinquished his authority over the material.
I trust scholars that cautiously accept the authenticity of Secret Mark because it shows that they are honest souls. All that we know about Christianity is what our historical masters back in the third and fourth centuries wanted us to know about Christianity. The canon became limited to a set of falsified texts which together gave an unnatural (i.e. something which did not arise innocently) portrait of Jesus and the Church.
To this end, the notion of a 'Jewish man' named Jesus 'preaching' a set of beliefs before being crucified at the instigation of the Jews should be understood to have been a convenient historical model for a group of white men in the third century. It does not represent 'truth' or 'history' but rather a useful historical people imposed on the faithful from without.
So it is that when we look up at our T-shaped cross with a morbid Jesus agonizing over his mistreatment we are only witnessing one rather late historical reinterpretation of the original paradigm. For Justin clearly could not have imagined Jesus suffered when he came to embody Plato's World Soul on his chi-formed cross.
Why on earth do such understandings escape the minds of these otherwise brilliant minds? Like Ehrman most of them refuse to let go. Even as many try and rewrite history and pretend that the gospel did not understand the Jews to be wicked, they too are merely imposing their needs and wants on history. The purpose again is not to have our presuppositions guide our research as much as it is to have our suppositions grounded in truth.
But alas, as Nietzsche noted at the end of the Genealogy of Morals - "man would rather will nothingness than not will at all."
The Banalité Challenge
While I was in Las Vegas I started - rather unconsciously - referring to just about everything I encountered as 'une banalité.' Yes there are amazing resorts, amazing places to dine, amazing shows to see - but in the context of the whole, it all seems so utterly banal. Now that I have arrived home I can't stop it. Everything seems utterly trite. I find it impossible to watch television. Has the world really gotten to be morbidly dense or is it just the effect of the internet (= taking away the intelligent). I tend to think the former ...
Who Was It That Came Down to Earth From Heaven in 6000 AM (21 CE)?
My latest observations all go together. They represent what I think is an incredibly important breakthrough, which theoretically at least, might form the basis to a new book. Just who exactly would be the audience for this stuff is up for grabs. The answer is probably no one. Nevertheless there are a few people who care about this stuff. Who would publish such a book remains also up for grabs. But here we go anyway.
When Ephrem reports about the Marcionite understanding Jesus coming down from heaven to earth he says that a 'mountain' was used. Which mountain would an early Christian tradition have in mind? The only possible answer is Mount Gerizim. There are no other stories of mountains reaching up to heaven and the description as it appears in Ephrem leaves little doubt that Gerizim is intended.
But that's not the revelation.
In the Third Discourse to Hypatius Ephrem makes clear to the knowledgeable the origins of the Marcionite Esu (= Jesus) for he writes:
The 'man of war' in Song of the Sea in Exodus is אִישׁ. It is pronounced eesh. A light should immediately go on the heads of knowledgeable people because the earliest manuscripts of Christianity do not have the name 'Jesus' or Ἰησοῦς but ΙΣ or ΙΥ. It is 'assumed' that this is supposed to be a 'shortened form' of Ἰησοῦς but the Marcionite make clear this is not so.
I will argue in the coming weeks and months that Pauline mysticism knew from the very beginning that the gospel began in the year 6000 AM with the Enochian figure of אִישׁ coming down from heaven. There isn't a lot of speculation about this understanding. Just read 1 Corinthians 15 ...
When Ephrem reports about the Marcionite understanding Jesus coming down from heaven to earth he says that a 'mountain' was used. Which mountain would an early Christian tradition have in mind? The only possible answer is Mount Gerizim. There are no other stories of mountains reaching up to heaven and the description as it appears in Ephrem leaves little doubt that Gerizim is intended.
But that's not the revelation.
In the Third Discourse to Hypatius Ephrem makes clear to the knowledgeable the origins of the Marcionite Esu (= Jesus) for he writes:
And if they say that he was far from him, infinitely far, if it was a mountain immeasurable and an endless path, and a vast extent without any limit, then how was that Stranger able to proceed and come down the immeasurable mountain, and (through) a dead region in which there was no living air, and (across) a bitter waste which nothing had ever crossed? And if they make the improbable statement that "the Stranger like a man of war was able to come," well if he came as a man of war-[though he did not come), (take the case of) those weak Souls whom he brought up hence, how were these sickly ones able to travel through all that region which God their Maker and Creator was not able to traverse, as they say?
The 'man of war' in Song of the Sea in Exodus is אִישׁ. It is pronounced eesh. A light should immediately go on the heads of knowledgeable people because the earliest manuscripts of Christianity do not have the name 'Jesus' or Ἰησοῦς but ΙΣ or ΙΥ. It is 'assumed' that this is supposed to be a 'shortened form' of Ἰησοῦς but the Marcionite make clear this is not so.
I will argue in the coming weeks and months that Pauline mysticism knew from the very beginning that the gospel began in the year 6000 AM with the Enochian figure of אִישׁ coming down from heaven. There isn't a lot of speculation about this understanding. Just read 1 Corinthians 15 ...
Monday, June 24, 2013
A New Research Resource
I have found the most amazing book fully in digital format available on line. I am talking about Henri Grégoire's Recueil des inscriptions grecques-chrétiennes d'Asie mineure. I was looking for what I believe is a Marcionite inscription in Laodicia. But this is only half the story. Apparently there is a competitor to Google Books called HathiTrust:
The Original Understanding of When Jesus Came to Earth [Part One]
I was aware of course that Christians took an interest in the figure of 6000 AM (anno mundi = 'year of the world') however I was not aware that so many believed that it already took place. I cited the Marcionite belief from De Recta in Deum Fide in a previous post. It also worth noting that Ephrem - the most important opponent of Marcionitism in the East - shared the very same understanding. Aphraates holds a compatible belief and the great chronographer John Malalas (Greek: Ἰωάννης Μαλάλας c. 491 – 578) tells us that this was also the original belief of Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch and virtually all the early Fathers. Here are Malalas's own words:
Of course we no longer have the historical references for any of these early authors which John Malalas had access to in Antioch. Nevertheless it should be obvious that even if they survived up to a certain point in history they would have been destroyed or altered.
The belief that the world would be destroyed at 6000 AM was very widespread in antiquity. We have a number of Church Fathers from the late third century and beyond worry about the impending date. Lactantius, the tutor of the son of Constantine, writing in 320 CE makes reference to the contemporary belief that the world only had two centuries left before it 'transformed.' At least part of this understanding was owing to the efforts of Julius Africanus who set the year 5500 as the birth of Christ - "From Adam to the death of Phalek 3000 years, and to the presence (parousian) of the Lord and the Resurrection 5531 years." These words come from the later Greek chronographer citing Africanus's Chronographae. Syncellus' earlier citation (18.8) from Africanus about the year 5500: "Hebrew tradition counted 5500 years to the appearance (èpipháneian) of the Saving Word" sound a little less unusual - 'parousia' is usually a term reserved for the Second Coming.
Nevertheless it is equally clear from the reports about Marcionites and from the writings of Ephrem the Syrian that the original understanding was quite different. 6000 AM was the date of the 'appearance' of Jesus at the beginning of the heretical gospel when he floated down from heaven to this world. Ephrem merely identifies Jesus's crucifixion as happening 'after' the year 6000 AM. Yet the implication is now clear - Jesus was understood by the Marcionites to have come as a divine messenger for the transformation of the world, for the arrival of the 'kingdom of God.' It may be argued that Julius Africanus was part of an effort to 'correct' a belief that had been disproved by history. The world did not 'end' or 'change' with the 'appearance' of Jesus. Of course, the critical view is quite different. Maybe Julius Africanus, the friend of the Emperor Septimius Severus was part of a third century effort to make sure that it never succeeded at its original goal ...
(227) In the 42nd year and the fourth month of the reign of Augustus our Lord God Jesus Christ was born, eight days before the Kalends of January, on 25th December, at the seventh hour of the day, in a city of Judaea named Bethlehem, which is near Jerusalem, in the year 42 according to the calendar of Antioch the Great, while Quirinius the ex-consul was governor of Syria, Octavian and Silvanus were consuls, and emperor Herod was toparch, or emperor, of Judaea. Thus from Adam to Phalek, the son of Heber, the total is 2533 years, and from Phalek until the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus Caesar (228) 2967 years, so that the total from Adam the first-created until the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus Caesar is 5500 years. Then our Lord God passed 33 years on earth among men, as is recorded in the scriptures, so that from Adam until the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and his crucifixion there were 5533 years. For Phalek, according to the prophetic words is said to be at the mid-point in time before the future coming of Christ. For just as he created man on the sixth day, as Moses stated, he recorded this too in his writings, "One day for the Lord is as a thousand years." It was on the sixth day, as scripture said, that God created man and man fell into sin, so it is plain that it was on the sixth millennium day that our Lord Jesus Christ appeared on earth, and saved man through the Cross and resurrection. This has been written by Clement, Theophilos and Timotheos, the learned chroniclers, who agree among themselves. The chronicler Eusebios Pamphilou, most dear to God, who became bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, also says that the Lord Jesus Christ, the saviour of all, appeared in the sixth millennium, corresponding to the number of the six days of Adam's creation. But he said that it was before the completion of the year 6000 that our Lord God Jesus Christ appeared on earth to redeem the human race. He was born and made man, he said, in the year 5500. Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered and rose again and ascended into heaven in the year 5533. All agree that the Lord appeared in the year 6000. So, in spite of variations up and down, they said that he appeared in the sixth year, in accordance with the words of prophecy; and even if those who have made statements about the number of years do not agree, he appeared at the end of time, as the sacred scripture shows.
Of course we no longer have the historical references for any of these early authors which John Malalas had access to in Antioch. Nevertheless it should be obvious that even if they survived up to a certain point in history they would have been destroyed or altered.
The belief that the world would be destroyed at 6000 AM was very widespread in antiquity. We have a number of Church Fathers from the late third century and beyond worry about the impending date. Lactantius, the tutor of the son of Constantine, writing in 320 CE makes reference to the contemporary belief that the world only had two centuries left before it 'transformed.' At least part of this understanding was owing to the efforts of Julius Africanus who set the year 5500 as the birth of Christ - "From Adam to the death of Phalek 3000 years, and to the presence (parousian) of the Lord and the Resurrection 5531 years." These words come from the later Greek chronographer citing Africanus's Chronographae. Syncellus' earlier citation (18.8) from Africanus about the year 5500: "Hebrew tradition counted 5500 years to the appearance (èpipháneian) of the Saving Word" sound a little less unusual - 'parousia' is usually a term reserved for the Second Coming.
Nevertheless it is equally clear from the reports about Marcionites and from the writings of Ephrem the Syrian that the original understanding was quite different. 6000 AM was the date of the 'appearance' of Jesus at the beginning of the heretical gospel when he floated down from heaven to this world. Ephrem merely identifies Jesus's crucifixion as happening 'after' the year 6000 AM. Yet the implication is now clear - Jesus was understood by the Marcionites to have come as a divine messenger for the transformation of the world, for the arrival of the 'kingdom of God.' It may be argued that Julius Africanus was part of an effort to 'correct' a belief that had been disproved by history. The world did not 'end' or 'change' with the 'appearance' of Jesus. Of course, the critical view is quite different. Maybe Julius Africanus, the friend of the Emperor Septimius Severus was part of a third century effort to make sure that it never succeeded at its original goal ...
The Best Thing About Getting Old(er)
Being able to gaze upon youth as a stranger and admiring its beauty unmoved. In short - indifference.
Are We Ever Really In Love?
I don't mean to digress from my usual discussions here. I did go on a holiday for a week in Las Vegas. I found all the scantily clad female staff at the hotel quite distracting. In all fairness, there really is something to this covering-up women thing in Muslim countries. For instance, when I hanging out at the pool, trying to make a phone call or swim with my family in the pool, I really couldn't help but see the private parts of women barely covered.
Now I would be the last person to complain about being in such a predicament. After all, Las Vegas is such a unique place - something of a 'fantasy world.' I don't even know why we go there so often. I think part of it has to with the fact it is such a short flight from here to there.
I find living in my current city near Seattle, Washington quite 'monastic' by comparison. I rarely see attractive women at all. The lack of sunlight makes everyone look like they are recovering from chemotherapy. There are no black women here so all my silly talk just leads to more silly talk. I almost start believing that I really just 'like to talk to women.'
But then I started wondering. Is there really such a thing as love? I know this has been covered by greater thinkers and better writers than myself. I grew up after all reading La Rochefoucauld in French lying in the sun for most of my life. L'amour-propre est le plus grand de tous les flatteurs.
When you are young it seems 'deep' to admit that there is no love but self-love. But when you get older, even self-love flies out the window.
I love my wife - that's true. I happen to have a very beautiful little world out here in the woods. But the reality is that there is only so long that you can live with someone without coming to the awareness that love is a transaction. It goes something like this. If I entertain you, you will love me. If I buy you things, you will love me. But it's all the same. In the end, you are just dancing in front of a mirror.
So at the end of the day, after years and years of skirting the issue, you eventually dare to swim in the massive pool of indifference. I think if you are too young, such a dip is deadly. I mean, let's face it, if you are attractive and accessible, someone else will fancy you.
I spent five days in Dallas on my own last month and that was the happiest five days of the last five years. No wife, no kids - nothing. I felt like me again. Of course I was making silly talk. But I am so good at it. I am so good and gently steering conversation on to subjects of love and the meaning of existence with beautiful women. It's so natural when that's what I am feeling.
My question though is whether that is all there is. I mean, I've been there and charmed many a woman. There's so beautiful and when they want you, it makes you feel beautiful and wanted. But the reality is that when you are older, it is impossible to carry on innocently in these games. Maybe that's why people drink (another odd fact about me - I avoid alcohol).
I know it won't mean anything to anyone reading this, but I have reached a certain age with a pure soul. Again, I know it sounds stupid. No one talks like that any more. But there is something to gazing longingly at beauty with a pure heart. As I said it sounds so stupid. I think if you have been a romantic person - and you have half a brain - you get to the halfway point in your life and you know - there is no such thing as love beyond self-love.
There's nothing you can do to make someone better. There's nothing you can do to free someone, to make them anything but worse. All the things they tell you on television shows and popular books and magazines is a lie. Love is such an awkward thing. There really is only the lover and the loved and then in the end, someone has to take control and the other person is left to trust.
It makes the world seem fair and reasonable when we believe all the stories we hear about men and woman who wickedly abused that trust. But the reality is that I don't believe that all the people that 'let someone down' were really bad. It's just that things are never meant to work out for true love. The reality is that the relationships which last are those insulated from any disappointment because the passions have all dried up.
Most people don't know this but there was a great deal more variety in monastic life than is generally recognized. It isn't just some guy sitting in a room by himself. There is a great deal of archaeological evidence to suggest that early Christian monks lived in pairs. While it is little consolation for the unhappily married, perhaps God wants us all to be alone together with a significant other. The hard part is coming around to accept it.
Now I would be the last person to complain about being in such a predicament. After all, Las Vegas is such a unique place - something of a 'fantasy world.' I don't even know why we go there so often. I think part of it has to with the fact it is such a short flight from here to there.
I find living in my current city near Seattle, Washington quite 'monastic' by comparison. I rarely see attractive women at all. The lack of sunlight makes everyone look like they are recovering from chemotherapy. There are no black women here so all my silly talk just leads to more silly talk. I almost start believing that I really just 'like to talk to women.'
But then I started wondering. Is there really such a thing as love? I know this has been covered by greater thinkers and better writers than myself. I grew up after all reading La Rochefoucauld in French lying in the sun for most of my life. L'amour-propre est le plus grand de tous les flatteurs.
When you are young it seems 'deep' to admit that there is no love but self-love. But when you get older, even self-love flies out the window.
I love my wife - that's true. I happen to have a very beautiful little world out here in the woods. But the reality is that there is only so long that you can live with someone without coming to the awareness that love is a transaction. It goes something like this. If I entertain you, you will love me. If I buy you things, you will love me. But it's all the same. In the end, you are just dancing in front of a mirror.
So at the end of the day, after years and years of skirting the issue, you eventually dare to swim in the massive pool of indifference. I think if you are too young, such a dip is deadly. I mean, let's face it, if you are attractive and accessible, someone else will fancy you.
I spent five days in Dallas on my own last month and that was the happiest five days of the last five years. No wife, no kids - nothing. I felt like me again. Of course I was making silly talk. But I am so good at it. I am so good and gently steering conversation on to subjects of love and the meaning of existence with beautiful women. It's so natural when that's what I am feeling.
My question though is whether that is all there is. I mean, I've been there and charmed many a woman. There's so beautiful and when they want you, it makes you feel beautiful and wanted. But the reality is that when you are older, it is impossible to carry on innocently in these games. Maybe that's why people drink (another odd fact about me - I avoid alcohol).
I know it won't mean anything to anyone reading this, but I have reached a certain age with a pure soul. Again, I know it sounds stupid. No one talks like that any more. But there is something to gazing longingly at beauty with a pure heart. As I said it sounds so stupid. I think if you have been a romantic person - and you have half a brain - you get to the halfway point in your life and you know - there is no such thing as love beyond self-love.
There's nothing you can do to make someone better. There's nothing you can do to free someone, to make them anything but worse. All the things they tell you on television shows and popular books and magazines is a lie. Love is such an awkward thing. There really is only the lover and the loved and then in the end, someone has to take control and the other person is left to trust.
It makes the world seem fair and reasonable when we believe all the stories we hear about men and woman who wickedly abused that trust. But the reality is that I don't believe that all the people that 'let someone down' were really bad. It's just that things are never meant to work out for true love. The reality is that the relationships which last are those insulated from any disappointment because the passions have all dried up.
Most people don't know this but there was a great deal more variety in monastic life than is generally recognized. It isn't just some guy sitting in a room by himself. There is a great deal of archaeological evidence to suggest that early Christian monks lived in pairs. While it is little consolation for the unhappily married, perhaps God wants us all to be alone together with a significant other. The hard part is coming around to accept it.
The Actual Year the Gospel Began
It has long been known that at the twilight of pagan Rome, the Emperor Maximinus Daia prescribed a group of documents known as 'the Acts of Pilate' as compulsory reading in schools (Eusebius,. H.E. ix. 5. 2, 7. 1) in order to discredit Christianity. It is also common knowledge that Eusebius takes issue with the dating of the crucifixion from these texts. Instead of 30, 33 CE or any 'normal' dating for this event, the pagan Acts designate 21 CE as the correct year. I really don't believe that people have given a fair shake to this dating. The reason I say this of course is that it happens to fall exactly 49 years before the destruction of the temple. The fact that Jesus is inevitably linked with a 'threat' to destroy this building makes the 'mystical number' 49 (7 x 7) all the more interesting.
Over the next few posts we will take a look at the manner in which little pieces of the original paradigm 'come together' to make absolutely certain that Luke gets it wrong. Before the words 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' there was absolutely no obvious way for an outsider to determine when any of the things in the gospel ever took place. Luke, as we all know, is very much a reactionary text. The gospel and Acts were clearly established to counter hallowed Marcionite truths. Now we will begin to put forward that the original dating of 20 CE for the beginning of Jesus's ministry was also one of those most sacred truths - previously unrecognized.
Over the next few posts we will take a look at the manner in which little pieces of the original paradigm 'come together' to make absolutely certain that Luke gets it wrong. Before the words 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' there was absolutely no obvious way for an outsider to determine when any of the things in the gospel ever took place. Luke, as we all know, is very much a reactionary text. The gospel and Acts were clearly established to counter hallowed Marcionite truths. Now we will begin to put forward that the original dating of 20 CE for the beginning of Jesus's ministry was also one of those most sacred truths - previously unrecognized.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Marcion the Millenarist
AD: When did he descend to save humankind?
MK. As it says in the Gospel: in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, at the time of Pilate.
AD. He descended in the six thousandth year after the Creator God had fashioned man, How could He be good, when he had not saved anyone for so long a time. [Adamantius, De Recta in Deum Fide 823c]
MK. As it says in the Gospel: in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, at the time of Pilate.
AD. He descended in the six thousandth year after the Creator God had fashioned man, How could He be good, when he had not saved anyone for so long a time. [Adamantius, De Recta in Deum Fide 823c]
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Shouting Jesus
According to Father Tadros El-Bakhoumi, the name of the Christian God is pronounced Eesos the same as it is in modern Greek. In modern Syriac it is either Eesho or Eesho'. What puzzles me is how are we so certain what the pronunciation of Greek speaking Christian in the second and third centuries. Yes we can determine how a name should be pronounced from the letters on the page. But most Christians were illiterate. The word which appeared on the page really only had meaning to an elect few in the Church and more importantly the actual name Ιησούς almost never appears in any Christian writing. When Lactantius says that the ignorant identify their Lord as 'Chrestos' rather than 'Christos' and we find countless spelling variations in the early inscriptions (= Chreistos) it is difficult to feel confident over what the correct pronunciation of ΙΗ and ΙΗΣ should have been.
There is also a paucity of examples of common Greek words from antiquity that began with iota eta. Many of these words are only known to us because they appear in Hesychius of Alexandria's "Alphabetical Collection of All Words" (Συναγωγὴ Πασῶν Λεξέων κατὰ Στοιχεῖον), includes approximately 2640 entries, a copious list of peculiar words, forms and phrases, with an explanation of their meaning, and often with a reference to the author who used them or to the district of Greece where they were current. I have highlighted in red the Hesychius entries and regional variants of words that usually began with ἰα, ἰο or another vowel:
It would seem to me at least that the only naturally occurring examples of ἰη connect it with a cry or exclamation. The most obvious example is the term Ἰηπαιήων in the hymns of Apollo.
This term derives its origin from Παιάν, an appellation of Apollo as the healing deity ; the burden of the song being Ιη or ίώ ΙΙαιάν, in thanksgiving for deliverance from evil. Compare the paean of Aristonous (Smyth Melic Poets p. 527), with the repeated formulae ἰὴ ἰὲ Παιάν, ὦ ἰὲ Παιάν, Timotheus - Aesch. Pers. 218; the latter (fr. 25 Wilamowitz) has also ἵε παιάν, the aspirate being due to the supposed connexion with ἵημι (βέλος), for which see Athen. 701 C. With the origin of the word from this refrain cf. the similar history of the Linus-song, the hymenaeus, and the iobacchus; the last, like Ἰηπαιήων, was a title of the god, as well as the name for the hymn. On Παιάν and Παιών see Preller-Robert i. p. 241 n. 2, p. 277 n. 2, Pauly-Wissowa Apollon 62, Smyth Melic Poets p. xxxvi f., and further on 500. Macrobius's important passage on this cry is here.
There is also a paucity of examples of common Greek words from antiquity that began with iota eta. Many of these words are only known to us because they appear in Hesychius of Alexandria's "Alphabetical Collection of All Words" (Συναγωγὴ Πασῶν Λεξέων κατὰ Στοιχεῖον), includes approximately 2640 entries, a copious list of peculiar words, forms and phrases, with an explanation of their meaning, and often with a reference to the author who used them or to the district of Greece where they were current. I have highlighted in red the Hesychius entries and regional variants of words that usually began with ἰα, ἰο or another vowel:
ἰή LSJ, Middle Liddell, Slater 245 0 (= exclam. of joy, enthusiasm or grief)
ἰή (2) LSJ 245 (var. of ἰά)
ἰηγορεῖν LSJ 0 0 joy (= Hesychius)
ἰήϊος LSJ 0 0 (= exclam. invoked with the cry)
ἰήιος Middle Liddell 9 9 (= exclaim. invoked with the cry)
ἴηλα LSJ, Autenrieth 0 0 (= Hesyschius, Ionian var. for ἰαλ-)
ἴημα LSJ 0 0 (= Ion. for ἴαμα)
ἵημι LSJ, Middle Liddell, Slater, Autenrieth 62,925 521 (v.l. ἵεις S.El.596, Castorio 2), ἵησι, 3pl.
ἱᾶσι, Ion. and Ep. ἱεῖσι; imper. “ἵει” Il.21.338, E.El.593 lyr.)
ἴηνα LSJ 0 0 (= aor. 1 Act. of ἰαίνω)
Ἰηπαιήων LSJ, Middle Liddell 2 2 hymn (= Ἰηπαι-ήων , ονος, ὁ, epith. of Apollo, from the cry ἰὴ παιῆον, h.Ap. 272)
Ἰηπαιωνίζω LSJ 0 0 cry
ἰηπαιωνίζω Middle Liddell 1 1 to cry
ἰήρια LSJ 0 0 (τά,= ἰατήρια, dub. in Supp.Epigr.1.414.4 Crete, v/iv B.C.)
ἰήσασθε Autenrieth 0 0 (= see ι?α?ομαι)
ἴῃσι LSJ, Autenrieth (= Ep. 3sg. pres. subj. of εἶμι (A.ibo). ἰήσιμος , ἴησις , Ion. for ἰασ-. ibo )
Ἰησονίδης Autenrieth 0 0 son of Iēson (Jason), Euneus, Il. 7.468, 471, Il. 23.747.
Ἰησοῦς LSJ, Middle Liddell 0 0 Joshua
Ἰήσων Autenrieth 0 0 Iēson (Jason), the leader of the Argonauts, Od. 12.72
ἰήτειρα LSJ (ἰητέον , ἰητήρ , ἰητόριον , ἰητρός , etc., Ion. for ἰατ-).
ἰήτης LSJ 0 0 (τοξότης, ἰοβόλος, Hsch.)
ἰητρός Autenrieth 0 0 (ἰα?ομαι: healer, surgeon, physician; with ἀνήρ, Il. 11.514)
It would seem to me at least that the only naturally occurring examples of ἰη connect it with a cry or exclamation. The most obvious example is the term Ἰηπαιήων in the hymns of Apollo.
This term derives its origin from Παιάν, an appellation of Apollo as the healing deity ; the burden of the song being Ιη or ίώ ΙΙαιάν, in thanksgiving for deliverance from evil. Compare the paean of Aristonous (Smyth Melic Poets p. 527), with the repeated formulae ἰὴ ἰὲ Παιάν, ὦ ἰὲ Παιάν, Timotheus - Aesch. Pers. 218; the latter (fr. 25 Wilamowitz) has also ἵε παιάν, the aspirate being due to the supposed connexion with ἵημι (βέλος), for which see Athen. 701 C. With the origin of the word from this refrain cf. the similar history of the Linus-song, the hymenaeus, and the iobacchus; the last, like Ἰηπαιήων, was a title of the god, as well as the name for the hymn. On Παιάν and Παιών see Preller-Robert i. p. 241 n. 2, p. 277 n. 2, Pauly-Wissowa Apollon 62, Smyth Melic Poets p. xxxvi f., and further on 500. Macrobius's important passage on this cry is here.
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."