Marcion and the Man

[Peter Kirby]

In another ongoing discussion, we have come upon a discussion of the name of Marcion's JC (or whatever it was).

I have been considering Huller's notes, sine ira et studio, on the subject.

Here are some extracts of them, from his blog (given in bits, as the whole argument is extensively made, although a little in need of a good editor).

I have been writing for some time now that there is evidence of early Christians preserving the name of the Christian god as being named איש or 'Man.' This not only happens to fit in perfectly with the name which appears in our oldest manuscripts written as ΙΣ but also the 'Man' figure testified to have been at the heart of Pauline gnosis. Of course some of the heretical groups - like the followers of the second century teacher Valentinus - specifically said that Jesus was 'the Son of' a father god named 'Man.' Yet I think there is strong evidence that the Marcionites in particular thought that our Jesus was in fact named 'Man' - and his 'sons' were those adopted in his baptism rite.

There are a great number of ancient sources which tell us that the Marcionites identified their god as the 'man of war' (אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה) of the Old Testament.

Ephrem: And if they say that the Maker did not perceive the Stranger, it is unlikely. For how did he not perceive him when he was his neighbour? 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?

Whatever the case may be in order to understand some of the anomalies in Book Three of Adv. Marc. can be attributable to the original author's reliance on a translation of the Jewish scripture rather than the Hebrew originals. Ephrem mentions, quite disapproving, the Marcionite preference for the Hebrew text of the Bible over the Septuagint. In the case of the 'man of war' passages, it is interesting to note that Tertullian's consistent preference for bellatorem over virum bellatorem may have something to do with the original text having been written in Greek.

Tertullian: No less are you being led by the sound of the words when you interpret the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria and the king of the Assyrians as indicating that the Creator's Christ will be a bellatorem. You miss the point of what scripture promises that before knows how to say Father, and Mother, he will take up the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of the Assyrians. You must before all else take note of the indication of his age, whether it can as yet represent Christ as a man (an virum), far less a commander (nedum imperatorem).

Tertullian: You suppose that He is predicted as a military and armed man of war, instead of one who in a figurative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons (Age nunc, qui militarem et armatum bellatorem praedicari putas, non figurate nec allegorice, qui bellum spiritale adversus spiritales hostes spiritali militia et spiritalibus armis spiritaliter debellaturus esset)

The Marcionite god was the אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה of Exodus 15:3 and Isaiah 3:2.

Clearly then Tertullian was here referring to Isaiah 3:2's אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה reference. But even this - as we learned from Hamori is a mere reflection of the original 'Ish Theophany' in Exodus chapter 15. It is here that we find an anthropomorphic divinity who rescued Israel by letting them pass through the waters which were so deadly to their enemies. The Samaritan exegete Marqe notes that the letters of first two words of the LXX translation of this 'Song of the Sea' (Ex 15:1) - τότε ᾖσε i.e. 'then sang' - just happen to add up to the magical number 888 - which just happens to add up to the familiar name Ἰησοῦς.

Hamori: 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.”

Hamori: 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.

Hamori: 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]

Tertullian: This interpretation of mine will receive support in that in other places too, where you suppose Christ a man of war (bellatorem) because of the names of certain weapons of war, and verbs to the same effect, you stand refuted as we bring under consideration the purport of their context as a whole.

the Christian god is the divine איש who wrestled with Jacob.

The point then is that beneath the ridiculous etymology from Philo that Israel is the 'man who sees God' there is a much deeper tradition that איש was yashar-el, the 'upright' or 'noble' god (cf. Genesis Rabbah 77.1). The surviving members of the early Christian tradition likely could not interpret Hebrew. Nevertheless they did their best to preserve very ancient concept in terms that could still understand, so it is that איש was both ΙΣ and Χρῆστος.

While Jews of a previous period only knew him in terms of his 'powers' of mercy and judgment, the present age where brought into acquaintance with this 'mystical angel,' this 'name above all names' as a totality - a 'fullness' - of the three other names of God - i.e. Adonai, Yahweh and Shaddai = איש.

As we have already noted in previous posts the Greek expression of this ancient name which appears in the Jacob wrestling story (Genesis 32) was seen to have great mystical significance because its letters added up to 99. We are the missing 'one percent' as it were, and God has come down in his totality, in his 'almost completeness' to search for us, his lost sheep to close the circle on the number 100.

To this end we may conclude with some degree of confidence that the incantation bowl 1. Levene, CMB M163 with its adjuration בשםיה דאישו דכבש רומא (in the name of Ishu who conquered Rome) is very likely Marcionite. The nomen sacrum ΙΣ as 'the name above all names' is undoubtedly Marcionite too, rooted in a transliteration of איש and later misrepresented by the orthodox as a shortening of Ἰησοῦς.

Some of the good points first:

[1] The idea that there was speculation about and experimentation with the divine names

This needs no elaborate proof.

Tetragrammaton
Yahweh (Hebrew: יהוה) [right to left, ofc]
Also known in a short form, Yah (יהּ‎).

[wiki]Shaddai (god)[/wiki]
Shaddai (Hebrew: שַׁדַּי)
"According to Exodus 6:2–3, Shaddai was the name by which God was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
"God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [Hebrew El Shaddai], but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them."

Adonai
Adonai (Hebrew: אֲדֹנָי)

[2] The idea that some "Christians" (or whatever) were interpreting the Bible very selectively (without an attempt to save the whole).

This also needs no elaborate proof, and it is found extensively in so-called "Sethian" exegesis, with focus on the stories of the Genesis 1-11 narrative (AKA the part of the Bible that everyone reads, right before some of them hit the begats of chapter 11 and pass up reading about the patriarchs). That this could be extended to selective reading of other parts of the Bible needs no elaborate proof either. It is not far-fetched that even those regarding the narrative as that of the relations of a lower Demiurge with a particular tribe would still look for clues regarding their belief in a higher, stranger God.

[3] The idea that Exodus 15 in particular could be read as an indication of a different god, a man of war.

"The rabbis had found evidence for such a Binitarian godhead construct in passages suchas Daniel 7:9-13, Exodus 23:20-22, and Exodus 15:3." - link

Exodus 15:3. "The LORD is a man of war; the LORD is his name."
[Also, Isaiah 42:13. "The Lord goes out like a mighty man, like a man of war he stirs up his zeal; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes."]
Exodus 23:20-22. "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you."
Daniel 7:9-13. "As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. ... I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."

[4] The idea that the story of wrestling with Jacob was theologically significant in Judaism (and Hellenistic Judaism).

Philo, On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile, 63. On which principle also it is that he also calls Israel, who was the younger brother in point of time, "the first born Son,"{19}{#ex 4:22.} judging of him by his merit, signifying thereby that, since to see God is the most clear proof of primogeniture, he is in consequence pardoned as the eldest offspring of the uncreate incomprehensible God, conceived by that virtue which is hated among men, and to whom the law enjoins that "the honours due to seniority shall be paid, as being the Eldest."

Philo, On the Change of Names, 81. But it has also happened that Jacob had his name changed to Israel; and this, too, was a felicitous alteration. Why so? Because the name Jacob means "a supplanter," but the name Israel signifies "the man who sees God."

Of course, there is reflection on this story even in the Bible, Malachi 1:2-3. "I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say: 'Wherein hast Thou loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob; But Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness." And here is the story of God wrestling with Jacob.

Genesis 32:22-32
22 The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. 24 And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” 28 Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” 29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” 31 The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.

[5] Something could be going on in the Marcionite texts regarding "man" and the Lord Jesus

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter 10
"The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." [1 Corinthians 15:45] Our heretic, however, in the excess of his folly, being unwilling that the statement should remain in this shape, altered "last Adam" into "last Lord."

Let's just stop Tertullian right there and render the two verses:

"The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Lord [KS] was made a quickening spirit."
"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second is the Lord [KS] from heaven."

Tertullian also quotes from Romans 5 ("But the law, he says, entered in besides, that the offence might abound. Why? So that grace, he says, might much more abound. Which god's grace, if not his whose is the law?"), which would show that the "one man" passage (one man sinned, etc.) was in Marcion's Romans.

Marcion's word here (Lord? maybe KS IS, Lord IS? just a possibility among others), which is found as "Adam" in the canonical text, might not have been a distant parallel that makes little sense in Marcion's text. We might suggest that the word here, rendered as "Lord" by Tertullian, might have had some better sense as a parallel to the first "man" in the text of Marcion.

It is just possible that the Marcionite text merely spelled out some kind of Hebrew transliteration of Man here, with it being treated as a sacred abbreviation. This gets treated as "Adam" in the canonical text (obscuring its status as a Marcionite theological term?) and as "Lord" in the renditions of the Marcionite original. The idea that "Man" stood here does seem to make more sense than the alternatives, just in the way of making it read more logically (than "Adam" or "Lord"), if we allowed ourselves a purely speculative emendation.

"The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Man was made a quickening spirit."
"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second is the Man from heaven."

1 Corinthians 15:47 in the canonical text, of course, already preserves this second sentence exactly ("the man from heaven").

[6] The idea that "Man" could have been a theologically-charged term in play in some mystical speculation.

Here you just have to combine two facts already mentioned:

(a) [1] The idea that there was speculation about and experimentation with the divine names
(b) [4] The idea that the story of wrestling with Jacob was theologically significant in Judaism (and Hellenistic Judaism).

And one other fact:

(c) The word for man (אִישׁ) contained the first letters of the words for Adonai, Yahweh, and Shaddai respectively.

With some less-important ideas about number values:

(d) The Hebrew word for man (אִישׁ) adds up to 311 (not too exciting), but the Greek word EIDOI ("faces" from Gn 32) does add up to 99 (not sure which word you actually had in mind, Stephan)
(e) "the time of Jacob's trouble" (ועת צרה היא ליעקב) in Jeremiah 30:7 has a gematria value of 999 (no, not sure why this matters)

And it's at least plausible.

[7] The idea that Marcion may have seen the true God in the story of the wrestling with Jacob

This possibility follows from:

[2] The idea that some "Christians" (or whatever) were interpreting the Bible very selectively (without an attempt to save the whole).
[4] The idea that the story of wrestling with Jacob was theologically significant in Judaism (and Hellenistic Judaism).
[5] Something could be going on in the Marcionite texts regarding "man" and the Lord Jesus

So, yes, I find a lot of good in all this analysis.

However, I'm not sure I'm on board with the whole "Man of War" identification, as a theological term of Marcionite origin, Ephrem's reference notwithstanding. I take as my primary witness here, Tertullian, in the same passages quoted.

Tertullian: No less are you being led by the sound of the words when you interpret the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria and the king of the Assyrians as indicating that the Creator's Christ will be a bellatorem. You miss the point of what scripture promises that before knows how to say Father, and Mother, he will take up the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of the Assyrians. You must before all else take note of the indication of his age, whether it can as yet represent Christ as a man (an virum), far less a commander (nedum imperatorem).

Tertullian: You suppose that He is predicted as a military and armed man of war, instead of one who in a figurative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons

We find more such references:

If he is not a warrior, and the sword he brandishes is an allegorical one, then the Creator's Christ in the psalm too may have been girded with the figurative sword of the Word, without any martial gear.

Thus is the Creator's Christ mighty in war, and a bearer of arms; thus also does He now take the spoils, not of Samaria alone, but of all nations. Acknowledge, then, that His spoils are figurative, since you have learned that His arms are allegorical.

Marcion had made claims about the "Creator's Christ" being a man of war, and this was one of his contradictions proving that the one he is talking about (the Christ of the Gospel) is not he (the Christ of the Creator). Manifestly the Christ of the Gospel is not a man of war (and even in the New Testament the contrast is remarked upon). Marcion used this as an argument that the New Testament's Christ (or whatever you're calling him) is not the Christ of the Creator's prophecies but rather is sent by a different, higher God.

Now it is clear that Marcionites found evidence in the Bible that the god there was not the higher God, and it is indeed possible that the image of "a mighty man" and "a man of war" was being used from the Bible by them to argue for a separation of god from the stranger God; but, as such, it would be done with an emphasis on the Creator as the "strong man" that emphasized war and violence.

Isaiah 42:13. "The Lord goes out like a mighty man, like a man of war he stirs up his zeal; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes."

Compare the parable of the "strong man":

Mark 3:27. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.

Luke 11:21-22. When the strong man, fully armed, guards his own dwelling, his goods are safe. But when someone stronger attacks him and overcomes him, he takes from him his whole armour in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.

Gospel of Thomas, 98. Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a man who wanted to kill a powerful man. He drew the sword in his house and drove it into the wall, that he might know his hand would be strong (enough). Then he slew the powerful man.

The "strong man" could then be construed as the demiurge, who is tied up, overcome, or slew (depending on whether you ask Mark, Luke, or Thomas). The irony is strongest in the Gospel of Mark, where the "tying him up" refers to the "strong man" being rendered ineffective (not merely overcome by stronger means of force), which in ancient Christian theology could be said the same of the devil or the demiurge (depending on whether you ask the anti-Marcionites or the Marcionites), whose ransom was paid with the blood price of the death of Jesus, thus allowing the possessions of the "strong man" (people in his realm) to be "plundered" (saved).

The version in Luke loses some of the irony present in Mark but gains, at the same time, a better sense of the superiority of the one who overcomes the "strong man," which can be read as a greater emphasis on the hierarchy of the demiurge as being lesser than God the Father. This is possibly a Marcionite redaction (whether of a Marcionite original version in Mark, I don't know), which choked on the irony of Mark's version and wanted to avoid the use of weak means (tying up) to subdue the strong man, thus establishing which one was greater.

What, then, do we make of Ephrem's reference?

But if that boundary was capable of being crossed so that also the Stranger crossed it and came down to us, as they say, and the Souls also rent it asunder and ascended, as they falsely state, then (it follows that) a boundary which could be crossed would not be able to prevent the Maker from going up to the Domain of the Stranger. If, therefore, when he was able to go up he was unwilling to trample down the boundary of his Companion, he is a God who is worthy of praise, since even those things which he (i.e., Marcion) has invented, redound (lit., cry out) to his praise. But if he had the will to go up, and the Stranger above allowed him, let them show us why.... And if the Good (Being) was guarding himself, he was verily afraid lest he (i.e., the Maker) should injure him. And how did he who was afraid in his own Domain, come to the Domain of the Maker to struggle with him? And if he guarded his freedom that there should be no Strife and contention between him and his neighbour, let his Heralds be despised who make him quarrelsome and contentious. And if they say that the Maker did not perceive the Stranger, it is unlikely. For how did he not perceive him when he was his neighbour? 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 whole thing is part of a theological dispute in which Ephrem is not exactly quoting anyone; or, rather, he is exactly quoting "them," "they" who are his contemporary Marcionites. In any case, we can see it as part of the same development, a certain level of theological non-sophistication, found above. Marcionites wanted to emphasize the superiority of the stranger God, and they came to describe the overcoming of the lesser Creator as a mere function of the stronger winning out (perhaps not understanding the complex ransom theory of atonement found in Marcion's Paul?). Thus the tying up of the strong man has finally been described as a man of war invading the realm of the lesser warlord, much as we already find the same development in the Gospel of Luke. But we don't necessarily need to read theological significance into the phrase, as it functions in the sentence just as it needs to, emphasizing how the stranger God was able to enter the lesser's realm (but not vice versa, which is the whole argument of Ephrem, who finds that difficult to accept, apparently).

But perhaps this is just finer points of detail, as I have found much that is of value in Stephan's explorations.

Finally, I would like to make the suggestion that the most original Marcionite form of a nomen sacrum in Greek could have, possibly, been KS IS, i.e., the Lord I[ahweh] S[haddai], thus capturing all the names that go into the letters of the Hebrew word "Man," and pointing to the higher God and to his "Man" who wrestled with Jacob, who had "the name above all names" (including above the name of Yahweh).

This could explain that passage, where we've always wondered whether the stress was on KS or on IS, when it is on both, although the greater stress is clearly on "the name which is above every name."

τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· 8 καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. 9 διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν, καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, 10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, 11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ Πατρός.

Philippians 2
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus [Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ], 6 who, though he was in the form of God [ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ], did not count equality with God [Θεῷ] a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant [μορφὴν δούλου], being born in the likeness of men [ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων]. 8 And being found in human form [σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος] he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross [σταυροῦ]. 9 Therefore God [Θεὸς] has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name [τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα], 10 that at the name of Jesus [ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ] every knee should bow, in heaven [ἐπουρανίων] and on earth [ἐπιγείων] and under the earth [καταχθονίων], 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [ὅτι ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ], to the glory of God the Father [δόξαν Θεοῦ Πατρός].

Facets explained by this kind of Marcionite "IS = y(awheh) s(haddai)" reading of this passage:

(1) The "name which is above every name" is apparently special, not common (the name Jesus was very common, but is that what is here?).

(2) The "name which is above every name" is actually IS, which is suggested by the parallel phrasing and positioning, in this interpretation.

(3) Not actually a human being (form of a servant [μορφὴν δούλου], in the likeness of men [ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων], and being found in human form [σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος] is a threefold repetition of this concept that is all-too-often blithely ignored and played down by interpreters).

(4) Irenaeus remarked on how the Hebrew word for "Jesus" being used among some advanced Gnostics (a '2 and a half' letter word) contained heaven and earth, and this passage here immediately goes on from mentioning the name of "Jesus" to mentioning how every knee will bow "in heaven [ἐπουρανίων] and on earth [ἐπιγείων] and under the earth [καταχθονίων]," which corresponds conceptually to the statement of Irenaeus: "The word, therefore, which contains heaven and earth is just Jesus."

(5) The phrases "taking the form of a servant [μορφὴν δούλου]" (slave) and "being found in human form [σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος]" (mistakenly) refer to the ransom theory of atonement, whereby the rulers of this world who crucified "Jesus" did not recognize his true form and, thus, were fooled into accepting his death as ransom; this allowed those who were in bondage to the Creator then to be exchanged at the price of his death, as they were "bought back" (redeemed) with the price paid in blood to the Creator god. This is of course just the atonement theory also found elsewhere in Paul.

(6) "God the Father" is of course understood in a conventional sense by every good modern day Christian, but for a Marcionite this is the "stranger" God. This is of course equivocal as evidence.

[Stephan Huller]

Thanks for the kind words. I have been working on a paper on something seeming unrelated to this topic - i.e. the origin of the 'two powers' heresy. I hope to get it published and then my second paper would take that information and use it to help the Marcion argument. As it stands that there a lot of messiness but it will be all cleaned up when I will demonstrate that the circle of R Ishmael used the Samaritan text of Exodus. Once that is established we know where the two powers argument comes from - i.e. God in heaven and god in the fire on Sinai. The god in the fire on Sinai is 'Jesus.' But as Valerie Bertinelli said one day at a time.

[Peter Kirby]

As we have already noted in previous posts the Greek expression of this ancient name which appears in the Jacob wrestling story (Genesis 32) was seen to have great mystical significance because its letters added up to 99.

I struggled to find it:

(d) The Hebrew word for man (אִישׁ) adds up to 311 (not too exciting), but the Greek word EIDOI ("faces" from Gn 32) does add up to 99 (not sure which word you actually had in mind, Stephan)

I may have found what you mean here (Greek, Amen):

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)

This is of course an interesting notice from Irenaeus.

However, I did not find it in Genesis 32 as the "Greek expression of this ancient name which appears in the Jacob wrestling story."

This appears to be multiply flawed:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2013_ ... chive.html

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 misquotes Irenaeus. (Eta has the value 8, especially in the context of Greek isopsephy.)

They maintain for instance, that the letter Eta (η) along with the Episemon (ς) constitutes an Ogdoad, inasmuch as it occupies the eighth place from the first letter. Then, again, without the Episemon, reckoning the number of the letters, and adding them up till we come to Eta, they bring out the Triacontad. For if one begins at Alpha and ends with Eta, omitting the Episemon, and adds together the value of the letters in succession, he will find their number altogether to amount to thirty. For up to Epsilon (ε) fifteen are formed; then adding seven to that number, the sum of twenty-two is reached. Next, Eta being added to these, since its value is eight, the most wonderful Triacontad is completed. And hence they give forth that the Ogdoad is the mother of the thirty Æons. Since, therefore, the number thirty is composed of three powers [the Ogdoad, Decad, and Duodecad], when multiplied by three, it produces ninety, for three times thirty are ninety. Likewise this Triad, when multiplied by itself, gives rise to nine. Thus the Ogdoad generates, by these means, ninety-nine. And since the twelfth Æon, by her defection, left eleven in the heights above, they maintain that therefore the position of the letters is a true coordinate of the method of their calculation (for Lambda is the eleventh in order among the letters, and represents the number thirty), and also forms a representation of the arrangement of affairs above, since, on from Alpha, omitting Episemon, the number of the letters up to Lambda, when added together according to the successive value of the letters, and including Lambda itself, forms the sum of ninety-nine; but that this Lambda, being the eleventh in order, descended to seek after one equal to itself, so as to complete the number of twelve letters, and when it found such a one, the number was completed, is manifest from the very configuration of the letter; for Lambda being engaged, as it were, in the quest of one similar to itself, and finding such an one, and clasping it to itself, thus filled up the place of the twelfth, the letter Mu (Μ) being composed of two Lambdas (ΛΛ). Wherefore also they, by means of their knowledge, avoid the place of ninety-nine, that is, the defection— a type of the left hand, — but endeavour to secure one more, which, when added to the ninety and nine, has the effect of changing their reckoning to the right hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopsephy

Letter (upper and lower case)	Value	Name	Transliteration
Α α	1	Alpha	a
Β β	2	Beta	b
Γ γ	3	Gamma	g
Δ δ	4	Delta	d
Ε ε	5	Epsilon	e
(Ϝ ϛ)	6	Digamma (later Stigma)	w
Ζ ζ	7	Zeta	z
Η η	8	Eta	ē
Θ θ	9	Theta	th
Letter (upper and lower case)	Value	Name	Transliteration
Ι ι	10	Iota	i
Κ κ	20	Kappa	k
Λ λ	30	Lambda	l
Μ μ	40	Mu	m
Ν ν	50	Nu	n
Ξ ξ	60	Xi	x
Ο ο	70	Omicron	o
Π π	80	Pi	p
(Ϙ)	90	Koppa	q
Letter (upper and lower case)	Value	Name	Transliteration
Ρ ρ	100	Rho	r
Σ σ	200	Sigma	s
Τ τ	300	Tau	t
Υ υ	400	Upsilon	y
Φ φ	500	Phi	ph
Χ χ	600	Chi	ch
Ψ ψ	700	Psi	ps
Ω ω	800	Omega	ō
(ϡ)	900	Sampi	ts

For up to Epsilon (ε) fifteen are formed

Meaning:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 3 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 6 + 4 + 5 = 10 + 5 = 15

reckoning the number of the letters, and adding them up till we come to Eta

Meaning (but including the "Episemon" this time, contrary to the speculation):

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15
6 + 7 + 8 = 13 + 8 = 21

Therefore,

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 = 15 + 21 = 36

For if one begins at Alpha and ends with Eta, omitting the Episemon, and adds together the value of the letters in succession, he will find their number altogether to amount to thirty. For up to Epsilon (ε) fifteen are formed; then adding seven to that number, the sum of twenty-two is reached. Next, Eta being added to these, since its value is eight, the most wonderful Triacontad is completed.

Meaning:

"Episemon" = 6

The Ogdoad, without the Episemon:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 8 = 36 - 6 = 15 + 7 + 8 = 30

"Triacontad" = 30

Since, therefore, the number thirty is composed of three powers [the Ogdoad, Decad, and Duodecad]

30 = 8 + 10 + 12

"Ogdoad" = 8

"Decad" = 10

"Duodecad" = 12

"Triad" = Size of Set ( 8, 10, 12 ) = 3

when multiplied by three, it produces ninety, for three times thirty are ninety.

"Triacontad" x "Triad" = 30 x 3 = 90

Likewise this Triad, when multiplied by itself, gives rise to nine.

"Triad" x "Triad" = 3 x 3 = 9

Thus the Ogdoad generates, by these means, ninety-nine.

"Ogdoad" = 8 = one through eight, without the "episemon" (6)

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 8 = 30 ("Triacontad")

30 = 8 + 10 + 12 ("Triad")

30 x 3 + 3 x 3 = 99 ("Ogdoad generates ninety-nine")

And since the twelfth Æon, by her defection, left eleven in the heights above, they maintain that therefore the position of the letters is a true coordinate of the method of their calculation (for Lambda is the eleventh in order among the letters, and represents the number thirty),

12 - 1 = 11
λ = 11th letter (again, not counting the "episemon" or 6)
λ = 30 (in numerical value, the 9th [iota] is 10 and the 10th [kappa] is 20, because the 6th is skipped)

and also forms a representation of the arrangement of affairs above, since, on from Alpha, omitting Episemon, the number of the letters up to Lambda, when added together according to the successive value of the letters, and including Lambda itself, forms the sum of ninety-nine;

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 8 = 30
9 + 10 + 20 + 30 = 19 + 20 + 30 = 39 + 30 = 69

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 20 + 30 = 30 + 69 = 99

but that this Lambda, being the eleventh in order, descended to seek after one equal to itself, so as to complete the number of twelve letters

λ = 11th letter = 30 = last aeon = descended from heaven = knows about the missing number = seeks to complete the number of the twelve

and when it found such a one, the number was completed, is manifest from the very configuration of the letter; for Lambda being engaged, as it were, in the quest of one similar to itself, and finding such an one, and clasping it to itself, thus filled up the place of the twelfth, the letter Mu (Μ) being composed of two Lambdas (ΛΛ)

Μ = ΛΛ = proof that lambda finds one similar to itself

Wherefore also they, by means of their knowledge, avoid the place of ninety-nine, that is, the defection— a type of the left hand, — but endeavour to secure one more, which, when added to the ninety and nine, has the effect of changing their reckoning to the right hand.

I am guessing this has the point that people would count with their hands, and that if you were at something plus nine you'd be working on a fully-extended right hand and four fingers on the left, but if you added one more you'd be back to "reckoning" on the "right hand."

On the whole matter of 6 being left out, this has pre-Christian origins in Greek:

[wiki]Stigma (letter)[/wiki]

The στ-ligature (Greek Digamma cursive 07.svg, Greek Digamma cursive 04.svg) was one of many ligature forms that came into widespread use as part of the minuscule writing style of Greek from the 9th and 10th centuries onwards. It is based on the lunate form (Ϲ) of the letter sigma.
With many other ligatures, it was used to print Greek during the early-modern era. Between the 18th and 19th centuries, the use of ligatures in print gradually diminished. The στ-ligature was among the last to go, around the middle of the 19th century.
The name, stigma (στίγμα), is originally a common Greek noun meaning "a mark, dot, puncture" or generally "a sign", from the verb στίζω ("to puncture");[1] the related but distinct word stigme (στιγμή) is the classical and post-classical word for "geometric point; punctuation mark."[2] Stigma was co-opted as a name specifically for the στ-sign, evidently because of the acrophonic value of its initial st- as well as the analogy with the name of sigma.
The numeral symbol, originally quite unrelated to the στ-ligature, developed from the letter Ϝ, which stood for the sound /w/ in early pre-classical forms of the Greek alphabet. This symbol became obsolete as a letter during the classical era but remained part of the Greek alphabet-based system of numerals, where its value of 6 corresponded to its original place in the alphabet. In its handwritten forms, its shape changed from Greek Digamma oblique.svg through Greek Digamma angular.svg to Greek Digamma cursive 02.svg or Greek Digamma cursive 06.svg during the Hellenistic period and late antiquity. Originally called wau, it was called digamma in classical Greek and episemon during the Byzantine era. It was conflated with the στ-ligature owing to the accidental similarities of their shapes. The association between the numeral 6 and the letter sequence στ became so strong that today, in Greece, the letter sequence ΣΤʹ or στʹ is often used in lieu of ϛʹ itself to write the number 6.
In modern practice, the term stigma is often applied to the symbol ϛ both in its function as a ligature and as a numeral, whereas the term digamma is normally used for the ancient letter representing /w/, which appears in modern print as Ϝ or ϝ (the form has a large number of close variants).
In modern typefaces, lowercase stigma is similar in appearance to final sigma (ς), but the top loop tends to be larger, and extends farther to the right. It can normally be distinguished from final sigma in the context, because the combination στ never occurs at the end of a word, and conversely the final sigma form ς never occurs inside a word and is never used as a numeral either. Uppercase forms of stigma as a numeral (Ϛ) are rare in practice; when they occur, they can often be confused with uppercase forms of another numeral symbol, koppa (Ϟϟ), which stands for 90.
Stigma is encoded in Unicode as "Greek letter stigma" U+03DA (Ϛ) and "Greek small letter stigma" U+03DB (ϛ).

Digamma

Digamma, waw, or wau (uppercase: Ϝ, lowercase: ϝ, numeral: ϛ) is an archaic letter of the Greek alphabet. It originally stood for the sound /w/ but it has principally remained in use as a Greek numeral for 6. Whereas it was originally called waw or wau, its most common appellation in classical Greek is digamma; as a numeral, it was called episēmon during the Byzantine era and is now known as stigma after the value of the Byzantine ligature combining σ-τ as ϛ.
Digamma or wau was part of the original archaic Greek alphabet as initially adopted from Phoenician. Like its model, Phoenician waw, it represented the voiced labial-velar approximant /w/ and stood in the 6th position in the alphabet between epsilon and zeta. It is the consonantal doublet of the vowel letter upsilon (/u/), which was also derived from waw but was placed at the end of the Greek alphabet. Digamma or wau is in turn the ancestor of the Latin letter F. As an alphabetic letter, it is attested in archaic and dialectal ancient Greek inscriptions until the classical period.
The shape of the letter went through a development from Greek Digamma oblique.svg through Greek Digamma 05.svg, Greek Digamma angular.svg, Greek Digamma cursive 01.svg, Greek Digamma cursive 02.svg to Greek Digamma cursive 05.svg or Greek Digamma cursive 06.svg, which at that point was conflated with the σ-τ ligature Greek Digamma cursive 07.svg. In modern print, a distinction is made between the letter in its original alphabetic role as a consonant sign, which is rendered as "Ϝ" or its modern lowercase variant "ϝ", and the numeric symbol, which is represented by "ϛ". In modern Greek, this is often replaced by the digraph στ.

The /w/ sound was lost at various times in various dialects, mostly before the classical period.
In Ionic, /w/ had probably disappeared before Homer's epics were written down (7th century BC), but its former presence can be detected in many cases because its omission left the meter defective. For example, the words ἄναξ (king), found in the Iliad, which would originally have been ϝάναξ /wánaks/ (and is attested in this form in Mycenaean Greek[1]), and οἶνος (wine) are sometimes used in the meter where a word starting with a consonant would be expected. Further evidence coupled with cognate-analysis shows that οἶνος was earlier ϝοῖνος /wóînos/[2] (cf. Cretan Doric ibêna, cf. Latin vīnum and English "wine").
Aeolian was the dialect that kept the sound /w/ longest. In discussions by ancient Greek grammarians of the Hellenistic era, the letter is therefore often described as a characteristic Aeolian feature.
For some time, word-initial /w-/ remained foreign to Greek phonology, and was dropped in loanwords. Compare the name of Italy (Italia from Oscan Viteliu *Ϝιτελιυ) or of the Veneti (Ancient Greek: Ἐνετοί - Enetoi). By the 2nd century BC, the phoneme was once again registered, compare for example the spelling of Οὐάτεις for vates.

Digamma/wau remained in use in the system of Greek numerals attributed to Miletus, where it stood for the number 6, reflecting its original place in the sequence of the alphabet. It was one of three letters that were kept in this way in addition to the 24 letters of the classical alphabet, the other two being koppa (ϙ) for 90, and sampi (ϡ) for 900. During their history in handwriting in late antiquity and the Byzantine era, all three of these symbols underwent several changes in shape, with digamma ultimately taking the form of "ϛ". It has remained in use as a numeral in Greek to the present day, in contexts such as enumerating chapters in a book or other items in a set.

But on your final point:

augmented by one with the addition of the mystical episemon

This is indeed the whole point, to add the episemon (the 6, which is the defected twelfth aeon) to the ninety-nine (the value of the ogdoad without it):

Wherefore also they, by means of their knowledge, avoid the place of ninety-nine, that is, the defection— a type of the left hand, — but endeavour to secure one more, which, when added to the ninety and nine, has the effect of changing their reckoning to the right hand.

However, I am not completely certain whether, for the Gnostics, it is finally understood as 99+1 or 99+6, or whether they were comfortable with either.

[Bingo]

...
[1] The idea that there was speculation about and experimentation with the divine names

This needs no elaborate proof.

[wiki]Shaddai (god)[/wiki]
Shaddai (Hebrew: שַׁדַּי)
"According to Exodus 6:2–3, Shaddai was the name by which God was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
"God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [Hebrew El Shaddai], but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them."

Not experimenting with names. Experimenting with gods.

Mark S. Smith argues that the author of Exodus 6:2–3 was trying to conflate/combine two different gods. El Shaddai – a god from Ugaritic mythology, and Yahweh of Armies – a remote desert war god from Sinai. (See Deuteronomy 33:2.)

Imho Smith’s arguments are extremely compelling. Sorry – I don’t have the time or energy to write a dissertation on it.

Google is your friend.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mark ... &oq=&gs_l=

[Peter Kirby]

Not experimenting with names. Experimenting with gods.

Mark S. Smith argues that the author of Exodus 6:2–3 was trying to conflate/combine two different gods. El Shaddai – a god from Ugaritic mythology, and Yahweh of Armies – a remote desert war god from Sinai. (See Deuteronomy 33:2.)

Google is your friend.

This isn't new information for me.

I didn't say that the "author of Exodus 6:2-3" was "experimenting with names."

[Clive]

Adding and multiplying using Roman numerals is horrendous. I assume the same sorts of issues occured with Greek and other number systems.

Would transposing letters and numbers act as a form of abacus or calculator? So numerology isn't just theological but actually practical?

[Peter Kirby]

Adding and multiplying using Roman numerals is horrendous. I assume the same sorts of issues occured with Greek and other number systems.

The Greek number system had 27 symbols, allowing every number 1 through 9, 10 through 90 (at tens), and 100 through 900 (at hundreds) to be represented. They had not made the conceptual leap to representing an empty "place" with a "zero," but it would have some of the same advantages as Arabic numerals have, when compared to Roman numerals, when dealing with numbers less than 1000 anyway. However, I don't know whether any of that convenience was exploited, typically or at all (when doing multiplication, for example). This was an age when people frequently counted on their hands and read out loud.

[Clive]

This was an age when people frequently counted on their hands and read out loud.

Precisely my point. These numerological games might have been very valuable in doing sums. It gives priests real power - not only reading and writing, but calculating things. They were definitely watching the stars!

The Archimedes Palimpsest describes in detail the contents of one of his lost works. What is fascinating is that the diagrams are integral parts of the argument - they develop it - not as we tend to do - illustrate things.

In comparison, the Japanese have incredible Abacus championships. The best do not use Abaci (?) but do it entirely in their heads.

Maybe we are looking at mind tools which were used to work things out. The use of them to say this is about the Saviour is an obvious extension of this way of thinking - it is only a reversal.

[Clive]

Maybe you cannot do classics and theology without a very good understanding of the history of maths?

[Clive]

Pi for example is very interesting. What is it , a number or a letter?

How would it have been used? It definitely was to construct the Antikethera Mechanism.

Are there Roman texts with III.XIV?

I propose not - it was - as the bible says - about 3. But any skilled person would not have used it like that - they would have tools like compasses to draw out circles. Pi would have been used secondarily, as a check, or possibly a memory aid.

Because we are now in a very specialist world we forget the reality was incredible hand eye memory thinking through experimentation writing it down, drawing to argue something, sculpting, boiling, heating....

And we need to use that way of thinking to work out what NS are. I think they are like pi - which would explain why they are basically ubiquitous after a certain point. They are being used to calculate, outline, demonstrate a relationship - of god and man.