A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by iskander »

Thank you , Secret Alias, for this interesting observation.
Chapter 24 .2 is very obscure. What do you think of it?

Chapter XXIV.—Folly of the arguments derived by the heretics from numbers, letters, and syllables
...
2. 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,3154 and signifies that Lord who contains heaven and earth;3155 for Jesus in the ancient Hebrew language means “heaven,” while again “earth” is expressed by the words sura usser.3156


3154 Being written thus, ישו , and the small י being apparently regarded as only half a letter. Harvey proposes a different solution which seems less probable.

3155 This is one of the most obscure passages in the whole work of Irenæus, and the editors have succeeded in throwing very little light upon it. We may merely state that ישו seems to be regarded as containing in itself the initials of the three words ,יְהֹוָה Jehovah; שְמַיִם , heaven; and וְאָרָץ , and earth.

3156 Nothing can be made of these words; they have probably been corrupted by ignorant transcribers, and are now wholly unintelligible
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by Secret Alias »

I think I got it right this time. Let's start with the passage again:
... quia Jesus secundum antiquam Hebraicam linguam coelum est, terra autem iterum 'sura usser dicitur.

which is rendered by Harvey as:

... for Jesus in the ancient Hebrew language means "heaven," while again "earth" is expressed by the words sura usser.

and I would slightly change

... for IS according to the ancient Hebrew language is "heaven," but on the other hand "earth" sura usser is said
The 'r' in usser (reversed = ressu) could well be a dalet mistaken as a resh. This is a quite common mistake:
In most Semitic alphabets, the letter resh (and its equivalents) is quite similar to the letter dalet (and its equivalents). In the Syriac alphabet, the letters became so similar that now they are only distinguished by a dot: resh has a dot above the letter, and the otherwise identical dalet has a dot below the letter.
so if we make this one substitution and put the letters on the page we get:
suraussed
which becomes immediately obvious in the context:
d'ess v'arets
which is:
of fire and earth
so if we look at the translation again:
... for IC in the ancient Hebrew language is "heaven," while again "earth" "which fire and earth" is said
This would imply at least that the IC originated from the Hebrew word for fire in Irenaeus's mind. Notice the original statement that IC = heaven. This is a common understanding in the traditional Jewish conception of the universe.

The authors of the Bible shared the idea of a four-element hierarchical construct with their pagan neighbors viz. four elements—Earth, Water, Wind, and Fire. So Proverbs Ecclesiastes 1:4-7:

A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth forever stands. [Earth]
The sun rises and the sun comes, and hastens to the place where it rises. [Fire]
The wind blows to the south, and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. [Wind]
All streams run to the sea, but the sea does not fill; to the place where the streams run to, there they run again. [Water]

The sun here not only embodies fire and light, which until as late as the eighteenth century were considered one and the same. The sun also conjures up the concept of heaven, as it was modeled in Genesis:

“Let there be lights [Fire] in the firmament of the heaven.” (Genesis 1:14)

Indeed, the heavens, or shamayim, may correspond to the very word for sun, shemesh. Today we know that outer space is dark and frigid. But in biblical times, the heavens were considered solid, translucent, and fully radiant—a dome of solidified energy—home of the sun and the star-lights, and the source of lightning. In the biblical worldview, without a heaven above, the earth would be cold and dark.

Transcending its energetic attributes, the biblical vision of heaven also equates it with a metaphysical realm of Fire—as the high kingdom of serafim. Thus, in his grand description of God’s heavenly chariots, Ezekiel reports:

The likeness of the living creatures, their appearance like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of torches… and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning.... (Ezekiel 1:13-14, 27-28)

Likewise, when ascending to this realm, Elijah’s horse and carriage were made of fire, and God’s fire repeatedly falls from heaven to devour sacrificial offerings, and the wicked. In one story, an angel of God transports himself to heaven through a rising flame, in front of Samson’s parents’ eyes. Many other examples—in the Bible as well as the Apocrypha—feature the fire-nature of heaven’s canopy and the heavenly kingdom. When our forefathers looked up into the sky, this is what they envisioned. Day or night, the sky-dome was ablaze.

Once we understand that the heavens, shamayim, are a literal embodiment of fire, the four elements emerge in many additional verses. Discussing man’s inferiority to God, for instance, Proverbs asks rhetorically:

Who has ascended into Heaven [Fire] and descended?
Who gathered the Wind in his fists?
Who bound the Water in a garment?
Who established all the ends of the earth? (Proverbs 30:4)

Likewise, in Psalm 18:

8. Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of the hills also quaked and were shaken, because he was angry. [Earth]
9-10. Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens coming down, arafel under his feet. [Fire/Heaven]
11. And he rode upon a cherub, and flew; he flew upon the wings of the wind. [Wind]
12. He made darkness his secret place; his dwelling the dark water, and rain-clouds of the skies. [Water]

These and other references show how early the four-element scheme was manifest in ancient Israelite writings.26 Indeed, the very first two verses of the Bible invoke these same elements:

In the beginning God created the heaven [fire] and the earth.... And the wind of God hovered upon the face of the water. (Genesis 1:1-2)

This primordial blueprint can be discerned in the subsequent unfolding of creation, for the first six days comprise two sets of three, each opening with a distinct element. Days one and four both start with light, or fire. Days two and five are initiated by water. And days three and six both stem from the earth element. Thus, “in six days the Lord made heaven [fire] and earth, the sea, and all that is in them." (Exodus 20:11) http://azure.org.il/include/print.php?id=163
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by Secret Alias »

For, transferring the name IC, 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. But His Greek name, which is "Soter," 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, Soter, as being a Greek name, ought by means of its letters and the numbers [expressed by these], 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, IC, which is a word belonging to the proper tongue of the Hebrews, contains, as the learned among them declare, "two letters and in between",and signifies that Lord who contains heaven and earth; for IC in the ancient Hebrew language means "heaven," while again "earth" is "of fire and earth." The word, therefore, which contains heaven and earth is just IC.

Their explanation, then, of the Episemon is false, and their numerical calculation is also manifestly overthrown. For, in their own language, Soter is a Greek word of five letters; but, on the other hand, in the Hebrew tongue, Jesus contains only two letters in the middle. 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 in between. 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.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by Secret Alias »

It is interesting that if you unpackage the nomen sacrum IC

ησοῦς

the 'middle' preserves (with etacism) the way the nomen sacrum is read viz. ησου = isou
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by Secret Alias »

Here is something else which I find interesting. In the later portion of the discussion a second 'two and a half' letter word is brought up:
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.
I think this is very significant and perhaps - if my audience will allow me - points to an important discovery about the original heretical leanings of Justin Martyr.

It is well established that Irenaeus reused things written in older Church Fathers. For instance the first book of Adv Haer is usually ascribed to Justin's Syntagma. Others have argued for Irenaeus's use of Theophilus of Antioch. But this particular section which attacks the Valentinian interest in transforming things originally written in Hebrew 'sacred letters' into Greek ones is very peculiar. One of the original nomen sacrum is 'Jesus' but another one appears to be related to 'Baruch.'

Now there can be no doubt that Irenaeus cites a 'learned figure' throughout. At the beginning of the paragraph here Irenaeus is made to say "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." The learned among whom? The heretics or the Hebrews? It is important to pay attention to the context of Irenaeus's statement.

His point is to show that all names need to preserve in their original Hebrew. The Valentinians try to 'switch' everything into Greek letters but thereby destroy the original 'sacredness' of the words. The Valentinians apparently take an interest in the six letters of the name Greek Iesous but the correct number according to Irenaeus is 'two and a half':
Their explanation, then, of the Episemon is false, and their numerical calculation is also manifestly overthrown. For, in their own language, Soter 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.
It is important not to go beyond what actually appears on the page here. The argument here is not rejecting ALL GEMATRIA only ones conducted in Greek. The writer goes on to make the case that Hebrew is and will always be a language of 'sacred letter' - "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."

Now I haven't the foggiest idea WTF the author is talking about here. But the point needs to be made that Irenaeus often reuses material from other writers. I have sometimes wondered if there is a consistent 'Irenaeus' speaking throughout other than as the editor of a mass of more ancient material.

But now I want to bring forward my revelation. If we move forward and suppose that Irenaeus often used Justin (as is plainly the case from the text) it is interesting what Irenaeus - by means of this potential reusing of material from Justin - is made to say about the Hebrew word 'baruch' which usually means simply 'blessing.'
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.
Now it is very important not to sidetracked by the complexity (and the corruption) of the original argument here. Irenaeus isn't simply condemning all numerological interest in Christianity. Rather he is saying these things belong in Hebrew and once they transferred over to Greek the system is ruined.

Curiously he seems to put forward a very strange belief - namely that 'baruch' is the "pre-eminent name which is above all others." I have never encountered this belief in any Jewish or Samaritan writings. However it is a feature of the system of the heretic 'Justin' in the Philosophumena - https://books.google.com/books?id=xSDp6 ... ch&f=false

In this tradition associated with Justin then Baruch is the equivalent to the traditional understanding of Ishu. He is the paternal angel through whom Elohim speaks:
Of these twenty-four angels the paternal ones are associated with the Father, and do all things according to His will; and the maternal (angels are associated with) Edem the Mother. And the multitude of all these angels together is Paradise, he says, concerning which Moses speaks: "God planted a garden in Eden towards the east," that is, towards the face of Edem, that Edem might behold the garden--that is, the angels--continually. Allegorically the angels are styled trees of this garden, and the tree of life is the third of the paternal angels--Baruch.
The identification of Baruch with the Logos is clear from what follows:
Elohim the father, seeing these things, sends forth Baruch, the third angel among his own, to succour the spirit that is in all men. Baruch then coming, stood in the midst of the angels of Edem, that is, in the midst of paradise--for paradise is the angels, in the midst of whom he stood,--and issued to the man the following injunction: "Of every tree that is in paradise thou mayest freely eat, but thou mayest not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,"


And again:
Baruch therefore was despatched to Moses, and through him spoke to the children of Israel, that they might be converted unto the Good One. But the third angel (Naas), by the soul which came from Edem upon Moses, as also upon all men, obscured the precepts of Baruch, and caused his own peculiar injunctions to be hearkened unto. For this reason the soul is arrayed against the spirit, and the spirit against the soul. For the soul is Edem, but the spirit Elohim, and each of these exists in all men, both females and males. Again, after these (occurrences), Baruch was sent to the Prophets, that through the Prophets the spirit that dwelleth in men might hear (words of warning), and might avoid Edem and the wicked fiction, just as the Father had fled from Elohim.
So the point here without getting too far afield is that Jesus is Baruch for Irenaeus and this heretic Justinus. Irenaeus emphasizes the correctness of this 'Justinian' view by virtue of the fact that both the two and a half letter name of Jesus in Hebrew and Baruch are equivalents because they both contain the same number of letters. The point is then that Irenaeus copied out Justin Martyr who is really Justin the heretic of the Philosophumena who makes a very precise argument against the gnostics - don't calculate numerology in Greek! Only in Hebrew!
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by Secret Alias »

And here is how you know you aren't making shit up when you study the religion of antiquity? You check your math.

What do I mean by that?

Look at the statement attributed to Justin in the Philosophumena - " the tree of life is the third of the paternal angels--Baruch."

Well guess what? The Hebrew word for "tree of life" = עץ חיים and the Hebrew word for 'blessing' or Baruch = ברוך both have the numerological value 228. Jews have long recognized this fact and rope in a number of words from the Bible as denoting the same angel:

When the gematria is 228 Baruch connects to the following words and phrases:
Etz Chaim - Tree of Life - עץ חיים
Cerub - Kerub - Name of one of the members of the race of Angels called Cherubim. Kerub is considered the "Ruler of Earth" - כרוב.
Benai Elyon - "Children of the Most High" - בני עליון
Kol Adonai Elohecha - Voice of The Lord Your God - קול יהוה אלהיך
Elohay Yacov - God of Jacob - Jacob received two Blessings - The Blessing from his Father Isaac and the Blessing of the Angel / Man that he wrestled with. אלהי יעקב
http://www.yeshshem.com/kabbalah-prayer ... RE3TD.dpuf
The point of course is that because of the Jewish traditions foundation in mathematical calculations from the very beginning we can begin to understand what Justin was saying. There was a single being being described with different words all having the numerological value of 228.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by Secret Alias »

Another interesting term which has the same numerological value is that of 'his Firstborn' בְּכֹר֖וֹ (Genesis 10:15 etc) and firstborn - בכור cf. Reuben as Jacob's 'firstborn' etc.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by Secret Alias »

The fact that 'baruch' is necessarily spelled with four letters (and those four letters = 228 and those four letters have the same value as 'tree of life') demonstrates that the reference to 'two and a half' both with respect to baruch and the name of Jesus (referenced earlier in Irenaeus) can't mean that baruch and the name of Jesus were actually spelled out with 'two and a half letters' but that Irenaeus is dealing with a 'nomina sacra' spelled out in two Hebrew letters 'and a half' or 'and something' which was corrupt when the Greek was translated from Syriac. For it is clear that Irenaeus or Justin accuses the Valentinians of transposing the two Hebrew letters IS and inserting other Greek letters between them to get Iesous. Baruch is also said to be represented by a nomen sacrum 'of two and a half.' My guess is that 'Son' was the original nomen sacrum. If it was Hebrew it would be בֵּן but I suspect that Irenaeus or his source (Justin) mistook the final nun for a kaf.

Image

What Justin or Irenaeus seems to be doing then is inserting letters 'in the middle' of a Hebrew 'nomen sacrum' בֵּן and misreading (or misrepresenting) a thin scribal ן (final nun) as a ך (final kaf). But the point seems to be that 'in the middle' here means 'read Hebrew letters' as being 'in the middle of the two letters of the nomen sacrum not Greek ones.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by Secret Alias »

For those that are interested I will continue to go through the Philosophumena's kabbalistic interpretation of the Pentateuch. The next stop - Edem. The obvious answer is usually the right answer and in this case the description suffers from a Greek reporter rendering Hebrew words into Greek. Edem is obviously Eden (= Εδεμ in LXX). The difficulty puzzled many Church Fathers:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SUm2U ... en&f=false

So what kabbalistic 'trick' is Justin playing now? Eden in Hebrew has a value of 124 which means nothing but 'garden of Eden' is 177 and is acknowledged by all the kabbalists as the secret that unlocks everything:

Another example for such radical144 exegesis is found in Ginnat 'Egoz concerning the Shabbat, where Gikatilla argues for an intellectual way to paradise.145 Based on the numbers of the three divine names he writes in the beginning of Ginnat 'Egoz in the passage about the name as hikal (palace):
(29) Therefore, you will find that David, may he rest in peace, has stated these three names: "Hodu leYHWH [26], Hodu le'Elohei ha'Elohim [86], Hodu le'Adonai [65] ha'Adanim", (Ps. 136: 1, 2, 3) whose secrets are Kaph Waw (26), Peh Waw (86) and Sa- mekh He (65). These Names contain the secret of the [three] stages of the intellection, and they are called the Garden of Eden (Gan 'Eden = 177) for through understanding them one enters the Garden of Eden while still alive.146


The three names, whose secrets are 26 (YHWH), 86 ('Elohim) and 65 ('Adonai) are the secret of the intellectual degrees, and they are called by the name Garden of Eden, for by grasping them the mystic enters the Garden of Eden while still alive,147 i.e. he has obtained access his own intellectual paradise by means of a linguistic act - the three divine names. Moshe Idel has shown, how this passage is derived from Togarmi's Commentary on Sefer Yetzirah and the Gematria of 177 in Hashba 'at haLashon (1176 = 176+ I = 177), Shalosh Se 'udot (1178 = 178-1 = 177), Yomam waLaylah (177) and the three divine names YHWH (26), 'Elohim (86), and 'Adonai (65) = (177), to which the incantation of language is related. The other context for this passage is Abulafia's commentary on the Guide of the Perplexed in his Sitrei Torah, Ms Paris BN 774, fo1. 115b 148 where he also refers these numbers to the three meals, the three names and the number of chapters in the three parts of the Guide, 177 whose numerical value is Gan 'Eden. It is interesting to observe that Abulafia too introduces the Gematria of the three divine names, the meals and the chapters with the term Siman, the introductory term for Gematria also in Ginnat' Egoz. The numerical figure of 177 points in Gikatilla's passage also to the three meals on Shabbat that should be eaten ritualistically according to the rabbis (bShabbat 117b). Togarmi combines here the term paradise with linguistic acts, the incantation, the divine names and the ritual of keeping the Sabbath. (p. 46)
The point of course is that the Greek report of Justin's kabbalah simply transposed the Greek Εδεμ not merely for 'Eden' but undoubtedly 'gan eden' which is a well known kabbalistic cipher for the three divine names.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A New Interpretation of Irenaeus's on the Nomen Sacrum

Post by Secret Alias »

Among the most interesting things from this discussion is the kabbalists identification of הָ֔ס 'silence' = 65 as a numerological equivalent for Adonai (= 65). This is a well known gnostic hypostasis.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply