How Does Irenaeus Reconcile (a) Criticizing Marcosian Gematria but (b) Recognizing John's Number of the Beast?

[Secret Alias]

One line of argument would be that the Marcosians were specifically criticized for rendering their speculations in Greek rather than in Hebrew (which Irenaeus says at one point). But all his solutions to the number of the beast are in Greek too. Doesn't make sense.

[Stuart]

One line of argument would be that the Marcosians were specifically criticized for rendering their speculations in Greek rather than in Hebrew (which Irenaeus says at one point). But all his solutions to the number of the beast are in Greek too. Doesn't make sense.

Actually the comments about Hebrew is 1.21.3 (a part I consider the first layer, circa 195-225 AD). It is inrefernec to one of the sub-groups of Marcosians practices with Baptism, and it follows with several other groups examples

For some of them prepare a nuptial couch, and perform a sort of mystic rite (pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, and affirm that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the conjunctions above. Others, again, lead them to a place where water is, and baptize them, with the utterance of these words, "Into the name of the unknown Father of the universe-into truth, the mother of all things-into Him who descended on Jesus-into union, and redemption, and communion with the powers." Others still repeat certain Hebrew words, in order the more thoroughly to bewilder those who are being initiated, as follows: "Basema, Chamosse, Baoenaora, Mistadia, Ruada, Kousta, Babaphor, Kalachthei."[1] Others, again, set forth the redemption thus: The name which is hidden from every deity, and dominion, and truth which Jesus of Nazareth was clothed with in the lives[2] of the light of Christ-of Christ, who lives by the Holy Ghost, for the angelic redemption. The name of restitution stands thus: Messia, Uphareg, Namempsoeman, Chaldoeaur, Mosomedoea, Acphranoe, Psaua, Jesus Nazaria.[3] he interpretation of these words is as follows: "I do not divide the Spirit of Christ, neither the heart nor the super-celestial power which is merciful; may I enjoy Thy name, O Savior of truth!" Such are words of the initiators; but he who is initiated, replies, "I am established, and I am redeemed; I redeem my soul from this age (world), and from all things connected with it in the name of Iao, who redeemed his own soul into redemption in Christ who liveth." Then the bystanders add these words, "Peace be to all on whom this name rests." After this they anoint the initiated person with balsam; for they assert that this unguent is a type of that sweet odor which is above all things.

[1] We have given these words as they stand in the Greek text: a very different list, but equally unmeaning, is found in the Latin] The interpretation of these terms runs thus: "I invoke that which is above every power of the Father, which is called light, and good Spirit, and life, because Thou hast reigned in the body.

[2] The Latin reads zonis, "zones," instead of "lives," as in the Greek

[3] Here, again, are many variations

In AH 2.24.2 we have numerology for Jesus and Christ with Hebrew letters, but it is specifically in respect to the Valentinians
In AH 2.35 there is some discussion of Hebrew words, but it's specifically in context of Basilades.

Are one of these instances what you are referring to?

I am fairly certain the author of Book 2 is not the same as Book 1 chapters 1-21, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion. I simply cannot find a context of Hebrew language and Marcosians besides the ritual baptism incantations of one sub-sect, which were thought by the author to have no significant meaning or purpose other than to mystify the initiate with mumbo jumbo.

[DCHindley]

How Does Irenaeus Reconcile (a) Criticizing Marcosian "Gematria" but (b) Recognizing John's "Number' of the Beast?

This is a deep and penetrating question, one that is perhaps best left for another type of website.

But what is wrong with seeing someone's "gematria" as just another name for someone's "number?" Yes, the "number of the beast" probably describes a "number" of extra large proportions, but on the premise that "size does matter," gematria is the best choice to use to describe that size.

Yes? No? Maybe So? I don't know ...

DCH

[andrewcriddle]

One line of argument would be that the Marcosians were specifically criticized for rendering their speculations in Greek rather than in Hebrew (which Irenaeus says at one point). But all his solutions to the number of the beast are in Greek too. Doesn't make sense.

There is a good discussion in The Theology of Arithmetic by Kalvesmaki.

Chapter 6 turns to the defenders of (what turned out to be) Christian orthodoxy. Kalvesmaki reads Irenaeus’ attack on Valentinianism in On Heresies both for what it says about the alleged mistakes of this gnostic theology of arithmetic, but also for what Irenaeus regards as the proper limits of number symbolism in the interpretation of the scriptures. Irenaeus thinks that the Valentinians go wrong by beginning from relations among numbers and then reading scripture in light of this. It should be the other way round. This is not to say that the ‘Bible first’ principle always leads to sober and modest results. Since a thousand years are as a day to the Lord (2 Peter 3:8) and since it took six days for the Lord to create the world, the world will come to an end after six millennia (p. 118, citing Irenaeus 5.28.3). In fact, Kalvesmaki argues that Irenaeus is inconsistent: he himself makes use of the very exegetical principles that he criticises in the Valentinians.

Andrew Criddle