The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Post by Ken Olson »

Here is a screenshot of Miroslav Marcovich's critical text of Dialogue with Trypho 90.
Marcovich 226 Trypho 90.JPG
Marcovich 226 Trypho 90.JPG (1.24 MiB) Viewed 1820 times
Marcovich notes that the Dialogue is preserved virtually in a single manuscript, Manuscript A, or Parisinus gr 450.

The manuscript is dated to 1363 CE. If you are interested in the early use of nomina sacra, this is probably not the best place to look.

Dialogue with Trypho 90 from Parisinus gr 450, with the two occurrences of Iota-Upsilon highlighted:
Parisinus gr 450 p. 145 - Justin - Dialogue with Trypho 90 - highlighted.png
Parisinus gr 450 p. 145 - Justin - Dialogue with Trypho 90 - highlighted.png (712.46 KiB) Viewed 1820 times
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

Now we can look at the text of Exodus 17.12-13 to see what the name of the person who defeated the Amalekites was:

12 But Moses’ hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady until the sun set. 13 And Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the sword.

The Hebrew-English Interlinear Text is here:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/17-13.htm

There you can see the Hebrew name of the person rendered with Iota-Sigma [correction; Iota-Upsilon] in the manuscript of Trypho 90 isיְהוֹשֻׁ֛עַ ('Joshua')

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Mon Feb 14, 2022 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Post by Secret Alias »

And what does that prove? No more than a version of Dialogue had this section of text and used the nomen sacrum this way. The exemplar of the orthodox edition of Justin used by Irenaeus had this section of text. But the Dialogue is acknowledged even by conservative scholars such as Craig Evans to have been edited around 193 CE with additional material. This is not some crackpot theory. Dunn refers to the corruption as do many others.

The bottom line just as Justin did not write the passage which reflects the Empire 50 years after he died not every other passage in the Dialogue is from Justin. A case has to be made for the authencity of every passage. It can't just be assumed. The Secret Mark treatment needs to applied to all surviving early Christian texts most of which are forgeries or contained many falsified material.

Secondly Markovich does not reconstruct Justin to say that the name only means man but man and Savior. Important distinction. It is to your interest to make this either/or. Justin does attest to man being a meaning of the nomen sacrum (2 Apology). I think this was Justin's original interpretation. But this not how Markovich reconstructs the critical passage.

Most ancient texts are layered with additional layers of additions beyond the original exemplar. The gospel of Mark to Matthew and Luke. Ignatius. Tertullian. Origen. And of course Justin.

The Book of Enoch. The Testaments of the Patriarchs. Marqe. The Talmud. The Letters of Paul.

I'd venture to say it's terribly naive to assume that any surviving religious tract HASN'T been tampered with to some degree.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Post by spin »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 1:47 pm And what does that prove? No more than a version of Dialogue had this section of text and used the nomen sacrum this way. The exemplar of the orthodox edition of Justin used by Irenaeus had this section of text. But the Dialogue is acknowledged even by conservative scholars such as Craig Evans to have been edited around 193 CE with additional material. This is not some crackpot theory. Dunn refers to the corruption as do many others.
It seems to prove that the nomen sacrum appears in the text conjugated as you would expect. Are all exemplars of Ις in the nominative? If not, you may have something. If so, you have nothing.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Post by Ken Olson »

Back to Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

First, Falls and Halton's English translation again:

We know too that in the book of Exodus Moses likewise indicated
in a mysterious manner that the name of God himself
(which he says was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob) was
also Jesus. For it is written thus: And the Lord said to Moses, say to
this people: Behold, I send my angel before your face, to guard you in
your journey, and bring you into the place that I have prepared for you.
Take notice of him, and obey his voice; do not disobey him, for he will
not pardon you, because my name is in him.1
2. “Consider well who it was that led your fathers into the
promised land, namely he who was first named Auses [Hosea],
but later renamed Jesus [Joshua].2 If you keep this in mind, you
will also realize that the name of him who said to Moses, My
name is in him,3 was Jesus. Indeed, he was also called Israel. And
he similarly bestowed this name upon Jacob.
3. “From Isaiah we know that the prophets who were sent to
carry his messages to man are called angels and apostles of
God, for Isaiah uses the expression, Send me.4 Equally evident to
all is the fact that he who was called by the name Jesus [Joshua]
became a prophet mighty and great.

Now Marcovich's critical text:
Marcovich 200 Trypho 75.JPG
Marcovich 200 Trypho 75.JPG (1.62 MiB) Viewed 1778 times
Finally, the manuscript Parisinus gr 450p. 129:
Parisinus gr 450 p. 129 - Justin - Dialogue with Trypho 75 - highlighted.png
Parisinus gr 450 p. 129 - Justin - Dialogue with Trypho 75 - highlighted.png (1.02 MiB) Viewed 1778 times
I have highlighted key parts to help readers find their place:

First 'the book of Exodus', then 'god and JS', then 'the Lord spoke to Moses'

Second page: 'angel', then 'JS earlier Auses called', then JS again, then 'and for also Israel he was called, then 'angel', and lastly 'apostles of God".

The logic of Justin's passage:

'IS who was earlier Auses (Hosea) called' can be only the prophet Joshua see Numbers 3.16

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/numbers/13-16.htm

The Lord says his name was in IS (Joshua)

The Lord's name is IS (Joshua)

IS stands for the name Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁ֛עַ Anglicized as Joshua.

Best,

Ken
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't see how this exercise argues against Marcovich's contention that Justin derived the name Jesus from Hebrew 'ish ("man") and from Greek Σωτήρ [Soter]. Are you arguing that I am wrong for thinking that this passage is an interpolation or that Marcovich is wrong for saying that Justin thought the nomen sacrum came from both ish and Soter. Clearly if Marcovich reconstructed Justin to say 'ish and Soter' then there will instances where both appear in the writings of Justin. Am I missing something?
But Jesus, His name as man and Saviour, has also significance. For He was made man also, as we before said, having been conceived according to the will of God the Father, for the sake of believing men, and for the destruction of the demons.
This statement from 2 Apology was the basis for Marcovich's reconstruction of Dialogue 34 and it is acknowledged by no less an authority than your friend Ben C Smith
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 9:42 am
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 9:32 am Not according to Justin as you well know. IS = 'man' and 'savior.'
Yes, we know. I am speaking of the manuscripts themselves, not of a church father's apologetic interpretation of the contents of those manuscripts.
I guess I wasn't raised in a sufficiently dogmatic environment that there can't be two 'truths' to Justin's definition of the nomen sacrum. We supposedly have to 'choose' between one or the other according to Ken.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Post by Secret Alias »

Other notable points acknowledged by Ben:
You wanted to establish that ΙΣ for Ish is a natural transliteration, and I agreed with you.
I think you are probably right about what Justin and Irenaeus thought; or at least I can stipulate it for the sake of argument. They thought that ΙΣ meant ἄνθρωπος, which implies that it meant Ish(u).
That doesn't mean he agreed with all or even most of what I posted. No not at all. But the idea that even though Justin says IC = 'man and Savior' and you point to instances where Dialogue has IC = Joshua how does that disprove those instances where IC = man. Secret Mark logic which means that because Morton Smith like telling jokes you ignore all evidence to the contrary and fixate on the Letter to Theodore being a 'hoax.'
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Post by Secret Alias »

Again (before I go to football practice) the crux of the argument for IC = man is the doctrine of IC as the man of war from Exodus 15/Psalm 24. This is the basis for Justin's two advent system. IC = the man of war disguised as a meek suffering servant. For Justin IC only pretends to be an ordinary human. For him and Marcion he is God the Savior from the Song of the Sea and Psalm 24. That's who he 'really is' when all disguises are removed. In other words Jesus wasn't really a human being, he didn't have human existence. This was all a disguise. He was really and truly the Biblical man of war. It was this entity which fooled the rulers and went to the underworld to redeem the 29 generations from Adam to Moses.

All early Christian documents are corrupted/forgeries (hence I don't understand your 'picking on' To Theodore). They were all interpolated. They are all corrupted by second - fourth century hands to 'update' their contents and make them more compatible (and less offensive) to later standards of orthodoxy. There are no immaculately preserved documents from earliest Christianity.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

The Therapeutae are described as Pacifistic

Post by billd89 »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:38 amThe context of singing prayers in the context of Exodus 15 to 'God the Savior' would imply to the 'man of war' (even though this expression is not in the LXX). Clearly though the understanding is that what happened in Exodus 15 (= Moses and Miriam leading a two choruses) is reenacted by the Therapeutae in their remembrance of the event. ... I think IC = man of war comes from this sort of a community. It is rooted in primitive Judaism/Samaritanism.
I cannot follow any of this Zealot nonsense. Where o where is this 'Man of War' in Therapeutism??? It simply does not fit.

I have elaborated my own thesis - that some of the Therapeutae were descendants of Semitic mercenaries (Melchizedekians?), who inherited a military camp or string of fortifications - based on evidence. In Philo's terms, the holiday re-enactment even recalls or evokes (memorializes) the tumult of battle and the sea. I would allegorize further: particularly so, if we assume (from Egyptian sources re: Punt) 'battle' largely meant wrestling, i.e. the back & forth, physical contests of (now: spiritual) warriors in training w/ their comrades. Perhaps, the Mosaic Brotherhood was originally a marine fraternity from the Red Sea?

I can imagine this WAS their past and history at this locale, and why Philo 'defends' the Therapeutae against (Jewish?) suspicions they are somehow nefarious; DVC is manifestly apologetic.

YET Philo defines these Judaic theosophers as exquisitely sober, pacifistic, vegan, nature-loving (geriatric?) communalists who loathe conflict. His point is that they have evolved - 'leave these harmless old Jews alone.' They would be, by his described 'nature', diametrically opposed to warring factionalism and zealous dogmatism. Think: how would that ever work - different sects living together, each school w/ a militaristic mentality & attitude in mortal competition?

No dice. They never even argue w/ each other! (At least, as portrayed; I also have my doubts. They seem to be propagandists.) But they are NOT asshole philosophers, psychopaths at war with anyone: they are proto-psychologists, enchanting gurus.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Post by Secret Alias »

Where o where is this 'Man of War' in Therapeutism??? It simply does not fit.
It might not fit YOUR presuppositions/prejudices but it is in the Hebrew text of Exodus 15 and the equivalent Samaritan terminology is in Psalm 24:
Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord:

“I will sing to the Lord,
for he is highly exalted.
Both horse and driver
he has hurled into the sea.

2 “The Lord is my strength and my defense[a];
he has become my salvation.
He is my God, and I will praise him,
my father’s God, and I will exalt him.
3 The Lord is a warrior;
the Lord is his name.
4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his army
he has hurled into the sea.
The best of Pharaoh’s officers
are drowned in the Red Sea.
5 The deep waters have covered them;
they sank to the depths like a stone.
6 Your right hand, Lord,
was majestic in power.
Your right hand, Lord,
shattered the enemy.

7 “In the greatness of your majesty
you threw down those who opposed you.
You unleashed your burning anger;
it consumed them like stubble.
8 By the blast of your nostrils
the waters piled up.
The surging waters stood up like a wall;
the deep waters congealed in the heart of the sea.
9 The enemy boasted,
‘I will pursue, I will overtake them.
I will divide the spoils;
I will gorge myself on them.
I will draw my sword
and my hand will destroy them.’
10 But you blew with your breath,
and the sea covered them.
They sank like lead
in the mighty waters.
11 Who among the gods
is like you, Lord?
Who is like you—
majestic in holiness,
awesome in glory,
working wonders?

12 “You stretch out your right hand,
and the earth swallows your enemies.
13 In your unfailing love you will lead
the people you have redeemed.
In your strength you will guide them
to your holy dwelling.
14 The nations will hear and tremble;
anguish will grip the people of Philistia.
15 The chiefs of Edom will be terrified,
the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling,
the people[c] of Canaan will melt away;
16 terror and dread will fall on them.
By the power of your arm
they will be as still as a stone—
until your people pass by, Lord,
until the people you bought[d] pass by.
17 You will bring them in and plant them
on the mountain of your inheritance—
the place, Lord, you made for your dwelling,
the sanctuary, Lord, your hands established.

18 “The Lord reigns
for ever and ever.”


The Song of the Sea is one of the most ancient parts of the Hebrew Bible. This poetic text represents the most ancient layer of Biblical Hebrew. The song is dated to the 10th century BCE. I am sorry it contradicts your assumptions but clearly Philo's description of the Therapeutae assumes their interest in these words. FWIW 'then sang' in Greek = 888.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

Post by Secret Alias »

Times that Justin seems to imply that the Savior's name is Man in the Dialogue (further discussion later). I came home from practice and started going through the references translated into English. Notice that it is the Jew Trypho who uses the traditional Hebrew epithet this/that man (oto ha ish) for Jesus:

17 [Justin] For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man,-- through whose swipes those who approach the Father by Him are healed,--when you knew that He had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, as the prophets foretold He would, you not only did not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but at that time you selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land to tell that the godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up, and to publish those things which all they who knew us not speak against us.
34 [Justin] For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures.
35 And Trypho said, "I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Ἰν, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence." And I replied, "The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Ἰν to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrine ... Wherefore we pray for you and for all other men who hate us; in order that you, having repented along with us, may not blaspheme Him who, by His works, by the mighty deeds even now wrought through His name, by the words He taught, by the prophecies announced concerning Him, is the blameless, and in all things irreproachable, Christ Ἰν; but, believing on Him, may be saved in His second glorious advent, and may not be condemned to fire by Him."
36 Then he [Trypho] replied, "Let these things be so as you say--namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man (οὗτος) be He of whom these prophecies were made."
38 And Trypho said, "Sir (Ὦ ἄνθρωπε), it were good for us if we obeyed our teachers, who laid down a law that we should have no intercourse with any of you, and that we should not have even any communication with you on these questions. For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified one (τὸν σταυρωθέντα) was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped."
39 And Trypho replied, "Now, then, render us the proof that this one who you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God. For you have sufficiently proved by means of the Scriptures previously quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer, and come again with glory, and receive the eternal kingdom over all the nations, every kingdom being made subject to Him: now show us that this one is He." And I replied, "It has been already proved, sirs, to those who have ears, even from the facts which have been conceded by you; but that you may not think me at a loss, and unable to give proof of what you ask, as I promised, I shall do so at a fitting place. At present, I resume the consideration of the subject which I was discussing.
47 - 49 "And Trypho again inquired, "But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this one is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he be saved?"

And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man (οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων), this[assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."

And I replied to this, "I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the[requirements] of God, but[ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares. Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued,"[the proof] that this manis the Christ of God does not fail ... But since I have certainly proved that this manis the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men (ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων), and[nothing more] is proved[than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men (ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων); with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have[now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself."

And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man (οἱ λέγοντες ἄνθρωπον γεγονέναι), and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man[born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man of men (ἄνθρωπον μὲν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον); but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ]."

54 "That the Scripture mentions the blood of the grape has been evidently designed, because Christ derives blood not from the seed of man, but from the power of God. For as God, and not man, has produced the blood of the vine, so also[the Scripture] has predicted that the blood of Christ would be not of the seed of man, but of the power of God. But this prophecy, sirs, which I repeated, proves that Christ is not man of men, begotten in the ordinary course of humanity." [this scripture is consistently interpreted as pertaining to a cosmic Man not a 'man of men.']
58 " He who is both Angel and God and Lord, and who appeared as a man to Abraham, and who wrestled in human form with Jacob, was seen by him when he fled from his brother Esau." [καὶ ἐν ἰδέᾳ ἀνδρὸς [cf. Gen., XVIII, 2] τῷ Ἀβραὰμ φανεὶς καὶ ἐν ἰδέᾳ ἀνθρώπου [cf. Gen., XXXII, 24] αὐτῷ τῷ Ἰακὼβ παλαίσας]
59 "When I had spoken these words, I continued: "Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses." [and all that follows]
67 "Listen, therefore, to the following from the book of Joshua, that what I say may become manifest to you; it is this: 'And it came to pass, when Joshua was near Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and sees a man standing over against him. And Joshua approached to Him, and said, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And He said to him, I am Captain of the Lord's host: now have I come. And Joshua fell on his face on the ground, and said to Him, Lord, what commandest Thou Thy servant? And the Lord's Captain says to Joshua, Loose the shoes off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. And Jericho was shut up and fortified, and no one went out of it. And the Lord said to Joshua, Behold, I give into thine hand Jericho, and its king,[and] its mighty men.'"
68? And since they are compelled, they agree that some Scriptures which we mention to them, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and[to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ, but they venture to assert that this man is not Christ. But they admit that He will come to suffer, and to reign, and to be worshipped, and to be God; and this opinion I shall in like manner show to be ridiculous and silly.
71? But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you.
76 "For when Daniel speaks of 'one like unto the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like unto the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression 'it was cut out without hands' signified that it is not a work of man, but[a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, 'Who shall declare His generation?' he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine?
86? And when I had quoted this, I added, "Hear, then, how this Man, of whom the Scriptures declare that He will come again in glory after His crucifixion, was symbolized both by the tree of life, which was said to have been planted in paradise, and by those events which should happen to all the just.
93? so that you laid hands even on Christ Himself; and to this very day you abide in your wickedness, execrating those who prove that this man who was crucified by you is the Christ. Nay, more than this, you suppose that He was crucified as hostile to and cursed by God, which supposition is the product of your most irrational mind. For though you have the means of understanding that this man is Christ from the signs given by Moses, yet you will not; but, in addition, fancying that we can have no arguments, you put whatever question comes into your minds, while you yourselves are at a loss for arguments whenever you meet with some firmly established Christian.
106 "and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.'"
116 "even so we, who through the name of [nomen sacrum] have believed as one man in God the Maker of all, have been stripped, through the name of His first-begotten Son, of the filthy garments, i.e., of our sins; and being vehemently inflamed by the word of His calling, we are the true high priestly race of God, as even God Himself bears witness, saying that in every place among the Gentiles sacrifices are presented to Him well-pleasing and pure. Now God receives sacrifices from no one, except through His priests.
125 " Accordingly the name Israel signifies this, A man who overcomes power; for Isra is a man overcoming, and El is power. And that Christ would act so when He became man was foretold by the mystery of Jacob's wrestling with Him who appeared to him, in that He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten of all creatures. "
126 ""But if you knew, Trypho," continued I, "who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner-Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemer Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn. For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. For Moses says somewhere in Exodus the following: 'The Lord spoke to Moses, and said to him, I am the Lord, and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, being their God; and my name I revealed not to them, and I established my covenant with them.' And thus again he says, 'A man wrestled with Jacob,' and asserts it was God; narrating that Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.' And it is recorded that he called the place where He wrestled with him, appeared to and blessed him, the Face of God (Peniel). And Moses says that God appeared also to Abraham near the oak in Mature, when he was sitting at the door of his tent at mid-day. Then he goes on to say: 'And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them.' a After a little, one of them promises a son to Abraham: 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall. I of a surety bear a child, and I am old? Is anything impossible with God? At the time appointed I will return, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. And they went away from Abraham.' Again he speaks of them thus: 'And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom.' Then to Abraham He who was and is again speaks: 'I will not hide from Abraham, my servant, what I intend to do.'" And what follows in the writings of Moses I quoted and explained; "from which I have demonstrated,"
128 ""And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said." Then I repeated once more all that I had previously quoted from Exodus, about the vision in the bush, and the naming of Joshua (Jesus), and continued: "And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob ... is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears strayed in such forms as the Father pleases"
Last edited by Secret Alias on Tue Feb 15, 2022 12:44 am, edited 4 times in total.
Post Reply