Proof that The Man = Yeshu

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Proof that The Man = Yeshu

Post by Secret Alias »

If I am right and IS is the name above all names the question would be why did Christians think it was ok to allow the Iota to 'represent' man? I think we already know the answer there:
That one indivisible tittle is, he says, one tittle of the (letter) iota, with many faces, and innumerable eyes, and countless names, and this (tittle) is an image of that perfect invisible man.

The monad, (that is,) the one tittle, is therefore, he says, also a decade. For by the actual power of this one tittle, are produced duad, and triad, and tetrad, and pentad, and hexad, and heptad, and ogdoad, and ennead, up to ten. For these numbers, he says, are capable of many divisions, and they reside in that simple and uncompounded single tittle of the iota. And this is what has been declared: "It pleased (God) that all fulness should dwell in the Son of man bodily." For such compositions of numbers out of the simple and uncompounded one tittle of the iota become, he says, corporeal realities. The Son of man, therefore, he says, has been generated from the perfect man, whom no one knew; every creature who is ignorant of the Son, however, forms an idea of Him as the offspring of a woman. And certain very obscure rays of this Son which approach this world, check and control alteration (and) generation. And the beauty of that Son of man is up to the present incomprehensible to all men, as many as are deceived in reference to the offspring of the woman. Therefore nothing, he says, of the things that are in our quarter of creation has been produced by that man, nor will aught (of these) ever be (generated from him). All things, however, have been produced, not from the entirety, but from some part of that Son of man. For he says the Son of man is a jot in one tittle, which proceeds from above, is full, and completely replenishes all (rays flowing down from above). And it comprises in itself whatever things the man also possesses (who is) the Father of the Son of man.

The world, then, as Moses says, was made in six days, that is, by six powers, which (are inherent) in the one tittle of the iota. (But) the seventh (day, which is) a rest and Sabbath, has been produced from the Hebdomad, which is over earth, and water, and fire, and air. And from these (elements) the world has been formed by the one tittle. For cubes, and octahedrons, and pyramids, and all figures similar to these, out of which consist fire, air, water, (and) earth, have arisen from numbers which are comprehended in that simple tittle of the iota. And this (tittle) constitutes a perfect son of a perfect man. When, therefore, he says, Moses mentions that the rod was changeably brandished for the (introduction of the) plagues throughout Egypt --now these plagues, he says, are allegorically expressed symbols of the creation --he did not (as a symbol) for more plagues than ten shape the rod. Now this (rod) constitutes one tittle of the iota, and is (both) twofold (and) various. This succession of ten plagues is, he says, the mundane creation. For all things, by being stricken, bring forth and bear fruit, just like vines. Man, he says, bursts forth, and is forcibly separated from man by being severed by a certain stroke. (And this takes place) in order that (man) may be generated, and may declare the law which Moses ordained, who received from God. Conformably with that one tittle, the law constitutes the series of the ten commandments which expresses allegorically the divine mysteries of (those) precepts.
That doesn't help my theory? Not at all???? That doesn't help explain HOW early Christians somehow THOUGHT that the iota was 'man'? Clearly if 'the Son of Man' is the stroke, 'Man' is the iota.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Proof that The Man = Yeshu

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:34 pm Also, in what sense is it a parody?

The logic is Christian (given the positive assessment of "the man" in "blessed is the man") in connecting Yeshu to "the man." And the logic is sound. The value of 316 is correct for both Yeshu and "the man."

A parody against the idea of gemetria itself is neither suggested by the text, nor is it something I've encountered. That seems too rationalistic a notion for a text of this era and spirit. For example, I don't think they were making fun of Jesus' alleged power by saying he learned the divine name. I think they were alleging Jesus' wickedness in stealing it from the Temple and abusing it. And just as the text respects the power of the divine name, it doesn't show any discomfort with the idea of using the numerical value of names. The text does launch an attack against the "man" here identified, also based on his wickedness, but not an attack on the use of gemetria.

But if the author isn't attacking the idea of gemetria itself (which seems both less likely a priori and absent in the text) and if the author is correctly presenting valid logic for the claim that the calculation of "Yeshua" is "the man," then there can be no parody here.

Also, the author seems to agree with the identification, using it as the basis for his own criticism, which goes against the idea that he's criticizing the gemetria. Instead, he's accepting the gemetria and building off of it for an attack on the character of "Yeshu" as the "man."

So it does seem most likely to me that the author is presenting an idea that he encountered from Christians, who had calculated 316 as the value of "Yeshu" and "the man," along with the scripture citation "Blessed is the man."
I think you're probably right that it's not a parody of gematria itself, and I think we're agreed it (or at least the section from chapter 7 we've been discussing) is a response to Christian exegesis applying OT passages to Jesus.

I don't think the text presents the Christian claim connecting Jesus to the (blessed) man of Psalm 1:1 is based on gematria (p.20). The sages' acceptance of the claim is based on their use of gematria (p. 21), after which they go on to identify Jesus as the Man in other passages which would reflect negatively on him.

The thing is, his mother named him Yehoshua after her brother (p.7). The sages renamed him Yeshu, so as to say: 'may his name and memory be obliterated' (i.e., Yeshu being the acronym for that) and, if I'm understanding this correctly, threatened to excommunicate anyone who called him Yehoshua instead of Yeshu (p. 13). That means the sages are performing the gematria on the name they gave him.

That will seem arbitrary to us. What I'm wondering (and this occurred to me only three days or so ago when you posted this version of the Toldot), did the author miss how arbitrary that was? Perhaps that is overly modern and rationalistic of me. But I'm wondering if it's part of the farce in this farcical story. I've previously mentioned the jumble of historical people that show up in the story and Jesus being crucified on a cabbage. When I look at the charge that the sages are actually bringing against Yeshu, it's that he taught halakhah before his rabbi (pp. 9 ,13), which apparently was punishable by death. To the best of my knowledge, teaching halakhah before one's rabbi would not have been punishable by death in the time of the author(s) and audience(s) of the Toldot or at any time in Rabbinic Judaism. It makes me wonder just how seriously we are actually supposed to take this text. It seems not to be meant as a serious historical account, but rather as a Once Upon A Time story.

Best,

Ken
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Proof that The Man = Yeshu

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:49 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:35 pm A parody of what?

What Christian gemetria are you referring to?
I don't know. I haven't studied Greek gematria, outside of trying to figure out a few passages in Revelation. But I understand there was such a thing. I could be wrong.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-bib ... ek-script/

And Michael Grondin has been posting on gematria in Thomas, but I haven't really followed it.

Best,

Ken
The obvious example of early Christian Gematria on the name of Jesus is the Epistle of Barnabas
Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For [the Scripture] says, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted — Ten by Ι, and Eight by Η . You have [the initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter Τ, he says also, "Three Hundred." He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that you are worthy.
There is also the Marcosian interpretation

2. But Jesus, he affirms, has the following unspeakable origin. From the mother of all things, that is, the first Tetrad, there came forth the second Tetrad, after the manner of a daughter; and thus an Ogdoad was formed, from which, again, a Decad proceeded: thus was produced a Decad and an Ogdoad. The Decad, then, being joined with the Ogdoad, and multiplying it ten times, gave rise to the number eighty; and, again, multiplying eighty ten times, produced the number eight hundred. Thus, then, the whole number of the letters proceeding from the Ogdoad [multiplied] into the Decad, is eight hundred and eighty-eight. This is the name of Jesus; for this name, if you reckon up the numerical value of the letters, amounts to eight hundred and eighty-eight. Thus, then, you have a clear statement of their opinion as to the origin of the supercelestial Jesus. Wherefore, also, the alphabet of the Greeks contains eight Monads, eight Decads, and eight Hecatads , which present the number eight hundred and eighty-eight, that is, Jesus, who is formed of all numbers; and on this account He is called Alpha and Omega, indicating His origin from all.
Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Proof that The Man = Yeshu

Post by Ken Olson »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 9:13 am
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:49 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:35 pm A parody of what?

What Christian gemetria are you referring to?
I don't know. I haven't studied Greek gematria, outside of trying to figure out a few passages in Revelation. But I understand there was such a thing. I could be wrong.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-bib ... ek-script/

And Michael Grondin has been posting on gematria in Thomas, but I haven't really followed it.

Best,

Ken
The obvious example of early Christian Gematria on the name of Jesus is the Epistle of Barnabas
Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For [the Scripture] says, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted — Ten by Ι, and Eight by Η . You have [the initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter Τ, he says also, "Three Hundred." He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that you are worthy.
Thanks, Andrew. Yes, now that you mention it Peter had quoted Barnabas up thread:

viewtopic.php?p=131782#p131782

But I stand by my claim not to have studied Greek gematria ;)

Best,

Ken
Post Reply