“Mistress, the queen, far be it from you to believe his words, for by principle he has to be spiritual and not bodily. And about him the scripture said, ‘Blessed is the man,’ for ‘the man’ adds up to the calculation of ‘Yeshu,’ for the word ‘Yeshu’ has the initial letters of ‘May his name and memory be obliterated.’ And on account of the principle it is right to obliterate his name from the world. And we admit that he is a man, and about him the scripture said, ‘Cursed is the man who makes, etc.’ (Deut. 27:15) But if he is a prophet, behold, it is said, ‘And the man who acts presumptively without listening to the priest, etc.’ (Deut. 17:12) But he is a bastard, and the son of a menstruant, and not the Son of God, and condemned to four deaths by the Judgment House.”
"The man" (שיאה) in Gematria equals 316 = 300 + 10 + 1 + 5.
Thanks. The Toldot Yeshu is a fascinating text, particularly in this version, which I haven't read before. It seems to be pretty late, particularly if the reference to the Yosiphun in chapter 1 is to the 10th century Sefer Josippon. It has characters from several centuries (or fictional characters based on characters from several centuries) jumbled together from Simon ben Shetah (late 2nd/early first century BCE) to Nestor, who I think is supposed to be the namesake of the Nestorian Church (5th century CE) who has a falling out with Paulo (Paul) and goes to Babel. Queen Helena, who in other versions of the story is the wife of Alexander Jannaeus and sister of Simon Ben Shetah (early 1st century CE) has become the wife of Constantine (confusion with the 4th century Helena the mother of Constantine?).
In the passage you quote, the sages accept Yeshu's claim to be 'the man' referred to in scripture (Ps 1:1), but then use the fact to attack him - his name is acronym for 'May his name and memory be obliterated' and, through gematria, he is 'the man' referred to negatively in Deut. 27.15 and Deut. 17.11. (I'm not really sure how Isa 11.4 is supposed to work in context).
The connection of Yeshu's name (which has to be shortened form the form Yehoshua it had in chapter 2 on p. 7) to 'the man' through gematria and making it into an acronym for a sentence requiring his obliteration will seem contrived to us. The thing is, I think it may have been intended that way by the author. The whole story is a farce. It's mocking Yeshu and his followers, but it seems to be mocking the sages of Yisrael and everyone else as well. I'm not sure any of it including the gematria was meant to be taken seriously. The sages of Israel crucify Jesus on a cabbage tree (p. 43; I've seen this rendered as a fennel stalk in another version) and one of the elders says to the others: 'Let us go and crucify him on this cabbage.'
But I'm wondering what you think are the takeaways of the The Man = Yeshu in the Toldot. What light, if any, does this shed on the theory that the name Jesus is derived from איש, or that איש was the name of the human form of God in the OT, or that the Iota Sigma in NT and early Christian text originally designated איש?
Best,
Ken
In this version of the Toledoth Yeshu, this line:
And we admit that he is a man, and about him the scripture said
connects with this previous line:
And about him the scripture said, ‘Blessed is the man,’ for ‘the man’ adds up to the calculation of ‘Yeshu,’ for the word ‘Yeshu’ ...
And ‘May his name and memory be obliterated’ is a backronym that is found previously in other versions of this text and in the Talmud.
As you point out, this text finds two ways to refer to "the man" negatively: "referred to negatively in Deut. 27.15 and Deut. 17.11."
So what is the function of this line?
And about him the scripture said, ‘Blessed is the man,’ for ‘the man’ adds up to the calculation of ‘Yeshu,’
I understand it as a reference to Christian use of scripture. Christians adduced the several "Blessed is the man" passages as referring to Jesus (including Psalm 1:1 among others). Christians may also have seen other passages that refer to "the man" as referring to Jesus, such as the famous "man" who wrestled with Jacob in Genesis 32:22–32. Christians had already been doing this kind of reading of the scriptures for centuries, as early as Paul, who found in references to a "rock" a reference to Jesus (1 Corinthians 10:4). It's not surprising that this kind of interpretation would eventually expand to include the laudatory and the mysterious "man" passages in scripture. (Of course, given the varied references to a "man" in scripture, that allowed the Toledoth Yeshu to come up with its examples.)
It also obviously shows that Christians, Jews, or both discovered the numerological connection between "the man" and "Yeshu" in Hebrew. At the latest the discovery could be due to the author himself, but given the context of linking it to a positive statement in scripture ("Blessed is the man"), I believe that the author first encountered this idea circulating among Christians. Given that the Christians would have to know Hebrew, maybe these Christians were converts from Judaism.
There's no immediate indication of how far back it goes as a Christian tradition.
What light, if any, does this shed on the theory that the name Jesus is derived from איש, or that איש was the name of the human form of God in the OT, or that the Iota Sigma in NT and early Christian text originally designated איש?
It has obvious value showing that a connection between "the man" and "Yeshu" is not just due to overactive modern imaginations. However, it doesn't directly answer any of those questions.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:23 amthat the Iota Sigma in NT and early Christian text originally designated
Personally, I don't really understand these theories. They seem to rely on oversimplification of the presence of the nomina sacra. It is well known that the nomina sacra do not appear only in the nominative case. For example, it also appears in the genitive. Where it appears in the genitive, it generally uses a different nomina sacra with a different abbreviation. More importantly, the sentence does not read grammatically without the genitive. Accordingly, one cannot just theorize that someone took an original single nomina sacra (like iota sigma) and sprinkled in the variants. One needs to have a theory that accounts for all the variants. I haven't seen any that do so, other than the Greek name of Jesus.
To me, that suggests, to make it work, you'd need to have the idea morph into the name of Jesus prior to the writing of the first NT texts. At that point, maybe there's a theory. But I don't see how it works if claiming that the authors of the texts didn't know the name of Jesus.
It's possible that there's some unifying theory that explains all of it, but I haven't seen it. It currently is a half-baked, frequently changing set of vague ideas spread out over abortive posts that revel in obscurity. I would love to see a complete presentation of an idea along these lines. Then there could be more to talk about.
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:50 pm
So what is the function of this line?
And about him the scripture said, ‘Blessed is the man,’ for ‘the man’ adds up to the calculation of ‘Yeshu,’
I understand it as a reference to Christian use of scripture. Christians adduced the several "Blessed is the man" passages as referring to Jesus (including Psalm 1:1 among others). Christians may also have seen other passages that refer to "the man" as referring to Jesus, such as the famous "man" who wrestled with Jacob in Genesis 32:22–32. Christians had already been doing this kind of reading of the scriptures for centuries, as early as Paul, who found in references to a "rock" a reference to Jesus (1 Corinthians 10:4). It's not surprising that this kind of interpretation would eventually expand to include the laudatory and the mysterious "man" passages in scripture. (Of course, given the varied references to a "man" in scripture, that allowed the Toledoth Yeshu to come up with its examples.)
Ah, yes! I think you're probably right that it's a reaction to Christian use of the Scriptures of Israel. I wonder if the sages' use of scripture in the story is intended seriously by the author (whenever he or she wrote) or if it's meant as a sort of parody. Like: 'Oh, Jesus is the man in the passages you cite? Is he also the man in these other passages? Or just the ones you find him in?''
I think that's plausible because, from the Jewish POV (with which modern historical-critical scholars largely agree), the Christians' use of scripture would have seemed arbitrary and contextless. They find him in the text where they want to and not where they don't want to. There's no conistency to it.
It also obviously shows that Christians, Jews, or both discovered the numerological connection between "the man" and "Yeshu" in Hebrew. At the latest the discovery could be due to the author himself, but given the context of linking it to a positive statement in scripture ("Blessed is the man"), I believe that the author first encountered this idea circulating among Christians. Given that the Christians would have to know Hebrew, maybe these Christians were converts from Judaism.
I wonder if (1) the gematria is a parody and (2) if we need to assume that the Christian gematria used the Hebrew text because the Jewish response to it (or this particular one) was in Hebrew.
What light, if any, does this shed on the theory that the name Jesus is derived from איש, or that איש was the name of the human form of God in the OT, or that the Iota Sigma in NT and early Christian text originally designated איש?
It has obvious value showing that a connection between "the man" and "Yeshu" is not just due to overactive modern imaginations. However, it doesn't directly answer any of those questions.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:23 amthat the Iota Sigma in NT and early Christian text originally designated
Personally, I don't really understand these theories. They seem to rely on oversimplification of the presence of the nomina sacra. It is well known that the nomina sacra do not appear only in the nominative case. For example, it also appears in the genitive. Where it appears in the genitive, it generally uses a different nomina sacra with a different abbreviation. More importantly, the sentence does not read grammatically without the genitive. Accordingly, one cannot just theorize that someone took an original single nomina sacra (like iota sigma) and sprinkled in the variants. One needs to have a theory that accounts for all the variants. I haven't seen any that do so, other than the Greek name of Jesus.
To me, that suggests, to make it work, you'd need to have the idea morph into the name of Jesus prior to the writing of the first NT texts. At that point, maybe there's a theory. But I don't see how it works if claiming that the authors of the texts didn't know the name of Jesus.
It's possible that there's some unifying theory that explains all of it, but I haven't seen it. It currently is a half-baked, frequently changing set of vague ideas spread out over abortive posts that revel in obscurity. I would love to see a complete presentation of an idea along these lines. Then there could be more to talk about.
Right, I think Ben Smith argued along these lines a year or two ago. The Christian texts we now have (at least most of the NT and the early church fathers) employ the fully developed system of nomina sacra. There is a possibility that there was some sort of development from an original IOTA SIGMA which grew into the developed system, but the texts we have are using the developed system (with the caveat that calling it a system may overstate things as there seems to some variation in exactly how words were rendered)
It also obviously shows that Christians, Jews, or both discovered the numerological connection between "the man" and "Yeshu" in Hebrew. At the latest the discovery could be due to the author himself, but given the context of linking it to a positive statement in scripture ("Blessed is the man"), I believe that the author first encountered this idea circulating among Christians. Given that the Christians would have to know Hebrew, maybe these Christians were converts from Judaism.
I wonder if (1) the gematria is a parody and (2) if we need to assume that the Christian gematria used the Hebrew text because the Jewish response to it (or this particular one) was in Hebrew.
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.
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.
And Michael Grondin has been posting on gematria in Thomas, but I haven't really followed it.
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."
'Everyone say ...'
'Everyone knows ...'
'Only an idiot would think ...'
But the reality is that no one knows where the nomina sacra originated. Among people who think there's a historical Jesus and died believing it, there's a 'theory' that it 'has something to do with the way the Tetragrammaton is reverenced by the Jews.'
But unlike Greek-which has easily discernible case endings to distinguish between accusatives and genitives, etc. -biblical Hebrew lacks case endings. That's true for my theory but it's also true for YHWH to kurios too.
So these guys can say it went from a language with no case endings to a language to case endings and 'sure that works' but if someone suggests that among ditheist Jewish or Samaritan traditions there might have been a similar reverence paid to the name Ish? Same problem with case endings and no case endings. But on the 'plus side' you don't have to explain what an IS is. You don't have to explain why 90% of abbreviations in Greek and other languages simply feature an 'abbreviated' number of letters in their original order.
Steph. = Stephen
M = Mister
If you look at the data the vast majority of abbreviations for let's say the word kurios in ordinary Greek documents (non-ecclesiastic) from the first four years of the Common Era:
κυ(ρίου) BC02 Egypt, U15 - Hermopolites BGU 6 1222 26 TM 4531
κύρ(ιος) BC02 Egypt, U - Upper Egypt P. Dryton 41 6 TM 503
κυ(ρίως) BC02 Egypt, 00c - Kerkeosiris (?) P. Tebt. 1 124 29 TM 3760
κυ(ρίου) BC02 Egypt, U04b - Dios Polis (Thebes east) P. Strasb. Gr. 2 81 4 TM 99
κυ(ρίου) BC02 Egypt, U04a - Krokodilopolis P. Grenf. 1 27 6 TM 129
κυ(ρίου) BC02 Egypt, U - Upper Egypt P. Grenf. 1 33 15 TM 260
And what is the evidence that the nomen sacrum itself is an abbreviation? The Jews would never abbreviate the name of God. The idea of abbreviating the name above names - how can not be inherently blasphemous? Why wasn't it? These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked especially when you see the reverence for names discussed by Origen in Against Celsus.