The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by neilgodfrey »

Sinouhe wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:42 am
So with this book, i will try to see if this Melchizedek is indeed another piece of the puzzle as I have been thinking for some time.
I will soon be catching up with what the Dutch Radicals had to say about the Book of Hebrews and wonder what might happen, if anything, from that quarter when set beside your findings.
Sinouhe wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:42 am
We have Paul overlaps with Parables, Philo and Seneca. I'd be interested if any particular strand of such overlaps coincides with any of the proposed layers of interpolation in Paul.
Which verses do you suppose are interpolated in Paul ?
I don't have any in particular in mind. There are many views. O'Neill, Turmel, Loisy, Parvus, Munro, . . . . I suspect that the detailed comparisons of different views will be a major series of tasks.

But I am increasingly doubtful that any of Paul's letters belong before 70.
Sinouhe wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:42 am
And what to make of the three elements that Waddell sees as not being part of the Parables: crucifixion, resurrection and forgiveness?
For the moment, in my conclusion, Jesus is the synthesis of Jewish messianic fantasies found in both DSS and in the book of Parables.

Suffering is not a characteristic of the Messiah in the parables but it is in the DSS (Hodayot, 4Q491, 4Q541).
It should also be noted that the messiah of the parables is not presented as suffering but is identified many times with the servant of Isaiah through allusions.
I would not be surprised if the crucifixion theme was post 66-70 CE. The "crucified nation" seems to be a kind of obvious turning point. But I don't know how this might have melded with the pre-70 views represented in the DSS and Parables. (I'm not closing my mind to a pre-70 crucified messiah idea, though.)
Sinouhe wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:42 amThe characteristics of the Messiah and/or eschatological atoner that emerge most from these two schools of thought are :

- An incarnation of the servant of Isaiah (DSS + BP)
- Suffering (DSS)
- Atoner (DSS)
- Savior (DSS + BP)
- Celestial figure (DSS + BP)
- Judge (DSS + BP)
- Pre-existent (BP)
- Associated with wisdom (BP)
- Seated on a heavenly throne (DSS + BP)
- Execute judgment (DSS + BP).

So I am not surprised that the Jesus of the NT takes up all these ideas as a synthesis of the Jewish fantasies of his time.

Jesus' crucifixion would thus be an idea taken from the mesianic expectations of Qumran, which would have pushed suffering to the point of death.

Concerning his resurrection, it is perhaps the development of the idea that we find in the DSS with the death of the teacher of righteousness and certain texts that mention an eschatological priest with the same characteristics as the teacher of righteousness. I rather agree with Michael Wise, Peter Schafer or André Dupont Sommer when they conclude that the followers of the teacher were waiting for his return despite his death.

The resurrection can also be a component of the suffering servant, or at least as a development of this one which then leads Jesus into his second phase : the savior/executioner of the last judgment.

The forgiveness of sins is found in the DSS (11Q13 + 4Q541).

I would therefore see in Jesus a clever and late synthesis of these 2 traditions : Qumran + Enochian tradition.
Do you see scope for the events of 70 contributing to the shaping of the "messiah idea" that had already developed through the traditions you cite?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by MrMacSon »

This is worth highlighting

[ BP = Book of The Parables of Enoch ]


... The conclusion we may draw on the basis of the evidence in BP is that the same language for worship applied to the divine figure is also applied to the messiah figure. This is a surprising development in the history of Second Temple period thought, as worship was only given to the divine figure prior to the appearance of BP ...

Waddell, pp.99-100

See viewtopic.php?p=137512#p137512 above (and Sinouhe's previous post)
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Sinouhe »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 4:52 pm
I don't have any in particular in mind. There are many views. O'Neill, Turmel, Loisy, Parvus, Munro, . . . . I suspect that the detailed comparisons of different views will be a major series of tasks.
But I am increasingly doubtful that any of Paul's letters belong before 70.
Did you write an article about the datation of the pauline epistles after 70 ?

I would not be surprised if the crucifixion theme was post 66-70 CE. The "crucified nation" seems to be a kind of obvious turning point. But I don't know how this might have melded with the pre-70 views represented in the DSS and Parables. (I'm not closing my mind to a pre-70 crucified messiah idea, though.)
I would have no objection to imagine that Christianity is a sect founded after 70. I already think so about all the gospels. As long as the order Paul - > Gospels is respected, I have no problem to deal with it.
Do you see scope for the events of 70 contributing to the shaping of the "messiah idea" that had already developed through the traditions you cite?
It could be. We know that the idea of the royal Messiah who delivers Judea from the foreign invader was one of the other Jewish fantasies of the time (Psalms of Solomon 17).
It is a concept totally absent from Paul's letters because I think his Christ was not an earthly figure. So his idea of the Messiah who fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah's servant by being crucified before returning one day to perform his role as a judge seems to be irreconcilable with the idea of a royal Messiah.

This would explain why the Jesus of the Christians is presented as a passive figure who does nothing to deliver Judea from the Romans and why Mark puts so much emphasis on making him a spiritual king only.
He could not do otherwise since he places his character before 70 well before the war. And despite his coming, nothing has changed.
So I could see some logic in Paul's Jesus being later than 70.

Afterwards I would have a hard time explaining why Paul does not mention the war and the destruction of the temple in his letters if they are written after 70. It would have been a great argument to explain that their law did not save Jerusalem or the temple. But since he does not mention the Roman occupation in his letters either, it is also possible that it was not an important topic for him, especially since he is not addressing his letters to people in Judea. Honestly, I have no problem with Christianity being a sect after 70. It would even explain certains things. After all, the Jesus that everyone has in mind is the Jesus of the Gospels and we know that his story is built to explain the events of the War.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2215
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by andrewcriddle »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:21 pm This is worth highlighting

[ BP = Book of The Parables of Enoch ]


... The conclusion we may draw on the basis of the evidence in BP is that the same language for worship applied to the divine figure is also applied to the messiah figure. This is a surprising development in the history of Second Temple period thought, as worship was only given to the divine figure prior to the appearance of BP ...

Waddell, pp.99-100

See viewtopic.php?p=137512#p137512 above (and Sinouhe's previous post)
One issue is that however one interprets the worship given to the Son of Man here, (see previous posts) it does seem clearly something that the Son of Man will receive at his future triumph. Not something that the author sees as currently happening.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by neilgodfrey »

Sinouhe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:59 pm
Did you write an article about the datation of the pauline epistles after 70 ?
No, or at least not that I recall. It is only very recently that I am beginning to see what I think is secure evidence for a late dating.

Sinouhe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:59 pm It is a concept totally absent from Paul's letters because I think his Christ was not an earthly figure. So his idea of the Messiah who fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah's servant by being crucified before returning one day to perform his role as a judge seems to be irreconcilable with the idea of a royal Messiah.
It is the origin of the crucifixion idea that is the question for me. Isaiah's servant suffers but there is no reference to crucifixion. Why crucifixion, and when, did this notion emerge?
Sinouhe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:59 pm This would explain why the Jesus of the Christians is presented as a passive figure who does nothing to deliver Judea from the Romans and why Mark puts so much emphasis on making him a spiritual king only.
He could not do otherwise since he places his character before 70 well before the war. And despite his coming, nothing has changed.
So I could see some logic in Paul's Jesus being later than 70.
I am trying to leave the Gospel of Mark aside for the moment. Mark's gospel writes up Jesus as a personification of the Jewish people and the crucifixion of Jesus in his gospel is easily seen as a response to the fates of the Jews in wars against Rome. But the crucified Jesus was a concept that preceded Mark's gospel. Mark's Jesus as a personification of the Jewish people is not Paul's Jesus.

Sinouhe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:59 pm Afterwards I would have a hard time explaining why Paul does not mention the war and the destruction of the temple in his letters if they are written after 70.
Unless they were written long after the destruction of the temple and the war. But after 70 hopes for a rebuilding of the temple remained alive, it seems. And then there is Romans 9-11.

Paul in Galatians knows of a "midrash" on Deuteronomy and Genesis 22 to "prove" the crucifixion/curse of Christ.

There are many more strands arising here that are to be factored into the question. 'Tis a puzzle. But I like what you are doing re Enoch.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Sinouhe »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:41 am
It is the origin of the crucifixion idea that is the question for me. Isaiah's servant suffers but there is no reference to crucifixion. Why crucifixion, and when, did this notion emerge?


What Paul did with the OT is exactly what Mark and Qumran did with the OT : interpreting the Bible as if it was related to their own history.

Paul considers that Jesus is an ancestral secret to be discovered in the scriptures (romans 16:25-26, romans 1:1-3) so basically he search his christ in the scriptures.

By example, in the story of Moses, with the Rock, he sees Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-4). It is a pesher of the exodus and not really an historical account about Jesus.

We have a suffering and killed servant in Isaiah 53 with an ambiguous verse that can be interpreted as a resurrection :
  • 8 and as for his generation who considered
    that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
    stricken for the transgression of my people?
    9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
    10 he has put him to grief; when makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall extend his days;
    the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
    12 and he shall divide the spoil with the strong
    because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors;
    yet he bore the sin of many,
This is a perfect summary of his doctrine concerning Jesus: he sacrifices himself to save his people but God will not abandon him. And Paul made an allusion to Isaiah 53 (1 Corinthians 15:3).

Then he mentions the malediction of the wood in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and he relates this to Jesus.
Perhaps the Christians felt that this was the most infamous death in the scriptures and that it corresponded well with their theological vision of the infamous death of the servant who suffers the worst punishment as an atonement ?
A mystery…It can be Psalm 21 (LXX) too.
But Paul clearly links the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection with the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), a sign that it is not necessarily an historical event. Especially since the resurrection is impossible so at least half of his story is not credible :D

I am trying to leave the Gospel of Mark aside for the moment. Mark's gospel writes up Jesus as a personification of the Jewish people and the crucifixion of Jesus in his gospel is easily seen as a response to the fates of the Jews in wars against Rome. But the crucified Jesus was a concept that preceded Mark's gospel. Mark's Jesus as a personification of the Jewish people is not Paul's Jesus.
I do the same.
Paul in Galatians knows of a "midrash" on Deuteronomy and Genesis 22 to "prove" the crucifixion/curse of Christ.
We had the same idea.
There are many more strands arising here that are to be factored into the question. 'Tis a puzzle. But I like what you are doing re Enoch.
I always felt that the parables were a key to the mystery, but I was influenced to put this text aside because of those who dated it after the gospels. A big mistake. Another mistake was to look for the Jesus of the gospels in Enoch when it is Paul's Jesus that is prominent.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:41 am It is the origin of the crucifixion idea that is the question for me. Isaiah's servant suffers but there is no reference to crucifixion. Why crucifixion, and when, did this notion emerge?
I wonder if the idea of Jesus' crucifixion emerged with Justin Martyr, in part, at least, +/or previously in something he was reflecting on (without stating what that might have been ie. if he was indeed reflecting on something). I've been thinking about collating all the stuff I poste on this about 12-18mths ago. Here's a start on that exercise (motivated by Neil's question/s):
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:15 pm
Justin was extrapolating beyond stauros and staruoo.

In doing so, he was appealing to Plato's crucified just man (Republic II,361-2) and accounts of Moses; and said Plato was reflecting those accounts of Moses. Except Justin misrepresented those accounts of Moses, and of Plato supposedly having used them, when he clearly did did not.

[see also viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7699&p=119034&hilit ... in#p119034 for an elaboration on this]

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:23 am
Justin pontificates about crucifixion & the cross a lot [in 1 Apol. & Dial. Trypho] , & what meaning he got about them from elsewhere
  • ie. other than the NT, especially from accounts about Moses

eg. First Apology 35 -

.
... David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, ''They pierced my hands and my feet'', was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.
.


Psalm 22:1-2, 6-8, 15-18, -

.
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest.
...---
6 But I am a worm, and not human; scorned by others, and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads;
8 ‘Commit your cause to the Lord; let him deliver-let him rescue the one in whom he delights!’
...---
15 My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,
.....and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
.....you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me,
.....a pack of villains encircles me;
......they pierce my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat over me;
18 they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots

.

(The crucifixion passage in Mark 15:24-39, uses lines from Psalm 22 in reverse order)


First Apology 55 -

the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, "The breath before our face is the Lord Christ".a

a = a number of potential passages, such as Gen 2:7; Ezekiel 37:5, 6, 8 or 9; Job 12:10; 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; Psalms 33:6 or 150:6;

but I think Isaiah 42:5 may fit best -

.
Thus says God the Lord,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
And spirit to those who walk in it

.


First Apology 60

.
“And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise in the universe",1 he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in 'the writings of Moses' it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross,2 and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, "If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby".

“And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died,3 and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death.

“Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and 'not apprehending' that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise,1 he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe.1

“And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, "that the Spirit of God moved over the waters." For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe;1 and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, "And the third around the third".

“And hear how the Spirit of prophecy signified through Moses that there should be a conflagration.”
.

1 In First Apol. 60 Justin refers to 'crosswise' four times ("placed in the universe" three), and, in the first line, he ties that to Son of God in Plato's Timaeus in which there is cosmological commentary with a compound divided lengthways into two parts, united at the centre like the letter X, and bent into an inner and outer circle or sphere, crossing one another again at a point over the point at which they first cross; and later, the outer and the inner sphere cross one another again and meet again at a point opposite to that of their first contact.

2 Justin has 'reconfigured' the "serpent of brass upon a signal-staff" from Numbers 21:8 as 'the figure of a cross'.

3. The serpents didn't die: see Numbers 21:9.

Moreover, Plato's Republic, bk II (s.361e-362a), has a reference to a crucified just man -

such being his disposition the just man will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified, and so will learn his lesson that not to be but to seem just is what we ought to desire.


Dialogue with Trypho 40

.
Trypho: "prove to us whether He must be crucified and die so disgracefully and so dishonourably by the death cursed in the law. For we cannot bring ourselves even to think of this."

... said [Justin], "that what the prophets said and did they veiled by parables and types, as you admitted to us; so that it was not easy for all to understand ...

They answered, "We admitted this."

"Listen, therefore," say [Justin], "to what follows; for Moses first exhibited this seeming curse of Christ's by the signs which he made."

"Of what [signs] do you speak?" said [Trypho]

"When the people," replied [Justin], "waged war with Amalek, and the son of Nave (Nun), by name Y'hosua/ Iésous, led the fight, Moses himself prayed to God, stretching out both hands, and Hur with Aaron supported them during the whole day, so that they might not hang down when he got wearied. For if he gave up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the people were beaten, as is recorded in the writings of Moses; but if he remained in this form, Amalek was proportionally defeated, and he who prevailed prevailed by the cross. For it was not because Moses so prayed that the people were stronger, but because, while one who bore the name of Iésous was in the forefront of the battle, he himself [ie. Moses] made the sign of the cross ...
.


Dialogue with Trypho 41

.
"And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross ...

... even as Amalek was defeated and Israel victorious when the people came out of Egypt, by means of the type of the stretching out of Moses' hands, and the name of Y'hoshua / Iésous, by which the son of Nave (Nun) was called.

And it seems that the type and sign, which was erected to counteract the serpents which bit Israel, was intended for the salvation of those who believe that death was declared to come thereafter on the serpent through Him that would be crucified, but salvation to those who had been bitten by him and had betaken themselves to Him that sent His Son into the world to be crucified.
.


Dial. 111

.
"And that it was declared by symbol, even in the time of Moses, that there would be two advents of this Christ, as I have mentioned previously, [manifest] from the symbol of the goats presented for sacrifice during the fast. And again, by what Moses and Y'hoshua/ Iésous did, the same thing was symbolically announced and told beforehand. For the one of them, stretching out his hands, remained till evening on the hill, his hands being supported; and this reveals a type of no other thing than of the cross: and the other, whose name was altered to Iésous, led the fight, and Israel conquered.

"Now this took place in the case of both those holy men and prophets of God, that you may perceive how one of them could not bear up both the mysteries: I mean, the type of the cross and the type of the name.
.


Dial. 112

"And shall we not rather refer the standard to the resemblance of the crucified Jesus, since also Moses by his outstretched hands, together with him who was named Iésous, achieved a victory for your people?

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:19 pm
'The Crucifixion of the Paschal Lamb' by Joseph Tabory, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 86, No. 3/4 (Jan. – Apr., 1996), pp. 395-406; via JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1454912

Justin's description [in Dial. 40] of the crucifixion of the paschal lamb by the Jews is intended to prove that the offering of the lamb was a perfect prefiguration of the crucifixion of Jesus. However, Justin could not have been an eyewitness to the Jerusalem sacrifice as he was born some 30 years after the destruction of the Temple. One might assume that Justin saw Jews preparing lambs for the Passover meal in the same manner that they were prepared in Jerusalem during the Temple period since there is evidence of Jews doing so in spite of the objection of the rabbis. However, this custom was apparently not practised in the area where Justin lived, as he points out to his opponent [Trypho] that the Jews no longer offer[ed] the paschal sacrifice. His description might have been a theoretical reconstruction based on his belief that the sacrifice of Jesus was prefigured by the offering of the paschal lamb. Theological considerations might have led him to imagine that the paschal lamb had not only been offered in the traditional manner of sacrifices, but that it had actually being crucified. After all, Justin had accused the Jews of eliminating … passages from the Greek Bible which [had supposedly] prophesied the coming of Jesus [Dial. 73], although scholarly opinion maintains that these passages were added by Christian scholars and copyists. We might argue therefore that his description is not historically accurate.

On the other hand it has been assumed that Justin's description was based on the Samaritan practice of offering the paschal lamb, a ritual which Justin might have witnessed personally during his childhood in Shechem. However there are certain discrepancies between the Samaritan custom, as described by modern observers, and Justin's portrayal. The contentions of this paper are that the Samaritan custom has indeed changed since Justin's time; that Justin accurately portrayed the contemporary Samaritan ritual; and that this ritual was similar to the paschal sacrifice in Jerusalem. To prove these points this paper…compare[d] Justin's account with modern accounts of the Samaritan ritual and with a reconstruction of the ancient Jewish practise based on rabbinic sources.

A summary of the end of the article:

Moreover, after the destruction of the Temple it would seem that one of the new rabbinic stipulations was only prohibition of roasting the lamb, but not of cooking it by other means. There was also disagreement between two key rabbis, R. Akiva and R. Yose ha-Galili, regarding the fate and cooking of the internal organs of the paschal lamb: according to R. Yose ha-Galili, these organs were replaced inside the lamb after cleaning and the entire land was roasted in this fashion. But R. Akiva, on the other hand, said the organs were hung around the lamb's head and neck for roasting, as in the form of a helmet.

Some have thought the similarity of the lamb ‘helmeted’ in its entrails with the crowned Jesus may have served as additional evidence of the connection between the two events.

And further speculation:

Another possibility is the notion that the lamb ‘helmeted’ in its entrails motivated the narrative about Jesus’ crown of thorns.

There's also similar commentary to Justin's in the Untitled Text in the Bruce codex. See viewtopic.php?p=120532#p120532
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon May 16, 2022 3:12 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1931
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Justin Martyr staurogram Trypho 55

Post by mlinssen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:41 am It is the origin of the crucifixion idea that is the question for me. Isaiah's servant suffers but there is no reference to crucifixion. Why crucifixion, and when, did this notion emerge?
Dialogue with Trypho chapter 55 is where we can see how he uses the staurogram to argue for "the cross":

First Apology 55 -

the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, "The breath before our face is the Lord Christ".a

JustinMartyr_DialogeWithTrypho-chapter55.jpg
JustinMartyr_DialogeWithTrypho-chapter55.jpg (453.86 KiB) Viewed 121 times
The nose protruding from the face only makes sense of you view the head from the side - like here
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by Sinouhe »

In my opinion, i think the first mention of the cross comes from the Epistle of Barnabas that I date before Justin martyr :
  • Barnabas 9:7
    Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first,
    and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen 'I'
    stands for ten, 'H' for eight. Here thou hast JESUS (IHSOYS). And
    because the cross in the 'T' was to have grace, He saith also three
    hundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the
    remaining one the cross.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1931
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

Post by mlinssen »

Sinouhe wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:07 pm In my opinion, i think the first mention of the cross comes from the Epistle of Barnabas that I date before Justin martyr :
  • Barnabas 9:7
    Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first,
    and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen 'I'
    stands for ten, 'H' for eight. Here thou hast JESUS (IHSOYS)
    . And
    because the cross in the 'T' was to have grace, He saith also three
    hundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the
    remaining one the cross.
The issue with that is what's in the literal text - or rather, what isn't.
Sinaiticus:

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu ... omSlider=0

Barnabas 9:8

λεγει γαρ και
περιετεμεν αβρα
αμ εκ του οικου αυ
του ανδραϲ δεκαο
κτω και τριακοϲι
ουϲ · τριϲ ουν η δο
θιϲα αυτω γνωϲιϲ
μαθετε · οτι τουϲ
δεκαοκτω πρω
τουϲ και διαϲτη
μα ποιηϲαϲ λεγει
τριακοϲιουϲ · το
δεκαοκτω εχειϲ
ιν
οτι δε ο ϲταυροϲ
εν τριακοϲτω η
μελλεν εχιν την
χαριν λεγει και τρι
ακοϲιουϲ · δηλοι
ουν τον μεν ιν
εν τοιϲ δυϲιν γραμ
μαϲιν και εν τω
ενι τον ϲταυρον
οιδεν

ιν is the pivotal word, the accusative of ιϲ - where is the eta?
Naturally, the word cross is stauros

Yet if we continue we encounter the tau - and the word we get is IHT
Post Reply