The standard understanding of the nomen sacrum ΙΣ, two letters written with an overbar, is that it is a specifically Christian abbreviation formula used for Ἰησοῦς, the Greek version of the common Hebrew name 'Joshua' spelled either יהושע or ישוע or even ישו. Because of the influence of the surviving gospel narratives it is taken for granted that a 'Jesus of Nazareth' born of a certain 'Mary' lived in Galilee, performed wonderful deeds and was ultimately crucified, buried, raised from the dead and disappeared only to reappear between 30 - 33 CE. The gospel genre was developed around the life of this man and the nomen sacrum ΙΣ used to express his person because of an underlying mystery associated with his advent. It came to be understood that the Jewish writings foretold not only the coming of the messiah but a Christ specifically named Jesus.
It will be taken for granted for the purpose of this paper that this 'messianic proof text' formula was what Papias meant by 'dominical logia' the distinguishing characteristic of Matthew's rewriting of Mark's original gospel of Jesus (Christ). To that end it is important to note that in earliest Christianity the argument that 'Jesus' was predicted by the 'Old Testament' was likely not as foundational to the gospel as currently accepted. There was an entire Christian culture which took an entirely different view of Matthew's 'dominical logia' - that they were a corruption of Mark's original gospel and that rather than being a historical person known to be from Mary in Nazareth, he was a supernatural 'Man' who first came down from heaven specifically to Judea or Jerusalem. Scholarship has been hampered in its efforts to understand this 'Marcionite' tradition owing to the loss of almost any material related to their tradition and the obviously polemical nature of what information survives among the Church Fathers.
It is difficult to conceive of a gospel narrative without some dependence on the Jewish writings. Even the very name 'gospel' seems to go back to the announcement of the Jubilee six months before the start of the year. The idea that a particularly influential early Christian sect was hostile to Judaism and the Jewish writings seems something wholly invented to cut off as it were any justification they had for their central distinguishing feature - the existence of a supernatural Man. Where the Marcionites are allowed to defend the existence of a Man who was not of flesh and blood we find them appealing to familiar scriptural evidence - the 'men' who visited Abraham. Surely if more of their writings or more discussions of their understanding survived we see the full range of references in the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua used in contemporary writers like Justin, Clement, Irenaeus, Origen, Novatian, Eusebius, Hilary, Jerome and others - viz. the Man in whose image Adam was created, the Man who addressed Noah, who was sent with Eleazer to find Rebecca and appeared in the field with Isaac, who Jacob beheld in one place and wrestled with in another, who met Joseph in the field and helped him rise to the highest office in Egypt, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush and on Sinai and who appeared to Joshua before his conquest of Jericho.
By turning Marcion into a hater of all things 'Jewish' the Church Fathers neatly cut off any basis for his claim that 'another god' existed in heaven beside the Creator. Instead of offering a reasonable 'counter proposal' to the 'Jesus of Nazareth' we and generations of our ancestors took for granted as the only understanding of the figure designated by the nomen sacrum ΙΣ in the gospel, we are left with a caricature of an angry heretic whose entire theological understanding of the Bible was reducible to resentment and 'anti-Semitism.' The 'Jews' it is presumed 'only ever believed in one God.' Marcion's invention of a rival 'Man' to the Creator could only have been born out of hatred, or so generations of academics and theologians have presumed. Nevertheless I shall over the course of the present investigation put forward the suggestion that Marcionites understanding of 'two powers' in heaven' bears striking similarities not only to the 'heretics' mentioned in the Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael but more significantly to the ἄνθρωπος angel found in the pre-Christian writings of Philo of Alexandria.
What we shall propose here is that the gospel and the nomen sacrum ΙΣ likely developed from the Jewish culture of Alexandria known as it is to us from the writings of Philo. Even though there is no direct evidence for Philo's written use of ΙΣ the circumstantial evidence that the Hebrew word for 'man' איש was represented by the Greek letters ΙΣ seems incontrovertible. Not only does Origen explicitly make several references to איש as ΙΣ (while acknowledging the specific Hebrew spelling as ΑΙΣ) it is necessary for the LXX's translation of several Hebrew names that begin with אי - viz. אִיּוֹב (Ἰώβ), אִיתָמָר (Ἰθάμαρ), אִייָר (Ιαϊρ). Already Justin explicitly confirms this meaning of the nomen sacrum - ΙΣ δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ σωτῆρος ὄνομα καὶ σημασίαν ἔχει - "But ΙΣ has the name and designation of 'man' and 'Savior.'" Leaving aside the logical inconsistency of having two letters represent two completely different ideas or concepts, there can be no doubt that Marcovich argued for Justin's understanding of ΙΣ as איש even amending a passage in 1 Apology to echo what I have just cited in 2 Apology.
Cantor argues that Origen use of ΙΣ as איש comes from a pre-existent and probably Jewish source. This reading of Genesis 2:23 is found in one family of the manuscripts of Eusebius's Preparation for the Gospel, Jerome and a certain Diodorus of Tarsus. But what I will specifically argue here is that איש as ΙΣ and the influence that it had in Christianity, being the 'nomen sacrum' used to describe the central figure of the gospel, must ultimately be attributable to Philo of Alexandria. His influential interpretation of Ισραήλ meaning 'a man seeing God' necessarily depends on Ισ designating איש. It was used by almost every early Church Father which necessarily implies the ubiquitous nature of the ΙΣ as איש formulation. However it is Justin's variant of this common 'folk etymology' which will be the focus on the present paper. Not only do I think it goes back to Philo but that it confirms that Philo himself must have read ΙΣ as the name of the angel which wrestled with Jacob and appeared throughout the Pentateuch. While it is commonly accepted that Philo knew the angel as ἄνθρωπος, the present investigation will argue for the origin of ΙΣ in Philo's Alexandrian Jewish culture.
Genesis 32:29
Jacob wrestling with the angel איש is the most explicit attempt by the author of the Pentateuch to explain the name Israel. After the two men - one heavenly, one earthly - contend with one another for a period of time the angel says:
שרית was originally supposed to explain the name given to Jacob - ישראל. Nevertheless the Targumic tradition wanted to address the name of the mysterious 'man' so we see the angel's name preserved as שריאל or 'Prince of God' from שרית. Nevertheless Genesis identifies the angel as איש or 'man' and the earliest Samaritan and Jewish traditions which are faithful to the text acknowledge this. The LXX used by Philo employed ἴσχυσας to translate שרית. We have already seen the ubiquitous rendering of איש, the angel's name, as ΙΣ, in the period just after Philo. The question that stands before us is, did the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria see ἴσχυσας as a play on ΙΣ the way their Aramaic speaking contemporaries did with regards to שרית and שריאל?Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven (sarita) with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
We happen to know very little about Alexandrian Judaism outside of Philo. We know a lot more about the earliest Church Fathers who drew their understanding of the Bible from Philo and a uniquely Christian 'LXX.' In Adversus Marcionem Book 4, a work likely derived in part from Justin Martyr, the Latin speaking Church Father Tertullian explicitly explains the name 'Israel' as deriving from ἴσχυσας saying "cum deo invalescentis, quod est interpretatio Israelis." Origen similarly "seems to interpret the name Israel here to mean that Jacob was 'strong with the Lord.'" The same can be said for a number of later Latin Fathers including Hilary of Poitiers and Jerome. In each case it is possible that these early Christian figures while otherwise dependent on Philo for the 'man seeing God' etymology, derived Ισραήλ from ἴσχυσας from a Hebrew or Aramaic speaking source. I don't think we have to go that far. Philo does cite the Greek of Genesis 32:28 on three occasions that we know of. But more importantly he speaks of the divine logos whom he repeatedly identifies as a heavenly ἄνθρωπος in places where איש appears in the Pentateuch who 'strengthens' mortal beings to overcome the passions.
In one specific occasion he references the divine logos as a 'wrestling trainer' quite specifically making the connection with Genesis 32:29 absolutely explicit:
There can be no doubt that Philo is drawing on the description of Jacob's wrestling with the 'man' to make a broader point about the divine logos operating in a similar way with all men who worship him. The heavenly ἄνθρωπος gives strength and power (ἰσχὺν καὶ δύναμιν) to his devotees. This would suggest, if taken back to Jacob's wrestling, that the man gave 'strength' to him and the Israel reflects that transference. This idea is consistently reinforced throughout Philo's writings. In the Third Book of Allegorical Interpretation the Alexandrian says that Jacob earlier ran away from Laban "for his name had not as yet been changed to Israel ... [that] he could not entirely and utterly subdue his passions." The implication here is that Jacob first 'sees' ΙΣ, then is 'empowered' by his energy giving him 'strength' to "shall be able to gain the victory" (ἰσχύσει νικηφορῆσαι) and be accorded him the name Ισραήλ.God, not condescending to come down to the external senses, sends his own words or angels for the sake of giving assistance to those who love virtue. But they attend like physicians to the disease of the soul, and apply themselves to heal them, offering sacred recommendations like sacred laws, and inviting men to practice the duties inculcated by them, and, like the trainers of wrestlers, implanting in their pupils strength, and power, and irresistible vigour (καὶ τρόπον ἀλειπτῶν ἰσχὺν καὶ δύναμιν).
The pattern is consistent with every Patriarch but we will for the present focus on Jacob/Israel's son Joseph because it is the most explicit. Just as we saw with his father, young Joseph is understood to have run away from the Egyptian Potiphar since "he is a young man (νέος), and because as such he was unable to struggle with the Egyptian body and to subdue pleasure (οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ἀγωνίσασθαι καὶ νικῆσαι τὴν ἡδονήν)" Of course Philo, like the Samaritans takes great interest in Joseph's encounter with the 'man' (in the Hebrew text איש) in the field before being sold into slavery in Egypt. We should pay special attention to the language used:
The use of ὁρῶν here is a deliberate echo of Ισραήλ as τὸ ὁρῶν τὸν θεόν. When his father Jacob 'sees' Man for the first time there is no explicit statement in the Pentateuch that he is anthropomorphic in shape so there is corresponding silence in Philo's analysis. However there is an uncanny correspondence between Philo emphasizing his manhood when איש or some corresponding Greek term shows up in the narrative.Seeing therefore that Joseph has wholly entered into the hollow valleys of the body and of the outward senses (ὁρῶν), he invites him to come forth out of his holes, and to bring forward the free air of perseverance, going as a pupil to those who were formerly practisers of it themselves, and who are now become teachers of it; but he who appears to himself to have made progress in this, is found to be in error; "For a man," says the holy scripture, "found him wandering in the Plain" (εὗρε γάρ φησιν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπος πλανώμενον ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ Gen 37:15)
Philo immediately goes on to emphasize the 'manhood' of the angel, the divine Logos, in what follows:
some say that the proper name of the man who found him wandering in the plain is not mentioned (τοῦ δὲ εὑρόντος ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ πλανώμενον αὐτὸν ἀνθρώπου τὸ κύριον ὄνομα οὔ φασί τινες δεδηλῶσθαι), and they themselves are in some degree mistaken here, because they are unable clearly to discover the true way of this business (καὶ αὐτοὶ τρόπον τινὰ πεπλανημένοι διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὴν ὀρθὴν ὁδὸν τῶν πραγμάτων ἐναργῶς ὁρᾶν), for if they had not been mutilated as to the eye of the soul (εἰ γὰρ μὴ τὸ ψυχῆς ὄμμα ἐπεπήρωντο), they would have known that of one who is truly a man (τοῦ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἀνθρώπου), the most proper, and appropriate, and felicitous name is this very name of man (τὸ ἰδιαίτατον καὶ εὐθυβολώτατον ὄνομά ἐστιν αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἄνθρωπος), being the most appropriate apellation of a well regulated and rational mind.
In other words, Philo makes absolutely clear that the name of the angel, the Logos, is explicitly given out in the words that appear on the page of the Genesis account, it is only that individuals haven't been properly initiated into the divine mysteries to comprehend it. 'Man' or איש (or in the LXX 'ἄνθρωπος') is the fitting name for the divine being.
In other words, Philo in no uncertain terms tells us that he knows that 'Man' is the name of the angel. Of course we have to stand back from the written account and ask ourselves, given all that we have seen so far does he mean that the Greek word ἄνθρωπος is literally the κύριον ὄνομα? Of course not. Saying that איש is the proper name is likely closer to the truth as Philo certainly knows that his LXX is a copy of a Hebrew text and subscribes to the belief that Hebrew is a divine tongue. However given the consistent play on words with respect to Ισραήλ and ἰσχύς Philo must also have been Origen's and Justin's source for the Greek transliteration of איש as ΙΣ. In other words, before the gospel was ever written with its nomen sacrum ΙΣ, a Greek text explaining the 'mysteries of the Bible' preserved the name of the 'man' who had intercourse with the Patriarchs in the ΙΣ form. We must even suspect, if we were to speculate, that it was to be found among the "writings of ancient men, who having been the founders of one sect or another have left behind them many memorials of the allegorical system of writing and explanation" of the Therapeutae.
Whatever the case may be Philo goes on to speak of the figure who must have been known to him as ΙΣ, saying that:
The ideas here are so compatible with what is said (and not said) about Jacob being 'strengthened' by his original encounter with ΙΣ that it cannot be coincidental. Joseph is effectively described as a 'wrestler' because of the original example of his father.This man, dwelling in the soul of each individual (οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἑκάστου τῇ ψυχῇ κατοικῶν), is found at one time to be a ruler and monarch (ἄρχων καὶ βασιλεὺς), and at another time to be a judge and umpire (δικαστὴς καὶ βραβευτὴς) of the contest which take place in life. At times also he takes the place of a witness and accuser (μάρτυρος ἢ κατηγόρου), and without being seen he corrects us from within ... Therefore the interpreter of divers opinions, the wandering Joseph, is found in the plain, that is to say, in a contention of words, having reference to political considerations rather than to useful truth; but there are some adversaries who, by reason of their vigorous body, their antagonists having succumbed, have gained the prize of victory without a struggle, not having even had, to descend into the arena to contend for it, but obtaining the chief honours on account of their incomparable strength.
While it may take us too far from our original line of reasoning it is worth noting that Philo goes on to speak about another encounter between 'man' and a Patriarch, this time Isaac, in a field:
Of course the very same man is called איש in the Hebrew text, ἄνθρωπος in the LXX but perhaps most significantly ΙΣ with an overbar - that is 'Jesus' - in the writings of Origen.Using such a power as this with reference to the most divine thing that is in us, namely, our mind, "Isaac goes forth into the Plain;"{12}{#ge 24:63.} not for the purpose of contending with any body, since all those who might have been his antagonists, are terrified at the greatness and exceeding excellence of his nature in all things; but only washing to meet in private, and to converse in private with the fellow traveller and guide of his path and of his soul, namely God. And the clearest possible proof of this is, that no one who conversed with Isaac was a mere mortal. Rebecca, that is perseverance, asks her servant, seeing but one person, and having no conception but of one only, "Who is this man who is coming to meet us?" For the soul which perseveres in what is good, is able to comprehend all self-taught wisdom, which is named Isaac, but is not yet able to see God, who is the guide of wisdom. Therefore, also, the servant confirming the fact that he cannot be comprehended who is invisible, and who converses with man invisibly, says, "He is my lord," pointing to Isaac alone. For it is not natural that, if two persons were in sight, he should point to one alone; but the person whom he did not point to, he did not see, inasmuch as he was invisible to all persons of intermediate character.
Origen, in his Homily on this section of Genesis mostly sticks to a superficial reading of the material. Nevertheless when he arrives at the same passage - "Who is this man who is coming to meet us?" - makes explicit the understanding that the איש/ἄνθρωπος is one and the same with the Christian ΙΣ with an overbar:
And finally at the conclusion of his Homily:But to pass over many things-for now is not the time for a thorough consideration of the text, but the time for edifying the Church of God and for challenging very sluggish and inactive hearers with the examples of the saints and mystical explanations-Rebecca followed the servant and comes to Isaac. The Church followed the prophetic word, to be sure, and comes to Christ. Where does she find him (i.e. ΙΣ) ? "Walking," the text says, "at the well of the oath."
There should hardly be a surprise that an Alexandrian Church Father should identify a passage in the Pentateuch with a mysterious איש/ἄνθρωπος as ΙΣ with an overbar. The example of Jacob wrestling with a 'man' is well established. Nevertheless the material clearly intersects with Philo's analysis where he says explicitly that 'man' is the proper name of the Logos, as well as Origen's confirmation more than once that ΙΣ is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew איש. There simply must have been a pre-existent understanding of heavenly איש as ΙΣ in the Pentateuch.You, therefore, hasten and act sufficiently that that blessing of the Lord may come to you, that you may be able to dwell "at the well of vision," that the Lord may open your eyes and you may see "the well of vision," and may receive from it "living water," which may become in you "a fountain of water springing up into eternal life."41 But if anyone rarely comes to church, rarely draws from the fountains of the Scriptures, and dismisses what he hears at once when he departs and is occupied with other affairs, this man does not dwell "at the well of vision." Do you want me to show you who it is who never withdraws from the well of vision? It is the apostle Paul who said: "But we all with open face behold the glory of the Lord." You too, therefore, if you shall always search the prophetic visions, if you always inquire, always desire to learn, if you meditate on these things, if you remain in them, you too receive a blessing from the Lord and dwell "at the well of vision." For the Lord Jesus (ΙΣ) will appear to you also "in the way" and will open the Scriptures to you so that you may say: "Was not our heart burning within us when he opened to us the Scriptures?" But he appears to these who think about him and meditate on him and live "in his law day and night." "To him be glory and sovereignty forever and ever. Amen.
If we return to the subject of Philo's interpretation of Joseph's recognition of איש/ἄνθρωπος/ΙΣ, there can be no doubt that his analysis was connected by early Church Fathers with the Greek ΙΣ. Eusebius's Preparation for the Gospel has survived in a rather complicated manner. The best manuscript Parisinus 451 only preserves the first five books. There are two principal families of the remaining books. The better edition has Eusebius produce a Greek rendering of 'man' at Genesis 2:23 in Book 11 Chapter 6 as ΙΣ like Origen and Jerome after him. Then, at chapter 15 he produces an important section of Philo's interpretation of Genesis 42:11 in On the Confusion of Tongues where the name Israel is obvious and explicitly connected back to 'man'. Yet by the end of the Genesis Philo understands that the text is telling us that his brothers can't see his image because he has become the divine ἄνθρωπος whom the play on words with respect to 'strength' is known to his audience as ΙΣ. He does this as part of an effort to discuss those passages in the Pentateuch "which relate to the Second Cause, and to those passages I will now refer the earnest student. Since therefore these have been the theological opinions held among the Hebrews in the way that I have described concerning the Second Cause of the Universe."
The passage Eusebius reproduces for his readers is found in this section of Philo:
A second passage from the same work which deals with Genesis 42:11 is:they who have real knowledge, are properly addressed as the sons of the one God, as Moses also entitles them, where he says, "Ye are the sons of the Lord God." (Deut 14:1). And again, "God who begot Thee;" (Deut 32:18) and in another place, "Is not he thy father?" Accordingly, it is natural for those who have this disposition of soul to look upon nothing as beautiful except what is good, which is the citadel erected by those who are experienced in this kind of warfare as a defence against the end of pleasure, and as a means of defeating and destroying it. And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word (τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον), the eldest of his angels (τὸν ἀγγέλων πρεσβύτατον), as the great archangel of many names (ὡς ἂν ἀρχάγγελον πολυώνυμον); for he is called, the authority (ἀρχὴ), and the name of God (ὄνομα θεοῦ), and the Word (λόγος), and man according to God's image (ὁ κατ' εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος), and he who sees Israel (ὁ ὁρῶν, Ἰσραήλ). For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, "We are all one man's Sons (πάντες ἐσμὲν υἱοὶ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου). (Gen 42:11) For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word. And, indeed, in many passages of the law, the children of Israel (υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ) are called hearers of him that seeth, since hearing is honoured with the second rank next after the sense of sight, and since that which is in need of instruction is at all times second to that which can receive clear impressions of the subjects submitted to it without any such information.
It is simply impossible to accept that Eusebius, attempting to prove that the Jews before the advent of Christianity the religion of ΙΣ with an overbar, did not read ΙΣ with an overbar as the same word - ΙΣ - to represent איש, the Hebrew word for man six chapters earlier. In fact, both Eusebius and Origen before him were necessarily part of an Alexandrian tradition which almost certainly dated back Philo and earlier generations of Jews in the city which preserved the Hebrew word for man as ΙΣ.We must therefore flee, without ever turning back, from all associations entered into for the purposes of sin; but the alliance made with the companions of wisdom and knowledge must be confirmed. In reference to which I admire those who say, "We are all one man's sons, we are men of Peace" (παρὸ καὶ τοὺς λέγοντας πάντες ἐσμὲν υἱοὶ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, εἰρηνικοί ἐσμεν) because of their well-adapted agreement; since how, I should say, could you, O excellent men, avoid being grieved at war, and delighted in peace, being the sons of one and the same father, and he not mortal but immortal, the man of God (ἄνθρωπον θεοῦ), who being the reason of the everlasting God is of necessity himself also immortal? (ὃς τοῦ ἀιδίου λόγος ὢν ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἄφθαρτος) ... who rejoice in one kind alone, and who honour one as their father, namely right reason ( καὶ ἕνα πατέρα τὸν ὀρθὸν τιμῶντες λόγον), admiring the well-arranged and all-musical harmony of the virtues, live a tranquil and peaceful life, not an inactive and ignoble one, as some persons think, but one of great manliness, and sharpened, and vigorous against those who endeavour to break the confederacy which they have formed, and who are always studying to bring about a violation of the oaths which have been taken; for it has come to pass that the men of peace have become men of war, sitting down to attack and to oppose them who seek to overturn the firmness of the soul.
It is ridiculous to suggest that Church Fathers who were aware of the importance of 'the image of God' from the first chapter of Genesis in Pauline Christology where that image is of a Primal Man didn't connect the two Greek letters ΙΣ back to the Hebrew איש, when they did so for the word 'man' in Genesis a few lines later in chapter 2. We have been for the most part 'baptized' into a faith in Jesus of Nazareth. This naturally predisposes us for interpreting Christian manuscripts in a certain direction especially where ΙΣ with an overbar appear. Yet we must ask? Did Paul's Christology really depend on a historical Jesus of Nazareth or a Primal Man? Did a Christian mystery religion like the early Alexandrian Father presumed to have existed from the beginning require for ΙΣ to be a historical figure or a supernatural man who had the power to 'strengthen' the weak? There is no question that the writings of the early Alexandrian Fathers and especially Clement can be seen to develop straight from the mysticism of Philo. How is the identity of the central figure in the gospel ΙΣ with an overbar did not develop from Philo's ΙΣ?
While Philo made explicit references to Ἰσραήλ meaning the "man" who "sees God" there is also as we have repeatedly noted an underlying etymology reflective of the sarita/Sariel understanding developed from the Aramaic Targums. Not surprisingly then when explaining the story of Amalek, Israel 'prevailing' (κατίσχυεν) comes to the fore:
In this way then the Amalek story is an encapsulation of the lesson from Jacob wrestling with the Man - ΙΣ strengthens those who encounter him so that they become impassable or as Philo says elsewhere "But if reason be able to purify the passion (ἐὰν δὲ ὁ λόγος ἰσχύσῃ ἀνακαθᾶραι τὸ πάθος), then neither when we drink do we become intoxicated, nor when we eat do we become indolent through satiety, but we feast soberly without indulging in folly."And the war between these things in manifest. At all events, according to the superiority of the mind when it applies itself to incorporeal objects, which are perceptible only to the intellect, passion is put to flight. And, on the other hand, when this latter gains a shameful victory, the mind yields, being hindered from giving its attention to itself and to all its actions. At all events, he says in another place, "When Moses lifted up his hands Israel prevailed, and when he let them down Amalek Prevailed (κατίσχυεν Ἰσραήλ, ὅταν δὲ καθῆκε, κατίσχυεν Ἀμαλήκ)."{91}{#ex 17:11.} And this statement implies, that when the mind raises itself up from mortal affairs and is elevated on high, it is very vigorous because it beholds God; and the mind here means Israel. But when it relaxes its vigour and becomes powerless, then immediately the passions will prevail (αὐτίκα τὸ πάθος ἰσχύσει), that is to say, Amalek
To this end, when Tertullian says that the Marcionites don't need 'Old Testament' prophesies foretelling the advent of Christ - those presumably 'added' by Matthew according to Papias's understanding - and instead emphasize miracles it clearly follows from the understanding of the Pentateuch in Philo we've just been examining. "There was no need, you say, for such an ordering of events (Non fuit, inquis, ordo eiusmodi necessarius),
seeing that he would immediately by the evidence of miracles prove himself in actual fact both son and emissary, and the Christ of God." I read this passage as being one of many pieces of evidence that Papias's understanding of Matthew 'improving' Mark's text with a 'more orderly' account by the addition of 'dominical logia' - that is Old Testament prophesies. The Marcionites understood the gospel presenting a seemingly 'unknown' or mysterious 'man' who was to be known by his miracles - mostly of healing - owing to Philo's understanding of the development of each of the Patriarchs from 'weakness' to 'strength.'
This thesis would seem to follow from Jesus's initial pronouncement that "The strong (οἱ ἰσχύοντες) don't need a physician, but sick ones do. I did not come to call righteous people, but sinners." (Mark 2:17) This is played out with respect to the Legion episode where it is said of the demoniac - "no one was strong enough [ἴσχυεν] to subdue him." ΙΣ as the ultimate 'strong man' of course demonstrates his strength by subduing him. There is also a running theme of the disciples not knowing or not understanding who ΙΣ is. In another episode we are told that demons cause seizures in a boy throwing "him to the ground. Then he foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and becomes stiff." ΙΣ is told "So I asked your disciples to drive the spirit out, but they didn't have the power (οὐκ ἴσχυσαν Mark 9:18). Similarly at the end of the gospel that Peter is not like the Patriarchs who received the 'strength' form ΙΣ is confirmed again with the words "Simon, are you asleep?" he asked Peter. "You couldn't (οὐκ ἴσχυσας) stay awake for one hour, could you? (Mark 14 37) Over and over again, the Marcionites must have thought, the narrative tells us there is only one way to know ΙΣ - that is, to be 'strengthened' from seeing his presence.
I think the faux etymology ἴσχυσας/ΙΣ is critical not only to understand Philo's reading of the Pentateuch but the core of the Christian experience. So Hermas explains the Son of God 'strengthening' the individual to see and know:
At the core of this understanding however is 'man' (ΙΣ). So Isaiah 1:24 LXX can speak of οἱ ἰσχύοντες Ἰσραήλ 'the mighty (men) of Israel.' But Justin seems to infer that Philo isn't openly explaining the true mystery of the name with his 'a man seeing God' etymology. Justin makes clear ΙΣ is realted to the word 'strong':For, as you were somewhat weak in the flesh, it was not explained to you by the angel. When, however, you were strengthened by the Spirit, and your strength was increased (διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος καὶ ἴσχυσας τῇ ἰσχύι σου), so that you were able to see the angel also
Justin has just lifted these words from a particularly significant passage in Philo which we will conclude our investigation with.Since at any rate that Lord of mine, as One strong and powerful (ὡς ἰσχυρὸς καὶ δυνατός), comes to demand back His own from all, land will not condemn His steward if He recognises that he, by the knowledge that the Lord is powerful (ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ κύριος) and has come to demand His own, has given it to every bank, and has not digged for any cause whatsoever. Accordingly the name Israel signifies this (Ἰσραὴλ ὄνομα τοῦτο σημαίνει), A man who overcomes power (ἄνθρωπος νικῶν δύναμιν); for Isra is a man overcoming, and El is power (τὸ γὰρ ἴσρα ἄνθρωπος νικῶν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἢλ δύναμις). 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.
