stephan huller

I have just been exposed to a familiarl hostility to kabbalah at this site. European Christians want to believe that there was a time that Jews weren't 'infected' by this strange predilection for letters and numbers. Tell them the gospel is based on such formulas because its original author Mark was Jewish and Jews ALWAYS have such a predilection and well you get stuff like - 'you're nuts' or 'speculating.'

But these people don't realize that the argument that earliest Christianity was rooted in kabbalah is there in black and white - Irenaeus AH i.13 - 21, Clement Stromata vi.11 - 16 and various passages in Origen, the Epistle to Barnabas and the like.

This 'faith' thing I think is like mental training to keep out information that doesn't agree with your presuppositions, I guess.

In any event, given that kabbalistic proofs never decay, never change and always stay buried in documents and traditions like ancient Adamantine relics I thought I would demonstrate WHY the name Ἰησοῦς was so important to early Christian speculation. It's a thing I like to call 'messianic math' and I would argue that the central formulation in the whole Jewish tradition is related to the name Ἰησοῦς.

345 + 543 = 888

Let's start with the number 345. The number 345 is the name of Moses - M (40) + Sh (300) + H (5) - the name of the Messiah i.e. Shilo Sh (300) + I (10) + L (30) + H (5) or the name of the historical person that Samaritan have always held was the prophet like Moses (or at least since his advent) - Mark M (40) + R (200) + Q (100) + H (5).

Simple enough?

The Jews and Samaritans have always been obsessed with the number 345. They also were very aware that the mirror image or palindrome of that number - 543 - represented the highest power in the Jewish godhead - אהיה אשר אהיה 'I am that I am.' I am too tired to demonstrate the math but you can do it yourself. It's really quite easy.

I started thinking about the traditions of my ancestors and I remembered that in studying the weekly Torah-portion, they read each verse shnaim mikra ve'echad targum ("twice in the [Hebrew] original and once in [Aramaic] translation." The acronym for this custom is shemot, which means "names."

Shemot is it itself is the name of the second of the Five Books of Moses (Exodus). In the Torah-portion Shemot, Moses is born, receives his name, and asks God to reveal to him His Name, the Name of redemption (Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, "I shall be that which I shall be," which equals 543, the "mirror image" of Mosheh = 345).

With me so far?

The Samaritan writings of Marqe (Mark) - remember, the guy who the Samaritans identify as the one like Moses because of the numerological value of his name - clearly demonstrate that Markused the LXX to show that the number 888 appeared at the beginning of the Song of the Sea (Ex. 15.1)

In other words, Marqe/Mark recognized that the first word of the Hebrew of the Song of the Sea reflected the value of the ogdoad and the first two words of the LXX add up to 888.

Want to do the math yourself?

Let's take Marqe's fascination with the opening Hebrew words of the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1) - viz. 'then sang' in Mimar Marqe II.7.

אָז יָשר

The LXX reads:

τότε ᾖσε

Marqe draws attention to this via a transliteration of the Greek in an Aramaic form:

טטעַ

But he also draws attention to אָז on its own.

Why was he so interested in this number?

Marqe also keeps mentioning the Sabbath and the start of Creation but no one has ever been able to figure out what the great kabbalistic secret he is revealing to his readers. I am certain he is interested in the very Christian understanding of the 'revelation of the ogdoad' - i.e. the number 8:

אָ + ז = 8
ט + ט + עַ = 88

I had the idea that Marqe was edging towards the 888 concept of Christianity but had to leave it at that ... until I looked at the LXX translation a little closer.

888 = τ (300) + o (70) + τ (300) + ε (5) + ᾖ (8) + σ (200) + ε (5) = 888

You betcha!

I know the world is not ready to think that Marqe was one and the same person as Irenaeus says inspired the heretics of Christianity but compare what is said in the writings in Irenaeus but read Book 1 Chapter 15.2 about 'Marcus':

But Jesus, he affirms, has the following unspeakable origin. From the mother of all things, that is, the first 4; there came forth the second 4, after the manner of a daughter; and thus an 8 was formed, from which, again, a 10 proceeded: thus was produced a 10 and an 8. The 10, then, being joined with the 8, and multiplying it ten times, gave rise to the number 80; and, again, multiplying 80 ten times, produced the number 800. Thus, then, the whole number of the letters proceeding from the 8 [multiplied] into the 10, is 888. This is the name of Jesus; for this name, if you reckon up the numerical value of the letters, amounts to 888. 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 8 monads, eight Decads, and eight Hecatads, which present the number 888, that is, Jesus, who is formed of all numbers; and on this account He is called Alpha and Omega, indicating His origin from all. And, again, they put the matter thus: If the first Tetrad be added up according to the progression of number, the number ten appears. For one, and two, and three, and four, when added together, form ten; and this, as they will have it, is Jesus. Moreover, Chreistus, he says, being a word of eight letters, indicates the first Ogdoad, and this, when multiplied by ten, gives birth to Jesus (888). And Christ the Son, he says, is also spoken of, that is, the Duodecad. For the name Son, (uios) contains four letters, and Christ (Chreistus) eight, which, being combined, point out the greatness of the Duodecad. But, he alleges, before the Episemon of this name appeared, that is Jesus the Son, mankind were involved in great ignorance and error. But when this name of six letters was manifested (the person bearing it clothing Himself in flesh, that He might come under the apprehension of man's senses, and having in Himself these six and twenty-four letters), then, becoming acquainted with Him, they ceased from their ignorance, and passed from death unto life, this name serving as their guide to the Father of truth. For the Father of all had resolved to put an end to ignorance, and to destroy death. But this abolishing of ignorance was just the knowledge of Him. And therefore that man (Anthropos) was chosen according to His will, having been formed after the image of the [corresponding] power above.

If you read my commentary on this section of the Mimar Marqe (Sam. 'teachings of Mark') I demonstrate` that according to the Samaritan exegesis the Lord of Glory entered the sea and had fire mingle with the water to ultimately glorify the ancient Israelites. Now I am starting to wonder whether the original Samaritan concept - long before the advent of Christianity - was that God Almighty became one with Moses:

345 + 543 = 888

That's why the number 888 appeared at the beginning of the song. 888 is an expression of the concept of mortal and immortal uniting in one body. (Eph 2.14 - 16)

You see I have always struggled to explain why the Marcionites preserved the name of Jesus in Aramaic as Isu. It has always been theorized that it was an adoption of the Greek Iesous into Syriac. I think this is correct but now I have determined the reason for the Marcionites clinging to the Greek name IESOUS.

They wanted to keep the association with 888.

You see long before Christianity had developed the 888 appeared at the beginning of the Song of the Sea in the LXX. It must have been taken as a sign of the union between Moses and the highest aspect of godhead.

The Christians weren't saying that Jesus was the combination of man and god but rather another name which added up to 345 (Mark) and 'I am that I am.' This is the whole context of the first addition to the Gospel of Mark found in the Letter to Theodore.

The 888 already represented the promise of the fulfillment of man's uniting with God through the ritualized recreation of the crossing of the sea.

Now let's go back to Shemot. God first addresses Moses at the burning bush, by calling his name twice: "Moses Moses," just as in God's Name, His Name (Ehyeh, "I shall be") is repeated twice. I think in either case the underlying idea is the mingling of 345 and 543.

This entire understanding undoubtedly predated Christianity. Mark used the name Iesous to secretly convey his mingling with God Almighty in the initiation described in the lost portions of his gospel (LGM 1).

I happen to think that 'Paulos' was a deliberate corruption of Mark's title the work (po'olo) or perfect work [Deut 32:4] of God and we see that the Marcionites originally referenced the idea of Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (= the grace of God) mingling with their apostle to establish him as the awaited Paraclete prophesied by Jesus:

And again: For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not wrought by me by word and deed. I am the last of all the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle. But by the grace of God I am what I am. And it, is his wish to have to deal with those who sought the proof of that Christ who spoke in him, for this reason, that the Paraclete was in him: and as having obtained His gift of grace, and as being enriched with magnificent, honour, he says: For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for you; for strength is made perfect in weakness. Again, that it was the Paraclete Himself who was in Paul, is indicated by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel, when He says: If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray my Father, and He shall give you another Comforter. In these words He points to the Paraclete Himself, for He speaks of another Comforter. And hence we have given credit to Paul, and have hearkened to him when he says, Or do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and when he expresses himself in similar terms, of which we have already spoken above. [Acts of Archelaus 34]

The bottom line is that smart European people who develop an interest in the so-called 'Judeo-Christian tradition' always seem to me to swim around in this stupid little fish bowl of opinions developed by their ancestors. Even the atheists or 'mythicists' or however else they call themselves.

It's always a referendum on whiteness. It seems so narcissistic to me. Even when they hate their ancestors they help reinforce that the European system was all there ever was to Christianity.

My point here is that it doesn't have to be that way. The reason why I and other Jews like mathematics is that it can't be tampered with. The proofs just sit there until someone comes along and discovers them. They don't decay. They don't change. Like I said they just sit there.

The point is that no one doubts that early Christians were interested in Jesus as the 888 (every one except for Irenaeus strangely enough who explicitly argues that this wasn't Jesus's name). Even though everyone seems to know this no one knows WHY Christians were interested in the name and the numerological value.

What I am trying to do here is explain that the number 888 originally embodied the concept of the mingling of God and man, Moses and I am that I am.

If you can understand that principle you are halfway to understanding the hidden context of all there heresies - and I would argue - the baptism narrative of Secret Mark which if you look at it carefully occurs at the 'going out of the seventh day.' In other words, it again reinforces the Ogdoad, a central Jewish and Christian concept when the two traditions were still related to one another.

AND FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEIR SCHOLARSHIP SERIOUSLY HERE IS A MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE PASSAGE IN THE MIMAR MARQE (Mimar Marqe II.7)

Hebrew text reads AZ YShR = 'then sang' [Exodus 15:1]
Greek text reads tote ēsen = 'then sang' [ibid]

Marqe cites both AZ (alef-zain) and TTA (tit-tit-ayin) because he is emphasizing the ogdoad (i.e. 'the eighthness' a messianic principle common to Christianity AND Samaritanism.

Hebrew = AZ = 1 + 7 = 8
Greek (transposed to Aramaic) TTA = 9 + 9 + 70 = 88

maryhelena

Stephen, this is really a topic for the Alternative Religion forum and not his one which is Biblical Criticism and History. The other forum guidelines puts kabbalah under the 'mysticism' category.

I like what you are saying here - 'that the central formulation in the whole Jewish tradition is related to the name ****.

I don't think, however, that one needs kabbalah to see that! The OT is easily viewed as relating to 'salvation' history - as is the NT related to 'spiritual salvation'. The name 'Jesus' is simply the NT following on the 'salvation' idea.

My own view is that mysticism is purely a contemplative pursuit. Fascinating as that maybe. A luxury in one sense as it can only add value if our basic human existence is on a sure footing. In other words - needs come before luxuries. And of course, one man's idea of luxury is not going to be that of the next man....

Yes, 'sacred' numbers and symbolism are part and parcel of the OT and of the NT. One can go the mysticism route or one can endeavour to find some relevance for 'salvation' history - as it might relate to our primary needs. Relevance to the more mundane need for a place to sleep, food for the stomach and clothes for the back. Thus, history as it relates to our social/political environment. And that, surely, is the primary message of the OT 'salvation' history.

So, as a mythicist, I'm interested in getting to the bottom of the puzzle regarding early christian origins. Not for any theological reason - but simply because I think this is the way forward re a more humanitarian secular/political environment. The christian meme ( as exposed by its adherents) - its ability to ensnare millions upon millions - is detrimental, in its triumphalism, to spiritual advancement. 'Spiritual' in the sense of intellectual evolution. A sorely needed evolution - especially so, if a social environment that is truly a reflection of our humanity is sought.

So, Stephen, don't go looking for black cats under the words that are posted here - hold on to your kabbalah - but appreciate that others might have their primary focus elsewhere. Don't end up bewitching yourself - by letting any hostility to kabbalah you might detect, infect your own peace of mind...

stephan huller

I disagree. This is the Biblical Criticism & History forum. We discuss ways of interpreting the Bible. The topic was the spelling of the name Jesus and Irenaeus's rejection of Ἰησοῦς as the real name of Jesus.

It was also an attempt to understand the Marcosian interest in the name and parallels with the writings of Mark the son of Titus among the Samaritans.

What's the matter people? I can't imagine developing a proper understanding of the Bible (i.e. Biblical criticism) by ignoring the actual way that Jews and early Christian sects CARRIED OUT THEIR EXEGESIS.

What so we have to chose between two propositions - both originating among Europeans not surprisingly, the masters of the world for the last bunch of centuries who made all this nonsense seem to have meaning because they controlled the flow of ideas?

That on the one hand the Bible is a hundred percent 'true' and the other that it is all 'myths.

Give me a break! What kind of meaningless dialogue is that?

White noise ...

Transient

I agree , this thread does need to reside here and is informative and interesting - keep up the good work.

stephan huller

The point is that being a good scholar is like being a good lover (lol) Above all else we have to get into the mind, soul and body of the first Christians. To engage in debates about "mythicism" is only useful insofar as it emphasizes how different ancient people were.

My question would be were the first Christian even capable of a purely "historical" position ie where mythopoeic elements, kabbalah and the like were added to the mix.

I don't think so.

That's why sorting out the "truth" of early Christianity is so daunting. It's like trying to sort out the facts with a three year old

That's not meant as a slight against Christians but the character of ancient man -

maryhelena

'Truth'? It's not 'truth' we should be after but plain old facts. Seeking to understand what on earth those early christians believed in might be interesting, in and off itself, but whatever their 'truth' was is immaterial to the far more relevant question of the historical facts surrounding early christianity. These are two separate issues - and no, the 'truth' of those early christians is not relevant to a search for historical origins of christianity. If one wants to study the development of christian 'truth', its developing theology or whatever - OK - but lets not confuse the two separate objectives here.

Interpretation is anyone game - back then and as now. Take your pick, suit yourself re whatever one finds some sort of meaning in. Don't however, expect that your (as in anyones) meaning will be meaningful for someone else. 'Truth' is not synonymous with 'fact'. 'Truth' is about going beyond mere facts and finding meaning, some 'saving grace', some non-material value, some spiritual/intellectual satisfaction, resonance, connection etc etc...Contemplative pursuits have their place but feet on the ground, anchored to reality, is the first step.

'Truth' is illusive - just when one things one has caught it - it slips so casually from ones hands as though it finds no comfort in the safe and secure - it is always coming and going, its a journey never a destination.

Actually, one of the best quotes is this one:

The point the quote is highlighting does seem odd. But on reflection, at least to me, it struck a cord. When one is initially searching for 'truth' one is fired up with enthusiasm - then as the years pass, while the commitment remains, realization about the illusive nature of ones quest brings not despair but joy. One is happy with ones journey - one can laugh at 'truth's intransigence, laugh at the game it is playing - and laugh at oneself for ones past seriousness in thinking it could be caught. Laughter, they say, is the best medicine - and isn't it a distinguishing mark of being human? So perhaps its not altogether unreasonable to expect 'truth' and laughter to join forces once in a while!

So, Stephen, I don't give any ground to anyone coming at me with 'truth' - I'll find my own, thanks.....

But I'm open for some cold hard facts re the historical origins of early christianity....:wave:

stephan huller

But the 'mythicist' position is utterly meaningless because it makes assumptions about 'truth' that didn't exist in antiquity that's my point.

The argument you were making against the mystical interest in numbers and letters follows from what is so wrong about this position. Irenaeus is our first 'real' historical witness from the Church who speaks to us DIRECTLY (the other authors have been collected and presented to us in collections by Irenaeus and his associates). Irenaeus tells us that before him there were these mystical Christians (the Marcosians/Valentinians) who examined the gospel by means of kabbalah.

So you want us to ignore these 'heretics' and concentrate on Irenaeus and those who followed them because they can be better 'disproved' by arguments against the historical Jesus.

The heretics would say that something happened in 'history' involving a divine being Ἰησοῦς. All of the mythicist arguments fall to the ground because this tradition is saying essentially that you and Irenaeus are mere ignoramuses. Your methodology is de asini umbra disceptare to cite Celsus.

Your response is to relegate everyone who DOESN'T THINK like Irenaeus et al into a special section of the Freeratio site in order to allow you the privilege of 'shaming' the orthodox into seeing how 'ridiculous' the historical details of the Passion were or the ministry of Jesus.

But what sort of nonsense is this? It's just the other side of the orthodox coin. You are still imposing European standards of truth onto what was originally a Semitic religious tradition. The Marcosians are representative of the earliest Biblical exegesis in Christianity not you and Irenaeus, the 'mythicists' and the orthodox who are in reality little more than two different sides of the same white lie.

maryhelena

All a mythicist position is - is the denial that the gospel crucified carpenter Jesus, mother Mary, father Joseph, was a historical, flesh and blood, figure. That all.

I've made no argument re for or against 'the mystical interest in numbers and letters'. I have said that such an interest is not relevant to a search for early christian origins - regardless of how fascinated one might well be with this type of investigation.

And as for kabbalah - I was under the impression that this subject was assigned to the Alternative Religion forum. Guidelines there put Kabbalism under the Mysticism category. If Toto is happy to have such a discussion on the Biblical Criticism and History forum - then that settles that matter.
It is not a case, on my part, of wanting to prevent any discussion of this topic.

Well, good for the heretics if they found some solace in believing in a 'divine being'....People believe in 'divine' beings in the 21st century - but that does not make such a belief attractive to me today - so why should I even consider wasting my time on such beliefs of 2000 years ago (unless, of course, I had some academic interest, which I do not...)
see above re the Alternative Religion section. As to the 'Passion' re the gospel crucified Jesus: Dawkins said it best:

'white lie' - come off it Stephen, this is ridiculous...

stephan huller

No I don't think it is ridiculous. The manner in which whatever happened at the Passion was developed into what is now represented in the churches (and was known to earlier forms of Christianity) is ABSOLUTELY paralleled by whatever historical kernel is at the heart of the crossing of the sea by the ancient Israelites. Whoever wrote the original gospel (we will call him Mark for lack of any better theory) was aware of Moses's mystical treatment of the original subject matter. The two events are developed mystically in a parallel manner which is why that chapter in Exodus is always read on Easter.

This has no bearing on the question of whether there ever was a Passion or a Passover. I don't see how this argument ever got any traction in the first place other than thick-headedness of people of European descent.

Transient

So what are you actually suggesting? That there really was a guy called "Jesus, Yahashua" that raised people from the dead and was sacrificed by himself and raised again by himself? That the gospels etc misrepresented some stuff or what?
I think it is far from clear or proven that the mythicist case is incorrect. atm I think it is the best fit but we are looking into the murky dark past which has been "preserved" for us by a disgusting body of people called the catholics, making investigation very difficult.
Now if only a world body would force the freedom of information on the vatican and make them open their deepest vaults then maybe all would be made clear. - fat chance of that - they would burn a lot of stuff first.