stephan huller

I don't think so. I have never been convinced of what I consider the LAZY explanation - viz. 'the Lord of Hosts.' Why on earth would the title have been shortened to mean 'hosts'? I prefer the Gnostic interest in Jesus as the Ogdoad and relating Sabaoth to the number seven.

Here is ANOTHER example of New Testament scholars ignorance of Jewish traditions leads to unlikely etymologies.

Let's start with the obvious. שבעות more closely represents the Greek Σαβαωθ than צבאות does.

Representation of a letter and sound ‘AYIN by alpha is standard at this period. This is partly out of necessity, partly because when there was still a pronounced consonantal ‘Ayin in all positions it affected the neighbouring vowels, and partly because when ‘Ayin disappeared in some positions later on it became an “a” sound. So שבעות is a real possibility. The apparent connection with צבאות might only be illusory.

There was a Samaritan sect identified as 'the Sebuaeans' which is ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY connected with the no. seven. First, we have the name in an ARAMAIC Jewish text from the time of the Ge’onim, when it is known that there were still Sebuaeans. The reference is Sefer Halachot Pesukot. Second, the transcription by Abu ‘l-Fath. confirms this. Third, the confused account by Epiphanius shows he had been told there was a connection with the no. seven.

If the name Sabaoth is connected with the no. seven, it must be connected with Shavu’ot, Pentecost, the occasion of the revelation of the first and second Torah. Moses first became King on that occasion, because he then had a congregation to rule.(see the first verses of Deuteronomy XXXIII, and the phrase vayehi melech be-Yisra’el, meaning “and then (after the revelation of the Torah) there was a King in Israel”. Also Samaritan and Jewish tradition). The Christian Church came into existence on the second occasion.

For all these reasons I think that the gnostic figure of Σαβαωθ has something to do with a rival interpretation of the giving of the ascension occurring on the Pentecost following the resurrection. I think the fifty stars on the throne of St. Mark has something to do with this symbolism. The problem of course is determining what the heretics thought happened on this date.

Most of us I presume are familiar with the mid-second century tradition in Acts which explains what happened on this date:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, "Are not all these who are speaking Galilean? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power."

All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" But others sneered and said, "They are filled with new wine."

But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to what I say. Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: "In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. Even upon my slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will show portents in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and smoky mist. The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the coming of the Lord’s great and glorious day. Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

This was certainly NOT the Marcionite understanding of what happened at the Pentecost which followed the Resurrection. The Marcionite rejected EVERYTHING in Acts. So what did they think happen on שבעות? And is there a way to relate this to the Greek title Σαβαωθ?

The first thing that jumps out at us is the consistent connection of the revelation of the Paraclete at the Pentecost. The Catholics WRONGLY associate the figure of 'the Paraclete' with a holy wind. Those traditions most closely associated with the original Semitic culture of Christianity know better. The Paraclete is the title of the messiah (Numb. Rabba 13 etc). That this tradition of associating the παράκλητος with a human being who would come after Jesus's death to take over the Christian community and be its messiah is clearly present in the Marcionite and Valentinian communities (cf. Origen Hom Luke 25.5) and is the orthodox understanding in the Christian communities of Osrhoene (cf. Acts of Archelaus), Manichaeanism (where one of the title of Mani is that of the Paraclete) and earliest Islam (where Mohammed is similarly identified).

My guess is that the original gospel held by many communities (including the original Diatessaron) concluded with an enthronement on the Pentecost following of this other Christ. The arguments for this are quite complex and have been developed in some respects by Teeple, Reisenfeld and many others. I do think however that they missed a lot of evidence which would have strengthened their case.

For instance, Ephrem's Against Marcion Book One makes absolutely clear that the Marcionite text ends with the Transfiguration, and a Transfiguration narrative like that of the Apocalypse of Peter (i.e. where Moses, Elijah and Jesus go up to heaven with Jesus and leave the rest of the apostles on the mountain). I think Ephrem's discussion makes absolutely clear that the 'high mountain' in question was Gerizim (the 'high mountain' is in fact a traditional title of the Samaritan holy mount. All of which helps provide a context for Peter's strange idea about establishing three booths when he sees the spiritual figures of Moses, Elijah and Jesus.

Let me give my readers some context on the Samaritan manner of celebrating Pentecost.

The Festival of Pentecost is called ha saba’ot in the Samaritan language. The name derives its name from the seven weeks of the counting of the omer preceding it. Other names used for the festival are “Festival of the firstlings” and “Harvest Festival” as well as “Festival of the legislation” (although the latter term is not mentioned in the Torah and, therefore, is of later origin).

It is known that the Samaritans do have a special meaning for these weeks or Sabbaths:

1) Week of the crossing of the Sea (Exodus 14:26-15:21)
2) Week of the changing of the water of marah (Exodus 15:22-26)
3) Week of elim, where they found twelve water springs and seventy palm trees« (Exodus 15:27-16:3)
4) Week of the man, which fell down upon them from heavens in the desert« (Exodus 16:4-36)
5) Week of the welling out of water from the rock (Exodus 17:1-7)
6) Week of the battles against ‘Amaleq (Exodus 17:8-17)
7) Week of standing at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19:1 ff.)

One Samaritan group counted these days and weeks from the Sunday after the Sabbath during the week of Unleavened Bread as opposed to the Pharisees who understand “Sabbath” in Leviticus 23:15 as the first day of Passover. Yet the Dositheans agreed with the Pharisees. It should be noted that there were differences among the Jews too in this regard as Menahot 10:3 shows: the Boethusians began counting on Sunday (and thus agreed with the Samaritan Sadducees). Later on, the Karaites maintained the same tradition.

On the fourth day after the sixth Sabbath of the counting of the omer, the Samaritans celebrate the Day of Standing at Mt. Sinai, ywm m’md hr Syny. The day is also called “Day of Scripture”, ywm mqrth. According to their tradition, the Pentateuch was given to the Israelites from above Mt. Sinai on this day

On the fiftieth day is the festival of Pentecost, the Samaritans make a pilgrimage to Mt. Gerizim. It begins early in the morning, and during the procession all the places holy to the Samaritans that are situated on the peak, are visited: gib’at ‘olam, on which Moses’ tabernacle stood; Isaac’s Altar, the spot where Abraham bound his son; and the site of the twelve rocks that Joshua set up before erecting Moses’ tabernacle, according to Samaritan tradition.

I think the context of standing at the gib’at ‘olam provides the context for the act of Peter's booth building. We see in Josephus the interest in 'rediscovering' the lost tabernacle of Moses. Peter is clearly associated with memorializing the Transfiguration in a traditional manner. The Samaritans however remember a figure called 'booths' (Sakta) who seems closely associated with Pauline Christianity who argued that HE WAS THE BOOTH (or 'booths' - 'Sakta' is actually booths or sukkah in the plural).

In any event, another thing which the Samaritan celebration of שבעות helps explain in the gospel Transfiguration is the reference to 'after six days.' The Samaritan sages determined that the status of Shavuot should not be diminished among the pilgrimage holidays. Just as the Festival of Unleavened Bread and the Harvest Festival [Succoth] are holidays, which last for seven days each, as is written in the Torah, so, they resolved, that the festival, which marks the climax of the fifty days of Counting the Omer [of seven weeks and one day], should also last for seven days, from the Monday of the week preceding it until the day of the festival, which would be the seventh day. The opening day of the seven-day festival is called the Day of Assembly, to mark the day when the people of Israel, who preserve the Truth, gathered for the second pilgrimage of the year. This day is devoted to visiting the sites, which mark the parameters of the future Garden of Eden, the boundaries of the chosen place, Mt. Gerizim Bet El, with song and prayers. Each person who makes this pilgrimage or sacrifices the Passover sacrifice there, has fulfilled the commandment, which states At the place God has chosen to rest His name there.

There are four demarcations:
a) The Everlasting Hill on Mt. Gerizim.
b) The Parcel of Land in Shechem which Jacob the Forefather bought.
c) Joseph's Tomb in Shechem.
d) Kiryat Eburta [currently known as Awwarteh], the burial place of the High Priests, Elazar and Itamar, the sons of Aaron the High Priest, Pinhas ben Elazar and his son Avisha. This was also the burial place of the seventy elders and Samaritan High Priests.

On Tuesday of the festival week, the second of the seven days, the people are sanctified in preparation for the Day of the Revelation at Mount Sinai. In the evening, people gather in the synagogues for a special prayer service.

On the third day of the seven festival days, from midnight to the following evening, the prayers are devoted to the remembrance of the Revelation at Mount Sinai. A variety of hymns are sung and the entire Torah is read.

During the first five days of the festival week, work is permitted.

On Thursday and Friday, which are the fourth and fifth of the seven days, the Samaritans move to their homes at Kiryat Luza on Mt. Gerizim to prepare for the pilgrimage.

On the sixth day, the Sabbath, the prayers are devoted to a description of the giving of the Torah, which is why it is called the Sabbath of the Commandments. Today we see that in the middle of the prayers, a hymn, composed in the 14th century and describing the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai, is sung.

Sunday brings Shavuot, the years second pilgrimage to the holy sites on Mt. Gerizim. The prayers begin at 1:00 a.m., after midnight, in the synagogue at Kiryat Luza on Mount Gerizim. At about 4:00 a.m., the congregation leaves the synagogue and makes the pilgrimage to the mountain top, while singing and praying. They move from station to station:

a) The first station is the Place of the Stones [The Twelve Stones, Deut. 27:4; in the Samaritan version: Mount Gerizim].
b) The second stop is the site of the altar of Adam and his son Seth.
c) The next stop is the site of the Everlasting Hill [The Everlasting Hill, Deut. 33:15].
d) The next is the site of God Will Provide [God Will Provide, Gen. 22:8], where Abraham saw a ram in the thicket when he was about to sacrifice his son, Isaac.
e) The following stop is the site of the Altar of Isaac.
f) The next station is the Altar of Noah.
g) The next stop is the site of the Everlasting Hill. In the past, two monuments of Jacob marked the place and this had been the third station.

The prayers are devoted to the Harvest Festival. At the end, there is a festive meal.

Now let me remind the reader that the Markan gospel narrative (and Matthew as well says) "after six days." Origen EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY reconciles Lukes 'eight days' with this understanding by saying that:

Luke counts the day itself on which the event took place, whereas Mark counts only the days in between. There is no disagreement in what they say. (Hom Luke 139 Luke 9:28).

There are similar statements throughout Origen's writings to acknowledge that 'after six days' means that the author of the gospel counting SIX DAYS AFTER some day used as a marker. If we are to assume the Samaritan counting method at Penecost (i.e. FROM Monday) and Luke's 'eighth day' to mean Sunday (something reflect in other Patristic sources) we have found the only plausible explanation to the puzzling dating of the Transfiguration.

It should also be noted before we leave this subject that it has been noted that:

(a) the Marcosian interpretation of the Transfiguration EXPLICITLY EMPHASIZES the day as one in which the numbers SIX, SEVEN and EIGHT come together. The SIX is obvious from the gospel narrative but it should also be noted that Pentecost usually occurs on the sixth of Sivan. The SEVEN is obvious again from the name of the festival שבעות. The EIGHT is equally obvious because Pentecost is on Sunday. The passage in Irenaeus reads "He asserts that the fruit of this arrangement and analogy has been manifested in the likeness of an image, namely, Him who, after six days, ascended into the mountain along with three others, and then became one of six in which character He descended and was contained in the Hebdomad, since He was the illustrious Ogdoad, and contained in Himself the entire number of the elements." (Irenaeus AH i.14.6)

(b) it should also be noted that Irenaeus's description of the Marcosian interpretation of the passage emphasizes that the concluding narrative to the gospel reinforces an interest in these numbers THROUGHOUT the gospel narrative as a whole AND in the original Torah of Moses. The first narrative which is mentioned is that of the baptism and then we read "And for this reason did Moses declare that man was formed on the sixth day; and then, again, according to arrangement, it was on the sixth day, which is the preparation, that the last man appeared, for the regeneration of the first, Of this arrangement, both the beginning and the end were formed at that sixth hour, at which He was nailed to the tree. For that perfect being Nous, knowing that the number six had the power both of formation and regeneration, declared to the children of light, that regeneration which has been wrought out by Him who appeared as the Episemon in regard to that number." (ibid) Irenaeus specifically references the familiar Jesus being baptized by John narrative but I have argued that it is equally plausible to view this as something which Irenaeus added to the original Marcosian understanding. There are a number of clues in Irenaeus's discussion of the ἀπολύτρωσις ritual of the Marcosians that indicate it should be connected with LGM 1 of Secret Mark (the most notable is its association with Salome's request in Mark chapter 10 cf. AH i.21.1,2). The narrative in the Secret Mark not only uses the same formulation i.e. "after six days" and I have already argued that the Marcosian identification of the ritual as ἀπολύτρωσις necessarily connects it to the crossing of the sea (cf. 1 Cor 10) which reinforces these same numbers in Jewish and Samaritan rituals (i.e. SIX viz. the ancient Israelites who were 'about six hundred thousand' (Exodus 12:37) who enter the waters as the seventh day 'went out' to the eighth i.e. SEVEN and EIGHT).

(c) finally, there have been countless studies which have connected the description of the Transfiguration to the account of Moses receiving the Torah which is traditionally fixed by Jews and Samaritans to Pentecost. At least seven parallels surface:

1. The most obvious is that Moses is present at both Mount Sinai and the Mount of Transfiguration (Ex, Mark 9:4)
2. Both accounts take place on a high mountain (Ex 24:12–15, Mark 9:2)
3. In both cases a cloud covers the mountain (Ex 24:15–16, Mark 9:7)
4. A six-day interval leads up to the climactic events (Ex 24:16, Mark 9:2)
5. In both cases God speaks from the mountain on the seventh day (Ex 24:16, Mark 9:2,7)
6. At Mt Sinai, Moses’ face shines (Ex 34:29–35); at Mt Transfiguration, Jesus’ clothes shine (Mark 9:3)
7. The fear of the people in seeing Moses is paralleled by the fear of the disciples (Ex 34:30, Mark 9:6).

And another interesting connection links Moses and Jesus together in the Transfiguration. In the OT Moses says to look forward to a coming prophet—a new prophet—and when he comes, listen to him. Compare this to God’s words at the Mount of Transfiguration:

Moses: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen” (Deut 18:15).

God: “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (Mark 9:7).

The standard interpretation among European Christians today is to assume that Jesus is the one like Moses. But like I said the title of Paraclete, which is associated with whatever happened on שבעות was UNIVERSALLY associated with a human representative who we can infer was the one whom Jesus 'transformed' his appearance to resemble. This interpretation was known (and condemned by Irenaeus). Jesus's appearance in the robes of the high priest also clearly signal that he was not the messiah of the original Transfiguration enthronement which concluded the earliest gospel narratives.

All of which takes us back to the figure of 'Sabaoth' whom we can now understand as being the one enthroned on the שבעות. Only someone with Down Syndrome can avoid seeing that all signs point to Mark the original evangelist as being the one enthroned on the שבעות. After all the figure has to be associated with the dispensing of the second Torah. All the references to the Paraclete which have been ghettoized to the Gospel of John by the Catholic editor of the four-faced canon (but were clearly a part of the Marcionite narrative otherwise it is impossible to explain the Marcionite interest in the Paraclete) reinforce that he was the author of the Evangelium.

The most obvious passage which has relevance here is that the Paraclete "whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26) I have assembled a list of variant Paraclete passages used by the Marcionites, Manichaeans and early Muslims. No one should be misled any longer that the reference was to a holy wind.

There is a lot more to discuss here. I think I can reconstruct what the original ending of the gospel looked like with its enthronement of this secondary figure on Pentecost. I am beginning to suspect that the throne of St. Mark (which I have already argued was the original Episcopal chair of Alexandria) memorialized this event and is reflected in later gnostic literature by Sabaoth's creation of a throne for himself as we see in On the Origin of the World.

Fallon's The Enthronement of Sabaoth is a good guide here. It references On the Origin of the World 95 (143) 26 - 28 "Now when these events had come to pass, he (Sabaoth) made himself a huge fourfaced chariot of cherubim." This is clearly a reflection of the image of the throne of St. Mark which incorporates the four hiyyot directly into the shape of the throne. http://books.google.com/books?id=38s...throne&f=false

I will complete this study later, but I thought it was worth sharing with everyone.

spin

One might take notice of this for a moment, if it weren't for the fact that צבאות is rendered in the LXX as Σαβαωθ (see 1 Sam 1:3, 11, Isa 1:9).

Because neither alef or ayin have equivalents in Greek they were both routinely omitted, while the vowels they frequently separated were transliterated into Greek though they mostly weren't represented in the Hebrew representation. Consider the name Mishael in Hebrew מישאל in Greek μισαηλ (Neh 8:4). The alpha in seen in the Greek here doesn't come from the Hebrew alef: the vowel is merely spoken in Hebrew before the alef. Similar instances can be found with the ayin (consider for instance "pharaoh"). With the name Saul we find שאול, in Greek, σαουλ. There is nothing obvious that I can see that makes שבעות more closely represent the Greek Σαβαωθ than צבאות. As the LXX features Σαβαωθ for צבאות it should close the issue.


spin

stephan huller

Well I have to admit you had me at hello. Your main point can't be denied. I hadn't noticed the LXX references you mentioned nevertheless I was aware that in the gnostic literature there are clear references to Σαβαωθ becoming צבאות as a secondary title. Look at On the Origins of the World:

Now when Sabaoth, the son of Yaldabaoth, heard the voice of Pistis, he sang praises to her, and he condemned the father [...] at the word of Pistis; and he praised her because she had instructed them about the immortal man and his light. Then Pistis Sophia stretched out her finger and poured upon him some light from her light, to be a condemnation of his father. Then when Sabaoth was illumined, he received great authority against all the forces of chaos. Since that day he has been called "Lord of the Forces".

In other words, Sabaoth was called Sabaoth BEFORE being identified as Adonai Tzabaoth. The same thing is demonstrable in other sources.

I was wrong in saying that שבעות more closely represents the Greek Σαβαωθ than צבאות does. It would be more correct to say that both Hebrew names fit the Greek Σαβαωθ. Nevertheless there is something strange about the manner in which the gnostics of the early period used Σαβαωθ on its own. The fact that Celsus seems to think that the Jews apparently speaking Hebrew did so as well may well be more decisive:

These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that[Origen Cont Cels 1.24]

Both etymologies may be have been used side by side or even together as we might see hinted in On the Origin of the World. Origen points to a "mysterious reason" why God is called Σαβαωθ (ibid 1.25) I still think God being associated with the number seven is more suitable to Origen and the Alexandrian tradition's use of 'mystery' than the obvious Lord of Forces but that's just me.

The issue isn't really closed in my opinion. But I am glad that people are reading and commenting on my posts. I got lazy with my 'lazy' statement. Thanks for correcting me.

stephan huller

... and I was reflecting on Celsus's statement about the JEWISH practice again while taking a shower just now. I now know that the late Greek translations transliterate צבאות as Σαβαωθ. An important point but does that decide the issue of the origin of the gnostic figure Sabaoth? I don't think so.

Let's look at Celsus's quote again from the second century CE with regards to JEWS who say:

Origen explicitly confirms that the Jews (and Christians presumably) used 'Adonai' and 'Sabaoth' SEPARATELY as names of the Most High God. But it is very important that neither identifies the same figure of the highest god with the names together i.e. 'Adonai Sabaoth.'

This is very peculiar.

Surely one of the two authors would have connected the names 'Adonai' and Sabaoth' as belonging together if the ultimate origin of the term Σαβαωθ was אֲדֹנָי צבאות

Just think about it for a second. Celsus's point is that the Jews worshiped "but one God." How could anyone be so stupid as to think that אֲדֹנָי צבאות could be divided so that EITHER of the names applied to the Most High.

Even someone with the most primitive knowledge of Hebrew knows that 'Adonai' is the name of the god (i.e. Lord) and 'Sabaoth' (forces, armies) is the thing that he is master over.

I just can't see Jews - even Alexandrian Jews - deriving Sabaoth from the Adonai Sabaoth.

Let's take the parallel use of ba’al in Hebrew (which etymologically goes back to the name of the ancient Semitic god Ba’al) can be either an ordinary noun, in which case it means (to the dismay of some feminists) “owner,” “master” or “husband,” or else a grammatical particle prefixed to a noun, in which case it functions like the English suffix “-er.” Melakhah, for example, is the Hebrew word for “work” or “craft,” and a ba’al-melakhah is a worker or craftsman; din means law, and a ba’al-din is a litigant, etc.

But could a Jew have shortened ba’al-din and calling the litigant 'din'? No, it's absurd. Or a craftsmen a melakhah? Of course not. How then does anyone think that the highest God was called 'army'?

stephan huller

And then there is the ULTIMATE argument as far as Jews and Samaritans are concerned (it doesn't work on Europeans because they are of another frame of mind).

Origen doesn't tell us much about the mysteries associated with the name Sabaoth but the one thing he tells us is that there is 'something special' about Sabaoth IN HEBREW. Let me say it again IN HEBREW. Not Greek or any other language that it might have been translated or transliterated. Here is the original claim by Celsus:

"It makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians,"

Origen however says:

Now, in answer to this, we have to remark that this involves a deep and mysterious subject--that, viz., respecting the nature of names: it being a question whether, as Aristotle thinks, names were bestowed by arrangement, or, as the Stoics hold, by nature; the first words being imitations of things, agreeably to which the names were formed, and in conformity with which they introduce certain principles of etymology; or whether, as Epicurus teaches (differing in this from the Stoics), names were given by nature,--the first men having uttered certain words varying with the circumstances in which they found themselves. If, then, we shall be able to establish, in reference to the preceding statement, the nature of powerful names, some of which are used by the learned amongst the Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Samanaeans, and others in different countries; and shall be able to make out that the so-called magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle suppose, an altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it prove, a consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly few; then we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to any ordinary created things, but belong to a secret theology which refers to the Framer of all things. These names, accordingly, when pronounced (in Hebrew) with that attendant train of circumstances which is appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power; and other names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain things; and other names in the Persian language have corresponding power over other spirits; and so on in every individual nation, for different purposes. And thus it will be found that, of the various demons upon the earth, to whom different localities have been assigned, each one bears a name appropriate to the several dialects of place and country. He, therefore, who has a nobler idea, however small, of these matters, will be careful not to apply differing names to different things; lest he should resemble those who mistakenly apply the name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down the title of "the Good" from the First Cause, or from virtue and excellence, and apply it to blind Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned mixture of flesh and blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble birth. [Against Celsus 1:24]

So it is that when you follow the argument from the beginning you have Origen agreeing that it is right that the Hebrews think that divine names in THE HEBREW LANGUAGE have some sort of hard wired connection with the Most High God and in particular Sabaoth. So he is not thinking in terms of the Greek transliteration Σαβαωθ but specifically of its original form.

Now there can be no argument that there are two possible origins for Σαβαωθ - שבעות and צבאות.

The question is what does Origen mean when he later says the Hebrew name Sabaoth is "the name of God according to a secret system" which was truer and more divine than the parallel Greek names of the gods. Is the 'secret system' kabbalah and gematria? I think so. So he writes "those who, for some mysterious reason, refer the word Sabaoth, or Adonai, or any of the other names to the (true) God. And when one is able to philosophize about the mystery of names, he will find much to say respecting the titles of the angels of God, of whom one is called Michael, and another Gabriel, and another Raphael, appropriately to the duties which they discharge in the world, according to the will of the God of all things" (ibid 1.25) Indeed Origen already has Celsus's next charge in mind that they "are addicted to sorcery, in which Moses was their instructor." (ibid 1.26)

The bottom line that if Sabaoth has some magical power in Hebrew and only in Hebrew it has to have something to do with kabbalah and gematria. There is nothing significant about the numerological value of צבאות

However שבעות is a different story completely. For שבעות has a value of 778 which perfectly expresses the concept of Pentecost which is essentially 7 x 7 + 1. This also explains why the older gnostic tradition places the figure of שבעות in the eighth heaven.

I don't think that European people (I don't think you can say 'white people' at these sites) can comprehend what a Jew initiated into the mystical traditions of his ancestors sees when he looks at the gematria of צבאות.

It is like opening a door to the ultimate messianic concept. It is the Jubilee year. It is the reason the destruction of the temple was foretold to occur after seventy weeks. It is all the things I mentioned about the narratives of the gospel. It is why I never could accept the idea that Morton Smith forged the Mar Saba letter.

This mzungu had no idea about the interior meaning of his discovery.

But let me explain again why the idea of 7 x 7 + 1 or 7 + 1 is the whole essence of the Mosaic religion. It goes back to the crossing of the Sea.

The hidden mystical truth is the reason why the Samaritans sing hymns related to the crossing of the Red Sea EVERY TRANSITION FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE EIGHTH DAY. There is a technical name for this period - motsa'e shabbat 'the goings of the Sabbath' (plural construct suffix) - i.e. it means the transition from the seventh day to the eighth day.

In traditional Christian theology the Resurrection is thought to have happened at the very INSTANT of the end of the Sabbath, NOT on the eighth or first day, not even on the first instant of the day. The reason for waiting a bit later than sunset till it is completely dark before reading out the passages referring to the Resurrection is to be absolutely certain the Sabbath has finished. There is a deeper meaning which can be argued to be developed from the Rabbinic Jewish concept that the type and form of repentance dependent on the Day of Atonement is still efficacious up till the end of the last glow.

There is a choice of passages, only one of which is from the New Testament. There has to be a minimum of four readings, from a list of choices, but Exodus XIV and XV MUST NEVER BE LEFT OUT. The other passages relate to the nature of the Heavenly Torah or the Divine Wisdom. The time is about half past eight Daylight Saving Time on Saturday night which is half past seven Eastern Standard Time which is 9: 30 a.m. G.M.T. However, the first part of the service does start exactly at sunset.

The Greeks are a bit off track in ending the second day at midnight, but the reason is not that they have made a mistake in the division of the days, but in too close a connection with the First Passover, the Passover of Egypt. The reason the Gospels speak of the tomb being empty just after dawn is only that it would not have been practical to go and have a look during the night.

It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus died before sunset. This statement could not be a falsification, because if he had died on the Sabbath the body would not have been carried off immediately.

Also, if he had died even a few seconds after the start of the Sabbath, he would not have been dead for ONE WHOLE SABBATH. His ministry in Hell would not have been complete. [By “Hell” I mean She’ol, the Underworld, pre- Christian and Wagnerian German Hölle, not the un-Christian un-Biblical concept we keep hearing about. Remember that I always quote the Nicene Creed according to a 17th c. translation, and usually do the same with quotes from the Bible].

Remember that the process of creation extended right up to the very last instant of the seventh day, but stopped before the very first instant of the eighth or first day. This is why the MT and LXX say God stopped וישבת on the seventh day but the Samaritan text says “on the sixth day”. This means PERFECTION STARTED WITH THE EIGHTH OR FIRST DAY.

This was the day Adam Rishon, before and after the division into two sexes, was in the Garden. The expected state of perfection, the Jewish, Christian and Moslem expectation of being in a blessed but not final state before the Universal Resurrection is therefore on the eighth or first day. (Explicitly referred to as being “in the Garden” by Jews. Moslems, and I think Syrian Christians).

Forget about the MODERN simple-minded Jewish theology that says the Sabbath itself is the day of perfection. No, on the Sabbath the process of maintenance is still going on.

There is perfection, but only on a lower level. Think about what Jesus said when attacked for healing on the Sabbath. First he established that the Pharisaic halachah allowed this, and that those that attacked him were only trying to cause trouble by quibbling about the dangerousness of the illness. Then he said “I work (on the Sabbath) and my Father works”, meaning the process of completion of creation was still a long way from being finished, and we live in a perpetual seventh day, waiting for the first or eighth.

If the eighth day is the full day of perfection, then the seventh day is the day of the process of completing or perfecting, and the sixth is the day of completion of all the paraphernalia needed for the process of perfection.

Everyone should have another look at the first chapter of Genesis. Moslems don’t regard the sixth day as sacred, but it has a special importance for the reasons explained.

I think the place of the seventh day is taken by the earthly Koran and Ramadan; the place of the eighth by the Hajj, the Pilgrimage to Mecca, and by death. This is part of the reason for the repetition over the course of the day after the instant of death of the words of the Koran اننا من الله واليه راجعين meaning “From God we come and to him / it do we go back”.

The fact is that when Origen starts to speak of a 'secret system' and a 'mystery' associated with the name Sabaoth the only possibility is that it goes back to שבעות as the goings of the Sabbath is THE great secret of Judaism that ultimately formed the basis to Alexandrian Christianity.

If you need even more examples I'd be happy to give them to you.

spin

You should know that this is wrong. Plainly צבאות was vocalized so that Greeks could hear the equivalent of Σαβαωθ. שבעות is vocalized, as you know, shabu'ot, which should finish in Greek something like σαβουοθ if ever transliterated, but as far as I can tell it's always translated.

One could of course try for a connection through appearances (as seen in the case of Peter and πετρα), which seems to have been a common exegetical method.

Adonai is a title, not a name. If you compare DSS with Massora you'll find many of the Massora's adonai is YHWH in DSS. Adonai is just one of many substitutes for the name of the Hebrew god. שבעות gets transliterated as Σαβαωθ, Sabaoth, and translated as δυναμις "power(ful)" or παντοκρατωρ "almighty"! Origen isn't a particularly understanding witness, but he does attest to the fact that Jews, the goatherds and shepherds who followed Moses, avoided using the name of their god, substituting LXX epithets such as Υψιστος and Σαβαωθ, as well as Αδοναιος.


spin

stephan huller

This is not true in the period. You are NOT considering the contemporary pronunciation at the time we are speaking of (second century CE). שבעות would be vocalized as Sabaoth. This is not just my opinion. I actually mentioned our discussion to a colleague last night who happens to be a Semitic language expert. I can refer you to him.

Yes. I can't find my LXX translation but from memory it is always translated as having something to do with its designating a numerical value either weeks/seven or in the NT it is Pentecost. But that has no effect on the argument that emerges from Origen and Celsus's discussion of the origin of the term.

From memory again Adonai is not transliterated in the LXX. I think it is always rendered by κύριος unless it appears alongside YHWH (as in Isa 1.9 where you find your example of Sabaoth) when it is rendered δεσπότης.

Again this is from memory but I think it destroys the argument that we should think that LXX transliterations determined the phenomenon being witnessed by Celsus and Origen.

Celsus and Origen AGREE that JEWS use the names Adonai and Sabaoth INDIVIDUALLY as THE NAME of the Most High. You can't just dismiss this as developing from Origen's ignorance. It was Celsus's report initially and you'd think that if it wasn't a widespread phenomenon Origen could simply use this to demonstrate Celsus's ignorance about the 'true belief' of the Jews.

And what Jews are these? There is also good evidence to suggest that these Jews ARE NOT Greek speaking Jews for he says in Psalms 2.2. that among the Greeks Adonai was pronounced as kurios. The phenomenon then that Celsus was observing did not likely originate among Alexandrian Jews but I would these are the Jews in Palestine, Syria or other regions we see Celsus seems to draw information from.

These titles derived their origins from contact with the original Hebrew texts or Aramaic. They were not Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria so the LXX argument is a red herring.

The argument that Adonai was not a title of Most High that you bring forward:

is not convincing in my mind. I have never bought into the argument that Adonai is simply a title of YHWH. If that were so the evidence you sight from Isa 1.9 wouldn't distinguish between the two names Adonai YHWH.

Tsabaoth means 'of hosts.' It is impossible to believe that anyone familiar with Hebrew or Aramaic would conceive this as the name of the Most High. As such in order to explain this etymology we have to do the unthinkable - indeed the unconscionable - and assume that EVERY ANCIENT WITNESS to the phenomenon in antiquity was a complete moron including the Jews that engaged in this ancient practice.

I can't do that.

As such I assume that the title Sabaoth has something to do with a mystical understanding developed from the Jubilee, the Pentecost, the goings of the Sabbath etc that a divinity existed above the seventh heaven who embodied the concept that eventually crystalized into the gnostic Ogdoad. I think that this being might well have also been called Adonai.

If you read Celsus's argument carefully this is already implied. The fact that Jews no longer venerate God in this way is not problematic. They no longer calculate the Jubilee and their system of worship has - no less than Christianity - been 'encouraged' to abandon the interest in a power above the ruler of the world.

spin

You assume the contrary is true, which is worse. We know how it was pronounced at the time of the Massora. You don't have any direct evidence to support your claim.

I gave the Massoretic version because at least we know how it was pronounced then. It's better than unfounded conjecture as a starting point.

On what phonological grounds??

I've already covered this: Adonai was substituted after the time of the DSS, making the following only obvious:

In the cases with אדני יהוה there is obviously no substitution, so it is translated as δεσποτης, "master" or "lord", ie when it refers to god. When it doesn't, it's translated as κυριος.

Yet, we know that these aren't names.

It's no skin off Origen's nose. He's happy to be nasty to the Jews. If he's following Celsus here, it serves his polemic.

Which we know from the non-god use of Adonai as transliterated in the LXX.

Just to recap:

1. Adonai is used both for god and for humans.
2. For god it has two purposes: one as a title, the other as a substitute for YHWH.
3. As a substitute it postdates the time of the DSS, so that LXX would not reflect it, but translate the original Hebrew into κυριος.
4. As a title for god, it's δεσποτης.
5. It's use with humans ends as κυριος.

I don't think so. It seems to me to be similar to the strange uses of Aramaic snippets in GMk. They're there for "color".

We have two separate uses of Adonai. (See above.)

(Just "hosts": the "of" is syntactic.)

I can't get any sense out of this.

Obviously, you're free to think whatever you like. The gnosticism we see is a syncretizing force. It doesn't have that much knowledge of the host materials. It uses terms for its own purposes, just as the magician uses "abracadabra" (ברא כדברא).

What do we really know about Celsus? How well does he really know what he is talking about? We do know that he holds religious views that are more in line with some religions than others. Was his knowledge of Jews and Christians any better than a cold war American's knowledge of Russia? It's not safe to use him as your baseline.


spin

stephan huller

I hate having these 'my penis is bigger than yours' arguments but there is so much baloney in these claims I can't resist:

'We know how it was pronounced at the time of the Massora.' Is this a serious argument? Really? You are taking a work composed by several learned rabbis of the school of Tiberias, in the eighth and ninth centuries and telling me that I have to argue against that to even suggest that שבעות COULD be pronounced Sabaoth? This is absurd. I have heard more rational arguments from those promoting the mythicist Church Father argument.

You're too smart for that position. Yet it furthers an agenda typical among NT scholars who want to package 'the Jews' as a foundation for their own inherited presuppositions about Christianity.

The letters on the page are שבעות. Those letters could be pronounced 'Sabaoth.' It would be expected that some Hebrew group at some time would have done this. I don't know how the argument is disqualified merely on the basis of a text written eight or nine centuries after the common era.

If you can read Hebrew read this Ben-Hay yim, "On the Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton by the Samaritans," Eretz-Israel, III (1954):147-154. I don't have time for this nonsense.

There is no doubt that Samaritans pronounced important names differently than the Jews. Moses = Mushi. YWHW = Iabe. I love scholars who say this but at the same time when they are confronted with Celsus and Origen HOSTILE OPPONENTS NO LESS agreeing on a particular thing that challenges their presuppositions they are discounted as 'ignorant' or 'mistaken.' Why? Because it challenges their inherited presuppositions. So my job now is to argue against the inherited western assumptions that the Massora were universally applicable to ALL Hebrew sects and cultures. Why? Why do I have to do that? IT ISN'T TRUE. It can't be true. But it is USEFUL for NT scholarship. I have to argue against the functionality of ignorance and bigotry.

But ignorance and bigotry are not rational arguments. They represent intellectual laziness.

So what? This is not true in later kabbalistic literature (where Adonai is treated as a separate hypostasis), nor was it true for gnostic groups, Manichaean documents etc. I could develop an argument that Philo intimates that δεσπότης the Most High god separate from κύριος who is clearly associated with a lower hypostasis. κύριος is not the Most High god in Philo's system.

My argument that Philo understood δεσπότης to be the name of the Most High god would include Philo, Moses 1.201 and the idea that the Jews were understood to have a master and slave relationship with their god which is the implication of δεσπότης (see Philo, Heir 22-23). Caligula wanted the Jews to address him in the manner they addressed their god and so we see Philo speaks about reverence for the emperor as “ Master and Benefactor and Saviour and the like (δεσπότην κα εÛεργέτην κα σωτ ρα)” (Flaccus 126).

Hellenistic prayers interestingly often have the person petitioning the deity with δεσπότης or some such variant (Karl Rengstorf, “δεσπότης,” TDNT 2.44-45.) It also happens to be Josephus's favorite title for praying to God: “Lord (δ¥σποτα) of all the ages and Creator of universal being. . .confirm these promises” (Ant 1.272; see also 4.40; 5.41; 11.64; 11.162; 20.90).

Some writers used it lin combination with other benefactor terms, thus softening its hard edges. Christian usage, however, generally connotes divine benevolence and power. For example, Simeon prays after blessing Jesus, “Lord (δέσποτα), now let your servant depart in peace. . .for my eyes have seen your salvation” (Luke 2:29; see Acts 4:24). The clearest use of the benevolent connotation of this name occurs in 1 Clement: “Let us learn that in generation after generation the Master (δεσπότης) has given a place of repentance to those who turn to him” (7:5); and “Through Noah the Master (δεσπότης) saved the living creatures which entered in concord into the Ark (9:4; see also 11:1; 36:2).

An argument can be made that the Jews of the first century period imagined δεσπότης as a divinity higher than κύριος (and thus Adonai = אהיה אשר אהיה as a being higher than the power identified by the Tetragrammaton) isn't just theoretical. It is the basis to kabbalah throughout the ages.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE REAL ISSUE NOW IS HOW YOU CAN IGNORE BOTH CELSUS AND ORIGEN. I want to hear an explanation of how Tsabaoth developed into a title for the god above all gods, above the hypostases of κύριος and θεός in Alexandrian Judaism. It is impossible. Your citation of the LXX will not help you here.

stephan huller

Oh and because you asked for an example of שבעות being pronounced Sabaoth. I found proof IN ENGLISH to demonstrate that SABAOTH was the Samaritan pronunciation of שבעות

http://books.google.com/books?id=pzo...arvest&f=false

So now we are back at square one. There are two possible etymologies. I say שבעות makes more sense for reasons listed above. And that is all this thread attempted to argue. It is a possible etymology. THIS CANNOT BE DISPUTED ANY LONGER WITH SILLY ARGUMENTS FROM THE MASSORA

I happen to think it is a more sensible etymology but now it is your turn to explain how אֲדֹנָי צבאות came to be shortened to have Sabaoth as the ONE NAME of the Most High god among Jewish groups known to Celsus and Origen.

It is impossible task. It doesn't make sense and as such I maintain that שבעות wins by default.