stephan huller

The answer of course is no; Ialdabaoth is universally acknowledged to be a corruption of something else. Most scholars think it goes back to a Semitic term owing to the termination 'baoth' which resembles Sabaoth and other Hebrew words. Yet no one has satisfactorily come up with a solution to this riddle.

I have long noted that Ialdabaoth most closely resembles the Syriac term ܒ݁ܥܶܠܕ݁ܒ݂ܳܒ݂ܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ which can be roughly rendered as baldababota and means 'enmity' or 'hatred.' What has always stood in the way of turning this suspicion into something substantive is the transformation of the bet (i.e. the letter b) into a yod (y). I have never been able to account for this and so I have never attempted to seriously put forward my theory.

Nevertheless it certainly has a lot going for it. Enmity seems to perfectly suit the third god in the Marcionite system who embodied pure evil. This figure should be distinguished from the other two divinities in their system (a) 'the Good' and (b) 'the god of the Jews.'

Baldababota seems to have a mythical presence in the Pauline writings which would help explain a lot of Marcionite conceptions. I don't have time to make a large list of these references but it is worth noting that baldababota appears in what I consider the be the most important mystical passage in the Pauline writings:

For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the wall of separation between them; And he has abolished by his precious basora (gospel/flesh) the baldababota between them, and he has abolished by his commandments the ordinances of the law, that he may create, in his person, from the two, a new man, thus making peace and he reconciled both in one body with God, and with his cross he destroyed the baldababota [Eph 2:15 - 16]

The idea of Ialdabaoth or 'enmity' being destroyed by the cross implies to me at least the origins of the idea that the devil or Satan was crucified by Jesus's death. This is not necessarily a gnostic idea as it show up even in the late orthodox writers (cf. S. Athanasius (de Incarn. Verb.) says, “The Lord came to cast down the devil, to purify the air, and to make for us a way to Heaven.” S. Basil (Hom. de Humil.) says, “The devil was crucified in Him whom he hoped to crucify, and was put to death in Him whom he had hoped to destroy.” And S. Leo (Serm. x. de Pass.), “The nails of Christ pierced the devil with continuous wounds, and the suffering of His holy limbs was the destruction of the powers of the enemy.”)

Of course we have just stayed in the peripheries of the gospel so far. There are a number of other passages in the Pauline writings worth looking at. But as I am interested in following just this one motif - the idea that Ialdabaoth might have been the baldababota destroyed by Jesus's crucifixion it is worth going back to the description in Ephesians before we dip our toes in the gospel narrative.

The important thing to remember is that the Apostle references baldababota/Ialdabaoth being between two things:

For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the wall of separation between them; And he has abolished by his precious basora (i.e. his gospel/flesh) the baldababota between them [ibid]

It is worth noting that the gospel also has baldababota standing between two figures in the narrative as we read again in the Peshitta:

And on that day, Pilate and Herod became friends to each other; for there had previously been baldababota between them [Luke 23:12]

Now ἔχθρᾳ is the word which appears in the Greek and there are numerous references in the gospel which we might compare here with the Peshitta. Yet the reference I am most interested in is still preserved in a Semitic language in our gospel, albeit not Aramaic curiously but Hebrew.

I should say that the Syriac baldababota or ܒ݁ܥܶܠܕ݁ܒ݂ܳܒ݂ܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ is made up of two words. The first ܒ݁ܥܶܠ is the familiar word ba'al which means 'lord' or 'owner.' The word for husband in Aramaic is ba'al, which as noted is the general term for an owner, master, possessor of property, bearer of responsibility, or practitioner of a skill. The owner of a house is ba'al ha-bayit, the man responsible for an open pit is ba'al ha-bor, the owner of an ox is ba'al hashor, the owner of a slave is ba'al ha-eved, and the husband of a woman is ba'al isha.

The second part of the word dababota is means 'hatred' and comes from a root dbb which is quite common in Jewish Aramaic. Geiger ("Urschrift," p. 53) argued over a century ago that Baal Zebub, in his capacity as god of the hated Philistines, became the representative of the heathen power and consequently the arch-enemy, the foe par excellence, and therefore the name "Baal debaba" ("debaba" being the Aramaic form corresponding to Hebrew "Zebub") acquired the meaning of "hostility," the verb with the sense of "hostile action" being derived from it. Similar formulations were Döderlein and Storr, and revived in Riehm's "Realwörterbuch" who notes that be' el debaba in Aramaic might mean either ' lord of flies' or 'enemy.'

The argument has been taken up more recently by Peggy L. Day (An adversary in Heaven: Śāṭān in the Hebrew Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) 1988) who again puts forward the idea of a connection through a wordplay on be'el dibaba (the Aramaic equivalent of ba'al zebub, the corrupted form of ba'al zebul) and be'el debaba' (Aram, "enemy").

The question that has puzzled everyone is why the Baalzebul form (half Hebrew, half Aramaic has made its way into all the earliest MSS of the gospels). The substitution of Beelzebub for Beelzebul by the Syriac, Vulgate and other versions implies the identification of the New Testament arch-fiend with the god of Ekron; this substitution, however, may be due to the influence of the Aramaic be'el dababa 'adversary' which the Encyclopedia Britannica notes 'is sometimes held to be the original of these names." http://books.google.com/books?id=g-k...page&q&f=false

Of course I still haven't resolved where the yod came from at the beginning of Ialdabaoth. The rest is easy to explain. What nevertheless emerges in my mind is one of the most powerful arguments that the heretical traditions are not as stupid and 'inventive' as most scholars assume. The Nag Hammadi material in my mind comes generally from a later period when corruption with regards to original Aramaic terms could well have taken place without correction and then been recycled over and over again until they took on a life of their own.

spamandham

For what it's worth, which isn't much since I have no knowledge at all of the languages you are referring to, if I were to fill the following blanks in with complete ignorance (which is what I'm about to do)...

{XXX} would be "abyss", or some similar concept.


(fyi, I LOVE reading your posts. I'm stroking your ego in hopes you'll keep it up)

stephan huller

Thanks so much,

I found a reference to Baal Debaba in the Targum Onkelos for Numbers 32. The received Hebrew text reads:

The Reubenites and Gadites, who had very large herds and flocks, saw that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were suitable for livestock. 2 So they came to Moses and Eleazar the priest and to the leaders of the community, and said, "Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo and Beon- the land the LORD subdued before the people of Israel—are suitable for livestock, and your servants have livestock. [Numbers 32:1 - 4]

while the Aramaic translation inserts a reference to Baal

Now the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad possessed much cattle, exceedingly many ; and they saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead, and, behold, the region was a place fit for folds of cattle. And the sons of Gad and the sons of of Reuben came and spake to Mosheh and to Elazar the priest, and to the heads of the congregation, saying: Maklelta and Malbasta and the priests of Beth Nimrin and Beth-Hesh-bena, and Baale Debaba, and Seath, (the sepulchre of Mosheh,) and Beon, the land which the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel, is a country fitted for cattle folds and thy servants have cattle.

The term also surfaces in Numbers Rabba and the Targum on Psalm 8:2

From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise. Thou hast founded a bulwark because of thy foes, to destroy the author of enmity (lebattala' be'el debaba') and the violent one.

There are two reasons why this Psalm is significant. The followers of Mark (both 'heretical' and 'orthodox') paid special attention to this passage as we see in Irenaeus:

He (Mark) instances, in proof of this (i.e. the power of six), the case of infants who have just been born, the cry of whom, as soon as they have issued from the womb, is in accordance with the sound of every one of these elements (i.e. 'Oh!' which is the sixth letter vav). As, then, he says, the seven powers glorify the Word, so does the soul of infants, weeping and mourning over Marcus, deify him. For this reason, too, David said: "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise;"(Psalm 8:2) and again: "The heavens declare the glory of God." Hence also it comes to pass, that when the soul is involved in difficulties and distresses, for its own relief it calls out, "Oh" (W), in honour of the letter in question,(i.e. the sixth letter vav) so that its cognate soul above may recognise [its distress], and send down to it relief.[AH i.14:8]

Yet not only did the Marcosians take an interest in Psalm 8:2 but more importantly the word that in the Targum the bulwark is established 'to destroy the author of enmity and the violent one'. In the MT neither 'enemy' nor 'avenger' is given an article. In the Targum the enemy of God is individualised as the 'author of enmity and the violent one.'

The original Hebrew term in Psalm 8 for enmity is אוֹיֵב ('oyeb). This term is related to the enmity which appears in the Genesis narrative involving Adam, Eve and the serpent. There God condemns the serpent by saying:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.' [Genesis 3:15]

The word for 'enmity' here is אֵיבָה ('eybah) which is again related to אוֹיֵב ('oyeb) by means of the primitive root אָיַב ('ayab) which means 'enemy.'

What I am now considering is that if one can conceive of the possibility that if the reference to 'enmity' in Genesis 3:15 became 'personalized' with the addition of the definite article as we saw in the Targumic version of Psalms 8:2 (as be'el debaba'), then we can begin to see where Ialdabaoth ultimately emerged in Genesis.

He stands between the serpent and the woman in Genesis.

And I will put be'el debaba' between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

One can imagine now that the appearance of Christ has now destroyed the enmity which caused the fall of Adam. This understanding is explicitly referenced in the Targumic literature too when we read in the Aramaic of Genesis 3:15. Targum Pseudo Jonathan on Genesis 3:15 states,

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of your offspring and the seed of her offspring; and it shall be that when the offspring of the woman keep the commandments of the Law, they will aim right (at you) and they will smite you on the head; but when they abandon the commandments of the Law, you will aim right (at them), and you will wound them in the heel. However, for them there will be a remedy, but for you there will be none, and in the future they will make peace with the heel in the days of the King Messiah.

I think my readers will see that I have stumbled on to something important but I think this also leads to a few more important ideas:

(a) the image of the serpent on the cross as a symbol of the crucifixion of Ialdabaoth
(b) Polycarp's words to Marcion "I recognize thee as the first born of Satan" (the serpent is the firstborn of Satan).
(c) the underlying connection between the Ophites/Naasenes and the Marcionites which I have long argued.

Anyway have to sleep at some point but I thought this might be interesting to post before I forget.

Sarai

I'm 100% with Spamandham on this--I love reading your posts as well. I've been away from FRDB for awhile and just recently returned. I've started each day scanning for any new posts from you. I just wanted you to know--I'm sure there are many lurkers here that are doing the same thing I am.

Warm regards,
Sarai

mountainman

Hi stephan,

The WIKI page on the Demiurge provides the following:

It then lists Yaldabaoth as:

How do you relate to this data?

Where therefore do you squeeze the Greeks into your jigsaw puzzle that contains the Gnostics. The NT is a Greek literary work. The "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" appear to be greek literary reactions to the NT, preserved in Coptic and Syriac, with fragmentary Greek remains.

The Gnostic figure of the Yaldabaoth appears to be the Greek Demiurge which appears for example in the "Holy Trinity" of Plotinus. This is very late. But then again the recent studies of Rowan Williams indicate that Arius of Alexandria may have been heavily influenced by philosophy (and religion) of Plotinus. Williams fails to mention and to therefore underscore the fact that Constantine flatly calls Arius a Porphyrian.

This is very late, of course.
But Nag Hammadi is very late, of course.

Who in your opinion were the authors of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"?

Eusebius tells us he is going to name the names of these wolves - the nasty and vile heretics whom we now know as the authors of the Gnostic gospels - but no names appear in Eusebius. Nameless authors of the NT and nameless authors of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" in an unkown century does not sound like a clear solution.

stephan huller

.

I have a tendency to think that the original framework to the gospel had to have been arranged in Hebrew (not Aramaic) but I can't make this argument fit the existing evidence.

For instance the name Jesus. Iesous has an obvious mystical significance which Isu or Yeshu doesn't seem to have (or at least I haven't found the thread).

There are examples of Christian symbolism where it is difficult to tell which is the original system. Is the Christian interest in the fish from ΙΧΘΥΣ or from the letter nun (which means fish) and has a numeric value of 50?

I don't know. Even if we assume like I do that Christianity developed in Alexandria from the Jewish community associated with Philo, there are traditions which say that Philo was the first Christian bishop of Alexandria and other which say that he opposed the Church. These are of course legendary stories but I can find arguments which support Christianity developing as an Alexandrian Jewish mission to the native Egyptian population and other examples of Philo attacking what I see as the early Christian presence in Alexandria.

But then there is the conspiratorial argument that Philo attacks the Christians publicly in order to distance himself and the leaders of the Jewish community from the disturbances caused by these missionaries but really the Jews were indeed guilty of what Isidore says is a 'plot to take over the whole world.'

But then I suspect that Philo was the Jew who authored the anti-Christian text cited in Celsus's True Account.

These arguments go round and round in my head until I find some new pieces of evidence which push the argument in one direction or the other.

The bottom line is that I ultimately suspect that there might even have been two traditions one in Jerusalem (or Judea or Galilee) with 'Jacob' (James) as the revealer of the gospel and another rooted in Alexandria with 'John' (Mark) as the revealer of the gospel. Maybe they were even the same person (Jacob = Israel), I don't know but perhaps they were ultimately reconciled in the Catholic tradition by making them brothers and both sons of Salome. The original understanding of one son of Salome sitting next to Jesus on the throne becomes perverted into two thrones on each side of Jesus in the way that we see Origen say that the Marcionites had Paul on one side and Marcion on the other (I suspect Paul and Marcion were one and the same person).

Perhaps the reconciliation of two sons of Zebedee was paralleled by the existence of two parallel gospels one in Hebrew and one in Greek associated with Jerusalem and Alexandria. It is worth noting that a Coptic tradition understands 'John' to have been the one who translated the Hebrew text into Greek:

"He (Matthew) wrote it (the gospel) in the Hebrew language in Palestine and preached it in Jerusalem and (the) Indies after the Ascension of our Lord and Savior seven years, and John the son of Zebedee translated it in the City of Tongues, chapters 426, in common 350, apart (peculiar) 46." http://www.archive.org/stream/coptic.../n103/mode/1up

I am the first to admit that I haven't completely reconciled how the two traditions related to one another but it is worth noting that Origen seems to be very aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews and also the tradition of the Ebionites. Yet it would be foolish to take seriously ANYONE's theorizing about the exact nature of the 'Jewish Church' in Judea because I think they were mostly wiped out in Bar Kochba revolt along with everything else Jewish.

(They may have existed in pockets here and there but the evidence seems to suggest there was no longer any cohesive unity in the Jewish Christian tradition by the time the Church Fathers began to receive information about them).

Anyway that's the best I can come up with off the cuff.