Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 04-25-2010, 10:54 AM

I have just been reading April DeConick's fascinating book on the Judas gospel (The Thirteenth Apostle (or via: amazon.co.uk)). In this book, amongst many other things, she gives a run-down of the Sethian cosmology and theology, in the course of which she outlines that the Sethians viewed the Fall as, in a sense, the "fault" of God, a kind of error of God:-

Quote:

"So God is at fault, but through no fault of his own. The flaw that leads to his rupture is an essential part of his nature - his unavoidable reflection upon himself, his self-absorption, his curiosity about his own being. Since the "fall" happened because of God rather than because of human error, the traditional interpretation of the creation story made no sense. So that interpretation was reversed in highly subversive ways, at least in the Sethian narrative. It became a paradigm for the enfeeblement of the spirit as well as its liberation. It is a story of trickery and skirmishes between Sophia and Ialdabaoth, who both want to retrieve her spirit for themselves. Ialdabaoth works to keep human beings distracted and ignorant of the superme God and their true nature so that the spirit will not know about the supreme God, nor be able to find its way home. Sophia works along with an Illuminator sent down from the Father to redeem the spirit and return it to the supreme God, to repair the rupture, to assist God in saving himself.

[...]

"Where does Jesus' death fit into this story? In Sethian Christianity, Jesus is the last Illuminator, who descends from the Father, provides instruction about the supreme God, and shares with his Gnostic followers the ceremony of the "Five Seals." His advent is God's best move in the war game, and his crucifixion Ialdabaoth's worst countermove. For when Ialdabaoth crucifies JEsus, his countermove is his final ploy. Much to his surprise, his move releases Jesus' powerful spirit from his body. Unlike other human spirits, Jesus' spirit cannot be detained by Ialdabaoth. It is different. It is an Aeon. Jesus' spirit shoots up through the cosmic atmosphere, carving out a path to the Upper Kingdom and conquering the Archons along the way. In this way, Jesus brings about the end of Ialdabaoth's control over the human spirit, and God saves himself."

Now, something that had always puzzled me was the line in Philippians 2:9 - "a/the name which is above every other name". What's so special about the name Jesus? Loads of people were called Jesus, after all, it was (apparently) a common name.

Well, normally it's thought of as "God's salvation" in the sense of God's salvation of the person. But even that doesn't seem particularly special or exalted.

But what if "Paul" (or whoever it is) is interpreting the name esoterically as meaning, in a Sethian sense (if DeConick is accurate in her summary) as God's salvation in the sense of the "salvation of God"?

That would certainly make it a name exalted above every other name!

Any thoughts? Am I just interpreting this in the light of a verbal coincidence in English that wouldn't make sense in Hebrew or Aramaic?

andrewcriddle · 04-26-2010, 06:20 AM

I think that Joshua in Hebrew has to mean something like Yahweh saves.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 04-26-2010, 07:14 AM

Based on the writings of Josephus there is no indication that the name Jesus had any special significance or was given only to those who had accomplished some special act during their lifetime.

Jesus was just a common name most probably given at birth.

There are no persons in the writings of Josephus whose first name is followed by the title or name Jesus.

And further there are other Hebrew names with similar meaning to Jesus which demonstrates that the name Jesus was NOT above all other names.

These are the meanings of the names of some of the prophets.

See http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/e...ewishNames.htm
Daniel m.
"God is my judge"

Elijah m.
"My God is Yahweh."

Ezekiel m.
"God strengthens."

Isaiah m.
"Yahweh is salvation."

Jeremiah m.
"Yahweh has uplifted."

Joel m.
"Yahweh is god.

show_no_mercy · 04-26-2010, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Now, something that had always puzzled me was the line in Philippians 2:9 - "a/the name which is above every other name". What's so special about the name Jesus? Loads of people were called Jesus, after all, it was (apparently) a common name.

Well, normally it's thought of as "God's salvation" in the sense of God's salvation of the person. But even that doesn't seem particularly special or exalted.

But what if "Paul" (or whoever it is) is interpreting the name esoterically as meaning, in a Sethian sense (if DeConick is accurate in her summary) as God's salvation in the sense of the "salvation of God"?

That would certainly make it a name exalted above every other name!

Any thoughts? Am I just interpreting this in the light of a verbal coincidence in English that wouldn't make sense in Hebrew or Aramaic?

I don't think there's any grammatical difference in Hebrew between "god's salvation" (which would actually be Elisha/Elishua - my god is salvation) and "salvation of god".

The etymology of the name "Jesus" doesn't actually have the word "god" in it, but the proper-ish name of the god of the Jews. Anyway, I think that Phil 2:9 meant that the name "Jesus" would become a sacred name, and not that the name had special meaning in itself. Paul mentions another quite pedestrian Jesus in Col 4:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Isaiah m.
"Yahweh is salvation."

The spelling "Isaiah" is closer to the Greek rendering than the Hebrew. In Hebrew, it would be closer to Yeshuayehu (yod-shin-ayin-yod-he-vav). The name "Joshua" derives from the first part of Yeshuayehu: yod-shin-ayin. Yod-shin-ayin is rendered in Greek as Iesou, from where we get the Latinized "Jesus".

So, I think, yod-shin-ayin (Joshua/Jesus, also included in the name "Elisha": alef-lamed-yod-shin-ayin) means "salvation" and the second part yod-he-vav is shorthand for YHWH. Thus "YHWH is salvation". The biblical Joshua's full name would actually be something like Jehoshua, which also can mean YHWH (Jehovah) delivers or saves (shua).

mountainman · 04-26-2010, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Now, something that had always puzzled me was the line in Philippians 2:9 - "a/the name which is above every other name". What's so special about the name Jesus?

...[...]...

Any thoughts? Am I just interpreting this in the light of a verbal coincidence in English that wouldn't make sense in Hebrew or Aramaic?

My opinion gurugeorge FWIW is that there is nothing special about the name Jesus. However the prevailing paradigm with the Greeks was that their notion of "God" for example as expressed in Plotinus, was a [nondual] nameless and inexpressible essence. In this sense to these philosophers, the "name" of God was above all other names.

This philosophy was rebadged by the authors of the NT and the consequent centralised imperial Roman state "plain and simple religion of the Christians"

darstec · 04-26-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Now, something that had always puzzled me was the line in Philippians 2:9 - "a/the name which is above every other name". What's so special about the name Jesus?

...[...]...

Any thoughts? Am I just interpreting this in the light of a verbal coincidence in English that wouldn't make sense in Hebrew or Aramaic?

My opinion gurugeorge FWIW is that there is nothing special about the name Jesus. However the prevailing paradigm with the Greeks was that their notion of "God" for example as expressed in Plotinus, was a [nondual] nameless and inexpressible essence. In this sense to these philosophers, the "name" of God was above all other names.

This philosophy was rebadged by the authors of the NT and the consequent centralised imperial Roman state "plain and simple religion of the Christians"

Jews were not allowed to utter the name of god, so passing it on would have been impossible. They didn't KNOW the name of god therefore they simply used adjectives to describe him.

People do that today. They capitalize the word god as though it is a proper noun instead of being the attribute which it is.

mountainman · 04-26-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Jews were not allowed to utter the name of god, so passing it on would have been impossible. They didn't KNOW the name of god therefore they simply used adjectives to describe him.

People do that today. They capitalize the word god as though it is a proper noun instead of being the attribute which it is.

Actually this reminds me that there may be another issue here relating to the common practice of scribes of the LXX using "nomina sacra". If we assume that the LXX pre-existed the New Testament, then the people who composed the New Testament used one of the nomina sacra of the LXX -- for the name of "JOSHUA" to represent the name of "JESUS". Other "nomina sacra" existed for "God" and other terms. These terms were thus never written in full, but were hidden behind the nomina sacra symbolism.

In other words, from the standpoint of High Technology, the names of both Joshua in the LXX and the name of Jesus in the NT were "hidden" in their abbreviated and symbolic forms. Anyone who understood the Greek Language had to also know what the ultimate meanings were behind the abbreviated "nomina sacra" forms.

The explication of these "nomina sacra" thus represented another layer of understanding reserved for the elite.

It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that the name of Jesus was chosen simply because it would match the earlier "nomina sacra" already in use in the LXX for the name of Joshua, the person who continued -- as the story goes - the command of Moses.

Chili · 04-27-2010, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

[It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that the name of Jesus was chosen simply because it would match the earlier "nomina sacra" already in use in the LXX for the name of Joshua, the person who continued -- as the story goes - the command of Moses.

In my opinion Moses was a forerunner of Billy Graham and to them Jesus is special and to some very special. It is what so called 'Christianity' is built upon while in Catholicism he is more like a stepping stone to get into heaven and so is left behind more like a dirty rag before we get there as 'Christian Pete,' for example, who himself is raised. Does that not 'follow me' imply? . . . and did they not crucify him and was that not the best things the Jews ever did to him?

Toto · 04-27-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that the name of Jesus was chosen simply because it would match the earlier "nomina sacra" already in use in the LXX for the name of Joshua, the person who continued -- as the story goes - the command of Moses.

You are completely confused here - the name "Jesus" is identical to the translated name of Joshua, and the LXX preceded the use of nomina sacra. There is no need to drag another of your hobby horses into the discussion.

mountainman · 04-27-2010, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that the name of Jesus was chosen simply because it would match the earlier "nomina sacra" already in use in the LXX for the name of Joshua, the person who continued -- as the story goes - the command of Moses.

You are completely confused here - the name "Jesus" is identical to the translated name of Joshua, and the LXX preceded the use of nomina sacra. There is no need to drag another of your hobby horses into the discussion.

Hello? Hobby horse? Who is confused? Please --- feel free to correct me if I am mistaken here --- but the name of "Jesus" does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and even more remarkably does not appear in any of the earliest manuscripts of the Gnostic material. What actually appears (AFAIK) in the earliest manuscripts is only the abbrevated (ie: nomina sacra) form of the (or "some") name.

The oldest manuscripts of the LXX also use a range of nomina sacra, so I am not sure why you would think that the LXX preceded the use of nomina sacra.

With something akin to a poetic licence, the nomina sacra abbreviation has been interpretted by translators to represent the name of Jesus both in the Greek New Testament and in the Coptic material at Nag Hammadi.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-26-2010, 06:20 AM	#2
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	I think that Joshua in Hebrew has to mean something like Yahweh saves. Andrew Criddle

04-26-2010, 07:14 AM	#3
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Based on the writings of Josephus there is no indication that the name Jesus had any special significance or was given only to those who had accomplished some special act during their lifetime. Jesus was just a common name most probably given at birth. There are no persons in the writings of Josephus whose first name is followed by the title or name Jesus. And further there are other Hebrew names with similar meaning to Jesus which demonstrates that the name Jesus was NOT above all other names. These are the meanings of the names of some of the prophets. See http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/e...ewishNames.htm Daniel m. "God is my judge" Elijah m. "My God is Yahweh." Ezekiel m. "God strengthens." Isaiah m. "Yahweh is salvation." Jeremiah m. "Yahweh has uplifted." Joel m. "Yahweh is god.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.