stephan huller

I have been thinking about this for about twenty years. Why do Ephrem and the Deir Ali inscription tell us that the Greek name for the Marcionite god was Isu? Ephrem's wording in Syriac makes clear the Marcionites did not call him Ishu as did the Jews and orthodox Syrian Christians. But no one seems to know where this form yeshu comes from either. If Jesus was a living man one would have expected the form of his name to be Joshua. Yeshu is a totally unexpected form of the name of the successor to Moses.

I think I have finally pieced together the Marcionite name. I think it was yod-sin(not shin)-alef-vav and it comes from the root nasa which means “to bear” or “to lift up.” What has started to convince me this is the original name of Jesus is:

a) the presence of the letter sin rather than shin
b) the use of Psalm 91:12 in Luke 4:11
c) the existence of a sect called the “Nassenes” (or Ophites) who are implausibly identified as snake-worshippers
d) the fact that nasa might also be the root behind the term “Essene” too (a term from Josephus that has never been explained)
e) the importance of the concept of “bearing” God, Jesus, the name, testimony etc in the early Church as well as God, Jesus, the name being “lifted up” not only in his own person but in the form of countless “witnesses”

I think the Marcionite name Isu (Isau) means “they shall bear/lift up”

Duvduv

Why doesn't it simply correspond to the Hebrew YESHU? In Arabic the SH in Hebrew often became an S, as Moshe became Musa and Shlomo became Suleyman.

stephan huller

But not in Syriac or Aramaic. Ephrem cites both the form Ishu (Isho) and Isu so it is clear the Marcionite name was somehow different. The Manichaeans used the same form as the orthodox.

Duvduv

It sounds close to Yeshu to me. In Hebrew the word for woman is ISHA and the plural is NASHIM. I don't know why it is irregular, but in Arabic the plural is NISA I think. The plural of person in Hebrew is ANASHIM, and in Arabic NAS.

stephan huller

Why would Arabic figure into any of this?

Duvduv

Because Arabic is related to Aramaic and has alot of similarities.

stephan huller

Arabic cannot explain linguistic features of second century Christianity

stephan huller

The closest Irenaeus gets to explaining what the different name for Jesus that at least some of the heretics (possibly Marcionites) held to:

DCHindley

I thought it might help the folks who manage to wade through all of Stephan's prose to see the likely source for this fascination of 20 years:

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations Of Mani, Marcion, And Bardaisan, Volume I, The Discourses Addressed To Hypatius (C. W. Mitchell, 1912)

THE THIRD DISCOURSE AGAINST THE TEACHINGS
But if he is the same person who is above the heavens and below them, it is clear that the place of his possessions is the same, and in the midst of it are collected those Souls whom ISU [footnote: I.e., Ἱησοῦς according to the Marcionite transliteration] brought up hence. [vol i, pg li, this translation and footnote by Mitchell himself]

S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations Of Mani, Marcion, And Bardaisan, Volume II, The Discourse Called 'Of Domnus' And Six Other Writings (C. W. Mitchell and completed by A. A. Bevan and F. C. Burkitt, 1921)

AGAINST MARCION I
Footnote: It is clear from these treatises that this transliteration of the Greek Ἱησοῦς [ISU] must have been used by the Syriac-speaking Marcionites, but it is not preserved elsewhere in extant Syriac literature, the genuine Semitic form Yeshu' or 'Isho' (i.e. Joshua) being found without exception. [vol ii, pg xxix]

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
The most striking new fact about Marcionite usage brought out by these treatises is that the Syriac-speaking Marcionites used a different transliteration of the name ' Jesus ' from the orthodox. The ordinary Syriac for ' Jesus ' is [E-WAH-SHIN-YUD] (pronounced 'Isho' by Nestorians but Yeshu' by Jacobites), which is simply the Syriac form of the Old Testament name Joshua. [footnote: No distinction is made in the Syriac Old Testament between the various spellings of the name Joshua in Hebrew (Yehoahtia', Yeshua').] This form [E-WAH-SHIN-YUD] was used not only by the orthodox, but also by the Manichees.

It was therefore a surprise to find that Ephraim in arguing against Marcionites, and certainly in part quoting from their books or sayings, uses the form [WAH-SEMKATH-YUD], a direct transcription of the Greek [Ἱησοῦ] (or [Ἱησοῦς]). As it is always written [WAH-SEMKATH-YUD], never [WAH-SEMKATH-YUD-ALPHA], I suppose the pronunciation intended is IESU rather than ISU, but I have retained Mitchell's ISU (vol. i. p. li), not only for uniformity but also because it was desirable to emphasise the strangeness of the form [WAH-SEMKATH-YUD]. [Vol ii, pg cxviii, essay by editor F. C. Burkitt, as vol. ii including translation was published posthumously from Mitchell’s notes and papers. Note that Syriac letter by letter transliterations are to be read right to left, and are from D Mahar, http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/ES-intro.htm Syriac SEMKATH = Hebrew SAMEKH, Hebrew SIN/SHIN = Syriac SHIN, which Mahar had transliterated SHEM, and I changed to Shin above]

You can judge for yourself whether Stephan's exposition makes sense as it stands. It seems quite confused to me. [Hint ... take your medicine please.]

DCH

stephan huller

Isu means absolutely nothing in any Semitic language. Ephrem could read Greek and references the contents of the Greek text of the gospels frequently in his Commentary on the Diatessaron. Ephrem couldn't have found the use of the Greek name Jesus heretical or strange. There must be something else at work here. Was Ephrem referencing the signs posted outside of Marcionite synagogues (ie the one at Deir Ali)?

And why are you always so crabby David? Why not scrounge up a few bucks and get laid? My threads are typically developed from asking questions (which apparently annoys you). No one else has solved the origins of the Marcionite Isu. What's the harm in taking another crack at it? I was actually hoping to generate a discussion. Unthinkable I know ...