Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-07-2012, 06:28 PM

It is repeatedly asserted by the Fathers that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, which may either mean the sacred language of the synagogues, or the popular language of Palestine which we now call Aramaic. It should, however, be remembered that Papias, our earliest authority, describes St. Matthew's composition by the word Logia, which seems to point to a list of sacred sayings or " oracles " of our Lord, rather than to a historical narrative. About ad 125, Papias writes : " Matthew then composed the Logia in the Hebrew tongue, and every one interpreted them as he was able." About ad 185, St. Irenaeus writes : " Matthew among the Hebrews published a Gospel in their own language." Origen and Eusebius make similar statements. St. Jerome, in ad 392, writes : " Matthew, also called Levi, who from being a publican became an apostle, first wrote a Gospel of Christ in Judaea, and in Hebrew letters and words for the for the benefit of those of the circumcision who believed. Who afterwards translated it into Greek is not quite certain." We naturally inquire what came of this Hebrew gospel? http://books.google.com/books?id=f6M...ed.%22&f=false

stephan huller · 02-07-2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Are you saying that Ayin is greater than Yesh?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Quote:

Ayin denotes the first sefirah, preexistent and concealed, the source of the sefirot; and Yesh is a title given to the second sefirah, the beginning of emanation. So we find that in the mystical interpretation of creation, "creation of something from nothing" means the emergence of Hokhmah from Keter, ie, the first stage in the process of emanation.48 What is the significance of this divine Ayin (nothing), which according to the definition of one kabbalist is "more substantive (yesh) than all the substances in the world? Why is the most exalted point in the world of the sefirot called "Nothing"? In the Zohar the name is cited several times as a well-known term,50 but without any explanation. Why is the most exalted point in the world of the sefirot called "Nothing"? In the Zohar the name is cited several times as a well-known term,50 but without any explanation. The kabbalist, whom we have just quoted, explains the name as indicating absolute unparalleled simplicity: "Since it is simple, such that all simple things are compound compared with its simplicity, it is called, in contrast to them, 'Nothing.'" Rabbi Moses de Leon quotes the view, found among other kabbalists as well, that "Nothing" indicates that its existence is beyond the limit of perception: "And it is therefore called 'Nothing', that is to say, there is no one who can understand it, and if you were to ask: Is there not here something that man can think about? The answer is 'Nothing'; for whatever we may say, 'Nothing' is something concealed, that no one can grasp. It is in this sense that, in the kabbalah of Gerona, Keter is called "the cessation of thought" (afisat ha-mahashavah)

However, there is a more basic, fundamental significance in this image, bound up with the ontological status, the real essence, of the first sefirah. It occupies a position between two radically different types of being, between the inapprehensible secrecy of En-Sof and the beginning of the manifestation of the emanatory powers, which act and reveal themselves in creation, between "the light that does not exist in light"52 and the luminaries that kindle and give light to others.

In its role as preexistent Will Keter forms the bridge for the transition from En-Sof to emanation, but, on the other hand, in its capacity as "Nothing," it reflects the yawning gulf that exists between these two quite separate areas of existence.[he wisdom of the Zohar: an anthology of texts, Volume 1 p. 280]

Again, we are not to 'believe' in these claims but this shouldn't give us license to ignore an unmistakable testimonial as to an early interpretation of the Genesis account involving yesh(u).

stephan huller · 02-07-2012, 06:57 PM

Andrew Criddle's translation of the excerpts of Theodotus have a section which demonstrate that Ibn Ezra's notions were shared by the early Christians (neshama = πνοὴν ζωῆς):

Quote:

"Taking dust from the earth": not of the land but a portion of matter but of varied constitution and colour, he fashioned a soul, earthly and material, irrational and consubstantial with that of the beasts. This is the man "according to the image." But the man who is "according to the likeness" of the Creator himself, is he whom he has breathed into and inseminated into the former, placing in him by angels something consubstantial with himself. Inasmuch as he is invisible and immaterial, he called his substance" the breath of life," but that which was given form became a "living soul," (πνοὴν ζωῆς) and he himself confesses that it is so in the prophetic writings.

Therefore man is in man, "psychic" in "earthly," not consist*ing as part to part but united as whole to whole by God's un*speakable power. Therefore he was created in Paradise in the fourth heaven. For there earthly flesh does not ascend but it was to the divine soul as material flesh. This is the meaning of "This is now bone of my bones," - he hints at the divine soul which is hidden in the flesh, firm and hard to suffer and very potent, - and "flesh of my flesh" - the material soul which is the body of the divine soul. Concerning these two also, the Saviour says, "That is to be feared which can destroy this soul and this body, the psychic one, in hell." [Ex Theodoto 50,51]

Horatio Parker · 02-07-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Are you saying that Ayin is greater than Yesh?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Quote:

Ayin denotes the first sefirah, preexistent and concealed, the source of the sefirot; and Yesh is a title given to the second sefirah, the beginning of emanation. So we find that in the mystical interpretation of creation, "creation of something from nothing" means the emergence of Hokhmah from Keter, ie, the first stage in the process of emanation.48 What is the significance of this divine Ayin (nothing), which according to the definition of one kabbalist is "more substantive (yesh) than all the substances in the world? Why is the most exalted point in the world of the sefirot called "Nothing"? In the Zohar the name is cited several times as a well-known term,50 but without any explanation. Why is the most exalted point in the world of the sefirot called "Nothing"? In the Zohar the name is cited several times as a well-known term,50 but without any explanation. The kabbalist, whom we have just quoted, explains the name as indicating absolute unparalleled simplicity: "Since it is simple, such that all simple things are compound compared with its simplicity, it is called, in contrast to them, 'Nothing.'" Rabbi Moses de Leon quotes the view, found among other kabbalists as well, that "Nothing" indicates that its existence is beyond the limit of perception: "And it is therefore called 'Nothing', that is to say, there is no one who can understand it, and if you were to ask: Is there not here something that man can think about? The answer is 'Nothing'; for whatever we may say, 'Nothing' is something concealed, that no one can grasp. It is in this sense that, in the kabbalah of Gerona, Keter is called "the cessation of thought" (afisat ha-mahashavah)

However, there is a more basic, fundamental significance in this image, bound up with the ontological status, the real essence, of the first sefirah. It occupies a position between two radically different types of being, between the inapprehensible secrecy of En-Sof and the beginning of the manifestation of the emanatory powers, which act and reveal themselves in creation, between "the light that does not exist in light"52 and the luminaries that kindle and give light to others.

In its role as preexistent Will Keter forms the bridge for the transition from En-Sof to emanation, but, on the other hand, in its capacity as "Nothing," it reflects the yawning gulf that exists between these two quite separate areas of existence.[he wisdom of the Zohar: an anthology of texts, Volume 1 p. 280]

Again, we are not to 'believe' in these claims but this shouldn't give us license to ignore an unmistakable testimonial as to an early interpretation of the Genesis account involving yesh(u).

I'm not ignoring it, I'm trying to understand it. A word that indicates "nothing" is more substantive than all the substances in the world? Sounds like an oxymoron. And there's nothing in there to specify the subordination of the Son to the Father, which was the nub of Nicaea.

stephan huller · 02-07-2012, 07:37 PM

My suggestion, again, is that the actual position of the Arians was that between the Son and the Father was the Father's “substance” (ie the Father was unsubstantial = nothing)

Horatio Parker · 02-07-2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

My suggestion, again, is that the actual position of the Arians was that between the Son and the Father was the Father's “substance” (ie the Father was unsubstantial = nothing)

So the Father's substance is different from the Father, but it is not the Son. What is it?

stephan huller · 02-07-2012, 08:40 PM

It is Wisdom

mountainman · 02-07-2012, 09:01 PM

What does wisdom say about the "Sophia of Jesus" at NHC ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

The gospel HAD TO HAVE BEEN written in Hebrew originally.

Do you happen to have any EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT this "conjecture"?

Origen and other contemporaries accept the holiness of the Hebrew language (cf. Contra Celsum).

This is a slender thread. Arnaldo Momigliano comments about Celsus:

Quote:

" ... it is indeed impossible to be certain that Celsus is
fairly represented by the texts Origen quotes to refute him."

Back to the physical manuscript evidence, how is the absence of Hebrew NT papyri and the predominance of the Greek NT papyri to be explained?

Duvduv · 02-07-2012, 09:04 PM

Probably because no Hebrew NT writings existed.

stephan huller · 02-08-2012, 10:38 AM

Another avenue of approaching the issue of “the divine substance” is to disentangle what the orthodox position (= Athanasius) actually was. Yes, we know it was reactionary (=anti-Arian/native Alexandrian). But that's cool. Let's see how the reconciled the reactionary notion that the Creator and Father shared the same substance with the most primitive Christian core concept that Jesus's nature/essence is “in” the Eucharist.

Interesting it all seems to break down here for the orthodox for we see

He is in everything by his love, but outside of everything by his own nature (De Decretis II)

‘He is outside all things according to his essence’, writes St Athanasius, ‘but he is in all things through his acts of power.” “We know the essence through the energy’, St Basil affirms. ‘No one has ever seen the essence of God, but we believe in the essence because we experience the energy.’ (Ware, *The Orthodox Way

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

02-07-2012, 06:28 PM	#201
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is repeatedly asserted by the Fathers that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, which may either mean the sacred language of the synagogues, or the popular language of Palestine which we now call Aramaic. It should, however, be remembered that Papias, our earliest authority, describes St. Matthew's composition by the word Logia, which seems to point to a list of sacred sayings or " oracles " of our Lord, rather than to a historical narrative. About ad 125, Papias writes : " Matthew then composed the Logia in the Hebrew tongue, and every one interpreted them as he was able." About ad 185, St. Irenaeus writes : " Matthew among the Hebrews published a Gospel in their own language." Origen and Eusebius make similar statements. St. Jerome, in ad 392, writes : " Matthew, also called Levi, who from being a publican became an apostle, first wrote a Gospel of Christ in Judaea, and in Hebrew letters and words for the for the benefit of those of the circumcision who believed. Who afterwards translated it into Greek is not quite certain." We naturally inquire what came of this Hebrew gospel? http://books.google.com/books?id=f6M...ed.%22&f=false

02-07-2012, 07:37 PM	#205
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	My suggestion, again, is that the actual position of the Arians was that between the Son and the Father was the Father's “substance” (ie the Father was unsubstantial = nothing)

02-07-2012, 08:40 PM	#207
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is Wisdom

02-07-2012, 09:04 PM	#209
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Probably because no Hebrew NT writings existed.

02-08-2012, 10:38 AM	#210
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another avenue of approaching the issue of “the divine substance” is to disentangle what the orthodox position (= Athanasius) actually was. Yes, we know it was reactionary (=anti-Arian/native Alexandrian). But that's cool. Let's see how the reconciled the reactionary notion that the Creator and Father shared the same substance with the most primitive Christian core concept that Jesus's nature/essence is “in” the Eucharist. Interesting it all seems to break down here for the orthodox for we see He is in everything by his love, but outside of everything by his own nature (De Decretis II) ‘He is outside all things according to his essence’, writes St Athanasius, ‘but he is in all things through his acts of power.” “We know the essence through the energy’, St Basil affirms. ‘No one has ever seen the essence of God, but we believe in the essence because we experience the energy.’ (Ware, *The Orthodox Way

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.