Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 07-05-2013, 02:56 PM

There is a tendency in modern Judaism to 'psychoanalyze' the narrative. Nevertheless 'Ish' appears as a 'higher Self' figure.

http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/f...a4bcf887a.html

stephan huller · 07-05-2013, 03:14 PM

Listen carefully to the argument of Tertullian in Against Praxeas - Jesus is the ish in Genesis 32:

Quote:

Once more, we have the support, in our vindication of the duality of the Father and the Son, of that rule which has defined God as invisible. For when Moses in Egypt had expressed a desire for the sight of God, saying, If therefore I have found grace in thy sight shew thyself to me that I may knowledgeably see thee,6 said, Thou canst not see my face, for a man will not see my . face and live - that is, he who, sees it will die. For we find that God was seen, even by many, yet that none of those who had seen him died-that God was seen, of course, according to men's capacity, not according to the fulness of his divinity. For patriarchs are related to have seen God, as Abraham and Jacob, and prophets, as Isaiah, as Ezekiel, yet they did not die. Therefore they either ought to have died, if they had seen him - for no man will see God and live: or, if they saw God and did not die, the scripture says falsely that God said, If a man sees my face he shall not live 2: or else the scripture speaks falsely when it alleges that God was seen. So then it will be another who was seen, for it is impossible for the same one who was seen, to be characterised as invisible: and it will follow that we must understand the Father as invisible because of the fulness of his majesty, but must acknow- ledge the Son as visible because of the enumeration of his deriva- tion, just as we may not look upon the sun in respect of the total of its substance which is in the sky, though we can with our eyes bear its beam because of the moderation of the assignment which from thence reaches out to the earth. Here one of our adversaries will wish to contend that the Son also is invisible as Word and as Spirit, and, maintaining that the Father and the Son are in like case, to affirm rather that Father and Son are one and the same. But we have deposed that the scripture, by its distinguishing of visible and invisible, advocates a difference. For they also add this to their quibbling, that if on that occasion it was the Son speaking toMoses3 he pronounced his own face visible to no man, because of course he was the invisible Father himself under the name of Son. And consequently they wish the visible one and the invisible one to be taken as identical, in the same way as < they wish> Father and Son identical, because also a little earlier, before he refused Moses < the sight of> his face, it is written that the Lord spake to Moses face to face as a man speaks to his friend, 4 and furthermore that Jacob says, I have seen the Lord face to face 5: consequently the same one is visible and invisible: and because the same one has both attributes, therefore also the invisible Father is himself visible, as being also Son. As though the explanation of the scripture which we offer did not, leaving the Father out of question, befit the Son in his own visibility. For we say that the Son also on his own account is, as Word and Spirit, invisible even now by the quality of his substance; but that he was visible before the incarnation in the manner in which he says to Aaron and Miriam, Although there be a prophet among you, I shall become known to him in a vision and shall speak to him in a dream; not as with my servant Moses shall I speak to him mouth to mouth in manifestation 1 - that is, in truth - and not in an enigma - that is, not in imagination: as also says the apostle, Now we see as in a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face. Therefore since for Moses he reserves for the future the sight of himself and conversation with himself face to face (for this was fulfilled afterwards when he withdrew into a mountain, as we read in the Gospel that Moses was seen talking with him),3 it is clear that always aforetime God - that is, the Son of God - was seen in a mirror and an enigma and a vision and a dream, both by prophets and patriarchs and Moses himself till that time: and if perchance the Lord did speak in visual presence, yet a man would not see his face as he really is, but only perchance in a mirror and in an enigma. Lastly, if the Lord spoke to Moses in such sort that Moses knew his face from near to, why does he immediately at the same moment ask to see his face, which if he had seen he would not ask to see? Equally, why does the Lord deny that his face can be seen,4 though he had let him see it, if indeed he had let him see it? Or what face of God is that, the sight of which is refused? If there was which was seen - I have seen, says Jacob, God face to face and my life is preserved - there must be another face which slays if it is seen. Or is it that the Son indeed was seen - albeit in face, yet even this in a vision and a dream and a mirror and an enigma, because Word and Spirit cannot be seen except in imaginary aspect - yet by his face he means the invisible Father? For who is the Father? Shall he be the Son's face, on account of the authority which he obtains as, begotten of the Father? For is it not of some greater personage that it befits one to say, " That man is my face", or " He gives me face" ? [Against Praxeas 14]

Davka · 07-05-2013, 04:01 PM

Two questions:

1) I've always been taught that the difference in pronunciation between 'sin' and 'shin' depends on the diacritical marks, not the context within the surrounding letters. By this rule, איש could be pronounced either 'ees' or 'eesh,' depending on the placement of the diacritic over the letter:

How do you reconcile this with the text quoted above, " ‘man’ is written with three letters aleph, iod, sin (so that it is pronounced is)"?

2) The phrase "son of man" appears in numerous places in the Tanakh, and seems to my untrained eye be pretty straightforward in meaning: male human child. What historical evidence exists to suggest that this is a reference to the son of a god named "man"?

ETA: I understand the Rabbinical references to the "ish" who appears many times in Genesis (to talk with Abram, or to wrestle with Jacob, for example), it's specifically the "son of man" phrase that has my brain itching.

arnoldo · 07-05-2013, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Right but the Dialogue doesn't exist in its original form. It was re-edited at the end of the second century

http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.co...s-were-re.html

So the bottom line is - take the Dialogue with a grain of salt.

Justin Martyr's silence on the writing of Paul was puzzling to me until I considered Marcion's alleged prioritization of Paul's writings over the gospels. If Justin's opponents were using Paul's writings against the emerging proto-orthodox church then it could explain Justin's reticence against citing any of Paul's writings. However, if indeed Justin Martyr's writings were re-edited at a later date then perhaps another explanation is in order.

Another possibility concerning Marcion is that he at one time led a small christian congregation in Palestine. According to Hermann Detering , Lucian satirized Marcion in his Passing of Peregrinus. If Detering is right then the following quote concerning “Proteus” is actually about Marcion.

Quote:

“It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm

stephan huller · 07-05-2013, 04:46 PM

Even Detering likes my solution better - Proteus = Polycarp

stephan huller · 07-05-2013, 04:58 PM

I have always had two minds on Justin's silence:

1. Justin rejected Paul
2. Justin thought Paul was so sacred and so went unmentioned (= secret)

stephan huller · 07-05-2013, 04:59 PM

Quote:

By this rule, איש could be pronounced either 'ees' or 'eesh,' depending on the placement of the diacritic over the letter

No, only eesh. The Samaritans don't distinguish between shin and sin because as they note, there is no letter sin in ancient Hebrew. This allows for the possibility then that the word yashar could be the root of Israel (qv. Jerome etc above). In Jewish Hebrew this is an impossibility (as yashar, Jeshurun have one sound and Israel has the other).

Davka · 07-05-2013, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

By this rule, איש could be pronounced either 'ees' or 'eesh,' depending on the placement of the diacritic over the letter

No, only eesh. The Samaritans don't distinguish between shin and sin because as they note, there is no letter sin in ancient Hebrew. This allows for the possibility then that the word yashar could be the root of Israel (qv. Jerome etc above). In Jewish Hebrew this is an impossibility (as yashar, Jeshurun have one sound and Israel has the other).

Interesting. Yashar makes perfect sense as the root. And I didn't know about the sin being missing in ancient Hebrew, so I learned something!

Thanks.

stephan huller · 07-05-2013, 07:39 PM

I don't know if yashar really is the root. Just what people say

stephan huller · 07-05-2013, 08:39 PM

I am beginning to wonder if איש on its own in Genesis 32 and other verses takes on the sense of the being as anonymous 'stranger' - a la the (indirect) descriptions of the Marcionite divinity in the Church Fathers.

In a sentence in Hebrew, if you simply identify an איש as the actor you are essentially saying 'the stranger' as we read:

Quote:

And he said to his daughters and where ... why is it that you have left the איש behind (i.e. Mooshe = Samaritan 'Moses')? Invite him to have bread to eat. And Mooshe was willing to dwell with the man. And he gave his daughter Seebbooraa to Mooshe as wife. And she bore a son, and he named him Girshaam.[Ex 2:19 - 21]

The Samaritan commentary on this verse by my friend Benny is enlightening:

Quote:

איש - This verse hints that Mooshe was considered almost like an angel by Yitroo when Mooshe saved the women from being harmed.

Could it be that the Marcionite god was called 'the Stranger' merely because his name איש is inherently ambiguous and 'strange'?

http://books.google.com/books?id=-wn...%27ish&f=false

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

07-05-2013, 02:56 PM	#41
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There is a tendency in modern Judaism to 'psychoanalyze' the narrative. Nevertheless 'Ish' appears as a 'higher Self' figure. http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/f...a4bcf887a.html

07-05-2013, 04:01 PM	#43
Davka Contributor Join Date: May 2010 Location: Babble Belt Posts: 20,748	Two questions: 1) I've always been taught that the difference in pronunciation between 'sin' and 'shin' depends on the diacritical marks, not the context within the surrounding letters. By this rule, איש could be pronounced either 'ees' or 'eesh,' depending on the placement of the diacritic over the letter: How do you reconcile this with the text quoted above, " ‘man’ is written with three letters aleph, iod, sin (so that it is pronounced is)"? 2) The phrase "son of man" appears in numerous places in the Tanakh, and seems to my untrained eye be pretty straightforward in meaning: male human child. What historical evidence exists to suggest that this is a reference to the son of a god named "man"? ETA: I understand the Rabbinical references to the "ish" who appears many times in Genesis (to talk with Abram, or to wrestle with Jacob, for example), it's specifically the "son of man" phrase that has my brain itching.

07-05-2013, 04:46 PM	#45
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Even Detering likes my solution better - Proteus = Polycarp

07-05-2013, 04:58 PM	#46
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have always had two minds on Justin's silence: 1. Justin rejected Paul 2. Justin thought Paul was so sacred and so went unmentioned (= secret)

07-05-2013, 07:39 PM	#49
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't know if yashar really is the root. Just what people say

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.