stephan huller

As [was] the earthly man, so [are] those [who are] of [the] earth; and as [is] the man [from] heaven, so also [are] those [who are] of heaven

Two men, earthly man and the heavenly man who is ΙΣ = אִישׁ

We know אִישׁ is meant here, that it is not forced because the first phrase is borrowed from the Pentateuch. Noah is said to be 'aish ha-adamah,' the earthly man (Gen. 9:20) אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה As such since Paul used this phrase he is clearly speaking of an aish of heaven.

stephan huller

Another proof the Marcionite Jesus is אִישׁ

But if that boundary was capable of being crossed so that also the Stranger crossed it and came down to us, as they say, and the Souls also rent it asunder and ascended, as they falsely state, then (it follows that) a boundary which could be crossed would not be able to prevent the Maker from going up to the Domain of the Stranger. If, therefore, when he was able to go up he was unwilling to trample down the boundary of his Companion, he is a God who is worthy of praise, since even those things which he (i.e., Marcion) has invented, redound (lit., cry out) to his praise. But if he had the will to go up, and the Stranger above allowed him, let them show us why.... And if the Good (Being) was guarding himself, he was verily afraid lest he (i.e., the Maker) should injure him. And how did he who was afraid in his own Domain, come to the Domain of the Maker to struggle with him? And if he guarded his freedom that there should be no Strife and contention between him and his neighbour, let his Heralds be despised who make him quarrelsome and contentious. And if they say that the Maker did not perceive the Stranger, it is unlikely. For how did he not perceive him when he was his neighbour? And if they say that he was far from him, infinitely far, if it was a mountain immeasurable and an endless path, and a vast extent without any limit, then how was that Stranger able to proceed and come down the immeasurable mountain, and (through) a dead region in which there was no living air, and (across) a bitter waste which nothing had ever crossed? And if they make the improbable statement that "the Stranger like a man of war was able to come," well if he came as a man of war-[though he did not come), (take the case of) those weak Souls whom he brought up hence, how were these sickly ones able to travel through all that region which God their Maker and Creator was not able to traverse, as they say?

Exodus 15:3 is one of the most familiar passages reinforcing the Jewish mystical interest in God as אִישׁ The Bahir mentions the אִישׁ of war twice. The first reinforces a tripatrate godhead reminiscent of the early Christians especially Florinus:

'26. Rabbi Amorai said: What is the meaning of the verse (Exodus 15:3), "God is a man (Ish) of war"? Mar Rahumai said to him: Great master, do not ask about something that is so simple. Listen to me and I will advise you. He said to him: What is this like? A king had a number of beautiful dwellings, and he gave each one a name. One was better than the other. He said, "I will give my son this dwelling whose name is Aleph. This one whose name is Yod is also good, as is this one whose name is Shin." What did he do then? He gathered all three together, and out of them he made a single name and a single house. He said: How long will you continue to conceal your meaning? The other replied: My son, Aleph is the head. Yod is second to it. Shin includes all the world.

The second:

Bahir Verse 117. Rabbi Yochanan said: What is the meaning of the verse (Exodus 15:3) , "God (YHVH)is a man (Ish) of war, God (YHVH) is His name"? Man (Ish) indicates a sign. The Targum thus renders, "God is a man of war," as "God is the Master of victory in war." What is this Master? Aleph is the first, the Holy Palace. Do we then say that the Palace is holy? Instead we say, "the Palace of the Holy One."*

stephan huller

The idea that Jesus the Stranger came down "the mountain" connecting earth to heaven is so often repeated in Ephrem אִישׁ has to be a core identity of Jesus in the sect.

stephan huller

One wonders now what Aquila's translation of this passage was. Aquila often transliterates Hebrew words into Greek.

stephan huller

In the original Pauline myth "Man" was seen by the Demiurge and used to (imperfectly) create the earthly man as we see in the Apocryphon of John:

"And a voice came forth from the exalted aeon-heaven: 'The Man exists and the son of Man.' And the chief archon, Yaltabaoth, heard (it) and thought that the voice had come from his mother. And he did not know from where it came. And he taught them, the holy and perfect Mother-Father, the complete foreknowledge, the image of the invisible one who is the Father of the all (and) through whom everything came into being, the first Man. For he revealed his likeness in a human form."And the whole aeon of the chief archon trembled, and the foundations of the abyss shook. And of the waters which are above matter, the underside was illuminated by the appearance of his image which had been revealed. And when all the authorities and the chief archon looked, they saw the whole region of the underside which was illuminated. And through the light they saw the form of the image in the water."And he said to the authorities which attend him, 'Come, let us create a man according to the image of God and according to our likeness, that his image may become a light for us.' And they created by means of their respective powers in correspondence with the characteristics which were given. And each authority supplied a characteristic in the form of the image which he had seen in its natural (form). He created a being according to the likeness of the first, perfect Man. And they said, 'Let us call him Adam, that his name may become a power of light for us.'

Clivedurdle

I like where this is going, but a tiny point of order!

Don't you mean Greek Orthodox? Or is translation into Latin (from Greek or Hebrew or both) causing further complexities and chaos?

DCHindley

If the one who called his name were from Brooklyn, NY, you'd have heard "Hey-youse!"

If the caller were a Greek speaker, he likely said "IS" (pronounced "Ice")because the Christian use of nomina sacra proves that they didn't know how to pronounce it.

But of course that is all nonsense.

outhouse

Thank you

Hypothetically though, I have heard that Yehoshua was a more Galilean dialect of Hebrew. Which brings up the question, what was he called in Aramaic?

I am just curious if Joseph was his real name, what did the man hear when someone called his name? Its my understanding it would be Yehoshua in Galilee with Jerusalem favoring Yeshua.

outhouse

I mean Joshua being his real name.

Sorry brain is fried, to many court docs done today.

stephan huller

I don't know how out of date this source is http://books.google.com/books?id=Hqh...=0CGMQ6AEwCTgU regarding the pronunciation of eta in the Christian era:

It has been the fate of this letter, as writers have remarked, to be the subject of as much controversy as any in the whole alphabet.*Erasmus*and his followers contended, that the*ancients*pronounced*it like what they called long*E*in Latin; by which they meant a sound like o in our word*fate.*The*Modern*Greeks*pronounce it like our*ee; which is the sound given to it by the English, and which we have always been accustomed to give it. As far as respects ourselves, therefore, we have no dispute with the*Modem*Greeks*about this letter. But the writers on the continent of Europe have generally considered that pronunciation as erroneous; it will, therefore, be necessary, to notice briefly the grounds, upon which the two modes are defended.That this letter at one period had a sound differing in some respects from that, which it now has in Greece, must be inferred from the description given of it by Dionysius of Halicaruassus, which is different from his description of the sound ofIota;*and this latter indisputably had the sound of long*e*(or*ee)*in our language. In the Herculanean manuscripts too, the*n*is sometimes used by the copvist, through mistake, instead of*Epsilon.*But there is also a great mass of evidence tending to show, that about the commencement of the Christian era or not long afterwards, the*n*and*i were both*pronounced*alike; and, if we can*ascertain the pronunciation of the language as far back as that period, it will be sufficiently near the classic ages of Greece, to satisfy the most fastidious ear of*foreigners,*as we are in respect to the language. The arguments on both sides of the question respecting the*n,*are very minutely stated (from various authors but not without remarks of his own) byVelastus,*a Greek monk of the island of*Chios,*in the*Dissertation*to which I have before referred, and in which upwards of thirty quarto pages are devoted to this letter alone.* I shall here only give a very general view of the reasoning on the subject; and, in doing this, it will be necessary for the present to assume as true, that the diphthongtt*had*the*same*sound*with*the*t*j which, by the aid of the*Jlerculanean*Manuscripts,*in addition to the ancient monuments heretofore discovered, may now be proved beyond a doubt to have been the case.