stephan huller

But the numerology here is completely wrong. You can't get the 318 associated with the name 'Eliezar' unless you add the episemon as the sixth letter adding one to eta (= 7) and iota (= 9):



But if you do that then the three hundred has to be sigma not tau. There is something totally corrupt in the manuscripts - unless the sigma can be conceived somehow as being 'the Lord's sign' and 'shape.'

The answer is that Clement was originally saying that Jesus (= IES) was Eliezar and the later editor changed this. I don't see how this is possible. It's so basic but I can't get the numbers to work any other way.

andrewcriddle

tau is standard for 300 iota for 10 and eta for 8 see Greek_numerals

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

But I think its Marcosian adding the sixth letter. It becomes like the Hebrew values shin 300 tav 400. What Clement says now is senseless. IES makes more sense and is heretical (ie equating jesus with Abraham's hidden angel). Please explain Clement's point now

andrewcriddle

Clement is paralleled by Barnabas Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Yes I am aware of Barnabas and the system where 200 = sigma (you can't make Iesous equal 888 without it). I was adding digamma or episemon as 6 making the 7th and 9th letters have a value of 8 and 10 respectively and a koppa (= 90) to make sigma go from being the 18th letter to the 20th (= 300). My error.

spin

What shape is the type of the lord's sign? The number 318 is conceived of as two separate data, the sign and the name. The iota and eta are indications of the name. The tau is the shape of the sign.

Toto

So Christian Mingle is owned by the same people who run JDate? That explains why I get spam from both of them.

DCHindley

Where did you get the Eliezar thingy in the first place? Have I been - again - ignoring another important thread? :shrug:

Perhaps it would be amusing to pass along an observation of my dear friend and colleague F C Burkitt, that I heard while attending, in spirit, the second Easter Term meeting of the Cambridge Philological Society at Dr Sandy's house on Queens Road, on, I believe, June 14th, 1898. The President, Prof. Ridgeway (or "Dubya" as I call him), requested Dr Burkitt digress on a matter brought up in the paper he read on "The Chronology of Book of Jubilees and of the so-called Assumption of Moses." I summarize what I recall from my stereographic memory thus:

In chap. ix 1 of the 'Assumption of Moses' a passage evidently referring to the events of 1 Macc. ii 29—38, Moses prophesies that a man of the tribe of Levi, whose name will be Taxo, will lead his seven sons out of the wilderness to die rather than submit to the pollutions of the heathen. The interpretation of this name is the crux of the book. Many solutions have been given, which are enumerated in R. H. Charles' edition of the Assumption, pp. 35, 36. Mr Charles remarks that the author may have been thinking of Eleazar, the aged priest who was martyred by Autiochus just before the woman and her seven sons. This name would suit the passage, and we know from the Gospels that Eleazar (or in the Greek form Lazarus) was an appropriate name to give the representative of the poor but pious Israelite. What has hitherto escaped observation is that 'Taxo' itself, when put back into the original language of the book, is nothing more than a slightly corrupted cipher for Eleazar. I conjecture that for Taxo•qui we should read Taxoc•qui. The letter may have fallen out in the Latin of the 'Assumption' as in ore for orbe (xii 4), or in the underlying Greek as in ὅρον for ὅρκον (ii 7). Now TAXOC in the Latin implies ταξωκ in the Greek, and this in turn implies חכסוק in the Semitic original. This word means nothing as it stands, but if we take in each case the next letter of the Semitic alphabet, e.g. B for A, M for L, etc., we get אלעזר Eleazar, the very name which of all others is acknowledged to be the most appropriate.

DCH, signing off from deep in space ...

stephan huller

I was extremely tired when I wrote this. My 6 year old wanted water and I couldn't go back to sleep. Believe it or not, I counted the iota as 10 but when I got to sigma I counted it as 200 thinking that iota was the first 100. Then I added the koppa. Brain no work good.

Vorkosigan

The woman who marries seven brothers in the gospels..an allegory/reference to this?.