Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

There are others who have read the Sarah passage as involving an angelic insemination - https://books.google.com/books?id=EyEzE ... am&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

There are others who have read the Sarah passage as involving an angelic insemination - https://books.google.com/books?id=EyEzE ... am&f=false

Another claim:
Furthermore, the Hebrew verb used for God's intervention in such cases is pakad, as in va-adonai pakad et Sarah—a word that can be translated either as “remembered” or “visited,” and that in the post-biblical Hebrew of the early Christian era even has the occasional sense of “had sexual intercourse with. https://books.google.com/books?id=EogUC ... gQ6AEIKjAA
Paqad in 2 Kings 5:24 has the sense of 'deposited':
them from their hand and deposited (וַיִּפְקֹ֣ד) them in the house,
Isaiah 10:28:
At Michmash he deposited (יַפְקִ֥יד) his baggage.
Jeremiah 36:20:
in the court, but they had deposited (הִפְקִ֔דוּ) the scroll
The original passage Genesis 21:1:
Now the Lord visited (פָּקַ֥ד) Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah what he had promised. 2 Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him.
In Aramaic פקד clearly means 'to deposit' in various instances:

1 to deposit OfAEg, JPAEpig, Sam, JBA, LJLA. TAD B2.9 R.7 : איתי זי בפקד[ן] הפקדו ‏ . BT BM 42a(47) : ההוא גברא דאפקיד זוזי גבי חבריה ‏ a certain man who deposited money with another.

2 to be deposited Gal, PTA. PTKet30.d:50[2] : ר׳ יסא איתפקד גביה מדל דיתמין ‏ property of orphans was deposited with PN.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

It would seem an academic has done all the hard work for us. This is a well-established interpretation of the passage:

https://thetorah.com/isaacs-divine-conception/

Citing Galatians 4:22
…It is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 4:23 One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise.
In explaining Paul’s exegesis, Daniel Boyarin writes:
It should be noted that in the biblical text, it is not stated that Abraham “knew Sarah his wife” after the “annunciation.” There may have even been, then, a tradition that the conception of Isaac was entirely by means of the promise… The point would be that Hagar had sex with a man in order to conceive, but Sarah did not!
And Philo:
Isaac represents joy (his name means “laughter”), because he is one with the power behind the universe. This is because Isaac is actually God’s son and not Abraham’s:

[W]hen happiness, that is Isaac, was born, she says, in the pious exaltation, “The Lord has caused me laughter, and whoever shall hear of it shall rejoice with Me.” Open your ears, therefore, O ye initiated, and receive the most sacred mysteries. Laughter is joy; and the expression, “has caused,” is equivalent to “has begotten.” So that what is here said has some such meaning as this, “The Lord has begotten Isaac.” (Allegorical Laws, 3:219, Yonge trans.)

And I will bring forward as a competent witness in proof of what I have said, the most holy Moses. For he introduces Sarah as conceiving a son when God beheld her by himself; but he represents her as bringing forth her son, not to him who beheld her then, but to him who was eager to attain to wisdom, and his name is called Abraham. (On the Cherubs, 45, Yonge trans.)

In one passage (On the Change of Names, 131), Philo even calls Isaac “God’s son” (υἱὸς θεοῦ). Howard Schwartz, a scholar of Bible and Jewish thought, explains Philo’s exegesis:

How does Philo arrive at this explanation? He interprets Sarah’s comment that “God has caused me laughter” (Gen. 21:6) to mean that the Lord has begotten Isaac. He interprets “has caused” to mean “begotten,” and he substitutes Isaac for “laughter,” since “Isaac” means “laughter,” referring to Sarah’s laughter in Genesis 18:12, when the angel said that she would have a child even though Sarah was 90 years old.[12]
So it would appear that the angel was having sex with women (like the giants) from the beginning:
When Eve names Cain (Gen 4:1), she explains his name by saying “I have created a man with YHWH”[9](קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת יְ-הוָה).

The children of God (בני אלוהים) are said to have propagated with women and produced giants (Gen 6:1-4).

The Second Temple works, 1 Enoch (106) and Genesis Apocryphon (col. 2) both describe how Noah’s father, Lamech, was worried that Noah was the product of a divine being and not his own son.

Samson seems to be the product of a union between Manoach’s wife and a visiting angel.[10]
Interestingly Yahweh's protection of Cain can now be read as 'fatherly concern' for his son. We seem to be making some progress ...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

It is worth noting that if Eve had sex with Yahweh to make Cain and announces this with her words “I have created אִ֥ישׁ by YHWH” then it is possible that the אִ֥ישׁ who mysteriously appears in the margins of the Pentateuch is Cain because Cain is never recorded as dying in the Pentateuch:

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... the-bible/

Note that early Christians seem to have identified Jesus with Cain:
Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by perseusomega9 »

This is what happens when you live in a desert, have no TV, and only one book to read over and over
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

But I wonder ...

The Jews think they are a special people and the Patriarchs are special ancestors. The idea that the ancient Israelites were semi-divine makes some intuitive sense. It makes Jesus being born from a virgin - the first known model for explaining his origins outside of being wholly divine - somewhat sensible. It also seems to fit the cultural milieu where the Emperors were divine and even Commodus's identification as Hercules. It also helps contextualize the interest in Jesus or if you will - ΙΣ. I've always wondered about why everyone seems to have been so into this strange anthropomorphic god who visits mankind. Yes Commodus loved Hercules. But Hercules is clearly presented as a myth or a historical figure from A LONG time ago. The idea that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua and Moses interacted with this anthropomorphic god is one thing too. But the idea that the priesthood might have descended from angels is new and interesting.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

The idea seems to be - this angel (= Jesus) used to have sexy times with women but then disappeared. Even by the time of Moses he stopped his antics. So when he appears in the burning bush he has to clarify who he is exactly. I assume the lack of sexy times has something to do with 'sinfulness' among the descendants of Abraham. The descendants of the twelve patriarchs presumably still had bits of the 'divine DNA.' But finally, the gospel tells us, this 'Jesus' (ΙΣ) taught humanity how to become divine WITHOUT sexy times. Also, as another thought, if the angel ΙΣ had sexy times with Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah etc then at least some portion of humanity have him rather than Adam as their 'Father.' Could that be the origin of the 'Father' god?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

An important ΙΣ = אִ֥ישׁ proof. It is uncanny the way that Philo agrees with our identification of an angel/god inseminating the wives of the Patriarchs corresponding with אִ֥ישׁ allusions in the Hebrew text cited above:
He used allegory to demonstrate that the patriarchs were begotten through the instrumentality of God. Thus, according to Philo, God caused the births of certain biblical personalities (to their respective non-virgin mother) without the biological assistance of human fathers. In this way, Philo explains the birth of Isaac from Sarah,10 Reuben from Leah,11 Jacob and Esau from Rebecca,12 and Gershom from Zipporah.13 He makes no such claim concerning Immanuel. Philo considered the state of a woman passed the age of child-bearing as comparable to virginity: “Some are always virgins, and some from having been women become changed into virgins.” https://books.google.com/books?id=5wN-d ... 22&f=false
I think I have surprisingly stumbled across the best proof for ΙΣ = Jesus or at least אִ֥ישׁ as a divine being who was referenced as ΙΣ in the writings of the Church Fathers and identified as 'appearing' in the Pentateuch narrative. It seems certain that Jews read the Pentateuch as if it said that God inseminated the wives of the Patriarchs.

I never thought I would find 'proof' of this phenomenon. I just thought it was a nutty idea, a 'possibility.' I never thought of looking at the אִ֥ישׁ passages which dealt with sexual relations with women. I took אִ֥ישׁ = man here. Boy was I wrong ...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

Genesis 1:5 קָ֣רָא (x2) = 301 = אֵ֖שׁ. And God called (וַיִּקְרָא) the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. See the parallel concept in the Targumim of the word of the Lord. It is worth noting that the founder of Samaritanism c. 2nd century CE took an interest in QARA as something like the creative word in Philo: "The mouth of the Divine One and that of the prophetic one were alike. We have seen a word which the True One wrote— BARA. What is its meaning? He wrote In the beginning ... created (BARA) (Gen. 1.1 ) , and Moses at his beginning said, "For in the name" (Deut. xxxii. 3). BARA was said because the True One there planned and created by His will, and Moses said in his great knowledge, QARA (= "will proclaim" (bid.), just like the word BARA Genesis comprises the six days and all the commandments that were written in the law. Praise be to the Lord of the world who endures alone and never changes!" The commentary here is on the Great Song of Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 32 where the word QARA is mentioned. QARA as we have seen is also mentioned alongside BARA in chapter 1 of Genesis where Marqah clearly ascribes to it some sort of creative power.
Genesis 1:8 קָ֣רָא And God called (קָרָא) the firmament Heaven.
Genesis 1:10 קָ֣רָא (x2) = 301 = אֵ֖שׁ. And God called (וַיִּקְרָא) the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called (קָרָא) He Seas.
Genesis 1:26, 27 (neither MT nor SP presently reads 'Eesh' for Primal Man but likely to have been so at Qumran). Philo's text of the Pentateuch clearly has 'Adam' first appear at Genesis 2:16. For in his commentary on this section of Genesis chapter 2 Philo writes "A question may arise here to what kind of Adam he gave this command and who, this Adam was. For Moses has not made any mention of him before; but now is the first time that he has named him. Are we then to think that he is desirous to supply you with the name of the factitious man? "And he calls him," continues Moses, "Earth." For this is the interpretation of the name of Adam. Accordingly, when you hear the name Adam, you must think that he is an earthly and perishable being; for he is made according to an image, being not earthly but heavenly." Philo makes the presence of ish implicit when he writes in Allegorical Interpretation 1.31 "The races of men are twofold; for one is the heavenly man, and the other the earthly man. Now the heavenly man, as being born in the image of God, has no participation in any corruptible or earthlike essence. But the earthly man is made of loose material, which he calls a lump of clay. On which account he says, not that the heavenly man was made, but that he was fashioned according to the image of God; but the earthly man he calls a thing made, and not begotten by the maker." It would be hard to imagine that the Hebrew text would have read 'Adam' for the name of the non-earthly man, if 'two men' in each of the two first chapters of Genesis. On the first man being spiritual rather than earthly we read in the same work 33 "But some one may ask, why God thought an earth-born mind, which was wholly devoted to the body, worthy of divine inspiration, and yet did not treat the one made after his own idea and image in the same manner." Indeed our LXX (not the same as Philo's) has ἄνθρωπον in 1:27. In Confusion of Tongues 146 "And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel. For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, "We are all one man's Sons." (Gen 42:11) For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word." As we know, for Philo 'he who sees Israel' = ish + ra + el. But Philo is very elusive about the exact nature of this relationship between (a) God (b) the Word and (c) 'man.' Rather than allowing for the explicit confirmation that God is anthropomorphic a complex relationship is hinted at where the divine Word is made after the image of the ultimate God but that the soul of man is formed after the impression of the divine word. So in Noah 19 "but the great Moses has not named the species of the rational soul by a title resembling that of any created being, but has pronounced it an image of the divine and invisible being, making it a coin as it were of sterling metal, stamped and impressed with the seal of God, the impression of which is the eternal word. For, says Moses, "God breathed into man's face the breath of Life," (Gen 2.7) so that it follows of necessity, that he that received the breath must be fashioned after the model of him who sent it forth. On which account it is said too, that "Man was made after the image of God," and not after the image of any created being." A little more light is given in a second passage from the same work where he acknowledges that there are two men - the divine Word and Adam, the former being equated with the tree of life "And Moses also speaks very carefully, not representing the man who was made after God's own image, but the man who was formed of clay, as the one who was placed in the paradise. For the one who was made after the image of God, and stamped with the truth of God, does, as it appears to me, in no respect differ from the tree which bore as its fruit everlasting life. For they are both imperishable, and have both been thought worthy of the most central position in the dominant part of man. For it is said that "the tree of life is in the midst of the Paradise." But the other man, he of the composite and more earthly body, who has no justification in uncreated and simple nature, the cultivator of which is the only person who knows how to dwell in the house and in the courts of the Lord. For Jacob is represented "as a plain man dwelling in a House," (Gen 25:27) where the expression, however, is "dwelling in tents." having a disposition full of ingenuity, and compounded and made up of all kinds of materials. It was natural therefore to place and firmly root the mind in the middle of the paradise, that is, of the universal world, having in itself faculties which draw it in contrary directions, so that it should be kept in a state of doubt when called upon to discriminate as to what it should choose and what it should avoid, since if it chose the better part it would reap immortality and glory; and if it chose the worse it would meet with reproach and death." To this end, Philo confirms that the 'man' of Genesis 1:27 is not 'Adam' but Ish (given the consistent identification of ish as the angelic counterpart of God elsewhere in his writings. Moreover this in part explains why 'the tree of life' in Genesis 2.9 is also deemed to be an ish reference - "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." In Special Laws 1:88 the link between the high priest (= mortal man) and the Ish (= the divine Logos) is again reinforced "For if it was necessary to examine the mortal body of the priest that it ought not be imperfect through any misfortune, much more was it necessary to look into his immortal soul, which they say is fashioned in the form of the living God. Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made." The connection with 'the spiritual man' is seen in the same treatise 171 "Moreover, the most fragrant of all incenses are offered up twice every day in the fire, being burnt within the veil, both when the sun rises and sets, before the morning and after the evening sacrifice, so that the sacrifices of blood display our gratitude for ourselves as being composed of blood, but the offerings of incense show our thankfulness for the dominant part within us, our rational spirit, which was fashioned after the archetypal model of the divine image." Same work book 3.83 "there is nothing more holy in appearance, nor more godlike than man, the all-beautiful copy of an all-beautiful model, a representation admirably made after an archetypal rational idea." On the different characteristics ascribed to each 'man' - Allegorical 1:92 "A command indeed is given to man, but not to the man created according to the image and idea of God; for that being is possessed of virtue without any need of exhortation, by his own instinctive nature, but this other would not have wisdom if it had not been taught to him" Perhaps most interesting of all is this little tidbit Philo says in Book 2 of the Allegorical Interpretation "But it is not good for any man to be alone. For there are two kinds of men, the one made according to the image of God, the other fashioned out of the earth; for it longs for its own likeness. For the image of God is the antitype of all other things, and every imitation aims at this of which it is the imitation, and is placed in the same class with it. And it is not good for either the man, who was made according to the image of God, to be alone: nor is it any more desirable for the factitious man to be alone, and indeed it is impossible. " This seems to align with the longing that the youth feels for 'Jesus' in the Secret Mark fragment found at Mar Saba. "But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. " This would seem to be the most explicit confirmation of the ΙΣ = אִישֵׁ paradigm. Note the very same idea has been transferred to Clement. In Paedagogue 1.3 "What, then, was fashioned by Him, and after He likeness, either was created by God Himself as being desirable on its own account, or was formed as being desirable on account of something else. 'If, then, man is an object desirable for itself, then He who is good loved what is good, and the love-charm is within even in man, and is that very thing which is called the inspiration [or breath of God; but if man was a desirable object on account of something else, God had no other reason for creating him, than that unless he came into being, it was not possible for God to be a good Creator, or for man to arrive at the knowledge of God. For God would not have accomplished that on account of which man was created otherwise than by the creation of man; and what hidden power in willing God possessed, He carried fully out by the forth-putting of His might externally in the act of creating, receiving from man what He made man; and whom He had He saw, and what He wished that came to pass; and there is nothing which God cannot do. Man, then, whom God made, is desirable for himself, and that which is desirable on his account is allied to him to whom it is desirable on his account; and this, too, is acceptable and liked. But what is loveable, and is not also loved by Him? And man has been proved to be loveable; consequently man is loved by God." And that was the divine man of Genesis 1.27 we see in the same work 1.9 "For Paul says that it was given to be a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." So that from this it is clear, that one alone, true, good, just, in the image and likeness of the Father, His Son Jesus, the Word of God, is our Instructor; to whom God hath entrusted us, as an affectionate father commits his children to a worthy tutor, expressly charging us, "This is my beloved Son: hear Him" ... Having now accomplished those things, it were a fitting sequel that our instructor Jesus should draw for us the model of the true life, and train humanity in Christ ... The view I take is, that He Himself formed man of the dust, and regenerated him by water; and made him grow by his Spirit; and trained him by His word to adoption and salvation, directing him by sacred precepts; in order that, transforming earth-born man into a holy and heavenly being by His advent, He might fulfil to the utmost that divine utterance, "Let Us make man in Our own image and likeness." He sums up the mystery of Christianity in Stromata 7 as "so he who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher -- made a god going about in flesh." And, in truth, Christ became the perfect realization of what God spake; and the rest of humanity is conceived as being created merely in His image." The most explicit confirmation that 'Jesus' (ΙΣ) was the man formed in Genesis 1:27 is found in the early text 2 Clement 14:2 "And I do not suppose ye are ignorant that the living Church is the body of Christ: for the scripture saith, God made man, male and female. The male is Christ and the female is the Church. And the Books and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church existeth not now for the first time, but hath been from the beginning: for she was spiritual, as our Jesus also was spiritual, but was manifested in thelast days that He might save us." This almost Valentinian understanding of a dual hypostasis of 'Jesus' and 'Church' let's not forget would become fully Valentinian if ΙΣ was taken to be a translation of the Hebrew אֵ֑שׁ and later rendered 'Jesus' according to a particular sectarian assumption of the nomen sacrum as an abbreviation. An example of this is found in Tertullian's summary of the Valentinian creation myth in Against the Valentinians 8 "[Nous] produces from himself Word and Life, which since they had not existed previously, were certainly not in Bythos--and what an absurdity if Life was not in God. Anyway this offspring whose duty is to found the corporate and united Pleroma, makes a profit: it gives birth to Man and Church. " Tertullian Against Praxeas 12 identifies 'Jesus' () as the heavenly man created after the likeness of God in Genesis 1.27 " Let us make man after our image and likeness" ... Also in what follows, Behold, Adam is become as one of us ... there already was attached to him the Son, a second Person, his Word, and a third Person, the Spirit in the Word, for that reason he spoke in the plural, Let us make, and Our, and Of us. For in whose company was he making man, and like whom was he making him? He was speaking with the Son who was to assume manhood, and the Spirit who was to sanctify man, as with ministers and mediators in consequence of the unity of the Trinity. Then again the scripture that follows distinguishes between the Persons: And God made man, in the image of God made he him. Why not "his own image", if the maker was one, and there was none in whose image he was making him? But there was one in whose image he was making him, the Son's in fact, who because he was to be the surer and truer man caused that man to be called his image who at that time had to be formed of clay, as the image and similitude of the true.4 But also in the preceding works of the world, how is it written ? At first, while the Son is not yet on the scene, And God said, Let there be light, and it was made. The Word himself is in first instance the true light that lighteneth the man that cometh into this world 6 and through him also the mundane light comes to bed. But from then on in the Word, <that is>, with Christ as assistant and minister, God wished things to be made, and God made them"

Genesis 2:7 "According to J. Fossum (“ Gen 1:26 and 2:7 in Judaism, Samaritanism,” and Gnosticism, JSJ 16 [1985] 202-39, esp. 22127; and id., The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord [WUNT 36; Tübingen: Mohr, 1985] 23038 and passim "The Angel of YHWH formed him from the dust of the earth… The Name, that is to be praised, breathed into him the breath of life, and he became a soul”; and “YHWH is the word referring to the form of Adam, for it was established by him. And by Elohim it was perfected [given a spirit]. ‘Then YHWH Elohim formed man’ [Gen 2:7].”
Genesis 2:19 קָ֣רָא (x2) = 301 = אֵ֖שׁ "and brought them unto the man (הָאָדָם) to see what he would call (יִּקְרָא) them; and whatsoever the man (הָאָדָם) would call (יִּקְרָא) every living creature, that was to be the name thereof." We aren't explicitly told that קָ֣רָא = man in chapter 1 but this chapter provides a 're-enactment' as it were on a lower plain of consciousness or reality with the specific reference to him being 'the Adam' throughout.
Genesis 2:20 And the man (הָאָדָם) gave (וַיִּקְרָא) names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field
Genesis 2:23 מֵאִ֖ישׁ = from man. But notice what follows "And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." For one we have already seen that 'he calls' = ish. However it should be noted that this begins a series of 'sleight of hand' allusions to a juxtaposition between '(earthly) man' and '(heavenly) man.' The etymology for woman אִשָּׁ֔ה presupposes that man is spelled אִ֖שׁ. But the clearest parallel is the gnostic tradition that 'Jesus' was actively preserving a feminine hypostasis in this section and that 'the female' goes back to something divine (note not 'the Adam').
Genesis 3:9 קָ֣רָא And the LORD God called (קָ֣רָא) unto the man, and said unto him: 'Where art thou?' Important passage for the heretics who identified 'the Jewish god' as Samael.
Genesis 3:16 אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ = desire for your man. Part of the curse of Eve. Note she is said to have conceived through the Lord in what follows.
Genesis 4:1 אִ֖ישׁ = man. But notice that it is the first of אִ֖ישׁ baby references i.e. woman who are visited 'sexually' by God. Eve is said to have produced Cain without Adam and by means of God. On the Origin of the World sees to know this tradition "Moreover, Eve is the first virgin who gave birth without a man ... My husband produced me, and I am his mother, and he is my father and my lord. He is my potency; what he desires he speaks with reason. I am becoming, but I have borne a lordly man."
Genesis 6:4 אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם = men of haShem. Usually read 'men of renown' it is worth noting that this establishes most clearly that the children born from the union of divine beings and women are called אִ֖ישׁ.
Genesis 12:20 אֲנָשִׁ֑ים = angels who protect Sarah from Pharaoh?
Genesis 13:14 שָׂא Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the LORD exceedingly. And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him: 'Lift up (שָׂא) now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and eastward and westward for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever ..."
Genesis 14:24 הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים = the angels which went with Abraham (i.e. the 318 mentioned in verse 14:14 which = Eliezar in gematria)
Genesis 15:2 Eliezar of Damascus - while not an explicit 'Ish' reference Philo does hint that the name Eliezar 'God is my helper' has something to do with the race of the 'perfect man' Who is the Heir of Divine Things 57 "He does well here to attribute the flow of blood to the mass of flesh, combining two things appropriate to one another; but the essence of the mind he has not made to depend on any created thing, but has represented it as breathed into man by God from above. For, says Moses, "The Creator of the universe breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living Soul (Gen 2:7) who also, it is recorded, was fashioned after the image of the Creator. So that the race of mankind also is twofold, the one being the race of those who live by the divine Spirit and reason; the other of those who exist according to blood and the pleasure of the flesh. This species is formed of the earth, but that other is an accurate copy of the divine image; and that description of us which is but fashioned clay, and which is kneaded up with blood, has need, in no slight degree, of assistance from God; on which account it is said, this Damascus of Eleazar. (Gen 15:2) But the name Eleazar, being interpreted, means, "God is my helper." Since the mass of the body, which is filled with blood, being of itself easily dissolved and dead, has its existence through, and is kept alive by, the providence of God, who holds his arm and shield of defence over it, while our race cannot, by any resources of its own, exist in a state of firmness and safety for a single day. Do you not see that the second of the sons of Moses has also the same name as this man? For, "the name of the second," says the scripture, "was Eleazar." (Ex 18:4) And he adds the reason: "for the Lord has been my helper, and has delivered me out of the hand of Pharaoh." But those who are still companions of that life which owes its existence to blood, and which is appreciable by the outward senses, are attacked by that disposition which is such a formidable disperser of piety, by name Pharaoh; from whose sovereignty, full as it is of lawlessness and cruelty, it is impossible to escape, unless Eleazar be born in the soul, and unless one puts one's hope of succour in the only Saviour. And it is with particular beauty that he speaks of Damascus with reference, not to his father, but to his mother; in order to show that the soul depending on blood, by means of which the brute animals live, is akin properly to the female race; the race of his mother, and has no share in the male race. But this is not the case with virtue, that is with Sarah for she has none but a male offspring, being borne only of God who is the father of all things, being that authority which has no mother. "For truly," says the scripture, "she is my sister by my father's side, but not by my mother's"
Genesis 18:2 שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים = three angels
Genesis 18:16 הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים = the angels
Genesis 18:22 הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים = the angels
Genesis 19:5 הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים = the angels
Genesis 19:8 לָֽאֲנָשִׁ֤ים = angels
Genesis 19:10 הָֽאֲנָשִׁים֙ = the angels
Genesis 19:11 הָאֲנָשִׁ֜ים = the angels
Genesis 19:16 הָאֲנָשִׁ֜ים = the angels (Tsedaka p. 40)
Genesis 19:24 וָאֵ֑שׁ = the context is clearly understood by ancient commentators to involve multiple powers of God https://books.google.com/books?id=W7otC ... ic&f=false. The Targums ascribe the destruction to 'the word of the Lord' in Neofiti and to an angel in Genesis Rabba https://books.google.com/books?id=JN55D ... ic&f=false. Philo's Greek text read "the sun went out over the earth, and Lot entered Zoor, and the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from heaven." Clearly the double mention of 'Yahweh' in all surviving texts replaces an original reference to Yahweh and Ish. In other words the text was read "Yahweh rained sulphur (over the city) and Ish (i.e. the hypostasis) rained from heaven." In Questions and Answers in Genesis 4:51 "(Scripture) says that sulphur and fire came down for the destruction of all things on earth, in order to show that the cause of the seasons and annual times is not heaven or the sun or the processions and revolutions of the other stars but the power of the Father," who presides over the whole world as over a winged chariot, and guides it as He thinks best and most useful." That Clement's ΙΣ is the solar charioteer is explicitly referenced in Exhortation. Philo understands the previous mention of 'the sun' in Genesis 19:23 to imply that the Logos carried out the destruction by fire But according to the third signification, when he speaks of the sun, he means the divine word, the model of that sun which moves about through the heaven, as has been said before, and with respect to which it is said, "The sun went forth upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor, and the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire." (1.86) For the word of God, when it reaches to our earthly constitution, assists and protects those who are akin to virtue, or whose inclinations lead them to virtue; so that it provides them with a complete refuge and salvation, but upon their enemies it sends irremediable overthrow and destruction." (Dreams 1.85 - 86) While Philo acknowledges the presence of two powers he neatly avoids connecting it to the 'double mention' of Yahweh in the original text - something repeatedly referenced by Justin. He notes at Dialogue 129 "And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says,' The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,' the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God." Interestingly however he connects one of the two powers to the mention of 'Elohim' in the Hebrew text previously." Note at Dialogue 56 he and Trypho agree that the two powers in heaven correspond to the two divine names 'Elohim' (theos) and 'Yahweh' (kurios): Then I said, "The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: 'The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities and all the neighbourhood.' " Then the fourth of those (Jews) who had remained with Trypho said, "It must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham." "It is not on this ground solely," I said, "that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things ... If, therefore, you assert that the Holy Spirit calls some other one God and Lord, besides the Father of all things and His Christ, answer me; for I undertake to prove to you from Scriptures themselves, that He whom the Scripture calls Lord is not one of the two angels that went to Sodom, but He who was with them, and is called God, that appeared to Abraham." Then later in the same passage Justin "And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three (elohim), who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when[the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came[to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who[remains] in the heavens, i.e.,the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the[judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms:'The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.' " Then Trypho said when I was silent, "That Scripture compels us to admit this, is manifest; but there is a matter about which we are deservedly at a loss--namely, about what was said to the effect that[the Lord] ate what was prepared and placed before him by Abraham; and you would admit this." I answered, "It is written that they ate; and if we believe that it is said the three ate, and not the two alone--who were really angels, and are nourished in the heavens, as is evident to us, even though they are not nourished by food similar to that which mortals use--(for, concerning the sustenance of manna which supported your fathers in the desert, Scripture speaks thus, that they ate angels 'food):[if we believe that three ate], then I would say that the Scripture which affirms they ate bears the same meaning as when we would say about fire that it has devoured all things; yet it is not certainly understood that they ate, masticating with teeth and jaws." (56, 57) Interestingly Justin notices that at the conclusion of the narrative of the Greek translation Abraham saw a 'flame' (φλὸξ) carrying out the destruction "that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God, sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by Another who remains ever in the supercelestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things; for he speaks thus: 'God appeared to him under the oak in Mature, as he sat at his tent-door at noontide. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent; and he bowed himself toward the ground, and said;' "(and so on;) " 'Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward the adjacent country, and beheld, and, lo, a flame went up from the earth, like the smoke of a furnace.'" And when I had made an end of quoting these words, I asked them if they had understood them." (Dial 54) In the Hebrew text Abraham sees smoke. I think clearly Genesis 19:26 must have originally read 'Elohim (i.e. the two angels) rained brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" but this was changed owing to the explicit confirmation of two powers in heaven. Indeed we should see the instability in the text of the Pentateuch as being connected with the introduction of the Deuteronomist reworking of the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomist To this end the original text of Exodus for instance clearly understands one power to have been seen on the mountain and the other heard from heaven. As this text becomes relegated to the remnants of Qumran and the Samaritan tradition it would appear that Genesis 19:26 was also reworked. Philo can still argue for two gods in other passages quite explicitly " God says, "I am the God who was seen by thee in the place of God." (1.228) A very glorious boast for the soul, that God should think fit to appear to and to converse with it. And do not pass by what is here said, but examine it accurately, and see whether there are really two Gods. For it is said: "I am the God who was seen by thee;" not in my place, but in the place of God, as if he meant of some other God. (1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, "I am the God (ho Theos);" but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, "He who was seen by thee in the place," not of the God (tou Theou), but simply "of God" (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be." (Dreams 1.227f) In the same way Justin writes "I asked Trypho, "Do you think that God appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mature, as the Scripture asserts?" He said, "Assuredly." "Was He one of those three," I said, "whom Abraham saw, and whom the Holy Spirit of prophecy describes as men?" He said, "No; but God appeared to him, before the vision of the three. Then those three whom the Scripture calls men, were angels; two of them sent to destroy Sodom, and one to announce the joyful tidings to Sarah, that she would bear a son; for which cause he was sent, and having accomplished his errand, went away." "How then," said I, "does the one of the three, who was in the tent, and who said, 'I shall return to thee hereafter, and Sarah shall have a son,' appear to have returned when Sarah had begotten a son, and to be there declared, by the prophetic word, God? But that you may clearly discern what I say, listen to the words expressly employed by Moses; they are these: 'And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian bond-woman, whom she bore to Abraham, sporting with Isaac her son, and said to Abraham, Cast out this bond-woman and her son; for the son of this bond-woman shall not share the inheritance of my son Isaac. And the matter seemed very grievous in Abraham's sight, because of his son. But God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman. In all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken to her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.' Have you perceived, then, that He who said under the oak that He would return, since He knew it would be necessary to advise Abraham to do what Sarah wished him, came back as it is written; and is God, as the words declare, when they so speak: 'God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman?' " I inquired. And Trypho said, "Certainly; but you have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets. You have proved, however, that we were wrong in believing that the three who were in the tent with Abraham were all angels." I replied again, "If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes[messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation." "Assuredly," he said, "for up to this moment this has been our belief." (ibid) Philo references 'God' (theos) as destroying by means of fire "God having taken pity on mankind, as being a Saviour and full of love for mankind, increased, as far as possible, the natural desire of men and women for a connexion together ... [but] detesting the unnatural and unlawful commerce of the people of Sodom ... inflicted on them ... a mighty shower, not of rain but of fire ... Inasmuch as he, according to my conception, was the true and living God, who thought it fitting that he being present should bestow good gifts by his own power, but that he should effect the opposite objects by the agency and service of his subordinate powers, so that he might be looked upon as the cause of good only, and of no evil whatever antecedently. And kings too appear to me to imitate the divine nature in this particular, and to act in the same way, giving their favours in person, but inflicting their chastisements by the agency of others. But since, of the two powers of God, one is a beneficent power and the other a chastising one, each of them, as is natural, is manifested to the country of the people of Sodom. Because of the five finest cities in it four were about to be destroyed by fire, and one was destined to be left unhurt and safe from every evil. For it was necessary that the calamities should be inflicted by the chastising power, and that the one which was to be saved should be saved by the beneficent power. But since the portion which was saved was not endowed with entire and complete virtues, but was blessed with kindness by the power of the living God, it was deliberately accounted unworthy to have a sight of his presence afforded to it." (Abraham 137 - 144) In Life of Moses 2:51 - 53 " but turned to acts of intemperance and became studiers of evil practices, God determined to destroy them with fire. (56) Therefore on this occasion, as the holy scriptures tell us, thunderbolts fell from heaven, and burnt up those wicked men and their cities." Irenaeus in Demonstration 44 "And again Moses tells how the Son of God drew near to hold converse with Abraham: And God appeared unto him by the oak of Mamre in the middle of the day. And looking up with his eyes he beheld, and, lo, three men stood over against him. And he bowed himself down to the earth, and said: Lord, if indeed I have found favour in thy sight.126 And all that which follows he spake with the Lord, and the Lord spake with him. Now two of the three were angels; but one was the Son of God, with whom also Abraham spake, pleading on behalf of the men of Sodom, that they should not perish if at least ten righteous should be found there. And, whilst these were speaking, the two angels entered into Sodom, and Lot received them. And then the Scripture says: And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven: that is to say, the Son, who spake with Abraham, being Lord, received power to punish the men of Sodom from the Lord out of heaven, even from the Father who rules over all. So Abraham was a prophet and saw things to come, which were to take place in human form: even the Son of God, that He should speak with men and eat with them, and then should bring in the judgment from the Father, having received from Him who rules over all the power to punish the men of Sodom." Tertullian Against Marcion 4:29 "Your Christ proclaims, "I am come to send fire on the earth." That most lenient being, the lord who has no hell, not long before had restrained his disciples from demanding fire on the churlish village. Whereas He burnt up Sodom and Gomorrah with a tempest of fire." Origen on the Marcionites (De Principiis 2.5) "the leaders of that heresy (i.e. Marcionites) think they have established a kind of division, according to which they have declared that justice is one thing and goodness another, and have applied this division even to divine things, maintaining that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a good God, but not a just one, whereas the God of the law and the prophets is just, but not good ... These persons, then, consider goodness to be some such affection as would have benefits conferred on all, although the recipient of them be unworthy and undeserving of any kindness; but here, in my opinion, they have not rightly applied their definition, inasmuch as they think that no benefit is conferred on him who is visited with any suffering or calamity. Justice, on the other hand, they view as that quality which rewards every one according to his deserts. But here, again, they do not rightly interpret the meaning of their own definition. For they think that it is just to send evils upon the wicked and benefits upon the good; i.e., so that, according to their view, the just God does not appear to wish well to the bad, but to be animated by a kind of hatred against them. And they gather together instances of this, wherever they find a history in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, relating, e.g., the punishment of the deluge, or the fate of those who are described as perishing in it, or the, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha by a shower of fire and brimstone, or the falling of all the people in the wilderness on account of their sins." On the Marcionite interest in this story cf Panarion 42:12 " Moreover, in Sodom the angels concealed Lot’s door, and the Sodomites could not see it. Was Lot’s door an apparition too, Marcion?"
Genesis 24:21 הָאִ֥יש = the angel? : the servant = הָעֶבֶד who is described as "his slave, the elder of his house, that ruled over all that he had" who is cryptically sent out following the Eliezar story with the words "The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house, and from the land of my nativity, and who spoke unto me, and who swore unto me, saying: Unto thy seed will I give this land; He will send His angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife for my son from thence." So the original promise was that an angel would do the work. Now Abraham sends out the servant as the angel for he continues "And if the woman be not willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath; only thou shalt not bring my son back thither."
Genesis 24:22 הָאִישׁ֙ = the angel?
Genesis 24:26 הָאִישׁ֙ = the angel?
Genesis 24:29 הָאִישׁ֙ = the angel?
Genesis 24:30 הָאִישׁ֙ = the angel?
Genesis 24:30 הָאִישׁ֙ = the angel?
Genesis 24:32 הָאִישׁ֙ = the angel?
Genesis 24:32 הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים = the angels who were with him
Genesis 24:54 ה֛וּא וְהָאֲנָשִׁ֥ים = he [the servant] and the angels (note Abraham = Adonai שַׁלְּחֻ֥נִי לַֽאדֹנִֽי = 'send me off to my Lord'
Genesis 24:58 הָאִ֣יש = the angel
Genesis 24:59 עֶ֥בֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם וְאֶת־ אֲנָשָֽׁיו = Abraham's slave and his angels
Genesis 24:61 הָאִ֑ישׁ ... הָעֶ֛בֶד the angel ... the slave
Genesis 24:65 הָעֶ֗בֶד מִֽי־ הָאִ֤ישׁ הַלָּזֶה֙ הַהֹלֵ֤ךְ בַּשָּׂדֶה֙ the slave the angel walking in the field (שָּׂדֶה֙)
Genesis 25:27 אִ֛ישׁ יֹדֵ֥עַ = wise man אִ֣ישׁ שָׂדֶ֑ה = man of the field (see above) Esau
ibid אִ֣ישׁ תָּ֔ם יֹשֵׁ֖ב אֹהָלִֽים = perfect man sitting among tents/gods [letter transposition] Jacob
Genesis 26:7 אַנְשֵׁ֤י הַמָּקוֹם֙ (x2)= angels of the Place
Genesis 26:11 בָּאִ֥ישׁ = this man (Isaac)
Genesis 26:13 יִּגְדַּ֖ל הָאִ֑ישׁ = the great(ened) man
Genesis 27:11 אִ֣ישׁ שָׂעִ֔ר = hairy man (Esau) אִ֥ישׁ חָלָֽק = smooth man (Jacob) interesting that without the ayin 'hairy man' becomes 'angel man'
Genesis 27:33 גַּם־בָּר֖וּךְ יִהְיֶֽה "indeed blessed shall he be" with respect to the stealing of Esau's birthright
Genesis 29:32 יֶאֱהָבַ֥נִי אִישִֽׁי = my man will love me. The etymology of the name Reuben, Leah explains, is Yahweh 'sees my affliction' רָאָ֤ה יְהוָה֙ בְּעָנְיִ֔י. But 'my man will love' me is not a separate thought. The idea clearly is that Yahweh = אִ֥ישׁ
Genesis 29:34 יִלָּוֶ֤ה אִישִׁי֙ = joined man. All the names of Leah's children have some attachment to the אִ֥ישׁ. Her second son Simeon is explained as Yahweh has heard (שָׁמַ֤ע) she is unloved. The third son Levi that her man (אִישִׁי֙) will become attached to her (יִלָּוֶ֤ה). There seems to be an intimation that God inseminates women and established the twelve patriarchs. For while it is possible that God saw her affliction (Reuben), saw she was unloved (Simeon) and her husband was joined to her (Levi) the evidence from the narrative disputes that notion. The Levites after all are the ones joined to God. Philo certainly picked up on this notion https://books.google.com/books?id=y-zDD ... 22&f=false. So as such the idea has to be floated that אִ֥ישׁ inseminated Sarah to make Isaac and inseminated Rebecca to make the two anashim Jacob and Esau (those who are always traveling in the company of 'gods' or angels) and finally inseminated at least some of the sons of Jacob. After all it has always puzzled scholars how - after wrestling with the אִ֥ישׁ - and having his penis damaged that his wife could give birth to Benjamin. It would seem that in the original reading possibly the angel אִ֥ישׁ established the sons of Abraham as 'stars in the heavens' quite literally.
Genesis 30:18 לְאִישִׁ֑י = husband, child rearing name, Yahweh. If you look at the etymology it is clear that Elohim = Ish. Leah said God has given me נָתַ֤ן אֱלֹהִים֙ שְׂכָרִ֔י = יִשָּׂשכָֽר. Notice יִשָּ + שכָֽר = יִשָּׂשכָֽר. Thus אִ֥ישׁ = אֱלֹהִים֙
Genesis 31:12 שָׂא - And the angel of God said unto me in the dream: Jacob; and I said: Here am I. And he said: Lift up (שָׂא) now thine eyes, and see, all the he-goats which leap upon the flock are streaked, speckled, and grizzled; for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.
Genesis 32:24 אִישׁ֙ = angel who wrestles with Jacob
Genesis 32:28 Jacob is lauded for wrestling with gods and angels אֱלֹהִ֛ים וְעִם־ אֲנָשִׁ֖ים
Genesis 33:1 אִ֑ישׁ = angel(s). Esau is seen walking with four hunded
Genesis 34:7 הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים = angels/sons of Jacob. The sons of Jacob הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים come in from 'the field' הַשָּׂדֶה֙
Genesis 34:21 הָאֲנָשִׁ֨ים = angels/sons of Jacob.
Genesis 34:22 הָאֲנָשִׁים֙ = angels/sons of Jacob
Genesis 34:25 אִ֣ישׁ = angel(s) took sword to slaughter the residents of Shechem
Genesis 37:15 אִ֔ישׁ = angel who meets Joseph in a field בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה
Genesis 37:17 הָאִישׁ֙ = angel
Genesis 42:30 הָאִישׁ֙ אֲדֹנֵ֣י הָאָ֔רֶץ = the man (Joseph) the lord of the earth
Genesis 42:33 הָאִישׁ֙ אֲדֹנֵ֣י הָאָ֔רֶץ = the man (Joseph), lord of the earth
Genesis 43:3, 5 הָאִ֤ישׁ = the man (Joseph) said "you will not see my face" תִרְא֣וּ פָנַ֔י if you brother isn't with you
Genesis 43:6 לָאִ֔ישׁ = man (Joseph)
Genesis 43:7 הָ֠אִישׁ = the man (Joseph)
Genesis 43:11 לָאִ֖ישׁ = for the man (Joseph)
Genesis 43:13 הָאִֽישׁ = the man (Joseph)
Genesis 43:14 הָאִֽישׁ = the man (Joseph)
Genesis 43:15 הָֽאֲנָשִׁים֙ = the men (the group)
Genesis 43:16 הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים x2 the men (the group)
Genesis 43:17 הָאִ֔ישׁ = the man (the servant)
Genesis 43:17 הָאִ֔ישׁ = the man (the servant)
Genesis 43:17 הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים = the men (the brothers)
Genesis 43:18 הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֗ים = the men (the brothers)
Genesis 43:19 הָאִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֖ר the man steward
Genesis 43:24 הָאִ֛ישׁ אֶת־ הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים the man brought the men
Genesis 43:33 הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים אִ֥ישׁ אֶל־ רֵעֵֽהוּ the men looked at one another
Genesis 44:15 אִ֖ישׁ = man (Joseph)
Genesis 44:17 הָאִ֡ישׁ = the man (the brothers)
Genesis 44:26 הָאִ֔ישׁ = the man (Joseph)
Genesis 49:28 אִ֛ישׁ = each man (Israel blesses)
Genesis 50:17 שָׂ֣א - And they (the brothers) sent a message unto Joseph, saying: 'Thy father did command before he died, saying: So shall ye say unto Joseph: Forgive, (שָׂ֣א) I pray thee now, the transgression of thy brethren, and their sin, for that they did unto thee evil. And now, we pray thee, forgive (שָׂ֣א) the transgression of the servants of the God of thy father.' And Joseph wept when they spoke unto him. And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said: 'Behold, we are thy bondmen.' And Joseph said unto them: 'Fear not; for I stand in the place of God. (כִּי הֲתַחַת אֱלֹהִים, אָנִי)"
Exodus 3:2 אֵ֖שׁ = angel
Exodus 11:3 הָאִ֣ישׁ מֹשֶׁ֗ה = the man Moses
Exodus 13:21 אֵ֖שׁ = angel
Exodus 15:3 יְהוָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ מִלְחָמָ֑ה = Yahweh is a man of war
Exodus 17:6 הצור = gematria (301) = אֵ֖שׁ. Paul = 1 Corinthians 10:6 "and that rock was Christ." Similar messianic interpretation in Memar Marqeh
Exodus 25:31 מנורה (albeit spelled מנרה throughout)
Exodus 25:31 מנורה
Exodus 25:32 מנורה
Exodus 25:32 מנורה
Exodus 25:33 מנורה
Exodus 25:34 מנורה
Exodus 25:35 מנורה
Exodus 26:35 מנורה
Exodus 30:27 מנורה
Exodus 31:8 מנורה
Exodus 33.21, 22 הצור = gematria (301) = אֵ֖שׁ And the LORD said Behold there is a place by me and thou shalt stand upon the rock (הַצּ֑וּר) and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock (הַצּ֑וּר) and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. And I will take away mine hand and thou shalt see my back parts but my face shall not be seen
Exodus 35:14 מנורה
Exodus 37:17 מנורה
Exodus 37:17 מנורה
Exodus 37:18 מנורה
Exodus 37:18 מנורה
Exodus 37:19 מנורה
Exodus 37:20 מנורה
Exodus 39:37 מנורה
Exodus 40:4 מנורה
Exodus 40:24 מנורה
Leviticus 24:4 מנורה
Numbers 3:31 מנורה
Numbers 4:9 מנורה
Numbers 8:2 מנורה
Numbers 8:3 מנורה
Numbers 8:4 מנורה
Numbers 8:4 מנורה
Numbers 12:6 "When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams (301 = בַּחֲלוֹם אֲדַבֶּר-בּוֹ). But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"
Deuteronomy 33:4 הצור = gematria (301) = אֵ֖שׁ The Rock! His work is perfect In Memar Marqeh tsur is read as in Aramaic meaning 'image' or 'likeness' = צורה
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply