Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
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 »

This all is not trying to argue against your ΙΣ idea. I find that one quite enticing, and it sounds logical in itself.
I know you find it enticing because I've read you reference my ideas in German on some other German sites. That's cool. I hope everyone kind of realizes what I am suggesting involves a Marcionite like 'ur-canon' which was significantly corrupted by Catholics in the mid-second century. I think I've identified who started the 'Jesus' myth - Polycarp (see the recent thread on this). I set up this thread to experiment to see how much there was out there. We've only got through a bit of Barnabas so far. I am not very disciplined so get through all of the texts will be quite challenging. I've done it already for the Pentateuch. I will have to dig that up later.
“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 »

I guess in the spirit of order and efficiency let's handle them all in order. There are 22 IC references in Barnabas

1.
For He hath made manifest to us by all the prophets that He wanteth neither sacrifices nor whole burnt offerings nor oblations, saying at one time; "What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord I am full of whole burnt-offerings, and the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and of goats desire not, not though ye should come to be seen of Me. or who required these things at your hands? Ye shall continue no more to tread My court. If ye bring fine flour, it is in vain; incense is an abomination to Me; your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with." These things therefore He annulled, that the new law of our Lord IC, being free from the yoke of constraint, might have its oblation not made by human hands.
It's unclear either way. Logically though it can't be a man named 'Jesus' giving the commandments given by Ish or Ishu to Moses on Sinai. I am biased but the idea that someone was talking to the prophets who thought they were speaking in the name of the god of Moses makes it difficult for me to see any other possibility here. But I am biased. Only a god has the authority to issue commandments and it would have to be a god related to the original one to break and establish new ones. No?
“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 »

2
But they lost it by turning unto idols. For thus saith the Lord; Moses, Moses, come down quickly; for thy people whom thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt hath done unlawfully. And Moses understood, and threw the two tables from his hands; and their covenant was broken in pieces, that the covenant of the beloved IC (τοῦ ἠγαπημένου ΙΣ) might be sealed unto our hearts in the hope which springeth from faith in Him.
Already dealt with this one. It seems to reinforce that (1) is also about Ish/Ishu.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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 »

3.
Learn, hope in IC, who is to be manifested to you in the flesh. For Adam is the suffering land; for from the face of the ground was the formation of Adam.
A citation by Barnabas of a pre-Christian text Jewish text presumably demonstrating that the man/angel in the burning bush was foretelling the suffering of IC. We've already dealt with this ad naseum.
“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 »

4.
But moreover when crucified He had vinegar and gall given Him to drink. Hear how on this matter the priests of the temple have revealed. Seeing that there is a commandment in scripture, Whatsoever shall not observe the fast shall surely die, the Lord commanded, because He was in His own person about to offer the vessel of His Spirit a sacrifice for our sins, that the type also which was given in Isaac (ὁ τύπος ὁ γενόμενος ἐπὶ Ἰσαὰκ) who was offered upon the altar should be fulfilled. What then saith He in the prophet? And let them eat of the goat that is offered at the fast for all their sins. Attend carefully; And let all the priests alone eat the entrails unwashed with vinegar. Wherefore? Since ye are to give Me, who am to offer My flesh for the sins of My new people, gall with vinegar to drink, eat ye alone, while the people fasteth and waileth in sackcloth and ashes; that He might shew that He must suffer at their hands.

Attend ye to the commandments which He gave. Take two goats, fair and alike, and offer them, and let the priest take the one for a whole burnt offering for sins. But the other one--what must they do with it? Accursed, saith He, is the one. Give heed how the type of IC is revealed (πῶς ὁ τύπος τοῦ ΙΣ φανεροῦται).
Already dealt with this. But it is interesting to note that Barnabas stops short of saying that Isaac was THE type of IC but rather "that the type might also be fulfilled that was set forth in Isaac." IC is the type which shines through Isaac and the scapegoat as he goes on to note again in what follows:
For how is He like the goat (Πῶς γὰρ ὅμοιος ἐκείνῳ)? For this reason it says the goats shall be fair and alike, that, when they shall see Him coming then, they may be astonished at the likeness of the goat. Therefore behold the type of IC that was to suffer (Οὐκοῦν ἴδε τὸν τύπον τοῦ μέλλοντος πάσχειν ΙΣ)

But what meaneth it, that they place the wool in the midst of the thorns? It is a type of IC set forth for the Church (τύπος ἐστὶν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ κείμενος), since whosoever should desire to take away the scarlet wool it behoved him to suffer many things owing to the terrible nature of the thorn, and through affliction to win the mastery over it. Thus, He saith, they that desire to see Me, and to attain unto My kingdom, must lay hold on Me through tribulation and affliction.
I still say that the 'type of IC' here is a typology which applies to all 'men' (= spiritual men). He is best described as a type of man (generically) rather than a type of a particular man named Jesus or men named Jesus.

It's worth noting that while 'the type of IC' doesn't exist in any other author besides Barnabas (which is odd) the 'type of man' is evidenced from the near contemporary Theophilus of Antioch in the exact same context - viz. the resurrection:
On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God (ἐν τύπῳ θεοῦ), and the moon of man (ἡ δὲ σελήνη ἀνθρώπου). And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies (καὶ δυνάμει ἀποθνήσκει), being a type of man (ἐν τύπῳ οὖσα ἀνθρώπου); then it is born again (ἔπειτα ἀναγεννᾶται), and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection (καὶ αὔξει εἰς δεῖγμα τῆς μελλούσης ἔσεσθαι ἀναστάσεως). In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. The fourth is the type of man (τετάρτῳ δὲ τόπῳ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος), who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are called planets, they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.
“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
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

de
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

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

Post by Stephan Huller »

The text can be ignored
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 »

5.
Then there is the placing the wool on the tree (Ὅτι δὲ τὸ ἔριον ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον). This means that the kingdom of IC (βασιλεία Ἰησοῦ) is on the cross, and that they who set their hope on it shall live for ever (καὶ ὅτι οἱ ἐλπίζοντες ἐπ' αὐτὸν ζήσονται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). And why is there the wool and the hyssop at the same time? Because in His kingdom there shall be evil and foul days, in which we shall be saved; for he who suffers pain in the flesh is healed through the foulness of the hyssop.
The exact phrase 'kingdom of Jesus' is very odd. I don't think it appears anywhere. But 'kingdom of man' certainly has a communist ring to it. Also notice that the implication seems to be not that there will a kingdom in the name of some person named Joshua but a collective communism through shared martyrdom.
“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
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:5.
Then there is the placing the wool on the tree (Ὅτι δὲ τὸ ἔριον ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον). This means that the kingdom of IC (βασιλεία Ἰησοῦ) is on the cross, and that they who set their hope on it shall live for ever (καὶ ὅτι οἱ ἐλπίζοντες ἐπ' αὐτὸν ζήσονται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). And why is there the wool and the hyssop at the same time? Because in His kingdom there shall be evil and foul days, in which we shall be saved; for he who suffers pain in the flesh is healed through the foulness of the hyssop.
The exact phrase 'kingdom of Jesus' is very odd. I don't think it appears anywhere. But 'kingdom of man' certainly has a communist ring to it. Also notice that the implication seems to be not that there will a kingdom in the name of some person named Joshua but a collective communism through shared martyrdom.
It's extremely rare and apparently non-existent after the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the only other instance of its kind (that I can find in the TLG).

Barnabas 8:5
And what signifieth the wool upon the stick?
Because the kingdom of Jesus (ἡ βασιλεία Ἰησοῦ) is upon the cross, and because they who hope upon him shall live for ever.

Martyrdom of Polycarp
22:1 We pray, brethren, that you may fare well, walking by the word of the gospel of Jesus Christ, with whom be glory to God and the Father, and the Holy Spirit, for the salvation of the holy elect, even as the blessed Polycarp hath born witness, in whose steps may we be found in the kingdom of Jesus Christ (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
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 »

6.
For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen 'I' stands for ten, 'H' for eight. Here thou hast JESUS (IHSOYS). And because the cross in the 'T' was to have grace, He saith also three hundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the remaining one the cross.
The Greek as it has been preserved is clearly about IC = Jesus. There can be no denying this. But is it a Greek rewrite of a Hebrew original? Notice this follows the previous discussion of the crucifixion:
Then there is the placing the wool on the tree (Ὅτι δὲ τὸ ἔριον ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον). This means that the kingdom of IC (βασιλεία Ἰησοῦ) is on the cross (ξύλον), and that they who set their hope on it shall live for ever (καὶ ὅτι οἱ ἐλπίζοντες ἐπ' αὐτὸν ζήσονται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). And why is there the wool and the hyssop at the same time? Because in His kingdom there shall be evil and foul days, in which we shall be saved; for he who suffers pain in the flesh is healed through the foulness of the hyssop.
Then he says that Abraham was waiting for the coming of IC:
Learn therefore, children of love, concerning all things abundantly, that Abraham, who first appointed circumcision, looked forward in the spirit unto IC when he circumcised having received the doctrine of three letters (τριῶν γραμμάτων δόγματα).
While it is certain that the Greek exegesis breaks up the three letters into a code - 'Jesus' (IH) and the 'tree' (T) - It is worth noting that the tradition Jewish exegesis (from Hebrew) takes the number 318 = שיח as it appears on the page and identifies it as meaning 'tree'

https://www.nishmat.net/torah/view.asp?id=1

So שיח = 318 and it means tree. This is clearly Barnabas's original point. It is difficult to believe that Barnabas originally made a case that 318 in Greek means IH + T. He actually writes something that is completely untrue namely:
For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred
The LXX actually says no such thing. We read instead:
τριακοσιους δεκα και οκτω = 318
So the author is lying. The reality is that given what the translation says it is impossible to take seriously the claim that τριακοσιους δεκα και οκτω 'really means' IHT. The Greek would be TIH. The original exegesis was in Hebrew (as we see in what comes earlier). The original interest in 318 was that it pointed the way for the 'tree' which appears 8 times in the lead up to the passage. Luke probably didn't merely translate Hebrews but also Barnabas?
“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