Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

[Secret Alias]

This also seems a grammatical oddity:

μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς
An only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father

You might wonder whether it read originally:

μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν ἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς
An only-begotten who is ΙΣ the bosom of the Father

compare another manuscript "ἰς κώλπης" = [ε]ἰς κώλπης: Lefebvre, Tibiletti Bruno ἰς κ.; read εἰς κόλπους

https://books.google.com/books?id=AIRXD ... on&f=false

[Secret Alias]

Another observation which might be relevant:

Another curiosity of the Nomina Sacra is that it can produce errors that would not occur in any other context. In the Septuagint, for instance, it is quite common to find confusion between ιηλ, Israel, and ιλημ, Jerusalem (a confusion less common in the New Testament, where Israel is not so often mentioned). And, too, Ιησους and εις will not be confused, but ις and εις easily could be. Thus, in textual criticism involving these nouns, one must always be aware of the use of the nomina sacra, even if they are not shown in an apparatus. http://waltzmn.brainout.net/NominaSacra.html

Examples https://books.google.com/books?id=guF5D ... on&f=false

[Secret Alias]

Getting back to the OP there has been a lot of discussion about the origin of the nomina sacra. I am not especially knowledgeable about anything in early Christianity. I like coming up with ideas and working things out to their logical consequence. To this end:

1. if ΙΣ was the original nomen sacrum, the name above all names
2. I think there are strong reasons to think it goes back to the angel אש which is mentioned in Judaism and Samaritanism

The fact that there is a 'Son of Man' mentioned in the gospel and a central figure named ΙΣ (assumed later to be a mystical way of rendering the name ΙησοῦΣ) there is a strangely satisfying connection with the third person references to 'the Son of Man' in Mk 13:26-27, 34 among others. Why is 'the Son of Man' referenced in the third person? ΙΣ might be referring to another figure who is his son (i.e. בר אש). It is important to note that our speculation must be contained or confined within the underlying Christian assumptions that:

i) there was a Father and a Son god
ii) that some Christians identified (or were said to have identified) ΙΣ i.e. the so-called Patripassians
iii) that other Christians identified ΙΣ as the son

Of course the difficulty is apparent that if ΙΣ is the son of another god then the Father was אש and he בר אש which negates or makes impossible the identification of ΙΣ with אש. The only way which works is if ΙΣ derives from אש and 'the Son of Man' (and the Son of God or 'the Son' for that matter) was a secondary figure. Once again we come back to separationism - unless of course the whole theory is wrong to begin with.

[Secret Alias]

... or I guess there could have been some sort of confusion in the reporting about the Son and the Father. Perhaps humanity are sons of ΙΣ but not the ultimate Father (i.e. only sons of his image). Something like that I guess is possible.

[Secret Alias]

אל נכר (stranger god) = 301 = אש

[Ethan]

μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς

κόλπον - Urogenital sinus, womb. vagina, lap (knee, knees, thighs)


εἰς τὸν κόλπον - אל־חיק
- κύβος `hollow in the hips
- κοῖλος `the hollow district between Lebanon and Anti Lebanon

Moses (Μισης) was put into a κύβος (תבת) and born again.

Exodus 17:15 - יהוה נסי : Διόνυσος

[Secret Alias]

So ignoring the mental patient for a moment we come back to Moses's initial encounter with Jesus - or so the Church Fathers tell us over and over again. What is written here? Esh. Note the verbal construction

Scripture states that an angel of the Lord appeared out of the midst of the bush.x The word seneh has the definite article the (heh) prefixed to it because these are Moses' very own words in writing the Torah.27 The word bo'er (burned) is a transitive verb. The phrase a burning fire is similar to a devouring fire (Deut. 4:24). As the fire that burneth (tivar) the forest (Ps. 83:15) is proof of this.28 Now the fire that burned in the bush devoured all that was around it. Our verse is similar to They have set Thy sanctuary on fire (Ps. 74:7).29 While the mountain did burn with fire (Deut. 5:20) is also similar.30

[WAS NOT CONSUMED.] The word ukkal (consumed) is an adjective.31 It is similar to the pa'ul.32 The words lukkach (taken), which is vocalized with a kamatz in if thou see me when I am taken (II Kings

29 Our clause reads, ha-seneh bo'er ba'esh (the bush burned with fire). Ibin Ezra believes this should be explained as if written: ba-seneh bo'er esh (a fire burnt the bush). He proves that this is the meaning of the clause through Ps. 74:7, which reads: shilchu va-esh mikdashekha. The literal meaning is: they have set with fire thy sanctuary. According to I.E. this verse is to be read as if written: shilchu esh be-mikdashekha (they have set fire in thy sanctuary) (Filwarg).

30 Deut. 5:20 reads, va-ha-har bo'er ba-esh (while the mountain burned with fire). Now mountains do not burn. as: the mountain consumed its environment with fire. I.E. explains thus because he believes bo'er to be a transitive verb.

31 I.E. refers to participles as adjectives. Ukkal (consumed) appears to be a third person pu'al perfect. However, if this were the case it would be vocalized with a pattach, not a kamatz, and would have been preceded by lo, not by enennu (literally, is not).

32 It is vocalized like a pa'ul. If it were pa'ul would read akhul.

The bet prefix can be read as 'by fire' 'with fire' 'in fire.' Now let's go back to the Hebrew of the passage:

Now Moses, tending the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, drove the flock into the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire out of a bush. He gazed, and there was a bush all aflame (bo’er ba-esh), yet the bush was not consumed (ukal). Moses said, “I must turn aside to look at this marvelous sight; why doesn’t the bush burn up? (madua lo yivar ha-sneh)(Ex. 3, 1-3)

The clear sense is that 'the fire' is a separate being from the bush. It is an entity. It is God. To that end, ish (in early Hebrew both 'fire' and 'man' were spelled the same way is the name, is the identity of the god in the bush. Therefore the Christian Church Fathers who says that ΙΣ was in the bush were reading the nomen sacrum as = ish, fire.

[Secret Alias]

That esh = God

There the angel of the Lord from within a bush. Moses saw that though fire burned the bush it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.” When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.”

Philo

For, the scripture says, "When he saw that he was turning aside to see, God called him out of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses: and he said, What is it, Lord?"

As usual, this is not the text Christians preserved as 'the LXX' which reads:

And when the Lord saw that he drew nigh to see, the Lord called him out of the bush, saying, Moses, Moses; and he said, What is it?

ὡς δὲ εἶδεν κύριος ὅτι προσάγει ἰδεῖν ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸν κύριος ἐκ τοῦ βάτου λέγων Μωυσῆ Μωυσῆ ὁ δὲ εἶπεν τί ἐστιν

[Secret Alias]

The Samaritan text reads interestingly:

and as Elohim saw that he turned aside to look Elohim called to him from the midst of the bush and said, Moses, Moses,

The point of course is that in a tradition that identified the two names of god with two powers - like Philo - the 'angel of the Lord' is identified as being a spokesman for Elohim. In the Masoretic text one can argue that the angel of the Lord = Elohim. In the LXX the angel becomes a spokesman for Yahweh. But notice once again that while the readings are not an exact match, Philo and the Samaritan Pentateuch share the same understanding.

[Secret Alias]

List of Eesh (= LXX ΙΣ) sightings (and 'Jesus' confirmations) in early Patristic references (i.e. where Church Fathers say that 'Jesus' was present where Jews and Samaritans or the Pentateuch reads 'Eesh' = ΙΣ)

Genesis 1:26, 27 (neither MT nor SP presently reads 'Eesh' for Primal Man but likely to have been so at Qumran)
Genesis 12:20 אֲנָשִׁ֑ים = angels who protect Sarah from Pharaoh?
Genesis 18:2 שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים = three 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
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 24:54 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 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.

More to follow

Note: the idea that we are seeing as we go through the Pentateuch is that IF אִ֥ישׁ was typically read as a CONSISTENT reference to a shadowy 'angelic' figure (we know that was read as a PERIODIC reference to a shadowy angel) THEN it appears our understanding of the audience for the Pentateuch changes. The story goes something like this. A stranger angel called אִ֥ישׁ attached himself to Abraham - a figure who was known in the Semitic world beyond the Israelites - and acted his slave, first destroying the kings of Sodom (as 318/Eliezar) and secondly finding a wife for his son. The implication seems to be that when God visited Abraham and his wife Sarah his promise to make his descendants as stars in heaven involved some sort of divine insemination. After all, Abraham and his wife are too old to have sex and make babies. One has to begin to suspect that when the divine anashim catch Sarah laughing about her ability to have children at an old age they or he (אִ֥ישׁ) take a direct role in the insemination process. Rather than us requiring that some ancient precursor to Viagra helped Abraham get hard and/or that the couple were regularly having sex at 100 years old, clearly the idea is that Abraham's seed was passed on through has handmaid Hagar but the divine seed of אִ֥ישׁ gave birth to Isaac. Note Sarah laughs at the אִ֥ישׁ. In our revised interpretation then He basically says (to paraphrase in modern parlance) 'hey who you laughin' at bitch, I can lay the pipe' and Philo's 'perfect man' is born (remember Isaac ranks the Patriarchs Isaac = perfection, Abraham = improvement through learning, Jacob = bad man). You have to admit Sarah's involvement is strange. Surely if it was Abraham's seed which was strengthened then God would only have to speak to Abraham. Sarah could remain in the corner. But the issue is her withered womb not Abraham's seed. The idea is that the seed of אִ֥ישׁ is so miraculous that it restores fertility to Sarah's womb.

The first implication to me is that the audience for the Pentateuch were proselytes. Yes they saw themselves as sons of Abraham of the flesh but they did not have the divine seed outside of the Levites, the priests. The idea is that men became divine in the previous age but the priests were the last vestige of that divinity. Secondly it would seem that the 'virgin birth' of Jesus was contextualized in an ancient mystical reading of the Penateuch.