be superior to the other letters, on the other—this divergence will contribute to our discussion in the following two chapters. It is an opposition reflected in the differences between the two main traditions concerning the creation of the world from letters. As we will see, the main tradition in Jewish sources, in both rabbinic and Hekhalot literature, sees the world as having been created by the letters of the ineffable name: Y, H, W. This is similar to, and probably caused by, the approach that gives higher status to the vowels, compared with the other letters. Similarly, the second approach to the creation of the world from letters, arguing that the world was created by all the letters of the alphabet, being the approach at the heart of Sefer Yeṣirah, does not hold the vowels to be superior and, as such, is much closer to Marcus’s account.30
Irenaeus, however, rejects Marcus’s opinions, calling them stupid and unfounded. To illustrate their absurdity, he refers to a historical argument concerning the evolution of Greek writing. According to Irenaeus, the Greeks received an alphabet, comprising only sixteen letters, from the Phoenicians via Cadmus, and the remaining letters were gradually formed only later. Irenaeus employs ridicule to ask whether the “Truth,” which, for Marcus, comprises twenty-four letters, did not exist until the Greek alphabet was fully developed:
Who would not hate the deplorable contriver of such falsehoods, when he sees the Truth made into an idol by Marcus and branded with letters of the Alphabet? The Greeks confess that it is only recently—relative to what was from the beginning, which is expressed by “Yesterday and the day before yesterday” that first they received sixteen letters through Cadmus. Then, as time went on, they themselves invented others; at one time the aspirate, at another the double letters; last of all, Palamedes added the long letters to the rest. By inference, before these letters were made by the Greeks, Truth did not exist! For the body of Truth, according to you, Marcus, was begotten later than Cadmus, and so later than those who existed before him. It is also begotten later than those who added the rest of the characters; later than yourself, because you alone reduced to an idol her whom you call Truth.31
Irenaeus rejects another assertion about the importance of the alphabetical letters, contained in a legend common in early Christian circles about the young Jesus, who, in the process of learning the letters of the alphabet, reveals to his teacher the secrets concealed in them. Irenaeus contends that the story is false and should be completely disregarded.32 It seems that in contesting the tale, he wants to undermine the legitimacy of discussions about alphabetical letters as a realm of mystery.
The debate about the validity of alphabetical speculations was not unique to Christian-Gnostic polemics and can be found also in Neoplatonic milieus.33 In his commentary on Plato’s Timaeus,34 Proclus (ca. 410–485) reports that Theodorus Asaeus (fourth century) interprets the word “soul” (ψυχή) using gematria (isopsephy),35 including what will be defined in medieval Jewish sources as “small gematria” (where only the first digit of the numerical value of a certain letter is considered). Theodorus also takes into account the graphic aspect of the letters of ψυχή, based on which he presents various interpretations of the nature of the soul. According to Proclus, Theodorus learned these interpretative methods from the writings of Numenius of Apamea (second century CE) and Amelius (third century). Proclus concludes by noting that Iamblichus (ca. 245–325) strongly objected to these methods and presents three arguments put forth by Iamblichus against letter speculations. First, he asserts that even words possessing opposite meanings may have the same numeric value. Second, he argues that graphic qualities cannot have interpretative value, since the letters have changed their shape over the years. Third, he thinks that the employment of a method such as small gematria is futile because using it along with mathematical functions such as multiplication, addition, division, and subtraction will produce the result that all words are equal to one another:36
Theodorus the philosopher, however, of Asine being full of the doctrines of Numenius, speculates the generation of the soul in a more novel manner, from letters, and characters, and numbers. But the divine Iamblichus blames every theory of this kind, in his treatise in confutation of the followers of Amelius, and also of Numenius, whether he includes Numenius among those who adopted this method…. The divine Iamblichus therefore says in the first place that it is not proper to make the soul every number, or the geometrical number, on account of the multitude of letters. For the words body and non-being itself consist of an equal number of letters. Non-being therefore, will also be every number. You may also find many other things, consisting of an equal number of letters, which are of a vile nature, and most contrary to each other; all which it is not right to confound and mingle together.
In the second place, he observes, that it is not safe to argue from characters. For these subsist by position, and the ancient was different from the present mode of forming them. Thus for instance the letter Z, which he makes the subject of discussion, had not the opposite lines entirely parallel, nor the middle line oblique, but at right angles, as is evident from the ancient letters.
In the third place, he adds, that to analyze into the primary ratios of numbers, and to dwell on these, transfers the theory from some numbers to others. For the heptad is not the same which is in units, and tens, and hundreds. This however, existing in the name of the soul, why is it requisite to introduce the disquisition of primary ratios? For thus he may transfer all things to all numbers, by dividing, or compounding, or multiplying. In short, he accuses the whole of this theory as artificial, and containing nothing sane.37
Iamblichus, according to this source, objects to letter speculations such as comparison between numerical value of words and interpretations of letters according to their shape. These two methods are well known in rabbinic and later Jewish sources, where they were adapted without critique. The fact that two early and well-known figures such as Irenaeus of Lyon in a Christian context and Iamblichus in the Neoplatonic world strongly objected to letter speculations can explain why they were not prevalent in Christian and Neoplatonic sources. Letter discussions, by nature, look arbitrary and irrational: there is no coherent connection between words whose letters have the same numerical value. Similarly, a historical point of view, well known in ancient times, asserts clearly that the alphabet is a human invention and that the number of the letters of the alphabet as well as their shape has changed throughout the years. These facts, as well as the fact that methods for dealing with letters were developed by Gnostics, among others, gave letter speculation a subversive character in certain contexts. Despite the fact that discussions of the letters were rejected by leading figures as insane, they developed in two main channels: first in Jewish and Samaritan38 and later in Islamic sources;39 and then in Christian and Neoplatonic sources, which were unaware of or did not accept the background of hostility to those discussions. Since the Christian sources are more important for our purposes, I will limit my discussion to them.
Letter Speculations in Christian Sources
Reading the early church fathers, it seems that discussions about letters of the alphabet remained marginal and undeveloped as a consequence of the rejection of the Gnostic preoccupation with them, first by Irenaeus of Lyon and then by church fathers such as Hippolytus of Rome (170–235 CE) and Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 310–403).40 More marginal Christian circles nevertheless continued to engage with alphabetical speculations, three examples of which follow.
Saint Pachomius (ca. 292–348) is a good example of the use of letter discussions in the monastic literature. He writes about secret writing as well as mystical, contemplative, and perhaps magical uses of Greek letters.41 The epistles of Saint Pachomius feature tables of letters similar to magic tables,42 instructions for contemplating certain letters,43 rules about letters that are not to be written in proximity,44 sentences ordered according to opposed pairs of letters exchange method,45 and cryptographs composed of Greek letters. For example, Pachomius instructs his addressees in cryptic letter exchanges: “1. I want you to understand the characters that you wrote to me and that I wrote to you in answer, and how important it is to know all the elements of the
