Why Does Irenaeus Consistently Spell Words With EI Rather Than I?

[Secret Alias]

Examples Chreistos in Book One:

"Uios Chreistos" has twelve letters, but the ineffable name in Christ has thirty.

Also teitan and Lateinos in Book 5:

It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this number, it will be asked which among them shall the coming man bear. It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (Euanqas) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (Lateinos) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed "Titan" by those who do now possess [the rule]. This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed. And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name "Titan" has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called "Titan." We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

And notice also that the spelling is retained only because of numerological purposes. The rest of the work goes back to normal spelling. Shows something unique about Irenaeus. Does this argue for the original work to have been written in Latin or a native Latin speaker - https://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1W ... ng&f=false And why does Irenaeus think that the number of the beast needs to also have six letters? This doesn't seem to be indicated in our copies but if you notice he keeps emphasizing this.

[rakovsky]

When Irenaeus writes about the 12 letters and 30 letters, isn't he describing a belief of the gnostics or Marcosians whom he is trying to refute?:
https://books.google.com/books?id=LUOsk ... &q&f=false

"who will put up with you who confine the Creator of all things, the Framer and Maker, the Word of God to figures and numbers - now thirty, now twenty-four, now only six - and then divide Him into four combinations and thirty characters?"
(chapter 15, section 5, page 67)

So maybe with the Chreistos form he is citing a form made up by the gnostics to justify the designation of 12 letters.

[Ben C. Smith]

There is a lot of confusion in general in Koine and later Greek between the epsilon iota diphthong and the single iota. From the manuscripts of Acts, for example:

Acts 1.10: παρειστήκεισαν, παρειστήκισαν Sinaiticus.
Acts 2.3: ἐκάθισέν, ἐκαθεῖσεν Alexandrinus.

Examples could be obscenely multiplied.

I have found that Sinaiticus prefers to turn the diphthong into a single iota, whereas other manuscripts (including Vaticanus, IIRC) prefer to turn the single iota into the diphthong.

[Secret Alias]

But lateinos seems especially obscure. Irenaeus would have known that latin in Latin is latin (that's an especially unusual sentence).

[Ben C. Smith]

But lateinos seems especially obscure. Irenaeus would have known that latin in Latin is latin (that's an especially unusual sentence).

You are finding this more surprising than I am, I guess. The Greek spelling of Latin words just does that a lot, adding an epsilon to the iota: Ἀντονεῖνος for Antoninus, Παυλεῖνος for Paulinus, and so on. And in this case Irenaeus needed the extra epsilon to make the gematria come out to his favor, so why would he not do it? Even if it had never been done before (and I readily admit it is rare), it would not be too terribly shocking in this context, would it? But we do have this, probably from the end of century II (so roughly contemporaneous with Irenaeus):

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 12, fragment 1 (TLG): κατὰ δὲ τὸν δεύ|τερον Λατεῖ[νοι ἐπὶ τοὺ]ς Ῥω|μαίους συν[στάντες ἐ]π̣έ̣βη|σαν. .... τότε καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι | ἐπὶ Λατείνους ἐστράτευσαν.

And there is also this (not sure of the date, though):

ἐπὶ πρυτάνεως Γ(αΐου) Κλαυδίου
Τιτιανοῦ Δημοστράτου υἱοῦ
ἀρχιερέως, ἱερατεύοντος
Γ(αΐου) Σοσσιανοῦ, Μ(ᾶρκος) Πομπώνιος
Λα<τ>εῖνος ἀνέθηκεν Ἴσιδι
καὶ Σαράπιδι φιάλην καὶ
σπονδεῖον λ(ιτρῶν) βʹ, οὐν(κιῶν) ϛʹ, γρ(αμμάτων) βʹ, (δηναρίων) σλʹ,
ναυβατούντων Λυκίδα καὶ
Χαριδήμου τοῦ Χαρ[ιδήμου?.]

[Secret Alias]

So this tells us certainly that Irenaeus was writing in Greek.

[Secret Alias]

So it would stand to reason then that Irenaeus wrote the name Μαρκίων as Μαρκειων

[Stuart]

But lateinos seems especially obscure. Irenaeus would have known that latin in Latin is latin (that's an especially unusual sentence).

The writings were in Greek and not translated into Latin until several centuries later

[Stuart]

So it would stand to reason then that Irenaeus wrote the name Μαρκίων as Μαρκειων

Itacism is not consistent across all words. It came about from the changing sounds of vowels. Where two vowels would compact into a singular sound, whereas originally they were separate sound. We see that British English where Leicester is pronounced "Lister" or "Lester", Worcester is pronounced "Wooster" (hence Worcestershire sauce is "wostersher sauce"). American English is a bit simplified from British English in that we have dropped many no longer pronounced vowels: we write savior not saviour for example. My own name only 2 of 5 letters are even pronounced in English (in auld Scots all five letters would be pronounced; going from W-ah in English to W-ah-ow-K-h for Waugh ... but even when all letters are pronounced it's smushed together enough that it sounds veryt close to the Chinese "Wok" with the end "h" more an exhaling sound).

In the example you gave above Mark-eh-i-on would be the pronunciation. But in reality if any Iotacism existed, it was already in the form of Μαρκίων from Μαρκον (Μαρκων). But that never existed for that name.

[Secret Alias]

But in reality if any Iotacism existed, it was already in the form of Μαρκίων from Μαρκον (Μαρκων).

How would iotacism affect omicron and omega? The vowels affected by iotacism as far as I know are "ι", "η", "υ", "ει", "οι", "ηι", "υι"