Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

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: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Secret Alias »

What do you make, by the way, of Justin's etymology for Israel?
Philo does the same thing only with a slightly different explanation. I think it was a 'folk etymology' which goes back to the presence of ish as the angel which wrestled with Jacob. The Samaritan Pentateuch https://books.google.com/books?id=-wn8A ... sh&f=false Justin, Clement etc all see 'man' as the angel which wrestled with Jacob. On the Origin of the World from Nag Hammadi:
Israel - which is, "the man that sees God"; and another being, called ΙΣ Christ, who resembles the savior above in the eighth heaven, and who sits at his right upon a revered throne
You really believe that ΙΣ here is Ιησοῦς?
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:39 am, edited 3 times 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: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Secret Alias »

In other words, Ish to Ιησοῦς may hypothetically have happened at some extremely early point, but the manuscripts are not evidence for it.
Here's my solution.

1. the number one thing that pisses Irenaeus/Tertullian about Marcion is his not adhering to the monarchia in heaven. It comes up with in the interrogation of the Marcionite Apelles.
2. I look at Secret Mark and various other MS Matt 1.21: τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.
Image
there seems to be a sense that Ιησοῦς as a name is not in itself sacred.
3. My guess is that because ΙΣ is naturally read as the Greek rendering of the Hebrew אִישׁ THAT'S WHERE IT BEGAN. From the beginning there were two central protagonists - ΙΣ and Ιησοῦς where - in the Catholic gospels ΙΣ descended into Ιησοῦς. At some point Ιησοῦς becomes ΙΣ. Perhaps using the nomen sacrum ΙΣ on some level acknowledges that ΙΣ is operating through Ιησοῦς (at least visible to outsiders).
4. The root of this myth seems to be archaic 'Judaism' (where the term is understood to apply to the Samaritans too):

No longer does the Anthropos remain in heaven and men ascend to him; now he descends to earth at the eschatological moment:
The Son of Man in the similitudes of Enoch, Brandenburger argues, is one manifestation of the myth of the Anthropos which can best be discerned in Philo. I Enoch 70-1 is a fragment of tradition which tells of the ascent of Enoch and his transformation into the Son of Man; this shows that the same soteriological understanding of the anthropos was present in the Enochian circles as in the Philonic. The redeemed ascend to union with the Anthropos in heaven. This early version of the myth can still be seen in I En. 49: 3, 62: i4ff., and 71: I4ff., where the Son of Man and his own people are identified. The soteriological interpretation of the myth, in which men ascended to unite with the Anthropos in heaven, was modified in Enoch by the apocalyptic eschatology and the idea of the Messiah. Thus the Similitudes of Enoch and I Cor. 15: 45-9 represent the same process of interpretation of the myth of the heavenly man, in terms of apocalyptic eschatology and Jewish Messianism. No longer does the Anthropos remain in heaven and men ascend to him; now he descends to earth at the eschatological moment. The 'man from heaven' in the Pauline text, therefore, if it does not depend on"the Enochian Son of Man, is at least a parallel development of the same Anthropos tradition. The similarity between the Pauline layer of tradition in I Cor. 15: 45-9 and the apocalyptic layer in the Similitudes is clear; both have re-interpreted the myth of the Anthropos as the heavenly image to which man ascends; both look forward to the descent of the Anthropos at the end of time, to do the work of the Messiah. All of this argument leads to the conclusion that Jesus had been understood in terms of the myth of the heavenly man, by the opponents of Paul. Jesus was, for them, the pre-existent, heavenly Anthropos, on earth. Paul does not reject the identification ofJesus with the Anthropos; rather he emphasizes eschatology; as Jervell says, Paul makes Jesus the Anthropos of the end of time.1 He used the idea of the pre-existent Anthropos because it was part of the religion of those he sought to refute; but this does not mean that he did not regard the pre-existence of the Anthropos as an appropriate attribute of the Christ. As the anthropos of the end of time, Christ is still thought of as preexisterit - before the creation and before his eschatological manifestation. His soteriological significance, however, rests not on his pre-creational existence but on his eschatological coming; hence, the emphasis is on Christ as the Anthropos of the end of time. Men are not saved by returning to a prior state of existence, but by receiving a new existence from the coming, future one. Nevertheless, this new existence has always been there, not as man's true self, the 'first Adam 5 , but as Christ's self, the 'last Adam'. (vi) / / Corinthians 4: 4b. ...lest they see the enlightenment of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. In this section the meaning of the word 'image' is our central concern. The term is closely connected with the Adamic motif in Paul's Christology, and is clearly important for his presentation of the nature of Christ.1 The present text is probably a fragment from a pre-Pauline confession or hymn, which indicates that the identification of Christ as the image of God took place in the Gentile church prior to the advent of Paul.2 According to Jervell, this hymnic fragment belongs to the same context of thought as Phil. 2: 6fF. and Col. 1: isff. Although II Cor. 4: 4 cannot be understood without some reference to these hymns, we shall reserve a full discussion of them for later. 4: 4 should be read as part of the exposition that includes 3: 18.3 The theme of 3: 18 is that by beholding the glory (66^a) of Christ, as in a mirror (KaTOTTTpijoiievoi), the Christians are being changed (jjeTociJiopcpouiJisdoc) into his image (TT]V OCUTT^V SIKOVOC) ; and this transformation is achieved by the Lord who is the Spirit (&TT6 Kupiou TTVEUUCCTOS). The theme of 4: 4 is that the gospel is the 'light 5 (cpcoTianos) of the glory (So^oc) of Christ, who is the image of God (eiKcbv Oeou). The two probable sources for this conception of Christ and salvation are (a) the Wisdom tradition and (b) Philo. In Wisd. 7: 25-7, Wisdom is called 'an effluence of the glory of the creator' (dnroppoioc TT\S ... S6£ns),c an effulgence of eternal light' (&Trocuya(7[Jcc 9C0TOS aiSiou), a 'mirror' (eaoiTTpov) and 'the image of his goodness' (eiKcbv TI^S dcyaOoTTjTOs). In 7: 27 it is said that she enters 'holy souls' and makes them friends of God and prophets. In verse 22 she is said to be a 'spirit'. There is obviously a close similarity between II Cor. 3:18 and 4: 4 and Wisdom 7: 22-30. 1 Wisdom as the 'image' of God is the mediator between God and man. But the similarity is not close enough to permit the judgement that Paul has precisely this passage in mind. The figure of Wisdom as we find it in the Wisdom of Solomon underwent development in the writings of Philo. He identified it with the Logos,2 and added significantly to its anthropological and soteriological aspects. Jervell believes that this development in the idea of crocpia/Aoyos took place as a result of influence from 'gnostic' interpretations of Gen. 1: 26.3 The Logos became the archetypal anthropos, image of God,4 as well as the true man within each human being.5 Both the divine mediator and the inner man bear the same name, 'Logos'. The presence of the logos, or 'image', in man, makes it possible for him to know 1 Gf. F.-W. Eltester, Eikon, p. 134, who paraphrases H. Windisch, 'Die Weisheit und die paulinische Christologie', in Neutestamentliche Studienfur G. Heinrici (Leipzig, 1914), pp. 220-34, as follows: 'dass der praexistente Ghristus bei Paulus und die gottliche Weisheit der Juden eine und dieselbe Gestalt sind'. Cf. Jervell, Imago Dei, p. 49. 2 Somn. II. 242, Sac. 64!!., Fug. io8ff., Quis Her. iggff., Ebr. 306°., Leg. All. II. 49. In Somn. II. 42, Wisdom is the source of the 'logos' in the virtuous soul. 'Wisdom' is, mutatis mutandis, the heavenly eikon, and logos the eikon in man. 3 Jervell, Imago Dei, pp. 57-8. See our discussion of I Cor. 15: 45-9, pp. 132-44. 4 Leg. All. III. 96, Op. 24-5, Gonf. 62-3, 146 (where the logos is called 6 KOCT* eiKovoc ocvOpcoiros), 147, Fug. 101, cf. G.H. I. 12 for a gnostic expression of this idea; Jervell, ibid., pp. 52-70. 5 Quis Her. 230-2, Plant. 18-20, Quaes. Gen. II. 62, Fug. 71, Somn. I. 215, Det. 22-3, 84, Gig. 33, Agr. 9, Op. 69, Plant. 42, Quis Her. 56; Jervell, Imago Dei, pp. 56ff.https://books.google.com/books?id=wl2KE ... 22&f=false
I think logic necessitates that we should stop playing mental tricks to continue to read ΙΣ as Ιησοῦς. It necessarily goes back to this primal Jewish myth. The onus is on the defenders of their Christian ancestors to attempt what Richard Carrier did a while back - prove that there was a Jewish myth of a heavenly Jesus. There wasn't one. So everyone should just admit defeat.
“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: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Secret Alias »

On Anthropos being 'above all names' cf. the Secret Book of John and the Sethians in AH:
Ialdaboath, becoming arrogant in spirit, boasted himself over all those who were below him, and explained, "I am the father, and God, and above me there is no one," his mother hearing him speak thus, cried out against him: "Do not lie, Ialdabaoth, for the father of all, the primal Anthropos, is above you, and so is Anthropos, the son of Anthropos."
The Naaseene hymn:
That is, from the blessed man from above, or the primal man or Adam, as it seems to them, souls have been conveyed down here into a creation of clay, that they may serve the Demiurge of this creation, Ialdabaoth, a fiery God, a fourth number; for so they call the Demiurge and father of the formal world
again:
For there is, says (the Naassene), one blessed nature of the Blessed Man, of him who is above, (namely) Adam; and there is one mortal nature, that which is below
The existence of a 'Man' who is 'above everything' is traced by the author of the Naassene hymn to the Chaldeans:
The Chaldeans, however, say that this Adam is the man whom alone earth brought forth. And that he lay inanimate, unmoved, (and) still as a statue; being an image of him who is above, who is celebrated as the man Adam, having been begotten by many powers, concerning whom individually is an enlarged discussion. In order, therefore, that finally the Great Man from above may be overpowered, "from whom," as they say, "the whole family named on earth and in the heavens has been formed, to him was given also a soul, that through the soul he might suffer; and that the enslaved image may be punished of the Great and most Glorious and Perfect Man, for even so they call him. Again, then, they ask what is the soul, and whence, and what kind in its nature, that, coming to the man and moving him, it should enslave and punish the image of the Perfect Man. They do not, however, (on this point) institute an inquiry from the Scriptures, but ask this (question) also from the mystic (rites). And they affirm that the soul is very difficult to discover, and hard to understand; for it does not remain in the same figure or the same form invariably, or in one passive condition, that either one could express it by a sign, or comprehend it substantially.
Even in the Valentinian tradition:
Others, again, affirm that he had his being from those twelve AEons who were the offspring of Anthropos and Ecclesia; and on this account he acknowledges himself the Son of man, as being a descendant of Anthropos. Others still, assert that he was produced by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who were brought forth for the security of the Pleroma; and that on this account he was called Christ, thus preserving the appellation of the Father, by whom he was produced. And there are yet others among them who declare that the Propator of the whole, Proarche, and Proanennoetos is called Anthropos; and that this is the great and abstruse mystery, namely, that the Power which is above all others, and contains all in his embrace, is termed Anthropos; hence does the Saviour style himself the "Son of man."
“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: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Secret Alias »

Horbury's discussion of ish as an honorific title in Jewish literature is also worth citing - https://books.google.com/books?id=UlZLD ... 22&f=false

I didn't know this but Horbury notes something very important:
This verse [Num 24:17] in Hebrew foretells the 'star' and 'scepter' in LXX 'star' and 'man'.
Very significant for Philo and Christians:
I will point to him, but not now; I bless him, but he draws not near: a star shall rise out of Jacob, a man shall spring out of Israel (ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ισραηλ); and shall crush the princes of Moab, and shall spoil all the sons of Seth.
Wow! I think this solves your original question why Justin and Philo interpret Israel the way they do. Apparently it's also in verse 7:
ἐξελεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ καὶ κυριεύσει ἐθνῶν πολλῶν καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Γωγ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐξηθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ

There shall come a man out of his seed, and he shall rule over many nations; and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall be increased.
“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: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Secret Alias »

Although Justin and Irenaeus's translation seems to read ἡγοὐμενος rather than ἄνθρωπος.
“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: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Secret Alias »

Origen explains Numbers 24:17 in ways which might suggest that ἄνθρωπος was the 'name above all names':
I am therefore of opinion that, possessing as they [the Magi] did the prophecies of Balaam, which Moses also records, inasmuch as Balaam was celebrated for such predictions, and finding among them the prophecy about the star, and the words, I shall show him to him, but not now; I deem him happy, although he will not be near, they conjectured that the man (ἄνθρωπος) whose appearance had been foretold along with that of the star, had actually come into the world; and having predetermined that he was superior in power to all demons, and to all common appearances and powers, they resolved to offer him homage. They came, accordingly, to Judea, persuaded that some king had been born; but not knowing over what kingdom he was to reign, and being ignorant also of the place of his birth, bringing gifts, which they offered to him as one whose nature partook, if I may so speak, both of God and of a mortal man — gold, viz., as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and incense, as to a God; and they brought these offerings after they had learned the place of His birth. But since He was a God, the Saviour of the human race, raised far above all those angels which minister to men, an angel rewarded the piety of the Magi for their worship of Him, by making known to them that they were not to go back to Herod, but to return to their own homes by another way.
“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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:51 am
What do you make, by the way, of Justin's etymology for Israel?
Philo does the same thing only with a slightly different explanation. I think it was a 'folk etymology' which goes back to the presence of ish as the angel which wrestled with Jacob. The Samaritan Pentateuch https://books.google.com/books?id=-wn8A ... sh&f=false Justin, Clement etc all see 'man' as the angel which wrestled with Jacob.
I agree with this. It is a folk etymology; it is also a false etymology.
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:59 am
In other words, Ish to Ιησοῦς may hypothetically have happened at some extremely early point, but the manuscripts are not evidence for it.
Here's my solution.

1. the number one thing that pisses Irenaeus/Tertullian about Marcion is his not adhering to the monarchia in heaven. It comes up with in the interrogation of the Marcionite Apelles.
2. I look at Secret Mark and various other MS Matt 1.21: τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.
Image
there seems to be a sense that Ιησοῦς as a name is not in itself sacred.
3. My guess is that because ΙΣ is naturally read as the Greek rendering of the Hebrew אִישׁ THAT'S WHERE IT BEGAN. From the beginning there were two central protagonists - ΙΣ and Ιησοῦς where - in the Catholic gospels ΙΣ descended into Ιησοῦς. At some point Ιησοῦς becomes ΙΣ. Perhaps using the nomen sacrum ΙΣ on some level acknowledges that ΙΣ is operating through Ιησοῦς (at least visible to outsiders).
4. The root of this myth seems to be archaic 'Judaism' (where the term is understood to apply to the Samaritans too):

No longer does the Anthropos remain in heaven and men ascend to him; now he descends to earth at the eschatological moment:
The Son of Man in the similitudes of Enoch, Brandenburger argues, is one manifestation of the myth of the Anthropos which can best be discerned in Philo. I Enoch 70-1 is a fragment of tradition which tells of the ascent of Enoch and his transformation into the Son of Man; this shows that the same soteriological understanding of the anthropos was present in the Enochian circles as in the Philonic. The redeemed ascend to union with the Anthropos in heaven. This early version of the myth can still be seen in I En. 49: 3, 62: i4ff., and 71: I4ff., where the Son of Man and his own people are identified. The soteriological interpretation of the myth, in which men ascended to unite with the Anthropos in heaven, was modified in Enoch by the apocalyptic eschatology and the idea of the Messiah. Thus the Similitudes of Enoch and I Cor. 15: 45-9 represent the same process of interpretation of the myth of the heavenly man, in terms of apocalyptic eschatology and Jewish Messianism. No longer does the Anthropos remain in heaven and men ascend to him; now he descends to earth at the eschatological moment. The 'man from heaven' in the Pauline text, therefore, if it does not depend on"the Enochian Son of Man, is at least a parallel development of the same Anthropos tradition. The similarity between the Pauline layer of tradition in I Cor. 15: 45-9 and the apocalyptic layer in the Similitudes is clear; both have re-interpreted the myth of the Anthropos as the heavenly image to which man ascends; both look forward to the descent of the Anthropos at the end of time, to do the work of the Messiah. All of this argument leads to the conclusion that Jesus had been understood in terms of the myth of the heavenly man, by the opponents of Paul. Jesus was, for them, the pre-existent, heavenly Anthropos, on earth. Paul does not reject the identification ofJesus with the Anthropos; rather he emphasizes eschatology; as Jervell says, Paul makes Jesus the Anthropos of the end of time.1 He used the idea of the pre-existent Anthropos because it was part of the religion of those he sought to refute; but this does not mean that he did not regard the pre-existence of the Anthropos as an appropriate attribute of the Christ. As the anthropos of the end of time, Christ is still thought of as preexisterit - before the creation and before his eschatological manifestation. His soteriological significance, however, rests not on his pre-creational existence but on his eschatological coming; hence, the emphasis is on Christ as the Anthropos of the end of time. Men are not saved by returning to a prior state of existence, but by receiving a new existence from the coming, future one. Nevertheless, this new existence has always been there, not as man's true self, the 'first Adam 5 , but as Christ's self, the 'last Adam'. (vi) / / Corinthians 4: 4b. ...lest they see the enlightenment of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. In this section the meaning of the word 'image' is our central concern. The term is closely connected with the Adamic motif in Paul's Christology, and is clearly important for his presentation of the nature of Christ.1 The present text is probably a fragment from a pre-Pauline confession or hymn, which indicates that the identification of Christ as the image of God took place in the Gentile church prior to the advent of Paul.2 According to Jervell, this hymnic fragment belongs to the same context of thought as Phil. 2: 6fF. and Col. 1: isff. Although II Cor. 4: 4 cannot be understood without some reference to these hymns, we shall reserve a full discussion of them for later. 4: 4 should be read as part of the exposition that includes 3: 18.3 The theme of 3: 18 is that by beholding the glory (66^a) of Christ, as in a mirror (KaTOTTTpijoiievoi), the Christians are being changed (jjeTociJiopcpouiJisdoc) into his image (TT]V OCUTT^V SIKOVOC) ; and this transformation is achieved by the Lord who is the Spirit (&TT6 Kupiou TTVEUUCCTOS). The theme of 4: 4 is that the gospel is the 'light 5 (cpcoTianos) of the glory (So^oc) of Christ, who is the image of God (eiKcbv Oeou). The two probable sources for this conception of Christ and salvation are (a) the Wisdom tradition and (b) Philo. In Wisd. 7: 25-7, Wisdom is called 'an effluence of the glory of the creator' (dnroppoioc TT\S ... S6£ns),c an effulgence of eternal light' (&Trocuya(7[Jcc 9C0TOS aiSiou), a 'mirror' (eaoiTTpov) and 'the image of his goodness' (eiKcbv TI^S dcyaOoTTjTOs). In 7: 27 it is said that she enters 'holy souls' and makes them friends of God and prophets. In verse 22 she is said to be a 'spirit'. There is obviously a close similarity between II Cor. 3:18 and 4: 4 and Wisdom 7: 22-30. 1 Wisdom as the 'image' of God is the mediator between God and man. But the similarity is not close enough to permit the judgement that Paul has precisely this passage in mind. The figure of Wisdom as we find it in the Wisdom of Solomon underwent development in the writings of Philo. He identified it with the Logos,2 and added significantly to its anthropological and soteriological aspects. Jervell believes that this development in the idea of crocpia/Aoyos took place as a result of influence from 'gnostic' interpretations of Gen. 1: 26.3 The Logos became the archetypal anthropos, image of God,4 as well as the true man within each human being.5 Both the divine mediator and the inner man bear the same name, 'Logos'. The presence of the logos, or 'image', in man, makes it possible for him to know 1 Gf. F.-W. Eltester, Eikon, p. 134, who paraphrases H. Windisch, 'Die Weisheit und die paulinische Christologie', in Neutestamentliche Studienfur G. Heinrici (Leipzig, 1914), pp. 220-34, as follows: 'dass der praexistente Ghristus bei Paulus und die gottliche Weisheit der Juden eine und dieselbe Gestalt sind'. Cf. Jervell, Imago Dei, p. 49. 2 Somn. II. 242, Sac. 64!!., Fug. io8ff., Quis Her. iggff., Ebr. 306°., Leg. All. II. 49. In Somn. II. 42, Wisdom is the source of the 'logos' in the virtuous soul. 'Wisdom' is, mutatis mutandis, the heavenly eikon, and logos the eikon in man. 3 Jervell, Imago Dei, pp. 57-8. See our discussion of I Cor. 15: 45-9, pp. 132-44. 4 Leg. All. III. 96, Op. 24-5, Gonf. 62-3, 146 (where the logos is called 6 KOCT* eiKovoc ocvOpcoiros), 147, Fug. 101, cf. G.H. I. 12 for a gnostic expression of this idea; Jervell, ibid., pp. 52-70. 5 Quis Her. 230-2, Plant. 18-20, Quaes. Gen. II. 62, Fug. 71, Somn. I. 215, Det. 22-3, 84, Gig. 33, Agr. 9, Op. 69, Plant. 42, Quis Her. 56; Jervell, Imago Dei, pp. 56ff.https://books.google.com/books?id=wl2KE ... 22&f=false
I think logic necessitates that we should stop playing mental tricks to continue to read ΙΣ as Ιησοῦς. It necessarily goes back to this primal Jewish myth. The onus is on the defenders of their Christian ancestors to attempt what Richard Carrier did a while back - prove that there was a Jewish myth of a heavenly Jesus. There wasn't one. So everyone should just admit defeat.
You have crossed over into delusion if you think that it is a mental trick to read ΙΣ as Ιησοῦς in the extant manuscripts. Please tell me that is not what you are saying, because I do not want to have to label you as deluded. You give all sorts of reasons, some better than others, to suppose that Ish preceded Ἰησοῦς in the Christian tradition. If we grant for the sake of argument that you are correct, it still stands that this development from Ish to Ἰησοῦς predates every known manuscript. The manuscripts are not in any way a witness to that development (unless you have evidence from them that you have not yet presented or that I have missed):
  1. In the manuscripts ΙΣ with an overstroke is just part of a pretty pervasive system of abbreviations. This system is found in canonical and noncanonical works alike (it is found both in Matthew and in Thomas, for example). It is no more a mental trick to read ΙΣ as Ἰησοῦς than it is to read ΘΣ as Θεός or ΚΣ as Κύριος.
  2. In the manuscripts sometimes Ἰησοῦς (or one of the inflections) is spelled out in full in passages in which the name of the protagonist is usually rendered as ΙΣ (or one of the inflections) with an overstroke. I have given examples in this thread.
  3. In the manuscripts sometimes ΙΣ with an overstroke (or one of the inflections) means the Hebrew hero, Joshua. Again, I have given examples.
  4. In the manuscripts ΙΣ, standing on its own, cannot be first declension, because neither is it feminine nor does it bear the α/η stem; ΙΣ cannot be second declension because the nominative does not end in -ος or in -ον; and ΙΣ cannot be third declension because its genitive is rendered as terminating in an upsilon and its accusative is rendered as terminating in a nu. So what declension is it? The system of nomina sacra provides an answer for this; does your theory?
If, then, you are trying to say that the manuscripts themselves support a development of Ish to Ἰησοῦς, then you are not just mistaken; you are mistaken to a degree every bit as extreme as that achieved by KJV-Onlyism or by Young Earth Creationism. (Again, unless you have manuscript evidence you are holding back.) So I do not think that is what you are trying to say. I think, rather, that you are trying to argue from Judaism and Christianity and syncretism as a whole that Ish must have preceded Ἰησοῦς. That is why you produce so many posts about those topics, completely devoid of manuscript evidence, like so:
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:26 am On Anthropos being 'above all names' cf. the Secret Book of John and the Sethians in AH:
Ialdaboath, becoming arrogant in spirit, boasted himself over all those who were below him, and explained, "I am the father, and God, and above me there is no one," his mother hearing him speak thus, cried out against him: "Do not lie, Ialdabaoth, for the father of all, the primal Anthropos, is above you, and so is Anthropos, the son of Anthropos."
The Naaseene hymn:
That is, from the blessed man from above, or the primal man or Adam, as it seems to them, souls have been conveyed down here into a creation of clay, that they may serve the Demiurge of this creation, Ialdabaoth, a fiery God, a fourth number; for so they call the Demiurge and father of the formal world
again:
For there is, says (the Naassene), one blessed nature of the Blessed Man, of him who is above, (namely) Adam; and there is one mortal nature, that which is below
The existence of a 'Man' who is 'above everything' is traced by the author of the Naassene hymn to the Chaldeans:
The Chaldeans, however, say that this Adam is the man whom alone earth brought forth. And that he lay inanimate, unmoved, (and) still as a statue; being an image of him who is above, who is celebrated as the man Adam, having been begotten by many powers, concerning whom individually is an enlarged discussion. In order, therefore, that finally the Great Man from above may be overpowered, "from whom," as they say, "the whole family named on earth and in the heavens has been formed, to him was given also a soul, that through the soul he might suffer; and that the enslaved image may be punished of the Great and most Glorious and Perfect Man, for even so they call him. Again, then, they ask what is the soul, and whence, and what kind in its nature, that, coming to the man and moving him, it should enslave and punish the image of the Perfect Man. They do not, however, (on this point) institute an inquiry from the Scriptures, but ask this (question) also from the mystic (rites). And they affirm that the soul is very difficult to discover, and hard to understand; for it does not remain in the same figure or the same form invariably, or in one passive condition, that either one could express it by a sign, or comprehend it substantially.
Even in the Valentinian tradition:
Others, again, affirm that he had his being from those twelve AEons who were the offspring of Anthropos and Ecclesia; and on this account he acknowledges himself the Son of man, as being a descendant of Anthropos. Others still, assert that he was produced by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who were brought forth for the security of the Pleroma; and that on this account he was called Christ, thus preserving the appellation of the Father, by whom he was produced. And there are yet others among them who declare that the Propator of the whole, Proarche, and Proanennoetos is called Anthropos; and that this is the great and abstruse mystery, namely, that the Power which is above all others, and contains all in his embrace, is termed Anthropos; hence does the Saviour style himself the "Son of man."
That kind of theological stuff is the core of your argument. But... you see ΙΣ, one possible transliteration of Ish, all over the Christian manuscripts, and the correspondence is just too tempting to pass up; you just have to mention it, have to try to wrest it in as one of your arguments. But it does not work. You could be right about the whole development of Ish to Ἰησοῦς, and the manuscripts would still not be of any use to your thesis.

One more thing:
Secret Alias wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:00 pmIt's just your faith in your ancestors that decides matters for you.
This is ridiculous, and you are better than this. I suppose I have pursued theories that Jesus never existed, that the gospels consist mainly of legend and some variant of midrash, and that interpolations and substrata abound in the Christian documents because of faith in my "ancestors," whatever you may mean by that. The human eye cannot roll hard enough to express how inane this is.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Secret Alias »

This might help explain ἄνθρωπος in Numbers 24:17:
Philo cites Numbers 24:7 twice: in Mos. 1:290 (where he retells the Balaam story, including the third oracle but excluding the fourth) and Praem. 95. The latter is one of the few instances in which Philo speaks of a future eschatological age in which war, both among animals and among humankind, will cease. Philo mentions ἄνθρωπος as one who will lead an army to pacify the world of savage men.236 Although this might seem to imply that Philo understood this ἄνθρωπος to be a messianic figure, ἄνθρωπος plays no further role in Philo's vision of the future age. Furthermore, Lust observes, Philo typically eschews the notion of an individual messianic figure. Here, he suggests, ἄνθρωπος is intended as a reference to humankind, which stands in contrast to wild animals and brutish humans.237

The early Church fathers, Justin Martyr and Irenaus, do not preserve ἄνθρωπος, but instead give ἡγούμενος and dux, respectively.238 Their focus, furthermore, is on the star, which is applied to Jesus, or understood to be pointing to Jesus. Later Church fathers, such as Origen and Eusebius, do preserve ἄνθρωπος, but their discussion of the text is almost exclusively concerned with issues related to the humanity and divinity of Christ, not his messianic identity. The earliest Christian evidence does not have ἄνθρωπος yet focuses more on the messianic identity of Jesus. In contrast, the later Christian evidence, which reads ἄνθρωπος, is less concerned with messianism.239 In other words, the use of ἄνθρωπος is associated with non-messianic readings of Numbers 24:17. Lust concludes that, in the absence of clear evidence from Greek interpretive traditions that attach messianic significance to ἄνθρωπος, ἄνθρωπος cannot be understood as an example of messianic interpretation by the LXX
translator.

In favor of messianic associations for ἄνθρωπος, Vermes and Horbury argue that, although ἄνθρωπος has a wide semantic range, it would have included messianic associations.240 They cite multiple situations in which a variety of terms meaning “man” are understood as messianic, either
explicitly in the text or in later interpretation.241 In addition, Horbury observes what he calls a “tendency toward titularity” in words and phrases found in messianically interepreted passages.242 In other words, key terms in texts to which were attributed messianic significance could absorb some of that messianic significance, so that the use of a term elsewhere could bring to mind the significance of that entire messianic passage. Horbury applies this tendency to the phrase “son of man,” arguing that it became a messianic title as a result of its appearance in Daniel 7:13 and the messianic association of terms for “man.”243 If this indeed is what took place with “son of man,” it could have also presumably taken place with ἄνθρωπος. Its messianic use in various instances could have resulted in ἄνθρωπος gaining a titular function.244 The key issue that divides these two perspectives on ἄνθρωπος is the breadth of evidence allowed to have bearing. Lust restricts his discussion to only the term ἄνθρωπος, and therefore excludes any messianic associations that ἀνήρ etc. may have. On the other hand, Vermes and Horbury find messianic significance in the cluster of overlapping terms meaning “man.”245 Consequently, any use of any of these terms could contribute to or derive meaning from the concept “man.” For Vermes and Horbury, if a text with messianic associations uses ἀνήρ, those associations could be evoked in other instances where ἀνήρ or ἄνθρωπος or any other word meaning “man” appears, since they are all linked to the concept “man.” This approach is problematic because it ignores the distinction between words and concepts. For Vermes and Horbury, the concept “man” is virtually indistinguishable from the various Greek and Hebrew words that denote “man.”

A few observations on ἄνθρωπος are in order. First, messianic language cannot be reduced to a limited set of specific words. Biblical literature uses a variety of words and phrases to express ideas, and messianic language can be either direct or circumlocutional. Some words semantically overlap with ἄνθρωπος, and their connotations can overlap as well, although they do not necessarily do so. Second, even a cursory examination of the LXX text shows that sometimes the translator adheres to a specific translation equivalent, and at other times varies vocabulary for no apparent reason.

Similarly, the occurrence of calques in the LXX indicates that Greek words could acquire new meanings from their Hebrew counterparts. This means that the translator could conceivably have thought of ἄνθρωπος as carrying at least some the same meaning and resonances as איש .The translator stands in a unique position between the Hebrew and Greek texts, and in the translator the two languages intersect and influence one another.246

Third, we should be careful not to overload the semantic content of a word. A word may have a wide range of potential meanings, but a much more limited range within a specific context. The most important determiner of whether or not ἄνθρωπος has messianic significance is not its use elsewhere, but its immediate context. ἄνθρωπος must be evaluated in the context of the verses in which it appears: 24:7 and 24:17, as well as the larger context of Balaam's oracles as a whole, and the broader narrative of Numbers 22-24.

Finally, the translator did not pick the term ἄνθρωπος at random. He chose ἄνθρωπος out of all the translation options at his disposal because he thought that it best communicated the meaning of the passage. The signficance of ἄνθρωπος in Numbers 24:7, 17, should therefore be understood in light of how the translators of the LXX used ἄνθρωπος elsewhere, and how the rest of the Balaam account is
translated.

We can conclude therefore that the use of the term ἄνθρωπος does alter the meaning of the oracles by focusing on a particular (but unspecified) figure who plays a key role in the exaltation of Israel. However, it should not be understood as a the translator imposing a messianic ideology on an otherwise non-messianic text. We have no indication that the translator of Numbers intended his translation of 24:7, 17 to evoke associations with any other text, and we have no way of knowing whether the translator had a larger conceptual scheme in mind that influenced him to use ἄνθρωπος, or if he was focused on translating this passage with no thought to how his translation might be understood in the light of other LXX passages.

237Ibid.
238Justin Martyr, Dial., CVI 4; Irenaus, Demonstr., 58; Adv. Haeres., III:9:2.
239Lust, “The Greek Version” 241-5. Lust excludes as evidence The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, which alludes to
Num 24:17 twice at T. Levi 18 and T. Judah 24, as textually problematic since it contains Christian scribal intervention and
exists in longer and shorter versions.
240See Vermes’s discussion on various terms meaning “man” in Scripture and Tradition, 56-66; Horbury, “Messianic
Associations of the Son of Man,” 48ff.
241E.g. איש) ἀνήρ) in Kings 2:4 8:25; 9:5; 2Chr 6:16; 7:18; Zech 6:12; איש) ὁ ἄνθρωπος) Isa 32:2; גבר) ἀνήρ) in 2 Sam 23:1;
בן־אדם) ἀνήρ) Ps 80:17[LXX 79:18]; זכר) ἄρσεν) Isa 66:7; מושיע) ἄνθρωπον ὃς σώσει αὐτούς) Isa 19:20.
242Horbury, “Messianic Associations,” 52.
243Ibid, 48.
244Some commentators have taken Pilate’s statement in John 19:5, ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, as a possible allusion to Zech 6:12 (ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ) and/or Numbers 24:7. See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 541; Raymond Brown, The Gospel
According to John, 875-876; Wayne A. Meeks, Prophet-King, 70-72.
245Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 56-66; Horbury, “Messianic Associations of the Son of Man,” 48ff.
246N. F. Marcos describes this tendency, “The translation into Greek of polysemic Hebrew words often produces an
extension of the semantic field of the Greek word in question, creating new meanings” (The Septuagint in Context, (trans Wilfred G. E. Watson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 24. https://www.twu.ca/sites/default/files/ ... orff_k.pdf
“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: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Secret Alias »

You have crossed over into delusion if you think that it is a mental trick to read ΙΣ as Ιησοῦς in the extant manuscripts.
I'm saying that
(1) on the one hand we have the natural interpretation of איש as ΙΣ among Greek speakers. If you had one hundred Greek speaking monkeys writing exegesis on the Hebrew Bible the transliteration of איש as ΙΣ would come up over and over again. That's a fact.

(2) Then there is this other thing - ΙΣ as Ιησοῦς - that is not natural which would almost never occur with one hundred Greek speaking monkeys writing exegesis on the Hebrew Bible. I don't know how it came up. You don't know how it came up. No one does.
We used to have this debate at the forum whether or not (1) was plausible. Justin, the LXX and Origen (as well as Philo and the rest of the exegetical evidence of the OT) have long since established that. But now I have to explain why, given that it would be natural for Greek speakers to arrive at (1) why you continue to act like (2) is on equal footing when it is weird and as aforementioned "I don't know how it came up. You don't know how it came up. No one does."

The only explanation is ancestor worship. This collective body of 'Christendom' has learned to read ΙΣ as Ιησοῦς. And that makes it better than (1) even though as mentioned, a handful of Greek speaking monkeys on a typewriter would come up with איש as ΙΣ at a massively more frequent rate than the other shit. That's all I am saying.

Clearly someone did read ΙΣ as Ιησοῦς but it should be self-evident that it came after the representing of איש as ΙΣ took place. Happy now?

I come to the forum in part to understand why Giuseppe behaves the way he does, the way I behave and the way you - as an erudite scholar - engage with the rest of the inmates here. It is puzzling that you can't see that when Justin says both (1) and (2) are valid it necessarily makes (1) the better explanation for the phenomenon because it is the more natural reading.
“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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:42 pmClearly someone did read ΙΣ as Ιησοῦς but it should be self-evident that it came after the representing of איש as ΙΣ took place. Happy now?
No, of course not, because you have still not answered my question(s) about the manuscripts. I want to establish that one point, at the very least. Do you agree that the extant manuscripts offer no support for your theory? Do you agree that, in the extant manuscripts, ΙΣ is an abbreviation for Ἰησοῦς just as ΘΣ is for Θεός? Is this point established? I cannot tell from your response(s).

You wanted to establish that ΙΣ for Ish is a natural transliteration, and I agreed with you. That point is established. Now I am talking about a different point, one having to do with the manuscripts, and you keep coming back to this point which has already been established.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply