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.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:28 pm

I want to establish that one point, at the very least. Do you agree that the extant manuscripts offer no support for your theory?
Origen says Marcionite manuscripts were burned the the orthodox.https://books.google.com/books?id=Ie7CD ... AHoECAgQKQ The same was true under Constantine and beyond. So yes if you're expecting 'the manuscripts which survived' to be a level playing field in any theological question yes, I think you willing accept ridiculous arguments to honor your ancestors. It's a ridiculous ridiculous - borderline disingenuous - to make this appeal in a discussion such as this.

To answer your question - the scribes were copying previous MSS. I am sure that by the fourth century they read the MSS the way you suggest. Although we should be careful at assuming that information did not pass along. For instance, I read an AMAZING discussion of Nonnus's preservation of Secret Mark https://brill.com/previewpdf/book/edcol ... 25_015.xml. Utterly brilliant. But how long did people wrestle with Secret Mark until Konstantinos Spanoudakis effectively proved its authenticity? Again the ancestor argument is hard to break.
“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
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:33 pm

There is no gimel in יְהוֹשׁוּעַ. That final letter is an 'ayin.
Fair enough, although I wasn't using יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, but ג'ושוע, which upon further reading is the modern form of Joshua in Hebrew (I din't know there was such a thing as "modern" Hebrew). And it does have a gimel. So I was right, and wrong. I need to use יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, which doesn't have gimel as you said.

I did make a mistake by only counting five letters instead of six. I wish I could say that was a typo, but I spell out numbers to prevent such typos. That was just a blunder on my end.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:44 pm

3154 Being written thus, ישו, and the small י [= the Hebrew letter yod = the "jot" in "jot and tittle"] being apparently regarded as only half a letter. Harvey proposes a different solution which seems less probable.
This is where you lose me. Irenaeus is speaking as if he is knowledgeable of Hebrew and thus would know that yod isn't a half letter even though it appears as a small jot. A letter is a letter. My theory presumes that the adherents of these mysteries would know the origin of their own beliefs, and thus would recognize the vav in ישו as being a resh cut off (Daniel 9:26), thus making it half of a letter. Irenaeus, not knowing exactly what they're saying, assumes that it is a half letter literally.

Another problem is that ישו, yeshu, is not יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, yeshua. There is a stark difference being implied here, and why the rabbinical literature only ever refers to a Yeshu and not a Yeshua. It would give the Christians too much credit, and the Christians not enough credit to themselves. So ישו cannot be what Irenaeus is referring to.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7462
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 » Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:56 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:44 pm
3154 Being written thus, ישו, and the small י [= the Hebrew letter yod = the "jot" in "jot and tittle"] being apparently regarded as only half a letter. Harvey proposes a different solution which seems less probable.
This is where you lose me. Irenaeus is speaking as if he is knowledgeable of Hebrew and thus would know that yod isn't a half letter even though it appears as a small jot.
I lose you? It is not my footnote. But do you have a better explanation for the half letter bit? I have no commitment here.
Another problem is that ישו, yeshu, is not יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, yeshua.
The former is a shortened form of the latter, like Tim and Timothy.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:06 pm

On the question of manuscripts, can it not be possible that it that ΙΣ as an abbreviation of Ιησοῦς, or Ιησοῦς being abbreviated ΙΣ appears simultaneous of one another because by the time our manuscripts are dated such a tradition had already been established, but it is not the original tradition? Our earliest mss. of New Testament books don't appear until roughly the second half of the second century, while the earliest manuscripts we have for the Septuagint is about third to fourth century. By then the relation between ΙΣ and Ιησοῦς would have been firmly sealed.

Is Iota Sigma an obvious abbreviation for Ιησοῦς? Yes. Is it the only meaning that Iota Sigma can have then? I guess it depends on the context. We wouldn't think about Ισμαήλ having an invocation of Ιησοῦς just because it begins Iota Sigma. But איש is a lone word by itself, thus Iota Sigma appears by itself.

If I was a Christian back then reading in my Greek translation of the Torah, and I already had in my mind that Ioata Sigma means Ιησοῦς, and I came across the Iota Sigma translation of איש in Genesis referring, not to a man but to a divine angel named Man, who mystically transforms Jacob into Israel, with Iota Sigma being here apart of Jacob's new divine name, my head would be coming up with all sorts of wild connections. The problem here is that I wouldn't be apart of the original Christians. So that Ιησοῦς being abbreviated as Iota Sigma is just a coincidence. The original layer was first Iota Sigma as the name/title of the divine power who transformed Jacob into Israel.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:13 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:56 pm
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:44 pm
3154 Being written thus, ישו, and the small י [= the Hebrew letter yod = the "jot" in "jot and tittle"] being apparently regarded as only half a letter. Harvey proposes a different solution which seems less probable.
This is where you lose me. Irenaeus is speaking as if he is knowledgeable of Hebrew and thus would know that yod isn't a half letter even though it appears as a small jot.
I lose you? It is not my footnote. But do you have a better explanation for the half letter bit? I have no commitment here.
I have given it above and elsewhere on the forum. It was based on Daniel 9:26. ישר was the original, but the "messiah will be cut off". The end of resh is cut off, leaving vav and thus creating ישו, yeshu the human. This is where Separationism came from.

The adherents would know about this spelling trickery, but Irenaeus would have take it literally.
Another problem is that ישו, yeshu, is not יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, yeshua.
The former is a shortened form of the latter, like Tim and Timothy.[/quote]

Christians wouldn't refer to Jesus as yeshu. The rabbinical writings refer to Jesus as yeshu precisely to spite the Christians.

Also, does such a shortening exist in Greek?

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:19 pm

Maybe it's because I'm biased, but I think ישר, yashar, upright, stadios, was the original interpretation in the early Christian mindset, particularly with Marcion and Basilides. People like Cerdo, Menander, and Saturnilius are probably just catch-all names. Not actual people.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:24 pm

Here's one Philo's references to the
Some will even flee when no one pursues at all except fear, turning their backs towards the enemy, so as to afford a full mark for shooting, so that it will be very easy for the whole army to fall, being slain to a man; for "a man will come forth" says the word of God („ἐξελεύσεται γὰρ ἄνθρωπος,“ φησὶν ὁ χρησμός) leading a host and warring furiously, who will subdue great and populous nations, God sending that assistance which is suitable for pious men (τὸ ἁρμόττον ὁσίοις ἐπικουρικὸν ἐπιπέμψαντος τοῦ θεοῦ); and this assistance is an intrepid hardihood of soul, and an irresistible strength of body, either of which things is formidable to the enemy, and if both qualities are united they are completely invincible. (96) Moreover he says, "That some of the enemy will be unworthy of being defeated and of perishing by the hands of men, to which he will oppose swarms of wasps, (Ex 23:28) who shall fight for the pious, so as to overwhelm their enemies with shameful destruction; and he predicts, that he will not only always firmly retain the bloodless victory thus gained, but that he will also have an irresistible power of dominion, so as to be able to benefit the people subject to him, who may become so, whether out of good will, or out of fear, or out of shame; for he will have in him three things of the greatest importance, all contributing greatly to rendering his authority indestructible, namely, dignity, and terror, and beneficence, by means of which qualities the ends above-mentioned will be gained; for dignity causes respect, and terror causes fear, and beneficence causes good will; which, when they are mixed together, and adapted, and united in the soul, render subjects obedient to their rulers.
The question is of course is this a mortal man or an angel man predicted in Numbers 24:7, 17. The answer is obvious by his further citation of Exodus 23. Of course he means an angel 'man':
My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. 24 Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. 25 Worship the Lord your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, 26 and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span. I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. 28 I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way. 29 But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. 30 Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.
And I wonder where I read an allusion to Exodus 23:23 before? It's embarrassing how ancestor worship is the only thing that props this 'Jesus nomen sacrum' up. Philo's prophesied ἄνθρωπος is absolutely certainly an angel named 'man.' There's no doubt about that (I missed this argument in my first attempt at writing something about this). Very critical.
“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: 7462
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 » Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:28 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:28 pm
I want to establish that one point, at the very least. Do you agree that the extant manuscripts offer no support for your theory?
Origen says Marcionite manuscripts were burned the the orthodox.https://books.google.com/books?id=Ie7CD ... AHoECAgQKQ The same was true under Constantine and beyond.
Obviously those manuscripts are not extant, and thus not precisely what I am asking about. I am not saying that speculating about the contents of lost manuscripts is irrelevant; I do it myself; I am saying that it is not the subject of my question.
So yes if you're expecting 'the manuscripts which survived' to be a level playing field in any theological question yes, I think you willing accept ridiculous arguments to honor your ancestors.
Since I do not expect such a thing, I am glad you agree that I am not accepting arguments, ridiculous or not, to "honor" my "ancestors." (When did this verbal tic kick in for you??)

I have noticed you making arguments in the past that seem to depend upon the presence of ΙΣ in our extant manuscripts (not only in lost manuscripts) as a support for your theory. What I have been trying to ascertain is whether I am right or wrong that this is one of your arguments, namely, that the presence of ΙΣ in our extant manuscripts has something tangible to do with ΙΣ having developed into Jesus at some stage. You appear to have answered with a chronological cut-off point:
To answer your question - the scribes were copying previous MSS. I am sure that by the fourth century they read the MSS the way you suggest.
So you are saying that before century IV the name ΙΣ was read as Ish in our extant manuscripts. Good. Let me pursue a few manuscripts which predate century IV, then. What did ΙΗΣ mean in lines 2, 9, 21, 27, and 36 of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654 (= the gospel of Thomas)? What did ΙΗ mean in line 10 of Dura-Europos 0212? What did ΜΩ mean in line 13 of papyrus Egerton 2, fragment 1 verso? If ΙΣ was not thought to be a contraction of Ἰησοῦς until century IV, what did the other letter clusters universally identified as contractions mean before century IV?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:32 pm

So you are saying that before century IV the name ΙΣ was read as Ish in our extant manuscripts.
No I am saying that. I am merely saying that Justin could read the MSS in that way. Presumably Clement too. But by the 4th century I don't think there was that kind of freedom any longer (although Nonnus makes it possible that older traditions survived). Maybe among 'Origenist' monks in Palestine and Egypt this knowledge survived. Anyone who paid attention to Philo. But let's make one thing clear. I am not saying that there was this magical 'dividing line' and then in one instance the way texts were read suddenly changed. I am merely saying that it was ok to know this earlier in the history of Christianity rather than 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

Post Reply