Re: Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra.
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:46 am
Apparently its a thing - https://books.google.com/books?id=UrxGD ... 82&f=false
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
I see. Apparently it is an Ionic or Lesbian thing; my training is in Attic and, to a lesser extent, Koine and Homeric. Seriously doubt this was an issue in manuscripts of the OG/LXX, though. Willing to be shown otherwise.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:46 am Apparently its a thing - https://books.google.com/books?id=UrxGD ... 82&f=false
How do we know that the abbreviations known to us in the scholarly literature as nomina sacra started with Ἰησοῦς? I mean, it is not an unreasonable guess, but could they not have started with Θεός, Κύριος, or Χριστός? Have you explored any of those routes?Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:49 am I am more interested in the possibilities with ἴσος. So the genitive ΙΥ (ιυ) is supposed to be ίησοΰ or ί(η)σ(ο)ΰ. But the genitive masculine and neuter of ἴσος is ῐ̓́σου as well. One less 'missing letter' and according to our theory the genitive of the Hebrew 'ish' expressed in Greek as ΙΣ would also be Ισου. Does it make more sense to suppose that ΙΥ arose as a weird mystical way of expressing ίησοΰ or as I would suppose because Ισου might be read as the genitive form of ἴσος? You already know what I am leaning towards. The point is that this hasn't been considered as alternative explanation.
What does the Greek word for "equal" have to do with verses in which we find ΙΣ in our Christian manuscripts? I am not following.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:49 amDoes it make more sense to suppose that ΙΥ arose as a weird mystical way of expressing ίησοΰ or as I would suppose because Ισου might be read as the genitive form of ἴσος? You already know what I am leaning towards. The point is that this hasn't been considered as alternative explanation.
I am saying that IF early Christians read the nomen sacrum as going back to ΙΣ rather than Ἰησοῦς THEN confusion might have arisen.Ὅτι ἕνεκά σου θανατούμεθα ὅλην τἡν ἡμέραρ, ἐλογίσθημεν ὡς πρόβατα σφαγῆς, κ. τ. ἑ. Ὀ Παῦλός φησι (26)· Καθʼ ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκω. νἠ τὴν ὑμετέραν καύχησιν, ἤν ἔχω ἐν Χριστῷ Ἴσοῦ. Διὰ τί δέφησιν, « ἕνεκα σοῦ; » Ὅτι ἐξῆν ἡμῖν μετατάξασθαι καὶ ἀφεῖναι τὴν πατρῴαν πολιτείαν, καὶ εἶναι ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ· [Origen, Selecta in Psalmos [Dub.], Chapter 43 Paragraph 20 (43.20) ]
Yes it could be figured out that this is not a reference to the Savior. But maybe instances arose where confusion reigned. I haven't found them yet. But clearly as you point out. The nomen sacrum becomes noticeable in the genitive state. Maybe it wasn't meant to signal the holiness of the name. Only that the Savior, not something else, was meant.Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τῷ Κέλσῳ λεγόμενα. ἐν οἷς σφόδρα μὲν ἐλάχιστά ἐστι τὰ περὶ Χριστιανῶν πλεῖστα δὲ ὅσα περὶ Ἰουδαίων. φησὶν οὖν· εἰ μὲν δὴ κατὰ ταῦτα περιστέλλοιεν Ἰουδαῖοι τὸν ἴδιον νόμον, οὐ μεμπτὰ αὐτῶν, ἐκείνων δὲ μᾶλλον, τῶν καταλιπόντων τὰ σφέτερα καὶ τὰ Ἰουδαίων προσποιουμένων. εἰ δ᾿ ὥς τι σοφώτερον εἰδότες σεμνύνονταί τε καὶ τὴν ἄλλων κοινωνίαν (ὡς) οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου καθαρῶν ἀποστρέφονται, ἤδη ἀκηκόασιν ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ περὶ οὐρανοῦ δόγμα ἴδιον λέγουσιν ἀλλ᾿, ἵνα πάντα ἐάσω, καὶ Πέρσαις, ὥς που δηλοῖ καὶ Ἡρόδοτος, πάλαι δεδογμένον. [Against Celsus 5.41]
The fact that Marcellus of Ancyra has the same reading shows it is not a specifically 'Marcionite' reading. Clearly the original understanding is a comparison of Christ to the heavenly man. The reading of Marcellus and Marcion was "Who being in the form of God did not consider being equal with God a thing to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, having been made in likeness of man and found in appearance as man." All of this must go back to 2:6 where Christ takes advantage of unique situation afforded him for the betterment of everyone. This must have originally been read by the heretical traditions as the fully human Christ 'emptying himself' - i.e. pouring out his mortality - and being filled with the divine seed and being made into a second god - viz. being made after ΙΣ in substance so he can be crucified as an image for everyone's benefit.What then say the heretics? See, say they, He did not become man. The Marcionites, I mean. But why? He was made in the likeness of man (ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπου). But how can one be made in the likeness of men? By putting on a shadow? But this is a phantom, and no longer the likeness of a man, for the likeness (ὁμοιώματι) of a man (ἀνθρώπου) is another man. And what will you answer to John, when he says, The Word became flesh? John 1:14 But this same blessed one himself also says in another place, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Romans 8:3 And being found in fashion as a man. See, they say, both in fashion, and as a man. To be as a man, and to be a man in fashion, is not to be a man indeed. To be a man in fashion is not to be a man by nature. See with what ingenuousness I lay down what our enemies say, for that is a brilliant victory, and amply gained, when we do not conceal what seem to be their strong points. For this is deceit rather than victory. What then do they say? Let me repeat their argument. To be a man in fashion is not to be a man by nature; and to be as a man, and in the fashion of a man, this is not to be a man. So then to take the form of a servant, is not to take the form of a servant. Here then is an inconsistency; and wherefore do you not first of all solve this difficulty? For as you think that this contradicts us, so do we say that the other contradicts you. He says not, as the form of a servant, nor in the likeness of the form of a servant, nor in the fashion of the form of a servant, but He took the form of a servant. What then is this? For there is a contradiction. There is no contradiction. God forbid! It is a cold and ridiculous argument of theirs. He took, say they, the form of a servant, when He girded Himself with a towel, and washed the feet of His disciples. Is this the form of a servant? Nay, this is not the form, but the work of a servant. It is one thing that there should be the work of a servant, and another to take the form of a servant. Why did he not say, He did the work of a servant, which were clearer? But nowhere in Scripture is form put for work, for the difference is great: the one is the result of nature, the other of action. In common speaking, too, we never use form for work. Besides, according to them, He did not even take the work of a servant, nor even gird Himself. For if all was a mere shadow, there was no reality. If He had not real hands, how did He wash their feet? If He had not real loins, how did He gird Himself with a towel? And what kind of garments did he take? For Scripture says, He took His garments. John 13:12 So then not even the work is found to have really taken place, but it was all a deception, nor did He even wash the disciples. For if that incorporeal nature did not appear, it was not in a body. Who then washed the disciples' feet?