did you know???

[MrMacSon]

The LXX was made in the beginning of the 3rd century BC. By Jews.

• Yep.

Joshua was not changed in Jesus. Joshua cannot even be transliterated into Jesus

• Well, in writing the Pentateuch into Greek, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ was transliterated to Ιησοῦς and Ιησοῦς = Iesous (or, in at least in one document was represented by a nomen sacrum or two which are commonly/universally thought to represent Ιησοῦς. I have wondered if the entity represented by some such nomina sacra is an entity intermediate between יְהוֹשֻׁעַ and the Jesus of the NT (or one of them if Paul's Jesus would have been different to the Synoptic Jesus in the early days of Christianity).

but you seem not to be able to transliterate

• That is true (and my literacy in some languages can also be said, "not be able to"). But those things about me are beside the point.

According to your info, as soon as Christians started to use the LXX to find/or make allusions to Jesus, the Jews themselves stopped their use of the LXX.

• I'm not sure my info is pertinent other than, afaik, it reflects general info about the period at which the LXX/Septuagint appeared and was used by early Christians.

In relation to your statement that -

Therefore the codex Vaticanus is not interesting because it is Christian and from the 4th century.

• - I only mentioned codex Vaticanus in that what is known as the English translation version of the LXX, the Brenton Translation, is a translation of the Greek version of the OT in codex Vaticanus, which, afaik, is also generally considered to be a version of the LXX/ Septuagint.

Everything about Jesus you therefore find in the LXX is Christian forgery.

• It depends on what you mean by this. There is no reference to Jesus of Nazareth - of the NT - in the LXX, but the name Ιησοῦς ( = Iesous) is in the LXX or, where one would expect to see יְהוֹשֻׁעַ in the Petateuch ( the so-called 5 books of Moses), as has been stated above, there are occasionally nomina sacra associated elsewhere with Ιησοῦς

[cora]

This is complicated. IF it is true what Ben sent, that the name Iesous was already in the LXX in BC, so before the point 0, then I will have to concede that. But I would like to see some evidence for this dating. Still, Iosua cannot be changed in Iesous following the normal rules. It is an other name. Iesous comes from Yeshu.
What I wrote was in the info you gave: the jews quit using it as soon as Christians started using it for their own purposes.
The LXX is since then generally polluted. There were already a lot of mistakes in it, but the Christians made forgeries in it to support their story. They made the psalms (songs) prophesies, they placed Daniel in prophesies which it is not in the Hebrew OT, they made forgeries to make the Jesus story stick. The LXX is really not like the Hebrew scriptures. Also Vaticanus is not. It is nothing like the original. It is only what people assume. I would prefer the Hebrew scriptures to be translated, then you endly have the real thing. The jews say that can only be done by jews, and I would say they are right. It is a complicated language.
If Iosua was already BC changed in Iesous, than Iesous is in the LXX, but then in the meaning of Iosua.

Paul used Isu Chrestos, Marcion used Isu Chrestos. They do not worship Jahweh or use the OT at all. Chrestos is not the same as christos, chrestos means SAVIOUR. Isu is a god. A dying - rising - god, saviour. That is what he is preaching, it is very simple to see. Paul knows no Jesus. Do you want to know why? Because there was no Jesus. Also Marcion knows no Jesus. Their followers and churches were the chrestians.
Until the church of rome (old testamentic/LXX, as can be seen when Marcion visits) became the catholic church which was in 200. And it was Justin who changed the original name Isu in Iesous (he writes about it), which he then as it now stands took out of the LXX, the former Iosua. That is where the name Jesus comes from. And he is doing suggestions about a cross, several times.
I guess the gospels were written after the name Jesus was invented. After the papers went to Irenaeus. I am sure of it. There are much more indications. Paul did not belong there. He was terribly forged to fit the picture. You don't have to think therefore that there is anything historical in the NT. There is not. Only the things coming from the gospel of Marcion (actually Paul) are old, from the year 72 or 73. That was a beautiful story, but a story, fictional for 85%, written by a reform-movement within Judaism, which started after the war. You meet them in Galatians. So they started in 72, and Paul came to visit them probably around 85/90. That is the beginning. When you have found that you can make a new timeframe.
And find out how you are conned by the catholic church. Most people never find out. It is extremely protected. Christians with an i exist only since Paul's saviour was changed into a messiah. Paul was made to say that Jesus was the messiah, and the son of Jahweh. I hope this is not too much at once. But I found it, and I can also explain how. Cora

[MrMacSon]

This is complicated. IF it is true what Ben sent, that the name Iesous was already in the LXX in BC, so before the point 0, then I will have to concede that. But I would like to see some evidence for this dating.

• Papyrus Fouad 266 has been assigned palaeographically to the 1st century BCE (though there's discussion about whether the text itself is original or is a later recension of the Septuagint). It's also a text which, in the midst of Greek text, has the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (in Aramaic "square" or Ashuri script. Some have proposed the Greek text had indeed originally rendered the divine name YHWH by the Tetragrammaton (ie. not by the Greek, κύριος), while others have proposed that the text in this manuscript is the result of a Hebraizing revision of 'the original' Greek text (and it would have originally had κύριος).)

Still, Iosua cannot be changed in Iesous following the normal rules. It is an other name. Iesous comes from Yeshu.

If Iosua was already BC changed in Iesous, than Iesous is in the LXX, but then in the meaning of Iosua.

Paul used Isu Chrestos, Marcion used Isu Chrestos. They do not worship Jahweh or use the OT at all. Chrestos is not the same as christos, chrestos means SAVIOUR. Isu is a god. A dying - rising - god, saviour. That is what he is preaching, it is very simple to see. Paul knows no Jesus. Do you want to know why? Because there was no Jesus. Also Marcion knows no Jesus. Their followers and churches were the chrestians.
Until the church of rome (old testamentic/LXX, as can be seen when Marcion visits) became the catholic church which was in 200. And it was Justin who changed the original name Isu in Iesous (he writes about it), which he then as it now stands took out of the LXX, the former Iosua. That is where the name Jesus comes from. And he is doing suggestions about a cross, several times.

• I can't comment. I have seen reference to Yesu once, but I'm not aware of 'Iosua' or Isu, or other variants you've mentioned (other than the nomina sacra: I wonder if Isu night be a reading of a nomina sacra or part of Iseous next to a lacuna.

What I wrote was in the info you gave: the Jews quit using it as soon as Christians started using it for their own purposes.

That reminds me that I was going to address this in reply to your previous post when you wrote

as soon as Christians started to use the LXX to find/or make allusions to Jesus, the Jews themselves stopped their use of the LXX.

• That is likely though what the Jews did may have been more influenced by the priests leaving Jerusalem after the fall of the Temple and then making a concerted effort to write more down, developing the Tosefta and Mishnah over the next 100+ yrs.
  
  Whether that had any influence on the development of Christianity, such as whether Christianity was a spin-off or consequence of that process, is hard to know.

The LXX is since then generally polluted. There were already a lot of mistakes in it, but the Christians made forgeries in it to support their story. They made the psalms (songs) prophesies, they placed Daniel in prophesies which it is not in the Hebrew OT, they made forgeries to make the Jesus story stick. The LXX is really not like the Hebrew scriptures. Also Vaticanus is not. It is nothing like the original. It is only what people assume. I would prefer the Hebrew scriptures to be translated, then you endly have the real thing. The Jews say that can only be done by Jews, and I would say they are right. It is a complicated language.

• Yes, I'd like to see more about that eg. making some texts to be more like prophecies ...

I guess the gospels were written after the name Jesus was invented. After the papers went to Irenaeus. I am sure of it. There are much more indications. Paul did not belong there. He was terribly forged to fit the picture. You don't have to think therefore that there is anything historical in the NT. There is not. Only the things coming from the gospel of Marcion (actually Paul) are old, from the year 72 or 73. That was a beautiful story, but a story, fictional for 85%, written by a reform-movement within Judaism, which started after the war. You meet them in Galatians. So they started in 72, and Paul came to visit them probably around 85/90. That is the beginning. When you have found that you can make a new timeframe. And find out how you are conned by the catholic church. Most people never find out. It is extremely protected. Christians with an i exist only since Paul's saviour was changed into a messiah. Paul was made to say that Jesus was the messiah, and the son of Jahweh. I hope this is not too much at once. But I found it, and I can also explain how. Cora

• One has to suspect Paul has been altered to align with the Gospels

[Jax]

Deuteronomy 31.2-3: 2 And he said to them, “I am a hundred and twenty years old today; I am no longer able to come and go, and Yahweh has said to me, ‘You shall not cross this Jordan.’ 3 It is Yahweh your God who will cross ahead of you; He will destroy these nations before you, and you shall dispossess them. It is Joshua/Jesus [יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Ιησοῦς] who will cross ahead of you, just as Yahweh has spoken.”

Papyrus Fouad 266 (first century BC), column 65, fragment 96 (Deuteronomy 31.2-3):

XX 2 [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς ἑκατὸν καὶ εἴκοσι]
XX [ἐτῶν ἐγώ εἰμι σήμερον οὐ δυνήσομαι ἔτι]
XX [εἰσπορεύεσθαι καὶ ἐκπορεύεσθαι יהוה δὲ]
08 [εἶπεν πρό]ς μ[ε οὐ διαβήσῃ τὸν Ιορδά-]
09 [νην τοῦτ]ον. 3 יהוה [ὁ θεός σου ὁ πορευ-]
10 [όμενος π]ρὸ προσώπ[ου σου αὐτὸς ἐξο-]
11 [λεθρεύσε]ι τὰ ἔθνη τ[αῦτα ἀπὸ προσώπου]
12 [σου κ]αὶ κατακλη[ρονομήσεις αὐτούς]
13 [καὶ Ἰ]ησοῦς ὁ πορε[υόμενος πρὸ προσώ-]
XX που σου καθὰ ἐλάλησεν יהוה.

Link.

Hey Ben, by any chance do you have a good link to the original fragment?

Thanks

Lane

[Ben C. Smith]

Well, in writing the Pentateuch into Greek, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ was transliterated to Ιησοῦς and Ιησοῦς = Iesous (or, in at least in one document was represented by a nomen sacrum or two which are commonly/universally thought to represent Ιησοῦς.

This is true. The Greek Ἰησοῦς is easily derived from יֵשׁוּעַ/Yeshua, which is a shortened form of יְהוֹשׁוּעַ/Yehoshua, as can be traced throughout the Hebrew scriptures. For example, Joshua son of Nun is called יְהוֹשׁוּעַ/Yehoshua in the earlier books but יֵשׁוּעַ/Yeshua in Nehemiah 8.17 and in the Dead Sea scrolls:

4Q175 (4QTestimonia), lines 21-30: 21 ~ At the moment when Joshua [ישוע, Yeshua] finished praising and giving thanks with his psalms, 22 he said, «Cursed be the man who rebuilds this city! Upon his firstborn 33 will he found it, and upon his youngest son will he erect its gates» (= Joshua 6.26). And now an accursed /man/, one of Belial, 24 will arise to be a [fo]wler’s tr[ap] for his people and ruin for all his neighbors. And 25 [...] will arise [to b]e the two instruments of violence. And they will rebuild 26 [this city and ere]ct for it a rampart and towers, to make it into a fortress of wickedness 27 [in the country and a great evil] in Israel, and a horror in Ephraim and Judah. 28 [... And they will com]mit a profanation in the land and a great blasphemy among the sons of 29 [Jacob. And they will shed blo]od like water upon the ramparts of the daughter of Zion and in the precincts of 30 ~ {in} Jerusalem.

4Q522, fragment 9, lines 12-14: 12 And now, let us establish the t[ent of mee]ting far from [...] 13 Eleazar [and Joshu]a the t[ent of me]eting from Beth [El ...] 14 Joshua [ישוע, Yeshua] [... ch]ief of the army ... [....]

The Talmud even uses another intermediate form of sorts for the son of Nun, יהושע/Yehosha, if you will, at Sotah 34b.

All in all, Yehoshua, Yeshua, and Yeshu appear to be variants of each other in much the same way that the name on my birth certificate is Benjamin, but I went by Benje as a boy, and now as an adult I go by Ben. Yeshua and Yeshu appear as variants on the same ossuary:

Levi Y. Rahmani, Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, page 77, ossuary #9:

ישו
....
ישוע בר יחוסף

Yeshu.
....
Yeshua‘, son of Yehosef.

Other examples of two different forms of the same name (one longer, the other shorter) appearing on an ossuary occur in #42 (Mattatya and Matya), #270 (Yehoḥana and Yoḥana), #370 (Yehuda and Yudan), and #468 (Martha and Mara).

And bear in mind that every time we would expect either Joshua the son of Nun or Joshua the High Priest from Zechariah in Philo or Josephus, the manuscripts give us Ἰησοῦς (or one of its grammatical inflections).

Deuteronomy 31.2-3: 2 And he said to them, “I am a hundred and twenty years old today; I am no longer able to come and go, and Yahweh has said to me, ‘You shall not cross this Jordan.’ 3 It is Yahweh your God who will cross ahead of you; He will destroy these nations before you, and you shall dispossess them. It is Joshua/Jesus [יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Ιησοῦς] who will cross ahead of you, just as Yahweh has spoken.”

Papyrus Fouad 266 (first century BC), column 65, fragment 96 (Deuteronomy 31.2-3):

XX 2 [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς ἑκατὸν καὶ εἴκοσι]
XX [ἐτῶν ἐγώ εἰμι σήμερον οὐ δυνήσομαι ἔτι]
XX [εἰσπορεύεσθαι καὶ ἐκπορεύεσθαι יהוה δὲ]
08 [εἶπεν πρό]ς μ[ε οὐ διαβήσῃ τὸν Ιορδά-]
09 [νην τοῦτ]ον. 3 יהוה [ὁ θεός σου ὁ πορευ-]
10 [όμενος π]ρὸ προσώπ[ου σου αὐτὸς ἐξο-]
11 [λεθρεύσε]ι τὰ ἔθνη τ[αῦτα ἀπὸ προσώπου]
12 [σου κ]αὶ κατακλη[ρονομήσεις αὐτούς]
13 [καὶ Ἰ]ησοῦς ὁ πορε[υόμενος πρὸ προσώ-]
XX που σου καθὰ ἐλάλησεν יהוה.

Link.

Hey Ben, by any chance do you have a good link to the original fragment?

I uploaded the only image I have access to, which is fuzzy, here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4621&p=111899#p111899.

I can make out the final four letters (-σοῦς) pretty clearly:

Papyrus Fouad 266, Column 65.png (219.36 KiB) Viewed 6034 times

The ēta is less clear to me, and looks like it could be one of several letters (including the expected ēta, of course), but the photo is not great, either, and the final four letters are pretty solid, matching exactly what we would expect to find at this spot in the text.

[Jax]

Well, in writing the Pentateuch into Greek, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ was transliterated to Ιησοῦς and Ιησοῦς = Iesous (or, in at least in one document was represented by a nomen sacrum or two which are commonly/universally thought to represent Ιησοῦς.

This is true. The Greek Ἰησοῦς is easily derived from יֵשׁוּעַ/Yeshua, which is a shortened form of יְהוֹשׁוּעַ/Yehoshua, as can be traced throughout the Hebrew scriptures. For example, Joshua son of Nun is called יְהוֹשׁוּעַ/Yehoshua in the earlier books but יֵשׁוּעַ/Yeshua in Nehemiah 8.17 and in the Dead Sea scrolls:

4Q175 (4QTestimonia), lines 21-30: 21 ~ At the moment when Joshua [ישוע, Yeshua] finished praising and giving thanks with his psalms, 22 he said, «Cursed be the man who rebuilds this city! Upon his firstborn 33 will he found it, and upon his youngest son will he erect its gates» (= Joshua 6.26). And now an accursed /man/, one of Belial, 24 will arise to be a [fo]wler’s tr[ap] for his people and ruin for all his neighbors. And 25 [...] will arise [to b]e the two instruments of violence. And they will rebuild 26 [this city and ere]ct for it a rampart and towers, to make it into a fortress of wickedness 27 [in the country and a great evil] in Israel, and a horror in Ephraim and Judah. 28 [... And they will com]mit a profanation in the land and a great blasphemy among the sons of 29 [Jacob. And they will shed blo]od like water upon the ramparts of the daughter of Zion and in the precincts of 30 ~ {in} Jerusalem.

4Q522, fragment 9, lines 12-14: 12 And now, let us establish the t[ent of mee]ting far from [...] 13 Eleazar [and Joshu]a the t[ent of me]eting from Beth [El ...] 14 Joshua [ישוע, Yeshua] [... ch]ief of the army ... [....]

The Talmud even uses another intermediate form of sorts for the son of Nun, יהושע/Yehosha, if you will, at Sotah 34b.

All in all, Yehoshua, Yeshua, and Yeshu appear to be variants of each other in much the same way that the name on my birth certificate is Benjamin, but I went by Benje as a boy, and now as an adult I go by Ben. Yeshua and Yeshu appear as variants on the same ossuary:

Levi Y. Rahmani, Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, page 77, ossuary #9:

ישו
....
ישוע בר יחוסף

Yeshu.
....
Yeshua‘, son of Yehosef.

Other examples of two different forms of the same name (one longer, the other shorter) appearing on an ossuary occur in #42 (Mattatya and Matya), #270 (Yehoḥana and Yoḥana), #370 (Yehuda and Yudan), and #468 (Martha and Mara).

And bear in mind that every time we would expect either Joshua the son of Nun or Joshua the High Priest from Zechariah in Philo or Josephus, the manuscripts give us Ἰησοῦς (or one of its grammatical inflections).

Deuteronomy 31.2-3: 2 And he said to them, “I am a hundred and twenty years old today; I am no longer able to come and go, and Yahweh has said to me, ‘You shall not cross this Jordan.’ 3 It is Yahweh your God who will cross ahead of you; He will destroy these nations before you, and you shall dispossess them. It is Joshua/Jesus [יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Ιησοῦς] who will cross ahead of you, just as Yahweh has spoken.”

Papyrus Fouad 266 (first century BC), column 65, fragment 96 (Deuteronomy 31.2-3):

XX 2 [καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς ἑκατὸν καὶ εἴκοσι]
XX [ἐτῶν ἐγώ εἰμι σήμερον οὐ δυνήσομαι ἔτι]
XX [εἰσπορεύεσθαι καὶ ἐκπορεύεσθαι יהוה δὲ]
08 [εἶπεν πρό]ς μ[ε οὐ διαβήσῃ τὸν Ιορδά-]
09 [νην τοῦτ]ον. 3 יהוה [ὁ θεός σου ὁ πορευ-]
10 [όμενος π]ρὸ προσώπ[ου σου αὐτὸς ἐξο-]
11 [λεθρεύσε]ι τὰ ἔθνη τ[αῦτα ἀπὸ προσώπου]
12 [σου κ]αὶ κατακλη[ρονομήσεις αὐτούς]
13 [καὶ Ἰ]ησοῦς ὁ πορε[υόμενος πρὸ προσώ-]
XX που σου καθὰ ἐλάλησεν יהוה.

Link.

Hey Ben, by any chance do you have a good link to the original fragment?

I uploaded the only image I have access to, which is fuzzy, here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4621&p=111899#p111899.

I can make out the final four letters (-σοῦς) pretty clearly:


Papyrus Fouad 266, Column 65.png


The ēta is less clear to me, and looks like it could be one of several letters (including the expected ēta, of course), but the photo is not great, either, and the final four letters are pretty solid, matching exactly what we would expect to find at this spot in the text.

Right on. Thank you very much.

Lane

[Ben C. Smith]

Right on. Thank you very much.

No problem.

[MrMacSon]

And the stretching out of his hands is the manifestation of the cross (MS: stauros glyph). The stretching out of the cross is the ennead on the right side and on the left. The sprouting of the cross is the incomprehensible man. This is the Father. This is the source, which wells up from the silence.

but simple stakes do not have things stretching out

I think it's worth bolding the sentence before the one you did, and highlighting the sentences after -

.
The Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex

2.

The second place came into existence which will be called demiurge and father and logos and source and understanding mind and man and eternal and infinite. This is the column, this is the overseer, and this is the Father of the All. This is he upon whose head the aeons are a crown, casting forth rays. The circuit of his face is the unknown in the outer worlds, these who seek after his face at all times, wishing to know it, for his word has reached them, and they want to see him. And the light of his eyes penetrates to the places of the outer pleroma. And the word which comes from his mouth penetrates what is above and below. And the hair of his head is the number of the hidden worlds, and the boundary of his face is the image of the aeons. The hairs of his face are the number of the outer worlds. And the stretching out of his hands is the manifestation of the cross (MS: stauros glyph). The stretching out of the cross is the ennead on the right side and on the left. The sprouting of the cross is the incomprehensible man. This is the Father. This is the source, which wells up from the silence.

This is he who is sought in every place. And this is the Father from whom, like a light-spark, the monad came forth, beside which all the worlds are as nothing. . . . It is this which moved all things with its shining. And they received gnosis and life and hope and rest and love and resurrection and faith and rebirth and the seal.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/untitl.htm

.
The Ennead or Great Ennead was a group of nine deities in Egyptian mythology worshiped at Heliopolis: the sun god Atum; his children Shu and Tefnut; their children Geb and Nut; and their children Osiris, Isis, Seth, and Nephthys. The Ennead sometimes includes the son of Osiris and Isis, Horus.

• Osiris and Isis represent fertility and order, while Set and Nephthys represent chaos to balance out Osiris and Isis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ennead

Ennead is a borrowing via Latin of the Greek name Enneás (Ἐννεάς), meaning "the Nine".
.

.
11

... the command came forth through the mystery hidden in the first Father - from whom the mystery came forth - that his Son should establish the All once again in his gnosis, in which the All is contained'.

Then Setheus sent a creative word with which were many powers having crowns upon their heads. And their crowns sent forth rays, and the shining of their bodies enlivened ' the place to which they came. And the word which came forth from their mouths was eternal life. And the light which came forth from their eyes was to them rest. And the movement of their hands was their flight to the place from whence they came forth. And their looking into their faces was the gnosis in relation to themselves. And their journey to themselves was their turning inwards once again.

And the stretching out of their hands was their setting up. And the hearing of their ears was the perception which is in their hearts.

And the uniting of their members was the gathering together of the dispersed of Israel. And the holding of them was their fixing to the word. And the cipher which was in their fingers was the number or reckoning which came forth according to what is written: "He who numbers the multitudes of stars and gives names to them all." And the whole unity of the creative word happened with those that came in the movement which happened.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/untitl.htm
.

[cora]

changing names: where is the original A?

[Jax]

Right on. Thank you very much.

No problem.

Small question on Papyrus Fouad 266, Column 65 Ben.

I've been staring at that scrap for a while now and it occurres to me to ask 1: are there any other scraps associated with this fragment that have the letter eta visible? and 2: right after what looks like it might be an eta is what looks like a C. Were the letters being used uncial? Was sigma being rendered with a C?

Thanks

Lane