Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Leucius Charinus wrote:I don't know at the moment. Nobody knows where these codifications originated, but they appear with the earliest evidence.

Do we have any artfacts - coins, inscriptions, etc - where the IS refers to Julius Caesar?

Not that I'm aware of, but the initial and final letters are the same, and they're both protagonists of the main religion in the Roman empire. My guess is Roman Catholicism isn't called Roman for no reason. Since these nomina sacra are shorthand, I guess they were more resistant to rewriting and survived rewriting processes from the times when the identity of Jesus with Julius was still transparent to most people.

ghost wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:I don't know at the moment. Nobody knows where these codifications originated, but they appear with the earliest evidence.

Do we have any artfacts - coins, inscriptions, etc - where the IS refers to Julius Caesar?

Not that I'm aware of, but the initial and final letters are the same, and they're both protagonists of the main religion in the Roman empire.

Some people point out that "IS" has a numerical value of 18.
Is this relevant for either Jesus or Julius or Joshua or Peter or Paul or Mary ...?


One standard argument mentioned here and there is that the word "life" also adds to 18.
But I have never understood that argument.

My guess is Roman Catholicism isn't called Roman for no reason.

That's a reasonable guess.

When and where this "Divine institute" first politically and historically started business would represent other guesses.

But whatever happened, the divine institute appears to have used a nearly universal standard of "sacred names" in the LXX and the NT

How novel a technique was this in the first few centuries of the common era?

Anyone know of any other literary works employing codes?

Euclid?

Since these nomina sacra are shorthand, I guess they were more resistant to rewriting and survived rewriting processes from the times when the identity of Jesus with Julius was still transparent to most people. :scratch:

There is no doubt that Augustus - the son of the divine "IS" - found in Rome a city of bricks and left it a city or marble.

The movement from Republic to Empire was an irreversible process. Roman Emperor's were ever more closely related to the gods than before.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /home.html
Monumentum Ancyranum (Res Gestae Divi Augusti)

At the age of nineteen,2 on my own initiative and at my own expense, I raised an army3 by means of which I restored liberty4 to the republic, which p347had been oppressed by the tyranny of a faction.5 For which service the senate, with complimentary resolutions, enrolled me in its order, in the consulship of Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius, giving me at the same time consular precedence in voting; it also gave me the imperium.6 As propraetor it ordered me, along with the consuls, "to see that the republic suffered no harm." In the same year, moreover, as both consuls had fallen in war,7 the people elected me consul and a triumvir for settling the constitution.8

Some people point out that "IS" has a numerical value of 18.

This demonstrates that you don't even possess basic knowledge of even the order of the letters of the Greek alphabet. What have you been doing all these years on this foolish project of yours that you don't even know what the value of iota-sigma is in Greek? Stunning.

You're nitpicking.

p.666 of Hurtado's Proposal: Origin of the Nomina Sacra.

• *
  
  The numerical value of the suspended form of the Greek for "Jesus" (IN = 18) is commented on in early Christian sources.

Nitpicking? If I claimed to be a math teacher and said 'some people find it interesting that 2 + 2 = 76' I think people would question my mathematics background. And you got it wrong again which is even worse. If you read Clement of Alexandria even in passing (without filling your head with your fantasies about a post-Nicene authorship for the material) you would know that IH = 18. All of which proves you're aren't smart enough or knowledgeable enough to even pretend to have expertise in any of these issues.

The numerical value of the suspended form of the Greek for "Jesus" (IN = 18) is commented on in early Christian sources.

I say this with love - you're a complete fucking idiot. You're 'fucking idiotness' exceeds everyone and anyone who has ever attempted to comment on the origins of Christianity. You are the fucking idiotest of all the fucking idiots in the history of fucking idiotic gospel commentary. You can't even add two Greek letters to make 18 with two chances up to bat. But again, I say all of this with love.

Stephan Huller wrote:All of which proves you're aren't smart enough or knowledgeable enough to even pretend to have expertise in any of these issues.

OK. Let's just agree that Marcion is the expert's answer to all questions in the field, and move on. With love. It's been fun.

Say you're right about Marcion's use of some proto-Gospel or diatesseron-like text. One could argue - I suppose - that this proto-text originally contained the "nomina sacra" all of which were then proliferated out into the rest of the books of the canonical NT. But if Marcion rejected the LXX, how did the "nomina sacra" get into it? The point is you need to be able to provide a coherent explanation of all the many items of evidence, one of which is the presence of the "nomina sacra" in the earliest evidence.

Leucius Charinus wrote:OK. Let's just agree that Marcion is the expert's answer to all questions in the field, and move on. With love. It's been fun.

Pot kettle black coming to mind...