Nomina Sacra: Their Origin and Usefulness

[Peter Kirby]

Besides the 318 significance, what are the numerical values of the other dozen (or so) nomina sacra and do they have any significance?

The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins By Larry W. Hurtado
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=w5 ... 22&f=false

P.116

• In none of the other nomina sacra forms (other than IH), however, does the numerical value of the letter combinations appear to have been significant.

I like Hurtado enough, and I want to trust him on this, but in all things regarding this subject, as I'm sure you must agree, it is better to verify. But by verify I do not simply mean find a quote. Generally, I mean verify, on your own. It's hard work, but it is necessary. It's especially necessary for negative claims (like the above), which are much more likely to contain scholarly error than positive ones.

Here we only have to deal with 30 or so computations, which is not too bad a price to pay for absolute certainty.

(Or is the idea just to let some other guy do the experiment? Interpreting the results is after all the fun part... )

Given what we see in Irenaeus regarding the missing "6" (a missing letter by this time period) and its mystical significance for early Christians, I am also going to play some light number games relating to "6" to see if we can get anything of significance (especially relating to the number "8," the ogdoad).

I'm also going to experiment with some suspended forms (I even seem to recall seeing STA, which is not on this list, for stauros -- something to check. Okay, I checked. It's found on the dura manuscript, first page of this thread.)

Oh, and here's a fun fact:

https://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.co ... -essay.pdf

In yet another instance, the device also appears in the margin of a hypomnema on Homer, Iliad, dated to the first century BCE, the chi-rho here a sign for (marking passages “useful” for excerpting).11
E. G. Turner, Greek manuscripts of the Ancient World (2nd rev. ed.; London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987), plate 58.

No wonder people were so confused about the pronunciation of the christogram ligature (and the nomen sacrum XS), as it was already in use as an abbreviation in Homeric manuscripts or, at least, handbooks of excerpts from Homer (and as one papyrologist put it, manuscripts of Homer are the bane of their research, in that they finally get a good-looking chunk of papyrus out of the ground, only to realize that it is only going to provide another fragmented copy of the Iliad).

[wiki]Nomina_sacra#List_of_Greek_Nomina_Sacra[/wiki]

• English Meaning / Greek Word / Nominative (Subject) / Genitive (Possessive)

God Θεός ΘΣ ΘΥ

Why do people forget the accusative form? Never mind that.

Θεός = 284
ΘΣ = 209
Θε = 14
Θεό = 84
qeou = 484

Lord Κύριος ΚΣ ΚΥ

Κύριος = 800 (likely significant!)
ΚΣ = 220

Jesus Ἰησοῦς ΙΣ ΙΥ

Ἰησοῦς = 888 (absolutely significant!)
ΙΣ = 210
IH = 18 [significant only in the context of the '318' in the story -- and the gemetria of the Hebrew word 'life' - thus requiring a more thorough cross-comparison with the OT and with Hebrew gemetria to rule out significance in general here...]
IHS = 218

Christ/Messiah Χριστός ΧΣ ΧΥ

Χριστός = 1480
ΧΣ = 800 (likely significant!)
Χρ = 700 (likely significant!)

1480 - 600 = ριστός = 880 (possibly significant)

Son Υἱός ΥΣ ΥΥ

Υἱός = 680
ΥΣ = 600 (plausibly significant!)

680 - 600 = 80 (possibly significant)

Spirit/Ghost Πνεῦμα ΠΝΑ ΠΝΣ

Πνεῦμα = 576
ΠΝΑ = 131
ΠΝΣ = 330 (possibly significant)

David Δαυὶδ ΔΑΔ

Δαυὶδ = 419
ΔΑΔ = 9 (plausibly significant)

Cross/Stake Σταυρός ΣΤΣ ΣΤΥ

Σταυρός = 1271
ΣΤΣ = 700 (likely significant)
Στα = 501
TR ('staurogram') = 400 (possibly significant)

Mother Μήτηρ ΜΗΡ ΜΗΣ

Μήτηρ = 456
ΜΗΡ = 148

God Bearer i.e. Mother of God Θεοτόκος ΘΚΣ ΘΚΥ

Θεοτόκος = 744
ΘΚΣ = 229

Father Πατήρ ΠΗΡ ΠΡΣ

Πατήρ = 489
ΠΗΡ = 188
ΠΡΣ = 380

Israel Ἰσραήλ ΙΗΛ

Ἰσραήλ = 349
ΙΗΛ = 48

Savior Σωτήρ ΣΗΡ ΣΡΣ

Σωτήρ = 1408
ΣΗΡ = 308
ΣΡΣ = 500

1408 - 600 = 808 = ωή

[this was Irenaus' example proving non-significance of the word numerically, possibly for good reason]

Human being/Man Ἄνθρωπος ΑΝΟΣ ΑΝΟΥ

Ἄνθρωπος = 1310
ΑΝΟΣ = 321
Ἄνθ = 60

Jerusalem Ἱερουσαλήμ ΙΛΗΜ

Ἱερουσαλήμ = 864
ΙΛΗΜ = 88 (likely significant)

Heaven/Heavens Οὐρανός ΟΥΝΟΣ ΟΥΝΟΥ

Οὐρανός = 891
ΟΥΝΟΣ = 790
ΟΥΝΟΥ = 990

Summary of original words or abbreviations with known plausible significance

Κύριος = 800 (likely significant!) [Lord]
Ἰησοῦς = 888 (absolutely significant!) [Jesus]
ΧΣ = 800 (likely significant!) [Christ]
Χρ = 700 (likely significant!) [Christ]
ΥΣ = 600 (plausibly significant!) [Son]
ΔΑΔ = 9 (plausibly significant) [David]
ΣΤΣ = 700 (likely significant) [Cross]
ΙΛΗΜ = 88 (likely significant) [Jerusalem]

Now, if we further divide the original fifteen (actually, sixteen) between "christological" abbreviations, "non-christological" abbreviations, and "ambiguous" abbreviations, we get this:

Christological:
Jesus Ἰησοῦς ΙΣ ΙΥ
Christ/Messiah Χριστός ΧΣ ΧΥ
Son Υἱός ΥΣ ΥΥ
Cross/Stake Σταυρός ΣΤΣ ΣΤΥ
Savior Σωτήρ ΣΗΡ ΣΡΣ

Ambiguous:
God Θεός ΘΣ ΘΥ
Lord Κύριος ΚΣ ΚΥ
Spirit/Ghost Πνεῦμα ΠΝΑ ΠΝΣ
David Δαυὶδ ΔΑΔ
Human being/Man Ἄνθρωπος ΑΝΟΣ ΑΝΟΥ

Non-Christological:

Mother Μήτηρ ΜΗΡ ΜΗΣ
God Bearer i.e. Mother of God Θεοτόκος ΘΚΣ ΘΚΥ
Father Πατήρ ΠΗΡ ΠΡΣ
Israel Ἰσραήλ ΙΗΛ
Jerusalem Ἱερουσαλήμ ΙΛΗΜ
Heaven/Heavens Οὐρανός ΟΥΝΟΣ ΟΥΝΟΥ

We can then plot a table of the plausible numerical significance of a name (in either form) and the category of the name.

	Christological	Ambiguous	Non-Christological
Plausible Significance Found	4	2	1
Plausible Significance Not Found	1	3	5

Chi-square value: 4.4868
Degrees of Freedom: 2
two-tailed p-value: 0.1061 = 10.6%

Not quite statistically significant, but still a reason for further investigation. In fact, if we drop the "ambiguous" column out of the table (which we are in rights to do, since we might want to pull some of them to either of the other categories, so it is introducing ambiguity here).

	Christological	Non-Christological
Plausible Significance Found	4	1
Plausible Significance Not Found	1	5

Chi-square value: 4.4122
Degrees of freedom: 1
two-tailed p-value: 0.0357

The groups are, in fact, significantly different, with a statistical significance measured by the p-value of 3.57% (roughly speaking, and a little incorrectly expressed, suggesting 96.4% odds that this isn't by chance and that there is a real relationship here, i.e., a difference between these types).

What this means is that the christological names, in particular, seem to have Greek-numerology significance.

Notably, Irenaeus argues against his enemies, who reveled in numerology, specifically with regards to the one unambiguous christological name that doesn't seem to have a numerological significance, i.e., "Savior." He doesn't use the example of "God" or "Father" or something; he goes for the throat, so to speak, of the heart of speculation, which regarded the name of "Jesus" (spelling out "888" in its 6-letter form).

Needless to say, I don't really agree with Dr. Hurtado.

Further investigation should look at which abbreviations show more variation in having their spelled-out forms (e.g., mother, and definitely more than that) and which show much less variation (e.g., Jesus, Christ). This is an understudied topic, and one that requires arduous investigation. Perhaps the surveys done by Paap for his Nomina Sacra book, read at first hand, would be useful.

PS -- Yes, I was thinking of you, LC, when treating this as a formal experiment with the use of statistical apparatus. Hope you find it useful.

[Peter Kirby]

I just wish people actually THOUGHT about what they read. So, just to repeat (a) the pages of the earliest literature have a nomen sacrum which is pronounced 'Eesu.' How do we know this 'Jesus.' The assumption is that the early sources (Church Fathers) make this explicit. But let's THINK about what is said in a writer like Justin Martyr. Could it be interpolation has gotten into the text? Just look at the 'Jesus' argument in Dialogue:

"Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.'

Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses.

For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name (שְׁמִי) is in Him,' was IS. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also.

Now Isaiah shows that those prophets who are sent to publish tidings from God are called His angels and apostles. For Isaiah says in a certain place, 'Send me.' And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus, was strong and great, is manifest to all. If, then, we know that God revealed Himself in so many forms to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, how are we at a loss, and do not believe that, according to the will of the Father of all things, it was possible for Him to be born man of the Virgin, especially after we have such Scriptures, from which it can be plainly perceived that He became so according to the will of the Father?

"For when Daniel speaks of 'one like unto the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like unto the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression 'it was cut out without hands' signified that it is not a work of man, but[a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, 'Who shall declare His generation?' he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine? And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty l counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came[to earth]?

So I would argue that the text makes more sense without the garbage:

Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.' For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name (שְׁמִי) is in Him,' was IS. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also.

"For when Daniel speaks of 'one like unto the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like unto the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression 'it was cut out without hands' signified that it is not a work of man, but[a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, 'Who shall declare His generation?' he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine? And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty l counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came[to earth]?

Remember Justin says over and over again that Jesus is identified in the Jewish writings as 'Man' and moreover that he is the angel in the name Israel = 'a man (Ish) who overcomes God/power.'

Is there anyone who is going to argue that there isn't an interpolation in this text? Exodus 23 predicts the coming of an angel. The Jews know this. They say that 'my name is in him' is Metatron whose name has the numerological value of Shaddai (314). Now can't the rest of the people see that the original text had Justin identify 'IS' (or whatever nomen sacrum you prefer)as this angel. A later editor has added the rest of the material. How do we know this? Because the argument doesn't make any sense as it stands now.

Posted from my phone.

I am not sure about an interpolation..

But you are absolutely right that Justin's text refers to IS being in the name Israel/ISL.

Justin thus does find a special significance in the IS name.

We cannot be certain whether this is a contracted IHSOUS or a suspended IS*.

[Stephan Huller]

On the subject of an interpolation. Evans and others have demonstrated that Justin's writings were interpolated c 195 CE (= Irenaeus). Let's look at the schizophrenia of this passage:

"Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.' (= angel)

Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses. (= man)

For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name (שְׁמִי) is in Him,' was IS. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also. (= angel Man)

Now Isaiah shows that those prophets who are sent to publish tidings from God are called His angels and apostles. For Isaiah says in a certain place, 'Send me.' And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus, was strong and great, is manifest to all. If, then, we know that God revealed Himself in so many forms to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, how are we at a loss, and do not believe that, according to the will of the Father of all things, it was possible for Him to be born man of the Virgin, especially after we have such Scriptures, from which it can be plainly perceived that He became so according to the will of the Father? (= physical man)

"For when Daniel speaks of 'one like unto the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like unto the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression 'it was cut out without hands' signified that it is not a work of man, but[a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, 'Who shall declare His generation?' he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine? And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty l counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came[to earth]? (= angel)

And if anyone can justify ANYONE reasonably claiming that Exodus 23 is about Joshua I will gladly listen.

[Stephan Huller]

Let's continue through the Dialogue to see how much bullshit there is. We pick up at

But our Jesus, who has not yet come in glory ... [dial 83]

Really? Justin just said a minute ago that IH or IS or whatever the Christian god was called was the fulfillment of the angel in Exodus 23. Now suddenly he wasn't glorious. Just a man. But he's god. But he's a man.

And then a little later there is this gem. The Jew suddenly 'admits' that the Jesus argument has convinced him - even though there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that the Jews ever believed the messiah would be named Jesus:

Then Trypho remarked, "Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the the son of Nave (Nun) was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law."

I replied to him, "If Christ was not to suffer, and the prophets had not foretold that He would be led to death on account of the sins of the people, and be dishonoured and scourged, and reckoned among the transgressors, and as a sheep be led to the slaughter, whose generation, the prophet says, no man can declare, then you would have good cause to wonder. But if these are to be characteristic of Him and mark Him out to all, how is it possible for us to do anything else than believe in Him most confidently? And will not as many as have understood the writings of the prophets, whenever they hear merely that He was crucified, say that this is He and no other?"

... "And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, 'From the blessing of the Lord is his land; for the seasons of heaven, and for the dews, and for the deep springs from beneath, and for the seasonable fruits of the sun, and for the coming together of the months, and for the heights of the everlasting mountains, and for the heights of the hills, and for the ever-flowing rivers, and for the fruits of the fatness of the earth; and let the things accepted by Him who appeared in the bush come on the head and crown of Joseph. Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is [like] the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an unicorn: with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.'

Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns. And the expression, 'With these shall he push as with horns the nations from one end of the earth to another,' is indicative of what is now the fact among all the nations.

For some out of all the nations, through the power of this mystery, having been so pushed, that is, pricked in their hearts, have turned from vain idols and demons to serve God. But the same figure is revealed for the destruction and condemnation of the unbelievers; even as Amalek was defeated and Israel victorious when the people came out of Egypt, by means of the type of the stretching out of Moses' hands, and the name of Jesus, by which the son of Nave was called. And it seems that the type and sign, which was erected to counteract the serpents which bit Israel, was intended for the salvation of those who believe that death was declared to come thereafter on the serpent through Him that would be crucified, but salvation to those who had been bitten by him and had betaken themselves to Him that sent His Son into the world to be crucified. For the Spirit of prophecy by Moses did not teach us to believe in the serpent, since it shows us that he was cursed by God from the beginning; and in Isaiah tells us that he shall be put to death as an enemy by the mighty sword, which is Christ. [dialogue 89]

The point is that the 'Jesus' identification is bullshit. It just floats around in the text. The Jews who were hostile to Christianity inevitably 'admit' to things that they never would acknowledge especially in this case that 'they expected' that the messiah would be named Joshua. Not true. But then look at how Justin does explain the crucifixion - Moses made the sign of the cross not Jesus. How could anyone use Joshua NOT crucified - that someone else was made the sign of the Cross - to 'prove' that 'Jesus' the messiah would be crucified? It's fucking retarded.

And again in 111:

"And that it was declared by symbol, even in the time of Moses, that there would be two advents of this Christ, as I have mentioned previously, [is manifest] from the symbol of the goats presented for sacrifice during the fast. And again, by what Moses and Joshua did, the same thing was symbolically announced and told beforehand. For the one of them, stretching out his hands, remained till evening on the hill, his hands being supported; and this reveals a type of no other thing than of the cross: and the other, whose name was altered to Jesus (Joshua), led the fight, and Israel conquered. Now this took place in the case of both those holy men and prophets of God, that you may perceive how one of them could not bear up both the mysteries: I mean, the type of the cross and the type of the name. For this is, was, and shall be the strength of Him alone, whose name every power dreads, being very much tormented because they shall be destroyed by Him.

and again 112:

"But you, expounding these things in a low [and earthly] manner, impute much weakness to God, if you thus listen to them merely, and do not investigate the force of the words spoken. Since even Moses would in this way be considered a transgressor: for he enjoined that no likeness of anything in heaven, or on earth, or in the sea, be made; and then he himself made a brazen serpent and set it on a standard, and bade those who were bitten look at it: and they were saved when they looked at it. Will the serpent, then, which (I have already said) God had in the beginning cursed and cut off by the great sword, as Isaiah says, be understood as having preserved at that time the people? and shall we receive these things in the foolish acceptation of your teachers, and [regard] them not as signs? And shall we not rather refer the standard to the resemblance of the crucified Jesus, since also Moses by his outstretched hands, together with him who was named Jesus, achieved a victory for your people?

So the idea is Jesus wasn't crucified but conquered. But all of this proves that it was predicted that the messiah - who wasn't thought by Jews to appear crucified was supposed to be Jesus was crucified. Right ...

[Stephan Huller]

And then, when Auses having his named changed to Jesus - something which originally served only to foreshadow Jesus's change of the names of his disciples, now attempts to explain why the messiah was predicted in the scripture. Really? Let's see how this is done:

"What I mean is this. Jesus, as I have now frequently remarked, who was called Oshea, when he was sent to spy out the land of Canaan, was named by Moses Jesus. Why he did this you neither ask, nor are at a loss about it, nor make strict inquiries. Therefore Christ has escaped your notice; and though you read, you understand not; and even now, though you hear that Jesus is our Christ, you consider not that the name was bestowed on Him not purposelessly nor by chance. But you make a theological discussion as to why one rho was added to Abraham's first name; and as to why one 'p' was added to Sarah's name, you use similar high-sounding disputations. But why do you not similarly investigate the reason why the name of Oshea the son of Nave, which his father gave him, was changed to Jesus?

A lot of bluster but no real explanation. So why was the name changed and how does this foreshadow the 'truth' that messiah would be named Jesus:

But since not only was his name altered, but he was also appointed successor to Moses, being the only one of his contemporaries who came out from Egypt, he led the surviving people into the Holy Land; and as he, not Moses, led the people into the Holy Land, and as he distributed it by lot to those who entered along with him, so also Jesus the Christ will turn again the dispersion of the people, and will distribute the good land to each one, though not in the same manner.

This isn't a bad argument for why Joshua foreshadowed the future liberator of the Jewish people. But the man crucified on the cross didn't do anything of the short. He taught and then was captured and crucified, very unlike Joshua. But wait a minute. What does any of this have to do with what was promised originally namely why Moses changed his name?

Let's see if this is ever answered? Nope. It just hangs there as yet another unfulfilled promise. Instead the author shifts gears and contrasts IH or IS and Joshua:

For the former (Joshua) gave them a temporary inheritance, seeing he was neither Christ who is God, nor the Son of God; but the latter (IH or IS), after the holy resurrection, shall give us the eternal possession. The former, after he had been named Jesus, and after he had received strength from. His Spirit, caused the sun to stand still. For I have proved that it was Jesus who appeared to and conversed with Moses, and Abraham, and all the other patriarchs without exception, ministering to the will of the Father; who also, I say, came to be born man by the Virgin Mary, and I lives for ever. For the latter is He after whom and by whom the Father will renew both the heaven and the earth; this is He who shall shine an eternal light in Jerusalem; this is he who is the king of Salem after the order of Melchizedek, and the eternal Priest of the Most High. The former is said to have circumcised the people a second time with knives of stone (which was a sign of this circumcision with which Jesus Christ Himself has circumcised us from the idols made of stone and of other materials), and to have collected together those who were circumcised from the uncircumcision, i.e., from the error of the world, in every place by the knives of stone, to wit, the words of our Lord Jesus.

Wait a minute. Let's take a closer look at this last section. There are five sentences:

1. antithesis between the former and latter - "For the former (Joshua) gave them a temporary inheritance, seeing he was neither Christ who is God, nor the Son of God; but the latter (IH or IS), after the holy resurrection, shall give us the eternal possession."
2. positive statement no antithesis - Jesus was a man "The former, after he had been named Jesus, and after he had received strength from. His Spirit, caused the sun to stand still."
3. statement that the angel man was with the Patriarchs and that being is IH or IS "For I have proved that it was Jesus who appeared to and conversed with Moses, and Abraham, and all the other patriarchs without exception, ministering to the will of the Father"
4. statement that an angelic being was working the will of the Father in the times of the Patriarchs - "For the latter is He after whom and by whom the Father will renew both the heaven and the earth; this is He who shall shine an eternal light in Jerusalem; this is he who is the king of Salem after the order of Melchizedek, and the eternal Priest of the Most High."
5. a reworked antithesis (changed to an 'agreement') "The former (Joshua) is said to have circumcised the people a second time with knives of stone ... and to have collected together those who were ... from the uncircumcision

Once again there are clearly a number of conflicting ideas that don't quite make sense together in the same paragraph. Some of the sentences have been added by a later hand. Look at some of the sentences which follow that indicate (5) was a juxtaposition like (1):

For your first circumcision was and is performed by iron instruments, for you remain hard-hearted; but our circumcision, which is the second, having been instituted after yours, circumcises ... by the words [preached] by the apostles of the corner-stone cut out without hands. And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock.

The idea is clearly that martyrdom and death is the new or true circumcision. This is why god appeared crucified - to instruct the people into the new/true circumcision. But it is developed through the antithesis of IH and IS with Joshua, not his agreement.

[Stephan Huller]

And this is particularly senseless:

"For I have proved that it was Jesus who appeared to and conversed with Moses, and Abraham, and all the other patriarchs without exception, ministering to the will of the Father"

Yeah but ish - the angel referenced here spoke with Joshua. Justin cites this in another section. So the angel is Ish, Joshua is not like Ish (their names are different) but somehow the Christian god is named Joshua (Jesus). No the text says 'man' (anthropos) or ish (Hebrew). So how is the Christian god named Jesus? No more questions, just believe ...

The actually sentence in the manuscript probably reads:

"For I have proved that it was IS who appeared to and conversed with Moses, and Abraham, and all the other patriarchs without exception, ministering to the will of the Father"

I think now we all know who IS is right? Is not here is what Justin says somewhere else about him:

this same thing in the revelation made by Jesus the son of Nave. Listen, therefore, to the following from the book of Jesus, that what I say may become manifest to you; it is this: 'And it came to pass, when Jesus was near Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and sees a man (איש) standing over against him. And Jesus approached to Him, and said, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And He said to him, I am Captain of the Lord's host: now have I come. And Joshua fell on his face on the ground, and said to Him, Lord, what commandest Thou Thy servant? And the Lord's Captain says to Jesus, Loose the shoes off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. And Jericho was shut up and fortified, and no one went out of it. And the Lord said to Jesus, Behold, I give into thine hand Jericho, and its king,[and] its mighty men.'"

So the angel is IS, the manuscript speaks of the Christian god being IS, 'Jesus' is neither - but a man, the Patriarch from the past. But the 'real name' behind IS is Jesus ...

[Stephan Huller]

If anyone has any better luck finding Parisinus 450 here http://gallica.bnf.fr/ I would be most appreciative.

[Stephan Huller]

delete

[Stephan Huller]

delete

[Peter Kirby]

I just wish people actually THOUGHT about what they read. So, just to repeat (a) the pages of the earliest literature have a nomen sacrum which is pronounced 'Eesu.' How do we know this 'Jesus.' The assumption is that the early sources (Church Fathers) make this explicit. But let's THINK about what is said in a writer like Justin Martyr. Could it be interpolation has gotten into the text? Just look at the 'Jesus' argument in Dialogue:

"Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.'

Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses.

For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name (שְׁמִי) is in Him,' was IS. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also.

Now Isaiah shows that those prophets who are sent to publish tidings from God are called His angels and apostles. For Isaiah says in a certain place, 'Send me.' And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus, was strong and great, is manifest to all. If, then, we know that God revealed Himself in so many forms to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, how are we at a loss, and do not believe that, according to the will of the Father of all things, it was possible for Him to be born man of the Virgin, especially after we have such Scriptures, from which it can be plainly perceived that He became so according to the will of the Father?

"For when Daniel speaks of 'one like unto the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like unto the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression 'it was cut out without hands' signified that it is not a work of man, but[a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, 'Who shall declare His generation?' he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine? And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty l counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came[to earth]?

So I would argue that the text makes more sense without the garbage:

Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.' For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name (שְׁמִי) is in Him,' was IS. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also.

"For when Daniel speaks of 'one like unto the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like unto the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression 'it was cut out without hands' signified that it is not a work of man, but[a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, 'Who shall declare His generation?' he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine? And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty l counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came[to earth]?

Remember Justin says over and over again that Jesus is identified in the Jewish writings as 'Man' and moreover that he is the angel in the name Israel = 'a man (Ish) who overcomes God/power.'

Is there anyone who is going to argue that there isn't an interpolation in this text? Exodus 23 predicts the coming of an angel. The Jews know this. They say that 'my name is in him' is Metatron whose name has the numerological value of Shaddai (314). Now can't the rest of the people see that the original text had Justin identify 'IS' (or whatever nomen sacrum you prefer)as this angel. A later editor has added the rest of the material. How do we know this? Because the argument doesn't make any sense as it stands now.

Posted from my phone.

I am not sure about an interpolation..

But you are absolutely right that Justin's text refers to IS being in the name Israel/ISL.

Justin thus does find a special significance in the IS name.

We cannot be certain whether this is a contracted IHSOUS or a suspended IS*.

No, wait, there is a serious error above.

The Greek nomen sacrum for Israel is not actually "ISL" but rather "IHL," ΙΗΛ, or iota eta lambda.

Codex Sinaiticus, Matthew 2:6, last word "Israel" (IHL)


This is significant and odd, because it grabs the last two letters along with the first.

Therefore, I can no longer say with confidence, "But you are absolutely right that Justin's text refers to IS being in the name Israel/ISL."

The particular nomen sacrum used for "Israel" (IHL) means that we can understand Justin's argument as using the suspended form of the name Jesus, IH (also found in the Epistle of Barnabas and in Clement of Alexandria and in ante-Nicene NT mss., including the "Dura Parchment 24" that seems to represent a synoptic harmony or "Diatessaron"), and three-letter contracted form of Israel, IHL. If so, this further might mean that both nomina sacra had found some use, some of the time, as early as the second century... and perhaps specifically for the very purpose of reading the name "Jesus" into the name "Israel," in fulfillment of the prophetic passage cited by Justin (which has the meaning that the name, IH, is in the one who is called IHL, Israel, i.e. Moses, who like Jacob is also called "Israel," as Justin says).

This might explain why the last two letters of Israel are joined to the first, as a way of conforming the nomen sacrum of Israel to the interpretation that Jesus' name is in it, as Jesus' name was being read as a suspended form IH in Alexandrian exegesis and also, accordingly, in Justin.

It also sheds new light on the gnostic exegesis quoted by Irenaeus of the parable that Jesus was sent to the "lost sheep" (of the house of "Israel"? as in Matthew 15:24), with the special emphasis on the lambda as seeking a missing one like itself, as anyone reading that with the nomina sacra in the original Greek could notice that Jesus (IH) had found his lost sheep (Λ) in the nomen sacrum IHΛ.