At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?

[lclapshaw]

So what claim are you making about Iota-Sigma overline (and Iota Upsilon, Iota Nun) in Justin Martyr? That it is a possibility that has not been definitely falsified? Or do you think that you have actually shown it to be a likelihood (or at least more likely than that means Jesus)?

Just out of curiosity, if we are relying on Justin, why is Jesus preferable over Man? And, does Justin actually say Iesous? What is our earliest source for this?

Lane

[Ken Olson]

So what claim are you making about Iota-Sigma overline (and Iota Upsilon, Iota Nun) in Justin Martyr? That it is a possibility that has not been definitely falsified? Or do you think that you have actually shown it to be a likelihood (or at least more likely than that means Jesus)?

Just out of curiosity, if we are relying on Justin, why is Jesus preferable over Man? And, does Justin actually say Iesous? What is our earliest source for this?

Lane

Hi Lane,

In this thread, I argued that the name of the Old Testament prophet Joshua ( Ἰησοῦς ) the son of Nun is either written out or rendered with the nomen sacrum Iota-Sigma overline (or Iota-Upisilon, or Iota-Nun). I am assuming the burden of proof is on me to show that, but the point is demonstrable. We can look at Justin's Old Testament quotations and see where Joshua's name appears there is either Ἰησοῦς or the nomen sacrum Iota-Sigma overline. Therefore we know that in at least several cases in the manuscript, the nomen sacrum Iota-Sigma overline is used to indicate the name Ἰησοῦς.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9124&hilit=justin+dialogue

Secret Alias response is to say that the cases where Iota-Sigma indicates the name Ἰησοῦς are later additions to Justin and that in all the other, earlier cases Iota-Sigma meant man. But he cannot demonstrate this to be true. I'm not trying to demonstrate that his claim is impossible, I'm saying he has not met the burden of proof necessary to claim that it is true. We have cases where in this manuscript Iota-Sigma overline definitely indicates the name Ἰησοῦς (meets a very high burden of proof), and, contrary to what Secret Alias is arguing, there are zero cases where it's implausible to think it meant Ἰησοῦς . That Iota-Sigma overline was used to indicate the name Ἰησοῦς is plausible in every case.

The manuscript, Parisinus Gr. 450, is from 1363 CE, and one could argue it does not establish usage for the second or third centuries. I'm pointing out, though, that it is the same manuscript everyone else has to use when we discuss Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

But is it either/or when Justin himself accepts both man and Savior? That's what all this inane chatter comes down to. It doesn't make intuitive sense. But Justin says both are acceptable. I acknowledge the manuscript acknowledges both. It says man and Savior. But argue man is original. Ken denies that Justin ever says man and Savior. Go figure. It's very difficult to engage with someone where basic facts aren't acknowledged.

It's unsatisfactory but Justin says what he says.

[Secret Alias]

Modern Hebrew

Ἰθάκη (Ithica) = איתקה
ἰσθμός (Isthmus) = איזטמוס
Ἰσίδωρος (Isidore) = איזידור
Ἰφιγένεια (Iphigenia) = איפיגניה

also

Ισλανδικά (Icelandic) = איסלנדית

[mlinssen]

So what claim are you making about Iota-Sigma overline (and Iota Upsilon, Iota Nun) in Justin Martyr? That it is a possibility that has not been definitely falsified? Or do you think that you have actually shown it to be a likelihood (or at least more likely than that means Jesus)?

Just out of curiosity, if we are relying on Justin, why is Jesus preferable over Man? And, does Justin actually say Iesous? What is our earliest source for this?

Lane

Hi Lane,

In this thread, I argued that the name of the Old Testament prophet Joshua ( Ἰησοῦς ) the son of Nun is either written out or rendered with the nomen sacrum Iota-Sigma overline (or Iota-Upisilon, or Iota-Nun). I am assuming the burden of proof is on me to show that, but the point is demonstrable. We can look at Justin's Old Testament quotations and see where Joshua's name appears there is either Ἰησοῦς or the nomen sacrum Iota-Sigma overline. Therefore we know that in at least several cases in the manuscript, the nomen sacrum Iota-Sigma overline is used to indicate the name Ἰησοῦς.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9124&hilit=justin+dialogue

Secret Alias response is to say that the cases where Iota-Sigma indicates the name Ἰησοῦς are later additions to Justin and that in all the other, earlier cases Iota-Sigma meant man. But he cannot demonstrate this to be true. I'm not trying to demonstrate that his claim is impossible, I'm saying he has not met the burden of proof necessary to claim that it is true. We have cases where in this manuscript Iota-Sigma overline definitely indicates the name Ἰησοῦς (meets a very high burden of proof), and, contrary to what Secret Alias is arguing, there are zero cases where it's implausible to think it meant Ἰησοῦς . That Iota-Sigma overline was used to indicate the name Ἰησοῦς is plausible in every case.

The manuscript, Parisinus Gr. 450, is from 1363 CE, and one could argue it does not establish usage for the second or third centuries. I'm pointing out, though, that it is the same manuscript everyone else has to use when we discuss Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.

Best,

Ken

Yup.
You have very interesting points here - and compelling ones too

For one thing it attests to Sweet Just having no clue what IS stood for - which seems to me to be very solid evidence of a story that is not his own at all whatsoever.
Neither did Chrestianity know what it stood for, and neither could there have been a Marcion who knew what it stood for

NOBODY knew what it stood for. All this demonstrates the complete absence or oral tradition, the uselessness of "memory studies" and other nonsense like that only aimed at prolonging the stalemate - all of this testifies in a very loud voice to a single text being the source to all of this

The text got turned into a story and it ended up as the stories that we now know, but this is like a letter from your grandfather that you find in the attic: it contains an "abbreviation" AND BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A WORD WRITTEN OUT IN FULL THAT RESEMBLES IT, you can't make sense of it.
You try, sweet Geewsus you try, yes - and everyone else tries.
And all that failure at proving what it stands for successfully proves that this someone else's story, the context to which got lost to everyone

[Ken Olson]

But is it either/or when Justin himself accepts both man and Savior? That's what all this inane chatter comes down to. It doesn't make intuitive sense. But Justin says both are acceptable. I acknowledge the manuscript acknowledges both. It says man and Savior. But argue man is original. Ken denies that Justin ever says man and Savior. Go figure. It's very difficult to engage with someone where basic facts aren't acknowledged.

It's unsatisfactory but Justin says what he says.

This highlights one of the many problems in trying to discuss texts with Stephan Huller. He elevates his idea to a basic fact and considers the people who don't accept that to be dishonest. Then he backs it up with the truism 'Justin says what he says.' He does not actually quote the manuscript and explain (i.e., present an argument) for how he gets from what is in the manuscript to his idea that the nomen sacrum Iota-Sigma overline means 'man' and is a transliteration of the Hebrew אִישׁ .

Here, once again, is what Marcovich wrote, on which Stephan bases his claim:

Marcovich - Notes on Justin - Jesus as Man .png (135.04 KiB) Viewed 1036 times

Marcovich writes: 'The proper name Jesus means in Hebrew Man, in Greek Savior'. Marcovich thinks there's a problem in the text of Justin 1 Apology 33.7 and conjecturally adds the word ἄνθρωπος 'man' based on Justin 2 Apology 6.4, for which he gives the Greek but does not provide a translation.

I don't think Marcovich' emendation of 1 Apology 33.7 is necessary, and have argued that previously. It is not accepted by the later critical edition of Minns and Parvis, who translate it:

33.7. The name Jesus' in the Hebrew language means, in Greek, 'saviour'

with the note:

3 Marcoνich and Munier emend the text to haνe the sense: Jesus is a name which means ίη Hebrew.
'man'; in Greek, 'saνiour'. They suppose that 2Α 5(6).4, to which they refer, has the sense Jesus is a
name which signifies both "man" and "saνiour" '. See our note there.

Minns and Parvis translate 2 Apology 5(6).4 (with a bit of the prior context):

He is called 'Christ' because God anointed and adorned the universe through him. This name also has an unknown meaning, just as the designation 'god' is not a name but a notion implanted in the nature of human beings about something difficult to set forth. And Jesus' is a human being's name, but also has the meaning 'saviour'.

The editors note on the highlighted section of the text:

1 Lit. Jesus has a name and signification of both man and saviοur'. The text is usually construed
explicitly or implicitly ad sensum, taking 'man' with 'name' and 'saviour' with 'meaning', but, grammatically,
the two geηitives should go with both accusatives. We belieνe the text to be corrupt. If
Ίησους δέ was originally in strict parallel with Χριστος μέν, corruption may haνe crept in when a
scribe who had lost his way in the sentence introduced a new finite verb (εχει). But the general
meaning must be along the lines indicated ίη our translation. In 1Α 33.7 Justin says that the Hebrew
name Jesus' 'means 'saviοur' in Greek. Cyril ofJerusalem (Catecheses Illuminandorum 10.11) says, Jesus
Christ is called by a twofold name: Jesus because of his saving activity, Christ because of his priestly
activity'. What is distinctive of Justin's approach is that he explains 'Christ' in terms of a cosmic
function and Jesus' in terms of the work of the incarnate.

Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, Apologies, edited and with commentary on the text by Denis Minns and Paul Parvis (Oxford, 2009).

So Huller takes Marcovich's conjectural emendation as the basis for his claim that Justin used Iota Sigma overline to mean 'man" without discussing what other critical editions have or providing an argument for why Marcovich's reading is superior. One might suspects that he just adopted it because it fits his theory.

But here's the kicker: According to Marcovich, Justin is saying *the proper name Jesus* means 'man' and 'saviour'. Marcovich accepts that Iota Sigma overline indicates the proper name Jesus and renders it that way in his critical editions of 1A 2A and Trypho each time it is used. He is not claiming the nomen sacrum Iota Sigma underline is derived from the Hebrew אִישׁ 'man' and the Greek for 'saviour'. Marcovich is claiming the proper name Jesus is. Marcovich is saying that Justin is giving an etymology of the proper name Jesus as having ben derived from both Greek and Hebrew. What Marcovich actually says provides no basis for Huller's claim that Iota Sigma underline must sometimes mean man in the texts of Justin. Huller just asserts that as a basic fact.

This is the problem with Huller's use of the appeal to authority. When he can make Marcovich support his ideas, great. When Marcovich does not support him, too bad for Marcovich. Huller has made agreement with his own ideas the test for where the authorities are right or wrong. Naturally his ideas do pretty well when judged by the standard of agreement with themselves.

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

Sheesh. Let's get a grip on what Ken is saying throughout this thread. (and I literally write this as a wake up. It's 6:00 am in Seattle)

1. Origen's translation. Origen confirms the ΙΣ = אִישׁ reading. But according to Ken 'he's mistaken.' The fact that aleph iota is consistently rendered with an iota in the LXX and elsewhere is not 'good enough' for Ken. There is apparently a 'correct rendering' according to Ken (who has no Hebrew expertise). Completely nonsense.

2. Justin's statement. Everyone of us can Google 2 Apology https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0127.htm. In chapter 6 we read:

But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him; this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation God is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained. But Jesus (= nomen sacrum), His name as man and Saviour, has also significance. For He was made man also, as we before said, having been conceived according to the will of God the Father, for the sake of believing men, and for the destruction of the demons. And now you can learn this from what is under your own observation. For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our Christian men exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those who used incantations and drugs.

This has been rendered differently in a modern translation. Fine. There are many ways to translate a line. This was the translation in 1885. Marcovich read the original Greek and came to a similar rendering and argued in his paper that the existing manuscripts of Justin are garbled and almost unreadable at points and amended a passage in 1 Apology based on this passage to also read 'man and Savior.' My inference from Marcovich's emendation is that the nomen sacrum ΙΣ is being explained. This is not Marcovich's assumption. He thinks Justin is explaining the name Jesus. Nevertheless Justin thinks that 'Jesus' is being explained to go back the Hebrew name 'man' or 'Savior.'

The idea that there are absolutes in scholarship - that Origen rendered the aleph-yod in אִישׁ 'incorrectly' is just as silly as point with Marcovich. Between us and the phenomenological world is our interpretation of the world. There is nothing wrong with the 1885 translation nor Marcovich's or Ben Smith's understanding of the original Greek. It is well established that the Parisinus manuscript is poorly preserved and everyone does their best to contextualize what is being said. Enough people have read the original Greek and confirmed that 'man and Savior' is a valid interpretation that no more discussion need to be devoted to it in the same way that aleph-yod is rendered with iota confirms that Origen's interpretation of the Hebrew was likely followed and accepted by others ... Eusebius.

Odd that someone who has devoted himself to Eusebius hasn't come back on what the Greek of Eusebius's TWO Greek references to אִישׁ says. My guess is that he knows and won't tell us. So high are his scholarly standards, so devoted is Ken to academic objectivity in these matters ...

[Secret Alias]

And to move on from such inanities. A general statements on the theory.

1. ancient languages reproduced words in other languages in their own language. There aren't a lot of examples of Hebrew nouns that aren't names being transliterated into Greek. The fact that Origen and perhaps Eusebius do it for איש (in Eusebius's case twice) is utterly remarkable.

2. there are other examples of nouns that begin with אי being interchanged by the Greek iota:

HEBREW

Job (Biblical figure) = אִיּוֹב = Ἰώβ
Ithamar (son of Aaron) = אִיתָמָר = Ἰθάμαρ
Iberia = איבריה = Ιβηρία
Italy = איטליה = Ἰταλία
Iyar = אִייָר = Ιαϊρ

ARAMAIC

civic polity = Aramaic https://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=53 = ἰσοπολιτεία
Isatis (plant that produces blue dye) = Aramaic https://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=55 = ἰσάτις
Iris (= plant/mythological figure) = https://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=60 = Ἶρις

SYRIAC

private = ˀydywn = ἴδιον (Syriac)
forms (Platonic) = ˀydhˀs = ἰδέαι

MODERN HEBREW

Ἰθάκη (Ithica) = איתקה
ἰσθμός (Isthmus) = איזטמוס
Ἰσίδωρος (Isidore) = איזידור
Ἰφιγένεια (Iphigenia) = איפיגניה
Ισλανδικά (Icelandic) = איסלנדית

3. Justin understood ΙΣ to mean 'man.' This is the conclusion of Ben Smith someone who was no less kindly disposed toward me. He based this on his interpretation of Ισραήλ and the material that convinced Marcovich and others. There simply is no disputing this. The manner in which modern translators have chosen to render passages doesn't get around Justin's Ισραήλ = Ισρα + ήλ interpretation.

In the end, the evidence supports the notion that in antiquity the Hebrew word man was rendered ΙΣ and that as such the nomen sacrum ΙΣ could go back to the same Hebrew origin. This does not mean it happened. There are no absolutes in scholarship. The theory is helped by as many supporting witnesses but it is not affected by a modern re-translation of Justin. Justin's other passages can be interpreted the way the 1885 translator and Marcovich and Ben Smith read the material. I would suggest that Ken, not I, is behaving in bad faith. He knows how silly this whole exercise is.

[Secret Alias]

And I should correct what I said about the exercise being useless. I have always meant to see whether there were other Hebrew words that begin with אי were rendered into Greek with iota. Thanks to Ken I investigated that. I should thank him just as I would be happy to know what Eusebius says about matters. Any time would be great Ken. Thanks in advance.

[Secret Alias]

And on third thought Ken's criticisms are helping transform an "internet theory" into a publishable theory so that is a good thing too. Not a useless exercise. In my mind we have to distinguish between the following:

1. it is certain that ancient Greek speakers rendered איש as ΙΣ (Origen, his possible source and possibly Eusebius)
2. it is certain that ancient Greek speakers who knew Hebrew read ΙΣ as איש (Justin Martyr's interpretation of Ισραήλ coupled with the two passages regarding 'man' and 'Savior' in the Apologies).
3. it is certain that Hebrew speakers throughout the ages transliterated אי for/with iota. Greek doesn't have the 'sh' sound so ש was rendered by Σ (originally in Hebrew all ש = 'sh').

Whether or not the nomen sacrum ΙΣ goes back to man or Jesus is debatable. 1, 2 and 3 aren't. It is a strong argument IMHO that some Christians interpreted ΙΣ as איש. But that hypothesis will only be tested when I publish and see the reaction to the paper. It is a publishable argument again in my humble opinion. Whether or not I am right is another matter. That is yet to be determined and will only be determined by the reaction of more knowledgeable people or people who bring new things to the table. In part at least the final product will be enhanced by Ken's input.