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

[Secret Alias]

Another thing that we start noticing:

Gen 2 , 23

( Αύτη κληθήσεται γυνή , ότι εκ του ανδρός αυτής ελήφθη αύτη » . Σύμμαχος : « Αύτη κληθήσεται ή εις ανδρός + ( a ) , ότι από εις 3 , ανδρός , ελήφθη αύτη · ό έστι γυνή » . ' εις ανδρός Μ είσηανδρος L εκ ανδρός Β εισσα , ανδρίς prob . legendum ( vide notam a ) 2 ότι ] σ ' praem . L 3 εις scripsi ] εις L εις MB * Hexapla – FIELD , WEVERS , ad loc . ( a ) Le mot grec εις est la transcription de l'hébreu 15 , « homme ( male ) » . Le jeu de mots ' iš / ' iššāh « homme / femme » , disparaît dans la LXX . Cf JÉRÔME , Hebr . quaest . , ad Gen. 2 , 23 ( ed . ANTIN , p . 5 ) : Non uidetur in graeco et latino sonare , cur mulier appelletur , quia ex uiro sumpta sit , sed Étuuooyia in hebraeo sermone seruatur . Uir quippe uocatur is et mulier issa. recte igitur ab his appellata est mulier hissa. unde et symmachus pulchre etumologian~g etiam in graeco uoluit custodire in graeco uoluit custodire dicens : haec vocabitur ανδρίς , ότι από ανδρός ελήφθη , quod nos latine possumus dicere : haec uocabitur virago , quia ex uiro sumpta est." De même EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE , Praep . eu . , XI , 6 , 18 ( PG21 , c . 857 C 1-3 ; ed . MRAS , p . 16 , 8-10 ; ed . FAVRELLE ( SC 292 ) , p . 78 ) : “ Η δε γυνή , επείπερ είρηται εκ του ανδρός ειλήφθαι , και την προσηγορίαν επικοινωνεί το ανδρί . Εσσα γάρ ή γυνή λέγεται παρ ' αυτούς , ώσπερ ΕΙΣ ο ανήρ ." Voir Csl 100 , 17-25 ( Diodore ) , ainsi que les nos 286 et 314. Voir enfin la version arménienne d'Eusebe d'Émèse ( ed . HOVHANNESSIAN , p . 39 , 701-703 ) , où le traducteur semble avoir interpreté eis comme le nom de nombre « un »

Apparently Vaticanus has εις ανδρός https://books.google.com/books?id=mv5MA ... us&f=false I have to process all of this (while preparing for an important call in 45 minutes but apparently the εις in "εις ανδρός" goes back to איש (= Le mot grec εις est la transcription de l'hébreu [איש]) and Eusebius of Emesa mistook the εις for the Greek number 1 (εἷς).

[mlinssen]

Another thing that we start noticing:

Gen 2 , 23

( Αύτη κληθήσεται γυνή , ότι εκ του ανδρός αυτής ελήφθη αύτη » . Σύμμαχος : « Αύτη κληθήσεται ή εις ανδρός + ( a ) , ότι από εις 3 , ανδρός , ελήφθη αύτη · ό έστι γυνή » . ' εις ανδρός Μ είσηανδρος L εκ ανδρός Β εισσα , ανδρίς prob . legendum ( vide notam a ) 2 ότι ] σ ' praem . L 3 εις scripsi ] εις L εις MB * Hexapla – FIELD , WEVERS , ad loc . ( a ) Le mot grec εις est la transcription de l'hébreu 15 , « homme ( male ) » . Le jeu de mots ' iš / ' iššāh « homme / femme » , disparaît dans la LXX . Cf JÉRÔME , Hebr . quaest . , ad Gen. 2 , 23 ( ed . ANTIN , p . 5 ) : Non uidetur in graeco et latino sonare , cur mulier appelletur , quia ex uiro sumpta sit , sed Étuuooyia in hebraeo sermone seruatur . Uir quippe uocatur is et mulier issa. recte igitur ab his appellata est mulier hissa. unde et symmachus pulchre etumologian~g etiam in graeco uoluit custodire in graeco uoluit custodire dicens : haec vocabitur ανδρίς , ότι από ανδρός ελήφθη , quod nos latine possumus dicere : haec uocabitur virago , quia ex uiro sumpta est." De même EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE , Praep . eu . , XI , 6 , 18 ( PG21 , c . 857 C 1-3 ; ed . MRAS , p . 16 , 8-10 ; ed . FAVRELLE ( SC 292 ) , p . 78 ) : “ Η δε γυνή , επείπερ είρηται εκ του ανδρός ειλήφθαι , και την προσηγορίαν επικοινωνεί το ανδρί . Εσσα γάρ ή γυνή λέγεται παρ ' αυτούς , ώσπερ ΕΙΣ ο ανήρ ." Voir Csl 100 , 17-25 ( Diodore ) , ainsi que les nos 286 et 314. Voir enfin la version arménienne d'Eusebe d'Émèse ( ed . HOVHANNESSIAN , p . 39 , 701-703 ) , où le traducteur semble avoir interpreté eis comme le nom de nombre « un »

Apparently Vaticanus has εις ανδρός https://books.google.com/books?id=mv5MA ... us&f=false I have to process all of this (while preparing for an important call in 45 minutes but apparently the εις in "εις ανδρός" goes back to איש (= Le mot grec εις est la transcription de l'hébreu [איש]) and Eusebius of Emesa mistook the εις for the Greek number 1 (εἷς).

The first Genesis part of Vaticanus blatantly obviously dates to 10th CE at the earliest, it is littered with diacritics.
Here is the last page, now go see the next one

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0044

You need to check your manuscripts, and provide links to your sources - or others will do it for you and demonstrate your ineptitude and failure to verify your own claims.
Every idiot knows the online Vatican library, and its flagship Codex Vaticanus

19καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς ἔτι ἐκ τῆς γῆς πάντα τὰ θηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ καὶ πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὰ πρὸς τὸν Ἀδὰμ ἰδεῖν τί καλέσει αὐτά· καὶ πᾶν ὃ ἐὰν ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ Ἀδὰμ ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, τοῦτο ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.
20καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Ἀδὰμ ὀνόματα πᾶσιν τοῖς κτήνεσιν καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς πετεινοῖς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς θηρίοις τοῦ ἀγροῦ· τῷ τε Ἀδὰμ οὐχ εὑρέθη βοηθὸς ὅμοιος αὐτῷ.
21καὶ ἐπέβαλεν ὁ θεὸς ἔκστασιν ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀδάμ, καὶ ὕπνωσεν· καὶ ἔλαβεν μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνεπλήρωσεν σάρκα ἀντ᾽ αὐτῆς.
22καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὴν πλευράν, ἣν ἔλαβεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀδάμ, εἰς γυναῖκα· καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸν Ἀδάμ.
23καὶ εἶπεν Ἀδάμ Τοῦτο νῦν ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων μου καὶ σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός μου· αὕτη κληθήσεται Γυνή, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήμφθη αὕτη.
24ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, καὶ προσκολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.
25καὶ ἦσαν οἱ δύο γυμνοί, ὅ τε Ἀδὰμ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ᾐσχύνοντο.

Highlighted the first line there for you, middle column of

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0006

Vaticanus_Gen2-23.jpg (653.22 KiB) Viewed 942 times

Line 15 starts where the bold part is at, and it says what the Greek has - but then again there's the highly interesting question of why this Codex leaf and its friends is so very different from what comes after Genesis 40 - and on what is your book based on?

So many uncertainties, questions, irregularities - but you're already 5 steps further on your way to even more baseless assumptions, and not to forget your important call.
Your research is a joke, Stephan Huller. A chaotic, inaccurate, careless and pathetic joke

[mlinssen]

http://www.willker.de/wie/Vaticanus/general.html

The codex is defective at the beginning and the end. At the beginning 45 chapters of Genesis are missing, in the middle 10 folios of the Psalms are missing and at the end the second part of Hebrews, the Pastorals and Revelation are missing. These missing parts have been replaced in the 15th CE. The NT part (Heb + Rev.) got the Aland no. 1957. The Pastorals have not been replaced. Nobody knows of course what came originally after Hebrews.

...

The AT runs from folio 1 to 632 = 1264 pages. 31 folios = 62 pages are missing at the beginning (Gen. 1 - 46:28). These have been replaced by 20 folios (= 40 pages) in minuscule script. Also 10 folios are missing from the Psalms (Ps 105:27 - 137:6). These have been replaced by 6 folios (= 12 pages) in minuscule script.

[Secret Alias]

Ok so the reading in question:

Αύτη κληθήσεται ή εις ανδρός

appears in a book on Vaticanus:

https://books.google.com/books?id=mv5MA ... us&f=false

listed as the reading of Symmachus. But this is not Symmachus because Symmachus famously invented ανδρις, andris, a female form of ανηρ which does not appear here. Not sure what to make of this.

[Secret Alias]

Romney:

The question at issue . On the basis of the word now in the Septuagint In the more elaborate form, Eusebius explains that the formation of a woman from Adam's rib was a non - recurring event . He sustains this with a quotation from Symmachus and Theodotion. that makes it explicit that afterwards both a man and a woman were necessary in order to produce new human beings , this explanation was accepted by Diodore and John Chrysostom.100 Quotations from the The lemma in the Armenian texts agrees with the Septuagint and the Armenian Bible ( except that it reads wyd is with several manuscripts instead of the editor's choice wydJp4 , a word with the same meaning , ' now ' ). The body of the commentary in A , B , C , and D does not yield variant readings . On the basis of its role in the commentary and its occurrence in A , C , and D , it can be established that the word vũv ( and perhaps also toūTO ) formed part of Eusebius ' Greek Bible . The rest of his text remains uncertain .

The alternative reading . The reading attributed to Symmachus and Theodotion is also found in the uncial Ra M ( seventh century ) , 101 but this manuscript assigns τούτο άπαξ to Symmachus only . .

VII . Ad Gen 2:23 A. CATENA : ed . Petit , Cat . 314 ( no attribution ) Το Εβραϊκόν ουκ έχει γυνή , αλλά εισα δασέως , και σημαίνει « ανθρώπου » : και τούτο μάλλον ακόλουθον δοκεί είναι . The Hebrew does not have wife , but ' heisa - pronounced with roughness , which means ' of man ' . And this seems to be more consistent . B. ARMENIAN : ed . Hovhannessian , 39 , 697-703 « Սա , կոչեսցի կին , զի յառնէ . իւրմէ առաւ » ասէ ։ Աստ անյայտ իմն է . արդ վասն այնորիկ կոչեսցի կին ` զի յառնէ իւրմէ է ։ (more Armenian)

this one will be called 'wife' as she was taken out of her man, he says. Something here is not clear. Now for this reason she will be called 'wife' because she is (taken) out of her man. What he says in Hebrew however is clearer for (there) it is said: 'Man was one' and 'because a wife was taken out of man' like one out of one.

C. DIODORE : ed . Petit , Csl . 100 pars altera Το μέντοι Αύτη κληθήσεται γυνή , ότι εκ του ανδρός αυτής ελήφθη , ου δοκεί τινα σώζειν ακολουθίαν . Ει γάρ επειδή πλευρά του Αδάμ η Εύα , διά τούτο γυνή , αι μετά ταύτα γυναίκες άρα ουκ εισίν εκ των ανδρών . Αλλά παρά τους ερμηνεύσαντας το σφάλμα φασί γεγενήσθαι μή γάρ ειρηκέναι 5 την γραφήν γυνή , αλλ ' « η άνθρωπος » . « Ίσ { a } « » μεν γαρ ονομάζει τον άνθρωπον δασυτάτη προφορά της φωνής χρωμένη , « Ιεσσά » δε την Εύαν , από του ανθρώπου . Και τούτό μοι δοκεί μάλλον έχειν ακολουθίαν .

a scripsi ( litteram a delevit editor ) ; * Iσ { a } ed . , vide apparatum ad loc . b scripsi ; ' Iedod ed . , vide apparatum ad loc . 101 Cf. Genesis , ed . WEVERS , second apparatus ad loc

So we found another 'IS' witness.

Diodorus of Tarsus from the fourth century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_of_Tarsus

ίσα μεν γαρ ονομάζει τον άνθρωπον , γαγών και της φύσεως ποιητής . τότε χάδασυτάτη προφορά της φωνής χρωμcύη , ίσα δε την Εύαν , από του ανθρώπου

https://books.google.com/books?id=ILGaP ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

On the subject of the origin of the εις reading. It is hard to believe that Eusebius is in error when he says this is Symmachus. The difficulty is Jerome:

JEROME OF STRIDON. 2:23 THIS IS THE BONE OF MY BONES, AND THE FLESH OF MY FLESH; SHE WILL BE CALLED WOMAN, BECAUSE SHE WAS DRAWN FROM THE MAN. The meaning, in the presence of the Greek and Latin text, does not indicate why she is called woman, because it has been drawn from man; but the etymology is kept in the Hebrew language. The man is called IS, and the woman lSSA. It is therefore right that IS the name of the SSA was given to the woman. Symmachus has praisefully tried to preserve the etymology in Greek: It will be, he says, called ανδρις, οτι απο ανδρος, that we can render in Latin by: 'This one shall be called virago, because she was taken from vir.' Theodotion ventures another etymology: "It will be," he says, "called assumption, rapture,” because she has been taken, sumpta, from man. ISSA, with a change of emphasis, can also be interpreted as abduction. [Hebrew Questions on Genesis]

My guesses:

Guess 1: Jerome lived in an age where Aquila was forbidden by law to be read (so the evidence suggests). My hunch would be ανδρις is something Aquila would have attempted. Symmachus has εις for Ish and interestingly Origen ignores Symmachus.

Guess 2: Jerome lived in an age where Aquila was forbidden. ανδρις is Aquila. Symmachus has ις. Origen agrees with Symmachus. εις slips into copyists.

[Secret Alias]

Possible witnesses for איש = ΙΣ

1. Symmachus (?)
2. Justin
3. Irenaeus (?)
4. Origen's source for the second column of the Hexapla (?)
5. Origen
6. Eusebius (?)
7. Jerome
8. Diodorus of Tarsus

[Secret Alias]

Another one from Origen:

And mark, at the same time, that in the case of those who are formed after the image, the words were not husband and wife but male and female. But we have also observed this in the Hebrew, for man is indicated by the word is, but male by the word zachar, and again woman by the word essa, but female by the word agkeba.

τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ τετηρήκαμεν· ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ δηλοῦται τῇ ΙΣ φωνῇ, ἄρρεν δὲ τῇ ΖΑΧΑΡ· καὶ πάλιν γυνὴ μὲν τῇ ΕΣΣΑ φωνῇ, θῆλυ δὲ τῇ ΟΥΝΚΗΒΑ·

[Secret Alias]

MacDonald on 'Iscariot' (Ὶσκάριωθ):

[Günther Schwarz ] also argues that ισ- is an abbreviation of the Hebrew שיא, “man"

[Secret Alias]

Philo knows the god Man:

For the same cause the lawgiver, when he is minded to do away with all lawless and disorderly intercourse and union, prefaces his command thus, “a man, a man [ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος] shall not go near to any that is akin to his flesh to uncover their shame. I am the Lord.” How could the command to spurn the flesh and what pertains to flesh be better given than in this form? And indeed he does not only forbid, but positively affirms that the man who is truly a man [ὁ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπος] will not of his own free will go near to the pleasures which are the friends and kin of the body, but will always but will always exercise himself in the lesson of estrangement from them. The repeated word, “a man, a man” instead of the single word [τὸ μὲν οὖν μὴ ἅπαξ ἀλλὰ δὶς φάναι ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος], is a sign that he means not the man who is compounded of soul and body , but the man whose life is one of virtue . For he indeed is the true man [ὄντως γὰρ ὁ ἀληθινὸς οὗτός ἐστιν] , and it was with him in view that one of the ancients lit a candle at midday and told those who inquired that he was seeking a man.