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

[Secret Alias]

On Origen using a Hebrew source for his transliteration(s) https://www.academia.edu/37477050/The_S ... nunciation

Based on Origen's own testimony regarding his lack of expertise in Hebrew, his dependence on secondary sources for etymological meanings, and his heavy reliance on Greek translation and transcription instead of Hebrew, it is necessary to conclude that Origen lacked the requisite skill in Hebrew to compose the second column of the Hexapla himself. It is inconceivable that the same man who was able to vocalize the entire Hebrew Bible and devise a system of transcription for it could have made the sort of mistakes cited above. Even the idea that Origen merely transcribed what was dictated to him from an expert in Hebrew may be dismissed; the results of such a collaboration would be a much superior Hebrew knowledge than what is exemplified in Origen's writings and a much inferior system of transcription than what is exhibited in the Secunda.32 Therefore, barring new evidence that might come to light, it should be considered a fact that Origen did not compose the second column himself.33

[Secret Alias]

(Posted originally in the wrong thread) Other people who read IS + ISSA in Genesis:

Olof Sigfrid Arngart (20th century Swedish linguist) The Story of Genesis and Exodus An Early English Song, about 1250 A.D. Author: Unknown Editor

Page 163 , line 13 fr . bottom , add : Cf. Com . Gen. 18 , et est sumptum nomen ( 8c . uxoris ) a viri nomine , ut materia de materia sumpta fuerat . Etiam denominatio in Hebraeo est . Is enim vir dicitur , unde denominatur ista, ut a vir virago: hoc nomen proprium illius mulieris fuit, nunc omnium est commune.

Historia scholastica eruditissimi viri. Magistri Petri Comestoris excellens

Is enim vir dicitur , unde denominatur ifta , ut a vir Virago . Hoc nomen proprium illius mulieris fuit nunc omnium est commune

[Secret Alias]

Jerome is a witness for IS and ISSA in Genesis 2:23

Vir quippe vocatur is et mulier issa , recta igitur ab is appellata est mulier issa .

https://books.google.com/books?id=z-Mc3 ... sa&f=false

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

So the issue is now put to rest.

[Secret Alias]

Also worth citing:

Philo's ανήρ ορών θεόν renders the - איש רואה אל as ישראל Hebrew folk - etymology of The Philonic etymologies of Israel were adopted by Latin patristic exegesis not only through Jerome's work but also through that of Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea . Origenis in Evangelium Joannis 2.31 ( 25 ) , ed . A. E. Brooke , I ( Cambridge , 1896 ) , 97-30 quotes the etymology ' locana avno ogõv Jɛóv , in a fragment from a now lost Hellenistic - Jewish OT apocryphon , the IgorEUX ' Iwong.20 This definition of Israel in the " Prayer of Joseph ' is derived from Philo , De confusione linguarum 146 , cited above . And the same passage in Origen's commentary is borrowed by Eusebius , Praeparatio Evangelica VI.11 . 64 , ed . borrowed by Eusebius , Praeparatio Evangelica VI.11 . 64 , ed . Karl Mras , vol . I. 1 ( Berlin , 1954 ) , 356.22-24 , while the identical passage from Philo is quoted — verbatim — in XI . . 15.2 , ed . Mras , vol . I.2 ( Berlin 1956 ) 36.9-10

Hard to argue that איש = ΙΣ was difficult to reproduce in antiquity. You have those who read it in Genesis and then those who interpreted it in the name Israel. This doesn't prove that ΙΣ originated with איש but rather that it was likely that Greek and Latin speakers could and would interpret ΙΣ as איש anywhere they saw ΙΣ especially in a document related to god, the Bible, Hebrew etc. This can't be disputed.

I remind Ken that scholarship is about probability and likelihood rather than 'facts.' Did X mean Y? We're never 100% of the outcome. We're merely determining rough probabilities/likelihood and (hopefully) choosing to argue for things that could have some possibility of being true. It's not unlikely that an ancient Greek or Latin speaker read ΙΣ as איש. Justin did so. Origen did so. Eusebius did so. Jerome did so. Whether or not a particular passage was correctly translated/transcribed by a particular non-ancient (modern) translator/scholar.

[Secret Alias]

Let's take a second look at the passage from 2 Apology and (the claim) the the original translation doesn't render it properly. Really quite a simple sentence:

ΙΣ δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ σωτῆρος ὄνομα καὶ σημασίαν ἔχει

But ΙΣ has the name and designation of 'man' and 'Savior.'

I welcome your attempts to refute my translation. While it isn't the most polished rendering - this is what the passage says. I don't care how others rendered it. It's time you started operating in a sincere manner. Marcovich's decisions weren't arbitrary. Justin defines ΙΣ as having the meaning 'man' and 'Savior.' Please stop with these meaningless objections to a basic fact. And when Justin comes along elsewhere and reads Israel as starting with 'man' he's echoing/confirming/repeating/applying what he says here.

[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

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

Thanks for your reply Ken, much appreciated.

I wonder, if you have the time, I am trying to vet the idea of a member here that Paul is actually writing to his assemblies about the cult of Julius Caesar. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9326

Any critical insights that you might have to offer on this are very welcome.

Lane

[Secret Alias]

Parisinus Gr 465 reads ΕΙΣ twice. Here's one (the second word):



p. 137

[Secret Alias]

Manuscript tree:



This is where the ΕΙΣ reading is found:



This is where the ΙΣ reading (apparently) is found:



The i and j manuscripts were made later than the b manuscript but are more closer to the exemplar. Apparently Parisinus 451 is closest to the ultimate exemplar but only preserves Books 1 - 5. Here is what Roger reproduces:

B Paris, Biblioth?ue Nationale Fran?is Codex Parisinus Graecus 465. Paper. 207 leaves. Written by a monk, Longinus, who gives his name in the subscriptio on f.207r (and who also, in 1272, wrote Cod. Par. Grae. 443, of Dionysius the Areopagite). On fol. 207v is a notice which tells us that a certain Kaludas was in Constantinople in 1453, and transferred the MS to his brother-in-law when he died at 7am on the 5th October 1454 in the district of Ainos.
Soon afterwards it came to Italy. It was prepared for sale in the 16th century by the addition of a paper double-sheet glued on the front (since become detached), and a majuscule title added. In the 17th century, the MS belonged to the orientalist A. Galland, who gave it to the royal library ("olim Gallandianus" in the 1740 catalogue, t. 2, p. 65).

This MS is missing book 12, but full of errors. Belongs to the group O(G)NDV.

1250-1275

I Venice, San Marco Library. Codex Marcianus Graecus 341. Paper. Contains book 12. 299 folios. Given to the monastery of St. Mark by Bessarion. Two hands, both of the second-half of the 15th century. The first two leaves are copied from B. Based on a manuscript of the first family, but influenced by the second.
Size; Leaves: 28.5 x 20cm; written area 21 x 12.5 cm. Scribe Ia wrote ff.1-265v, and 295-300; scribe Ib wrote ff.266-294.

This MS has a distinctive feature in ff.295-300: an extract of the table of contents of book 15, followed by chapters 3, 16, 17, and 18, and then others in further disarray

Manuscript B is where the ΕΙΣ is found, manuscripts I and J (apparently) the ΙΣ reading. Note this statement about MS B "This MS is missing book 12, but full of errors."

[Secret Alias]

And THIS IS NOT DIRECTED AT KEN (because he is a real scholar) but mostly everyone else at this forum. The answers are the answers. The truth is the truth. If your ideas are good enough they can withstand the scrutiny of the evidence. If there is no evidence to support what you are saying, chances are it's not true. It is what it is. No point wasting time and energy arguing for something that isn't true. Just see what's there (in terms of the evidence) accept it and move on. Life's too short.

[Secret Alias]

My guess is that people use Parisinus 465 because (a) it's early and (b) because you can actually get copies of the manuscript pretty easily (I've dealt with Italian libraries not the easiest aren't online). But here's an example of where older isn't necessarily better.