As if it explains the inflected usage or even allows it, unless there is actually a different, longer non-Hebrew name being used here. This manuscript, with its different forms, requires the hypothesis of a Greek name, with its own particular Greek spelling, which is being inflected. There are a few known candidates here, none of which is a two-letter Hebrew word. (One of them is brilliantly simple as an explanation too.)Secret Alias wrote:No it just means that the transliterated Hebrew name was treated as a Greek name.
We can just forget about using this as evidence for the hypothesis (even if this explanation were plausible, which it isn't).
This does make sense, but it would also mean that this 'example' manuscript doesn't exactly do what we might have wanted it to do, which is to identify people who actually did have an "IC" name for their figure based on the Hebrew word. The scribes weren't such people. The scribes had a longer Greek word that they were abbreviating, using the first and last letter, depending on the inflected form, in a way completely analogous to the same treatment of kyrios, etc.Secret Alias wrote:These are all orthodox manuscripts. The question is IC still is this a short form or a full name. I am not proposing the Catholics started Christianity. They clearly modified manuscripts of a much earlier tradition. I do not subscribe to a 2nd century origin for Christianity.
We're basically looking for the "transitional fossil" of a people who used the Greek letters iota-sigma as a nomen sacrum representing a Hebrew word, but the examples provided are of the developed species of people who had a Greek name that they were inflecting for the different first-and-last letter abbreviations (... otherwise generally just called "Jesus" people ...).
I would like to be able to find evidence for your hypothesis in the Greek manuscripts, but so far it isn't there.
LOL