Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

It was made so for monarchian purposes i.e. to say there is only one God, one Christ, one Lord etc. It's reactionary. No one naturally eats chocolate and pickles. They could learn to do it. It could be made a mandatory snack. But it's not natural.

No one naturally eats chocolate and pickles.

Speak for yourself.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:47 pm If we start with Justin then ΙΣ = אִישׁ is a valid interpretation. Origen confirms that Greeks rendered אִישׁ as ΙΣ in Greek. I don't need to argue whether Christians saw ΙΣ and thought אִישׁ. They did. That much settled. Right?

Right, with one very important correction: some Christians saw ΙΣ and thought אִישׁ. Justin, for example. Other Christians saw ΙΣ and thought Ιησοῦς, and these other Christians included all of the scribes for which either interpretation can be verified. Right?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:52 pm But if you had to choose. There is only one natural choice. The LXX and Origen saw אִישׁ and said "that's ΙΣ." No one in the history of the world saw יְהוֹשֻׁעַ and said "that's ΙΣ." It's unnatural.

This is like saying that no one ever saw DARE and thought Drug Abuse Resistance Education. In the context of acronyms being used for organizations and programs, DARE is a very natural way to express Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Likewise, in the context of the system of nomina sacra, ΙΣ is a very natural way to express Ιησοῦς.

Here is another example of a Christian (scribe) for whom ΙΣ is Ιησοῦς:



Same expression. Same protagonist. His name is abbreviated in one verse but not in another.

I can't read or understand any ancient languages (or modern languages for that matter, except english). But seeing ish and isu side by side is more convincing than seeing isu and Jesus side by side.

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:31 pm I can't read or understand any ancient languages (or modern languages for that matter, except english). But seeing ish and isu side by side is more convincing than seeing isu and Jesus side by side.

(Is, not Ish, in Greek.)

What does seeing Iu/ΙΥ and Iēsou/Ιησοῦ side by side do for you? What do you think Iu/ΙΥ means the literally hundreds of times it appears in the New Testament manuscripts? What about In/ΙΝ, which also appears literally hundreds of times? What does Is/ΙΣ itself mean in Hebrews 4.8?

I'm still working on whether Marcion, or some early Marcionites in the northern Turkey area, used a varient that read ἨΣΩ, or ESU. But like I said, I have both arms tied behind my back, blind folded, and am just smashing my head against the keyboard.

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:38 pm I'm still working on whether Marcion, or some early Marcionites in the northern Turkey area, used a varient that read ἨΣΩ, or ESU. But like I said, I have both arms tied behind my back, blind folded, and am just smashing my head against the keyboard.

The point is that there was an entire system of abbreviation in place for important names in the Christian texts. Θεός was ΘΣ, Κύριος was ΚΣ, and so on. Does Ἰησοῦς being ΙΣ look amiss here somehow? Nobody would say so. It fits right in. Furthermore, there are passages which I have sampled in this thread in which ΙΣ has to mean Ἰησοῦς; it cannot mean Ish in those verses. Are there other verses in which ΙΣ has to mean Ish?

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:36 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:31 pm I can't read or understand any ancient languages (or modern languages for that matter, except english). But seeing ish and isu side by side is more convincing than seeing isu and Jesus side by side.

(Is, not Ish, in Greek.)

What does seeing Iu and Iēsou side by side do for you? What do you think Iu means the literally hundreds of times it appears in the New Testament manuscripts? What about In, which also appears literally hundreds of times? What does Is mean in Hebrews 4.8?

The Marcionites, at least as far as I know, didn't use Iu. They used Isu or some variation of it. The question then is did Marcion us Iu? Hell I don't know.

I have to go by the english renditions (ish is the english from the Hebrew man, at least according to every translation site I looked up.) I tried looking up some things in Siniaticus and had to just accept defeat. Unless it's properly translated into english I don't have a clue. That's why I always have to resort to you or someone else when it comes to the Greek source.

Does that mean I should just leave off this subject? Probably.