Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I was discussing what was natural and what was unnatural. You know what distinction I made.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:21 pm I was discussing what was natural and what was unnatural. You know what distinction I made.

I disagree that Ιησοῦς to ΙΣ is unnatural. Out of context, sure, it would be weird, just like "apt." for a domicile one inhabits would be weird. But, in the context of the rest of the nomina sacra, there is nothing more natural than turning Ιησοῦς into ΙΣ. If you were making some other distinction, I welcome clarification.

Now unless I'm just completely misreading this, in which case there is no help for me, Irenaeus here is directly calling such abbreviations heretical, used only by the heresies, to come up with the reckoning of 888, which you can do so with the regular Ιησούς. He even calls them out on it and that their calculations are baseless. But here is where I come to an impasse.

Iu is only two letters. Iota upsilon. Where is this half letter coming in? Jesus in Hebrew is ג'ושוע, ayin vav shin vav yod gimel, five letters, and in Greek there's six. אִישׁ, shin yod alef, is still three but closer than ג'ושוע. So where is this two and half letters coming from? What the hell even is a half letter? Unless my original theory about certain interpretations of Daniel 9:26 being that ישר, resh is cut off, circumcised, to make vav, and thus becomes ישו, with vav being half of resh, and this being the sources for the Christ spirit leaving the man, yeshu, has any weight to it.

And because ישו and אִישׁ both contain shin and yod, minus the alef/vav difference, I was speculating if there could have been some word play between them. SA corrected me and said no. If I would have known there was going to be this much strife over it I would have left well enough alone.

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:46 pmJesus in Hebrew is ג'ושוע, ayin vav shin vav yod gimel....

There is no gimel in יְהוֹשׁוּעַ. That final letter is an 'ayin.

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:46 pm

Moreover, Jesus, which is a word belonging to the proper tongue of the Hebrews, contains, as the learned among them declare, two letters and a half, and signifies that Lord who contains heaven and earth; for Jesus in the ancient Hebrew language means heaven, while again earth is expressed by the words sura usser. The word, therefore, which contains heaven and earth is just Jesus. Their explanation, then, of the Episemon is false, and their numerical calculation is also manifestly overthrown. For, in their own language, Soter is a Greek word of five letters; but, on the other hand, in the Hebrew tongue, Jesus contains only two letters and a half. The total which they reckon up, viz., eight hundred and eighty-eight, therefore falls to the ground.

Now unless I'm just completely misreading this, in which case there is no help for me....

Probably not your fault:

Surely if the LXX, Justin and Origen rendered a Hebrew word with the same two Greek letters, it would be proper to define that rendering as natural for a Greek speaker. Do we have any clear testimony from antiquity that iota sigma is a "secret code" for Ιησοῦς? If Irenaeus is talking about nomina sacra maybe you can argue the Valentinians read iota sigma that way. But it could just be a discussion about the name Jesus. My point is there is no doubt which came first. The plain reading, the simplest explanation is inevitably the correct one. Letters are meant to be pronounced. To Greek ears the contemporary Hebrew pronunciation of אִישׁ was rendered as ΙΣ. It's the better explanation for the origin of the nomina sacra, the name above all names. If ΙΣ is a name it was pronounced אִישׁ or it was an attempt to render the sound of THAT Hebrew word in Greek.

If you accept the link between Phil 2:9 and the nomina sacra then you'd have to show evidence for a belief in an enthroned "heavenly Joshua" in the way I can for anthropos:

According to Valentinus, Adam was created in the name of Anthropos and overawes the demons by the fear of the pre-existent man (tou proontos anthropon). In the Valentinian syzygies and in the Marcosian system we meet in the fourth (originally the third) place Anthropos and Ecclesia. In the Pistis Sophia the Eon Jeu is called the First Man, he is the overseer of the Light, messenger of the First Precept, and constitutes the forces of the Heimarmene. In the Books of the Jell this “Great Man” is the King of the Light-treasure, he is enthroned above all things and is the goal of all souls. According to the Naassenes, the Protanthropos is the first element; the fundamental being before its differentiation into individuals

The evidence all leads in one direction. It's just your faith in your ancestors that decides matters for you. Your ancestors were wrong. Get over it.

And remember Hurtado used the Valentinians to decide the very same question. What did he know about kabbalah.

How did Valentinians figure Jesus = 888 if the name had only two letters? I don't get how this worked.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:00 pm Surely if the LXX, Justin and Origen rendered a Hebrew word with the same two Greek letters, it would be proper to define that rendering as natural for a Greek speaker.

Yes, on its own merits, ΙΣ for Ish makes perfect sense. On its own merits, US for "you and me" makes perfect sense, too. But there are many contexts in which US, especially capitalized, means "United States" and not "you and me." Likewise, there are many contexts in which ΙΣ, especially with an overstroke, is a nomen sacrum for Ιησοῦς. This is the case in so, so many manuscripts. That this should be in dispute would be ridiculous, so I am hoping that this is not what is in dispute: in the manuscripts that we possess, ΙΣ is definitely short for Ιησοῦς, just like ΙΥ is short for Ιησοῦ and ΘΣ is short for Θεός.

Do we have any clear testimony from antiquity that iota sigma is a "secret code" for Ιησοῦς?

Not sure. What kind of testimony do you require to overturn the definitive evidence of the manuscripts themselves?

My point is there is no doubt which came first. The plain reading, the simplest explanation is inevitably the correct one. Letters are meant to be pronounced.

You keep speaking of abbreviations as if they are some sort of alien custom of which you are only now hearing. If letters are meant to be pronounced, pronounce "Mr." or "No./no." or "viz." or any other abbreviation. You must understand that this argument means precisely zero. ΙΣ is the predicted transliteration of Ish, true; it is also and equally the predicted nomen sacrum for Ιησοῦς.

To Greek ears the contemporary Hebrew pronunciation of אִישׁ was ΙΣ.

This is not in dispute. Nor is it relevant to my argument. It is fully granted that ΙΣ is a good way to transliterate אִישׁ. That cannot be the end of your thought process. Fill in the next steps. You have ΙΣ as Ish in early Christianity. Is that still what it means, in your opinion, in our extant manuscripts?

If so, what is the overstrike for? Why is the genitive abbreviated as if from ΙΣΟΥ, but the nominative is not abbreviated as if from ΙΣΟΣ? In other words, why is the Greek inflectional ending added only to the oblique cases and not to the nominative? (It has to be second declension to explain the genitive -Υ and accusative -Ν, and the second declension is what we would expect anyway; it cannot be third declension.) Why is ΙΣ used for the Hebrew hero Joshua? Why is Ιησοῦν spelled out in full in Mark 16.6 in Sinaiticus but abbreviated to ΙΝ nearly everywhere else in that codex?

If not, then we have a split: theologians like Justin and Irenaeus claiming that ΙΣ comes from Ish, and scribes everywhere treating ΙΣ as an abbreviation for Ιησοῦς. What do you do with that split?

How did Valentinians figure Jesus = 888 if the name had only two letters? I don't get how this worked.

What are you asking? The name Jesus has more than two letters in virtually any language (even Hebrew, and especially Greek). It is the scribal abbreviation for Jesus that has only two letters. 888 is obviously tallied from the full name, not from the abbreviation.

Subject: Question for Secret Alias about Ishu.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:48 amin the LXX wherever names have the Hebrew ish i.e. 'Ishbaal' etc ΙΣ is used to render ish.

Not always. Ishbosheth is אִישׁ־בֹּשֶׁת in Hebrew but Ιεβοσθε in the OG text that I have at my disposal for many of the passages (unrelatedly, in many more it is actually the alternative name, Μεμφιβοσθε). In fact, most commonly when the OG has ΙΣ rendering something from the Hebrew, that something is yod shin (as in Israel = יִשְׂרָאֵל, or Ishmael, or Ishpan), not aleph shin. Also, often the initial aleph shin in names is rendered by ΕΣ (Εσθεμωη in 1 Chronicles 4.19, for example, or Εσθαολ in Judges 13.25) or by ΑΣ (Ασαβαλ in 1 Chronicles 8.33, for example, or Ασσαθων in 1 Chronicles 4.11). ΙΣ is a good transliteration for aleph shin, but it is only one of several.

Not that this is definitive for how early Christians may have interpreted things, but I want to make sure the evidence is not being slanted.

What do you make, by the way, of Justin's etymology for Israel?


He appears to interpret that initial yod shin as "man." But you yourself have said about the word for "man" in Hebrew, ish:

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:48 amIt should be noted for non-scholars that the Hebrew word does not start with yod. It is aleph-yod-shin. The Greek transliteration is iota-sigma.

If you ask me, I would suggest that Justin may be simply indulging in false etymologies. Texts both ancient and modern are veritably teeming with false etymologies. What do you make of his etymology for Satan in Dialogue 103.5? He takes the full Greek word Σατανᾶς and interprets it as a compound: σατα (which he renders as "apostate") + νᾶς (which he renders as "serpent"). There is no need to tell you that this derivation has nothing to do with the Hebrew שָׂטָ֖ן.

Furthermore, while Justin does not seem to directly tell us that the ΙΣ in the manuscripts is short for Ιησοῦς, he seems to indirectly do so, since he interprets the name Ιησοῦς both by reference to Ish and by reference to Joshua, as you state:

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:49 pm Yes he also sees it as Ἰησοῦς....

So he gives us two options. Logically, both may be incorrect, but both cannot be correct. One of these options happens to enjoy the support of countless manuscripts in which ΙΣ has to mean Ἰησοῦς. What does the other option have going for it besides the invalid argument from what seems "natural," when abbreviations, too, are natural?

I can imagine that perhaps a figure originally named Ish was merged with a figure named Joshua, but such a merger would have to have happened in Christian prehistory, since our manuscripts are not evidence of it. Peter Kirby was right about this ages ago:

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:46 am

Secret Alias wrote:I don't see why you can't see that IS is the root form of the nomen sacrum IC. The Catholic or orthodox treated IC as a contracted name. But all theories assume that the nomina sacra went back to uninflected Hebrew forms. Instead of Yahweh I am assuming that Ish is the original form in a manner similar to Hurtado assumes IH was influenced by Chi (life). Everyone assumes that there are several more steps in the development of the nomina sacra. The present form and practice can't have been how they started.

I see the possibility of it being the root form -- I think I've said as much. I just haven't found it clearly instanced in any of the extant manuscripts, which makes it difficult (illogical) to claim that these manuscripts are evidence for the hypothesis. There may be evidence for the hypothesis, and you've pointed to several interesting literary connections. But the manuscripts (such as p66) do not help us decide whether the hypothesis is true or whether some other explanation is true instead (... including the simpler, more economical, by definition, explanation that there is no such Hebrew root form sacred word behind the Greek nomen sacrum found in the mss. ... and that it's "Jesus" all the way down).

In other words, Ish to Ιησοῦς may hypothetically have happened at some extremely early point, but the manuscripts are not evidence for it.