Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 1:03 pm Actually IC and IH all exist in the oldest manuscripts concurrently. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover

You seem to just be relying on Stephan Huller's (incorrect) arguments and imprecise knowledge of the manuscript evidence. I think I've seen this exact case made by Huller before.

In fact, as noted here, it is likely that IH was very old and appears in the Egerton Gospel in the 2nd century.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... E%99%CE%97

Which, I would add, is the time period our earliest manuscripts appear. So, yeup, it is among the earliest forms. It in conjunction with the others means the best answer is Jesus for the name. I see no reason to be skeptical that the abbreviation meant Jesus.

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 1:37 pm Remarkable that your arguments are this identical then.

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 9:17 am
A separate point about Phil 2:10 —

ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ

— is that Ἰησοῦ could, as far as morphology goes, be either the dative or the genitive case of Ἰησοῦς. If the dative, it is in apposition to τῷ ὀνόματι (“so that at the name ‘Ieosus’”); the conventional reading (see e.g. the interlinear at biblehub.com) is that it is genitive: “at the name of Jesus.”

Interpreters who want to negate the idea that ‘Iesous’ is the name above all names, for obvious reasons, insist that it must be genitive, and only the type of genitive that does not parse ‘Iesous’ as the name itself.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 2:40 pm

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 9:17 am
A separate point about Phil 2:10 —

ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ

— is that Ἰησοῦ could, as far as morphology goes, be either the dative or the genitive case of Ἰησοῦς. If the dative, it is in apposition to τῷ ὀνόματι (“so that at the name ‘Jesus’”); the conventional reading (see e.g. the interlinear at biblehub.com) is that it is genitive: “at the name of Jesus.”

Interpreters who want to negate the idea that ‘Jesus’ is the name above all names, for obvious reasons, insist that it must be genitive, and only the type of genitive that does not parse ‘Jesus’ as the name itself.

There's potential contradiction in the phraseology between the end and the start of the hymn too, with a change in emphasis from form to name

.
.5 [In your relationships with one another], Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus

...6 Who, though he was in the form of God,
.......Did not regard being equal with God
.......Something to be grasped after.

...7 But he emptied himself
.......Taking on the form of a slave,
.......And coming in the likeness of humans.
.

Jax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 2:58 pm I just find it curious that the "name above all names" would be the 6th or so most common name for Jewish males back then

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 3:10 pm

Jax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 2:58 pm I just find it curious that the "name above all names" would be the 6th or so most common name for Jewish males back then

Changes of names—changed emphasis of a name or emphasis on those given changed names—was a big thing in both ancient Judaism and for those doing exegesis and eisegesis of it

.

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 4:40 pm

Jax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 2:21 pm

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 1:37 pm Remarkable that your arguments are this identical then.

Well, looks like Hurtado is actually arguing for the contracted forms KC, ThC (theta/S), IC, and XC being the earliest forms of the Nomina Sacra and by far the most favored form of it.

IH, IHC, etc could just have been scribal error or an attempt to make the abbreviation conform to the name Iesous. As we have nothing earlier than the mid second century to compare with we have no way to actually know what really came first but the contracted form is probably, based on the evidence, the earliest form.

Thank you by the way for equating my attempts at scholarship with someone that is actually in academia.

Who is actually in academia? Stephan Huller? I'm yet to see any peer reviewed journal research from him. And to my knowledge, I don't know of any leading academics who take his work seriously. I know Hurtado didn't.

And yes, Hurtado thought that IC came first. Of course, we have no manuscript evidence of this, because all of our evidence, as you note, is mid-2nd century and later, and by that time IH, IHC, and IC all existed coequally. The present evidence, as a result, points to one better answer: Jesus. Maybe if we find earlier stuff, you'll be able to make a case, but there isn't manuscript evidence to support anything other than "Jesus" as what is meant. And IC is the more favored form, imo, probably for grammatical reasons, because they realized that IC could then be formed in the genitive IY, which makes things easier. I actually think it likely that IC, IH, and IHC all existed roughly around the same time and that neither is necessarily the "earliest" at all.

Either way, even if IC came first, IH came right up with it and you still have to contend with it.

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 7:34 am

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:56 am Whatever. Joshua and savior are two separate words developed from yesha. Just because you're familiar with what circumcision looks like up close doesn't make you an expert on Hebrew.

מישע https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

Read the paper, it actually indicates that the ending of the personal name "Joshua" does not actually stem from ישע (yesha). Based Ugaritic and Akkadian evidence, it likely stems from a theophoric appellative (perhaps even personal name) indicating a "lord" or "master," ultimately derived from proto-Semitic ṯʿ not from ישע (yesha). The comparable evidence (Ugaritic ṯʿ and Akk. šuʾûm / šuwāʾum) simply does not support the view that the words "Joshua" and "savior" derive from the same word. This explains why we have ושע which is probably more linked to שוע indicating high status, it is likely a biform.

So they are not related words, and have different roots, and mean different things completely.

Joshua 7, 1ff: the theft of Achan. Gressmann thinks that this narration is an aetiological local saga which wants to explain the name of the valley Achor, namely by bringing it together with Achan. ״The folk etymology has no difficulty in identifying both names, while scientific consideration must protest against it."

As if it is the task of science to protest against folk etymology, . . .