The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

[mlinssen]

Back to Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75

First, Falls and Halton's English translation again:

We know too that in the book of Exodus Moses likewise indicated
in a mysterious manner that the name of God himself
(which he says was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob) was
also Jesus. For it is written thus: And the Lord said to Moses, say to
this people: Behold, I send my angel before your face, to guard you in
your journey, and bring you into the place that I have prepared for you.
Take notice of him, and obey his voice; do not disobey him, for he will
not pardon you, because my name is in him.1
2. “Consider well who it was that led your fathers into the
promised land, namely he who was first named Auses [Hosea],
but later renamed Jesus [Joshua].2 If you keep this in mind, you
will also realize that the name of him who said to Moses, My
name is in him,3 was Jesus. Indeed, he was also called Israel. And
he similarly bestowed this name upon Jacob.
3. “From Isaiah we know that the prophets who were sent to
carry his messages to man are called angels and apostles of
God, for Isaiah uses the expression, Send me.4 Equally evident to
all is the fact that he who was called by the name Jesus [Joshua]
became a prophet mighty and great.

Now Marcovich's critical text:

Marcovich 200 Trypho 75.JPG

Finally, the manuscript Parisinus gr 450p. 129:

Parisinus gr 450 p. 129 - Justin - Dialogue with Trypho 75 - highlighted.png

I have highlighted key parts to help readers find their place:

First 'the book of Exodus', then 'god and JS', then 'the Lord spoke to Moses'

Second page: 'angel', then 'JS earlier Auses called', then JS again, then 'and for also Israel he was called, then 'angel', and lastly 'apostles of God".

The logic of Justin's passage:

'IS who was earlier Auses (Hosea) called' can be only the prophet Joshua see Numbers 3.16

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/numbers/13-16.htm

The Lord says his name was in IS (Joshua)

The Lord's name is IS (Joshua)

IS stands for the name Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁ֛עַ Anglicized as Joshua.

Best,

Ken

Thank you very much for the hard work Ken, I'll mull on it

[billd89]

Where o where is this 'Man of War' in Therapeutism??? It simply does not fit.

It might not fit YOUR presuppositions/prejudices but it is in the Hebrew text of Exodus 15 and the equivalent Samaritan terminology is in Psalm 24...

Absolutely nothing in DVC suggests Therapeutae were militant, 'men of war.' You're wrong to claim otherwise. In fact, I have no "presuppositions/prejudices" here - I approach this objectively, as historical query. (You sound upset, irrational, by contrast.)

As for anthems, people have always sung dodgy lyrics of forefathers without a war-like menace. 'Onward Christian soldiers...' sung by little old biddies is neither threatening or militant. Try harder.

The Song of the Sea is one of the most ancient parts of the Hebrew Bible. This poetic text represents the most ancient layer of Biblical Hebrew. The song is dated to the 10th century BCE.

Where Exodus was crafted late, c.272 BC, and the OT Reed Sea Miracle is essentially a Yahwistic historicization of Baal's victory over Yam, see C. Kloos (1986) Yhwh's Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel [1986], pp.127-212. 'Song of the Sea' is a recycling which might have preserved fragments of Semitic myth from the Sinai, c.450 BC or written later. It sounds as though 'Song of the Sea' was a (Macedonian) Jewish mercenary song composed c.375 BC or later. It was probably written for and later popularized by marines, perhaps those 'Mosaic' troops who supported Alexander's invasion. It was almost certainly written in a time when Egyptians were defeated, and late.

'Song of the Sea' totally lacks a Jerusalem vibe.

[Secret Alias]

Absolutely nothing in DVC suggests Therapeutae were militant, 'men of war.'

But the Therapeutae are using/reenacting Exodus 15 which - if read in Hebrew - makes reference to the 'man of war' or similar themes in Greek. The story of Exodus is militaristic. What do you think God appearing on the waters destroying an Egyptian army implies. Sheesh!

[Secret Alias]

'Song of the Sea' totally lacks a Jerusalem vibe.

The entire Pentateuch lacks not only a Jerusalem 'vibe' but a single reference to Jerusalem. Not surprising then. Not getting what you are on about. You know that there is a tradition that the Israelites came out of Egypt armed and wearing armor right? There's one reference to the Therapeutae and Philo is unlikely to be telling us EVERYTHING about the community. His audience is Gentile. There is no way to interpret Exodus 15 in a non-militaristic way.

[billd89]

The entire Pentateuch lacks not only a Jerusalem 'vibe' but a single reference to Jerusalem. Not surprising then. Not getting what you are on about.

Literary Judaism is a product of Alexandria, issued from a scribal subset of the larger and more diverse Jewish community of Alexandria.

You know that there is a tradition that the Israelites came out of Egypt armed and wearing armor right? There's one reference to the Therapeutae and Philo is unlikely to be telling us EVERYTHING about the community. His audience is Gentile. There is no way to interpret Exodus 15 in a non-militaristic way.

I've already explained the Therapeuts' ancestral military background/history, their forebearers were mercenaries brought to Egypt in successive immigrant waves.

However, singing old songs (c.17 AD) generations later does not a warrior make.

Philo's first audience was Jewish and/or Greek (paranoid about these 'minim' and cultural appropriators), and that defense may have been re-written/adapted for Romans (gentiles) a second time, decades later.

[Secret Alias]

Literary Judaism is a product of Alexandria

If it was 'literal' wouldn't Judaism literally be a product of Judea?

[Secret Alias]

However, singing old songs (c.17 AD) generations later does not a warrior make.

So military units don't have songs?

And with respect to the Song of the Sea as a military song

https://books.google.com/books?id=dZjKr ... ng&f=false

[Ken Olson]

Upthread, I've looked at Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 75 and 90 and shown that both render the name of the prophet Joshua the son of Nun (formerly known as Hosea) with Iota-Sigma overline (in the nominative) or Iota-Upsilon overline (in the genitive). And both passages seem to be connecting the name Joshua (or Jesus) with the agent through which God acts on the material world (i.e., the one Christians call Jesus or Christ or the Logos etc.).

Now let's look at how the name of Joshua the son of Nun is rendered the first time it appears in the Dialogue with Trypho in chapter 49.6:

49.6. “You seem to me,” replied Trypho, “to be talking paradoxically
again when you say that God’s prophetic Spirit, which was
in Elijah, was also in John.”
“Must you not admit,” I responded, “that the same thing
happened in the case of Joshua, son of Nun, who succeeded
Moses as leader of your people, when Moses was ordered to lay
his hands on him, while God himself said, ‘I will transfer some of
the spirit that is in you to him’? ” 12
“That I admit,” he replied.
(Translation by Falls & Halton)

Then in the critical text:

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho 49 - M. Marcovich.jpeg (248.02 KiB) Viewed 1983 times

Finally, how it appears in the manuscript Parisinus gr 450 p. 100:

Parisinus gr 450 p. 100 - Dialogue with Trypho 49 - UR.png (1.18 MiB) Viewed 1983 times

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

In the fourth line of the left hand page the name 'Joshua" (son of Nun) is rendered Iota-Nun overline.

So now we have the name Joshua or Jesus being rendered in the nominative, the genitive, and the accusative as Iota-Sigma, Iota-Upsilon, and Iota-Nun (all with overline).

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

Dialogue with Trypho 61 is interesting because we see the name of the son of Nun in Parisinus gr 450 written out in the Greek (in the genitive) rather than abbreviated. (I'll skip the English and the critical text this time):

Parisinus gr 450 p. 114 - Dialogue with Trypho 61 - of Nun Joshua LL .png (1.42 MiB) Viewed 1972 times

Left hand page, sixth line from the bottom, about halfway, 'of nun Joshua' spelled Ἰησοῦ.

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

The core line of argument in the Dialogue is that the Savior is simply 'a man' or a 'crucified man.' Only 75 chapters into the work (halfway through) is the idea of a connection with 'Jesus/Joshua' even mentioned. The voice of the orthodox Justinian corpus has the Church Father confess IC = man and Savior. Reality is most of the Joshua = IC references are problematic. More authentic is the reference to Joshua the high priest taking off his soiled clothes. That likely comes from the real Justin.