Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:48 pm
The second page is really interesting. It's easier to find your place here than in some of the other pages because it begins with the 'Book of Joshua' in the upper left hand hand corner of the left hand page. You can see the name of Ἰησοῦς (Joshua/Jesus) written out several times with the different case endings, BUT ...
(1) At the end of the fifth line Ἰησοῦς (Joshua/Jesus) is rendered Iota-Sigma overline (in 'Joshua fell on his face' from Joshua 5.14).
(2) The Hebrew word אִישׁ֙ (Ish, 'Man') is rendered with alpha nun omicron nun,* which Marcovich renders (probably correctly) with ἄνθρωπον, the accusative form of the Greek word ἄνθρωπος ('man'). This appears to be an abbreviated form with the first two and last two letters of the Greek word.
* fwiw, if I have it right, that looks more like alpha mu omicron mu - αμομ (which may just reflect an older speling)
Parisinus gr 450 p. 116 top left.PNG (217.75 KiB) Viewed 1105 times
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:48 pm
The second page is really interesting. It's easier to find your place here than in some of the other pages because it begins with the 'Book of Joshua' in the upper left hand hand corner of the left hand page. You can see the name of Ἰησοῦς (Joshua/Jesus) written out several times with the different case endings, BUT ...
(1) At the end of the fifth line Ἰησοῦς (Joshua/Jesus) is rendered Iota-Sigma overline (in 'Joshua fell on his face' from Joshua 5.14).
(2) The Hebrew word אִישׁ֙ (Ish, 'Man') is rendered with alpha nun omicron nun,* which Marcovich renders (probably correctly) with ἄνθρωπον, the accusative form of the Greek word ἄνθρωπος ('man'). This appears to be an abbreviated form with the first two and last two letters of the Greek word.
* fwiw, if I have it right, that looks more like alpha mu omicron mu - αμομ (which may just reflect an older speling)
Parisinus gr 450 p. 116 top left.PNG
Certainly, the overline suggests a contraction
Just look to the left of that with your eye, for there is the word ὀφθαλμός - now that is how minuscule spells an M.
It says anon here, for ἄνθρωπον, the singular accusative of ἀνήρ:
And yes, that is a superlinear covering ον and yes, it doesn't cover the entire word - so this is an early NS form, and the same goes for θ(εο)ῦ and other words
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 6:15 pm
I don't see how this exercise argues against Marcovich's contention that Justin derived the name Jesus from Hebrew 'ish ("man") and from Greek Σωτήρ [Soter]. Are you arguing that I am wrong for thinking that this passage is an interpolation or that Marcovich is wrong for saying that Justin thought the nomen sacrum came from both ish and Soter. Clearly if Marcovich reconstructed Justin to say 'ish and Soter' then there will instances where both appear in the writings of Justin. Am I missing something?
But Jesus, His name as man and Saviour, has also significance. For He was made man also, as we before said, having been conceived according to the will of God the Father, for the sake of believing men, and for the destruction of the demons.
This statement from 2 Apology was the basis for Marcovich's reconstruction of Dialogue 34 and it is acknowledged by no less an authority than your friend Ben C Smith
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 9:32 am
Not according to Justin as you well know. IS = 'man' and 'savior.'
Yes, we know. I am speaking of the manuscripts themselves, not of a church father's apologetic interpretation of the contents of those manuscripts.
I guess I wasn't raised in a sufficiently dogmatic environment that there can't be two 'truths' to Justin's definition of the nomen sacrum. We supposedly have to 'choose' between one or the other according to Ken.
I decided to ignore Secret Alias's posts earlier in this thread in order to concentrate on demonstrating (without presupposing the conclusion) that the nomen sacra Iota-Sigma, Iota-Upsilon, and Iota-Nun with overline, were used in our surviving manuscript of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho to abbreviate the name Ἰησοῦς (in its nominative, genitive, and accusative forms). I didn't want to get sidetracked into some sort of flame war that might prevent or delay me from doing that.
Now I want to ask if there is any interest among the members of the forum, other than Secret Alias himself, in seeing me address this or other of Secret Alias's posts on this topic. My feeling is it would be pedantic. I likely would not be saying much that readers cannot figure out for themselves, and some members of the forum have indicated that my long exchanges with SA are not of interest to them (a sentiment I understand).
Justin thought that IC = man against Marcovich and what Justin explicitly says in 2 Apology. Great. Love to see it in plain view. I am indifferent to your low level of analysis.
Bottom line: Justin does identify the nomen sacrum IC as meaning Man and Savior. What we make of this is up to us. In Ken's case it is all about me. It is not all about me. It is about whether Justin identifies the nomen sacrum IC as meaning Man and Savior which he does. And nothing in Ken's arsenal of pettiness and distractive personalizing of the argument can change that.
