The nomen sacrum ΙΣ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 7:31 am
I’m starting a new thread here on the nomen sacrum ΙΣ, or IS, or IC, as found in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. I argue that there is very good evidence for the conclusion (in the vernacular: ‘we know’) that Justin did know that the name of the Christian savior was Ἰησοῦς, or ‘Jesus’ (i.e., the Greek form of the Hebrew name יהושע, ‘Yehoshua’ or ‘Joshua’) and that the nomen sacrum IS or (IY) found in our texts of Justin should be understood, at least in some cases and perhaps in all (I do not know of any counterexamples), to indicate the name Ἰησοῦς. I’m not going to address the larger issue of how the nomina sacra found in early Christian writings originated. I don’t know.
This issue has already been discussed on this forum and I weighed in here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8807&p=131143&hilit ... us#p131143
In a discussion primarily with Chris Hansen, Secret Alias wrote:
First, the passage from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75:
Both the Greek ἄγγελος ‘angel’, and the Hebrew malak מַלְאָךְ֙, which it is used to translate, mean messenger, and, because the word is commonly used of God’s messengers in the bible, and those messengers are often heavenly beings, it can also have the derivative meaning of a heavenly being.
Justin is playing on the ambiguity of the word ἄγγελος in order argue, in the first place, that the ἄγγελος of Exodus 23.20 was indeed Ἰησοῦς, ‘Joshua’ (i.e., the prophet formerly known as Hosea), because it was he who led the Israelites into Canaan, and because it is perfectly appropriate to call one of God’s human prophets an ἄγγελος. This is why he says: ‘from Isaiah we know that the prophets who were sent to carry his messages to man are called angels’. Justin is saying that the prophet Ἰησοῦς (‘Joshua’) was the ἄγγελος who led the Israelites into Canaan.
The second part of Justin’s argument is a deduction about the Lord who spoke to Moses. To avoid confusion, Justin does not call the Lord an angel in Trypho 75 (though he does elsewhere), but ‘the Lord’ and ‘him who spoke to Moses’. The prophet Ἰησοῦς/‘Joshua’ is the only ἄγγελος in the text and the Lord says to Moses ‘My name is in him’. Therefore the Lord’s name is Ἰησοῦς (‘Jesus’). Justin has found the Christian savior in the Scriptures of Israel.
Tertullian makes essentially the same argument later in Against the Jews 9:
What Tertullian adds to the earlier argument is a further defense of the identification of the human prophet Joshua as an ἄγγελος. He points out that it is perfectly appropriate to call a human being whom God has appointed as a minister of his power an ἄγγελος as we can see from the fact that the gospels later apply the word to the human prophet John the Baptist (Mark 1.2, Matt 11.10, Luke 7.27, where the word is customarily translated as ‘messenger’ in English).
I imagine that contemporary Jews (and modern practitioners of the historical-critical method) would have considered Justin’s and Tertullian’s identification of the prophet Joshua with the angel as a spurious rationalization that misreads the Scriptures of Israel in order to find justification of Christian beliefs there. But that’s what Christian apologists do.
Best,
Ken
Note: I am not contesting that the early Christians interpreted the divine appearances in human form (using 'אִישׁ or 'a man' in the Hebrew Bible) as appearances of the person who would later be incarnated as the man Jesus. They did. Eusebius discusses these anthropomorphic appearacnes of Christ in the OT extensively in HE 1.2-4, which I’ve discussed on this forum before.
I am also not contesting that early Christian christology may have developed from earlier Jewish beliefs about a principal angelic mediator figure or second power in heaven. There is a considerable body of scholarly literature on this (i.e, angelomorphic christology) in the last twenty years or so and I think it’s likely.
I am contesting the theory that our manuscripts of Justin use ΙΣ to indicate the Hebrew אִישׁ ‘Ish’ rather than Ἰησοῦς. There is no good evidence for that, or at least I haven’t seen any on this forum yet.
This issue has already been discussed on this forum and I weighed in here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8807&p=131143&hilit ... us#p131143
In a discussion primarily with Chris Hansen, Secret Alias wrote:
(Now) that I am home let me show you what I mean.
Justin: Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was IC, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spoke to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before your face, to keep you in the way, to bring you into the land which I have prepared for you. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.' Exodus 23:20-21
That's not Joshua. Yes a reference to Joshua is now found in the text. But Justin is connecting the name of the angel with IC not Joshua.
I've always argued that the present text of Trypho is corrupt. But here it is explicit and goes back to Marcovitch's corrections of the text as it is. A line is added to make it appear that Justin has two explanations "man" and "Jesus." But Jesus doesn't fit Exodus 23:21. The angel isn't named Joshua and there is no reason to think anyone ever thought that. The bit about the name of Israel that follows makes clear what Justin had in mind. Ish.
viewtopic.php?p=131235#p131235
Contrary to what Secret Alias asserts, there are very good reasons to think that some Christians, and particularly Justin and Tertullian, interpreted the word angel in Exodus 23.20 to refer to the prophet Joshua, Son of Nun. First, because Justin says so in the passage under discussion from Dialogue With Trypho 75, and, second, because Tertullian says so half a century or so later in a passage which Secret Alias also quotes in the same thread (chapter 9 of Adversus Judaios).Here is what immediately follows in Trypho:
Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name IC
[The ANGEL from Exodus 23:21. Not the human Joshua. But someone adds now a line that doesn't fit the original argument:
and first called Auses Numbers 13:16. (Oshea).
An angel was never called Hosea and had his name changed. This is put there to make IC fit Jesus
First, the passage from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 75:
75.1 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.
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]. If you keep this in mind, you
will also realize that the name of him who said to Moses, My
name is in him, 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. Equally evident to
all is the fact that he who was called by the name Jesus [Joshua]
became a prophet mighty and great
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (2003) translated by Thomas B. Falls, revised by Thomas Halton, 117-118
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.
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]. If you keep this in mind, you
will also realize that the name of him who said to Moses, My
name is in him, 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. Equally evident to
all is the fact that he who was called by the name Jesus [Joshua]
became a prophet mighty and great
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (2003) translated by Thomas B. Falls, revised by Thomas Halton, 117-118
Both the Greek ἄγγελος ‘angel’, and the Hebrew malak מַלְאָךְ֙, which it is used to translate, mean messenger, and, because the word is commonly used of God’s messengers in the bible, and those messengers are often heavenly beings, it can also have the derivative meaning of a heavenly being.
Justin is playing on the ambiguity of the word ἄγγελος in order argue, in the first place, that the ἄγγελος of Exodus 23.20 was indeed Ἰησοῦς, ‘Joshua’ (i.e., the prophet formerly known as Hosea), because it was he who led the Israelites into Canaan, and because it is perfectly appropriate to call one of God’s human prophets an ἄγγελος. This is why he says: ‘from Isaiah we know that the prophets who were sent to carry his messages to man are called angels’. Justin is saying that the prophet Ἰησοῦς (‘Joshua’) was the ἄγγελος who led the Israelites into Canaan.
The second part of Justin’s argument is a deduction about the Lord who spoke to Moses. To avoid confusion, Justin does not call the Lord an angel in Trypho 75 (though he does elsewhere), but ‘the Lord’ and ‘him who spoke to Moses’. The prophet Ἰησοῦς/‘Joshua’ is the only ἄγγελος in the text and the Lord says to Moses ‘My name is in him’. Therefore the Lord’s name is Ἰησοῦς (‘Jesus’). Justin has found the Christian savior in the Scriptures of Israel.
Tertullian makes essentially the same argument later in Against the Jews 9:
And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spoke to Moses, and said to the people, Behold, I send mine angel before your— that is, the people's — face, to guard you on the march, and to introduce you into the land which I have prepared you: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he has not escaped your notice, since my name is upon him. Exodus 23:20-21 For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. Now He called him an angel, on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the Son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future angel, through the prophet: Behold, I send mine angel before Your— that is, Christ's — face, who shall prepare Your way before You. Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those angels whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. (Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeos 9) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.htm
What Tertullian adds to the earlier argument is a further defense of the identification of the human prophet Joshua as an ἄγγελος. He points out that it is perfectly appropriate to call a human being whom God has appointed as a minister of his power an ἄγγελος as we can see from the fact that the gospels later apply the word to the human prophet John the Baptist (Mark 1.2, Matt 11.10, Luke 7.27, where the word is customarily translated as ‘messenger’ in English).
I imagine that contemporary Jews (and modern practitioners of the historical-critical method) would have considered Justin’s and Tertullian’s identification of the prophet Joshua with the angel as a spurious rationalization that misreads the Scriptures of Israel in order to find justification of Christian beliefs there. But that’s what Christian apologists do.
Best,
Ken
Note: I am not contesting that the early Christians interpreted the divine appearances in human form (using 'אִישׁ or 'a man' in the Hebrew Bible) as appearances of the person who would later be incarnated as the man Jesus. They did. Eusebius discusses these anthropomorphic appearacnes of Christ in the OT extensively in HE 1.2-4, which I’ve discussed on this forum before.
I am also not contesting that early Christian christology may have developed from earlier Jewish beliefs about a principal angelic mediator figure or second power in heaven. There is a considerable body of scholarly literature on this (i.e, angelomorphic christology) in the last twenty years or so and I think it’s likely.
I am contesting the theory that our manuscripts of Justin use ΙΣ to indicate the Hebrew אִישׁ ‘Ish’ rather than Ἰησοῦς. There is no good evidence for that, or at least I haven’t seen any on this forum yet.