At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?

[mlinssen]

Please read my posts at debunking christianity "reassessing Paul's timeline" parts one and two. There is much more there than I can repeat here.

• Will do

Don't forget to verify the biased "quotes" regarding https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BC%80% ... E%BF%CF%82 for instance

It is evident that the NT writers and redactors were Romans, and Romans who were in power and control - and in those days that meant a military background. Bart is reading a lot into what is convenient for him, yet doesn't hesitate to falisify what Marcion would have said - of which we have no proof and to which Bart provides no proof either.
It is obvious how he received a platform exactly there

Yes there are many Roman loanwords in the NT, and yes a good amount of those attest to a military background - yet not all, and ἀπόστολος blatantly obvious isn't one of them, Bart. You're either myopic or misleading the public - your choice there

[bartwillruth]

Virtually every military victory, when announced, was a gospel (euangelion). The same is true of general official proclamations. Caesar's many proclamations in favor of the Jews, especially those giving them legal status and protection, were 'gospels.' Caesar's clemency toward his enemies was a gospel.

• Interesting, cheers again.

You have it backwards regarding Julius Caesar and Octavian. Julius Caesar was the uncle and adoptive father of Octavian (Augustus).

• Doh! Will correct

Both were deified, sons of god, god from god, saviors, Lord, and their very existence was a "gospel". Julius Caesar was a dying and rising god-man who was elevated to equality with Jupiter. Peace, clemency, and a requirement for faithfulness to oaths of loyalty were their hallmarks.

• Sure, though afaik Julius Caesar was deified at his death or funeral, so Octavius / Augustus became the first or one of the first, explicit, son/s of [a] god

Julius Caesar actually received divine honors prior to his death.

Please read my posts at debunking christianity "reassessing Paul's timeline" parts one and two. There is much more there than I can repeat here.

• Will do

[Secret Alias]

The problem with making Christianity a cult of Caesar (aside from the use of Jewish scripture to do so) is the fact that it doesn't take into account that parties and individuals are rarely as popular when IN POWER than OUT OF POWER. Look at recent American history. Having is different than wanting. Also if one has political power rarely do people with absolute power take the time to write something. You can kill people what do you need to spend time writing out a holy book. Mein Kampf was written when Hitler was powerless. Das Kapital when Communism hadn't yet succeeded. There is a reason why writers aspire for but rarely embody power.

[MrMacSon]

Monoimus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoimus provides the solution to everything. At once he takes the Savior of Christianity to be 'Man'

Changing these (sentiments) into other words, Monoϊmus says that man is the universe. Now the universe is the originating cause of all things, unbegotten, incorruptible, (and) eternal. And (he says) that the son of (the) man previously spoken of is begotten, and subject to passion, (and) that he is generated independently of time. (as well as) undesignedly, (and) without being predestinated. For such, he says, is the power of that man. And he being thus constituted in power, (Monoimus alleges) that the son was born quicker than thought and volition.

and he identifies the iota as presumably the essence of this Man:

That one indivisible tittle is, he says, one tittle of the iota, with many faces, and innumerable eyes, and countless names, and this is an image of that perfect invisible man.

You could imagine that the iota was used as the building block for the various declensions.

David Litwa says this about Monoϊmus in Found Christianities

MonoimusInLitwa'sFoundChristianities.PNG (164.62 KiB) Viewed 1575 times

22 Refutation of All Heresies 8.12.5.
23 Ref. 8.12.6-7.
24 Ref. 8.12.4
25 Ref. 8.12.2. See further Marcovich, Studies in Graeco-Roman Religions and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 134-43; van den Broek, "Monoϊmus," in DGWE, 800-2; Kalvesmaki, Theology of Arithmetic: Number Symbolism in Platonism and Early Christianity, 85-94.

Elsewhere he says "Use of the terms "Human" and "Child of the Human" [by the Naassene Preacher, who Litwa dates toward the end of the second century CE.] may derive from Ophite Christian influence or from Monoϊmus (The same terminology appears in Monoϊmus: Ref. 8.12.1-14)."

[bartwillruth]

Virtually every military victory, when announced, was a gospel (euangelion). The same is true of general official proclamations. Caesar's many proclamations in favor of the Jews, especially those giving them legal status and protection, were 'gospels.' Caesar's clemency toward his enemies was a gospel.

• Interesting, cheers again.

You have it backwards regarding Julius Caesar and Octavian. Julius Caesar was the uncle and adoptive father of Octavian (Augustus).

• Doh! Will correct

Both were deified, sons of god, god from god, saviors, Lord, and their very existence was a "gospel". Julius Caesar was a dying and rising god-man who was elevated to equality with Jupiter. Peace, clemency, and a requirement for faithfulness to oaths of loyalty were their hallmarks.

• Sure, though afaik Julius Caesar was deified at his death or funeral, so Octavius / Augustus became the first or one of the first, explicit, son/s of [a] god

Julius Caesar was also a claimed son of a god since he claimed the goddess Venus as an ancestor.

Please read my posts at debunking christianity "reassessing Paul's timeline" parts one and two. There is much more there than I can repeat here.

• Will do

[lclapshaw]

How does one highlight a word throughout a text?

Gotta have the coding ie. [highlihgt*='color']xyz[/highlight] where 'color' = a selected color eg. yellow

* correctly spelt 'highlight,' of course (but if I'd done that here, you wouldn't see it)


Option A
1. Move the cursor across the text to 'select; it (usually holding down the left button on a computer mouse (?))
2. Click the 'ab yellow' thing


toHighlight.PNG


3. if you want, change the 'yellow' in [highlihgt=yellow] to, for example, 'lightgreen', '#efe', 'orange,' etc.
(can be tedious : some colors work better than others (eg. 'lightorange' doesn't work) : 'colour' doesn't work)


Option B
1. Put the relevant text in a word processor such as Microsoft Word
2. Find & Replace

1. Find word eg. 'xyz'
2. Replace with " [highlihgt='color']xyz[/highlight] " with highlight spelt correctly, of course

Right on m8, that was going to drive me nuts! Thanks!

Lane

[mlinssen]

I'll play devils advocate and throw in IC XC = Isis Chrestus. As far as I know the use of H and HC after the iota (IH, IHC) might indicate feminine declension.

Lane

Isis, Ἶσις, is third declension and would not be declined like Jesus would (no IY overline), so it's not what shows up in Mark (Isis couldn't be IH or IHS either).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B ... E%B9%CF%82

Best,

Ken

On second thought, here's how IS is conjugated:

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

Matthew 27:58 has both the dative and genitive, and I've added the nominative and accusative as those are no-brainers:

ο ις
τω ιυ
του ιυ
τον ιν

This is what Bezae has, including statistics - mind you, the transcription is diplomatic so when a word "bends around a corner" it isn't counted, I suppose! http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml

ο ιης (269 occurrences)
τω ιηυ (18 occurrences)
του ιηυ (23 occurrences)
τον ιην (44 occurrences)

Bezae also has 9 occurrences of του ιυ, by the way - utterly and extremely interesting, these all are in John!!!

So which strange declension is this, @Ken? I'd say first declension, like ὕδης (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... u%28%2Fdhs)

masc nom sg :
ὕδας (epic doric aeolic)
ὕδης
masc gen sg : ὕδω (attic epic ionic)
masc dat sg : ὕδῃ (attic epic ionic)
masc acc sg : ὕδην (attic epic ionic)

masc voc sg : ὕδη

masc acc pl : ὕδας

Forget the plural of course, and the vocative we encounter even in Sinaiticus, at the very end: https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 2&verse=20

Revelation chapter 22, verse 20: He that testifies these things says: Surely, I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.

The genitive ὕδω is odd of course, and not to our liking. How does it work for ποιητής?

masc nom sg :
ποιητά (epic)
ποιητάς (epic doric aeolic)
ποιητής
masc gen sg :
ποιητοῦ (ionic)
ποιητέω (epic ionic)
ποιητᾶ (doric ionic aeolic)
masc dat sg :
ποιητῆι (attic epic ionic)
ποιητῇ (attic epic ionic)
masc acc sg :
ποιητάν (epic doric aeolic)
ποιητάν
ποιητέα (epic ionic)
ποιητήν (attic epic ionic)
masc voc sg :
ποιητά
ποιητῆ

Too many options and none of them fits. Help me out please Ken, can you provide an example here?

What Berean has is the following:

Matthew 27:57 Ὀψίας (Evening) δὲ (now) γενομένης (having arrived), ἦλθεν (came) ἄνθρωπος (a man) πλούσιος (rich) ἀπὸ (from) Ἁριμαθαίας (Arimathea), τοὔνομα (named) Ἰωσήφ (Joseph), ὃς (who) καὶ (also) αὐτὸς (himself) ἐμαθητεύθη (was discipled) τῷ (-) Ἰησοῦ (to Jesus).
58 οὗτος (He) προσελθὼν (having gone) τῷ (-) Πιλάτῳ (to Pilate), ᾐτήσατο (asked for) τὸ (the) σῶμα (body) τοῦ (-) Ἰησοῦ (of Jesus). τότε (Then) ὁ (-) Πιλᾶτος (Pilate) ἐκέλευσεν (commanded it) ἀποδοθῆναι (to be given up).

[Ken Olson]

I'll play devils advocate and throw in IC XC = Isis Chrestus. As far as I know the use of H and HC after the iota (IH, IHC) might indicate feminine declension.

Lane

Isis, Ἶσις, is third declension and would not be declined like Jesus would (no IY overline), so it's not what shows up in Mark (Isis couldn't be IH or IHS either).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B ... E%B9%CF%82

Best,

Ken

On second thought, here's how IS is conjugated:

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

Matthew 27:58 has both the dative and genitive, and I've added the nominative and accusative as those are no-brainers:

ο ις
τω ιυ
του ιυ
τον ιν

This is what Bezae has, including statistics - mind you, the transcription is diplomatic so when a word "bends around a corner" it isn't counted, I suppose! http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml

ο ιης (269 occurrences)
τω ιηυ (18 occurrences)
του ιηυ (23 occurrences)
τον ιην (44 occurrences)

Bezae also has 9 occurrences of του ιυ, by the way - utterly and extremely interesting, these all are in John!!!

So which strange declension is this, @Ken? I'd say first declension, like ὕδης (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... u%28%2Fdhs)

masc nom sg :
ὕδας (epic doric aeolic)
ὕδης
masc gen sg : ὕδω (attic epic ionic)
masc dat sg : ὕδῃ (attic epic ionic)
masc acc sg : ὕδην (attic epic ionic)

masc voc sg : ὕδη

masc acc pl : ὕδας

Forget the plural of course, and the vocative we encounter even in Sinaiticus, at the very end: https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 2&verse=20

Revelation chapter 22, verse 20: He that testifies these things says: Surely, I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.

The genitive ὕδω is odd of course, and not to our liking. How does it work for ποιητής?

masc nom sg :
ποιητά (epic)
ποιητάς (epic doric aeolic)
ποιητής
masc gen sg :
ποιητοῦ (ionic)
ποιητέω (epic ionic)
ποιητᾶ (doric ionic aeolic)
masc dat sg :
ποιητῆι (attic epic ionic)
ποιητῇ (attic epic ionic)
masc acc sg :
ποιητάν (epic doric aeolic)
ποιητάν
ποιητέα (epic ionic)
ποιητήν (attic epic ionic)
masc voc sg :
ποιητά
ποιητῆ

Too many options and none of them fits. Help me out please Ken, can you provide an example here?

What Berean has is the following:

Matthew 27:57 Ὀψίας (Evening) δὲ (now) γενομένης (having arrived), ἦλθεν (came) ἄνθρωπος (a man) πλούσιος (rich) ἀπὸ (from) Ἁριμαθαίας (Arimathea), τοὔνομα (named) Ἰωσήφ (Joseph), ὃς (who) καὶ (also) αὐτὸς (himself) ἐμαθητεύθη (was discipled) τῷ (-) Ἰησοῦ (to Jesus).
58 οὗτος (He) προσελθὼν (having gone) τῷ (-) Πιλάτῳ (to Pilate), ᾐτήσατο (asked for) τὸ (the) σῶμα (body) τοῦ (-) Ἰησοῦ (of Jesus). τότε (Then) ὁ (-) Πιλᾶτος (Pilate) ἐκέλευσεν (commanded it) ἀποδοθῆναι (to be given up).

If I'm interpreting the question correctly, you are asking which declension the nomen sacrum Iota Sigma/Upsilon/Nun overline would be because it does not fit any standard declension. (Your question does not have anything to do with whether Isis would fit).

To extrapolate, the implication of the question is that you contest the common understanding that Jesus is second declension with an irregular dative (different in the LXX and the NT) in that it does not end in Omega with a Iota subscript ( ῳ) . But saying it has an irregular dative is arguably the same as saying it does not fit the second declension.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ἰησοῦς

I don't know how to explain the irregular dative. This is one of many times I miss Ben Smith's participation in the forum. Ben was better at that kind of thing than I am.

Do we have any examples of Ἰησοῦς being written out in the dative? I don't know.

Best,

Ken

[mlinssen]

If I'm interpreting the question correctly, you are asking which declension the nomen sacrum Iota Sigma/Upsilon/Nun overline would be because it does not fit any standard declension. (Your question does not have anything to do with whether Isis would fit).

To extrapolate, the implication of the question is that you contest the common understanding that Jesus is second declension with an irregular dative (different in the LXX and the NT) in that it does not end in Omega with a Iota subscript ( ῳ) . But saying it has an irregular dative is arguably the same as saying it does not fit the second declension.

I don't know how to explain the irregular dative. This is one of many times I miss Ben Smith's participation in the forum. Ben was better at that kind of thing than I am.

Do we have any examples of Ἰησοῦς being written out in the dative? I don't know.

Best,

Ken

You are, thanks

common understanding that Jesus is second declension with an irregular dative (different in the LXX and the NT) in that it does not end in Omega with a Iota subscript ( ῳ)

See, that's invaluable - the last part is indeed what triggered me, and the first part is a gem that I'll immediately verify.
The thing is, Ἰησοῦς in full only occurs in Melchizedek, very first line:

https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/iiif ... efault.jpg

Coptic, so no conjugation / case: ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲭ̅ⲥ̅
I've had 4 years of greek in Grammar School, though it is over 3 decades ago. From a nominative IS to an accusative IN is a no-brainer, yet the genitive and dative being the same is absolutely, entirely, tremendously impossible. In Latin the dative and ablative usually are the same but the entire reason for there being cases is of course the essential property of them being different enough in order to be able to bloody use them!!!

You can have an uncle called Ken, perhaps even a sister called Ken, but not a brother - it would be just too confusing.
There MUST be something behind this, a thought, an idea - because this conjugation tells us that we have not 4 but only 3 different "forms of Jesus":

the subject Jesus: nominative
the object Jesus: accusative
the xyz Jesus: genitive, dative, everything else: to/in/of/for/about/on/at/from/by Jesus

which is fine by me, but WHY?!
And that's not all: XS is treated in the same way:

ο χρς
του χρυ
τω ???
τον χρν
χρε (vocative)

I can't find a dative (and only now spot that I have dative and genitive reversed in this earlier post, apologies)

What the hell is this?! I've gone by Bezae, perhaps also should go by Sinaiticus, perhaps even others. 2 Cor 11:2 is an evident 'to Christ' and so is Ephesians 5:24

[mlinssen]

Ah... Sinaiticus helps

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

2 Cor 11:2

ζηλω γαρ ϋμαϲ θυ
ζηλω ηρμοϲαμη
γαρ ϋμαϲ ενι ανδρι
παρθενον αγνην
παραϲτηϲαι τω χω

CAUTION though, the omega is a little scribble, and the superlinear above that would at first sight suggest that it was supposed to have a line-ending Nu; in other words, this said XN instead of XW - perhaps.
Ephesian brings salvation, fortunately: a big fat clear, unadulterated XW - https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

Pfffff, what the hell.
So anyway, why these different treatments for one and the same broh?