Page 14 of 22
Re: The conjugation of IS: ο ι(η)ς, τω ι(η)υ, του ι(η)υ, τον ι(η)ν
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:45 pm
by Ken Olson
mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:45 am
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:13 am
Do we have any examples of Ἰησοῦς being written out in the dative? I don't know.
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
Are you saying this is true of the Christian Jesus or all uses of the name Jesus in ancient Greek? I'm wondering what, for example, the manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities 11.4.3 / 84 have:
Τῆς δὲ βοῆς τῶν σαλπίγγων ἀκούσαντες οἱ Σαμαρεῖται, ἐτύγχανον γὰρ ἀπεχθανόμενοι τῇ τε Ἰούδα φυλῇ καὶ τῇ Βενιαμίτιδι, συνέδραμον τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ θορύβου μαθεῖν θέλοντες. γνόντες δὲ τοὺς αἰχμαλωτισθέντας εἰς Βαβυλῶνα τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀνακτίζοντας τὸ ἱερόν, προσίασιν τῷ Ζοροβαβήλῳ καὶ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἡγουμένοις τῶν πατριῶν ἀξιοῦντες αὐτοῖς ἐπιτραπῆναι συγκατασκευάσαι τὸν ναὸν καὶ κοινωνῆσαι τῆς οἰκοδομίας:
But when the Samaritans, who were still enemies to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, heard the sound of the trumpets, they came running together, and desired to know what was the occasion of this tumult; and when they perceived that it was from the Jews, who had been carried captive to Babylon, and were rebuilding their temple, they came to Zorobabel and to Jeshua, and to the heads of the families, and desired that they would give them leave to build the temple with them, and to be partners with them in building it;
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ection%3D3
I don't know an easy way to check that.
Best,
Ken
Re: The conjugation of IS: ο ι(η)ς, τω ι(η)υ, του ι(η)υ, τον ι(η)ν
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:58 pm
by mlinssen
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:45 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:45 am
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:13 am
Do we have any examples of Ἰησοῦς being written out in the dative? I don't know.
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
Are you saying this is true of the Christian Jesus or all uses of the name Jesus in ancient Greek? I'm wondering what, for example, the manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities 11.4.3 / 84 have:
Τῆς δὲ βοῆς τῶν σαλπίγγων ἀκούσαντες οἱ Σαμαρεῖται, ἐτύγχανον γὰρ ἀπεχθανόμενοι τῇ τε Ἰούδα φυλῇ καὶ τῇ Βενιαμίτιδι, συνέδραμον τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ θορύβου μαθεῖν θέλοντες. γνόντες δὲ τοὺς αἰχμαλωτισθέντας εἰς Βαβυλῶνα τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀνακτίζοντας τὸ ἱερόν, προσίασιν τῷ Ζοροβαβήλῳ καὶ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἡγουμένοις τῶν πατριῶν ἀξιοῦντες αὐτοῖς ἐπιτραπῆναι συγκατασκευάσαι τὸν ναὸν καὶ κοινωνῆσαι τῆς οἰκοδομίας:
But when the Samaritans, who were still enemies to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, heard the sound of the trumpets, they came running together, and desired to know what was the occasion of this tumult; and when they perceived that it was from the Jews, who had been carried captive to Babylon, and were rebuilding their temple, they came to Zorobabel and to Jeshua, and to the heads of the families, and desired that they would give them leave to build the temple with them, and to be partners with them in building it;
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ection%3D3
I don't know an easy way to check that.
Best,
Ken
Thanks Ken
I haven't come across a Christian text (and those are in general the Greek MSS that I read) or a "gnostic" text (and those are in general the Coptic MSS that I read) where IS or XS is written out in full, save for P72 with its Xristianos and Melchizedek with its Ihsous - so I most certainly don't consider it to represent the name Jesus
If only we had some decent MSS from Josephus, instead of 9th-11th CE MSS littered with typical Christian scribal habits.
We have the Ambrosianus text of course that you recently supplied wrt the TF issue, and that evidently is a forgery exactly because it does contain both words in full
What do the Falsifying Fathers literally use, do you have MSS to those?
Re: At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:25 am
by lclapshaw
^
What do the Falsifying Fathers literally use, do you have MSS to those?
I would really like this as well!
Lane
Re: At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:48 am
by Secret Alias
When ever people like mountainman accuse the Church Fathers of lying ABOUT EVERYTHING or that the manuscripts and the evidence about manuscripts ARE TOTALLY FALSE that opens the door for any and every stupid theory to have equal weight to the actual evidence. In theory a massive conspiracy MIGHT be possible. But since it opens the door to selfishness and hobby horse theories to triumph over the actual evidence we have to take pause to question why we might be willing to accept that ALL THE EVIDENCE is false. Is it because it is allows us to promote our pet theories? I suspect that's why people embrace such a position. The evidence is quite comprehensive. Not only what the Church Fathers say but what the Church Fathers say the pagans say about Christianity, what the Church Fathers say the heretics say and then similarities between the position of some Church Fathers and the heretics. Overall, my advice is to get better acquainted with the evidence - more evidence, less you in short.
Re: At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:55 am
by lclapshaw
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:48 am
When ever people like mountainman accuse the Church Fathers of lying ABOUT EVERYTHING or that the manuscripts and the evidence about manuscripts ARE TOTALLY FALSE that opens the door for any and every stupid theory to have equal weight to the actual evidence. In theory a massive conspiracy MIGHT be possible. But since it opens the door to selfishness and hobby horse theories to triumph over the actual evidence we have to take pause to question why we might be willing to accept that ALL THE EVIDENCE is false. Is it because it is allows us to promote our pet theories? I suspect that's why people embrace such a position. The evidence is quite comprehensive. Not only what the Church Fathers say but what the Church Fathers say the pagans say about Christianity, what the Church Fathers say the heretics say and then similarities between the position of some Church Fathers and the heretics. Overall, my advice is to get better acquainted with the evidence - more evidence, less you in short.
Sounds great!
Any links to earliest MSS?
Re: At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:04 am
by Secret Alias
So Lucy is literally the first human ancestor.
Re: At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:05 am
by Secret Alias
How I get dragged into being the portrayed as an "apologist" for the surviving writings merely because I say we can't ignore what exists. If it's all wrong then how do you decide between mountainman and Mary Helena or Giuseppe? Popularity competition? Put on a wrestling match winner take all.
Re: At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:06 am
by robert j
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:48 am
When ever people ... accuse the Church Fathers of lying ABOUT EVERYTHING ... opens the door to selfishness and hobby horse theories ...
Sure. With your emphasis on “EVERYTHING” I would have to agree. I think the writings of the Church Fathers provide an excellent source of 2nd century (and later) early-catholic tradition and (by then) established “church” doctrine.
However, I think they had little if any real knowledge of the actual
origins and events surrounding the belief in a Jesus Christ. The Church Fathers were merely promoters of their own preferred current story.
Whiplash alert ----
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:48 am
The evidence is quite comprehensive. Not only what the Church Fathers say but what the Church Fathers say the pagans say about Christianity, what the Church Fathers say the heretics say and then similarities between the position of some Church Fathers and the heretics.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:20 am
I think that in coming generations who have the proper distance from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and Epiphanius will realize what a bunch of liars these people were.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:26 pm
Our tradition was entrusted to horribly wretched twisted people, the Church Fathers.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:16 pm
But do I believe or am I willing to let the Church Fathers shepherd me to the truth about Marcion or the Marcionite gospel? No. I don't trust them or what they say.
Re: At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:09 am
by Secret Alias
They lie about somethings when necessary but you can't just ignore them. You have to understand Mein Kampf when trying to put together the background for the Second World War but that doesn't mean you just simply accept what it says. I don't know how it has to be either or here. The four gospels are forgeries. Doesn't mean they were invented wholesale. Irenaeus proudly displays his creation but there had to be a methodology which we should figure out if it's possible to divine.
Re: At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:12 am
by Secret Alias
With respect to the OP Jesus or whatever he was originally called might have been based on a historical character. Not sure how real this makes him.
