Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I see the thread has moved on from the question about Jesus in the dative, but I've found three examples Ἰησοῦ as the dative of Jesus in Codex Vaticanus (I'm not claiming this is an exhaustive search):

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209

Joshua 10.17 (second line from bottom):
Joshua 17.4 (second line from bottom)
I Chronicles 24.11 (second line from bottom):
All of these are from the Greek Old Testament (commonly called the Septuagint or LXX, though some insist that name applies only to the Pentateuch).

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 7:03 am I see the thread has moved on from the question about Jesus in the dative, but I've found three examples Ἰησοῦ as the dative of Jesus in Codex Vaticanus (I'm not claiming this is an exhaustive search):

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209

Joshua 10.17 (second line from bottom):

Vat.gr.1209 p. 250 Joshua 10.17 Closeup IHSOY.png

Joshua 17.4 (second line from bottom)

Vat.gr.1209 p. 269 Joshua 17.4 closeup IHSOY.png

I Chronicles 24.11 (second line from bottom):

Vat.gr.1209 p. 514 1 Chron. 24.11 closeup IHSOY.png

All of these are from the Greek Old Testament (commonly called the Septuagint or LXX, though some insist that name applies only to the Pentateuch).

Best,

Ken

Ken... what are you doing LOL!
Oh my - this can't be coincidental. I'll whip out the transcriptions one of these days

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:12 am

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:29 pm Historia Augusta is based on various historical persons but I know of no historian who uses it as a source for a historical study of those persons; it is only mentioned in histories, as far as I am aware, when independent evidence confirms something in it. The figures in HA are fiction; the historical figures who inspired those fictional creations are historical.

Actually ancient historians do out of necessity cautiously use portions of the Historia Augusta . . . as a source for otherwise uncorroborated material. . . . The issue is that for the 2nd and very early 3rd century Emperors the Historia Augusta used a good otherwise lost historical work which it rewrote to a greater or lesser extent from life to life.

I shall have to be more careful in how I use HA as an example, then. I will check out the Historia Augusta Colloquium material next time I'm at the uni library and get a better handle on how and why it is used as a historical source.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:29 pm we have a solid thesis by SA that IC might be IS=Man

Just going off of Occam's razor I'm afraid that IC=Iesous doesn't stack up as well as the other options.

Lane

Lane,

I have some questions:

1) What do you mean by 'solid' and 'might be''? Do you mean you could put the thesis that Iota Sigma overline (and IY and IN) means man in the form of an argument that is sound or inferentially strong (i.e., stronger than other arguments about IC or at least comparably strong; I don't actually expect historical arguments to be sound in the technical sense). Or do you just mean that it might be in the sense that it has not been shown to be impossible?

2) Could you show how (I mean, actually present an argument) that other options stack up better than the idea that IC=Ἰησοῦς with regard to Occam's razor. What makes the possibility that the nomen sacrum Iota Sigma/Upsilon/Nun overline from its earliest usage(s) in Christian documents inferior?

Hmm. Maybe those are the same question.

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 7:51 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:29 pm we have a solid thesis by SA that IC might be IS=Man

Just going off of Occam's razor I'm afraid that IC=Iesous doesn't stack up as well as the other options.

Lane

Lane,

I have some questions:

1) What do you mean by 'solid' and 'might be''? Do you mean you could put the thesis that Iota Sigma overline (and IY and IN) means man in the form of an argument that is sound or inferentially strong (i.e., stronger than other arguments about IC or at least comparably strong; I don't actually expect historical arguments to be sound in the technical sense). Or do you just mean that it might be in the sense that it has not been shown to be impossible?

2) Could you show how (I mean, actually present an argument) that other options stack up better than the idea that IC=Ἰησοῦς with regard to Occam's razor. What makes the possibility that the nomen sacrum Iota Sigma/Upsilon/Nun overline from its earliest usage(s) in Christian documents inferior?

Hmm. Maybe those are the same question.

Best,

Ken

Hi Ken, it seems that today is a day for me to backtrack statements and theories that are faulty because of my ignorance of ancient Greek.

I used the term "solid" because it seemed to me that SA presented his arguments for IS=Man in a coherent, well thought out manner, but as I clearly have more to learn about Greek I think that I will just stay quiet and listen for a change.

Lane

The question should be since we know ish was rendered into Greek as iota sigma what would be its expected declension in this language IF THE NOMEN SACRUM WASN'T AN ABBREVIATION and IF IT WAS AN ABBREVIATION why is one more likely to be the original "source" for the abbreviation when Justin acknowledges both man and Savior = iota sigma. I don't see any compelling evidence for Christians worshipping a human Jesus before they venerated a heavenly Man or Son of Man so it's six of one half dozen of the other.

All things at this forum come down to a popularity contest. There's only one thing I will break a smile for. Maybe two things. Maybe three things. Definitely not to win over people to an idea. I try the least to be likable to ensure the arguments stand on their own merits. I never appeal to one side with a nod or a wink or an "us" like the rest of you guys. Just fifteen years of principled miserable argumentation and deliberate antagonism on behalf of the truth.

Hey SA, try plugging your "Man" into the 1 Corinthians letter I posted viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9326 it would be interesting to see the result.

How did he read the nomen sacrum? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoimus What's more likely?

If Justin really thought Jesus = the nomen sacrum and applied it to Joshua then he must have also thought Joshua was God when God met him before Jericho. As a Christian neo-Platonist names just aren't random sounds applied to things. They embody the "soul" as it were of the thing like Rumpelstiltskin. Jesus can't have been a holy name originally. There were too many Jesuses running around the world in antiquity like today on a Mexican football team. The manuscripts say what they say. But Platonists couldn't believe a common name like Jesus was in itself holy. "Jesus" might be the ideal of all people named Jesus but "Man" is the perfect man. What was Christian salvation all about? Salvation for Jesuses or salvation for all men?

into the 1 Corinthians letter I posted

How much of 1 Corinthians isn't falsified? No one writes a letter that long with so many meandering sidebars? What's it even.about? Most letters person X is writing to person Y about Z. The letter to Theodore is more genuine.

As long as we think IC came to earth to save all people named Jesus, to show them how to be the "perfect Jesus" that was inside of them, Jesus was the original nomen sacrum.

It's such bullshit. Christ's universality necessitates his name was Man. You know how many cousins and relatives I have named Joshua? You know many cousins and relatives every Jew everywhere at every time has named Joshua. No guy came from the sky named Joshua or Ted or Bubba or Gino who was going to exemplify the heavenly Man. Only the heavenly Man was going to show forth the heavenly Man.

White people ruin everything. They are such complete losers. Can never get beyond the poverty of their own situation. "Jesus" was just as weird sounding to a first century white guy as "Ish." Not to a Jew. Jesus sounds like that cousin of mine who owes me 200 bucks.

That's why it was illegal to name your child Jesus in white countries. Think about it. They had to keep the name pristine. But it never was. That's where the argument goes off the rails. It was a common name, the most.common likely. Like "Joe." Imagine the name above all names is ... Joe.

Only for white people and those they enslaved.

The name above all names was Man and the essence of morality for Jews has always been, be a Mensch.