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

[bartwillruth]

The Nomina Sacra IC and KC can be rendered as:

IC = Iulius (Julius)
IC = Ioues (Joves, the old Latin name for Jupiter)
KC = Kaisaros

IC KC Julius Caesar

For further reading, see: https://www.debunking-christianity.com/ ... ne-by.html

[mlinssen]

The Nomina Sacra IC and KC can be rendered as:

IC = Iulius (Julius)
IC = Ioues (Joves, the old Latin name for Jupiter)
KC = Kaisaros

IC KC Julius Caesar

For further reading, see: https://www.debunking-christianity.com/ ... ne-by.html

It would be stupid to look for Latin as the earliest texts are in Greek and Coptic.
There's no KC in any text, by the way; and the funny thing is that Latin doesn't have a K - only Greek (and Coptic) do

[lclapshaw]

The Nomina Sacra IC and KC can be rendered as:

IC = Iulius (Julius)
IC = Ioues (Joves, the old Latin name for Jupiter)
KC = Kaisaros

IC KC Julius Caesar

For further reading, see: https://www.debunking-christianity.com/ ... ne-by.html

It would be stupid to look for Latin as the earliest texts are in Greek and Coptic.
There's no KC in any text, by the way; and the funny thing is that Latin doesn't have a K - only Greek (and Coptic) do

I think that you might find that KC would work as Caesar in Greek as the name was rendered Kaisar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Jul ... spectively.

[lclapshaw]

Well there you have it Ken, so far we have a solid thesis by SA that IC might be IS=Man, IC XC could be Iulius Chrestus, KC could be Kaisar (Caesar in Greek).

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.

Personally I like the IC=Iulius idea, especially for Paul and we do have sources for the imperial cult and the Isis cult in the first centuries of the common era as opposed to nothing for the first 70 years after the supposed death of the Gospel Jesus. Just going off of Occam's razor I'm afraid that IC=Iesous doesn't stack up as well as the other options.

Lane

[Ken Olson]

In Mark's gospel, KC overline (KU overline in the genitive) is Kyrios, 'Lord'.

Mark 1.3 from codex Sinaiticus:
φωνη βοωντοϲ ε τη ερημω ετοιμαϲατε την οδον κυ ευθιαϲ ποιειτε ταϲ τριβουϲ αυτου

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu ... omSlider=0

Mark 1.3 Interlinear:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/1-3.htm

This is a quotation of Isaiah 40.3. Unfortunately, the LXX of Isaiah 40.3 in Sinaiticus also uses the Nomen Sacrum. But we can look at the Hebrew text, where the word is the Tetragrammaton יְהוָ֑ה YHWH.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/40-3.htm

Jews don't speak YHWH aloud, but substitute Adonai, Lord, or in Greek, Kyrios

Best,

Ken

[lclapshaw]

In Mark's gospel, KC overline (KU overline in the genitive) is Kyrios, 'Lord'.

Mark 1.3 from codex Sinaiticus:
φωνη βοωντοϲ ε τη ερημω ετοιμαϲατε την οδον κυ ευθιαϲ ποιειτε ταϲ τριβουϲ αυτου

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu ... omSlider=0

Mark 1.3 Interlinear:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/1-3.htm

This is a quotation of Isaiah 40.3. Unfortunately, the LXX of Isaiah 40.3 in Sinaiticus also uses the Nomen Sacrum. But we can look at the Hebrew text, where the word is the Tetragrammaton יְהוָ֑ה YHWH.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/40-3.htm

Jews don't speak YHWH aloud, but substitute Adonai, Lord, or in Greek, Kyrios

Best,

Ken

So, 'Mark' just got it wrong and simply didn't understand what Paul was writing about. This is a distinct possibility you must agree especially if Paul had written much sooner than is generally assumed.

Lane

[Secret Alias]

Ken has no imagination and he takes this as a sign of distinction. There's no point arguing with him. Ken's discovered the one falsification in all the writings of Josephus, the proverbial needle in the Josephean haystack. The gospel of Matthew is what Matthew originally wrote in 90 CE. The gospel of Mark as we have it is exact text Mark wrote in c 70 CE. The fact that the Marcionites say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are forgeries never having been written by apostles is to be ignored. There's no point arguing with him. The gospel we have is the earliest gospel. We have Mark's gospel as Mark wrote it. We have Justin's text as Justin wrote it. Ken Olson found the one editorial emendation in all the early writings of the Church. All the rest of the writings are pristine. So great is Ken Olson.

It's not like the scriptures are soiled toilet paper. That isn't even allowed into the discussion.

[MrMacSon]

Unfortunately, the LXX of Isaiah 40.3 in Sinaiticus also uses the Nomen Sacrum.

This made me think.

[mostly] Rhetorical questions (I don't expect Ken to answer these):

(1) The present Christian 'OT' is a continuation of the LXX? essentially the LXX?
(2) The present Christian 'OT' differs from the Torah by how much?
(beyond substitution of the Tetragrammaton יְהוָ֑ה YHWH with κύριος, Kyrios / 'Lord')

(a) Why do you say, 'unfortunately', Ken ?

[MrMacSon]

... so far we have a solid thesis by SA that IC might be IS=Man, IC XC could be Iulius Chrestus, KC could be Kaisar (Caesar in Greek).

Yeah, but what about KFC ?

More seriously, there were some [early] 'Christian-Gnostic' sects whose god was called/named [Hu]Man (I'll come back with some specifics when I've collated the info)

In [some versions of] Mark's gospel, KC overline (KU overline in the genitive) is Kyrios, 'Lord'.

Mark 1.3 from codex Sinaiticus:
φωνη βοωντοϲ ε τη ερημω ετοιμαϲατε την οδον κυ ευθιαϲ ποιειτε ταϲ τριβουϲ αυτου

... Isaiah 40.3 in Sinaiticus also uses the Nomen Sacrum

Yep

There was a huge amount of substitution of the Tetragrammaton יְהוָ֑ה YHWH with κύριος / Kyrios in the LXX.

[lclapshaw]

Ken has no imagination and he takes this as a sign of distinction. There's no point arguing with him. Ken's discovered the one falsification in all the writings of Josephus, the proverbial needle in the Josephean haystack. The gospel of Matthew is what Matthew originally wrote in 90 CE. The gospel of Mark as we have it is exact text Mark wrote in c 70 CE. The fact that the Marcionites say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are forgeries never having been written by apostles is to be ignored. There's no point arguing with him. The gospel we have is the earliest gospel. We have Mark's gospel as Mark wrote it. We have Justin's text as Justin wrote it. Ken Olson found the one editorial emendation in all the early writings of the Church. All the rest of the writings are pristine. So great is Ken Olson.

It's not like the scriptures are soiled toilet paper. That isn't even allowed into the discussion.

Frankly, I have no desire to argue with anyone, but will engage in conversation with anyone that has something worthwhile to say, even if I don't personally agree with it myself. We have far too many prima donnas here as it is for me to want to jump into that cart.

Now as to the IC issue. Personally I feel that an insistence on equating IC with Jesus over just using IC and XC as they are presented in the actual ancient texts should be a litmus test as to who are serious textual critics and who are just apologists for a historical Jesus rendering of the Gospel stories.

Lane