A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

[MrMacSon]

In all fairness though you have to look at the original photos of the manuscript to know whether or not nomina sacra were used. There's great inconsistency in the renderings.

• Yep
  

  afaik, the extant, 'hard-copy' physical texts of Justin's texts such as Dialogue cum Trypho are ~11th century (which I have not seen images of)

[MrMacSon]

The essential argument again is:

1. The earliest Samaritan texts which interpret the SP (Marqe and the ST) identify the 'man' in Gen 37:15 as an angel and in the case of the ST as an angel named אישה. In other words, that the איש of the Hebrew text is the name of a divine being.
2. Philo interprets the same 'man' as a divine being, the Logos who elsewhere is identified as the/a cosmic 'anthropos'
3. The ST does the same thing, identifying a number of places where the SP says איש as being a reference to a cosmic angel named אישה
4. Origen spells out איש in Greek as iota-sigma = the nomen sacrum IC (not that Origen knows or equates the spelling with the nomen sacrum)
5. Marcovich restores Justin to say that one of the two meanings of the nomen sacrum IC is the Hebrew word 'man'
6. אישה has the same numerological value as the standard Hebrew rendering of Jesus's name יֵשׁוּ‎
7. in order for my theory to explain (6) we'd have to assume that the Hebrew יֵשׁוּ‎ is a backformation of the Greek rendering of the original Hebrew. It is worth noting that this is reminiscent of Ephrem the Syrian's reporting about the Marcionite ISU spelling the name in a way which distinguishes it from the more customary orthodoxy Isho.
   
   
   
   Scholars tend to explain the spelling difference by assuming that the Marcionite sources preserve the name in Greek Iesous. Regardless the commonality here is that varying forms of the name of the Christian savior existed side by side in THE SAME LANGUAGE viz. Aramaic, it would seem.

There are arguments against this interpretation of the nomen sacum. IH could more original. Marcovich's reconstruction can be question. But surely this is a viable - and otherwise unattested - explanation of the nomen sacrum IC which has particular relevance to any discussion regarding whether or not the founder of Christianity was a historical man or a heavenly hypostasis.

Is that Marcionite spelling - Isu - just found in Syriac or is it, or versions of it, also found in other-language versions of Marcionite texts?

[Secret Alias]

http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/eglise/justin/tryphon.htm

But this speaks to the problem. In the Tibat Marqe Marqe speaks about Moses being enclothed by God to become haIsh Elohim, the Man of God, or - as is his usual epithet - "the Man."

Let's see in other examples of 'coming in the name of IU' supports an identification of 'Man' or 'Joshua.' In 35:

There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of IU (ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰῦ), taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of IU in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine.

It would certainly sound that, as a sophisticated writer, Justin is contrasting 'coming in the name of Man' with those who come in the name of a PARTICULAR MAN - i.e. a leader of heresy.

[Secret Alias]

Just in Ephrem. We should also remember another 'quirk' of Samaritan Hebrew (because it's older) - it doesn't distinguish between two sounds for the 21st letter. In Jewish Hebrew there is sin and shin. Same letter, different pronunciation. Sometimes sh other times s. Originally there was one sound - sh. As such the etymology of Israel (pronounced Ishrael) from yashar to be upright makes sense in Samaritan Hebrew but not Jewish Hebrew.

[Jax]

Ken Olson provided some pretty solid evidence that Justin definitely knew what IC stood for.

Ken was showing that

Justin did know the name 'Jesus'

The only non-English versions of Justin texts I have seen are digital Greek and, of course, they have Greek transliterations of Y'hoshua/Y'eshua, Ἰησοῦ/Ἰησος

afaik, the extant, 'hard-copy' physical texts of Justin's texts such as Dialogue cum Trypho are ~11th century (which I have not seen images of)

Here you go MrMacson, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8831

[Secret Alias]

An example of a possible interpolation of IC = Joshua:

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 Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name IC

and first called Auses Numbers 13:16. (Oshea).

For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name is in Him,' was IC. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also. Now Isaiah shows that those prophets who are sent to publish tidings from God are called His angels and apostles. For Isaiah says in a certain place, 'Send me.' Isaiah 6:8

And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus [Joshua], was strong and great, is manifest to all.

If, then, we know that God revealed Himself in so many forms to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, how are we at a loss, and do not believe that, according to the will of the Father of all things, it was possible for Him to be born man of the Virgin, especially after we have such Scriptures, from which it can be clearly seen that He became so according to the will of the Father?

For when Daniel speaks of 'one like the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression 'it was cut out without hands' signified that it is not a work of man, but [a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, 'Who shall declare His generation?' he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine?

If you really look at this passage there are two ideas battling for supremacy confirming Marcovich's reconstruction that IC is both Man and Savior (Jesus). On the one hand there are explicit references to Joshua. But these seem to be outside the original context of the passage. For immediately after the first Joshua reference we read:

For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name is in Him,' was IC. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also

There was an angel who spoke to Moses. We already know from the Samaritans the name of this angel was Ish 'Man' because Moses takes on his name - the Ish ha'Elohim. But let's look at the actual passage. The first line that is cited is Exodus 23:21:

Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [is] in him.

Scholars want us to believe that Justin thinks this angel's name is Jesus? Really? Ok we will leave that for a minute. The next line is:

He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also

We already know that Philo and Justin thinks that Israel means 'a man seeing God' or a 'man struggling with God.' So the word 'man' is clearly there. But what about Exodus 23:21? There doesn't appear to be ish anywhere there:

הִשָּׁמֶר מִפָּנָיו וּשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ, אַל-תַּמֵּר בּוֹ: כִּי לֹא יִשָּׂא לְפִשְׁעֲכֶם, כִּי שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ

How was 'ish' in the name of the angel in the 'for my name is in him' angel? Look carefully:

Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon (יִשָּׂא) your transgressions: for my name [is] in him

So the word 'pardon' - yod-shin-alef - are the same letters as ish - alef-yod-shin. So in the magical thinking of Justin, the angel's name and the angel's function 'forgiveness' are one and the same.

The Joshua references were added to Justin likely by Irenaeus.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Ken Olson provided some pretty solid evidence that Justin definitely knew what IC stood for. Also, Christian v. Chrestian was a common mistake, due to the similar pronunciation and has been extremely well documented. There is actually an inscription where the same hand writes it both ways. Personally, other than the fact that it gives us insight into the phonological dialects of the time, I fail to find anything particularly meaningful in the e or i interchange.

Walter Shandruk, “The Interchange of ι and η in Spelling χριστ- in Documentary Papyri,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 47 (2010): 205-219

I'm aware of the apologetics. You may want to have a look at

viewtopic.php?p=129716#p129716

Philip clearly distinguishes in his use of Chrestian versus Christian - Chrestianity preceded Christianity, and the few traces that exist of that all speak of Chrestians, not Christians. If the e and I are so easily swapped then how come no early text ever speaks of Christos yet only of Chrestos?

And? It is a third century text reacting to a cultural milieu where two different terms were applied to the same general group, giving the author ample opportunity to have their own digressions and write down their own ideas about the origins of these terms.

Also, Tacitus speaks of Christus (with an i), and Chrestians (e), showing an interchange. I will just note Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 35-36:

Here an objection could be posed that a Christian source (if this name came to Suetonius by way of a Christian source), or a careful Roman historian who knew about Christianity, would not have made a mistake about such an important name. This seems to be a part of Benko's argument. Friedrich Blass argued more than a century ago that the forms Χρίστος and Χριστιανός were greatly preferred by Christian writers from the New Testament on, while non-Christians typically used Χρήστος and Χρηστιανος. However, this phonological confusion between iota and eta was, to judge from the surviving manuscript and inscriptional evidence, present to a significant degree among Christians as well. The original hand of the important Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century) spells "Christian" with an eta in all three New Testament occurrences of this word (Acts 11:26, 26:8; 1 Pet 4:16). Manuscript p72 (third-fourth century) has Χρίστος for χρηστός in 1 Pet 2:3. In Phrygia, where a number of funerary inscriptions from the period 240-310 bearing the word "Christians" survive, "Christians" is most often spelled Χρησπανοι. This misunderstanding is best shown on one gravestone that has it both ways: "Christians for Chrestians"!

This Greek and Latin confusion of sounds in the name of the faith was associated with the assumption that its founder was named Χρήστος. Already in about 150 Justin Martyr, who wrote in Greek, could keep up a running pun on the similarity of these words: "Insofar as one may judge from the name we are accused of (Christianoi), we are most excellent people [chrestianoi], .. . We are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent is wrong" (1 Apology 4.1); In 197 Tertullian addressed non-Christians in defending Christians from persecution, "'Christian .. . is derived from 'anointing.' Even when you wrongly pronounce it 'Chrestian,' it comes from 'sweetness and goodness.' You do not even know the name you hate!" (1 Apology 3.5). In 309 Lactantius similarly complained about "the error of ignorant people, who by the change of one letter customarily call him 'Chrestus'" (Divine Institutes 4.7.5; who exactly are "ignorant" is not specified). While most early Christian writers knew the difference between these two words, using them carefully and even cleverly, many ordinary Christians shared the misconception of non-Christians. (Indeed, the corrections these three writers offer may also be directed at the mostly Christian readers of their works.) What Elsa Gibson concludes about the usage in the Phrygian inscriptions is true in general: "Occurrences of the form with eta seem to be deliberate; the word 'Christian' was mistakenly thought to be derived from Χρήστος." So by the slightest of changes, aided by converging vowel sounds, some Christians and many pagans changed the strange name "Christos/Christus" into a name more familiar and intelligible, "Chrestos/Chrestus." Therefore, Suetonius, who was not careful to begin with, could easily make a mistake about this name, or use a mistaken name from his source, without realizing it.

IMO, the Gospel of Philip is just a part of a milieu of people who were caught up in the confusion of terms, and it just took advantage of that to make some points of its own.

We have inscriptions attesting the interchange, Justin Martyr literally makes a pun out of it, and P72 literally ends up writing Christos, where it should be chrestos in 1 Peter 2:3 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/2-3.htm). You say that no early manuscript attests to this, but this is simply false. Shandruk also notes the papyrological data attests to this as well, including even instances of Christos and Christian spelled with the diphthong ει.

IMO, the evidence indicates to me that there due to phonological issues, i and e were easily interchanged, leading to two lexical forms of the word "Christian" to develop based on misunderstanding the etymology of the term, which then leads to things like Philip. Anyways, I'm not going to say much more on the topic. I just don't find it a particularly stunning thing.

[MrMacSon]

Also, Christian v. Chrestian was a common mistake, due to the similar pronunciation and has been extremely well documented. There is actually an inscription where the same hand writes it both ways. Personally, other than the fact that it gives us insight into the phonological dialects of the time, I fail to find anything particularly meaningful in the e or i interchange.

Walter Shandruk, “The Interchange of ι and η in Spelling χριστ- in Documentary Papyri,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 47 (2010): 205-219

There are indications that Chrestus & Chrestians, etc., versus Christos & Christian, etc., was more than a mistake: in some situations, at least

See Caulley TS, The Chrestos/Christos pun (1 Pet 2:3) in P72 and P125 Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 376-87

"In these two papyri, our oldest witnesses to 1 Peter, the Psalm quote—“taste and see that the Lord is good”—is turned into the confession, “Christ is Lord,” both times written as nomina sacra ."

---

eta
I missed this

We have inscriptions attesting the interchange, Justin Martyr literally makes a pun out of it, and P72 literally ends up writing Christos, where it should be chrestos in 1 Peter 2:3 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/2-3.htm).

So you're aware of the punning in P72

Which Justin Martyr pun are you referring to?

[Chrissy Hansen]

Also, Christian v. Chrestian was a common mistake, due to the similar pronunciation and has been extremely well documented. There is actually an inscription where the same hand writes it both ways. Personally, other than the fact that it gives us insight into the phonological dialects of the time, I fail to find anything particularly meaningful in the e or i interchange.

Walter Shandruk, “The Interchange of ι and η in Spelling χριστ- in Documentary Papyri,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 47 (2010): 205-219

There are indications that Chrestus & Chrestians, etc., versus Christos & Christian, etc., was more than a mistake: in some situations, at least

See Caulley TS, The Chrestos/Christos pun (1 Pet 2:3) in P72 and P125 Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 376-87

"In these two papyri, our oldest witnesses to 1 Peter, the Psalm quote—“taste and see that the Lord is good”—is turned into the confession, “Christ is Lord,” both times written as nomina sacra ."

---

eta
I missed this

We have inscriptions attesting the interchange, Justin Martyr literally makes a pun out of it, and P72 literally ends up writing Christos, where it should be chrestos in 1 Peter 2:3 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/2-3.htm).

So you're aware of the punning in P72

Which Justin Martyr pun are you referring to?

I agree that in some places it was probably more than a mistake. I'm just saying it originated as a mistake. That doesn't mean there didn't become deliberate intent ascribed to it later.

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 4.

[Secret Alias]

The name appears also in other places where "putting the divine name" on or in people. The priestly blessing

‘“The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the Lord raise (יִשָּׂא) his face/person toward you and give you peace.”’

So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them