Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 07-03-2013, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think I am going to change the focus of the essay to the idea that the original nomen sacrum ΙΣ was rooted or shaped in Genesis 32. No one gives a ---- about the Marcionites. They will be a prominent part of the argument. But the popular (but incorrect) etymology Ἰσραὴλ = 'ish ra'ah [or ro'eh] 'El, "a man seeing God" drawing upon the shared phoneme Ἰσ = אִישׁ will be at the heart of the paper.

I thought Marcionites were the hot topic right now.

stephan huller · 07-03-2013, 01:31 PM

I guess but you have to get published. How much does anyone know about Marcion? And then, of what they think they know, how much is true? And how do we determine what truth is?

MrMacSon · 07-03-2013, 02:06 PM

Historical truth relies on being as objective as possible, via the Historic Method, and use of 'primary sources' as much as possible. That is hard to do with any area of ancient history, especially those immersed in theology and theological writings.

mountainman · 07-03-2013, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think I have the linguistic arguments down pat (namely that ΙΣ = איש).

How do you intend to explain the gnostic use of the equivalent Coptic nomina sacra "IS" (overbarred)?

Did the gnostics consistently defer to an historical Marcion and an imaginary Jesus?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller · 07-03-2013, 04:02 PM

I don't understand the question. If this were English the nomen sacrum would be pronounced 'iz' like Bill Clinton's famous "it depends what you mean by 'is.'" In Greek it would be ees. I can't think of a precedent in Greek for not pronouncing a word the way it sounds on the page. Whoever heard of 'hidden letters' being present in words on a manuscript. Sounds like a Bill Clinton excuse - 'did you read 'is'? Oh, I see why. You should know that even though you only see two letters - don't believe your eyes. 'Is' should be red 'isn't.' Trust me" Nonsense. It's just become convention because a lie became established as a truth.

ἸησοῦΣ

Silly. Who'd believe such a thing if it weren't the rule?

stephan huller · 07-03-2013, 04:07 PM

The other thing I haven't mentioned yet is that Aquila had a habit of simply transliterating Hebrew words into Greek letters in his translation. I wonder if he started this convention. νότονδε = הַנָּגְבָּה, Gen. xii. 9, Κυρήνηνδε = קִירָה‎, 2 Kings xvi. 9

stephan huller · 07-03-2013, 04:21 PM

Another commonly held transliteration איש־קריות = Ἰσκαριώτης

stephan huller · 07-03-2013, 04:32 PM

Look at this related Study Light article - "It is more likely that it comes from a verb איש ’-y-sh possibly meaning to 'exist' or like a similar Akkadian word 'to be strong'. Gesenius regarded as a primitive word, possibly without a verbal root. It seems to reappear in the Sanscrit isha/ishi 'master/mistress', Greek ις ’is, Latin vis/vir." http://www.studylight.org/ls/ht/print.cgi?a=546

stephan huller · 07-03-2013, 04:38 PM

2 Samuel 4:5 איש בשת = Ις-βοσθε LXX

This closes the book on whether it is possible. The question is whether the nomen sacrum was read as a transliterated Hebrew word like this.

arnoldo · 07-04-2013, 07:14 AM

In the 80's Rush came out with a song called “Tom Sawyer” which is loosely based on Mark's Twain's character in the book “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” written in the year 1876. Hypothetically speaking, if someone in the year 2080 would listen to Rush and inspect the lyrics of Tom Sawyer, nothing in it would perhaps suggest a historical Tom Sawyer ever existed. If, for some unknown reason, a cult began in this hypothetical future involving in someway the “spirit” of Tom Sawyer then it could give impetus for seeking historical Tom Sawyer. Of course, factions in this new cult could arise between those who argue for a spiritual Tom Sawyer vs those who argue for a historical Tom. For the latter faction, fabricating a book entitled, “The Adventure of Tom Sawyer” would support their case. Perhaps something similar happened when Marcion's (Paul's?) conceptualization of Christ was interpreted by the gospel writers?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-03-2013, 01:31 PM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I guess but you have to get published. How much does anyone know about Marcion? And then, of what they think they know, how much is true? And how do we determine what truth is?

07-03-2013, 02:06 PM	#13
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	Historical truth relies on being as objective as possible, via the Historic Method, and use of 'primary sources' as much as possible. That is hard to do with any area of ancient history, especially those immersed in theology and theological writings.

07-03-2013, 04:02 PM	#15
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't understand the question. If this were English the nomen sacrum would be pronounced 'iz' like Bill Clinton's famous "it depends what you mean by 'is.'" In Greek it would be ees. I can't think of a precedent in Greek for not pronouncing a word the way it sounds on the page. Whoever heard of 'hidden letters' being present in words on a manuscript. Sounds like a Bill Clinton excuse - 'did you read 'is'? Oh, I see why. You should know that even though you only see two letters - don't believe your eyes. 'Is' should be red 'isn't.' Trust me" Nonsense. It's just become convention because a lie became established as a truth. ἸησοῦΣ Silly. Who'd believe such a thing if it weren't the rule?

07-03-2013, 04:07 PM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The other thing I haven't mentioned yet is that Aquila had a habit of simply transliterating Hebrew words into Greek letters in his translation. I wonder if he started this convention. νότονδε = הַנָּגְבָּה, Gen. xii. 9, Κυρήνηνδε = קִירָה‎, 2 Kings xvi. 9

07-03-2013, 04:21 PM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another commonly held transliteration איש־קריות = Ἰσκαριώτης

07-03-2013, 04:32 PM	#18
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Look at this related Study Light article - "It is more likely that it comes from a verb איש ’-y-sh possibly meaning to 'exist' or like a similar Akkadian word 'to be strong'. Gesenius regarded as a primitive word, possibly without a verbal root. It seems to reappear in the Sanscrit isha/ishi 'master/mistress', Greek ις ’is, Latin vis/vir." http://www.studylight.org/ls/ht/print.cgi?a=546

07-03-2013, 04:38 PM	#19
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	2 Samuel 4:5 איש בשת = Ις-βοσθε LXX This closes the book on whether it is possible. The question is whether the nomen sacrum was read as a transliterated Hebrew word like this.

07-04-2013, 07:14 AM	#20
arnoldo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Latin America Posts: 4,066	In the 80's Rush came out with a song called “Tom Sawyer” which is loosely based on Mark's Twain's character in the book “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” written in the year 1876. Hypothetically speaking, if someone in the year 2080 would listen to Rush and inspect the lyrics of Tom Sawyer, nothing in it would perhaps suggest a historical Tom Sawyer ever existed. If, for some unknown reason, a cult began in this hypothetical future involving in someway the “spirit” of Tom Sawyer then it could give impetus for seeking historical Tom Sawyer. Of course, factions in this new cult could arise between those who argue for a spiritual Tom Sawyer vs those who argue for a historical Tom. For the latter faction, fabricating a book entitled, “The Adventure of Tom Sawyer” would support their case. Perhaps something similar happened when Marcion's (Paul's?) conceptualization of Christ was interpreted by the gospel writers?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.