mountainman

Hey Vid,

Here is a summary of what I was able to determine on the earlier thread:
The source of the "Legend" between the Greek name "Jesus" and nomina sacra code "ΙΣ"


Who implemented the Nomina Sacra in the Manuscript Evidence available?

(1) The Apostles and Paul etc agreed to use the same written abbreviations before they wrote.

There is at least one opinion that Paul may have acted as the originator.
Here is the article -- and conclusion:

Nomina Sacra: Scribal Practice and Piety in Early Christianity


Option (2) A very early editor gathered up the gospels and paul etc and then established the standardised use of the nomina sacra.

Most scholarship follows this approach.
Here is what Metzger writes in Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: an introduction to Greek palaeography By Bruce Manning Metzger (Google Books)

During the first centuries of the church, Christian scribes developed a system
of contractions for certain sacred words. These "nomina sacra", as the Latin
Paleographer Ludwig Traube called them [14], eventually came to include fifteeen such terms.


Scholars differ in accounting for the origin and development of the system of Nomina Sacra.

Traube: their (Jewish) origin is to be found in the need among Hellenistic Jews for devising
a Greek equivalent for the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.

Rudberg and Mason drew attention to the contractions that sometimes occur in pre-Christian
ostraca and inscriptions in representing proper names, titles of rulers, names of months,
numerals and certain formulae.

Paap: the origins are with Jewish Christians, because "for them the Greek word for 'God'
had exactly the same value as the tetragrammaton and for that reason was entitled to a
distinction in its different forms."

Schuyler Brown: The extention of usage came about because
"christian scribes wishes to give graphic expression to the theologicval equation
already present in the earliest apostolic preaching, in which XUPIOS, the name
of the God of Israel, was used as a title for Jesus Christ.

Option (3) A very late editor did this (ie: Eusebius) and the manuscripts we now have are in fact 4th century.

I have to report that nobody appears to be contemplating this as a viable option. Maybe times will change?



Option (4) Later Gnostic authors (of the "NT Gnostic Gospels etc") simply copied the conventions adopted by either (1), (2) or (3) above.


This option appears to be generally held, following option (2).


Conclusion

While it may appear to have gone round in circles the exercise has strengthened the case that the study of the origin of the nomina sacra is an issue which must be considered in parallel with any and all theories which simply wish to address the textual criticism aspects of the manuscript tradition. The bible was not just written in the greek, but is was written with very original and highly conspicuous "encryption" -- abbreviated names or nomina sacra. The chronological origins of this convention are as yet not known despite many hypotheses and theories.

For other info about the nomina sacra see WIKI or
some of my notes

mountainman

Doug,

I am capable of wearing different colored hats. The OP is refering to the history of the use of the nomina sacra (or abbreviated names) in the earliest greek manuscripts and papyri fragments. See my summary above about the nomina sacra.

You do not appear to see and acknowledge that the evidence itself - the earlier greek manuscripts and the papyri fragments themselves - do not contain the words "Jesus" or "Christ" but only the abbrevated forms of these --- such as the "ΙΣ" for "Jesus". This earliest evidence exhibits a unique and universal encoding, showing the unambiguous signature of a single redactor at the earliest point. (Again see the abovce post for various theories about this).

avi

Note please, absence of "adonai", and presence of Yahweh (highlighted).
The LXX is here corrupted. But, was the original text corrupted? For sure, the LXX, that we have available, in our oldest manuscripts, Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contain the Greek equivalent of "adonai", i.e. "kyrios". But, was that in the original version of LXX, as the ink dried from the 70 scholar's quills? I think the text was changed from "GOD", to "LORD" because of the argument, from Arius, and others, that Jesus was not identical to God, hence trinitarianism was false.

There was, in my opinion, a global editing job performed on all bibles post constantine, making sure that kyrios or its equivalent abbreviation, replaced theos. Bibles lacking such change, were burned, I suppose.

avi

andrewcriddle

Yes. They go back to two different Hebrew names for the same person see eg Numbers 13:16. Andrew Criddle

charles

Is this Oshea being turned in Iesous used in Christian mysticism?

Loomis

Paul’s use of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:9-13 requires his copy of Joel 2:32 to read “Lord.”

The practice of replacing “Yahweh” with “Lord” is consistent with the Law in Leviticus 24:16 LXX.

andrewcriddle

Joshua = Jesus.
Hoshea = Oshea and variants.

Andrew Criddle

avi

Yes, in our oldest extant copy of LXX: Codex Sinaiticus, for example, which dates from the fourth century CE. Yes, in those Christian doctored documents, where "Lord" = "Jesus" = "God", according to trinitarian doctrine, you are correct.

But, does that mean that six hundred years earlier, the 70 Jewish scholars would have substituted "Lord", ("Adonai", "Kyrios",) for "God", ("Yahweh", "Theos")?

What about DSS? Does one find there, the equivalence: Yahweh = "kyrios" (or "adonai", if in Hebrew)?

avi

stephan huller

Of course they didn't 'substitute' because the 70 had the original Greek translation.

One of the most annoying 'we are the center of the world' argument made by scholars and laypeople alike is calling the main Greek translation of the Torah 'the LXX' (WHICH IT CERTAINLY ISN'T)

Why?

Because it doesn't agree with Philo's text cite in his works. One would presume that a leader of the Alexandrian Jewish community in the first century would know a little more about the true LXX text that we do.

But of course scholars always do this. They try to 'smooth over difficulties' which allows them to advance the 'certainty' of their other presumptions which depend on misunderstandings like 'we have the LXX'

We don't.

And if you look at Philo's citation of the TRUE LXX theos appears more frequently than it does in our LXX and the Masoretic text.

Why?

IMO there was a conscious decision to 'streamline' the original faith that Christianity was built on i.e. to alienate the Marcionite tradition and make it seem as if it was without foundation.

YHWH became 'the one god of the Jews' which I don't think was true for Philo, the Jews of Alexandria of his day, the early Christians that developed out that tradition AND the 70 who wrote the true LXX AND THUS - all the Jews living in Alexandria between the start of the community in Alexandria and Philo's time.

BOTTOM LINE - we don't know enough of Alexandrian Judaism to take ANYTHING for granted about its beliefs.

Clivedurdle

We might be staring at its child - a certain "oriental cult" we call xianity?