Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 11-16-2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Fabulating Jesus

Why Gnostic "Codes" Do Not Name the Historical Jesus

On this site and in my book Not in His Image I have argued that "Jesus," considered as the proper name of an assumed-to-be historical person, does not appear in the Gnostic Coptic writings. The same applies for the term "Christ" understood as the Incarnation or Son of God celebrated in the theology of Saint Paul and Saint John. In Not in His Image (or via: amazon.co.uk) I wrote:

In the Coptic Gnostic material the names Jesus and Christ are never written in full, but indicated by code such as the letters IS with a bar over them. Scholars routinely fill in the blanks, making IS into I(eseo)S, the Greek form of the Hebrew name Yeshua. They do so with considerable poetic license, for there is no textual evidence to support the assumption that in Gnostic usage IS indicated a historical person named Ieseos, Jesus. IS could as well be translated in another way: I(asiu)S, giving the name Iasius, “the healer,” a title rather than a common name. But translators assume that IS indicates Jesus of the New Testament. In short, scholars do not allow us the chance to consider that IS might indicate anything else but a literal person whose identity is predetermined.

The same applies for Christ. The code for Christ is XS or sometimes XRS, which could as well indicate Christos, or even Chrestos. In Coptic it looks like this: XC, with a bar over the letters. X is the Greek letter chi and C is the Coptic S. Scholars fill in XC so that it reads “Christ,” never “Christos,” even though “Christos” is more consistent with the final S. Where XC appears in the Apocryphon of John, for instance, scholars put the Greek Christos in parenthesis but translate the coded word as “Christ.” Doing so, they immediately equate XC with the well-known entity of Pauline and Johannine theology. Again, this is poetic license. Considering all the Gnostic material that argues against the Pauline-Johannine redeemer, this equation is extremely dubious.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown
~-~-.-~-~

mountainman · 11-16-2007, 11:31 PM

Background Reading: Nag Hammadi Archive 348 CE?
From a review of Robert Lane Fox.

Question:

Aside from the fact the NHC is coptic, and the
NT codexes greek ...

Was an equivalent "abbreviated code name" discussed
above with respect to the NH codexes, the same
code used in the three (or four) major surviving
codexes?

The three major codexes are also dated to the
later part of the fourth century. The same time
period as the NHC, c.348 CE via C14 gThomas.

Can we assume the NHC scribes were instructed
in their role of preservation of literature? If so,
why was there an instruction to use this ambiguous
code if the history of christianity is continuous?

Who else could the code have "stood for" c.350 CE
in the Coptic -- "Thrice-Great Hermes gets plenty
of mention in the NHC's.

Who clarified the codification in the textual tradition
within the church, at a subsequent date? Is Jerome
the source for this?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 11-18-2007, 05:39 AM

The precise origins of the use of nomina sacra remain unclear

"nomina sacra" means: "sacred names"

The actual form was like this:
Instead of writing "Jesus" they would write: "J-s",
where the dash was above, rather than as shown.

It was an abbreviation, not a substitution
or replacement of one word for another.

Metzger (The Text of the New Testament, Bruce Manning Metzger)
mentions as included among the that were written
in abbreviated form the Greek words for the following:

Jesus,
Christ,
Son,
God,
Lord,
Spirit,
Savior,
David,
Cross,
Mother (with reference to Mary),
Father,
Israel,
Man,
Jerusalem,
Heaven.

1) They show the work of a single redactor

who produced the canonical edition of the New Testament
as part of a total Christian scripture.

4) The use of nomina sacra was not limited to the writings
which we recognize as the New Testament. For example,
in the Shepherd of Hermas (included in Codex Sinaiticus),
first leaf first column, the three occurrences - God,
spirit, man.

ORIGINS of USE:

The precise origins of the use of nomina sacra remain unclear,
but their use is pervasive throughout New Testament writing,
growing in scope over time to include more words, and the
practice is even retained in the Latin and Coptic NT traditions.

mountainman · 12-17-2007, 06:12 PM

From here:

90. Yeshua says: Come unto me, for my yoga° is natural°

Footnote: Yoga (90): Copt na6b (yoke, C726); here, as in the canonical Gospels, meaning one’s spiritual discipline (the cognate Sanskrit term ‘yoga’ conveys this sense quite well); see Ph 79.

Two questions:

1) As I understand it, the name of "Jesus" does not appear in the
coptic texts as "Jesus says" and "Jesus says". As I understand
things, a "nomina sacra" (codified/abbreviation of something) is
actually used. Here -- in this translation of the original Coptic
the translators have opted for the consistent translation of "Yeshua".

In an earlier post -
Fabulating Jesus - Why Gnostic "Codes" Do Not Name the Historical Jesus
we have an independent researcher asserting that an alternative
meaning/expansion of the "nomina sacra" (codified/abbreviation of something)
-- here translated as the word "Yeshua" --- is also capable of being
translated as "The Healer".

What does anyone know about this matter?

2) In verse 90 here, the authors have translated in the term "yoga".

How contraversial -- if at all -- is this translation?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Toto · 12-17-2007, 06:41 PM

1. We've gone through this before. The Nomina Sacra are ordinarily translated as "Jesus."

2. Here is a more conventional interpretation of verse 90:

Quote:

(90) Jesus said, "Come (plur.) to me, for my yoke is easy (to use) and my lordship is mild, and you will find repose for yourselves."

This version:

Quote:

90. Yeshua says: Come unto me, for my yoga is natural and my lordship is gentle— and you shall find repose for yourselves.

***

Yoga (90): Copt na6b (yoke, C726); here, as in the canonical Gospels, meaning one’s spiritual discipline (the cognate Sanskrit term ‘yoga’ conveys this sense quite well);

"Yoga" is etymologically related to "yoke" but seems a little out of place in the 2nd century ANE, indicating that this translation is designed for the neo-gnostic religious syncretists. I do not qualify as an expert, in spite of my years of yoga practice, but my impression is that eastern "yoga" is derived from the idea of "union" as opposed to farm work; I don't know the sense in which "yoke" represents spiritual disciple.

I will merge this with the prior thread.

gurugeorge · 12-18-2007, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"Yoga" is etymologically related to "yoke" but seems a little out of place in the 2nd century ANE, indicating that this translation is designed for the neo-gnostic religious syncretists. I do not qualify as an expert, in spite of my years of yoga practice, but my impression is that eastern "yoga" is derived from the idea of "union" as opposed to farm work; I don't know the sense in which "yoke" represents spiritual disciple.

Toto - I think the "yoke"/yoga link is actually quite apt (though I agree probably not in this context). Think of how a yoke unites the oxen and the cart; think also of the "horses/chariot" analogy as used in, e.g., the Baghavadgita and some Buddhist texts, to denote control of the senses. Mystics have often used homely analogies to convey deep meanings.

gurugeorge · 12-18-2007, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

1. We've gone through this before. The Nomina Sacra are ordinarily translated as "Jesus."

But with what justification?

I mean it's uncontroversial that there was some differences in usage between "Chrestus" and "Christos" - if an overly-glib conventionalism is covering over some potentially interesting variations in early Christian usage - moreover, obscuring potential sources of support for an AJ/HJ - inquiring minds want to know.

Doesn't the "Letter to Doodah" (forget the name) in the NHC mention something about "Healer" (memory very vague, thinking of the Barnstone edition where he sometimes gives possible variant translations)?

Toto · 12-18-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

1. We've gone through this before. The Nomina Sacra are ordinarily translated as "Jesus."

But with what justification?

I mean it's uncontroversial that there was some differences in usage between "Chrestus" and "Christos" - if an overly-glib conventionalism is covering over some potentially interesting variations in early Christian usage - moreover, obscuring potential sources of support for an AJ/HJ - inquiring minds want to know.

Doesn't the "Letter to Doodah" (forget the name) in the NHC mention something about "Healer" (memory very vague, thinking of the Barnstone edition where he sometimes gives possible variant translations)?

You use too many abbreviations to follow this.

Chrestus and Christus were used interchangeably - they would have been pronounced the same after the second century.

Nag Hammadi Library has a letter from Peter to Philip, but no mention of a healer.

mountainman · 12-18-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"Yoga" is etymologically related to "yoke" but seems a little out of place in the 2nd century ANE, indicating that this translation is designed for the neo-gnostic religious syncretists.

I am supposing your ANE = Ancient Near East, and on that
basis suggest you go away and meditate on your statement
about the influence of Buddhism in the ANE. We have P.Oxy
material exhibiting Greek mimes set in India, and a host of
other data to support direct Indian influence.

Out of place? How can you justify this statement?
We know that delegations passed back and forward
between India and the Empire in antiquity.

Quote:

I do not qualify as an expert, in spite of my years of yoga practice, but my impression is that eastern "yoga" is derived from the idea of "union" as opposed to farm work; I don't know the sense in which "yoke" represents spiritual disciple.

The translators of the Coptic selected the word, not I.
All I was doing is drawing attention to this translation.

Yoga is an ancient word. I cannot agree with your
thinking that is in any way "out of place". Christianity
is more "out of place" than the notion of yoga.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 12-18-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Nag Hammadi Library has a letter from Peter to Philip, but no mention of a healer.

There are many texts in the NHC referring to healers.
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles is one example.
There are at least 2 or 3 others, plus references to Asclepius.

How many do you want?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown
Nag Hammadi Index

11-18-2007, 05:39 AM	#3
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	nomina sacra The precise origins of the use of nomina sacra remain unclear "nomina sacra" means: "sacred names" The actual form was like this: Instead of writing "Jesus" they would write: "J-s", where the dash was above, rather than as shown. It was an abbreviation, not a substitution or replacement of one word for another. Metzger (The Text of the New Testament, Bruce Manning Metzger) mentions as included among the that were written in abbreviated form the Greek words for the following: Jesus, Christ, Son, God, Lord, Spirit, Savior, David, Cross, Mother (with reference to Mary), Father, Israel, Man, Jerusalem, Heaven. 1) They show the work of a single redactor who produced the canonical edition of the New Testament as part of a total Christian scripture. 4) The use of nomina sacra was not limited to the writings which we recognize as the New Testament. For example, in the Shepherd of Hermas (included in Codex Sinaiticus), first leaf first column, the three occurrences - God, spirit, man. ORIGINS of USE: The precise origins of the use of nomina sacra remain unclear, but their use is pervasive throughout New Testament writing, growing in scope over time to include more words, and the practice is even retained in the Latin and Coptic NT traditions.

12-17-2007, 06:12 PM	#4
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Coptic gThomas 90 - Yoga; and "Yeshua says" merged with Gnostic "Codes" From here: 90. Yeshua says: Come unto me, for my yoga° is natural° Footnote: Yoga (90): Copt na6b (yoke, C726); here, as in the canonical Gospels, meaning one’s spiritual discipline (the cognate Sanskrit term ‘yoga’ conveys this sense quite well); see Ph 79. Two questions: 1) As I understand it, the name of "Jesus" does not appear in the coptic texts as "Jesus says" and "Jesus says". As I understand things, a "nomina sacra" (codified/abbreviation of something) is actually used. Here -- in this translation of the original Coptic the translators have opted for the consistent translation of "Yeshua". In an earlier post - Fabulating Jesus - Why Gnostic "Codes" Do Not Name the Historical Jesus we have an independent researcher asserting that an alternative meaning/expansion of the "nomina sacra" (codified/abbreviation of something) -- here translated as the word "Yeshua" --- is also capable of being translated as "The Healer". What does anyone know about this matter? 2) In verse 90 here, the authors have translated in the term "yoga". How contraversial -- if at all -- is this translation? Best wishes, Pete Brown

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

11-16-2007, 11:31 PM	#2
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Background Reading: Nag Hammadi Archive 348 CE? From a review of Robert Lane Fox. Question: Aside from the fact the NHC is coptic, and the NT codexes greek ... Was an equivalent "abbreviated code name" discussed above with respect to the NH codexes, the same code used in the three (or four) major surviving codexes? The three major codexes are also dated to the later part of the fourth century. The same time period as the NHC, c.348 CE via C14 gThomas. Can we assume the NHC scribes were instructed in their role of preservation of literature? If so, why was there an instruction to use this ambiguous code if the history of christianity is continuous? Who else could the code have "stood for" c.350 CE in the Coptic -- "Thrice-Great Hermes gets plenty of mention in the NHC's. Who clarified the codification in the textual tradition within the church, at a subsequent date? Is Jerome the source for this? Best wishes, Pete Brown

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.