Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 08-03-2010, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In case you'd really like to see some nomina sacra, here's a page from papyrus P46:

Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Of course the nomina sacra was used in the christian versions of the LXX. Here's a page from the earliest copy of Joshua (chapter 10):

very informative, thanks....

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Interestingly, look at the right hand column, halfway down, start of the line. You'll see IHC - three letters instead of two. I can't say whether they are the first three letters of the name of Jesus or the first two and the last. But it is here Joshua, called Jesus (ιησους) in Greek.

This is interesting because it seems that Roman praenomen were written in Greek as the first three letters of the name with a bar over it. (See this blog, which refers to a text with the abbreviation of Τιβεριος ("Tiberius") to Τιβ with bar.)

In the earliest copies of the LXX, presumably Jewish copies, the tetragrammaton was used: Hebrew letters were written in the Greek text, where now the LXX has the various grammatical forms of κυριος abbreviated.

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls have the tetragrammaton abbreviated as the Hebrew equivalent of YY, so the abbreviation of the sacred name was found in pre-christian Jewish sources.

Here is some additional commentary on this famous manuscript from the Shoyen Collection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Schoeyen Collection

Commentary: The oldest Septuagint Joshua extant. Apart from Joshua 10:2-5, 8-11, which is on the Dead Sea Scroll 4QJosha, in Hebrew from ca. 100 BC, the present papyrus is the oldest MS of this part of the Bible.

The text is the Septuagint before the critical work of Origenes Hexapta. It is closer to the original Septuagint of the 3rd c. BC than any other MSS. But it also revises the Septuagint towards the Hebrew Masoretic text, and at the same time reflects a different Hebrew recension from before the Masoretic revisions.

I do feel vindicated, having argued in a couple of different threads, including this one, that "kyrios" inserted in various places of Septuagint, represents interpolation, rather than the original Jewish representation for Yahweh.

avi

vid · 08-03-2010, 03:05 AM

Thanks spin!

Doug Shaver · 08-03-2010, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

I must have been reading in too big a hurry. I didn't pick up on that detail. My bad.

Loomis · 08-03-2010, 02:06 PM

Yea, thanks spin.

Loomis · 08-03-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I do feel vindicated, having argued in a couple of different threads, including this one, that "kyrios" inserted in various places of Septuagint, represents interpolation, rather than the original Jewish representation for Yahweh.

The practice of wiping Yahweh’s name goes way back. Compare Psalm 14:2 with Psalm 53:2 and then ask yourself, what was the “true” Jewish attitude about Yahweh?

I don’t think there ever was a unified attitude about Yahweh.

Loomis · 08-03-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

The LXX is here corrupted. But, was the original text corrupted?

The Letter of Aristeas was supposedly written in the second century BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Aristeas

At line 155 it quotes Deuteronomy 7:18 and it uses kurios.

http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm

mountainman · 08-03-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

The LXX is here corrupted. But, was the original text corrupted?

The Letter of Aristeas was supposedly written in the second century BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Aristeas

If the Letter of Aristeas is a forgery however, it would appear that the next earliest bulk attestations appear to be with Eusebius citing the author called Origen (and his Hexapla) from the 3rd century CE.

Although the papryi fragments cited above are being asserted by paleographers to have been penned on codex related papyri in "early centuries" this dating is by no means secure. Everone is overlooking the fact that the presence of both canonical and non canonical papyri side by side on the Oxyrynchus rubbush dump does not equate to early canonical perservers. Rather this fact points to non canonical (heretical and gnostic) preservers at Oxyrhynchus after its population explosion in the 4th century.

Exactly how old was the first greek LXX manuscripts is uncertain, as is equally uncertain the same question about the first greek new testament canonical manuscripts, and we may as well add the greek/coptic/syriac NT non canonical manuscripts. In which century did these three sets of literature first see dayight?

The remarkable thing however across all these sets of manuscripts is the presence of the use of a plurality of "nomina sacra" (not just the one sacred name in the Hebrew manuscripts) -- a useage which is being identified with "christian useage". Jesus does not appear as a full name but appears only as an abbreviated encyption "JS". Ditto for other abbreviations. Those who argue for an early dating for these three sets of manuscripts have the nomina sacra to explain. (I have posted some theories above)

Those who argue for the very late dating for these three sets of manuscripts can simply point to Eusebius as the very late universal redactor, and the "Gnostic" and Non canonical authorship simply following the Eusebian (Pontifex Maximus authorised) nomina sacra conventions which were lavishly published in the "50 Constantine Bibles". Somewhere perhaps in between these datings we may find the ancient historical truth. It looks like something happened either very early or very late.

avi · 08-04-2010, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

The Letter of Aristeas was supposedly written in the second century BCE.

emphasis on "supposedly", in my opinion. Nevertheless:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letter of Aristeas

15 μήποτε ἄλογον ᾗ ἐλέγχεσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων, ὦ βασιλεῦ. τῆς γὰρ νομοθεσίας κειμένης πᾶσι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, ἣν ἡμεῖς οὐ μόνον μεταγράψαι ἐπινοοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διερμηνεῦσαι, τίνα λόγον ἕξομεν πρὸς ἀποστολήν, ἐν οἰκετίαις ὑπαρχόντων ἐν τῇ σῇ βασιλείᾳ πληθῶν ἱκανῶν; ἀλλὰ τελείᾳ καὶ πλουσίᾳ ψυχῇ ἀπόλυσον τοὺς συνεχομένους ἐν ταλαιπωρίαις, κατευθύνοντάς σου τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ τεθεικότος αὐτοῖς θεοῦ τὸν νόμον, καθὼς περιείργασμαι. (my emphasis)

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.H.Charles translation

15 our deeds to give the lie to our words. Since the law which we wish not only to transcribe but also to translate belongs to the whole Jewish race, what justification shall we be able to find for our embassy while such vast numbers of them remain in a state of slavery in your kingdom ? In the perfection and wealth of your clemency release those who are held in such miserable bondage, since as I have been at pains to discover, the God who gave them their law is the God who maintains your kingdom. They worship the same God -the Lord and Creator of the Universe, as all other men, as we ourselves, O king, though we call him by different names, such as Zeus or

Looks to my untrained eye, as though the Greek text uses Theos, not Kyrios. It is the (distorted) English version which elaborates with Lord this and Lord that....

avi

Loomis · 08-04-2010, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If the Letter of Aristeas is a forgery however ...

Oops. I see what you mean. Point taken.

Nevermind. :frown:

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

08-03-2010, 03:05 AM	#32
vid Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Myjava, Slovakia Posts: 384	Thanks spin!

08-03-2010, 02:06 PM	#34
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Yea, thanks spin.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.