Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-13-2010, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But there is no evidence his name was ever written out in the 'full' form of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎.

The issue of the different forms of name is a chronological one. Forms like יהושע were earlier than those names with the contracted theophoric element, eg ישוע.

This table should help show the different usage:

[T2]Jehoshua|in Haggai and Zechariah, while (fit the battle) Jehoshua is restricted to Exodus and Joshua (with a few elsewhere).
||
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Jeshua|{c:b-b=2,solid,black}occurs 30 times in the Hebrew bible, exclusively in Chr, Ezra and Nehemiah.
||
Jehozadak|in Haggai and Zechariah, as well as Chr.
||
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Jozadak|{c:b-b=2,solid,black}found in Ezra and Nehemiah
||
Jehonathan|mainly in Samuel (61 of 74)
||
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Jonathan|{c:b-b=2,solid,black}used sparsely (12x including 5 in Esther).
||
Jehoiakim|appears 36 times in Kings, Chr and Jeremiah
||
Joiakim|occurs 3 times only in Nehemiah.[/T2]

Both Haggai and Zechariah are earlier than Ezra and Nehemiah. Esther is also thought late. What we see is not a sudden stop of using the long form but a transition from long to short forms. We have the same person, Yeshua the high priest of the return being called Yehoshua in Haggai and Zechariah, and the short form in Ezra and Nehemiah.

The LXX uses the one form for both Yehoshua and Yeshua, Ιησους; the one form for Yehonathan and Yonathan, Ιωναθαν; similar forms for Yehozadak and Yozadak, Ιωσαδακ and Ιωσεδεκ. The Greek is obviously following the later habit based on the short form.

spin

mountainman · 10-13-2010, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I would like to point out that we (ie: everyone I know of at least) are all assuming
that the non canonical sources are demonstrative of "early Christian thinking"
but that this assumption is far from being established as an historical fact,
especially in view of the contents of some of the Nag Hammadi codices.

What about the dead sea scrolls?

But the DSS are unrelated to the greek new testament, excepting the most extreme of conjectures.

Quote:

Although they are not Christian, we can nonetheless see Christan ideas developing within them.

But we could say this about the works of Plato.

Quote:

These *have* been carbon dated, and the dates are quite early.

All very interesting facts for the issues related to the transmission of the Hebrew Bible, which are important for these studies, but unrelated to the transmission of the new testament.

Quote:

Nonetheless, we see "Jesus'" words within them, as well as so many others ideas we attribute to Christianity.

Do you agree with this summary ....

canonical books of the NT

"Greek words and ideas" were "lifted" from the greek LXX by "people presumed to be christians" to create the greek canonical NT. When AUTHORSHIP happened is as yet not known with any degree of certitude. Perhaps the 1st, possibly the 2nd, but it cannot have been any later than the 4th century.

non canonical books of the NT

"Greek words and ideas" were "lifted" from the greek canonical NT and the LXX by "people presumed to be christians" to create the books of the greek non canonical NT (greek manuscripts not extant, but subsequently, after Nicaea perhaps, preserved in the Coptic and Syriac mss). When AUTHORSHIP happened is as yet not known with any degree of certitude. Perhaps the 1st, perhaps the 2nd and 3rd, but certainly also during the 4th and even perhaps 5th century.

mountainman · 10-13-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But there is no evidence his name was ever written out in the 'full' form of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎

That's correct. All the greek ms evidence, even the papyri, exemplifies the almost universal "nomina sacra" abbreviation "ΙΣ"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is entirely irrelevant to me how early Christians chose to write the name of their imaginary diety.

... [...] ...

I'm talking about something much older.

The fabrication of the NT did have its more ancient sources, but it was technically, scribally, implicitly, characterized and distinguished, by its almost universal use of the Jesus Code 'ΙΣ'. Nobody knows when this scribal practice originated, but the logic of the situation (ie: its almost universal presence in the evidence itself) implies it had to be "very early", whatever dates that may suggest.

Sheshbazzar · 10-13-2010, 08:01 PM

Perhaps deliberately so, as to allow communities or individuals to supply whatever pronunciation authoritatively demanded or approved, or that the individual was persuaded of, thereby circumventing such disputes as would nullify the authority of religious documents solely on the basis of what spelling for the cultic leaders name was being employed?
I have personally seen, and have even experienced such behaviour.

stephan huller · 10-13-2010, 08:28 PM

I guess I should have said - the only evidence we have for the name of the person/being Jesus are the forms yeshu and Iesous. There are no references to the longer Hebrew/Aramaic forms

Steve Weiss · 10-13-2010, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

But the MJ-ers have a burden of proof too - they have to demonstrate how and why the Christian religion and texts came into existence, if it wasn't because there was some guy called Jesus who started it all off.

MJers have ZERO obligation to show how the Christian religion and texts came into existence.

No one who considers Romulus and Remus as MYTHS have any obligation at all to prove how Romulus and Remus became MYTHS or why Plutarch wrote about Romulus and Remus. It is just the available data that needs to be examined and an OPINION can be formed that Romulus and Remus were myths.

No one who considers MERMAIDS as myth have any obligation to show how and why people started writing about MERMAIDS. It is the extant information about MERMAIDS that MUST be examined and an OPINION can be formed that MERMAIDS are mythological creatures of the sea.

And, it is exactly the very same with the Jesus stories. The extant DATA about Jesus depicts him as a MYTH and there is no external corroborative source for any event about or a person with such a name. An OPINION can be formed, as in the the case of Romulus and Remus, and Mermaids, that Jesus was a MYTH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Thewhole foofaraw (for rational investigators) doesn't hinge on a human Jesus, it hinges on the existence of Christian texts, and the Christian religion. A human Jesus is but one hypothesis about how such might have come into existence. Naturally enough, rational Christians will pursue an HJ idea (it's a way of retaining some meaning and purpose to their religion, absent the full-blown god-man). But we, as rational investigators, mustn't be bamboozled into playing the game on their terms.

But, perhaps you are playing the same game.

How can you even attempt to show how Christianity ACTUALLY started when the Christians themselves may have either destroyed or manipulated the records of the true history of Christianity?

How can people claim Jesus did exist as human when no such credible external evidence can be found? It is obvious that some are playing games with their own imagination.

There is only sure thing and it is that the Church have claimed Jesus was both God and man, without a human father, the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Such is the evidence that have survived and the Church claim it is evidence from antiquity.

Well, the written evidence the Church provided describes Jesus as a MYTH.

Now, I don't really know who started the MYTH. ALL we know the description from the written evidence of antiquity provided by the Church is similar or identical that of a MYTH and there is no external historical source for Jesus.

Jesus was a MYTH is a completely reasonable OPINION. Jesus is not the first to be declared a myth and in the 4th century became a direct replacement for multiple mythological Gods.

Perhaps Jesus was the almost PERFECT MYTH.

If the Church or anyone else want me to change my opinion then just simply provide credible evidence that Jesus was just a man. That is all.

I have the written evidence in gMatthew 1.18, gLuke 1.35, gMark 9.2, gJohn 1, Acts 1. and Galatians. 1.

Why is it that HJers have nothing external to support HJ?

Perhaps Jesus was a PERFECT MYTH.

Not only is Jesus a myth, the miracles attributed to god never happened either. God cannot represent order and chaos (miracles) at the same time. There is zero evidence for miracles, so they didn't happen and the whole bible collapses into fantastic fiction. It is the Superman comic of the ancient world.

Steve Weiss · 10-13-2010, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

No.

I do love blanket dismissals that show lack of knowledge in the field just to stick with your initial overgeneralization.

More throwing out of babies with the bathwater. When you remove the encrustations of French minstrelry and the politics of Geoffrey of Monmouth from your imagination, you start to come closer to knowing what the reality was. You can't use popular culture to give you knowledge of the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Merlin, Sir Lancelot, Knights of the Round Table, Babe and the Blue Ox, Jack and the Beanstalk, and a whole host of make-believe and entertaining folk heroes. Add Zeus, Hercules, Thor, Athena, etc.

This response is just more of your hyperbole. Nuance will allow you to make more learned comments about the past. And healthy agnosticism will help you not to say things you know nothing about.

When you put aside the crap we have floating around in our brains we have the hope of being more reliable in our judgments. Mixing Arthur with apocryphal traditions is very easy to do because they are so frequently presented premixed in popular culture.

There are three positions a scholar can be in regarding the existence of past figures/events:

X existed,
X didn't exist, and
we can't say one way or the other.

You blithely ignore this third position because of your easy but simplistic approach. The religionist usually goes for the easy and simplistic. You should be out of that trap. A dictum you should remember is "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack". And you might like "what you don't know can come back to haunt you." It is more scholarly to talk about what you can and what others can't.

spin

Shame that you have no concept of the arbitrary. If no evidence is presented there is no case. A case only becomes possible when some evidence is presented. Nothing should not be given the same status as the evidential. Someday a unicorn may be found, so we can't say that there aren't any. Right.

mountainman · 10-13-2010, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Perhaps deliberately so, as to allow communities or individuals to supply whatever pronunciation authoritatively demanded or approved, or that the individual was persuaded of, thereby circumventing such disputes as would nullify the authority of religious documents solely on the basis of what spelling for the cultic leaders name was being employed?

It was not just the pronunciation of the name but the unabbreviated name itself that was "behind the codified form". Authority as to who this name was must have been retained INSIDE the community who preserved the earliest greek new testament canonical manuscript evidence in our possession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I guess I should have said - the only evidence we have for the name of the person/being Jesus are the forms yeshu and Iesous. There are no references to the longer Hebrew/Aramaic forms

The only evidence we have for the name of Jesus are later commentaries by "Church Fathers" on the text of the Greek new testament which, in the earliest evidence, does not contain any fullnames of Jesus, but only the codified abbreviation.

mountainman · 10-13-2010, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

MJers have ZERO obligation to show how the Christian religion and texts came into existence.

Historians do have such an obligation.

Quote:

Why is it that HJers have nothing external to support HJ?

Perhaps Jesus was a PERFECT MYTH.

Not only is Jesus a myth, the miracles attributed to god never happened either. God cannot represent order and chaos (miracles) at the same time. There is zero evidence for miracles, so they didn't happen and the whole bible collapses into fantastic fiction.

It is the Superman comic of the ancient world.

Guess who published it ? When, why, etc. And who was the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF of this publication? And how was it received in the theatres of the unbelieving mass of Graeco-Romans, but with utter RIDICULE, which was promptly scattered with the PUBLISHER's SWORD.

stephan huller · 10-13-2010, 09:56 PM

Quote:

The only evidence we have for the name of Jesus are later commentaries by "Church Fathers" on the text of the Greek new testament which, in the earliest evidence, does not contain any fullnames of Jesus, but only the codified abbreviation.

Why don't you read your 'fourth century forgery' Irenaeus a little more carefully. He starts by criticizing the heretics for relying on the Greek language for developing their kabbalah:

This very thing, too, still further demonstrates their opinion false, and their fictitious system untenable, that they endeavour to bring forward proofs of it, sometimes through means of numbers and the syllables of names, sometimes also through the letter of syllables, and yet again through those numbers which are, according to the practice followed by the Greeks, contained in letters;-- [this, I say,] demonstrates in the clearest manner their overthrow or confusion, as well as the untenable and perverse character of their [professed] knowledge. For, transferring the name Jesus, which belongs to another language, to the numeration of the Greeks, they sometimes call it "Episemon," as having six letters (i.e. Ἰησοῦς because it has six letters), and at other times "the Plenitude of the Ogdoads," as containing the number eight hundred and eighty-eight (i.e. the numerological value of Ἰησοῦς). But His Greek name, which is "Soter," that is, Saviour, because it does not fit in with their system, either with respect to numerical value or as regards its letters, they pass over in silence. Yet surely, if they regard the names of the Lord, as, in accordance with the preconceived purpose of the Father, by means of their numerical value and letters, indicating number in the Pleroma, Soter, as being a Greek name, ought by means of its letters and the numbers, in virtue of its being Greek, to show forth the mystery of the Pleroma. But the case is not so, because it is a word of five letters, and its numerical value is one thousand four hundred and eight. But these things do not in any way correspond with their Pleroma; the account, therefore, which they give of transactions in the Pleroma cannot be true.

Moreover, Jesus, which is a word belonging to the proper tongue of the Hebrews, contains, as the learned among them declare, two letters and a half, (ישו) and signifies that Lord who contains heaven and earth; for Jesus in the ancient Hebrew language means "heaven," while again "earth" is expressed by the words sura usser. The word, therefore, which contains heaven and earth is just Jesus. Their explanation, then, of the Episemon is false, and their numerical calculation is also manifestly overthrown. For, in their own language, Soter is a Greek word of five letters; but, on the other hand, in the Hebrew tongue, Jesus contains only two letters and a half. The total which they reckon up, viz., eight hundred and eighty-eight, therefore falls to the ground. And throughout, the Hebrew letters do not correspond in number with the Greek, although these especially, as being the more ancient and unchanging, ought to uphold the reckoning connected with the names. For these ancient, original, and generally called sacred letters of the Hebrews are ten in number (but they are written by means of fifteen), the last letter being joined to the first. And thus they write some of these letters according to their natural sequence, just as we do, but others in a reverse direction, from the right hand towards the left, thus tracing the letters backwards. The name Christ, too, ought to be capable of being reckoned up in harmony with the Aeons of their Pleroma, inasmuch as, according to their statements, He was produced for the establishment and rectification of their Pleroma. The Father, too, in the same way, ought, both by means of letters and numerical value, to contain the number of those Aeons who were produced by Him; Bythus, in like manner, and not less Monogenes; but pre- eminently the name which is above all others, by which God is called, and which in the Hebrew tongue is expressed by Baruch, (בָּרוּךְ ??) which also contains two and a half letters. From this fact, therefore, that the more important names, both in the Hebrew and Greek languages, do not conform to their system, either as respects the number of letters or the reckoning brought out of them, the forced character of their calculations respecting the rest becomes clearly manifest.[AH 2.24.1,2]

How's your fourth century conspiracy, now? Irenaeus is actually attacking the use of Greek to understand Jesus and arguing for the Aramaic basis to the tradition. As I noted in another post I strongly suspect that Irenaeus original wrote in Aramaic.

Harvey agrees with my identification of yeshu as the two and a half letter name of Jesus (p. 336). He also points to a marginal note that somehow made its way into the sentence in the oldest manuscripts - 'sion' which he takes to be a misunderstanding of a note which spelled out the value of yeshu (i.e. shin = 300, yod = 10, vav = 6). This strongly implies to me again that the original text was written in Aramaic.

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

10-13-2010, 08:01 PM	#124
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Perhaps deliberately so, as to allow communities or individuals to supply whatever pronunciation authoritatively demanded or approved, or that the individual was persuaded of, thereby circumventing such disputes as would nullify the authority of religious documents solely on the basis of what spelling for the cultic leaders name was being employed? I have personally seen, and have even experienced such behaviour.

10-13-2010, 08:28 PM	#125
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I guess I should have said - the only evidence we have for the name of the person/being Jesus are the forms yeshu and Iesous. There are no references to the longer Hebrew/Aramaic forms

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.