mountainman

Dear Toto,

Yes I am still confused as to at what epoch these two abbreviated names were conflated, and by whom. We know the abbreviated name applied to the name of Joshua in the period BCE. In the fourth century we have evidence that the christians used the same abbreviated name to represent the name of jesus (of the new testament, not joshua of the LXX). Who was the first to start this practice, and when? Do you happen to have an answer to these questions? Was it, for example, the author of the gospel of matthew?

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

The LXX writes out IESOUS.

Sheshbazzar

But The LXX is only a "Version", and one with many other corruptions, errors, and sloppy, faulty translations.
The difference and the distinction remains.

mountainman

The LXX and the NT must have different (original) "unknown" authors.

Huon

Don Quixote and David Copperfield must have different authors...

Roger Pearse

Presumably you mean "all the manuscripts today extant of the LXX and all the citations give IESOUS in full"? If so -- I wouldn't claim to know -- this seems to be a largish, if interesting, claim? What's the source for it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

I haven't checked every manuscript.

The LXX version of Joshua 1 reads:

καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων

patcleaver

I was thinking about the pictures at Dura-Europos and the scrap of possibly scripture they found there, and the fictional Jesus theory, and the gospel of Judas dated 290.

None of it proves anything about the existence of Christianity unless someone can show that there was a religion of adults that believed that Jesus of Nazareth was a god and were worshiping Jesus of Nazareth in a church.

I have lots of depictions of characters and scenes that I think are fictional in my house. I have Ariel the little mermaid, Godzilla, Harry potter stuff, mighty Thor. I do not believe that any of it is non-fiction, but it means something to me culturally. Art is not evidence that anyone believed that the subject of the art was anything more than a popular fictional story. Stories such as copies of scripture is not evidence that anyone believed that the subject of the story was anything more than a popular fictional story.

Even if everyone in the Roman Empire had Christian art and copies of Mark in their home, that would not prove that there were any Christians until there is evidence that a significant number of people were actually worshiping Jesus of Nazareth in a church or temple.

spamandham

Someone please wake me up when we have the actual images....I'd like to know if my current conjeture, that Christianity as we know it congealed in the 2nd century, is still viable.

Roger Pearse

An LXX...