nomina sacra - Iesous only in Mark cancel sheet - Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sinaiticus only writes "Iesous" once on the replaced page which contains the short ending of Mark.

Facebook - Mythical Jesus Vs Historical Jesus - November 28, 2020
Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
https://www.facebook.com/groups/509283502803428/permalink/1145281625870276/



eSsnoptrdo391a2vgl0g90g6 0520hb 6tre4oiamf223e5it7h9827N0cgm ·

While researching original manuscripts such as the Codex Sinaiticus and others I realized that the name of 'Jesus' was never written in it's complete form. It's always written as an abbreviation or anachronism. This is a list of the different forms that the name of Jesus was written. These are called "nominca sacra" which means sacred name.
Some claim the origin of these sacred anachronisms is the Christogram symbol (XP), does anyone have any idea of what the abbreviations could truly be referring to?

1672068615551.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Peter Brown
Just an opinion but looking at all these abbreviations of the sacred names throughout the NT and Christianised LXX I am left with the impression that the overall design was to make HIDDEN these sacred names. Abbreviations are encryptions. In the pagan word and culture which was destroyed by the Christian revolution of the 4th century when you asked a pagan to point to his or her divinity they would point to one or many temples or shrines in the empire. When Constantine ushered in the Christian world what would the newly converted Christians point to? They would point to a codex, and they would claim that the divinity was inside the codex. When the greek literate prospective converts examined the texts inside the codex they would find that the name and names of the divinity were encrypted. PURPOSEFULLY. As Pontifex Maximus Constantine could have subscribed to any religion of his choice but he chose the Christian cult with an encrypted divinity found inside a codex. This turned the Greek world on its head. But he had the lawful right of Pontifex Maximus to indulge in such a cult, and everyone was conditioned to accept this. Emperor's had this right. Thus did the new god Jesus Christ enter into the external political world as an encrypted name inside a codex. It was an imperial scam.

Peter Brown
Another question raised by the issue of the proliferation of these abbreviations through the NT (particularly) and the LXX is how can it be reasonably expected that a Greek reading person is ever going to understand what the abbreviations represent? Would they not have to run speedily to the church in order to be given the legend as to what these abbreviations meant?

Andrej Immanuel Friedemann
It is very unlikely anyone in antiquity simply read the Bible unassisted. They didn't even have space between the words, and much of it is quite difficult to read. Just think of the eunuch, and how he can't comprehend Isaiah; it would be no different for most NT texts for many people.


Peter Brown
Andrej Immanuel Friedemann I agree that most people could not read Greek (or Latin) and that we should perhaps rely on the proposition that the NT Bible was read out aloud to the bulk of the people by a reader.


Peter Brown
A quote from Arnaldo Momigliano: "We all know the story of the man who went into a London bookshop and asked for a New Testament in Greek. The assistant retired to a back room and after ten minutes came back with a grave look: ‘Strange, sir, but Greek seems to be the only language into which the New Testament has not yet been translated.’ The story may remind us of two facts. The first is that there was a time in which the New Testament was only available in Greek. The second and more important is that at that time it was as difficult as it is now to find a bookshop with a New, or for that matter an Old, Testament in Greek. About A.D. 180 a man like Galen could walk into a bookshop only to discover that they were selling an unauthorized edition of his own lectures. But though he was interested in the Christians, Galen would hardly have found a Bible. The Bible was no literature for the pagan. Its Greek was not elegant enough. Lactantius noted: ‘apud sapientes et doctos et principes huius saeculi scriptura sancta fide care(a)t (Inst.v.1.15). If we find a pagan who had a slight acquaintance with the Bible, such as the anonymous author of On the Sublime, we suspect direct Jewish influence: justifiedly so, because the author of the Sublime was a student of Caecilius of Calacte, who, to all appearances was a Jew (11). Normally the educated pagans of the Roman empire knew nothing about either Jewish or Christian history. If they wanted some information about the Jews, they picked up second-hand distortions such as we read in Tacitus. The consequence was that a direct acquaintance with Jewish or Christian history normally came together with conversion to Judaism or to Christianity. People learnt a new history because they acquired a new religion. Conversion meant literally the discovery of a new history from Adam and Eve to contemporary events". http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/A...dlkTgVV9mK1t2s10q53PmHKXyl1chDBn3thB60dkyff6w

MOUNTAINMAN.COM.AU
Arnaldo Momigliano - Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D
Arnaldo Momigliano - Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D

Andrej Immanuel Friedemann
Vaticanus writes "Iesous" in full about 20 times. In the NT, Sinaiticus only writes "Iesous" once on the replaced page which contains the short ending of Mark.
The Nomina Sacra are a theological primer of sorts. They help you find the most important topics of biblical theology. The fifteen words all belong to the very core and center of biblical theology and its terminology. They basically inform you on what is divine, or deity proper.
Their function is similar to how the Jews wrote "IAO" for the Tetragrammaton in ancient versions of the LXX, or how "Adonai" was used to represent the Name of God. Another possible reason for their usage may be to prevent censorship, or to express the unity of NT texts.
We may assume that the original inspiration was due to YHWH never being transliterated into any non-Hebrew text by Jews. The idea was to transport the sanctity of the Name into Greek by special depiction, and then such consideration widened to the most prominent terms of theology.

Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
Andrej Immanuel Friedemann. Thanks for your response. Why do you think that the name of "Iesous" was considered so sacred it couldn't be written in it's full form but then started to be written in it's full form? Don't you think that it's a little suspicious that we have so many different forms of the abbreviation for the same name?

Andrej Immanuel Friedemann
Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz, inasmuch as they desired to obscure the Name, I suppose their intention was to prevent censorship by ruling powers such as the romans. The forms are mostly due to grammar, but of course there is some variance.
"Suspicious" how? The NT has a distinct, unique identity which is partially marked by these Nomina Sacra. Even many unlearned people could pick up a Greek text, and identify it as a NT text by the Nomina Sacra.
I do not believe they intended to obscure the Name itself or its pronunciation. It is my personal conviction it was actually a help to the reader, although unassisted reading of the NT was rare in the ancient world; you would be expected to have someone initiated, i.e. a believer explain it to you.
What exactly do you think happened? You said you feel the Name was considered too holy to write out; do you assume they did not know the Name itself, or that they did not speak it?



Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
Andrej Immanuel Friedemann. When I look at this Sinaiticus it doesn't look like it was written by average people in their homes because it looks so well written inline and organized, so it looks like it is written by experienced scribes instead. Experienced scribes worked for the Roman government. it looks to me like the Romans went after people that did not serve the Roman government, not necessarily those who followed 'Jesus', because of coins made with the image of 'Iesous' on them in ancient Rome. It also seems that with the abbreviations they could have originally written a story referring to another character but future translations replaced the secret names with Iesous. Was the nomina sacra or christogram used for other dieties at the time such as serapis?


Peter Brown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibles_of_Constantine

Fifty Bibles of Constantine - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Fifty Bibles of Constantine - Wikipedia
Fifty Bibles of Constantine - Wikipedia
Andrej Immanuel Friedemann
I am not well-versed in the customs of other ancient cultures, but can fill you in on some scriptural details. The Nomina Sacra as they appear in the NT are pretty unique, even if you may find a few others like them among other cultures.
Sinaiticus uses the Nomina Sacra for "Iesous" in the OT as well, but here the usage is not universal. It is used mostly for Joshua, but maybe for others called "Iesous". As you may know, the Names "Joshua" and "Jesus" are often identical in semitic languages. So it seems very believable that they were referring to "Jesus" in the NT, especially since we also see that the name "Joshua" uses the same Nominem Sacrum in the NT (Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8).
Another thing to consider is that NS were used in all NT manuscripts, even in the 2nd century, even the ones that do not look as neat as C. Sinaiticus. I see no reason to believe the Romans created the text, or came up with the Nomina Sacra, as the romans would have chosen Latin as a language, and the NS are not present in the Old Latin NT.
While the text does look professional, I see no reason to assume this means it was written by the government. Rather, in the 4th century, Christians had already professionalized the process of copying scripture. After all, C. Sinaiticus and C. Vaticanus were both written around the time Constantine requested his 50 bibles.


Andrej Immanuel Friedemann
A while ago, I wrote about these topics:
-==Jesus and “Nomina Sacra” in the ancient NT manuscripts==-
This is an analysis concerning the Name of Jesus in Codex Sinaiticus [CS], the earliest known complete Greek NT manuscript, which also contains the OT, of which parts survived. Wherever I could find them, I included earlier readings from all known NT fragments.
Most of the early Greek NT manuscripts write several words in a contracted form with a line on top for clarity, which are called “nomina sacra” [NS], which means “sacred names”, although not all of these are in direct reference to something sacred. The most common used in the 2nd to 3rd century are God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Son, Spirit, David, cross, Father, Israel, Savior, Man, Jerusalem, and Heaven. Some manuscripts use more than these, also in reference to „unsacred“ things. Concerning the Name Jesus, this means ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (IESOUS) becomes ΙΣ (IS) [nominative], ΙΥ (IU) [genitive], ΙΝ (IN) [accusative] or ΙΗΣ (IES), depending on grammar and manuscript style.
We do not have that many early manuscripts, but the ones we have seem to use NS. for Jesus almost exclusively until the middle of the 4th century (A possible exception is P52, where we can deduce n.s. were not used from the length of the lines, but unfortunately the fragment is missing the parts where the Name would have been written).
The following is my examination of the CS and what it reveals. This text will require you are actually able to use proper and correct reason and logic. If you do not follow my reasoning and wish to object, offer actual arguments and / or proof for your position.
CS writes most occurrences of “Jesus” as nomina sacra, with one exception (there may be more, but for now i found one), Mark 16:6, which writes ΙΗΣΟΥΝ (IESOUN). Knowing Greek grammar, it is already evident that this is the accusative of ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (IESOUS).
-==Jesus Christ and the other Jesuses of the NT==-
Aside Jesus Christ, Son of God, the NT speaks of different other men called Jesus. These are:
1) Joshua, Son of Nun (Acts 7:45, Hebrews 4:8)
2) Jesus, son of Eliezer (Luke 3:29)
3) Jesus Justus (Colossians 4:11)
4) Jesus Barabbas (Matthew 27:16)
5) Barjesus (Son of Jesus) (Acts 13:6)
As these bear the same Name as Jesus, but are not Jesus Christ, the NT copyists apparently were of different opinion as to how to treat them concerning NS.
Jesus, Son of Eliezer in Luke 3:29 is rendered ΙΗΣΟΥ (IESOU) in CS and P4, an earlier fragment. This is the genitive of ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (IESOUS).
Jesus Justus in Colossians 4:11 is rendered ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (IESOUS). This is the nominative and therefore the exact pronunciation of the proper Name “Jesus” without grammatical mode. P46, an earlier manuscript, writes ΙΗΣ (IES), again supporting the conclusion that these are in fact the same Name.
Jesus Barabbas is not called Jesus Barabbas in CS, just Barabbas. This is a textual variant.
Barjesus in Acts 13:6 is rendered ΒΑΡΙΗΣΟΥ (BARIESOU). This is the genitive of ΒΑΡΙΗΣΟΥΣ (BARIESOUS).
-Joshua-
As the NT references to Joshua are clear from context, let’s examine them now. The classical position is that the Name “Jesus” is spelled the same as the OT Name “Joshua”, the first Name that incorporates God’s Name YHWH. The NT contains two references to “Joshua” (Son of Nun), Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. In the CS, these are written just as the references to Jesus Christ, as ΙΥ (Acts 7:45) and ΙΣ (Heb. 4:8). Heb. 4:8 is consistent with earlier fragments (P13: ΙΣ (IS), P46: ΙΗΣ (IES)). This strongly supports the position that the name Joshua is spelled the same as the Name of the Messiah.
Since Joshua is an OT Name, and CS contains parts of the OT, we can also examine the OT where “Joshua” appears. CS also contains apocryphal writings, i will list the long forms of Joshua from these as well.
CS renders:
The genitive ΙΗΣΟΥ (IESOU) in Deut. 3:21+28, Haggai 1:14, 2:4, Zech. 3:8+9, 6:11
The accusative ΙΗΣΟΥΝ (IESOUN) in Haggai 2:2.
The nominative NS ΙΣ (IS) in Joshua 13:1, Haggai 1:12, Zech. 3:3
The accusative NS ΙΝ (IN) in Haggai 1:1, Zech. 3:1+6
In Joshua 14:1 ΙΣΛ (ISL). I am unsure what grammatical form that is, but it’s also used in the NT for Jesus.
Apocrypha (i did not check for NS here):
The nominative ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (IESOUS) in 1 Maccabees 2:55, Sirach 0:7, 2 Esdras 18:7, 19:4, 20:10, 22:10
The genitive ΙΗΣΟΥ (IESOU) in Sirach 48:20, 2 Esdras 10:18, 13:19, 17:11+43, 18:17, 21:26, 22:1+7+8+26
-==Joshua in the Septuagint==-
In many ancient Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts (a translation of the Hebrew OT by Jewish scribes), Joshua is consistently rendered as ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (IESOUS) and its derivative forms. This is found in fragments ca. 200BC. It is the proper translation of the semitic “Yeshua” into Greek; there is no better translation.
-==Conclusion==-
It can be clearly seen Christ's Name is "IESOUS". It can be clearly seen that the Name "Jesus" in the most ancient NT manuscripts is spelled the same as the Name "Joshua" from the OT, which is rendered as ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (IESOUS) by Jewish scribes ever since 200BC.
-==References==-
Codex Sinaiticus Online:
http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx...
The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (by David P. Barrett, Philip W. Comfort), Tyndale House Publishers Inc.; 2001
http://www.amazon.com/Text-Earliest.../dp/0842352651


CODEX-SINAITICUS.NET
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Mark |
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Mark |
Peter Brown
Andrej Immanuel Friedemann that is a comprehensive analysis of the NS however there is one proposition that is generally held and which you utilise above but with which I do not agree. Namely the dating by means of paleography in isolation of the early papyri fragments to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. There is a reasonable claim that all these could be dated with an upper bound in the early 4th century. This claim is reinforced by the fact that the fragments are from codices (and not rolls) which media became common place only in the 4th century. This (and other evidence) suggests that the Constantinian government could have been ultimately responsible for the NS in the earliest widespread and authoritative editions of the NT Bible codices. The fragments from Oxyrhynchus could well have been written by an attested massive population explosion of "monks" in the mid 4th century. These people could have been attempting to familiarise themselves with the Emperor's New Codex. What does your research inform you about the NS for "Christ"? My research informs me that there is epigraphic evidence to suggest that the Chi Rho was used in Greek abbreviations to mean ἑκατόνταρχος ‎(hekatóntarkhos‎) or centurion. There is a reasonable proposition that this symbol could have been used on battle standards in Constantine's army not to represent "Christ" but to represent the centurion. http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/chi%20rho.htm

MOUNTAINMAN.COM.AU
www.mountainman.com.au
www.mountainman.com.au


Andrej Immanuel Friedemann
Peter Brown, it is also noteworthy that John 1:14 and 4:25 explain that "Messiah" is translated as "Christ" (Chi-Rho), as both mean "Anointed". In addition, there is no indication anywhere in early Christianity that the Messiah was considered a Roman military leader.

Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
Andrej Immanuel Friedemann Well you have given me enough to study here for a while. However, why do you think they wrote names such as Joshua and David as sacred? They could be considered as popular prophets but not they are not considered divine. I never bought into the argument that they were running out of paper because you can see they left a lot of empty pages as well.

Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
Peter Brown That's a good reference page I will be studying, thanks.


Andrej Immanuel Friedemann
Most symbols were used for several things. However, I do not believe that the usage of the Chi-Rho in one symbol was originally Christian; rather, it may very well have been introduced with the late constantinian Roman Church.
So how do you think the NT came to be? What do you make of the many references in early Christian texts? What about the many translations? Why do all the NTs in different languages agree to each other, and also translate "Christ" with a proper meaning? And how could you try to make all these 2nd and 3rd c. texts into 4th century texts?


Peter Brown
Andrej Immanuel Friedemann << So how do you think the NT came to be? >>
I think it was fabricated in a scriptorium at a late date.
<< What about the many translations? >>
The evidence points to the NT being composed in Greek from which all other translations were made.
<< Why do all the NTs in different languages agree to each other, and also translate "Christ" with a proper meaning? >>
They all derive from the earliest Greek codices - the so-called Constantine Bibles.
<< And how could you try to make all these 2nd and 3rd c. texts into 4th century texts?>>
By critically questioning the error bounds associated with paleographical dating used in isolation (which is the case for the so called "Early Christian" papyri.

Andrej Immanuel Friedemann
Peter Brown, if I were to ignore all evidence, I would still reject the notion of "chi-rho" referring to roman officals.
The context suggests otherwise. John 1:41 and 4:25 make this quite impossible. Many passages would read very awkward. The supposed absence of the word "Christ" or "Messiah" could not be explained, as it is a prominent subject of Jewish theology. Jesus' appearance before the high priest could not be considered blasphemy any longer. The discussion in Matt. 22:41-46 could only serve as hate speech, since the topic is clearly the Messiah, whom the Pharisees call "the Son of David". Why would they turn to Jewish scriptures in Matt. 2:4 to determine the birth place of "the promised centurion"? How did a roman official become "the king of Israel" (Mk. 15:32)? And how can the grammar of Luke 2:26 or 9:20 or 23:35 make any sense? Why did they not ask if John is the Christ in John 1? Why did they expect a roman soldier in John 7:27? And why would such a roman originate in Judea (7:41-42)?
And it gets even more awkward: why do all the prophets speak of this protagonist (John 12:34, Acts 3:18)? Why does the NT quote the OT with the NS Chi-Rho when this would be inaccurate (Acts 4:26)?
Early records easily suggest the presence of the NT text at the end of the 1st century, and by the middle of the 2nd century, all of them are referred to in Christian writings. The earliest Gospel harmony, the Diatessaron, becomes impossible. Polycarp's extensive references to the Pauline epistles has to be ignored.
It seems your suggestion cannot make sense of most things from the 1st to the 3rd century. I do not agree to positions which have to resort to explaining away most evidence, i.e. declaring it fake or misdated.


Peter Brown
Andrej Immanuel Friedemann I regard the books of the NT as fictional stories . You are correct to point out that the NT is referenced in many Christian writings of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. The problem is that all these Christian writings that attest to the historicity of bishops and martyrs and Christian doctrine and Christian heresiology - all of which relates to the NT - were gathered together in the early 4th century by Constantine's "Press Secretary" Eusebius. This as I see it is the problem. I don't trust Eusebius to have delivered the historical truth. Moreover there is good and sufficient reason to tentatively ask the question "What if his church history is pseudo-historical? What does the silence of the archaeological evidence have to say? My position is to keep asking questions about the evidence that is available to us. The earliest possible date for the NT canonical books is the 1st century if they are historical accounts. However the latest possible date for the NT canonical books is the 4th century if Eusebius lied to us. The true date for the composition of the NT is somewhere between the earliest possible date and the latest possible date. ////// In regard to your comments about "Jesus the Centurion". The Chi Rho symbol is attested on Greek inscriptions as an abbreviation for "centurion". That's what the evidence says. Somewhere above you have conceded that the political use of the Chi Rho by the Constantinian government could well have happened in the 4th century. Even though we may completely disagree about the chronology of Christian origins I think you have conducted a very useful and quite thorough review of the nomina sacra. My only comment on this is that the over-use of abbreviations is not reflective of either Jewish or Greek practice but of Roman practice.



Andrej Immanuel Friedemann
Peter Brown, you seem to misunderstand me. Your source displays "Chi" and "Rho" as a conflated symbol. That usage is not biblical, nor is it early Christian conduct. It originated in the Roman church.
Beyond that, Symbols carry the meaning assigned by those who use them, not the meaning we project onto them.


Peter Brown
There is no general theory for the appearance of the nomina sacra. Most scholars attribute these to a later editor who had a collection of the NT. http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/nomina_sacra.htm

No photo description available.




Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
Peter Brown. I'm not convinced that the nomina sacra was added with a later editor because they appear in the oldest manuscripts.

Peter Brown
Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz so how did they get into those mss

Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
Peter Brown. If the nomina sacra was used in the Sinaiticus then that's how it was originally written. The question would then be what was the true meaning or reason for using the nomina sacra. Is it possible that the definitions we are given for the nomina sacra originally meant something different?

Peter Brown
I dont believe that different authors of the books of the NT each used these codes independently. That is why most ppl posit an early editor who had the entire collection of NT books and at that stage implemented the nomina sacra. Another important point is that these nomina sacra are not jest found in the NT but in the books of the heretics, the NT apocryphal writings and in the Nag Hammadi library. We need to be able to explain this.


Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
Peter Brown So your theory is that the books were written with the full name, then with the nomina sacra, and then translated again to the full name? Doesn't that seem like a little bit of a stretch?

George Hall
How about the nomina sacra as Greek phoneticisation of a word from a different language?


Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
George Hall can you please be more specific?


George Hall
How many of these "nomina sacra" might be the Greek for "ISU?"

George Hall
If an originating word or name is from Hebrew or Aramaic, what would it look like in Greek letters? ISU as perhaps the base word (translating Fire, Man or even referencing Esau (ESV)?


Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
George Hall. Perhaps you can try using this chart or a similar chart to transliterate a name

No photo description available.

Peter Brown
No. All the available evidence that has been discovered points to the fact that the nomina sacra were used in all the earliest manuscripts and codices, including the Nag Hammadi codices. The question in my mind is about the date of this material. I personally think the Christian literature as a whole is very late, almost certainly NOT from the 1st century. I am inclined to suspect that the entire corpus of Christian literature - both canonical and non-canonical - could be as late as the 4th century, and that history has been fabricated by the forgery and interpolation of manuscripts by the Nicene church industry, supported by the emperors of the 4th century.


Dave Allen
Page 11 on this link, Trobish discusses it:
https://books.google.com/books/abou...Z854pMjSv6FFRHhgt8F_sxsTOfBn1sFQxcwNLqsziwD8A

The First Edition of the New Testament

BOOKS.GOOGLE.COM
The First Edition of the New Testament
The First Edition of the New Testament

Dave Allen

No photo description available.

Landon Sykes
Dave Allen looks like the nomina sacra for "man" (anthropos) becomes a cognate for the Hebrew/Aramaic word for "man" Enosh (as in bar ENASH, "son of MAN" etc)


Joel Pearson
Admin
what has that poor jpeg been through?


Peter Gazdag
But it was never written. Why do you need more pixels to not see it? (sorry)


Jerzy Iwachów
Dude I can't see it.


Joel Pearson
Admin
Do you have one with more pixels?



Angelmi Acevedo D'Luz
Author
Joel Pearson unfortunately it's the only version I found online. I would have to rebuild it by hand for a better quality version.
 

Attachments

  • 1672078508922.png
    1672078508922.png
    32 KB · Views: 93
Last edited:
Top