Emphasis added:
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:55 amYou appear to be agreeing with me on the inauthenticity of the Testimonium in Ant. 18.63-64, which was the subject of this post.
Your comment seems off topic for what
RGPrice was arguing regarding the use of a nomen sacrum in the Testimonium for Christ/Chrestus while writing out the name Jesus -- as well as Christians, which he didn't address.
I read RG Price as referring primarily to the Ant. 20.200 passage with this comment.
This is because you introduced a manuscript of Ant. 20.200 here:
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:25 am
New data, courtesy of Martijn Linssen, who found Ant. 20.200 on page 349v (v=verso, or the reverse side) of manuscript A (p. 684 of the digital library online version):
https://digitallibrary.unicatt.it/vener ... 82800acbda
F128 sup. Ant. 20.200.png
In the fourth and fifth lines of the screenshot you can see:
τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰά
κωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ
the brother (of) Jesus the (one) called Christ, Ja
cob (the) name (to) him
So in the earliest known manuscript of Ant. 20.200, the name Jesus and the title Christ are written out in full - there are no nomina sacra used.
Best,
Ken
And then RG Price followed up with this question, for the first time, here:
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:31 am
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:25 am
So in the earliest known manuscript of Ant. 20.200, the name Jesus and the title Christ are written out in full - there are no nomina sacra used.
That was a fun goose chase
I still wonder why then later scribes decided to use nomina sacra for Christ but not Jesus?
RG Price, in this post, directly related this query to Ant. 20.200 when he quoted you regarding the manuscript of Ant. 20.200.
Then RG Price asked the question "one last time":
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:02 pm
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 1:17 pm
I'll ask one last time. Why did the scribes use nomina sacra for Christ but not for Jesus?
Peter's other thread got me thinking, and now I might consider that this proposition could have some merit.
What if there was a passage by Josephus that said Jesus Chr
estos, and there were two approaches taken to dealing with it. One was to "correct" Chrestos to Christos and the other was to change Chrestos to XY.
I say this because it could explain why Christos is written with nomina sacra but Jesus is not. If the name Jesus were unambiguous it could be left alone, but with Chrestos there could have been need make a change which is why the scribe decided to use nomina sacra for clarification where clarification wasn't needed for Jesus. Speculative obviously, but it could potentially explain why Christ was written with nomina sacra but Jesus wasn't.
RG Price could have been talking about Ant. 20.200 here also, and I read it that way. The previous context suggests it. I would have to guess about why someone interprets it as a reference to the TF. I understand that the reference to "a passage" may lead someone to think otherwise, but Ant. 20.200 is also "a passage." Perhaps also the reference to "Jesus Chr
estos" (without qualification) may make someone think of the TF, but neither passage has this sequence of words. It could also be a contracted reference to the four words found in Ant. 20.200, dropping 'the one called'.
I took RG Price's reference to "this proposition" as a reference to the OP's proposition regarding Ant. 20.200.
Maybe there's something I'm missing, but that's how I read it.
Your post clearly did refer to the TF, and I understood the reference to "further speculations" to call back to the "speculations" about a change to the Ant. 20.200 passage.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:55 amIs your point just that all theories that don't accept the text as written in the manuscripts regard some degree of speculation about prior alterations? I'm sure that's true, but I don't think it means all proposed speculative changes are equal.
Of course, I agree with you there.
I guess my point was to call into question our preconceptions about how "speculative" the proposed change of Ant. 20.200 is. At first blush, it may seem significantly speculative. However, I think we would easily come to a conclusion that it is
truly no more speculative than the interpolation hypotheses, if we just stopped and thought about it a little in that way. The interpolations hypotheses have become more comfortable and familiar to us, through long exposure, and that would lead us to be less likely to summarize them as
just "speculation." Yet I would consider that this term, "speculation," is
no less apt of the interpolation hypotheses regarding Ant. 20.200 (compared to the OP's suggestion), and sure, I think just saying it in writing does help us to understand this point.