Justin Martyr is falsified: only 14/19 mentions of Christians. Part I: First Apology (Greek)

[mlinssen]

But, re -

... Justin highly likely is merely EXACTLY quoting the LXX, which just happens to have the nomen sacrum XS/Χῦ for the Greek word [χριστοῦ] in the sense of the perfect tense for anointing, to wit 'anointed'

- are there other possibilities worth considering and testing

eg. (i) could Justin have been central to the use of nomina sacra; and thus (ii) influenced them being put into versions or copies of the LXX?

Who before his time was using nomina sacra?
Who around or shortly after his time were using them?

Nomina Sacra

A second feature of earliest Christian manuscripts that is well known among papyrologists and palaeographers, but insufficiently taken account of by scholars in Christian origins, is the curious scribal practice referred to as the “nomina sacra”.16 Essentially, a number of key words in early Christian religious discourse are characteristically written in special abbreviated forms (commonly, first and last letters, in some cases with a medial letter too) with a distinctive supralinear horizontal stroke placed over the abbreviated form. The words most consistently treated in this manner in the earliest extant evidence are the four terms THEOS, KURIOS, IHSOUS and XRISTOS. That is, the most characteristic examples, and probably the words that first were given this scribal treatment, are key designations of God and Jesus, which Schuyler Brown termed “nomina divina.”17 But already in manuscripts that are dated to the late second or early third century CE (e.g., the Egerton “Unknown Gospel,” P.Egerton 2), we see other words treated as nomina sacra (e.g., “Son,” “Father,” “Spirit,” and also “David,” “Moses,” “heaven,” and “Jerusalem”). So, clearly, from whatever beginning point, the practice spread to include additional terms.

Hurtado, THE “META-DATA” OF EARLIEST CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS

The myopic omphaloskepsis of biblical academic once again manifests itself: all this holds true only for Greek MSS.
Coptic?



The picture from Miosi where I reshuffled the rows based on frequency

PNA
IHS/IS
XRS/XS
SWTHR

and then, at a great distance

STROS
JERUSALEM

And that's it - and there's no THEOS, no KURIOS, no Son, Father, and all that jazz that all of biblical academic alleges to be so very nomina sacra and early.
Nothing - save for some isolated examples and exceptions such as you found Mac

So, if we observe these two collections, which one is likely to come prior?

[Leucius Charinus]

But, re -

... Justin highly likely is merely EXACTLY quoting the LXX, which just happens to have the nomen sacrum XS/Χῦ for the Greek word [χριστοῦ] in the sense of the perfect tense for anointing, to wit 'anointed'

- are there other possibilities worth considering and testing

eg. (i) could Justin have been central to the use of nomina sacra; and thus (ii) influenced them being put into versions or copies of the LXX?

Who before his time was using nomina sacra?
Who around or shortly after his time were using them?

Nomina Sacra

A second feature of earliest Christian manuscripts that is well known among papyrologists and palaeographers, but insufficiently taken account of by scholars in Christian origins, is the curious scribal practice referred to as the “nomina sacra”.16 Essentially, a number of key words in early Christian religious discourse are characteristically written in special abbreviated forms (commonly, first and last letters, in some cases with a medial letter too) with a distinctive supralinear horizontal stroke placed over the abbreviated form. The words most consistently treated in this manner in the earliest extant evidence are the four terms THEOS, KURIOS, IHSOUS and XRISTOS. That is, the most characteristic examples, and probably the words that first were given this scribal treatment, are key designations of God and Jesus, which Schuyler Brown termed “nomina divina.”17 But already in manuscripts that are dated to the late second or early third century CE (e.g., the Egerton “Unknown Gospel,” P.Egerton 2), we see other words treated as nomina sacra (e.g., “Son,” “Father,” “Spirit,” and also “David,” “Moses,” “heaven,” and “Jerusalem”). So, clearly, from whatever beginning point, the practice spread to include additional terms.

Hurtado, THE “META-DATA” OF EARLIEST CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS

The myopic omphaloskepsis of biblical academic once again manifests itself: all this holds true only for Greek MSS.
Coptic?



The picture from Miosi where I reshuffled the rows based on frequency

PNA
IHS/IS
XRS/XS
SWTHR

and then, at a great distance

STROS
JERUSALEM

And that's it - and there's no THEOS, no KURIOS, no Son, Father, and all that jazz that all of biblical academic alleges to be so very nomina sacra and early.
Nothing - save for some isolated examples and exceptions such as you found Mac

So, if we observe these two collections, which one is likely to come prior?

The nomina sacra are in both collections so what were these?

I see the Greek collection as two parts:

1) the "great" Greek codices (often dated to the 4th century)

2) the Greek papyri fragments largely from the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus (these are variously dated EARLY) but if we go by Brent Nongbri's assessment none of these MUST be as early as the 2nd century. There are dozens of these dated to the 3rd century by means of paleography in isolation. However again, if we heed Nongbri's cautions, the upper bounds for all of these could be extended to the 4th century. And then added to this are the scores of papyri fragments actually dated by paleography to the 4th century.

The Coptic collection appears to be dated from the middle of the 4th century with upper bounds in the 5th century (such as the Bruce Codex). Codex Tchacos has been C14 dated and the result is a curve over the 4th century.

So which collection is prior to the other?

Firstly it would appear that we have an explosion of Greek stuff in the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus -- at the latest - before or near the mid 4th century. The Coptic stuff seems to be a little later. There is also the question as to whether how much of the Coptic stuff is a translation of Greek originals. There certainly may be Coptic texts with no original Greek equivalents. But there also may be Coptic translations of Greek originals.

What was the primal cause for this explosion of the physical evidence?

This is the $64,000 question. You know my answer. The primal cause as I see it at the moment was an imperial agenda to implement a centralised monotheistic state religious cult based on a Greek codex containing the NT Jesus Story and the LXX Antiquity Story. This agenda was prosecuted at the councils of Antioch and Nicaea in 325 CE by the newly incoming supremely victorious military commander Constantine. He attracted a coalition of willing agents very keen to align themselves with the power base. He placed the CHI-RHO on his coins.

Canonical stuff:

The papyri fragments of the canonical material discovered on the rubbish dumps under the above scenario can be explained as people attempting to understand and replicate the official imperial Greek codices. Everyone was trying to work out what to do. What the hell had happened to the old ways. The education pathways followed the emperor's agenda. So people tried to become familiar with the agenda. It attracted big money and tax exempt roles.


The apocryphal stuff

The non canonical (NT apocryphal) material went the other way. Whoever authored these set out to compete and contend with the official Jesus Story Book. These people wrote "Other Jesus Story Books" and circulated these in the eastern empire and particularly in Alexandria. There was a massive controversy over which books people should believe. Constantine and the orthodoxy however naturally classed these authors and circulators as political dissidents and eventually as HERETICS. If they were caught in this enterprise they were killed on the spot. There were little or no education pathways for this class of people. The Hellenic civilisation was being eradicated. According to Palladas "It was turned on its head".


The Coptic stuff

The Coptic material seems to have been assembled way out of Alexandria at Nag Hammadi and in all likelihood within the Pachomian (and other) monastic settlements. This would have obviously been an UNDER-COVER operation because if they we caught by the emperors agents they were dead men. So I think that only a few people in the monastic settlements would have been aware that Coptic codices were being manufactured there. Pachomius used some sort of code system to separate tasks in the monastic settlements which attracted thousands (in some sources tens of thousands) of people - male and female. This epoch involved a MASS MOVEMENT of people from the cities to the regions. The cause of this was excessive taxation but also a reaction to the imperial agenda of Christianisation --- a process which began in the cities and slowly moved out to the provinces. The word "pagan" was a pejorative term coined by the Christians of the cities to describe those in the country who had not yet converted to the Brave New Jesus World.


SUMMARY

The above represents my attempt to put the pieces of the puzzle together. It deals with two classed of "early Christian literature" -- the NT canonical and the NT apocryphal.

The stuff of the Falsifying Fathers

The 3rd class of Christian literature -- "Ecclesiastical History" -- was initially produced by Eusebius in the 4th century as support materials for the One True Jesus Story Book which the Christian emperors of the 4th century pumped out of their scriptoria. The Christians of the later 4th century who preserved Eusebius, and the church which preserved their preservations, added, modified and deleted out of "church history" elements which they thought were necessary or unnecessary. Thus "Church History" was fabricated in layer after layer down through the centuries in order to conform it to the political context of the epoch in which they found themselves. There is sufficient reason to believe (IMO) that none of it is historical.

[mlinssen]

But, re -

... Justin highly likely is merely EXACTLY quoting the LXX, which just happens to have the nomen sacrum XS/Χῦ for the Greek word [χριστοῦ] in the sense of the perfect tense for anointing, to wit 'anointed'

- are there other possibilities worth considering and testing

eg. (i) could Justin have been central to the use of nomina sacra; and thus (ii) influenced them being put into versions or copies of the LXX?

Who before his time was using nomina sacra?
Who around or shortly after his time were using them?

Nomina Sacra

A second feature of earliest Christian manuscripts that is well known among papyrologists and palaeographers, but insufficiently taken account of by scholars in Christian origins, is the curious scribal practice referred to as the “nomina sacra”.16 Essentially, a number of key words in early Christian religious discourse are characteristically written in special abbreviated forms (commonly, first and last letters, in some cases with a medial letter too) with a distinctive supralinear horizontal stroke placed over the abbreviated form. The words most consistently treated in this manner in the earliest extant evidence are the four terms THEOS, KURIOS, IHSOUS and XRISTOS. That is, the most characteristic examples, and probably the words that first were given this scribal treatment, are key designations of God and Jesus, which Schuyler Brown termed “nomina divina.”17 But already in manuscripts that are dated to the late second or early third century CE (e.g., the Egerton “Unknown Gospel,” P.Egerton 2), we see other words treated as nomina sacra (e.g., “Son,” “Father,” “Spirit,” and also “David,” “Moses,” “heaven,” and “Jerusalem”). So, clearly, from whatever beginning point, the practice spread to include additional terms.

Hurtado, THE “META-DATA” OF EARLIEST CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS

The myopic omphaloskepsis of biblical academic once again manifests itself: all this holds true only for Greek MSS.
Coptic?



The picture from Miosi where I reshuffled the rows based on frequency

PNA
IHS/IS
XRS/XS
SWTHR

and then, at a great distance

STROS
JERUSALEM

And that's it - and there's no THEOS, no KURIOS, no Son, Father, and all that jazz that all of biblical academic alleges to be so very nomina sacra and early.
Nothing - save for some isolated examples and exceptions such as you found Mac

So, if we observe these two collections, which one is likely to come prior?

The nomina sacra are in both collections so what were these?

I see the Greek collection as two parts:

1) the "great" Greek codices (often dated to the 4th century)

2) the Greek papyri fragments largely from the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus (these are variously dated EARLY) but if we go by Brent Nongbri's assessment none of these MUST be as early as the 2nd century. There are dozens of these dated to the 3rd century by means of paleography in isolation. However again, if we heed Nongbri's cautions, the upper bounds for all of these could be extended to the 4th century. And then added to this are the scores of papyri fragments actually dated by paleography to the 4th century.

The Coptic collection appears to be dated from the middle of the 4th century with upper bounds in the 5th century (such as the Bruce Codex). Codex Tchacos has been C14 dated and the result is a curve over the 4th century.

So which collection is prior to the other?

Firstly it would appear that we have an explosion of Greek stuff in the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus -- at the latest - before or near the mid 4th century. The Coptic stuff seems to be a little later. There is also the question as to whether how much of the Coptic stuff is a translation of Greek originals. There certainly may be Coptic texts with no original Greek equivalents. But there also may be Coptic translations of Greek originals.

What was the primal cause for this explosion of the physical evidence?

This is the $64,000 question. You know my answer. The primal cause as I see it at the moment was an imperial agenda to implement a centralised monotheistic state religious cult based on a Greek codex containing the NT Jesus Story and the LXX Antiquity Story. This agenda was prosecuted at the councils of Antioch and Nicaea in 325 CE by the newly incoming supremely victorious military commander Constantine. He attracted a coalition of willing agents very keen to align themselves with the power base. He placed the CHI-RHO on his coins.

Canonical stuff:

The papyri fragments of the canonical material discovered on the rubbish dumps under the above scenario can be explained as people attempting to understand and replicate the official imperial Greek codices. Everyone was trying to work out what to do. What the hell had happened to the old ways. The education pathways followed the emperor's agenda. So people tried to become familiar with the agenda. It attracted big money and tax exempt roles.


The apocryphal stuff

The non canonical (NT apocryphal) material went the other way. Whoever authored these set out to compete and contend with the official Jesus Story Book. These people wrote "Other Jesus Story Books" and circulated these in the eastern empire and particularly in Alexandria. There was a massive controversy over which books people should believe. Constantine and the orthodoxy however naturally classed these authors and circulators as political dissidents and eventually as HERETICS. If they were caught in this enterprise they were killed on the spot. There were little or no education pathways for this class of people. The Hellenic civilisation was being eradicated. According to Palladas "It was turned on its head".


The Coptic stuff

The Coptic material seems to have been assembled way out of Alexandria at Nag Hammadi and in all likelihood within the Pachomian (and other) monastic settlements. This would have obviously been an UNDER-COVER operation because if they we caught by the emperors agents they were dead men. So I think that only a few people in the monastic settlements would have been aware that Coptic codices were being manufactured there. Pachomius used some sort of code system to separate tasks in the monastic settlements which attracted thousands (in some sources tens of thousands) of people - male and female. This epoch involved a MASS MOVEMENT of people from the cities to the regions. The cause of this was excessive taxation but also a reaction to the imperial agenda of Christianisation --- a process which began in the cities and slowly moved out to the provinces. The word "pagan" was a pejorative term coined by the Christians of the cities to describe those in the country who had not yet converted to the Brave New Jesus World.


SUMMARY

The above represents my attempt to put the pieces of the puzzle together. It deals with two classed of "early Christian literature" -- the NT canonical and the NT apocryphal.

The stuff of the Falsifying Fathers

The 3rd class of Christian literature -- "Ecclesiastical History" -- was initially produced by Eusebius in the 4th century as support materials for the One True Jesus Story Book which the Christian emperors of the 4th century pumped out of their scriptoria. The Christians of the later 4th century who preserved Eusebius, and the church which preserved their preservations, added, modified and deleted out of "church history" elements which they thought were necessary or unnecessary. Thus "Church History" was fabricated in layer after layer down through the centuries in order to conform it to the political context of the epoch in which they found themselves. There is sufficient reason to believe (IMO) that none of it is historical.

Could you, just for once, stop flogging your dead-as-a-doornail horse and for frigging once just engage with the content Pete?
I know that you rentire theory can't stand any scrutiny whatsoever, but I didn't ask for you to bring in your pet project.
Instaead i asked which of these two collections came prior, and I somehow hoped that it would be clear enough that the completely different collections and orders of nomina sacra would be the blatantly obvious topic at hand

You're just trolling Pete, in almost every single comment. You never add anything to the OP at hand, never answer any question - you're only wasting giant amounts of time and energy, continuously ruminating your own vomit

[Leucius Charinus]

So, if we observe these two collections, which one is likely to come prior?

The nomina sacra are in both collections so what were these?

///


So which collection is prior to the other?

///

What was the primal cause for this explosion of the physical evidence?

Canonical stuff:

The apocryphal stuff

The Coptic stuff

The stuff of the Falsifying Fathers

Instaead i asked which of these two collections came prior, and I somehow hoped that it would be clear enough that the completely different collections and orders of nomina sacra would be the blatantly obvious topic at hand.

If you were more of an amateur historian and less of an amateur Coptic to English transcriber you would understand the fact that these completely different collections and orders of runes (nomina sacra) are housed within the completely different collections of canonical, apocryphal and ecclesiastical history literature.

They are also found within archaeological inscriptions. These runes are NOT independent of their context. They just don't appear by themselves. My answer whether you like it or not provided this wider context.

[mlinssen]

So, if we observe these two collections, which one is likely to come prior?

The nomina sacra are in both collections so what were these?

///


So which collection is prior to the other?

///

What was the primal cause for this explosion of the physical evidence?

Canonical stuff:

The apocryphal stuff

The Coptic stuff

The stuff of the Falsifying Fathers

Instaead i asked which of these two collections came prior, and I somehow hoped that it would be clear enough that the completely different collections and orders of nomina sacra would be the blatantly obvious topic at hand.

If you were more of an amateur historian and less of an amateur Coptic to English transcriber you would understand the fact that these completely different collections and orders of runes (nomina sacra) are housed within the completely different collections of canonical, apocryphal and ecclesiastical history literature.

They are also found within archaeological inscriptions. These runes are NOT independent of their context. They just don't appear by themselves. My answer whether you like it or not provided this wider context.

LOL. I think I'm a little more than that but I'll happily shove your label next to Ken's hilarious "useful" label of my Translation

Your answer, Pete, as usual, provides nothing but an excuse for you to once again hold an entirely unrelated and irrelevant monologue on your pet theory.
You are a troll and nothing but a troll

The question of course is why Coptic doesn't have nomina sacra for THEOS, KURIOS, all the Judaic aspects, and the rest

[Leucius Charinus]

If you were more of an amateur historian and less of an amateur Coptic to English transcriber you would understand the fact that these completely different collections and orders of runes (nomina sacra) are housed within the completely different collections of canonical, apocryphal and ecclesiastical history literature.

They are also found within archaeological inscriptions. These runes are NOT independent of their context. They just don't appear by themselves. My answer whether you like it or not provided this wider context.

LOL. I think I'm a little more than that but I'll happily shove your label next to Ken's hilarious "useful" label of my Translation

I don't think I'm any more than an amateur historian.

Your answer, Pete, as usual, provides nothing but an excuse for you to once again hold an entirely unrelated and irrelevant monologue on your pet theory.

My answer follows the physical manuscripts and primary evidence.

You are a troll and nothing but a troll

The question of course is why Coptic doesn't have nomina sacra for THEOS, KURIOS, all the Judaic aspects, and the rest

I am not a troll. And that was not the question you asked. The question you asked was "if we observe these two collections, which one is likely to come prior?" This is ambiguous because you first introduced the collections of Hurtado and Miosi, Hurtado's THE “META-DATA” OF EARLIEST CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS and Miosi's NHL analysis. You'll note Hurtado's material in basically NT canonical.

Then you introduced a second "collection":

The question of course is why Coptic doesn't have nomina sacra for THEOS, KURIOS, all the Judaic aspects, and the rest

The Coptic is evidently focused on the runes PNA, IHS/IS. XRS/XS. SWTHR as demonstrated above. The question asks why the Coptic runes do not follow the same pattern as the Greek (canonical stuff via Hurtado). Or if you think the Coptic has priority --- why the Greek did not follow the Coptic (with respect to the conventions in using runes).

IDK, Two different schools of authors. Two different agendas. Which had chronological priority?