When do the expanded forms Jesus, Christ, Chrest 1st appear?

[stephan happy huller]

And because of itacism there was confusion. No big deal.

[spin]

The Vaticanus manuscript of the same age, utilizes a slightly transitional spelling: "Chreistian."

Extremely naughty, mountainman. This is not a "transitional" spelling. You just made that up, as is so frequently the case with your claims.

Actually that's not the case. I lifted the phrase from the marcionite-scripture site. The phrase is replicated around the net.

Oh, so it's the blind leading the blind and that's ok. You have the responsibility to cite your sources.

The 4th century Marcionite inscription is another item of evidence that explicates "Chrestos" and not "Christos".
So the score to the end of the 4th century for the "Christ/Chrest" tournament of evidence is something like .... Chrest 7, Christ 0.
Don't you think that this distribution of evidence requires some sort of explanation, and if so, what is this explanation?

Perhaps, you shouldn't make references to things without supplying the exact sources. And perhaps you shouldn't make generalizations without showing from where the generalization is derived. There is no way to analyze your nonsense and find out where you went right and where you went wrong.

Koine Greek often diphthongized the iota into an epsilon-iota, as can be seen in the same book of Acts,

• 11:19, Vat. φλειψσεως, Sin. φλιψσεως (affliction), Vat. φοινεικης, Sin. φοινικης (Phoenicia),
  11:28, Vat. λειμον, Sin. λιμον (famine),
  12:9, Vat. γεινομενον, Sin. γινομενον (was done),
  12:17 Vat. σειγαν, Sin. σιγαν (keep peace).

Well thanks for taking he time to outline this explanation. I did not know this: it's not really explained anywhere I could find to date.

Perhaps you were not looking in the right places. Secondary or more like tertiary sources that don't deal with the language are of little help.

The Vaticanus diphthong attests to an underlying iota.

It also attests to the fact that there was no stock standard way of spelling the word (either Christians" or "Chrestians").
Sinaiticus has "Chrestian", but I do not know how the term is presented in Alexandrinus and Bezae. Do you?

Yes.

But doesn't it strike you as strange that the scribes could not even agree upon the Greek spelling of "Christians" (or "Chrestians")?
It seems to suggest that the sacred name of Poo-Bar was so deeply encrypted that when it came to the surface there were problems.

Perhaps you should note the way Phoenicia was spelt in the examples I provided. You are retrojecting a modern Anglo-Saxon misunderstanding of the use of writing onto the past.

This issue significantly highlights the OP.

The scribes did not have to spell out "Christ" or "Chrest" (or "Chreist") because they used the nomina sacra.

Does anyone know of the oldest extant manuscript in which we find the expanded names in the OP?

[stephan happy huller]

Don't these people get tired of watching their answers lead their questions and then getting swatted in the face time after time. Are they masochists? I don't even understand the psychological purpose of wanting something to be true, posting it on a fucking internet forum, hoping nobody calls you out for bullshit - or maybe they want to be smacked over the head? This is the part that confuses me. What's the value in lying in a forum that appeals to 50 people. Even if these 50 people become convinced of this lie there are still 6 billion other people to work on. And then what? Just keep working at building a lie - a massive lie? What's the payoff? It's still a lie.

How many times can they attempt the same thing over and over again without realizing the answer is always the same?

[Leucius Charinus]

The 4th century Marcionite inscription is another item of evidence that explicates "Chrestos" and not "Christos".
So the score to the end of the 4th century for the "Christ/Chrest" tournament of evidence is something like .... Chrest 7, Christ 0.
Don't you think that this distribution of evidence requires some sort of explanation, and if so, what is this explanation?

Perhaps, you shouldn't make references to things without supplying the exact sources.

The Deir Ali Inscription has circulated on the old forum for years. It reads: "The meeting-house of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good -Erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter, in the year 630 Seleucid era" (i.e. 318 CE). This is (1) one count for "Chrest" and zero count for "Christ".

Earlier in this thread Mac provided a number of references here:

• * (2) Codex Sinaiticus, in Greek, reads Chrestianoi
  * (3) Tacitus reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_o ... Chrestians
  * (4) Chrestians for Christians inscriptions of Phrygia.
  * (5) Seutonius uses "Chrest": J. Boman, Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius’ Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts.

In the following post I provided a (6) reference to Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3035: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_3035.

Vaticanus, with the variant spelling made a total of 7 references to "Chrest" and we have not produced ONE early datable reference to Christ or Christians.

Sinaiticus has "Chrestian", but I do not know how the term is presented in Alexandrinus and Bezae. Do you?

Yes.

Perhaps I should buy Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus edited by Tom Holmen & Stanley E. Porter, 3 new from $1,117.19, 1 used from $2,522.54.

Does anyone know of the oldest extant manuscript in which we find the expanded names in the OP?

[Leucius Charinus]

And because of itacism there was confusion. No big deal.

Textual criticism demands that we examine the written word.

Iotacism

Iotacism (Greek: ἰωτακισμός, iotakismos) is the process by which a number of vowels and diphthongs in Ancient Greek converged in pronunciation so that they all sound like iota () in Modern Greek. In the case of the letter eta specifically, this process is known as itacism (from the resulting pronunciation of the letter's name as [ˈita]).

///

Issues in textual criticism

Due to iotacism, some words with originally distinct pronunciations are now pronounced similarly, and this is sometimes the cause of differences between manuscript readings in the New Testament. For example, the upsilon of ὑμεις, ὑμων humeis, humōn "you, your (pl.)" and the eta of ἡμεις, ἡμων hēmeis, hēmōn "we, our" could be easily confused if a lector were reading to copyists in a scriptorium. As an example of a relatively minor (almost insignificant) source of "variant readings", some ancient manuscripts spelled words the way they sounded, such as the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus, which sometimes substitutes a plain iota for the epsilon-iota digraph and sometimes does the reverse.

[spin]

The 4th century Marcionite inscription is another item of evidence that explicates "Chrestos" and not "Christos".
So the score to the end of the 4th century for the "Christ/Chrest" tournament of evidence is something like .... Chrest 7, Christ 0.
Don't you think that this distribution of evidence requires some sort of explanation, and if so, what is this explanation?

Perhaps, you shouldn't make references to things without supplying the exact sources.

The Deir Ali Inscription has circulated on the old forum for years. It reads: "The meeting-house of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good -Erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter, in the year 630 Seleucid era" (i.e. 318 CE). This is (1) one count for "Chrest" and zero count for "Christ".

Earlier in this thread Mac provided a number of references here:

• * (2) Codex Sinaiticus, in Greek, reads Chrestianoi
  * (3) Tacitus reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_o ... Chrestians

I'll remove this from your list. I have no doubt that the only copy we have of the particular text indicates that it originally contained Chrestianoi. Unfortunately, we can't evaluate its significance. There is no way to know whether the change was a normatizing change, a decision to bring the form into line with the christianizing orthography, or it was the work of a corrector who brought it into line with the copied text. Texts were read by correctors who compared them with the source document as part of the copying process and made changes to do away with any scribal errors. There is no way to decide whether Chrestianoi was ancient or modern at the time of the copy.

* (4) Chrestians for Christians inscriptions of Phrygia.

There is even an inscription which has both.

* (5) Seutonius uses "Chrest": J. Boman, Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius’ Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts.

This has nothing to do with christianity. This involves a person in Rome called Chrestus, who stirred up trouble among the Jews. If you'd like to go to the Mausoleum of Caecilia Metella in Rome you can find an inscription in the garden which features the name Chrestus. It was a name used in Rome.

In the following post I provided a (6) reference to Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3035: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_3035.

This text does not say christians or χρηστιανοι, but χρησιανοι.

Vaticanus, with the variant spelling made a total of 7 references to "Chrest" and we have not produced ONE early datable reference to Christ or Christians.

Vaticanus has nothing to do with your list. As I've already indicated it has epsilon-iota which reflects a iota in more classical Greek. It does not have an eta.

Your seven suddenly disappears.

Sinaiticus has "Chrestian", but I do not know how the term is presented in Alexandrinus and Bezae. Do you?

Yes.

Perhaps I should buy Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus edited by Tom Holmen & Stanley E. Porter, 3 new from $1,117.19, 1 used from $2,522.54.

If you really want to. The price however, suggests it is pitched towards libraries rather than individuals. Why you would want to buy it though is hard to fathom, given the fact that you know nothing about ancient Greek. I guess you were trying to make some point out of the fact that poor little you can't afford such prices, so you have to make do with what you can afford, ie nothing. Boo-hoo. After 10 years fucking about with this stuff, you haven't learnt anything about Greek, yet you still want to talk about the significance of texts written in ancient Greek, despite your lack of knowledge. That's a formula for your desire to waste everyone's time.

Does anyone know of the oldest extant manuscript in which we find the expanded names in the OP?

[DCHindley]

I thought that I had researched this correctly when I had posted that, but now I cannot replicate the result in KALOS Greek software. Damn pain medication! I am completely unable to hold two thoughts together at the moment.

I guess the fact should remain that the papyrus actually has the spelling χρησιανὸν, not χρηστιανὸν.
The translation had assumed that the word was missing a "tau" (τ). The papyrus had other apparent misspellings as well that were "corrected" in the transcription without any acknowledgment. For example, try to locate an "epsilon" (ε) following the "tau" (τ) in the part of the word ἀναπέμψατε at the left side of line four.

I just wish the stupid Wiki web page on this papyrus hadn't made the statement: "note χρισιανόν, the papyrus has the early spelling, χρησιανόν." I'm sure the author of this section of the page meant well, thinking (wrongly) as many do that all Marcionites called Jesus χρηστὸς (the Good One), rather than χριστός (the Anointed One), and further assumed that both the Marcionite use preceded the Christian one and that this particular government official would employ the Marcionite term in Egypt. However, the author of this section of the web page also seems to have been unaware that there is a "tau" in the real life spelling of both these words.

DCH

Thanks Dave. This make a great deal of sense.

But why do you think it is that the Oxford University advertises this as a "Christian papyrus"?
See the link (below) to the Oxford Papyri website.

[/quote]

[stephan happy huller]

I wonder whether the following could have ever happened (not here per se)

1. The substitution of a stigma [digamma, episemon] for st
2. The misreading (by a native Latin speaker) of the stigma for a sigma

just a thought. It would be interesting to know the various numerological values of the substitutions. I know stauros with a stigma = 777