After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by StephenGoranson »

LC, you claim to be skeptical, yet I'm skeptical that you are skeptical about your constant Constantine claim.

Added later: claim or con game?
Last edited by StephenGoranson on Fri May 12, 2023 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Secret Alias »

I suspect that Pete will do or say anything to keep people talking about his theory. As someone who has brought many stupid theories into the world, let me say, having material children helps alleviate the pain of abandoning stupid theories. My advice to Pete make a baby.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 4:14 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 8:20 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 4:23 am Again could you provide an example of what you refer to as marking certain inscriptions as not "True Christianity"(tm)? Thanks.
A lot of what's on your website is ambiguous and not clearly addressed.

Here are a couple papyri and their notes:

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/epigraphic_habit.htm

2nd CE: PSI.XIV.1412 "via Sotas, the christian". [chrestian?]


256 CE: P.Oxy 3035 Order to arrest "chrestian". [citation is "chrestian"]

This allows that there were some form of Xians.
See Note (1)
As for inscriptions, I was thinking for example of these:
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:01 am (viii) Inscription from Aurelia Julia [296-297]

https://archive.org/details/christiansf ... 2/mode/2up

Aurelia Julia for her father ... and her mother, Beroneikiane, and for my sweetest child Severus and my daughter-in-law Moundane, in memory. Christians [Χρειστιανοι].

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:36 pm (xi) Tomb Inscription of Family from Temenothyrai [278-279]

T.D. Barnes, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, p. 242

In the year 363, the tenth of the month Pereitios. Eutyches son of Eutyches, (prepared this tomb) for Tatia his wife and for his father, in memory; Christans [Χρειστιανοι]; and for himself. Phellinas. From Temenothyrai.

See Note (2)
These seem to fall in your "totally unconvincing" category here:

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/ante% ... review.htm
See Note (3)
6.5 Inscriptions from the Upper Tembris Valley


**** This section deals with the "Christians for Christians Inscription" and defers
to the catalogue of Else Gibson which has been reviewed in detail in a separate
article.

Refer to The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia
- a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson


Summary: totally unconvincing (See the separate analysis)
For this also see Note (2)



Note (1)

Since making a catalog of these papyri and noting the variants such as PSI.XIV.1412 "via Sotas, the christian" and P.Oxy 3035 Order to arrest "chrestian" (which actually does not have the tau and is better rendered as "Chresian") I have made a separate catalog that is entitled as follows and comment further on below:

Early "Chrestians"
The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος]
and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chres ... stians.htm


Note (2)

These inscriptions are all to be found presented in this book:
The "Christians for Christians" inscriptions of Phrygia:
Greek texts, translation and commentary (Harvard theological studies) Paperback – January 1, 1978 by Elsa Gibson (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Christians-inscr ... 089130262X

The separate analysis referred to above relates to a study I made of the data presented in this book. This is located here:
The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia:
- a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm


Note (3)

The repeated "totally unconvincing" comment is derived from my study of the book by Graydon F. Snyder entitled "Ante pacem: archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine". The study and review is located here:

A critical review & re-examination of the evidence presented in "Ante Pacem"
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/ante% ... review.htm

The term "totally unconvincing" was in response to a range of evidence presented. The evidence is ordered as follows:

Chapter 2: Early Christian Symbols
Chapter 3: Pictorial Representations
Chapter 4: Pictorial Interpretations
Chapter 5: Early Church Buildings
Chapter 6: Inscriptions and Graffiti
Chapter 7: Papyrus Documentation


The first batch of evidence is outlined in Chapter 2: Early Christian Symbols. The suggestions made by the author explored the question as to whether the presence of any of the following symbols could be viewed as evidence for a "Christian presence". These symbols were:


2: Early Christian Symbols.

2.1 The Lamb
2.2 The Anchor
2.3 The Vase
2.4 The Dove
2.5 The Boat
2.6 The Olive Branch
2.7 The Orante
2.8 The Palm or Tree
2.9 The Bread
2.10 The Good Shepherd
2.11 The Fish
2.12 The Vine and Grapes
2.13 The Cross (appears in the 4th century)

That any of these symbols can indicate the presence of "ante pacem" Christians is certainly unconvincing IMHO. Special pleading can only go so far. The same problem is encountered in Chapter 3: Pictorial Representations and Chapter 4: Pictorial Interpretations. Here is a sample description:

Plate 13: "The sarcophagus located in Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome.
"Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art"

"The Teaching of the Law stands in the center, with a Good Shepherd immediately to the right and an Orante immediately to the left. Continuing left is a Jonah cycle, first Jonah resting, then Jonah cast out of the ketos, and finally Jonah in the boat. To the extreme left side stands a river god. To the right of the Good Shepherd there is a baptism of Jesus with a dove descending. Jesus is young, nude, and quite small next to the older, bearded John the Baptist. A pastoral scene concludes the right end"

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Ante% ... view.htm#5

What more can anyone say other than "totally unconvincing"? It's like seeing Jesus in a slice of toast.


Then there was CHAPTER 5: Early Church Buildings

5.1 The Church at Dura-Europos
5.2 The Domus Petri in Capharnaum
5.3 The Double Church at Aquileia
5.4 The Tituli Churches of Rome
5.5 Cemetry Structures
5.6 Baptistries

The house church at Dura is the only one confidently dated prior to the 4th century. I have argued that this is just as likely to be a Jewish house church and have set forth a number of reasons for thinking so.

I find that the often cited evidence from the catacombs must contend with the known fact that some of these were renovated by Damasus in the later 4th century in order to boost the tourist trade to Rome with the catch-cry that "Peter was Here". A claim only found in the Acts of Peter, some variants, and the Clementine literature. How is this to be explained?

My answer is that these non canonical legends were extremely useful to the Roman Bishop who would later receive the title "Pontifex Maximus". A title the Roman Emperor (Gratian?) no longer wanted. Very useful and super prestigious title for a Christian bishop at that time.


Chapter 6: Inscriptions and Graffiti
Chapter 7: Papyrus Documentation

The review of these last two chapters incorporated the data that I had reviewed earlier and which is separately tabulated. The refrain found against a great deal of evidence of "totally unconvincing" is for stuff I had earlier found in online material by Christian academics from the old school. Stuff like "He Sleeps" implies the presence of Christian thought.


So lets move back to the paradox of Chrestian and Christian
If there are references to Χρειστιανοι or Χρηστιανοι that are not indicative of what you're identifying as "Christian," then this suggests there is a divide between some kind of basic Xianity and what is Christian (truly). Referring to the latter as true Christianity helps to make clear the distinction being made: some kind of basic Xians before the fourth century, then true Christians in the fourth century.

I put this out there so that people attempting to criticize your theories can be aware that references to Xians (Chestians/Chreistians) for example are not enough to falsify it. I don't see why we don't take that one step further and also say that references to Christ don't falsify it either, in which case the mid-fourth-century inscription being mentioned wouldn't falsify it, regardless of dating or (what SA was arguing) it implying a period of gestation or whatever.

Put positively, you seem to focus on the texts as the subject of your thesis, allowing that various ideas and groups (Xians, nomina sacra, art) contributed to this full expression of true Christianity in the fourth century - with its texts - that came later. This is why the Dura Europos gospel text vexes you as a falsification - it's a text of the gospel type you say is later (or perhaps it's a proto-text but not a text of the true Christian type). And this seems to be why the inscriptions, papyri, and art are "totally unconvincing" - beyond the fact that several of them individually are quite ambiguous. Even at their best in terms of clarity and dating, they do nothing to disprove your theories regarding the texts. They just show some ideas, sometimes from Xians, that came before the true Christianity of the fourth century.

In short, you're looking for the origins of the New Testament (and what you see as literature reacting to the New Testament), and you're saying that they were written in the fourth century (with the caveat that some sources may be earlier). Some kind of basic Xians precede that, according to what you've said, and that can't disprove your theory.

The paradox of Chrestian and Christian

It should be noted that in the schematic "Chronological Map of the Evidence" related to Christian Origins I have reserved an element (labelled 12) for the change of "Chrestian" to "Christian". As mentioned above I have collected the papyri and the inscriptions for the "Early Chrestians" and also a number of references to this in the "Ante Nicene Fathers". This reviews can be found here:

The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chres ... stians.htm

At the conclusion of that catalog I made a few comments as to how to explain this data. The data indicates that the term "Chrestian" (and not "Christian") invariably appears with the earliest evidence - the question must naturally arise as to why. How is the chronology of the use of the terms "Chrestian" and then "Christian" to be explained? Also pointed out in this review is that the term "antichrist" always appears with the iota and never the eta as "antichrest". This complicates things.

The usual explanation why Chrestian exclusively dominates the early evidence, there following a change to Christian (via Chreistian), is that this is a result of iotacism. However I don't agree. Moreover since preparing this catalog new data has come to light. As a result the explanatory hypothesis outlined at the end of the review will need to be revised.


Chrestian and Christian in the NHL

Martijn Linssen more recently conducted a review of the use of "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the NHL. along with the Coptic "nomina sacra". Here it has been found that the terms Chrestian and Chrestos dominate.

ChrEstian all over the Nag Hammadi Library
https://www.academia.edu/62646507/ChrEs ... di_Library

One of the more remarkable findings is that both terms Chrestian and Christian) are explicitly used in the Gospel of Philip. This cannot be explained by iotacism. The author seems to use these terms in a differentiated manner.

From Chrestian to Christian - Philip beyond the grave
https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave


SUMMARY

As I have mentioned elsewhere I have yet to revise any explanatory hypothesis to make sense of this new data. I have some thoughts on this but have yet to discuss them. The data prior to the 4th century suggests that there appears to have been a class of people in antiquity who were referred to as "Chrestians" or "Chresians". I am not quite sure what this term actually meant when applied in a generic sense to a class or group of people. Another article which I assembled earlier may have some value:

The sources of CHRESTOS (χρηστός- Strong's Number: 5543) and
CHRISTOS (Χριστός - Strong's Number: 5547) in Antiquity

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chres ... ristos.htm

It could be that the term Chrestian meant something like "The Good Ones" or "The Good Guys" or "The Good People" in the sense of some sort of community name for the good folk. I do not find that it necessarily had anything to do with the "Christians" as defined in the Church history of Eusebius. It appears to be a Hellenistic term used in the Graeco-Roman milieu. As to whom it was applied, or why, IDK at the moment.

So I hope the above response answers most of the questions raised.
I appreciate the detailed explanations.

I also understand that you have a theory regarding what I'm calling basic Xians. That theory is of course based on some kind of reading of the evidence, but of course it is not the only potential theory that can be formed based on the evidence. It should be considered.

I prefer the term basic Xians for its rather complete ambiguity, and I understand it's not your own. The question of the interpretation and relationship of these different X-ian terms is not resolved in my mind. I understand others claim to have resolved it, and I understand the Gospel of Philip plays a pivotal role in this claim, as you have presented it. To be perfectly clear, I haven't stated a theory here.

I referred to http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm and I find it ambiguous. I quoted a statement from the other page on these inscriptions because it made a definitive claim of "totally unconvincing" (which is still, to be honest, a little ambiguous ... totally unconvincing about what?). I understand now you are asking that I put this in the context of a different book, and that's fine. That doesn't tell me, positively, what you are thinking here.

What exactly are you claiming about the inscriptions (viii) Inscription from Aurelia Julia [296-297] and (xi) Tomb Inscription of Family from Temenothyrai [278-279]? In your own words.

I feel that you've answered so much more than what I brought up (which is great) but have still left me just as unclear about everything I had questions about before you replied.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Peter Kirby »

And, sine ira et studio, when I look at this:
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:01 am (viii) Inscription from Aurelia Julia [296-297]

https://archive.org/details/christiansf ... 2/mode/2up

Aurelia Julia for her father ... and her mother, Beroneikiane, and for my sweetest child Severus and my daughter-in-law Moundane, in memory. Christians [Χρειστιανοι].

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:36 pm (xi) Tomb Inscription of Family from Temenothyrai [278-279]

T.D. Barnes, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, p. 242

In the year 363, the tenth of the month Pereitios. Eutyches son of Eutyches, (prepared this tomb) for Tatia his wife and for his father, in memory; Christans [Χρειστιανοι]; and for himself. Phellinas. From Temenothyrai.

I for one think, "cool, historical data based on inscriptions that are even dated (especially the second one here) that let us know for sure people were writing Χρειστιανοι."

And when I look at this, again in the same attempt to be fair and open-minded:
Chrestian and Christian in the NHL

Martijn Linssen more recently conducted a review of the use of "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the NHL. along with the Coptic "nomina sacra". Here it has been found that the terms Chrestian and Chrestos dominate.

ChrEstian all over the Nag Hammadi Library
https://www.academia.edu/62646507/ChrEs ... di_Library

One of the more remarkable findings is that both terms Chrestian and Christian) are explicitly used in the Gospel of Philip. This cannot be explained by iotacism. The author seems to use these terms in a differentiated manner.

From Chrestian to Christian - Philip beyond the grave
https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave
I think, "cool, a compelling interpretation that may shed light on the use of these terms, which I should investigate further."

And you're already looking to revise your hypotheses based on this new data, which is great!

I just don't find it very consistent in terms of method. I don't see any credible route forward other than revising your hypotheses to include 3rd century Χρειστιανοι inscriptions. I understand this may seem like a bit of a bind, but you've shown you can adapt your hypotheses to new data. I am going to take a leap of faith here. You can do it! You can adapt your hypothesis to this data too!
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Chrestians vs Christians: Martyr, Tertullian, the Big Five MSS

Post by mlinssen »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 5:59 pm And, sine ira et studio, when I look at this:
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:01 am (viii) Inscription from Aurelia Julia [296-297]

https://archive.org/details/christiansf ... 2/mode/2up

Aurelia Julia for her father ... and her mother, Beroneikiane, and for my sweetest child Severus and my daughter-in-law Moundane, in memory. Christians [Χρειστιανοι].

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:36 pm (xi) Tomb Inscription of Family from Temenothyrai [278-279]

T.D. Barnes, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, p. 242

In the year 363, the tenth of the month Pereitios. Eutyches son of Eutyches, (prepared this tomb) for Tatia his wife and for his father, in memory; Christans [Χρειστιανοι]; and for himself. Phellinas. From Temenothyrai.

I for one think, "cool, historical data based on inscriptions that are even dated (especially the second one here) that let us know for sure people were writing Χρειστιανοι."

And when I look at this, again in the same attempt to be fair and open-minded:
Chrestian and Christian in the NHL

Martijn Linssen more recently conducted a review of the use of "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the NHL. along with the Coptic "nomina sacra". Here it has been found that the terms Chrestian and Chrestos dominate.

ChrEstian all over the Nag Hammadi Library
https://www.academia.edu/62646507/ChrEs ... di_Library

One of the more remarkable findings is that both terms Chrestian and Christian) are explicitly used in the Gospel of Philip. This cannot be explained by iotacism. The author seems to use these terms in a differentiated manner.

From Chrestian to Christian - Philip beyond the grave
https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave
I think, "cool, a compelling interpretation that may shed light on the use of these terms, which I should investigate further."

And you're already looking to revise your hypotheses based on this new data, which is great!

I just don't find it very consistent in terms of method. I don't see any credible route forward other than revising your hypotheses to include 3rd century Χρειστιανοι inscriptions. I understand this may seem like a bit of a bind, but you've shown you can adapt your hypotheses to new data. I am going to take a leap of faith here. You can do it! You can adapt your hypothesis to this data too!
Vaticanus contains αντιχρειϲτοϲ

Page 39-45 of From_Chrestian_to_Christian_Philip_beyond_the_grave_Discussion_content, page 42-43 for this particular one:

https://www.academia.edu/97781110/From_ ... on_content

1 Joh 2:18 αντιχρειστος / αντιχρειστοι
1 Joh 2:22 αντιχρειϲτοϲ
1 Joh 4:3 αντιχρειϲτου
2 Joh 1:7 αντιχρειϲτοϲ

Hyperlinks as usual:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442 Right column, from the bottom, line 12: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:18)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1443 Left column, from the top, line 11: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:22)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1444 Middle column, from the bottom, line 14: αντιχρ[ε]ιϲτου (1 John 4:3).

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1446 Middle column, from the bottom, line 3: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (2 John 1:7)

1a. With regards to the icon, we have three variants that we see in pseudo-xr?st: xrhst (Coptic Matthew), xreist (Bezae Greek yet PERHAPS not Latin!, Vaticanus) and xrist (Coptic Mark, Sinaiticus)

1b. With regards to the icon, we have two variants that we see in anti-xr?st: xreist (Vaticanus) and xrist (Coptic, Sinaiticus)

2. With regards to the "followers", we have three variants that we see in xr?stian(s): xrhst (Coptic once, Sinaiticus), xreist (Bezae Greek, Vaticanus) and xrist (Coptic 2/3, Bezae Latin)

Let's line all those up because honestly I've lost track

1. ICON xhrst: Coptic Matthew xreist: Bezae Greek, Vaticanus xrist: Coptic Mark + ff, Sinaiticus
2. FOLLOWERS xrhst: Coptic once, Sinaiticus xreist: Bezae Greek, Vaticanus xrist: Coptic 2/3, Bezae Latin

A. Justin Martyr calling himself Chrestian:

viewtopic.php?p=150674#p150674

B. Tertullian slipping his pen when he accuses alleged mispronunciation of Christians via Chrestians - while attributing entirely different meanings to both words and thereby demonstrating that they are, in fact, two different words:

Tertullian, likewise, doesn’t confuse Chrestians with Christians in Ad Nationes Chapter 3 verse 8 (line 3 ff):
Christianum vero nomen, quantum significatio est, de unctione interpretatur. Etiam cum corrupte a vobis Chrestiani pronuntiamur (nam ne nominis quidem ipsius liquido certi estis), sic quoque de suavitate vel bonitate modulatum est.

But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you Chrestiani (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity
Tertullian also seems to be unaware of the fact that he is defending both words: Christian is derived from anointing (χρίω) yet Chrestian comes from sweetness and benignity (χρηστός)? The Latin words ‘unction’ and ‘suavitate / bonitate’ evidently are not related to either one another or to any form of Chrest or Christ, and whereas Justin offers great substantiation in the original choice of words, Tertullian’s Latin here is mere sweet talking. The earliest MS for Ad Nationes is Codex Agobardinus (Ms. Latin 1622), line 9 from the bottom:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... ianus.zoom

C. Another witness is Tacitus Annales 15:44; the earliest Tacitus, the 11th CE MS in Beneventan script (Cornelius Tacitus, et Apuleius longobardis characteribus exarate folio 38r, shelfmark Plut.68.2 Plutei_68.02_0001) contains the relevant sentences at lines 19-23; diplomatic transcription:
… Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissi mis poenis affecit quos p(er) flagitia invisos vul gus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis ei(us) Christus Tiberio imperitante p(er) p(ro)curatore(m) Pon Tiu(m) Pilatu(m) supplicio affectus erat …
The translation from Perseus TUFTS, corrected for the e in Chrestians:
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus


Do note that the Beneventan script uses a different ‘r’ depending on the succeeding vowel being either an ‘i’ (cf. Christus Tiberio imperitante) or another vowel (cf. nero, reos, erat), and also the fact that erasing the ‘e’ leaves an empty space in Chrestians, starting at line 19:

http://mss.bmlonline.it/s.aspx?Id=AWOIy ... oB#/oro/81

D. Regarding Suetonius, Jobjorn Boman17 has studied 41 of the oldest and most trustworthy manuscripts from the 9th to the 13th century and he then quotes the following:
In total, a majority of c. 51 % (21 of 41) of all the collected manuscripts read Chresto. If the one MS reading Cresto is included, the Chresto group include c. 53.7 % (22 of 41) of the collected MSS. The second largest group is the c. 31.7 % (13 of 41) reading Cherestro. The MSS reading a variant of the title Christ (Χρο, Χριστο, Christo and Cristo) form a small group of c. 9.8 % (4 of 41). The hapaxes are Cresto, Chrestro and Cheresto (c. 2.4 % – one MS – each). A spelling with an e is used in 90.2 % (37 of 41) of the collected manuscripts.
Viklund continues: It should also be noted, that the variants of “Christ” occur in late to even later manuscripts, and then mostly in the less reliable Z-group – and a search by Walter Shandruk across early papyri18 demonstrates that Χριστ… doesn’t start to become a regular phenomenon until after 500 CE (yet only in loose MSS, never in “official” NT’s)
17 Jobjorn Boman, Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius’ Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem 2012, pp. 355-376
18 Shandruk, The Interchange of ι and η in Spelling χριστ- in Documentary Papyri, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 47 (2010) 205-21

D. Last but certainly not least, the NHL is full of ⲓⲏⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ ("Jesus" the Good) IN FULL, all available right here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9293&p=141530&hilit ... on#p141530

Dear Peter, the Chrestian theory in this form and size is mine, and you can call it basic Xtianity but why would you?
Dear Pete, why would the Church falsify the FF and other writings yet leave these so very clear traces to Chrestianity?
And why would Philip distinguish between the two names, and why would the NHL react to the Christian writings via using Chrestian labels?


Chrestianity is the original movement, starting out around 0-50 CE.
Most vehemently anti-Judaic, as a result of which Chrestians attached Judaics throughout the Roman empire, evidence of which is in the various uprisings and wars involving "Jews" that had little if any named causes and reasons yet always best religious consequences.
Towards the 2nd half of 2nd CE, the C&C decided to rewrite the story in order to counter Chrestianity: they made up their own form of pseudo-Judaism so they could fit their own pseudo-Messiah into it, and Mark is the first outcome while Matthew redacting *Ev into Luke while writing his own on the side was the second.
The epistles got produced in order to explain it all, and afterwards the LXX got produced in order to back up the falsified "prophecies", while leaving evidence of that by translating anointed with XS and even using a nomen sacrum for that:

viewtopic.php?p=151684#p151684

And we find χρEιστος in Vaticanus yet again, in the LXX:

viewtopic.php?p=151450#p151450

Iotacism?

Every single source attests to the following definition: shifting the pronunciation of the name of letter η (eta) from /ɛːta/ to /ita/ in Greek. The ‘e’ was, and then the ‘i’ (be)came, and if there is anything that attests to this in abundance, it is the texts that have been deliberately tampered with in order to eradicate all traces to Chrestianity: countless “corrections” have been exercised by Christian scribes to turn Greek epsilons and etas into iotas, all of them redactions that failed to suggest an initial error by the scribe, as the original letter took up much more space than what was used to replace it.
I(o)tacism means confusing the ‘e’ and the ‘i’? Ask those who claim that to be the case, how many examples they can provide of MSS where the ι got “confused into” an ‘ε’, ‘ει’ or ‘η’. There is only one direction of dependence to all that modifying and falsifying of texts, and it attests to Christians eradicating any and all evidence of Chrestianity: any confusion in this matter resides solely with the apologists. And Philip does not confuse anything either, nor did anyone else back then.
Yet regardless of this monodirectional alleged evolution of ‘e’ into ‘i’ which certainly isn’t caused by linguistics but by politics, and politics alone, there (naturally) isn’t a precedence for iotacism occurring in the case of two words (χρηστός as well as χριστός) already existing simultaneously:
imagine that you have a distant relative called Tim (or Tom). You may forget which his name really is – yet imagine that you have two distant relatives, one named Tim and the other Martijn Linssen 31-10-2022 15 Tom, and you’ll likely forget which one is which but you’ll always remember that they are different from one another, that there are two of them. Now imagine that you have twin sons called Tim and Tom, which much more closely resembles the (usually fairly intimate) relationship of the people towards Chrestianity or Christianity: you will likely mistake one for the other more often than you would wish for, but you will never confuse their names – nor will you ever have any difficulties knowing which one came first

And now I'll leave you all to it once again. Ceterum censeo, read the order of keywords in my latest publication and observe Christian origins in a nutshell:

Coptic, Gospel of Thomas, anti-Judaism, *Ev, Chrestianity, Greek, Synoptics, Judaism, Christianity, Patristics, Marcion, LXX


It all started with Coptic, Thomas is the unwilling and unwitting source to it all. Marked by fierce anti-Judaism, *Ev continues that line and establishes what I label Chrestianity: a purely "Gentile" movement not only devoid of any and all Jewishness but even diametrically opposed to all of Judaism.
Greek is the language in which it all becomes mainstream, as well in which it gets countered by Romans with their military and cringing Greek: the Synoptics get created, most important aspect of which is linking it all to Judaism and even rooting it into it: Christianity. The Patristics come after, they invent Marcion in order to refute all of Chrestianity, and create the LXX in order to back up their fables and lies

All the best
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Chrestians vs Christians: Martyr, Tertullian, the Big Five MSS

Post by Peter Kirby »

mlinssen wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 11:46 pm Dear Peter, the Chrestian theory in this form and size is mine, and you can call it basic Xtianity but why would you?
No, I'm not referring specifically to your theory here.

I'm referring to the facts, the underlying reality not yet completely known to me, because I intend to investigate it further. In so doing, I want to be precise and prescind from assumptions that I haven't worked out myself. I agree that you've given a great deal of thought and research into the subject, which is commendable and well worth tracing, as I've said a few times now. As I have also said elsewhere, I intend to do a full diachronic survey of my own before I attempt to unravel this. I need the language to do this investigation without prejudicing the findings. And I need some kind of simple reference that encompasses all the rest.

In fact, I got this idea from you (although I've seen references like this elsewhere).
mlinssen wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:46 am It's all xtian so good to go, is what I'd comment
Give me time, and I might have something more to say than that. Cheers.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 5:41 pm
I appreciate the detailed explanations.

///

I referred to http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm and I find it ambiguous. I quoted a statement from the other page on these inscriptions because it made a definitive claim of "totally unconvincing" (which is still, to be honest, a little ambiguous ... totally unconvincing about what?). I understand now you are asking that I put this in the context of a different book, and that's fine. That doesn't tell me, positively, what you are thinking here.

What exactly are you claiming about the inscriptions (viii) Inscription from Aurelia Julia [296-297] and (xi) Tomb Inscription of Family from Temenothyrai [278-279]? In your own words.

I feel that you've answered so much more than what I brought up (which is great) but have still left me just as unclear about everything I had questions about before you replied.
In this post I will try and summarise what I think about these two inscriptions. They appear in Elsa Gibson's book "The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia" and in my review (linked above) they correspond to inscriptions #32 (Aurelia Julia) and #36 (Temenothyrai).

Inscription #36
Described as a "white marble doorstone; bottom third broken away; large crack through center of stone from top of hole to top of stone. First seen at Usak; now in Izmir archeological museum. It is dated to 278/9.

Inscription #32
Described as a white marble funerary altar with projecting moulding. All visible parts complete; bottom set in cement. Dated to 296/7; At Kizilcasogut; in a courtyard, supporting a wooden column.

Altogether Gibson deals with a total of 45 inscriptions of which only 5 appear with a date prior to the 4th century. The balance are dated "to the early 4th century". The following is from the book:

Date of the "Christians for Christians" Formula

The "Christians for Christians" formula [1] is pre-Constantinian. One inscription is dated to 248/9 (#22). The presence of Aurelii [2] dates the epitaphs securely after 212. The approximate dates of #8 to #13, and #15 can be determined, as #16 is dated to 304/5 CE [3] and seems to be of the same workshop [4] as these.

Numbers 32, #36 and #42, from southern Phrygia, are dated to 296/7, 278/9, and 242/3 CE, respectively. Numbers 25 to 30, from northern Phrygia, from the appearance of the letters and indications of contemporary pronunciation probably date from the early fourth century.

The decades when the "Christians for Christians" formula was most popular must parallel closely the period of use of the Eumeneian Formula. [5] The date occurrences of the latter are all in the third quarter of the third century, between 246 and 273, but I have recently published an example which seems to date from the early fourth century.

p.4; "The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia"
Elsa Gibson, Harvard Theological Studies XXXII
[Note: Footnotes in square brackets are editorial, and are discussed below]

These footnotes (my comments) are as follows:

Editorial Comments
The following editorial footnotes correspond to the above claims:

[1] The "Christians for Christians" formula

The author admits that the "Christians for Christians" formula is subject to change throughout the distribution of citations presented. There are two main variants, of the original Greek, identified in the spelling of the word "christian". These two main variants are shown in the following summary tabulations in the columns labelled XPIC- and XPHC-. It is not the purpose or the scope of this article to explore this fact further. Rather it is noted that there is no single and unambiguous greek wording, but multiple. It is also admitted that in some of the inscriptions (#2), the "Christians for Christians" is identified as ungrammatical.

However, a far more serious issue is emergent from a number of these inscriptions, because it is freely admitted that certain (#2 and #30) of the "Christians for Christians" phrases look to have been added by a later hand. This raises all sorts of possibilities which do not auger well for the integrity of the remaining citations, especially considering note [4] below, that most of this class of greek inscriptions

[2] The presence of "Aurelii"

Many of the inscriptions contain reference to the greek word "Aurelii". This was entirely unexpected, and required further research to determine that the word is to be regarded as a praenomen, or a first name, to be loosely translated as "citizen", or in full meaning "Roman citizen". For example "Aurelii Satorneinos" would translate loosely as "Roman citizen Satorneinos". This practice appears to have been evident from the rule of Caracalla. I have not yet been able to determine what the distribution of this praenomen is with respect to all other Greek prenicene inscriptions.

[3] Approximate dating of #8 to #13, and #15 from #16.

The author has cited many of the inscriptions to be dated to the early fourth century. In progressing through the book sequentially, the dating of the inscriptions numbered 8 through 13, and #15, are all noted to be related to the dating of inscription #16. When we reach inscription #16, however, we note that it does not contain any "Christians for Christians" formula, and in fact does not mention anything at all "christian". Although it appears to be dated to the year 304/5 CE, and addressed with the name "Aurelios Markeianos", there is nothing in it related to "Christian".

[4] The "seems to be of the same workshop"

The author makes a point in a number of places that the "Christians for Christians" inscriptions appear to have been made by the same workshop, and in some instances, the same hand. That "over half of the inscriptions" may be attributed to one workshop is significant for a number of reasons.

[5] The use of the Eumeneian Formula"

The so-called "Eumeneian formula," warns that if anyone should disturb the grave, "he will reckon with (the living) God." In the past, this phrase has been seen to indicate christian identity, however there is absolutely no justification for the reference to be perceived as exclusively Christian. An article entitled Connections with Elites in the World of the Early Christians qualifies this, by saying:
  • At Eumeneia and the surrounding Phrygian region, at least, the phrase indicates Christian identity, but not necessarily in the case of inscriptions from other regions

    (see Calder 1939; Robert 1960: 405-13; Johnson 1995: 41-43).
It seems clear to this reviewer that a certain license has been permitted in the hypothetical significance of specific phrases as they may relate to the hypothetical existence of Christians in the pre-nicene epoch. However, there is absolutely no justification for such theoretical conclusions.

Additional issues raised in the work

[6] The so-called "Montanist Inscriptions"

The so-called "Montanist Inscriptions" of southern phrygia mention the word "Montanus" and have thus sometimes been associated with the (heretical) figure of Montanus, a native of Phrygia, according to the report of Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiae, 5.16–18, and also via Eusebius, Tertullian. The author discloses that the hypothetical association between the "Montanists" as reported by Eusebius (whether or not via Tertullian) and a certain subset of the Phrygian inscriptions bearing the reference to "Montanus" is supported by some, and disputed by others.

Ten pages are spent in exploring the basis for "academic" attribution of "Montanist" to a subset of these inscriptions. Eusebius of Caesarea is heavily quoted, since it is his research, and his alone, by whom our knowledge of the pre-Nicene "christans" was gathered up in the fourth century.

[7] Inscriptions which "seem to date from the early fourth century"

There are a large distribution of these greek inscriptions of Phrygia that have been dated by the author, and others, to the early fourth century. In fact, excluding the handful (5) of citations which are listed below (See the section "Summary of Critical and Exceptional Citations") by default, all other citations are from the early fourth century onwards.
There are no problems with inscriptions dated from the rule of Constantine. Everyone openly acknowledges that "Christianity" was embraced as a state religion in the fourth century by this Roman emperor, who then built hundreds of basilicas around the empire. The question that needs to be asked, in an historical sense, is whether in fact there were Christians in the pre-nicene epoch.

[8] Photo Quality: very poor

Although the data content is rich, the quality of the plates is very poor, even for a 1970's standard. The book was never written to provide proper scientific citations that included high resolution photography, or indeed any other technological tests that today are more amenable. It appears to me to represent a quick sketch of the field, and to introduce a few new inscriptions for citation.

[9] Is the case of Oded Golan relevant to this review?

For many many centuries since the first Christian pilgrim is recorded to have travelled back to "The Holy Land", there have been "people seeking relics". (The first Christian pilgrim recorded was Constantine's mother-in-law. The second was Helena, his mother, who found the one true cross, and the nails)

SOURCE: http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm

In my own words whenever we examine the evidence supporting any specific claim there should always be a ledger. On one side of the ledger is the positive evidence which supports the claim. On the other side of the ledger is the negative evidence which raises doubt over the claim. Our task is to evaluate the balance of the positive and negative evidence.

At the end of the review I wrote this: "The work offers insufficient data to support the hypothesis of a pre-Constantinian dating."

By this I basically mean that the negative evidence (outlined above in the editorial footnotes) was --- at the time of my review -- sufficient to question the certainty to be associated with the claim for Pre-Nicene "Christian" inscriptions.

SUMMARY

I am happy to re-evaluate any of these 5 "early" inscriptions (particularly the two cited --- #32 and #36) through better quality photographs and to discuss the implications. The negative evidence outlined will also need to be discussed.


"THE WAY FORWARD IMHO"

However I suggest that these need to be placed into is a larger picture of three major parts.

* The first part represents all known inscriptions to either "Christians" or "Chrestians" (and there are a few of these).

* The second part represents all known physical manuscripts and fragmentary papyri which are dated "early" and which make reference to "Christians" or "Chrestians" or "Chresians".

These are more or less summarised here (perhaps as yet incompletely):
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chres ... stians.htm
The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity

* Finally, the third part of the picture represents Martijn's review of the "Christians" or "Chrestians" (coupled with the analysis of the "nomina sacra" in the NHL).


Martijn

I am glad Martijn has re-entered discussion. I have on a number of occasions pointed out that his theories are capable of being differentiated into two main themes. His review of the NHL (and other manuscripts) is first class and this involves the Chrestian (your Xian) study and its implications. His second theme is the priority of Thomas which IMO has not yet been "proved" to my satisfaction. My position is that my theory for 4th century Christian origins is also likewise nowhere near "proved". I refuse to deal in certainties. IDK and I don't think anyone can be absolutely "certain" of anything that went down in antiquity. This does not mean I reject his Thomas priority theory. All it means is that I simply don't know. I refuse to deal in ad hominem argument but he is not so inclined. And thus the merry-go-round of exchanges.

Hopefully we can separately discuss the "Chrestian" (Xian) paradox and the Thomas priority as calm and rational independent researchers. I appreciate the objective and methodological measure that Peter Kirby has brought to various discussions. Thanks very much.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Chrestians vs Christians: Martyr, Tertullian, the Big Five MSS

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 11:46 pm Dear Pete, why would the Church falsify the FF and other writings yet leave these so very clear traces to Chrestianity?
ATM IMO the FF knew that Chrestianity (whatever it was) was extant earlier than their fictional pseudo-historical narratives and ramblings. They embedded small kernals of truth into their fictions and happily passed them off with the rest of their fabrication. The FF writings are from 11th-14th century. They need to be set aside as late secondary evidence.
And why would Philip distinguish between the two names, and why would the NHL react to the Christian writings via using Chrestian labels?[/b][/highlight]
This is IMHO the $64,000 question of Christian origins. The NHL is from the mid 4th century and need to be front and center as very early primary evidence. (Or at least one step removed) IDK the answer to this question atm. Give me some time and I'll put one forward.

What do you and people here make of the term xrhsmo/s / χρησμός


Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, χρησμός (tufts.edu)
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... y=xrhsmo/s

LSJ xrhsmo/s
χρησμός
, ὁ, (χράω (B) A)
A.oracular response, oracle, Pi.P.4.60, SIG1044.49 (Halic., iv/iii B. C.), etc.; “χ. ἀσήμους δυσκρίτως τ᾽ εἰρημένους” A.Pr.662; “ἔχρησ᾽ Ἀδράστῳ Αοξίας χρησμόν” E.Ph.409; σφι χρησμὸν ἔφαινε delivered an oracle to them, Hdt.1.159; “ᾁδειν” Th.2.21 (cf. χρησμῳδός); εὔτεκνοι χ. promising happy progeny, E.Ion424; “χ. ἔμμετρος” Plu.2.396c; καταλογάδην τοὺς χ. λέγειν ib. 397d; χρησμὸς . . περαίνεται is fulfilled, E.Ph.1703; “χρησμοῦ ὄντος . . τὴν πόλιν διαφθαρῆναι” Pl.R.415c; ὥσπερ χρησμοὺς γράψαντες, i. e. with all solemnity, Lycurg.92, cf. Isoc.4.171.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wo ... k&sort=max

Word frequency information for χρησμός

Words in Corpus Max Max/10k Min Min/10k Corpus Name

218450 58 2.655 58 2.655 Pausanias, Description of Greece
121554 39 3.208 39 3.208 Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, Books I-V
6958 38 54.613 38 54.613 Lucian, Alexander
192194 34 1.769 34 1.769 Diodorus Siculus, Library
184947 32 1.73 32 1.73 Herodotus, The Histories
35174 30 8.529 30 8.529 Apollodorus, Library and Epitome
284417 30 1.055 30 1.055 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae, Books I-XX
21396 26 12.152 26 12.152 Greek Anthology, Volume V
288825 24 0.831 24 0.831 Strabo, Geography
298102 21 0.704 21 0.704 Aristides, Aelius, Orationes
9487 19 20.027 19 20.027 Aristophanes, Knights
8594 19 22.108 19 22.108 Plutarch, De Pythiae oraculis
279736 14 0.5 14 0.5 Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae
265446 14 0.527 14 0.527 Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists
177900 10 0.562 10 0.562 Dio Chrysostom, Orationes
83898 10 1.192 10 1.192 Philostratus the Athenian, Vita Apollonii
99674 10 1.003 10 1.003 Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica
21960 9 4.098 9 4.098 Philostratus the Athenian, Heroicus
46047 8 1.737 8 1.737 Philostratus the Athenian, Vitae Sophistarum
8221 8 9.731 8 9.731 Plutarch, Lysander
399409 7 0.175 7 0.175 Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Historiae Romanae
5410 7 12.939 7 12.939 Plutarch, Parallela minora
6692 7 10.46 7 10.46 Lucian, Juppiter trageodeus
4737 7 14.777 7 14.777 Plutarch, Parallela minora
6489 6 9.246 6 9.246 Euripides, Heracleidae
41667 6 1.44 6 1.44 Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon
6463 6 9.284 6 9.284 Plutarch, Quaestiones Graecae
20118 6 2.982 6 2.982 Plutarch, Alexander
79307 6 0.757 6 0.757 Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, Books XVIII-XX
6767 6 8.867 6 8.867 Plutarch, Quaestiones Graecae
15476 5 3.231 5 3.231 Plutarch, De defectu oraculorum
40840 5 1.224 5 1.224 Plato, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
16474 5 3.035 5 3.035 Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesiaca
38686 5 1.292 5 1.292 Aelian, Varia Historia
6959 4 5.748 4 5.748 Plutarch, Demosthenes
9890 4 4.044 4 4.044 Plutarch, Adversus Colotem
8806 4 4.542 4 4.542 Aristophanes, Lysistrata
16870 4 2.371 4 2.371 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Thucydide
23101 4 1.732 4 1.732 Philostratus the Lemnian (Philostratus Major), Imagines
8146 4 4.91 4 4.91 Plutarch, Aristides
10335 4 3.87 4 3.87 Euripides, Phoenissae
110982 4 0.36 4 0.36 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers
9336 4 4.284 4 4.284 Plutarch, Septem sapientium convivium
105765 4 0.378 4 0.378 Appian, The Foreign Wars
13450 4 2.974 4 2.974 Plutarch, De genio Socratis
150173 4 0.266 4 0.266 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War
125221 3 0.24 3 0.24 Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii
14463 3 2.074 3 2.074 Plutarch, Quaestiones Romanae
78707 3 0.381 3 0.381 Arrian, Anabasis
16629 3 1.804 3 1.804 Plutarch, Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata
10962 3 2.737 3 2.737 Plutarch, Agesilaus
24954 3 1.202 3 1.202 Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus
9206 3 3.259 3 3.259 Plutarch, Nicias
8494 3 3.532 3 3.532 Aeschylus, Agamemnon
9834 3 3.051 3 3.051 Euripides, Ion
13473 3 2.227 3 2.227 Plutarch, Quaestiones Romanae
38023 3 0.789 3 0.789 Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos
5594 3 5.363 3 5.363 Plutarch, De E apud Delphos
17811 3 1.684 3 1.684 Plutarch, Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata
32442 3 0.925 3 0.925 Elegy and Iambus, Volume I
305870 2 0.065 2 0.065 Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae
5514 2 3.627 2 3.627 Aeschylus, Eumenides
8166 2 2.449 2 2.449 Plutarch, Themistocles
8838 2 2.263 2 2.263 Plutarch, Solon
103320 2 0.194 2 0.194 Aelian, De Natura Animalium
5694 2 3.512 2 3.512 Aeschylus, Libation Bearers
112327 2 0.178 2 0.178 Isocrates, Speeches
4345 2 4.603 2 4.603 Arrian, Periplus Ponti Euxini
9550 2 2.094 2 2.094 Plutarch, Pelopidas
11528 2 1.735 2 1.735 Aristophanes, Birds
88388 2 0.226 2 0.226 Plato, Republic
48230 2 0.415 2 0.415 Aeschines, Speeches
7602 2 2.631 2 2.631 Plutarch, Theseus
1083 2 18.467 2 18.467 Plutarch, Comparison of Agesilaus and Pompey
6153 2 3.25 2 3.25 Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound
6337 2 3.156 2 3.156 Plutarch, De garrulitate
9440 2 2.119 2 2.119 Plutarch, Romulus
9736 2 2.054 2 2.054 Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus
8795 2 2.274 2 2.274 Aristophanes, Plutus
80346 2 0.249 2 0.249 Epictetus, Works
9659 2 2.071 2 2.071 Plutarch, Lycurgus
8393 2 2.383 2 2.383 Plutarch, Phocion
8087 2 2.473 2 2.473 Euripides, Electra
5966 2 3.352 2 3.352 Plutarch, Cimon
5362 2 3.73 2 3.73 Plutarch, Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus
4237 2 4.72 2 4.72 Lucian, De morte Peregrini
66514 2 0.301 2 0.301 Xenophon, Hellenica
7026 2 2.847 2 2.847 Lucian, De saltatione
311666 2 0.064 2 0.064 Polybius, Histories
12197 2 1.64 2 1.64 Plutarch, Cicero
2333 2 8.573 2 8.573 Lucian, Juppiter confuatus
8678 2 2.305 2 2.305 Aristophanes, Peace
20511 2 0.975 2 0.975 Flavius Josephus, Contra Apionem
4551 2 4.395 2 4.395 Plutarch, Agis
16508 1 0.606 1 0.606 Aristotle, Athenian Constitution
1997 1 5.008 1 5.008 Plutarch, De amicorum multitudine
7672 1 1.303 1 1.303 Plutarch, Numa
15349 1 0.652 1 0.652 Plutarch, Apophthegmata Laconica
9958 1 1.004 1 1.004 Aristophanes, Frogs
21294 1 0.47 1 0.47 Pindar, Odes
7984 1 1.253 1 1.253 Euripides, Bacchae
12853 1 0.778 1 0.778 Lycurgus, Speeches
65568 1 0.153 1 0.153 Aristotle, Politics
20885 1 0.479 1 0.479 Elegy and Iambus, Volume II
10944 1 0.914 1 0.914 Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus
24991 1 0.4 1 0.4 Greek Anthology, Volume IV
7216 1 1.386 1 1.386 Philostratus Minor, Imagines
5747 1 1.74 1 1.74 Lucian, Bis accusatus sive tribunalia
4389 1 2.278 1 2.278 Euripides, Cyclops
5906 1 1.693 1 1.693 Plutarch, Titus Flamininus
5748 1 1.74 1 1.74 Julian the Emperor, Hymn to the Mother of the Gods, Oration V
4060 1 2.463 1 2.463 Plutarch, Quaestiones Naturales
5432 1 1.841 1 1.841 Aeschylus, Persians
13599 1 0.735 1 0.735 Plutarch, Praecepta gerendae reipublicae
11887 1 0.841 1 0.841 Plutarch, De sollertia animalium
9122 1 1.096 1 1.096 Sophocles, Electra
1719 1 5.817 1 5.817 Plutarch, Instituta Laconica
5653 1 1.769 1 1.769 Julian the Emperor, To the Uneducated Cynics, Oration VI
9712 1 1.03 1 1.03 Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum
10284 1 0.972 1 0.972 Plutarch, De sera numinis vindicta
6288 1 1.59 1 1.59 Lucian, Philopsuedes sive incredulus
8500 1 1.176 1 1.176 Euripides, Hippolytus
12375 1 0.808 1 0.808 Plutarch, Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur
12353 1 0.81 1 0.81 Plutarch, Demetrius
4244 1 2.356 1 2.356 Lucian, Contemplantes
1907 1 5.244 1 5.244 Plutarch, Instituta Laconica
6852 1 1.459 1 1.459 Julian the Emperor, Panegyric on the Empress Eusebia, Oration III
9381 1 1.066 1 1.066 Plutarch, Caius Marcius Coriolanus
14225 1 0.703 1 0.703 Plutarch, Apophthegmata Laconica
75633 1 0.132 1 0.132 Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales
11034 1 0.906 1 0.906 Plutarch, Pyrrhus
1176 1 8.503 1 8.503 Plutarch, Comparison of Theseus and Romulus
21518 1 0.465 1 0.465 Theocritus, Idylls
5708 1 1.752 1 1.752 Lucian, Gallus
3026 1 3.305 1 3.305 Julian the Emperor, A Consolation to Himself Upon the Departure of the Excellent Sallust, Oration VIII
116927 1 0.086 1 0.086 Appian, The Civil Wars
16119 1 0.62 1 0.62 Plutarch, Caesar
8338 1 1.199 1 1.199 Plutarch, De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute
61711 1 0.162 1 0.162 Plato, Hippias Major, Hippias Minor, Ion, Menexenus, Cleitophon, Timaeus, Critias, Minos, Epinomis
8955 1 1.117 1 1.117 Plutarch, De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute
29370 1 0.34 1 0.34 Xenophon, Works on Socrates
11912 1 0.839 1 0.839 Plutarch, Aratus
31804 1 0.314 1 0.314 Galen, On the Natural Faculties.
8838 1 1.131 1 1.131 Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris
8323 1 1.201 1 1.201 Euripides, Medea
27391 1 0.365 1 0.365 Julian the Emperor, Epistulae

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 5:59 pm And, sine ira et studio, when I look at this:
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:01 am (viii) Inscription from Aurelia Julia [296-297]

https://archive.org/details/christiansf ... 2/mode/2up

Aurelia Julia for her father ... and her mother, Beroneikiane, and for my sweetest child Severus and my daughter-in-law Moundane, in memory. Christians [Χρειστιανοι].

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:36 pm (xi) Tomb Inscription of Family from Temenothyrai [278-279]

T.D. Barnes, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, p. 242

In the year 363, the tenth of the month Pereitios. Eutyches son of Eutyches, (prepared this tomb) for Tatia his wife and for his father, in memory; Christans [Χρειστιανοι]; and for himself. Phellinas. From Temenothyrai.

I for one think, "cool, historical data based on inscriptions that are even dated (especially the second one here) that let us know for sure people were writing Χρειστιανοι."
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 5:56 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 5:41 pm
I appreciate the detailed explanations.

///

I referred to http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm and I find it ambiguous. I quoted a statement from the other page on these inscriptions because it made a definitive claim of "totally unconvincing" (which is still, to be honest, a little ambiguous ... totally unconvincing about what?). I understand now you are asking that I put this in the context of a different book, and that's fine. That doesn't tell me, positively, what you are thinking here.

What exactly are you claiming about the inscriptions (viii) Inscription from Aurelia Julia [296-297] and (xi) Tomb Inscription of Family from Temenothyrai [278-279]? In your own words.

I feel that you've answered so much more than what I brought up (which is great) but have still left me just as unclear about everything I had questions about before you replied.
In this post I will try and summarise what I think about these two inscriptions. They appear in Elsa Gibson's book "The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia" and in my review (linked above) they correspond to inscriptions #32 (Aurelia Julia) and #36 (Temenothyrai).

Inscription #36
Described as a "white marble doorstone; bottom third broken away; large crack through center of stone from top of hole to top of stone. First seen at Usak; now in Izmir archeological museum. It is dated to 278/9.

Inscription #32
Described as a white marble funerary altar with projecting moulding. All visible parts complete; bottom set in cement. Dated to 296/7; At Kizilcasogut; in a courtyard, supporting a wooden column.

Altogether Gibson deals with a total of 45 inscriptions of which only 5 appear with a date prior to the 4th century. The balance are dated "to the early 4th century". The following is from the book:
There was a reason that I said this webpage is ambiguous. Allow me to quote the parts of your reply specifically about these two inscriptions.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 5:56 pmNumbers 32, #36 and #42, from southern Phrygia, are dated to 296/7, 278/9, and 242/3 CE, respectively.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 5:56 pmMany of the inscriptions contain reference to the greek word "Aurelii". This was entirely unexpected, and required further research to determine that the word is to be regarded as a praenomen, or a first name, to be loosely translated as "citizen", or in full meaning "Roman citizen".
That's it, those are the only two parts that deal specifically with those two inscriptions. You go on to say:
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 5:56 pmI am happy to re-evaluate any of these 5 "early" inscriptions (particularly the two cited --- #32 and #36) through better quality photographs and to discuss the implications.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 5:56 pm* The first part represents all known inscriptions to either "Christians" or "Chrestians" (and there are a few of these).

* The second part represents all known physical manuscripts and fragmentary papyri which are dated "early" and which make reference to "Christians" or "Chrestians" or "Chresians".
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 5:56 pm* Finally, the third part of the picture represents Martijn's review of the "Christians" or "Chrestians" (coupled with the analysis of the "nomina sacra" in the NHL).
And finally you say:
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 5:56 pmI refuse to deal in certainties.
It's okay to be ambiguous and uncertain. Let's just try to be on the same page. Based on your responses to my specific questions, I seem to have correctly detected some kind of ambiguity here in how you are evaluating the implications of these inscriptions. You say you would want better quality photographs. Is that the essential bit, the photographs? It's hard to tell. The ambiguity about these two inscriptions is accompanied by a bunch of other stuff copied and pasted from the (also somewhat ambiguous) website.

Personally, I think there are hard questions and easy questions. More hard questions than easy ones. But the existence of 3rd century inscriptions referring to Χρειστιανοι looks like an easy one. I don't really understand getting stuck on the easy ones like this.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Chrestians vs Christians: Martyr, Tertullian, the Big Five MSS

Post by Peter Kirby »

(my emphasis)
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 6:47 pmThey embedded small kernals of truth into their fictions and happily passed them off with the rest of their fabrication. The FF writings are from 11th-14th century. They need to be set aside as late secondary evidence.
This is incorrect. Even if they are fabricated, they need to be understood as fabrications. The setting, motives, and origin of the fabricated texts need to be traced and placed in context, in detail. These hypotheses need to be defended against alternatives, alternatives which may make much more sense of the evidence. Even as fabrications, the texts could reveal much about those that produced them. And the very idea of referring to thousands of texts together as something to be "set aside" is fundamentally ahistorical.

Meta problem: if this is how you really feel, how can you participate here in good faith? It would be one thing if you were at it every day cracking new mysteries about the production of the "FF writings," finding more interpolations, finding more forgeries, finding new ways to understand them. We have people here who do that to great effect like SA, Stuart, and sometimes me. But this? It's philistine. It's the nuclear option. It leaves no room and no time for nuance, discussion, or debate, boldly declaring that it has simply no intent to do so.

If so, why not just log off? How can you hope to engage others who aren't going to set aside these texts?
Post Reply