Jax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:25 pm
^ Hey Martijn, thanks for that Chester Beatty link BTW!
You're welcome, there are tons there, you know
I got the message now, forgot. This is an extremely valuable thread Jax, I think I will do one on the Chrestians in the NHL so it'll be easy for us to pick up on them.
I'll also try to locate Coptic NT texts - those are so incredibly different from the Greek, and I have a feeling that they mention xrhstos: the abbreviation business likely started with the Greek, they even abbreviated the patridi in the Thomas Oxyrhynchus - and now I finally now where that word comes from
Cool! Let's load this thread up!
As to the abbreviated forms, I can't but help feel that it is a Greek writing system of Roman origin. We know that the earliest locations of XCy were in Eastern Roman military veteran colonies (Corinth, Philippi, Troas) and Roman administration cities (Thessalonika, Ephesus, Rome) and that the Romans were very into abbreviations, way more so than any other ancient group, so it would seem likely that they found it natural to abbreviate things like IC etc.
Probably got it's start when they saw how YVHV was rendered in the Greek and just got added to with IC, ThC...
Jax wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:38 pm
If we're going to discuss what the earliest versions of XC were it would be helpful to see the actual evidence.
As far as I know, the earliest copy of Acts 11:26 is in p45 and in that copy we find XPA so that doesn't really help. Though to be fair I am going off of The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts as I have as yet not identified the text in the online image of p45 and they have mislead me before. Here is a link if anyone wants to help find it https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P45
1 Peter 4:16 in p72 has XPICTIANOC and is the only example that I find of this rendering of XC.
So really, the only evidence for Christian for XC is 1 Peter 4:16 in p72 all other examples are either nomina sacra or Chrestian.
is the link to Bodmer VIII Jax. Splendid find! So we have our very first XRISTIANOS, finally.
Dates to 3rd / 4th CE would mean in between 200 and 399 CE?
I have copied the other MSS to this thread, it would be fun if we could distill antichrist passages from this MS but alas
Beware that there is a fragment of the Chester Beatty P45 that has ended up in Vienna:
Jax wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:38 pm
If we're going to discuss what the earliest versions of XC were it would be helpful to see the actual evidence.
As far as I know, the earliest copy of Acts 11:26 is in p45 and in that copy we find XPA so that doesn't really help. Though to be fair I am going off of The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts as I have as yet not identified the text in the online image of p45 and they have mislead me before. Here is a link if anyone wants to help find it https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P45
1 Peter 4:16 in p72 has XPICTIANOC and is the only example that I find of this rendering of XC.
So really, the only evidence for Christian for XC is 1 Peter 4:16 in p72 all other examples are either nomina sacra or Chrestian.
is the link to Bodmer VIII Jax. Splendid find! So we have our very first XRISTIANOS, finally.
Dates to 3rd / 4th CE would mean in between 200 and 399 CE?
I have copied the other MSS to this thread, it would be fun if we could distill antichrist passages from this MS but alas
Beware that there is a fragment of the Chester Beatty P45 that has ended up in Vienna:
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 8:27 am
You mean the edu.org thing? Yeah, why not.
We all start at 0. It's a fine platform really, especially when you know how to use it well. A few more months and I'll have beaten Goodacre's views - FWIW? Too late now to invest in an academic title in biblical anything, apart from the fact that I don't want to support that system
But if you want to reach out, and most certainly if you want to do that in a way that's even a little defined by you yourself, then academia.edu and ResearchGate are fine ways to go, next to the usual blogs and such
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 8:27 am
You mean the edu.org thing? Yeah, why not.
We all start at 0. It's a fine platform really, especially when you know how to use it well. A few more months and I'll have beaten Goodacre's views - FWIW? Too late now to invest in an academic title in biblical anything, apart from the fact that I don't want to support that system
But if you want to reach out, and most certainly if you want to do that in a way that's even a little defined by you yourself, then academia.edu and ResearchGate are fine ways to go, next to the usual blogs and such
I think we can do these at minimum effort: get the scans from Claremont Colleges, go by any translation, and wrote down what it really says. My Chrestian paper will be a handy lead
as it shows which texts have the ligature and which do not have it at all.
It also will be EXTREMELY damaging to see that ALL of the NHL says XRηST(IAN)OS whenever written in full and never XREIST or XREST: it will decisively demonstrate the existence of two complete separate traditions, precisely because the Coptic Dictionary Online so very faithfully attests to full Christian bias:
ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ S CF30142 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ B CF30143 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲅⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ S CF30133 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲉⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ S CF30134 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲉⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ S CF30135 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲏⲥϯⲁⲛⲟⲥ S CF30136 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ S CF30139 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ B CF30140 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ B CF30145 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ F CF30137 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ M CF30138 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲓⲥϯⲁⲛⲟⲥ S CF30146 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛⲟⲥ S CF30141 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲩⲥⲧⲉⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ S CF30144 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
I did a study of the sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity quite some time ago and arrived at the provisional conclusion that the earliest appearance of "Christian" was witnessed in Codex Alexandrinus dated (by dogma and not C14) to c.450 CE. Your discovery of this stuff in the NHL changes all that and my provisional conclusions will need to be revised.
The NHL (containing gPhilip) seems to be reasonably securely dated to around about the mid 4th century --- a century earlier. The explicit (deliberate????) mixture of "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the Gospel of Philip seems to indicate that we are NOT dealing with Iotacism
I did a study of the sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity quite some time ago and arrived at the provisional conclusion that the earliest appearance of "Christian" was witnessed in Codex Alexandrinus dated (by dogma and not C14) to c.450 CE. Your discovery of this stuff in the NHL changes all that and my provisional conclusions will need to be revised.
The NHL (containing gPhilip) seems to be reasonably securely dated to around about the mid 4th century --- a century earlier. The explicit (deliberate????) mixture of "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the Gospel of Philip seems to indicate that we are NOT dealing with Iotacism
LOL! Just finished the other post, I'll come back to that later then.
First I have some publishing to do, on this bright and shiny Holy Week
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:16 pm
I did a study of the sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity quite some time ago and arrived at the provisional conclusion that the earliest appearance of "Christian" was witnessed in Codex Alexandrinus dated (by dogma and not C14) to c.450 CE. Your discovery of this stuff in the NHL changes all that and my provisional conclusions will need to be revised.
The NHL (containing gPhilip) seems to be reasonably securely dated to around about the mid 4th century --- a century earlier. The explicit (deliberate????) mixture of "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the Gospel of Philip seems to indicate that we are NOT dealing with Iotacism
You missed P72 - https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Bodmer.VIII/0013
Right page, line 1 - note that P72 is presented as loose codex leaves so the order of pages is tricky ; the numbering at the bottom bar will guide you there
Philip is narrating a more or less chronological story