Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts

Post by Jax »

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.

Image
find duplicate lines in text file online

And the earliest copy of Acts 26:28 is in Sinaiticus and is clearly XPHCTIANON...

Image

And here is Acts 11:26 in Sinaiticus also clearly XPHCTIANOY...

Image

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.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Well, and again, we also have to factor in Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, since they are sources to the early history, and as Ken noted the term likely was an outsider designation at first.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Jax »

I really don't see the distinction. XCs obviously thought of themselves as Chrestians with Christian being the exception rather than the rule. If H and I were so interchangeable then it would seem that 1 Peter 4:16 in p72 is an example of a scribe using Iota by mistake, eta being the seemingly preferred usage for XCian. Just going off of the evidence.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by spin »

Jax wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:38 pmAnd the earliest copy of Acts 26:28 is in Sinaiticus and is clearly XPHCTIANON...

And here is Acts 11:26 in Sinaiticus also clearly XPHCTIANOY...

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.
The information above needs correcting. The oldest codex is Vaticanus. Yes, it's slightly older than the Sinaiticus perhaps by a few decades and it has ΧΡΕΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΥΣ in Acts 11:26 and ΧΡΕΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΝ in 26:28. Find Vaticanus here. See images 1399 col 1 5th line from bottom and 1422 col 1 line 11. The epsilon-iota combination points to an earlier iota, not an eta. As an example, in Acts 11:28 is the word λιμον (famine), which in Vaticanus is λειμον. (See 1399 col 2 line 4.)

The slightly later Codex Bezae supports Vaticanus here, 755 sixth line from the bottom, while the corresponding Latin page 756 has CHRISTIANOS (sixth line from the bottom).

Vaticanus at 1 Peter 4:16 also has ΧΡΕΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ (1433 col 3, twelfth line from bottom)
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Jax »

spin wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:55 pm
Jax wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:38 pmAnd the earliest copy of Acts 26:28 is in Sinaiticus and is clearly XPHCTIANON...

And here is Acts 11:26 in Sinaiticus also clearly XPHCTIANOY...

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.
The information above needs correcting. The oldest codex is Vaticanus. Yes, it's slightly older than the Sinaiticus perhaps by a few decades and it has ΧΡΕΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΥΣ in Acts 11:26 and ΧΡΕΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΝ in 26:28. Find Vaticanus here. See images 1399 col 1 5th line from bottom and 1422 col 1 line 11. The epsilon-iota combination points to an earlier iota, not an eta. As an example, in Acts 11:28 is the word λιμον (famine), which in Vaticanus is λειμον. (See 1399 col 2 line 4.)

The slightly later Codex Bezae supports Vaticanus here, 755 sixth line from the bottom, while the corresponding Latin page 756 has CHRISTIANOS (sixth line from the bottom).

Vaticanus at 1 Peter 4:16 also has ΧΡΕΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ (1433 col 3, twelfth line from bottom)
Right on, thanks for the information. :cheers:

See? We need you man! :)

Lane
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Jax »

spin wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:55 pm The oldest codex is Vaticanus. Yes, it's slightly older than the Sinaiticus perhaps by a few decades and it has ΧΡΕΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΥΣ in Acts 11:26 and ΧΡΕΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΝ in 26:28. Find Vaticanus here. See images 1399 col 1 5th line from bottom and 1422 col 1 line 11. The epsilon-iota combination points to an earlier iota, not an eta. As an example, in Acts 11:28 is the word λιμον (famine), which in Vaticanus is λειμον. (See 1399 col 2 line 4.)
@ spin, I went to those Vaticanus pages that you described and looked them over...

1399 col 1 5th line from bottom
Image

1422 col 1 line 11
Image

My question is if the diphthong EI can be I or E how do we know that I was meant in the above passages as opposed to E? I don't see any breather marks that would indicate what was intended. Is there something in the text that clues the reader as to what was intended? Or is it simply a rule that is observed when EI follows a Roe?

Really do want to understand. Thanks.

Lane
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Jax »

Here's 1 Peter 4:16 in Vatacanus 1433 col 3 12th line from bottom XREICTIANOC if anyone is interested.
Image
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Jax »

Also, here is 755 6th from bottom in Codex Bezae
Image

And 756 6th from bottom
Image

The Latin on 756 fully supporting a Christos reading of the Greek on the opposite page.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by MrMacSon »

Jax wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:56 am My question is if the diphthong EI can be I or E how do we know that I was meant in the above passages as opposed to E? I don't see any breather marks that would indicate what was intended. Is there something in the text that clues the reader as to what was intended? Or is it simply a rule that is observed when EI follows a Roe?
Iatacism/Iotacism was a distinct trend and process in post-classic Greek of vowel shift by which a number of vowels and diphthongs, especially those involving eta η, moved and converged towards the pronunciation ' i ' (iota).

ει (epsilon-iota) was part of that trend

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotacism and 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Gre ... century_AD and following'

(whether it facilitated or was facilitated by a concurrent move from Xρηστός to Χριστός would be both interesting to know and hard to know)
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by Jax »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:19 pm
Jax wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:56 am My question is if the diphthong EI can be I or E how do we know that I was meant in the above passages as opposed to E? I don't see any breather marks that would indicate what was intended. Is there something in the text that clues the reader as to what was intended? Or is it simply a rule that is observed when EI follows a Roe?
Iatacism/Iotacism was a distinct trend and process in post-classic Greek of vowel shift by which a number of vowels and diphthongs, especially those involving eta η, moved and converged towards the pronunciation ' i ' (iota).

ει (epsilon-iota) was part of that trend

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotacism and 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Gre ... century_AD and following'

(whether it facilitated or was facilitated by a concurrent move from Xρηστός to Χριστός would be both interesting to know and hard to know)
Oi! It just never ends does it? :banghead:
Post Reply