Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by mlinssen »

Jax wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:50 pm
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:
Mac just loves repeating himself, it would seem. Throwing generals at specifics, it's very similar to throwing around context when asked for content.
But if I understand him correctly, he is asserting that there was a Chrestus first who later became a Chreistos, and much later a Christos "just because they couldn't get their vowels straight"?

Funny how no one seems to be bothering about Hebrew and Aramaic around issues like these, isn't it? Has any protagonist of any story ever changed his name over the past millenia by the way?
Oh wait, don't we call Odysseus Odessyus?

No
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts

Post by Peter Kirby »

Split per Jax's request. Let me know if I botched it.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts (Vaticanus)

Post by mlinssen »

Vaticanus:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1403

Left column, from the bottom, line 5: XREISTIANOUS (and that is Acts 11:26)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1426

Left column, from the top, line 11: XREISTIANON (and that's Acts 26:28)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1437

Right column, from the bottom, line 12: XREISTIANOI (and that's 1 Peter 4:16)

Codex vaticanus and "antiChrist":

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442

Third column, from the bottom, line 12: ANTIXREISTOS (and that is 1 John 2:18)
Third column, from the bottom, line 14: ANTIXREISTOI (and that is 1 John 2:18)

It says XREISMA at the bottom of the page, by the way

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1443

Left column, from the top, line 11: ANTIXREISTOS (and that is 1 John 2:22)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1444

Middle column, from the bottom, line 14: ANTIXR?ISTOU (and that is 1 John 4:3).

There is clearly ample room there, and it seems to be an eta but beware that it's not the letter on the other side of the leaf.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1446

Middle column, from the bottom, line 3: ANTIXREISTOS (and that is 2 John 1:7)
Last edited by mlinssen on Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts (Sinaiticus)

Post by mlinssen »

Codex Sinaiticus and antichrist:

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

παιδια εϲχατη ωρα
εϲτιν και καθωϲ
ηκουϲατε οτι ┬ αντι
χριϲτοϲ ερχεται
και νυν αντιχρι
ϲτοι πολλοι γεγονα
ϲιν οθεν γινω
ϲκομεν οτι εϲχα
τη ωρα εϲτιν

1 John 2:18, both counts

The definite article was omitted and got inserted or vice versa

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

τιϲ
εϲτιν ο ψευϲτηϲ
ει μη ο αρνουμε
νοϲ οτι ιϲ ουκ εϲ
τιν ο χϲ ουτοϲ εϲ
τιν ο αντιχριϲτοϲ
ο αρνουμενοϲ κ(αι)
τον πρα και τον υν

1 John 2:22

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

και παν
πνα ο μη ομολο
γει ιν κν εν ϲαρ
κι εληλυθοτα εκ
του θυ ουκ εϲτιν
και τουτο εϲτιν
το του αντιχριϲτου
οτι ακηκοαμεν
οτι ερχεται και
νυν εν τω κοϲ
μω εϲτιν ηδη

1 John 4:3

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

οτι πολ
λοι πλανοι εξηλ
θον ειϲ τον κοϲμο
οι μη ομολογουν
τεϲ ιν χν ερχομε

and the next page:

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

νον εν ϲαρκι ουτοϲ
εϲτιν ο πλανοϲ κ(αι)
αντιχριϲτοϲ

2 John 1:17

Christ, all of them - yet what do Acts and 1 Peter say?

Acts 11:26
και ευρω_ ηγαγεν ειϲ αντιοχιαν εγενετο δε αυτοιϲ και ενιαυτον ολο_ ϲυναχθηναι εν τη εκκληϲια και διδαξαι οχλον ϊκανον χρηματιϲαι τε πρωτωϲ εν αντιοχια τουϲ μαθηταϲ χρηϲτιανουϲ

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

1/2 The "long line-ending Nu" is visible on two of these words - not in the transcription alas, so I have added an underscore myself.
2/2 When zooming in on the word it is clearly visible how an attempt has been made to erase the eta of Chrestianous. For the less gifted among us: the spacing tells which letter is the original one, which evidently was the eta

Acts 26:28
ο δε αγριππαϲ προϲ τον παυλον εν ολιγω με πιθειϲ χρηϲτιανον ποιηϲαι

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

1/2 It is clearly visible how an attempt has been made to erase the eta at the end of the line and change it into a iota, and a note is present to attest to that
2/2 In this Codex as well there are line-ending Nu's, and a few lines beneath this it can be seen that the final N of μόνον of verse 29 has been replaced by a superlinear - and these line-ending Nu's so very remarkably remind me of one of the Demotic N's, that equaled a horizontal line. But that must be a coincidence, mustn't it

1 Peter 4:16
ει δε ωϲ χρηϲτιανοϲ μη εϲχυνεϲθω δοξαζετω δε τον θν εν τω ονοματι τουτω

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

1/1 Likewise, an attempt has been made to replace the eta by a iota, and a neat note attests to that

Doest Nestle-Aland attest to any of this? Of course not - they attest to Sinaiticus among others omitting the word καὶ which of course is much, much more important, and very rare (I hope that my sarcasm doesn't go unnoticed) - but not to this

Resuming: we have Chrestians originally, in combination with antichristians - now that's worth a thought, I'd think. Don't you think so?
Last edited by mlinssen on Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts (Bezae)

Post by mlinssen »

Bezae:

Acts 11:26
και ως συντυχων παρεκαλεσεν ⸆ ελθειν εις αντιοχειαν οιτινες παραγενομενοι ενιαυτον ολον συνεχυθησαν οχλον ϊκανον και τοτε πρωτον εχρηματισεν εν αντιοχεια οι μαθηται χρειστιανοι (⸆ - AUTON is suffixed at the end of the verse)

(https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/755)

It can clearly be seen how the text has been altered from oi mathetai xreistianoi to tou(s) mathetas xreistianous

Bezae ends at Acts 22:29 - alas
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts

Post by mlinssen »

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.
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Bodmer.VIII/0013

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:

A photograph can be seen in https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614085, it is added on page 17/17, right after the Conclusion

https://chesterbeatty.ie/assets/uploads ... xt-Opt.pdf contains the text / transcription of P45, https://www.trismegistos.org/tm/detail.php?quick=61826 has the main info.
Don't forget that papyri.info, the external URL for Duke's, has solid info as well. On a side note, people are collecting all this in github given the recent move to monetisation of Trismegistos / Leuven

Let's give Nongbri some love for his fantastic work:

https://brentnongbri.com/2019/04/10/ken ... ri-online/

By the way, the 1,000 Vatican MSS are listed

https://digi.vatlib.it/mss/
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts

Post by Jax »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:25 pm Split per Jax's request. Let me know if I botched it.
Thank you very much Peter! Looks great! :cheers:

Lane
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument

Post by spin »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:19 pm(whether it facilitated or was facilitated by a concurrent move from Xρηστός to Χριστός would be both interesting to know and hard to know)
You are aware that there are examples of iota > epsilon-iota, can you supply new testament lexical examples to support your assertion of a "move from Xρηστός to Χριστός"? I think you can't.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts (Vaticanus)

Post by Jax »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:07 am Vaticanus:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1403

Left column, from the bottom, line 5: XREISTIANOUS (and that is Acts 11:26)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1426

Left column, from the top, line 11: XREISTIANON (and that's Acts 26:28)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1437

Right column, from the bottom, line 12: XREISTIANOI (and that's 1 Peter 4:16)

Codex vaticanus and "antiChrist":

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442

Third column, from the bottom, line 12: ANTIXREISTOS (and that is 1 John 2:18)
Third column, from the bottom, line 14: ANTIXREISTOI (and that is 1 John 2:18)

It says XREISMA at the bottom of the page, by the way

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442

Left column, from the top, line 11: ANTIXREISTOS (and that is 1 John 2:22)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1444

Middle column, from the bottom, line 14: ANTIXR?ISTOU (and that is 1 John 4:3).

There is clearly ample room there, and it seems to be an eta but beware that it's not the letter on the other side of the leaf.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1446

Middle column, from the bottom, line 3: ANTIXREISTOS (and that is 2 John 1:7)
Nice list m8. :cheers:

The XR?ICTOY in John 4:3 is a toughie, there is indeed an eta in the right place on the other side of the page that very much looks like the missing eta.

Page 1440
Image

And page 1439
Image

I have used an arrow to highlight the iota of the line below to facilitate location of our line and there is definitely an eta there. Question is "why is there a empty spot in XR_ICTOY where we would expect an eta"?
Last edited by Jax on Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts

Post by Jax »

^ Sorry, meant missing epsilon. We should be expecting an epsilon (E) between roe and iota in the word XPEICTOY not an eta (H).
Post Reply