Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
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.
find duplicate lines in text file online
And 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.
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.
find duplicate lines in text file online
And 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.
-
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
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.
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
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.
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
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.)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 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)
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Right on, thanks for the information.spin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:55 pmThe 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.)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 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)
See? We need you man!
Lane
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
@ spin, I went to those Vaticanus pages that you described and looked them over...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.)
1399 col 1 5th line from bottom
1422 col 1 line 11
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
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
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).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?
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)
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Oi! It just never ends does it?MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:19 pmIatacism/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).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?
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)