Page 1 of 7
Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:38 pm
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.
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.
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:29 pm
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.
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:13 pm
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.
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:55 pm
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)
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:44 am
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.
See? We need you man!
Lane
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:56 am
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
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
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:08 am
by Jax
Here's 1 Peter 4:16 in Vatacanus 1433 col 3 12th line from bottom XREICTIANOC if anyone is interested.
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:23 am
by Jax
Also, here is 755 6th from bottom in Codex Bezae
And 756 6th from bottom
The Latin on 756 fully supporting a Christos reading of the Greek on the opposite page.
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:19 pm
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)
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:50 pm
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?