Yes, we would. I think they just managed to kill it completely - does it really matter? What possibly could the odds be of it not being an epsilon, given all other forms in Vaticanus? We're looking at a 100% score save for this little vacuum
Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
Yeah. But why just that one example? Having that eta show through the page just makes it worse.
Re: Tacitus an Interpolation: Detering Argument
Huh? I didn't refer to the new testament. I certainly didn't make "an assertion of "a "move from Xρηστός to Χριστός" " in the NT.
You've only quoted part of my post and commented on it out of context. Take your illogical, abrasive nonsense elsewhere.
Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
Papyrus does that only after prolonged periods of time, when the ink "sinks" into it. It is likely that no eta showed when they first erased the likely epsilon that was in its place on its own sideJax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:56 pmYeah. But why just that one example? Having that eta show through the page just makes it worse.
The likely scenario is that it said XREIST-xyz and they removed the E just as with the other examples
Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
Acts 11:26 καὶ (and) εὑρὼν (having found him), ἤγαγεν (he brought him) εἰς (to) Ἀντιόχειαν (Antioch). ἐγένετο (It came to pass that) δὲ (now) αὐτοῖς (they) καὶ (also) ἐνιαυτὸν (a year) ὅλον (whole) συναχθῆναι (gathered together) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) ἐκκλησίᾳ (church) καὶ (and) διδάξαι (taught) ὄχλον (a crowd) ἱκανόν (large). χρηματίσαι (Were called) τε (then) πρώτως (first) ἐν (in) Ἀντιοχείᾳ (Antioch) τοὺς (the) μαθητὰς (disciples), Χριστιανούς (Christians).
The second line to the left starts with
γεν (he brought him) εἰς (to) Ἀντιόχειαν (Antioch)
And the third starts with
ἐν (in) τῇ (the) ἐκκλησίᾳ (church)
And the fourth reads
πρώτως (first) τοὺς (the) μαθητὰς (disciples)
YET WITHOUT ἐν (in) Ἀντιοχείᾳ (Antioch) WHICH HOWEVER SEEMS TO COME DIRECTLY AFTER
So it's fourth line, to the right - looks like an X there with a superlinear, and it would seem the next line starts with almost the end of verse 27,
27 Ἐν (In) ταύταις (these) δὲ (now) ταῖς (-) ἡμέραις (days) κατῆλθον (came down) ἀπὸ (from) Ἱεροσολύμων (Jerusalem) προφῆται (prophets) εἰς (to) Ἀντιόχειαν (Antioch).
Always hard to read the MSS exactly because they vary, but this definitely is the right leaf. Get the Chester Beatty docs by the way,
https://chesterbeatty.ie/assets/uploads ... es-Opt.pdf
What was the query about, by the way?
Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
Well, what can we say about the XCian question in the earliest texts of the first centuries so far?
We have perhaps one example of a nomina sacra abbreviation, XPA (Chi-Roe-Alpha), in p45 viewtopic.php?p=131708#p131708. This is interesting as it is the only example that XCians are treated this way, usually the word is written out in full and no special treatment is given it. I feel that this is simply a mistake on the scribes part, probably being used to rendering XC as a nomina sacra abbreviation. This brings up an interesting question though, if XC is always abbreviated why not XCian? If XC is Christ and considered special then one would expect that Christian would be as well. And why isn't AntiChrist a nomina sacra? Something like ANTIXC with a line over the XC?
The most common rendering seems to be XPEICT___ (Chi-Roe-EI-Sigma-Tou___) where the diphthong ei is used and in Codex Bezae the Latin translation is Christianos.
In one case the ei is missing where we would expect it. Erased? Or just a scribal mistake? If erased, why just in that one spot?
We do have examples of XPHCT___ (Chi-Roe-Eta-Sigma-Tou___) where H=eta is being used and it does look like someone erased part of the H (eta) to make it look like an I (iota). This was done in multiple places in the same codex. It looks like it was done later to turn Chrestian into Christian.
So. Were they Christians or Chrestians? We have only one example of XPICT___ (Chi-Roe-Iota-Sigma-Tou___), Christian, in p72, a 3rd or 4th century text.
Otherwise it's XPEICT___ (ei), Chr?stian? Or XPHCT___ (eta), Chrestian.
Is 'Mark' 10:18 a clue? Translations of Chrestos being good/useful.
But the Greek word being translated as good in the above quote is AGAThOC/AGAThON (Agathos/Agathon=good/useful https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%8 ... F%8C%CF%82) and is not abbreviated like we should expect if it were a nomina sacra like XC.
So, what does the abbreviation XC stand for? You tell me.
We have perhaps one example of a nomina sacra abbreviation, XPA (Chi-Roe-Alpha), in p45 viewtopic.php?p=131708#p131708. This is interesting as it is the only example that XCians are treated this way, usually the word is written out in full and no special treatment is given it. I feel that this is simply a mistake on the scribes part, probably being used to rendering XC as a nomina sacra abbreviation. This brings up an interesting question though, if XC is always abbreviated why not XCian? If XC is Christ and considered special then one would expect that Christian would be as well. And why isn't AntiChrist a nomina sacra? Something like ANTIXC with a line over the XC?
The most common rendering seems to be XPEICT___ (Chi-Roe-EI-Sigma-Tou___) where the diphthong ei is used and in Codex Bezae the Latin translation is Christianos.
In one case the ei is missing where we would expect it. Erased? Or just a scribal mistake? If erased, why just in that one spot?
We do have examples of XPHCT___ (Chi-Roe-Eta-Sigma-Tou___) where H=eta is being used and it does look like someone erased part of the H (eta) to make it look like an I (iota). This was done in multiple places in the same codex. It looks like it was done later to turn Chrestian into Christian.
So. Were they Christians or Chrestians? We have only one example of XPICT___ (Chi-Roe-Iota-Sigma-Tou___), Christian, in p72, a 3rd or 4th century text.
Otherwise it's XPEICT___ (ei), Chr?stian? Or XPHCT___ (eta), Chrestian.
Is 'Mark' 10:18 a clue? Translations of Chrestos being good/useful.
“Why do you call Me good?” IC replied. “No one is good except ThC (theos/God) alone."
But the Greek word being translated as good in the above quote is AGAThOC/AGAThON (Agathos/Agathon=good/useful https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%8 ... F%8C%CF%82) and is not abbreviated like we should expect if it were a nomina sacra like XC.
So, what does the abbreviation XC stand for? You tell me.
Last edited by Jax on Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
Just following up on my statement in the OPmlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:56 pmActs 11:26 καὶ (and) εὑρὼν (having found him), ἤγαγεν (he brought him) εἰς (to) Ἀντιόχειαν (Antioch). ἐγένετο (It came to pass that) δὲ (now) αὐτοῖς (they) καὶ (also) ἐνιαυτὸν (a year) ὅλον (whole) συναχθῆναι (gathered together) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) ἐκκλησίᾳ (church) καὶ (and) διδάξαι (taught) ὄχλον (a crowd) ἱκανόν (large). χρηματίσαι (Were called) τε (then) πρώτως (first) ἐν (in) Ἀντιοχείᾳ (Antioch) τοὺς (the) μαθητὰς (disciples), Χριστιανούς (Christians).
The second line to the left starts with
γεν (he brought him) εἰς (to) Ἀντιόχειαν (Antioch)
And the third starts with
ἐν (in) τῇ (the) ἐκκλησίᾳ (church)
And the fourth reads
πρώτως (first) τοὺς (the) μαθητὰς (disciples)
YET WITHOUT ἐν (in) Ἀντιοχείᾳ (Antioch) WHICH HOWEVER SEEMS TO COME DIRECTLY AFTER
So it's fourth line, to the right - looks like an X there with a superlinear, and it would seem the next line starts with almost the end of verse 27,
27 Ἐν (In) ταύταις (these) δὲ (now) ταῖς (-) ἡμέραις (days) κατῆλθον (came down) ἀπὸ (from) Ἱεροσολύμων (Jerusalem) προφῆται (prophets) εἰς (to) Ἀντιόχειαν (Antioch).
Always hard to read the MSS exactly because they vary, but this definitely is the right leaf. Get the Chester Beatty docs by the way,
https://chesterbeatty.ie/assets/uploads ... es-Opt.pdf
What was the query about, by the way?
viewtopic.php?p=131500#p131500As 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
Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
^ Hey Martijn, thanks for that Chester Beatty link BTW!
Re: Christus/Chrestus in the Original Texts
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