Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

We still have to encounter the first Jesus or Christ spelled out in full in a Greek MS - I've come to 7th CE and not seen anything but the (anti)Chr?stians of Acts ff

But would this be basic knowledge for scholars? Those with a Divinity degree, Theology degree, perhaps a certain chair?
Is this basic knowledge for biblical academic? If yes, for whom? If no, why not?

It’s certainly new knowledge to me, but I didn’t study theology.

Am I understanding correctly that ALL manuscripts found before the 7th century just have the abbreviations?

Jair wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:14 pm It’s certainly new knowledge to me, but I didn’t study theology.

Am I understanding correctly that ALL manuscripts found before the 7th century just have the abbreviations?

That is the default, yes. If you find an exception, I would be more that pleased / surprised. It is in fact a terrific argument to evaluate interpolations such as the Testimonium Flavium, which is at the very least a complete anachronism in that regard

Many MSS now offer complete transcriptions you can download, see for yourself. Here's Bezae for instance:

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:39 pm

Jair wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:14 pm It’s certainly new knowledge to me, but I didn’t study theology.

Am I understanding correctly that ALL manuscripts found before the 7th century just have the abbreviations?

That is the default, yes. If you find an exception, I would be more that pleased / surprised. It is in fact a terrific argument to evaluate interpolations such as the Testimonium Flavium, which is at the very least a complete anachronism in that regard

Many MSS now offer complete transcriptions you can download, see for yourself. Here's Bezae for instance:

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml

We do have other reasons to believe that the oldest manuscripts of Josephus are from the tenth and eleventh centuries.

It's also weird to expect everyone in the first century to get the same memo on this, including non-Christians.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 3:48 pm

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:39 pm

Jair wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:14 pm It’s certainly new knowledge to me, but I didn’t study theology.

Am I understanding correctly that ALL manuscripts found before the 7th century just have the abbreviations?

That is the default, yes. If you find an exception, I would be more that pleased / surprised. It is in fact a terrific argument to evaluate interpolations such as the Testimonium Flavium, which is at the very least a complete anachronism in that regard

Many MSS now offer complete transcriptions you can download, see for yourself. Here's Bezae for instance:

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml

We do have other reasons to believe that the oldest manuscripts of Josephus are from the tenth and eleventh centuries.

It's also weird to expect everyone in the first century to get the same memo on this, including non-Christians.

1) Absolutely, they are infested with "Christian scribal signs" - while they could still be copies of something earlier. But the MSS at hand postdate 10th CE for sure

2) Absolutely, take just any story these days and variants to it will develop within micro seconds. Imagine back then, with only word of mouth mainly available

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:39 pm

Jair wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:14 pm It’s certainly new knowledge to me, but I didn’t study theology.

Am I understanding correctly that ALL manuscripts found before the 7th century just have the abbreviations?

That is the default, yes. If you find an exception, I would be more that pleased / surprised. It is in fact a terrific argument to evaluate interpolations such as the Testimonium Flavium, which is at the very least a complete anachronism in that regard

Many MSS now offer complete transcriptions you can download, see for yourself. Here's Bezae for instance:

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml

I took a look at the link. Unfortunately my utter lack of knowledge of Greek letters is hindering me here. I’m looking specifically at Matthew 1:21: “you shall name Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Is Jesus rendered IS here, in the link you provided?

Jair wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:03 pm

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:39 pm

Jair wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:14 pm It’s certainly new knowledge to me, but I didn’t study theology.

Am I understanding correctly that ALL manuscripts found before the 7th century just have the abbreviations?

That is the default, yes. If you find an exception, I would be more that pleased / surprised. It is in fact a terrific argument to evaluate interpolations such as the Testimonium Flavium, which is at the very least a complete anachronism in that regard

Many MSS now offer complete transcriptions you can download, see for yourself. Here's Bezae for instance:

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml

I took a look at the link. Unfortunately my utter lack of knowledge of Greek letters is hindering me here. I’m looking specifically at Matthew 1:21: “you shall name Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Is Jesus rendered IS here, in the link you provided?

Ah, then it would be very problematic.
But I can't have you just believe what I say, that's how this entire Christian charade has lasted for this long - so here's the deal

Get Berean Interlinear please: https://berean.bible/downloads.htm

Go to Matthew 1:21


This translation is the least bad of all bibles yet still coloured and often biased and inaccurate - just keep that in mind

Now compare that to Bezae transcription: http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml


Check?

Ah! I see it. The Greek name is definitely the short form in the Bezae.

Do you theorize that the name IS was unrelated to the Hebrew name Yeshua at first?

Jair wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:34 am Ah! I see it. The Greek name is definitely the short form in the Bezae.

Do you theorize that the name IS was unrelated to the Hebrew name Yeshua at first?

There one doing the theorising would be you LOL.
With no extant text at all whatsoever in the first dozen centuries in either Aramaic or Hebrew, and everything in either Greek, Coptic, Latin, Syriac and who else knows which language, with Mark explaining Aramaic and Hebrew, with Matthew 1:23 getting his Parthenos from the LXX instead of the correct translation, maid, from the Hebrew: what makes you think there was anything Hebraic involved at all?

My working thesis demonstrates Thomasine priority over the canonicals (and Marcion sits in between but I haven't published anything on that as of yet) and as such IS is of Coptic origin

Do we have any clues as to an etymological Coptic meaning for the word IS?

Also a bit of a side question; doesn’t one of the DSS match the LXX “Virgin”? I seem to recall reading an analysis of one of the scrolls online, but I can’t remember which one or where I read it.