IS XS: No Jesus or Christ spelled out in early MSS

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

Re: Double jeopardy: LXX as a second layer to NT falsifications

Post by mlinssen »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:53 pm
Yes, precisely - and that is my entire point!
The Romans changed what they could change, and grudgingly and reluctantly accepted that they couldn't what they couldn't

So that means that
1. not even Justin could rewrite the NT anymore, all of that was a given by the time of his writings: fixated, untouchable, a textual legacy that couldn't be refused in any way yet it could be bartered about and away in writings of his own such as these.
"Yes of course" you will say, but I have always wondered about his quotes (and those of the other FF) that very often are combinations of what we know from Matthew and Luke: and my thesis still is that the main game was to take content from the original source and place it into a context of their own making, so my assumption is that the quotes should be verbatim - which they aren't as a rule
2. they rewrote what they could, which is all of the LXX: Romans created the Septuagint in about 2nd half 2nd CE at the earliest in order to support their spin to Chrestianity. All the mistranslations are deliberate ones and they thus do exactly what I claim they do: take Chrestian content and place it into a context of their own making.
Mark already does that and naturally Matthew does it best, yet Dialogue with Trypho illustrates what that lead to: justified objections from Judaics (and related) that their context isn't a reliable representation of what that context is supposed to represent. So they rewrote all of the context itself as well with the (goal and) result that it perfectly supported their own recontextualisation of the Chrestian content

The LXX story is bogus of course, and with Gmirkin's splendid research and discovery the alleged timeline has become completely unfeasible. But there is not even the slightest trace of a Septuagint that isn't littered with the typical scribal signs ü, ï, apostrophe and line-ending superlinear that I still claim to have come and originated from Thomas

So while we can see original Xrisma-stuff in the original content (Luke and John), the dumb Romans initially didn't notice the individual words across the language barrier yet fixed that omission by publishing their own version of the Hebrew bible.
And it is clear why there are so many "lost in translation" issues there; some because of their inaccuracy yet some also because they simply were meant to say something different
And that theory must be falsified of course: take the Hebrew source and see what the words are - but which source exactly would we have to use?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Double jeopardy: LXX as a second layer to NT falsifications

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:53 pm 1. not even Justin could rewrite the NT anymore, all of that was a given by the time of his writings ...
I think Justin didn't know the NT. I think it's likely that the gospel and Catholic epistle authors used Justin (who'd laid out the main template)


nb. -
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 5:37 pm
One page of biblehub on Strongs on chrio | χρίω has

For chraomai Strongs has
  • use, entreat

    ... to furnish what is needed; (give an oracle, "graze" (touch slightly), light upon, etc.), ie. (by implication) to employ or (by extension) to act towards one in a given manner -- entreat, use.

    Compare chrao,a chreb

    https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/5530.htm

a chraó
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: XS vs XRS in every single NHL Codex and Tractate

Post by Leucius Charinus »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 12:28 am color-coded, fwiw

(all ⲭⲣⲏⲥ[...] coloured the same)
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:06 pm
Added the category code just before the // delimeter:
Sethian = s/ and Valentinian = v/


From ⲓⲏⲥ to ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ: the NHL narrates the entire story of Xtianity

An extremely detailed and validated summary

NHL CODEX I
1 The Prayer of the Apostle Paul A-B (flyleaf) v/ ⲓⲏⲥ = 1, ⲭⲥ = 1 ( = 1)
2 The Apocryphon of James (The Secret Book of James) 1–16 // ⲓⲏⲥ = 1
3 The Gospel of Truth 16–43 v/ ⲓⲏⲥ = 4, ⲭⲥ = 1, ⲭⲣⲥ = 1
4 The Treatise on the Resurrection 43–50 v/ ⲓⲥ = 1, ⲓⲏⲥ = 1, ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 2, ⲭⲣⲏⲥ[...] = 1
5 The Tripartite Tractate 51–140 v/ ⲓⲏⲥ = 2, ⲭⲥ = 3, ⲭⲣⲥ = 2, ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 1, ⲭⲣⲏⲥ (!) = 1, [...] = 1

NHL CODEX II
1 The Apocryphon of John 1–32 s/ ⲓⲥ = 1, ⲭⲥ = 21, ⲭⲣⲥ = 11 + [1], ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 3
2 The Gospel of Thomas 32–51 // ⲓⲥ = 102, ⲓⲏⲥ = 3
3 The Gospel of Philip 51–86 v/ ⲓⲥ = 16, ⲓⲏⲥ = 4, ⲭⲥ = 16, ⲭⲣⲥ = 6, ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ = 4 + [1], ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ = 2
4 The Hypostasis of the Archons 86–97 // None of any
5 On the Origin of the World 97–127 // ⲓⲏⲥ = 1, ⲭⲥ = 2,
6 The Exegesis on the Soul 127–137 // ⲭⲣⲥ = 1
7 The Book of Thomas the Contender 138–145 // ⲓⲥ = 2

NHL CODEX III
1 The Apocryphon of John 1–40 s/ See NHL CODEX II,1
2 The Gospel of the Egyptians 40–69 // ⲓⲥ = 2, ⲓⲏⲥ = 1, ⲭⲥ = 1, ⲭⲣⲥ = 2
3 Eugnostos the Blessed 70–90 // ⲭⲥ = 0, ⲭⲣⲥ = 0
4 The Sophia of Jesus Christ 90–119 // ⲓⲏⲥ = 2, ⲭⲣⲥ = 2, ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BG // ⲓⲥ = 1, ⲓⲏⲥ = 1, ⲭⲣⲥ = 1, ⲭⲥ = 19, ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲥ = 1
5 The Dialogue of the Saviour 120–149 // None

NHL CODEX IV
1 The Apocryphon of John 1–49 s/ See NHL CODEX II,1
2 The Gospel of the Egyptians 50–81 s/ ⲓⲥ = 2 + [1], ⲭⲥ = 3 + [3]

NHL CODEX V
1 Eugnostos the Blessed 1–17 // None
2 The Apocalypse of Paul 17–24 s/ None
3 The First Apocalypse of James 24–44 v/ None

4 The Second Apocalypse of James 44–63 v/ ⲭⲥ = 1
5 The Apocalypse of Adam 63–85 s/ None

NHL CODEX VI
1 The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles 1–12 // ⲓⲥ = 3, ⲭⲥ = 1
2 The Thunder, Perfect Mind 13–21 // None
3 Authoritative Teaching (Authoritative Discourse) 23–35 // None
4 The Concept of Our Great Power 36–48 // None
5 Fragments: 588a-589b of Plato's Republic. 48–51 // None
6 The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth 52–63 // None
7 The Prayer of Thanksgiving 63–65 // None
8 Asclepius 65–78 // None


Berlin Codex BG*
1 The Gospel of Mary 7-19 // None
4 The Acts of Peter 128-141 // ⲓⲥ = 3, ⲭⲥ = 3
* [The Sophia of Jesus Christ // ⲓⲥ = 1, ⲓⲏⲥ = 1, ⲭⲥ = 19, ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲥ = 1, ⲭⲣⲥ = 1, ]

NHL CODEX VII
1 The Paraphrase of Shem 1–49 // None
2 The Second Treatise of the Great Seth 49–70 s/ ⲓⲥ = 2, ⲭⲥ = 3, ⲭⲣⲥ = 3, ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲥ = 1
3 Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter 70–84 // ⲭⲥ = 1
4 The Teachings of Silvanus 84–118 // ⲓⲥ = 2, ⲭⲥ = 39, ⲭⲣⲥ = 1, ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲥ = 2
5 The Three Steles of Seth 118–127 s/ None

NHL CODEX VIII
1 Zostrianos 1–132 s/ ⲭⲣⲥ = 1, ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 1
2 The Letter of Peter to Philip 132–140 // ⲓⲥ = 15 + [1], ⲭⲥ = 7

NHL CODEX IX
1 Melchizedek 1–27 // ⲓⲥ = 2, ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ = 1, ⲭⲥ = 3, ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 1
2 The Thought of Norea 27–29 s/ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ = 1
3 The Testimony of Truth 29–74 // ⲓⲥ = 2 + [1], ⲭⲥ = 8 + [1]

NHL CODEX X
1
Marsanes 1–68 s/ None


NHL CODEX XI
1 The Interpretation of Knowledge 1–21 v/ ⲓⲏⲥ = 1, ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 2 + [2]
2 A Valentinian Exposition 22–40 v/ ⲓⲏⲥ = 10 + [1], ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 2 + [2], ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 2 + [1]
"subs" 2a-e 40–44 // ⲓⲏⲥ = 3 + [3], ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 5 + [2]
4 Allogenes 45–69 s/ ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲥ = 1
5 Hypsiphrone 69-72 // ??

NHL CODEX XII
1 The Sentences of Sextus 15–16, 27–34 // None
2 The Gospel of Truth 53-60 v/ ⲭⲥ = [1]
3 fragments

NHL CODEX XIII
1 Trimorphic Protennoia 35–50 s/ ⲓⲏⲥ = 1, ⲭⲥ = 2 + [1], ⲭⲣⲥ = 1, ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲥ = [1]
2 On the Origin of the World 50 // None

[...] indicates a word that is partially lacunose

* BG,4 gets treated together with VI,1 and coincidentally BG,1 gets thrown in as well - organisation can be cumbersome sometimes

Categories: s/ = Sethian, v/ = Valentinian, // = uncategorised

The Apocryphon of John is one of a few that occurs more than once in a Codex - yet it is the only one for which the counts haven't been split. The Gospel of the Egyptians for example has its own counts for its own Codices and Tractates


It'd be interesting to categorise these as Sethian, Valentinian, etc.,

Now added into the above.
s/ = Sethian,
v/ = Valentinian

According to the following lists (which may not be complete or entirely accurate).

SETHIAN TEXTS
Nag Hammadi library (11)

The Apocryphon of John (4 versions) ~~ NHC 2.1, NHC 3.1, NHC 4.1, Berlin Codex
The Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (2 versions) NHC 3.2, NHC 4.2
The Apocalypse of Paul NHC 5.2
The Apocalypse of Adam NHC 5.5
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth NHC 7.2
Three Steles of Seth NHC 7.5 <<<=== Uses the literature of Porphyry (+ Platonizing Sethian treatise)
Zostrianos NHC 8.1 <<<============= Uses the literature of Porphyry (+ Platonizing Sethian treatise)
The Thought of Norea NHC 9.2
Marsanes NHC 10.1 (+ Platonizing Sethian treatise)
Allogenes NHC 11.3 <<<====================== Uses the literature of Porphyry (+ Platonizing Sethian treatise)
The Trimorphic Protennoia NHC 13.1

Outside NHL (3)
==============

* In the Revelation of the Magi, The Magi, originally Sethians,
* The Untitled Apocalypse (or The Gnosis of the Light) (Bruce Codex, c. 5th century)​
* The Gospel of Judas (Codex Tchacos, c. 300; mentioned by Irenaeus, c. 180)


VALENTINIAN TEXTS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinianism


NHL (9)

Prayer of the Apostle Paul NHC 1.1
The Gospel of Truth (2 versions) NHC 1.3, 12.2
Treatise on the Resurrection (Epistle to Rheginus) NHC 1.4
Tripart Tractate NHC 1.5
Gospel of Philip NHC 2.3
The First Apocalypse of James NHC 5.3
The Second Apocalypse of James NHC 5.4
Interpretation of Knowledge NHC 11.1
A Valentinian Exposition NHC 11.2
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Double jeopardy: LXX as a second layer to NT falsifications

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:53 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 4:51 pm
mlinssen wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:53 am
Now, the question is: why is there so much Xrisma-stuff in what you have found, and so little in the NT?

My underlying question is: why not "fix" the NT?

Justin farms the Psalms —
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 5:21 am
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 86.3


... τοῦ λόγου λέγοντος· Διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε, ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου [Ps., XLIV, 7].

... the Logos says: 'Therefore God, even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows.' [Ps 44.7]


— and the NT collators and editors somewhat hide that methodology




fwiw


... Διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε, ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ1 τοὺς μετόχους σου [Ps., XLIV, 7].

... Through this anointing [of?] you, that God, that God you [olive] oil joyfully/with exultation beside the partakers you —>>

... Through your anointing, that God, that God you oil joyfully/with exultation by/beside1 your partakers, or

... Through your anointing, that God, that God oiled you with exultant joy beside/among1 your [fellow] partakers


1 παρὰ | (pará) governs the genitive, dative and accusative
  • It can mean
    1. (+ genitive)
      • from
      • because of
    2. (+ dative)
      • at, beside, by, near
      • μένειν παρὰ τισί ― ménein parà tisí ― to stay at someone's house/home
    3. (+ accusative)
      • contrary to
      • beside, by, near (w/ verbs of coming or going; w/ verbs of past motion; w/ verbs of striking or wounding)
      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%AC
Yes, precisely - and that is my entire point!
The Romans changed what they could change, and grudgingly and reluctantly accepted that they couldn't what they couldn't

So that means that

1. not even Justin could rewrite the NT anymore, all of that was a given by the time of his writings: fixated, untouchable, a textual legacy that couldn't be refused in any way yet it could be bartered about and away in writings of his own such as these.
"Yes of course" you will say, but I have always wondered about his quotes (and those of the other FF) that very often are combinations of what we know from Matthew and Luke: and my thesis still is that the main game was to take content from the original source and place it into a context of their own making, so my assumption is that the quotes should be verbatim - which they aren't as a rule
While it is critical to date the time of Justin's writings caution is advised and the best result is to establish the earliest and the latest possible dates between which "Justin" (whoever he really was) must have written.

The earliest possible dates are 2nd century and follow accepting the contents of the Ante Nicene Fathers as historically legitimate evidence. (Buyer beware). The latest possible date is given by the date of the earliest extant manuscript for Justin, and this is the 14th century and is described as "an omnibus edition".
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Double jeopardy: LXX as a second layer to NT falsifications

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:15 am While it is critical to date the time of Justin's writings caution is advised and the best result is to establish the earliest and the latest possible dates between which "Justin" (whoever he really was) must have written.

The earliest possible dates are 2nd century and follow accepting the contents of the Ante Nicene Fathers as historically legitimate evidence. (Buyer beware). The latest possible date is given by the date of the earliest extant manuscript for Justin, and this is the 14th century and is described as "an omnibus edition".
It's not critical to date anything, the whole dating game is Churchian turf & territory and solely meant to straitjacket everyone into playing the game according to their rules

Even if we were to carbon date every single extant writing, scrap and tomb, we wouldn't learn much if anything: you can get a first edition Shakespeare printed just yesterday or the original third edition that was written in 1700 (I'm just making this up) and you'd be led by the nose if you let the dating prevail over the texts

It is evident that e.g. Philip narrates from a Chrestian stage point where they've come to be called Christians already depending on certain requirements - which tells nothing about who ran which variants of which movements at that point in time - just as Justin boasts of being Chrestian, and even Tertullian mentions the word yet clearly sits on the other side of the fence from Justin.
Would dates from MSS matter there? Absolutely not, as it is evident that these specific parts of Justin and Tertullian demonstrate the evolution of Chrestianity turning into Christianity

We must further unravel the texts and continue to sketch the unfolding until we have the larger picture - then we can place the details in their respective positions.
It's a puzzle Pete. First you do all the corner pieces, then the edge pieces. Then you do the larger sections that fit together without knowing where you place them

And then... you place those larger sections inside the puzzle. Does it matter whether you consider the puzzle to exist before a larger section does or did? Or vice versa?
No, the section fits somewhere in the puzzle regardless of what you project onto the both of them - they belong together where both dictate that and agree to their place.
It is their individual content that determines their context, nothing else.
Dates are irrelevant to any and all of this. I can and will repeat this for as long as is needed, but Thomas evidently precedes the NT and not vice versa - whether either of both was written in BCE, CE, 1st to 10th century or anywhere in between: it doesn't change anything, it doesn't matter at all. When we find a Marcion text that carbondates to 11th CE, will we conclude that Marcion redacted Luke?

STOP PLAYING THIS GAME ACCORDING TO CHURCHIAN RULES, AND USE COMMON SENSE INSTEAD
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Double jeopardy: LXX as a second layer to NT falsifications

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:27 am
mlinssen wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:53 pm 1. not even Justin could rewrite the NT anymore, all of that was a given by the time of his writings ...
I think Justin didn't know the NT. I think it's likely that the gospel and Catholic epistle authors used Justin (who'd laid out the main template)
Mac... I absolutely agree, but do you realise what that means?
Vinzent and Klinghardt and others have already pointed out how Justin refers to a single gospel before he refers to the plural (without ever using a number).
With Thomasine or Marcionite priority that can only mean that he quotes from either, perhaps including some of what was to come if we consider the possibility that there was "a work in progress" on the Roman side already.
When we (partially?) ignore the latter, the conclusion must be that some if not most of what Sweet Just quotes is Thomasine or Marcionite material.
Thomas we have, and we can extrapolate what some of that turned into when we look at the sloppy Greek copies that we have

So we can use Justin to reconstruct Marcion

nb. -
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 5:37 pm
One page of biblehub on Strongs on chrio | χρίω has

For chraomai Strongs has
  • use, entreat

    ... to furnish what is needed; (give an oracle, "graze" (touch slightly), light upon, etc.), ie. (by implication) to employ or (by extension) to act towards one in a given manner -- entreat, use.

    Compare chrao,a chreb

    https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/5530.htm

a chraó
I don't get what you mean by this. Care to elaborate? I see the match in Greek letters but that's it
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Double jeopardy: LXX as a second layer to NT falsifications

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:34 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:15 am While it is critical to date the time of Justin's writings caution is advised and the best result is to establish the earliest and the latest possible dates between which "Justin" (whoever he really was) must have written.

The earliest possible dates are 2nd century and follow accepting the contents of the Ante Nicene Fathers as historically legitimate evidence. (Buyer beware). The latest possible date is given by the date of the earliest extant manuscript for Justin, and this is the 14th century and is described as "an omnibus edition".
It's not critical to date anything, the whole dating game is Churchian turf & territory and solely meant to straitjacket everyone into playing the game according to their rules.
I will have to disagree here about the contention "It's not critical to date anything". Hopefully this can be discussed and any disagreements can be resolved. (Read on). IMO chronology is the backbone of the entire field of classical history and that it is critical to be able to place evidence and events (including the dates of original authorship of inscriptions and manuscripts) in a chronological sequence.

However I agree with the proposition that "the whole dating game is Churchian turf & territory and solely meant to straitjacket everyone into playing the game according to their rules." I agree with this because the church has introduced its own evidence, relics and manuscripts. The church industry has provided a lavish chronological history of its members between Christ and Eusebius, and has "preserved" supposed manuscripts for these supposed historical identities.

Just as there are two Christ's in the Gospel of Philip, and two Jesus' in the Gospel of Thomas, there are two types of historians. Classical historians and biblical historians. These two types of historians use different historical methodologies. And classical historians are not obliged to play by the methodological rules of the biblical historians. A recent example of this is given with Russell Gmirkin's three books. (See below)
Even if we were to carbon date every single extant writing, scrap and tomb, we wouldn't learn much if anything:
We would learn a great deal and this practice should be made mandatory. C14 will tell us the approximate date that the paper was harvested upon which the writing appears. As a result of C14 we learn that both Nag Hammadi Codex I, and the Tchacos Codex (containing the Gospel of Judas) are from the mid 4th century. This may be important.
... you can get a first edition Shakespeare printed just yesterday or the original third edition that was written in 1700 (I'm just making this up) and you'd be led by the nose if you let the dating prevail over the texts
C14 will tell us the dates of each manuscript. Textual criticism will tell us about the separate editions. But its an unfair comparison because we know Shakespeare. But we know nothing about the identity of the authors of the NT canon or the authors of the NT apocrypha or the authors of the NHL.
It is evident that e.g. Philip narrates from a Chrestian stage point where they've come to be called Christians already depending on certain requirements - which tells nothing about who ran which variants of which movements at that point in time -
We need to know who wrote the Gospel of Philip and when and what literary sources he may have used. We would like to know the political context and what motivated the author to write NHC 2.3. We have many questions and few answers atm. Whoever wrote Philip was in all likelihood not part of the churchian orthodoxy.
- just as Justin boasts of being Chrestian, and even Tertullian mentions the word yet clearly sits on the other side of the fence from Justin.
These guys are almost certainly church sources and part of the churchian orthodoxy. The same questions above as applied to Philip need to be applied to Justin and Tertullian. We can accept the straitjacket of churchian chronology via Eusebius and others, or we can leave the answers open.
Would dates from MSS matter there? Absolutely not, as it is evident that these specific parts of Justin and Tertullian demonstrate the evolution of Chrestianity turning into Christianity
They could just as easily be fabrications and frauds of the church industry of an unknown century. The dates of MSS would matter because the earliest manuscripts for Justin and Tertullian would provide us with the terminus ad quem - the latest possible date. For Justin this date is the 14th century, for Tertullian the 8th/9th.
We must further unravel the texts and continue to sketch the unfolding until we have the larger picture - then we can place the details in their respective positions.
The larger picture contains more than just the textual evidence. It contains the political context, the archeology of the times, the numismatics, the epigraphy, the physical manuscripts, every possible relic from within the bounds of the time period. Textual criticism has its limits. Historical enquiry uses textual criticism to solve a great many problems but is not restricted to textual criticism alone.
It's a puzzle Pete. First you do all the corner pieces, then the edge pieces. Then you do the larger sections that fit together without knowing where you place them
I too see it as a puzzle Martijn, but more like a 4 dimensional puzzle because the 3D puzzle itself moves though, and is changed, as time progresses.
And then... you place those larger sections inside the puzzle. Does it matter whether you consider the puzzle to exist before a larger section does or did? Or vice versa?
No, the section fits somewhere in the puzzle regardless of what you project onto the both of them - they belong together where both dictate that and agree to their place.
It is their individual content that determines their context, nothing else.
Unscrupulous people remove, edit and add bits and pieces and sections of the puzzle over time. This is unfortunately an historical fact. We must deal with frauds and fabrications. The age of Churchian Hoy Relics reminds us of this. A time axis is needed to track this.
Dates are irrelevant to any and all of this.
Dates may be irrelevant to textual criticism but they are critical to the classical historian who is attempting to reconstruct authorship and forgery, fraud, interpolation, copying, adding, modifying and deleting over the course of the chronological transmission history of the manuscripts.

I can and will repeat this for as long as is needed, but Thomas evidently precedes the NT and not vice versa - whether either of both was written in BCE, CE, 1st to 10th century or anywhere in between: it doesn't change anything, it doesn't matter at all.
You could be right. IDK. IDK when the NT was cobbled together, and IDK when Thomas was authored. Or Philip. But I would like to know the century of their appearance and the political context in which they appeared. I would like to know the means, motive and opportunity for all authors. The tracts for Thomas and Philip ended up bound together and prefaced by the Secret Book of John, and then buried.
When we find a Marcion text that carbon dates to 11th CE, will we conclude that Marcion redacted Luke?
No of course not.
STOP PLAYING THIS GAME ACCORDING TO CHURCHIAN RULES, AND USE COMMON SENSE INSTEAD
I am certainly not playing the game according to church industry rules. I am content to play the game according to the rules of classical historical methodology. Not the methodology of biblical history. There's a difference and I can provide it.

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method


p.3


Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders. (A.M.)

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/arnal ... STIANS.htm

Here is Gmirkin's take:

METHODOLOGY

The source-critical methods used in this book for dating texts - including biblical texts - are those familiar from classical studies, deductively establishing "terminus a quo" and "ad quem" dates between which the composition of the text under investigation must have taken place.

The latest possible dates of composition (terminus ad quem) is fixed by the earliest proof of existence of the texts, such as (rarely) the earliest physical copy, or (commonly) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.

The earliest possible date of composition (terminus a quo) is usually fixed by the latest datable work the text in question quotes or utilises, or by the latest historical allusion within the text. This book is essentially an extended exercise in classical source criticism applied to the Hebrew Bible. [1]



[1] There is a sharp methodological distinction between classical source criticism and traditional biblical source criticism. The latter used a variety of techniques to isolate hypothetical sources within biblical texts. The identification of sources
J, E, D and P preliminary to the dating arguments of the Documentary Hypothesis is a prime example of biblical source criticism. Such source documents must remain perpetually hypothetical, since they no longer exist as independent entities. This type of source criticism is rarely encountered in classical scholarship.

Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch
(The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) Hardcover – May 15, 2006
Russell Gmirkin

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Double jeopardy: LXX as a second layer to NT falsifications

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:40 am I don't get what you mean by this. Care to elaborate? I see the match in Greek letters but that's it

I wonder if those 'steps' outline the development of Chrestian +/- focus on the chrism ( a focus for some at least)

.
101 The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism. The chrism is superior' to baptism, for it is from the word "chrism"' that we have been called Christians. And (he) was called the XS because of the Chrism. For the Father anointed the Son, yet the Son anointed the Apostles, yet the Apostles anointed us.


biblehub on Strongs on chrio | χρίω has
For chraomai Strongs has

a chraó
(And we know Coptic developed in the first two centuries of the Common Era)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Double jeopardy: LXX as a second layer to NT falsifications

Post by mlinssen »

I will make a possibly very long story very short:

A.

1. is it absolutely clear in this thread which message precedes which? Yes
2. given their content, does it matter when each was written? No

Now try to falsify that by removing bits and pieces, alright? Let's see if you can demonstrate that textual criticism has its limits.
Because it doesn't, it is exactly the other way around: textual criticism will provide evidence that A preceded B even if the carbondated chronology is exactly the opposite - because C14 does nothing but demonstrate the date of the print of a document. It is really not an awful lot more precise than paleography and it has largely the same dependencies, namely a certain volume of manuscripts that can be used as baseline and regression

Take the TF that we have: it is evidently a 10th-11th CE Christian scribal hand with all the Christian scribal signs that we know but can't explain and must be considered anomalies. So can we trust what we read from the MS? Most certainly not, and the distrust becomes far, far greater when we see yet another anomaly, namely xristos and ihsous spelled out in full: it is absolutely guaranteed that at some point someone must have changed what (allegedly) was originally there - there can be absolutely no discussion about that because there is not a single Greek text, fragment or scrap in the world that says either Jesus or Christ - and dates to 500 CE or before. Coptic yes, but Greek? No
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:54 am
mlinssen wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:34 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:15 am While it is critical to date the time of Justin's writings caution is advised and the best result is to establish the earliest and the latest possible dates between which "Justin" (whoever he really was) must have written.

The earliest possible dates are 2nd century and follow accepting the contents of the Ante Nicene Fathers as historically legitimate evidence. (Buyer beware). The latest possible date is given by the date of the earliest extant manuscript for Justin, and this is the 14th century and is described as "an omnibus edition".
It's not critical to date anything, the whole dating game is Churchian turf & territory and solely meant to straitjacket everyone into playing the game according to their rules.
I will have to disagree here about the contention "It's not critical to date anything". Hopefully this can be discussed and any disagreements can be resolved. (Read on). IMO chronology is the backbone of the entire field of classical history and that it is critical to be able to place evidence and events (including the dates of original authorship of inscriptions and manuscripts) in a chronological sequence.

However I agree with the proposition that "the whole dating game is Churchian turf & territory and solely meant to straitjacket everyone into playing the game according to their rules." I agree with this because the church has introduced its own evidence, relics and manuscripts. The church industry has provided a lavish chronological history of its members between Christ and Eusebius, and has "preserved" supposed manuscripts for these supposed historical identities.

Just as there are two Christ's in the Gospel of Philip, and two Jesus' in the Gospel of Thomas, there are two types of historians. Classical historians and biblical historians. These two types of historians use different historical methodologies. And classical historians are not obliged to play by the methodological rules of the biblical historians. A recent example of this is given with Russell Gmirkin's three books. (See below)
Even if we were to carbon date every single extant writing, scrap and tomb, we wouldn't learn much if anything:
We would learn a great deal and this practice should be made mandatory. C14 will tell us the approximate date that the paper was harvested upon which the writing appears. As a result of C14 we learn that both Nag Hammadi Codex I, and the Tchacos Codex (containing the Gospel of Judas) are from the mid 4th century. This may be important.
... you can get a first edition Shakespeare printed just yesterday or the original third edition that was written in 1700 (I'm just making this up) and you'd be led by the nose if you let the dating prevail over the texts
C14 will tell us the dates of each manuscript. Textual criticism will tell us about the separate editions. But its an unfair comparison because we know Shakespeare. But we know nothing about the identity of the authors of the NT canon or the authors of the NT apocrypha or the authors of the NHL.
It is evident that e.g. Philip narrates from a Chrestian stage point where they've come to be called Christians already depending on certain requirements - which tells nothing about who ran which variants of which movements at that point in time -
We need to know who wrote the Gospel of Philip and when and what literary sources he may have used. We would like to know the political context and what motivated the author to write NHC 2.3. We have many questions and few answers atm. Whoever wrote Philip was in all likelihood not part of the churchian orthodoxy.
- just as Justin boasts of being Chrestian, and even Tertullian mentions the word yet clearly sits on the other side of the fence from Justin.
These guys are almost certainly church sources and part of the churchian orthodoxy. The same questions above as applied to Philip need to be applied to Justin and Tertullian. We can accept the straitjacket of churchian chronology via Eusebius and others, or we can leave the answers open.
Would dates from MSS matter there? Absolutely not, as it is evident that these specific parts of Justin and Tertullian demonstrate the evolution of Chrestianity turning into Christianity
They could just as easily be fabrications and frauds of the church industry of an unknown century. The dates of MSS would matter because the earliest manuscripts for Justin and Tertullian would provide us with the terminus ad quem - the latest possible date. For Justin this date is the 14th century, for Tertullian the 8th/9th.
We must further unravel the texts and continue to sketch the unfolding until we have the larger picture - then we can place the details in their respective positions.
The larger picture contains more than just the textual evidence. It contains the political context, the archeology of the times, the numismatics, the epigraphy, the physical manuscripts, every possible relic from within the bounds of the time period. Textual criticism has its limits. Historical enquiry uses textual criticism to solve a great many problems but is not restricted to textual criticism alone.
It's a puzzle Pete. First you do all the corner pieces, then the edge pieces. Then you do the larger sections that fit together without knowing where you place them
I too see it as a puzzle Martijn, but more like a 4 dimensional puzzle because the 3D puzzle itself moves though, and is changed, as time progresses.
And then... you place those larger sections inside the puzzle. Does it matter whether you consider the puzzle to exist before a larger section does or did? Or vice versa?
No, the section fits somewhere in the puzzle regardless of what you project onto the both of them - they belong together where both dictate that and agree to their place.
It is their individual content that determines their context, nothing else.
Unscrupulous people remove, edit and add bits and pieces and sections of the puzzle over time. This is unfortunately an historical fact. We must deal with frauds and fabrications. The age of Churchian Hoy Relics reminds us of this. A time axis is needed to track this.
Dates are irrelevant to any and all of this.
Dates may be irrelevant to textual criticism but they are critical to the classical historian who is attempting to reconstruct authorship and forgery, fraud, interpolation, copying, adding, modifying and deleting over the course of the chronological transmission history of the manuscripts.

I can and will repeat this for as long as is needed, but Thomas evidently precedes the NT and not vice versa - whether either of both was written in BCE, CE, 1st to 10th century or anywhere in between: it doesn't change anything, it doesn't matter at all.
You could be right. IDK. IDK when the NT was cobbled together, and IDK when Thomas was authored. Or Philip. But I would like to know the century of their appearance and the political context in which they appeared. I would like to know the means, motive and opportunity for all authors. The tracts for Thomas and Philip ended up bound together and prefaced by the Secret Book of John, and then buried.
When we find a Marcion text that carbon dates to 11th CE, will we conclude that Marcion redacted Luke?
No of course not.
STOP PLAYING THIS GAME ACCORDING TO CHURCHIAN RULES, AND USE COMMON SENSE INSTEAD
I am certainly not playing the game according to church industry rules. I am content to play the game according to the rules of classical historical methodology. Not the methodology of biblical history. There's a difference and I can provide it.

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method


p.3


Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders. (A.M.)

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/arnal ... STIANS.htm

Here is Gmirkin's take:

METHODOLOGY

The source-critical methods used in this book for dating texts - including biblical texts - are those familiar from classical studies, deductively establishing "terminus a quo" and "ad quem" dates between which the composition of the text under investigation must have taken place.

The latest possible dates of composition (terminus ad quem) is fixed by the earliest proof of existence of the texts, such as (rarely) the earliest physical copy, or (commonly) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.

The earliest possible date of composition (terminus a quo) is usually fixed by the latest datable work the text in question quotes or utilises, or by the latest historical allusion within the text. This book is essentially an extended exercise in classical source criticism applied to the Hebrew Bible. [1]



[1] There is a sharp methodological distinction between classical source criticism and traditional biblical source criticism. The latter used a variety of techniques to isolate hypothetical sources within biblical texts. The identification of sources
J, E, D and P preliminary to the dating arguments of the Documentary Hypothesis is a prime example of biblical source criticism. Such source documents must remain perpetually hypothetical, since they no longer exist as independent entities. This type of source criticism is rarely encountered in classical scholarship.

Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch
(The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) Hardcover – May 15, 2006
Russell Gmirkin

Last edited by mlinssen on Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Double jeopardy: LXX as a second layer to NT falsifications

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:49 am I will make a possibly very long story very short:

A.

1. is it absolutely clear in this thread which message precedes which? Yes
Yes, the system allocates in strict chronological sequence.
2. given their content, does it matter when each was written? No
This would depend on your purpose of enquiring into the posts.
Now try to falsify that by removing bits and pieces, alright? Let's see if you can demonstrate that textual criticism has its limits.
Remove the headers and the dates, time and authors. Remove any quoted material in the posts so that each post does not quote earlier posts however is able to quote new material introduced by the author. Throw the result of the above into a box and shake. In some cases you will be able to reconstruct a sequence between posts because although the automatic chronological sequencing is removed we can see that some posts respond to other earlier posts. However there will be exceptions to this rule such that we cannot precisely ascertain whether post X in responding to post Y or vice verse. Or whether both posts are responding to another post W.

Also there will be some posts that do not cite existing material in any posts. No relationships can be determined for these. In such cases we will not be able to place the posts into any relational structure.
Because it doesn't, it is exactly the other way around: textual criticism will provide evidence that A preceded B even if the carbon dated chronology is exactly the opposite
Textual criticism will tell us that two or more posts are related and in many cases will be able to tell which post is responding to another post. However not in all cases will it be able to determine which post came first. (IMO)
- because C14 does nothing but demonstrate the date of the print of a document. It is really not an awful lot more precise than paleography and it has largely the same dependencies, namely a certain volume of manuscripts that can be used as baseline and regression
In theory C14 provides scientific estimates (with upper and lower bounds) of the age of anything that has carbon in it such as papyrus or vellum. C14 dating baselines - or calibration curves - are determined against all sorts of other dating methods such as dendrochronology, tree rings and other stuff.
Take the TF that we have: it is evidently a 10th-11th CE Christian scribal hand with all the Christian scribal signs that we know but can't explain and must be considered anomalies. So can we trust what we read from the MS? Most certainly not, and the distrust becomes far, far greater when we see u=yet another anomaly, namely xristos and ihsous spelled out in full: it is absolutely guaranteed that at some point someone must have changed what (allegedly) was originally there - there can be absolutely no discussion about that because there is not a single Greek text, fragment or scrap in the world that says either Jesus or Christ - and dates to 500 CE or before. Coptic yes, but Greek? No
I agree with all that. What about Acts 26:28 in Papyrus 45 (P. Chester Beatty I) ?
Post Reply