I completely agree. I was being ironic. Iotacism does not explain the evidence.mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 9:59 amIotacism doesn't apply because both words always existed simultaneously. And I'm not talking about Philip, I am talking about Greek as a language and likely even Coptic as a language as wellLeucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:12 am
But as far as the transcriptions go all that can be said is SBL. Where B = Biblical and there is only One Chrestos who suffers from iotacism.
Of course it should have been clarified. But Lundhaug and most (if not all) other biblical scholars also have a century or more of the traditional confirmation bias and group think that the two terms Chrestos and Christos are to be treated as the one term. There's likely to be a long history of "biblical scholarship" on this. They never re-examined this. They incorrectly accepted it without question or footnote.Are you serious? I have Lundhaug's Philip book myself and the word Chrest isn't in it. Nor is the word iotacism.I be honest I do not see it any deliberate falsification rather as a product of confirmation bias coupled with centuries of group think. They are the "insiders" as Arnaldo Momigiano once wrote. They have under-estimated the Nag Hammadi Library.
Don't you think it was worth at least a tiny comment, perhaps a minor footnote only?
You know it is likely that some of our disagreements here in discussion are over my facetious use of ironic comments such as: "Due to the SBL and other "scholarship"
[irony] there is only One Chrestos who suffers from iotacism" [/irony]
OK. Thanks for the clarification.Nothing really, but it certainly is a Coptic letterA final question. Something you wrote about the IS and IHS here as a post . What did you have to say about the H? That it was not a Coptic letter or something? Can you explain or point me at your post? Thanks
I will post what I've done on IHS in Thomas in a few hours after I tidy it up.