ⲭⲥ & ⲭⲣⲥ: The Coptic Runes of Christ in the Gospel of Philip

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: ⲭⲥ & ⲭⲣⲥ: The Coptic Runes of Christ in the Gospel of Philip

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 9:59 am
Leucius 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.
Iotacism 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 well
I completely agree. I was being ironic. Iotacism does not explain the evidence.
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.
Are you serious? I have Lundhaug's Philip book myself and the word Chrest isn't in it. Nor is the word iotacism.
Don't you think it was worth at least a tiny comment, perhaps a minor footnote only?
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.


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]

A 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
Nothing really, but it certainly is a Coptic letter
OK. Thanks for the clarification.

I will post what I've done on IHS in Thomas in a few hours after I tidy it up.
ebion
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:32 am

Re: ⲭⲥ & ⲭⲣⲥ: The Coptic Runes of Christ in the Gospel of Philip

Post by ebion »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:50 am
StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 6:29 am If one starts with an assumptiom such as NT scripture was basically assembled by Constantine
That would be called a false assumption; there's no assembly or discussion of canon at a council of Constantine's. He merely agreed to foot the bill for 50 copies of what others thought was the best canon available. Constantine was much too busy building pagan monuments to himself for Christian scripture.
mlinssen wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:50 am My sole claim - argumented very elaborately, in an easily verifiable and traceable manner - concerning Coptic and Greek Thomas is that the former preceded the latter. Just as the former preceded the Synoptics
Let me take that a step further and ask for your opinion (verifiable claim not required) given the above.

Patterson Brown made clear in both of his gThomas and gPhillip translations (which I love) that he thought they were Coptic translations of a semetic base; he points out the asyncdetons as markers of it.

I coined the term HAramaic for cases where we don't care if it's Aramaic or Aramaic in Hebrew letters, or even Hebrew. Is your opinion Patterson Brown was saying both gThomas and gPhillip were written in HAramaic? Do you agree?

Jerome says gMatthew in HAramaic was carefully curated in Caesarea, even to his day. I conjecture that gMatthew goes back to Jamesian/Pellan/Ebionaen times, defined as > 60 AD < 325* AD. In your opinion, was gThomas in HAramaic around in that same time period? Contemporaneous with HAramaic gMatthew?

If you prefer to do a well argued answer (which I'm not asking for) summarizing your work, it would be a valuable post in my Early Christian Ebionaen Canon thread as both are in our Canon, and Patterson Brown highlights the links to the synoptics from them, which is a criteria for inclusion in our canon.
Post Reply