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: 2817
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: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:04 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:47 am Martijn Linssen
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8641&p=140226#p140226

Thomas Paterson Brown
https://www.metalogos.org/files/ph_interlin.html
To be precise, my "translation of Philip" is verbatim that of Paterson Brown yet I've transcribed the issue all ligatures and also a few Greek loanwords. Why? To help facilitate fleshing out XS vs XRS and such, and to remove the latter of obfuscation that Paterson Brown adds.
Appreciate that. And that's noted at the preface.
I should have left it all alone as I'm almost done with my own Philip translation but I'm glad that I did anyway as Pete is spot on here: there is a great difference - according to Philip - between XS and XRS, for instance
I am betting that whatever difference is reflected in XS and XRS then a similar difference might be found reflected in the use of IS and IHS. But I think you already suspected this. I have the three Thomas logia noted.

What all this means is not altogether clear to me at the moment. But give it time.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:14 am What all this means is not altogether clear to me at the moment. But give it time.
That's exactly the beauty and excitement of it - and the great plus is that every outcome is fine.
I found Thomas really compelling despite the fact that he was about Jesus.
Then I noticed the differences in translation, especially with logion 65 where it says "he didn't know them" but where they all try to have something different because that doesn't fit their interpretative agenda.
I could live with them changing "he didn't know them" to "they didn't recognise him" (LOL) for some reason, but then I read logion 74 where they really have changed entire words. And I became outraged when I found out that it really says "separation" and "sickness", and it was a weekend then and I was wide awake for 30 hours writing the paper, and I found out that I could get a Leiden University Library card, which I did, and a universe opened up for me with unlimited books and papers and articles.
And that made me decide to do the translation, in order to find out what else it said - and I found the easy ones like the colostrum that everyone else ignored save for Koepke, because Koepke also had a heart as well as a mind, contrary to all other "translators" including Paterson Brown and Michael Grondin

So I did the Translation. And because I didn't know any Coptic (and still don't know much really) and because of these falsifications, it all had to be perfectly verifiable for everyone else who doesn't know Coptic, and Paterson Brown was the very best by far ever (well it was his way or Grondin's, who turned out to be an extremely sloppy translation - which the Gospel Jesus Wife forgery evidently proved) so I did what he did - but it had to be perfect.
So I applied what I know from my work: global information exchange across all possible boundaries of culture, companies and industries; it all had to be rooted in a fully normalised Data Model because every unique word of Thomas had to be treated as such, so that it could be translated whole and in its own and full context, once and only once: because none of us ever uses a word to mean A and then suddenly B in the next sentence.
And then I finally could read what Thomas said

And because I could, and because it still made little sense, I started to do the parables and then discovered the metamorphosis model precisely because of my literal and fully normalised translation, and I fortunately also ran into Koepke and his findings on the Greek loanwords: the difference in similar words across two greatly dissimilar languages. And after I had analysed and published a few parables I decided that I had to do it all, and that was what drove me to do the Commentary: a thousand pages in total, and I'm only halfway now

And then, and then - I ran into many other things, and I have now produced over 2,000 pages in 3 years time

It is a fantastic adventure Pete, and it will take you where it will take you. I don't have an agenda of any kind, I only have my findings

THAT is research, that is a journey - and I never signed up for any of it
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
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: Fri Jul 29, 2022 7:34 amIt is a fantastic adventure Pete, and it will take you where it will take you. I don't have an agenda of any kind, I only have my findings

THAT is research, that is a journey - and I never signed up for any of it
I know precisely when my research started because I was minding my own business discussing waves, the seventh set, tides and other things in the alt.surfing usenet news group for more than a decade.

until:

Sep 8, 2005, 11:42:16 AM

alt.surfing
biblical scripture and scholars


mountain man
to
"shaftŽ" <op...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126115395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Surfer Bob wrote:
>> Any biblical scholars with more time on their hands than I have care to
>> step up and interpret scripture for us on this point?
>
> You don't have to be a "scholar" to interpret scripture.
> Read Acts 11.


I disagree. The "scripture" as you see it today was
basically "assembled" under command of the Roman
Emperor Constantine, controlled securely by his storm
troopers from the outside, and his puppet bishop
Eusebius on the inside, at the Council of Nicea in 325.

The hippies were getting out of control, and something
needed to be done to bring the empire together. Look
at any large and powerful government, and its actions
in regard to conquest and power.

Ppl who read the bible should also study how it was
assembled, and by whom, and for what reason. Scholars
have in the past and present examined these questions,
and while I am not suggesting their answers to these
questions are to be treated as gospel, I am suggesting
that their answers should be examined and reviewed
by independent thought processes.

--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

The post still exists.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.surfing ... ZDdZV2HRgJ

The answers provided by the mainstream biblical scholars and biblical historians should be examined and reviewed by independent thought processes. So I went about that task.

Since then I have determined that many answers provided by the mainstream biblical scholars and biblical historians on a great range of issues are entirely suspect for the simple reason that the mainstream answers are dependent on a raft of assumptions which are assumed to be true but which in all likelihood are not.

It's been a fun journey.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

If one starts with an assumptiom such as NT scripture was basically assembled by Constantine
(or that Coptic gThomas is in effect the be all and end all for understanding Greek gospels; or similar examples, not far to seek)
could such limit research and encourage confirmation bias?
For example, there is good evidence, imo, that Origen was a philosopher who became a Christian, earlier than Constantine, and commented on NT--what kind of research would deny that?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 6:29 am If one starts with an assumptiom such as NT scripture was basically assembled by Constantine
(or that Coptic gThomas is in effect the be all and end all for understanding Greek gospels; or similar examples, not far to seek)
could such limit research and encourage confirmation bias?
For example, there is good evidence, imo, that Origen was a philosopher who became a Christian, earlier than Constantine, and commented on NT--what kind of research would deny that?
Now that would be a gross assumption and exaggeration Stephen, but what would the arguments be?
A claim in itself is nothing but an opinion - whereas a well argumented thesis could be very convincing.
To those who are open to being convinced by scientific, objectively verifiable and traceable arguments, that is

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

And what on earth would be the definition of "Greek gospel"?
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

If I wrote "a gross assumption and exaggeration," then my apologies.

Perhaps I misunderstood your comment (in Did Mark Bottom Out... thread, Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:55 am) on your Thomas research:
"What I propose is not just a tiny and insignificant shift in the origins of Christianity about which 99.9% won't give a damn - what I propose is the very end of Christianity." (You did comment further in that thread.)

Above, in this thread, you wrote: "And because I didn't know any Coptic (and still don't know much really)[....]"
I am not an expert in Coptic, though I have long found gThomas interesting.
To insist on a translation from Coptic, might it require familiarity with Coptic, Sprachgefühl?
In dating Coptic Thomas before Greek gospels (I mean gospels written in Greek, such as in NT) the question seems to arise about when writing in Coptic began. In other words, when do you date Coptic Thomas and the earliest Greek gospel you propose was influenced by it?
(I guess we can dismiss the fake claim--made elsewhere, not by you--of Thomas in Demotic, discussed before.)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:08 am If I wrote "a gross assumption and exaggeration," then my apologies.
No need for that Stephen, you didn't: I reacted to your post

"If one starts with an assumptiom such as NT scripture was basically assembled by Constantine
(or that Coptic gThomas is in effect the be all and end all for understanding Greek gospels; or similar examples, not far to seek)"

It would be a gross assumption and exaggeration to assume that Coptic gThomas is in effect the be all and end all for understanding Greek gospels. Is it clear that way what my statement intended to convey?

My rationale behind that statement is that there is hardly any relation - in meaning - between Thomas and the canonicals. Content is shared in abundance, yes - but in my view (and 500+ page motivation aka The Commentary) Thomas is about something entirely different, the content of which got relocated (in)to a completely different context.
I reckon that such started with Marcion already - but the only thing that Thomas helps with in understanding the canonicals (and as you omitted to answer my question about what your definition of "Greek gospels" is, I am forced - at least for the time being - to presume that such is how you refer to the 4 Christian gospels alone in this specific matter) is textual dependence, certainly not any theological derivation or message: what the canonicals "proclaim" is entirely of their own making when compared to Thomas
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment (in Did Mark Bottom Out... thread, Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:55 am) on your Thomas research:
"What I propose is not just a tiny and insignificant shift in the origins of Christianity about which 99.9% won't give a damn - what I propose is the very end of Christianity." (You did comment further in that thread.)
I stated that, yes - but what is the relation between that and the above, or this?
Above, in this thread, you wrote: "And because I didn't know any Coptic (and still don't know much really)[....]"
I am not an expert in Coptic, though I have long found gThomas interesting.
To insist on a translation from Coptic, might it require familiarity with Coptic, Sprachgefühl?
Most certainly at the very least, yes. How long do you think it would take for someone to acquire said "familiarity with Coptic, Sprachgefühl" in case they someone is fluent in Dutch, German, English, used to be fluent in French, Spanish and German, graduated from Grammar School with among others Latin and Greek, and who has been bi- and trilingual on a daily basis for the past 25 years?
Perhaps it would be advisable not to pass a verdict on someone else's ability of having (or not) acquired the required level of Coptic knowledge for presenting a translation of Coptic Thomas unless you have that yourself - which may or may not be the case, but to the best of my knowledge you have never commented on any of my translations of Coptic Thomas, so I can only assume that you either posses that level and agree completely with everything that I have presented - or that you do neither
In dating Coptic Thomas before Greek gospels (I mean gospels written in Greek, such as in NT) the question seems to arise about when writing in Coptic began. In other words, when do you date Coptic Thomas and the earliest Greek gospel you propose was influenced by it?
You are leading the witness, dear Stephen.
I will run it by you once more, as you appear to have missed the point: if I present an overwhelming abundance of content on exactly how and why Coptic Thomas precedes Greek Thomas (for starters) and all you can do in response to that is completely evade any and all of that content, and entirely take refuge to a context of your own making (by playing the Churchian dating game which has no relevance at all whatsoever to any textual dependence claim I have made) then you have already conceded

If you want to refute my claim, engage with the arguments that I present: if you don't want to do the latter, please care to explain to me your motivation for that
(I guess we can dismiss the fake claim--made elsewhere, not by you--of Thomas in Demotic, discussed before.)
I don't see the relevance of that, as you rightly state that I have never made that claim
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
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 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 6:29 amIf one starts with an assumption such as NT scripture was basically assembled by Constantine /// could such limit research and encourage confirmation bias?
Excellent question. Yes an assumption or a proposition by itself could limit research and encourage confirmation bias. That is why the assumption / proposition must be exhaustively tested against all the available evidence. The easiest way to do that is turn it into a question such as "is it possible that Constantine and Eusebius invented NT scripture and its cult"? This is now a simple and legitimate historical question and thus can be answered by historical enquiry.

This historical enquiry involves researching and exhaustively examining all the available evidence - both literary and archaeological - and how that evidence is being interpreted. It is therefore now mandatory that the researcher examining the proposition seeks to refute the proposition by identifying historical evidence which would categorically refute the proposition. This is the researcher's responsible task.

In 2005 I thought this would not take more than a few months. Ergo that I could and would identify some form of incontrovertible archeological or literary evidence which would put a silver bullet between the eyes of the proposition. But after about 2 years of researching I did not find it but instead found a great amount of archaeological evidence that was completely ambiguous. Biblical scholars who present an inscription of "He Sleeps" as Christian and so forth. As a result put together a thesis entitled "Constantine Invented Christanity" which I sent to the Journal of Hellenic Studies. Naturally it was not published however I did receive a referee report. Both of these are available here:
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/

The literary evidence was more problematic. For example how is the "Church History" of Eusebius to be interpreted? Is the history legitimate or is it an historical fabrication by the victors in the struggle for orthodoxy? In political history this sort of fabrication happens quite often. It is called fake news today. Stuff like Trump's fabricated and/or fraudulent electoral results. And so on and so forth.
For example, there is good evidence, imo, that Origen was a philosopher who became a Christian, earlier than Constantine, and commented on NT--what kind of research would deny that?
It's not about denial of evidence but rather how evidence is to be interpreted. I go by the maxim found in the temple of Apollo that "certainty brings insanity". Nothing in ancient history is certain. This applies to all sides of any argument. IMO it is about having a healthy skepticism and a degree of doubt about how such evidence is to be interpreted, what it actually represents, and what the actual date of such evidence. Generally we don't know the absolute dates. We have to therefore deduce both an earliest possible date and a latest possible date between which the evidence must be dated. Why should I simply just accept stuff on face value? Everything must be questioned.

In the case of the existence of Origen for example there are some anomalies. For example the classical historians are adamant that there must have been two separate Origens writing stuff in the 3rd century. They want to disambiguate Origen the Platonist philosopher from Origin the Christian theologian. They also want to disambiguate two different people called Ammonius. One being Ammonius the "father of Neoplatonism" and the teacher of the Platonist Origen, and the other being the Christian Ammonius discussed by Eusebius as the teacher of the Christian Origen. You can read more about this anomaly here is you are interested:

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Nicae ... Christ.htm

There is then the issue of what physical manuscripts do we have from Origen and what is the history of the transmission of these manuscripts from antiquity and through the archives of the middle ages church [industry] to the 21st century. This is a serious issue. You can go out and purchase the 10 volume set of the Ante Nicene Fathers, and the 14 volume set of the Nicene Fathers and the 14 volume set of the Post Nicene Fathers of the Nicene Church [industry]. But what are the actual manuscripts underlying these volumes and what is their transmission history between antiquity and the present? What is the earliest extant manuscript from Origen (the Christian theologian not the Platonist) ?

What does C14 radiocarbon dating have to say about the origins of Christian literature? This is an important question IMO. I am more likely to trust a C14 date that to trust dogma from the church [industry]. We have no C14 dates before the 4th century IMO. We have no archeology before the 4th century IMO. After 17 years of looking for a silver bullet the best evidence against the proposition that I have identified is Dura Parchment 24. But this is a harmony gospel. Where does all this leave us? Probably with more questions than when we started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura_Parchment_24
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Yes, there is that Dura manuscript, and the Dura house church. Before Constantine.
Whether or not two people named Origen were intended, one was a Christian. Before Constantine.
Constantine joined something that existed before he did.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
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 »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 3:00 am Yes, there is that Dura manuscript
DP 24 is a harmony gospel. Did the harmony gospel derive from the 4 gospels or did the 4 gospels get split from the harmony?
and the Dura house church. Before Constantine.
I have argued that the Dura house church was not Christian.
The Runes of Christ at Dura Europos
https://www.academia.edu/38115589/The_R ... ra_Europos
Whether or not two people named Origen were intended, one was a Christian. Before Constantine.
Unless Eusebius lied and fabricated 3rd century Christian identities from 3rd century Platonist identities. I have many doubts about the historical integrity of Eusebius. He's as trustworthy a Fox News.

A Pageant of Christian Identity Frauds masquerade in the Academy of Plato
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/N ... Christ.htm
Post Reply