Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1937
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

"The disciples were originally called Chrestians (not Christians) at Antioch"

IDK how to explain the distribution of this data. Any ideas? Anyone?

1.00) Manuscript Evidence: "Chrestian" exclusively dominates earliest evidence from 3rd/4th centuries

1.01) SB XII 10772 ................. "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
1.02) P.Laur. II 42 ................ "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
1.03) P.Oxy.XLIII 3149 ............. "Chrestian" [5th century?]
1.04) SB XVI 12497 ................. "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
1.05) P.Oxy XLII 3035 .............. "Chresian" [28 February 256 CE]
1.06) P.Oxy.XLIII 3119 ............. "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
1.07) PGM IV. 3007-86 .............. "The Good" ("Chrestos") [4th century]
1.08) Manichaean Mss: Kellis ....... "The Good" ("Chrestos") [4th century?]
1.09) Cartonage NHC7 ............... "The Good" ("Chrestos") [4th century]
1.10) [#01] Codex Sinaiticus........ "Chrestian" [4th century?] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
.

1.20) NHL (27 x "Chrestos")
SEE Martijn Linssen's CLAIMS:
https://www.academia.edu/62646507

1.21) NHC 1.4 Treatise/Resurrect.... ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (2)
1.22) NHC 1.5 Tripartite Tractate... ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (1)
1.23) NHC 2.1 Apocryphon of John ... ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (3)
1.24) NHC 2.3 Gospel of Philip ..... ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ (4) -- [See 4.00 below]
1.25) NHC 3.4 Sophia Jesus Christ... ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (1)
1.26) NHC 8.1 Zostrianos ........... ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (1)
1.27) NHC 9.1 Melchizedek .......... ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (1)
1.28) NHC 9.2 Thought of Norea...... ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ (1)
1.29) NHC 11.1 Interpr/Knowledge.... ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (2)
1.30) NHC 11.2 Valentinian Expo .... ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (2)
1.31) NHC 11.2 Valentinian Expo .... ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (5)
1.32) NHC 11.1 Interpr/Knowledge.... ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (2)
1.33) NHC 11.1 Interpr/Knowledge.... ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (2)

1.91) Miniscule 1243 ............... "Chrestian" [11th century]


2.00) Manuscript Evidence: "not known"
2.01) Chester Beatty 45 ............ lacunae, nomina sacra form? [3rd century]


3.00) Manuscript Evidence: "Chreistian" (Transitional spelling? epsilon-iota diphthong)

3.01) [#03] Codex Vaticanus ....... "Chreistians" [4th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
3.02) [#05] Codex Bezae ........... "Chreistians" [6th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae


4.00) Manuscript Evidence: Uncials/Majuscules - "Christian" (later evidence from 5th/6th centuries????)

4.00) NHC 2.3 Gospel of Philip ..... ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ (2) - [See 1.24 above]

4.01) [#02] Codex Alexandrinus .... "Christian" [5th century?] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus
4.02) [#08] Codex Laudianus ....... "Christian" [6th century?] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Laudianus
4.03) [#14] Codex Mutinensis ...... "Christian" [7th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Mutinensis
4.04) [#20] Codex Angelicus ....... "Christian" [9th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Angelicus
4.05) [#25] Codex Porphyrianus .... "Christian" [9th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Porphyrianus
4.06) [#44] Codex Athous Lavrensis. "Christian" [9th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Athous_Lavrensis
4.07) [#049] Codex at Mt. Athos ... "Christian" [9th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_049
4.08) [#056] Codex at Paris ....... "Christian" [10th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_056


Manuscript Evidence: Miniscules:

4.09) 1 (12th),
4.10) 88 (12th),
4.11) 104 (dated 1087 CE),
4.12) 226 (12th),
4.13) 323 (12th),
4.14) 330 (12th),
4.15) 440 (14th),
4.16) 547 (11th),
4.17) 614 (13th),
4.18) 618 (12th),
4.19) 927 (dated 1133 CE),
4.20) 945 (11th),
4.21) 1175 (14th),
4.22) 1241 (12th),
4.23) 1245 (12th),
4.24) 1270 (11th),
4.25) 1505 (12th),
4.26) 1611 (10th),
4.27) 1646 (12th),
4.28) 1739 (10th),
4.29) 1828 (14th) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_182
4.30) 1837,
4.31) 1854,
4.32) 1891,
4.33) 2147,
4.34) 2344,
4.35) 2412,
4.36) 2492,
4.37) 2495.
etc

Main Source: New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Acts - (1996)
by Reuben Swanson (Editor)

The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/c ... stians.htm

QUESTIONS

1) What do the professional and amateur scholars have to say about the explicit use of "Chrestian" and/or "Chrestos" in the earliest manuscript sources. Is this significant or insignificant? Specifically address the statistical distribution by chronology.

2) Does itacism explain the statistical distribution where the name "Chrestian" is replaced by the name "Christian" and the name "Chrestos" is replaced with the name Jesus Christ of Nazareth? In the written form. IDK

2) How is the shift to be explained if not itacism?

3) When did the rule change from "Chrestian" to "Christian", from "Chrestos" to "Christos" in the written manuscripts" What are the bounds - the earliest and latest dates for the transition from Chrestos to Christos? What does the gPhilip have to say?

4) Who were the early Chrestians - when and where did they live?

5) Who were the later Christians - when and where did they live?

6) Does anyone have any idea how to explain some of this data?
gryan
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Post by gryan »

Re: Christos and Chrestos

I googled and found this discussion of Christos and Chrestos among textual critics:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... estos.html

There were two comments I found notable:

Phil Snider wrote:
3/18/2007 10:08 pm
Just a quick comment.

As I recall, some manuscripts of Tacitus, Annals 15,44 also record Chrestus as a reading, but, generally, Christos is read in.

Tertullian deals this point rather summarily in his Apologeticus 3,5 in which he attributes the error to a mispronunciation on the part of Latin speakers.

---------

P.J. Williams wrote:
3/23/2007 3:44 pm
Alas, no publication due. I was merely toying with whether the spelling χρηστος might have been an approved Christian spelling of 'Christ' at the earliest period and even one used in the autographa of NT texts. Though the idea would raise other problems (since such a spelling would be irrecoverable—and I wouldn't like that) it would allow Suetonius to have been right in talking of Chrestus while meaning 'Christ'.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1937
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Why haven't Goodacre, Gathercole, and I accepted Martijn's claims?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

gryan wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:11 am Re: Christos and Chrestos

I googled and found this discussion of Christos and Chrestos among textual critics:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... estos.html

///

P.J. Williams wrote:
3/23/2007 3:44 pm
Alas, no publication due. I was merely toying with whether the spelling χρηστος might have been an approved Christian spelling of 'Christ' at the earliest period and even one used in the autographa of NT texts. Though the idea would raise other problems (since such a spelling would be irrecoverable—and I wouldn't like that) it would allow Suetonius to have been right in talking of Chrestus while meaning 'Christ'.
That's a novel idea. The question hasn't gone away since 2007. More and more instances of χρηστος (Chrestos) are turning up at Oxyrhynchus and elsewhere. And then Martijn's "discovery" that the Nag Hammadi Library has a great abundance of Chrestos and Chrestians mixed with zero "Christos" and two explicit instances of "Christians".

Is it possible that χρηστος might have been an approved Christian spelling of 'Christ' at the earliest period ?

At least people were asking questions.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2338
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The Parable of the Seed and the Weed in Context: a Sisyphean task

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 10:49 am This is the entry on Darnel (Lolium temulentum) and Syrian Scabious (Cephalaria syriaca) from Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible (1983) p. 161.

Darnel and Syrian Scabious - p. 161 Plants of the Bible (1983) Michael Zohary.png

Best,

Ken
Dear Ken,

apologies for the delay, I managed to get out - and then not back in for a while.
I have republished logion 57 as it will appear in the final Part of the Commentary:

The Parable of the Seed and the Weed in Context: a Sisyphean task

You will undoubtedly find some entertainment in there - among others. Goodacre liked my invite to redo his version, yet this time based on a proper Thomas translation!
In related news, the paper also demonstrates the extent of (and inconsistencies within) contemporary Christian falsification - and concludes with

Naturally the main hurdle for claiming the direction of dependence to be from the canonicals to Thomas has also been removed in this way: whereas it would be a monumental task to argue that (let alone why) Thomas would have taken the plural weeds of Matthew and turned them into singular ones, there no longer is any need to do so now. Why is the seed allowed to remain singular in logion 57? Because both σπέρμα and σῖτος are singular in Matthew.
And so the myth continues

Best,

Martijn
Post Reply