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

[robert j]

------ still below

[Bernard Muller]

My previous post was a response to gryan:

Re: Which came first? gMatt or gThomas?

The case of the Saying 57

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mas57.html#

With my working hypothesis of a late gMatt, my guess is that we see a process of editorial expansion: Mark's version is oldest, then came Thomas's, then came Matthew's.

I wonder if there might be other cases where Matt could plausibly have used Mark and Thomas as sources.

Cordially, Bernard

[robert j]

... the word zizania ...

The issue of the meaning is discussed by Paolo Squatriti, Weeds and the Carolingians, page 114ff (see Google-preview)...

I'm posting pages 114-115 from Paolo Squatriti, Weeds and the Carolingians : empire, culture, and nature in Frankish Europe, AD 750-900 (2022), which contains a discussion of what ZIZANIA was taken to mean among ancient (and medieval) interpreters.

Excellent. It’s just exactly what I’ve been wondering about --- how the Greek zizania/zizanion in Matthew and Thomas came to be understood as Lolium temulentum, darnel ryegrass (aka tares).

Thank you for posting the reference KK and Ken.

My Synopsis: In the two-pages of the book posted by Ken, Paolo Squatriti acknowledges that the specific meaning of zizania --- other than some grain-like weed --- was unknown prior to the 4th century CE. Squatriti demonstrates that the association of zizania=lolium is based on church tradition initially established by a poetic and symbolic association in the 4th century, with the association catching-on by the mid-5th century to become the widely accepted solution.

More on the pages posted ---

Squatriti reports that the first known claim that zizania was darnel ryegrass (the intoxicating Lolium temulentum) was made during the time of Constantine (ca. 306-337 CE). The claim was made by Juvencus, an “aristocrat and priest” in Spain that “wrote poetic renditions of the scriptures” aimed at educated Romans. Squatriti characterizes Juvencus’ claim as “asserted baldly”.

Then Squatriti reports that ---

“In subsequent decades … Jerome himself did a great deal to identify Matthew’s noxious plant for Latin audiences: in his commentary on the Gospel he proposed that “zizania” was the plant “we call lolium”. (pp. 114-115)

What Squatriti fails to mention is that Jerome knew of Juvencus, and what little biographical information we have for Juvencus came from Jerome. Juvencus is one of Jerome’s illustrious persons (De Viris Illustribus, 84, ca. 392–393 CE).

Jerome cannot be considered an independent source for zizania=lolium, nor can anyone reported to date who comes after Juvencus.

Squatriti writes ---

"Thus, whether inspired or not, Juvencus’ hypothesis slowly insinuated itself among unsure readers of the Gospel, and by the mid-400s even obscure dictionaries of curious Latin terms could proclaim without doubt and without further elaboration, “zizania is lolium.” (page 115)

Absent corroboration clearly independent of Juvencus, academic prudence would limit a bald assertion by a Christian priest, poet, and aristocrat in 4th century Spain to just another possible solution. Regardless of the heavy weight of convention.

The aristocratic priest and poet Juvencus wrote a story of Jesus in Latin consisting of 4 books based primarily on the Gospel of Matthew. Just a bit from Wikipedia on Juvencus (highlighting mine) –

The whole problem for him is to render the Gospel text into easy language conformable to the tradition of the Latin poets, and borrowed especially from Virgil. His task permits of little originality beyond that exhibited in new words composed, or derived, according to familiar types … elegant synonyms to express the Christian realities … or, lastly, archaic expressions … A few obscurities of prosody betray the period in which the work was written. The whole effect is carefully wrought out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvencus

In Juvencus’ time, this Lolium species in question was widely known. For millennia --- and in Juvencus’ day --- the plant was used as human food (mostly among the poorest), for animal feed, for many medicinal purposes, as an additive in beer making, and as an intoxicant. It’s not hard to imagine how an aristocratic Christian priest might abhor the use of the intoxicating Lolium among the poorest. Juvencus made the mysterious ‘zizania’ into the intoxicating Lolium for the devilish plot. Nobody seemed to know what zizania really were anyway.

Just what specific weed the authors of Matthew and Thomas had in mind is still a mystery. The Greek zizania/zizanion seems to have etymological roots --- perhaps with Semitic intermediaries --- with the ancient Sumerian ziz-an, their term for the ancient wheat-like emmer.

Perhaps the authors of Matthew and Thomas did not have a specific weed in mind beyond a wheat-like weed that had a similar life cycle and, before maturity, a similar appearance.


robert j


---------- -----------


Here’s Juvencus’ Latin poetic rendition of Matthew’s parable of ‘the wheat and the weeds’ ---

Agricolae simile est regnum sublime tonantis. 796 Ille iacit proprio mandans bona semina ruri^ Sed post subripiens hominum insidiando sopori trux inimicus adit^ loliumque inspergit amarum. Ecce sed ad fructum culmis cum spiceus Horror Processiti lolio messis maculata redundant. 800 Tum domino famuli mirantes talia fantur: Nonne bonum terrae semen per terga dedisti? Unde igitur lolio turpi tua rura gravantur? Sed iam, si iubeas^ messem purgabimus omnem, Triticeusque nitor selecta sorde resistet. 805 Tum dominus miti centra sermone profatur: Hic dolus est; inimice^ tuus^ sed farra sinamus Crescere cum lolìo. Pieno nam tempore messis Secretum lolìum conexo fasce iubebo Ignibus exurì; at nostro de semine messor 810 Horrea nostra dehìnc purgata fruge replebit.

Juvencus' Evangeliorum libri IV, or "The Four Books of the Gospels"

Book 2, 795-811 in Latin here –

https://archive.org/details/cvettiaquil ... ew=theater

I don’t know Latin, but here’s my quick-and-dirty attempt at a translation of the first portion using on-line translation aides. Juvencus seems to favor words with fitting symbolic alternative meanings ---

(795-799 plus a bit of 800) —-

The kingdom of the farmers is like thundering/God on high.
He sows his own, sending good seed to the tilled ground.
Behold, afterwards, lying in wait to take advantage of the deep sleep (stupor) of the men,
enters (the) fierce enemy, he sows bitter Lolium.
[note: this kind of Lolium contains bitter tasting compounds]

Behold, indeed, towards the time of profit (fruit),
the stalk together with the spike of grain standing erect (and causing dread),
heading towards a Lolium-stained harvest to overflow.
[note: this kind of Lolium can have dark purple seed]

Then the servants queried the master …



I would welcome other translations from anyone having skill with Latin. A book by Scott McGill has recently been published with an English translation of the entire work. Anyone have that? How does McGill translate this parable in Juvencus?

[robert j]

Around the 3rd century BCE, the ancient Greek naturalist Theophrastus discussed darnel ryegrass (Loilum temulentum) in several portions of his texts, and he called it αἶρα.

If there was a perfectly-fine Greek word for darnel --- and if the authors of Matthew and Thomas intended the weed in the parable to be darnel --- why didn’t those authors use the available word?

What “they say” in this bit of rural-lore ----

Theophrastus (ca. 371-287 BCE) wrote Inquiry into Plants (HP) ---

… they say that wheat (πυρόv) and barley (κριθήν) change into darnel (αἶράν), and especially wheat; and that this occurs with heavy rains and especially in well-watered and rainy districts. But that darnel (αἶρα) is not a plant of the spring like other weeds … it springs up and becomes noticeable directly (as) winter comes … (HP, 8.7.1)

https://archive.org/details/enquiryinto ... 2/mode/2up

And in a discussion of darnel in grains, Theophrastus wrote ---

Some kinds (of grain) are free from darnel (αὶρων), as the Pontic and the Egyptian; the Sicilian is also fairly free from it, and that of Akragas is especially immune from darnel (αὶρώδης).

Peculiar however to the Sicilian is the plant called melampyron (common name, cow-wheat) which is harmless, and not like the darnel (αἶρα), burdensome (injurious) and productive of headache. (HP, 8.4.6)

https://archive.org/details/enquiryinto ... 2/mode/2up

(translations only slightly modified from those provided in the links)

I think it’s adequately clear that Theophrastus used the term αἶρα for darnel ryegrass (Lolium temulentum), with a correct description as a winter-annual wheat-like weed, and that ingestion can be burdensome (intoxicating/injurious) and result in a headache.

Here’s the entry for the term αἶρα in the LSJ (from Perseus) ---

αἶρα , ἡ,
A.hammer, αἰράων ἔργα smith's work, Call.Fr.129.
2. = ἀξίνη, Hsch.
II. darnel, Lolium temulentum, Thphr.HP 1.5.2: in pl., Ar.Fr.412, Pherecr.188, Arist.Somn.Vig.456b30, Herod. 6.100, etc.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ai%29%3Dra

Plants are often given descriptive common names such as ‘club wheat’ named for the club shape of the head. And ‘goatgrass’, an ancestor of cultivated wheat, apparently named for the shape of an individual seed spikelet resembling the horned head of a goat. One would think that a widely known plant like darnel ryegrass that agrarian people interacted with for millennia would garner a simple common name.

The primary use of the Greek term αἶρα was for a hammer, the tool. However, that designation fits quite well as a descriptive term for darnel. The seed of darnel can be tan-colored when the outer hull is still attached, but the naked grain is often a dark blackish purple --- dark like an ancient iron hammer. And the shape of the naked grain can clearly be seen as having the shape of an ancient hammer-head.

And if you ate too much darnel --- you’d get hammered.

I think it’s adequately clearly that the Greek term αἶρα, as used by Theophrastus in his 3rd century BCE texts, means darnel ryegrass.

And again, if the established Greek term αἶρα for darnel ryegrass was available to the authors of Matthew and Thomas, and if they specifically intended the weed in the parable to be darnel, why didn’t they use αἶρα?

Certainly not dispositive as an argument from silence, but I think this evidence adds weight against the conventional understanding of zizania=lolium in the stories in Matthew and Thomas.

Zizania are still mostly a mystery.


robert j

[robert j]

Parable of 'The Wheat and the Weeds'

How Juvencus Came-Up With Zizania=Lolium

From the 2nd post above ---

It’s just exactly what I’ve been wondering about --- how the Greek zizania/zizanion in Matthew and Thomas came to be understood as Lolium temulentum, darnel ryegrass (aka tares). ...

Squatriti reports that the first known claim that zizania was darnel ryegrass (the intoxicating Lolium temulentum) was made during the time of Constantine (ca. 306-337 CE). The claim was made by Juvencus, an “aristocrat and priest” in Spain that “wrote poetic renditions of the scriptures” aimed at educated Romans. Squatriti characterizes Juvencus’ claim as “asserted baldly”.

Was it entirely a bald assertion, or did Juvencus have an earlier source that included some agricultural lore from which Juvencus himself made the association of zizania=lolium?

One purpose of this post is to look back even further in time to explore why Juvencus replaced the mysterious Greek term zizania with lolium in his reshaping of Matthew’s parable of the ‘wheat and the weeds’ into epic Latin poetry.

Scott McGill wrote the first published complete translation from the Latin into English of Juvencus’ Four Books of the Gospels (McGill’s book was published in 2016).

The Four Books of Juvencus do not represent the four NT Gospels directly, but rather Juvencus wrote his epic story of Jesus in four parts. Each one of Juvencus’ four parts contains material from various portions of the four NT Gospel stories, but Matthew served as the primary source.

McGill starts off with this ---

Juvencus’ Evangeliorum libri quattuor, or Four Books of the Gospels, is a verse rendering of the gospel narrative written ca. 330 CE. Consisting of around 3200 hexameter lines, it is the first of the Latin “Biblical epics” to appear in antiquity, and the first classicizing, hexameter poem on a Christian topic to appear in the western tradition.

In his Introduction, McGill clearly emphasizes Juvencus’ dependence on the earlier epic Latin poetry of Virgil (ca. 70-19 BCE) for both content and style. Just a couple of examples among McGill’s many references to Virgil ---

Linguistic fidelity to the Gospel meets Virgilian imitation to create a hybrid line with debts to two authoritative texts. ...

A good number of all these epic features show parallels with Virgil’s Aeneid and, in many cases, presumably derive from it.

And also this from McGill's Introduction specifically relevant to the issue at hand ---

At some points, and especially when treating parables in the Gospels, Juvencus absorbs pastoral and agricultural material from Virgil’s Eclogues and Georgics.

In his “Notes To Book Two”, McGill briefly addresses the question of how Juvencus may have associated the Greek zizania in Matthew with lolium, darnel ryegrass ---

798: The classical term lolium (darnel) is used in place of the Gospel’s zizania (Mt 13:25). Juvencus very likely looks to Virgil, Ecl. 5.36–7: gran¬ dia saepe quibus mandavimus hordea sulcis, / infelix lolium et steriles nascuntur avenae (often in the furrows, to which we committed big barley grains, unproductive darnel and barren oat spring forth); ...

In his “Notes To Book Three”, McGill provides a bit of additional elaboration on zizania/lolium related to Juvencus’ treatment of the explanation of the parable in Matthew 13:36-43 ---

1–16: The meaning of the parable of the tares. … Juvencus repeats quid quaestio vellet at 3.159. 7: “Dry darnel” is lolium infelix. Juvencus probably adapts the phrase from infelix lolium at Virgil, Ecl. 5.37, although this also appears at G. 1.154 …

[note by robert j: Virgil’s Eclogues and Georgics]

That Juvencus would draw on Virgil even for his agronomic choices is consistent with his modus operandi.

Of course, lore about the intoxicating/poisonous darnel ryegrass in grain fields preceded Virgil in some Greek texts. Theophrastus (ca. 371-287 BCE) wrote Inquiry into Plants (HP) ---

… they say that wheat (πυρόv) and barley (κριθήν) change into darnel (αἶράν), and especially wheat; and that this occurs with heavy rains and especially in well-watered and rainy districts. (HP, 8.7.1)

https://archive.org/details/enquiryinto ... 2/mode/2up

Peculiar however to the Sicilian (grain) is the plant called melampyron which is harmless, and not like the darnel (αἶρα), burdensome (injurious) and productive of headache. (HP, 8.4.6)

https://archive.org/details/enquiryinto ... 2/mode/2up

Here is McGill’s translation of Juvencus’ rendition of Matthew’s parable of the ‘wheat and the weeds’. I added the "lolium" terms as found in the Latin text of Juvencus. Included in the table for comparison are the version in Matthew (Berean Literal Bible) and a translation of the Coptic version in Thomas ---

Juvencus (Book 2, 794--810)	Matthew (13:24--30)	Thomas (Logion 57)
Then to his band and crowd he added this: Matthew 13:24–31 “The lofty kingdom of the Thunderer 795 is like a farmer planting his good seed.	24 He put before them another parable, saying, “The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man having sown good seed in his field.	IS said, "The Father's kingdom is like a person who has [good] seed.
Later, a vicious enemy stole out while others slept and planted bitter darnel (loliumque).	25 And while the men are sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds (zizania) in the midst of the wheat, and went away.	His enemy came during the night and sowed a weed (zizanion) among the good seed.
See – when the bristling grain came to be ripe, the crop was lush, but ruined by the weed (lolio).	26 And when the plants sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds (zizania) also appeared.
800 The servants, staggered, then addressed their lord: ‘Did you not plant good seed throughout your land? Why, then, does wicked darnel (lolio) choke your fields?	27 And the servants, having approached the master of the house, said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds (zizania)?’
At your command, we will purge all the crop; the blight removed, the wheat’s sheen will endure.’ 805 The master calmly spoke: ‘This is your scheme, enemy; let the wheat grow with the darnel (lolio).	28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy did this.’ And the servants said to him, ‘Then do you desire that having gone forth, we should gather them?’ 29 And he said, ‘No, lest gathering the weeds (zizania), you would uproot the wheat with them.	The person did not allow them to pull up the weed (zizanion), but said behold, “Lest perhaps you go and pluck the weed (zizanion), you pluck the wheat with it.”
Then, when the harvest comes, I will command the weed (lolium) be separated, tied, and burned. The reaper will then fill my granaries 810 with the purged wheat that grew from seeds I sowed.’"	30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the harvesters, ‘First gather the weeds (zizania), and bind them into bundles in order to burn them; then gather together the wheat into my barn.’"	Indeed on the day of the harvest the weeds (zizanion, in the plural) will be revealed outwardly. They pluck them and they burn them.

Even with my extremely limited knowledge of Latin (close to zero), I can sympathize with the task McGill undertook. In addition to the challenges of Juvencus’ hexameter construction, I think a great deal of symbolism and double-meanings will be lost in the translation from the 4th century poetic Latin into English, no matter how skillfully done. As is often the case in such translations, choices must be made that can exclude significant wheels-within-wheels.

To the primary issue, I suggest that either a transliteration (zizania) of the still mostly mysterious Greek ζιζάνια, or the generic term “weeds”, are the only appropriate translation choices.

In light of the evidence presented in this thread, and absent other supporting evidence, is there justification to cling to the convention of translating or understanding ζιζάνια as lolium, or its common names --- darnel, tares, or cockle? Is there rationale beyond convention to assume that Lolium temulentum, darnel ryegrass, was the intent of the original author(s)?

If there is justification other than convention, I can’t see it.


robert j

[Leucius Charinus]

Very interesting tangent on the weed.
thanks. Great collaboration to boot.


As I understand it at the moment Martijn has set forward two separate propositions. The first concerns Thomasine priority. But here I'd like to discuss the second which concerns specific translation anomalies related to Chrestos / Christos and the Coptic "nomina sacra" in the NHL texts. (paper linked below)

Here are some notes on the second "discovery" / proposition.
They are followed by some comments.

my paper on the abundantly overwhelming presence of ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ and related forms with an ETA (ⲏ) in the Nag Hammadi Library

///

Yet all of these get translated with Christ-xyz, and there are only two notes to all of it in the 5,000 pages that the Brill series on the NHL comprise and at no point is there any visible mark to the English translation that a word like XRHSTOS gets emended to XRISTOS.
Nor is there a comment from anyone who remarks on the fact that the word XRISTOS is not even present in the NHL; all there is, is XRHSTOS and XRHSTOS alone.

Christ doesn't exist in the NHL, Ken - and at that point I didn't yet know that the identical fact holds true for any and all Christian writings.

These translation anomalies related to Chrestos / Christos (and the Coptic "nomina sacra") in the NHL texts outlined in Martijn's paper look real enough to me. They look real enough such that some of the experts in this forum should take a second look.

The data is not going away. The editor(s) / scribes of the Nag Hammadi Library made explicit reference to Chrestos and not to Christos. In the Gospel of Phillip the Chrestians and the Christians co-exist. This is not Iotacism. We should investigate what the texts actually say about Chrest / Christ in the NHL.

(1) How are these perceived anomalies to be explained?

(2) Are the current scholarly English translations of the NHL deficient?

(3) Why is there no viable general theory on the origin of the nomina sacra?

[gryan]

Re:Coptic ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = (Greek: chrēstos)
https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C10991

1 Peter 2:3
"now that you have tasted that the Lord is good (chrēstos)."
εἰ ἐγεύσασθε ὅτι χρηστὸς (chrēstos) ὁ Κύριος.

Cf. Psalm 34:8
Taste and see that the Lord is good (chrēstos)
Swete's Septuagint
γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι χρηστὸς (chrēstos) ὁ κύριος·

[Leucius Charinus]

Re:Coptic ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = (Greek: chrēstos)
https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C10991

TLA lemma no. C10991
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ

Form Dial. Form ID POS Attestation
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ S CF30116 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ A CF30115 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲥⲧⲟⲥ S CF30114 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲣⲥ S CF30117 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲥ S CF30121 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭⲥ A CF30120 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭ︤ⲣ︦ⲥ︥ S CF30119 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭ︤ⲣ︦ⲥ︥ M CF30118 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭ︤ⲥ︥ S CF30122 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium
ⲭ︤ⲥ︥ A CF30123 Subst. Search in Coptic Scriptorium

Scriptorium tag: N
1. benevolent, kind one (substantive)
2. benevolent, kind (attributive)
3. benevolent, kind (inverted attributive, attributive referent)
4. benevolent, kind one, Christ (epithet for Jesus of Nazareth)
5. useful, good (substantive)
6. benevolence, goodness (substantive)

"Chrestos" was an epithet for many deities in the Roman empire and if my memory serves it is found in one of the Sethian texts as an epithet for Seth (or someone else).

1 Peter 2:3
"now that you have tasted that the Lord is good (chrēstos)."
εἰ ἐγεύσασθε ὅτι χρηστὸς (chrēstos) ὁ Κύριος.

Cf. Psalm 34:8
Taste and see that the Lord is good (chrēstos)
Swete's Septuagint
γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι χρηστὸς (chrēstos) ὁ κύριος·

Yes the root word "chrestos" means "good", "kind", "excellent", "useful". etc and it is used in this profane way in the NT canonical manuscripts. It has a different root from the word "Christ" used to mean "annointed".

Here is a summary of the study made on the NHL:

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

NHL CODEX II
1 The Apocryphon of John 1–32 // 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 // 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 // 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 // See NHL CODEX II,1
2 The Gospel of the Egyptians 50–81 // ⲓⲥ = 2 + [1], ⲭⲥ = 3 + [3]

NHL CODEX V
1 Eugnostos the Blessed 1–17 // None
2 The Apocalypse of Paul 17–24 // None
3 The First Apocalypse of James 24–44 // None
4 The Second Apocalypse of James 44–63 // ⲭⲥ = 1
5 The Apocalypse of Adam 63–85 // 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

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 // 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 // None

NHL CODEX VIII
1 Zostrianos 1–132 // 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 // ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ = 1
3 The Testimony of Truth 29–74 // ⲓⲥ = 2 + [1], ⲭⲥ = 8 + [1]

NHL CODEX X
1 Marsanes 1–68 // None

NHL CODEX XI
1 The Interpretation of Knowledge 1–21 // ⲓⲏⲥ = 1, ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ = 2 + [2]
2 A Valentinian Exposition 22–40 // 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 // 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 // ⲭⲥ = [1]
3 fragments

NHL CODEX XIII
1 Trimorphic Protennoia 35–50 // 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

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

Analysis of this indicated the dominant use of the ETA (Chrestos) rather than the IOTA (Christos). In fact the IOTA only appears in gPhilip alongside the use of the ETA. Here "Chrestians" and "Christians" are explicated together.

The point is none of this is mentioned in the current academic translations of the texts within the NHL.

For some background / introduction to data underpinning this issue prior to Martijn's "discovery" see this link:

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

[schillingklaus]

Mt used neither Mk nor Thomas as sources, but they all share some common prior gospel sources.

[gryan]

The point is none of this is mentioned in the current academic translations of the texts within the NHL.

For some background / introduction to data underpinning this issue prior to Martijn's "discovery" see this link:

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

Point well taken!