the Gospel of Philip says 'Chrestian' most of the time, whereas every translation says 'Christian'

[mlinssen]

#Housekeeping

Relocated to viewtopic.php?p=140602#p140602

[mlinssen]

#Housekeeping

Relocated to viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9653&p=140603#p140603

[mlinssen]

#Housekeeping

Relocated to viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9653&p=140604#p140604

[Leucius Charinus]

WIP, but here it is: a rough, unverified list for Bezae.

///

549 occurrences of ιης,
55 occurrences of ις,
83 occurrences of χρς

So these are counts for the entire set of New Testament books in Bezae?

ιης dominates ις by a factor of 10.

And there are 83 counts of χρς and no counts for χς ?

[mlinssen]

WIP, but here it is: a rough, unverified list for Bezae.

///

549 occurrences of ιης,
55 occurrences of ις,
83 occurrences of χρς

So these are counts for the entire set of New Testament books in Bezae?

ιης dominates ις by a factor of 10.

And there are 83 counts of χρς and no counts for χς ?

Yes
Yes
Yes

Bezae transcription (not this stand-alone one, but what goes along with the MS https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/667) has been broken since a few weeks now, I just alerted them - that, on a side note

I'll do Sinaiticus next, visitors have just left and it's still a rainy Sunday

[mlinssen]

WIP, but here it is: a rough, unverified list for Bezae.

///

549 occurrences of ιης,
55 occurrences of ις,
83 occurrences of χρς

So these are counts for the entire set of New Testament books in Bezae?

ιης dominates ις by a factor of 10.

And there are 83 counts of χρς and no counts for χς ?

And you haven't overlooked the fact that essentially all these 27 IS occur in John alone, haven't you?
And that Matthew 3 must be some kind of edition?
And then when you look at Matthew you observe that the folio has note to it: https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/16

Hey, doesn't that look really different? Indeed, it does: there are 2 notes to the folio saying that a LATER hand added it.
Best, given the circumstances of the Online Bezae transcription not showing due to an AWS bug, give my link to the stand-alone transcription a shot for the time being: http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml

"Folio 7v Image Quire_1-7v (hair) Matthew 3" is what you need to look for there; do a mouse-over on both notes in the left margin

Now, what do we do regarding the comment? Is it factual and do we Accept it, or do we Reject it until we have investigated any further?
Do we have and hold Thomas in the back of our heads while we do any of that? No, most certainly not - we always take a decision based solely on the content and context of an individual MS first and foremost.
It definitely is a later hand when you look at the script, the sizing - and the relative portion of one part in relation to the other

So I have done nothing really, I most certainly haven't done any exegesis (nor did I plan to do any, nor will I ever do any) and we've merely done some dumb bean counting based on Bezae, and we have already established some solid facts and have likely found something that no one ever before has discovered. And we now know that there is a very great separation between John and the rest of Bezae.
And we have done all of this ourselves, in a matter of 2-3 hours, we not only didn't need anyone for it nor will we ever do, and the data that we have found and presented is objectively verifiable by all, it's fully traceable, and it is irrefutable

Oh wait...

[Leucius Charinus]

WIP, but here it is: a rough, unverified list for Bezae.

///

549 occurrences of ιης,
55 occurrences of ις,
83 occurrences of χρς

So these are counts for the entire set of New Testament books in Bezae?

ιης dominates ις by a factor of 10.

And there are 83 counts of χρς and no counts for χς ?

Yes
Yes
Yes

An interesting distribution indeed. Great stuff.

I'll do Sinaiticus next, visitors have just left and it's still a rainy Sunday

It will be very interesting how the four great "early" codices compare to each other and how they then compare to the NHL (plus other Coptic codices).

A study of the Runes of Christ and the Runes of Jesus are a subject Odin would be highly interested in and greatly appreciate. Odin was into runes. They didn't really interest either Thor or Loki.

[mlinssen]

An interesting distribution indeed. Great stuff.

It appears that all IS-es are "scribos" for EIS, the proposition for in(to).
I've done a few so far, and I dare to extrapolate

Going by Traube's would seem to be very efficient

[mlinssen]

An interesting distribution indeed. Great stuff.

It appears that all IS-es are "scribos" for EIS, the proposition for in(to).
I've done a few so far, and I dare to extrapolate

Going by Traube's would seem to be very efficient

I'll be relocating these to another thread Pete.
Somehow magically it appears that there are only a few hours to go for presenting Philip in the same way that I did Thomas - which would be invaluable for researching it

I've only spent 50 hours on it so far, I really don't understand LOL - but I'm pleased.
People like Stephen Goranson will object of course; how can anyone do a translation of an ancient and sacred text in so little time? That isn't only highly dubious, that's sacrilege!

But people like Stephen Goranson have demonstrated the bankruptcy of Churchian rhetoric ad nauseam: viewtopic.php?p=140471#p140471

Anyway - this thread will continue on topic: Philip

[ebion]

The translation used is that of the late Thomas Paterson Brown:

you say "the late Thomas Paterson Brown"

What info do you have on him, or his passing?

I love his gospels of Phillip and Thomas and was trying to contact him. without any luck.