Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:21 am What are all of the oldest examples of the name Jesus being spelled out in full? Is there any such catalogue?

I see this book on Amazon, but its not out yet: https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Center-No ... 683596307/

Anyone have any insight into this author or the potential merits of the book? August is quite a while into the future.

I see this book, but I can't find an English translation: https://books.google.com/books?id=p-Y3D ... &q&f=false

This paper is interesting, but doesn't answer enough questions: https://library.aarome.org/cgi-bin/koha ... mber=23602

https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave

Footnote 16

The first Ihsous ever is in the NHL, Melchizedek: https://www.academia.edu/84288595/Jesus ... di_Library

Page 1

There are a few try outs with naming Joshua Ihsous, but those won't count

And forget about Bokedal, you can read his stuff here: https://www.academia.edu/31183157/THE_F ... RPRETATION

and there's more in his profile. Just grab a paper and scan the footnotes for useful other authors, Bokedal doesn't add anything

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 9:02 am https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave

Footnote 16

The first Ihsous ever is in the NHL, Melchizedek: https://www.academia.edu/84288595/Jesus ... di_Library

Page 1

There are a few try outs with naming Joshua Ihsous, but those won't count

And forget about Bokedal, you can read his stuff here: https://www.academia.edu/31183157/THE_F ... RPRETATION

and there's more in his profile. Just grab a paper and scan the footnotes for useful other authors, Bokedal doesn't add anything

Are you referring to this footnote:


This doesn't refer to Jesus, but rather Christ. I mean it seems to be close, but it doesn't explicitly address the earliest refence to "Jesus". But it is still helpful nevertheless. Unless I've missed something here.

rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 10:25 am

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 9:02 am https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave

Footnote 16

The first Ihsous ever is in the NHL, Melchizedek: https://www.academia.edu/84288595/Jesus ... di_Library

Page 1

There are a few try outs with naming Joshua Ihsous, but those won't count

And forget about Bokedal, you can read his stuff here: https://www.academia.edu/31183157/THE_F ... RPRETATION

and there's more in his profile. Just grab a paper and scan the footnotes for useful other authors, Bokedal doesn't add anything

Are you referring to this footnote:

The real issue at hand is that nowhere at all, in any text, the word Christ or Christian exists¹⁶ this Latin Bezae is the very first text to encounter it.

¹⁶ The exceptions to that rule are: Pap.Bodmer.VIII folio 13 / p. 19 (1 Peter 4:6) that says χριστιανοι (as well as ΙΗΣ and ΧΡΣ). P.Lond. 61917 folio 1r 2 says [τῃΙη]σου Χριστου, P. Oxy. 3 407 1r 5-6 says Ιησου Χρειστου, P.Lond. 6.1926 1r 3 says εν Χριστω, P.Lond. 6.1929 1r 2 says ο
Χρι[στος], and that concludes an MS search up to including 4th CE– with naturally all dates provided paleographically as accustomed in Christian MSS, where not even a single one has ever been carbon dated.

This doesn't refer to Jesus, but rather Christ. I mean it seems to be close, but it doesn't explicitly address the earliest refence to "Jesus". But it is still helpful nevertheless. Unless I've missed something here.

Highlighted

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 3:54 pm

rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 10:25 am
Are you referring to this footnote:

The real issue at hand is that nowhere at all, in any text [until around [...] ], the word Christ or Christian exists¹⁶: this Latin Bezae is the very first text to encounter it

..discipulas ChRISTIANOS

---

¹⁶ The exceptions to that rule are: Pap.Bodmer.VIII folio 13 / p. 19 (1 Peter 4:6) that says χριστιανοι (as well as ΙΗΣ and ΧΡΣ). P.Lond. 61917 folio 1r 2 says [τῃΙη]σου Χριστου, P. Oxy. 3 407 1r 5-6 says Ιησου Χρειστου, P.Lond. 6.1926 1r 3 says εν Χριστω, P.Lond. 6.1929 1r 2 says ο Χρι[στος], and that concludes a MS[S] search up to [and] including 4th CE– with naturally all dates provided paleographically as [is] accustomed [for] Christian MSS (where not even a single one has ever been carbon dated).
.

This doesn't refer to Jesus, but rather Christ. I mean it seems to be close, but it doesn't explicitly address the earliest refence to "Jesus". But it is still helpful nevertheless. Unless I've missed something here.

Highlighted

• Ιησου Highlighted
  
  

  ---

  
  and I wonder if it would be better to say the first texts to display X, Y or Z are:
  1. Text A (eg. Codex Bezae),
  2. Text B (eg. Pap.Bodmer.VIII folio 13 / p. 19),
  3. Text C (eg. P.Lond. 61917 folio 1r 2),
  4. etc.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 4:43 pm

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 3:54 pm

rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 10:25 am
Are you referring to this footnote:

The real issue at hand is that nowhere at all, in any text [until around [...] ], the word Christ or Christian exists¹⁶: this Latin Bezae is the very first text to encounter it

..discipulas ChRISTIANOS

---

¹⁶ The exceptions to that rule are: Pap.Bodmer.VIII folio 13 / p. 19 (1 Peter 4:6) that says χριστιανοι (as well as ΙΗΣ and ΧΡΣ). P.Lond. 61917 folio 1r 2 says [τῃΙη]σου Χριστου, P. Oxy. 3 407 1r 5-6 says Ιησου Χρειστου, P.Lond. 6.1926 1r 3 says εν Χριστω, P.Lond. 6.1929 1r 2 says ο Χρι[στος], and that concludes a MS[S] search up to [and] including 4th CE– with naturally all dates provided paleographically as [is] accustomed [for] Christian MSS (where not even a single one has ever been carbon dated).
.

This doesn't refer to Jesus, but rather Christ. I mean it seems to be close, but it doesn't explicitly address the earliest refence to "Jesus". But it is still helpful nevertheless. Unless I've missed something here.

Highlighted

• Ιησου Highlighted
  
  

  ---

  
  and I wonder if it would be better to say the first texts to display X, Y or Z are:
  1. Text A (eg. Codex Bezae),
  2. Text B (eg. Pap.Bodmer.VIII folio 13 / p. 19),
  3. Text C (eg. P.Lond. 61917 folio 1r 2),
  4. etc.

Thanks Mac!
I was on my way back from a party in Germany enjoying the absence of speed limit (and cars) so managed only one

Yes, I know the footnote refers to Jesus, but the statement the footnote refers to does not refer to Jesus, it is talking about Christ. So the footnote is really talking about the first instance of Christ, not Jesus. That Jesus is a part of the first instance of Christ is evident, but this is not about the first instant of Jesus.

rgprice wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 5:45 am Yes, I know the footnote refers to Jesus, but the statement the footnote refers to does not refer to Jesus, it is talking about Christ. So the footnote is really talking about the first instance of Christ, not Jesus. That Jesus is a part of the first instance of Christ is evident, but this is not about the first instant of Jesus.

Well what exactly are you implying, that all this is useless?
These are the first instances of a Greek Ihsous that I know of Geoff. I also provided the first Coptic Ihsous that I know of, which you have ignored

And the footnote is not referring to any first of anything, it is simply providing exceptions to the rule

You should read Traube from start to finish and then Paap, and then consult the footnotes to Bokedal's as he pretty much names the extant literature on nomina sacra.
Or you can start with

viewtopic.php?p=149451#p149451

and consider your quest to Pauline origins for nomina sacra a futile one - as I do.
If you really want to get into it, taking into account the absence or presence of superlinears, and especially their relative extent (how many letters do they cover) is a must - and the NHL abundantly demonstrates "partial superlinears"

The footnote does not make clear that these, "P.Lond. 61917 folio 1r 2 says [τῃΙη]σου Χριστου, P. Oxy. 3 407 1r 5-6 says Ιησου Χρειστου, P.Lond." are the earliest instances of Jesus, or the exceptions to any rule regarding Jesus, because the statement in question is about Christ. These are listed as exceptions to the rule regarding, "the word Christ or Christian". That's all. I was simply trying to get clarity around the issue of Jesus as opposed to Christ, since this passage was talking about Christ, not Jesus, and was presumably citing these texts because of their use of Χριστου, not Ιησου.

rgprice wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 7:43 am The footnote does not make clear that these, "P.Lond. 61917 folio 1r 2 says [τῃΙη]σου Χριστου, P. Oxy. 3 407 1r 5-6 says Ιησου Χρειστου, P.Lond." are the earliest instances of Jesus, or the exceptions to any rule regarding Jesus, because the statement in question is about Christ. These are listed as exceptions to the rule regarding, "the word Christ or Christian". That's all. I was simply trying to get clarity around the issue of Jesus as opposed to Christ, since this passage was talking about Christ, not Jesus, and was presumably citing these texts because of their use of Χριστου, not Ιησου.

I provided you with the oldest examples that I know of Geoff.
Yes the footnotes are there because they cite Xristos, but the entire paper is about Chrest vs Christ - but there's an undeniable relation to both "first and last name".
Again, you are welcome