Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:35 am**

ironic then the "why do you call me good?" of Mark lol, the word is agathos. the odes say

let-us-agree, then, all-of-us together in/upon the name of the Lord and-we-will-honour-him in his goodness

this could mean either 'agree on what the Lord's name actually is' or 'agree like an oath upon his name'. no-one knows which
funny to see this connection to 'name' and 'good' appear, after all the odes say their messiah was opposed because he was good but never say what his name is only what it means which was all-important

the attribute mentioned in 41 is 'goodness' TABUTA (feminine noun), TOB/TOV
Lattke posits the Greek would have been ἀγαθωσύνη from AGATHOS, but that's a rare/unique NT form? (he says its in Wisdom 7:26 though). Ode 11 has AGATHOS and KALOS for 'good'.
oh well. no smoking gun here

Posted: **Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:11 am**

Are there any nomina sacra where reading Xrhstos makes the text more intelligible than reading it as χριστὸς?

Posted: **Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:11 am**

dbz wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:11 am

Are there any nomina sacra where reading Xrhstos makes the text more intelligible than reading it as χριστὸς?

In the NHL, almost always: there is an abundance of Xrhstos-ness there as well, in reference to the father or IS. But it is evident that said IS in the NT is portrayed as the Xristos, the anointed.
I think Paul, at least parts of it, can be read very well with Xrhstos in mind (and I'd admittedly have to dig for details)

Lane has an interesting thread as well at viewtopic.php?p=131500#p131500

Posted: **Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:06 pm**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:11 am I think Paul, at least parts of it, can be read very well with Xrhstos in mind (and I'd admittedly have to dig for details)

Lane has an interesting thread as well at viewtopic.php?p=131500#p131500

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 3:05 am Now please do tell me: does Paul belong to Christianity or Chrestianity?

Does Paul belong to Christianity or Chrestianity?

If Paul is not talking about his Lord (and second-god) as the "The Messiah - The Anointed One" of the Jews? Then IMO Paul is plumping for Chrestianity!

Perhaps originally, Paul's second-god kept his identity secret in order to be killed while wearing a human "flesh suit". Thus he could secretly rescue the redeemable dead in the underworld before the coming END and the subsequent final salvation of redeemable overworld-humanity, i.e. torah obedient Jews and Xrhstos devotees.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:16 pm**

It's "the default"

Spelling the Greek χριστος, a translation for the Hebrew that means anointed, in the LXX... defaults to the abbreviation used for "Christ": XS, XU, XW and XN

Codex Sinaiticus has been traversed in full, 13 have been found in all of the LXX. Not much? 13 too much, I would wager.
Vaticanus has been looked at, and of the first 8, 8 have been found - and those form a 100% match.
Alexandrinus has been looked at, 3 have been found, 1 of those is a full one but the other two are abbreviations: I've seen enough in order to draw this preliminary conclusion

There is no way in hell that these codices existed before Christianity and just happened to "get fixed" while transcribing them - oh and in the meantime sticking to verbatim copies for the gruesome mistranslations of the Hebrew.
It is blatantly obvious that "OT textual criticism" or an NA28 for the LXX would be disastrous for Christianity as it would point out these incredible peculiarities and expose them for what they are: attempts to theologically harmonise the Tanakh in order for it to fulfill the fake prophecies of the NT

The LXX - as we know it - is a purely Christian product from beginning to end. There certainly are Greek translations of the Tanakh prior to those, yet they miss the gross Christification:
1. scribal signs like
1a. Line ending superlinear replacing Nu
1b. Diaeresis on i and u
1c. Apostrophe in between double consonants or at the end of Judaic names
2. Annotating "anointed" in the LXX by using the nomen sacrum for XS

viewtopic.php?p=151684#p151684

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:08 am [JUST PINGING YOU STEVEN]

Next task: to find these verses in non-Christian Greek Tanakh translations, even though the outcome of that is as good as guaranteed beforehand - but while we can and even should always make assumptions, we should do that only when and where they're followed up for verification

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2023 1:13 am**

curve balls? the Aramaic targums what do they say?
2nd - have you considered the coptic letters from Kelis? i have a book of those, fascinating if nothing else cause they're normal life letters but some written to/from manichean elects. they are mostly 'pastoral' though 'hey when you travel to Luxor buy me some grain with the money i gave you - don't forget!' doubt you'll find any nomina sacra evidence here but you never know

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2023 11:29 am**

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahlfs_1219

Contents: Psalm 1:4-146:9a, 149:2b-151:6; Odes 1:1-6a

Employs the use of numerous nomina sacra (special names/words considered sacred in Christianity - usually the first and last letters of the name/word in question are written, followed by an overline; sometimes other letters from within the word are used as well), consistently using the nomen sacrum for ΘΣ (θεος / God), ΚΣ (κυριος / Lord), ΔΑΔ (Δαυιδ / David), and ΧΣ (χριστος / Messiah/Anointed); with other nomen sacrum used frequently: ΟΡΟΣ (ουρανος / heaven), ΙΗΛ (Ισραηλ / Israel), ΜΗΡ (μητηρ / mother), ΣΗΡ (σωτηρ / saviour), ΠΡΣ (πατρος / father), ΑΝΟΣ (ανθρωπος / man/human), ΠΝΑ (πνευμα / Spirit), ΥΣ (υιος / son), and ΙΗΛΜ (Ιεροσαλημ / Jerusalem).
- Uses diacritical strokes and dots over vowels (though not consistently), varying from a short grave accent to a small dot.
- Uses the apostrophe consistently throughout, with a slightly varied shape. This appears mainly after final consonants, between double consonants, between unlike consonants, and after the Greek εκ.

End of story: I've discovered nothing new.
Conclusion:

1. While writing the LXX, scribes freely and abundantly used all possible nomina sacra that we know from the NT.
It naturally is impossible that such came into being by merely transcribing from a Vorlage, as no initial Vorlage in the entire universe could ever have looked like that.
Naturally, once such a text had been created, that in itself could serve as a Vorlage for later MSS. Even though it is unlikely that there was one sole mother copy for all LXX, it is likely that a very first Vorlage got created for precisely that purpose

2. It seems highly unlikely, in the light of these findings, that there exists a typical LXX - meaning one that contains the necessary mistranslations that square with their alleged references from the NT - without even a single nomen sacrum.
If that is the case, or if the exceptions to that rule are insignificant enough from a statistical point of view, it becomes a very hard case to argue for the existence of an "Old Testament" which is not be a Christian hand - and we're not talking about an e.g. 11th CE MS but about hardcore early ones that have been dated paleographically to around the 5th CE

And again, history repeats itself: there is no extant witness, outside of the echo chamber of Christianity, to texts that support Christian texts

There is no independent LXX to support the NT - all of them come from Christian hands alone

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:38 am**

Btw, on the nomina sacra, I think that Ludwig Traube notices unusual forms, in Sinaiticus and other mss., that could be exemplars for Sinaiticus.

When I am back on the puter, I’ll add info.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:29 am**

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:38 am Btw, on the nomina sacra, I think that Ludwig Traube notices unusual forms, in Sinaiticus and other mss., that could be exemplars for Sinaiticus.

When I am back on the puter, I’ll add info.

Traube does notice exceptions, and seems to suggest distinguishing between OT and NT for Sinaiticus: yet apparently, I overlooked Sin B1 and Sin C...
I have most of my material on the laptop, server as well as phone - so here's your Traube Sinaiticus page

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_hI4T ... 9/mode/2up

It continues on the next two pages

Posted: **Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:07 am**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 11:29 am
Conclusion:

1. While writing the LXX, scribes freely and abundantly used all possible nomina sacra that we know from the NT.
It naturally is impossible that such came into being by merely transcribing from a Vorlage, as no initial Vorlage in the entire universe could ever have looked like that.
Naturally, once such a text had been created, that in itself could serve as a Vorlage for later MSS. Even though it is unlikely that there was one sole mother copy for all LXX, it is likely that a very first Vorlage got created for precisely that purpose

The NT and the LXX were produced as a package and in codex form.

2. It seems highly unlikely, in the light of these findings, that there exists a typical LXX - meaning one that contains the necessary mistranslations that square with their alleged references from the NT - without even a single nomen sacrum.
If that is the case, or if the exceptions to that rule are insignificant enough from a statistical point of view, it becomes a very hard case to argue for the existence of an "Old Testament" which is not be a Christian hand - and we're not talking about an e.g. 11th CE MS but about hardcore early ones that have been dated paleographically to around the 5th CE

Christian/Chrestian origins is looking to be late. Not early.

And again, history repeats itself: there is no extant witness, outside of the echo chamber of Christianity, to texts that support Christian texts

If any texts existed prior to the 3rd century they are imagined to have been lost. Alternatively the texts were relatively unknown or deep underground before they were raised into political prominence in the 3rd or 4th century. Either way the received church "history" is entirely suspect.

There is no independent LXX to support the NT - all of them come from Christian hands alone

They appear to have been produced as a package by one and the same "school". The package therefore is likely to have been produced in the one scriptorium and thus - theoretically - with a single editor-in-chief.

Under such a scenario the appearance of the proliferation of the runes (nomina sacra) is attributable to the same "school" (and editor) as part of the initial package design.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT"

Re: The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT"

Re: The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT"

Re: The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT"

Re: The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT"

The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for xristos in the "OT" in all main codices (01, 02, 03)

Re: The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT"

Re: The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT" (Rahlfs 1219)

Re: The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT"

Re: The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT"

Re: The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT" (Rahlfs 1219)