Page 2 of 3
Re: Earliest manuscript that spells out "Jesus Christ"?
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2023 5:37 pm
by GakuseiDon
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 4:49 pmSo in this case what are the earliest manuscripts from JM? Does he use nomina sacra, or does he always it spell it out, or don't we know because all of the manuscripts are late?
As LC noted, the earliest manuscript we have of JM's work date to the 14th C. If we didn't have that, JM's work would have been lost (other than fragments). I don't know if "Joshua" was spelt out or not in that manuscript, I'm afraid. Either way. we couldn't tell what JM himself used in the Second Century. But he does associate the name with Joshua of Nun in the OT, so it is the same name.
Manuscripts of Justin's 'Apologies'
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2023 6:16 pm
by MrMacSon
Justin’s
Apologies are in Parisinus Graecus 450. Dunno about the provenance of his
Dialogue.
2 The Manuscripts and the Editions
Justin’s
Apologies are preserved in an almost complete form in two manuscripts: Parisinus Graecus 450 (A) of 1363 and Phillippicus 3081 (a) of 1541. As the latter has been proven to be a direct copy of the former, we are left, for the most part, with a single manuscript. That manuscript is not very good. Harnack has compared other works contained in Parisinus Graecus 450 with the parallel tradition preserved in a manuscript from the 10th century, noting the number of errors that crept into the text in the roughly 400 years that separate the two versions. Applying his results to the
Apologies, he calculated that ca. 200 to 300 errors would have crept into the text under similar conditions (i.e. Parisinus Graecus 450 copying a hypothetical version from the 10th century). While there is an obvious element of speculation here, the general argument is sound and has been accepted almost universally.
In the meantime, two parchment fragments from Oxyrhynchus published in 2012 have shown that already in the fourth century, a shorter text of the
Apologies than the one we know from the Parisinus was in circulation. The short snippets do not give us much to work with. One variant occurs in a citation from Isaiah (
1 Apol 51.4-5), where both the Parisinus and the parchment deviate in different ways from the text transmitted in the Septuagint ...
There are three relatively recent editions of Justin’s
Apologies, each following different principles.
- Marcovich’s edition of 1994 includes a large number of emendations, drawing the logical conclusion from Harnack’s assessment of the quality (or rather lack thereof) of the Parisinus. These emendations, which also affect the description of the meal, are often of a stylistic nature and have been criticized for this reason.
- Munier’s edition for the Sources Chretiennes, published in 2006, is different in that it rejects the harsh verdict about the Paris manuscript. It follows the Parisinus as closely as possible, with only occasional emendations. This approach is now rendered problematic by the discovery of P. Oxy. 78.5129.
- In 2009, Minns and Parvis have published their edition for Oxford Early Christian Texts, again based on different principles. Although they take a critical stance towards Marcovich’s tendency to interfere with the text, their own approach is the most intrusive of the three. They differ from both Harnack/Marcovich and Munier in that they see the Parisinus as an intellectual contribution in its own right. On this view, the Parisinus contains not just a flawed copy of, e.g., a hypothetical 10th century manuscript (Harnack’s argument), but a deliberate attempt to make sense of a tradition that had already been corrupted at an earlier point in time. Their ambitious aim is therefore to cleanse the text from both those 14th-century attempts to create cohesion and from the earlier corruptions. The result is a sometimes radical rewriting of Justin, a method that may find partial justification in the new fragment from Oxyrhynchus.
While these editions thus work on different assumptions and present somewhat different texts, they all agree that the Parisinus (henceforth A) is the only manuscript worth considering. The manuscripts containing only chapters 65-67 are not seen as having any independent value, and there is reason to believe that this judgment is indeed correct for most of them. The Greek Ottobonianus has a special status because some earlier editions have considered it to preserve an independent tradition, and its reading of 65.3 has caused a major controversy; however, all recent editions ultimately conclude that it is irrelevant for reconstructing Justin’s (or any ancient) text.
Benedikt Eckhardt (2020) 'Wine, Water and the Missing Symposium in Justin’s
First Apology,'
Vigiliae Christianae 74: pp.471-486
https://brill.com/view/journals/vc/74/5 ... anguage=en
There may be something here
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4772
Re: Manuscripts of Justin's 'Apologies'
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2023 6:25 pm
by MrMacSon
The link to Parisinus gr. 450, A.D. 1363 :
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... Grec%20450
The link to manuscript British Loan 36 (formerly Claromontanus 82), which represents a direct copy of the Paris manuscript :
https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.as ... 2951_f159r
Re: Earliest manuscript that spells out "Jesus Christ"?
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2023 9:06 pm
by Leucius Charinus
This thread is focused on "Christ" (not Jesus) and the nomina sacra
Justin Martyr: highlighted NS in First Apology & Trypho
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10526
Re: Earliest manuscript that spells out "Jesus Christ"?
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2023 11:17 pm
by GakuseiDon
I think we need to see what references early Christians were making to the Septuagint for both "Jesus" and "Christ". For "Christ", Justin Martyr references Psalm 2:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine new things? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in the heavens shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall have them in derision.
The word for "Anointed" is "Christos" in the Septuagint,
according to blueletterbible.org. So even if JM is using nomina sacra, it's clear what the word is standing for. Even if nomina sacra is used in Christian copies of the Septuagint, then it can still be cross-referenced against the Hebrew versions.
Re: Earliest manuscript that spells out "Jesus Christ"?
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2023 12:01 am
by Pogotrucci
Codex Siniaticus 16:6 has IHSOUN spelled out rather than the Nomina Sacra.
Re: Earliest manuscript that spells out "Jesus Christ"?
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2023 10:47 am
by lclapshaw
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 11:17 pm
I think we need to see what references early Christians were making to the Septuagint for both "Jesus" and "Christ". For "Christ", Justin Martyr references Psalm 2:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine new things? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in the heavens shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall have them in derision.
The word for "Anointed" is "Christos" in the Septuagint,
according to blueletterbible.org. So even if JM is using nomina sacra, it's clear what the word is standing for. Even if nomina sacra is used in Christian copies of the Septuagint, then it can still be cross-referenced against the Hebrew versions.
Are you sure about this? Have you checked the original? Or are you just trusting someone's translation?
Whenever I see quotes of this type using olde English my bs meter pegs out.
Re: Earliest manuscript that spells out "Jesus Christ"?
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2023 4:34 pm
by GakuseiDon
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 10:47 am
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 11:17 pmThe word for "Anointed" is "Christos" in the Septuagint,
according to blueletterbible.org. So even if JM is using nomina sacra, it's clear what the word is standing for. Even if nomina sacra is used in Christian copies of the Septuagint, then it can still be cross-referenced against the Hebrew versions.
Are you sure about this? Have you checked the original? Or are you just trusting someone's translation?
I'm trusting the blueletterbible.org website, as per the link I gave. The transliteration of the equivalent word in the Hebrew Scriptures is "māšîaḥ", according to the same website.
I have no knowledge of any of the ancient languages involved. But if you have any input that suggests otherwise, I'd love to read it!
Re: Earliest manuscript that spells out "Jesus Christ"?
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2023 5:44 am
by lclapshaw
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 4:34 pm
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 10:47 am
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 11:17 pmThe word for "Anointed" is "Christos" in the Septuagint,
according to blueletterbible.org. So even if JM is using nomina sacra, it's clear what the word is standing for. Even if nomina sacra is used in Christian copies of the Septuagint, then it can still be cross-referenced against the Hebrew versions.
Are you sure about this? Have you checked the original? Or are you just trusting someone's translation?
I'm trusting the blueletterbible.org website, as per the link I gave. The transliteration of the equivalent word in the Hebrew Scriptures is "māšîaḥ", according to the same website.
I have no knowledge of any of the ancient languages involved. But if you have any input that suggests otherwise, I'd love to read it!
I have to assume that you are being purposely obtuse as no one can possibly be as dense as you pretend to be and still be able to read and write in English.
Re: Earliest manuscript that spells out "Jesus Christ"?
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2023 6:36 am
by Ken Olson
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 5:44 am
I have to assume that you are being purposely obtuse as no one can possibly be as dense as you pretend to be and still be able to read and write in English.
That may be a wee bit polemical. The point is verifiable . You can check the Hebrew English interlinear text on Biblehub, which shows the Hebrew word מְשִׁיחֽוֹ׃ (Messiah, translated 'Anointed' there).
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/2.htm
Then look at the Septuagint online for Psalm 2:
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu ... omSlider=0
This shows that the Greek nomen sacrum χυ with overline is being used to translate the Hebrew מְשִׁיחֽוֹ׃. You could contest that the nomen sacrum is abbreaviating
Christos (that would seem pointless, but you could), but it is clear that the nomen sacrum is rendering the Hebrew word מְשִׁיחֽוֹ׃, 'Anointed'.
Best,
Ken