Toto

I don't see the credentials. The one identifiable author seems to be John Bartram, who has practical experience in archaeology and journalism. There is also "David," a retired Navy veteran and a graduate student at a second tier California state college in Early Medieval History.

stephan huller

How so? Are you implying that Maklelan is hopelessly ignorant and delusional?

mountainman

This is the entire point being made by the archaeologist author at HHI.



Let's supposing for a moment that your hypothesis about the ultimate interpretation of the nomina sacra encryption is correct, and that the books of the NT canon were authored by a number of people over an epoch of time in century X where X = 1 and/or 2 and/or 3, but not 4.

What theories or hypotheses do you subscribe to which best explain the almost universal appearance of these nomina sacra codes in all the extant evidence, not just for the canonical texts, but for the texts of the gnostic heretics?

Who as an editor was ultimately responsible for the earliest edition of the NT canonical books with the nomina sacra standardised throughout, or did each author use the codes independently? WHo authored the codes?

mountainman

Thanks for this very interesting reference Maklelan.

Maklelan

And I've shown that their point is misguided, since the names and epithets obscured by the nomina sacra are unquestionably Jesus and Christ. Decrying that fact because you demand explicit spellings is just asinine.

Why not just say they were written in the first, second, or third century? Why the need to produce an algebraic equation?

It was a scribal convention that was done out of reverence for divine and otherwise scripturally significant names. This has been established for quite some time, and I've already pointed you directly to multiple publications that point this out.

The earliest scribal guilds who produced the copies considered authoritative. What is difficult about this? Are you going to demand names and social security numbers as well?

mountainman

Thanks Maklelan, I take it that your substantial "proof" is at post # 17. If this is the case I will write to the author and seek his direct response.


We must assume this earliest scribal guild gathered the gospels and paul and acts together to perform this task. Between what years do you maintain these books were originally authored?

tanya

Then, you may be interested in a subject which I find fascinating: bidirectional Jewish emigration into the Horn of Africa, or what is popularly termed: archaeogenetics: studies of biallelic markers on the non-recombining portion of the y chromosome: Luis et al American Journal of Human Genetics (2004)74:532
Psalms 45:7 in LXX:

There's nothing in there, at all, about "the Son".

This is a comment, so far as I can determine, about a person of great stature, for example, a king, or prophet, but not a deity himself.

I observe nothing in the text about any "son" of God, a concept, which, to my narrow minded perspective, would represent blasphemy, not only because God, omnipotent, has no need for progeny, but more importantly, because introduction of an heir implies fatality, challenging the mystique of omnipotence, and further degrades the ultimatum of monotheism.
yes, it is from Codex Sinaiticus, but not from Acts 4:27, which describes I X, but rather from Acts 4: 26, which is describing David.

NO. His "anointed", not his Christ, which, in English represents a synonym for Jesus. He is referring in Acts 4:26, which you have illustrated, to DAVID, described in the preceding passage, not XY, identified in the succeeding passage, Acts 4:27.

What I observe is, in roman letters, X Y, with a bar over the Y, but not the X. This is an acronym, without an accompanying index. It can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Why isn't the bar positioned over the X?

And, as a "scholar", as a graduate from Oxford, you have a link to a text written by Marcion, illustrating this point? No, of course not. You are simply repeating the age old slanders based upon the tiniest of tidbits, written by Marcion's FOES, not Marcion's own texts.

Frankly, I don't give a sewer rat's ass where someone studied, or what subject someone may have written various Masters' theses upon. What I do care about are links to sources of genuine documents, not forged, illegible, rewritten, copies of arguments authored by opponents of some tradition or other, two centuries after the fact.

Let me rewrite your sentence, as would be considered acceptable at most other universities, at least those with which this sewer rat has been affiliated:

"But, according to Tertullian [link here], Marcion's text had suggested that ..."

Early manuscripts, dating from the fourth century?

May I inquire whether, at Oxford, a thesis submitted in 2012, in partial fulfillment of obligations demanded to obtain a certificate from that university, describing Aubrey's analysis of the purpose of Stonehenge, could be regarded, two millenia hence, as an "early manuscript"? Why is a document written TWO CENTURIES after the fact, considered "early"? If I author an analysis of the events surrounding the capture and execution of Lincoln's assassins, and subsequently then, two thousand years later, my writing is reviewed, is it your belief that my text should be classified, by those reading it in the future, as "early"?

No, I do not. I consider myself one of this forum's "sewer rats", whose own academic credentials did not embrace foreign language acquisition.

Open your eyes, Maklelan, it is precisely "the very text of the New Testament" which does NOT make it clear, relatively, or absolutely, that I X must equal Jesus Christ. I look at Codex Sinaiticus, and then I look at the same passage, Mark 1:1, in the Byzantine version, where Jesus' name IS spelled out, and I have to ask myself, Maclelan, now, why is it that tanya is the only person on planet earth, who does not recognize this convention, that I X = Jesus Christ? Is that because she is brain damaged "vermin", or simply ignorant, or foolish, or illiterate in Greek and Hebrew, or some combination thereof?

Is it possible, I ask myself, in typical "sewer rat" tradition, that, once upon a time, way back in history, someone ELSE besides tanya, someone not brain damaged, not demented, not illiterate, not ignorant, not foolish, and not inept, had been, however, ALSO a tiny bit vexed by this question of the elaboration of the Greek acronym I X, and that person then, decided to issue a NEW Greek version of Mark 1:1, in which I X was, in fact, written, as we observe it today: Iesous Christou, i.e. without including the mysterious acronym I X?

Now, why would anyone decide to CHANGE the sacred text of Mark 1:1, unless, in fact, Mark 1:1 had previously been regarded as sufficiently obscure, to someone possessing adequate political power to authorize changes to this text, representing the "word of God", that the new version then spelled out, definitively, the acronym's elaboration?

Where is the clarity on this issue? In any other academic inquiry, apart than Biblical studies, this distinction between Codex Sinaiticus Mark 1:1, and the Byzantine Mark 1:1, would be regarded as opaque and mysterious, not translucent, as you have expounded.

You possess a link to a NT papyrus with Mark 1:1? I doubt this very much. Mark 1:1 is not found in P45, and so far as I am aware Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest extant manuscript of it. I have not seen, yet, a link to Codex Vaticanus, but Westcott & Hort's edition, presumably based upon C.V., spells out Ἰησου Χριστοῦ.

Maklelan

It is an interesting topic, and I have a couple population geneticist friends who keep me up to date on events.

It's in Hebrews that the connection to "the Son" is made.

V. 8 indicates the addressee is "God." This particular brand of Koine doesn't really use the vocative, but that's how the word "God" should be understood in vv. 8 and 9.

It is the preface to the quotation that makes the link: "Unto the Son he says, . . ." Also, it's always a problem when you impose your own metaphysical strictures on your reading of an ancient religious text in order to interpret it away from the simple reading.

The author of Acts read that text messianically. He understands David to be the author of the text, speaking in the third person of an "anointed" who was distinguished from David.

The Greek is literally "his christ." "Christ" means "anointed." By the time the author of Acts quotes this text, it had long been read mesianically, and not as a reference to David.

The XY of v. 26 is not a reference to David.

It's not an acronym. Notice the macron over the IN (accusative of "Jesus") also only covers the N. The nomina sacra macron frequently only covered one letter.

"It" does not refer to Marcion's single text, but to the Marcionite gospel, which was much more closely related to gnosticism than to the Hebrew Bible.

This is what people say when they have no other way to engage informed analysis of those texts. I hear the same thing all the time when people want to promote fundamentalist readings of the Bible. It doesn't matter what the people who devote their lives to understanding the culture and literature of the Bible; all that matters is "what the Bible says." Of course, you have to impose some kind of framework on the Bible to be able to read a word of it. Those frameworks informed by the literary, cultural, and historical contexts of their production are far more helpful than those informed by nothing more than modern ideologies.

You prioritize the "genuine documents," but you also have to rely on modern historical theory to promote one view or another of Tertullian's analysis and of Marcion's gospel. You're basically using a specific method without knowing much about it, and then saying that that method is worthless when someone who does know about it uses it to come to a different conclusion.

Yes. Can you identify earlier manuscripts attesting to this verse?

Because all the other manuscripts are later.

If no analyses from before yours are extant, absolutely. "Early" is a comparative term, not an absolute term.

Not at all.

No, just convinced by a theory that doesn't have much to support it, but that obviously appeals to some preconceived notions that you have about the conventional wisdom on early Christianity.

Why do you focus only on Mark 1:1? Mark's appeals to Hebrew Bible texts have unilaterally messianic backgrounds in the Hellenistic period. Even in chapter one he makes messianic connections, especially in God's declarative "You are my son," which is closely linked with Psalm 2.

You mean stop using the nomina sacra? The variant readings from 1 Peter I described show an effort to compensate for different identifications being made, especially related to the word χρηστος. Tertullian's objection does the same. With others appropriating the nomina sacra for purposes at variance with the original usage, it would be perfectly natural for scribes to decide to just write out the names in full.

Why would someone need political power to change a literary text? All one needs to be able to do is write. Just what sinister scribal machinations do you imagine were at work in the production of the New Testament texts?

That's not true at all. The text-critical and literary considerations I've marshaled in support of the original reading are no different in other fields.

You're still applying a completely unrealistic and prohibitive evidentiary standard just to avoid having to respond to the evidence that clearly and flatly undermines a phenomenally ignorant theory.

tanya

Codex Sinaiticus Acts 4:25

Codex Sinaiticus Acts 4:26

Codex Sinaiticus Acts 4:27

Maklelan:
1. Thank you very much, for a learned, informative and reasonable, as well as entertaining, series of rejoinders on this, and other threads of the forum. Your presence here, as both participant and scholar, is very much appreciated.
2. You misunderstand one point, I think, perhaps because you are new to the forum. I have NO theoretical basis for what I write. I am essentially illiterate in Greek, and completely illiterate in Hebrew, so I have no hook upon which to hang some sort of theoretical hat.

In my opinion, as one with the above described lack of credentials, you err, in writing, as you have, twice, now:

Again, only my opinion, one of Stephan's vermin, you erred in writing, last week:
No, Maklelan.

The correct translation is His anointed. yes, we know christou is anointed, but the English word Christ, has a different meaning. Technically, yes, of course, "anointed", no problem, but, to the 99% of the world's people, who follow the bible, the English word, "Christ", is synonymous with Jesus, their savior, Maklelan, their messiah, i.e. their Σωτήρ, their moshiah, not simply their mashiakh. Indeed, not only do ordinary Christians not understand that "christou" means anointed, not saviour, they also don't understand that the English word, messiah, does not equal "Christ", but rather Σωτήρ. This confusion is not limited to Christians, it extends as well to the brilliant 12th century Spanish Jew: Maimonides, whose writings underscore much of contemporary thinking in Judaism, today. He is author of several texts explaining that Μεσσίας, parent of the English word messiah, is derived from Mashiak, as many, many forum members here, believe. I disagree. I believe Μεσσίας is derived from moshiah, not mashiakh.

The point then, is this: We must be careful, writing "Christ". The proper translation of the text you quoted is "his anointed", not his Christ, referring, not to Jesus, but to DAD, the abbreviation employed in Codex Sinaiticus for David.

Note "ku", the abbreviation situated just proximal to XU. Here, ku, in my opinion, as one definitely unlearned, represents David, not Jesus, and, unlike many instances in the LXX, genuinely represents "lord", meaning a human of great distinction, rather than "theos", for which, it is often incorrectly substituted in the LXX, as you would know, having studied DSS, and having read Deuteronomy from DSS, in Hebrew, showing that those ancient Jews wrote YHWH, not adonai, when referring to god. It was the Greeks (starting with Alexander, continuing up to Constantine) who compelled adoption, in my opinion, of the idea that a mere human "lord" could be as powerful, and as important, as the Jewish god.

Maklelan

Which had become an epithet by the this late in the Greco-Roman period.

No, Messiah (משיח) is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek Christ. "Savior" is מושיע, or "Moshia." It's an entirely different word.

Then how do you explain the fact that the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible only uses the word χριστος to translate משיח and not מושיע? How do you get from the long ô vowel to the short e vowel?

Notice it explains that David is the one who wrote the text being quoted, not the one being referenced in the text.

"Lord" was the common was to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, and the text makes no sense if "the Lord and his anointed" both refer to David. It's even more nonsensical to be read that way within Acts, which states that this David making this statement. He's referring to himself in the third person using two different distinguished epithets? There's simply no reason to arrive at such a strained reading when the next verse and the entire rest of Acts and the New Testament makes it quite clear who "his anointed" is.

Alexander was not a Greek, and nor was Constantine.

Well, the Hellenistic period certainly enable and even compelled Jewish authors to explore the boundaries of their cosmology and theology, but that was a result of the resources and the intellectual categories it provided, specifically vis-à-vis interpreting their literary heritage, not the importation of that divine man idea specifically.