mountainman

Well I am not, because your assumption is false.



My assumptions about the field and its evidence are not commensurate with yours - that's all.

Huon

Constantine Simonides (1820–1867), palaeographer, dealer of icons. According to opinion of paleographers, he was the most versatile forger of the nineteenth century.

Simonides lived in the monasteries on Mount Athos between 1839 and 1841 and again in 1852, during which time he acquired some of the biblical manuscripts that he later sold. He produced a lot of manuscripts ascribed to Hellenistic and early Byzantine periods. He forged a number of documents and manuscripts and claimed they were the originals of the Gospel of Mark, as well as original manuscripts of poems of Homer.

On 13 September 1862, in an article of The Guardian, he claimed that he is the real author of the Codex Sinaiticus and that he wrote it in 1839. According to him it was ‘the one poor work of his youth’. According to Simonides, he visited Sinai in 1852 and saw the codex. Henry Bradshaw, a scholar, exposed the absurdity of his claims.

What is true, and what is false in this story ?
How do we know the age of Sinaïticus ?

Toto

Huon - please see this recent thread: Sinaiticus a forgery?

mountainman

The radiocarbon age of Codex Tchacos was measured at 280 CE (plus or minus 60 years) and that of one of the Nag Hammadi codices at 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years). The C14 testing of Sinaiticus would immediately tell us the age of the manuscript.

mountainman

This situation is repeated as late as Lactantius


It would therefore appear that not only were "Christians" called ChrEstians by Roman (Apologetic) sources up to the beginning of the 4th century and beyond, but that "Christus" was called "Chrestus".

aa5874

What you say is COMPATIBLE with the supposed Earliest Gospels.

Examine Matthew 16 On the day Jesus died in the EARLIEST Gospels he was NOT called Christus or Chrestus, he was called a Blasphemer.

Maklelan

For a few references of the Qumran community (or a related community) being referred to as ישרים, "the upright" (the Hebrew equivalent of χρηστοι [cf. LXX Prov 2:21]), see CD 20:2; 1QS 3:1; 4:22; 1QHa 10:12; 4Q171 1–2ii:16; 4Q184 1:14; 4Q257 3:2; 4Q282 1:1; 4Q299 79:2; 4Q424 3:3; 4Q436 1a–bi:2; 4Q510 1:9; 4Q511 2ii:9; 10:7; 60:1.

A number of NT texts indicate the authors used χρηστος as a simple adjective that was representative of their ideal relationships with each other. Of particular import is 1 Pe 2:3, which says εἴπερ ἐγεύσασθε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος. It makes little sense that the author would use the adjective in this sense if χρηστος was the primary appellative by which their paragon was known. χρηστος here is unquestionably a predicate nominative and not an epithet. It is used as such in several other places (Matt 11:30; Luke 5:39; 6:35; Rom 2:4; 1 Cor 15:33; Eph 4:32). Note that Eph 4:32 has the author exhort the audience, γίνεσθε δὲ εἰς ἀλλήλους χρηστοί. This, again, cannot be epithetic. It is adjectival. Be good people. It's no wonder the play on words was used by others and by Christians in place of "Christian."

I would point to another rather clear indication that Chrestos and Chrestoi have nothing whatsoever to do with the original shape of Christ's gospel. Throughout the New Testament appeals are frequently made to messianic Old Testament texts. Psalm 2, for instance, is quoted or alluded to in Mark 1:11; Acts 4:25, 26; 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5; Rev 2:26, 27; 12:5; 19:15. Look at heb 1:9, where the author messianically understands Ps 45:7's reference to the anointed king as a reference to "the Son" as anointed by God (משחך*אלהים / ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεός). Ps 2:2 mentions the nations gathering על*יהוה*ועל*משיחו. Note, "against his anointed (ועל*משיחו)." The enthronement ceremony of this "anointed" is then described. Acts 13:33 explicitly identifies Jesus with this figure. Acts 4:25–27 explicitly describes Jesus as the anointed person against whom the nations would be gathered: "against this holy child Jesus, whom you have anointed, Herod, and also Pontius Pilate and the people of Israel were gathered." Here's a photo of the section from Sinaiticus:



Notice the nomina sacra in the accusative for Jesus. Jesus was anointed by God. Jesus was God's anointed, or his χριστος, or Christ. How does the scribe represent the Greek translation of Ps 2:2's "his anointed" (משיחו)?



κατα του χυ αυτου. His Christ. Notice the nomina sacra representing the word χριστου. The nomina sacra is not hiding the word χρηστου. That simply cannot be the case here. The argument cannot be made without any evidence at all that the translator changed the Hebrew "his anointed" to the Greek "his good one," in complete contradiction to the Hebrew text, which Sinaiticus explicitly acknowledges it is quoting (note the marks in the margin). Certainly the argument cannot be made that Christians introduced a foreign notion of Jesus as the "anointed" into the text. The notion was there from the beginning.

Maklelan

I'm still waiting for mountainman or aa to address my concerns here.

stephan huller

I'm at the hairdresser with my family so this has to be brief but notice the evidence from the Marcionite synagogue at Deir Ali. This isn't entirely without foundation. Look at Clement's use of the term and passages from Proverbs. Will answer more fully soon

stephan huller

The early Samaritan Christian “heresies” wouldn't have known what to an expectation for christos. Maybe that explains the strange “Christ called Christ” of John 4. One was probably Chrestos. Chrestos makes sense for a Samaritan Christian community and one could argue that the expectation for Shilo = Chrestos

Still with my family. More comprehensive answer to follow

My ideas have nothing to do with the other kookoos here