I take it you can read backwards in the thread to where I came in, yes? And you'll see that I am mainly interested in the e and i thing here (I think you and I have done the 'whole theory' at least once before) since someone posted about it just before me?
Post 37, in case you're having trouble.
It's shortly before someone dumped a slab.
Yes, try more coffee. An argument from authority is not invalid if there's enough of a consensus from a recognised group of people with valid expertise.Koyaanisqatsi;621054 wrote: "All the scholars in all the world never agree with you Koy, therefore..."
Well...this assertion is complete and utter bullshit.
Maybe I'd understand a bit better if you could demonstrate this 'consensus'.
I asked you earlier who here was NOT a crank. I even asked if you thought you qualified. You didn't answer; I suspect I know why.
You're just another fucking crank here, Ruby. You are no better than Koy and your "arguments" are more lame than Koy's speculations. Your arrogance is wildly misplaced.
"You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the words of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious of the authority's words."
Site claims to be edited and peer-reviewed by academic philosophers at Universities across the USA.
I hope no one mistakes that for an appeal to authority.
As for whether there is or isn't a meaningful consensus on this, anyone who doubts it can go and find enough experts who would go along with the explanations offered here by koy.
As for whether there is or isn't a meaningful consensus on this, anyone who doubts it can go and find enough experts who would go along with the explanations offered here by koy.[/quote]
Hmmm...Well, if we can use Peter Kirby's historical Jesus page as a starting point, I'd say that Robert Eisenman's hypothesis might fit, but I'm not that familiar with Eisenman. The scholar I keep flashing on as I read Koy's speculations is Richard Horsley. Of course, none of these deal with Paul and the early cult, just the 'historical Jesus'.
Frankly, I don't know where the fuck you get off acting as some kind of scholarly arbiter when it seems obvious to me that you don't know any more than any other participant in this thread. I personally think you should stuff it unless you can posit something credible instead of pissing and moaning about a 'scholarly consensus' which does not fucking exist.
Frankly, I don't know where the fuck you get off acting as some kind of scholarly arbiter when it seems obvious to me that you don't know any more than any other participant in this thread. I personally think you should stuff it unless you can posit something credible instead of pissing and moaning about a 'scholarly consensus' which does not fucking exist.[/quote]
As you acknowledge, Horsley isn't really relevant to koy's theory and Eisenman, who is more relevant, is in a very tiny minority, though I'm not sure if even he has Paul as a Roman spy. I don't think he does.
I'm not doing 'historical/non-historical Jesus' theories in general, so those other guys aren't relevant. Some of them on Kirby's list don't even believe he existed, which is quite different from koy.
As such you have so far provided precisely 1 relevant person for koy's theory, and even he is only partially relevant.
I'm not even trying to do koy's whole theory in any case, for reasons given. I'm mainly interested, here in this thread, and if you read back through my posts you'll see this, in the e and i thing and how it does or doesn't fit. I've done the whole theory thing to death, including with koy. I do accept that the e and i thing fits, for koy, within his wider theory, and that's fine.
So in that sense, contrary to what you say, I am positing something in relation to the main point I've been making since joining the thread, something which I definitely, at this point, consider to be credible.
And furthermore, since it doesn't seem to be clear to you, an argument from authority wouldn't be fallacious (see earlier link) even if I was making one, which I'm not anyway, because I'm not saying anything is probably wrong because of authority, I am citing authority (quite validly) among other things, such as lack of evidence and there being a less convoluted, more plausible, already demonstrated alternative explanation for the particular issue I'm mainly discussing.
Oh, well, that explains why someone would erase an earlier letter and replace it with a different one.[/QUOTE]Politesse;621036 wrote:The transposition of eta and epsilon isn't idle speculation, it's a phenomenon we see over and over in Koine texts.
That's exactly what it can do, because the great majority of corrections in the codex are merely spelling corrections, it has been estimated that there are nearly 15,000 of them (spelling corrections alone), often involving erasure, often (it is thought) made by the original scribe himself, and this practice of corrections to greek (and Latin) spelling is not limited to just christian manuscripts either.
And I think you also missed the point about 'facts' in the later (unquoted by me) part of the above post. It's not a fact that we know why the i and e were interchanged here, but it is a fact that an i and an e were often interchanged, for well understood reasons, so you are not only trying to make a case for an exception among thousands of corrections in the codex, but you are trying to do it in relation to a particular type of correction which originates in a well-established confusion over two particular koine greek letters throughout christian and other texts, which perseveres up to modern, secular greek today, and in trying, you are having to appeal to basically unevidenced speculation and much less parsimony.
In short, it's reasonable to say that there is nothing unusual in the spelling corrections of this word.
Despite the fact that these are nearly all 'e' and 'i' variants and that the reasons for and origins of this type of transposition and other spelling variants are well-established generally, the ARRS (Allegedly Rational Response Squad) are now looking for at least 4 different cults with remarkably similar-sounding names.
No speiculation yeit as to wheich weire teirrorists and wheich weiren't.
If you show me a manuscript where this has happened, I'd be interested.[/QUOTE]Koyaanisqatsi;621045 wrote:Oh, well, that explains why someone would erase an earlier letter and replace it with a different one.
This might help: https://arthuride.wordpress.com/tag/horus/
And another, with image: https://jayraskin.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/294/ .... A "magician through Chrestus"?
Politesse;621033 wrote:Treating idiotic conspiracy theories with equal weight to known facts is an odd value for a "rationalist".
What "known facts" are you referring to Poli? [/quote]
[quote=""Politesse""]There aren't any.[/quote]
So that's sorted.
Now ruby's nonsense about his repeated appeals to authority. The fallacy comes from you claiming that no authority agrees with my interpretation of the evidence we have, therefore my hypothesis is false, which I guess is more formally an appeal to irrelevant authority and/or appeal to popularity, but since you've essentially conceded this already (and due to the fact that it would require every scholar to have first read my hypothesis and then come to a conclusion about it for such an appeal to be non-fallacious), enough said in regard to my hypothesis as a whole.
In regard to the "e/i" thing, well, again, you're simply asserting that anyone can be an authority on what was in the mind of someone else. It is completely irrelevant how many corrections have been made if we don't know the reason the person who made those corrections sites as to why they made the correction.
And, finally, in regard to the three uses in the Sinaiticus' of "Chrestian" in Paul's letters, the fact that it is used in all three instances as a reproach actually supports my hypothesis for the reason previously provided.
I'm rather in agreement with his speculations on later authority and distinct Marcionite influence...ergo, gnostic influence.
Oh please, koy, brighten up dreary January for me and do me a slab on that fact. Go for 3 separate fact-slabs even. One for each sub-fact.
I'm rather in agreement with his speculations on later authority and distinct Marcionite influence...ergo, gnostic influence.[/quote]
Judging from Paul's arrogance (and in keeping with my hypothesis), it would make perfect sense that he kept copies of the letters himself and that he is the soure of them in the sense of handing them off to his sycophants for posterity.
It's also curious as to why no other such letters from any of the actual disciples of Jesus exist or were retained.
Oh please, koy, brighten up dreary January for me and do me a slab on that fact. [/QUOTE]Koyaanisqatsi;621211 wrote:….. the fact that it is used in all three instances as a reproach actually supports my hypothesis for the reason previously provided.
Post 84. In particular from Ellicot's Commentary:
ETA: Here's the note referenced above about Acts 11:26:1 Peter 4:16
(16) Yet if any man suffer as a Christian.—St. Peter purposely uses the name which was a name of derision among the heathens. It is not, as yet, one by which the believers would usually describe themselves. It only occurs twice besides in the New Testament—in Acts 11:26, where we are told of the invention of the nickname (see Note there), and in Acts 26:28, where Agrippa catches it up with the insolent scorn with which a brutal justice would have used the word “Methodist” a century ago. So contemptible was the name that, as M. Renan says (p. 37), “Well-bred people avoided pronouncing the name, or, when forced to do so, made a kind of apology.” Tacitus, for instance, says: “Those who were vulgarly known by the name of Christians.” In fact, it is quite an open question whether we ought not here (as well as in the two places of Acts above cited) to read the nickname in its barbarous form: Chrestian. The Sinaitic manuscript has that form, and the Vatican has the form Chreistian; and it is much harder to suppose that a scribe who commonly called himself a Christian would intentionally alter it into this strange form than to suppose that one who did not understand the irony of saying a Chrestian should have written the word with which he was so familiar.
(26) The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.—The term for “were called” is not the word usually so rendered. Better, perhaps, got the name of Christians. The Emperor Julian (Misopog., p. 344) notes the tendency to invent nicknames, as a form of satire, as characteristic of the population of Antioch in his time, and the same tone of persiflage seems to have prevailed on the first appearance of the new faith. The origin of a name which was afterwards to be so mighty in the history of the world is a subject full of interest. In its form it was essentially Latin, after the pattern of the Pompeiani, Sullani, and other party-names; and so far it would seem to have grown out of the contact of the new society with the Romans stationed at Antioch, who, learning that its members acknowledged the Christos as their head, gave them the name of Christiani. In the Gospels, it is true, however (Matthew 22:16, et al.), we find the analogous term of Herodiani, but there, also, we may legitimately trace the influence of Roman associations. As used in the New Testament, we note (1) that the disciples never use it of themselves. They keep to such terms as the “brethren” (Acts 15:1), and the “saints” (Acts 9:13), and “those of the way” (Acts 9:2). (2) That the hostile Jews use the more scornful term of “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). (3) That the term Christianus is used as a neutral and sufficiently respectful word by Agrippa in Acts 26:23, and at a somewhat later date, when it had obviously gained a wider currency, as that which brought with it the danger of suffering and persecution (1Peter 4:16). It was natural that a name first given by outsiders should soon be accepted by believers as a title in which to glory. Tradition ascribes its origin to Euodius, the first Bishop of Antioch (Bingham, Ant. II. i. § 4), and Ignatius, his successor, uses it frequently, and forms from it the hardly less important word of Christianismos, as opposed to Judaismos (Philadelph. c. 6), and as expressing the whole system of faith and life which we know as “Christianity.” It may be worth while to note that another ecclesiastical term, hardly less important in the history of Christendom, seems also to have originated at Antioch, and that we may trace to it the name of Catholic as well as Christian (Ignatius, Smyrn. c. 8). We learn from Tertullian (Apol. c. 3) that the name was often wrongly pronounced as Chrestiani, and its meaning not understood. Even the name of Christos was pronounced and explained as Chrestos (= good). The Christians, on their side, accepted the mistake as a nomen et omen, an unconscious witness on the part of the heathen that they were good and worthy in their lives, that their Lord was “good and gracious (1Peter 2:3).
[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]How is the term "Chrestian" used by Paul in his letters in all three instances? Derisively, as a reproach.
In all 3 instances?
You may have a point here. If he kept them, he had at least one set of copies in which no one changed his e for a i in the word chrestian. Makes perfect sense, as you say, and is indeed in keeping with your hypothesis. It's all starting to make so much sense now.
Post 88. Groundhog Day Mk 1.
Before I even consider answering any further points, I think I need to stop you at line 1.Koyaanisqatsi;621034 wrote: Fucking hell. You are referring to the three times the word "Chrestian" is used in the letters of Paul from the Codex Sinaiticus. Acts 11:26 is the first place where "Chrestian" occurs; then again in Acts 26:28 and then in 1st Peter 4:16. Who do I believe is a Roman agent? Paul. What is Paul's mission? To subvert from within a Jewish insurrectionist movement that I believe the Romans referred to as....Chrestians. How is the term "Chrestian" used by Paul in his letters in all three instances? Derisively, as a reproach.
It wasn't used in the Codex Sinacitus by your "Paul the spy". It was used by the writers of the Codex in the 4th Century!
That's what I wrote. Did you read the sections I quoted?[/QUOTE]ruby sparks;621225 wrote:From post 84:
Koyaanisqatsi;621034 wrote:How is the term "Chrestian" used by Paul in his letters in all three instances? Derisively, as a reproach.
In all 3 instances?
But why would Paul have written in such a way? :d unno:
How the fuck are you a mod?
Seriously? You were attempting to argue that it was the writers of the Codex who are to blame for the use of "Chrestians." How do you know they were not being faithful to Paul's original spelling? Is this your speculation?[/QUOTE]ruby sparks;621049 wrote:I don't understand why you're asking that.Koyaanisqatsi;621047 wrote:And how do you know they weren't faithful to Paul? Is that your speculation?ruby sparks;621040 wrote:It wasn't used in the Codex Sinacitus by your "Paul the spy". It was used by the writers of the Codex in the 4th Century!