Sinaiticus Revelation 12:10 Christos in plene unique reading

[mlinssen]

Revelation 12:10 και ηκουϲα φωνην μεγαλη¯ εν τω ουνω λεγουϲαν αρτι εγενετο η ϲωτηρια και η δυναμιϲ και η βαϲιλια του θυ ημω¯ και η εξουϲια του χριϲτου αυτου οτι εβληθη ο κατηγοροϲ των αδελφω¯ ημων ο κατηγορων αυτων ενωπιον του θυ ημω¯ ημεραϲ και νυκτοϲ

One of only five instances of Christos in plene in all of Sinaiticus: all by Scribe A

Why, at the very end of an alleged forgery, would a bloody red flag like this be raised?

INTF for the Big Five and Washingtonensis

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi mlinssen,

We should include the Greek pic.

That will help determine if this is one of the corrected readings with χριϲτου.

Steven

 

[mlinssen]

Hi mlinssen,

We should include the Greek pic.

That will help determine if this is one of the corrected readings with χριϲτου.

Steven

I have the full Transcription of Sinaiticus, including corrections - but feel free to include the pic

FYI: there are no instances of corrections that concern Xristos. Habakkuk 3:13 has been changed to say τουϲ χριϲτουϲ, but it already said τον χριϲτον.
If you mean one of those from the usual nine verses, in Sinaiticus only "Chr?stian" gets written as χρηϲτ-, and naturally corrected - only Bezae escaped that fate, taking the Big Five.
Vaticanus (03) sticks to χρειϲτ- for all - which later got corrected by erasing the epsilon, ‘ε’; to be precise, all of Vaticanus got re-inked, and on that occasion the ‘ε’ did not get included.
Bezae (05) (which provides only two samples out of this total set of nine) uses χρειϲτ- for all - and this was left intact. The word is omitted in Mark and shortened in Latin Matthew, and it says ‘christianos’ for Latin Acts 11:26;
▪ Matthew 24:24 says ψευδοχρειϲτοι, and ‘pseudox̅p̅i’ on the next page for the Latin
▪ Acts 11:26 says χρειϲτιανοι (which later got redacted to χρειϲτιανουϲ), and ‘(discipulos) christianos’, a surprising singular, on the next page for the Latin

Diplomatic transcription for Sinaiticus Rev 12:10:

10
ϲαν και ηκουϲα
φωνην μεγαλη
εν τω ουνω λεγου
ϲαν αρτι εγενετο
η ϲωτηρια και η
δυναμιϲ και η βα
ϲιλια του θυ ημω
και η εξουϲια του
χριϲτου αυτου οτι
εβληθη ο κατηγο
ροϲ των αδελφω
ημων ο κατηγο
ρων αυτων ενω
πιον του θυ ημω
ημεραϲ και νυκτοϲ

Sinaiticus usual list, consisting of the duo pseudo-XS, the trio XS-ian and the quartet anti-XS:

▪ Sinaiticus book 33, chapter 24, verse 24 (Matthew 24:24): ψευδοχριϲτοι
▪ Sinaiticus book 34, chapter 13, verse 22 (Mark 13:22): ψευδοχριϲτοι
▪ Sinaiticus book 51, chapter 11, verse 26 (Acts 11:26): χρηϲτιανουϲ
▪ Sinaiticus book 51, chapter 26, verse 28 (Acts 26:28): χρηϲτιανον
▪ Sinaiticus book 53, chapter 4, verse 16 (1 Peter 4:16): χρηϲτιανοϲ
▪ Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 2, verse 18 (1 John 2:18): αντιχριϲτοϲ, αντιχριϲτοι
▪ Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 2, verse 22 (1 John 2:22): αντιχριϲτοϲ
▪ Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 4, verse 3 (1 John 4:3): αντιχριϲτου
▪ Sinaiticus book 56, chapter 1, verse 8 (2 John 1:7): αντιχριϲτοϲ

INTF provides two dozen MSS that say χρηϲτ for either the first (duo) or the last (quartet) yet only five for the second (trio), all dating to either 10th century or later - and χρειϲτ is present in only three MSS, yet those date to 5th, 7th and 9th century.

 

[mlinssen]

Easiest to just upload the table / overview

 

[Steven Avery]

Thanks, looking it over.

 

[Maprchr]

I have the full Transcription of Sinaiticus, including corrections - but feel free to include the pic

FYI: there are no instances of corrections that concern Xristos. Habakkuk 3:13 has been changed to say τουϲ χριϲτουϲ, but it already said τον χριϲτον.
If you mean one of those from the usual nine verses, in Sinaiticus only "Chr?stian" gets written as χρηϲτ-, and naturally corrected - only Bezae escaped that fate, taking the Big Five.
Vaticanus (03) sticks to χρειϲτ- for all - which later got corrected by erasing the epsilon, ‘ε’; to be precise, all of Vaticanus got re-inked, and on that occasion the ‘ε’ did not get included.
Bezae (05) (which provides only two samples out of this total set of nine) uses χρειϲτ- for all - and this was left intact. The word is omitted in Mark and shortened in Latin Matthew, and it says ‘christianos’ for Latin Acts 11:26;
▪ Matthew 24:24 says ψευδοχρειϲτοι, and ‘pseudox̅p̅i’ on the next page for the Latin
▪ Acts 11:26 says χρειϲτιανοι (which later got redacted to χρειϲτιανουϲ), and ‘(discipulos) christianos’, a surprising singular, on the next page for the Latin

Diplomatic transcription for Sinaiticus Rev 12:10:

10
ϲαν και ηκουϲα
φωνην μεγαλη
εν τω ουνω λεγου
ϲαν αρτι εγενετο
η ϲωτηρια και η
δυναμιϲ και η βα
ϲιλια του θυ ημω
και η εξουϲια του
χριϲτου αυτου οτι
εβληθη ο κατηγο
ροϲ των αδελφω
ημων ο κατηγο
ρων αυτων ενω
πιον του θυ ημω
ημεραϲ και νυκτοϲ

Sinaiticus usual list, consisting of the duo pseudo-XS, the trio XS-ian and the quartet anti-XS:

▪ Sinaiticus book 33, chapter 24, verse 24 (Matthew 24:24): ψευδοχριϲτοι
▪ Sinaiticus book 34, chapter 13, verse 22 (Mark 13:22): ψευδοχριϲτοι
▪ Sinaiticus book 51, chapter 11, verse 26 (Acts 11:26): χρηϲτιανουϲ
▪ Sinaiticus book 51, chapter 26, verse 28 (Acts 26:28): χρηϲτιανον
▪ Sinaiticus book 53, chapter 4, verse 16 (1 Peter 4:16): χρηϲτιανοϲ
▪ Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 2, verse 18 (1 John 2:18): αντιχριϲτοϲ, αντιχριϲτοι
▪ Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 2, verse 22 (1 John 2:22): αντιχριϲτοϲ
▪ Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 4, verse 3 (1 John 4:3): αντιχριϲτου
▪ Sinaiticus book 56, chapter 1, verse 8 (2 John 1:7): αντιχριϲτοϲ

INTF provides two dozen MSS that say χρηϲτ for either the first (duo) or the last (quartet) yet only five for the second (trio), all dating to either 10th century or later - and χρειϲτ is present in only three MSS, yet those date to 5th, 7th and 9th century.

Thanks, looking it over.

Do we know what Χρηστιανους meant to the contemporaries of the manuscript? Are we jumping to a conclusion based on our own conjectures. Could it be the the long a/e sound was a contemporary assimilation of the ει dipthong? We know that the Italian based manuscripts had no trouble dropping the ε of the ει combinations like they did in Vaticanus with no change of definitions.

IF you are saying that he was called Ιησους Χρηστος then you must assume this to be the title indicated by the nomina sacra. In so doing you remove his status as the Anointed of God, and break the association of המשח of Daniel. You must rewrite all Christian literature of the last 2000 years as we have clearly missed the meaning of the name. OR we must assume that the early manuscripts were influenced by scribes who could not abide the divine office of Jesus and thus by a single letter reduced him from the Christ (anointed) of God to simply "the useful, the good."

 

[mlinssen]

Do we know what Χρηστιανους meant to the contemporaries of the manuscript? Are we jumping to a conclusion based on our own conjectures. Could it be the the long a/e sound was a contemporary assimilation of the ει dipthong? We know that the Italian based manuscripts had no trouble dropping the ε of the ει combinations like they did in Vaticanus with no change of definitions.

IF you are saying that he was called Ιησους Χρηστος then you must assume this to be the title indicated by the nomina sacra. In so doing you remove his status as the Anointed of God, and break the association of המשח of Daniel. You must rewrite all Christian literature of the last 2000 years as we have clearly missed the meaning of the name. OR we must assume that the early manuscripts were influenced by scribes who could not abide the divine office of Jesus and thus by a single letter reduced him from the Christ (anointed) of God to simply "the useful, the good."

Slightly off topic perhaps, but you say exactly what is at stake, and include the right scope - although the full scope comprises much more than that, as what you propose indeed did happen but in the opposite direction. Itacism is out of the question, for the following short set of reasons:

The five instances of a full Xr(e)ist in Sinaiticus

• Leviticus 21:12 και εκ τω¯ αγιων ο̣ υκ εξελευϲεται και ου βεβηλωϲει̣ τ̣ο ηγιαϲμενο¯ του θ̅υ ̅ αυτων οτι το αγιον ελαιον το χριϲτον του θ̅υ ̅ επ αυτω εγ ̣ ω κ̅ς ̅ (Scribe A)
• Habakkuk 3:13 εξηλθεϲ ειϲ ϲωτηριαν λαου ϲου · του ϲωϲαι τον χριϲτον ϲου . βαλιϲειϲ καιφαλαϲ ανομων θανατο¯ εξηγιραϲ δεϲμουϲ εωϲ τραχηλου διαψαλμα (Scribe B2)
• 1 Chronicles 16:22 μη αψηϲθε των . χρειϲτων μου τοιϲ προφηταιϲ μου μη πονηρευεϲθαι (Scribe A)
• Psalms 104:15 μη απτεϲθαι των χρειϲτων μου και εν τοιϲ προφηταιϲ μου μη πονηρευεϲθε (Scribe A)
• Revelation 12:10 και ηκουϲα φωνην μεγαλη¯ εν τω ουνω λεγουϲαν αρτι εγενετο η ϲωτηρια και η δυναμιϲ και η βαϲιλια του θυ ημω¯ και η εξουϲια του χριϲτου αυτου οτι εβληθη ο κατηγοροϲ των αδελφω¯ ημων ο κατηγορων αυτων ενωπιον του θυ ημω¯ ημεραϲ και νυκτοϲ (Scribe A)

The scribe for the usual nine, just an excerpt:

• Sinaiticus book 34, chapter 13, verse 22 (Mark 13:22): ψευδοχριϲτοι (Scribe A)
• Sinaiticus book 51, chapter 11, verse 26 (Acts 11:26): χρηϲτιανουϲ (Scribe A)
• Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 2, verse 18 (1 John 2:18): αντιχριϲτοϲ, αντιχριϲτοι (Scribe A)

The public secret is that all previously presented Sinaiticus verses are also by Scribe A (save for Habbakuk) - and this scribe apparently, evidently, and irrefutably, manages to effortlessly, without having to correct or fix anything, write χριϲτ-, χρηϲτ-, and χρειϲτ-, multiple times. And the Scriptorium fable falls right through, and all of itacism, as does any and all punning, and that is just the start of it. Because there is that other word as well, namely the real χρηϲτοϲ, and its very close relative χρηστότης: none of those ever get fixed, corrected, into anything like e.g. χρειστότης or χριστότης. The clumsy correction (which leaves words like that perfectly intact, while only changing Chrestian into Christian) to Justin Martyr the Chrestian’s confession that he considers and calls himself a Chrestian, is a living testimony to the fallacy of the excuse of itacism to explain how Christ is
spelled as Chrest. The entire itacism story irrefutably gets exclusively and utterly isolated to the very words Chrest- and Christ- alone. That is not how linguistics work, that is how politics and religions work. And those politics can be seen at work in the quotations by among others Justin Martyr who calls himself Chrestian because he is so ‘good’, which later gets corrected to Christian although the text still speaks for itself; Clement of Alexandria explicitly states that those who believe in ΧΣ are good and are called good, οἱ εἰς τὸν Χν πεπιστευκότες χρηστοί τε εἰσὶ καὶ λέγονται; Tertullian doesn’t pun by itacism when he plainly distinguishes between both yet obviously has to reject the form that precedes Christianity. None of the apologists of the first centuries of the first millennium come up with any of the excuses that are used (yet never motivated or explained) by the contemporary apologists of this century as well as previous ones.
And what about the 32 occurrences in Alexandrinus’ NT of words that consist of a stem with χρηϲ? The four in Bezae? The 25 in Ephraemi? The 34 in Sinaiticus when not counting those mentioned earlier that got corrected? The 28 in Vaticanus? Why aren’t those considered itacisms, why didn’t they get fixed, redacted, corrected?

Perhaps an overview of all of the NHL (sic, where the entire story starts, going by their use of nomina sacra) may be of assistance, where I have also put them in a presumed chronological order:

 

[Steven Avery]

If you can put aside the mythicism / gnostic concerns, can you give your analysis as to how this effects the date of Sinaiticus?

Thanks!

 

[mlinssen]

If you can put aside the mythicism / gnostic concerns, can you give your analysis as to how this effects the date of Sinaiticus?

Thanks!

Hi Steven,

dating anything in the wider Christian, peri-Christian and Chrestian context is a house of cards. Hardly anything gets dated scientifically via carbon dating and even if it does it leaves for a window that easily covers a century or more - in that sense paleography isn't much different from carbon dating. To make matters worse, ink can't be dated IIUC

And even if we were able to pinpoint a manuscript to a precise decade or even year (for argument's sake) we would only get the date of print / publication: buy Hamlet at Barnes & Noble today and the date would be 2023, which would only provide an ante quem

So I stick to textual criticism and redaction criticism, for my main topic Thomas but also everything on the periphery, and then I arrive at the order as established in my book; see attached

Looking at Sinaiticus I see a text that fits in with the others of the Big Five although it stands out among all others with its χρηϲτιανοϲ, making it a unique anomaly. The crazy Psalms 68:18 (69:17) even treats ταχὺ in ὅτι θλίβομαι, ταχὺ ἐπάκουσόν μου (for I-am-pressed, quickly listen-to me) as two words and marks χυ with a superlinear, which attests to a scribe who had no idea what the text says. The omission of "son of god" in Mark 1:1 is anomalous and unique and also attests to Chrestian origins as Chrestianity was devoid of reverence for any god - it was the Father alone who was the primal source.
These are just a few examples and I have only glanced at Sinaiticus in the course of research for my book, yet only someone who understands (and wants to convey) Chrestian origins preceding Christianity could forge it in the form that it is in: Sinaiticus is our best major witness to Christianity being a remake of Chrestianity.
Judaised Chrestianity equates to Christianity, and Sinaiticus is a very strong witness to that

In brief, the text of Sinaiticus precedes that of e.g. Alexandrinus and Vaticanus by strongly disagreeing with both on essential and core Christological traces and in that respect is closer to individual papyri that get dated to 3rd / 4th CE while it perfectly adheres to the general period 2nd - 5th CE where we see, across the board, that Christ gets alternated with Chrest while the followers continue to pop up as Chrestians. It is a perfect witness to infant Christianity that still labelled its followers Chrestians, exactly like Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria do when read in the original Greek

Could it be a forgery? Only when made with the intent to disclose Chrestian origins to Christianity, exposing Christianity as a hostile takeover of Chrestianity

I realise that you sit on the other side of the fence when compared to me, but in plain English Sinaiticus is a crucial witness in exposing Christianity at large as a forgery, a fake, fraud: its content can only be original. Which naturally says absolutely nothing about its date - but if it is a forgery then its Vorlage would have highly likely been a 3rd-4th CE text

 

[mlinssen]

In brief: Chrestianos with an eta in Sinaiticus is what one would expect an earliest manuscript to contain, given the manuscript evidence as attested to by biblical manuscripts, fragmentary papyri, and Patristics.
Does that open the possibility that Sinaiticus is a clever forgery? In my opinion 'clever' certainly isn't the right word in that case, and 'dauntingly cunning' would be a better choice of words: observe Table 15 from the attachments and conclude that χρηϲτ- is unattested for the earliest manuscripts; χρειϲτ- would be a much safer exception, corroborated by similar documents