Everybody knew what the nomina sacra were

[Peter Kirby]

Every text is produced within the context of an intended community of readers. These readers would have been introduced already to the central figure of the gospels and the epistles before they were invested enough to give others readings from these texts. This means that they would already know the names of this figure. Because they already knew the names of this figure, the reader of the texts would be able to know without doubt what the two nomina sacra corresponding to these names meant. All hearers of the texts would obviously also know without doubt what the names were because they heard it as spoken. There were no codes and no mystery.

From our perspective, we can wedge in a debate about what these two names were. Should we suppose that the "X" family of inflected nomina sacra referred to "Christos" or "Chrēstos" (in different times and places)? It's a valid discussion and, for us, a bit of a mystery to untangle.

There's even less ambiguity with the other nomen sacrum here, which was only ever identified with Iēsous in Greek (which, of course, could be based on a different semitic word, such as yeshua or, as is sometimes argued, ish).

Whatever else we may want to argue, the people reading these texts knew what the nomina sacra were.

[Secret Alias]

There were abbreviations in antiquity independent of Christian scribal habits. Ku for kurios anos for anthropos etc

[ebion]

All hearers of the texts would obviously also know without doubt what the names were because they heard it as spoken. There were no codes and no mystery.
...
Whatever else we may want to argue, the people reading these texts knew what the nomina sacra were.

Nomina Sacra are a Latin and Greek creation are they not? Readers of the NT in Aramaic wouldn't know what you were talking about? For example the PeshittA spells out the words Matt. 1:1 as ܕ݁ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ translated as Jesus [Messiah | Annointed One| Christ].

Coptic as well: does the Gospel of Philip in Coptic know about them?

I didn't know what the nomina sacra were either until Martin helped me out.

[lclapshaw]

There were abbreviations in antiquity independent of Christian scribal habits. Ku for kurios anos for anthropos etc

Kuku for anos?

[Secret Alias]

It's real.

[Secret Alias]

Notice above "God" isn't abbreviated but man is.

[MrMacSon]

Every text is produced within the context of an intended community of readers

• But not every text is read by "an intended community of readers"

These readers would have been introduced already to the central figure of the gospels and the epistles before they were invested enough to give others readings from these texts.

• Which gospels?
• Which epistles?
• gospels and epistles produced when?
• gospels and epistles read when? and where?

There are indications that perceptions of 'the central figure' represented by nomina sacra [and perceptions of its key associates and their roles] changed from generation to generation over at least a few generations

[lclapshaw]

Notice above "God" isn't abbreviated but man is.

What text is that? Got a link?

[Ken Olson]

• Which gospels?
• Which epistles?
• gospels and epistles produced when?
• gospels and epistles read when? and where?

There are indications that perceptions of 'the central figure' represented by nomina sacra [and perceptions of its key associates and their roles] changed from generation to generation over at least a few generations

I am not sure what you are claiming about ‘the central figure’. Are there examples from ancient Chistian or Christian adjacent (Jewish or, for want of a better term, Gnostic) literature of any of the common nomina sacra used in the manuscripts of the 27 documents collected in the canonical New Testament in which the nomen sacrum is clearly used to indicate a different word or name than is commonly taken to be by Christians (especially NT scholars, especially text critics)? I would be especially interested in any examples in which a nomen sacrum from a passage in one the NT documents or one of the patristic writers is taken in such a non-traditional way (or, if you prefer, a way that runs counter to the way modern scholars read it).

What are the three best examples of this (if there are three good examples)?

Best,

Ken

[DCHindley]

Notice above "God" isn't abbreviated but man is.

What text is that? Got a link?

Hey Larry,

That is probably something Secret is looking at WRT his personal research into who the copyist of the Letter to Theodore could have been. He's been looking at 18th century handwriting in documents of various types to see if one writer (he's sticking to relatively well known ones, where samples of handwriting of Greek mss are photographed and published online) in Greek Orthodox circles of that period has enough common characteristics to the writer of To Theodore to make a tentative identification. I'll let him tell you where he found the image and which writer this writing sample represents.

The "anos" thing is probably a joke, since I think the ligature he present's could be to any 2-3 letter group that 18th century scribes tended to write as a ligature. Sometimes these can be so elaborate that I would think it would have been easier to just write the individual letters, but stylish flourishes were the norm then ...

There is a guide put together by an individual bible scholar, David Robert Palmer, who has a free guide on ligatures available, Quick-Reference Greek Ligature Guide, available here:
https://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
Specifically
https://bibletranslation.ws/down/ligatures.pdf

This one has many of the ligatures for which there are Unicode versions in certain fonts available in a handy table, but a lot of it are in form of image-only scans of some old, and non-digitized, sources.

Another one I managed to download is Greek ligatures in early modern printing / Griekse ligaturen in de vroeg-moderne boeken, by Leo Nellissen (januari 2013, www.stilus.nl) which summarizes several sources:

An Index of Greek Ligatures and Contractions, William Wallace, 1923 3
The Ligatures of Early Printed Greek, William H.Ingram, 1966 16
Alphabetum Graecum, Parisiis 1532, Christianus Wechelus 37
Aphabetum Graecum, Lugdunum 1544, Sebastianus Gryphius 76
Alphabetum Graecum, Dionysius Halicarnassu, Menses Graecorum 95
Parisiis 1550, Guil. Morelius
Alphabtum Graecum, Lutetiae 1550, Robertus Stephanus 155
Aphabetum Graecum, Theodorus Beza, 1554, Robertus Stephanus 221
Aphabetum Graecum, Antverpiae 1566, Christophorus Plantinus 293
Alphabeum Graecum, Romae 1771 325

https://ia601509.us.archive.org/9/items ... aturen.pdf

If you want to contact me by PM & provide your "real" e-mail address, I could forward them to you. They will be a bit over 20 Mb total.

DCH