Everybody knew what the nomina sacra were

[Peter Kirby]

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"

MrMacSon also gets credit for interacting with the OP and presenting a useful insight. This is a fair point.

The most significant application of this point is that different communities of readers may have understood it differently, reading it differently, some as Χρίστος and possibly some others as Χρήστος, and this I would allow. It's possible that a particular community had a different interpretation. There would be no confusion within that community about what it meant, but it could still differ from the reading in other communities (whether we're talking about differences between communities in different times, different places, or different beliefs). It's worth exploring.

In the 'inter-testamentary [pre-orthodox-Christian] period' there would have been people coming and going in and out of communities with different interpretations and/or concepts of the meaning and significance of the terms 'Χρήστος' and 'Χρίστος' (and the nomina sacra that represent one or both of them); and of other 'terms' such as 'Messiah,' and even IS/IC/IΣ^a

When I said "what it meant," my intention was not so broad as to refer to every shade of "significance," which can be quite a bit more involved than what I am talking about. Above, I'm talking about the correspondence of the nomina sacra (or ligatures, as Martijn called them, in a more neutral phrase) to words.

I am indeed saying that the situation would not be completely porous, which was point of the OP, that the spoken word was of course primary and that the spoken word doesn't have the same level of ambiguity found in the written word here. The people coming and going, for the most part, didn't use the texts directly. They spoke with each other. They heard it read. An assumption that people would be imparting various meanings to the text as written relies on the assumption, natural to a modern reader, that the text was primary, that the text was what people were approaching with a blank slate. It was not. People weren't downloading their gospels and epistles and reading them on their computers in the privacy of their home, where they could speculate on the unexplained squiggles (not that you're saying this but it gets the point across). That whole way of thinking about this subject is a modern conceit. It's one thing to attempt to muddle through, as we do, with the texts available to us. It's quite another to befuddle ourselves into thinking that they were muddling through the texts like that themselves. The readers were not encountering just the ligatures themselves, they were encountering the words with which they were familiar and reading them from the page, as they had been communicated to them in preaching and teaching, read to them before. In any given time and place, the word being used was clear to the reader because it was not a matter of interpretation.

a fwiw, I also wonder what different people might have thought IS/IC/IΣ might have meant: eg.

1. ' a Tanakh Yeshua/'Joshua as Yeshua/'Joshua redivivus? and/or
2. a new, post-Yeshua/'Joshua Ἰησοῦς? and/or
3. Iulius Caesar? (known for his clemency and for whom a significant cult existed and persisted for a long time)

eta: iv. 'Man' [/Adamas, etc] (as per Secret Alias)

They didn't. They didn't have to think about what it was. That was my point. They knew, and it was Ἰησοῦς.

I apologize if this is disappointing to the modern reader interested in a good puzzle.

This could also qualify the point of the OP just a little. If we take the word 'everybody' far enough, we will eventually get to someone who somehow held a copy of the text and didn't know what name corresponded to the letters (... getting it down to Ἰησοῦς and either Χρίστος or Χρήστος). If we consider the references in Pliny and Tacitus, for example, the manuscripts present them¹ as knowing 'the name of Christus'.² It's possible that someone would be familiar with that name alone. If someone like this in a position of power also got to see a copy of the texts briefly, they may not have been familiar with the name of Ἰησοῦς.

1 who do you mean by them?

1. Pliny and Tacitus?
2. Some 'groups of people'?

It's a hypothetical. I don't know if anyone, or if any particular person, was in what would have been this kind of rare situation.

2 What do you mean by 'the name of Christus'?

1. what the name Christus meant?
2. 'Jesus'?

With regard to Pliny and Tacitus, the reference is to Letters 10.96-97 ("cursed Christ," "sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god") and Annals 15.44 ("Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius"). They both write this name, i.e. Christ. They did not write "Jesus," at least not in these passages. I do not know that they had much idea what "Christus" meant, other than being a name.

[lclapshaw]

^ And you know all this, how exactly?

[Peter Kirby]

I know you're asking in good faith. You have described it as if it's a genuine mystery, something to be speculated on at length, with various solutions, none of which are to be knocked off the list. Maybe you like the puzzle too much to solve it. Quoting:

Well there you have it Ken, so far we have a solid thesis by SA that IC might be IS=Man, IC XC could be Iulius Chrestus, KC could be Kaisar (Caesar in Greek).

I'll play devils advocate and throw in IC XC = Isis Chrestus. As far as I know the use of H and HC after the iota (IH, IHC) might indicate feminine declension.

Personally I like the IC=Iulius idea, especially for Paul and we do have sources for the imperial cult and the Isis cult in the first centuries of the common era as opposed to nothing for the first 70 years after the supposed death of the Gospel Jesus. Just going off of Occam's razor I'm afraid that IC=Iesous doesn't stack up as well as the other options.

Lane

Ideas are fun, ideas are cool, ideas give us goosebumps and the illusion of being very clever. Simple answers don't.

Yet we both have the same data. We both know what is attested and what is not. We both know that, even from our perspective, even with the holes in our knowledge, the references we get are to the name Jesus. I'm just boring enough to say it without hedging my bets.

Just going off of Occam's razor I'm afraid that IC=Iesous doesn't stack up as well as the other options.

Okay, maybe I gave you too much credit. That's just not true.

[lclapshaw]

I know you're asking in good faith. You have described it as a genuine mystery, something to be solved, speculated on at length, with various solutions, none of which are to be knocked off the list. Maybe you like the puzzle too much to solve it. Quoting:

Well there you have it Ken, so far we have a solid thesis by SA that IC might be IS=Man, IC XC could be Iulius Chrestus, KC could be Kaisar (Caesar in Greek).

I'll play devils advocate and throw in IC XC = Isis Chrestus. As far as I know the use of H and HC after the iota (IH, IHC) might indicate feminine declension.

Personally I like the IC=Iulius idea, especially for Paul and we do have sources for the imperial cult and the Isis cult in the first centuries of the common era as opposed to nothing for the first 70 years after the supposed death of the Gospel Jesus. Just going off of Occam's razor I'm afraid that IC=Iesous doesn't stack up as well as the other options.

Lane

Ideas are fun, ideas are cool, ideas give us goosebumps and the illusion of being very clever. Simple answers don't.

Yet we both have the same data. We both know what is attested and what is not. We both know that, even from our perspective, even with the holes in our knowledge, the references we get are to the name Jesus. I'm just boring enough to say it without hedging my bets.

Just going off of Occam's razor I'm afraid that IC=Iesous doesn't stack up as well as the other options.

Okay, maybe I gave you too much credit. That's just not true.

If everyone knows what IC is then why use an abbreviation at all?

Think about it for a minute. People were writing about IC as a man, a God, physical, incorporeal, etc. And from all these different sources and viewpoints the one thing that everyone could get behind and agree on was to use the abbreviation IC instead of a name?

Does that really sound right to you?

[Peter Kirby]

If everyone knows what IC is then why use an abbreviation at all?

Rhetorical questions like this one don't really tell us what you're trying to argue. We are left to speculate and wait for the inevitable reply that none of the speculations match the hidden intention behind the rhetorical question.

Let's try that in the form of a statement and explicit argument (which may not be yours, since you haven't told us what yours is):

(1) If everyone knew what word was behind the abbreviation, then they would not use an abbreviated form of the word.
(2) They do use an abbreviated form of the word.
(3) Therefore, not everyone knew what word was behind the abbreviation.

Let's try again in the form of another statement and explicit argument (which, again, may not be your argument):

(1) If people use an abbreviation of a word, they need a plausible reason.
(2) One plausible reason is that not everyone knew the word behind the abbreviation, making it impossible for everyone to write out the word.
(3) There is no other reason that is plausible.
(4) Therefore, the only plausible reason to use the the abbreviation is that not everyone knew the word behind it.

Or maybe this:

(1) There's one or more plausible explanations of the use of an abbreviation that are consistent with the premise that not everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation.
(2) There is no plausible explanation of the use of an abbreviation that is consistent with the premise that everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation.
(3) If people use an abbreviation, there is a plausible explanation. People did, so there is one.
(4) Since the only plausible explanations are those that are not consistent with the premise that everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation, not everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation.

Of course, for us to know what is being suggested, only you can explain the implied argument.

In any case, people sometimes used abbreviations. The most common situation truly is that everyone knows what the word behind the abbreviation is, and this goes double when people's exposure to the written word is by hearing it read aloud. For example, Arabic numerals are a form of abbreviation. Instead of writing five, we can write 5. When it's read, we say five. Everyone knows that 5 is five. It's impossible not to know it; you can't say it aloud without actually saying the word. In this case, everyone involved knew that these abbreviations referred to the name of Jesus.

Obviously we can ask a question in a moment that takes a very long time to investigate or permits of various answers: the "why" behind the use of an abbreviation is a good question. We can look into the "why" of the use of these ligatures. Being able to ask a question about why they were used just doesn't mean what you seem to hope it means (that not everybody knew what word is being used here).

[Leucius Charinus]

In any case, people sometimes used abbreviations. The most common situation truly is that everyone knows what the word behind the abbreviation is, and this goes double when people's exposure to the written word is by hearing it read aloud. For example, Arabic numerals are a form of abbreviation. Instead of writing five, we can write 5. When it's read, we say five. Everyone knows that 5 is five. It's impossible not to know it; you can't say it aloud without actually saying the word.

In this case the numerical abbreviations have been taught within an education system. Everyone introduced to this education system knew what 5 represented. The fact that 5 = "Five" would have been written many times on many papyri by many teachers and students.

In this case, everyone involved knew that these abbreviations referred to the name of Jesus.

The claim that everyone knew that "IS" = "Jesus" or that "XS" = "Christos" or "Chrestos" assumes the existence of "Early Christians" and a Christian education system for the "Early Christians". This has been your argument since the OP. But it remains a logical assumption. It could be valid. Is it supported by evidence?

In support of the validity of the assumption we don't have any early physical evidence that anyone wrote or equated "IS" = "Jesus" or that "XS" = "Christos" or "Chrestos". We don't find "IS" or "XS" as honorifics on tomb-stones of dead Christians which I would expect to see somewhere or other. Moreover with some rare exceptions we don't see the consistent use of the unabbreviated forms of "Jesus" or "Christos" on early physical evidence prior to the 6th/7th century (which AFAIK is from Latin manuscripts). Do you intend to rely on these exceptions? That may strengthen the assumption / hypothesis.

So for your OP to be valid we have to logically assume that an underground (not necessarily secret) Christian education system was operative between the century of Christian origins (or the century when the ligatures were first commissioned if different) and the 6th/7th century during which time the early Christian teachers taught the early Christian students that "IS" = "Jesus" and that "XS" = "Christos". Do you agree with this?

[lclapshaw]

If everyone knows what IC is then why use an abbreviation at all?

Rhetorical questions like this one don't really tell us what you're trying to argue. We are left to speculate and wait for the inevitable reply that none of the speculations match the hidden intention behind the rhetorical question.

Let's try that in the form of a statement and explicit argument (which may not be yours, since you haven't told us what yours is):

(1) If everyone knew what word was behind the abbreviation, then they would not use an abbreviated form of the word.
(2) They do use an abbreviated form of the word.
(3) Therefore, not everyone knew what word was behind the abbreviation.

Let's try again in the form of another statement and explicit argument (which, again, may not be your argument):

(1) If people use an abbreviation of a word, they need a plausible reason.
(2) One plausible reason is that not everyone knew the word behind the abbreviation, making it impossible for everyone to write out the word.
(3) There is no other reason that is plausible.
(4) Therefore, the only plausible reason to use the the abbreviation is that not everyone knew the word behind it.

Or maybe this:

(1) There's one or more plausible explanations of the use of an abbreviation that are consistent with the premise that not everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation.
(2) There is no plausible explanation of the use of an abbreviation that is consistent with the premise that everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation.
(3) If people use an abbreviation, there is a plausible explanation. People did, so there is one.
(4) Since the only plausible explanations are those that are not consistent with the premise that everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation, not everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation.

Of course, for us to know what is being suggested, only you can explain the implied argument.

In any case, people sometimes used abbreviations. The most common situation truly is that everyone knows what the word behind the abbreviation is, and this goes double when people's exposure to the written word is by hearing it read aloud. For example, Arabic numerals are a form of abbreviation. Instead of writing five, we can write 5. When it's read, we say five. Everyone knows that 5 is five. It's impossible not to know it; you can't say it aloud without actually saying the word. In this case, everyone involved knew that these abbreviations referred to the name of Jesus.

Obviously we can ask a question in a moment that takes a very long time to investigate or permits of various answers: the "why" behind the use of an abbreviation is a good question. We can look into the "why" of the use of these ligatures. Being able to ask a question about why they were used just doesn't mean what you seem to hope it means (that not everybody knew what word is being used here).

You know... IC, IHC, IH became IHCOYC. That is fact, not open to debate. What is open to debate is whether IC, IHC, IH started out as IHCOYC. I don't see how we can know that, as all we have in the original texts are IC, IHC IH.
So, in an attempt to not limit my options and be as objective as possible I will use IC, IHC, IH until I know for sure what the original usage of these abbreviations was meant to be.

That's all. Pretty simple really.

[lclapshaw]

Oh, btw, 5 was originally hāʼ. Just fyi.

[StephenGoranson]

It is a problem to propose a date for Coptic Thomas earlier than the evident existence of Coptic.

It is possible to lean too heavily on a misspelling.

It is more philosophic than religious to speak of the good.

It is the case that nomina sacra are a subset of abbreviations, which are sometimes misunderstood, such as R. I. P.

[Peter Kirby]

If everyone knows what IC is then why use an abbreviation at all?

Rhetorical questions like this one don't really tell us what you're trying to argue. We are left to speculate and wait for the inevitable reply that none of the speculations match the hidden intention behind the rhetorical question.

Let's try that in the form of a statement and explicit argument (which may not be yours, since you haven't told us what yours is):

(1) If everyone knew what word was behind the abbreviation, then they would not use an abbreviated form of the word.
(2) They do use an abbreviated form of the word.
(3) Therefore, not everyone knew what word was behind the abbreviation.

Let's try again in the form of another statement and explicit argument (which, again, may not be your argument):

(1) If people use an abbreviation of a word, they need a plausible reason.
(2) One plausible reason is that not everyone knew the word behind the abbreviation, making it impossible for everyone to write out the word.
(3) There is no other reason that is plausible.
(4) Therefore, the only plausible reason to use the the abbreviation is that not everyone knew the word behind it.

Or maybe this:

(1) There's one or more plausible explanations of the use of an abbreviation that are consistent with the premise that not everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation.
(2) There is no plausible explanation of the use of an abbreviation that is consistent with the premise that everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation.
(3) If people use an abbreviation, there is a plausible explanation. People did, so there is one.
(4) Since the only plausible explanations are those that are not consistent with the premise that everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation, not everybody knew the word behind the abbreviation.

Of course, for us to know what is being suggested, only you can explain the implied argument.

In any case, people sometimes used abbreviations. The most common situation truly is that everyone knows what the word behind the abbreviation is, and this goes double when people's exposure to the written word is by hearing it read aloud. For example, Arabic numerals are a form of abbreviation. Instead of writing five, we can write 5. When it's read, we say five. Everyone knows that 5 is five. It's impossible not to know it; you can't say it aloud without actually saying the word. In this case, everyone involved knew that these abbreviations referred to the name of Jesus.

Obviously we can ask a question in a moment that takes a very long time to investigate or permits of various answers: the "why" behind the use of an abbreviation is a good question. We can look into the "why" of the use of these ligatures. Being able to ask a question about why they were used just doesn't mean what you seem to hope it means (that not everybody knew what word is being used here).

You know... IC, IHC, IH became IHCOYC. That is fact, not open to debate. What is open to debate is whether IC, IHC, IH started out as IHCOYC. I don't see how we can know that, as all we have in the original texts are IC, IHC IH.
So, in an attempt to not limit my options and be as objective as possible I will use IC, IHC, IH until I know for sure what the original usage of these abbreviations was meant to be.

That's all. Pretty simple really.

The point of the OP undermines the attempt to give this a diachronic account as you try to outline above. That is, they didn't have just the abbreviation, alone and by itself; the word is transmitted alongside the abbreviation because these texts (being used by Christians) were both oral and written at the same time. The idea of a diachronic development sneaks in the (modern) misunderstanding that the text existed as a thing unto itself, approached for interpretation without that prior knowledge. Accordingly, the abbreviations could not "become" the word because they always were the word. The two are inextricably linked.

And, since we know that this abbreviation was being used for the name of Jesus by ancient Christians (as you acknowledge above), we also have objectively shown that the abbreviation in the Greek manuscripts used by them referred to Jesus (in the general case).

Subjectively, that's not satisfactory because it limits options and is problematic for a lot of interesting speculations.