Significance of the Gospel of Thomas if the Canonical Gospels are late?

[MrMacSon]

... we do not see any nomina sacra in any manuscripts until verifiably "Christian" manuscripts start to appear, so this would be a century or more after the fall of Jerusalem in 70. The practice may have existed earlier, but we do not have the manuscripts, so we cannot say for certain.

Cheers.

When you said earlier, "they are practically ubiquitous throughout the Greek manuscripts of sacred or semi-sacred texts", you meant Greek Christian manuscripts?

Second, they [the nomina sacra] exist in quotations of or allusions to the Hebrew scriptures where we can see exactly which word is being translated and simultaneously abbreviated, because the Hebrew does not use them and thus writes out each word in full ... Fifth, context can often tell us which word is intended.

So we see them used for Ἰησοῦς (for the Hebrew Yeshua)?

You wrote in a previous post

Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς = nomen sacrum used [for] Joshua/Jesus/Yehoshua/Yeshua [/Joshua/Jesus]

I presume you meant for Ἰησοῦς in a Christian manuscript quoting either a Hebrew passage from a Hebrew text, or for a Christian text.

I think the answer will be Yes, given

4 The earliest of the Chester Beatty papyri, Chester Beatty Papyrus VI, which dates to early century II, contains parts both of Numbers and of Deuteronomy:

Chester BeattyPapyrus VI.png (51.25 KiB) Viewed 4492 times

Sixth, there were two main ways of abbreviating the words: suspension (whereby Jesus would become Je) and contraction (whereby Jesus would become Js)

Which would in reality be, Ἰη [IH], or Ἰς [IC/IS], or the like?

I think I now know the answer (having come back to that question of mine), eg. (and the Chester Beatty Papyrus VI above) -

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 657 (Ƿ13), column 3, lines 73-74a (= Hebrews 4.8): 73-74a [Εἰ γὰρ α]ὐτοὺς Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν π[ερὶ ἄλλης ἐλά]λι μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας.

Schøyen 2648, column 2, lines 11b-14 (= Joshua 10.29): 11b-14 Καὶ ἀπῆλθεν Ἰη(σοῦ)ς [יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Masoretic] κα[ὶ πᾶς Ισ]ραηλ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐκ [Λεβ]νὰ εἰς Λαχείς, καὶ περιεκάθισεν αὐτὴν. [Link.]

. . . . .

Edgar Battad Ebojo, A Scribe and His Manuscript: An Investigation into the Scribal Habits of Papyrus 46, pages 338-339 (Contraction Profile table reformatted into lines):

ΙΗΣΟΥΣ

CONTRACTION PROFILE:
SACRAL, Nomina Sacra = 107, Plene = 0.
NON-SACRAL, Nomina Sacra = 2, Plene = 0.

Like κυριος, abbreviation for Ιησους is consistently applied, using the 3-letter format; the 2-letter suspension (ι̅η̅), used in a few contemporary manuscripts, was never employed in Ƿ46. Except in two instances,* all have Jesus Christ as the referent. Paap noted that ι̅η̅ς̅ (χ̅ρ̅ς̅) in Heb 13.21 is dative in function despite its nominative form. This is only partly true; it is more likely that in context it has a genitival function, hence, consequently stimulating scribal correction toward the genitive, i.e., ι̅η̅υ̅ χ̅ρ̅υ̅. / Viewed against the backdrop of other surviving papyri witnessing to the text of Pauline Epistles and Hebrews, Ƿ46 shares only with two other papyri (Ƿ30 and Ƿ65 [both from the third century]) in equally exhibiting preference for the 3-letter compendium. In contrast, the majority of them prefer the shorter form, although they mostly represent a production timeframe after the 3rd century.

[Ben C. Smith]

When you said earlier, "they are practically ubiquitous throughout the Greek manuscripts of sacred or semi-sacred texts", you meant Greek Christian manuscripts?

Yes.

So we see them used for Ἰησοῦς (for the Hebrew Yeshua)?

Yes.

You wrote in a previous post

Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς = nomen sacrum used [for] Joshua/Jesus/Yehoshua/Yeshua [/Joshua/Jesus]

I presume you meant for Ἰησοῦς in a Christian manuscript quoting either a Hebrew passage from a Hebrew text, or for a Christian text.

Yes.

Sixth, there were two main ways of abbreviating the words: suspension (whereby Jesus would become Je) and contraction (whereby Jesus would become Js)

Which would in reality be, Ἰη [IH], or Ἰς [IC/IS], or the like?

Yes, but with an overstroke.

[MrMacSon]

Sixth, there were two main ways of abbreviating the words: suspension (whereby Jesus would become Je) and contraction (whereby Jesus would become Js)

Which would in reality be, Ἰη [IH], or Ἰς [IC/IS], or the like?

Yes, but with an overstroke.

And Ἰη [IH], or Ἰς [IC/IS], or IHC (with an overstroke/superlinear) could apply to Jesus, God, Man, Father, Lord, Saviour, Son, etc.? as per

Greek fragments of Thomas have the four I mentioned earlier: Jesus, God, Man, Father ..

The four which are found well nigh universally in the Greek manuscripts are Lord, God, Jesus, and Christ. The rest, still very common, are Son, Spirit, David, Cross, Mother, Father, Israel, Savior, Man, Jerusalem, and Heaven, for a total of 15.

[mlinssen]

Well, perhaps we should create a separate thread? I'm fine with the direction we're going in, it does pertain I think, but I fear the topic of nomina sacra being big enough to fill an entire forum of its own

www.academia.edu/37445283/Nomina_Sacra_ ... di_Library is a very fine work on the entire Nag Hammadi library and its use of nomina sacra

While we're at it, I believe it is of the utmost importance to discern between the abbreviations with supralinears, and those without, as my working theory is that supralinears come from Coptic.
And that Thomas comes from Coptic.
And that IS comes from Thomas, and Thomas alone

And that is my agenda.
So. Ben and everyone else, peruse Plumley please, old authority on Coptic Grammar: www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos/files/plum.html

Supralinears were used for syllable markers, because Coptic was a letter mess without white space, and it was very difficult to split up a text in separate words, e.g. Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (forty-five letters) is a lung disease caused by the inhalation of silica or quartz dust: syllable markers would be very useful there, and this is only one word. The difficulty with the text that I had while translating is that three letters could be one word, two, or even the depending on how you look at it - but then the supralinears come to the rescue

IS stands for something, it must be. As we will see, I guess, during investigation, there is an overwhelming majority of the appearance of IS with supralinears, and Jesus comes much later. Nomina sacra without supralinears? Hardly any, and let's please focus on IS / IHS?

I really like Secret Alias' theory, and that it stands for the identical Hebrew letters yod shin.
Yod, the 10th Hebrew letter Yod is a dot or point. The Yod represents the Creator, the single point from which all of creation emerges, and the Unity within multiplicity. It is the foundation of all foundations, the hidden Divine spark which causes everything to be.
Shin, 21st letter: fire! The trident, weapon of the gods. And it is the end, and logion 82 comes to mind as well: he who is near me is near the fire(F)

The story about abbreviation versus contraction is an excuse, H stands for something as well: Hei represents divine revelation, the breath of the Creator (Psalm 33:6 – By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.) The world was created with the utterance of the Hei. It represents the gift of life and creates the verb of being (היה Haya – being).
The Hebrew H isn't really the Coptic H, quite unlike it even. Yet speaking with the breath of life in logion 13 and 22 fits, as does 90 (yet it would fit most anywhere, if you just try)

My first theory was one about I standing for Beginning, a perfect 10, and S standing for the Coptic verb ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ, to know, with H standing for Coptic ⲏⲓ, house (and pair, couple!)

Naturally I have gone by all Coptic words and there are none that start with I and end with S, unless it's Israelite and Ishmaelite!
I have retrieved a list of 300+ words that have an I, H and S in any given order but have to evaluate that closer - at first sight nothing struck me

A few questions are leading:

1. Why use supralinears? IS and IHS aren't words in any "biblical" language, so one can just use the letters
2. In which letters are supralinears used exactly, with which frequency? During what period?

The name nomina sacra is an incorrect label, but I'll just use it. Nothing sacred about the words or their use, but I'll let Traube rest in peace

Hurtado has a nice piece on it all, although he submerges himself into Jewish and Greek, completely ignoring Coptic. Numbers could be involved as well, talk to Grondin about those and be prepared for a long lecture! Grondin does have a point though, that on a side note

www.jstor.org/stable/3266633

[davidmartin]

I find it hard to believe if it was simply culled from the gospels it could have this effect.

It depends on what you mean by "culled." If you mean that one text is merely extracting from another, then I agree, with caveats (the extracts have to be fair, for example); but... that is obviously not the case with Thomas and the synoptics (in whichever way you wish the dependence to flow). If, however, "culled" can include reinterpretation, then I disagree fundamentally, since it has happened hundreds if not thousands of times that a text which reinterprets another is soundly rejected by adherents to the original text. If you mean something in the middle, I would have to have more information.

wow Ben you really are objective, that's not a bad thing though
But reinterpretation in the case of Thomas is interesting
There's no context, commentary or narration to speak of in it other than relying totally on sayings
So uniquely among gospels the only way it could happen is totally based on whether Jesus said something or not, or since you are objective, whether it's more likely something he said or not
The case of omission is the only other possible way it could be done in Thomas
This isn't your normal reinterpretation you are talking about here, the only significant voice in it is Jesus himself

But when looking at the sayings there's a lot of agreement with the synoptics, and certain sayings are preserved elsewhere
If there's any reinterpretation its very subtle and a fair whack of the new sayings are very non-controversial and can't carry any support to, say, Gnostics who get blamed unreasonably for the gospel
Why would anyone do that if they wanted to reinterpret?
But I'm also open to a limited number of sayings being tweaked or added to in the collection (the anti-body ones raise my suspicions slightly)

But this is a game of percentages here.
It's far easier to see how the synoptics might reinterpret a bunch of sayings (whether Thomas is the source or not) than Thomas reinterpret them in such a way as to not really contradict what the same guy said in the synoptics most of the time
Especially when the synoptics already reinterpret the same saying in different contexts anyway
The odds are in Thomas's favour

Here is the problem with Thomas. it's rejected because it presents a way to God that is different from the one presented by the synoptics (which even they don't seem to make it obvious, so i mean Paul as well)
Only about 5% of the sayings are problematic to orthodoxy and could be explained away, but because it presents Jesus's words as the way to life - this is the only reinterpretation possible. This is the only agenda such an author may have had, since that is what the text proclaims
From what we know of Jesus this is far from unreasonable since he was said to have had 'the words of life' and spoke in parables... it fits very nicely, so what reinterpretation is needed?

[mlinssen]

But this is a game of percentages here.
It's far easier to see how the synoptics might reinterpret a bunch of sayings (whether Thomas is the source or not) than Thomas reinterpret them in such a way as to not really contradict what the same guy said in the synoptics most of the time
Especially when the synoptics already reinterpret the same saying in different contexts anyway
The odds are in Thomas's favour

Here is the problem with Thomas. it's rejected because it presents a way to God that is different from the one presented by the synoptics (which even they don't seem to make it obvious, so i mean Paul as well)

Thomas presents a "Theology" than can't be monetised, can't be controlled, can't be organised. Paul was the great marketeer behind Churchianity, and he so greatly dismisses such movements as in Romans 2:8

But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

It's not just different, it is too different - way too different. And if you erase all the hearsay, and pretend that Thomas was first, talking about an IS who ruthlessly despises and rejects Judaism as he does, then there is a clear business case to repo that story

And I absolutely agree with your points; Thomas utterly fails to profit from copying, merely doing so without putting them to use, without justifying his own creations, without rejecting what is in the canonicals - without, most importantly, even commenting on his protagonist's crucifixion and whatnot

[davidmartin]

Thomas presents a "Theology" than can't be monetised, can't be controlled, can't be organised. Paul was the great marketeer behind Cruciferous Churchianity, and he so greatly dismisses such movements as in Romans 2:8

But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

It's not just different, it is too different - way too different. And if you erase all the hearsay, and pretend that Thomas was first, talking about an IS who ruthlessly despises and rejects Judaism as he does, then there is a clear business case to repo that story

And I absolutely agree with your points; Thomas utterly fails to profit from copying, merely doing so without putting them to use, without justifying his own creations, without rejecting what is in the canonicals - without, most importantly, even commenting on his protagonist's crucifixion and whatnot

haha you could be right, follow the money
it has occured to me that there's no way Paul's version of the gospel could have been taught anywhere near Galilee or Judea - just imagine trying it!
"Hey Rabbi did you know the Torah is worthless?" LOL. He'd have been torn to pieces
Even teaching it in Roman cities with a Jewish population could cause uproar... oh wait, it did... 'Chrestus' causing expulsion of Jews?
So whatever the original Christian version was, it wasn't the same as Paul's and couldn't have been
Ignoring what that might have been and how different, it does make sense to include Thomas as giving some insight into that because the gospels we have were ultimately put out by the church that accepted Paul's gospel (plus a bunch of other stuff) which can't have been the original one in the first place

On the other hand Paul didn't make it all up and maybe once you remove his loud mouth statements and theological pronouncements on the Torah, underneath that is something closer to the original after all?

[MrMacSon]

it has occurred to me that there's no way Paul's version of the gospel could have been taught anywhere near Galilee or Judea - just imagine trying it!
"Hey Rabbi did you know the Torah is worthless?" LOL. He'd have been torn to pieces

"there's no way Paul's version of the gospel could have been taught anywhere near Galilee or Judea" - up to when, do you think?

(the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt?)

[davidmartin]

it has occurred to me that there's no way Paul's version of the gospel could have been taught anywhere near Galilee or Judea - just imagine trying it!
"Hey Rabbi did you know the Torah is worthless?" LOL. He'd have been torn to pieces

"there's no way Paul's version of the gospel could have been taught anywhere near Galilee or Judea" - up to when, do you think?

(the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt?)

Sounds believable, i don't know what the landscape looked like post-bar kokhba it seems like a really difficult question

The only thing i do remember was reading how followers of Paul in the Turkey/Syria area were called 'Paulines' or something like that with various gospels seemingly floating around there. His was one among many. That makes St Ephrems writings pretty interesting. It makes it look like the Eastern areas had more variety and in the west it was more - either orthadoxy or becoming a flaming gnostic not so much in between

[Ben C. Smith]

Sixth, there were two main ways of abbreviating the words: suspension (whereby Jesus would become Je) and contraction (whereby Jesus would become Js)

Which would in reality be, Ἰη [IH], or Ἰς [IC/IS], or the like?

Yes, but with an overstroke.

And Ἰη [IH], or Ἰς [IC/IS], or IHC (with an overstroke/superlinear) could apply to Jesus, God, Man, Father, Lord, Saviour, Son, etc.? as per

Greek fragments of Thomas have the four I mentioned earlier: Jesus, God, Man, Father ..

The four which are found well nigh universally in the Greek manuscripts are Lord, God, Jesus, and Christ. The rest, still very common, are Son, Spirit, David, Cross, Mother, Father, Israel, Savior, Man, Jerusalem, and Heaven, for a total of 15.

Those particular abbreviations you have listed (and I have highlighted) apply only to Jesus (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ), because ΙΣ, ΙΗΣ, ΙΗ, and the first two nomina written with the lunate sigma (which looks like a C) are valid abbreviations of ΙΗΣΟΥΣ. "God" in Greek (in the nominative case) is ΘΕΟΣ, so it usually abbreviates down to ΘΣ. Lord is ΚΥΡΙΟΣ, so it usually abbreviates down to ΚΣ. The abbreviations make sense: they simply remove a few letters of the same word they are abbreviating.

wow Ben you really are objective, that's not a bad thing though

I appreciate this observation.

It's far easier to see how the synoptics might reinterpret a bunch of sayings (whether Thomas is the source or not) than Thomas reinterpret them in such a way as to not really contradict what the same guy said in the synoptics most of the time

In the abstract, I tend to agree. It makes sense for a list of bare sayings to be put on characters' lips and then fleshed out with narrative. I believe something similar has happened with Eugnostos and the Wisdom of Jesus Christ. The bare, raw exposition of Eugnostos was placed upon the lips of gospel characters including Jesus, Philip, Matthew, and Mary; thus was an essay, as it were, turned into a conversation; it does not take much to imagine a conversation being given a context and then turned into a basic narrative, and then on from there we go. In the abstract, going from Thomas to the synoptics is easy peasy; I test out that option every single time I try to trace a trajectory.

Well, perhaps we should create a separate thread? I'm fine with the direction we're going in, it does pertain I think, but I fear the topic of nomina sacra being big enough to fill an entire forum of its own

Yes, the topic certainly does hold that potential! I apologize for taking up so much of the thread with it. I have presented what I wanted to present, and am interested in sitting back now and letting you and David and MrMacSon discuss the Coptic angle.