Observe
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/ ... olumea.pdf
A few quotes:
⳨ = Used in early manuscripts: ∏66, ∏45, ∏75, ca. 200–250 ce
(...)
The tau-rho combination, the focus of this discussion, appears in pre/non-Christian usage as an abbreviation for tr(opow), tr(iakaw), and Tr(okondaw).12 Among specific noteworthy instances, there is the use of this device on some coins of King Herod (37–4 bce), the tau-rho intended to identify them with the third year of his reign.13
(...)
As indicated already, in Christian usage, all of the monograms/ compendia in question served in one way or another as references to Jesus. Thus, the Christian appropriation of them all reflects the enormous place of Jesus in early Christian devotion, and these curious devices thereby became themselves expressions of this piety.17
Moreover, it is important to note that all of these devices represent visual phenomena, and so, as reverential references to Jesus in early Christian usage, they have a certain iconographic function and significance, which should be recognized. The earliest Christian use of these devices, which takes us back at least to the late second century and quite possibly earlier, represents the emergence of what we may term a Christian “visual culture”. I shall return to this point later. But in the case of the Christian use of tau-rho monogram, there are also interesting distinctives that now require further attention.
The first observation to make is that, whereas all of the other Christian letter-compendia that I have mentioned are true monograms, the component letters in each case directly referring to Jesus by name and/or a christological title, the tau-rho combination did not have any such function. Its component letters neither derive from, nor refer to, Jesus’ name or any of the familiar christological titles. Indeed, in Christian usage, the two component letters in this device do not appear to refer to any words at all. So what suggested the Christian appropriation of this particular letter-compendium?20 Furthermore, although the tau-rho seems to have had some later usage simply as a free-standing reverential cipher for the figure of Jesus, and/or perhaps simply as an emblem intended to signify Christian faith, what was its initial function and significance, and when might it first have appeared in Christian usage?
Let us first address the question of origins. Our most important evidence, and certainly the earliest, is provided by the instances of this device in some very early Christian manuscripts.21 We may begin with Papyrus Bodmer II (∏66), the extant portion of a codex of the Gospel of John (chapters 1–14 relatively well preserved, the rest of John through chapter 21 in very fragmentary condition), and dated palaeographically to ca. 200 ce.22 In this manuscript the noun staurow (three instances) and at least seven uses of forms of the verb staurov are written in abbreviated forms, and with the tau and rho of these words written as a compendium. In each case, the statement in which the noun or verb appears refers to Jesus’ cross / crucifixion.23
Likewise, in ∏75, dated to about the same time and comprising portions of the Gospel of Luke (Papyrus Bodmer XIV) and the Gospel of John (Papyrus Bodmer XV), there are further instances of the tau-rho compendium used in abbreviated forms of the same two Greek words.24
But the scribal practice in this manuscript was not so consistent. In all three cases where staurow appears in the extant portions of Luke (9:23; 14:27; 23:26) the word is written in an abbreviated form, and in two of these cases (9:23; 14:27) the tau-rho compendium is also used.25 In the six extant occurrences of the verb staurov, however, the word is abbreviated twice (23:33; 24:7), and in the other four cases is written fully (23:21 [two], 23; 24:20).
Only at Luke 24:7 in ∏75 is there a verb-form extant with the tau-rho compendium.26 These abbreviations of staurow and staurov (in each case with a horizontal stroke over the abbreviation) mean that the copyists in question were extending to them the special, and apparently distinctively Christian, abbreviation-practice now commonly referred to as “nomina sacra”.27 But, as Aland observed, on the basis of these two early, and roughly contemporary, manuscripts, it appears that the Christian practice of writing staurow as a nomen sacrum was somewhat more quickly and more firmly established than was the case for the verb staurov.28 We should also note that in the Vienna fragment of ∏45 (dated ca. 200–250 ce), at Matthew 26:2 (the sole place where either the relevant noun or verb appears in the extant portions of the manu-script) the verb-form staurvyhnai(“to be crucified”) is written in a contracted form and with the tau-rho compendium.29 That is, we have three early third-century Christian manuscripts with this curious device, in all of which it is used in the same way, as part of a nomina sacra treatment of the Greek words for “cross” and “crucify”.
It is unlikely that we happen to have the very first Christian usages of the tau-rho. We must suppose that this device had already been in Christian usage for some period of time for it to have been used independently by the copyists of these three manuscripts.30 This obviously means that we should date the initial Christian appropriation of the tau-rho device at least as early as the final decades of the second century, and quite plausibly somewhat earlier. It is a very interesting question as to whether the earliest appropriation of the tau-rho was made by copyists of still earlier Christian manuscripts in references to Jesus’ cross/crucif lixion, or whether there was some previous and/or wider Christian usage of this ligature, i.e., beyond its use in Christian manuscripts. Unfortunately, I know of no clear evidence to settle the matter. ∏45, ∏66 and ∏75 offer us the earliest extant Christian uses of the tau-rho device, and in all these cases it is used in references to Jesus’ cross/crucifixion. But we can say with some confidence that these three early manuscripts are not likely the first such uses of the tau-rho. Instead, ∏45, ∏66 and ∏75 offer us evidence of a Christian appropriation of the tau-rho device that (what-ever and whenever its origin) was already becoming familiar in Christian circles at the time that these copyists worked.
-
Useful research mixed with
wishful thinking, unsubstantiated claims and a lot of suggestive remarks.
It is evident that Hurtado tries very hard to stretch the dates towards 0 CE as much and as often as possible. It is HiLarryous to see how his obfuscation of the facts leads to his own confusion, alternating between late second, early third, final decades of the second, and other various terms to indicate the dates for the exact same 3 MSS
On the dates (Wikipedia):
P66 - about AD 200 (Martin), AD 100-150 (Hunger), "early or middle fourth century" (Nongbri)
P75 - 175–225 (Martin and Kasser), late third century-early fourth century (Orsini), fourth century (Nongbri)
P45 - c. 250
He continues to refute his colleagues who argue for other signs to precede the staurogram. And then:
There is a second problem in Savignac’s proposal, and it is not confined to him. It is a mistake to presume that the Christian appropriation of the various Jesus-monograms must have involved one initial monogram from which subsequent Christian appropriation of the others then developed. It seems to me that this insufficiently-examined assumption contributed to the misjudgments of Sulzberger as well as Savignac, leading them to posit their respective developmental schemes, even although the evidence did not actually suggest either one.
Why should we suppose that there had to be one initial Jesus-monogram from which the others somehow developed?37
Hurtado fails to motivate this, or build a case for his assertion
Indeed, Justin Martyr (1 Apol. 55) indicates that second-century Christians could see visual allusions to Jesus’ cross in practically any object with even the remote shape of a t(e.g., a sailing mast with cross-beam, a plow or other tools with a cross-piece of any kind, the erect human form with arms extended, even the face with the nose extending!).40
Hurtado utterly fails to note that Sweet Jus is not talking about a T in that last phrase, but naturally refers to a staurogram - First Apology 55:
But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation. For consider all the things in the world, whether without this form they could be administered or have any community. For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, "The breath before our face is the Lord Christ".
Naturally, the word for cross in Martyr's writings is stauros.
If you read the bold you clearly see a T being formed by being erect and extending the hands (arms, of course) and then the nose extending from the face is the top of the rho.
How Hurtado can see a nose in just a T is beyond me - did his noses take shape on both sides of a face?
Unknowingly, he quotes a very interesting part from Tertullian:
Now the Greek letter Tau and our own [Latin] letter T is the very form of the cross, which He [God] predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalem . . .43
Why distinguish between a Greek T and a Latin one? Aren't those exactly the same?
Unless he has a Coptic Ti in mind instead of a Greek Tau...
To be sure, we have evidence that at least some Christians in the first and second centuries engaged in isosephy. Most familiar, of course, is the number of “the beast” in Revelation 13:17–18, which is “the number of his name”.47 We should also recall the interpre-tation of the 318 servants of Abraham noted previously in Epistle of Barnabas (9:7–9).
- Wait, what? Hurtado sneaks in a "1st century" - just to give the impression that Christianity dates to the first century, based on manuscripts. No footnotes to this, of course
That is, in our earliest evidence of its Christian use, the tau-rho consistently appears in a crucial context as part of a text that has to do with Jesus’ death. Used as a free-standing symbol, however, a device such as the tau-rho invites, perhaps requires, some imaginative inter-pretation such as Ephraem offered. But used in the way that we have the device employed in ∏66, ∏75 and ∏45, the tau-rho takes its Christian meaning and function from the words of which it is a crucial part, and the sentences in which it is deployed.
This leads us to another intriguing possibility. The tau-rho device may have been appropriated by Christians originally, not (or not simply) on the basis of numerical symbolism, but because it could function as a visual reference to the crucified Jesus
- no, Hurtado. With only mention of a stake (stauros) and no cross-beam, nails or whatever, and with taking only 6 hours to die, while being very lucid in the final minutes, it is evident that the gospel writers had in mind that Jesus was impaled. Once again, your assuming away based on your own assumptions and miraculously ending up where the CF's lead you
The tau is confirmed as an early symbol of the cross, and the loop of the superimposed rho in the tau-rho suggested the head of a crucified figure
- wait. Just prior you stated that a mere T did so?!
The remainder is predictable, with Hurtado proudly presenting his new find that in essence is an old dig presented earlier in this same text, yet not by himself.
While he mentions Nag Hammadi writings, he fails to observe the ti-rho in those - which doesn't come as a giant surprise really, as it would put a huge dent in his conclusion
Anyway, a useful text on the volumetrics of the staurogram in the earliest xtian MSS, if one ignores the various attempts to allege the usual claims at priority and being earliest. At the very least, when compared to e.g. Nicholas Perrin, Larry Hurtado conducted honest and objective research - that he tried to twist that into subjective findings "is only human". Not very academic perhaps, but certainly not unusual in biblical scholarship
Yes, I'm being very mild today - and no, of course it should not be condoned, but in this particular case it's rather too late, isn't it
