I have bolded above the main claim. I need to explain it a bit better.LC wrote: http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 140#p30627(3) The problem of a satisfactory theory of the universal use of the orthodox "nomina sacra" by heretics.
Why did the heretical authors consistently used the orthodox nomina sacra? The alternative theory offers the
explanation that Constantine, as the rightful Pontifex Maximus, had the right to nominate and patronise the god of his
choice. Constantine's god was an encrypted name in a sacred codex. The heretics were responding to the emperor's agenda
and they used his explicit literary forms for these sacred name.
The universal use is explained on account of the small time frame of a decade or so,
rather than two or more centuries required under the mainstream theory. The longer the
timeframe, the lesser is the possibility of universal consistency.
Peter Kirby wrote:Moreover, you will need to prove the special connection that you find where "heresy" cuts against the use of nomina sacra but "orthodoxy," separately, specially promotes it.
///
Here the reply above falls silent, when it really should have been just getting started.
Start with the canon first. Let's say it was authored between 50-150 CE and that the ns (nomina sacra) were (independently?) introduced sometime between 50-200 (probably by an editor of the collection). Copy's are then made of this final form of the canon - undertaken from somewhere between 50 and 200 CE through to 325 CE - when the Official imperial publication happens. The great consistency (without too many errors) of use of the ns in the canonical literature can be understood. The Canonical "school" had relatively small period of early authorship, followed by centuries of copyists. So the almost universal use of the ns in the canonical material can be understood to be largely a result of a) the actions of an editor who introduced the ns standard after which b) copyists simply replicated the texts.
The non canonical stuff is entirely different. Let's say it was authored between 100-400 CE. The upper bound of 400 CE is nominal because it is AFAIK unknown precisely when the collection of non canonical texts stopped being added to by further authorship. IDK if we have such an end-date, but if we do, AFAIK it will be quite late and probably towards the end of the 4th century. This situation represents almost 300 years of gradual and continuous authorship. This is entirely different from the situation with the canonical texts.
The question then is as follows: How did these "heretical" authors who were writing continuously throughout three centuries maintain an almost universal use of the ns over this period? This issue is compounded when we take into account that there was most likely not one "school" (as may be assumed for the canon) but multiple (non canonical) "schools". For example, the Valentinians and the Sethians and even the "Leucian school" which produced a mass of Hellenistic romance narratives, especially the "Acts" of a large number of apostles and other identities (eg: Pilate). To summarise the non canonical situation we have two or three or possibly more groups or "schools" authoring literary material over perhaps as much as three centuries - without an editor of any entire collection until possibly the 4th century - in which there is an almost universal use of the ns.
How do we explain this almost universal consistency of use of the ns for the (many schools of) non canonical authors over a 300 year period? The longer the timeframe the greater is the likelihood that there will NOT be any universal consistence of use - especially seeing that authorship was continuous. (We are NOT dealing with the accuracy of copyists, but the accuracy of multiple groups of authors). This is the main claim that I made above. How can it be evaluated?
There are at least two possibilities ...
1) The 300 years of authorship of non canonical texts by various "schools" of authors was being meticulously governed by these authors actually having a copy of the canonical books (including the nomina sacra) before them as they authored their own various novel "Jesus and Apostle Stories" and other texts. This would explain an almost universal use of the ns in the non canonical texts. But is this hypothesis actually falsifiable? It implies that those who would be labelled as "heretical authors" by the canonical heresiologists were actually highly focussed upon the text of the canon, for 300 years, underground and alongside the canonical Christian "school". I guess this is possible.
2) We are not dealing with 300 years of NC authorship, but a much smaller time frame. This possibility explains the almost universal consistency of use of the ns because there were not many schools over many centuries and generations producing new stories, but rather a number of different schools responding to the canonical text over as little as one generation producing these stories.
SUMMARY
I have attempted to outline the logic behind my comments related to an explanation for what is "an almost universal consistency" of use of the ns by the non canonical authors. I should probably define this a little better. The use of the ns in both the canonical and non canonical texts do exhibit a small degree of variance. This suggests that nobody made (too many) mistakes in copying and using these codes, but there were some mistakes and variations made. This is to be expected anytime. Scribes make mistakes, authors may get INVENTIVE, and other reasons. However the longer the timeframe of copying, and especially new authorship of material, the greater is the likelihood that scribal mistakes and authorial invention will produce exceptions to "an almost universal consistency" of use for the ns.
This summarises a discussion and support of my original comment ..... The universal use is explained on account of the small time frame of a decade or so, rather than two or more centuries required under the mainstream theory. The longer the timeframe, the lesser is the possibility of universal consistency. The OP is suggesting that instead of the non canonical material being authored over a 300 year period (100-400 CE) it was produced over a 30 year period (or less) between 325-355 CE. The authors of the NC texts were responding to the literary material and ns in the canonical books.
When would the greatest response be expected? IMO obviously at the point the canonical books became the political instruments of the Christian state. Before that time, if we are to accept the received history of the Christians, they were an underground minority group famous for their martyrdoms and persecution. Who would be interested in such a group (for centuries?), or have the inclination to read and study their "Holy Text"? (We may rest assured the NC authors studied the canonical texts well). IMO the greatest response to the bible would have occurred during the rule of Constantine, when the Bible became a political instrument and religious privileges were reserved for the Christians [alone].
LC