Page 11 of 15
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:47 am
by Jax
Maybe I'm missing something. People are making the statement that the first NS were ThY, KY, IC, XY etc and yet AFAIK p46 is the earliest text that we have and I see things like CTRO and ECTRAI on the very first page. What sources, if any, are being used to support the idea that the first four NS were the earliest ones?
Also, if ThC is Theos why isn't Timotheos TIMThC with a line over ThC extending past it like a normal abbreviation?
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:03 am
by Jax
^ sorry, meant first page of Philippians in p46.
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:28 am
by hakeem
Jax wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:47 am
Maybe I'm missing something. People are making the statement that the first NS were ThY, KY, IC, XY etc and yet AFAIK p46 is the earliest text that we have and I see things like CTRO and ECTRAI on the very first page. What sources, if any, are being used to support the idea that the first four NS were the earliest ones?
Also, if ThC is Theos why isn't Timotheos TIMThC with a line over ThC extending past it like a normal abbreviation?
P46 is not the earliest existing texts that we have. There are New Testament Papyri with dates similar to or earlier than P46.
There are no early witnesses of the Epistles even in the NT itself.
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:31 am
by Jax
hakeem wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:28 am
Jax wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:47 am
Maybe I'm missing something. People are making the statement that the first NS were ThY, KY, IC, XY etc and yet AFAIK p46 is the earliest text that we have and I see things like CTRO and ECTRAI on the very first page. What sources, if any, are being used to support the idea that the first four NS were the earliest ones?
Also, if ThC is Theos why isn't Timotheos TIMThC with a line over ThC extending past it like a normal abbreviation?
P46 is not the earliest existing texts that we have. There are New Testament Papyri with dates similar to or earlier than P46.
There are no early witnesses of the Epistles even in the NT itself.
Oh? What papyri are those?
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:59 am
by hakeem
hakeem wrote:P46 is not the earliest existing texts that we have. There are New Testament Papyri with dates similar to or earlier than P46.
There are no early witnesses of the Epistles even in the NT itself.
Jax wrote:Oh? What papyri are those?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... ent_papyri
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:05 am
by Ben C. Smith
Jax wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:47 am
Maybe I'm missing something. People are making the statement that the first NS were ThY, KY, IC, XY etc and yet AFAIK p46 is the earliest text that we have....
Not the earliest. There are manuscripts containing
nomina sacra which are probably earlier. Chester Beatty VI, for example. The Egerton fragments may also be earlier.
...and I see things like CTRO and ECTRAI on the very first page. What sources, if any, are being used to support the idea that the first four NS were the earliest ones?
I wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:45 amAlso, I am beginning to look into whether the Big Four concept holds water. Some of the other abbreviations (like Father) are also very early in our manuscript evidence.
And I am still interested in testing that entire matter.
But I believe that judgment about the Big Four is made on the basis of consistency. The others (apparently) are not as consistent as Jesus, Christ, God, and Lord. In Chester Beatty VI, for example, according to Paap's listing, God (as the deity of Israel) is almost always abbreviated; Lord is always abbreviated; and Joshua is abbreviated all but once. (Christ does not appear.) Of the others on the list, Spirit does not appear very often but is always abbreviated; Father appears a number of times but is abbreviated only once; Mother and Son are never abbreviated; Man is abbreviated only once, and Israel is usually abbreviated. So this manuscript might be thought of as having a Big Five, so to speak. I think the impression given when one compares multiple manuscripts with each other is that there is a Big Four which are pretty consistently abbreviated and then others which are less consistent in that respect; or, at least, I think that is the idea. But that, again, is something I am testing for myself.
Also, if ThC is Theos why isn't Timotheos TIMThC with a line over ThC extending past it like a normal abbreviation?
It is not algorithmic. The scribes knew the difference between God the personage and "God" as a part of someone's name.
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:17 am
by Jax
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:05 am
Jax wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:47 am
Maybe I'm missing something. People are making the statement that the first NS were ThY, KY, IC, XY etc and yet AFAIK p46 is the earliest text that we have....
Not the earliest. There are manuscripts containing
nomina sacra which are probably earlier. Chester Beatty VI, for example. The Egerton fragments may also be earlier.
...and I see things like CTRO and ECTRAI on the very first page. What sources, if any, are being used to support the idea that the first four NS were the earliest ones?
I wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:45 amAlso, I am beginning to look into whether the Big Four concept holds water. Some of the other abbreviations (like Father) are also very early in our manuscript evidence.
And I am still interested in testing that entire matter.
But I believe that judgment about the Big Four is made on the basis of consistency. The others (apparently) are not as consistent as Jesus, Christ, God, and Lord. In Chester Beatty VI, for example, according to Paap's listing, God (as the deity of Israel) is almost always abbreviated; Lord is always abbreviated; and Joshua is abbreviated all but once. (Christ does not appear.) Of the others on the list, Spirit does not appear very often but is always abbreviated; Father appears a number of times but is abbreviated only once; Mother and Son are never abbreviated; Man is abbreviated only once, and Israel is usually abbreviated. So this manuscript might be thought of as having a Big Five, so to speak. I think the impression given when one compares multiple manuscripts with each other is that there is a Big Four which are pretty consistently abbreviated and then others which are less consistent in that respect; or, at least, I think that is the idea. But that, again, is something I am testing for myself.
Also, if ThC is Theos why isn't Timotheos TIMThC with a line over ThC extending past it like a normal abbreviation?
It is not algorithmic. The scribes knew the difference between God the personage and "God" as a part of someone's name.
It seems that, with your above example, that Lord and Spirit are the only two that have a consistent abbreviation. Think I'll keep a close eye on that.
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:53 am
by Jax
KYRIOC is, as far as I know, always KE, KN, KC, KY, and KW and always abbreviated while PNEYMA is PN, PNA, PNI, PNC, PNAI, PNOC, and PNACI.
Were I a betting man I would put my money on KYRIOC as the original NS.
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:58 am
by Peter Kirby
Jax wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:53 am
Were I a betting man I would put my money on KYRIOC as the original NS.
Is this the translation for the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint?
Re: Some Observations on the Nomina Sacra of the First Three Centuries
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:17 am
by Jax
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:58 am
Jax wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:53 am
Were I a betting man I would put my money on KYRIOC as the original NS.
Is this the translation for the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint?
That would be my guess, yes.