New article by Peter Rodgers in Filologia Neotestamentaria, XXXVIII, 2025
P75 and P4 Reconsidered
In recent years the dating of some early Christian papyri has been challenged. Brent Nongbri especially has questioned the value of paleographic dating, noting that several papyri, chiefly P75, could be placed as confidently in the fourth century as in the second/third. This essay seeks a new criterion for assessing the dates of early Christian manuscripts: Nomina Sacra. The abbreviation/suspension of sacred names began with only the four or five, and gradually expanded to include other words treated in this way. Those papyri with fewer Nomina Sacra should be dated early, whereas those that include an expanded list should be deemed to be later. The staurogram is also important in this calculation. On this reckoning, P4 may be placed in the second century, P75 in the third.
Keywords: Papyri, dating, paleography, Nongbri, Nomina Sacra, Staurogram.
Full text found on Academia.edu
Full text found on Academia.edu
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the well reasoned argument. I believe this article along with Hurtado’s and even Clarysee’s evaluations should confirm the dating of P4 and the other early Papyri in the 2nd (P4) and 3rd (P75/P66/P46 et al).
Tim
Thank you, Tim, for this response. I think that the material that I have presented in this article does confirm that there was a carefully copied text over at least 150 years and more that is has been traditionally called "Alexandrian."
ReplyDeleteAn interesting article and angle, although of course it would be easiest to simply carbondate the manuscripts - only a few millimeters are needed these days, and the reluctance to scientifically date Christian texts must apparently have another cause.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, Traube argued for a Jewish origin to nomina sacra, which Paap resolutely rejected, well motivated via page 121 of his book; in short, Paap poses the very valid question why the NT does not inherit all nomina sacra that the OT has.
Yet if less means earlier, then the Nag Hammadi Library beats all Christian texts: only five nomina sacra present 'in toto', with Spirit taking pole position and an overwhelming 51%. 17% IS, 15% XS, 11% Saviour and 2% ⲥ⳨ⲟⲥ - only 3 of the latter 14 have a superlinear and only 1 is covered in full.
https://works.hcommons.org/records/0t52k-1rf10 contains the complete inventory, with the diplomatic line for each, including leaf and line number for every single one
An observation must be made, and that is that neither ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅ or ⲓⲥ̅ can be considered "abbreviations", as we don't have any plene form prior to the abundant presence of the short forms. Regarding ⲭⲣ̅ⲥ̅ and ⲭⲥ̅ the case is different, as there are a handful of NHL texts that do contain solely the plene form, and they are highly likely to be earlier than the rest. From the abstract:
This paper provides an overview of all occurrences ofthe ligatures for “Jesus” and “Christ” that are present in the Nag Hammadi Library, including their variants and all their different forms: ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅, ⲓⲥ̅, ⲭⲣ̅ⲥ̅, ⲭⲥ̅, ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ and ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ, yet most importantly also ‘Good’ and ‘Goodness’:ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ and ⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ, as well as the creative versions of the latter, namely ⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲭⲣ̅ⲥ and ⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲭⲥ̅; a combined total of 386. Just as in the Greek and Latin tradition, ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ doesn’t exist at all in any text
Peter Rodgers replies: Dear Martijn, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will have to look more closely at the Nomina Sacra in Coptic. In the Latin texts only a few Nomina Sacra are used, and this may reflect the state of affairs at the point (late second century) when the New Testament was first translated into Latin. The system did not then add words, as we find in the 3rd century Greek papyri. And if Peter Lorenz is correct that the Greek of Codex Bezel was influenced by the Latin NT, this would explain why Bezel has fewer Nomina Sacra.
ReplyDelete03, 01, and later manuscripts tend to avoid using nomina sacra for non-sacred entities. Thus evil spirits and Jesuses other than the saviour are written in full. Earlier manuscripts do not tend to distinguish between the sacred and non-sacred (perhaps we should stop using the term "nomina sacra"). Anyway, Tommy Wasserman showed that the first hand of P4 wrote Joshua/Jesus in Luke 3:29 as the nomen sacrum IY. Alexandrinus, interestingly, has ΙΩΣΗ. This likely shows that a scribe, wanting to write the name in full, had read the nomen sacrum ΙΗ and wrongly deduced that it was a contracted form of Jose, rather than a suspended form of Jesus. So, use of nomina sacra for non-sacred things should be used as another indication of early date. Also, it is probable that ΙΗ was the earliest form of the nomen sacrum for Jesus.
ReplyDeleteHi Richard, my first two comments below were meant as a reply to you, apologies. Here is my final one:
DeleteP4 containing IS in Luke 3:29?
https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=20001|20002|20003|20004|20032|10004|10075&indexContent=luk.3.29&format=transtext&baseText=true says differently, as does the papyrus itself: https://images.csntm.org/IIIFServer.ashx/GA_P4/GA_P4_0004b.jpg/full/full/0/native.jpg
Like 4 from the bottom.
There's some scribbling to be discerned, but no sign of any superlinear - and that is impossible for this ligature. Yet the remainder of the line as well as the one above and below all fit with the default, and it's particularly difficult to view anything else here. Even though Wasserman also mistook P72 1 Pet 2:3 χ̅ρ̅ς̅ ο κ̅ς̅ for χ̅ρ̅ο̅ς̅ κ̅ς̅
(Papyrus 72 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex, page 153)
Lastly, ΙΗ is exceptionally rare and can only be a mistake, and it's highly unlikely to be the original form of the ligature
Nobody suggests that P4 had IS at Luke 3:29. I support Wasserman's finding that it is ΙΥ. Thanks for the high definition image. It seems that the scribe originally wrote IY and then continued with the next word TOY and then figured out that IYTOY is not an abbreviation of any name, so he did not put the overbar. He then repurposed the vertical strokes of the first Y and the T to make an H. He repurposed the O to make a C, and he wrote a small O over the badly erased second Y.
DeleteYou wrote, "Even though Wasserman also mistook P72 1 Pet 2:3 χ̅ρ̅ς̅ ο κ̅ς̅ for χ̅ρ̅ο̅ς̅ κ̅ς̅". This is ad hominem and irrelevant to the issue at hand. What is your agenda?
You wrote, "Lastly, ΙΗ is exceptionally rare and can only be a mistake, and it's highly unlikely to be the original form of the ligature". It occurs far too many times to be a mistake. Hurtado was correct in saying that it is the earliest form, and my observation about Alexandrinus supports this.
One objective fact does not an ad hominem make, Richard. I certainly don't like your tone, and will cease communication with you
DeleteActually, it was someone at CUP who messed up the Greek there when they were entering nomina sacra and switched the font. This article was published in my monograph where it is correct (and with the Gentium font that I used).
DeleteI have been checking the INTF-Transcriptions (ca. 1,5 Million Lines of ms-text).
Deleteιη (50; very often in P45)/ιης (546)/ιηυ (249; often in P46, 05)/ιην(130) indeed are rare (compared to ις = 55.801x, ιησους = 1041x).
So I would say: Yes, rare, very rare, but mistakes?
Thank you Jean! Very nice statistics.
DeleteI count 15 (5) instances of *ιη* in P45 Acts, 17 (6) in John, 17 (10) in Luke, 10 (5) in Mark and 10 (2) in Matthew; between parentheses are the real counts, the others are conjectures including lacunae - that puts the bulk of your count of 50 in one manuscript that dates to 3rd+ century, and is of dubious provenance alas
It would certainly be interesting to find out where the other 22 instances are located!
I didn't know P45 had these, by the way. Indeed hard to label this so unique nomen sacrum a mistake for that manuscript! I've never done research into this specific form, I've just hardly ever encountered it. Thanks for the info, very welcome
I must correct the 50 number: a detailed proof showed some “unclear” or conjectured instances (ιη[ν], ιη[λ], ιη[σ] etc.) ms 01 (Acts 13:24: scribal error with correction, look https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/modules/papyri/?site=INTF&image=20001/1285598/2150/10/651 col 3, line 11), 2206 (Mk 11:29; clearly corrected to ις : https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/modules/papyri/?site=INTF&image=32206/1285598/2360/10/1526 , 5th line from bottom).
DeleteP18 (Rev 1:5) has ιη (according to INTF-transcr and Comfort-Barrett).
At least one can say p45 witnesses ιη (supported by others having ιης, ιην).
Thanks again Jean.
Delete"At least one can say p45 witnesses ιη (supported by others having ιης, ιην)."
You must know about declension of nouns in Greek, I presume!
The latter two show the nominative and accusative of ιης; genitive and dative (an additional oddity is that these two are identical for this specific ligature) are ιηυ.
For the shortest form, the four declensions are ις, ιυ, ιυ, and ιν
Then there's a fifth form, for the vocative. Yet contrary to what would be expected this doesn't end in ε, but in υ: Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34, Luke 8:28, Luke 17:13, Luke 18:38, Luke 18:39, Luke 23:42, Acts 7:59, and Revelation 22:20 all use that form, see e.g. https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=20001|20002|20003|20004|20005&indexContent=Mark.1.24&format=transtext&baseText=true and note that it says either ι̅υ̅ or ι̅η̅υ̅ (and let's ignore the full Joshua in Vaticanus for now)
I always use 'plaintext' for INTF and yes, we must always search for all forms: ις ιυ ιν for the briefest short form, ιης ιηυ ιην for the longest (and earliest) short form
If I may summarise your refined search, then we have one occurrence of ιη in P18 and the 28 I identified in P45 - and that's all?
Merci bien
P18 for those without privileged access to INTF:
Deletehttps://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_P18
Line 6 from the top.
The papyrus is lacunose in that specific part, and the transcription thus reads και απ̣[ο] ι̅η̅ χ̅ρ̅ ο̣ μ̣αρτ̣υ̣ς ο πι for this line. Yet both ι̅η̅ as well as χ̅ρ̅ are an anomaly, and one would expect either ιυ χυ or ιηυ χρυ here.
Yet my interest in P45 most certainly is piqued
I counted 35 in P45, but you may I did this some time ago and I don't remember how strict I was being. IH is also in TM 61914, and also in the Frankfurt amulet which is dated 230-270. On the Frankfurt amulet see Timothy Mitchell's excellent blog post here: https://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-frankfurt-amulet-epistle-of.html Also, he has a recent discussion of Rogers' work, which he supports.
DeleteAs I mentioned, Alexandrinus at Luke 3:29 also witnesses to an earlier IH form.
Be sure to read Larry Hurtado's article where he argues that IH was the first form. Also check his discussion on his blog. He pointed out there that IH is used in some early Christian non-NT texts.
In Papyri Info https://papyri.info/ddbdp/sb;14;11532 there is a private letter, dated probably early IV, with Ιη !
DeleteThat’s the only ΙΗ I found in the Papyri.info.
From my book:
ReplyDelete>>>
• 3rd-4th CE P. Oxy 407 (British Library Papyrus 1189, P. Lond.Lit. 230 descr., P.Oxy. III 407, (TM 64310), LDAB 5531, Van Haelst 0952), a mid-3rd to 4th CE Christian prayer says ιησου χρειστου (observe the deviating spelling there);
• Ἰησοῦς occurs 5 times in 4th CE Vaticanus (the line number points to the word Jesus):
▪ Mark 1:24 (folio 1278, middle column, line 17 from the bottom, demon addressing Jesus): τι ημιν και συ (sic) ιησου ναζαρηνε ηλθες (etc);
▪ Mark 5:7 (folio 1283, middle column, line 12 from the bottom, demon addressing Jesus): τι εμοι και σοι ιησου;
▪ Luke 3:29 (folio 1310, left column, line 18 from the bottom - referring to Joshua): του ιησου του ελιεζερ (etc);
▪ Matthew 1:21 (folio 1235, right column, line 4 from the bottom, angel addressing Joseph regarding Jesus’ name): καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου ιησουν;
▪ Colossians 4:11 (folio 1506, left column, line 15, referring to Justos): και ιησους ο λεγομενος ιουστος (etc) - and this is the default for every text and MS, and just noted for completeness’ sake;
• 4th CE Sinaiticus Mark 16:6, as stated earlier, says ιησουν (and in that same verse τον ναζαρηνον got inserted much later, as can be seen);
▪ Luke 3:29 refers to Joshua via ϊηϲου;
• 5th CE Bezae Acts 7:45 refers to Joshua via ιησουν (corrected into ιησου later);
and that indeed implies that all other MSS have the short form here, in this particular case ι̅υ̅, as can be seen in e.g. Vaticanus (folio 1392, middle column, line 15);
<<<
As can be seen in Rahlfs 848 Deu 31:13, ιησους is the way that Joshua was written in Greek. Whenever that word appears in Christian texts, it is suggested that "Jesus" equates to Joshua of Nun. Read the manuscripts of Justin Martyr, they continuously interchange the two:
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 49, 1541 CE British Library Add MS 82951, folio 76v, line 6 from the top left page starts the diplomatic transcription:
Καὶ ὁ Τρύφων· Καὶ τοῦτο παράδο ξον λέγειν μοι δοκεῖς, ὅτι τὸ ἐν Ἠλίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ γενόμενον προφητικὸν πνεῦμα καὶ ἐν Ἰωάννῃ γέγονε. Κἀγὼ πρὸς ταῦτα· Οὐ δοκεῖ σοι ἐπὶ Ἰῦ, τὸν τοῦ Ναυῆ, τὸν δι αδεξάμενον τὴν λαοηγησίαν μετὰ Μωυσέα, τὸ αὐτὸ
(Etc. I doubt that the British Library will ever recover, by the way - it's been well over two years now)
With regards to "use of nomina sacra for non-sacred things should be used as another indication of early date" I again just point to the NHL, as they contains many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of "mystical names" such as e g.
ReplyDeleteGospel of the Egyptians
63:14 [ⲇ̅ⲁ̅ⲩ̅ⲉ̅ⲓ̅ⲑ̅ⲉ̅˙] ⲏ̅ⲗ̅ⲏ̅ⲗ̅ⲏ̅[ⲑ̅] ⲙ̅ⲛ̅ ⲡ[ⲓⲛⲟϭ]
64:6 [ⲫⲱⲥ]ⲧⲏⲣ ⲇ̣̅ⲁ̅ⲩ̅ⲉ̅ⲓ̅ⲑ̅ⲉ̅ ˙ ⲧⲉⲥⲃ̣[ⲱ]
64:21 ⲇ̅ⲁ̅ⲩ̅ⲉ̅ⲓ̅ⲑ̅ⲉ̅ ˙ ⲁ̅ⲃ̅ⲣ̅ⲁ̅ⲥ̅ⲁ̅ⲝ̅ ⲙ̣̅[ⲡⲓⲛⲟϭ]
68:5 [ⲇ̅ⲁ̅ⲩ̅ⲉ̅ⲓ̅]ⲑ̅ⲉ̣̅ [ⲁⲗⲗⲁ] ⲙ̅ⲛ̅ⲛ̅ⲥⲁ ϯⲟⲩ ⲛ̅-
77:16 ⲡⲓⲙⲉϩϣⲟⲙⲉⲧ' ⲇ̣[ⲁ̅ⲩ̅ⲉ̅ⲓ̅ⲑ̅ⲉ̅ ⲡⲓⲙⲁ]
Codex VIII Zostrianos
29:9 ϣⲟⲙⲧ' ⲛϭⲓ ⲇⲁⲩ̣̣ⲉⲓⲑⲉ ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲱⲣϩ ⲛ-
51:18 [ⲱ̅ⲣ̅ⲟ̅ⲓ̅̈ⲁ̅]ⲏ̅ⲗ̅ ⲛ̅ⲇ̅ⲁ̅ⲩ̅ⲉ̅ⲓ̅ⲑ̅ⲉ̅˙ ⲏ̅ⲗ̅ⲏ̅ⲗ̣̅ⲏ̅ⲑ̅˙
128:3 ⲇ̅ⲁ̅ⲩ̅ⲉ̅ⲓ̅ⲑ̅ⲉ̅˙ ⲗ̅ⲁ̅ⲣ̅ⲁ̅ⲛ̅ⲉ̅ⲩ̅ⲥ̅˙ ⲉ̅ⲡ̅ⲓ̅ⲫ̅ⲁ̅-
Codex IX
Melchizedek
6:4 ⲁ̅ⲣ̅ⲙ̅ⲟ̅ⲍ̅ⲏ̅ⲗ̅˙ ⲟ̅ⲣ̅ⲱ̅ⲓ̅̈ⲁ̅ⲏ̅ⲗ̅˙ ⲇ̅ⲁ̅ⲩ̅[ⲉ̅ⲓ̅ⲑ̅ⲉ̅]
From the paper I mentioned earlier.
I concur with your suggestion by the way, and call these "ligatures" as the letters are connected by the superlinears. We really should refrain from using Latin words for early Christian phenomena anyway, as is the case with Septuagint for instance: it is so obviously anachronistic to begin with
Peter Rodgers: Nomina Sacra, a term coined by Traub, remains useful but there my be some value in exploring the distinction Nomina Sacra/Nomina Divina.
DeleteComment split because of length: this is 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteMy second and third comment were meant as replies to Richard Fellows, by the way - it was difficult to distinguish between a regular Reply and one to his comment, from my mobile.
Being on mobile also postponed me presenting the results for Jesus/Joshua in Codex Sinaiticus, the best publicly available exemplar for verifying a Christian mansucript that contains both NT as well as "OT" (I really dislike using even that abbreviation here and prefer labelling it Christian LXX instead), even though Sinaiticus misses half of the latter "due to wear and tear" so to say.
What follows are all occurences of the ligature for IS in the Christian LXX, conjugated or not, including lacunae notations and corrections. There are many dozens of occurrences for the plene ιηϲουϲ in the Christian LXX, which obviously can only refer to Joshua - I haven't verified any of those
JOSH 12:6 [και] [ε]δω̣[κεν] [α]υ̣[την] [ιϲ] τ̣αιϲ φυ̣[λα]ιϲ [ι][η]λ̣ <-- this portion is extremely lacunose, and I have selected merely the part where "Joshua gave the land to the tribes of Israel"
JOSH 13:1 και ιϲ πρεϲβυτεροϲ προβεβηκωϲ ημερω[n] · και ειπεν κϲ προϲ ιν · ϲυ προβεβηκαϲ τω[n] ημερων · και η γη ϋπολειπεται πολλη ει̣ϲ κληρονομιαν
HAG 1:1 εν τω δευτερω ετει επι δαριου του βαϲιλεωϲ · εν τω μηνι τω εκτω · μια του μηνοϲ · εγενετο λογοϲ κυ εν {ORIG:χιρι}{CORR:"cb3":χειρι} αγγεου του προφητου {ORIG:λεγω[n]}{CORR:"ca":λεγω[n]} · ειπον προϲ ζοροβαβελʼ τον του ϲαλαθιηλʼ εκ φυληϲ {DIAE:ι}ουδα · και προϲ ιν τον του ϊωϲεδεκ τον ϊερεα τον μεγαν λεγων ·
HAG 1:12 και ηκουϲεν ζοροβαβελʼ ο του ϲαλαθιηλʼ εκ φυληϲ ϊουδα ˙ και ιϲ ο του ϊωϲεδεκʼ ὁ ϊερευϲ
ZECH 3:1 και εδιξεν μοι κϲ τον ιν τον ϊερεα τον μεγαν · εϲτωτα προ προϲωπου αγγελου κυ · και ο διαβολοϲ {ORIG:ϊϲτηκι}{CORR:"cb3":ϊϲτηκει} εκ δεξιων αυτου · του {ORIG:αντικιϲθα}{CORR:"B":αντικιϲθαι}{CORR:"cb3":αντικειϲθαι} αυτω ·
SIR 43:23 λογιϲμω αυτου · εκοπαϲεν {ORIG:αβυϲϲο[n]}{CORR:"ca":αβυϲϲοϲ} · και εφυτευϲεν αυτην ιϲ ·
SIR 46:1 κραταιοϲ εν πολεμω . {ORIG:ιϲ ο}{CORR:"ca":ιϲ ο του} ναυη · και διαδοχοϲ μω{DIAE:υ}ϲη . εν προφητειαιϲ ˙ {ORIG:οϲ}{CORR:"cc":ὁϲ} εγενετο κατα το ονομα αυτου ˙ μεγαϲ επι ϲωτηρια εκλεκτων αυτου · εκδικηϲαι · επεγειρομενουϲ εχθρουϲ · οπωϲ κατακληρονομηϲη τον ιϲλ ·
Comment split because of length: this is 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteAll of these are theologically motivated, and incredibly careless and superficial, attempts to equate the protagonist of the NT with Joshua (of Nun), regardless of the fact that such is a blatant anachronism.
Sirach 43:23? λογισμῷ αὐτοῦ ἐκόπασεν ἄβυσσον καὶ ἐφύτευσεν ἐν αὐτῇ νήσους is what that originally says in the Greek - some eager scribe mistook the last word for ιηϲουϲ, and abbreviated it. The result is unintelligible, but it is evident that not all scribes were literate in Greek; or rather, there were evidently quite some illiterate ones
In case one wonders about the ligature for the protagonist of the NT (IS) being present in the Christian LXX, one likely is also unaware of the fact that the other ligature also is present there, namely XS - again introducing a blatant anachronism. Yet that is not an exception, but the very rule: in fact, only 5 times is the usually associated word χριστός written in full in *all of Sinaiticus*, and dozens of times do we encounter XS in the Christian LXX where the Hebrew bible has the word mashiach: (concise results)
Leviticus 21:12 το χριϲτον του
Habakkuk 3:13 τον χριϲτον ϲου
1 Chronicles 16:22 χρειϲτων
Psalms 104:15 των χρειϲτων
Revelation 12:10 του χριϲτου
Anywhere else in Sinaiticus where one would expect to find "Anointed", the ligature XS is present. Interestingly, when we converge to the Latin tradition, taking the Vulgate / 400 CE as milestone, we even see how great corrections are carried through; where Sinaiticus for example has an XS marked in Lev 4:5, Lev 4:16, Lev 6:22, Lev 21:10, Lev 21:12, the Vulgate drops these entirely - likely becasue they had become aware that those particular passages concern priests, not kings.
So we also cannot simply assume that absence or presence of a ligature is a definitive sign of anything, as major theological redactions are the initial (and final) driver to them all. Still, it is a helpful aid in discerning between early and late source texts, albeit a fairly crude one
The aggressive and careless markings by Christians, replacing every possible occurrence of any Joshua by 'IS', as well as replacing every possible occurrence of any original 'mashiach' by 'XS' gradually iron out throughout the centuries. That is not a value judgment, but an objective observation - observe for instance the following in, again, Sinaiticus:
Psalms 68:18 (69:17) treats ταχὺ in ὅτι θλίβομαι, ταχὺ ἐπάκουσόν μου (for I-am-pressed, quickly listen-to me) as two words and marks χυ with a superlinear
Aplogies for this so grand distraction - but a great number of common assumptions, many of those spread by Hurtado, is simply completely wrong
Peter, In your table you have some words 'inconsistently' capitalized. Is that to indicate difference between sacred and non-sacred uses of the word? Only I see no cases where you have both capitalized and non-capitalized versions of the word, which seem odd, particularly in cases like Sinaiticus where you have 'spirit', but not 'Spirit'. Is there no cases where 'Spirit' in the sacred case is treated as a nomina sacra?
ReplyDeletePeter Rodgers reply: Thanks for this observation. The capital/non-captital inconsistency is my carelessness, but in noticing it you have raised an interesting issue of sacred vs. non-sacred use of a word. Thank you.
DeleteI don't know why I wasn't logged in when I maked the previous comment...
DeleteAnyway I noticed this because I was wondering if it were useful to order the Nomina Sacra someone more formally (say by frequency of presence in all manuscript). That would allow you to see any specific progressions. It might also be useful to know if a particular nomina sacra is missing because the word it represents is missing from the manuscript (particularly for fragmentary manuscripts).
These may be two rookie comments, but
ReplyDeletea) can we assume everyone was in lock step on abbreviations?
b) can we assume later Coptic texts are diagnostic for Greek ones?
Peter Rodgers reply: Stephen, Two good and interesting questions. 1) amid the discernible variety in the use of Nomina Sacra there seems to be a significant conformity (I think Colin Roberts made this point in Manuscript Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt.)
Delete2) After the New Testament was translated in to coptic(3 rd century?) the Coptic tradition probably followed its own trajectory, but I am not sifficiently familiar with the coptic NT tradition to say for sure.
Again, Very good questions.
1. Koptische Nomina sacra.
DeleteDie Eigenheiten der koptischen Paläographie dürfen wir als im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. entstanden und mit der Entwickelung einer nationalen christlich-ägyptischen Literatur verknüpft denken. Von den vorhandenen Handschriften - durch die fortgesetzten Funde und Grabungen treten beständig neue ans Licht - reichen die ältesten ins 4. Jahrhundert zurück. Von da an bis etwa zum 6. Jahrhundert und gelegentlich auch später mag zwischen koptischer und ägyptisch-griechischer Art noch ein gewisser Ausgleich stattgefunden haben. Immerhin gibt uns gerade die Beschaffenheit der Kurzformen ein Anrecht, die nachträglichen Einflüsse der griechischen Schreiber auf die koptischen für gering zu erachten gegenüber der früh erfolgten unmittelbaren Übernahme.
1. Coptic nomina sacra.
We can consider the peculiarities of Coptic paleography to have originated in the 3rd century AD and to be linked to the development of a national Christian-Egyptian literature. Of the existing manuscripts—new ones are constantly coming to light through ongoing discoveries and excavations—the oldest date back to the 4th century. From then until around the 6th century, and occasionally even later, there may have been a certain balance between the Coptic and Egyptian-Greek styles. Nevertheless, the nature of the short forms gives us reason to consider the subsequent influence of Greek scribes on Coptic scribes to be minor compared to the early direct adoption.
Traube, page 269
And Traube continues, which is confirmed by all of the NHL which he naturally was unaware of. From the book:
DeleteTraube himself mentions (page 270) that father, heaven, man, son and mother aren’t considered nomina sacra in Coptic by declaring (footnote references left intact) ‘Es fehlen im Koptischen die Kurzformen für πατήρ, οὐρανός, ἄνθρωπος1), υἱός2), μήτηρ3)’. Paap also makes a passing comment (page 120) that ‘to the Copts contractions of πατήρ, οὐρανός, ἄνθρωπος, υἱός and μήτηρ are unknown.’, likely merely citing Traube.
Traube notes that additions for God and Lord aren't copied verbatim from Greek yet exist, "from old", as ⲫ̅ⲧ̅ and ϫ̅ⲥ̅ or ϭ̅ⲥ̅.
Both forms never occur even once in all of the NHL
So yes, Stephen, you can assume that yet reality contradicts all it ;-)
Quick question (not yet read the article, so apologies if this was answered): does the use of certain nomina sacra necessarily mean that the manuscript in question should be of an early date, or rather that it was copied from an earlier manuscript which had yet to be altered to include more nomina sacra than would later come to be in use in Christendom? One thing to add: I find it fascinating that numerous Latin manuscripts use IHS rather than IES as the contraction for Ἰησοῦς/Iesus, as a direct copy of the form in Greek manuscripts. Do we have any Latin manuscripts which use either IH or just IS (among the other case contractions)? I'll get on with reading the article now :D
ReplyDeleteStephen, Of course, it is possible for a later manuscript to faithfully represent elements from an earlier exemplar. Minuscule 1739 is an important example. Also, Traub's pioneering study has a section on Nomina Sacra in the Latin manuscripts, which gives details of abbreviation/suspension of the fewer words so treated in that tradition.. Peter Rodgers
DeleteTbh, I don't this works at all. Following this logic, how would you date Vaticanus?!?!
ReplyDeleteVaticanus has been reliably dated to the mid fourth century. Peter Rodgers
Deletewell of course, but its system is more conservative than that of some of the (in my view) third-century papyri. What's your explanation for that?
DeletePeter Rodgers replies: My own observation is that the Greek Nomina Sacra were expanded in the third century, with unusual forms added toward the end of that century (eg. P72) and that there was a more disciplined or conservative approach in the fourth century. The coptic tradition may have followed a different trajectory. The Latin tradition was kept at the level at which the translation was first made (late second century).
DeleteThe Gothic Bible (Ms Cod. Argenteus early VI CE, text probably early III CE) has only NS for Jesus and God. No other NS.
DeleteKurzgeschrieben werden in den gotischen Handschriften die Worte für: Gott, Herr, Jesus, Christus.
DeleteTraube, page 271
The Gothic translation contracts the renderings of θεος, κυριος, Ιησους and χριστος, but the words for πατηρ and πνευμα are always in full.
Paap, page 120
I had to rewrite the Greek; too lazy to indicate diacritics, sorry
I stand corrected!
DeleteThe NS in Gothic are not very present, since the Editions (Streitberg, Bernhardt, Massmann, Stamm-Heine, Snaedal) all solve them.
But the Cod.Argenteus-Transcript by David Landau has them all (https://www.modeemi.fi/~david/Codex_Argenteus/contents.html).
Comment split due to length: 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteMy earlier comment about *ιη* being a mistake is perfectly demonstrated by P45, as it uses the alleged nomen sacrum *ιη* for everything - without declension.
Observe the following verses from Luke:
Luke 9:33 ειπεν ο πετρος προς τον *ιη* (accusative)
Luke 9:36 και εγενετο εν τωι γενεσθαι την φωνην [ευ]ρεθη *ιη* μονος και εσειγησαν (nominative)
Luke 10:39 (18)[κ]α̣ι̣ τ̣η̣ιδε ην αδελφη καλουμενη μαρια και παρακαθισ̣α̣σα [π]α̣ρα τους ποδας του *ιη* ηκουσεν τον λογον αυτου (genitive)
Luke 13:11 ασθενειας ετη *ιη* και η[ν] [συγ]κ̣υ̣π̣του̣[σ]α και μη δυναμενη ανακυψαι εις το παντελες (*ιη* represents δεκαοκτὼ, the number 18, which corresponds to the numerical value which those two letters represent)
Luke 13:16 ταυτην δε θυγατε[ρ]α [α]β̣ρααμ ουσαν ην εδησεν ο σατανας [ι]δου *ιη* ετη ουκ εδει λυθη[ν]α̣ι απο του δεσμου τουτου τηι ημερα του σ̣αββατου (likewise, 18)
In the last two samples, *ιη* indeed represents merely a numerical, 18 - the letters represent their order in the alphabet and as such correspond to numbers (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals)
We can hardly ever tell what motivated a writer to compose a text exactly like it is, but P45 would seem to be some kind of homage to the number 18. Strictly from a grammatical point of view, the use of exactly this form in the verses where we are used to see Jesus in English is plain incorrect, and it is telling that this exact form persists throughout without change, even though I have only checked Luke. Again I would very much like to thank Jean for this find, as it is a highly anomalous phenomenon, and all 28 instances that we can see in the text itself (encompassing its entirety, not just Luke) are identical. There certainly is a deeper meaning behind the - stubborn - use of this form throughout, and I am certain that a thorough study of P45's provenance will disclose something remarkable. Please do note that I was wholly unfamiliar with it until this week! But the simple bean count I provided of 28 instances of *ιη* in P45, as an alleged nomen sacrum for Jesus, is already down by 2 as a result of this little exercise
Comment split due to length: 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteNow I couldn't help overhearing that Alexandrinus would also employ this form in Luke 3:29, which I naturally followed up - and found to be untrue.
INTF already demonstrates that (https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=20001|20002|20003|20004|20005&indexContent=Luke.3.29&format=transtext&baseText=true) but what does the manuscript really show? (I absolutely rely on, and trust, INTF under any and all circumstances - but let's just, for argument's sake, verify the manuscript shall we?)
Observe https://images.csntm.org/IIIFServer.ashx/GA_02/GA_02_0650b.jpg/full/full/0/native.jpg - τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ τοῦ Ἰωρεὶμ τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευε is Luke 3:29 in the NT as we know it yet it's different here: του ιωση του ελιεζερ· του ιωρειμ· του ματταθ· του λευει. That starts on the column to the right, line 17 from the top:
του ιωση του ελιεζερ·
του ιωρειμ· του ματταθ·
του λευει
No ιη at all to be seen, but indeed ιωση.
When we consult Bezae, that so very (very) odd one out which contains a completely different lineage even from this one, we find the following on line 28:
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/371
του ιωσεια
and in the Latin on the next page:
qui fuit iosia
Hosea. Argued to be Joshua, according to Num 13:16, and quite a few Patristics. And again we find that Joshua gets equated to "Jesus", a name that doesn't exist in any of the NT until the Latin tradition invents that name as different from Joshua - although continuing the habit of using a nomen sacrum for the protagonist of the NT on most if not all occasions save for rare exceptions
In related news, I use "IS" as a shorthand for "the nomen sacrum used to name the protagonist of the NT" which comes in many exact literal manuscript forms in the Coptic, Greek and Latin tradition - and I am ignorant of e.g. Gothic, Armenian, Syriac, and then some. Evidently and obviously I am very well aware (I think I am making myself clear here, I hope) that Greek, like Latin, uses declensions for nouns - unlike Coptic! - as I have been taught at Grammar School
Martijn, you misunderstood my comment. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Alexandrinus has ιωση where the other manuscripts have Jesus at Luke 3:29. It seems that a manuscript had ιη, the early suspended form of the name Jesus. A scribe misunderstood this suspended form and assumed that it was a contracted form of the name ιωση. Thus, Alexandrinus, while it does not have ιη here, witnesses to an earlier manuscript that did have ιη for Jesus. Have you read Larry Hurtado's article that argues that ιη was likely the earliest of all the nomina sacra?
Delete