New article by Peter Rodgers in Filologia Neotestamentaria, XXXVIII, 2025
P75 and P4 Reconsidered
PETER R. RODGERS
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
DeleteFrom 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