My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8886
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:23 pm

Jax wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:54 pm
Interesting reading Ben. Just a few questions if you don't mind.

For simplicity I will just concentrate on the name Iesos.
Does it seem that the nomina sacra for Iesos was first contracted or written by suspension?
I am not sure which of these (contraction or suspension) came absolutely first, but suspension was far more common in the early going than it eventually became. So maybe it was suspension? Barnabas 9.8 might argue for that, and suspension was also more common in secular Greek abbreviations.
In the Hertado link in note 15 he writes "Roberts described exceptions known to him as three prayer texts, three magical
texts, and two amulets, and a ‘medical miscellany written for private use’
(Manuscript, 37–39). Tuckett (‘P52’, 546 n. 11) cites P. Oxy. 407 (erroneously
given by Tuckett as P. Oxy. 405), a ‘prayer text,’ as having no abbreviated forms
of Ιησους, χριστος, or θεος, which appears to be one of those already mentioned
by Roberts. It is worth noting that all of these manuscripts are copies of texts that
do not form part of the emergent canon of Old Testament or New Testament. So,
an actual instance of a copy of such a text in which unabbreviated forms of these
key words were used would be a notable exception."
I am under the impression that these texts are 4th century and up. Do we have any texts from earlier centuries that have Iesos written in full?
We have early texts which have the name of the Hebrew hero Joshua/Jesus written in full. It is unclear when the first instance of the name of Jesus the Son of God being written in full is. Arguments have been made, based on line length, that it could be as early as Rylands 457 (Ƿ52), but the word falls in a lacuna, so it is a matter of estimation and not observation.

Interestingly, Chester Beatty VI (from century II) has the name of the Hebrew hero Joshua/Jesus written both as a nomen sacrum (Numbers 26.65; 32.12) and in full (Deuteronomy 3.28).
What about the early church fathers? Did they only use the nomina sacra?
Hard to tell, since their manuscripts may have been transcribed with the nomina sacra after having been penned without them. It is certain that Barnabas knows of the nomen sacrum ΙΗ (the suspended form) for Jesus, since his argument in Barnabas 9.8 explicitly depends upon it.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by Jax » Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:21 am

Oh well. Yet another dead end.

Thank you for your replies Ben.

Lane

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8886
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:25 am

Jax wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:21 am
Oh well. Yet another dead end.

Thank you for your replies Ben.
No problem. What were you going for?

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by mlinssen » Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:28 am

Jax wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:21 am
Oh well. Yet another dead end.

Thank you for your replies Ben.

Lane
It's funny how, with so many dead ends, people still believe there is something alive about the entire fable of nomina sacra

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by Jax » Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:05 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:25 am
Jax wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:21 am
Oh well. Yet another dead end.

Thank you for your replies Ben.
No problem. What were you going for?
If the earliest forms of the nomina sacra IS, IU, IN were pre the suspensions IE, IES etc then a case could have been made that the name didn't necessarily have to be Iesos and could have been any name that started with an I in Greek.

I find it interesting that apparently the name known to the early Muslims was Isa which is just IS with a slapped on to make it conform to naming conventions and I think That Marcion though the name was Isu almost as though they had no idea what the actual name really was and were just going off of the NS alone even at that early stage of Christianity.

A pet theory of mine is that if Paul were writing at a much earlier stage than currently accepted then it might make more sense if he was actually writing about Julius Caesar being the savior/Messiah to his Roman/Greek audiences as Caesar was recently deified and insanely popular with these groups. Over time the cult languished and someone, much later, found the letters of Paul in a chest somewhere but as Paul only used the Greek contractions for Iulius whoever found the letters had no way of knowing what the name actually was.

If indeed Paul wrote that he was Jewish in his letters the person or persons who edited the letters may have gone on a fishing expedition through the LXX looking for an appropriate name and what better than YHWH saves?

Oh well, just another failed attempt to place Paul earlier.

Nothing to see here.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8886
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:07 am

mlinssen wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:28 am
It's funny how, with so many dead ends, people still believe there is something alive about the entire fable of nomina sacra
What do you think is going on, then, with ΘΣ, ΘΥ, ΘΩ, ΘΝ; ΚΣ, ΚΥ, ΚΩ, ΚΝ; ΧΣ, ΧΥ, ΧΩ, ΧΝ; ΙΣ, ΙΗ, ΙΥ, and ΙΝ (among others) appearing all over the early manuscripts, almost always with an overstroke? ΘΣ appears where we would expect θεός, ΘΥ where we would expect θεοῦ, ΘΩ where we would expect θεῷ, and ΘΝ where we would expect θεόν; ΚΣ appears where we would expect κύριος, ΚΥ or ΚΟΥ where we would expect κυρίου, ΚΩ where we would expect κυρίῳ, and ΚΝ where we would expect κύριον; ΧΣ or ΧΡΣ appears where we would expect Χριστός, ΧΥ or ΧΡΥ where we would expect Χριστοῦ, ΧΩ where we would expect Χριστῷ, and ΧΝ or ΧΡΝ where we would expect Χριστόν; ΙΣ or ΙΗΣ appears where we would expect Ἰησοῦς, ΙΥ where we would expect Ἰησοῦ, and ΙΝ appears where we would expect Ἰησοῦν. (Imagine all of these with an overstroke.) Other words (Father, Spirit, Israel, and so on) often follow suit, albeit less consistently than these four. What is your explanation for this phenomenon? I am still in the dark about that.

For example, when we were discussing the Epistle of Barnabas, you reached a dead end when you learned that Barnabas has ΙΝ where you expected something else. The system of nomina sacra explains Barnabas on this point fully and trivially. How do you explain him, and all of the other instances of these collocations of Greek letters, without reference to that system?

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by mlinssen » Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:47 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:07 am
mlinssen wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:28 am
It's funny how, with so many dead ends, people still believe there is something alive about the entire fable of nomina sacra
What do you think is going on, then, with ΘΣ, ΘΥ, ΘΩ, ΘΝ; ΚΣ, ΚΥ, ΚΩ, ΚΝ; ΧΣ, ΧΥ, ΧΩ, ΧΝ; ΙΣ, ΙΗ, ΙΥ, and ΙΝ (among others) appearing all over the early manuscripts, almost always with an overstroke? ΘΣ appears where we would expect θεός, ΘΥ where we would expect θεοῦ, ΘΩ where we would expect θεῷ, and ΘΝ where we would expect θεόν; ΚΣ appears where we would expect κύριος, ΚΥ or ΚΟΥ where we would expect κυρίου, ΚΩ where we would expect κυρίῳ, and ΚΝ where we would expect κύριον; ΧΣ or ΧΡΣ appears where we would expect Χριστός, ΧΥ or ΧΡΥ where we would expect Χριστοῦ, ΧΩ where we would expect Χριστῷ, and ΧΝ or ΧΡΝ where we would expect Χριστόν; ΙΣ or ΙΗΣ appears where we would expect Ἰησοῦς, ΙΥ where we would expect Ἰησοῦ, and ΙΝ appears where we would expect Ἰησοῦν. (Imagine all of these with an overstroke.) Other words (Father, Spirit, Israel, and so on) often follow suit, albeit less consistently than these four. What is your explanation for this phenomenon? I am still in the dark about that.

For example, when we were discussing the Epistle of Barnabas, you reached a dead end when you learned that Barnabas has ΙΝ where you expected something else. The system of nomina sacra explains Barnabas on this point fully and trivially. How do you explain him, and all of the other instances of these collocations of Greek letters, without reference to that system?
First of all, I didn't expect anything from Barnabas, had never even heard of them.
Second of all, the wild variations only show that there were no rules, there was no plan, no tradition, no nothing. People just tried to imitate the one single example that stood lonely at the top, and which puzzled them greatly, which was mindboggling beyond belief: Ι(Η)Σ with superlinears

So people guessed, and guessed half wrong and half right. They took it for an abbreviation and started to abbreviate "words on similar plains", again according to no plan whatsoever

So we do have ΚΣ appears where we would expect κύριος, ΚΥ or ΚΟΥ where we would expect κυρίου, ΚΩ where we would expect κυρίῳ, and ΚΝ where we would expect κύριον.
We do have ΘΣ appears where we would expect θεός, ΘΥ where we would expect θεοῦ, ΘΩ where we would expect θεῷ, and ΘΝ where we would expect θεόν.
And we do have other words (Father, Spirit, Israel, and so on) often follow suit, albeit less consistently than these four

We do, and when we look at all those, and all their variations, it it clear to all that the vast majority, if not all, of all that, was an attempt at abbreviation. We can debate about it and nitpick about it, but let's screw the details and agree on the fact that scribes tried hard to form (their own) abbreviations of "words like that"

Why? Not to save space, that is ridiculous. I dig the benefit for reducing KURIOS to KS, but abbreviating θεός? That's rubbish, there must have been another reason and that reason must have weighed more than saving space. I won't take saving space entirely out of the equation, but it certainly doesn't come in first place, perhaps not even in third.
So we have something to solve there

Now what about the superlinears? I would love it if all or most letters were covered by it, because you confuse the hell out of people once you start to seemingly create new words by shortening them, and it would be very nice to let your buddies know what you've been up to by neatly indicating that seemingly new word by covering all of it, for example with a superlinear.
And the funny thing about a superlinear is that it doesn't take up space - but that is entirely unrelated to space saving in the sense that I just talked about.
But you and I have seen our share of chiselled Latin and Greek and all possible abbreviations used under those circumstances, and it would surprise me if the superlinear suddenly eas used to mark abbreviations.
So we have something to solve there

Then, finally, and completely separate from all this, we have Ι(Η)Σ with(out) superlinears although I would really love to see how those evolved.
I am willing to bet that most every document until 300 CE has Ι(Η)Σ, and my thesis is that that is exactly the form that it came "to us". It all started with text, and the bloody text said just that: Ι(Η)Σ with superlinears

And nobody could make sense of that, but once you talk about the text then you have to pronounce it and nobody can pronounce that without saying something like "EE-yes" (having a pathetic go at something phonetic here).
Now, the Law of the Emperor's Clothes says that people don't want to let down their shield and show their ignorance, so they just copied the text and imitated what they saw. End of story, start of great confusion, although no one ever bothered to do some exact research

But the crux of the issue is that it consists of three aspects: 1) Ι(Η)Σ with(out) superlinears versus the rest, 2) the rest, and 3) the superlinears.
It really is not a complicated or even complex problem:
  • it is evident that all words but Ι(Η)Σ existed long before that as full words
  • it is clear that the word forms you have given here are abbreviations of that
  • it is clear that saving space was not a particular clear benefit of it all
  • it is clear that all those words "belong to the same plain"
  • it is clear that no one has ever come up with solid research on the superlinears although it is clear that they existed in Coptic long before, and were also used in Greek but only for counting
  • it is clear that no one has ever come up with a longer version of Ι(Η)Σ earlier than 250 / 300, let alone before 0 Ce (or 150 CE for that matter)
  • it is absolutely clear that Ι(Η)Σ is the very original form, but no "biblical scholar" wants to embrace that fact even though it is undeniable
  • it is clear that everything around the so-called nomina sacra is deliberately being kept obfuscated in order to prevent everyone from knowing that the alleged Jesus started out as a written thing, as some unintelligible Ι(Η)Σ
There. My 2 cents

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8886
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:10 am

mlinssen wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:47 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:07 am
mlinssen wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:28 am
It's funny how, with so many dead ends, people still believe there is something alive about the entire fable of nomina sacra
What do you think is going on, then, with ΘΣ, ΘΥ, ΘΩ, ΘΝ; ΚΣ, ΚΥ, ΚΩ, ΚΝ; ΧΣ, ΧΥ, ΧΩ, ΧΝ; ΙΣ, ΙΗ, ΙΥ, and ΙΝ (among others) appearing all over the early manuscripts, almost always with an overstroke? ΘΣ appears where we would expect θεός, ΘΥ where we would expect θεοῦ, ΘΩ where we would expect θεῷ, and ΘΝ where we would expect θεόν; ΚΣ appears where we would expect κύριος, ΚΥ or ΚΟΥ where we would expect κυρίου, ΚΩ where we would expect κυρίῳ, and ΚΝ where we would expect κύριον; ΧΣ or ΧΡΣ appears where we would expect Χριστός, ΧΥ or ΧΡΥ where we would expect Χριστοῦ, ΧΩ where we would expect Χριστῷ, and ΧΝ or ΧΡΝ where we would expect Χριστόν; ΙΣ or ΙΗΣ appears where we would expect Ἰησοῦς, ΙΥ where we would expect Ἰησοῦ, and ΙΝ appears where we would expect Ἰησοῦν. (Imagine all of these with an overstroke.) Other words (Father, Spirit, Israel, and so on) often follow suit, albeit less consistently than these four. What is your explanation for this phenomenon? I am still in the dark about that.

For example, when we were discussing the Epistle of Barnabas, you reached a dead end when you learned that Barnabas has ΙΝ where you expected something else. The system of nomina sacra explains Barnabas on this point fully and trivially. How do you explain him, and all of the other instances of these collocations of Greek letters, without reference to that system?
First of all, I didn't expect anything from Barnabas, had never even heard of them.
To be fair, I was quoting your own words. You said that you hit a dead end. Yet, reading Barnabas by the system of nomina sacra, there is no dead end. It is all very clear what he is saying. I mean, nobody buys his numerology as actually signifying anything mystical about anything, but it is clear what he is doing.
Second of all, the wild variations only show that there were no rules, there was no plan, no tradition, no nothing. People just tried to imitate the one single example that stood lonely at the top, and which puzzled them greatly, which was mindboggling beyond belief: Ι(Η)Σ with superlinears
There is nothing puzzling about Ι(Η)Σ with a supralinear. It is clearly an abbreviation, and Greek texts did use supralinears to mark abbreviations.
Why? Not to save space, that is ridiculous.
As per my OP, I agree with you here. Saving space was probably not the primary (or even secondary or tertiary) issue.
But you and I have seen our share of chiselled Latin and Greek and all possible abbreviations used under those circumstances, and it would surprise me if the superlinear suddenly eas used to mark abbreviations.
I am not surprised at all, since Greek texts earlier than anything from our Christian scribes used supralinears to designate abbreviations, and every nomen sacrum makes natural sense as an abbreviation for its context, right down to the Greek declensional endings.
And nobody could make sense of that, but once you talk about the text then you have to pronounce it and nobody can pronounce that without saying something like "EE-yes" (having a pathetic go at something phonetic here).
Probably our earliest example of the nomina sacra is found in Chester Beatty VI. In that manuscript, the name of the Hebrew hero Joshua/Jesus/Ἰησοῦς is found both in full and abbreviated as ΙΣ and ΙΗΣ (both with overstrokes). This scribe obviously made sense of it; he understood ΙΣ and ΙΗΣ as acceptable abbreviations for Ἰησοῦς.
But the crux of the issue is that it consists of three aspects: 1) Ι(Η)Σ with(out) superlinears versus the rest, 2) the rest, and 3) the superlinears.
It really is not a complicated or even complex problem:

it is evident that all words but Ι(Η)Σ existed long before that as full words
Ἰησοῦς, too, existed as a word before any of our manuscripts start showing up with the nomina sacra. There is no historical difference between θεός and ΘΣ, on the one hand, and Ἰησοῦς and ΙΣ, on the other. In both cases, the full word/name is attested before the abbreviation.
it is clear that no one has ever come up with solid research on the superlinears although it is clear that they existed in Coptic long before, and were also used in Greek but only for counting
They were also used in Greek for abbreviations. Also, what is the purpose of the supralinear stroke over ΙΣ in Coptic? What function does it serve in Coptic?

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by mlinssen » Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:04 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:10 am
To be fair, I was quoting your own words. You said that you hit a dead end. Yet, reading Barnabas by the system of nomina sacra, there is no dead end. It is all very clear what he is saying. I mean, nobody buys his numerology as actually signifying anything mystical about anything, but it is clear what he is doing.
You did quote me, but out of context - I had hit a dead end trying to make sense of the 318, and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3149&p=114502#p114516 conveys that:
mlinssen wrote:
Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:15 pm
Yes, dead end there. Back to Barnabas and his impossible math of 18 and 300 having anything to do with IN, which is 10 and 50...
...
Second of all, the wild variations only show that there were no rules, there was no plan, no tradition, no nothing. People just tried to imitate the one single example that stood lonely at the top, and which puzzled them greatly, which was mindboggling beyond belief: Ι(Η)Σ with superlinears
There is nothing puzzling about Ι(Η)Σ with a supralinear. It is clearly an abbreviation, and Greek texts did use supralinears to mark abbreviations.
Why? Not to save space, that is ridiculous.
As per my OP, I agree with you here. Saving space was probably not the primary (or even secondary or tertiary) issue.
But you and I have seen our share of chiselled Latin and Greek and all possible abbreviations used under those circumstances, and it would surprise me if the superlinear suddenly eas used to mark abbreviations.
I am not surprised at all, since Greek texts earlier than anything from our Christian scribes used supralinears to designate abbreviations
As abbreviation? Or as a way of counting?
, and every nomen sacrum makes natural sense as an abbreviation for its context, right down to the Greek declensional endings.
And nobody could make sense of that, but once you talk about the text then you have to pronounce it and nobody can pronounce that without saying something like "EE-yes" (having a pathetic go at something phonetic here).
Probably our earliest example of the nomina sacra is found in Chester Beatty VI.
A quick glance off Ze Netz gives me third century for that...
In that manuscript, the name of the Hebrew hero Joshua/Jesus/Ἰησοῦς is found both in full and abbreviated as ΙΣ and ΙΗΣ (both with overstrokes). This scribe obviously made sense of it; he understood ΙΣ and ΙΗΣ as acceptable abbreviations for Ἰησοῦς.
But the crux of the issue is that it consists of three aspects: 1) Ι(Η)Σ with(out) superlinears versus the rest, 2) the rest, and 3) the superlinears.
It really is not a complicated or even complex problem:

it is evident that all words but Ι(Η)Σ existed long before that as full words
Ἰησοῦς, too, existed as a word before any of our manuscripts start showing up with the nomina sacra. There is no historical difference between θεός and ΘΣ, on the one hand, and Ἰησοῦς and ΙΣ, on the other. In both cases, the full word/name is attested before the abbreviation.
There is a huge difference in quantity of attestation
it is clear that no one has ever come up with solid research on the superlinears although it is clear that they existed in Coptic long before, and were also used in Greek but only for counting
They were also used in Greek for abbreviations. Also, what is the purpose of the supralinear stroke over ΙΣ in Coptic? What function does it serve in Coptic?
The function of the Coptic superlinear is to indicate a reduced vowel and thus is found with consonants rather than in combination with vowels. It enables the "insertion" of colourless vocalic segments like the E in elEphant.
Like the French have 'Il n'y a pas', vowels tend to get assimilated when they "meet" sometimes, and the following consonant then receives the superlinear.
An example would be ⲉⲙⲡⲟⲣⲟⲥ that would be written ⲙ̅ⲡⲟⲣⲟⲥ if the first e "had fallen off" due to assimilation. I'm not even sure it's a legit example, but basically the superlinear in most cases indicates a preceding E that isn't there in the text, and as such it doesn't make any sense to write ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅ in Coptic, let alone ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲥ̅, as the first would "want to say" ⲓⲉⲏⲉⲥ and the second even ⲉⲓⲉⲏⲉⲥ. "Plain" ⲓ̅ⲥ̅ would say ⲉⲓⲉⲥ.
It would be a legit way to "write" these but the H is the Etha as we know it so it's just one long vowel with an S at the end

So, specifically for ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅, I would treat it as a symbol for something rather than an abbreviated noun, let alone a name - I am quite sure that there is not a singular example of a name being "abbreviated" in any text, unless it's on a coin or something.
The Copitc numbering system is similar to any other, and the I is 10, the ⲏ is 8, and the ⲥ is 200

Going by Thomas, he has either ⲓ̅ⲥ̅ or ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅, so 10-200 or 8-200, if the function of the superlinear were to indicate a number.
I myself am (now) of the opinion that it is a wordplay on Hebrew, the burning with anger that the Tanakh Lord does so very often - it is Thomas himself who is burning with anger, and he wants everyone to join him. But that is quite a different story although it would explain how and why ⲓ̅ⲥ̅ or ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅ would be original, even though I still don't know how to explain the first form

But, again, ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅ is very far from clearly an abbreviation of ησοῦς, let alone that it preceded anything xtian. Huller spit out hundreds of examples of kurios and their abbreviated forms: give me something like that and I'm your man!

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8886
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: My current and still developing view of the nomina sacra.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:29 am

mlinssen wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:04 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:10 am
To be fair, I was quoting your own words. You said that you hit a dead end. Yet, reading Barnabas by the system of nomina sacra, there is no dead end. It is all very clear what he is saying. I mean, nobody buys his numerology as actually signifying anything mystical about anything, but it is clear what he is doing.
You did quote me, but out of context - I had hit a dead end trying to make sense of the 318, and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3149&p=114502#p114516 conveys that:
mlinssen wrote:
Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:15 pm
Yes, dead end there. Back to Barnabas and his impossible math of 18 and 300 having anything to do with IN, which is 10 and 50...
This is exactly what I was referring to. The nomina sacra system makes all of this transparent. There is no mystery as to what Barnabas is doing with that system in place. Without it, we are at a dead end.
As abbreviation? Or as a way of counting?
As an abbreviation. Greek texts used supralinears to abbreviate words, as well as to indicate numbers.
A quick glance off Ze Netz gives me third century for that...
Do you have a link? Kenyon (on page ix of his edition of the manuscript) has early century II, and so does Wikipedia. Paap has century II without specifying a more narrow range.
There is a huge difference in quantity of attestation
What does that matter in this case? The instances of the Hebrew hero Joshua/Jesus being abbreviated in very early texts clears up any lingering doubt straightway. Even if the name Joshua/Jesus were as rare as titanium (which it is not, being the sixth most common male name in Palestine during the time period in question, according to Tal Ilan's statistics), we would still know what is going on just by how it is used in our earliest manuscripts.
The function of the Coptic superlinear is to indicate a reduced vowel and thus is found with consonants rather than in combination with vowels. It enables the "insertion" of colourless vocalic segments like the E in elEphant.
Like the French have 'Il n'y a pas', vowels tend to get assimilated when they "meet" sometimes, and the following consonant then receives the superlinear.
An example would be ⲉⲙⲡⲟⲣⲟⲥ that would be written ⲙ̅ⲡⲟⲣⲟⲥ if the first e "had fallen off" due to assimilation. I'm not even sure it's a legit example, but basically the superlinear in most cases indicates a preceding E that isn't there in the text, and as such it doesn't make any sense to write ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅ in Coptic, let alone ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲥ̅, as the first would "want to say" ⲓⲉⲏⲉⲥ and the second even ⲉⲓⲉⲏⲉⲥ. "Plain" ⲓ̅ⲥ̅ would say ⲉⲓⲉⲥ.
So are you saying that the usual reason for a Coptic supralinear, to indicate a reduced vowel, does not apply, in your opinion, to Ι(Η)Σ?
So, specifically for ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅, I would treat it as a symbol for something rather than an abbreviated noun, let alone a name - I am quite sure that there is not a singular example of a name being "abbreviated" in any text, unless it's on a coin or something.
Well, names are abbreviated in Greek, so again, the system of nomina sacra falls right into place in such a context.
But that is quite a different story although it would explain how and why ⲓ̅ⲥ̅ or ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅ would be original, even though I still don't know how to explain the first form
Both forms are trivially and transparently explained on the system of nomina sacra, and so are the other various forms which one occasionally encounters in the manuscripts.

Post Reply