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