Question about nomina sacra

[Blood]

Is there a complete list of nomina sacra in early Christian texts? Browsing through the Sinaiticus, you find some unexpected things.

"Son of Man" υϲ ανου is a nomina sacra.

But in Mark 9:9
υϲ του ανθρωπου only "son" is nomina sacra.

Mark 8:19
ιβ the "Twelve" is nomina sacra.

Throughout the NT, δαδ "David" is a nomina sacra, but never Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, et al.

Mark 8:29
πετροϲ λεγει αυτω ϲυ Peter said to him you
ει ο χϲ ο υϲ του θυ · are the Christ the Jesus of Theos.

Interesting construction. "You are the Christ the Jesus of God." It is never translated this way; always, "You are the Christ" or "You are the Messiah."

[Stephan Huller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina_sacra

[bcedaifu]

http://www.irr.org/wit/pdfs/tetra-appenK.pdf

[Leucius Charinus]

Mark 8:29
πετροϲ λεγει αυτω ϲυ Peter said to him you
ει ο χϲ ο υϲ του θυ · are the Christ the Jesus of Theos.

Interesting construction. "You are the Christ the Jesus of God." It is never translated this way; always, "You are the Christ" or "You are the Messiah."

According to Sinaiticus ... "the disciples were first called Chrestians in Antioch". As a result I have sometimes wondered why the interpretation of χϲ as "Christ" - and not as "Chrest" - is not without some explanation. You're looking at one codex. It has got some strange readings.

AFAIK the nomina sacra are used universally in all Christian writings (codices and papyri fragments) including those of the gnostic heretics. If you go looking for one, you will not yet find any consensus on a theory about the historical implementation of the nomina sacra. Unless each of the authors used an existing convention (which seems very unlikely) the dominant hypothesis seems to be that the must have been an editor at some point in order to have achieved such a universal usage without too many variations. I know your looking at these variations, but I think they get dwarfed by the status quo in a statistical sense.

[Leucius Charinus]

http://www.irr.org/wit/pdfs/tetra-appenK.pdf

Cool. Hadn't read that.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Mark 8:29
πετροϲ λεγει αυτω ϲυ Peter said to him you
ει ο χϲ ο υϲ του θυ · are the Christ the Jesus of Theos.

I think it´s the nomen sacrum for "Ὑιὸς"
"the Christ the son of the god." (see Matt 16,16)

[Julian]

Sorry about the BBCodes below. They are apparently turned off for me and I don't know how to turn them on. They are set to on in my profile.

"Son of Man" υϲ ανου is a nomina sacra.

Warning: Pedantic nitpick. Nomina Sacra is plural, so it's a Nomen Sacrum. In this case, you have two, hence your plural latin is correct but it should be "are" instead of "is a".

Mark 8:19
ιβ the "Twelve" is nomina sacra.

This is not a nomen sacrum. It is a number. iota for ten and beta for two. The line above indicates that it's a number.

Throughout the NT, δαδ "David" is a nomina sacra, but never Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, et al.

There were no rules for what got abbreviated so it varies from text to text and scribal tendencies.

Mark 8:29
πετροϲ λεγει αυτω ϲυ Peter said to him you
ει ο χϲ ο υϲ του θυ · are the Christ the Jesus of Theos.

Interesting construction. "You are the Christ the Jesus of God." It is never translated this way; always, "You are the Christ" or "You are the Messiah."

The υϲ is "son," not Christ. It would have to be ιϲ for it to read as Jesus. So, "[the] Christ, the Son of God" would be a decent English translation that isn't too jarring. Remember that we translate the Greek definite article as "the" but the Greeks didn't use it in that manner. It served as an emphasis for a substantive (noun or adjective) or a pronoun when appearing alone. Therefore, it is quite permissible to remove them in English translation as long as one tries to arrange the sentence so as to retain the emphasis. In this case, the use of definite articles is a bit excessive. Maybe the English should just have an exclamation mark at the end.

Julian

[perseusomega9]

I can't but help think that the nomina sacra, especially concerning Yahweh as Kyrios, has its roots in the early jewish/christian debates whether Jesus is Yahweh as the son of God Most High, Jesus as Yahweh as God Most High, Jesus as not Yahweh as the son of God Most High.

[Blood]

Thanks for the corrections, guys.

[Blood]

"ει ο χϲ ο υϲ του θυ · you are the Christ, Son of Theos" is pretty interesting in Mark 8:29 because of course "Son of Theos" is missing from 1:1 in the earliest manuscripts. The theologians often use this as evidence of Mark's supposedly "low Christology." How do they explain 8:29?