Pauline origin of the nomina sacra?

[rgprice]

As we know, the nomina sacra are abbreviations used, initially just for sacred names within the Christian scriptures.

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

https://apps.lib.umich.edu/reading/Paul ... sacra.html

The oldest observed nomina sacra are those just for "Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, and possibly Spirit".

Many scholars assume that the nomina sacra are a later manifestation, being introduced as the writings were becoming recognized as scripture and thus assume that at some point these writings did not contain these features, but originally had all of the words spelled out and that later scribes began using the abbreviations.

However, what if, instead, the use of nomina sacra originated in the Pauline letters and were a part of Pauline writing from the very beginning. From there, nomina sacra were used by the writer of the first Gospel and spread from there into the others.

Then, yes, later scribes expanded the use.

Under this model, the actual spelled out name of "Jesus" was never used in Pauline writings at all, nor by the Gospel writers.

Why might "Paul" have done this?

If Paul was writing to Gentile audiences, then using Hebrew tetragrammaton may have been problematic and not relevant to his audience.

But the abbreviations may also have something to do with the name of the Lord.

The letters used for the nomina sacra are as follows:

God ΘΣ
Lord ΚΣ
Jesus ΙΣ/ΙHΣ
Christ ΧΣ/ΧHΣ

Might it be that the abbreviation itself had some sort of divine symbolism? I know that these types of word games were often employed in ancient sacred texts, especially among Jews.

Now as it happens, I and K are right next to each other in the Greek alphabet. Maybe there is nothing quite so simple involved, but the change of ΙΣ to ΚΣ, involves just the simple addition of a couple of marks to turn the iota into a kappa.

Maybe this has nothing to do with anything.

But my point is, if the Pauline letters originally employed the nomina sacra, then perhaps the name "Jesus" never explicitly existed in the first place, and perhaps the "abbreviation" ΙΣ was used for some sort of symbolic purpose, i.e. the abbreviation itself was seen as something like a diminutive form of Lord or something along those lines.

The interchangeability of iota, kappa and chai, all letters that can easily be changed into one other, is intriguing.

Again, maybe that had nothing to do with it, but the point is that maybe the abbreviations themselves had something to do with why ΙΣ was chosen and used as the "name" of ΚΣ, and this was all a part of the Pauline understanding of the Lord from the outset.

[MrMacSon]

It might be hard to distinguish whether the concept and practice arose out of development or use of the LXX; through Paul; or via another avenue (or a combination thereof eg. Paul using the LXX; whether Paul was the first to do so or not)

IIUC, God ΘΣ and Lord ΚΣ may well have been the first or at least the most widespread initial applications of the practice (which might suggest it arose in and around development and use of the LXX)*

* IIUC, one of if not the primary proposals of Russell Gmirkin is that the Pentateuch or Hexateuch was first written in Greek, which might make the LXX more primary than has been previously proposed (??)

[lclapshaw]

As we know, the nomina sacra are abbreviations used, initially just for sacred names within the Christian scriptures.

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

https://apps.lib.umich.edu/reading/Paul ... sacra.html

The oldest observed nomina sacra are those just for "Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, and possibly Spirit".

Many scholars assume that the nomina sacra are a later manifestation, being introduced as the writings were becoming recognized as scripture and thus assume that at some point these writings did not contain these features, but originally had all of the words spelled out and that later scribes began using the abbreviations.

However, what if, instead, the use of nomina sacra originated in the Pauline letters and were a part of Pauline writing from the very beginning. From there, nomina sacra were used by the writer of the first Gospel and spread from there into the others.

Then, yes, later scribes expanded the use.

Under this model, the actual spelled out name of "Jesus" was never used in Pauline writings at all, nor by the Gospel writers.

Why might "Paul" have done this?

If Paul was writing to Gentile audiences, then using Hebrew tetragrammaton may have been problematic and not relevant to his audience.

But the abbreviations may also have something to do with the name of the Lord.

The letters used for the nomina sacra are as follows:

God ΘΣ
Lord ΚΣ
Jesus ΙΣ/ΙHΣ
Christ ΧΣ/ΧHΣ

Might it be that the abbreviation itself had some sort of divine symbolism? I know that these types of word games were often employed in ancient sacred texts, especially among Jews.

Now as it happens, I and K are right next to each other in the Greek alphabet. Maybe there is nothing quite so simple involved, but the change of ΙΣ to ΚΣ, involves just the simple addition of a couple of marks to turn the iota into a kappa.

Maybe this has nothing to do with anything.

But my point is, if the Pauline letters originally employed the nomina sacra, then perhaps the name "Jesus" never explicitly existed in the first place, and perhaps the "abbreviation" ΙΣ was used for some sort of symbolic purpose, i.e. the abbreviation itself was seen as something like a diminutive form of Lord or something along those lines.

The interchangeability of iota, kappa and chai, all letters that can easily be changed into one other, is intriguing.

Again, maybe that had nothing to do with it, but the point is that maybe the abbreviations themselves had something to do with why ΙΣ was chosen and used as the "name" of ΚΣ, and this was all a part of the Pauline understanding of the Lord from the outset.

Oh, I do like this!

Take it a step further and Iota, kapa, and chi become the chi roe without the head on top. Perhaps that was added after the staurogram was a thing.

Did you mean XRC in place of XHC above BTW?

[lclapshaw]

Mulling it over I realize that a combination of Iota, kappa, and chi to create a symbol results in something that looks like the six point star of David with lines drawn through it.

[Leucius Charinus]

It might be hard to distinguish whether the concept and practice arose out of development or use of the LXX; through Paul; or via another avenue (or a combination thereof eg. Paul using the LXX; whether Paul was the first to do so or not)

Yes I agree essentially because whoever composed Paul also preserved (and had before them as they wrote) a "Christianised" LXX (that is an LXX with runes (nomina sacra). And the rune for Jesus was a continuation of the rune for Joshua.

Then there is the question of the Pauline letters which Paul didn't write. So it also needs to be asked if Pseudo-Paul also perhaps implemented the runes. Generally speaking most commentators assign the runes to an editor of the NT collection. Which of course will cause many here to think of Marcion as the rune-maker. But again we have no physical proof of any NT writing prior to the 3rd century and, as a result, any theory for the "early appearance" of the runes cannot (as yet) be established by physical proof.

Brodie's idea that the NT was composed inside a "literary school" is echoed in other contemporary scholarship leaning towards the view that the authors were a small elite team who knew each other. This scenario suggests an editor at all times. Whoever this editor was IMO is the most likely suspect for the implementation of runes.

IIUC, God ΘΣ and Lord ΚΣ may well have been the first or at least the most widespread initial applications of the practice (which might suggest it arose in and around development and use of the LXX)*

* IIUC, one of if not the primary proposals of Russell Gmirkin is that the Pentateuch or Hexateuch was first written in Greek, which might make the LXX more primary than has been previously proposed (??)

Many years ago I asked Russell Gmirkin about the order of the Hebrew and Greek. I had expected the Greek to be primary on the basis that all the sources used were Greek copies in the Alexandrian library. However IIUC he nominated that the Hebrew creation was followed by an immediate Greek translation.

[MrMacSon]

... whoever composed Paul also preserved (and had before them as they wrote) a "Christianised" LXX (that is an LXX with runes (nomina sacra)

• Maybe. Maybe not.
  That begs the question as to where a pre-Pauline "Christianized LXX" would have come from; unless you're positing very late writing of the Pauline letters.

Generally speaking most commentators assign the 'runes' to an editor of the NT collection.

• I'm not sure about that.

[rgprice]

What I'm proposing is that the nomina sacra are not the product of an editor. Rather, the nomina sacra are at the heart of the theology. They are a root cause of Pauline teaching.

Why does Paul call "Jesus" "the Lord"? I'm suggesting that the reason that Paul identifies "Jesus" as "the Lord" is because of the nomina sacra. It wasn't a matter of a legend about some figure "named" Jesus, it was about the transformation of ΚΣ to ΙΣ or something like that.

[MrMacSon]

What I'm proposing is that the nomina sacra are not the product of an editor.

• I agree.

Rather, the nomina sacra are at the heart of the theology

• Mostly agree. Perhaps: the nomina sacra were a key part of the new theology
  • (or as I say below, a key part of its development or evolution)

... it was about the transformation of ΚΣ to ΙΣ or something like that.

• Yes, a good point.
  It seems likely that the transformation of ΚΣ to ΙΣ would have happened during the development or evolution of 'a legend about some figure [that came to be] 'named' [Iesous]', as you propose
  
  (ie. as likely as any other scenario and perhaps more likely)

They [the nomina sacra] are a root cause of Pauline teaching.

• I was going to say here, before I changed the order of my comments relative to the order of what you wrote):
  • I don't think the nomina sacra are a cause of Paul's teaching.
  I think, as you propose, the transformation of ΚΣ to ΙΣ (or something like that), could well have been, as I've just said immediately above, at the heart of the development or evolution of 'a legend about some figure [that came to be] 'named' [Iesous]'

Why does Paul call "Jesus" "the Lord"? I'm suggesting that the reason that Paul identifies "Jesus" as "the Lord" is because of the nomina sacra.

• 'Lord / 'the Lord' appear in the [extant] LXX for Yawweh. A lot

• I'm not sure whether we can know if that preceded Paul, or occurred concurrent with or because of Paul

• What happened may depend on whether there were different, sequential versions of Paul
  
  ie. if there was
  1. pre-Marcionite Paul,
  2. then Marcionite Paul,
  3. then post-Marcionite, catholic-orthodox Paul
  (if so, there might have been overlap ie. use of pre-Marcionite Pauline texts persisting through and past the development and use of the Marcionite Pauline texts; and perhaps even the use of pre-Marcionite Pauline texts persisting through and past the development and use of the later 'orthodox' Pauline texts.
  
  all this may have only happened over the space of 20-40 yrs ie. say before 130-40 a.d. and after, say, 160-170 a.d.)

[lclapshaw]

What I'm proposing is that the nomina sacra are not the product of an editor.

• I agree.

Rather, the nomina sacra are at the heart of the theology

• Mostly agree. Perhaps: the nomina sacra were a key part of the new theology
  • (or as I say below, a key part of its development or evolution)

... it was about the transformation of ΚΣ to ΙΣ or something like that.

• Yes, a good point.
  It seems likely that the transformation of ΚΣ to ΙΣ would have happened during the development or evolution of 'a legend about some figure [that came to be] 'named' [Iesous]', as you propose
  
  (ie. as likely as any other scenario and perhaps more likely)

They [the nomina sacra] are a root cause of Pauline teaching.

• I was going to say here, before I changed the order of my comments relative to the order of what you wrote):
  • I don't think the nomina sacra are a cause of Paul's teaching.
  I think, as you propose, the transformation of ΚΣ to ΙΣ (or something like that), could well have been, as I've just said immediately above, at the heart of the development or evolution of 'a legend about some figure [that came to be] 'named' [Iesous]'

Why does Paul call "Jesus" "the Lord"? I'm suggesting that the reason that Paul identifies "Jesus" as "the Lord" is because of the nomina sacra.

• 'Lord / 'the Lord' appear in the [extant] LXX for Yawweh. A lot

• I'm not sure whether we can know if that preceded Paul, or occurred concurrent with or because of Paul

• What happened may depend on whether there were different, sequential versions of Paul
  
  ie. if there was
  1. pre-Marcionite Paul,
  2. then Marcionite Paul,
  3. then post-Marcionite, catholic-orthodox Paul
  (if so, there might have been overlap ie. use of pre-Marcionite Pauline texts persisting through and past the development and use of the Marcionite Pauline texts; and perhaps even the use of pre-Marcionite Pauline texts persisting through and past the development and use of the later 'orthodox' Pauline texts.
  
  all this may have only happened over the space of 20-40 yrs ie. say before 130-40 a.d. and after, say, 160-170 a.d.)

I propose that it may have gone something like this viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10490

[rgprice]

From wikipedia (though I've seen this in various literature as well):

In some Greek Scripture manuscripts the Hebrew tetragrammaton (transliterated as YHWH) is found unabbreviated in the Greek text. The Septuagint manuscript Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1007 even uses an abbreviated form of the tetragrammaton: two Greek zetas with a horizontal line through the middle, imitating two Paleo-Hebrew yodhs (𐤉‬𐤉).

Interestingly, the yod is equivalent to iota.

So we have one example where yod-yod is "translated" as zeta-zeta, though actually a more appropriate translation would be iota-iota.

Obviously, zeta-zeta was used because it looks more like yod-yod.

But the fact is that "Lord" is far from the name YHWH, while Jesus, a.k.a. Ἰησοῦς, a.k.a. Y'shua is much closer to Yahweh.

Of course both Y'shua and Yahweh start with the same letter.

I wonder if there is any version of the nomina sacra that is interpreted as "Jesus" that could be conflated with some writing of some version of Yahweh? Ya, Yah, YHWH, etc...?

Just a though.

We don't actually know the pronunciation of YHWH. It is presumed to be "Yahweh". But what if it was Yehweh?