The Deir Ali inscription proves that Chrestos was not a holy name

[lclapshaw]

Both abbreviated and non-abbreviated.

https://inscriptions.packhum.org/text/2 ... 48%2C81-87
Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστὸ)ς.
τὸν Κυζίκον Λέοντα, Χριστέ, με σκέποις.

How can you be sure that the highlighted is correct when all you have to work with is IC XC?

[Peter Kirby]

Both abbreviated and non-abbreviated.

https://inscriptions.packhum.org/text/2 ... 48%2C81-87
Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστὸ)ς.
τὸν Κυζίκον Λέοντα, Χριστέ, με σκέποις.

How can you be sure that the highlighted is correct when all you have to work with is IC XC?

That's not my point at all. I know that the database has a bias in favor of substituting iota expansions. Whatever. The context here involves a very different debate (albeit not unrelated), where in general my point is made on either expansion (but perhaps KK's ideas are sensitive to it).

For my discussion of the point you raise, I would direct you to the relevant thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11433

Where I have usually been more careful to redact the offered transcription to make it more diplomatic.

If you're not sure what my point is, please refer back to the discussion starting from the OP.

[Peter Kirby]

IC XC?

For my comment regarding your perspective, this in particular is the thread:

Everybody knew what the nomina sacra were
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11368

After that thread, everything else I have written hasn't retread that ground.

[Peter Kirby]

I believe that you and KK both make similar assumptions that lead you wrong in similar ways.

Quick question: why treat Iesuos as a "sacred" name when it was so common?

And KK in the OP, assuming that the abbreviations are of "holy words" and the words written out are likewise not holy.

"Nomina sacra" in this sense is an assumption, not a neutral term of art, and the examples tend to show that, in epigraphy at least, the words can be either abbreviated or not, with no necessary implied elevation to holiness or exclusion as not-holy as such.

There is more to say on that topic, but the minimal conclusion should be that there wasn't always and necessarily a motive to abbreviate due to perceived holiness of the words; and, by the other side of that coin, not abbreviating doesn't reveal some sense that the word specifically isn't holy. It doesn't even reveal that it shouldn't be abbreviated (given many inscriptions and texts that are not consistent).

Again there's always more to say here, but this should be a good start on the question raised by you and by KK for a forum post from my phone.

[lclapshaw]

The actual point of the question is "why use a biased interpretation in place of just the factual abbreviation"? Joseph D. L. in another thread, is correct when he points out that we rely too much on material that has been corrupted by biased third parties and that we need to go back to basics and ditch our current understanding of the material in order to move forward.

If the text uses IC XC and nothing more then so should we.

Simple really.

[Peter Kirby]

I am moving forward, to better and increased understanding of the past. You appear to be stuck.

[Peter Kirby]

The casual repetition of the phrase "nomina sacra" has led to much carelessness in these matters. In other words, I blame scholars for this.

I may be able to find some relevant data, given the ongoing construction of my "database" here.

Yes, you definitely need to rethink the concept and blame the scholars so that speculation can continue

This unnecessary comment notwithstanding, I continue to have a lot of respect for you and for what you have presented on the forum. You consistently have presented insightful and well-considered commentary.

[lclapshaw]

I am moving forward, to better and increased understanding of the past. You appear to be stuck.

Well then, I wish you luck, tho, I'm sure you will find exactly what you seek.

[lclapshaw]

It appears that I struck a nerve with my last post. No matter.

It is true that I consider it more likely that a person named Paulos/Paulus, being a Roman name, writing to people in a Roman veteran colony, Corinth, being composed mostly of Roman military veterans and their families, would find the abbreviation IC XC for Iulius the Xrhstos instantly recognizable to his audience without the need to elaborate, as opposed to some unknown Jewish guy named Ihsous the Xristos, being a total nonsense phrase to a Roman and Greek readership. But hey, I favor actual history.

Is IC XC Iulius Xrhstos throughout the NT? Absolutely not, but it makes more sense in a early layer of 1 Corinthians than Ihsous the Xristos. Something that would be missed if it is insisted that IC XC can only represent Ihsous the Xristos/Xrhstos.

[Peter Kirby]

It is true that I consider it more likely that a person named Paulos/Paulus, being a Roman name, writing to people in a Roman veteran colony, Corinth, being composed mostly of Roman military veterans and their families, would find the abbreviation IC XC for Iulius the Xrhstos instantly recognizable to his audience without the need to elaborate, as opposed to some unknown Jewish guy named Ihsous the Xristos, being a total nonsense phrase to a Roman and Greek readership.

Alright, thank you for bringing the discussion back to a focus on what you consider to be more likely here.