Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

[Secret Alias]

If it is a first letter last letter abbreviation coupled with an overbar is uniquely Christian. End of story.

[mlinssen]

If it is a first letter last letter abbreviation coupled with an overbar is uniquely Christian. End of story.

ROFL. So Ihs wouldn't count? Nor XPS?
Superlinear on not all letters would also disqualify it?

Go on then, full set of rules please - you're the expert aren't you

Here, Philip logion 20

https://metalogos.org/files/till/w-till-04.gif
https://metalogos.org/files/till/w-till-05.gif

w-till-04.gif (31.58 KiB) Viewed 2051 times

w-till-05.gif (32.14 KiB) Viewed 2051 times

IHC is 3 letters, full superlinear - is that a yes or a no?
XPC is 3 letters, only 2 of them covered by superlinear - not a "nomen sacrum"?

[Secret Alias]

I don't understand how this disproves (a) what I said before or (b) that Christian abbreviation habits were unique and, as Trobisch argued, used to distinguish Christianity and probably orthodoxy from its competitors. You guys have to let the evidence decide what's true rather than impose your beliefs on the evidence. Christianity was different in many respects from its competitors. It's good to highlight the similarities. But you have to understand and appreciate the differences too. Unless you want to spend the rest of your life at a forum like this trying to 'win over' a handful of people with similar agendas.

[mlinssen]

I don't understand how this disproves (a) what I said before or (b) that Christian abbreviation habits were unique and, as Trobisch argued, used to distinguish Christianity and probably orthodoxy from its competitors. You guys have to let the evidence decide what's true rather than impose your beliefs on the evidence. Christianity was different in many respects from its competitors. It's good to highlight the similarities. But you have to understand and appreciate the differences too. Unless you want to spend the rest of your life at a forum like this trying to 'win over' a handful of people with similar agendas.

You could just man up and say that you were completely wrong with your narrow little definition that "ended the story":

If it is a first letter last letter abbreviation coupled with an overbar is uniquely Christian. End of story.

[Secret Alias]

How am I completely wrong? This baffling. The oldest nomina sacra were two letters long. There are so many stupidities in your statement.

1. the gospel of Judas Thomas is not the oldest gospel
2. the Coptic text of Judas Thomas is not the original
3. three letter nomina sacra are not the original version of the nomina sacra
4. nomina sacra are uniquely Christian phenomena

You have this 'thing' for the gospel of Judas Thomas. I don't.

[Secret Alias]

I find dogmatic people to have tunnel vision.
Religion - not merely being 'religious' but the study of religion too - tends to attract dogmatic people.
It's not surprising to find most if not all people who take religion seriously have tunnel vision/have difficulty seeing the big picture.

[mlinssen]

How am I completely wrong? This baffling. The oldest nomina sacra were two letters long. There are so many stupidities in your statement.

1. the gospel of Judas Thomas is not the oldest gospel
2. the Coptic text of Judas Thomas is not the original
3. three letter nomina sacra are not the original version of the nomina sacra
4. nomina sacra are uniquely Christian phenomena

You have this 'thing' for the gospel of Judas Thomas. I don't.

You keep changing your definition so you can keep evading the questions.
Point me to at least one text that only has the oldest nomina sacra then - and please provide a date to go with that, thank you

Thomas is not a gospel, by the way

[Secret Alias]

What's the question?

Point me to at least one text that only has the oldest nomina sacra then

A Coptic text is not the place to start arguing for originality of nomina sacra.

[Secret Alias]

And don't cite P46 to me. Though Beatty Codex II (P46) has been recently dated to 200-225 CE, Nongbri contends that “no truly compelling securely dated parallels for the script of the Pauline Epistles codexhave been proposed” (p. 144).

[mlinssen]

What's the question?

Point me to at least one text that only has the oldest nomina sacra then

A Coptic text is not the place to start arguing for originality of nomina sacra.

And now you insert the word Coptic in order to duck substantiating your claim.
It doesn't really matter of course what you say, because all you do on this forum is talktalktalk without ever coming up with any easily verifiable reference. You claim to know so much about everything but when asked simple questions you change the subject, add adjectives, and crawl back under your rock only to keep shouting and screaming

You are one of those people, Stephan Huller, who initially draw a lot of attention because of all their wild and promising moves - but uickly prove to be hollow shells without any substance that could validate the bold claims

This is a simple matter of ligatures here, Stephan Huller - but where the entire world is smart enough to be very careful making any statements bout the origins of even a single nomen sacrum, you don't hesitate to make sweeping statement about the entire collection of all nomina sacra - one that really nobody has ever dared to burn his hands upon

https://independent.academia.edu/SHuller

December 2013 is when you created your academia.edu account, Stephan Huller: almost a full decade ago, 10 years. Nothing published there, no bio, a few dozen followers, and 80 views.
Why should I waste my time on you? It is out of compassion that I address you here, because it is clear that you need some - now go have some for yourself please