Christian scribal practices indicate single common source

[lclapshaw]

I'm curious SG, if you reject a common source for the seemingly ubiquitous nature of the four most common NS, how do you account for them?

[rgprice]

There are really three indications that everything traces back to a single common source, not just two. The scribal practices of nomina sacra and codices are both consistent with a single common source. But also the fact that the Christians scriptures are so intertextually correlated is yet another indication.

And SG, you haven't presented any case at all, all you've done is simply say, "I don't think so," without giving any reason or evidence for your disagreement.

As for what I think happened, it is quite straight forward:

The Pauline letter collection was produced on codices using nomina sacra for God, Lord, Jesus and Christ only, or possibly only for Jesus at the very first.

To this letter collection stories were added that built from the letter collection. The first Gospel, which we can call proto-Mark for convention's sake, was created as an introductory allegory to the Pauline letter collection and this narrative was produced on a codex using nomina sacra. We can tell that it was derived from the Pauline letters because the writer makes use of many passages from at least seven Pauline letters (though I now think I've identified references to Colossians and Ephesians too, bringing it up to all 9 church letters).

From this collection of letters and Gospel (and possibly also a narrative about Paul's ministry) all other Christian scriptures were derived.

That the earliest scriptures developed in this ways explains:
#1 Why all Christians scriptures are produced on codecies
#2 Why all Christian scriptures use nomina sacra
#3 Why the Gospel of Mark contains references to the Pauline letters
#4 Why the Gospel of Mark is "titled", "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," and ends without closure
#5 Why all Gospels show evidence of being derived from the Gospel of Mark

Please present another theory or evidence that either disproves any of these points or explains each of these points is a better way...

[Leucius Charinus]

LC, above, in part:
"If we accept the received tradition wouldn't this have been one or more of the bishops?"

SG: But you don't accept the received tradition!

Most others do.

And even if you did, did all obey this unspecified bishop or group of bishops?

The NS represent a standardization of scribal practice. So it logically follows that someone must have set the standard and that this someone had some sort of authority (hence maybe a bishop)

And was strict scribal practice an early and unifying concern?

The evidence points in that direction.

What about the proposition that these NS were introduced by a later (and influential) editor of the collection? (And that nothing survives prior to this edited collection).