mountainman

Opinion appears to be that when "Christians" appropriated the LXX they implemented the LXX "nomina sacra". Joshua became Jesus in the New Testament, but the same code was used for both. How strange! Very economical code system. Why didn't the New god get a New Code? Obviously there must have been a good reason for this. What was it?

The Roman Empire was always looking at its "Pontifex Maximus".
The Lord God and Caesar was the Roman Emperor and "Pontifex Maximus".
He was the one who oversighted "ideas in the empire".

I have given you the reasons by which I am convinced that the allure of Gold and Absolute Power may have seduced the Roman Emperor Constntine to have fabricated a Jewish God who was destined to surplant the traditional Hellenistic Gods of the Roman Empire, supported by all the earlier emperors perhaops without exception. See also the coinage!

Who was the person most sponsored in the Roman Empire in the 3rd century?
We must be honest and say perhaps this was "Apollonius of Tyana".
Great sponsorship of Philostratus by the Severans magnified this figure.
Diocletian may have also sponsored the memory of Apollonius.

Eusebius is sponsored by Constantine to write a derogatory political treatise against Apollonius in which huge warnings are issued against anyone who would think that this person was to be considered in any manner DIVINE. Constantine, in a parallel move against the memory of Apollonius, sends in his victorious "Barbarian Chieftain led Army" to utterly destroy the ancient and highly revered temples and shrines to the Graeco Roman healing god Asclepius, whom Apollonius himself had associated himself with in youth. Most academics in this issue suggest that the books and literature which was authored by Apollonius himself (and this is not trivial evidence, were being preserved at those Asclepian temples, particularly the major ones at Aegae and Pergamum.

Apollonius of Tyana associated with the legendary "Hercules"

Elsewhere in the following exchange you asked a question about Hercules.
This is extremely relevant. Thanks.

Question: Was Apollonius of Tyana considered by some to be a god?
Answer: Yes - there are plenty of sources, even generous epigraphic sources. (See inscription!)




Question: Was Hercules by some considered to be a god?
Answer: ______________________________


From Apollonius of Tyana and His Historicity, Maria Dzielska writes ...

mountainman

The question still stands - who was the first historical person (blasphemously, heretically or otherwise just tedious) to actually preserve (presumeably in Greek) the fullname of Jesus and not the nomina sacra form?

Is this question worth answering?
Why isn't in the Guinness Book of Records?

mountainman

These universal nomina sacra --- abbreviations --- occur physically in the oldest extant manuscripts, codices and payri fragments. As I see there are three alternatives:

Who implemented the Nomina Sacra in the Manuscript Evidence available?

(1) The Apostles and Paul etc agreed to use the same written abbreviations before they wrote.

(2) A very early editor gathered up the gospels and paul etc and then established the standardised use of the nomina sacra.

(3) A very late editor did this (ie: Eusebius) and the manuscripts we now have are in fact 4th century.

(4) Later Gnostic authors (of the "NT Gnostic Gospels etc") simply copied the conventions adopted by either (1), (2) or (3) above..

Of these first three alternatives, the first two are possible but highly unlikely, while the most logical appears to be the last, because Eusebius is also widely recognised as the very first editor of the earliest large-scale and widespread editions of the New Testament. The 4th alternative has been added to complete the picture by mention of the Gnostic literature, which clearly just copies a pre-existent convention of using special abbreviated codes for special names etc.


Wearing the hat of Sherlock Holmes for a moment I am attempting to deal with the factual physical scientific evidence here --- stuff which possibly cannot go away. When it is examined --- the oldest fragment and manuscripts all exhibit this characteristic "encryption" of special names. The question is how did this come to be? It must imply either an agreement (between the authors) or an editor. If you think there may be another explanation -- speak up and say so -- and I will acknowledge that there must be in fact other explanations for which I have not allowed. Perhaps the Bible was retrieved from the burning wreckage of a UFO by followers of Jesus in the first century, and the codes were present in this first edition?

Can anyone think of a 4th option or a 5th possibility to explain this evidence?
Which in your opinion is more likely to be able to explain the evidence ?

As I see it, anyone who wants to propose an Historical Jesus theory (or even most of the MJ theories) needs to use either (1) or (2), because it would be somewhat of a disaster for the traditional notion of christian origins if option (3) is the way it happened. Nevertheless, if in fact option (3) is indeed the way it happened, then we need to squarely look at it in the eye --- and face the consequences.

mountainman

Well I have done some research on my own question.
Here are the answers so far ....


Who implemented the Nomina Sacra in the Manuscript Evidence available?

(1) The Apostles and Paul etc agreed to use the same written abbreviations before they wrote.

There is at least one opinion that Paul may have acted as the originator.
Here is the article -- and conclusion:

Nomina Sacra: Scribal Practice and Piety in Early Christianity


Option (2) A very early editor gathered up the gospels and paul etc and then established the standardised use of the nomina sacra.

Most scholarship follows this approach.
Here is what Metzger writes in Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: an introduction to Greek palaeography By Bruce Manning Metzger (Google Books)

During the first centuries of the church, Christian scribes developed a system
of contractions for certain sacred words. These "nomina sacra", as the Latin
Paleographer Ludwig Traube called them [14], eventually came to include fifteeen such terms.


Scholars differ in accounting for the origin and development of the system of Nomina Sacra.

Traube: their (Jewish) origin is to be found in the need among Hellenistic Jews for devising
a Greek equivalent for the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.

Rudberg and Mason drew attention to the contractions that sometimes occur in pre-Christian
ostraca and inscriptions in representing proper names, titles of rulers, names of months,
numerals and certain formulae.

Paap: the origins are with Jewish Christians, because "for them the Greek word for 'God'
had exactly the same value as the tetragrammaton and for that reason was entitled to a
distinction in its different forms."

Schuyler Brown: The extention of usage came about because
"christian scribes wishes to give graphic expression to the theologicval equation
already present in the earliest apostolic preaching, in which XUPIOS, the name
of the God of Israel, was used as a title for Jesus Christ.

Option (3) A very late editor did this (ie: Eusebius) and the manuscripts we now have are in fact 4th century.

I have to report that nobody appears to be contemplating this as a viable option. Maybe times will change?



Option (4) Later Gnostic authors (of the "NT Gnostic Gospels etc") simply copied the conventions adopted by either (1), (2) or (3) above.


This option appears to be generally held, following option (2).


Conclusion

While it may appear to have gone round in circles the exercise has strengthened the case that the study of the origin of the nomina sacra is an issue which must be considered in parallel with any and all theories which simply wish to address the textual criticism aspects of the manuscript tradition. The bible was not just written in the greek, but is was written with very original and highly conspicuous "encryption" -- abbreviated names or nomina sacra. The chronological origins of this convention are as yet not known despite many hypotheses and theories.

Clivedurdle

Was Paul Trinitarian? We aren't looking at later than Eusebius are we? Ambrose?

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

The destruction of Victory may be more important.

Clivedurdle

This guy was far more important.

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

mountainman

So some people think.


No -- I see as the precedent for the origin of the published conception of a Greek trinity in the works of Plotinus, as outlined by Bertram Russell. The Holy Trinity of Plotinus is the commencement of his entire philosophical position, and as we all know, this was bolstered by the work of Porphyry who gathered the teachings of Plotinus sometime c.300 CE in the city of Rome.

Constantine and Eusebius found the writings of Porphyry in the libraries of Rome and at the beginning of all this imposing philosophy (Enneads etc) stands Plotinus' concept of the Holy Trinity:

1) The One or the "Good" --- ie: the "Chrestos"
2) The spirit
3) The soul

This "Holy Trinity" was a philosophy of "living things" particularly humans.
I think it was simply integrated into Nicaean christianity after the event because of the pressure of the Greek academics who once represented the "custodians" or the "guardians" of Greek civilisation.

The "christianized" Holy Trinity definitely appears after Nicaea.


As part of the END GAME, but not as part of the OPENING GAMBITS.
Think Chess.
The opening moves were with Constantine at Nicaea.
The end game happened later in the 4th century.

mountainman

Theodosius I played out the END GAME.
He continued from the opening Nicaean gambit of Constantine.

Constantine started the destruction of the most ancient and highly revered temples - to Asclepius at Aegae and elsewhere, to Apollo and Diana. Constntine (See HE, and Vita Constantini for the list of temples) was the first to start this fascism in the name of a new religion. Theodosius simply finished what Constantine had started.

mountainman

Once everyone has sorted out when the authors of the gospels and acts and paul wrote all we need to do then is to sort out who was the redactor responsible for the (almost) universal presence of the "nomina sacra" scribal conventions employed in the earliest available evidence such as the three major greek new testament codices, the nag hammadi codices and all of the papry fragments (of codex leaves) from oxyrhynchus.

This redaction must have been done after the last authorship date unless someone is going to claim the "authors" all shared a complex divine inspiration.

stephan huller

I am always in awe of someone who consistently puts the horse in front of the cart. I don't see how the existence of nomina sacra help your misrepresentation of a fourth century authorship of the gospels. There are examples of this phenomenon dated to the late second century. You remind me of those preachers who prey upon the ignorant. "I bet you didn't know that the name Jesus doesn't appear in the New Testament." A shudder comes upon the audience. "This proves that the gospels weren't written when you thought they were ..."

Why? Trobisch has studied the phenomenon most carefully and has concluded that it was just a signature of the Catholic Church - a way of distinguishing the 'right' collection from those others floating around in antiquity.

My guess is that the use of these 'signatures' developed from a deliberate attempt to obscure the differences between the Marcionite (Alexandrian) recension and the Roman Church with regards to the apellations 'Christ' and 'Chrestos.' I might be wrong. I am not married to this argument. It's just what I think suits the evidence so far until a better explanation comes along.

I remember reading somewhere that in the first nomen sacrum were XC which appeared in the side of manuscripts checked for accuracy - XC = 'right' (one) or 'good' (one). These notations apparently appeared in pre-Christian Greek manuscripts. I wish I could track down what old book I read this in.

Yet in order for you to demolish this serious objection to your theory (i.e. the nomina sacra which are dated to the second and third centuries) you have to come up with some sort of explantion why this helps your fourth century argument. I don't see that you've done this.