Toto

Why is modern usage relevant here? We're talking about the first through third centuries.

Duvduv

I was simply trying to draw an example of distinctions among groups of why your original suggestion was likely a very big stretch........

Toto

I think the cultural and theological differences among modern Jews are much larger than the cultural differences among Christian scribes in the 3rd century.

But you don't give any specifics.

Duvduv

Of course there are difference, just like there were differences between Samaritans, rabbinical Jews and Sadducees. If those are better comparisons. For example, the rabbinical Jewish term of the name of God to be pronounced is "adonai." However, this was not the case with the Samaritans. Thus there is reason to be suspicious to too many such similarities in texts attributed to the winner Christians versus those attributed to the heretics.

mountainman

At the end of post #122 where Stephan huller admits a "useful conversation" you will notice that the last paragraph is my question to him and the OP which remains unanswered, as follows ...


Any Greek walking into a library (state, church or private) and finding the Bible would have had a problem interpreting the nomina sacra. If the OP asserts the existence of orthodox Christian libraries then the existence of heretical gnostic schools and their library books must be considered (example provided via Eusebius and Serapion about the Gospel of Peter).

Both the heretics and orthodox used codes. This would not have increased conversions among the gentiles (Greek readers).

What I don't understand, for example, given the scenario described, is why within this 200-300 year period someone writing the codes out long hand, Jesus for JS, etc in order to make the story more accessible for the prospective converts.

It just seems far too long a period time given the context of 1st/2nd/3rd century codex manufacturing and preservation that such a universally consistent scribal convention could have held together -- amidst competing schools -- without variants. Yes there are some variants, but the conformity is highlighted again and again by all scholarship.

stephan huller

But that isn't necessarily an argument proving that it wasn't so. Let's consider matters from your parallel universe for a moment.

If as you suppose that Christianity was 'invented' in the fourth century we certainly know from Julian that Christian books were in public libraries at that time. Since you suppose that these nomina sacra were established at the same time, that would mean by your own suppositions that the manuscripts that survive are wrongly dated to the second and third century and really derive from the fourth century, you in particular don't have a leg to stand on so you should get out of the debate.

In other words, by your own standards the manuscripts which have nomina sacra were put into public libraries in the fourth century - unless you suppose that even Julian's reference to Christian books is yet another forgery - a forgery within a forgery, or a forgery on top of forgeries, or a forgery within a forgery beside a forgery and on top of more forgeries or ... :Cheeky:

mountainman

It's like getting a Sherlock Holmes series (in Greek) where the proper names of the key characters like Sherlock and Watson, and important terms like "Scotland Yard", "criminal" and "murder scene" are replaced with codes.

The books of the canonical Bible - and those of the Gnostic Bible - seem to be the type of books that were secreted away in secret societies over a span of time, only to be understood by people within that secret group of school.

I cant see how a book with codes for the key people and things is ever going to be popular outside of the secret society who keep the meaning of the codes. This does not necessarily mean the Bible and other Christian literature could not be found in public libraries, it just suggests that it may be unlikely.

Can you provide a single argument how such a book would be comprehensible to the Greek literate public consumption?



But to return to the OP I think its important to answer one important question:

To what extent was Origen's library in Caesarea a public library or a private library?

AFAIK all the NT and LXX manuscripts used in all Bible Codices stem physically from the manuscripts in this specific library.

stephan huller

All that I seem to see in the literature is the idea that Alexander's library in Jerusalem (around the same time) was a public library.

aa5874

There is no evidence at all that the LXX was a secret document. In fact, it is the complete reverse.

The LXX may be the ONLY ancient Scriptures where the original time period of its composition is DOCUMENTED by Multiple writers of antiquity.

The LXX was first composed c 2nd century BCE in the time of Ptolemy by Seventy two Jews and was in an Alexandrian Library

By the way, the Nomina Sacra are NOT codes but are short-hand versions [abbreviations] of specific words which would be pronounced in FULL when SPOKEN.

PhilosopherJay

Hi stephan Huller,

Thank you for this image.

It seems to me that the bigger problem than dating this fragment is its identification with "Against Heresies".

If you blow up the image you see that there are only 2 or 3 letters visible on the fourth small fragment at the bottom. Obviously having a sigma on one line and a Chi on another line cannot identify the fragment with any particular work. Fragment four is worthless for identification purposes.

On the third fragment on the far right, there are three visible lines of writing. There are two letters on the top line, five on the next line and five or six on the third line. It is hard to make out any of these letters. There appears to be a Mu on the second line and a Gamma on the third line. This fragment too is worthless for identification purposes.

The third fragment in the middle appears to have seven lines with five letters on each. Unfortunately, most of the letters are hard to make out. I think the word KAI (and) appears on lines four and six, but it is difficult to be sure of any words from the one or two clear letters on the other lines. It is again impossible to identify this as coming from any particular work.

That leaves only the first fragment from which any identification can be made. On the left side there are four or five lines with four or five identifiable letters. Unfortunately letters are blurred or missing so only the word OU (not) seems to be visible on the second line. The left side of this fragment is useless for identification purposes. On the right side we have seven lines containing 3 to 8 visible letters, two lines where the letters cannot be made out and then four lines containing two to five letters. Altogether one might be able to be sure of three or four words in those 11 lines. Does this fact that this papyrus contains three or four words that are contained in the same order in "Against Heresies" really allow us to conclude that this is from "Against Heresies?"

It seems amazing that Roberts was able to identify this as being from "Against Heresies" on the basis of three or four words in 11 lines.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin