Sacred language ideology for Nomina Sacra between the second and fifth centuries CE

2.1 Papyrological analysis of early Christian manuscripts

Due to the lack of data, dating Christian MSS has been fraught with difficulties. Except for fourteen MSS (9, 17, 18, 24, 37, 39, 45, 53, 80, 86, 95, 110, 104, and 115), the majority of MSS do not include the copying date (Comfort 2019; Nongbri 2018). Papyrologists have suggested four methods for determining the copying date of Christian MSS.

First, archaeological evidence provides information regarding the copying date of MSS. For instance, the Qumran community suffered destruction as a result of the Jewish War and the Roman invasion of 70 CE. Consequently, if we presume that the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in close proximity to the Qumran settlement were authored by members of that community, then the most recent possible date for the MSS concealed in nearby caves is 70 CE (Comfort 2019). The MSS 4, 64, and 67 cannot be assigned a date beyond 200 CE, as they were incorporated into strips, presumably for use as binding material, for a third-century codex of Philo (Comfort 2019). The copying date of Uncial 0212 must not exceed 256 CE, and its probable date is around 230 CE, given that it was uncovered within the fill of an embankment established in 256 CE. Near that discovery site, a Christian dwelling dating from 222 to 235 CE was razed during the construction of the embankment (Comfort and Barrett 2005). The MS 10 was uncovered in conjunction with documents bearing the date 316 CE (Comfort 2019). The MSS 66, 72, and 75 can be traced back to the collection housed within the library of the Pachomian Monastery, situated in Upper Egypt. Given the period of this library’s founding, these MSS predate the fourth century CE (Royse 2008). The fact that the majority of other MSS lack information regarding archaeological evidence necessitates the use of other methods.

Second, comparative paleography offers information that is useful for estimating the copying date of MSS. When dealing with an undated literary MS, paleographers initially endeavor to categorize the script into a broader category of visually similar MSS, often referred to as a style.^[7] According to comparative paleography, the resemblance of styles between handwritings often corresponds to temporal proximity (Nongbri 2018). However, paleography is limited in precision because even though students would likely aspire to imitate their teacher’s style initially, over time the distinct attributes of the teacher’s writing would become the foundational framework and the scribe might subsequently develop their own distinctive individual characteristics (Barker 2011; Nongbri 2018).

Third, radiocarbon analysis could be considered an alternative method for estimating the copying date of MSS. It provides scientifically derived dates regarding the estimated period. However, this methodology may yield data with error ranges exceeding one hundred to two hundred years, particularly when the data is contaminated (Nongbri 2018). In addition, radiocarbon dating deals with the date of when the plant was cut. If the scribes used an old papyrus, radiocarbon analysis would be even less accurate for dating the MS.

Fourth, the examination of ink composition has garnered scholarly attention due to the diverse range of inks utilized across different historical epochs. During the Roman period, it was customary to produce black inks using a combination of soot and gum arabic (Comfort 2019). In subsequent centuries, metallic-based inks gained prevalence, often undergoing a transformation into brown hues with the passage of time. While researchers examine ink specimens and study their chemical constituents, this assessment is not perfectly accurate. This analysis relies on comparisons with established ink specimens dating back to the third and fourth centuries CE (Nongbri 2018).

To be sure, highly reliable dating is possible only for papyri that are accompanied by archaeological evidence from their surrounding context and papyri that have recorded dates. However, the majority of MSS remain elusive to direct archaeological corroboration. Therefore, it is advisable to use comparative paleography, radiocarbon analysis, and ink analysis as alternative methods for comparative dating, in conjunction with more reliable dating data when available.

In addition, the issue of identifying Nomina Sacra in MSS needs to be discussed. Nomina Sacra can be readily identified by the conspicuous presence of an upper stroke (see Figure 2). However, the majority of MSS are small fragments with a significant number of missing pages and damaged parts. It is impossible to examine Nomina Sacra in the missing pages. Therefore, the research should focus on reconstructing Nomina Sacra in the damaged parts of MSS. This reconstructing process involves the following three steps:

1. The first step is to determine the number of characters in the damaged parts of MSS. Ancient scribes did not put spaces between words. Since the majority of them made all the characters about the same width, it is possible to identify the scribes’ style for writing a particular number of characters in each line. Therefore, this step calculates the space taken up by any given text, such as hypothetical or missing text, by multiplying the width of one character by the number of characters in the passage.

2. The second step is to estimate the possible original texts in the damaged parts of the given MS. Different MSS that have the same passage sometimes have minor textual variations: some MSS have a longer version with additional explanation and others contain a shorter version with omission or summary. By comparing the length of the verse(s) with the damaged parts with that of the same verse(s) in other MSS that do not have the damaged parts, this step identifies MSS that share the same variation. This process facilitates the reconstruction of the original text of the damaged parts.

3. The third step is to identify Nomina Sacra based on the reconstructed original texts from the aforementioned analysis. Since the use of Nomina Sacra typically involves the contraction of more than four characters into two or three characters, if the space of the missing part is smaller than what is expected for the fully spelled-out text, the scribe’s utilization of Nomina Sacra is implied.

Based on this methodology, this study offers a case study for reconstructing Nomina Sacra in the damaged sections through a sample analysis of 111. The images of Figure 3 are the verso (left) and recto (right) of 111, which contains the Greek texts of Luke 17:11–13, 21–23. This MS probably was copied around the first half of the third century CE, given that its writing style resembles with that of P.Giss. 40, which is dated 215 CE (Comfort 2019). Although 111 is a small fragment with significant damaged parts, it is possible to reconstruct the damaged parts based on the other papyri, parchments, and codices that contain the same passage.

[verso]

ρειας και γαλι]λαιας. και ε[ισερχομενου αυτου

εις τινα κωμην] απηντης[αν δεκα λεπροι αν

δρες, οι εστησα]ν πορρωθ[εν και αυτοι ηραν

φωνην λεγοντε]ς ι ν υ ‾ επ[ιστατα ελεησον ημας

‘… Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered a certain village, ten lepers met him, who stood far off and lifted up their voices, saying, “Jesus ( ι ν υ ‾ , Ιησους: Iēsoûs), master, have mercy on us.”’

[recto]

τος υμων εστιν ειπεν δε] προ[ς τους μαθη

τας ελευσονται η]μεραι του επ[ιθυμησαι

υμας μιαν των η]μερων του [υιου* α ν ο υ ‾

ιδειν και ουκ οψ]εσθε και ε[ρουσιν υμιν

ἰδου εκει η ιδου] ωδε μη [απελθητε μηδε

‘… is among you. Then, he said to the disciples, “For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the son* (υιου: huíoù) of m a n ( α ν ο υ ‾ , ανθρωπου: ánthrōpou) be in his day. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.”’^[8]

Figure 3:

111 (verso: Luke 17:11–13, recto: Luke 17:21–23). Courtesy of Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, P.Oxy. LXVI 4495, A 3.B4/6B.39.

In the last sentence of the verso, the upper stroke signifies a Nomen Sacrum of three characters: ι ν υ ‾ . Unlike this apparent Nomen Sacrum for ι ν υ ‾ , researchers should carefully determine whether any Nomina Sacra are used in the damaged parts. In the damaged parts on the right side of the third line of the recto, the original text is supposed to be υιου ανθρωπου (the genitive forms of huiós and ánthrōpos: Son of Man). It is evident that the scribe applies Nomina Sacra here, considering the limited space available in the damaged portion. For Christian scribes, the words huiós (υἱὸς: Son) and ánthrōpos (ἀνθρώπος: Man) were often subjected to Nomina Sacra. Given this scribe’s style for the size of one character, it is highly likely that the scribe employs the abbreviated form of α ν ο υ ‾ for ανθρωπου (the genitive form of ánthrōpos), as it is necessary to abbreviate more characters in order to accommodate the limited space. Consequently, according to this analysis, 111 exhibits the use of Nomina Sacra for Iēsoûs and anthrōpou at least before the first half of the third century CE.

This study explores the use of Nomina Sacra in 170 New Testament MSS dating from the second century to the fifth century CE. Conducting a comprehensive analysis to ascertain the precise dating and the presence of Nomina Sacra in all 170 MSS exceeds the scope of this study due to the extensive data involved. Therefore, this study analyzes Nomina Sacra based on the reconstructed texts of MSS presented in Comfort’s study (2019).

2.2 Macro and meso analyses of linguistic ideologies

A comprehensive examination of the studies pertaining to the sacred language ideologies (Bennett 2011; Fishman 2006; Salami 2006; Sinnemäki and Saarikivi 2019; Sawyer 1999; Wolf 2006) reveals that not only Christian but also other religious communities frequently employ sociopolitical and sociocultural representations as a vehicle for conveying veneration; a sacred language ideology is a general linguistic phenomenon that can be observed in any religion. This practice is intricately linked to the distinctive sociopolitical and sociocultural backdrop within which a particular community operate, shaping the ideology regarding the holy identity of the community.

This study seeks to uncover the various factors that underlay the linguistic ideology of Nomina Sacra. With respect to Nomina Sacra, linguistic ideology refers to the attitudes, beliefs, and values held by early Christians regarding the use of abbreviated forms for written sacred names. These attitudes and beliefs shaped the use and development of Nomina Sacra in early Christian texts, and they were influenced by a variety of social, cultural, and religious factors.

It is worth noting two factors that create and promote a linguistic ideology within a group of people. The first factor pertains to a macro context in which a language policy of institutional communities controls linguistic ideologies. This language policy encompasses all official activities of the central system that manage and control a particular language form through legal measures, codification, and educational initiatives. As Spolsky (2021) explains, these linguistic ideologies are regulated and propagated by two types of individuals: (1) the management agencies and (2) the management advocates. Management agencies represent the authoritative language managers who are responsible for formulating and implementing language policies within institutional communities. On the other hand, management advocates serve as language reformers who disseminate linguistic ideologies related to their chosen languages among individuals, groups, and communities while seeking to persuade the authoritative language managers. Fishman (2006) notes that religious authorities may serve as the management agencies or management advocates who implement a language policy for a sacred language ideology.

However, linguistic ideologies are not always managed and controlled by language policy. As Spolsky (2004) points out, individuals’ beliefs about language usage may differ from the linguistic ideology of the institutional community. Moreover, Bohak (2008) demonstrates that some ideologies widely spread within the Jewish and Christian communities, even when the authorities did not provide specific regulations or policies. That is to say, individuals’ personal beliefs, ideas, or thoughts could become popular ideologies without a language policy. This leads us to highlight another significant factor that influences linguistic ideologies in reality.

The second factor involves meso contexts, wherein individuals’ personal beliefs, ideas, or thoughts are shared and accepted as the collective beliefs, ideas, or thoughts of their communities. Eckert (2004) explains that linguistic ideologies are often shaped and shared within strong social networks of individuals. The degree of active engagement within robust social networks positively correlates with the robustness of the distinctive linguistic ideologies within small parties, groups, and communities (Milroy and Gordon 2003). Eckert (2008) defines these social networks that foster distinctive linguistic ideology as indexical field.

Building upon Eckert’s study, Bell (2013) proposes the indexical cycle model, which delineates the mechanisms through which individuals’ personal beliefs, ideas, or thoughts metamorphose into the linguistic ideologies of their communities without necessitating external intervention by governing bodies or advocates. In other words, a particular indexical field can emerge from interpersonal interactions and subsequently gain prominence both at intermediate and broader societal levels. Both Eckert (2004) and Bell (2013) contend that a heightened density of participants within noninstitutional communities situated in meso contexts can produce a strong indexical field for a distinctive linguistic ideology.

Taking all these points into consideration, the macro and meso analyses will focus on the sacred language ideology in early Christianity as constructed by two factors: (1) language policy in the macro context and (2) the indexical fields in the meso context. This study aims at determining how these factors might contribute to the creation and promotion of sacred language ideology related to Nomina Sacra in Christianity between the second to fifth centuries CE.

First, the inquiry into the macro context will be conducted through a comparative analysis of data collected from the period preceding and the period succeeding the Edict of Milan (313 CE). Due to persecution by the Roman Empire, from the second to the early fourth century CE Christianity did not have a systematic political structure that extended over international networks. Following the Edict of Milan, Christians officially gained religious freedom through the institutional community of the Roman Empire and gradually gained power within the empire. As a result, after the mid-fourth century CE, Christian authorities began to exert control over various aspects of church activities as it transitioned from a local-church system to a centralized system with the support of Roman authorities. On the basis of their hegemony, the church authorities standardized theology regarding the trinitarianism and Mariology throughout the Roman Empire.

With this in mind, this study will investigate a language policy about Nomina Sacra both before and after the Edict of Milan. Due to the limited availability of data, it is challenging to determine the specific nature of language policies implemented by church authorities. Therefore, this study will aim to identify whether the church authorities successfully established a language policy for standardizing Nomina Sacra. If Nomina Sacra have homogenous styles with the standard form overarching all of Christianity after the edict, it can be concluded that management agencies or proponents implemented a systematic language policy for standardizing Nomina Sacra. Conversely, the absence of evidence supporting a standardized process for Nomina Sacra in the post-edict data will indicate that the sacred language ideology was not effectively governed by church authorities’ language policy or that the authorities lacked a systematic language policy.

Second, an investigation into the meso context aims to determine the indexical fields of the sacred language ideologies for Nomina Sacra by examining the distribution of identical contractions. The ubiquitous utilization of the same Nomen Sacrum would serve as a testament to a strong and broad indexical field, for the given Nomen Sacrum must have been established based on international networks within Christianity. On the other hand, the restriction of a Nomen Sacrum to a solitary MS or a limited number of MSS would indicate a weak and restricted indexical field, since the contraction clearly remained unadopted by other local churches. By undertaking an exploration of the distribution of Nomina Sacra in MSS dating from the second to the fifth century CE, this study endeavors to discern the chronological evolution of these indexical fields in tandem with the theological developments in the annals of church history.

2.3 Micro analysis of Christian scribes’ styles

Another significant inquiry pertains to the style that individual scribes use when applying Nomina Sacra to texts in a micro context. A micro context involves individuals’ communicative competence – namely, their linguistic ability in framing language to correspond most appropriately to the context of their conversation or writing (Coupland 2007; Hymes 1974). According to Bell’s style model (2013), on the basis of their communicative competence, individuals may choose to employ a responsive style corresponding to the macro and meso context (audience design) or an initiative style, for a discursive purpose, in the micro context (referee design).

An understanding of this micro context sheds light on the scribes’ irregular patterns of employing Nomina Sacra. First, some scribes might want to employ Nomina Sacra by following the general norms and rules regarding Nomina Sacra in the macro and meso contexts (responsive style). It is worth noting the inevitable errors that occur when scribes want to employ a responsive style. Since kýrios, theós, Iēsoûs, and Christós directly represent God or Jesus, except for a few cases, it is not challenging to apply Nomina Sacra to these words. However, the scribes cannot avoid making mistakes when the Nomina Sacra applied to terms do not refer directly to the triune God but often to other entities, such as pneûma, huiós, patēr (πατήρ: father), ánthrōpos, haîma (αἷμα: blood), and staurós (σταυρός: cross). Since these words do not uniformly maintain the same theological significance in the biblical Scriptures, the application of Nomina Sacra to these words requires the interpretive skills of individual scribes, particularly regarding the theological implications of their referents.^[9] In addition, the fact that scribes had to copy a large volume of text in a short time makes it more difficult for them to apply Nomina Sacra to these words, inevitably resulting in errors in the application of Nomina Sacra to these words. With this in mind, the consistency of the application of these Nomina Sacra reflects the individual scribes’ linguistic abilities.

Second, scribes might choose not to adhere to general norms and rules regarding sacred language ideologies in the macro and meso contexts (initiative style). Instead, they may opt to employ Nomina Sacra based on their individual interpretations of the sanctity of newly introduced referents. This innovative approach has the potential to give rise to a novel form of Nomina Sacra. Subsequently, if this new style garners acceptance among fellow scribes, it could find its way into other MSS, thus influencing linguistic ideologies within the meso context. Conversely, if it does not gain acceptance, other scribes are unlikely to adopt this particular style.

The micro analysis identifies the individual scribes’ styles in applying Nomina Sacra. This analysis requires MSS capable of providing sufficient data for analyzing the scribes’ styles. While the majority of MSS between the second to fifth century CE consist of only a small number of fragments, with many missing and damaged parts, the following MSS contain a substantial amount of data regarding Nomina Sacra: 45, 46, 66, and 75.^[10] This micro analysis demonstrates how individual scribes interpret Nomina Sacra and apply contractions.

3.1 The macro context of Nomina Sacra

It was not until the Edict of Milan in 313 CE that Christianity established a centralized system for managing and systematically controlling local churches. It is important to note two significant councils in the history of Christianity related to the concept of Nomina Sacra: (1) the Council of Nicea (325 CE) and the Council of Ephesus (431 CE).

The Council of Nicea was convened to deliberate on and make decisions concerning fundamental Christian theological issues and to address various heresies. The Nicene council adopted the Nicene Creed, which solidified the concept of the Trinity. In this doctrine, God is understood as including God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Following the formulation of the Nicene Creed, those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity were considered heretics and were subsequently expelled from the mainstream church due to their adherence to nontrinitarian or antitrinitarian beliefs, often leading to their isolation from the mainstream church.

MSS offer substantial evidence to suggest that the sacred language ideology associated with the triune God gained popularity within the international Christian networks that existed before the convening of the Nicene council in the early fourth century CE. As illustrated in Table 1, the practice of using Nomina Sacra was applied to various designations referring to the triune God as early as the second century CE. These designations include kýrios, theós, Iēsoûs, Christós, pneûma, huiós, patēr, ánthrōpos, haîma, and staurós. The majority of subsequent MSS indicate that except for haîma and staurós, other Nomina Sacra referring to the triune God were commonly employed. In addition, long MSS, such as 45, 46, 66, and 75, which collectively encompass a significant number of pages provide substantial support for the prevalence of the linguistic ideology associated with the Trinity within local churches before the convening of the Nicene council (see Appendix III).

The Council of Ephesus officially affirmed the Mariological belief that Mary was the mother of God, which relates to the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ. This proclamation underscored the sacred role and status of Mary as Theotokos (God-Bearer). The use of a Nomen Sacrum for mētēr reveals the adoption of a sacred language ideology regarding Mariology prior to the convening of the Council of Ephesus in the early fifth century CE. The MS 121, for instance, exhibits the employment of Nomen Sacrum for mētēr as early as the third century CE. This aligns with the broader Christian historical context. As Schaff (1957: 422) notes, the church in the second century CE “never asserted that Mary was the mother of the essential, eternal divinity of the Logos. She was, and continues to be a created being, a human mother, even according to the Roman and Greek doctrine.”

The prevalence of linguistic ideologies related to Mariology before the Council of Ephesus remains uncertain, as only a limited number of papyri provide support for such linguistic ideology. In the following MSS, mētēr is not assigned to the contraction associated with a Nomen Sacrum but is instead rendered in its full letters: (1) 1: Matthew 1:8 (the late second century to early third century CE); (2) 19: Matthew 10:35, 10:37 (the third century CE); (3) 45: Mark 7:[10], 11, [12]; Luke 12:53 (the late second century to early third century CE); (4) 46: Romans 16:13; Ephesians 5:31; Galatians 1:15; 4:26 (the early to middle second century CE); (5) 75: John 2:1, 3, 5, 12; 3:4; 19:25, 19:25, [26], [26], 27 (the middle to late second century CE); (6) 77: Matthew 13:55 (the early to middle second century CE); (7) 91: Acts 3:[2] (the third century CE); and (8) Uncial 0162, John 2:12 (the middle to late third century CE). Even in longer MSS like 45, 46, 66, and 75, Nomina Sacra are absent even when the text refers to Mary, the mother of God the Son (Luke 8:19; John 2:1, 3, 5, 12; 19:25, [26], [26], 27). The absence of Nomen Sacrum for mētēr in these MMS suggest that the sacred language ideology for mētēr between the third and fifth centuries CE was not popularized but was, rather, employed in a small number of local Christian communities.

The MSS subsequent to the Edict of Milan, which was issued in the early fourth century CE, demonstrate that Christianity lacked a systematic language policy toward Nomina Sacra. Through an analysis of 170 MSS as indicated in Table 1, it becomes apparent that Nomina Sacra were not consistently employed for terms unrelated to the trinitarianism and Mariology following the formal proclamation of these doctrines about the Trinity and Mary in official councils. To be sure, a significant number of mainstream Christian congregations adhered to the doctrines established in these official councils. However, the fact that Nomina Sacra were applied to pneûma, even when it referred to things like the human heart or malevolent spirits, indicates a lack of control over the scribes’ use of these contractions. Section 3.3 will demonstrate my micro analysis of this issue in more detail.

Consequently, the usage of Nomina Sacra from the second to the fifth centuries CE sheds light on the diverse linguistic ideologies presented within Christianity, which were influenced by Christians’ theological convictions concerning sacred referents. This macro analysis of Nomina Sacra suggests that the sacred language ideologies regarding the triune God and Mary already existed within local churches before the official statements of the Council of Nicea and the Council of Ephesus. In addition, the inconsistent use of Nomina Sacra for trinitarianism and Mariology after the Council of Nicea and the Council of Ephesus demonstrates that church authorities did not implement a systematic language policy. Taking all these into consideration, it becomes apparent that linguistic ideologies for Nomina Sacra within local churches were not standardized by the Christian authorities between the second and fifth centuries CE.

3.2 The meso context of Nomina Sacra

In the early stages of Christianity, there existed a multitude of theological viewpoints concerning the sacred figures and locales delineated in the biblical Scriptures. These theological variations were manifested in sacred language ideologies through the utilization of Nomina Sacra in MSS. Due to the total lack of information pertaining to the scribes responsible for the MSS, pinpointing the precise geographical dissemination of these linguistic ideologies within local congregations becomes an almost impossible task. Therefore, the objective of this study is to ascertain the indexical fields of Nomina Sacra by investigating the chronological distribution of predominant linguistic ideologies alongside less prominent linguistic ideologies.

The predominant sacred language ideologies focus on the triune God between the second and fifth centuries CE. Table 1 demonstrates the widespread usage, throughout all of these periods, of Nomina Sacra for terms such as kýrios, theós, Iēsoûs, pneûma (pneumatikós), Christós, huiós, patēr, and ánthrōpos. This suggests that the sacred language ideologies toward these referents were popularized within the majority of the mainstream churches from the second century CE onward.

Nomina Sacra of staurós and stauróō show a highly accurate application to Jesus’ crucifixion (see my micro analysis in Section 3.3). As presented in Table 1, however, only a few MSS do not use Nomina Sacra for these words: staurós does not receive a Nomen Sacrum in 11, 13, and Uncial 0214, and stauróō does not in 77, 90, 91, and 115. Despite the highly correct application of Nomina Sacra for these terms, it is difficult to conclude whether the sacred language ideologies for staurós and stauróō were predominant like other Nomina Sacra related to the triune God, due to the limited available data in MSS. Nevertheless, the use of this Nomen Sacrum with a special form of the cross-shaped mark called the Staurogram for stauróō in some MSS articulates its sacred meaning as atonement (see Figure 4).

Figure 4:

Staurogram in 66 (John 19:31). CC BY – 4.0. Chester Beatty, Dublin. Chester Beatty Object No: CBL BP XIX.

Nomina Sacra for dúnamis (72), Dauíd (91), and haîma (46) appears only one time. The fact that these specific contractions are not shared by other scribes implies that they may represent less prominent linguistic ideologies or individual scribes’ personal styles. A Nomen Sacrum for haîma appears in 46 which offers a lot of data with long pages. While haîma is used to refer to Jesus’s blood on nine occasions (1 Cor 10:16; 11:25, 27; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20; Heb 9:12, 14, 13:12), there is only one instance of a Nomen Sacrum for this word in 46. In fact, the Nomen Sacra of haîma was recorded with the upper stroke but with the full spelling. Moreover, the scribe made two mistakes in this verse (Comfort 2019: 1:216). Given the textual evidence, it is probable that the Nomen Sacrum for haîma was also the scribe’s mistake.

In addition, there are two noteworthy groups of Nomina Sacra which are not related to the triune God. The first group contains words that are given a Nomen Sacrum in only one papyrus each: (1) kósmos (15), Christianós (45), Nóe (72), Michaḯl (72), and Mōsēs (P.Egerton 2). The absence of Nomina Sacra for these referents in the other MSS suggests that they might reflect more marginal linguistic ideologies or individual scribes’ unique stylistic preferences.

The second group involves the following Nomina Sacra, which are employed by more than two scribes but not widely accepted by many scribes: (1) mētēr (121, Uncial 0261), (2) Ierousalḗm (75, 118, 127, Uncial 0165, Uncial 0189, Uncial 0261), (3) Israēl (27, 40, 75, 115, Uncial 0165, Uncial 0189), (4) ouranós (56, 115, P. Oxy. 405, P.Oxy. 4010, Uncial 0169, Uncial 0170), and (5) ouránios (Uncial 170). Data in Table 1 shows that the linguistic ideologies of the second group are shared by a small number of scribes in different times. However, their Nomina Sacra are rejected by the following MMS: (1) mētēr (1, 19, 45, 46, 66, 70, 75, 77, 91, Uncial 0162), (2) Ierousalḗm (38, 45, 46, 48, 66, 77, Uncial 071, Uncial 0162, Uncial 0175), (3) Israēl (4, 45, 46, 66, 91, 106, Uncial 059/0215), (4) ouranós (4, 5, 13, 19, 30, 36, 45, 46, 47, 51, 62, 66, 67, 72, 75, 85, 91, 101, 106, 107, 114, 115, 134, P.Ant. 2.54, Uncial 0165, Uncial 169), and (5) ouránios (29). The use of full spelling without a Nomen Sacrum evinces that these Nomina Sacra were not predominant based on the international networks of Christianity but remained only in particular local networks.

Taking all these into consideration, the indexical fields of Nomina Sacra can be categorized into the following five types: (1) type 1: kýrios, theós, Iēsoûs, Christós, huiós, patēr, ánthrōpos, pneûma, and pneumatikós(?); (2) type 2: staurós, and stauróō; (3) type 3: mētēr, Ierousalḗm, Israēl, ouranós, and ouránios(?); (4) type 4: kósmos, dúnamis, Christianós, Nóe, Dauíd, Michaḯl, and Mōsēs; and (5) type 5: haîma. ^[12] Type 1 possesses the strongest and broadest robust indexical field among all five. Subsequent types exhibit progressively weaker and more restricted indexical fields. Therefore, type 5 exhibits the weakest and most restricted indexical field (see Figure 5). The first two types are made up mostly of terms that refer to the triune God. Meanwhile, all Nomina Sacra not related to the triune God are distributed between types 3 and 5, suggesting that they have weak and limited indexical fields. This pattern indicates that the mainstream churches had a strong sacred language ideology for the triune God between the second and fifth centuries CE.

Figure 5:

Indexical fields of the sacred language ideologies for Nomina Sacra.

To sum up, the macro and meso analyses of this study reveal a strong sacred language ideology, in all periods, centered on Nomina Sacra associated with the triune God. To be sure, P.Egerton 2 shows that the prototype of Nomina Sacra include the referents not relating to the triune God. However, the indexical fields of 170 MSS suggest that the sacred language ideologies for the referents not associated with the triune God were less popularized than associated with the Triune God. This suggests that although there were diverse sacred language ideologies for referents not relating to the triune God within the local churches, early Christianity might have established strong and broad indexical fields that shaped the same sacred language ideology regarding the triune God.

3.3 The micro context of Nomina Sacra

Due to the individual scribes’ diverse perspectives and skill levels in interpreting Nomina Sacra, they employed distinctive styles in their use of Nomina Sacra. This micro analysis investigates the following MSS in order to determine the scribes’ styles for using Nomina Sacra: 45, 46, 66, and 75.^[13] These papyri provide useful data for the micro analysis, as they contain over one hundred pages.

Since they clearly refer to Jesus, data regarding the application of Nomina Sacra for Iēsoûs and Christós exhibit a high level of accuracy in the 170 MSS: (1) Iēsoûs, 99.8 % (819 correct, 2 incorrect), and (2) Christós, 99.8 % (468 correct, 1 incorrect). This same level of precision is evident in 45, 46, 66, and 75. Since all instances of Iēsoûs and Christós denote Christ in these MSS, all of them are written with Nomina Sacra.

The next accurate application of Nomina Sacra in the 170 MSS is for theós and kýrios: (1) theós: 98.9 % (1,032 correct, 11 incorrect) (2) kýrios: 94.5 % (502 correct, 29 incorrect). The application of Nomina Sacra to theós and kýrios shows how scribes interpret the sacred meaning of these references within the textual contexts. First, the word theós mostly refers to God in its singular form and rarely to another god or gods in its plural form. The fact that scribes meticulously analyzed the singular and plural forms of theós within the text and applied the Nomen Sacrum demonstrates that they possessed a sacred language ideology. The following verses recorded in 46 show one example:

46: 1 Cor 8:4–5

… περι της βρωσεως

ουν των ειδωλοθυτων οιδαμεν

οτι ουδεν ειδωλον εν κοσμω

και οτι ουδεις θ ς ‾ ει μη εις και γαρ

ειπερ εισιν λεγομένοι θεοι* ειτε

εν ουρανω ειτε επι γης ωσπερ

πολλοι εισιν θεοι* και κυριοι* πολλοι

‘… When it comes to the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God ( θ ς ‾ , θεος: theós) but one. For even if there are so-called gods* (θεοι: theoí), whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many gods* (θεοι: theoí) and many lords* (κυριοι: kýrioi).’

In these verses, the scribe utilizes a Nomen Sacrum for the initial mention of theós, signifying the divine entity. However, theoí (the plural form of theós: gods) is rendered with full spelling to identify the referents as other gods. Furthermore, kýrioi (the plural noun of kýrios: lords) does not receive a Nomen Sacrum, as it pertains to pagan deities.

Within MSS 45 and 75, the use of a Nomen Sacrum for theós is executed perfectly. When theós denotes God the Father, the Nomen Sacrum is employed, while the complete spelling is used when theós signifies a different god. Notably, 46 has only a single error, whereas 66 contains two inaccuracies.

Second, kýrios primarily denotes God, occasionally refers to Jesus, and rarely signifies a human master. Unlike theós, the reference of kýrios cannot be determined with grammatical form. Therefore, the application of a Nomen Sacrum to kýrios requires scribes’ interpretive skills regarding its meaning within the textual contexts. The scribe of 45 applies a Nomen Sacrum to kýrios nine times in the parable of the master, where the master represents God (Luke 12:36, 37, 43, [44], 46; 13:8; 14:[21], [22], 23). This scribe correctly uses full spelling for kýrios when it refers to a human master (Acts 8:24; 16:16, 19). Likewise, the scribe of 75 employs a Nomen Sacrum for the parable of the master because the master symbolizes God (Luke 16:3, 13). The scribe of 46 uses full spelling for a human master and makes only one mistake (Rom 14:4). However, the scribe of 66 uses a Nomen Sacrum for every single instance of kýrios, even when it denotes a human master (John 13:16; 15:15, 20; 20:15).

Compared with Nomina Sacra used for theós and kýrios, the application of a Nomen Sacrum to pneûma exhibits a lack of precision in the 170 MSS: 70.2 % (228 correct, 97 incorrect). Since their instances primarily refer to God or Jesus, determining Nomina Sacra of theós and kýrios is not a challenging task for scribes. However, pneûma more frequently denotes referents not associated with the Holy Spirit, such as an evil spirit, a human spirit, or a heart. This makes it more difficult to apply a Nomen Sacrum of pneûma. Scribal errors are therefore inevitable (Estes 2015; Malik 2017). Given this, the precise application of Nomina Sacra by scribes reflects their individual interpretive abilities concerning many possible meanings of pneûma within the textual contexts. The following percentages represent the use of the Nomen Sacrum for pneûma when it refers to the Holy Spirit in the four MSS: (1) 45, 55.17 %; (2) 46, 76.1 %; (3) 66, 82.6 %; and (4) 75, 56.75 %.

Likewise, Nomina Sacra are applied with low accuracy to the following terms, which infrequently pertain to the triune God and instead commonly allude to other things in the 170 MSS: (1) huiós: 64.3 % (205 correct, 114 incorrect), (2) patēr: 66.4 % (291 correct, 147 incorrect), (3) ánthrōpos: 59.3 % (254 correct, 174 incorrect), and (4) Israēl: 56.8 % (25 correct, 19 incorrect). The same phenomenon of applying these Nomina Sacra with low accuracy is observed in 45, 46, 66, and 75 (see Appendix III).

The use of these Nomina Sacra, which are difficult to apply accurately, demonstrates individual scribes’ styles. For instance, the following MSS show scribes’ different styles for applying a Nomen Sacrum to pneûma and páter in the same passage:

45: Luke 10:20–21

πλην εν τουτωι μη χαιρετε οτι τ[α π ] ν α ‾ υμιν υποτασσεται [χαι

ρετε δε οτι τα ονοματα υμων εγ[ραφη ε]ν τοις ουρανοις. εν αυτ[ηι

τηι ωρα ηγαλλιασατο εν τωι π [ ν ι ‾ καιειπε]ν εξομολογουμαι σο[ι

π ρ κ ε ‾ του ουρανου οτι απεκ[ρυψας ταυτα απο] σοφων και συνετων

και απεκαλυψας αυτα ν[ηπιοις ναι ουτως εγενετο ευ]δοκια ε

μ]προσθεν σου …

‘In this, do not rejoice that the evil spirits ( π ν α ‾ , πνευματα: pneûmata) are subject to you. But rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven. At that very time he rejoiced greatly in the H o l y Spirit ( π ν ι ‾ , πνευματι: pneûmati) and said, “I praise You, O F a t h e r , Lord ( π ρ κ ε ‾ , πατερ κυριε: páter kýrie) of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well pleasing in your sight.”’

75: Luke 10:20–21

πλην εν τουτω μη χαιρετε οτι τα πνευ

μα[τ]α* υμιν υποτασσεται χαιρετε

δε οτι τα ονοματα υμων ενγε

γρατττ[αι ε]ν τοις ουρανοις. εν αυτη

τη ωρ[α ηγ]αλλιασατο τω π ν ι ‾ τω αγι

ω και [ει]πεν εξομολογουμαι σοι

πατ[ερ]* κ ε ‾ του ουρανου και της γης

οτ]ι [απε]κρυψας ταυτα απο σοφων και

συνε]των και απεκαλυψας αυτα

νη]πιοις ναι ο πατηρ οτι ουτως

ε]υδοκια εγενετο εμπροσθεν σου.

‘In this, do not rejoice that the evil spirits* (πνευματα: pneûmata) are subject to you. But rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven. At that very time he rejoiced greatly in the Holy S p i r i t ( π ν ι ‾ , πνευματι: pneûmati) and said, “I praise You, O Father* (πατερ: p á t e r ), Lord ( κ ε ‾ , κυριε: kýrie) of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well pleasing in your sight.”’

Whereases the scribe of 45 employs a Nomen Sacrum both for evil spirits and the Holy Spirit, the scribe of 75 opts not to employ a Nomen Sacrum for evil spirits and instead reserves it exclusively for the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, in 45, Nomina Sacra for páter (the vocative form of páter) and kýrie (the vocative form of kýrios) are combined into the single Nomen Sacr um π ρ κ ε ‾ . However, in 75, only a single Nomen Sacr um contraction, κ ε ‾ , is employed. These usages of Nomina Sacra indicates that although both scribes agree on the application of Nomen Sacrum to kýrie, they adopt divergent interpretative approaches to pneûma and páter within the same textual context.

Despite the small number of data, the application of Nomina Sacra for staurós and stauróō shows individual scribe’s distinctive styles. The scribes of 45 and 46 employ Nomina Sacra for every single occurrence of staurós and stauróō. Meanwhile, the scribes of 66 and 75 do not use Nomina Sacra for all instances of these words but, instead, employ full spelling for some instances. The uses of full spelling for stauróō in 66 (John 19:10, 23, 41) appears to be the result of scribal errors, as these instances refer to Jesus’ cross. However, the scribe of 75 meticulously chooses either a Nomen Sacrum or the full spelling in light of the term’s rhetorical significance within the text. First of all, the scribe of 75 emphasizes the theological meaning of Jesus’ cross as atonement offering by using the Staurogram, Nomen Sacrum with a special form of the cross-shaped mark (see Figure 4), for staurós and stauróō in the following verses:

75: Luke 14:27

… οστις ου βασταξει τον

αυτου και ερχεται οπισω μου. ου

δυναται είναι μου μαθητης.

‘… Whoever does not bear his own cross (, σταυρον: staurón) and come after me cannot be my disciple.’

75: Luke 24:7

… λεγων τον υιον*

του α ν ο υ ‾ οτι δει παραδοθηναι εις χειρας

α ν ω ν ‾ αμαρτωλων και τη

τριτη ημερα αναστηναι

‘… saying that the Son* (υιον: huión) of Man ( α ν ο υ ‾ , ανθρωπου: ánthrōpou) must be delivered into the hands of sinful men ( α ν ω ν ‾ , ανθρωπων: anthrṓpōn) and be crucified (, σταυρωθηναι: staurōthēnai) and on the third day rise again.’

Additionally, the scribe of 75 perceives delicate shades of meaning of staurós and stauróō. The scribe uses Nomina Sacra for staurón (the accusative form of staurós) and staurōthēnai (the aorist passive infinitive form of stauróō) when they imply atonement. On the other hand, when stauróō implies a means of the death penalty, the scribe does not give it a Nomen Sacrum. The following verses are two examples:

75: Luke 23:21

… οι δε

επεφωνουν λεγον σταυρου* σταυρου*

αυτόν

‘But they shouted, saying, “Crucify* (σταυρου: stauroû)! Crucify* (σταυρου: stauroû) him!”’

75: Luke 23:33

… και οτε ηλ

θον επι τον τοπον τον καλουμενον

κρανιον εκει εστρωσαν* αυτον, και τους

κακουργους, ον μεν εκ δεξιων ον δε

εξ αριστερων

‘And when they came to the place called Calvary, there they crucified* (εστρωσαν: estrṓsan) him and the criminals, one on the right hand and one on the left.’

Given these applications of the full spelling to stauroû (the imperative form of stauróō) and estrṓsan (the aorist active indicative form of stauróō), it is evident that the scribe of 75 differentiates between the rhetorical nuances in staurós and stauróō in the texts.

In addition, it is worth noting the unique application of Nomina Sacra for Christianós and Ierousalḗm. While the scribes responsible for 46 and 66 refrained from employing Nomina Sacra for anything not associated with the triune God, the scribe of 45 applied a Nomen Sacrum to Christianós, and the scribe of 77 used it for Ierousalḗm. The absence of these Nomina Sacra in other MSS indicates that their use may reflect these scribes’ unique perspectives in interpreting their referents.

In sum, my analysis of data drawn from 170 MSS reveals a multitude of distinct linguistic ideologies within the Christian tradition as well as varying approaches employed by scribes when applying Nomina Sacra during the period spanning the second to the fifth centuries CE. Even subsequent to the issuance of the Edict of Milan, these MSS exhibit a spectrum of stylistic preferences in the handling of Nomina Sacra, suggesting the absence of a successful language policy to standardize their usages. Meanwhile, the analysis of the distribution of these MSS demonstrates that despite the absence of a language policy, local churches had strong and broad indexical fields for sacred language ideology centered on trinitarianism, while Nomina Sacra unrelated to trinitarianism formed weak and limited indexical fields. Notably, an in-depth scrutiny of scribes’ practices in abbreviating the words theós, kýrios, pneûma, staurós, and stauróō unveils a purposeful and nonrandom application of these contractions. These findings demonstrate that while scribes were influenced by prevailing linguistic paradigms, they employed these contractions in alignment with their individual perspectives regarding the sanctity of these terms.