— Edited

We jump to Jude 5 - for a reason. This is where reading a Greek manuscript can make text criticism come alive because you can SEE the issue that critics are discussing. Below are images of Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. First notice in Sinaiticus, line 4, the first word is KC, the nοmen sacrum for κυριος. Now note Vaticanus, middle of line 4, the word is IC, the nomen sacrum for Ιησους. Also notice the two dots in the right margin which point out knowledge of a variant reading. The scribe of B was aware of the KC variant reading. Thus we have the two oldest uncials, א and B, disagreeing on whether it was the Lord or Jesus who brought them out of Egypt and then destroyed the unbelievers. NA27 had κυριος but one of the new readings in NA28 is Ιησους. We are not going to solve this issue here (see Wasserman argument below), but being able to read the mss shows how a scribe could inadvertently mistake KC for IC, because their similarities as nomina sacra are not there in their full spellings! More later on the "singular" reading of p72 at this point. Thanks to BW for the images.

  2. Two thoughts, which are really questions: 1). In looking at my NA27 (I don't have my NA28 with me), I noticed that there is a variant reading of the nominative, masculine, singular article with ΚΥΡΙOC in the text. In the literature, does this impact the development of the differences we see between ΚC and XC? 2). Can we determine whether or not certain nomina sacra were used interchangeably to reflect a theological conviction of the scribes? In other words, when a scribe would had seen KC, could they had written in IC without being necessarily an error, since they were thinking "κυριος = Ιησους" hence "ΚC = IC"?

  3. New idea to me, Mahlon. My first response is "no" I don't think so. If anything, I think it was a confusion between the two, not an instance of seeing them both the same. One theological comment. Even accepting that κυριος was original, the author would not be denying that the referent is Jesus. I think that the similarity of the two nomina sacra contributed to a variant reading, Now, which one was the original? For your consideration: Jesus was present at the exodus according to 1 Cor 10:4 & 9.

  4. BTW: I like the "amen" button. In your posting of P72 and getting to look at my NA28, there are certainly a whole host of options in terms of nomina sacra. To me it seems the wide variety of nomina sacra among the variants is asserting all the more the theological conviction among the scribes. I'm going to review Comfort's discussion of these nomina sacra. I'm enjoying this site. Keep em' coming. Blessings!