@slimboyfat
The claim that nomina sacra (abbreviations for sacred names like "God," "Lord," "Jesus," etc.) were introduced at a "later" stage after the NT texts were written—and that the early Christian authors did not use them—deserves a critical response, particularly regarding the argument's assumptions and historical context. It is true that there is some debate among scholars regarding the exact timing of the introduction of nomina sacra into early Christian manuscripts. However, to suggest that nomina sacra were entirely absent from the original NT documents or from the very early stages of Christianity overlooks several important points. While the earliest NT manuscripts available to us (such as P52) are indeed fragmentary, other early Christian manuscripts—such as P46 and P66, both from the 2nd century—show widespread use of nomina sacra. This suggests that nomina sacra were already well-established by the time these texts were circulating. To assume that the NT authors and scribes did not use them in their original writings seems speculative, given how pervasive the practice was just a short time after the originals were written.
The adoption of nomina sacra likely developed quite early in Christian communities as part of a distinct scribal tradition, possibly as a way to show reverence for the sacred names and distinguish Christian manuscripts from other texts. This does not require all the NT authors to have spontaneously "decided" to use this notation. Rather, it points to a shared theological and liturgical context in which scribes and early Christians used symbols or abbreviations for sacred words, showing a sense of uniformity across Christian communities.
The analogy of randomness in this argument—that Jehovah's Witnesses supposedly "randomly stumbled upon" a Christology more in line with what early Christians believed—raises a number of issues. It is inaccurate to claim that recent scholarship “universally” supports a non-Trinitarian Christology as more aligned with early Christianity. In fact, many of the earliest Christian writings, including those by the Church Fathers, strongly affirm the divinity of Christ, as seen in figures like Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD), who referred to Christ as "our God" repeatedly. To argue that the Jehovah's Witness Christology is closer to that of early Christians ignores a vast amount of early Christian literature that supports Christ's deity and the unity of the Trinity.
The idea that Jehovah's Witnesses have "stumbled upon" an early Christian view of Christology relies on selective readings of Scripture and anachronistic interpretations of early Christian writings. The Watchtower Society's theology stems not from historical continuity with early Christian thought, but from the specific theological innovations and speculations of Charles T. Russell and his successors in the late 19th century. Their rejection of the Trinity is part of a broader theological agenda that includes denying many key aspects of mainstream Christian teaching, not the result of a deep historical alignment with early Christian beliefs.
Even if nomina sacra were introduced after the initial writing of the NT texts (a claim still debated), their presence in manuscripts like P66 or P46 points to a very early recognition of the unique and sacred nature of certain names and titles for God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The use of nomina sacra is consistent with the development of early Trinitarian theology, in which the divine nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit was increasingly clarified and defended against heretical views.
For example, the nomina sacra for "Jesus" and "Lord" (κύριος/kurios), which were used early on, reflect the titles attributed to Christ in NT writings that affirm His divine status, such as John 1:1, where the Word is described as God, and Philippians 2:6-11, where Jesus is exalted and given the name above every name, a clear attribution of divine authority.
The debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace highlights scholarly discussions about various aspects of textual criticism, but the issue at hand is more about how early Christians understood Christ. 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not disprove the Trinity; rather, it affirms the monotheistic framework within which Christians understood the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. Paul distinguishes between the Father and the Son, but this does not imply subordinationism or the rejection of Christ's deity. Instead, it reflects a theological development that culminates in the full expression of Trinitarian doctrine.
The argument against the Trinity based on the use of nomina sacra or the assumption that early Christians were unaware of Christ's deity is flawed. The nomina sacra tradition, the writings of the earliest Church Fathers, and the NT itself all point to an early and widespread recognition of Christ's divine status. The JW interpretation of Christology is a modern innovation, not a "recovery" of early Christian belief, and should not be confused with the theological developments that occurred in the first few centuries of the Church.
@Earnest
Your critique seems to center on two primary arguments: (1) that the use of nomina sacra likely originated as an act of reverence towards divine names and thus reflects a developed Christian scribal practice, rather than something directly tied to the original writings, and (2) that capitalizing "God" in John 1:1 could blur the qualitative distinction between the two uses of "God" (theon) and "God" (theos). I'll address each of these points in turn.
You argue that the original writers, most of whom were Jewish, likely did not employ the nomina sacra system, as it was a later Christian scribal innovation. While this hypothesis is reasonable, it is not conclusive. By the way, this view is based on some Greek OT manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but each of them contains the divine name in a different way, and the Qumran community did not even represent the mainstream of Judaism. From these it is not possible to draw far-reaching conclusions about the scribal practice of the Jews as a whole.
(Here I will digress for a thought: I once argued with a JW about the hypothesis that if they found one single 2-3rd century NT manuscript fragment which would contain some form of the Tetragrammaton (e.g. IAO). Well, what would that prove? That this was the original apostolic variant? That the JW emphasis on the "use" of the Tetragrammaton was the original mainstream in the apostolic age? Not even remotely! This would prove only that there was also such a thing, we would not really know anything about who made it, what group it belonged to, what theological background represented. For example, according to Pietersma, the Greek OT editions with the forms of the Tetragrammaton are the result of a rehabraizing recension, so the hypothetical NT manuscript I suggested could also be the own product of a Judaizing heterodox sect (e.g. Ebionites), so we wouldn't really know anything, it's all just speculation, but let's not doubt it, the WTS would immediately start celebrating triumphantly…)
You assert that because there is no evidence of nomina sacra in first-century Septuagint manuscripts, we should conclude that the NT writers did not use it either. However, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. The earliest extant manuscripts containing nomina sacra date from the 2nd century, but we do not possess original NT autographs, only later copies. The fact that nomina sacra are found in very early Christian manuscripts suggests that the practice could have been in use earlier, even potentially during the time of the original authors. Since these earliest manuscripts already exhibit the practice, it is possible, though not provable, that the NT writers or their immediate followers introduced or at least approved of this scribal convention.
While you argue that the use of nomina sacra could have been anathema to the Jewish authors of the NT, it is important to remember that early Christians, though Jewish by background, were not merely continuing Jewish scribal traditions. The early Christian community made numerous innovations in response to their belief in Jesus as the Messiah and their understanding of his divine nature. These innovations included changes in the way they interpreted and applied Scripture. For example, while many Jews continued to write the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in special characters or avoided pronouncing it altogether, early Christians began to refer to Jesus using divine titles like "Lord" (Kyrios), which had been reserved for God in the Septuagint. This shift in usage reflects the theological significance early Christians attributed to Jesus. Therefore, it's plausible that early Christians might have introduced the nomina sacra as a way of reverently distinguishing divine names, particularly in relation to Jesus, even if this practice had not been common in Jewish scribal traditions.
Larry Hurtado’s argument that nomina sacra likely began with the name "Jesus" and expanded to other sacred terms is compelling because it reflects the centrality of Jesus in early Christian worship. Even if the exact origin of nomina sacra is debated, the point remains that by the time we have extant Christian manuscripts, this practice was already well established. Whether the practice began with "Jesus" or the Tetragrammaton is secondary to the fact that it was used deliberately to signify reverence and divinity. Hurtado and other scholars suggest that the use of nomina sacra was not simply a mechanical device but a theological one, marking the distinction between the sacred and the mundane.
You raise an important question about the capitalization of "God" in John 1:1, particularly whether this blurs the distinction between "the Word was with God" (theon) and "the Word was God" (theos). Here's why I believe capitalizing "God" in both instances is justified. The distinction between ton theon and theos in John 1:1 does not reflect a difference in nature or status between the two uses of "God," but rather a grammatical distinction. In the phrase "the Word was with [the] God" (pros ton theon), the article (ton) specifies that "God" refers to the person of the Father. In the second phrase, "and the Word was God" (kai theos ēn ho logos), the absence of the article emphasizes the divine nature of the Word rather than identifying the Word as a separate "God." The use of the qualitative predicate theos underscores the essential divinity of the Word without implying polytheism or the existence of multiple gods. Early Christian interpreters understood this passage to mean that the Word (Jesus) shares fully in the divine nature of the Father, even while being a distinct person within the Godhead.
You argue that capitalizing "God" in both instances might confuse English readers by implying that both uses of "God" refer to the same person. However, this is a misunderstanding of how capitalization functions in translation. Modern translations capitalize "God" in John 1:1c ("and the Word was God") to convey the full deity of the Word, in keeping with the early Christian belief that Jesus is fully divine. Capitalizing "God" here does not blur the distinction between the Word and the Father but rather affirms the shared divine essence of both. The qualitative nature of the second use of theos is preserved by recognizing that the Word possesses the same divine nature as the Father while remaining a distinct person.
The practice of capitalizing "God" in English translations of John 1:1 reflects the theological conclusions reached by the early Church in its articulation of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged not as an imposition on the text but as a faithful interpretation of passages like John 1:1, where the relationship between the Father and the Son is described in terms of both distinction (the Word was with God) and unity (the Word was God). Early Christian scribes, as evidenced by their use of nomina sacra, understood this dynamic and reverently applied the same sacred titles to both the Father and the Son.
In summary, while you raise valid points about the potential origins of nomina sacra and the implications of capitalizing "God" in John 1:1, your conclusions are not the only plausible ones. The use of nomina sacra likely reflects a theological innovation by early Christians to express their belief in the full divinity of Christ. This practice underscores the reverence they had for both the Father and the Son as sharing in the same divine essence. Capitalizing "God" in English translations of John 1:1 preserves the theological integrity of the text, affirming the divinity of the Word while maintaining the distinction between the persons of the Trinity.