Nomina Sacra and Assigning dates to Early Christian Papyri

Closeup detail of P75 showing the "staurogram" at Luke 14:27
(https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Hanna.1(Mater.Verbi) Image 1B.10r)

An article by Peter Rogers was recently published postulating that the number and presence of words abbreviated as nomina sacra can be used as a rough marker for assigning a date to a particular manuscript.

Peter Rogers, 'Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 4 Reconsidered," Filología neotestamentaria 38, no. 58 (2025): 77-88.

In this article Rogers is responding to the argument laid out in the following article.. 

Brent Nongbri "Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 2 (2016): 405-437.

In this piece, Nongbri argues that Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (P75) should be dated into the fourth century (ca. 350 CE) rather than in the first half of the third century (see previous post here). Nongbri uses the similarity in script used in P75 with similar scripts used in other securely dated fourth-century manuscripts to widen the possible dates of P75 into the fourth century. He then argues that the fourth century is a more likely date for the copying of P75 because of its close textual affinity to the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus.

In response to Nongbri's claims, Rogers brings in the second-century P4 as supporting evidence for an early second-century stream of text found in P75 and Vaticanus. However, because Nongbri has also questioned the traditional second-century date for P4 as well, Rogers looks to details other than handwriting to shine light on the dates of these two papyri (Nongbri, God's Library, 247-68). Rogers does this by looking at the number of words abbreviated as nomia sacra in each papyrus. There are fifteen total words that have been abbreviated as nomia sacra in the most developed systems in the later manuscripts. In P4 "[o]nly God, Jesus, Lord, Christ and Spirit are abbreviated" (Rogers, 84). In P75, there are eleven words that have been abbreviated as nomina sacra. Rogers concluded,

"If we consider the use of the first four or five as earlier, and the addition of others as of a later date, we may surmise that, other things being equal, P4 is of a decidedly earlier date than P75. It is therefore reasonable to consider P4 to be from the late second century, and P75 to date from some time in the third or fourth century" (Rogers, 84).

Because the tau-rho ligature, the staurogram, is used in P75, this adds an additional layer of complexity to the dating issue (see image above). Roger notes that because the device is used within the context of the gospel narrative and is not used as a stand alone symbol, its use fits more comfortably in the third century rather than the fourth (Rogers, 86).

I agree with Rogers that the presence of the staurogram fits better in the third century, and that it may have been used as early as the late second century. For example, in an earlier post, I highlight the presence of the IH nomen sacrum for Jesus's name in the Latin text of the Frankfurt Amulet. It is interesting that there is a cross shape that is formed as the lengthened iota of the nomen sacrum intersects with the interlinear superscript to form a cross shape. This appears to be deliberate, and considering these nomina sacra in the amulet are Greek in a Latin text, it points to a much earlier adoption of these symbols in older Greek manuscripts. Considering the date (230-260 or 270 CE) of the context the amulet was found in, it means that cruciform imagery was used in nomina sacra at least by the begining of the third century, or even the late second century (if the burial where the amulet was found can be dated to 230 CE). (See also this earlier post discussing the staurogram and the Epistle of Barnabas)

Rogers notes the presence of the staurogram at Revelation 11:8 in Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, its lack of use in the Gospel accounts in Sinaiticus means that its presence in Revelation 11:8 is most likely due to it being carried over from the exemplar (as Rogers indicates on page 85). 

Though I do think that the details of Rogers's arguments could be fleshed out in greater and more convincing detail, this article is a step in the right direction. Though I seriously doubt it will move the needle much in the debates surrounding the dates of these papyri.

______________________________________
Bibliography

Nongbri, Brent, God’s Library (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).

_______________, "Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament" Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 2 (2016): 405-437

Rogers, Peter, 'Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 4 Reconsidered," Filología neotestamentaria 38, no. 58 (2025): 77-88.