Κύριος

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Κύριος

Post by David Lim » January 9th, 2014, 2:04 am

Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote: I don't really get what's the difference between "substitute" and "replacement",...
David, the difference would be between something like ΙΑΩ that could stand in or substitute for יהוה and κυριος which replaces the Tetragrammaton with something different.
Oh I see your question now. I don't see "κυριος" as being essentially different from "ΙΑΩ" / "ΙΑΒΕ" / "ΠΙΠΙ" / those Paleo-Hebrew characters that Jonathan kindly copied here for us or any other direct reference to Yahweh. All these are to me merely symbols that were used in place of "יהוה". Of course "κυριος" normally means "lord" and hence 'reminds' the reader/hearer "that Yahweh is the lord", but it certainly does not function the same way grammatically as evidenced by the consistent lack of the article. Hence I would consider the normal meaning of "κυριος" to be suppressed when used to represent "יהוה", in which case it isn't really something different. This is in contrast to English translations that use "the LORD". If they used "LORD" without the article and gave an explanation of its origin somewhere, then readers would automatically learn that it is just a symbolic reference to the proper name of God, similar to how readers of the LXX who are familiar with it would have understood it.
0 x


δαυιδ λιμ

BillMcManigal
Posts: 12
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 6:32 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by BillMcManigal » January 9th, 2014, 7:48 am

I am aware that this post is continuing in a slightly different direct. :) However, I thought that the following statements should have been added to my last post since it would have aided in the questions posed to me directly for evidence.
One of the main reasons we know that the Old Testament manuscripts are Christian manuscripts and not Jewish is the presence of nomina sacra in the text. Significantly, not one copy of the Greek Old Testament found at Qumran has these nomina sacra because this was a Jewish, not a Christian community. Jews never wrote nomina sacra the way Christians did; the Jews did things differently for one divine name and one divine name only: Yahweh. Jewish scribes would frequently write this in its Hebrew contracted form (even in paleo–Hebrew letters) and then continue on with the Greek text. Christians used KYPIOC (kurios = Lord) in place of Yahweh (YHWH) and wrote it in nomen sacrum form. Many Greek Old Testament manuscripts produced by Christians display this nomen sacrum.... the earliest form seems to have been a contraction of Lord (kurios), written as [shows "KC" with lines above each character] .
P.W. Comfort (same chapter as last post)

To go much beyond this is to move into a different realm. However, my original post was added because a claim was made that Κύριος was consistently used in place of the Tetragrammaton in the entire κοινή era. However, the Tetragrammaton continued to appear in Jewish writings into the Common Era. Also according to the oldest Christian MSS nomina sacra where used and not the symbol "kύριος." Since scribes did at times still use the full form kύριος, there appears to be a different pragmatical reason signaled to the reader when they came across a nomen sacrum. Whom the referent was did make a difference, which is not seen when the same exact symbols are used. eg. kύριος and kύριος rather than KS and kύριος. Things are just more complicated than it seemed to be presented. That's my two pennies (small cents) for the day. Cents not sense. :)
0 x

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Κύριος (LXX) with ὁ for יהוה

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 9th, 2014, 12:44 pm

David Lim wrote:"ὁ Κύριος, = Hebr. Yahweh, LXX Ge.11.5, al.; of Christ, 1 Ep.Cor.12.3, etc." which is not accurate because the "κυριος" used for "Yahweh" in the LXX doesn't have the article and behaves like a symbolic substitute rather than retaining its original grammatical function as a count noun.
You might like to check the accuracy of this statement. Here are a few verses that you might like to consider...

Look at this verse where the personal name of God is not marked out especially;
Genesis 4:1 (MT with translit +LXX) (last few words) wrote:וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־יְהוָֽה׃
wattōmer qānîṯî ’îš ’eṯ-יהוה (’ăḏōnāy)
"and she said I have gotten a man from יהוה (LORD)
καὶ εἶπεν ἐκτησάμην ἄνθρωπον διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ
"and (she) said, "I have acquired a man through God's help.""
This shows by exception that יהוה was not only represented with אֲדֹנָי (’ăḏōnāy) / Κύριος throught the LXX. In this verse we find ὁ Θεός, and it is used with the article. It seems that this is a real translation not a substitution or replacement - the words between which you were asking about the difference.

And just 2 verses on we see;
Genesis 4:3 (MT with translit +LXX) (ellipsed in part) wrote: וַיָּבֵ֨א קַ֜יִן ... מִנְחָ֖ה לַֽיהוָֽה׃
wayyāḇê qayin ... minḥāh la יהוה (’ăḏōnāy)
ἤνεγκεν Καιν ... θυσίαν τῷ κυρίῳ
"and Cain brought ... an offering to LORD/the Lord"
The article is used with ὁ Κύριος here in this verse as per the LSJ entry you quoted.

In the book of Joel that we looked at yesterday for a further example, the name of God יהוה occurs 3 times - [quote="Joel 2:32 (MT with translit +LXX +NT "quotes")"]כֹּ֧ל אֲשֶׁר ־ יִקְרָ֛א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָ֖ה יִמָּלֵ֑ט
kōl ’ă·šer- yiq·rā bə·šêm יהוה (’ăḏōnāy) yim·mā·lêṭ;
"All who calls on the Name of יהוה will be saved
πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται (LXX)
Πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται.(Romans 10:3)
"Everyone who calls upon the name of (the) Lord will be saved"[/quote]
In this particular case what you have claimed to be a generalisation is individually true.

But just for variety, let's look at Genesis 4:26 and how that renders יהוה:
Genesis 4:26 (MT with translit +LXX) wrote:(MT with translit +LXX)אָ֣ז הוּחַ֔ל לִקְרֹ֖א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָֽה׃
’āz hūḥal, liqrō bəšêm יהוה (’ăḏōnāy)
Then (people) began to call on the name of יהוה (the LORD)
οὗτος ἤλπισεν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ
He [Seth] possessed the hope to call upon the name of the LORD God
Here perhaps Κύριος is a substitution for יהוה and ὁ Θεός is an explanation of the name.

The Septuaginta has a lot of variety and it is difficult to make generalisations about it.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by Scott Lawson » January 9th, 2014, 1:13 pm

David,
BDAG gives a list of scriptures in the NT where κυριος appears with the article and then a list where it appears without the article. It seems to me that BDAG is indicating that the anarthrous κυριος is equivalent to a personal name.

Would it be possible for someone to post the definition of κυριος from LEH and Muroaka's Lexicon? I know Muroaka's methodology is a bit different and it would be interesting to compare the two Lexicons.
0 x
Scott Lawson

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by Scott Lawson » January 9th, 2014, 3:24 pm

BillMcManigal wrote: Also according to the oldest Christian MSS nomina sacra where used and not the symbol "kύριος." Since scribes did at times still use the full form kύριος, there appears to be a different pragmatical reason signaled to the reader when they came across a nomen sacrum. Whom the referent was did make a difference, which is not seen when the same exact symbols are used. eg. kύριος and kύριος rather than KS and kύριος.
Bill, are you saying that one might find κυριος and κυριος with two different referents intended as well ΚΣ and κυριος? The former I can see happening but the latter would surprise me because I thought the purpose of abbreviating the nomina sacra was to save space.
0 x
Scott Lawson

Ken M. Penner
Posts: 823
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: Κύριος

Post by Ken M. Penner » January 9th, 2014, 9:30 pm

Scott Lawson wrote:Would it be possible for someone to post the definition of κυριος from LEH and Muroaka's Lexicon?
Here's Muraoka's GELS.
GELS - κύριος.png
GELS - κύριος.png (11.94 KiB) Viewed 1381 times
GELS - κύριος 2.png
GELS - κύριος 2.png (5.76 KiB) Viewed 1381 times
0 x
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by Scott Lawson » January 9th, 2014, 9:49 pm

Thank you Ken. Notable by its absence is any mention of the Tetragrammaton but Muraoka intended his work to supplement BDAG didn't he? So he is only filling in gaps that may exist. Is that right? I'll peruse (in the sense of thoroughly read) the entry. Thanks again.
0 x
Scott Lawson

Ken M. Penner
Posts: 823
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: Κύριος

Post by Ken M. Penner » January 9th, 2014, 10:01 pm

Scott Lawson wrote: Muraoka intended his work to supplement BDAG didn't he? So he is only filling in gaps that may exist. Is that right?
I suspect you're thinking of Chamberlain's lexicon. See http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... ?f=7&t=693
0 x
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by Scott Lawson » January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm

Thank you Ken, yes that's the thread I remember reading.
0 x
Scott Lawson

BillMcManigal
Posts: 12
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 6:32 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by BillMcManigal » January 9th, 2014, 10:56 pm

Scott wrote
Bill, are you saying that one might find κυριος and κυριος with two different referents intended as well ΚΣ and κυριος? The former I can see happening but the latter would surprise me because I thought the purpose of abbreviating the nomina sacra was to save space.
Scott, there are many theories as to why nomina sacra were used. However most would reach into a different realm outside this topic and site. However, I will comment on a few points that are not so controversial.

Harry Gamble wrote:
No theory of the origin and significance of the system of nomina sacra has yet commanded general assent. There is broad agreement that it has something to do with Jewish reverence for the Tetragram, the name of God, but it has proved difficult to say exactly what.
p. 75 Books and Readers in the Early Church A history of Early Christian Texts

In a recent book from Porter he stated:
The original nomina sacra were used for a small number of important words, such as“Jesus,” “God,” and “Christ,” and later were increased in number to around fifteen.
P.19 ft.34 How We Got the New Testament Text, Transmission,Translation

Comfort endeavors to go a step further and states:
the earliest form seems to have been a contraction of Lord....The next name to have been written as a nomen sacrum was Jesus.


Thus it has something to do with the Tetragrammaton and did not start out for abbreviation purposes. Comfort states:
Making a name a nomen sacrum desecularized the term, lifting it to sacred status. For example, scribes could differentiate between “the Lord” and “lord”/“sir”/“master” by writing KC or KYPIOC (plene), and they could distinguish between “Spirit” (the divine Spirit) and “spirit” (the human spirit) by writing the first as a nomen sacrum and any other kind of spirit as pneuma (in plene)....In other contexts, we get to see the written-out kurios (or kurioi—the plural) side by side with [KC with line above], the nomen sacrum for “Lord.” ...In Acts 25:25–26, Festus speaks of the caesar as “Lord” (kurios). Significantly, in this passage the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus wrote out the name for kurios (in plene) to distinguish this “lord” from the Lord Jesus, who when he is referred to as “Lord” in 26:15 is designated with the nomen sacrum (as elsewhere throughout Codex Sinaiticus).
Thus there was some degree of referential sensitivity behind the symbol a scribe choose to write. Something similar was used in the KJV where you find: "LORD", "Lord", or "lord". Each symbol carried its own meaning/sense- at least it was supposed to. (don't you love prepositions at the end of a sentence?)However, it is very doubtful if they actual did to the average reader and certainly not to an audience when the KJV was read .

Hope this helps.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”