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 (LXX) with ὁ for יהוה

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
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...
Sorry I should not have implied that there are no exceptions. But I think there is a difference between "κυριος" and the other cases, though I can't think of a reason. The LXX says "ο κυριος" where the MT says "יהוה" only at Exo 9:27, Num 32:31, Deut 1:20, 11:17, Jdg 13:23, Jdg 16:20, Ruth 1:21, 1 Sam 12:16, 2 Chr 12:6, throughout Job (where "κυριος" without the article is used for "אל" instead, but "κυριου" often lacks the article even for "יהוה" and Job 40:1 has "κυριος ο θεος" for "יהוה"), Psa 9:7, 25:8, 33:13, Psa 34:6,8,17, 35:27, 40:16, 41:1, 55:16, 68:16, 69:33, 85:12, 93:1,4, 96:10, 97:1, 99:1, 103:6,8, 110:1, 111:4, 113:4, 116:5,6, 118:13,14,18,24, 135:4,6, 145:8, 147:2,6, Prov 6:16, 22:2, 29:13, Isa 62:2, Isa 63:7, Ezek 8:12, 9:9. Excluding Job, this is only 50 occurrences compared to roughly 2000 occurrences of "κυριος" without the article where the MT has "יהוה", so I consider this to be a consistent use of "κυριος" as a symbolic reference for "יהוה". I still think that it is a little misleading for LSJ to state "ο κυριος", but never mind that.

The use of the article for cases other than the nominative seems haphazard, and it would be interesting if there were some simple reasons that account for most of them.
Stephen Hughes wrote: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.
I am also aware of such instances, which assuming the LXX translators were following the MT's text, still doesn't imply anything about the use of "κυριος" for "יהוה", but as you indicated only implies that they didn't always stick to strictly formal equivalence. There are many possible reasons why they deviate in some places. Here in particular one hypothetical explanation is that they wanted to juxtapose "ανθρωπον" and "θεου" for a contrastive effect.
Stephen Hughes wrote: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.
Yes I would think so.
Stephen Hughes wrote:The Septuaginta has a lot of variety and it is difficult to make generalisations about it.
Agreed, but is the generalization really incorrect for "κυριος" in the nominative case?
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Κύριος (LXX) with ὁ for יהוה

Post by Stephen Hughes »

David Lim wrote:Excluding Job, this is only 50 occurrences compared to roughly 2000 occurrences of "κυριος" without the article where the MT has "יהוה", so I consider this to be a consistent use of "κυριος" as a symbolic reference for "יהוה".
David Lim wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:The Septuaginta has a lot of variety and it is difficult to make generalisations about it.
Agreed, but is the generalization really incorrect for "κυριος" in the nominative case?
Generalisations are by nature subjective, so you are asking me for a subjective answer. The generalisation seems not to be incorrect for the nominative case. Corollarily, if one were to find ὁ κύριος (in the nominative), one's first expectation would be that that was referring to an earthly master.

Objectively speaking 2.5% variation suggests that a simple correspondence was not intended. I, myself, wouldn't go so far as to make a blanket statement as you have done about, "I consider this to be a consistent use of "κυριος" as a symbolic reference for "יהוה"". [What does symbolic mean? Some form of semeiosis?] I don't think that people reading the LXX would say "Adonai" or "Hashem" (the Name) when they saw a nominative anarthrous κύριος. The useage is not consistent enough that I would expect a Greek-speaking jew to know from the use or non use of the article whether κύριος was refering to God by name or to an earthly master - I think that the context of a verse is still the biggest clue.

Okay, there you have a lot of my subjective thoughts.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Κύριος - Nomina Sacra - Manuscript evidence

Post by Stephen Hughes »

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.
I understand this to mean that you are saying that in the earliest manuscripts KS and kύριος ARE both used with "pragmatical reason" and that there is a difference of referant, viz. κύριος for אָדֹן (’ăḏōn) "lord", and KC (with a line above the two characters) for יהוה (’ăḏōnāy) "LORD". I haven't had to look very far to find an example that so far as I can tell, shows that distinction between them doesn't hold true.

We know from the Hebrew of
Psalm 101:1 (MT + LXX + RP-GNT) (part) wrote:נְאֻ֤ם יְהוָ֨ה לַֽאדֹנִ֗י
nə’um יהוה (’ăḏōnāy) laḏōnî,
"יהוה (The LORD) said to my lord"
εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου (LXX - Psalm 109:1)
Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου, (Matthew 22:44)
"The Lord said to my lord"
that the same word Κύριος is used for both יהוה (’ăḏōnāy) and אָדֹן (’ăḏōn) and then it is quoted in the New Testament from the LXX. How is it written in an old manuscript?

Codex Sinaiticus is quite old, let's look at it for an example of scribal conventions:
Matthew 22:44 Codex Sinaiticus transciption from photo wrote:ειπεν κϲ τω κω μ(ου)
καθου εκ δεξιων
μου εωϲ αν θω
τουϲ εχθρουϲ ϲου
ϋποκατω των πο
δων ϲου
which, when we look at it in the LXX of
Psalm 109:1 Codex Sinaiticus transciption from photo wrote:ειπεν ο κϲ τω κω μου καθου
εκ δεξιων μου
εωϲ αν θω τουϲ εχθρουϲ ϲου ϋποπο
διον των ποδων ϲου
is the same - the words for both (’ăḏōn) "lord" and יהוה (’ăḏōnāy) "LORD" are both written as nomina sacra. The Psalm here has the definite article with the ὁ Κύριος that is for יהוה (’ăḏōnāy) "LORD".

Additionally, we could consider one of the earliest papyri: P46. That is one of the oldest extant NT papyrus and I have done a spot search of Ephesians.The word κύριος is used 27 times in the book of Ephesians. So far as I can tell, the scribal abreviation - the nomina sacra - is used for all 4 singular cases, and the plural is written out in full. There is no more significance that I can find than that.

Neither codex and papyrus evidence seem to back up the claim of there being "a different pragmatical reason signaled to the reader when they came across a nomen sacrum". Could you explain which early papyri the examples of pragmatically reasoned differentiation come from so I can look at them?

[Notes for the write for the reader policy.]
[NB. 1. For those not conversant with old manuscripts. I am writing KC where Bill is writing KS because the way that sigma "Σ" is written in the earlies ALL-CAPS "uncial" manuscripts looks like a "C", and it is in fact a sigma. I am reproducing the shape and he the sound. That type of sigma is called the "lunate sigma".]
[NB. 2. For the completely un-Hebrew-ed, if you haved looked at the Hebrew here and noticed that there is more at the end of the last word of the quote לַֽאדֹנִ֗י (laḏōnî) "to my lord" than there is in the word אָדֹן (’ăḏōn) "lord", that is because the ִי (-î) "my" is added to the end, and the preposition לְ (lə) "to" is added to the front.]
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ in Genesis 4:26

Post by Stephen Hughes »

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:But just for variety, let's look at Genesis 4:26 and how that renders יהוה:
Genesis 4:26 (MT with translit +LXX) wrote: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.
Yes I would think so.
I don't want to seem vacillious, but my OT lecturer at theological college explained the difference between the MT and the LXX here in this verse was down to different traditions within the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures wherein the יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ăḏōnāy ’ĕlōhîm;) formulation of God's name had originally been in this verse, and that earlier reading is preserved in the LXX. (His PhD was done on some topic like that - so it was sort of like one of his pet subjects).

In actuality, I'm 55% in favour of the "substitution and explanation" theory that we both agree on, and I'm 45% in favour of the "variant readings in the Septuaginta Vorlage" theory. Just to let you know.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Κύριος (LXX) with ὁ for יהוה

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Objectively speaking 2.5% variation suggests that a simple correspondence was not intended. I, myself, wouldn't go so far as to make a blanket statement as you have done about, "I consider this to be a consistent use of "κυριος" as a symbolic reference for "יהוה"". [What does symbolic mean? Some form of semeiosis?]
Hmm but did you consider the possibility that the 2.5% variation could be due to many factors, one of which is interpretive translations? Now I'm not going to argue for this, but I suspect that the 2.5% except for Job (and I'm not sure whether there are other parts like Job) is not where the relevant LXX translators meant for "ο κυριος" to represent "יהוה", perhaps because they didn't have that in their text, or because they didn't see a need to 'preserve' exactly all instances of "יהוה", or some other reasons.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I don't think that people reading the LXX would say "Adonai" or "Hashem" (the Name) when they saw a nominative anarthrous κύριος.
No idea about this. Does anyone have any clue?
Stephen Hughes wrote:The useage is not consistent enough that I would expect a Greek-speaking jew to know from the use or non use of the article whether κύριος was refering to God by name or to an earthly master - I think that the context of a verse is still the biggest clue.
Sure, the context readily distinguishes between God and other kinds of lords, but when it does refer to God, do you think a Greek-speaking Jew aware of the practice but unaware of the Hebrew text would first think "Yahweh" or "lord" when he sees a nominative "κυριος" in the LXX? I think the former if anarthrous and the latter if articular. This is what I meant by it being a "symbolic reference" (not in the sense of metaphorical symbols).
Stephen Hughes wrote:I don't want to seem vacillious, but my OT lecturer at theological college explained the difference between the MT and the LXX here in [Gen 4:26] was down to different traditions within the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures wherein the יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ăḏōnāy ’ĕlōhîm;) formulation of God's name had originally been in this verse, and that earlier reading is preserved in the LXX. (His PhD was done on some topic like that - so it was sort of like one of his pet subjects).

In actuality, I'm 55% in favour of the "substitution and explanation" theory that we both agree on, and I'm 45% in favour of the "variant readings in the Septuaginta Vorlage" theory. Just to let you know.
I am indeed convinced that there are readings of the Hebrew writings that were preserved in the LXX and not the MT, but I don't think we can reliably pinpoint them. This could be one, but like you I won't really favour either side without independent evidence.
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Κύριος

Post by Stephen Hughes »

David Lim wrote: With all due respect to my former lecturer's PhD. I am indeed convinced that there are readings of the Hebrew writings that were preserved in the LXX and not the MT, but I don't think we can reliably pinpoint them. This could be one, but like you I won't really favour either side without independent evidence.
With all due respect to my former lecture's PhD, what we have at hand with us now is worth more than what we could imagine might have been. Without independent evidence I am willing to accept conjecture, but only when it is proved convincingly will I consider it convincedly.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Tony Pope
Posts: 134
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by Tony Pope »

David Lim wrote:The LXX says "ο κυριος" where the MT says "יהוה" only at Exo 9:27, Num 32:31, Deut 1:20, 11:17, Jdg 13:23, Jdg 16:20, Ruth 1:21, 1 Sam 12:16, 2 Chr 12:6, throughout Job (where "κυριος" without the article is used for "אל" instead, but "κυριου" often lacks the article even for "יהוה" and Job 40:1 has "κυριος ο θεος" for "יהוה"), Psa 9:7, 25:8, 33:13, Psa 34:6,8,17, 35:27, 40:16, 41:1, 55:16, 68:16, 69:33, 85:12, 93:1,4, 96:10, 97:1, 99:1, 103:6,8, 110:1, 111:4, 113:4, 116:5,6, 118:13,14,18,24, 135:4,6, 145:8, 147:2,6, Prov 6:16, 22:2, 29:13, Isa 62:2, Isa 63:7, Ezek 8:12, 9:9. Excluding Job, this is only 50 occurrences compared to roughly 2000 occurrences of "κυριος" without the article where the MT has "יהוה", so I consider this to be a consistent use of "κυριος" as a symbolic reference for "יהוה". I still think that it is a little misleading for LSJ to state "ο κυριος", but never mind that.

The use of the article for cases other than the nominative seems haphazard, and it would be interesting if there were some simple reasons that account for most of them.
...
Stephen Hughes wrote:The Septuaginta has a lot of variety and it is difficult to make generalisations about it.
Agreed, but is the generalization really incorrect for "κυριος" in the nominative case?
The generalization seems sound. Sometimes the exceptions are quite easy to account for.

For example, in Ex9.27 Pharaoh starts his speech with ὁ κύριος δίκαιος. I thought at first maybe the translators wished to avoid putting the concept of YHWH as a unique person into the Pharaoh's mouth, but in the next verse he is quoted as saying "Pray for me πρὸς κύριον." A more likely reason for the article in verse 27 could be that, as κύριος can be read as an adjective, the reader might not be able to construe anarthrous κύριος δίκαιος correctly. In other words, the article serves to mark the subject unambiguously.

To take another example, in Deut 11.17 YHWH occurs twice, the first time rendered as anarthous κύριος and the second with the article ὁ κύριος, presumably simply anaphorically (even though this procedure may not have been followed consistently).

No doubt some other exceptions are more tricky. I am aware of some research on this issue that has been done, but I don't know what has been published. As regards the oblique cases, one thing that has been claimed is that the LXX translators often use the article when there are prepositions in the Hebrew like אֶת or ְל before the word יהוה .

What seems an interesting parallel to this is a feature of the koiné novel Callirhoe that struck me when I read it. It is that the noun βασιλεύς, which in the book nearly always refers to the Persian emperor Artaxerxes, is usually anarthrous. The singular noun refers to him 187 times, according to the TLG demo website, of which eight are vocatives. Of the rest, by my count all but 34 are anarthrous, and 15 of those are not really exceptions because they are qualified with the adjective μέγας (i.e. the Great King). In several of the other examples the article seems to have possessive sense, e.g. 5.6.3 (in a speech addressed to the king) εἰ καὶ μὴ δι’ ἐμὲ τὸν φίλον, ἀλλὰ διὰ σὲ τὸν βασιλέα [not just for my sake as his friend, but for your sake as his king].

Artaxerxes is described at one point as "king of kings" (4.6.3 Βασιλεῖ Βασιλέων Ἀρταξέρξῃ) and at 6.7.12 the comment is made by the narrator πεπλήγασι γὰρ πάντες οἱ βάρβαροι καὶ θεὸν φανερὸν νομίζουσι τὸν βασιλέα [All barbarians are overwhelmed and consider the (their?) king to be a god in visible form.] Evidently the author wishes to portray the Persian emperor as a unique figure and it seems the anarthrous title is part and parcel of this. The LXX translators are doing the same kind of thing with κύριος and this is carried over into the NT too.
BillMcManigal
Posts: 12
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 6:32 pm

Re: Κύριος - Nomina Sacra - Manuscript evidence

Post by BillMcManigal »

Stephen, Appreciate your questions and your clarifications of the Sigma.

Stephen Hughes wrote:
I understand this to mean that you are saying that in the earliest manuscripts KS and kύριος ARE both used with "pragmatical reason" and that there is a difference of referant, viz. κύριος for אָדֹן (’ăḏōn) "lord", and KC (with a line above the two characters) for יהוה (’ăḏōnāy) "LORD".
You are on the right track with understanding what I wrote. However, I did not nor would make a claim that "KC" refers to יהוה (YHWH) solely. KC was, one of four nomina sacra which were also called "nomina divina." Thus "KC" (with the line above of course) was an elevated form of κύριος, at least that is how it appears to have started. Thus the referent could be God or Jesus.

Stephen Hughes wrote:
εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου (LXX - Psalm 109:1)
Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου, (Matthew 22:44)
"The Lord said to my lord"
that the same word Κύριος is used for both יהוה (’ăḏōnāy) and אָדֹן (’ăḏōn) and then it is quoted in the New Testament from the LXX. How is it written in an old manuscript?
Hundreds of years removed from the NT autographs and many hundreds of years from the start of the LXX such appears to be the case. However, in the textual world things are not so simple. First which LXX are we to use? Very strong textual evidence shows that the Jews used one that maintained a form of the Tetragrammaton. (See old post-happy to provide more MSS and evidence) In addition, when the LXX was Christianized, "KC" was used and not the plene kύριος.(if the referent was consider Divine) So the LXX quote of Psalm 110 (109) is two steps removed already. It does not have a form of the Tetragrammaton and it does not have the elevated nomina divina either. Thus it may have look more like: eipen (then some form of Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton) to KC mou. Does it matter? Yes it makes the river/gulf between us today and them a lot wider. Thus it is harder for a reader today to bridge the gap. (Compare Duvall and Hays in Journey into God's Word p.16-19)

Comfort said:
In writing kurios as [KC], the New Testament writers and scribes were signaling that Jesus was the divine Lord, superior to Caesar and any god. Furthermore, the nomen sacrum indicated a distinction between Jesus’ lordship and that of others who were masters and landowners, for which the term kurios (plene) was also used.
However anyone can make a statement thus what is the proof?
Comfort.PNG
Comfort.PNG (130.82 KiB) Viewed 1864 times
-Comfort

Once again as my last post said:
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 .


So today if one copied the KJV and used 1) "Lord" or 2) "lord" instead of 3) "LORD" then it can make a big difference. Each symbol was suppose to carry a different sense/concept. They are not necessarily interchangeable. eg. Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the lord" is not the same as "Trust in the LORD" or the same as "Trust in the Lord" despite how similar the symbols appear. In time, many may lose site of these distinctions, as is done in later MSS with kurios, however they were there for a reason. :)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Κύριος - Nomina Sacra - Manuscript evidence

Post by David Lim »

BillMcManigal wrote:[...]
Once again as my last post said:
Thus there was some degree of referential sensitivity behind the symbol a scribe choose to write. [...]


[...] In time, many may lose site of these distinctions, as is done in later MSS with kurios, however they were there for a reason. :)
Here are two counter-examples (in Codex Sinaiticus) that I found:
[Acts 16:16] ... πν̅α πυθωνα ...
[1 Pet 3:6] ... κ̅ν αυτον καλουσα ...
δαυιδ λιμ
BillMcManigal
Posts: 12
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 6:32 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by BillMcManigal »

Just briefly, we must be careful not to make anachronistic errors while discussing MSS. The Sinaiticus is some 200 years removed from the start of the 4 specific nomina sacra that make up the "nomina divina." As time went on, over 10 were added from the original 4. With time they were not necessarily used with the same consistency. They may not have started for the same reason either. (spirit was never mention in my posts before) We look for patterns- when there are enough then a statement can be made. I never claimed there were no exceptions, as stated earlier, "there was some degree of referential sensitivity behind the symbol a scribe choose to write." SOME Degree....this could/would change with the passage of time (now there are no KC) and characteristics of each scribe. We can not necessarily judge how a scribe understood a nomina divina by what another wrote 200 plus years later.
Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”