KURIOS in the LXX

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Sep 13 23:56:06 EDT 2002


on 9/13/02 10:24 AM, Roger wrote:

> I am looking for the oldest LXX manuscript that has KURIOS where the MT has
> the Tetragrammaton. Are there any Manuscripts in the BC era with this
> reading?
> 
> Roger DeLozier

The best source for this question is a web site by  Robert A. Kraft
(University of Pennsylvania)

 http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlypap.html

If you take a look at the Papyri which date BC, you will find several which
have the tetragrammaton and none of them translate it KURIOS or use the KC
abbreviation. Here are some of the mss worth looking at re:the
tetragrammaton. 


Qumran cave4 Lev\b (1st bce, papyrus roll; tetragrammaton = IAW),

PRyl458 of Deut (2nd bce, papyrus roll) (no image of the tetragrammaton?)

PFouad266b [848] Deut (1st bce, papyrus roll; Hebrew/Aramaic
tetragrammaton), 
 
Nahal Hever Minor Prophets (hand A), with example of paleo-Hebrew
tetragrammaton and hand B (turn of the era, parchment roll),

POxy3522 of Job 42 (1st ce, papyrus roll; paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton), see
also the black and white image,

 POxy4443 of Esther (1st/2nd ce, papyrus roll), see also the black and white
image, 

 POxy656 of Gen (2nd/3rd ce, papyrus codex, problematic tetragrammaton),


***********

I was unable to locate any BC examples of KURIOS for tetragrammaton in among
the early papyri (2BC-1AD). I have appended a short thread from the TC list
'97 which addresses this question.


--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062


A discussion of this from the TC list archive.

*******************Beginning of quote from archives***************

Date: 
1997/05/18
Author: 
Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no>
Subject: 
RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint
Body: 
Dear list-members

To the best of my knowledge there is no example of KURIOS as a
substitute for the tetragrammaton in any LXX-fragments or LXX-like
fragments before the middle of the first century CE. But we find the
tetragrammaton in Old Hebrew or Aramaic script, as IAW or in a few
cases we find just a blank space.

In 1984 A Pietersma wrote the well reasoned article "Kyrios or
Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint" (De
Septuaginta Studies in Honor of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth
birthday). He argued that the many cases of Twi KURIWi as a
translation of LEYHWH in the Pentateuch must be original, because, if
the tetragrammaton was originally in the Greek text, there was no way
for the later scribe to know when the Hebrew text had YHWH and LEYHWH.
He argued further that the original translators used KURIOS both for
´ADONAI and for YHWH.

Both points have been contradicted by the publication of the Greek
manuscripts among the DSS. (Emanuel Tov, 1990,The Greek Minor Prophets
Scroll from Nahal Hever) Mica 1:2 in 8HevXIIgr has KURIOS + the
tetragrammaton in old Hebrew for `ADONAI + the tetragrammaton (see pp
33,85), suggesting that KURIOS was seen as a substitute for `ADONAI
and not for the tetragrammaton. In Sef 1:17 we find a part of the
tetragrammaton, probably with TWi before it (p 61), and in Sak 9:1 we
find TWi + the tetragrammaton (p 77).

Because of these finds, it seems to me that Pietersma´s arguments
strongly speak for the opposite of what was his intention, and also
speak against Stegemann and Skehan who suggested that IAW was the
original substitution, then came the tetragrammatons in Aramaic script
and lastly those in Old Hebrew scripts. IAW is a phonetic
transcription indicating pronunciation. Nobody would write TWi IAW for
LEYHWH, so how could the later scribes know when to write TWi + the
tetragrammaton or TWi + KURIWi? The most likely explanation, which
also has support in the datings of the manuscripts, is that the
original LXX contained one of the tetragrammatons and that IAW came
later, or that all three forms were used simultaneously. The
consequence of this view is that the tetragrammaton was pronounced in
certain circles longer than is usually believed.

My questions to the list are: (1) Are there any Greek fragments before
the middle of the first century CE which most likely or probably have
KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton? (2) Are there any
scientific articles written after 1984 arguing in this direction?

Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages
University of Oslo


Date: 
1997/05/19
Author: 
"Professor L.W. Hurtado" <hurtadol at div.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: 
RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint
Body: 
Rolf Furuli writes: (in part)

>Nobody would write TWi IAW for
> LEYHWH, so how could the later scribes know when to write TWi + the
> tetragrammaton or TWi + KURIWi? The most likely explanation, which
> also has support in the datings of the manuscripts, is that the
> original LXX contained one of the tetragrammatons and that IAW came
> later, or that all three forms were used simultaneously. The
> consequence of this view is that the tetragrammaton was pronounced in
I> certain circles longer than is usually believed.

For a few years now I too have been very interested in the textual
handling of YHWH and other divine names in Jewish and Christian
texts, particularly looking at the Christian "nomina sacra" and their
antecedents, analogies, etc.
I agree that the DSS materials now "help" us to see an earlier stage
of copying. But it is not so clear to me that all the inferences you
draw are necessary or even correct. Particularly, you inference that
the presence of the tetragram in biblical texts = pronunciation of it
in Hebrew when the text was read (aloud). In fact, the writing of
YHWH in palaeo-Heb characters, and in Greek biblical texts n.b.,
suggests to me a purely *scribal* phenomenon, intended to flag the
word & set it apart, most likely to remind the readers *not* to
pronounce the word in Hebrew but to use a substitute.
See now J. R. Royse, "Philo, Kyrios, and the Tetragrammaton," _The
Studia Philonica Annual, Vol. 3_, ed. D. T. Runia (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1991), 167-83, who argues (a) that Philo must have
read biblical texts with YHWH in palaeo-Heb or square Heb characters,
and (b) that Philo probably pronounced the word as "kyrios" in his
reading of these mss.
Note that in some DSS texts, the Hebrew "El" (used with ref. to God)
is also sometimes written in palaeo-Heb characters (e.g., 1QH 1:26;
2:34; 7:5; 15:25). Josephus (Ant 12:89) refers to Heb biblical mss
with gold characters, probably reserved for YHWH, and Aristea 176 may
refer to the same thing. Origen (Psalmos 2:2) refers to the Jewish
practice of pronouncing Adonay (in Heb.) or Kyrios (Greek) when
reading the scriptures, and also refes to Jews writing YHWH in
archaic Heb characters in biblical scrolls.

> My questions to the list are: (1) Are there any Greek fragments before
> the middle of the first century CE which most likely or probably have
> KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton? (2) Are there any
> scientific articles written after 1984 arguing in this direction?
> 
> Regards
> Rolf
> 
> 
> Rolf Furuli
> Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages
> University of Oslo
> 
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail: L.Hurtado at ed.ac.uk


Date: 
1997/05/19
Author: 
"James R. Adair" <jadair at shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: 
RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint
Body: 
On Sun, 18 May 1997, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> My questions to the list are: (1) Are there any Greek fragments before
> the middle of the first century CE which most likely or probably have
> KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton? (2) Are there any
> scientific articles written after 1984 arguing in this direction?

This is a very interesting question. Traditional wisdom has it that the
NT writers used KURIOS in their translations of the OT (as well as in
their own compositions when referring to God) because that's the rendering
they found in their LXX Vorlagen. However, if the use of KURIOS for
translating YHWH was not common in LXX mss before the middle of the first
century, how do we explain the NT writers' universal practice? Is it
possible that the use of KURIOS for YHWH was either a Christian innovation
or, more probably, heavily promoted by Christian scribes (like the codex)?
If so, it would explain why most LXX mss now extant, which presumably were
transmitted by Christians (?), use KURIOS. I, too, would be interested to
know of any earlier documented uses of KURIOS for YHWH.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site


r: 
Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no>
Subject: 
RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint
Body: 
L W Hurtado wrote,

<Both in Hebrew and in Greek in the late 2nd temple period, there is
<strong evidence of an avoidance of the pronunciation of YHWH and the
<use of oral substitutes. N.B., the Greek of Lev. 24:16 translates
<"blaspheming the name" as "pronouncing the name". In the
<phenomenology of ancient Jewish reading (and reading was always
<aloud, whether private or public), we have to distinguish between the
<text and the spoken, the "kerey" and the "ketey".

I am very interested in the evidence you mention. Let me ask some
questions:

(1) Lev 24:16. What is the oldest manuscript evidence for the
rendering of ONOMAZW ? We know that T was used in magical spells. Can
we exclude this meaning from the verb (cf Acts 19:13)? The Sam. Pent.
and the Vulgate agrees with MT, Targum Onkelos and the Peshitta uses
the verb PRS (=separate). In Syriac SMA PRESA stands for "the special
name of God". However, Lamsa uses "blaspheme" in Lev 24:16. It is less
than clear what was the meaning of the verse in different circles. And
most important: Why did not the rabbis use Lev 24:16 as a prooftext
for the non-pronunciation of T? Their text was Ex 3:15, the text which
most strongly says that one should never cease pronouncing the name.



<I agree that the DSS materials now "help" us to see an earlier stage
<of copying. But it is not so clear to me that all the inferences you
<draw are necessary or even correct. Particularly, you inference that
<the presence of the tetragram in biblical texts = pronunciation of it
<in Hebrew when the text was read (aloud). In fact, the writing of
<YHWH in palaeo-Heb characters, and in Greek biblical texts n.b.,
<suggests to me a purely *scribal* phenomenon, intended to flag the
<word & set it apart, most likely to remind the readers *not* to
<pronounce the word in Hebrew but to use a substitute.
<See now J. R. Royse, "Philo, Kyrios, and the Tetragrammaton," _The
<Studia Philonica Annual, Vol. 3_, ed. D. T. Runia (Atlanta:
<Scholars Press, 1991), 167-83, who argues (a) that Philo must have
<read biblical texts with YHWH in palaeo-Heb or square Heb characters,
<and (b) that Philo probably pronounced the word as "kyrios" in his
<reading of these mss.
<Note that in some DSS texts, the Hebrew "El" (used with ref. to God)
<is also sometimes written in palaeo-Heb characters (e.g., 1QH 1:26;
<2:34; 7:5; 15:25). Josephus (Ant 12:89) refers to Heb biblical mss
<with gold characters, probably reserved for YHWH, and Aristea 176 may
<refer to the same thing. Origen (Psalmos 2:2) refers to the Jewish
<practice of pronouncing Adonay (in Heb.) or Kyrios (Greek) when
<reading the scriptures, and also refes to Jews writing YHWH in
<archaic Heb characters in biblical scrolls.


I agree with you that the mere presence of the tetragrammaton in a
manuscript does not prove it was pronounced, but:

(2) Can we infer from the way pap4QLXXLevb and 8HevXIIgr render L in
connection with T and other factors that these Manuscripts used a Heb.
Vorlage and that T or IAW originally were written in the LXX?
(2) Do we have evidence from the third century BC that any group
refrained from pronouncing T? (I only know about the case of Simon the
Just from 200 where the evidence is ambiguous)
(3) If evidence of non-pronunciation is lacking and T and/or IAW
occurred in the translated manuscripts of LXX, is not the most logical
conclusion that the name was pronounced? Is not pronunciation the very
reason why we make phonetic transcriptions?
(4) Moving to the second and first centuries BC, do we find any
evidence that `ADONAY or KURIOS was pronounced instead of T? Does not
the fact the Job Targum from the first century BC has ´ ALAHA instead
of T. and that `EL occurs ten times as often as `ADONAY in
manuscripts from Qumran point in the opposite direction?
(5) We have evidence that the Qumran sect and Aramaic-speaking groups
in pre-Christian times did not pronounce T, but do we have evidence
that the Jews in Egypt and Babylon, or even in Palestine did not
pronounce it? And what about the positive evidence that other groups,
such as the Pharises and the "Morning-bathers" did pronounce it?

It is evident that some time in the first century CE T was no longer
pronounced, as we see from Josephus and Philo, but what is crucial is
the view of the Jews at large in pre-Christian times. I am looking
forward to more concrete evidence from period.
Thank you very much for your references.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages
University of Oslo



Date: 
1997/05/20
Author: 
"Professor L.W. Hurtado" <hurtadol at div.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: 
RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint
Body: 
In response to my posting on the use of the Tetragrammaton &
substitutes, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> I am very interested in the evidence you mention. Let me ask some
> questions:
> 
> (1) Lev 24:16. What is the oldest manuscript evidence for the
> rendering of ONOMAZW ? We know that T was used in magical spells. Can
> we exclude this meaning from the verb (cf Acts 19:13)?
Certainly not. I suspect myself that the whole idea of proscribing
the pronunciation of YHWH was mainly directed against "magical" use
of the name, and that "onomazo" in the LXX of Lev 24:16 may reflect
this. Then, perhaps fairly quickly, from this concern developed
the piety-practice of refraining from pronunciation altogether, in
order to "build a hedge about the Torah"(to use an expression of
rabbinic times, though the general sentiment may well be earlier)
>It is less 
> than clear what was the meaning of the verse in different circles. And
> most important: Why did not the rabbis use Lev 24:16 as a prooftext
> for the non-pronunciation of T? Their text was Ex 3:15, the text which
> most strongly says that one should never cease pronouncing the name.

Can't say, myself. Yes, practice & pety probably varied across
different Jewish groups and certainly across time in these early
centuries.

> I agree with you that the mere presence of the tetragrammaton in a
> manuscript does not prove it was pronounced, but:
> 
> (2) Can we infer from the way pap4QLXXLevb and 8HevXIIgr render L in
> connection with T and other factors that these Manuscripts used a Heb.
> Vorlage and that T or IAW originally were written in the LXX?
Quite possible, I guess. Don't really know. But Pietersma's
argument is that the practice of "archaization" of biblical mss (by
re-introducing the Tet. in Heb. characters and/or giving a Greek
transliteration) began in the 2nd cent BC or so (as part of the
nativist Jewish reaction against forced hellenization efforts under
the Seleucids). So, it's possible that the DSS biblical texts
reflect this re-Hebraizing and that earlier Greek mss might have had
Greek translations of YHWH (e.g., as kyrios or despotes, etc.). I
agree that P.'s argument remains unverifiable and unfalsifiable
unless we come across 3rd cent. BC bib. texts.

> (2) Do we have evidence from the third century BC that any group
> refrained from pronouncing T? (I only know about the case of Simon the
> Just from 200 where the evidence is ambiguous)
I haven't made this a particular topic of investigation, so I can't
really say how strong the evidence is for
pronunciation/non-pronunciation as Jewish piety of that time.

> (3) If evidence of non-pronunciation is lacking and T and/or IAW
> occurred in the translated manuscripts of LXX, is not the most logical
> conclusion that the name was pronounced? Is not pronunciation the very
> reason why we make phonetic transcriptions?
No. The writing of YHWH in *archaic* Hebrew characters, and the fact
that in at least some Greek mss the Hebrew YHWH seems to have been
written by a scribe different from the one who copied the Greek,
suggest that the written "sign" YHWH was a "scribal/visual" artefact,
not to be read out, but in fact intended to alert readers to do the
opposite.
(In fact, I want to record the possibility that the use of
palaeo--Heb characters may be a Jewish adaptation of the use of
foreign/exotic characters or signs "characteres" attested in magical
amulets [See C. Bonner, _Magical Amulets- 12, 194-95])

The presence of IAO is perhaps another matter, though not
necessarily. [By the way, on Greek vocalizations of YHWH, see
Deissmann, "Greek Transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton," in _Bible
Studies_ (ET; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 321-36.]

> (4) Moving to the second and first centuries BC, do we find any
> evidence that `ADONAY or KURIOS was pronounced instead of T?
The evidence of Philo is I think important, both in being a diaspora
source, and in dating from the late lst cent BC or early lst cent.
AD.
>Does not 
> the fact the Job Targum from the first century BC has =B4 ALAHA instead=

> of T. and that `EL occurs ten times as often as `ADONAY in
> manuscripts from Qumran point in the opposite direction?
The sources you cite suggest *substitutions* for YHWH, not the
pronunciation of it. Now in Semitic texts the *written* renderings
where YHWH occurs in the MT (a) should not be confused with what may
have been *read aloud* (again, written signs and what is read aloud
must always be kept distinct and often differ), and (b) should not be
taken as evidence of what Greek-speaking Jews did.

> (5) We have evidence that the Qumran sect and Aramaic-speaking groups
> in pre-Christian times did not pronounce T, but do we have evidence
> that the Jews in Egypt and Babylon, or even in Palestine did not
> pronounce it? 
I think that there is evidence (e.g., from magical amulets) that some
Jews *did* invoke the Tet., but likely in "off-the-record" type
occasions, and not in open "liturgy". As to Diaspora settings,
again, I point to Philo's evidence (see article by Royse cited
inprevious posting).

> It is evident that some time in the first century CE T was no longer
> pronounced, as we see from Josephus and Philo, but what is crucial is
> the view of the Jews at large in pre-Christian times. I am looking
> forward to more concrete evidence from period.
> Thank you very much for your references.

I hope that what I've referred to will be of some help. I've been
more interested in the scribal phenomena, and have picked up bits of
evidence about pronunciation-practice only in passing. I'll be
pleased to see what you come up with too.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail: L.Hurtado at ed.ac.uk

*******************End of quote from archives***************





More information about the B-Greek mailing list