[B-Greek] QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words?
furuli at online.no
furuli at online.no
Sun Sep 14 04:12:53 EDT 2003
Dear Doug,
See my reply below.
>><Rolf>
>>These abbreviations can hardly be original, so at some in time the
>>LXX renderings of the tetragrammaton were removed from the
>>manuscripts and substituted with KURIOS or KS.
>
><doug>
>why not? how do we know what the original is? i haven't done a ton
>of research into the LXX but from what i understand from what i've
>read that the attempt to recreate the "original" LXX is quite
>difficult. from what i understand none of the current attempts to
>create a good "critical" edition (e.g., Rahlfs) supports what you
>are saying. perhaps you could point us to the evidence that "the LXX
>renderings of the tetragrammaton were removed." thanks.
Rolf:
There are several "holy" words (nomina sacra) apart fro QS and KS
that are abbreviated in LXX and NT manuscripts. These abbreviations
indicate some special religious viewpoint, and I see no reason why
the NT writers should have used such abbreviations. The fact that
older LXX manuscripts has the tetragrammaton or IAW and later LXX
manuscripts (from the 2nd century C.E. onward) has KS, is real
evidence that the text was changed as far as the name of God is
concerned. Because we find the same nomina sacra in NT manuscripts,
a logical conclusion is that a similar change occurred in these NT
manuscripts. This parallel, however, does not prove that YHWH
occurred in the NT autographs as was the case in LXX manuscripts, but
the parallel opens for this possibility. I do not have the reference
where I am at present, but I remember that L. W. Hurtado has written
a fine article on nomina sacra.
>
>><Rolf>
>>As to the NT, we find exactly the same nomina sacra, KS and QS, in
>>the oldest NT manuscripts from the second century C.E. as in the
>>LXX manuscripts. These abbreviations in the NT can neither be
>>original, so a change of this part of the NT text must have
>>occurred in the late 1st century or early 2nd century C.E.
>
><doug>
>what MSS are you referring to? how do we know that these aren't original?
Rolf:
I refer to manuscripts from the 2nd century (see a critical Greek
text). The manuscripts are dated paleographically. Variations between
manuscripts indicate that they are copied rather than being
originals. I do not accept the early dating of Kim and Thiede of P46
and P64.
>
>><Rolf>
>>Line 2) is wrong,The original LXX did not substitute YHWH with another word.
>
><doug>
>how do we know what the "original" LXX had? do we possess the autographa?
We do not have original LXX manuscripts, but the copies that we have
from the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.E. and the 1st century C.E. either
have the tetragrammaton or IAW. Thus the evidence we have suggests
that KURIOS was not used before the 2nd century C.E. as a substitute
for YHWH. But of course - manuscripts may be found that have KURIOS;
then we must revise our view.
>
>><Rolf>
>>it can be profitable to review the hypothesis of George Howard that
>>the tetragrammton originally was found in the NT and that KURIOS is
>>a later substitution. (See "The Tetragrammaton in the New
>>Testament" in "The Anchor Bible Dictionary".
>
><doug>
>i do not have the "anchor bible dictionary." could you briefly tell
>us what his evidence is for his hypothesis? are there any NT MSS
>anywhere that support this claim? thanks.
>---
You will find an article of G. Howard in Journal of Biblical
Literature 96 (1977), pp. 63-84. No NT manuscripts with YHWH are
found. However, philologists, who work to establish the best text,
do not only build on what is actually written, but they use evidence
from all disciplines to trace the textual history. I would like to
illustrate this. Looking at archaeology, history and history of
religion, the lack of evidence from pre-Christian times that the Jews
used 'ADONAY as a substitute for YHWH, makes the philologist reason:
"If the people, including the NT writers, did not use 'ADONAY for
YHWH in their everyday speech, why should they use the substitute
KURIOS in their NT manuscript when they quoted the OT text having
YHWH ?
On the basis of the lack of evidence in favor of substitution, the
philologist would study the occurrences of KURIOS in NT manuscripts
in order to find clues for the Hebrew (or Aramaic background) of the
word. Given that the evangelists were eyewitnesses or used
eyewitnesses as their sources, they reported what living people
expressed in Hebrew. Thus the word KURIOS often is a translation, but
a translation of what? Let us compare John 21:7 and and Matthew 5:33.
In both cases do we find hO KURIOS, but what did the reporters hear
as far as Hebrew is concerned? In Matthew's case there are at least
three options, either 'ADONAY, 'EL or YHWH ( pronounced). But what
did John hear? The word 'EL (being used by the Qumran people as a
substitute for YHWH) can be excluded. The situation is one of
identification, and the words hO KURIOS ESTIN indicates that the
person is identified as Jesus. If 'EL was used, Jesus was identified
as the God of the Jews, and this could hardly be behind Peter's
exclamation of identification (there is no reason to extrapolate
backwards later religious thoughs into this scene). John would also
probably have translated 'EL with QEOS and not with KURIOS. But what
about 'ADONAY, could that be what John heard? if 'ADONAY was the
normal substitute for YHWH at that time, the use of 'ADONAY would
give the same affect as the use of 'EL: Jesus would have been
referred to as the God of the Jews, which would not accord with the
situation. It is much more likely that Peter used the expression YE$
HA'ADON "It is the Lord", i.e. "it is the master whom we know,
Jesus". The Peshitta uses MARYA as a substitute for YHWH but in John
21:7 is uses the word MARAN "our Lord". A similar distinction is
found in old Ethiopic and in Arab manuscripts.
What do the philologist gather from the points above? He or she will
conclude that the word KURIOS (KS) in Greek NT manuscripts from the
second century C.E. is a translation of at least two different Hebrew
words. Thus one cannot automatically conclude that when KURIOS is
used in the Greek NT, its antecedent must be 'ADONAY. The lack of
differentiation between the mentioned two verses, that KURIOS is
being used to translate two different words, thus creating a
confusing situation, can make the philologist suspicious. Studying
the NT use of KURIOS further, it becomes evident that in more that
one hundred passages the use of KURIOS creates utter confusion as to
whom is referred to. If YHWH was retained in the NT as well as KURIOS
(rendering HA'ADON) there would be little confusion. These points
together with the fact that nomina sacra exists and indicate that the
NT text at some point was changed, and the disappearance of the
reasons that formerly were given why YHWH in NT quotes from the OT
should be substituted, argues in favor of KURIOS not being originally
used for YHWH in NT manuscripts.
Best regards
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list