[B-Greek] QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words?

Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Sat Sep 13 15:20:38 EDT 2003


I want to express slightly an opposite opinion.

1) The LXX that we have use KURIOS, so to say that point two is plain wrong
is dishonest. Obviously, the LXX *does* substitute KURIOS for /YHVH/. This
statement does not necessarily imply that the *earliest* copies of the LXX
had KURIOS, but there is no reason to say that *all* of the earliest
retained the Tetragrammaton. You cannot call the point *wrong,* but
unprovable.

2) If there were some "maligning" of the text going on, to what motive can
it be attributed? Do you think early Christians sat around and said, "Let's
incorporate heresies. I think we should get rid of God's name!"
Motive - it is the deciding factor when looking into text criticism. Would
changes be accidental? If not, how can they be explained?

Much can be put forward in this debate, but it is surely OFF TOPIC, so this
is my only (brief) post about it. Just let it be rested that people do not
and will not agree on this. It is too much the basis of "I know more than
you do" and "I have discovered some secret knowledge" cults. So, I stand
opposed to it.

Regards,
Jason

****
Missouri Southern State University (student)
Joplin Hebrew Reading
Joplin, MO
http://www.hareplay.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <furuli at online.no>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words?


>
> Dear Ted,
>
>
> I looked at the quote from Youtie to which Alex H. refers. It is
> correct that the meaning of the word QEOS had a different meaning for
> Jews and Christians than for the nations, as Youtie writes. However,
> his words about KURIOS contain an important error. There is no
> evidence that  LXX translators substituted YHWH with  KURIOS, as
> Yourie suggests. In all fragments of the LXX (or, LXX-like texts)
> from the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.E.and from the 1st century C.E. we
> find either  YHWH in Paleo-Hebrew or square Hebrew script, or as the
> Greek phonetic transcription IAW.  Not before the 2nd century C.E.do
> we find something else in the LXX-manuscripts, namely, the nomina
> sacra TS (for QEOS)  and KS (for KURIOS). 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. There is evidence that something similar occurred with
> old Syriac translation of the Hebrew text.  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. Thus we cannot with certainty know what was
> written in the original NT manuscripts where later manuscripts has KS.
>
> Three lines of argument have been presented in favor of the view that
> KURIOS  occurred as a substitute for YHWH in the NT autographs: 1) No
> NT manuscript has YHWH, 2) The LXX has KURIOS  as a substitute for
> YHWH, and 3) the Jews had long before Christ abandoned the use of
> YHWH and used 'ADOMAY instead.
>
> Line 1) is strong but not compelling, in view of the fact  that there
> are some time between the oldest NT manuscripts and their writing,
> and because we know that some change in connection with the divine
> epithets occurred between the oldest NT manuscripts we have and their
> writing.
>
> Line 2) is wrong,The original LXX did not substitute YHWH with another
word.
>
> Line 3) is very problematic for those who are using it. Whereas we
> find the view in lexicons and text-books that the Jews had ceased to
> use and pronounce YHWH in pre-Christian times and substituted it with
> 'ADONAY, the evidence for this is meager indeed. The Qumran people
> evidently did not use or pronounce YHWH, but many of their
> manuscripts were imported from other places, and YHWH is found in
> many such manuscripts.  There is evidence that some groups used  the
> name in pre-Christian times and others did not use it. It seems that
> the name was no longer used by the Jews after 70 C.E. when Jerusalem
> was destroyed. But we cannot say with certainty that YHWH was not
> used by some individuals or groups as late as the days of Jesus. The
> substitution of YHWH with KURIOS  in the NT presumes a Hebrew
> antecedent for KURIOS, and this can hardly be anything but 'ADONY.
> The problem is, however, that the Qumran people did not substitute
> YHWH with 'ADONAY, but they substituted it with 'EL (god). There is
> even evidence in the DSS that the writers did *not* pronounce 'ADONAY
> when YHWH was found in the text. As a matter of fact, it is extremely
> difficult to demonstrate that any group of Jews  in pre-Christian
> times had substituted YHWH with 'ADONAY. The substitute we have is
> 'EL, and if the writers  of the NT wanted to use a substitute for
> YHWH we would  expect that they uses QEOS (which is the normal
> translation of 'EL) and not KURIOS.
>
> In view of all the evidence which goes contrary to popular opinion,
> 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".
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list