[B-Greek] Re: QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words?
JFantin at aol.com
JFantin at aol.com
Mon Sep 15 00:41:36 EDT 2003
I appreciate the detailed defense of the non-originality of KURIOS in the NT
presented by Rolf Furuli. However, I think there are reasons why his
conclusions should not be stated with such certainty. I receive the digest so please
forgive me if this has already been covered.
First, it is true that all early (pre-second century CE) Jewish LXX
manuscripts which contain a word which would stand for/translate, etc. the divine name
do not have KURIOS but rather some type of Hebrew script or other convention.
However, this data is very minimal. I am only aware of two or three relevant
fragments for this point. First and most importantly, Papyrus Fouad 266 (ca.
100 BCE; second oldest extant LXX manuscript) containing Deut 31:28-32:6 has the
Hebrew square script for the divine name. Second, a fragment from cave four
of Qumran containing Leviticus 2-5 (4QLXXLevb) has the Greek majuscule letters
IAW for the divine name. Finally, the Rylands Papyrus 458 (mid second century
BCE; the oldest extant LXX manuscript of which I am aware) containing
fragments from Deuteronomy 23-28 does not contain the divine name but breaks off just
before it at Deut 26.17. It appears there that an argument can be made that
this did not contain KURIOS based on spacing. However, I am not familiar enough
with the manuscript nor skilled enough in the appropriate field to make a
judgement on the issue. In any case, this is very slim evidence to make confident
claims about the translation convention of the entire LXX (or LXXs).
Second, if the NT truly did contain the divine name and not KURIOS, it would
be necessary to postulate an early and incredibly thorough replacement of
KURIOS for YHWH. This is not impossible of course, but considering that we have
absolutely no manuscript evidence for YHWH, it seems improbable given the wide
distribution of manuscript evidence, that YHWH was original. One would think we
would find some trace of such a reading. It may be argued that although our
manuscript evidence is good, it is not as early as we would like and thus there
was time for a change to occur. This reasoning is not compelling to me and it
seems odd in light of the need to postulate an original YHWH in the LXX based
on a very few relatively late (in light of the date[s] the LXX translation
had been produced). It is just as feasible that the LXX which was produced in a
diaspora setting had an original KURIOS but those with closer ties to
Palestinian Judaism changed it to reflect the divine name. There simply is not enough
evidence to make any significant claims about such issues. Interestingly, the
Qumran readings (a Palestinian group with claims to the authentic Judaism)
have IAW in Greek and not YHWH in Hebrew script. In addition, I do not find it
irrelevant that Philo, a diaspora Jew, uses KURIOS many times (just under 400
times total-though not all apply to God). He appears to be highly influenced by
the LXX. It may be true that all extant copies are Christian. However, this is
the manuscript tradition we have. To postulate that Philo used the divine
name is entirely based on silence.
Finally, I am open to further manuscript evidence. However, based on the
external evidence as it seems to stand, it seems preferable to reject a theory
suggesting that KURIOS is not original in the NT. Based on the extant LXX
evidence, I would be open to an original Hebrew divine name; however, the LXX is far
to complex a beast and second-temple through first century CE Judaism is much
too diverse to make such a sweeping claim about this issue. Arguments on how
some biblical authors might translate (any) Hebrew words are helpful but of
less value without stronger manuscript support. We only have the NT Greek, I am
uncomfortable attempting to read any possible original behind it.
Joe Fantin
Dallas Theological Seminary
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list