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

furuli at online.no furuli at online.no
Tue Sep 16 01:39:33 EDT 2003


Dear Joe,

See my comments below.


>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.

I did not intend to express any certainty regarding YHWH versus 
KURIOS in the NT, but I called the presentation of G. Howard "a 
hypothesis". One reason, however, why I have participated in this 
thread, is to point out that old errors die hard.  In lexicons and 
textbooks, arguments regarding KURIOS that were valid 50 years ago, 
but are not valid today, are still reiterated. For instance, in the 
1999 edition of the Danish Church Bible with footnotes, we are told 
that the Jews first substituted YHWH with 'Adonay, the LXX 
translators followed this custom, and that is the reason why the NT 
writers substituted YHWH with KURIOS.  Poor readers!

>
>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).

I have mentioned a Greek Oxyrynchus fragment from the first part of 
the 1st century C.E. with YHWH.  if we compare the Syro-Hexapla with 
the Hexapla of Origen and the Syriac Codex Ambrosianus (6-7th century 
C.E.) and  Cod. Reg. Paris  Syr, V  (8th century C.E.), quite a 
strong case can be made for a similar history of the Old Syriac 
manuscripts as was the case with the LXX and its nomina sacra. 
Syro-Hexapla normally has MARYA ("LORD) in the main text, but in 2 
Kings 18:6 and other places we find PIPI in the margin and in Isaiah 
1:2 we find YHWH in the margin (The Hexapla has YHWH  in the text). 
The two old Syriac manuscripts mentioned above has PIPI and HEHE in 
the margin.  A study of these manuscripts can give the conclusion 
that very old Syriac translatio(s) had the tetragrammaton in the main 
text rather than MARYA. As H. Stegmann pointed out a long time ago 
(KURIOS hO QEOS und KURIOS IHSOUS Aufkommen und Ausbreitung des 
religiösen Gebrauchs von KURIOS und seine Verwendung im Neuen 
Testament (1969) Habil. Marsch. dissertation, Bonn), the use of 
Syriac PIPI and HEHE suggests that manuscripts were used by the 
different translators including the teragrammaton in Old Hebrew 
characters (-> HEHE) and Aramaic characters (->PIPI). This could 
suggest that OT manuscripts with the tetragrammaton in different 
characters existed apart from the few that have been found.

>
>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.

It should not be surmised that Philo used the tetragrammaton. He was 
heavily influenced by Plato, who argued in favor of God's 
namelessness. In Philo's account of what God said to Moses when Moses 
asked about his name, he wrote that: "no name at all can properly be 
used of me, to whom all existence belong." He also interpreted 
Leviticus 24:16 as a prohibition against pronouncing the name  (De 
Vita Moses I, 75).  We should remember that whereas the OT uses the 
proper name YHWH more than 6000 times it also uses 'ADONAY a  little 
more than 400 times with reference to God. The word 'ADONAY is not 
used as a *substitute* for YHWH, but as a *complement*, a title. 
Before Philo can be used as a witness for KURIOS used as a 
*substitute* for YHWH, each instance should be scrutinized and 
evaluated in the light of 'title versus substitute'. BTW, Josephus 
used DESPOTHS as a substitute for YHWH, and the designation KURIOS 
occurs only twice in his writings.


>
>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.

No sweeping claims should be made, but the important question to 
answer for those who want to study the subject, in my view, is:  Why 
would not the writers of the NT use YHWH when they quoted texts that 
included the name? If the custom of viewing it as ineffable existed 
in their days, would they follow this custom, which has no root in 
the text of the OT? If there was no Jewish custom behind 
substitution, could there have been a Christian custom at this early 
stage when Jesus was on earth, and before the Christian congregation 
was made? In that case, what was this custom and what was its basis? 
The more I study this issue, the less I see any logical reason why 
the Christian writers should use a substitute for YHWH.

>
>Joe Fantin
>Dallas Theological Seminary
>---



Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



More information about the B-Greek mailing list