Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: traditions regarding tetragrammaton?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: traditions regarding tetragrammaton?
  • Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:45:38 +0200


Dear Henry,



RF
All the LXX manuscripts from the second and first centuries B.C.E
and the first century C.E have the tetragrammaton, either in old
Hebrew script, square Aramaic script, or as the phonetic
transcription IAW ( indicating pronunciation).

HC

I'd be curious to see the evidence for this "uniformity"; anyway you
left out the Yodh-He-Waw-He which, when written right-to-left in
"square" letters in Greek ms., was read back left-to-right by Greeks
as the Greek letters Pi-Iota-Pi-Iota, so that the divine name then
became "PIPI" ;-)

RF 27.8
I have collected the evidence in my book, which has been mentioned earlier in this thread. In addition to the Greek evidence, There is evidence that Syriac versions originally may have contained the tetragrammaton as well.


RF
While the Qumran sect and other groups did not use the
tetragrammaton,

HC

?? Certainly in written ms. they did.

RF 27.8
The tetragrammaton occurs in the DSS, sometimes written in Old Hebrew script in a text with Aramaic script. In my Gramcord DSS text (which contains most of the DSS but not all) it is found 231 times. My point was that the sect probably viewed the tetragrammaton as a word that should not be used in conversations or pronounced when a text was read. Remember also that manuscripts were imported from other places, and some of these use the tetragrammaton.


RF
It is extremely difficult to correlate the KURIOS of the NT with
)A:DONFY.

HC
From what point of view? Kurios is the most direct and simplest Greek
translation of Hebrew 'Adhonai (leaving aside the idiosyncratic plural
and possessive morphology of the Hebrew form, which would not transfer
smoothly to Greek). (By the way, the use of "heaven" / ouranos seems
to be partly simply a reflection of internationally-fashionable
religious terminology of the 2nd. half of the 1st millennium B.C.)

RF 27.8
From the point of view that )A:DONFY is a substitute of YHWH. NT quotes from the OT may illustrate the problem. In these quotes we find KURIOS in the NT manuscripts from the second century C.E., and we must ask why the manuscripts do not have YHWH. There are two possibilities, 1) KURIOS is used as a substitute for YHWH, and 2) YHWH was found originally but was later replaced by KURIOS.

As a matter of fact, all pasages about the use of YHWH in the OT say that the name should *allways* be used (e.g. Exodus 3:15; Malachi 3:16). Without particular reasons to the contrary we would expect that the NT writers would use the name. Such reasons do exist according to many scholars. They say that the tetragrammaton was not used any longer in the days of Jesus, but the substitute )A:DONFY was used, and the NT writers followed this custom. But whe evidence for this is lacking!

The only group where we have evidence for a disuse of YHWH is the Qumran sect. What was their substitute? Not )A:DONFY (which occurs 83 times in the Gramcord DSS) but )EL. The consonants )L occurs 1458 times in the Gramcord DSS, and about 700 of these refer to God. According to the OT we would expect the tetragrammaton in the NT, but if the custom of substitution was followed by the NT writers, we would, according to the available evidence, expect )EL and not )ADONFY. To rule out the OT's command that the name never should cease to be used, one has to demonstrate that )A:DONFY was a common *substitute* for YHWH in the first century C.E. But such evidence is completely lacking. So the view that KURIOS in the NT was a translation of )A:DONFY which was a substitute for YHWH simply is unfounded, as far as historical/archaeological evidence is concerned. I therefore see no reason to believe that the NT writers would not obey the OT words regarding the tetragrammaton.


RF
But a strong case can be made for the view that the KURIOS of NT is
a *translation* of more than one Hebrew word, something which
corroborates with the view that KURIOS was not original in the NT.


HC
The second clause doesn't follow from the first; that Kurios may be a
translation of more than one Hebrew or Aramaic word doesn't mean that
it wasn't a fairly systematic "translation" (or substitute) for YHWH.
In phrases such as (ho) kurios ho theos in Luke 1:32 etc. etc. I don't
see how Kurios can be a translation or reflection of anything else.


RF 27.8
What we do know is that the tetragrammaton or IAW occurred in the LXX at least until the middle of the first century C.E. In the LXX manuscripts from the middle of the second century C.E. we find KS (and sometimes QS) where YHWH was written in the Hebrew text. The oldest NT manuscripts from the middle of the second century C.E. have these nomina sacra (KS and QS) as well (and other nomina sacra). It stands to reason that the abbreviations that we call nomina sacra was not in the NT autographs, so their occurrence in the second century manuscripts show that the original text has been changed (in these instances). Because the same change occurred in the LXX, while it originally contained the tetragrammaton, it is not unreaonable to think that the tetragrammaton was found in the NT autographs as well. Particularly is this a logical view because there does not seem to be any reason why the NT writers should leave it out.

There are other Greek words with the meaning "Lord", which sometimes (e.g. in Acts) are used with reference to God. The use of KURIOS both with reference to God and his son, creates much confusion in some texts. There is also confusion when KURIOS is used as a title. Grice's linguistic principle, that we, when we work with a text, must presume that the author wrote in order to be understood, can be applied to the mentioned situation. The confusion created by the use of KURIOS in the NT would therefore corroborate with the view that KURIOS was introduced instead of YHWH in the last part of the first century C.E. or first part of the second century C.E. as a substitute for YHWH.


RF
George Howard has made quite a good case for the view that the
tetragrammaton originally occurred in the NT (See his article in The
Anchor Bible Dictionary), and that it was replaced by KURIOS just as
was the case in the LXX in the second century C.E.



HC
It does seem to be a rather fatal flaw for this theory that not a
single such manuscript or manuscript fragment of the NT has ever been
found. In any case, it seems to have been the international magicians
and occultists of the ancient world (not necessarily either Hebrew or
Christian) who were a lot more obsessed with the Hebrew name and its
correct pronunciation than the early Christians were. Has IAO (in
Greek letters, with omega) really been found in Biblical ms., or just
in magical papyri?


RF 28.8
Finds of manuscripts could of course solve the question. But in your work with your excellend dissertation you presumed many stages of phonological change which are not witnessed by manuscripts. So you should be ready to accept that the lack of old manuscrips is not really fatal. IAW is found in 4QLXXLevb which is dated to the first century B.C.E.


--
Henry Churchyard churchh AT crossmyt.com http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page