Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joshua AT can-do.net" <joshua AT can-do.net>]

Shalom gfsomsel,

You had noted below:

> 1.  The LXX translation used KURIOS for the tetragrammaton
> before the rise of christianity.  This in itself is evidence
> for the use of )DNY for the tetragrammaton apart from any
> christian doctrine of the trinity.

Did the LXX translation use Kurios for the name YHWH before the rise of
Christianity? I am not an expert on the LXX (or much else for that matter!),
but many of the books I have read concerning the LXX would disagree.

While not specifically dealing with the issue of the Tetragrammaton in the
LXX, "A Wandering Aramean" by Joseph Fitzmyer contains a chapter called "The
New Testament Kyrios-Title" that has  information about the Tetragrammaton
in the LXX that directly relates to this question:

"But there are serious arguments against this alleged pre-Christian use [of
kurios] in the LXX, and H. Conzelmann has succinctly summed them up in his
attempt to relate the NT kyrios-title to a Hellenistic pagan background. He
writes:

3. Outside the Septuagint, Kyrios is unusual in Judaism as a designation for
God.
4. It has recently been disputed that the Septuagint in fact renders YHWH by
Kyrios.
   (a) Papyrus Fouad 266 (second century B.C.): it has YHWH in the quotation
from Deut. 31f.: cf. O. Paret, Die Bibel, Ihre Uberlieferung in Druck und
Schrift (1949), p. 75 and table 2.
   (b) 4Q Minor Prophets: also tetragrammaton.
   (c) 4Q fragments of Lev. 2-5 LXX: IAW
   (d) Aquila fragments from Cairo: tetragrammaton
   (e) Fragments from the second column of the Hexapla; tetragrammaton (cf.
Origen and Jerome).
   (f) Examples of PIPI in Hatch and Redpath, A Concordance to the LXX,
Suppliment (1906), p. 126.
   (g) Symmachus: cf. TWNT III 1082, lines 12f.
Compare, too, the use of the Old Hebrew scripts in the tetragrammaton in the
quotations of the Q pesharim; 1QpH; 4QpPs 37; el: 1QH I 26. II 34. XV 25;
1Q35 I 5.
        Thus the Christian use of kurios cannot be derived from the LXX. The
reverse is in fact true. Once the title began to be used, it was found again
in the Bible." (pg. 120)

Fitzmyer's response is, "Such arguments may indeed invalidate the claim that
early Greek-speaking Christians were influenced by the so-called
Septuagintal use of kurios for Yahweh (either in Palestine or in the
diaspora). But I am not sure that they close the question, whether
Palestinian Jews called or could call Yahweh kurios". (pg. 120)

Note that Fitzmyer questions the idea that Palestinian Jews did not/could
not call Yahweh by the Greek word Kurios, he seems to agree that the LXX did
not contain the Tetragrammaton. On pg. 121 Fitzmyer notes:

"It is clear that in a number of Greek translations of the OT from
pre-Christian or early Christian times, especially in those used by Jews,
the Hebrew tetragrammaton was simply preserved, [38] or else it was
transcribed as IAW, [39] or was written in Greek as PI PI. [40] Moreover, it
seems clear that the wide spread use of Kurios in so-called LXX manuscripts
dating from Christian times is to be attributed to the habits of Christian
scribes. [41] Indeed, the widespread use may well have been influenced by
the use of Kurios for Yahweh in the NT itself. [42] But the question arises,
Where did the NT writers get the kyrios-title for God (Yahweh)? I have never
heard it said that Christian scribes or copyists introduced it as well into
NT writings, whereas the writers themselves had actually used some other
word for God. For instance, if Kurios = YHWH is a device found only in
Christian copies of the OT, where did Luke get it when he quoted Deut 6:5 in
10:27, agapeseis kurios ton theon sou? [43] A facile answer to this question
would be, From Christian copies of the Greek OT. But the Lucan verse chosen
here as an illustration is found in the oldest copy of Luke, in the Bodmer
Papyrus (P75), dating from A.D. +-200. As far as I know, there is no earlier
dated manuscript of the so-called LXX which uses Kurios for Yahweh. [44]
Hence, as stated above, the widespread use of Kurios for YHWH in Christian
copies of the so-called LXX may well have been influenced by the use of
Kurios for Yahweh in the NT, but the question still remains, Where did the
NT writers get it?"

Footnotes 38-44 contain a bit of information pertaining to the lack of the
Tetragrammaton in Greek Old Testament texts dating from before the rise of
Christianity on through the first few centuries of the Christian period. As
a side note, George Howard in an article in JBL and BAR did suggest, as a
theory, another word was used in the Greek NT in reference to God.

I may be mistaken, but all the published mss/fragments of the "LXX" from the
2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE do not have kurios for the
Tetragrammaton. For example: P Fouad 266 (Tetragrammaton in block Heb.),
8HevXIIgr (Tetragrammaton in paleo-Heb.), 4QLXXLevb (Greek IAW), Oxyrynchus
Papyri (Tetragrammaton in paleo-Heb.) are all Greek OT texts with a form of
the Tetragrammaton and none contain kurios (P. Ryl. 458 and 4QLXXLeva either
have broken texts or blanks where the name would occur, but they do not have
kurios either). The first LXX document with kurios appears to be POxy656
which has kurios added by a second hand.

Origen and Jerome noted that some of the LXX texts of their times still
contained the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. As Emanuel Tov notes, "This habit
[of Jewish-Greek translations using the Tetragrammaton in
Hebrew/paleo-Hebrew characters] was mentioned by Origen in his commentary on
Psalm 2 (Migne XII, 1104) and Jerome, Prologus galeatus" (pg. 220, "Textual
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible"). The Ambrosiana palimpsest, which contains
about 150 verses of Origin's Hexapalaric Psalter, contains the name YHWH in
the block Hebrew script in all columns (including the LXX column, which at
times is followed by the nomina sacra for Kurios). Bruce Metzger notes this
document was, "Written in a hand of the ninth or tenth century" (pg. 108,
"Manuscripts of the Greek Bible"). Interestingly, (to my knowledge) other
copies of the Hexapala only contain kurios which seems to indicate that in
the Hexapala, like the rest of the LXX, the Tetragrammaton was removed and
replaced by later scribes with kurios.

The above notes indicate that kurios was not used in the LXX for the
Tetragrammaton, "before the rise of christianity". Indeed, they seem to
indicate the opposite. gfsomsel, I am not an expert in this issue, so if
there is evidence to the contrary I would be more than glad to read it.

>From what I know I would agree that the removal of the Tetragrammaton from
the Greek texts was not due to Christiological concerns (a division and
shift from a Jewish/Jerusalem lead early Church to the Gentile/Greek one
early in the late 1st/early 2nd century CE seems more likely). Rolf's
personal belief does not negate the evidence necessarily (nor how he
personally applies it to other issues). I would agree with George Howard who
notes, "From these findings we can now say with almost absolute certainty
that the divine name YHWH was not rendered by kurios in the pre-Christian
Greek Bible, as so often thought. Usually the Tetragrammaton was written out
in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters or was transliterated into Greek
letters" (p.65, "The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament") yet, agreeing
with this information, can also say personally I believe in a pre-existent
divine Messiah (not that what I believe matters!).

One the broader issue at hand (this is not directed personally to gfsomsel),
the name YHWH is extremely frequent in the Hebrew Bible (found over 6,800
times; many times in the context of speech, confessional texts, or
instruction to be praised/proclaimed) and is common in Hebrew inscriptions
(e.g. the Lachish Letters uses it often). Even the King of Moab in the Mesha
Stele knows the name YHWH! The inscriptional evidence would indicate that,
like the indication from the text of the Hebrew Bible, the name was well
known and freely used. Should not our Bibles represent this? The post-exilic
writers use the name YHWH even more frequently than previous authors and the
appearance of Yahwistic theophoric names increases in the text. Even Amos
6:10 is evidence that the name YHWH was freely spoken (there is no need for
a prohibition if it was never spoken!) My point? Translations that retain
the name YHWH, while at ends with common Jewish and Christian traditions on
the subject, represent the opinion of the Hebrew text on the issue. Do we
override the clear intention of the Hebrew text for a late non-Biblical
tradition?

Even more, I would have to agree with the point of another poster that the
removal of the name, names, and titles of YHWH in translations of the Hebrew
Bible have had a negative affect on our understanding of YHWH and the text
as a whole. I would not limit this just to the Tetragrammaton (but surely it
is included!) because the richness of all the names and titles tells us
something about the text and the author and (possibly) the theology the
author is attempting to convey. It appears that these words were not half
hazardly inserted, but are a means by which the ancient authors expressed
the theology of YHWH. U. Cassuto in, "The Documentary Hypothesis and the
Composition of the Pentateuch" demonstrates examples of this. Yet how ironic
that ba`al in 1Ki 18:23ff is transliterated yet YHWH is replaced with, "The
LORD"?

While I think we must respect other traditions there is the issue of being
faithful to the text--the tradition of the text is to use the name. I
respect the rights of the Jewish religion and to practice their faith
according to their understandings and traditions, yet the Hebrew Bible has
an audience broader than just the Jewish people (though I say this in no way
to downplay the significance of the Jewish people or their traditions in
relation to the Hebrew Bible). There are many issues in which Christians
offend Jews (and vice versa) and many areas in which academics is offensive
to both, yet I have not seen a call to cease discussing documentary theory,
the minimalist view that most events/Biblical figures never existed, claims
that Yeshua was/was not the Messiah, the claim by most Christians that
Messiah is divine, etc. While I feel I may have said a bit much (I am not
trying to start an argument), I think my point is clear: avoiding Biblical
issues and topics because they may be offensive to some is not a solution.
In relation to the Tetragrammaton--do we ignore the name of God, one of the
most common and important words in the Hebrew Bible, because it is offensive
to some? The Hebrew Bible esteems the use and prominence of the name YHWH in
the Israelite religion, to dismiss this is to dismiss significant amounts of
the text.

James Tabor's translation in progress (I think it is now being called the
TEB/Translucent English Bible) will use YHVH, Elohim, El, Adonai, etc...
Such a method will allow those who wish to say Yahweh or Adonai or Lord that
freedom when they come to the Tetragrammaton yet, in the same, is a constant
reminder that the Hebrew Bible is about a Semitic deity with a personal
covenant name. As an English speaking Christian I can say that the idea that
the God of the Bible is a Hebrew/Semitic God is foreign to most. I would say
the same applies to most English speaking students of the Bible. The
appearance of, "Yahweh" or "YHWH" or whatnot in English Bibles would be yet
another bold reminder that, again, it is about a Semitic people with a
Semitic God.

Sincerely,

Joshua Luna
Joshua AT can-do.net



> In a message dated 2/10/2003 6:25:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> furuli AT online.no writes:
>
> > I appreciate your questions, because it is impossible to cover all
> > points in a short posting. So let me elucidate.
> >
> > I do not think that the Masoretes followed any Christian tradition,
> > to the effect that their vowel-points were based on )DNY which was a
> > translation of KURIOS. Frankly, we do not know the basis of the
> > vowels of the Masoretes. But the point I tried to make, was that
> > there is no evidence before the days of Jehuda hannasi of any
> > substitution of YHWH by )ADNY. So, I guess that the tradition that
> > guided the Masoretes was the tradition of the Mishna, the Talmuds and
> > old Rabbinic texts.  If I remember correctly, in the first chapter of
> > Avot we find "Sinai", "the name of heaven" as substitues fro YHWH, so
> > it is evident that several substitutes for YHWH existed at that time.
> >
> > Another point which was implied in my discussions, is that there is
> > much incorrect information given regarding the substitution of YHWH
> > in the B.C.E and first century C.E. by fine scholars in lexicons and
> > textbooks. The most important error is that the Septuagint
> > substituted YHWH with KURIOS - this is definitely wrong! Another is
> > that before the start of the C.E. the name was no longer used. While
> > this is true in some cases, there is no evidence that even the
> > majority viewed the name as ineffable at that time.
> >
> > Because I do not know the basis for the Masoretic pointing, I cannot
> > say anything about whether the Christian use of KURIOS played any
> > role for the Masoretes. I have no objections to the general view that
> > the choice of vowels by the Masoretes for YHWH was based on the
> > vowels of )DNY.  However, I stress that there is no evidence for a
> > substitution of YHWH by )DNY in the days of the second temple.
> >
> I have wished to stay clear of this discussion once Rolf got involved
because
> we have been through this before extensively, and I know that he has a
> monomania regarding this subject.  I cannot let this pass, however,
without
> comment.
>
> 1.  The LXX translation used KURIOS for the tetragrammaton before the rise
of
> christianity.  This in itself is evidence for the use of )DNY for the
> tetragrammaton apart from any christian doctrine of the trinity.
>
> 2.  The doctrine of the trinity was something which developed over several
> centuries and was not codified until the Council of Nicaea in 325.
>
> 3.  Manuscripts in which a paleo-hebrew form of the tetragrammaton are
found
> would themselves be evidence that there was a special significance
assigned
> to the name and potentially as well a substitution of a qere for the
> tetragrammaton.
>
> Thus the assertion that the disappearance of the usage of the
tetragrammaton
> was driven by trinitarian theological considerations fails.  But then,
some
> will use anything they think possible to defend their position.
>
> gfsomsel