Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 2/11/2003 11:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
joshua AT can-do.net writes:

> 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:  <snip>

There are several things to be noted in the material you presented (consult 
original for details).  

1.  The use of IAO would indicate a transcription of  the tetragrammaton in 
some form and could conceivably indicate a pronunciation -- date c. 50.  

2.  The actual use of the tetragrammaton itself in some texts of the LXX mss. 
would probably point to a qere / ketib situation where the Hebrew 
tetragrammaton would be replaced by another word since it would be likely for 
a Greek-speaker to use a Greek term -- probably KURIOS.

3.  The NT use of KURIOS in quotations where the tetragrammation is present 
in the original likewise points to a qere / qetib.

4.  Since the split between the synagogue and the church dating from about 
the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and the subsequent adding of a 
"blessing" (i.e. a curse) on the Nazoreans in the Berakot of the synagogue, 
it would be highly unlikely that the Jews would adopt a christian practice 
which had not already been a part of Judaism itself.

When what is written is not always what is pronounced, it is difficult to 
maintain that the written form was pronounced.  How old the practice of the 
perpetual qere for the tetragrammaton might be is difficult to say, but I 
would venture to say that it was pre-christian and therefore most definitely 
not due to any trinitarian tendencies.  

******************************************************************************

********
The assertion that the tetragrammaton was replaced due to trinitarian 
considerations is a two-edged sword for those who deny that the early church 
was trinitarian since it would require that the doctrine of the trinity was 
already present at an early date.  They cannot maintain that the early church 
was not trinitarian and simultaneously maintain that the church replaced the 
tetragrammaton due to trinitarian considerations!
******************************************************************************

**********

gfsomsel
>From rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl  Wed Feb 12 03:50:12 2003
Return-Path: <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mta2.essentkabel.com (mta2.essentkabel.com [195.85.130.100])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBF420022
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Wed, 12 Feb 2003 03:50:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [195.85.166.33] (dialin-c2-85.166.33.keyaccess.nl
        [195.85.166.33])h1C8pHnN021653
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:51:17 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:50:42 +0100
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] LORD
From: Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <BA6FC972.3AB9%rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
In-Reply-To: <MBBBIIFECBPLLOIJACCFOEFOCCAA.joshua AT can-do.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
 <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:50:13 -0000

At 12-02-2003 05:59 Joshua AT can-do.net <joshua AT can-do.net> wrote:

> 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).

I wonder how those people, who support this view, appreciate it that the
names of God, Jesus are fequently used as `stopgap' or as `fillers':

JESUS CHRIST!
CHRIST!
JEEESUS!
GOSH!
GODDAM!

If you do not appreciate it, why should you ignore these feelings from other
traditions? 

Moreover, as far as I am aware with regard to the NT, Jesus teached us to
call G-d "Father", "Abba"; why should we christians want to use a name which
is so precious in the Jewish tradition -in which the gentiles are only
grafted! 

Kol tuv,
Raymond