Biblical Hebrew Forum

[furuli AT online.no]

> aAt 09-02-2003 22:12 furuli AT online.no <furuli AT online.no> wrote:
>
> >  One important fact regarding the DSS is for the most part neglected
> >  in discussions about the name, namely, that the substitute used in
> >  Qumran manuscripts is *not* )DNWNY but )L. Thus the KURIOS of NT and
> >  LXX manuscripts of the 2nd century C.E. have no antecedent!  The
> >  argument is that at the beginning of C.E. the name was no longer
> >  pronounced, but was substituted by )DNWNY. Because of this the LXX
> >  translators and the NT writers translated  )DNWNY with KURIOS. And
> >  that is the reason why KURIOS with reference to God is found both
> >  places. But the problem is the the most important link, the first one
> >  is lacking. There is no indication that )DNWNY  (or Aramaic MR)/MRY)
> >  was used as a substitute for YHWH in B.C.E.!  And there is no
> >  evidence that i generally was substituted in the days of Jesus. Thus
> >  the pointing of YHWH by the Masoretes cannot be traced back longer
> >  than to the days of Jehuda hannasi and Mishnaic times.


Dear Raymond,

Thank you for your find philological points. See my response below.

> Shalom Rolf,
>
> Thank you for your interesting mails on this subject. Yet I do have my
> doubts on some issues and for that reason some questions/remarks:
>
> First, in a former mail you wrote that
>
> >  it was not a particular interpretation of Scripture that
> >  caused people to stop pronouncing YHWH, but rather
> >  foreign influence.
>
> which you related to hellinism. I have some doubts on that. From the texts
> of Ugarit it is apparent that in religious texts the Name of the deity was
> "handled with care". It is remarkable for example that Ba`lu - "lord,
> master" - functioned as an epithet for the god Haddu, a name which is used
> only a few times in the religious texts from Ugarit. On the other hand there
> is in Hebrew scriptures a clear tendency that Adonai is used as an epithet
> for Yhwh, and used instead of YHWH or )ELOHIM. However, this is not to say
> that in biblical times or B.C.E. Adonai was used as a substitute for reading
> YHWH. It just indicates that Adonai was a wellknown epithet, while the use
> of epithets instead of the name of the Deity involved itself is a very
> ancient ANE practice, which is related to the hypostatization of divine
> names.

It is fine that you focus on the real crux of the matter, namely the
*substitution* of YHWH. In "Encyclopædia  of Religion and Ethics
(1909), James Hastings vol IX, p. 178 we find a very interesting
article entitled "Nameless gods". It shows that gods that are
nameless are found in religions all over the world "because of the
mystery which surrounds them or because they are called by some
oblique epithet, or it may be because their names have been
forgotten". the Cana'anite god Ba'al and the Egyptian Amen-Ra " whose
name is concealed for all his creatures" are two examples from the
neighborhood of ancient Israel. This corresponds to your Ugaritic
evidence.  The period of time to which we must look to account for
the substitution of YHWH is the days of the second temple.

Two sources can be possible as the basis for substitution, 1) the
Hebrew scriptures, and 2) foreign influence. If we count all the
epithets and designations for God in the Hebrew scriptures, the list
will be very long, but he has only one proper name, YHWH.  In the
Bible belt of the US I am told that many persons use the hundred year
old American Standard Version with the name "Jehovah", and they
pronounce this name with reference to God.  But they also use the
word "God", and occasionally "the Lord".  So the point is not that
God can be addressed in many ways, in this we agree. But the point is
whether the people viewed it wrong to use his personal name and
therefore needed to use a substitute instead; that is, was
substitution necessary.

While I think that old Vitringa had a point regarding kolophons and
different documents being used as sources for Genesis, the theory of
E. J. and P is pure speculation, and would lead to absurdity it it
was carried out consistently. It is also quite strange that some
believe strongly in the "Deuteronomist(s), who does not have a name,
nor any personal history, nor a time reference, but the existence of
"David", who both has a name, a personal history, and a time
reference is doubted (or rejected).  So, the only conclusion we can
draw on the basis of the fact that some contexts use YHWH, others
)LHYM, and others )DNY, and still others a combination of these, is
that all designations could denote the Creator; there was no
competition between the uses. The important point is that nowhere in
the Tanach is it said, or even hinted at, that YHWH should not be
pronounced but substituted. To the contrary, the unanimous witness is
that the name should always be used! Because we find namelessness all
around Israel, and because we know that Greek influence was
particularly strong from the 2nd century B.C.E. onward, and in Greek
religion namelessness is found, we have strong reason to believe that
this influence was the cause. This is the conclusion the rabbis I
mentioned previously also draw.


> Second, you suggest that in Qumran YHWH was substituted by )L, and
> consequently the KURIOS in the LXX-mss of the second century C.E. have no
> antecedent. However, next to the fact that LXX uses KURIOS for YHWH, it
> occurs rather frequently that THEOS is substituted for YHWH, but also KURIOS
> for )ELOHIM. This can be related to the practice in Qumran to read )L for
> YHWH, although (as far as I am aware) YHWH is not substituted in the
> biblical texts from Qumran. Moreover, even if it does occur it may be asked
> whether we are dealing in such a case with substitution, because in other
> biblical mss we also find the interchange of YHWH and )ELOHIM (both
> directions!).
> On the other hand it does occur quite often that the name is written in
> so-called paleo-Hebrew script (as also happens in the Gr. mss from
> NachalChever), or that instead four dots are put in the text where the
> tetragrammaton is to be found. Especially this latter fact points in my view
> in the direction of substitution, but: what is in that case the substitute?
> We do not know for sure, of course, but if I remember well in 1QIs-a (3:16
> or 17?), you'll find )DNY for MT's YHWH.

There may be various reasons, textual and others, why one manuscript
uses YHWH and another )DNY or )LHYM, without suggeting *substitution"
("substitution" = YHWH is ineffable, so we must nor pronounce it but
use another word).

My count below regarding the use of designtions in  DSS is fairly complete:
In 71 extrabiblical DSS manuscripts I count 195 tertragrammatons in
Aramaic script, 44 in old Hebrew script and 25 examples of dots
instead of letters.  I count 74 examples of )DNY in 34 manuscripts.
But none of these appears to be a substitute, but three of them
(4Q161 (1) and 4Q163 (2)) are followed by YHWH, thus differentiating
)DNY from being a substitute. In a count (which is not complete I
find 677 examples of )L, many of them being found in places where we
would expect YHWH.

I would also like to point to an example which indicates that YHWH
was *not* pronounced as KURIOS by the Greek translator of 8HevXIIgr.
In Micah 1:2 the Hebrew text has )DNY YHWH, and YHWH as expected is
pointed by the Masoretes as )LHYM. the reason is of course that the
readers should  not read )DNY )DNY. However in the Greek text of the
mentioned manuscript we find KURIOS + the tetragrammaton in old
Hebrew characters. This suggests that the tetragrammaton was *not*
pronounced by KURIOS; otherwise one would read KURIOS KURIOS (See E.
Tov "The Greek Minor prophets from Nahal Hever, p. 85.) The
tetragrammaton also occurs with KURIOS in Micah 4:4 and 5.3 and Jonah
2:2. However, in Nahum 1:9 we find QEOS instead of the
tetragrammaton, which does not suggest substitution but rather
textual variation.

> In conclussion, I have my doubts whether the facts from the ANE and from
> Qumran do substantiate your case (nor that they contradict it decisively).
> However (to be clear), even if the name was substituted by )ADONAI/KURIOS in
> the time of Jesus, or even B.C.E., this does not prove that KURIOS for Jesus
> in the NT is meant to equal him to the YHWH/)ADONAI from the Hebrew Bible
> and thus a prove for the Trinity. Like Ba`al/Ba`lu and )adonai, the word
> KURIOS is a secular word, that is applied in religious language, and its use
> for Jesus does not prove his supposed divine provenance.


I have elsewhere discussed the NT data at some length. After a study
of the 1317 occurrences of QEOS, the 717 occurrences of KUROS, and
several other epithets, I concluded:

1)  The most common word used as reference for God  in the 1st
century C.E. (seen in direct speech) was )LHYM (or )L), and that YHWH
was used as well, together with several other designations. But there
is no evidence that )DNY was generally used. The speech of Stephen in
Acts chapter 7 is representative: QEOS 12 times, KURIOS 4 times, "the
God of glory" and "the most high" one time each.

2) The word KURIOS in the NT was a translation of two different
Hebrew words (in direct speech) and not just one. Compare for
instance the words of Mary in Luke 1:28 "the Lord (hO KURIOS) is with
you", 1:32"The Lord God (KURIOS hO QEOS)  will give him the throne of
his Father David" with  the words of the disciple Jesus loved in John
21:7 "It is the Lord (hO KURIOS)." If )DNY was a substitute for YHWH,
Mary would have used it in Luke 1, but the disciple would hardly have
used )DNY in John 21:7, because then he would have been construed to
say: "It is God", which evidently was not his meaning.  So )DNY
evidently was not used in each case - and as I argue, in neither
case- but two different Hebrew words must have been used for the one
KURIOS ( Peshitta has MARYA in Luke 1:32 and MARAN in John 21:7).
(Note also "the most high" in Luke 1:32, suggesting a diversity of
epithets.)

3) The evidence points in the direction that YHWH was found in the NT
autographs with reference to God, but was later removed. The few
instances that can be used in favor of the use of a substitute for
YHWH, can be explained otherwise. But most of the evidence points in
the other direction. Two arguments have been used in the past for a
substitution in the NT of YHWH by KURIOS, 1) this is done in the LXX,
and the NT followed this example, and 2) the tetragrammaton was no
longer used by people in general in the days of Jesus. The first is
wrong and the second is unsubstantiated. So apart from the textual
evidence, the simple question is: Why should not Jesus and his
apostles pronounce YHWH when they read from the Hebrew scriptures or
in their daily speeches?

4. There is much evidence from LXX manuscripts and NT manuscripts
(and even Peshitta manuscripts - PIPI and HEHE in their marigins)
that in the last part of the 1st century C.E. or the first part of
the 2nd century C.E. the tetragrammaton and phonetic transcriptions
of the name were substituted by other words (the nomina sacra ks an
qs).

I think that the ANE evidence corroborates with the view that foreign
influence was the reason why the name among Jews became ineffable. I
agree that the use of KURIOS  for Jesus does not show that he was
viewed as God.  But in between 50 and 100 instances the use of KURIOS
both with reference to Jesus and to YHWH in NT manuscripts from the
2nd century onwards leaves the reader in confusion regarding the
reference. But writers do not want their reader to be confused, so
this use
is  hardly original.




> Kol tuv,
> Raymond

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
> From rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl  Wed Feb 12 04:42:34 2003
Return-Path: <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mta1.essentkabel.com (mta1.essentkabel.com [195.85.130.99])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD8F20011
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Wed, 12 Feb 2003 04:42:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [195.85.166.244] (dialin-c2-85.166.244.keyaccess.nl
        [195.85.166.244])h1C9hd5M008213
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:43:39 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:43:05 +0100
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] LORD
From: Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <BA6FD5B8.3ABD%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 09:42:35 -0000

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

> 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.

As gfsomsel already wrote, the custom to write the tetragrammaton in Hebrew
(mostly paleo) in greek mss, similar to the Hebr. and Aram. documents from
Qumran, might suggests a ketib/qere situation, because it was given special
emphasis by the use of paleo Hebrew.
So, the evidence can be interpreted into two different directions.

Rolf referred to the fact that in Hebr. and Aram. mss from Qumran, )L was
used where YHWH might be expected. However, this occurs in non-biblical mss,
not in biblical mss! This points in the direction of an avoidance of the use
of YHWH.

In biblical mss we find generally no substitution of YHWH by another name
(e.g. )EL or )ADONAI]. Yet in 1QIs-a we find )ADONAI, where MT has YHWH.
This might suggest that in Qumran -or where the ms is written- that YHWH was
substituted by )ADONAI.

Kol tuv,
Raymond