Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] adonai "my Lord" or "the Lord"

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 lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] adonai "my Lord" or "the Lord"
  • Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:51:15 +0100


Dear Stephen,

When we discuss translation, we need to apply the rules of translation. The rule which relates to the rendering of YHWH in English translation, is that a proper name in Hebrew which refers to a particular person or place should be transcribed into English in accordance with the stock of phonemes of English and not substituted with anothr word. The only situation where translators can consider deviating from this, is where there is a play of words in connection with the name, and this is more important that the reference. Tthis is not the case with YHWH, so to substitute this name with "the Lord" is a blatant violation of a fundamental rule of translation.

I have recently completed a study of the use of divine names in *all* the Dead Sea Scrolls, both in biblical and- non-biblical manuscripts. The substitute for YHWH that was used at Qumran was )EL and not )DNY. The word )DNY was used in the non-biblical scrolls 71 times while )EL occurs 667 times. Only in one or two instances *may* )DNY be used as a substitute for YHWH. But this is absolutely not certain, because in the biblical manuscripts we sometimes find YHWH where MT has )DNY and we find )DNY where the MT has YHWH. There is absolutely no clear evidence that YHWH was substituted by )DONY in writing or in pronunciation in the 1st and 2nd century B.C.E., or even in the 1st century C.E.

On the basis of this there is an acute problem regarding KURIOS in the NT. If )DNY (=KURIOS) was not used as a substitute for YHWH when Jesus was on earth, then it must have been the NT writers who invented the use of KURIOS instead of YHWH. And why should they, when the Tanakh several places (e.g. Exodus 3:15) says that YHWH should be used as a reference to God for ever. And, when Jesus in the synagogue in Nazareth according to Luke 4:17, 18 read from the prophet Isaiah where YHWH is found, why should he substitute the proper name of God with something else? Even if this was the custom, for which there is no clear evidence, why should he, who condemned the commandments made by men that violated the law, follow such a superstitious custom?

The writers of the NT often quoted from the LXX, and interestingly the few fragments of the LXX that we have from the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.E. and the 1st century C.E. all contain the name in some form- either in archaic Hebrew or Aramaic script or as the Greek phonetic transcription IAO. So no KURIOS in this version either.

Then we come to a very interesting point. In the UBS and other Greek texts of the NT we never find YHWH but only KURIOS. However, we do not have the autographs of the NT manuscripts, and there is strong evidence that , as far as the writing of God´s name is concerned, the NT text was tampered with between 75 and 125 C.E. How so? As already mentioned, the text of the LXX, as late as the 1st century C.E. contains YHWH and not the substitute KURIOS. But in the oldest C.E. LXX manuscripts that we have (from the middle of the 2nd century C.E. or a little later) we find the substitute KS (or, a few times QS) with a horizontal bar above where YHWH previously was written. This shows that the LXX text was tampered with in the period I have mentioned, and the name of God was substituted by something else. In the oldest NT manuscrips from the same period ( the middle of the 2nd century ) we also fin KS in quotes from the OT (and in other instances) where YHWH is found in Hebrew. The same tampering pattern is evident both regarding the LXX and the NT, And it is obvious that KS, QS and several other nomina sacra were not found in the NT autographs. Thus, the NT text has been tampered with as well! And because the LXX originally had YHWH and this was changed to KS, it can be argued that the substitution KS in the NT also is a substitution of YHWH. When we also keep in mind that there is no evidence that YHWH was substituted by )DNY among the people in the days of Jesus, a good case can be made for YHWH being found in the NT autographs, at least in the quotes from the OT.

A discussion of this is found in the article "Divine names" in "The Anchor Bible Dictionary." A different view can be found in M. Rösel. The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch." JSOT 31, 2007: 411-428. For those who Read German, I refer to M. Rösel's doctoral dissertation: "Warum Gott "Herr" genannt wird?" 2000. Tübingen. The intersting thing here are the great problems he has to find evidence for his main theory, that YHWH was substituted by another word.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Hi James,

Just a little note: From a Christian point of view, I have always found it
interesting that the NT writers never felt obliged to transcribe or
translate YHWH when quoting from or alluding to the Tanakh. If kurios was
good enough for them, then Lord/LORD is good enough for me.

Stephen Shead
Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page