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: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:21:00 +0100

Dear Stephen,

I do not see any reason to comment your words that I probably disagree in the strongest possible terms with your religious views-I want to discuss data and not theology.

And the data are clear. In a comment on P. Fouad 266 (a Greek manuscript with YHWH) in Etudes de Papyrologie tome Neuvieme, Le Caire, Imprimiere de L'Institut Francais d' Archaéologie Orientale 1971:221-222, G. D Kilpatrick mentioned the period 70-135 C.E. and pointed out that three important changes occurred in this period, 1) the change from scroll to codex, 2) the tetragram was replaced by kurios, and 3) abbreviations for nomina sacra were introduced.

I think that no scholar disagree with 1) and 3) and this means that what you call "concrete evidence" (=thousands of Greek NT manuscripts from 200 C.E. onward) is completely without value! These manuscripts tell us only what the view of the writers after 200 C.E. was. So, we have no concrete evidence whether the NT autographs contained YHWH or KURIOS; what we do know is that the autographs did not contain KS and that this is a change of the text that occurred in the period between 70 and 135 C.E.

I see absolutely no problem in applying KS both to the father and the son. Hurtado argues that it started with one word IH, and then it the spread to several other words. To which degree the use of nomina sacra was more restricted in 135 than in the manuscripts we have, we do not know.

Another fact, which no one has disputed, is that there is absolutely no evidence from B.C.E. or the first part of the 1st century C.E. that )DNY was used instead of YHWH in speech or in writing. That would leave KURIOS as a substitute for YHWH in the NT without antecedent. And because there is no antecedent, I see no reason why the writers of the NT should introduce something new that contradicted the Tanakh. The fact-and I speak of facts-is that YHWH is used throughout the Tanakh, and all expressions dealing with the use of the name unanimously say that it should be used for ever. Why should the writers of the NT put this aside? This would be all the more strange, because the later rabbinic view that the name should not be pronounced was based on superstition, something the NT speaks against. Time and again Jesus and the NT writers speak up against "the traditions of men." So why should they follow these traditions in a violation of the Tanakh?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




Hi James,

OK, on your point (2): I'm no expert on NT manuscripts, and don't have direct access to them. I was relying on comments I had read in various things (some published, others online) which indicated that it is generally the case in the MSS that the various nomina sacra are used of both God and Jesus. For example:
L. W. Hurtado, "The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal". JBL 117/4 (1988), 655-673. Online: <http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/648/2/P52_TB_article.pdf>http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/648/2/P52_TB_article.pdf

But I've done some digging around, at least for references to specific MSS, if not images. For instance, there is a summary of a presentation at the SBL meeting in Boston last year by Peter Head, concerning "Nomina Sacra in P66" here:
<http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/11/sbl-boston-head-on-nomina-sacra-in-p66.html>http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/11/sbl-boston-head-on-nomina-sacra-in-p66.html

According to the summary, there are 37 extant occurrences of KURIOS, all contracted (even when not referring to Jesus).

I also found images and a transcription of P46, which is the earliest extant collection of Paul's letters (c. 200 C.E.). There is a list of links, sorted by reference, to images of many sections of P46 here:
<http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/images-of-p46-michigan-portions.html>http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/images-of-p46-michigan-portions.html

And there is a transcription, which transcribes nomina sacra, here:
<http://chrles.multiply.com/photos/album/82/Bible_Papyrus_p46>http://chrles.multiply.com/photos/album/82/Bible_Papyrus_p46

I've checked some of the images to check that it really does use nomina sacra for KURIOS with unambiguous reference to Jesus (e.g. in phrases like TOU KURIOU HMWN IHSOU XRISTOU), and it does indeed. And if my search of the transcription is right, the only occurrences of kurios which are NOT in the shortened form refer to "lords" other than Jesus - namely:

1 Cor 8:5
Eph 6:5, 9
Col 3:22

To give you a concrete example, 1 Cor 8:5-6 reads:

5 É»ÉøÉ« É¡Éøɦ Ɉɫ¼ÉˆÉ¦ ɈɫÉ-É«ÉÀ ɊɈɡÉÕÉ ÉˆÉÀÉÕÉ« ɐɈÉÕÉ« ɈɫÉ-Ɉ ɈÉÀ ÉÕÉ"ɦÉøÉÀÉ÷ ɈɫÉ-Ɉ Ɉ¼É« ɡɉV É÷É-¼ÉˆÉ¦ ¼ÉÕɊɊÉÕÉ« ɈɫÉ-É«ÉÀ ɐɈÉÕÉ« É»ÉøÉ« É»É"ɦɫÉÕÉ« ¼ÉÕɊɊÉÕÉ« 6 É‰É ÉˆÉ«ÉÀ ɈɫV ɐVÅP É»ÉøÉ« ÉÕ ¼É¦ÅP ɈÉà ÉÕÉ" É-Éø ¼[ÉøÉÀ]É-Éø É»ÉøÉ« É‰É ÉˆÉ«V ɈɫV ÉøÉ"É-ÉÕÉÀ É»Éø?É«? [ɈɫV] É»VÅP ɫɉÅPV É'ɦÅPV ɬɫ ÉÕÉ" É-Éø ¼ÉøÉÀ[É-Éø] [É»ÉøÉ«] É‰É Éˆ?É«?V ɬɫ ÉøÉ"É-ÉÕÉ"

There you have it. Only 2 MS, I know - but they were simply the first 2 I found info about regarding nomina sacra. And both are early and consistent in applying KS more widely than only to YHWH.

Actually, I have to correct that last statement. I'm convinced that the apostles (and NT authors) came to see that, within the identity of YHWH, the one God of the OT whom they worshiped, they had to include Jesus of Nazareth. That way of expressing it comes from Richard Bauckham's excellent book, Christ Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. For instance, he argues - convincingly, in my opinion - that Paul's careful construction of 1 Cor 8:6 is a conscious adaptation of the Shema Israel:

- Deut 6:4, "YHWH our God, YHWH is one" - in the LXX, É»É"ɦɫÉÕV ÉÕ ÉÉˆÉÕV É‰É É÷ÉÀ É»É"ɦɫÉÕV ɈɫV ɈÉ-É-É«ÉÀ
- In 1 Cor 8:6, this becomes "One God (ɐɈ?V) the Father ... and one Lord (É»?ɦɫÉÕV) Jesus Christ ..."

I think (with Bauckham) that this is the Christological structure of the entire NT. And in that sense, the early MSS like P46 which use KS for Jesus but not for other "lords" are, in fact, limiting the nomen sacrum to YHWH.

I'm guessing at this point that Rolf, at least, is disagreeing in the strongest possible terms. Don't know about you, James.

That's all I have time for (in fact, I didn't really have time for that...)
Stephen.

2009/12/23 James Christian <<mailto:jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>


2) Personally, I am unaware of any specific MSS where KS is used in a context which is clearly talking about Jesus. Do you know of any concrete examples you can point me to?




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page