Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

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?