Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Stephen,

On this list we are discussing Hebrew and not Greek. But your question can be 
relevant for this list for three reasons, 1) it may throw some light on 
textual criticism, including the textual question on Ecclesiastes 3:11 that 
recently was discussed, 2) it relates to the DSS, and 3) it throws some light 
on the use of the Tanakh as a basis for the New Testament. I will therefore 
answer your question.

The text of the Tanakh in some places is corrupt, or at least not 
understandable.  One example is Hosea 5:2.  In such cases, the task of the 
philologist is to try to restore the "original" or older text. The  
translation of the Tanakh into Greek probably started in the third century 
BCE. Only a few fragments of the LXX or a LXX-like text dated from the 2nd, 
1st century BCE and to 50 CE have been found, but none of these fragments 
have KURIOS instead of YHWH. But they have the tetragram in old Hebrew and 
Aramaic script, and the Greek phonemic transcription IAO. Between the last 
fragment with of Job with the tetragram from around 50 CE and the oldest 
LXX-manuscript there are one hundred years. What do we find in this 
manuscripts and in the LXX-manuscripts that were copied in the next two or 
three hundred years? Where YHWH occurs in the MT we find the so-called nomina 
sacra KS, supposed to be an abbreviation for KURIOS. On the basis of the 
older manuscripts we know that between 
 50 and 150 CE God's name was removed from the LXX manuscripts and replaced 
by KC. Thus, the LXX manuscripts from the 2nd century have a corrupt text, as 
far as the name of God is concerned.

The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are from the second century CE, 
and they have the same corrupt text as the LXX; they have KS in quotes from 
the Tanakh where MT has YHWH.  Many other places we also find KS. No one 
would argue that the NT autographs had KS, so the task of the pholologian is 
to find which word in the autographs that had been replaced by KS. In the 
LXX, YHWH or IAO were written down to 50 CE, and after that they were 
replaced by KS. When the same replacement occurred in NT manuscripts, it is 
logical that God's name in one form occurred in the NT autographs, but later 
was removed.

In the first part of the 20th century, it was universally believed that the 
original LXX contained KURIOS, and that was the reason why the NT writers 
used KURIOS instead of  YHWH. This view was abandoned in the second part of 
the 20th century when LXX manuscripts with YHWH or IAO were found. The most 
important argument used today in favor of KURIOS  rather than YHWH in the NT, 
is that the Jews in the last centuries BCE ceased using and pronouncing YHWH 
and used )DNY  instead. The problem with this argument is that there is 
absolutely no evidence in favor of it!!! The only group of which I am aware, 
who used a substitute for YHWH, was the religious order, possibly Essenes, 
that lived at Qumran. However, the substitute they used was not )DNY but )L. 

I have studied all the divine designations in the DSS, and I found the 
following numbers: YHWH 317; )LHYM:380; )L: 667; )DNY: 71; four dots:27. Of 
the 71 examples of )DNY, all, or most are titles, and not substitutes for 
YHWH. Only two or three could possibly be substitutes, but they could be 
titles as well. In the Tanakh we also find )DNY as a title, and not as a 
substitute for YHWH. The great numbers of the word )L indicate that this was 
the substitute used for YHWH. A great number of the DSS were copied outside 
Qumran by other groups than the Qumran order. If we take )L as evidence for 
substitution and the occurrence of YHWH, with a few exceptions, as evidence 
for use, several other groups outside Qumran continued to use YHWH while the 
Qumran order used a substitute. If we compare the dates of the DSS 
manuscripts, we see that YHWH was still used in the middle of the 1st century 
CE. There is also evidence from the Rabbinic literature that several groups 
continued to use the
  name, and there is no conclusive evidence against this in the Mishnah. 
There is also evidence in Syriac manuscripts that both the Old Hebrew and 
Aramaic tetragrams were used in CE.

When the argument that )DNY was used as a substitute for YHWH in BCE and the 
1st century CE is invalid, there is nothing left to justify the use of KURIOS 
in the NT autographs. There is no place in the Tanakh saying that YHWH at 
some time should cease to be pronounced and used. But there are several 
places which say that God's name should be used to time indifinite. 
Therefore, when the NT writers quoted the MT or the LXX (which also had the 
name), they had no reason to substitute God's name with KURIOS, but they 
would quote what was written in the Hebrew text. 

You asked: "In which NT manuscript do we find YHWH? The answer, as you know 
is that YHWH is not found in nay NT manuscript. And there is a reason for 
that, namely, that the extant NT manuscripts have a corrupt text where Gods 
name should occur. Therefore, we must use sound philological methods to 
restore this corrupt text.

SUMMARY: 

TEXTUAL CRITICISM: I argue that the reference to the context is not enough to 
make an emendation in the text. When the text is corrupt, a Bible translator 
must try to restore the original text. All texts of the LXX and NT from the 
2nd century onward are corrupt as far as the name of God is concerned. To 
claim that KURIOS occurs in the LXX without a qualification is misleading. 
The qualification must be that all LXX fragments up to 50 CE do not have 
KURIOS, so the original word is not KURIOS.

DIVINE NAMES IN THE LXX: Some manuscripts give evidence that the substitute 
)L was used, other manuscripts give evidence that YHWH  was used. No evidence 
in favor of )DNY as a substitute is found in the DSS or elsewhere.

THE TANAKH AS A BASIS FOR THE NT: The evidence is that the NT used the Tanakh 
as a source for quotes and references in the normal way without deleting 
anything from the texts that was quoted. The Tanakh uses YHWH more than 6,000 
times, and I am not aware of any reason why the writers should not quote 
faithfully, but should substitute YHWH with KURIOS.


I recommend the article, "The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament," by G. 
Howard, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary," 1992.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


 
 
Fredag 7. Juni 2013 06:36 CEST skrev Stephen Shead <sshead.email AT gmail.com>: 
 
> Hi Rolf,
> 
> >> There is even evidence in favor of including the name in the New
> Testament.
> 
> In which manuscript? (LXX doesn't count, of course.)
> 
> Regards,
> Stephen Shead