Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Shead <sshead.email AT gmail.com>]

Dear Rolf,

Thank you for the clarification regarding your logic - I didn't realise the importance the nomen sacrum KS had for your argument. That does raise a follow-up question for me. But just to see whether I've got it right now: the evidence we have is:

LXX: YHWH, IAO --> KS  (Others disagree, but I'm happy to run with this.)

NT:  ?? --> KS

And so you consider this to be evidence (or perhaps just self-evident) that the ?? was originally YHWH/IAO, and not κυριος nor even KS itself. Correct?

This logic is still beyond me (given the NT MS evidence, and leaving aside any "it would have been unthinkable" argument). But my follow-up question is to do with the direction of influence. Given that you say there are no extant pre-Christian era OG/LXX manuscripts with KS, are there actually any post-CE LXX manuscripts that are clearly of Jewish provenance and have KS - say, between the 1st and 3rd centuries?

I ask, because I'm wondering whether your evidence would just as easily (or perhaps more easily) fit with the following scenario:

LXX YHWH/IAO  -->  NT ??  -->  NT KS  -->  LXX KS

And if Hurtado's proposal about the origin and development of the nomina sacra are correct,** I wonder if that doesn't make this order of influence more likely (whether or not the LXX was originally YHWH or κυριος) - i.e. his argument that the bar over the top suggests that IH was the first nomen sacrum used (= 18 = Heb. "life"), and they multiplied from there. (Any other LXX/manuscript experts want to weigh in on that one?)

Anyway, if this is the order of influence, would you still say that the ?? must self-evidently have been YHWH/IAO, rather than κυριος or KS?

** L. W. Hurtado, "The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal", JBL 117/4 (1998), 655-73

Best regards,

Stephen Shead.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Cc: 
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:42:17 +0200
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G. Geroux and the Name
Dear Stephen,

Thank you very much for your apology.  I give my answer below.

Mandag 10. Juni 2013 12:21 CEST skrev Stephen Shead <sshead.email AT gmail.com>:

> Dear Rolf,
>
> I'm still struggling to see how you can use the language you are using -
> like "graphic evidence for a corruption of the LXX and NT text", lumping
> the two together as if they were on the same level.
>
> Let's see if I can understand your reasoning on the "graphic evidence"
> (please correct me if it is wrong):
>
> 1. The manuscript evidence for the LXX proves that the original text had
> YHWH, and at a later time this was (inexcusably) changed to κυριος (note:
> clearly a different word). Thus, graphic evidence for the "corruption" of
> the LXX.

RF: We cannot prove how the original LXX rendered the Hebrew YHWH, because we do not have the LXX autographs. All we can do is to look at the evidence that is extant. And this evidence show that at least until 50 CE, YHWH was found in LXX manuscripts. Between 50 CE and around 130 CE, YHWH and IAO were removed from the LXX manuscripts and replaced by KS. The task of a copyist was to reproduce the text as faithfully as possible in the new manuscript he was making. When a proper name is removed and an appellative (a title) is introduced instead, this means that the text is corrupted. I cannot think of a better example of textual corruption than this. Graphic evidence means that we can see the evidence in the texts, we need not make conjectures. The graphic evidence for the deletion of YHWH is visible for anyone who wants to look.
>
> (Incidentally, I don't think the evidence for this is very strong - there
> simply aren't a lot of manuscripts on which to base the conclusion, and
> Martin has presented balancing evidence. But it doesn't bother me if your
> conclusion is correct, so I'm not going to challenge it here.)

RF: You must consider the evidence, and it is your privilege to draw your own conclusions.
>
> 2. There are also LXX manuscripts which have the shortened form ΚΣ. That
> is, in the case of the LXX, your reconstruction is YHWH --> κυριος --> ΚΣ.

There are LXX manuscripts with KS, but the earliest of these manuscripts are from the second century CE. It is supposed that KS is an abbreviation for KURIOS, and this is likely. The graphic evidence indicate only two steps and not three:
 YHWH ----> KS
>
> 3. The "graphic evidence" in the case of the NT also shows the
> change κυριος --> ΚΣ (not a new word, as we have observed).

No, there is no graphic evidence for KURIOS in the LXX, only for KS. In other words: Someone consciously deleted YHWH from the LXX manuscripts between 50 and 130 CE, and there is no evidence that the person(s) used the appellative KURIOS instead of YHWH. The evidence only show that YHWH  was deleted and that the replacement was KS.
>
> 4. Therefore, it's obvious that the progression in the case of the NT was
> also YHWH --> κυριος --> ΚΣ.

>
> Is that it??

RF: Not exactly so.  The word KURIOS in not a part of the evidence at all, only KS. In the NT manuscripts from the second century CE, we find KS, the very word that represents a corruption of the LXX text. I cannot imagine that you will claim that this abbreviation was found in the NT autographs, and if you do not make this claim, the abbreviation KS in NT manuscripts is a change of the text. We do no know which word was used for YHWH in the original NT text, because we do not have the autographs. But the pattern of the LXX is interesting:

LXX; YHWH, IAO -----> KS

NT:     ???------->        KS

Philologians consider all kinds of evidence that are available. In addition to manuscript evidence from the source language and the target language, they consider historical, sociological, and theological issues, scribal habits and many other things. If we look at the use of KURIOS from a historical point of view, we find that the word occurred rather late in Egypt where the LXX was translated.  KURIOS as a noun occurs for the first time in Greece in the fourth century BCE. Its reference was a slave owner or the legal guardian of a wife or girl. Later it was applied to gods and rulers in Greece. With few exceptions, KURIOS was never used in Egypt with reference to gods or rulers prior to the first century BCE. (See Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol III, p 1049). If the translation of the LXX started in the third century BCE, it is a question if the word KURIOS was available for the translators at all.

If we as philologians look at the text of the Tanakh and its religion, we find absolutely no reason why the LXX translators should use a substitute for YHWH. To the contrary, the text explicitly says that God's name shall be used to time indefinite. Even if the custom of reading )DNY instead of YHWH was widespread before our common era, why should the NT writers follow such a superstitious custom?  Jesus and the NT writers condemn superstition and the traditions of men that contradict the statements of God (this is also relevant philologically speaking). And the most important thing: Several times I have asked if any list member can present evidence that )DNY was used as a SUBSTITUTE for YHWH before 50 CE. I have received no answers except one. I will in another post show that the references to the DSS in this post do not support the mentioned substitution.

>
> I'm also still wrestling with your language of "corruption" in the NT.
> Which of the following are you implying?
>
> 1. The "corruption" was the change κυριος --> ΚΣ. I've already indicated
> that it is ludicrous to put this in the same basket as YHWH --> κυριος, and
> talk about evidence of corruption in the LXX and the NT with regard to the
> Name.

RF: The word KURIOS is not mentioned in the manuscripts, only KS. The corruption is YHWH, IAO ----> KS.
>
> 2. The "corruption" was the supposed change YHWH --> κυριος **in the text
> of the NT itself** (e.g. the original NT authors quoted the Hebrew
> Scriptures in Greek, but using YHWH directly, and later copyists changed
> this to κυριος). Again, there is no "graphic evidence" for such a
> corruption - it is speculation.

RF: We do not know how YHWH was rendered in the original LXX, but all the evidence suggest that God's name in some form was retained. We do not know how YHWH was rendered in the original NT, but the graphic evidence is that the corrupt word in the LXX is KS, and that NT manuscripts have KS as well. This suggests that the same corruption occurred in the NT. I would not use the word "speculation," because there are many interesting data to review. I have no direct evidence that KURIOS occurred in the NT autographs, and I have no direct evidence that YHWH of IAW occurred in the NT autographs. Therefore we must consider the extant data and draw out conclusion.
>
> 3. It would have been an unthinkable "corruption" if the original NT

> authors had, in the process of quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, changed YHWH
> by "translating" it as κυριος. Unthinkable - therefore they didn't.
>
> Number 3 is what you got to in your final paragraph to Jerry. Is this not,
> in fact, the entire argument? (And ... though I hate to bring up the

> elephant sitting in the corner ... isn't it only unthinkable given your
> theological stance? It's not unthinkable if that is in fact what they did.)
> But all the evidence goes against your reasoning: zero NT textual evidence,
> and historically highly improbable to have happened with no manuscript
> trace.
>
> OK, I'll bow out of the discussion now - I've said my piece, and it's gone
> on long enough. Happy for you to have the last word.
>
> Best regards,
> Stephen Shead.
>