Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Rolf,

Thank you again. I'm very happy to answer your questions, but first I'll comment first on a couple of your remarks, which are relevant to my answers. See below...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:39:17 +0200
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G. Geroux and the Name
Dear Stephen,

I like your post; you ask questions in order to ascertain the real issues, and to find the logic behind different viewpoints. I will try to clarify my position.

No one can deny the following regarding the LXX: All fragments up to 50 CE have YHWH or IAO; the manuscripts from the second through the fifth century have KS (If I remember correct, there  is one late manuscript of Esther which has KURIOS). The most natural conclusion from these data is that the text of the LXX was changed (=corrupted) between 50 and 130 CE.

The normal way to translate proper names in a text is to render the name as closely as possible to the name in the source text, as closely as the stock of phonemes in the target language allow. So, a natural philological question regarding the LXX is: Why should the LXX translators use a substitute for YHWH and deviate from normal translation procedures?

SS: You say here "normal way" and question why they should have deviated from "normal translation procedures". However, it is quite clear - as I'm sure you would concede - that this is far from a "normal" name! And it really is not hard to imagine why "normal translation procedures" might not have been followed. In fact, even you don't think the "normal" procedures were followed in the YHWH manuscripts (as opposed to IAO) - that's not even translation! So it's a very opportunistic argument, since you have not thus far argued for the originality of IAO over YHWH in the LXX.

One argument has been: When the Greek translators started their work, probably in the third century BCE, the superstitious custom of not pronouncing YHWH but using )DNY instead of YHWH was already introduced;

SS: It has already been pointed out that your description of it as a "superstitious" custom begs the question of *why* they would have said )DNY when the text had YHWH. More below.

 

the Greek equivalent to YHWH is KURIOS, and the Greek translators used KURIOS in their translation instead of YHWH. The problem for this argument is that there is no evidence that (DNY was used as a substitute for YHWH before the common era, and 2) there is no evidence that KURIOS  was used in the original LXX. Moreover, the fact that there is no evidence of the use of KURIOS in Egypt with reference to kings and gods before the first century BCE speaks against the use of KURIOS in the LXX (see my  quote in another post).

As far as the NT text is concerned, I do not speak of anything as "self-evident." However, the oldest NT manuscripts (second century CE) has the same corrupt text (KS) as the LXX manuscripts of the same age.

In saying that KS is a "corrupt text" in the NT manuscripts, if you mean that it is corrupt because the NT manuscripts originally had YHWH/IAO, you are again begging the question. If the NT autographs had KS or KURIOS, this is not a corruption.

 

The most likely explanation is that the change in the NT manuscripts is of the same nature as the change made in the LXX manuscripts. And because YHWH/IAO was deleted in the LXX manuscripts and KS written instead, it is likely that what was deleted in the NT manuscripts was the same as that which was deleted in the LXX manuscripts, namely YHWH or IAO.

For example, according to Luke 4:17, 18, in the synagogue of Nazareth Jesus read aloud from the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61:1, where YHWH is written. How did Jesus pronounce God's name? And how did Luke write God's name? We do not know with certainty, because we do not possess the original scroll of Luke. But I see no reason why Jesus would not pronounce YHWH and Luke write YHWH in his scroll.  Jesus strongly condemned the Pharisees and the Sadducees because they had traditions and customs that violated the Tanakh. So even if the superstitious custom of substituting YHWH with )DNY was widespread in the first half of the first century CE,  Jesus'  strong condemnation of the traditions and customs that were contrary to the words of the Tanakh, strongly suggest that he would not have followed such a custom.

So far, apart from begging the question, your position still rests entirely on the "It would have been unthinkable" argument. If Luke did in fact write KURIOS, that's a fairly big dampener to the "unthinkable" line.

Incidentally, I will respond to a certain extent on the )DNY issue. But it is not all that important for my analysis of the data on the NT question (which is why I have all but ignored it thus far in our conversation).

And, as I have stressed, there is no clear evidence for such a custom in BCE or in the days of Jesus. The 71 occurrences of )DNY in the DSS occur in only 29 of the about 400 non-Biblical Hebrew manuscripts. So, the use of )DNY was not widespread, and most of the 71 examples can be explained as titles, not substitutes.  A great number of the 317 occurrences of YHWH in the DSS would on the other hand suggest that YHWH was still in use between 200 BCE and 70 CE. We may also find evidence against the substitution of YHWH by (DNY (and KURIOS)  in the Greek manuscript 8HevXIIgr from the first century BCE or first century CE. In Mica 1:2  in the MT we find )DNY YHWH. In this manuscript we find YHWH in Paleo-Hebrew script. Before YHWH there is a lacuna which exactly would fit the size of the Greek word KURIOS. E. Tov, "The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, p. 85 reconstructs the text as "KURIOS YHWH," and in a footnote expresses his belief that the manuscript "probably distinguished between the Tetragram and 'adonay." If both words were read as KURIOS, the text would read KURIOS KURIOS, whicch is unlikely.

Hurtado has made a very fine study of the nomina sacra. As you suggests, he connects the nomina sacra with the Jewish gematria, which means ascribing religious significance to the numerical value of alphabetic letters. If Hurtado's view  is correct, it is also superstition that was the reason for the introduction of the nomina sacra. This would even more emphasize that the nomina sacra represent curruptions of the LXX and NT text.

I will now like to hear your opinion regarding the issue:

1) Why would the Jew, Jesus from Naszareth not pronounce YHWH with its consonants and vowels when he read from Isaiah 61:1?

 

SS: Jesus may have pronounced YHWH when he read from the Isaiah scroll. That is really quite irrelevant to the question of the autograph of Luke's gospel (or the NT as a whole - which was the issue I challenged you on). Jesus was reading in Hebrew; Luke wrote in Greek. However, it would also not surprise me if Jesus, on encountering YHWH in the text, had said )DNY - see below. But I don't mind either way.

 

2) Why would Luke and the other writers delete YHWH from quotes from the Tanakh and use KURIOS instead?

SS: They didn't delete anything from the Tanakh! They weren't transcribing the Tanakh. They were (in places) quoting a Greek *translation* of the Tahakh, and applying it to their understanding of the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. And they would have done so, quite simply, because they considered it perfectly appropriate to use this title both in relation to Israel's God and to Jesus - possibly building (very radically, true!) on a Jewish oral precedent with )DNY, or a written translation precedent with κυριος/ΚΣ, or simply on Jewish-Christian innovation. That might help us to further "explain" the data, but the data is clear on its own.

 

After you have expressed your opinion, I would like to hear on which data you build.

SS: Certainly. I'm sure there are holes in it, and I'm not particularly an expert in any of this, but here goes...

1. First, the issue of YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures. Here, it is crucial to distinguish between written text and oral recitation, and consider what might have driven the traditions and practices of Torah-observant Jews.

In transmitting the written text of the Tanakh (at least in careful Scriptural texts, as opposed to, say, the extra-biblical DSS), the name YHWH was preserved without modification. We are, of course, talking about the "real" Scriptural text - that is, the Hebrew, not a translation (more later). But I agree: changing the text here by replacing YHWH with )DNY in "official" copies of Scripture would have been unacceptable.

2. Oral recitation of Tanakh is a separate issue. The standard argument, of course, gives a very reasonable explanation as to why the Jews might have started saying )DNY or )LHYM when they encountered YHWH in the sacred text: the commandment about not misusing the name of YHWH. Is this what you mean by "superstition"? An eager concern *not* to dishonour or disobey God by misusing the sacred name and thus violating the commandment, even accidentally - well, some would consider that a pious or admirable, whatever the intention of the original commandment. (In fact, I think a concern about using the name in magic is well within the scope of the original command, but that's another issue.)

So: Zeal to preserve the Scripture in written transmission. Zeal not to break the command in speech. (You've just picked a different command that you think they must have been zealous not to break in speech.)

At any rate, whatever the motivation, you provided evidence, in your reply to Doug Belot, that there *was* a strong reluctance to pronounce the name in BCE Judaism. So the question is: What did they say when reciting the text aloud? Was there a consistent, universal substitution? Or did they say YHWH, despite the evident reluctance? Some said it, some substituted? I'm not sure whether you have answered that question. You have talked about the use of )L in the extra-biblical DSS (we do not know how representative this is). Does that mean you think the general or universal practice was to say )L for )DNY when reciting the Tanakh? What would the tradition have been in Galilean synagogues in the 1st century CE? How certain can we be? We seem to have lost most of the recordings...

I don't think the answer is particularly crucial, actually. It is clear that there was reluctance to pronounce the Name. That would be consistent with a tradition (traditions?) of oral substitution when reciting Tanakh. And )DNY would be a reasonable title to use in place of the name - especially since the plural )DNY, rather than )DWN, is consistently associated in the Tanakh with YHWH as the only, unique Lord.

3. We must also clearly distinguish between the Hebrew Scriptures and the LXX as translation of Scripture. In point 1, I agreed that changing YHWH in the transmission of the Tanakh would have been unacceptable in Second Temple Judaism. But would those same Jews have agreed with you that substituting it in a *translation* would be equally unacceptable and Torah-breaking? (Part of your "unthinkable" argument.) After all, this was "only" a translation to aid those who could not understand Hebrew. And if there was a reluctance to pronounce the name, and a practice of oral substitution (at least in some circles), could not writing IAO lead Greek-speakers to blaspheme the Name unintentionally?

In fact, the textual evidence of the LXX backs me up here, I think - even only taking the early MSS you insist on us taking as the real text. The point is: even here, we see a variety of solutions to what was undoubtedly a tricky dilemma. (Again: this was *not* a normal name, and normal rules did not apply - even in these texts.) The IAO solution is very different from the YHWH one, and square script solution (the famous PIPI) is different from the paleo-Hebrew one. Why the variation (in really a small selection of MSS) - particularly the paleo-Hebrew one! - if not to avoid false and blasphemous reciting of the Name?

Of course, that does not prove that there were Jewish MSS with κυριος before 50 CE. I do not need to prove it - though we do have Philo's use of κυριος and Josephus's of δεσποτης for YHWH. But again, my question is: Would 1st C Jews have agreed with you that it would be unthinkably blasphemous to translate YHWH as κυριος in a Greek translation of the Tanakh?

4. After all that, we get to the NT. I won't labour this point, but you did ask! So here's the textual data: No variation (except for the ΚΣ/κυριος difference - which is an abbreviation, but the same word and same pronunciation). You keep on insisting that, based on the few pre-50 CE LXX fragments we have, the original *must* have had YHWH or IAO, despite the later variety. Yet for some reason the early ... and middle, and late ... NT MSS, which are in total agreement, are rendered irrelevant by your very weak logic and "unthinkable" argument.

5. You notice I haven't spent much time on the fact that KS is used in the early extant NT MSS rather than κυριος. That's because I consider it irrelevant to the evidence I am presenting. I think I have said all I need to on KS - though I don't think you dealt with my question about post-CE *Jewish* manuscripts with KS (i.e. about the order of influence for the nomen sacrum KS - I suggested that it originated in Christian circles, not Jewish).

6. I want to make one further point about the NT, though reluctantly, because I consider it necessary for analysing the evidence, but it verges on theological territory. You contend that the NT autographs, from the second half of the 1st century, would have written YHWH when quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, and presumably κυριος but never YHWH for Jesus. At some point after this - quite possibly within the lifetime of some of the authors** - early Christians began to "delete" YHWH and replace it with κυριος - even worse, they changed it for ΚΣ, and used ΚΣ for Jesus as well, but not for lesser "lords". They thus introduced an blatant ambiguity, a blurring of two central categories in their faith. And nobody noticed??? Or nobody objected? - to the extent that there is no surviving trace in the MS evidence?

(**In the article by Hurtado that I referenced earlier about the origins of the nomina sacra, he argues that the evidence should push us towards a date in the first century for the origin of ΚΣ in NT MSS.)

The fact is, *somebody* in the early Christian movement thought it appropriate to use κυριος/ΚΣ for YHWH in NT manuscripts - with Christian Jewish influence, if the gematria link is correct. In fact, everybody thought so within 100 years of their writing, probably considerably earlier. Yet you are asserting that the authors themselves could not have been the ones who thought it appropriate.

OK, now I'm sure the moderators will shut me down on this one!

Best regards,

Stephen.