Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Jerry, 
 
See my comments below.
 
Torsdag 20. Juni 2013 08:41 CEST skrev Jerry Shepherd 
<jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>: 
 
> Hi Rolf,
> 
> Thanks for your answers.  And now four points/questions/corrections.
> 
> 1. Actually, you have been less than forthcoming that KS was an
> abbreviation for KURIOS.  And I think that accounts for at least some of
> the flack that you've been getting in some of the responses.  Indeed, even
> in this response you only acknowledge that KS is "most likely" an
> abbreviation for KURIOS.  Is there really any doubt?

I like to look at different possibilities in my studies, and I try to avoid 
all-propositions and categorical statements. We do not know all the 
circumstances around the creation of the nomina sacra, and I cannot be 
certain that all uses of them are similar. So I choose the formulation "most 
likely."  BTW, this standpoint has been expressed by me in different writings 
for many years.

> 
> 2.  Now, since you do acknowledge that KS and its variants were "most
> likely" abbreviations for KURIOS, another important question for you to
> answer is: Why was KURIOS chosen to represent YHWH or IAO rather than some
> other word/title?

I do not know. But I can point to some possibilities: 

The NT is the collection of writings for the Christian Church. In these 
Scriptures there are statements that apostasy from Christianity would occur. 
Paul says "until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed" 
(2 Thessalonians 2:3 NIVI). The rebellion (apostasy) would occur after Paul's 
death. "! know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and 
will not spare the flock." (Acts 20:29 NIV). In the days of John, who 
evidently was writing in the last part of the first century CE, apostasy was 
in full bloom: "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard 
that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is 
how we know it is the last hour. 
 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had 
belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that 
none of them belonged to us." (1 John 2.18, 19 NIV).  

The Tanakh is perfectly clear: YHWH should be the name of the Creator for 
ever. Jesus and the Christian writers believed that the Tanakh was the truth, 
and was inspired by God ("Your words is truth," John 17:17 NIV; "All 
Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting 
and training in righteousness, " (2 Timotheus 3:16). On the basis of what the 
Tanakh says and the reverence of the NT writers for the words of the Tanakh, 
there is no reason why they should not use YHWH in quotes from the Tanakh. 
(No list-member has so far given one reason for the deletion of God's name).

However, namelessness of the god was important for Plato, for Philo and for 
some Egyptian gods, and different groups had a superstitious fear for 
pronouncing the name of the God of the Jews. Some of those "who went out from 
us" (from the Christian congregations) were influenced by some of these 
non-Christian ideas, and it is likely that their scribes deleted YHWH from 
the NT manuscripts and used the substitute KURIOS instead, because of such 
influence.  

But why did these scribes use KURIOS (KS) and not another word? I see two 
possibilities, 1) KURIOS were applied to some gods and rulers, and therefore 
it was the best  substitute they could think of to express namelessness, or 
2) the superstitious custom of reading 'adonay when YHWH was written in the 
text could have been in its infancy, or more widespread, at the end of the 
first century CE. So, this custom could have influenced the copyists and the 
Greek cognate word KURIOS was used.

I recommend the book: "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of 
Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament." B.D. 
Ehrman, 1993. The author discusses several corruptions of the NT text for 
doctrinal reasons.
> 
> 3. I know it's hard keeping track of all that people have said in their
> responses, but I have not "closed the door"  on the possibility that YHWH
> could have been written in the NT autographs; but I do believe that it is
> extremely unlikely, in that the NT documents are not, like the LXX mss,
> copies or translations of Hebrew mss; rather they are new creations:
> Gospels; historical accounts, and letters.

RF: It is good to hear that you do not rule out the occurrence of YHWH in the 
NT autographs. A balanced scholar keeps the possibilities open until clear 
proofs are given for one possibility. It is saddening to see persons on this 
list with academic degrees making categorical statements when evidence, let 
alone proofs, are lacking.
> 
> 4. My questions re the two NT passages do in fact have theological
> implications; but I have no desire to explore them.  I only want to know
> what you think was in the autograph.

RF: I think that the word KURIOS  was applied to Jesus and other lords (1 
Corinthians 8:5, 6), and that YHWH was exclusively used of God the Father. 
When scribes, who earlier had been a part of one Christian congregation, 
deleted YHWH and used the substitute KURIOS, that resulted in confusion. This 
is so,  because in many cases (at least one hundred) it is not clear to whom 
KURIOS refers. It may be that this confusion between God and Jesus that now 
was introduced into the manuscripts, was one of the factors that influenced 
the bishops when they gradually, at different councils, from the fourth to 
the sixth century, formulated the trinity doctrine.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Jerry
> 
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
> jshepherd53 AT gmail.com


Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway