---------- 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?
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;
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.
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.
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?
2) Why would Luke and the other writers delete YHWH from quotes from the Tanakh and use KURIOS instead?
After you have expressed your opinion, I would like to hear on which data you build.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.