Subject: RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint

From: Rolf Furuli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 18:33:45 +0000

L W Hurtado wrote,

<Both in Hebrew and in Greek in the late 2nd temple period, there is 
<strong evidence of an avoidance of the pronunciation of YHWH and the 
<use of oral substitutes.  N.B., the Greek of Lev. 24:16 translates 
<"blaspheming the name" as "pronouncing the name".  In the 
<phenomenology of ancient Jewish reading (and reading was always 
<aloud, whether private or public), we have to distinguish between the 
<text and the spoken, the "kerey" and the "ketey".

I am very interested in the evidence you mention. Let me ask some 
questions:

(1) Lev 24:16. What is the oldest manuscript evidence for the 
rendering of ONOMAZW ? We know that T was used in magical spells. Can 
we exclude this meaning from the verb (cf Acts 19:13)? The Sam. Pent. 
and the Vulgate agrees with MT, Targum Onkelos and the Peshitta uses 
the verb PRS (=separate). In Syriac SMA PRESA stands for "the special 
name of God". However, Lamsa uses "blaspheme" in Lev 24:16. It is less 
than clear what was the meaning of the verse in different circles. And 
most important: Why did not the rabbis use Lev 24:16 as a prooftext 
for the non-pronunciation of T? Their text was Ex 3:15, the text which 
most strongly says that one should never cease pronouncing the name. 

<I agree that the DSS materials now "help" us to see an earlier stage 
<of copying.  But it is not so clear to me that all the inferences you 
<draw are necessary or even correct.  Particularly, you inference that 
<the presence of the tetragram in biblical texts = pronunciation of it 
<in Hebrew when the text was read (aloud).  In fact, the writing of 
<YHWH in palaeo-Heb characters, and in Greek biblical texts n.b., 
<suggests to me a purely *scribal* phenomenon, intended to flag the 
<word & set it apart, most likely to remind the readers *not* to 
<pronounce the word in Hebrew but to use a substitute.
<See now J. R. Royse, "Philo, Kyrios, and the Tetragrammaton," _The 
<Studia Philonica Annual, Vol. 3_, ed.  D. T. Runia (Atlanta:  
<Scholars Press, 1991), 167-83, who argues (a) that Philo must have 
<read biblical texts with YHWH in palaeo-Heb or square Heb characters, 
<and (b) that Philo probably pronounced the word as "kyrios" in his 
<reading of these mss.
<Note that in some DSS texts, the Hebrew "El" (used with ref. to God) 
<is also sometimes written in palaeo-Heb characters (e.g., 1QH 1:26; 
<2:34; 7:5; 15:25).  Josephus (Ant 12:89) refers to Heb biblical mss 
<with gold characters, probably reserved for YHWH, and Aristea 176 may 
<refer to the same thing. Origen (Psalmos 2:2) refers to the Jewish 
<practice of pronouncing Adonay (in Heb.) or Kyrios (Greek) when 
<reading the scriptures, and also refes to Jews writing YHWH in 
<archaic Heb characters in biblical scrolls.

I agree with you that the mere presence of the tetragrammaton in a 
manuscript does not prove it was pronounced, but:

(2) Can we infer from the way pap4QLXXLevb and 8HevXIIgr render L in 
connection with T and other factors that these Manuscripts used a Heb. 
Vorlage and that T or IAW  originally were written in the LXX?
(2) Do we have evidence from the third century BC that any group 
refrained from pronouncing T? (I only know about the case of Simon the 
Just from 200 where the evidence is ambiguous)
(3) If evidence of non-pronunciation is lacking and T and/or IAW 
occurred in the translated manuscripts of LXX, is not the most logical 
conclusion that the name was pronounced? Is not pronunciation the very 
reason why we make phonetic transcriptions?
(4) Moving to the second and first centuries BC, do we find any 
evidence that `ADONAY or KURIOS was pronounced instead of T? Does not 
the fact the Job Targum from the first century BC has ´ ALAHA  instead 
of T. and that `EL occurs ten times as often as `ADONAY  in 
manuscripts from Qumran point in the opposite direction? 
(5) We have evidence that the Qumran sect and Aramaic-speaking groups 
in pre-Christian times did not pronounce T, but do we have evidence 
that the Jews in Egypt and Babylon, or even in Palestine did not 
pronounce it? And what about the positive evidence that other groups, 
such as the Pharises and the "Morning-bathers" did pronounce it?

It is evident that some time in the first century CE T was no longer 
pronounced, as we see from Josephus and Philo, but what is crucial is 
the view of the Jews at large in pre-Christian times. I am looking 
forward to more concrete evidence from  period. 
Thank you very much for your references.

Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages
University of Oslo

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:25:58 +000

In response to my posting on the use of the Tetragrammaton & 
substitutes, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> we exclude this meaning from the verb (cf Acts 19:13)?
Certainly not.  I suspect myself that the whole idea of proscribing 
the pronunciation of YHWH was mainly directed against "magical" use 
of the name, and that "onomazo" in the LXX of Lev 24:16 may reflect 
this.   Then, perhaps fairly quickly, from this concern developed 
the piety-practice of refraining from pronunciation altogether, in 
order to "build a hedge about the Torah"(to use an expression of 
rabbinic times, though the general sentiment may well be earlier)
 >It is less 

Can't say, myself.  Yes, practice & pety probably varied across 
different Jewish groups and certainly across time in these early 
centuries.

> Vorlage and that T or IAW  originally were written in the LXX?
Quite possible, I guess.  Don't really know.  But Pietersma's 
argument is that the practice of "archaization" of biblical mss (by 
re-introducing the Tet. in Heb. characters and/or giving a Greek 
transliteration) began in the 2nd cent BC or so (as part of the 
nativist Jewish reaction against forced hellenization efforts under 
the Seleucids).  So, it's possible that the DSS biblical texts 
reflect this re-Hebraizing and that earlier Greek mss might have had 
Greek translations of YHWH (e.g., as kyrios or despotes, etc.).  I 
agree that P.'s argument remains unverifiable and unfalsifiable 
unless we come across 3rd cent. BC bib. texts.  

> Just from 200 where the evidence is ambiguous)
I haven't made this a particular topic of investigation, so I can't 
really say how strong the evidence is for 
pronunciation/non-pronunciation as Jewish piety of that time.

> reason why we make phonetic transcriptions?
No.  The writing of YHWH in *archaic* Hebrew characters, and the fact 
that in at least some Greek mss the Hebrew YHWH seems to have been 
written by a scribe different from the one who copied the Greek, 
suggest that the written "sign" YHWH was a "scribal/visual" artefact, 
not to be read out, but in fact intended to alert readers to do the 
opposite.
(In fact, I want to record the possibility that the use of 
palaeo--Heb characters may be a Jewish adaptation of the use of 
foreign/exotic characters or signs "characteres" attested in magical 
amulets [See C. Bonner, _Magical Amulets- 12, 194-95])

The presence of IAO is perhaps another matter, though not 
necessarily.  [By the way, on Greek vocalizations of YHWH, see 
Deissmann, "Greek Transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton," in _Bible 
Studies_ (ET; Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1901), 321-36.]

> evidence that `ADONAY or KURIOS was pronounced instead of T? 
The evidence of Philo is I think important, both in being a diaspora 
source, and in dating from the late lst cent BC or early lst cent. 
AD.
 >Does not 
The sources you cite suggest *substitutions* for YHWH, not the 
pronunciation of it.  Now in Semitic texts the *written* renderings 
where YHWH occurs in the MT (a) should not be confused with what may 
have been *read aloud* (again, written signs and what is read aloud 
must always be kept distinct and often differ), and (b) should not be 
taken as evidence of what Greek-speaking Jews did.

> pronounce it? 
I think that there is evidence (e.g., from magical amulets) that some 
Jews *did* invoke the Tet., but likely in "off-the-record" type 
occasions, and not in open "liturgy".  As to Diaspora settings, 
again, I point to Philo's evidence (see article by Royse cited 
inprevious posting).

> Thank you very much for your references.

I hope that what I've referred to will be of some help.  I've been 
more interested in the scribal phenomena, and have picked up bits of 
evidence about pronunciation-practice only in passing.  I'll be 
pleased to see what you come up with too.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: Ricardo Aler Mur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 12:28:05 +0200 (MET DST)

Dear TCers,

I've been following this list for some time now and find the discussion
very interesting. I am a non-expert in the field so the following question
might sound naive ... I'd be very interested on your opinion about whether
the idea of an early Christian tradition that followed a non-apocalyptic
view of the Kingdom of God (like the one put forward by Crossan) can be
supported from the point of view of TC. I remember reading somewhere that
apocalypticism lies on the last strata of Q (Kloppenborg I think) and that
the community responsible for Q might not have had apocalyptic
expectations at first, but developed them later (Burton Mack?). Is this
well supported or is mere speculation?.

On the other hand, there are obvious (or so they seem to me) apocalyptic
verses in all the four gospels. What is the TC status of them?.

Best,

R. Aler.