Subject: RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint

From: Rolf Furuli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 21:28:29 +0000

Dear list-members

To the best of my knowledge there is no example of KURIOS as a 
substitute for the tetragrammaton in any LXX-fragments or LXX-like 
fragments before the middle of the first century CE. But we find the 
tetragrammaton in Old Hebrew or Aramaic script, as IAW or in a few 
cases we find just a blank space.

In 1984 A Pietersma wrote the well reasoned article "Kyrios or 
Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint" (De 
Septuaginta Studies in Honor of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth 
birthday). He argued that the many cases of Twi KURIWi as a 
translation of LEYHWH in the Pentateuch must be original, because, if 
the tetragrammaton was originally in the Greek text, there was no way 
for the later scribe to know when the Hebrew text had YHWH and LEYHWH. 
He argued further that the original translators used KURIOS both for 	
´ADONAI and for YHWH.

Both points have been contradicted by the publication of the Greek 
manuscripts among the DSS. (Emanuel Tov, 1990,The Greek Minor Prophets 
Scroll from Nahal Hever) Mica 1:2 in 8HevXIIgr  has KURIOS + the 
tetragrammaton in old Hebrew for `ADONAI + the tetragrammaton (see pp 
33,85), suggesting that KURIOS was seen as a substitute for `ADONAI 
and not for the tetragrammaton. In Sef 1:17 we find a part of the 
tetragrammaton, probably with TWi before it (p 61), and in Sak 9:1 we 
find TWi + the tetragrammaton (p 77).

Because of these finds, it seems to me that Pietersma´s arguments 
strongly speak for the opposite of what was his intention, and also 
speak against Stegemann and Skehan who suggested that IAW  was the 
original substitution, then came the tetragrammatons in Aramaic script 
and lastly those in Old Hebrew scripts. IAW is a phonetic 
transcription indicating pronunciation. Nobody would write TWi IAW for 
LEYHWH, so how could the later scribes know when to write TWi + the 
tetragrammaton or TWi + KURIWi? The most likely explanation, which 
also has support in the datings of the manuscripts, is that the 
original LXX contained one of the tetragrammatons and that IAW came 
later, or that all three forms were used simultaneously. The 
consequence of this view is that the tetragrammaton was pronounced in 
certain circles longer than is usually believed.

My questions to the list are: (1) Are there any Greek fragments before 
the middle of the first century CE which most likely or probably have 
KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton? (2) Are there any 
scientific articles written after 1984 arguing in this direction?

Regards
Rolf

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

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:03:24 +000

Rolf Furuli writes: (in part)

>Nobody would write TWi IAW for 
I> certain circles longer than is usually believed.

For a few years now I too have been very interested in the textual 
handling of YHWH and other divine names in Jewish and Christian 
texts, particularly looking at the Christian "nomina sacra" and their 
antecedents, analogies, etc.
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.

> Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages
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: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 09:29:14 -0400 (EDT)

> scientific articles written after 1984 arguing in this direction?

This is a very interesting question.  Traditional wisdom has it that the
NT writers used KURIOS in their translations of the OT (as well as in
their own compositions when referring to God) because that's the rendering
they found in their LXX Vorlagen.  However, if the use of KURIOS for
translating YHWH was not common in LXX mss before the middle of the first
century, how do we explain the NT writers' universal practice?  Is it
possible that the use of KURIOS for YHWH was either a Christian innovation
or, more probably, heavily promoted by Christian scribes (like the codex)? 
If so, it would explain why most LXX mss now extant, which presumably were
transmitted by Christians (?), use KURIOS.  I, too, would be interested to
know of any earlier documented uses of KURIOS for YHWH. 

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:49:31 +000

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".
The association of Jesus with the divine/divine name must be 
amazingly early.  N.B., e.g., John 12:41, where Isaiah's vision of 
Isa 6 is said to have been a vision of the glorious Christ.  Isa 6 
makes it clear that Isaish saw "YHWH" (Heb) "ho Kyrios" (LXX).  So 
the "reading" of this passage as referring to Jesus must have 
preceded the Gospel of John.
I have a paper read at the 96 SBL on the nomina sacra (now being 
prepared for publication) which adverts to some relevant data.  The 
sacred abbreviations of "Iesous", "theos", "kyrios" and "Christos" 
must go back to the lst cent., and as I argue (with new arguments in 
support of a suggestion from Colin Roberts) the whole process of 
these sacred abbreviations probably began with special treatment of 
the name "Iesous".

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place