Subject: Re: tc-list Syriac pipi and hehe

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mar, 15 Sep 98 22:44:02 +0200

Concerning this, I would like to know the exact meaning of this strange sign I see in some Syriac books: something like a yudh-he with three dots above. What does it mean, where does it come from, what is its function?

Thanks,

jean V.

_________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
e-mail: [email-masked]
_________________________________________________
"Allons enfants de la brasserie, le jour de boire est arrivé"
(proverbe belge)

---

From: George Kiraz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:05:51 -0400

Jean VALENTIN wrote:
> 
> Concerning this, I would like to know the exact meaning of this strange sign I see in some
> Syriac books: something like a yudh-he with three dots above. What does it mean, where does it
> come from, what is its function?

The Yudh-He sign (the shape of which can be seen at
http://www.unicode.org/pending/syriac/syrchars.htm, under code 071E)
stands for Yahweh. It is usually found in East Syriac liturgical texts.
The three dots above might refer to the Trinity, while the dot below to
the oneness of God.

George Kiraz

-- 
                           \_\_\_\_\_\_\_  George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D.
\_\_\_            \_\_\_\_  \_    \_      Language Modeling Research
     \_                  \_  \_    \_              Bell Laboratories
      \_                  \_  \_    \_           Lucent Technologies
  \_   \_\_\_  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_  \_    \_                  Room 2D-446
            \_  \_                                 700 Mountain Ave.
             \_  \_                            Murray Hill, NJ 07974
              \_  \_                            Tel. +1 908 582 4074
               \_  \_                           Fax. +1 908 582 3306
                \_\_\_          email: [email-masked]

---

From: Rolf Furuli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 10:26:36 +0200

Jean Valentin wrote:

>Concerning this, I would like to know the exact meaning of this strange
>sign I see in some Syriac books: >something like a yudh-he with three dots
>above. What does it mean, where does it come from, what is its >function?

>The three dots above might refer to the Trinity, while the dot below to

Dear Jean and George,

Do you find the yudh-he sign with three dots above in biblical manuscripts?

(In the following I use a simple transcription for the sake of those who do
not know the technical transcription.)
The reason why I brought up the question about PIPI and HEHE in the first
place, was because the way the divine name has been written in the LXX
manuscripts has changed. In all the LXX (or LXX-like) fragments from BCE
and the first century CE do we find the tetragrammaton either in old Hebrew
characters or in Aramaic script or as the phonetic transcription IAO. In
the LXX manuscripts from the second century CE (I reject the datings of Kim
and Thiede) we find KS with a horizontal bar above. A change evidently did
take place.

If we turn to NT manuscripts, we may conclude that everything is not well
with them. Compare for instance John 21:7 and Matt 4:7. In both instances
do we in the Greek text find KURIOS. It stands to reason that the one Greek
word KURIOS translates TWO different Hebrew (or Aramaic) words.  If the
beloved disciple in John 21:7 had said  "HINNE (or YESH) ADONAY" or ´ITAY
MARE, he could have been construed to mean: "It is God Almighty". So
Matthew (4:7) and John (21:7) ought to have used different words, but the
NT manuscripts have the one word KURIOS. Turning to the Syriac text (both
eastern and western), we find MARYA in Matt 4:7 but the words of John 21:7
are: HANA MARAN U. In a similar way do Hebrew translations of the NT use
ADONAY in Matt 4:7 but HA´ ADON in John 21:7. The question is: Did the
original manuscript of Matthew have KURIOS, or did it contain the divine
name in some form, just as the LXX manuscripts did in the first century CE?
And was this later changed to KS also in the NT as we know was the case
with the LXX?

Going back to the Syriac manuscripts with PIPI and HEHE ( or HH) we must
ask: Why this difference? We cannot doubt that that both represent the
divine name, and because of the difference it is likely that the antecedent
of PIPI is the tetragrammaton written in Aramaic script while HEHE
represents the tetragrammaton in old Hebrew characters. If this is correct,
we can conclude that LXX manuscripts with these characters were in
circulation when the first Syriac NT was made. And further, these LXX
manuscripts had the tetragrammaton in the main text, and not only in the
marigin. Based on this, Hartmut Stegeman concludes that the tetragrammaton
in some form  probably occurred in the MAIN TEXT of older Syriac
manuscripts (KURIOS HO THEOS und KURIOS IESOUS Aufkommen und Ausbreitung
des religiosen Gebrauchs von KURIOS  und seine Verwendung im Neuen
Testament, Ph.D thesis, 1969, p 124).

On this basis did I ask about the occurrence of the full form or a
shortened form of the tetragrammaton in the main text of Syriac manuscripts
or manuscripts in other old languages.
Jean, What do you find in your Arabic manuscripts in Matt 4:7 and John
21:7? Do you find any abbreviation of the divine name in any form elsewhere
in the text?
George, are you aware of other abbreviations of the divine name in Syriac
biblie manuscripts than PIPI  and HEHE?

Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:03:47 +000

There are a few possible problems with Furuli's proposals aobut the reasons for 
"pipi" and "hehe" in Syriac mss of the OT.
--By the 2nd cent. Christian LXX mss show the *translation* of YHWH by 
Kyrios (normally written in nomina sacra form).  So, given that (a) the Syriac 
translation cannot be put earlier and (b) was done by Christians using Christian 
Greek mss, how likely is it that Heb YHWH stood in these mss?
Another possibility is that the Syriac mss *introduce* some effort to distinguish 
the tetragramm from the "lord" title.  We know that esp. Christians of the *proto-
orthodox* line were quite anxious to avoid simple confusions of Jesus with God, 
while also according to Jesus divinity.  Semitic languages gave such a 
possibility better than Greek, given the chance to use semitizing substitutes for 
YHWH.  In Greek, one way to do the same was to preserve Despotes for God 
(a la Acts), and use Kyrios for Jesus.  But, given that Kyrios was apparently 
already widely the Greek oral translation of YHWH, practice was not consistent.
--The ambiuity in the NT Greek use of Kyrios is not likely a technical "failure" 
(such as Howard proposed, through failing to maintain a linguistic distinction 
supposedly originally made in Greek NT mss), but is more likely a reflection of 
a more pervasive linkage of Jesus with God in the piety of early Christianity, 
even early in the lst century.  Jesus was seen early on as carrying God's 
power, and God-given name (e.g., Phil 2:9-11).

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: Rolf Furuli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 17:14:21 +0200

>L. W. Hurtado wrote:

>power, and God-given name (e.g., Phil 2:9-11).

Dear L.W.

We know nothing about what the NT autographs looked like, and the same is
true regarding the first Syriac translations of them. The best we can do is
to give a plausible interpretation of the data we have. To get the best
textual data was the reason why I asked about PIPI and HEHE in the first
place.  It would be very interesting to hear your opinion why these
abbreviations occur in the Syriac manuscripts and what is the reason for
their difference.

What you write above is logical and clearly possible, but I also see some
problems here. While several scholars would place the translation of the
Syriac gospels to the second century (Voobus, "Syriac Versions", IDBS,
1976, p 849) there are some who opt for a first century date (Kahle, 1959,
the Cairo Geniza, pp 270-273). But even a second century date is not
problematic for a possible inclusion of the tetragrammaton  from a Greek
manuscript in a Syriac translation. We have earlier on this list seen that
an authority such as B.M. Metzger does not accept the early dating of P46
and P64; so if the traditional dating is correct, we have  NT manuscripts
with nomina sacra  from the middle of the second century CE. The youngest
"LXX" manuscript with the tetragrammaton is a fragment of Job 42:10,11 from
the middle of the first century CE. (The Oxyrhybchus Papyri, Vol L,
Graeco-Roman Memoirs, no 70, London, 1983). Thus something happened between
50 and 150 CE.

I endorse your view that the nomina sacra of the second century LXX
manuscripts suggests a much earlier oral translation of YHWH with KURIOS,
but I am aware of no written evidence suggesting that KURIOS was widely
used as a Greek oral translation of YHWH in the middle of the first century
CE, not even in the last part of that century.  The Masoretes used `ADONAY
as the pronunciation of YHWH, but to the best of my knoledge there is no
evidence for such a use in the first century CE. To the contrary, there is
evidence in the rendition of Mica 1:2 in the Greek 8HevXIIgr from Nahal
Hever that YHWH was not pronunciated as `ADONAY (see E. Tov, 1990, The
Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, Discoveries in the Judean
Desert VIII, p 85.) The substitute used by the Qumran sect was `EL.  To
claim that the Greek word KURIOS was used as an oral translation of YHWH,
we need evidence for the Hebrew antecedent `ADONAY, but such evidence is
lacking. Your view that the use of KURIOS both for the Father and the Son
"is more likely a reflection of a more pervasive linkage of Jesus with God
in the piety of early Christianity" is a possible and legitimate
interpretation. I am not a NT scholar, but I have not been able to find
suggestions of an ontological unity between the Father and the Son in the
NT, justifying the use of KURIOS  for both, not even Phil 2:9-11 (BTW, the
one translating these verses into Syriac did not distinguish between the
Father and the Son, because MARYA is found in v 11. This is tantamount to
Sabellianism.)

Back to the Syriac manuscripts. Origen tells us that manuscripts with the
tetragrammaton existed in his days.  I have a copy of Codex
Syriaco-Hexaplaris, published by Henricus Middeldorph in 1835. In 4 kings
18: 6 we find MARYA in the text and PIPI in the marigin; in Is 1:2 we find
MARYA  in the text and YHYH in the marigin. In addition to this version
made by Paul from Tella a little after 600,  we have the witness of the
bishop Jacob from Edessa that PIPI goes back to the tetragrammaton in Greek
manuscripts. We also have much earlier evidence from Aquila, Symmachus,
Theodotion and the Samaritikon for the use of the tetragrammaton in Greek
texts at a time when other LXX manuscripts had nomina sacra. In view of
this evidence, I see no compelling reason to doubt that the mariginal PIPI
and HEHE really go back to Greek manuscripts with two kinds of
tetragrammatons. If not, what is the reason for their inclusion in Syriac
manuscripts in two different forms?

Regerds
Rolf

Rolf Furuli

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:36:49 +000

Rolf Furuli writes:

>While several scholars would place the translation of the
> manuscript in a Syriac translation.
Yes.  Not impossible.  My point was that if as you say (a) "something 
happened between 50 & 150 CE", and (b) the Syriac OT translation was a 
Christian phenomenon of the 2nd cent (as most assume), then wouldn't the 
Greek base mss for the Syriac translation have had already Kyrios, etc. and 
not YHWH written in Heb characters?  SO, isn't some other explanation 
needed to account for the YHWH substitutes in the Syriac mss?
> CE, not even in the last part of that century.  . . .
Haven't I earlier pointed you to:  J. R. Royse, "Philo, Kyrios and the 
Tetragrammaton," _Studia Philonica Annual_3(1991): 167-83?
> To claim that the Greek word KURIOS was used as an oral translation of YHWH,
> lacking. 
No, all we need is evidence indicating/suggesting that Greek-speaking Jews 
used Kyrios when they referred to God, whatever was done in Heb mss or 
Greek mss of the OT.

>I am not a NT scholar, but I have not been able to find
> NT, justifying the use of KURIOS  for both, not even Phil 2:9-11 

I'm not sure that NT authors would recognize what "ontological unity" was 
anyway!  Please don't read into my earlier posting 3rd/4th cent. categories.  All 
I'm saying is that in the NT (lst cent) we have clear evidence of Jesus 
*functioning in the religious life of Christians* (including their worship) in ways 
otherwise reserved for God in Jewish traditional practice, and we have indication 
that Jesus was seen as sharing attributes & honorifics with God (e.g., "name 
above every name").

> I see no compelling reason to doubt that the mariginal PIPI

Well, you're the Syriac expert and I'm not, so I'll defer to you & others with the 
expertise.  I'm simply pointing out that (a) there are in principle more than one 
possibilities to reckon with, and (b) that the mss data should not be analysed 
in isolation from wider religious phenomena of ancient Jewish & Christian 
circles.

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