Κύριος

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
BillMcManigal
Posts: 12
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 6:32 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by BillMcManigal »

David, Thank you for your last post. In addition, you kindly asked me for information. That is certainly a reasonable request. However at this time I will decline to go much further. I am well aware that an appeal to authority does not prove a point. The best scholar is still human! However, my whole issue has been one of contesting what clearly to me was an inaccurate statement about the consistent use of Κύριος. I have supplied some information that shows, to some degree (maybe not satisfying to all), that Κύριος was not consistently use from 350 BCE up until today as was claimed. I think it is up to someone else, who claims it was, to show that Κύριος was used before our CE in the place of the Tetragrammaton. In addition, they could show that KC has the exact same semantic value/range of Κύριος. Also evidence could be provided that Κύριος or KS was the original form of the NT autographs. (obviously an impossibility-but the consensus is that the origin of the NS was somehow related to the Tetragrammaton- what is the relationship?) Mention can be made why KC appears in the same MS next to Κύριος. What does this indicate? I have circled the two versions with yellow marker. Sorry so faint but you can see the genitive KY along with the plene.
P46
P46
p46 Eph 6. 4,5 a.PNG (181.23 KiB) Viewed 1560 times
The quotes I have shared, in previous posts, are enough to raise a question and to allow a person that doesn't agree with them to provide contrary evidence. Even if the whole NS is consider to have the exact same semantic range (eg KC= Κύριος) where is the MSS evidence that Κύριος was used in the MSS from 350 BCE into our day? Tov has a list of Greek MSS in chronological order. When do we find the first KS used? Not even on the first page but at the top of the second. (See attachment) The first KC is dated to the 2nd century CE. - P. Baden 56b -Exodus 8. see attachments

David your stand on the NS is also reasonable. In the past some scholars used a quasi form when discussing NS. Some even said the “so called” NS. It is reasonable to ask what is sacred about certain words-e.g. anthropos? However, that is just how language works sometimes! (Sacred names that may not be too sacred!) Good questions but really not the issue I was presenting. KS has some relationship to the tetragrammaton (perhaps a few others too eg. nomina divina). What is that relationship? (There are many opinions which are outside this site) Other NS, whether sacred or not, may or may not help with the issue at hand which again is: “When we encounter LXX passages in the NT that have κύριος as a replacement for Yahweh in the MT what connotation should be given to κύριος?”

Going with the Greek MSS evidence we do not find Κύριος until the second century. So what was in the text in the 1st century?

PS I wonder how Daniel Wallace's paleontologist can be so certain that the Mark fragment is from the 1st century? It will be interesting to see if this will bring new evidence on this discussion. :geek:
Attachments
TOV SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHES
TOV SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHES
288.PNG (216.79 KiB) Viewed 1560 times
TOV SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHES
TOV SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHES
289.PNG (210.92 KiB) Viewed 1560 times
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Κύριος - ΚΥ and ΚΥΡΙΟΙΣ together.

Post by Stephen Hughes »

BillMcManigal wrote:Mention can be made why KC appears in the same MS next to Κύριος. What does this indicate? I have circled the two versions with yellow marker. Sorry so faint but you can see the genitive KY along with the plene.

p46 Eph 6. 4,5 a.PNG
P46
p46 Eph 6. 4,5 a.PNG (181.23 KiB) Viewed 8 times
"What does this indicate?"; It doesn't indicate anything without interpretation. From looking at it, I think it is open to at least two interpretations. Hereunder is my evaluation of the evidence:

Before evaluationg the evidence let's look at what we have;
The evidence that is presented here is that
  • οἱ πατέρες, ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ [=τὰ πέκνα] ἐν ... νουθεσίᾳ ΚΥ (Ephesians 6: 4 (part)).
  • Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς ΚΥΡΙΟΙΣ. (Ephesians 6:5 (part))
But what interpretations are possible for that evidence?

First let's talk about the evidence;
  • It seems possible to my mind, at least, that the first piece is related (as an allusion at least) to
    Proverbs 23:24 LXX wrote:καλῶς ἐκτρέφει πατὴρ δίκαιος ἐπὶ δὲ υἱῷ σοφῷ εὐφραίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ
    "A wise father nurtures well, and his soul rejoices at a wise son"
    and that the nourishment implied is not (only) victuals, but godliness. The ΚΥ here refers to God.
  • δοῦλος is used here in antithesis to κύριος, rather than δεσπότης. It is referring to their earthly masters.
What information is contained in the evidence that we can abstract ready for evaluation?

Now let's analyse the evidence:
  • ΚΥ of Eph.6: 4 is an abbreviated gen. sg. masc. noun and it refers to God.
  • ΚΥΡΙΟΙΣ of Eph.6:5 is an unabbreviated dat. pl. masc. noun and it refers to men.
Now, what is significant in that evidence? How do we interpret why ΚΥ is not written plene (in full), while ΚΥΡΙΟΙΣ is written plene.

Now let's look at possible interpretations of the evidence:
One way of interpreting the evidence is to say that the most important things in the list of evaluated evidence is the grammatical number, i.e.
  • ΚΥ of Eph.6: 4 is an abbreviated gen. sg. masc. noun and it refers to God.
  • ΚΥΡΙΟΙΣ of Eph.6:5 is an unabbreviated dat. pl. masc. noun and it refers to men.
i.e Singular forms are abbreviated, adn plural forms are not.

Another way of interpreting the evidence is to say that the most important relationship between the evaluated elements of the evidence is referent, i.e.
  • ΚΥ of Eph.6: 4 is an abbreviated gen. sg. masc. noun and it refers to God.
  • ΚΥΡΙΟΙΣ of Eph.6:5 is an unabbreviated dat. pl. masc. noun and it refers to men.
i.e. References to God are abbreviated, and references to men are not.

Finally let's draw a conclusion based on the possible interpretations available:
Given this small body of evidence (two pieces), an appeal to either interpretation of this evidence is not conclusive.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
BillMcManigal
Posts: 12
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 6:32 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by BillMcManigal »

Not trying to resurrect the dead but just pointing to a recent article in the new journal Open Theology that deals with this issue. (eg. see pp.60-61,68 and images pp. 83-86) :)

http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/opth.20 ... format=INT
Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”