Κύριος

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Κύριος

Post by David Lim »

BillMcManigal wrote:Just briefly, we must be careful not to make anachronistic errors while discussing MSS. The Sinaiticus is some 200 years removed from the start of the 4 specific nomina sacra that make up the "nomina divina." As time went on, over 10 were added from the original 4. With time they were not necessarily used with the same consistency. They may not have started for the same reason either. (spirit was never mention in my posts before) We look for patterns- when there are enough then a statement can be made. I never claimed there were no exceptions, as stated earlier, "there was some degree of referential sensitivity behind the symbol a scribe choose to write." SOME Degree....this could/would change with the passage of time (now there are no KC) and characteristics of each scribe. We can not necessarily judge how a scribe understood a nomina divina by what another wrote 200 plus years later.
If we first assume that the originals only had 4 such abbreviations that were there because of the reasons you suggest, then your explanation is one possible explanation of the situation in the extant manuscripts. If that is the case, however, these extant manuscripts do not serve as good evidence for the original intended usage, as you point out. So what is your evidence for your claim in the first place then?
δαυιδ λιμ
Rolf Furuli
Posts: 7
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 11:01 am

Re: Κύριος

Post by Rolf Furuli »

Dear David,

The TDNT, III, p. 1049 says: "Except for Κύριος with the gen -> 1042, 1044, n. 13, Κύριος is never used for gods or rulers prior to the 1st century BC." If the translation of the LXX started in the third century BCE, to use Κύριος as a replacement for YHWH would be novel. As a matter of fact, none of the few fragments of the LXX and LXX-like texts from BCE and up to 50 CE contain Κύριος, but they have YHWH in old Hebrew and Aramaic characters, and as the Greek phonemic transcription IAW (sorry, I have some problems with writing Greek letters on this computer). On the basis of the transcriptions of Hebrew letters in Origen's Hexapla, IAW can be traced back to the three letters YHW—the last H of the divine name probably is a vowel. so the whole divine name is represented by IAW.

It has often been stated that Κύριος in the NT is a translation of the Hebrew word 'ADONAY, which was used as a replacement for YHWH. But there is no real evidence in favor of 'ADONAY being used as a replacement for YHWH before the NT was written. I have recently made a study of all the divine designations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the word used as replacement for YHWH is 'EL (God) and not 'ADONAY. The religious order living at Qumran used this replacement, but a great part of the DSS were not written at Qumran, but were imported from other places. Interestingly, many of these contain YHWH. I found the following divine designations in the DSS: 'EL 667, 'ELOHIM 380, YHWH 317, 'ADONAY/'ADONI 71, four dots 27. The word 'ADONAY was used with reference to God and other Lords in OT, and there is no evidence from the contexts that 'ADONAY in the OT was used as a replacement for YHWH, but it was used as a title together with YHWH. And similarly with the DSS, the contexts of the 71 occurrences do not suggest that they serve as replacements of YHWH; as mentioned, the real replacement at Qumran was 'EL. The different DSS can be dated, and the use of YHWH (in manuscripts imported to Qumran) can be seen in the 2nd and 1st century BCE and until 70 CE. This suggests that YHWH and no replacement was used by the groups from which these manuscripts stem until the middle of the 1st century CE. In 2011 a small seal was found with the Aramaic letters KH' YH (clean to YH). It was dated between the 1st century BCE and 70 CE. This seal may have been used to show that animals that were to be sacrificed at the altar of the temple had a perfect quality and were "clean to YH." This seal suggests that the divine name was used by ordinary people in the time when the seal was used.

The application of the information above is as follows: In the LXX manuscripts from the 2nd century CE, the divine name is written as Κς, an abbreviation for Κύριος. The manuscript evidence shows that between 50 CE and the middle of the 2nd century CE, YHWH in old Hebrew and Aramaic characters and in the Greek characters IAW were replaced by Κς. The importance of this for the discussion of the word Κύριος is that an antecedent of the nomina sacra Κς in the form of 'ADONAY or Κύριος in BCE cannot be found. Therefore, any relationship between YHWH and Κύριος in the time before the NT was written cannot be demonstrated.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Κύριος - non-declined form of nomina sacra

Post by Stephen Hughes »

BillMcManigal wrote:It does not have a form of the Tetragrammaton and it does not have the elevated nomina divina either. Thus it [the earliest forms of the translation of Psalm 109:1 LXX] may have look[ed] more like: eipen (then some form of Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton) to KC mou.
Did you intentionally write "KC" here? Do you have evidence that scribal abbreviations were not declined at an earlier period?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Κύριος - Please walk me through the evidence

Post by Stephen Hughes »

BillMcManigal wrote:Hundreds of years removed from the NT autographs and many hundreds of years from the start of the LXX such appears to be the case. However, in the textual world things are not so simple. First which LXX are we to use? Very strong textual evidence shows that the Jews used one that maintained a form of the Tetragrammaton. (See old post-happy to provide more MSS and evidence) In addition, when the LXX was Christianized, "KC" was used and not the plene kύριος.(if the referent was consider Divine) So the LXX quote of Psalm 110 (109) is two steps removed already. It does not have a form of the Tetragrammaton and it does not have the elevated nomina divina either. Thus it may have look more like: eipen (then some form of Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton) to KC mou. Does it matter? Yes it makes the river/gulf between us today and them a lot wider. Thus it is harder for a reader today to bridge the gap.
Now, I have studied pre-history and the ways that history - ostensibly a written record - can be created in the absence of written evidence from sebsible conjectures, theoretical extrapolations and seemingly relevant analogies. The ideas about pre-historic society and culture that an authour may espouse are usually built up on extremely flimsy evidence and a strong set of theoretical convictions. Various authours generally agreed on the evidence that they had and there wasn't the usual problem in history of selectively using some evidence and ignoring other. Understanding what you are saying is like reading about pre-history - more ideas than evidence. Personally speaking, that in itself is not problematic - it is the nature of dealing with the ancient world - not all evidence lasts for such a long time.

That being said, could you walk me through the evidence that you do have for these things.
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 - non-declined form of nomina sacra

Post by BillMcManigal »

Stephen wrote:
Did you intentionally write "KC" here? Do you have evidence that scribal abbreviations were not declined at an earlier period?
Good question. I could have been more specific. Sorry about that. KC was not meant to imply that this was used during the Koine period leaning up to NT.
BillMcManigal
Posts: 12
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 6:32 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by BillMcManigal »

David Lim wrote: So what is your evidence for your claim in the first place then?

Please see my post after this one since it will explain the reason I even jumped into this discussion in the first place. My whole argument is that Κύριος was not used consistently to represent the Tetragrammaton as was claimed earlier. As Jonathan Robie stated: some use archaic Hebrew letters. Others used NS. What exactly this meant to the scribe is speculation. However there is a reason why we call them sacred names. There was some degree of elevated status in KS than is not (or was not) necessarily in kurios.

Thus we have three forms 1) archaic Hebrew letters (or something else that to some degree preserves the Tetragrammaton) 2) KS (started off a divine title) and 3) kurios (which can be generic.) Something similar is in the KJV 1) LORD (where it is understood the Tetragrammaton was) 2) Lord (more elevated than number 3 but not as much as #1) 3) lord (generic). I MUST MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE 3 CATEGORIES OF THE KJV AND THE 3 OF THE ANCIENT MSS HAVE THE SAME SEMANTIC RANGE OR REFERENCE . This is an illustration to aid in understand the issue at hand.

I will end with a quote from Hurtado:
hurtado p.98.PNG
hurtado p.98.PNG (28.11 KiB) Viewed 4801 times
- The Earliest Christian Artifacts
BillMcManigal
Posts: 12
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 6:32 pm

Re: Κύριος

Post by BillMcManigal »

Yes "History" can indeed be different than the "report of history." I am not sure what evidence you look for? Do you think the LXX did not have a form of the Tetragrammaton in it? Do you think later Christianized texts (LXX) did not at some time start to use KC? (or other NS) Do you think later MSS, of the same works, do not have Κύριος in them? All of this has textual evidence. This progression of changes is document from around 300 BCE into the time when hand-scripts would not be used as much, due to printable type.

Going back to the beginning of this post. My posts were written because the claim was made that the LXX consistently uses Κύριος in place of the Tetragrammaton. This report of history is not historical. Please see post to David above.

Stephen wrote:
The meaning of "κύριος" as a Greek word had nothing to do with the name יהוה (the Tetragrammaton), until "Κύριος" was used to translate it - as a substitute for אֲדֹנָי (Adonai - "Lord") - and then it became

Scott Lawson wrote:one {element} of semantic range and usage

of the Greek word. That happened at the beginning of the Koine period, so throughout the 350 odd years of the Koine period till the NT was written down (and forever since), Scott's question has been relevent.[sic] relevant- (we all do it!!-me perhaps more than others)
Where is the evidence of κύριος being used at the beginning of the Koine period and throughout the history? I believe I have supplied evidence to the contrary but not sure since it appears you still want more, thus your questions posed at the start of this message. I think reading Comfort (not drinking but reading) will help. Please let me know what you are looking for.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Κύριος

Post by David Lim »

Rolf Furuli wrote:[...]

The application of the information above is as follows: In the LXX manuscripts from the 2nd century CE, the divine name is written as Κς, an abbreviation for Κύριος. The manuscript evidence shows that between 50 CE and the middle of the 2nd century CE, YHWH in old Hebrew and Aramaic characters and in the Greek characters IAW were replaced by Κς. The importance of this for the discussion of the word Κύριος is that an antecedent of the nomina sacra Κς in the form of 'ADONAY or Κύριος in BCE cannot be found. Therefore, any relationship between YHWH and Κύριος in the time before the NT was written cannot be demonstrated.
Rolf, thanks a lot for the information you've provided. I don't know enough to be able to ascertain, even for myself, what is likely to be case in the original LXX, but I am aware that Albert Pietersma has argued (http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~pieters ... 1984).pdf‎) that "Yahweh" was re-inserted into the LXX in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek transliterations. Previously I had indeed assumed that the LXX originally did use "κυριος" to represent "Yahweh", based on certain peculiar features of the LXX that to me were easily explained by that substitution, such as "κυριος κυριος" / "του κυριου κυριου" / "κυριε κυριος" / "κυριε κυριε". But this point of discussion now depends heavily on textual criticism...
BillMcManigal wrote:[...] However there is a reason why we call them sacred names. There was some degree of elevated status in KS than is not (or was not) necessarily in kurios.
Well there are surely reasons why some call them "nomina sacra" (as well as some reason they use Latin), but these reasons may not be related to whether the names given to them are accurate or not. I would rather call them just "abbreviations" until it is clear what they are. Also, thanks for providing quotes from others but I may not consider their opinions accurate either. If you have actual evidence such as extant manuscripts that clearly distinguish between 'divine references' and others through the use of these abbreviations, I would be glad to look at them.
δαυιδ λιμ
Rolf Furuli
Posts: 7
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 11:01 am

Re: Κύριος

Post by Rolf Furuli »

Dear David,

In addition to Pietersma, M. Rösel, "Adonaj—warum Gott "Herr" genannt wird," Forschungen zum alten Testament 29, Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck. 2000, has argued in favor of κυριος being written in the original LXX. Rösel has also written the article "Names of God" in "Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. Vanderkam eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. The basic problem with the arguments of Pietersma and Rösel is that they cannot point to any manuscript evidence before the second century CE, but they use indirect evidence, which of course is open to different interpretations. There are 9 lines of indirect evidence in favor of κυριος that are used, and in a book on Bible translation I use 15 pages to discuss these nine lines. My conclusion is that the arguments are inconclusive.

I see your logic in connection with κυριος κυριος, which could suggest substitution. But the LXX manuscripts from the 2nd century CE are not always reliable as far as the divine name is concerned. However, the LXX-like manuscript 8HevXIIGr, which is dated in the 1st century BCE may indicate that 'ADONAY was not used as a substitute for YHWH. The tetragram occurs in old Hebrew characters in this manuscript. In Micah 1:2, the Masoretic text has 'ADONAY YHWH. There is a lacuna in this verse. In verse 3 where the MT has YHWH, the Greek has the tetragram in old Hebrew characters. There are more than 20 tetragrams in the Greek text, and on the basis of these and of the space of the lacuna, E. Tov. "The Greek Minor Prophet Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr)," Discoveries in the Judean Desert 8. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 1990, reconstructs "κυριος YHWH" in the lacuna. On p. 12, Tov says that the nature of the writing suggests that the same scribe both wrote the Greek text and the tetragram. On p. 85, Tov says that the scribe probably distinguished between the tetragram and 'ADONAY.

We must of course always take the possibility of textual variation into account. I compared the occurrences of YHWH and 'ADONAY in the great Isaiah scroll (1QISAa) with the Masoretic text, and I found 7 examples where MT has 'ADONAY and the Isaiah scroll has YHWH, one example of YHWH in MT and 'ADONAY in the Isaiah scroll, 2 examples where 'ADONAY occurs before YHWH in MT, but is lacking in the Isaiah scroll, 1 example where MT has only YHWH and the Isaiac scroll has 'ADONAY before YHWH, one example where MT has YHWH and the Isaiah scroll has 'ELOHIM, and one example where MT has 'ADONAY YHWH and the Isaiah scroll has YHWH 'ELOHIM. There is also one variant 8HevXIIgr. In Zechariah 9:1 in MT has two tetragrams and the same is true in 8HevXIIGr. But Zechariah 9:4 in MT has 'ADONAY and 8HevXIIGr has the tetragram. Both 'ADONAY and 'ELOHIM are in the Hebrew Bible used as titles for YHWH, and because of textual variation, both words can be used in place of YHWH without being substitutes for YHWH.

One interesting trait of 8HevXIIGr is the use of the Greek article. In Zehariah 9:1, YHWH is preceded by the Greek article in dative, so it is not true that YHWH is not marked for case in the old LXX-like manuscripts. The LXX manuscripts from the 2nd century CE has some different words in the second part of Zechariah 9:1 and has a conjunction before κυριος and not the article.

When we research a subject, we will always build on auxiliary conclusions made by others. This is necessary and legitimate, because we cannot start from scratch. The problem that we can see in so many fields is that conclusions drawn by others, perhaps as much as a hundred years ago, are simply repeated over and over again and never tested. A long-living view has been that in the last centuries BCE, of reverence for God, the Jews did not pronounce YHWH any longer and used 'ADONAY instead. This has been repeated over and over again, but the evidence is lacking! True, the religious order at Qumran used the substitute 'EL, but other groups continued to use YHWH long into the 1st century CE. Several scholars, such as J. A. Fitzmyer, have tried very hard to find evidence for the use of 'ADONAY in the last centuries BCE, but their results have been meager and ambiguous at the best.

If my conclusion that evidence for the use of 'ADONAY as a substitute for YHWH in the last centuries BCE is lacking, the consequence for the view of the NT is intriguing. When the NT writers quoted from the MT and the LXX where the divine name was found, and there was no custom to substitute YHWH with 'ADONAY, why should the writers use κυριος in their manuscripts and not YHWH?




Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

POxy3522 Job 42:11 יהוה written out + evidence

Post by Stephen Hughes »

I have had a look at P. Oxy. 3522 and have a few thoughts about how the evidence has been interpreted in this debate.

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3522 contains a fragment of a translation of the Book of Job that bears some similarity to the LXX and is notable because the Tetragrammaton is written out in Paleo-Hebrew letters. This is clear evidence (along with the Hexapla of Origen) that some translations of the Old Testament wrote the Tetragrammaton out in Hebrew.

According to comments that I can find, it is said to be 1st century AD and Jewish. It is evidently not an adaptation of the LXX but is a different rendering into Greek.

It is another piece of evidence for a Greek translation that contains the Tetragrammaton, such as we have from Origen's hexapla. Now the evidence has been brought back to the 1st century AD.
Rolf Furuli wrote:the consequence for the view of the NT is intriguing. When the NT writers quoted from the MT and the LXX where the divine name was found, and there was no custom to substitute YHWH with 'ADONAY, why should the writers use κυριος in their manuscripts and not YHWH?
Before jumping to the point about יהוה's pronunciation and being written as κύριος, I want to examine the historicity of the timeline being used for the claims. Broadly speaking, conjectured history is about origins, continuities and divergences, and the relationship between various pieces of evidence are usually constructed along theoretical lines. In this case the evidence is limited, but what is it?
  • The Letter of Aristaeus suggests that the LXX translation was made for deposition in the Library of Alexandria, by a Greek speaking sponsor (perhaps) Ptolemy II Philadelphus.
  • No extant early New Testament manuscript has the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew.
  • No extant early manuscript of the LXX (the one preserved in the Christian church) has the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew.
  • The Essene Jewish community has one manuscript wherein the Tetragrammaton is written as ΙΩΑ.
  • This papyrus - Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3522 which contains the Tetragrammaton twice is late and said to be of Jewish provenance, and appears to be a new translation, NOT an adaption of the LXX.
So far as I can see, within the idea of origin, continuity and divergence, this evidence that we have can be construed in two main ways...

One way of interpreting the evidence is;
  • The translation of the Hebrew Bible by the librarian of the Greek king to add to the body of knowledge written in Koine Greek for the benefit of the wider inhabited world was made into Greek only. [ORIGIN]
  • Christians (this was certainly not a monolithic group early on) adopted this text and what we have in the LXX is basically the same as what was written early on. [CONTINUITY]
  • Some individual groups of Jews wanted for some reasons wanted to re-insert the Tetragrammaton into the text where it exists in the Hebrew text, creating the small number of manuscripts that we find. [DIVERGENCE]
Another way of interpreting the evidence is to say
  • The letter of Aristeas is spurious and the LXX was translated by the Jewish people for the Jewish people from the Jewish people's own decision, and it contained the Tetragrammaton from the beginning. [ORIGIN]
  • The extant manuscripts that we have that do contain the Tetragrammaton are all that remains of the earlier tradition. [CONTINUITY]
  • The Christian community - before the adoption of the Canon of Scripture - proscribed all instances of the the Tetragrammaton in all books and across the scope of all sects and heresies - in an age before the centralisation of power - and it was never mentioned in the councils, and thus successfully hid the Tetragrammaton.[DIVERGENCE]
In saying that it may not be that the Christians - perhaps you could specify which sect or group - expunged the Tetragrammaton.

I have provided here that there are other models of origin, continuity and divergence that also fit the evidence so far as I can see. These things are my conjectures not my assertions, and I'd appreciate feedback on them as I develop my ideas. Which evidence does not fit both models?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”