Dear Stephen, Thank you for your reply!
You say: "Style (or "poor grammatical construction") is a perilous basis for this kind of argument - especially in a case like this, where we are talking about a highly special word/construction, which the author is likely to treat with particular reverence. That is, (1) how are we to know just how awkward-sounding a particular Greek phrase would have been to a Second Temple bilingual Jewish ear? and (2) Even if it was awkward grammar in certain contexts, mightn't that have been considered appropriate for such a sacred phrase?" It is not clear to me what you mean by "perilous" but I think you help me along in my observation that there is something special going on in these clunky phrases that include κύριος ο θεός. And the fact that the Tetragrammaton appears in the MT where the hand of the scribe/translator is applied at these points should draw our attention. BDAG and other great minds intimate that κύριος seems to have the status of a personal name - יהוה. If there is truth in this, if it has such a meaning then what is wrong in translating as such? From: [email protected] Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:32:23 +1000 Subject: Re: G. Geroux and the Name To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Scott, You said to Bryant: >> The information you present is interesting but seemingly not directly >> related to the point I made that κύριος ο θεός by its poor grammatical >> construction which also appears in the NT text. This may be a possible >> indication that YHVH has been removed from the Greek of the LXX. Style (or "poor grammatical construction") is a perilous basis for this kind of argument - especially in a case like this, where we are talking about a highly special word/construction, which the author is likely to treat with particular reverence. That is, (1) how are we to know just how awkward-sounding a particular Greek phrase would have been to a Second Temple bilingual Jewish ear? and (2) Even if it was awkward grammar in certain contexts, mightn't that have been considered appropriate for such a sacred phrase? The fact that the LXX is a translation makes it even more perilous. Either the original translators chose κύριος ο θεός, or a later copyist did. Either way, the person who made this choice was at least a Greek speaker (maybe native, maybe bilingual, maybe not). If it's clunky grammar, presumably they could have picked a grammatically smoother construction, but chose not to, for whatever reason. Why is it more likely that a later copyist would have made this choice, rather than an earlier translator? Best regards,Stephen.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
