Hello Jerry! I guess I should say that I was taken by surprise by the comment that the LXX should not be included as evidence in the discussion at hand. It seems to me that the LXX having influenced the NT writers has quite a bit to say on the subject.
I may be conflating different thoughts: 1.) ιαω or יהוה was originally in the earliest copies of the LXX 2.) The use of κύριος as a substitute for ιαω or יהוה 3.) The awkward Greek construction of κύριος ο θεός which may be a telltale sign that something has been altered. You may have noticed that I used "translator/scribe" to indicate my uncertainty as to which hand may be responsible for the reading. I note this point in BDF;"...( in the LXX literalistic translators like to render the anarthrous יהוה with anarthrous κύριος, ,but את, אל and ל with τω κυριω, τον κύριον; etc.hence αγγελος κυρίου, εν κυριω are naturally found in the NT; the less literalistic translators of the OT and the NT prefer a general conformity to the Greek usage of the article..."-BDF 254 Sorry that my iPhone skews the paragraphs when I begin to use Hebrew characters. Jerry I'll reserve judgement as to which hand introduced κύριος into the LXX, but I certainly am intrigued by Rolf's comments about when these readings began to appear...that is by a redactionist's hand after BCE. T. Scott Lawson Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 19:53:44 -0600 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G. Geroux and the Name Hi Timothy, Allow me to interject into this conversation, just for the purpose of clarifying in my own mind what the issue is. I'm a little confused as to what you are advocating. You said: "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? It seems to me that by this last reply you are confusing two different issues: (1) what was originally in the LXX texts, (2) how κύριος ought to be understood and translated in the phrase κύριος ο θεός. Addressing these two issues separately: (1) There is no self-evident reason for arguing that κύριος in the Greek text must be representative of some kind of transliterated form of the tetragrammaton in an earlier Greek text. It is just as, if not more, likely, that the LXX translators, from the very beginning, used κύριος rather than some transliteration. Or in other word, the "clunkiness" was there from the beginning, already reflecting the practice in Judaism of replacing the Yahweh with Adonai. (2) The BDAG discussion you reference, probably means no more than that the writers and readers of the LXX and NT understood that Yahweh lay behind the word κύριος. But perhaps I'm not quite understanding what you're saying. Blessings, Jerry Jerry ShepherdTaylor SeminaryEdmonton, Alberta [email protected] _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
