Dear Stephen,
I go by Scott but I see that my e-mail posts come up as Timothy Lawson.
I'll start going by Timothy.
I'm glad for the clarification of your thoughts on the unusual word order that
sometimes occurs with κύριος ὁ θεος when κύριος is taken as a predicate
nominative rather than equal to the proper name YHWH.
There is much to consider! Thanks so much for your comments!
Timothy Lawson
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:51:59 +1000
Subject: Re: G. Geroux and the Name
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Scott (do you go by that or Timothy??? I'm a little confused...),
Just a small note: I wasn't entirely sure what you were trying to say here
either. But I hope you weren't taking my reply to confirm that κύριος ο θεός is
clunky grammar, or that we should draw certain conclusions from that!
Everything I said was qualified by "IF it is awkward grammar...".
And to clarify again (at the risk of sounding like a broken record): The LXX
may be relevant if you're asking a number of questions. Was there a precedent
to the use of κύριος for YHWH in the NT? Assuming one influenced the other, in
which direction did the influence go? etc. But nothing we observe about the LXX
increases by one iota .. or alpha or omega :) ... the probability that the
original NT texts originally included the Tetragrammaton - whether in Hebrew
script or transliterated into Greek script. They didn't. That's what 100% of
the evidence says.
Best regards,
Stephen.
On 10 June 2013 11:18, Timothy Lawson <[email protected]> wrote:
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
