Peter Head (Christology and the Synoptic Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. pp. 160-162) notes:
It now seems unlikely that KURIOS translated YHWH in
pre-Christian versions of the Greek OT. The oldest
[MSS] of the Greek OT, and every [MS] of known [sic]
Jewish milieu, use YHWH in Hebrew letters, sometimes
in Aramaic, sometimes in palaeo-Hebrew.
He then lists P.Fouad 266 (2nd cent. BCE); 8HevXIIgr (1st cent. BCE); 4QLevb which employs the form IAW; the Cairo Geniza fragments of Aquila, Symmachus and P.Oxy.1007 (Head, p. 161).
After listing evidence for this conclusion from the ANF, Head then cites Jellicoe's "The Septuagint and Modern Study." This work evidently states that KURIOS as a replacement for YHWH "was a Christian innovation." However, Head thinks that the observation by Jellicoe and similar comments made by George Howard must be "nuanced somewhat" since Philo and Josephus apparently employed KURIOS and QEOS to render YHWH. See Philo, De mutatione nominum 18-24 and Josephus, Antiquities XIII.68; XX.90. But the latter author begins writing and comes after Christianity began.
Head thus concludes that Greek-speaking Jews were in the habit of pronouncing KURIOS and allegedly substituting this Greek term for YHWH in theological discussions and in their sacred texts. Head further appeals to the literature from Qumran (1QapGen) to prove that some Jews substituted "other forms" for YHWH, though I do not think this specific point makes his argument more robust, since the Qumran example that Head provides is apparently not a case of YHWH being replaced by KURIOS; nor does a similar quote from Origen (Psalms II.2) help because Origen just says that the Greeks pronounce ADONAI as KURIOS.
The rest of his discussion merits attention too.
2 comments:
Head’s point seems to rest on the observation that early manuscripts (e.g., P. Fouad 266, 4QLevb, etc.) contain the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script, even within Greek texts. However, this observation does not negate the existence or widespread use of "Kurios" in later manuscripts and Christian copies of the Septuagint. These manuscripts were widely used by early Christians, and they consistently substituted "Kurios" for YHWH. The argument that "Kurios" did not originally replace the Tetragrammaton in pre-Christian manuscripts is somewhat beside the point when discussing the established practice by the time of Jesus and the early Church.
The primary concern for early Christians, who were Greek-speaking, was ensuring that God was properly identified in a language their audience understood. By the time of Jesus, the Septuagint was the dominant scriptural text for Greek-speaking Jews, and "Kurios" was widely used in place of YHWH. Thus, the replacement of YHWH with "Kurios" was not seen as an innovation but as an established tradition. Even if early pre-Christian manuscripts contained YHWH, the broader tradition had already shifted to using "Kurios" by the time of the New Testament. This practice was respectful of Jewish tradition, which sought to avoid pronouncing the Tetragrammaton aloud.
Head acknowledges that Jellicoe, a respected Septuagint scholar, argued that replacing YHWH with "Kurios" was a Christian innovation. However, Head suggests that this needs to be nuanced because Greek-speaking Jews, such as Philo and Josephus, also used "Kurios" or "Theos" to render YHWH in their writings.
While Jellicoe’s assertion may hold some weight when looking solely at pre-Christian Jewish texts, the broader use of "Kurios" by Greek-speaking Jews like Philo and Josephus indicates that this practice was not exclusive to Christians. Philo and Josephus were both Hellenistic Jews, writing for a Greek-speaking audience, and their use of "Kurios" reflects a broader trend within Hellenistic Judaism, not just Christianity. Even though Philo and Josephus were writing after the establishment of Christianity, their works show that the use of "Kurios" was already common in Jewish contexts, making it less likely that Christians "innovated" the practice.
Head argues that Philo and Josephus, two well-known Hellenistic Jewish writers, employed "Kurios" and "Theos" to render YHWH. This is significant because it demonstrates that Greek-speaking Jews were comfortable using these terms for God long before Christian theology became widespread.
The fact that Philo and Josephus, who were not Christians, used "Kurios" and "Theos" instead of YHWH in their works strongly suggests that this practice was not a Christian invention but a well-established norm within Hellenistic Jewish communities. Philo, for instance, consistently refers to God as "Kurios" or "Theos" in his theological writings, indicating that this was a common way to talk about God among Greek-speaking Jews. Thus, the use of "Kurios" was not a break from Jewish tradition but a continuation of how Jews engaged with their sacred texts in Greek-speaking contexts.
Head refers to the Qumran literature, particularly the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), as evidence that some Jewish groups used other forms of reference instead of YHWH. He also mentions Origen's testimony that Greeks would pronounce "Adonai" as "Kurios." While these examples do not directly prove that "Kurios" replaced YHWH, they show a fluidity in how different Jewish groups referred to God. The substitution of divine titles such as "Adonai" or "Kurios" for YHWH was part of a broader Jewish tradition, particularly in Hellenistic contexts. The diversity in how Jewish groups referred to God suggests that no single practice dominated, but by the time of the early Christian era, "Kurios" had become widespread enough to be seen as normative in Greek-speaking Jewish communities.
Head's discussion indirectly brings up the point that Jesus and his followers, when quoting Scripture, used the Septuagint. The Septuagint consistently uses "Kurios" for YHWH, and this is reflected in the New Testament. This is important because it shows that Jesus, the apostles, and early Christians adhered to this well-established tradition. If Jesus had deliberately reverted to using YHWH in his public readings or teachings, it would likely have caused significant controversy, but we see no evidence of this.
Jesus, when quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures, used the Septuagint, which employed "Kurios" in place of YHWH. This indicates that Jesus was not focused on reintroducing the specific pronunciation of YHWH but was more concerned with the meaning and message behind the texts. The early Church followed this example, using "Kurios" in their own writings and teachings. The insistence on restoring the Tetragrammaton in the New World Translation goes against the historical practice of the early Church, which followed the Septuagint’s usage.
Head’s analysis and the evidence he presents do not support the idea that the use of "Kurios" for YHWH was solely a Christian innovation. The evidence from Philo, Josephus, and the Septuagint itself demonstrates that Greek-speaking Jews were already using "Kurios" in place of YHWH well before Christianity. Jesus and the early Christians followed this established practice. Therefore, the Jehovah's Witnesses’ insistence on "restoring" the Tetragrammaton to the New Testament has no basis in the textual tradition of early Christianity or Judaism. The use of "Kurios" reflects a longstanding Jewish tradition that was adopted by Christians, not a deviation from it.
Post a Comment