[] revelation 4:8 Thomas J. Kraus t.j.kraus at web.de
Mon Dec 27 03:48:36 EST 2004
[] 1 Cor. 13:10 [] RE: Advanced Grammatical Search using BibleWorks 6 dear colleagues,I have just tried to restart working on the trisagion (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8) andist usage in several papyri (and inscriptions and on bracelets etc.) when Ifound that I do only have aune´s second volume of the world biblicalcommentary at hand here.as I want to give some exegetical introductory comments before I turn to theobjects/manuscripts I am in need of aune´s dealing with Rev 4:8 in hiscommentary (or alternative, well-acclaimed commentaries).can anybody out there send me a quick scan of the appropriate pages (worldbiblical commentary, vol. 52a)?thank you very much in advance.Thomas J. Kraus–Dr. Thomas J. Kraust.j.kraus at web.detosa1 at mac.comAm Schwalbennest 591161 HilpoltsteinFederal Republic of Germany
[] 1 Cor. 13:10[] RE: Advanced Grammatical Search using BibleWorks 6
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Webb webb at selftest.net
Tue Nov 7 14:17:40 EST 2006
[] hEIS and its referent [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) If we assume that hAGIOS hAGIOS hAGIOS consists of three grammaticallyindependent shouts of acclamation, can somebody give me a reason strictly onthe basis of Greek grammar (not from LXX or MT of Isa. 6) why the followingphrase, KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR, wouldn’t look to a Greek speaker like “God the All-Powerful is Lord!” Webb Mealy
[] hEIS and its referent[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Tue Nov 7 15:31:48 EST 2006
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Webb,It is used as title by John in Revelation which is alluding to its OT usagefound in the paragraphs below. I read the KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR, asa title, “The Lord God Almighty” found in Revelation 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7,14; 21:22. The MT/LXX of Isaiah 6:4 has, “YHWH SeBAOTH.” KURIOS = YHWH,SABAWQ = SeBAOTH (which is transliterated).hO DE KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR is found in Hosea 12:6; Amos 3:13; 5:14,15, 16. There the LXX translates hO KURIOS = YHWH, hO QEOS = ‘eLoHEy, hOPANTOKRATWR = HaZeBa’oTH.In fact, PANTOKRATWR is used to translate both Sabaoth and Shaddai and isNOT found before the LXX. Job 8:5 has PROS KURION PANTOKRATORA for ‘EL-‘ELWe’EL-SHADDAI. (See Colin Brown, Vol. 3, pp 716-718).KURIOS PANTOKRATWR is used in Zechariah 1:3 (paralleled by KURIOS TWNDUNAMEWN, 2x), 1:4, 6, 12 (KURIE) , 14; 81, 2, 3, 4, 6(2x), 7, 9(2x), 11,14,17, 18, 20, 21, 23; Malachi 1:4, 6, 8, 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 14. Every one ofthese instances translate YHWH SABAOTH.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:17 AMSubject: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)> If we assume that hAGIOS hAGIOS hAGIOS consists of three grammatically> independent shouts of acclamation, can somebody give me a reason strictlyon> the basis of Greek grammar (not from LXX or MT of Isa. 6) why thefollowing> phrase, KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR, wouldn’t look to a Greek speakerlike> > > > > “God the All-Powerful is Lord!”> > > > Webb Mealy> > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesyof Com-Pair Services!> > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 – Release Date: 11/4/065:30 PM> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Webb webb at selftest.net
Tue Nov 7 15:48:27 EST 2006
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Thanks for the information, Bryant. It’s good stuff. At the same time, it’snot what I’m really fishing for. Maybe it’s my weakness in reading Greek,but I want to know whether a Koine Greek speaking person, not knowingeverything you just brought forward, might hear a predication being madewhen presented with the words KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR.I feel pretty ignorant asking, but is there any rule of grammar that wouldgive the clue to a secular Koine Greek speaker that KURIOS is attributiverather than predicative in this phrase?Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: Bryant J. Williams III [mailto:bjwvmw at com-pair.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:32 PMTo: Webb; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)Webb,It is used as title by John in Revelation which is alluding to its OT usagefound in the paragraphs below. I read the KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR, asa title, “The Lord God Almighty” found in Revelation 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7,14; 21:22. The MT/LXX of Isaiah 6:4 has, “YHWH SeBAOTH.” KURIOS = YHWH,SABAWQ = SeBAOTH (which is transliterated).hO DE KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR is found in Hosea 12:6; Amos 3:13; 5:14,15, 16. There the LXX translates hO KURIOS = YHWH, hO QEOS = ‘eLoHEy, hOPANTOKRATWR = HaZeBa’oTH.In fact, PANTOKRATWR is used to translate both Sabaoth and Shaddai and isNOT found before the LXX. Job 8:5 has PROS KURION PANTOKRATORA for ‘EL-‘ELWe’EL-SHADDAI. (See Colin Brown, Vol. 3, pp 716-718).KURIOS PANTOKRATWR is used in Zechariah 1:3 (paralleled by KURIOS TWNDUNAMEWN, 2x), 1:4, 6, 12 (KURIE) , 14; 81, 2, 3, 4, 6(2x), 7, 9(2x), 11,14,17, 18, 20, 21, 23; Malachi 1:4, 6, 8, 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 14. Every one ofthese instances translate YHWH SABAOTH.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:17 AMSubject: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)> If we assume that hAGIOS hAGIOS hAGIOS consists of three grammatically> independent shouts of acclamation, can somebody give me a reason strictlyon> the basis of Greek grammar (not from LXX or MT of Isa. 6) why thefollowing> phrase, KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR, wouldn’t look to a Greek speakerlike> > > > > “God the All-Powerful is Lord!”> > > > Webb Mealy> > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesyof Com-Pair Services!> > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 – Release Date: 11/4/065:30 PM> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy ofCom-Pair Services!
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Tue Nov 7 16:25:59 EST 2006
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Dear Webb,Since the phrase is not used before the LXX, then I would think that thetypical person in the Greek speaking areas of Asia Minor would still read itas a title. I think the key to the entire phrase is the use of the article.Of course, it may be possible to read it as you translate it “God theAll-Powerful is Lord,” but I do not think that it can because of the useKURIOS fronting the entire phrase. Furthermore, since Revelation is writtenprimarily to the churches of Asia (chapters 2-3), and secondarily to thechurch as a whole. It would be understood to be a title anyway.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:48 PMSubject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)> Thanks for the information, Bryant. It’s good stuff. At the same time,it’s> not what I’m really fishing for. Maybe it’s my weakness in reading Greek,> but I want to know whether a Koine Greek speaking person, not knowing> everything you just brought forward, might hear a predication being made> when presented with the words KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR.> > I feel pretty ignorant asking, but is there any rule of grammar that would> give the clue to a secular Koine Greek speaker that KURIOS is attributive> rather than predicative in this phrase?> > Webb Mealy> > —–Original Message—–> From: Bryant J. Williams III [mailto:bjwvmw at com-pair.net]> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:32 PM> To: Webb; at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)> > Webb,> > It is used as title by John in Revelation which is alluding to its OTusage> found in the paragraphs below. I read the KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR,as> a title, “The Lord God Almighty” found in Revelation 4:8; 11:17; 15:3;16:7,> 14; 21:22. The MT/LXX of Isaiah 6:4 has, “YHWH SeBAOTH.” KURIOS = YHWH,> SABAWQ = SeBAOTH (which is transliterated).> > hO DE KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR is found in Hosea 12:6; Amos 3:13;5:14,> 15, 16. There the LXX translates hO KURIOS = YHWH, hO QEOS = ‘eLoHEy, hO> PANTOKRATWR = HaZeBa’oTH.> > In fact, PANTOKRATWR is used to translate both Sabaoth and Shaddai and is> NOT found before the LXX. Job 8:5 has PROS KURION PANTOKRATORA for ‘EL-‘EL> We’EL-SHADDAI. (See Colin Brown, Vol. 3, pp 716-718).> > KURIOS PANTOKRATWR is used in Zechariah 1:3 (paralleled by KURIOS TWN> DUNAMEWN, 2x), 1:4, 6, 12 (KURIE) , 14; 81, 2, 3, 4, 6(2x), 7, 9(2x),11,14,> 17, 18, 20, 21, 23; Malachi 1:4, 6, 8, 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 14. Every one of> these instances translate YHWH SABAOTH.> > En Xristwi,> > Rev. Bryant J. Williams III> > —– Original Message —– > From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:17 AM> Subject: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)> > > > If we assume that hAGIOS hAGIOS hAGIOS consists of three grammatically> > independent shouts of acclamation, can somebody give me a reasonstrictly> on> > the basis of Greek grammar (not from LXX or MT of Isa. 6) why the> following> > phrase, KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR, wouldn’t look to a Greek speaker> like> >> >> >> >> > “God the All-Powerful is Lord!”> >> >> >> > Webb Mealy> >> >> >> > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as acourtesy> of Com-Pair Services!> >> >> >> > — > > No virus found in this incoming message.> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.> > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 – Release Date: 11/4/06> 5:30 PM> >> >> > > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesyof> Com-Pair Services!> > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesyof Com-Pair Services!> > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 – Release Date: 11/4/065:30 PM> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) frjsilver at optonline.net frjsilver at optonline.net
Tue Nov 7 21:23:49 EST 2006
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) [] A Question on 1 Timothy 2:6 and the meaning of,ANTILUTRON ? Dear Friends –There’s a rhetorical device in hellenistic and Byzantine Greek — admittedly rare — which uses the onomastic case for an emphatic form of direct address, but this is reserved for only the most formal and solemn contexts.So, for instance, while the Hebrewof IS 6:3 _qadosh qadosh qadosh YHWH tsevaoth melo kal- ha arets kavodo_ is clearly an acclamation of the Seraphim made about God in the third person, and the text of the Greek 70 reflects this accurately, the practical application of this verse in the liturgy adapts this only slightly to a form of direct address (exceptions marked *): hAGIOS hAGIOS hAGIOS KURIOS SABAWQ PLHRHS *hO OURANOS KAI* hH GH THS DOXHS *SOU*.This structure is reflected also in the Trisagion Hymn: hAGIOS hO QEOS hAGIOS ISCUROS hAGIOS ATHANATOS ELEHSON hEMAS, where the appellations of God are in the onomastic case, but the protactic verb form is in the second-person singular aorist.These liturgical formulas are well understood by native speakers of Modern Greek as forms of direct address, not as predicative structures, although that’s clearly the intent of the biblical text.When reading Isaiah, native speakers of Modern Greek wonder about the difference between that text and what they sing in the liturgy, and it’s usually explained to them that Old Testament liturgy is older than the Old Testament, and New Testament liturgy is older than the New Testament, and that the Church made the Bible — not the other way around.Your mileage may vary. [[;-)33Father James SilverMonk JamesOrthodox Church in America—– Original Message —–From: Webb Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2006 2:18 pmSubject: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)To: at lists.ibiblio.org> If we assume that hAGIOS hAGIOS hAGIOS consists of three grammatically> independent shouts of acclamation, can somebody give me a reason > strictly on> the basis of Greek grammar (not from LXX or MT of Isa. 6) why > the following> phrase, KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR, wouldn’t look to a Greek > speaker like> > “God the All-Powerful is Lord!”> > > > Webb Mealy> > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)[] A Question on 1 Timothy 2:6 and the meaning of,ANTILUTRON ?
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 8 00:50:45 EST 2006
[] Experienced information desired [] Textual Criticism list link is invalid To consider this let us take a look at a couple of passages. First, from the LXX1 Kg 18.39καὶ ἔπεσεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτῶν καὶ εἶπον Ἀληθῶς κύριός ἐστιν ὁ θεός, αὐτὸς ὁ θεός KAI EPESEN PAS hO LAOS EPI PROWPON AUTWN KAI EIPON, “ALHQWS *** KURIOS ESTIN hO QEOS ***, AUTOS hO QEOSJn 1.1 (And please don’t go there)Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. EN ARXHi HN hO LOGOS, KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON,KAI *** QEOS HN hO LOGOS ***In both of these there is a copulative verb (and in others I have surveyed as well). Also, note how you are using “All-Powerful” here. You are using it as a substantivized adjective in apposition to “God.” It seems rather more likely that with the absence of a copulative verb both hO QEOS and hO PANTOKRATWR would be taken as appositives rather than one as an appositive and the other as a predicate nominative. H.B. Swete wrote in regard to PANTOKRATWR in Re 1.8 hO PANTOKRATWR, which in other books of the N.T. is found but once and then in a quotation (2 Cor. 6:18), occurs again in Apoc. 4:8, 11:17, 15:3, 16:7, 16:14, 19:6, 19:15, 21:22. Like K. hO QEOS, hO PATOKRATWR is from the O.T., where the LXX. use it for $aD.aY in Job and in the other books for C:Bf)oWT. K hO QEOS hO P. occurs in Hos. 12:5 (6), and in Amos passim; in 2, 3 Macc. hO P. often stands alone.hO PANTOKRATWR=hO PANTWN KRATWN, hO PANTWN ECOUSIAZWN (Cyril. Hier. catech. 8:3), the All-Ruler rather than the Almighty (hO PANTODUNAMOS, Sap. 7:23, 11:17, 18:15); see Suicer ad v., and Kattenbusch, Das apost. Symbol, 2. p. 533 f. The apocalypse of St. John. 1907 (H. B. Swete, Ed.) (2d. ed.) (11). New York: The Macmillan company. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Webb <webb at selftest.net>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tuesday, November 7, 2006 2:17:40 PMSubject: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)If we assume that hAGIOS hAGIOS hAGIOS consists of three grammaticallyindependent shouts of acclamation, can somebody give me a reason strictly onthe basis of Greek grammar (not from LXX or MT of Isa. 6) why the followingphrase, KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR, wouldn’t look to a Greek speaker like”God the All-Powerful is Lord!”Webb Mealy— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Experienced information desired[] Textual Criticism list link is invalid
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com
Wed Nov 8 14:10:59 EST 2006
[] Textual Criticism list link is invalid [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) In a message dated 11/8/2006 3:06:45 AM Central Standard Time, bjwvmw at com-pair.net writes:> All-Powerful is Lord,” Since it comes from the Septuagint wouldn’t be rendered as “God the All-Powerful is Yahweh?” Isn’t KURIOS in the Septuagint rendered as Yahweh?DougRev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.Tejas ValleySan Antonio, Texas
[] Textual Criticism list link is invalid[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Webb webb at selftest.net
Wed Nov 8 14:43:27 EST 2006
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Dear Doug, You’ve got it backwards. When the LXX translators read YHWH, they translatedit as KURIOS, which corresponds to ADONAI (Hebrew for “Lord”), the QERE(‘what is read’), which was always read aloud when YHWH stood in the Hebrewtext. My understanding is that by the time of the LXX, pronunciation of YHWHhad already become strictly taboo in orthodox Judaism. It would thus be amove peculiar in the extreme to find KURIOS in the text and to render it asYHWH. Webb Mealy p.s. this sort of thing is what I said I didn’t want to talk about in myoriginal posting. _____ From: Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com [mailto:Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:11 AMTo: bjwvmw at com-pair.net; webb at selftest.net; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) In a message dated 11/8/2006 3:06:45 AM Central Standard Time,bjwvmw at com-pair.net writes: “God the All-Powerful is Lord,” Since it comes from the Septuagint wouldn’t be rendered as “God theAll-Powerful is Yahweh?” Isn’t KURIOS in the Septuagint rendered as Yahweh?Doug Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D. Tejas Valley San Antonio, Texas
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Wed Nov 8 16:29:48 EST 2006
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Dear Webb,I do not think you are well informed in this case. In all (there are not many) the LXX and LXX-like manuscripts we know from B.C.E. and down to 50 C.E. we find YHWH in old Hebrew or Aramaic characters or as the Greek phonetic transcription IAW. There is no clear evidence that YHWH was substituted by KURIOS in Greek texts of this time. In Qumran YHWH was not pronounced, but the substitute the people used was not “ADONAI” but “EL”. Both “ADONAI” and YHWH are used in the Hebrew Bible with reference to the creator, but “ADONAI” is not used as a *substitute* for YHWH. I am not aware of any clear evidence from before 50 C.E. that “ADONAI” was used in Hebrew texts as a substitute for YHWH. In the rabbinic literature, some passages say that YHWH was no longer used at an early date; other passages show that it continued to be used down to the second century C.E. So, if we look at the evidence, we cannot even exclude the possibility that YHWH was used by the common people in everyday speech in the days of Jesus. We should remember that the Masoretes who substituted YHWH with “ADONAI” lived in the second half of the first millennium C.E. We should not extrapolate their views back into the last centuries B.C.E. or the first century C.E. But we have to rely on the evidence from this time.Best regards,Rolf FuruliUniversity of Oslo—– Original Message —– From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:43 PMSubject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)> Dear Doug,> > > > You’ve got it backwards. When the LXX translators read YHWH, they > translated> it as KURIOS, which corresponds to ADONAI (Hebrew for “Lord”), the QERE> (‘what is read’), which was always read aloud when YHWH stood in the > Hebrew> text. My understanding is that by the time of the LXX, pronunciation of > YHWH> had already become strictly taboo in orthodox Judaism. It would thus be a> move peculiar in the extreme to find KURIOS in the text and to render it > as> YHWH.> > > > Webb Mealy
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Wed Nov 8 16:51:39 EST 2006
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Though this topic was aired on this list before but terminated by the moderator because it is rather theologically charged in some quarters, let me reiterate that Rolf’s claim about pre-Christian mss that read something other than KURIOS is misleading and in any case is less than half the story. The best way of solving the problem of KURIOS vs YHWH in the original Septuagint is not on the basis of external evidence that points in different directions but on the basis of internal evidence of the Septuagint itself. I made a beginning of doing just that in my Kyrios or Tetragram article now available on my website http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm/AlOn Nov 8, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Rolf Furuli wrote:> Dear Webb,> > I do not think you are well informed in this case. In all (there are > not> many) the LXX and LXX-like manuscripts we know from B.C.E. and down to > 50> C.E. we find YHWH in old Hebrew or Aramaic characters or as the Greek> phonetic transcription IAW. There is no clear evidence that YHWH was> substituted by KURIOS in Greek texts of this time. In Qumran YHWH was > not> pronounced, but the substitute the people used was not “ADONAI” but > “EL”.> Both “ADONAI” and YHWH are used in the Hebrew Bible with reference to > the> creator, but “ADONAI” is not used as a *substitute* for YHWH. I am not > aware> of any clear evidence from before 50 C.E. that “ADONAI” was used in > Hebrew> texts as a substitute for YHWH. In the rabbinic literature, some > passages> say that YHWH was no longer used at an early date; other passages show > that> it continued to be used down to the second century C.E. So, if we look > at> the evidence, we cannot even exclude the possibility that YHWH was > used by> the common people in everyday speech in the days of Jesus. We should> remember that the Masoretes who substituted YHWH with “ADONAI” lived > in the> second half of the first millennium C.E. We should not extrapolate > their> views back into the last centuries B.C.E. or the first century C.E. > But we> have to rely on the evidence from this time.> > Best regards,> > Rolf Furuli> University of Oslo> > —– Original Message —–> From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:43 PM> Subject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)> > >> Dear Doug,>> >> >> >> You’ve got it backwards. When the LXX translators read YHWH, they>> translated>> it as KURIOS, which corresponds to ADONAI (Hebrew for “Lord”), the >> QERE>> (‘what is read’), which was always read aloud when YHWH stood in the>> Hebrew>> text. My understanding is that by the time of the LXX, pronunciation >> of>> YHWH>> had already become strictly taboo in orthodox Judaism. It would thus >> be a>> move peculiar in the extreme to find KURIOS in the text and to render >> it>> as>> YHWH.>> >> >> >> Webb Mealy> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > —Albert PietersmaProfessor of Septuagint and Hellenistic GreekNear & Middle Eastern CivilizationsUniversity of TorontoHome: 21 Cross Street,Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.caHomepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Thu Nov 9 11:43:03 EST 2006
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Dear Al,I have vaited a little with my answer in order to see if the moderators would give some advice.I do not intend to participate in a long discussion about this subject, since that could diviate from the purpose of the list, not in a theological direction (which is not the danger), but in a text-critical direction (which is more pertinent for another list). However, is a forum for the discussion of the meaning of Greek words and clauses, and of the translation of such. And the question about KYRIOS vs YHWH has a bearing on this, something previous posts in this thread have shown.I have a high regard for your scholarship, particularly in areas related to the LXX. Therefore, when the Weaver´s Festschrift was published in 1984 I read your article with great interest, and I also later discussed some of the issues with Emanuel Tov, who also is an LXX expert. I do not challenge your data, but I disagree with some of your interpretations. When the words “original LXX” are used, they can only be related to LXX-manuscripts from the middle of the second century C.E. onward. But how can we know that they are similar to an “original LXX” before the commen era? Some scholars even doubt that there even was a collection of books that could be termed “the original LXX” at this time. Because of this uncertainty I used the term “the LXX and LXX-like manuscripts”. Here is in my view the basic weakness with your article, namely, that you analyse words and expressions in LXX manuscripts from the second century C.E. in order to find out whether KURIOS or YHWH occurred in manuscripts several hundred years older. But since we do not know exactly what these much older manuscripts looked like, and because of possible copying errors, I find this approach fraught with problems. Your resonings are fine and your conclusions interesting, but the conclusions are not necessary; they may or may not be true.I think you are not fair when you say that my “claim about pre-Christian mss that read something other than KURIOS is misleading and in any case is less than half the story”. I spoke about what we can *see* and *read* in these manuscripts (a Job mss with YHWH from ca. 50 C.E. has been published since your article),namely, the tetragram or IAW, and that should be *most* of the story. Other scholars disagree with your view regarding the occurrence of KURIOS in pre-Christian Greek mss, for example G Howard (1992) “The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. In “The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever” p. 85, Emanuel Tow writes in a comment on Mica 1:2 “R probably distinguished between the tetragrammaton /Old Hebrew characters written/ and )DNY (KURIOS)”. Since there is scholarly disagreement in connection with the *internal* approach, I think it is much better to present the *external* one, what we can see in the manuscripts.Another interesting approach that in some respects can be compared with your approach, is that of H. Stegemann (1969) “KURIOS O QEOS und KURIOS IESOUS Aufkommen und Ausbreitung des Religiösen Gebrauchs von KURIOS und seine Verwendung im Neuen Testament” (Habil. Masch. dissertation). On the basis of the existence of PIPI and HEHE in the marigin of mss of the Syro-Hexapla he argues that included in the Vorlage of the first Syriac translation was LXX-manuscripts with the tetragram written in Old Hebrew characters (->HEHE) and Aramaic script (-> PIPI) respectively. So he reached a diametrically opposite conclusion of yours on an *internal*.approach combined with some *external* evidence.Best regards,Rolf FuruliUniversity of Oslo —– Original Message —– From: Albert Pietersma To: Rolf Furuli Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Though this topic was aired on this list before but terminated by the moderator because it is rather theologically charged in some quarters, let me reiterate that Rolf’s claim about pre-Christian mss that read something other than KURIOS is misleading and in any case is less than half the story. The best way of solving the problem of KURIOS vs YHWH in the original Septuagint is not on the basis of external evidence that points in different directions but on the basis of internal evidence of the Septuagint itself. I made a beginning of doing just that in my Kyrios or Tetragram article now available on my website http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm/ Al On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Rolf Furuli wrote: Dear Webb, I do not think you are well informed in this case. In all (there are not many) the LXX and LXX-like manuscripts we know from B.C.E. and down to 50 C.E. we find YHWH in old Hebrew or Aramaic characters or as the Greek phonetic transcription IAW. There is no clear evidence that YHWH was substituted by KURIOS in Greek texts of this time. In Qumran YHWH was not pronounced, but the substitute the people used was not “ADONAI” but “EL”. Both “ADONAI” and YHWH are used in the Hebrew Bible with reference to the creator, but “ADONAI” is not used as a *substitute* for YHWH. I am not aware of any clear evidence from before 50 C.E. that “ADONAI” was used in Hebrew texts as a substitute for YHWH. In the rabbinic literature, some passages say that YHWH was no longer used at an early date; other passages show that it continued to be used down to the second century C.E. So, if we look at the evidence, we cannot even exclude the possibility that YHWH was used by the common people in everyday speech in the days of Jesus. We should remember that the Masoretes who substituted YHWH with “ADONAI” lived in the second half of the first millennium C.E. We should not extrapolate their views back into the last centuries B.C.E. or the first century C.E. But we have to rely on the evidence from this time. Best regards, Rolf Furuli University of Oslo —– Original Message —– From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Dear Doug, You’ve got it backwards. When the LXX translators read YHWH, they translated it as KURIOS, which corresponds to ADONAI (Hebrew for “Lord”), the QERE (‘what is read’), which was always read aloud when YHWH stood in the Hebrew text. My understanding is that by the time of the LXX, pronunciation of YHWH had already become strictly taboo in orthodox Judaism. It would thus be a move peculiar in the extreme to find KURIOS in the text and to render it as YHWH. Webb Mealy — home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — Albert Pietersma Professor of Septuagint and Hellenistic Greek Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto Home: 21 Cross Street, Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8 Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Thu Nov 9 12:43:55 EST 2006
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8) [] Translators New Testament Dear Rolf,You’re right, we shan’t engage here in a lengthy dispute but you misread my distinction between EXTERNAL evidence and INTERNAL evidence, to wit, you speak of pre-Christian manuscript attestation versus Christian manuscript attestation. That is not the point I am making since physical attestation in a given manuscript no matter of what date remains EXTERNAL evidence in my book. By the term INTERNAL evidence I am making reference to the textual-linguistic make-up of the translated LXX, in other words the textual fabric thereof. There are a good many passages within the LXX that presuppose KURIOS. In my judgment it is that internal evidence that is not being drawn upon and yet it is precisely that evidence that is of greater significance to the question of KURIOS vs Tetragram than any of the heterogeneous pieces of EXTERNAL evidence.AlOn Nov 9, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:> Dear Al,> > I have vaited a little with my answer in order to see if the > moderators would give some advice.> > I do not intend to participate in a long discussion about this > subject, since that could diviate from the purpose of the list, not in > a theological direction (which is not the danger), but in a > text-critical direction (which is more pertinent for another list). > However, is a forum for the discussion of the meaning of Greek > words and clauses, and of the translation of such. And the question > about KYRIOS vs YHWH has a bearing on this, something previous posts > in this thread have shown.> > I have a high regard for your scholarship, particularly in areas > related to the LXX. Therefore, when the Weaver´s Festschrift was > published in 1984 I read your article with great interest, and I also > later discussed some of the issues with Emanuel Tov, who also is an > LXX expert. I do not challenge your data, but I disagree with some of > your interpretations.> When the words “original LXX” are used, they can only be related to > LXX-manuscripts from the middle of the second century C.E. onward. But > how can we know that they are similar to an “original LXX” before the > commen era? Some scholars even doubt that there even was a collection > of books that could be termed “the original LXX” at this time. > Because of this uncertainty I used the term “the LXX and LXX-like > manuscripts”. Here is in my view the basic weakness with your article, > namely, that you analyse words and expressions in LXX manuscripts from > the second century C.E. in order to find out whether KURIOS or YHWH > occurred in manuscripts several hundred years older. But since we do > not know exactly what these much older manuscripts looked like, and > because of possible copying errors, I find this approach fraught with > problems. Your resonings are fine and your conclusions interesting, > but the conclusions are not necessary; they may or may not be true.> > I think you are not fair when you say that my “claim about > pre-Christian mss that read something other than KURIOS is misleading > and in any case is less than half the story”. I spoke about what we > can *see* and *read* in these manuscripts (a Job mss with YHWH from > ca. 50 C.E. has been published since your article),namely, the > tetragram or IAW, and that should be *most* of the story. Other > scholars disagree with your view regarding the occurrence of KURIOS in > pre-Christian Greek mss, for example G Howard (1992) “The > Tetragrammaton in the New Testament” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. > In “The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever” p. 85, Emanuel > Tow writes in a comment on Mica 1:2 “R probably distinguished between > the tetragrammaton /Old Hebrew characters written/ and )DNY (KURIOS)”. > Since there is scholarly disagreement in connection with the > *internal* approach, I think it is much better to present the > *external* one, what we can see in the manuscripts.> > Another interesting approach that in some respects can be compared > with your approach, is that of H. Stegemann (1969) “KURIOS O QEOS und > KURIOS IESOUS Aufkommen und Ausbreitung des Religiösen Gebrauchs von > KURIOS und seine Verwendung im Neuen Testament” (Habil. Masch. > dissertation). On the basis of the existence of PIPI and HEHE in the > marigin of mss of the Syro-Hexapla he argues that included in the > Vorlage of the first Syriac translation was LXX-manuscripts with the > tetragram written in Old Hebrew characters (->HEHE) and Aramaic script > (-> PIPI) respectively. So he reached a diametrically opposite > conclusion of yours on an *internal*.approach combined with some > *external* evidence.> > > Best regards,> > Rolf Furuli> University of Oslo> > > —– Original Message —–> From: Albert Pietersma> To: Rolf Furuli> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:51 PM> Subject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)> > > Though this topic was aired on this list before but terminated by > the moderator because it is rather theologically charged in some > quarters, let me reiterate that Rolf’s claim about pre-Christian mss > that read something other than KURIOS is misleading and in any case is > less than half the story. The best way of solving the problem of > KURIOS vs YHWH in the original Septuagint is not on the basis of > external evidence that points in different directions but on the basis > of internal evidence of the Septuagint itself. I made a beginning of > doing just that in my Kyrios or Tetragram article now available on my > website http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm/> Al> On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Rolf Furuli wrote:> > > Dear Webb,> > I do not think you are well informed in this case. In all (there > are not> many) the LXX and LXX-like manuscripts we know from B.C.E. and > down to 50> C.E. we find YHWH in old Hebrew or Aramaic characters or as the > Greek> phonetic transcription IAW. There is no clear evidence that YHWH > was> substituted by KURIOS in Greek texts of this time. In Qumran YHWH > was not> pronounced, but the substitute the people used was not “ADONAI” > but “EL”.> Both “ADONAI” and YHWH are used in the Hebrew Bible with reference > to the> creator, but “ADONAI” is not used as a *substitute* for YHWH. I am > not aware> of any clear evidence from before 50 C.E. that “ADONAI” was used > in Hebrew> texts as a substitute for YHWH. In the rabbinic literature, some > passages> say that YHWH was no longer used at an early date; other passages > show that> it continued to be used down to the second century C.E. So, if we > look at> the evidence, we cannot even exclude the possibility that YHWH was > used by> the common people in everyday speech in the days of Jesus. We > should> remember that the Masoretes who substituted YHWH with “ADONAI” > lived in the> second half of the first millennium C.E. We should not extrapolate > their> views back into the last centuries B.C.E. or the first century > C.E. But we> have to rely on the evidence from this time.> > Best regards,> > Rolf Furuli> University of Oslo> > —– Original Message —–> From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:43 PM> Subject: Re: [] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)> > > > Dear Doug,> > > > You’ve got it backwards. When the LXX translators read YHWH, they> translated> it as KURIOS, which corresponds to ADONAI (Hebrew for “Lord”), > the QERE> (‘what is read’), which was always read aloud when YHWH stood in > the> Hebrew> text. My understanding is that by the time of the LXX, > pronunciation of> YHWH> had already become strictly taboo in orthodox Judaism. It would > thus be a> move peculiar in the extreme to find KURIOS in the text and to > render it> as> YHWH.> > > > Webb Mealy> > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > —> Albert Pietersma> Professor of Septuagint and Hellenistic Greek> Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations> University of Toronto> Home: 21 Cross Street,> Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8> Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca> Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > —Albert PietersmaProfessor of Septuagint and Hellenistic GreekNear & Middle Eastern CivilizationsUniversity of TorontoHome: 21 Cross Street,Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.caHomepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
[] KURIOS hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev. 4:8)[] Translators New Testament