When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by Isaac Fried » Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:56 am

Consider also the name אחיהו AX-YHW vocalized אֲחִיָּהוּ = אח-היא-יה-הוּא as in 1Kings 14:5.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by Isaac Fried » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:14 pm

I suspect that the ending AY in אדוני ADONAY is an ancient plural marker היא-היא 'he-he'. It is also to be found, methinks, in the theophpric (as most biblical names are) יִשַׁי = איש-היא-היא, as in 1Sam. 16:1. Also in the חַלּוֹנֵי XALONEY, 'windows', of 1Kings 6:4
וַיַּעַשׂ לַבָּיִת חַלּוֹנֵי שְׁקֻפִים אֲטֻמִים
KJV: "And for the house he made windows of narrow lights."
After all, אלוה-הם = אלוהים is also reverentially plural.

The tsere (two close horizontal dots) under the N of חַלּוֹנֵי is possible a compromise notation, for an alternative reading tradition of a patax (a short horizontal segment.)

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by Isaac Fried » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:57 pm

"Biblical Hebrew grammar" is a latter-day fabrication.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by kwrandolph » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:24 am

R.J. Furuli wrote:Dear Karl and Ste Walch,

Since the focus of the list is Biblical Hebrew, we should stick to that. To discuss how the New Testament writers used the Hebrew Scriptures is legitimate, in my view. But christological issues are outside b-hebrew, so I refrain from such discussions. I only want to reiterate one point: When we cannot know whether kurios in one hunmdred passages in our Greek master-texts refers to yhwh or to Jesus, something is wrong with the master-text.



Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Dear Rolf:

You brought up the question, and the Christological issue is one answer to your question. Therefore it is valid for this thread. Your one point, “When we cannot know whether kurios in one hunmdred passages in our Greek master-texts refers to yhwh or to Jesus, something is wrong with the master-text.“ is an invalid conclusion, invalid because of the Christological issue.

I’m the one who suggested that this whole question is outside the realm of Biblical Hebrew because:

• Biblical Hebrew terms had been forgotten and some replace by Aramaic terms
• Biblical Hebrew grammar had been replaced by a different one (Waltke & O’Connor)
• This is from an era centuries removed from any Biblical Hebrew writing (other than copying)
• There had been no native speaking of Hebrew for centuries, longer time than since the last writing

Then there’s the issue of rabbinic practices of that era, practices that hint at using alternatives for the pronunciation of יהוה.

The reasons I don’t spell out a pronunciation of יהוה are because:

• We don’t know how Biblical Hebrew language was pronounced, let alone a single name
• “Yahweh” is a modern invention and most likely wrong (within the last couple of centuries is “modern”)

Without evidence, it appears to me that you are speculating on an issue that can’t be answered.

With all the best, Karl W. Randolph.

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by R.J. Furuli » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:41 am

Dear Karl and Ste Walch,

Since the focus of the list is Biblical Hebrew, we should stick to that. To discuss how the New Testament writers used the Hebrew Scriptures is legitimate, in my view. But christological issues are outside b-hebrew, so I refrain from such discussions. I only want to reiterate one point: When we cannot know whether kurios in one hunmdred passages in our Greek master-texts refers to yhwh or to Jesus, something is wrong with the master-text.



Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by kwrandolph » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:09 pm

R.J. Furuli wrote:There are about one hundred passages in the NT (I have counted them) where it is not possible to know whether kurios in the NT master-text refers to Jesus or to yhwh. There is a basic semantic principle that is used in the interpretation of texts, namely, that we must assume that the writer wrote in order to be understood.


That’s dependent also on whether or not the audience wants to understand.

R.J. Furuli wrote:This is not the case with these one hundred passages, and this makes the use of kurios suspect. And remember: the view that Jesus is "the same" as yhwh was introduced more than 150 years after the NT was completed. So it cannot be used in a linguistic or philological discussion. That would be an anachronistic application.


This claim is open to dispute, as many understand Paul and the Apostles as teaching that from the beginning.

This comes down to a Jewish understanding of Tanakh. The New 'Testament expresses one understanding of יהוה that he’s not a monolithic oneness, like in Greek philosophy, rather there’s a oneness that is yet a combination of more than one. We see this in the tripartite blessing in Numbers 6:24–6 where the three actions of יהוה is mirrored in the New Testament for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are examples of the מלאך יהוה is a messenger, yet is יהוה himself. And more examples. Therefore, if the New Testament writers took this understanding of יהוה, and there’s every evidence that they did, then Jesus was equated with יהוה from the resurrection.

R.J. Furuli wrote:…Peter was evidently speaking in Hebrew. (There is strong evidence in favor of the main language of Jesus and the Jewish people being Hebrew and not Aramaic; only 17% of the DSS are written in Aramaic.)


If you went to a French monastery in 1400, you would have found that the vast majority of the books in the monastery library were written in Latin. That’s evidence that the people in the villages around the monastery spoke Latin. The same could be said of any European monastery in that era.

The Qumran community was the first century equivalent of a medieval European monastery. Their writings are not a picture of the language spoken on the street in Jerusalem or Galilee.

The evidence from late Biblical Hebrew, i.e. the post-Babylonian exile books in Tanakh, is of a people who learned Hebrew in school, in other words competent in the use of the same, but that they were not native speakers thereof.

R.J. Furuli wrote:It is true that Jesus is called ks. But in the two quotations from Isaiah in Romans 9:28 (Isaiah 10:23) and 9: 29 (Isaiah 1:9), the reference of ks is clearly to yhwh. In Romans 10:16 (Is 53:1) and 11:3 (1 Kings 19:14) ks again refers to yhwh. In Romans 11:34 there is no quation, but the context shows that ks refers to God. Because yhwh is referred to as ks both before and after Romans 10:13, the most likely conclusion is that ks in Romans 10:13 refers to the same individual that Joel referred to, namely to yhwh. To claim that the reference is to another individual than Joel referred to is more like metaphysics than like basic linguistics and philology.

So, I return to my main point. By using ks both in reference to yhwh and to Jesus, utter confusion is the result.


No, it’s evidence that Jesus = יהוה in the minds of the writers.

R.J. Furuli wrote:I do not think that those who wrote the NT books wanted to confuse their readers. If the personal name of God was used, as well as kurios in references to Jesus, the texts would be clear and understandable.


Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway


In closing, some of your claims are more metaphysics than linguistics, and therefore are open to dispute.

All the best, Karl W. Randolph.

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by S_Walch » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:42 pm

Hi Rolf,

I'm just going to pick on a few of things you've said in this quote, and the rest in a further posting when I have time.

R.J. Furuli wrote:It is true that Jesus is called ks. But in the two quotations from Isaiah in Romans 9:28 (Isaiah 10:23) and 9: 29 (Isaiah 1:9), the reference of ks is clearly to yhwh. In Romans 10:16 (Is 53:1) and 11:3 (1 Kings 19:14) ks again refers to yhwh. In Romans 11:34 there is no quation, but the context shows that ks refers to God. Because yhwh is referred to as ks both before and after Romans 10:13, the most likely conclusion is that ks in Romans 10:13 refers to the same individual that Joel referred to, namely to yhwh. To claim that the reference is to another individual than Joel referred to is more like metaphysics than like basic linguistics and philology.

Quick question: In Romans 10:9 and 10:12, is κυριος in reference to YHWH or Jesus?

My answer is clearly Jesus, and not YHWH.

So yes, a different context can indeed change the referent of the same word, regardless of usage before or after.

I mean the entire context from Romans 10:5-13 is how does one become saved, and Jesus is referred to as both 'Christ' and 'Jesus' and also 'Lord'. Romans 10:9 also makes it quite clear as to what the referent of Romans 10:13 is:

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (ESV)

This coincides very nicely with the quote of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13 (exact same verb σωζω used in both, and emphasis on speech), and the pronouns αὐτῷ in v11, and αὐτόν in v12 also refer to Jesus, so with the language of Romans 10:9 & 12 mirroring that of Romans 10:13 (σωζω, επικαλεω), I don't think it's in any doubt in Romans 10:13 that the usage of κυριος is indeed a reference to Jesus. Paul has evidenced the difference between Jesus and YHWH in Romans 10:5-13, by using θεος instead for YHWH, rather than κυριος which is used for Jesus.

There's also the interesting understanding that could be argued for Romans 10:9:

ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου κ̅ν̅ ι̅η̅ν̅ χ̅ρ̅ν̅ καὶ πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ὅτι ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, σωθήσῃ·
because if you may confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is YHWH, and trust in your heart that God raised Him out of the dead, you shall be saved. (Translation of P46)

A bit of a stretch, but not one that is too far for what someone reading Romans 10:9 could've understood Paul as saying (especially as, you seem to have argued, the references to κυριος from Romans 9:28 onwards are references to YHWH).

This also applies to Acts 2:21 - this is a different context from Romans 10:13, and the emphasis is on the outpouring of the Spirit, rather than salvation.

Just because Acts has Peter using Joel 2:32 one way, doesn't mean that Paul is using it the same way in Romans 10:13.

So, I return to my main point. By using ks both in reference to yhwh and to Jesus, utter confusion is the result. I do not think that those who wrote the NT books wanted to confuse their readers. If the personal name of God was used, as well as kurios in references to Jesus, the texts would be clear and understandable.

I don't think 'utter' confusion is the result. It does however coincide with what I said regarding the conflation of Jesus and YHWH somewhat :)

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by R.J. Furuli » Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:49 pm

Dear S. Welch,

S. Welch wrote:

Romans 10:13 for example, which quotes Joel 2:32, is seen in Papyrus 46 (dated 150-250 CE) as such:

πας γαρ ος εαν επικαλεσηται το ονομα κ̅υ̅ σωθησεται

Hopefully it shows up alright, but you should see the nomen sacrum κ̅υ̅ above, which when written out would be the genitive form κυρίου, translated usually as 'of the Lord', but 'of Yahweh' would work fine as well.

I would argue however that the use of κύριος for YHWH either predates or at least coincides with the NT era, for the very fact that in Romans 10:13, Paul is using the quote from Joel 2:32 as a reference to Jesus, and not Yahweh (though both not mutually exclusive, IMO, for the NT writers). From them to make this 'conflation' so to speak for κύριος referring to both Yahweh and Jesus, κύριος being used for YHWH either must predate the understanding, or at least coincide with it for them to come to this conclusion.


There are about one hundred passages in the NT (I have counted them) where it is not possible to know whether kurios in the NT master-text refers to Jesus or to yhwh. There is a basic semantic principle that is used in the interpretation of texts, namely, that we must assume that the writer wrote in order to be understood. This is not the case with these one hundred passages, and this makes the use of kurios suspect. And remember: the view that Jesus is "the same" as yhwh was introduced more than 150 years after the NT was completed. So it cannot be used in a linguistic or philological discussion. That would be an anachronistic application.

Then, what about Joel 2:32 and Romans 10:13? Is ks in 2nd century manuscripts of 10:13 really a reference to Jesus? The words of Joel 2:32 are also quoted in Acts 2:21. Peter was evidently speaking in Hebrew. (There is strong evidence in favor of the main language of Jesus and the Jewish people being Hebrew and not Aramaic; only 17% of the DSS are written in Aramaic.) Peter spoke in Hebrew to Jewish proselytes who had not heard about Jesus, and when he quoted Joel 2:32, the reference must have been to the one whom Joel referred to, namely to yhwh. Is the referent different in Romans 10:13?

It is true that Jesus is called ks. But in the two quotations from Isaiah in Romans 9:28 (Isaiah 10:23) and 9: 29 (Isaiah 1:9), the reference of ks is clearly to yhwh. In Romans 10:16 (Is 53:1) and 11:3 (1 Kings 19:14) ks again refers to yhwh. In Romans 11:34 there is no quation, but the context shows that ks refers to God. Because yhwh is referred to as ks both before and after Romans 10:13, the most likely conclusion is that ks in Romans 10:13 refers to the same individual that Joel referred to, namely to yhwh. To claim that the reference is to another individual than Joel referred to is more like metaphysics than like basic linguistics and philology.

So, I return to my main point. By using ks both in reference to yhwh and to Jesus, utter confusion is the result. I do not think that those who wrote the NT books wanted to confuse their readers. If the personal name of God was used, as well as kurios in references to Jesus, the texts would be clear and understandable.


Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by R.J. Furuli » Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:22 am

Dear Steve,

Steve Miller wrote:

Could the evidence indicate that the LXX was changed to use kurios in place of yhwh after the NT was written, to align with the NT?

You mentioned that the earliest NT manuscripts that quote the OT, which are at the end of the 2nd century, used abbreviations for Theos and Kurios in place of YHWH. How many NT manuscripts and verses is this?


S. Walch has given some information regarding the manuscript issue.

The few LXX fragments from the last two centuries BCE and until 50 CE have the tetragram in the Greek text in old Hebrew or Aramaic script, or in Greek letters as iao. These were changed to ks and ths after 50 CE and before 150 CE. The nomina sacra in Latin letters also occur in the Old Latin version.

There is a widespread view among scholars that in the last centuries BCE the tetragram was no longer pronounced, but 'adonay was used as a substitute. I will stress that there is absolutely no evidence in the extant documents (DSS) from BCE and the 1st century CE for this. The only evidence for substitution is that the Qumran community used 'el as a substitute for yhwh. When the NT writers wrote their books and quoted from the Hebrew Scribtures, there were, as far as the evidence shows, no 'adonays either in writing nor pronunciation that could cause them to write kurios in their books. Moreover, Because the Hebrew Bible says that the name of God should continue to be used to time indefinite, there was no reason for the writers to delete this name and use kurios as subtitute in their quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures.

This means that we have no reason to believe that those who deleted God's name from the LXX manuscripts did so because the NT used kurios for God's name.


Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Re: When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?

Post by R.J. Furuli » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:56 am

Dear Isaac,

Isaac Fried wrote:

Also the theophoric name אביהוא ABYHWA (AB-YHWA) of Ex. 6:23 vocalized as אֲבִיהוּ. Consider also the theophoric name אליהוא ELYHWA (EL-YHWA) of 1Sam. 1:1 vocalized as


I am not sure what you want me to look for. The original question was the nature of the consonants in the tetragram. My view is that yhw are consonants and the last h represents a long vowel. How can the passages you mention throw light on this issue?


Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Top