When was yhwh replaced by 'adonai?
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:22 am
Dear Karl,
In order to move our discussion about the scientific method applied to ancient history and wrong traditional views back to Hebrew, I raise the question in the heading. I am close to completing a study of all the extant original documents from the first and second centuries BCE and down to 70 CE (= the DSS) in connection with this issue. So, I am able to throw some light on the situation on the basis of these original documents.
The almost universal view at present is that in the last centuries BCE the view arose that yhwh was too holy to be pronounced. Therefore, the word 'adonai was used as a substitute. The writers of the New Testament books followed this custom, and they used kurios, the Greek equivalent to 'adonai, in their books, even in quotations from the OT where yhwh occurs in the Hebrew text.
This view is nothing but fiction; in other words, there is no evidence in the original documents for this view, as I show below.
1) The divine designations in the DSS occur with the following numbers: 'adonai: 73, yhwh: 323, 'elohim: 268, and 'el: 647.
2) The Qumran community used 'el as a substitute for yhwh, and there is no evidence that any of the 73 occurrences of 'adonay was used as a substitute. So, the evidence from all the original documents from the mentioned three centuries is that 'adonay was not used as a substitute for yhwh.
3) A number of the DSS were written by scribes outside Qumran, and they were imported to Qumran. The 323 occurrences of yhwh occur in 81 different documents. The existence of all these documents show that groups in Judah outside Qumran continued to use yhwh during the mentioned centuries.
4) The first evidence of which I am aware of a replacement of yhwh by 'adonay come from Masada fragments of the book of Ben Sirach from the second part of the first century CE. So, the evidence is that yhwh was in general use during the time of the second temple.
5) The view that kurios was written in the NT autographs instead of yhwh in quotes from the OT is fiction—there is no evidence for it. The oldest NT manuscript with kurios is dated in the fourth century CE, and it does not tell us which word that was used in the autographs.
6) The oldest NT manuscripts containing passages with quotes from the OT are dated at the end of the first century CE. These manuscripts contain the socalled nomina sacra—abbreviations ks and ths and several other abbreviations.
7) These abbreviations could not have been in the original NT autographs, som their existence shows that someone changed parts of the text of the NT (the divine designations) between the writing of the autographs and the end of the first century CE.
8) I all the extant fragments of the LXX from the second and first century BCE and down to 50 CE, God's name is written with Old Hebrew or Aramaic letters, or with the Greek letters iao. In the LXX manuscripts from the end of the first century CE, the nomina sacra occur. This shows that also the divine designations of the LXX was changed between 50 CE and the end of the first century CE.
9) I we follow the pattern of the LXX—yhwh/iao was changed to ks and ths, the natural conclusion is that the nomina sacra ks and ths in the NT manuscripts from the end of the first century CE goes back to yhwh/iao and not to kurios. But of course, as long as we do not have the NT autographs, we do not know which divine designations that were used.
The reason why I present these points, is to show that there are so many old tradinal views out there, that have been repeated from generation to generation, but that are not based on real evidence. Therefore, we need to use the right scientific methodology in our study of ancient history and ancient lamnguages. And first of all—we must study the original documents.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
In order to move our discussion about the scientific method applied to ancient history and wrong traditional views back to Hebrew, I raise the question in the heading. I am close to completing a study of all the extant original documents from the first and second centuries BCE and down to 70 CE (= the DSS) in connection with this issue. So, I am able to throw some light on the situation on the basis of these original documents.
The almost universal view at present is that in the last centuries BCE the view arose that yhwh was too holy to be pronounced. Therefore, the word 'adonai was used as a substitute. The writers of the New Testament books followed this custom, and they used kurios, the Greek equivalent to 'adonai, in their books, even in quotations from the OT where yhwh occurs in the Hebrew text.
This view is nothing but fiction; in other words, there is no evidence in the original documents for this view, as I show below.
1) The divine designations in the DSS occur with the following numbers: 'adonai: 73, yhwh: 323, 'elohim: 268, and 'el: 647.
2) The Qumran community used 'el as a substitute for yhwh, and there is no evidence that any of the 73 occurrences of 'adonay was used as a substitute. So, the evidence from all the original documents from the mentioned three centuries is that 'adonay was not used as a substitute for yhwh.
3) A number of the DSS were written by scribes outside Qumran, and they were imported to Qumran. The 323 occurrences of yhwh occur in 81 different documents. The existence of all these documents show that groups in Judah outside Qumran continued to use yhwh during the mentioned centuries.
4) The first evidence of which I am aware of a replacement of yhwh by 'adonay come from Masada fragments of the book of Ben Sirach from the second part of the first century CE. So, the evidence is that yhwh was in general use during the time of the second temple.
5) The view that kurios was written in the NT autographs instead of yhwh in quotes from the OT is fiction—there is no evidence for it. The oldest NT manuscript with kurios is dated in the fourth century CE, and it does not tell us which word that was used in the autographs.
6) The oldest NT manuscripts containing passages with quotes from the OT are dated at the end of the first century CE. These manuscripts contain the socalled nomina sacra—abbreviations ks and ths and several other abbreviations.
7) These abbreviations could not have been in the original NT autographs, som their existence shows that someone changed parts of the text of the NT (the divine designations) between the writing of the autographs and the end of the first century CE.
8) I all the extant fragments of the LXX from the second and first century BCE and down to 50 CE, God's name is written with Old Hebrew or Aramaic letters, or with the Greek letters iao. In the LXX manuscripts from the end of the first century CE, the nomina sacra occur. This shows that also the divine designations of the LXX was changed between 50 CE and the end of the first century CE.
9) I we follow the pattern of the LXX—yhwh/iao was changed to ks and ths, the natural conclusion is that the nomina sacra ks and ths in the NT manuscripts from the end of the first century CE goes back to yhwh/iao and not to kurios. But of course, as long as we do not have the NT autographs, we do not know which divine designations that were used.
The reason why I present these points, is to show that there are so many old tradinal views out there, that have been repeated from generation to generation, but that are not based on real evidence. Therefore, we need to use the right scientific methodology in our study of ancient history and ancient lamnguages. And first of all—we must study the original documents.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway