Paul's Concept of a Hebrew Deity in Relation to Jesus: Insights from the Kyrios and Theos Citations 9783161627095, 9783161627101, 3161627091

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Preface
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Introduction
A. Problem History
B. Framing the Problem and Potential Questions
Chapter 2: Approaching the Literary Conceptual Problem
A. Introduction
B. Literary Conceptual Source and Target Contexts
C. Theory, Methodology, and Aim
D. Definitions, Declarations, and Disclaimers
Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem
A. Introduction
I. Excursion: The Term κύριος
II. The Literary Conceptual Problem in Perspective
III. A Brief Illustration of the Complexities and Rule of Thumb
B. Contextualising the Literary Conceptual Problem
I. The Transmission Problem: Hebrew Text Traditions
II. The Translation and Transmission Problem: Greek Text Tradition
III. Theological Explicit Renditions of the Hebrew Esther
IV. Sirach, First and Second Maccabees – Some Observations
V. The Works of Philo of Alexandria
VI. The Works of Flavius Josephus I
1. Introduction
2. Antiquitates judaicae
3. Bellum judaicum
4. Contra Apionem
C. The Conceptual and Transmission Problem: New Testament Text Traditions
I. Introduction
II. The Terms κύριος and θεός Reflecting on the Text-Critical Variations
1. Synoptic Gospels
2. Acts of the Apostles
3. Johannine Gospels
4. Pastoral Letters
5. Catholic Letters
6. Johannine Epistles
7. Hebrews
8. Revelation
III. The Terms κύριος and θεός Reflecting on the Text-Critical Variations and Concepts (Deutero-Pauline)
1. Colossians
2. Ephesians
3. Second Thessalonians
D. The Terms
I. First Thessalonians
II. Galatians
III. Philippians and Philemon
E. Summary
Chapter 4: Explicit κύριος and θεός Citations in the Literary Conceptual Context of Romans
A. Introduction
B.
I. Citations with Introductory Formulae
II. Explicit Citations without Introductory Formulae
1. Romans 11:34 and 1 Corinthians 2:16
2. 1 Corinthians 10:26
3. 2 Corinthians 3:16
C.
I. Romans 1
II. Romans 2
III. Romans 3
IV. Romans 4
1. Romans 4:3
2. Romans 4:8
V. Romans 5
VI. Romans 6
VII. Romans 7
VIII. Romans 8
IX. Romans 9
1. Romans 9:26
2. Romans 9:27–28
3. Romans 9:29
X. Romans 10
1. Romans 10:13
2. Romans 10:16
XI. Romans 11
1. Romans 11:3
2. Romans 11:8
3. Romans 11:34
XII. Romans 12
XIII. Romans 13
XIV. Romans 14
XV. Romans 15
1. Romans 15:9
2. Romans 15:11
XVI. Romans 16
D. Summary
I. Proposed Solution: Theological Conceptual Problems
II. Proposed Solution: Translation and Greek Transition Problems
Chapter 5: Explicit κύριος and θεός Citations in the Literary Conceptual Context of First and Second Corinthians
A. Introduction
B. Establishing the κύριος and θεόςthe Text in First Corinthians
I. 1 Corinthians 1
II. 1 Corinthians 2
1. 1 Corinthians 2:9
2. 1 Corinthians 2:16
III. 1 Corinthians 3
IV. 1 Corinthians 4
V. 1 Corinthians 5
VI. 1 Corinthians 6
VII. 1 Corinthians 7
VIII. 1 Corinthians 8
IX. 1 Corinthians 9
X. 1 Corinthians 10
XI. 1 Corinthians 11
XII. 1 Corinthians 12
XIII. 1 Corinthians 13
XIV. 1 Corinthians 14
XV. 1 Corinthians 15
XVI. 1 Corinthians 16
C. Establishing the 􀃴􀇂􀃺􀃳􀃸􀃏 and 􀃹􀃯􀇁􀃏 Text in Second Corinthians
I. 2 Corinthians 1 and 2
II. 2 Corinthians 3
III. 2 Corinthians 4
IV. 2 Corinthians 5–9
V. 2 Corinthians 10
D. Summary
I. Proposed Solution: Theological Conceptual Problems
II. Proposed Solution: A Translation, Transmission, and Theological Conceptual Problem
Chapter 6: Conclusion: Observations on Paul's Concept of a Hebrew Deity
A. Introduction
B. Paul's Concept of a Hebrew Deity
C. Proposals for Future Research
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

593

Peter Nagel

Paul’s Concept of a Hebrew Deity in Relation to Jesus Insights from the Kyrios and Theos Citations

Mohr Siebeck

Peter Nagel, born 1975, 1999 − 2002 studied Theology at the University of Pretoria; 2005 − 2007 completed Masters’s degrees at the same Institution; 2007 − 2008 DAAD scholar­ship; 2012 PhD in New Testament; 2013 lecturer in New Testament at Unisa; since 2018 Senior Lecturer at Stellenbosch University. orcid.org/0000-0001-9724-6178

ISBN 978-3-16-162709-5 / eISBN 978-3-16-162710-1 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-162710-1 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at https://dnb.de. © 2023  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.



Dedicated to my dearest son, Peter Theunis Nagel jnr, who only lived with us here on earth for a short while, but who continues to live on in our hearts, minds, and souls.

28/05/2014 – 27/05/2015







Preface I am forever indebted to so many people who made this publication even remotely possible. The first of which is Prof. Dr. Gert J. Steyn who supervised me during my doctoral studies. None of this would have been possible without his guidance, supervision, and subsequent friendship. He played a central role in creating various opportunities that contributed to my research. One of which is to apply for a DAAD: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst Scholarship, which was awarded to me 2007–2008. This allowed me to conduct valuable and formative research at the Westfälische Wilhelms Universität in Münster, Germany, under the guidance and supervision of my “Doktorvater”, Prof. Dr. Dietrich-Alex Koch. His expert knowledge, advice, and generosity made my time in Germany a productive one. To this end, a word of heartfelt thanks to DAAD for making resources available that contributed to the quality of my research that ultimately led to this publication. The reworking and publishing of my PhD thesis with Mohr Siebeck WUNT II Series all began with Prof. Dr. Tobias Nicklas as an external examiner of my PhD thesis and an associate editor of the series proposing I publish my thesis with them and introducing me to the editor, Prof. Dr. Jörg Frey in 2013. I am deeply indebted to them for offering me this opportunity and for being accommodating and supportive throughout. A word of heartfelt thanks to Mohr Siebeck for being patient with me for such a long period of time. Their accommodating attitude, understanding, and kindness showed toward me make this publication so much more than what is printed on paper. They have gone a few extra miles to make this possible. I am eternally grateful! Last but most certainly not least, to my family. The sacrifices they made are far too many to mention, and without their devoted encouragement and support, my PhD and this publication would not have been. Without them, this project is meaningless and without purpose. To my wife, Marzanne, who helped me on so many levels: from proofreading, and editing the manuscript over and over, to many late nights making sure everything is correct – words cannot express my gratitude. To my three children, Ninelle, Peter Jnr, and Daniël-Alexander – you give meaning and purpose to my life and work. All I do, I do for you. Stellenbosch, 2023

Peter Nagel









Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................... VII Table of Contents ....................................................................................... IX Abbreviations.............................................................................................. XV Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................ 1 A. Problem History ............................................................................................ 1 B. Framing the Problem and Potential Questions ........................................... 10

Chapter 2: Approaching the Literary Conceptual Problem ............. 13 A. Introduction ................................................................................................. 13 B. Literary Conceptual Source and Target Contexts ....................................... 17 C. Theory, Methodology, and Aim ................................................................... 19 D. Definitions, Declarations, and Disclaimers ................................................ 22

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem .............................................. 25 A. Introduction ................................................................................................. 25 I. Excursion: The Term ôǂúóøÏ .............................................................. 26 II. The Literary Conceptual Problem in Perspective ................................ 30 III. A Brief Illustration of the Complexities and Rule of Thumb .............. 32 B. Contextualising the Literary Conceptual Problem ..................................... 38 I. The Transmission Problem: Hebrew Text Traditions .......................... 38 II. The Translation and Transmission Problem: Greek Text Tradition .... 45 III. Theological Explicit Renditions of the Hebrew Esther........................ 52

X

Table of Contents



IV. Sirach, First and Second Maccabees – Some Observations ................. 54 V. The Works of Philo of Alexandria ....................................................... 55 VI. The Works of Flavius Josephus I ......................................................... 57 1. Introduction .................................................................................... 57 2. Antiquitates judaicae ...................................................................... 57 3. Bellum judaicum ............................................................................ 59 4. Contra Apionem ............................................................................. 60 C. The Conceptual and Transmission Problem: New Testament Text Traditions ................................................................... 60 I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 60 II. The Terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ – Reflecting on the Text-Critical Variations ....................................................................... 61 1. Synoptic Gospels ........................................................................... 61 2. Acts of the Apostles ....................................................................... 63 3. Johannine Gospels.......................................................................... 64 4. Pastoral Letters............................................................................... 64 5. Catholic Letters .............................................................................. 66 6. Johannine Epistles .......................................................................... 67 7. Hebrews ......................................................................................... 67 8. Revelation ...................................................................................... 68 III. The Terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ – Reflecting on the Text-Critical Variations and Concepts (Deutero-Pauline) ........................................ 69 1. Colossians ...................................................................................... 69 2. Ephesians ....................................................................................... 70 3. Second Thessalonians .................................................................... 71 D. The Terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ in the Pauline Letters (Non-Citations) .......... 72 I. First Thessalonians .............................................................................. 72 II. Galatians .............................................................................................. 73 III. Philippians and Philemon .................................................................... 75 E. Summary ...................................................................................................... 78

Chapter 4: Explicit ôǂúóøÏandùïǁÏCitations in the Literary Conceptual Context of Romans .............................................. 80 A. Introduction ................................................................................................. 80

Table of Contents

XI

B. Establishing the Explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ Citations .................................. 80 I. Citations with Introductory Formulae.................................................. 80 II. Explicit Citations without Introductory Formulae ............................... 82 1. Romans 11:34 and 1 Corinthians 2:16 ........................................... 82 2. 1 Corinthians 10:26 ........................................................................ 82 3. 2 Corinthians 3:16 .......................................................................... 83 C. Establishing the ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ Literary Conceptual Context ................ 83 I. II. III. IV.

V. VI. VII. VIII. IX.

X.

XI.

XII. XIII. XIV. XV.

XVI.

Romans 1 ............................................................................................. 83 Romans 2 ............................................................................................. 84 Romans 3 ............................................................................................. 89 Romans 4 ............................................................................................. 93 1. Romans 4:3 .................................................................................... 93 2. Romans 4:8 .................................................................................... 96 Romans 5 ............................................................................................. 98 Romans 6 ............................................................................................. 99 Romans 7 ............................................................................................. 99 Romans 8 ........................................................................................... 100 Romans 9 ........................................................................................... 101 1. Romans 9:26 ................................................................................ 102 2. Romans 9:27–28 ....................................................................... 102 3. Romans 9:29 ............................................................................ 104 Romans 10 ..................................................................................... 108 1. Romans 10:13 .......................................................................... 108 2. Romans 10:16 .......................................................................... 109 Romans 11 ..................................................................................... 112 1. Romans 11:3 ............................................................................ 112 2. Romans 11:8 ............................................................................ 115 3. Romans 11:34 .......................................................................... 116 Romans 12 ..................................................................................... 118 Romans 13 ..................................................................................... 120 Romans 14 ..................................................................................... 120 Romans 15 ..................................................................................... 125 1. Romans 15:9 ............................................................................ 125 2. Romans 15:11 .......................................................................... 126 Romans 16 ..................................................................................... 128

D. Summary .................................................................................................... 129 I. Proposed Solution: Theological Conceptual Problems ...................... 129 II. Proposed Solution: Translation and Greek Transition Problems ....... 130

XII

Table of Contents



Chapter 5: Explicit ôǂúóøÏandùïǁÏCitations in the Literary Conceptual Context of First and Second Corinthians .... 132 A. Introduction ............................................................................................... 132 B. Establishing the ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏText in First Corinthians .................... 132 I. II.

III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI.

1 Corinthians 1 ............................................................................ 132 1 Corinthians 2 ............................................................................ 138 1. 1 Corinthians 2:9...................................................... 138 2. 1 Corinthians 2:16.................................................... 139 1 Corinthians 3 ............................................................................ 141 1 Corinthians 4 ............................................................................ 144 1 Corinthians 5 ............................................................................ 144 1 Corinthians 6 ............................................................................ 145 1 Corinthians 7 ............................................................................ 146 1 Corinthians 8 ............................................................................ 147 1 Corinthians 9 ............................................................................ 149 1 Corinthians 10 .......................................................................... 149 1 Corinthians 11 .......................................................................... 152 1 Corinthians 12 .......................................................................... 153 1 Corinthians 13 .......................................................................... 153 1 Corinthians 14 .......................................................................... 153 1 Corinthians 15 .......................................................................... 158 1 Corinthians 16 .......................................................................... 159

C. Establishing the ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏText in Second Corinthians ................ 159 I. II. III. IV. V.

2 Corinthians 1 and 2 .................................................................. 159 2 Corinthians 3 ............................................................................ 160 2 Corinthians 4 ............................................................................ 162 2 Corinthians 5–9 ........................................................................ 163 2 Corinthians 10 .......................................................................... 164

D. Summary .................................................................................................... 166 I. II.

Proposed Solution: Theological Conceptual Problems .................. 166 Proposed Solution: A Translation, Transmission, and Theological Conceptual Problem ............................................ 167

Table of Contents

XIII

Chapter 6: Conclusion: Observations on Paul’s Concept of a Hebrew Deity ....................... 168 A. Introduction ............................................................................................... 168 B. Paul’s Concept of a Hebrew Deity ............................................................ 170 C. Proposals for Future Research .................................................................. 171

Bibliography ............................................................................................... 173 Index of References .................................................................................. 185 Index of Subjects ....................................................................................... 205













List of Abbreviations The abbreviations in this thesis adopt those in Collins, Billie Jean, Bob Buller, and John F. Kutsko (eds.), The SBL Handbook of Style, Second Edition: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014). Only abbreviations not found in the SBL Handbook of Style are noted below. For abbreviation, symbols, characters, and signs relating to text-critical apparatus for New Testament texts, Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, NestleAland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012) was used. The abbreviations, symbols, characters, and signs relating to text-critical apparatus for Greek Old Testament text, the text-critical editions of Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, Göttingen, 1931– , 20 vol. were used. J. Early Christ. Hist. LXXGött LXXRahlfs NTG PsalmsLXX Stellenbosch Theol.J. ʠ S CodexLen CodexAlep

Journal of Early Christian History Göttingen Edition of the Septuagint Alfred Rahlfs’ Edition of the Septuagint Novum Testamentum Graece Septuagint Version of the Psalms Stellenbosch Theological Journal Symbol used for Codex Sinaiticus by NA28 Symbol used for Codex Sinaiticus by LXXGött Codex Leningraden Codex Aleppo













Chapter 1

Introduction A. Problem History A. Problem History

The primary aim of this study is to come to a more nuanced and deeper understanding of Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity. To confirm, this study wants to determine whether Paul conceptualised Jesus as the ÒúóûüǁÏ and ôǂúóøÏ to be a literary conceptual representation of the ‘personal,’ ‘exclusive’ deity known as ʤʥʤʩ; the deity of a Hebrew-speaking people – the Israelites. To this end, the study aims to get a clearer and deeper understanding of how Paul understood, interpreted and conceptualised the terms ôǂúóøÏ ùïǁÏ, and îïûǁüòÏ as possible Greek counterparts for ʤʥʤʩ, ʩʰʥʣʠ, ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʬʠ, and ʩʸʮ.1 To answer the question as to how Paul conceptualised a Hebrew deity, the bridging, integration, and relation of the terms used when referring to such a deity is therefore essential to the study. It demands a specialised focus on the explicit ôǂúóøÏand ùïǁÏ citations in the Pauline literature to gain access to a larger Judean-Hellenistic literary conceptual context. To put it differently, this study will attempt to construct Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity and how he relates his concept to Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏ and Messiah through the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations against a broad Judean-Hellenistic literary conceptual frame of reference. It is due to the scholarly contributions over centuries that this attempt is even remotely possible.2 Research into Paul’s use of the Old Testament was introduced in the 19th century with the work of Emil F. Kautzsch,3 Hans A. Vollmer,4 and Wilhelm Dittmar.5 Kautzsch aimed to compare and determine which of the

 1

Not all these terms will be equally prominent and will be dealt with in-depth. However, they represent a spectrum of possible terms used when reference was made to a Hebrew deity. 2 See the history of research on Paul in Friedrich W. Horn, Paulus Handbuch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 16–41. 3 Emil F. Kautzsch, De Veteris Testamenti Locis a Paulo Apostolo Allegatis (Leipzig: Metzger & Wittig, 1869). 4 Hans A. Vollmer, Die Alttestamentlichen Citate bei Paulus textkritisch und biblischtheologisch gewürdigt (Freiburg, Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1895). 5 Wilhelm Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Die alttestamentlichen Parallelen des Neuen Testaments im Wortlaut der Urtexte und der Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903).

Chapter 1: Introduction

2



Septuagint manuscripts6 relate more closely to Paul’s citations, with the ultimate purpose to establish a more accurate Vorlage.7 Kautzsch’s investigation was foundational and was built on by Vollmer. Dittmar’s investigation into the citations and the possible Vorlage covered the entire New Testament. His comparison included the Masoretic text and the later Symmachus, Theodotian, and Aquila text renditions.8 These early works set the stage for a century-long enquiry into Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures. Lucien Cerfaux, in his article published in 1943,9 realised a need to investigate and focus on those citations that attested to the term ôǂúóøÏ. He interprets them as “texts applied to God” as well as “texts applied to Christ.” E. Earle Ellis10 focused on the rationale underlying the use of the citations by Paul and its theological application.11 Otto Michel’s work,12 particularly the chapter devoted to what Paul understood as “Holy Scripture,” produces valuable insight into what Paul would have understood as “authoritative Scripture.”13 A new era was introduced when Dietrich-Alex Koch realised the magnitude and complexity of the problem when dealing with citations in the Pauline literature. In his extensive and pioneering work, he states: “Zu nennen sind hier die Frage nach der jeweiligen Textvorlage und Textabänderungen in den zahlreichen abweichenden Zitatwiedergaben durch Paulus […].”14 Koch’s statement captures the essence of the dynamics of these citations and their content, and because of his acute awareness of the complexity of the problem, the work he has done is groundbreaking; particularly his meticulous and comprehensive investigation into the various text readings. Koch also dealt, albeit briefly, with the issue of the “Herkunft von KYRIOS in den Schriftzitaten des Paulus,”15 as he confirms the complexity in bridging between ʤʥʤʩ, ʭʩʤʬʠ – ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ.16

 6

Kautzsch, De Veteris, 1–4. 7 In Kautzsch’s comparison, he also accounts for the Masoretic text as a potential Vorlage. 8 See an example of Mt 11:3 in Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo, 22–23. 9 Lucien Cerfaux, “Kyrios’ dans les citations pauliniennes de l'Ancien Testament,” ETL 20 (1943): 5–17. 10 E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957). 11 Ibid., 1. 12 Otto Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972). 13 Ibid., 8–18. 14 Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 9. 15 Ibid., 84–88. 16 Ibid., 84–87.



A. Problem History

3

In his brief investigation into the origin of the term ôǂúóøÏ, Koch makes three preliminary concluding remarks based on literary findings:17 (a) Paul was acquainted with and trusted the fact that the term ôǂúóøÏ was a suitable equivalent for the Tetragram within the oral tradition. That in turn might imply that the term had no new meaning for both Paul and his readers when he employed the citations that contained such a term. (b) Paul was conscious that whenever he used an explicit ôǂúóøÏ citation, its Hebrew counterpart reads ʤʥʤʩ. (c) Paul considered and interpreted such citations as being Christological in nature.

Despite Koch’s extensive work on the Pauline citations, and his preliminary findings regarding the origin of ôǂúóøÏ, he concedes that further investigation into the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations is both necessary and essential. His work was followed by the study done by Richard B. Hays who made it clear that he pursues questions that deviated considerably from those asked by historical criticism, of which Koch’s study is a prime example.18 Hays’ approach is to read the letters as literary texts shaped by complex intertextual relations with Scripture.19 He believes that his intertextual approach may prove theologically fruitful as he attempts to answer questions about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity and the authority of Scripture.20 David B. Capes also gave due attention to the citations in the Pauline literature that attest to the term ôǂúóøÏ.21 He approaches the problem through what he calls the “Old Testament Yahweh-Texts” which for him culminates into Paul’s Christology. Capes structures his line of thought by firstly dealing with the term ôǂúóøÏ in the Septuagint;22 secondly, dealing with Paul’s use of ôǂúóøÏ23 and finally, he moves onto the ‘so-called’ ‘Yahweh’ texts in Paul’s letters followed by some conclusions.24 Capes’ contribution is valuable in the sense that he saw the need to focus on and interpret the ôǂúóøÏ citations. A point of critique, though, is that

 17

Ibid., 87–88. The monographic work of Koch was followed by three articles that continue his line of thought and approach: “Beobachtungen zum christologischen Schriftgebrauch in den vorpaulinischen Gemeinden,” ZNW 71.3–4 (1980): 174–191; “Der Text von Hab.2.4b in der Septuaginta und im Neuen Testament,” ZNW 76.1–2.1/2 (1985): 68–85 and “The Quotations of Isaiah 8,14 and 28,16 in Romans 9,33 and 1 Peter 2,6.8 as Test Case for Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament,” ZNW 101. 2 (2010): 223–240. 18 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (London: Yale University, 1989), xi. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., xii. 21 David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh-Texts in Paul’s Christology, WUNT 24/7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). 22 Ibid., 34–42. 23 Ibid., 43–89. 24 Ibid., 90–183.

Chapter 1: Introduction

4



some of Capes’ conclusions can be described as ‘giant leaps’ which lack a nuanced reflection; Rom 4:7–8 can be taken as an example. Capes introduces Rom 4:7–825 by pointing out some text-critical notes after which he immediately assumes that the LXX text is a verbatim account of its Hebrew counterpart, thus making Rom 4:7–8 a ‘Yahweh-Text.’26 He then draws a general conclusion against a broad literary context of the LXX within the literary context of Rom 3:21–4:8.27 In addition to this conclusion, Cape argues for general themes ‘traditionally’ used by Paul.28 Another fitting example is Rom 11:34. Capes once again makes an ‘uncomplicated’ connection between the LXX and the Hebrew text, whereby he hastily classifies Rom 11:34 as a ‘Yahweh-Text.’29 This critique is not against the fact that he makes these connections, but it is his failure to appreciate the complexity of these connections. He does, however, give a helpful overview of the possible origin of ôǂúóøÏ in the LXX30 while adopting a synchronic approach to Paul’s use of ôǂúóøÏ31 as the denominator when he deals with those citations containing the term ôǂúóøÏ. Capes’ assumption that these citations should be regarded as ‘Yahweh-Texts’ – as if Paul read ʤʥʤʩ when he cited Scripture – cannot be accepted as it lacks an in-depth investigation and appreciation of the textual complexities that cause fundamental discontinuities in his work. In the same year as Capes’ publication, Christopher D. Stanley’s inquest into Paul and the language of Scripture was also made public.32 Stanley noticed and commented on some of the issues surrounding the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ, but to a limited degree.33 His focus was more on the techniques implemented by Paul when he (Paul) used Scripture. Stanley’s discussion on the various proposed techniques of scholars in understanding Paul’s use of Scripture is helpful.34 He convincingly argued for two theses introduced as (1) “that Paul actively adapted the wording of his biblical quotations to communicate his understanding of the passage in question,” and (2) “that, in offering such interpretative renderings of the biblical text, Paul was working consciously but unreflectively within the

 25

Ibid., 156. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid., 157. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., 168–172. 30 Ibid., 56–72. 31 Ibid., 72–151. 32 Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture. Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTS Monograph Series 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992). 33 Stanley’s attempt to establish the text should be commended, see Stanley, Language of Scripture, 67–87; cf. ibid., 84–86 and 176–182. 34 Ibid., 8–28.



A. Problem History

5

accepted literary conventions of his day.”35 Both these theses are adopted here, with the disclaimer that it remains uncertain to what extent Paul allowed his understanding of the citations when they contained the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ. It remains uncertain to what extent Paul allowed himself to reinterpret and conceptualise terms used when reference is made to a Hebrew deity, such as ʤʥʤʩ.36 In 1980 Halvor Moxnes published a study of Paul’s understanding of God in Romans. According to him, the rationale for such a study is that Paul specially focused on God.37 This ‘God-centered’ reading is supported by the frequent use of the term șİȩȢ in the letter.38 He further asserts that the special position of Romans in Paul’s letters is affirmed by the use of the term țȪȡȚȠȢ in quotations from Scripture.39 To this end, he offers a list of quotations found in Romans, a list compiled by Werner Kramer. This list reveals that Kramer, and so too Moxnes, are clear on when the term țȪȡȚȠȢ refers to ‘God’40 and when it refers to Christ41.42 Although he acknowledges that the actual function of the term șİȩȢ within the sentence must also be considered, whether it is used as a subject or in some other position,43 he does not show an appreciation of the complexity surrounding the use of the terms țȪȡȚȠȢ and șİȩȢ and the relationship between these terms. In 1993, a monograph was published under the editorship of Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders that includes contributions from sixteen essayists on Paul and the use of the Scriptures of Israel.44 Two of the studies are of particular interest; the first being from James A. Sanders,45 and the other from J. Christiaan Beker.46 Unfortunately, neither of these studies considered it necessary to reflect on the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ, especially because of their

 35

Stanley, Language of Scripture, 29. 36 Both Koch and Stanley’s inter alia contention is that Paul relied on the Greek Vorlage when he cited Scripture. 37 Halvor Moxnes, Theology in Conflict. Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 15. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., 16 40 Rom 4:8; 9:28, 29; 10:16; 11:3, 34; 12:19; 14:11; 15:11; 1 Cor 3:20; 14:21; 2 Cor 6:17, 18. 41 Rom 10:13; 1 Cor 1:31; 10:21, 22; 2 Cor 3:16, 18; 10:17. 42 See the list in Moxnes, Theology in Conflict, 16. 43 Ibid., 17. 44 Craig A. Evans, and James A. Sanders, Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993). 45 James A. Sanders, “Paul and Theological History,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 52–57. 46 J. Christiaan Beker, “Echoes and Intertextuality. On the Role of Scripture in Paul’s Theology,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 64–69.

Chapter 1: Introduction

6



theological significance. To be fair, they presumably kept to the brief which was to reflect on the work of Richard B. Hays47 by way of addressing various topics.48 Florian Wilk’s49 study explicitly introduced two assumptions, (1) that one cannot assume a priori that Paul’s multi-thematic use of Scripture, resembling Isaiah content, implies that Isaiah as a literary unit – with a coherent message – informs Paul’s thematic approach,50 and (2) because of the uneven separation of the citation in the Pauline literature, he rightfully assumes: “daȕ der Einfluȕ des Jesajabuches sich nicht überall in derselben Weise vollzieht, sondern Entwicklungen oder Wandlungen unterworfen ist.”51 Wilk’s contention is helpful in the sense that it allows a more dynamic and creative interpretative process on the part of Paul.52 In 2002, another attempt was made to account for the use of the Isaiah content by Paul. In this study, Shui-Lun Shum limits the investigation to the Romans epistle.53 With his interest in the hermeneutical techniques and theological aspirations that emerge in the Jewish Sibyls and Qumran sectarian manuscripts in mind,54 Shum assumes that the uniqueness of Paul’s use of Scripture can only be fully appreciated if it is considered in comparison with his fellow kinsmen.55 Shum’s decision to use Jewish Sibyls and Qumran sectarian manuscripts as comparative literature, while focusing on the book of Isaiah, opens a variety of ‘source’ possibilities and places the spotlight on the Jewish character of the citations in the Pauline literature. His acknowledgement of, and attention to, the Judean character of these citations is a valuable contribution that is often underappreciated. To add to this, he too embraces the complexity of the ôǂúóøÏ or ùïǁÏ problem in his reference to Paul’s possible Vorlage with reference to

 47

Hays, Echoes of Scripture, xi. 48 In the same year as the publication of Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, James W. Aageson published his monograph, Written Also for Our Sake. Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992). Aageson’s approach is very similar to that of Hays due to his (Aageson’s) interest in how biblical text is used, interpreted, and taught. Aageson focused on ‘Old Testament’ themes interpreted by Paul for the Christian tradition. 49 Florian Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). 50 Ibid., 12–13. 51 Ibid., 13. 52 Wilk also perceived the ôǂúóøÏ-Tetragram problem when he dealt with the Isaiah citations in Paul, but he did not pursue the issue any further than mere reference, ibid., 364–367. One would have expected a more extensive reflection from Wilk on this matter because at least twenty-five explicit citations, of which ten are taken from Isaiah, reflect the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ (See RȠm 9:29; RȠm 10:16; RȠm 14:11 [quoting Isa 45:23 and Isa 49:18] and 1 Cor 2:16). 53 Shui-Lun Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 54 Ibid., 2. 55 Ibid., 1.



A. Problem History

7

ʤʥʤʩ.56 In a recent monographically work on Paul’s use of Scripture, J. Ross Wagner recognises the detail offered in the work done by Koch, Stanley, and Lim. He is cognisant of their approach, even though his method in reconstructing Paul’s Vorlage is more in line with the work of Hays as he seeks to uncover the hermeneutical logic that guides Paul’s reinterpretation of Scripture.57 That being said, his methodology deviates from that of Hays as he systematically employs a textcritical investigation of Paul’s Vorlage as a tool for exposing Paul’s interpretive strategies and aims.58 What Wagner accomplished, is to expose Paul’s strategies and aim for a better understanding of how he (Paul) interpreted ôǂúóøÏ or ùïǁÏ in light of ʤʥʤʩ. Several scholars refined the citation in the Pauline literature as a broad research area by focusing on specific aspects of Paul’s use of Scripture.59 Examples include Robert B. Hughes60 who zooms into the textual and hermeneutical issues in the Corinthian correspondence as he states that his study will “endeavour to understand the Old Testament through the mind of one New Testament

 56

Shum, Isaiah in Romans, 205–215. 57 J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News. Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2002). He concurs with both Dietrich-Alex Koch and Christopher D. Stanley that Paul relied on Greek Vorlagen when he cited Scripture and that Paul himself adapted the citations, ibid., 6. Wagner also dealt with Isaiah citations in Paul, but he narrowed it down to Isa 51–55 in “The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul. An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51–55 in Romans,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant. Isaiah 53 and Christian Origin, ed. William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998), 193–222. What Wagner did is to apply the thematic criterion, proposed in an article by Hays, to the question of Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans, ibid., 194. His aim was to, and I quote: “attempt a more wide-ranging account of the influence of the larger ‘story’ of Isaiah 51–55 on the ‘story’ underlying Paul’s argument in Romans,” ibid., 195. 58 Determining the Vorlage is of lesser importance for Leonard J. Greenspoon, “The Historical Context. By the Letter? Word for Word? The Role of Memory in Paul’s Citation of Scripture,” in Paul and Scripture. Extending the Conversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012), 10–16, who is of the opinion that Paul cited Scripture from memory in some instances, while arguing for Paul’s memory skill and the ‘lack of’ the availability of written material. 59 The contribution of Gert J. Steyn, “The Text Form of the Torah Quotations Common to the Corpus Philonocum and Paul’s Corinthian Correspondence,” in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Essays in Honour of Maarten J. J. Menken, NovTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 193–210, is worth mentioning. His study, in part, is an attempt to answer the question whether an old Greek version of the Torah can be constructed. Harm W. Hollander, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and His Attack on Apollos’ Adherence in Corinth,” in The Scripture of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Essays in Honour of Maarten J. J. Menken, NovTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 179–191, turned to the Old Testament citations in the Corinthian correspondence to resolve the Apollos conflict issue. 60 Robert B. Hughes, “Textual and Hermeneutical Aspects of Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in 1 and 2 Corinthians,” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1978).

Chapter 1: Introduction

8



writer, the Apostle Paul, as seen in his use of explicit quotations in First and Second Corinthians.”61 In an article published in 1985, Roy A. Harrisville presents a ‘formal study’ of Paul and the Psalms62 in which he deals with some peculiarities in Paul’s use of the Psalms. Wendell L. Willis focuses on 1 Cor 2:16. His interest is the problem of the ‘Mind of Christ’ as it occurs in the literary context of 1 Cor 2:6–16,63 while C. Kavin Rowe searched for the name of the ‘Lord’ through the lens of Rom 10:13.64 Jean-Noël Aletti directs his attention to Romans 4 and the role Genesis 17 plays.65 In this article, he proposes the technique of Gezerah Shawah66 used by Paul as a technique to better understand the use of Genesis 17 in Romans 4.67 James W. Aageson narrows down the field of research in his monograph as he focuses his attention on Romans 9–11 in a comparative study of biblical interpretation.68 His thesis is based on two basic arguments, (1) that Paul’s methods in using Scripture are largely adaptations of methods found in a wide range of early Judean sources, and (2) that the latter method is fundamental to the theological development of Romans 9–11.69 Jared W. Ludlow asserts that the primary use of the Old Testament texts by the earliest Christians was to highlight the fulfilment and the awaited expectation of the Messiah.70 This, according to him, is how Paul used the Old Testament; it is prophecy

 61

Ibid., 2. 62 Roy A. Harrisville, “Paul and the Psalms. A Formal Study,” Word & World 5.2 (1985): 168–179. 63 Wendell L. Willis, “The ‘Mind of Christ’ in 1 Corinthians 2:16,” Bib 70.1 (1989): 110–122. 64 C. Kavin Rowe, “Romans 10:13. What is the Name of the Lord?” HBT 22.1 (2000): 135–173. 65 Jean-Noël Aletti, “Romans 4 et Genèse 17. Quelle énigme et quelle solution?” Bib 84.3 (2003): 305–325. 66 A rabbinic principle, the second of Hillel’s exegetical rules. 67 Aletti, “Romans 4 et Genèse”; cf. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh-Texts, 155. Geoffrey Turner, “Paul and the Old Testament. His Legacy and Ours,” New Blackfriars 91.1032 (2010): 128–141, acknowledges the notion that Paul was trained in traditional Rabbinic techniques and used them when quoting Scripture, ibid., 128; an idea introduced and extensively unpacked by Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM Press, 1991). According to his classical consultation, Geoffrey also asserts that citations are written more freely and less explicitly, which implies that there is a lot more “Old Testament content” compared to the suggestions varying between 70–89 explicit citations, ibid., 130–131. He distinguishes between a citation and quotation; the former is when Paul says he is quoting from Scripture, whereas the latter is not made explicit, ibid., 131. 68 James W. Aageson, Paul’s Use of Scripture. A Comparative Study of Biblical Interpretation in Early Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament With Special Reference to Romans 9–11 (Oxford: Oxford University, 1983). 69 Ibid., 2. 70 Jared W. Ludlow, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament Scripture,” in How the New Testament Came to Be. The Thirty-Fifth Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd, Jr. (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2006), 227–242.



A. Problem History

9

fulfilment and expectations,71 but concedes that Paul’s citations went beyond showing fulfilment.72 In his publication, Brian J. Abasciano contributes to a more nuanced understanding of Paul’s use of the Old Testament in Rom 9:10–18.73 Abasciano investigates the ‘source context’ of the citations. This ‘source context’ refers to the standard grammatical-historical exegesis of a New Testament text that alludes to the Old Testament, informed by a detailed analysis of the author’s use of Scripture that entails exegeting the Old Testament text in its original context.74 The study is helpful in that it offers an in-depth analysis of the source context against which to interpret the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in Rom 9:26–29; even though Abasciano could not conclusively solve the ‘sourcing’ issue in Rom 9:26–29. In a 2019 publication by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land,75 none of the essayists considered it important to deal with the term ôǂúóøÏorùïǁÏ as it is presented in the citations; not even the considerations and new proposals made by Porter and Land themselves.76 Colin G. Kruse’s77 discussion on the use of Scripture in Romans and Arland J. Hultgren’s78 determination of the status and role of Israel’s Scripture in the Pastoral epistles realise the need to account for the use of the term ôǂúóøÏandùïǁÏ in the citations. In a recent study, Tilling offers a very insightful history of research on the question of whether Paul’s Christology is divine or not.79 One of the questions Tilling’s thesis centres around is how Paul’s Jewish-like faith in ‘God’ affect our understanding of his Christology.80 He goes on to postulate that anyone examining Pauline Christology must say something about Paul’s faith in ‘God’ because they belong together and that a faulty notion of Paul’s faith in ‘God’ will obscure a Christological study.81 His theory is premised on the ‘transcendent uniqueness’ of the ‘God’ of the Old Testament. He argues the latter by determining what the major Old Testament Theologies detail about monotheism, OT-related

 71

Ibid., 228. 72 Ibid. It can be argued that Paul’s use of the Old Testament citations is predominately not concerned with the idea of fulfilment. The nine categories identified by Ludlow reveal a ‘creative’ interpretation of the citations – guilty of overstretching it. 73 Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10–18. An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (London: Bloomsbury, 2011). 74 Ibid., 1. 75 Stanley E. Porter, and Christopher D. Land, eds., Paul and Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2019). 76 Ibid., 7–30. 77 Colin G. Kruse, “Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans,” in Paul and Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 77–92. 78 Arland J. Hultgren, “The Pastoral Epistles and the Scriptures of Israel,” in Paul and Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 372–390. 79 Chris Tilling, Paul’s Divine Christology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 11–33. 80 Ibid., 63. 81 Ibid.

Chapter 1: Introduction

10



monographs, and of course Paul.82 He concludes by suggesting that “If God was understood, and faith in him expressed, in a thoroughly relational manner, then one would expect to find God’s uniqueness likewise expressed. i.e., relationally.” The repetition of the Shema twice a day by devoted Jews implies “an understanding of God’s unique identity – YHWH’s oneness – as intrinsically tied to the relationally accented notion of loving commitment to God.”83 He postulates that Jews, such as Paul, maintained the uniqueness of ‘God’ by the unique YHWHrelation.84 Tilling concludes that the ‘Christ-relation’ was Paul’s way of expressing the function of a divine Christology in chronological matters.85 Tilling, however, does not appreciate the nuances and complexity of referencing a Hebrew deity, he refers to as ‘God’.

B. Framing the Problem and Potential Questions B. Framing the Problem and Potential Questions

In all fairness to the scholars who have contributed immensely to come to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how Paul used Hebrew Scriptures, they could not have answered all the questions and solved the numerous problems produced by Paul’s use of the Old Testament.86 There are thus several unanswered questions and unresolved problems that demand attention. It remains uncertain as to how Paul understood, interpreted, and conceptualised the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ; more so, how Paul related these concepts with Jesus as the ÒúóûüǁÏ and ôǂúóøÏ. It is not clear whether Paul shared the general rule of thumb idea that the terms ôǂúóøÏandùïǁÏ were the Greek equivalents for ʭʩʤʬʠ and ʤʥʤʩ respectively.87 It is irresponsible to infer that it is obvious what these Hebrew terms meant for Paul and whether he shared the presumed ‘generally expected view’ of the translators of the Greek Old Testament that the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ are the most suitable Greek equivalents for ʭʩʤʬʠ and ʤʥʤʩ. These are all issues embedded in a complex transmission and transition history. To add to the complexity, Paul used the term ôǂúóøÏ when he referred to Jesus,

 82

Ibid., 66. 83 Ibid., 71. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid., 256. 86 Although Harrisville, Willis, Wagner, and Aletti implicitly deal with the ôǂúóøÏ citations in one way or another, they do not consider it necessary to investigate the apparent questions posed by the appearance of the term ôǂúóøÏ in the citations. Rowe, on the other hand, found it necessary to pursue problems posed by the latter term. He does this using a synchronic analysis in both the literary contexts of Rom 10:13 and Joel 2:32. 87 The insightful study of Paula Fredriksen, “How Jewish Is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology,” JBL 137.1 (2018): 193–212, postulates that for gentile Christian theologians – during the second century – God the father (the high god formerly of Jewish tradition) lost his Jewish identity, ibid., 210.



B. Framing the Problem and Potential Questions

11

a term also used to refer to a Hebrew deity. The implication is that Paul might have conceptually bridged qualities associated with the term ôǂúóøÏ as in ʤʥʤʩ and ôǂúóøÏ as a reference to Jesus. One is therefore inclined to ask whether Paul had a coherent understanding of a Hebrew deity. It is erroneous to think that the transmission, transition, and translation issues began with Paul as a Hellenised-diaspora Judean attempting to interpret and relate the events surrounding Jesus with the Judean faith. These issues have a history that began when humans started using language in its most primitive form to express how they perceived the ‘supernatural’ powers to be. The imminent relevance here is the Hebrew people, their Scripture, and subsequent faith. To briefly illustrate what type of issues one is faced with when dealing with the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations, some remarks on Rom 2:24. In this instance, Paul is quoting from Isa 52:5c; a passage that speaks of ôǂúóøÏ and the blasphemy of ‘his’ name. The Hebrew counterpart, in turn, reads ʤʥʤʩ. Paul deploys the term ùïǁÏ. If one assumes that a Hebrew Vorlage read ʤʥʤʩ and that the rule of thumb that the term ôǂúóøÏ is the expected Greek translation for ʤʥʤʩ is upheld, then Paul used a different ‘source text’ or he deliberately deviated from his Vorlage to be more in line with his conceptual thoughts. Paul, however, is consistent in his use of the term ùïǁÏ within its immediate literary conceptual context, but what seems less certain is how Paul conceptualises and relates, (1) the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ within the literary conceptual source context (source concept), (2) the terms ôǂúóøÏand ùïǁÏ in the explicit citations and Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏandÒúóûüǁÏcitationtarget concept), and (3) the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ within the literary conceptual target context. Ultimately, the uncertainty revolves around what terms Paul preferred when referring to a Hebrew deity, and what Paul’s cognition was when he conceptualised a Hebrew deity while referring to Jesus. These uncertainties bring about several questions: What textual sources are used for the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations? Why are there so many variations and inconsistencies when it comes to terms used to reference a Hebrew deity? Is it justified to assume that Paul ‘copied’ from a Greek Old Testament text; a version of which is constructed by the LXXGött.88 The latter prompts one to ask to what extent other Hellenistic and Judean literature influenced Paul. What informed Paul’s process of cognition when it came to the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations? To this end, how influential was a ‘general’ Hellenistic concept of these terms? Did Paul develop his concept of ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ? Was Paul predominately influenced by a more Hellenistic or a Judean frame of conceptual reference? What was the relationship between the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic

 88

The LXXGött produces the most reliable critical version of a Greek Old Testament text(s) (i.e., an ‘Old Greek version’) that might have been, albeit in part, in circulation during the first century CE. Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 86, remarks, rightly so, that the constructed Greek text is fundamentally later Christian.

Chapter 1: Introduction

12



languages at the time of Paul? Did Paul make use of oral or literary sources or both? Which concepts can be identified as the creative process of Paul and which formed part of his written Vorlage, or were these concepts conceivably taken from memory or perhaps liturgical traditions? Where and how did Paul find the content that he is citing? These are all valid questions that need to be attended to – some more difficult than others and many potentially unanswerable. The ultimate question, however, is how Paul conceptualised a Hebrew deity. All these questions are simmering at the core of the problem of how a Hebrew deity is represented in the Pauline literature. Did these citations contribute to Paul’s understanding and portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth? Are there any literary conceptual traces that Paul conceptualised Jesus as the ʤʥʤʩ of Israel? Is there any reason to assert that the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations are the conceptual bridge between Jesus of Nazareth and ʤʥʤʩ, ʩʰʥʣʠ, ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʬʠ, and ʩʸʮ as to conceptualise him as the ôǂúóøÏ and/or ùïǁÏ? What is the relationship between ʤʥʤʩ, ʩʰʥʣʠ, ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʬʠ, ʩʸʮ and ôǂúóøÏ, ùïǁÏ, and îƽûøüòÏ? The complexity level of these questions is amplified by the realisation that there is no Greek manuscript of Judean origin in existence, as far as it is known today, where the term ʤʥʤʩ is rendered in Greek by an uncontracted89 ôǂúóøÏ term. One should be realistic and admit that not all the questions will be answered in this study. The extent of these questions, and possible answers, is the product of many monographs and other forms of research output. Some of these questions will be attended to as the study seeks to find a potential answer to the question of how Paul conceptualised a Hebrew deity, and how impactful the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations are in determining Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity in relation to Jesus as ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ. The problem is therefore not only how Paul conceptualised a Hebrew deity in relation to Jesus, but also the variety of Hebrew and Greek terms used – past and present – to refer to a Hebrew deity and qualify and classify Jesus of Nazareth.

 89

The so-called ‘contracted’ form of certain words, investigated as nomina sacra, see Larry W. Hurtado, “The Origin of the Nomina Sacra. A Proposal,” JBL 117.4 (1998): 655–673, occurs when the first and last letter of such word is contracted while disposing of the letters in-between. The uncontracted form is where such a process is not visible, in other words, the word is written out in full.All available New Testament manuscripts considered and reworked in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, notably ðϰϲ, represent the term ôǂúóøÏ* whilst ùïǁÏ use the nomina sacra as an early Christian scribal practice, cf. David C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2008), 21.

Chapter 2

Approaching the Literary Conceptual Problem A. Introduction A. Introduction

As a Hellenised diaspora Judean, Paul’s cognitive processes in how he conceptualised things during the first three-quarters of the common era are not only of value for Judaism but also for early Christianity. To be more precise, how Paul conceptualised a Hebrew deity in relation to Jesus of Nazareth is certainly one of the most fundamental issues to come to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how Paul cognitively transitioned from being ‘exclusively’ Judean to a Judean and follower of Jesus as the ÒúóûüǁÏ and ôǂúóøÏ. To get to such a refined understanding, this study will approach the subject matter from an intra- and inter-textual point of view as the study focuses on essential Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek terms when reference is made to a Hebrew deity and Jesus.1 The study will allow itself to be guided by conceptual source and target contexts with a precise and dedicated focus on the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏto construct a plausible Pauline cognition of a Hebrew deity. To confirm, the focal point of this study is to conduct an in-depth investigation into the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in the Pauline literature. It will trace the conceptualisation process from a broad Hebrew and Greek conceptual frame of reference to Paul’s frame of conceptual reference by restricting the potential conceptual forming space to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts dated to the 3rd century BCE and 2nd century CE – attesting to the relevant terms used when reference is made to a Hebrew deity. An appropriate and reasonable point of departure is the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in the Pauline literature. To substantiate the rationale behind this approach and focus, the following: (a) With explicit citations, one can determine an Old Testament source context more accurately. (b) Being explicit about the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ ensures that one deals with relevant Greek and Hebrew terms associated with a Hebrew deity.

 1

The intersection of texts and their literary contexts offer blended mental spaces which guarantee a process of dynamic and creative constructors of meaning and conceptualisations. It is what Mark Turner, The Literary Mind (Oxford: Oxford University, 1996) refers to as a “small special story” – a universal human capacity for recognizing and executing “small special stories,” central to the act of ‘thinking,’ ibid., 12–14.

Chapter 2: Approaching the Literary Conceptual Problem

14



(c) Explicit citations offer the potential to construct a history from a literary conceptual source to a target context. (d) The Pauline literature is considered the oldest New Testament evidence available to construct a Jesus movement of the first century in relation to Judaism. (e) It allows for a verifiable literary conceptual link between the Old and New Testament, between a Hebrew and Greek frame of conceptual reference.

The explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in the Pauline literature are ‘conceptual wormholes’; they are ‘literary conceptual tunnels’ connecting various Hebrew and Greek terms from different conceptual spaces and a distant time with a conceptual space dominated by Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ. It is the best possible entry point into the mind of Paul and how he conceptualised a Hebrew deity in relation to Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ. The citations also contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how Hebrew Scriptures were interpreted in a Judean-Hellenistic literary context. An investigation into the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations will ultimately lead to a revitalised understanding of Paul’s theology, Christology, and kyriology; all of which in some way or form reveal Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity as a potentially ‘monotheistic’ creator deity in relation to Jesus as the crucified one who became a ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ. The explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations as ‘conceptual wormholes’ necessitate an investigation, as already stated, into a broad literary conceptual context of manuscripts dated between the third century BCE and second century CE attesting to Hebrew and Greek terms used when reference is made to a Hebrew deity. This will lay a literary conceptual foundation from which the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations will be analysed; a foundation filled with manuscript data from the Judean desert, First and Second Maccabees, Sirach, Philo of Alexandria, and Flavius Josephus.2 As scribes produced text and literature during the first three centuries BCE and CE respectively, within a Judean-Hellenistic setting, they had to conceptualise a Hebrew deity and find suitable Hebrew and Greek terms that will best represent their concept of this deity. These concepts reflect a time of political turmoil, religious fragmentation, transmission, transition, and translation that amounts to enormous theological potential, relevance, and value. The entry- and exit point of how Paul conceptualised a Hebrew deity is therefore the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations as listed in table 1.

 2

The aim and focus of this study will not allow for an in-depth analysis of these literary sources; the intent is to rather give a general overview of the Hebrew and Greek terms used when reference is made to a Hebrew deity.



A. Introduction

15

Table 1: Identified Explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ Citations3 Reference – target text Romans epistle Rom 2:24

Reference – source text

Citation – text

Isa 52:5c

Rom 3:11

Ps 13:2c

Rom 3:18

Ps 35:2b

Rom 4:3

Gen 15:6

Rom 4:8

Ps 31:2a

Rom 9:26

Hos 2:1c–d

Rom 9:28

Isa 10:22c–23

Rom 9:29

Isa 1:9

Rom 10:13

Joel 2:32a

Rom 10:16

Isa 53:1a

Rom 11:2c–3

3 Kgdms 19:10

Rom 11:8

Deut 29:3

Rom 11:34

Isa 40:13a–b1

Rom 12:19c

Deut 32:35a

üļñąúŁ÷øöëüøŶùïøŶîó‫ތ‬ŷöĆÏ ìõëûƫòöïŦüëóĠ÷üøŦÏġù÷ïûó÷,ôëùŅÏ ñƽñúëüëó øŻôġûüó÷Ľûý÷ǀþ÷øŻôġûüó÷Ľ Ġôāòüņ÷üļ÷ùïǁ÷ øŻôġûüó÷ƫǁìøÏùïøŶċƽ÷ë÷üóüņ÷ ŀƫùëõöņ÷ëŻüņ÷ üǀñąúħñúëƫĥõƽñïó*Ġǀûüïýûï÷îĜ ɔìúëąöüŒùïŒôëťĠõøñǀûùòëŻüŒïūÏ îóôëóøûǂ÷ò÷ öëôƼúóøÏċ÷ĥúøźøŻöĥõøñǀûòüëó ôǂúóøÏćöëúüǀë÷ ôëťġûüëóĠ÷üŒüǁŏøźĠúúƽùò ëŻüøŦÏ"øŻõëǁÏöøýŷöïŦÏĠôïŦ ôõòùƿûø÷üëóýŧøťùïøŶāņ÷üøÏ õǁñø÷ñąúûý÷üïõņ÷ôëťûý÷üƽö÷þ÷ øóƿûïóôǂúóøÏĠťüĦÏñĦÏ ôëťôëùŅÏúøïǀúòôï÷ɱûëDŽëÏ"ïūöĥ ôǂúóøÏûëìëŅùĠñôëüƽõóï÷ħöŦ÷ ûƽúöë,ŇÏáǁîøöëč÷Ġñï÷ƿùòöï÷ôëť ŇÏÖǁöøúúëč÷öøóǃùòöï÷  ĆÏñąúĿÏč÷Ġóôëõƽûòüëóüļł÷øöë ôýúǀøýûþùƿûïüëó ɔõõ‫ތ‬øŻƼ÷üïÏŷƿôøýûë÷üŒ ïŻëññïõǀŏ ɱûëDŽëÏñąúõƽñïó"ôǂúóï üǀÏĠǀûüïýûï÷üIJċôøIJħöņ÷ ĭøŻôøŬîëüïĠ÷ɱõǀďüǀõƽñïóħ ñúëƫƿŇÏĠ÷üýñíƼ÷ïóüŒùïŒôëüą üøŶʄûúëƿõ*3ôǂúóïüøŵÏúøƫƿüëÏ ûøýċƽôüïó÷ë÷üąùýûóëûüƿúóƼûøý ôëüƽûôëĀë÷ôċñŅŷïõïǀƫùò÷öǁ÷øÏ ôëťāòüøŶûó÷üĥ÷Āýíƿ÷öøý ôëùŅÏñƽñúëüëó"ġîþôï÷ëŻüøŦÏĽ ùïļÏ÷ïŶöëôëüë÷ǂÿïþÏŀƫùëõöøŵÏ üøŶöĥìõƽïó÷ôëťŎüëüøŶöĥ ċôøǂïó÷ĞþÏüĦÏûƿöïúø÷ħöƽúëÏ üǀÏñąúġñ÷þ÷øŶ÷ôýúǀøý*ĭüǀÏ ûǂöìøýõøÏëŻüøŶĠñƽ÷ïüø öĥĝëýüøŵÏĠôîóôøŶ÷üïÏċñëòüøǀ ċõõąîǁüïüǁø÷üIJŀúñIJñƽñúëüëó ñƼú"ĠöøťĠôîǀôòûóÏĠñŅ ċ÷üëøîǃûþõƽñïóôǂúóøÏ

 3

Cf. Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 21–23 and Stanley, Language of Scripture, 65–66.

16

Chapter 2: Approaching the Literary Conceptual Problem

Rom 14:11a

Isa 49:18c / 45:22c

Rom 14:11b–c

Isa 45:23d

Rom 15:9b–d

Ps 17:50

Rom 15:11

Ps 116:1

Corinthian Correspondence 1 Cor 1:31 Jer 9:24a 1 Cor 2:9

Isa 64:3

1 Cor 2:16

Isa 40:13a–c

1 Cor 3:20

Ps 93:11

1 Cor 10:26

Ps 23:1b

1 Cor 14:21

Isa 28:11–13a

2 Cor 3:16

Exod 34:34a

2 Cor 10:17

Jer 9:24a

ñƽñúëüëóñƼú"āņĠñǃõƽñïóôǂúóøÏ ľüóĠöøťôƼöĀïóĆ÷ñǁ÷ý ľüóĠöøťôƼöĀïóĆ÷ñǁ÷ýôëťĆûë ñõņûûëĠÿøöøõøñƿûïüëóüŒùïŒ ôëùŅÏñƽñúëüëó"îóąüøŶüø ĠÿøöøõøñƿûøöëǀûøóĠ÷ġù÷ïûó÷ôëťüŒ ŀ÷ǁöëüǀûøýĀëõņ ôëťƼõó÷"ëū÷ïŦüïƼ÷üëüąġù÷ò üļ÷ôǂúóø÷ôëťĠëó÷ïûƼüþûë÷ëŻüļ÷ Ƽ÷üïÏøŧõëøǀ  Ũ÷ëôëùŅÏñƽñúëüëó"Ľôëýíǃöï÷øÏ Ġ÷ôýúǀŏôëýíƼûùþ ċõõąôëùŅÏñƽñúëüëó"ĉŀƫùëõöļÏ øŻôïŮîï÷ôëťøžÏøŻôĬôøýûï÷ôëťĠť ôëúîǀë÷ċ÷ùúǃøýøŻôċ÷ƽìòĉ ħüøǀöëûï÷ĽùïļÏüøŦÏċñëņûó÷ ëŻüǁ÷ üǀÏñąúġñ÷þ÷øŶ÷ôýúǀøýĿÏ ûýöìóìƼûïóëŻüǁ÷*ħöïŦÏîĜ÷øŶ÷ ÒúóûüøŶġíøöï÷ ôëťƼõó÷"ôǂúóøÏñó÷ǃûôïóüøŵÏ îóëõøñóûöøŵÏüņ÷ûøƫņ÷ľüóïūûť÷ öƼüëóøó üøŶôýúǀøýñąúħñĦôëťüļõƿúþöë ëŻüĦÏ Ġ÷üŒ÷ǁöŏñƽñúëüëóľüóĠ÷ ĝüïúøñõǃûûøóÏôëťĠ÷íïǀõïûó÷ĝüƽúþ÷ õëõƿûþüŒõëŒüøǂüŏôëťøŻî‫ތ‬øŸüþÏ ïūûëôøǂûø÷üëǀöøýõƽñïóôǂúóøÏ ħ÷ǀôëîĜĠą÷ĠóûüúƽĀįúļÏôǂúóø÷ ïúóëóúïŦüëóüļôƼõýööë ʑîĜôëýíǃöï÷øÏĠ÷ôýúǀŏôëýíƼûùþ





B. Literar Conceptual Source

17

B. Literary Conceptual Source and Target Contexts4 B. Literar Conceptual Source

The explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations are divided into two primary categories, each of which contains sub-categories. The primary categories are defined as the ‘literary conceptual source context’ and ‘literary conceptual target context’ with the sub-categories identified as ‘Pentateuch,’ ‘The prophet Isaiah,’ ‘The Psalms,’ and ‘other’; as well as the ‘Romans epistle’ and ‘First and Second Corinthians’ as literary conceptual target contexts. Both sub-groups are shown in what appears to be one table divided into two comparative columns. Table 2, however, should be viewed as two independent columns placed side-by-side in a single table and are therefore not in comparison with each other. Table 2: Literary Conceptual Source and Target Contexts Literary Source Context Pentateuch (Torah / Five books of Moses) Gen 15:6 Deut 29:3 Deut 32:35a Exod 34:34a

Literary Target Context Romans epistle Rom 2:24 Rom 3:11 Rom 3:18 Rom 4:3 Rom 4:8 Rom 9:26 Rom 9:28 Rom 9:29 Rom 10:13 Rom 10:16 Rom 11:2c–3 Rom 11:8 Rom 11:34 Rom 12:19 Rom 14:11 Rom 15:9 Rom 15:11

The prophet Isaiah Isa 52:5c Isa 10:22c–23 Isa 1:9 Isa 53:1a Isa 40:13a–b1 Isa 49:18c Isa 45:22c–23d Isa 64:3 Isa 28:11–13a

 4

This literary conceptual source and target contexts can easily be defined as ‘mental’ or ‘input’ spaces brought together and integrated (blended) to form a ‘newly’ developed conceptual structure; cf. Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jörg Schmid, An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Second edition (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2006), 259. These source and target contexts can also be defined as ‘semantic frames’ (a knowledge structure), cf. Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green, Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, 2006), 220. They are also ‘mental spaces’ and ‘conceptual domains’ as Evans and Green write that “Meaning construction is the process whereby language ‘prompts for’ novel genitive representations of varying degrees of complexity […] sentences work as ‘partial instructions’ for the construction of complex but temporary conceptual domains […] these domains are called mental spaces,” ibid., 363.

Chapter 2: Approaching the Literary Conceptual Problem

18



1st Corinthian epistle 1 Cor 1:31 1 Cor 2:9 1 Cor 2:16 1 Cor 3:20 1 Cor 10:26 1 Cor 14:21

The Psalms Ps 13:2c Ps 35:2b Ps 31:2a Ps 116:1 Ps 17:50 Ps 93:11 Ps 23:1b

2nd Corinthian epistle 2 Cor 3:16 2 Cor 10:17 Other Hos 2:1c–d Joel 2:32a 3 Kgdms 19:10 Jer 9:24a

These citations are identified and classified as explicit ôǂúóøÏ or ùïǁÏ citations based on the following criteria:5 (a) When either the term ôǂúóøÏ or ùïǁÏ form part of the source or target text. (b) If it is introduced by a typical introductory formula, e.g.,ôëùŅÏñƽñúëüëó,ħñúëƫĥ õƽñïó,Óëýťîõƽñïó,üŒʡûòĜõƽñïó,ɱûëDŽëÏîĜôúƼāïóŷĜúüøŶʄûúëƿõ,ôëùŅÏ úøïǀúòôï÷ɱûëDŽëÏ, with one or two exceptions. (c) If the correspondence ratio between the source and target text is 80% and above. (d) When and if the author makes it explicit that he is dealing with a citation. (e) When the word order stylistically interrupts the literary target context.

In some instances, the identification process of the source context is undecided; the most uncomplicated identification is when an introductory formula was used, e.g., ôëùŅÏ úøïǀúòôï÷ ɱûëDŽëÏ in Rom 9:29. The identification of these citations relies on research done on the citations in the Pauline literature that stretches over a century, rendering the constructed source and target contexts as reliable. A subsequent result of the identified source and target contexts is that they determine the literary parameters, delineations and focus of the study while allowing for enough scope to broaden the literary conceptual base. In addition to the literary parameters, it is posited that Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity was predominately formed by both Hebrew and Greek cognitive constructs,6 and they are:

 5

Cf. Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 13–15; Stanley, Language of Scripture, 67–79; Wilk, Die Bedeutung, 16–58. 6 It is not suggested that these are the only constructs that influenced Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity. It is, however, accepted that based on the literary evidence at hand, these Hebrew and Greek constructs had a dominant influence on Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity.



C. Theory, Methodology, and Aim

19

(a) The Hebrew terms ʤʥʤʩ, ʩʰʥʣʠ, ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʬʠ, and ʩʸʮ. (b) Paul’s application of a Hebrew deity as represented by either the term ùïǁÏ and/or ôǂúóøÏ in relation to Jesus as ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ.

The aim is not to construct a precise concept of a Hebrew deity as it was conceptualised in the mind of Paul, but rather to propose a plausible construct of a Hebrew deity based on literary evidence. The mere fact that Paul used explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in relation to, and in combination with, Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ is a sufficient reason to ask the question and seek an answer for “how did Paul understand, interpret and conceptualise a Hebrew deity in relation to Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏand ÒúóûüǁÏ?” The following objectives will be central in the attempt to propose a possible answer to this question: (a) Determine the literary conceptual problem by establishing a textual history of the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ as ‘suitable’ Greek equivalent terms to reproduce and represent a Hebrew deity in textual form. (b) Establish and discuss the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations – within its literary conceptual target context – against a literary conceptual source context. (c) Establish the literary and conceptual relationship between the term ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ as well as with Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ in the Roman and Corinthian correspondence.

To determine and construct a possible concept of a Hebrew deity as it might have been conceptualised in the mind of Paul – and how he related that construct to Jesus – is an intricate endeavour. The complexity of the matter is amplified by the development of how a Hebrew deity was conceptualised throughout the history of Israel, the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek and the subsequent ‘reconceptualisation’ of a Hebrew deity. This ‘reconceptualisation’ further complicated matters as it introduces a new dimension of the literary conceptual problem; vis-à-vis the challenge of finding suitable Greek equivalents, especially for the most sacred of all, the ‘name’ of a Hebrew deity, ʤʥʤʩ. All of this culminates into a melting pot of conceptual challenges and possibilities when Paul unleashes explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏin a literary conceptual context that is constituted by Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ.

C. Theory, Methodology, and Aim C. Theory, Methodology, and Aim

To adequately address the culmination of complexities in conceptualized a Hebrew deity as a main character of the Old Testament in relation to the main character of the New Testament, namely Jesus, the following steps are essential:

Chapter 2: Approaching the Literary Conceptual Problem

20



(a) Step 1 is to determine which Hebrew terms were used to conceptualise a Hebrew deity and to construct a Hebrew frame of conceptual reference during the last three centuries BCE. To assist with this step, the manuscripts found in and around the Judean and Sinai deserts will be investigated. The data will inform the construction of a conceptual transmission problem. (b) Step 2 is to establish which Greek terms were used as suitable equivalents for their Hebrew counterparts. To confirm, during this step, it will be determined whether the terms ôǂúóøÏ, ùïǁÏ and îïûøüƿÏ are equivalents for any or all these Hebrew terms: ʤʥʤʩ, ʩʰʥʣʠ, ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʥʤʩ and ʩʸʮ. In addition to this, the study will construct a Greek frame of conceptual reference during the last three centuries BCE and first two centuries CE. The data will speak to a translation and conceptual transmission and/or transition problem. (c) Step 3, which is closely related to step 2, is to reflect on the text-critical discrepancies, variants, and alternatives for the terms ôǂúóøÏ, ùïǁÏ, and ÒúóûüǁÏ offered by the eclectic texts for the Greek Old Testament (LXXGött) and the New Testament (NA28). The data will tie into a conceptual transmission and transition problem. (d) Step 4 is to offer a detailed analysis and discussion of the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations within their immediate literary conceptual contexts that will include both the literary conceptual source and target contexts. In chapter 4, the explicit citations in the Romans epistle will be attended to followed by the Corinthian correspondence in chapter 5. The data will lead to the construction of a conceptual and transmission problem. (e) Step 5, which is closely related to step 4, is to determine how Paul conceptualized a Hebrew deity by establishing how he interpreted and understood the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in relation to Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ. The data will feed into a conceptual problem.

A general theory adopted by this study consists of two aspects, (1) when essential ‘religious’ significant terms such as ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ are used in a text as references to a Hebrew deity, there is a large overlap between the ‘ascribed meaning’ and the ‘concept’ they represent. To be precise; if it is accepted that the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ, as it is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament and the New Testament, refer to a Hebrew deity, then the term itself represents ‘meaning’ and ‘concept’,7 and (2) the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏcitations represent a minimalistic, conflated singularity of a long and complex history of referencing and conceptualising a Hebrew deity from where one can construct Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity with a reasonable amount of certainty. The theory is

 7

In the words of Turner, The Literary Mind, 57, “Meaning is not a deposit in a conceptcontainer. It is alive and active, dynamic, and distributed, constructed for local purposes of knowing and acting. Meanings are not mental objects bounded in conceptual places but rather complex operations of projections, binding, linking, blending and integration over multiple spaces.” Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 371, writes that “[…] linguistic expressions are seen as underdetermined prompts for the process of rich meaning construction: linguistic expressions have meaning potential [...] according to this theory when we think and speak, we set up mental spaces. Mental spaces are set up by space builders, which are linguistics units that either prompt for the construction of a new mental space or shift attention back and forth between previously constructed mental spaces.”



C. Theory, Methodology, and Aim

21

based on the premise that the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ (as well as their Hebrew counterparts) used to reference a Hebrew deity are so entrenched in the minds and psyche of Judeans that it ‘becomes’ the cognitive blueprint and network of neurons for the construction of meaning and architecture for conceptualising a Hebrew deity. To this end, an in-depth investigation into the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations as they are reworked and interpreted in a new literary conceptual context can produce a reasonable concept of a Hebrew deity in the mind of Paul.8 To further unpack the theory, three facets should be mentioned, (1) the term ùïǁÏ captures Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity proper, (2) the term ôǂúóøÏ represent an ambiguous concept of a Hebrew deity which possibly refers to the ‘sacred’ name ʤʥʤʩ or Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏ; in many cases Paul consciously allows for it to be conceptualised as both, and (3) the term ÒúóûüǁÏ is used in close conceptual proximity to the term ùïǁÏ, and is, therefore, the ‘closest’ the historical Jesus will come to ùïǁÏ as a representation of a Hebrew deity. To restate the aim and purpose of this study; it is to present Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity in relation to Jesus as ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ by way of in-depth analysis and discussion on the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in its literary conceptual source and target contexts. This aim, and the subsequent objectives, will naturally lead to historical, textual, conceptual, diachronic, and synchronic approaches; approaches that demand a historical-critical-conceptual method of problem-solving9 with emphasis on literary10 and textual11 criticism and some

 The explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations are the ‘space builders,’ ‘cognitive mapping tools,’ and ‘conceptual connectors.’ 9 The approach followed here shares similarities with the work of Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 1–25; Stanley, Language of Scripture, 31–61 and Wilk, Die Bedeutung, 1–15. 10 The reference to, and application of, ‘literary’ criticism is not done in the ‘traditional’ sense of these terms as it plays itself out in redactional, source, and form criticism; cf. Johannes P. Floss, “Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University, 2006), 603–605.Literary criticism here is also not what is described as ‘narrative’ criticism, cf. S. Scott Bartchy, “Narrative Criticism,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 787–788; Edgar V. McKnight, “Literary Criticism,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 473. It is closer to the description of David E. Aune, “Literary Criticism,” in The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (West Sussex: Blackwell, 2010), 116, in that it refers to “the careful reading, study, critical evaluation, and interpretation of a literary text.” 11 Textual criticism here will not pursue discussing and evaluating the history of manuscript transmission to construct an ‘original’ text, cf. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 1–3. This study leans more toward a sociohistorical model of textual criticism as it “traces the transmission history of the text within various scribal traditions and communities, as a means of studying the social history of early Christianity,” ibid., 4. 8

Chapter 2: Approaching the Literary Conceptual Problem

22



guidance from cognitive linguistics.12 To be more concise, the ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ concepts will determine and inform the approach as to how the text or literary unit will be analysed. It is a cognitive, semantical,13 literary, and textual approach to construct a specific conceptual (space and blending)14 frame of reference for Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity. This methodological approach does not deny the reality that Paul operated within a general first-century Mediterranean sociopolitical, religious, and cultural context, and that such a context influenced how he might have conceptualised a Hebrew deity. Such a context inevitably had to have an impact on how Paul might have conceptualised a Hebrew deity. The study postulates that the Hebrew Scriptures primarily created the mental space and cognitive potentiality from where Paul conceptualised a Hebrew deity, even though the use of the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ were commonplace in a GrecoRoman society.

D. Definitions, Declarations, and Disclaimers D. Definitions, Declarations, and Disclaimers

The first and probably most important aspect is a definition of what precisely is meant by the concept ‘Hebrew deity.’ When the study refers to a Hebrew deity, it refers to a deity constructed primarily within the texts of the Old Testament; a deity that is associated with a people known from history as the Israelites who were familiar with Aramaic and Hebrew as a language of expression. In the most generic sense, it refers to a deity that is considered a wise creator, ruler of the world, judge and for some – as a later development in the history of Israel – a ‘monotheistic deity.’ The insight into the nature of Israel’s ‘God’ as the ‘Lord’

 12

The term ‘concept’ (packets of the meaning) is used throughout the study, and what underlies this term is the cognitive nature of the ‘concept forming’ processes. It is a process determined by a complex network of neurons constructing billions of connections in split seconds to conceptualise and form meaning, such as the use of the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ. Therefore, cognitive linguistics as a cluster of broadly compatible approaches and a flexible framework will be relied upon in this study, as it is theorised in the work of Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002); Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics. 13 An approach described by Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 153–156, as “the study of mind and its relationship with embodied experience and culture. It proceeds by employing language as a key methodological tool for uncovering conceptual organisation and structure […] cognitive semantics sees linguistic meaning as a manifestation of conceptual structure: the nature and organization of mental representation in all its richness and diversity.” 14 Fouconnier and Turner, The Way We Think, 40, defines mental spaces as small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk for local understanding and action. They go on to suggest that “Mental spaces are connected to long-term schematic knowledge called ‘frames’.”



D. Definitions, Declarations, and Disclaimers

23

of ‘Three Gifts’ as offered by Bernard Lang contributes to a definition formulated here. These so-called gifts are:15 (1) Wisdom – a Hebrew deity is a benign, wise ruler who owns and directs the universe. He is the ‘Lord’ of wisdom and a righteous judge. (2) Victory in war – he is a bellicose deity; he often helps the Israelites to wage war against their enemies. He is the ‘Lord’ of war, a ‘Divine Warrior.’ (3) Life – the Hebrew God cares for animals and human beings. He is a ‘Lord’ of the Animals, ‘Lord’ of the individual (a ‘personal’ God).

A second aspect in addition to a definition of what a Hebrew deity is and these ascribed gifts, is the reference to ʤʥʤʩ, the so-called ‘sacred’ name of a Hebrew deity. The study will alternate between ʤʥʤʩ (the term used in manuscripts and texts), the transcribed term YHWH, and referring to it as the Tetragram. A third facet is to declare that the terms ‘literary’ and ‘textual’ are used interchangeably where both refer to words captured on a medium, be it on papyri, parchment, scroll, codex, modern-day paper, or eclectic text. These terms can therefore refer to a manuscript fragment as well as an Old or New Testament writing.16 This study proposes that for cognitive conceptual reasons, the New Testament, Pauline letters, and with that the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations should be considered ‘literature.’ To confirm, the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations form part of various literary conceptual source and target contexts, textual remnants of a cognitive process. To thoroughly engage these literary units and the ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ concepts they attest to, the study will consult textual critical data with the assistance of the apparatus produced by the Nestle-Aland 28th edition,17 as well as the major critical edition of the Old Testament in Greek.18 To this end, it is stated here that the text-critical data will not be evaluated and weighed to form a decision for or against a variant reading.19 Rather, the textcritical data relating to the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ will be engaged to reveal certain scribal trends and to determine whether there are any emerging patterns in relation to these terms and concepts. There will, however, be a distinction

 15

Bernard Lang, The Hebrew God. Portrait of an Ancient Deity (London: Yale University, 2002), 12–13. 16 Whether it is justified to refer to the New Testament as literature, David Aune concedes that it is appropriate to regard the New Testament as literature for socio-logical reasons, Aune, “Literary Criticism,” 118. 17 Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 46–86; cf. Porter and Pitts, Fundamentals, 152–158. 18 Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1908–2015). 19 In the words of Parker, Introduction to the New Testament, 4, a variant reading is “a place where the wording exists in more than one form” defined as “the entire text as it is present in a particular copy [...] a simple tool for breaking down the differences between two or more copies into manageable units.”

Chapter 2: Approaching the Literary Conceptual Problem

24



drawn in how the study will deal with the text-critical data when it comes to the New Testament texts in general, as well as the Deutero-Pauline literature, compared to the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in the ‘authentic’ letters of Paul. The reason for this is that these explicit citations will be analysed and discussed within a literary conceptual target context while considering the relevant literary conceptual source contexts. These literary conceptual contexts offer a dimension to the discussion, compelling the study to consider the impact of the text-critical data on these contexts, particularly the target context. At this juncture, it should be mentioned that with literary conceptual ‘target’ context is meant the text unit in which the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and șİȩȢ citation is used, whereas the literary conceptual ‘source’ context refers to the text unit from where the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citation is ‘constructed.’ The guiding principles of cognitive semantics20 offer a necessary perspective on the ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ focus in their ‘source’ and ‘target’ literary concept contexts. These principles are: (a) Conceptual structure is embodied (the “embodied cognition thesis”). (b) Semantic structure is conceptual structure. (c) Meaning representation is encyclopedic. (d) Meaning construction is conceptualisation.

A fourth aspect is to be upfront with what the reader can expect from this study; the literary conceptual problem relating to the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ will be addressed in chapter 3. It will detail the history of the problem as to how reference was made to a Hebrew deity using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek terms as is evident from the transmission, transition, translation, and interpretations of manuscripts and text. It will also create a broad literary conceptual backdrop against which chapters 4 and 5 will be analysed and interpreted. Chapter 4 offers an in-depth analysis and discussion of the explicit ôǂúóøÏand ùïǁÏcitationsin the Romans epistle; while chapter 5 attends to the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in the Corinthian correspondence. The findings of the study will then be summarised and concluded in chapter 6. Finally, it is reiterated that the premise of this study and its underlying logic is that Paul conceptualises a Hebrew deity and such a concept is inherent in the terms he uses when producing a text. Paul produced texts (letters) and with that he used explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations that not only reveal a concept of a Hebrew deity, but also how he conceptualised a Hebrew deity in relation to Jesus as the ÒúóûüǁÏ and ôǂúóøÏ.

 20

Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 157–163.

Chapter 3

Literary Conceptual Problem A. Introduction A. Introduction

There are at least three dimensions to the literary conceptual problem as the study attempts to come to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how Paul conceptualised a Hebrew deity. The first dimension is the various Hebrew and Aramaic terms used when reference is made to a Hebrew deity. The second dimension is the translation of these terms with appropriate Greek equivalents, and the third dimension is Paul’s explicit use of citations containing the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ in a literary conceptual context where Jesus is often referred to as the ôǂúóøÏand ÒúóûüǁÏ. It is, therefore, necessary to establish, define, describe, and discuss the literary conceptual problem accentuated by the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations against a literary backdrop (JudeanHellenistic in nature) broader than just the Pauline literature and the New Testament corpus itself.1 Pre-determined parameters are, however, essential to ensure the study remains focused on the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations in an attempt to offer construction of Paul’s concept of a Hebrew deity. To ensure that the literary conceptual problem is determined, evaluated, and discussed effectively, the present chapter will restrict itself to the following: (a) Biblical manuscripts (both Hebrew and Greek) dating between the third century BCE and second century CE testifying to either of the terms ʤʥʤʩ, ʩʰʥʣʠ, ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʬʠ, and ʩʸʮ, and ôǂúóøÏ, ùïǁÏ, and îïûøüƿÏ; cross-checking against a critical text edition, where available, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 5th edition (Biblia Hebraica Quinta where obtainable), Vetus Testamentum Graecum – Göttingensis editum and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece Editio XXVIIII (Editio Critica Maior, where available). (b) Some reflection on the Greek rendition of the Esther narrative, Sirach (wisdom literature), First and Second Maccabees (pseudo-history), the work of Philo of Alexandria (Judean-Hellenistic Philosopher), and Flavius Josephus (Judean-Hellenistic Historian).

There are four criteria used to determine the parameters for a broader literary backdrop; the first criterion is the well-established assumption that Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (attesting to biblical content) found in and around the Judean desert, dating back to the third century BCE, are the oldest available up

 1

Udo Schnelle, Leben und Denken (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 56, rightfully remarks that Paul’s theological thought is rooted in the Jewish-Hellenistic context of his time.

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

26



to date.2 These should include the manuscripts unearthed in and around Upper Egypt attesting to some of the oldest known Greek manuscripts of biblical content.3 A second criterion, is whether a Greek text has been translated from a Hebrew Vorlage. The process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek initiated in the middle of the third century BCE4 offers a wealth of information relating to the inception and development of concepts and ideas. A third criterion is whether a literary work can be considered representative of JudeanHellenistic thought from the second century BCE to the second century CE, and finally, a fourth criterion is if a manuscript or text reveals explicit reference or discussion on the ôǂúóøÏ or ùïǁÏ terms. In addition to these criteria, the identified conceptual literary source contexts of the explicit ôǂúóøÏ or ùïǁÏ citations will delineate and direct the study. I. Excursion: The Term ôǂúóøÏ 5 The term ôǂúóøÏ opens a spectrum of intricacies and complexities. The reason for this is due to the ongoing debate about the continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament, the relation between Judaism and Christianity, and ultimately between a ‘God’ of Israel and Jesus as the ôǂúóøÏ and ÒúóûüǁÏ – the central figure in the Jesus movement. From very early on in the twentieth century, scholars have been fascinated with the term ôǂúóøÏ and its origin(s).

 2

These would also include Greek text fragments, forming part of the same batch of data. Kaare L. Rasmussen et al., “The Effects of Possible Contamination on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls I: Castor Oil,” Radiocarbon 43.1 (2001): 127–132, suggest that some contamination could have taken place in the 1950s with the dating of the DSS which, according to their conclusion, might prove that some manuscripts might even date slightly earlier than expected. 3 Manuscripts were found at other locations, for example, the papyri found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. 4 For a re-evaluation of the dating procedure and integrity of dating the DSS, see A. J. Timothy Jull et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert,” Radiocarbon 37.1 (1995): 11–19. 5 For a detailed overview of the term ôǂúóøÏ in both the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament as well as in later Judaism and the New Testament, see Werner D. Foerster and Gottfried Quell, s.v. “ÙǂúóøÏ, Ùýúǀë, ÙýúóëôǁÏ, ÙýúóǁüòÏ, Ùýúóïǂþ, Ùëüëôýúóïǂþ,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. III, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964). Foerster, “ôǂúóøÏ” 1039–1058; Foerster, “ôǂúóøÏ, ‘Lord’ in Later Judaism,” 1081–1085; Foerster, “ôǂúóøÏ in the New Testament,” 1086–1095.



A. Introduction

27

The studies of Wolf Wilhelm von Baudissin6 and Wilhelm Bousset7 are groundbreaking. Baudissin investigated the origin and history of the term ôǂúóøÏ as the ‘name’ for ‘God’ in the Septuagint. He argued, quite convincingly, that the term ôǂúóøÏ is the original term used as the Greek equivalent for ʤʥʤʩ.8 Bousset, in turn, dealt with the ‘titles’ ascribed to Jesus in general9 – which included the title ‘Lord’ in particular10 – among various other titles. Bousset concluded that the ‘Lord’ title was assigned to Jesus under Hellenistic influence and because of its Hellenistic environment.11 He further postulates that the ‘absolute’ use of ôǂúóøÏ, as it is found in John and Paul’s documents, should be ascribed to Hellenic influence and that Jesus was only called ôǂúóøÏ in the secular sense of the word.12 Oscar Cullmann disagrees with Bousset in the sense that he expresses certainty that the Jewish influence13 played a role in the conceptualisation process of the early Christian writers, such as Paul.14 Ferdinand Hahn points to both the Hellenistic and Jewish influences on the term ôǂúóøÏ assigned to Jesus in the early Church.15 He also emphasises the prominence of the Palestinian tradition in shaping the term ôǂúóøÏ as a title.16 Leonhard Goppelt argues along similar lines when he deals with the “Kyrios-Confession” in the Hellenistic Church17 and

 6

Wolf Wilhelm von Baudissin, Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte, Teil 2: Die Herkunft des Gottesnamens Kyrios in Septuaginta (Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1929). 7 A well-known and respected study in this regard was the work done by Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos. Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926); also see Larry W. Hurtado, “New Testament Christology. A Critique of Bousset’s Influence,” TS 40.2 (1979): 306–317. Hurtado offers, in summary, Bousset’s primary contributions, ibid., 307–308, after which he critically engages with Bousset based on the notion of ‘Jewish’ and ‘Hellenistic’ categories, ibid., 308–316; see also Larry W. Hurtado, “Forschungen zur neutestamentlichen Christologie seit Bousset. Forschungsrichtungen und bedeutende Beiträge,” TB 11 (1980): 158–171. 8 Baudissin, Kyrios, 5–17; see also Reinhard Feldmeier, “Monotheismus und Christologie,” in Paulus Handbuch, ed. Friedrich W. Horn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 309–313. Baudissin also pointed out why Aquila and Symmachus used ÞØÞØ as a reproduction of ʤʥʤʩ, giving the impression that square Hebrew characters were present in their Greek Vorlage, ibid., 6–12. 9 Bousset, Kyrios, 1–22. 10 Ibid., 75–104. 11 Ibid., 94. 12 Ibid. 13 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2018), 199–203. 14 Ibid., 203–237. 15 Ferdinand Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology. Their History in Early Christianity (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2002), 74–82. 16 Ibid. 17 Leonhard Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 79–81.

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

28



the origin and content of the Hellenistic “Kyrios-Concept.”18 Werner Kramer explains that the pre-Pauline Church acclaims Jesus as Lord, “Jesus is the name of the person who holds the title and the rank of Lord […] Jesus is the subject, Lord the predicate of the sentence.”19 He is, however, certain that when Paul quotes from the Old Testament containing the term ôǂúóøÏit refers to ‘God’ “[…] we must simply assert that in the Pauline period, at public readings of the OT in Greek, ‘Kyrios’ was read instead of ‘Yahweh’, even though the Tetragram still stood in the MSS of that period.”20 Wilhelm Thüsing concurs with Kramer’s assertion when he writes “An zentralen Stellen ist er Übertragung des Gottesnamens der LXX auf Christus, vor allem in Phil 2,11,” but when Paul uses the expression “Kyrios is Jesus” it implies both the ‘name of God’ in the LXX as well as the “heidnischen Kyrioi.”21 Many scholars22 will not deny the fact that Judaism played a major role in early Christian concept forming, especially relating to the term ôǂúóøÏ. Ferdinand Hahn refers to Paul’s use of ôǂúóøÏ23 when he comments “in dieser Anwendung von Ľ ôŴúóøÏ ist der Blick primär auf den irdischen Jesus gerichtet.”24 Larry Hurtado briefly investigates all the citations under discussion here, as well as other references to ôǂúóøÏ in the Pauline literature and the Deutero-Pauline letters.25 Paul’s use of ôǂúóøÏ, according to Hurtado, should be categorised as “Old Testament citations,” “Greedal use,” “Appellation Formulas,”

 18

Cullmann, Christology, 195–199, deals with the Hellenistic influence on the term; Ferdinand Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum, FRLANT 83 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 68–70, considers a Hellenistic context, while Goppelt, Theology, 79–81, emphasises the ôǂúóøÏ-confession in the Hellenistic church, as well as on other Hellenistic content and origin, ibid., 81–86. 19 Werner Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, Studies in Biblical Theology 50 (London: SCM, 1966), 66. 20 Ibid., 156. 21 Wilhelm Thüsing, Per Christum in Deum. Studien zum Verhältnis von Christozentrik und Theozentrik in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (Münster: Aschendorff, 1965), 9. 22 Larry W. Hurtado, s.v. “Lord,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 560–569. Cullmann, Christology, 199–203; Hahn, Titles of Jesus, 74–80; Klaus Berger, Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums. Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Francke, 1995); Charles Perrot, “Kyrios/Herr,” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Consulted online on 16 December 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2405-8262_rgg4_COM_12537; Martin Rösel, s.v. “ ʯʥʣʠ,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten, Bd. 1, ed. Heinz-Josef Fabry and Ulrich Dahmen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 37–46; Marco Frenschkowski, “Kyrios in Context; Q 6:46, the Emperor as ‘Lord,’ and the Political Implications of Christology in Q,” in Zwischen den Reichen. Neues Testament und römische Herrschaft. Vorträge auf der ersten Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies, ed. Michael Labahn and Jürgen Zangenberg (Tübingen: Francke, 2002), 95–118. 23 Hahn, Hoheitstitel, 91–94. 24 Ibid., 91. 25 Hurtado, “Lord,” 563–564.



A. Introduction

29

and “Context.”26 He argues that the origins of the Christian use of the term ôǂúóøÏ is to be found in the Pauline literature as well as Aramaic sources.27 According to David S. du Toit, of the 189 occurrences of the term ôǂúóøÏ in the Pauline literature, only 11 are references to ‘God.’28 He comments that the ôǂúóøÏ citations are “christologisiert.”29 In a renewed quest for answers on the relationship between, and the origin of, “Kyrios or Tetragram” in the Septuagint,30 Albert Pietersma indicates that the manuscript evidence traditionally used in the discussions of this topic31 is long overdue and dated. He bases his argument on three new texts found – considered new when his study was published32 – focusing on the Pentateuch, from where he concluded that ôǂúóøÏ was indeed the primary replacement in the LXX for the Hebrew designation of ‘God.’33 Berger understands the ôǂúóøÏ term “als die Übertragung des ‘Namens’ Gottes, wie er in den Septuaginta-Handschriften und besonders bei Philo v. A. im 1.Jh.n.Chr. belegt ist, auf Jesus.”34 In a fairly recent study, Burnett points out that scholars overlook Greek and Semitic (Aramaic and Hebrew) inscriptions from the southern Levant (southern Syria, ancient Palestine and their immediate environs) when reflecting on the ‘Kyrios-ship’ of Jesus.35 He suggests that epigraphs support the proposal that “Jesus’ Kyrios-ship developed in the southern Levant, and early Jewish Christians connected to this region viewed Jesus’ Kyrios-ship as royal, messianic and not exclusively divine.”36 Burnett further postulates that the adoption of ‘Lord’ for Jesus by early Christians meant that he (Jesus) is the ‘unquestionable’ and only ‘Lord’ of the cosmos.37 He rightly remarks that the historical background to Jesus’ ‘Kyrios-ship’ is Jewish literature of Jesus’ and Paul’s day,38 and that Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s conclusion that Aramaicspeaking Jews rarely called ‘God’ ‘Lord’, forms the scholarly consensus. These

 26

Ibid., 563–568. He also distinguishes between a paraenetic, eschatological, and liturgical context. 27 Ibid., 562–563; cf. Cullmann, Christology, 203–216; Hahn, Hoheitstitel, 81, agrees with Hurtado regarding the Aramaic sources. 28 David S. Du Toit, “Christologische Hoheitstitel,” in Paulus Handbuch, ed. Friedrich W. Horn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 294–299. 29 Ibid., 297. 30 Albert Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragram. A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX,” in De Septuaginta. Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox (Canada: Benben Publications, 1984), 85–114. 31 Ibid., 87. 32 Ibid., 88–91. 33 Ibid., 100–101. 34 Berger, Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums, 61–65. 35 D. Clint Burnett, Studying the New Testament Through Inscriptions. An Introduction (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Academic, 2020), 85. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., 86. 38 Burnett, Studying the New Testament, 87.

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

30



Aramaic-speaking Jews addressed ‘God’ as mr’ without a suffix. Burnett then identifies two shortcomings, (1) the divine connotations of ôǂúóøÏ with all the accompanied intricacies needing to be more nuanced, and (2) little attention has been paid to inscriptions from the southern Levant and Palestine.39 The last words on the origin of the term ôǂúóøÏ and its influence on early Christian writers, such as Paul, has not yet been spoken; this includes the term ùïǁÏ. Visible and verifiable continuities between the origin of the terms ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ and Paul’s concept of these terms are yet to be constructed. II. The Literary Conceptual Problem in Perspective Manuscripts attesting to biblical content dated between the third century BCE and second century CE offer a wealth of data from which one can trace the origins of the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations, observe textual and conceptual patterns, and construct concepts of a Hebrew deity. These manuscripts offer the hard evidence required to construct a history of how a Hebrew deity was conceptualised; how it evolved and developed over time. The literature identified as the Greek version of Esther, First and Second Maccabees, Sirach, and the works of Philo and Josephus are of equal value and relevance as they too offer a general conceptual frame of Judean-Hellenistic reference during this general timeframe. Although the discussion will be brief and cursory, the inclusion of these literary works further contributes to a first- and second century BCE and CE contextualisation of concepts formed when a Hebrew deity is constructed.40 These literary works do not offer hard data, but they contribute significantly to a general conceptual frame of Judean-Hellenistic reference. To confirm, they reveal how, and which terms Hellenised Judeans in Alexandria and Palestine used and avoided before the reign of Augustus up until the emperorship of Hadrian when a Hebrew deity was conceptualised. Read together, these literary works will produce a balanced view of what terms Judeans used when they conceptualised a Hebrew deity within a Hellenised context. To this end, these writings represent Hellenised Judean thoughts and concepts from a wisdom, philosophical, and historical perspective. All the manuscripts and texts are

 39

Ibid., 89–91. 40 The earliest and most complete compilation of Philo’s work, which includes the manuscripts that support the best possible readings, is presented in Leopold Cohn, “De Abrahamo,” in vol. 4 of Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, ed. Leopold Cohn, Paul Wendland et al., 7 vols. (Berlin: Reimer, 1896–1930; repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962–1963), 1–60. A later, well-known, and frequently used edition is preserved in the Loeb Classical Library. Francis H. Colson, “Hypothetica,” and “De Providentia,” in Philo, vol. IX, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1941). For a complete list of Josephus manuscripts, see http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/josephus_all.htm, consulted online on 30 May 2011. Baudissin, Kyrios als Gottesname, 12–13, realised the value of Philo’s use of the term ôǂúóøÏ when he pointed out that Philo used the ôǂúóøÏ term when he cited Hebrew Scriptures that read ʤʥʤʩ.



A. Introduction

31

invaluable in addressing the multidimensional and layered literary conceptual problem. One such dimension is the prohibition in pronouncing the Tetragram,41 which adds a layer of complexity to the reproduction and transmission of the Hebrew text – especially from the third century BCE onwards.42 The prohibition and subsequent complexities relating to the transmission and translation of the Hebrew text and the oral reproduction of the Hebrew Tetragram resulted in accentuated difficulties to find a suitable Greek equivalent for the Tetragram.43

 41

One of the most recent and most thorough studies regarding the pronunciation of the name of the Hebrew deity as ‘Adonaj’ was done by Martin Rösel, Adonaj – Warum Gott, “Herr” genannt wird (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Rösel constructed a strong case for why the term ʩʰʥʣʠ was regarded as the most suitable substitute when the ‘name’ of the Hebrew deity, the Tetragram, had to be pronounced (contra Kristin De Troyer, “The Pronunciation of the Names of God. With Some Notes Regarding nomina sacra,” in Gott nennen. Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, RPT 35, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 143–172. For dating of the prohibition of the Tetragram, see de Troyer, “The Pronunciation,” 146–148. The history of the Tetragram as the ‘name’ of the Hebrew deity is complex in its own right; as is clear from a recent essay by Friedhelm Hartenstein, “Die Geschichte JHWHs im Spiegel seiner Namen,” in Gott nennen. Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, RPT 35, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth, and Phillip Stoellger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 73–95. Hartenstein managed to present a reasonable “religionsgeschichtliche” backdrop against which the use and development of the Tetragram should be discussed. Christoph Uehlinger, “Arbeit an altorientalischen Gottesnamen. Theonomastik im Spannungsfeld von Sprache, Schrift und Textpragmatik,” in Gott nennen. Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, RPT 35, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 23–71. Uehlinger takes a few steps back in history with his discussion on the “Götterwelt im antiken Mesoptamien.” Both these contributions and others alike emphasise the fact that one should not attempt to deal with the Tetragram in particular or the ‘name’ of the Hebrew deity in general, in isolation; see also Erhard Blum, “Der vermeintliche Gottesname ‫ލ‬Elohim’,” in Gott nennen. Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, RPT 35, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 98–119, as well as the discussion by Solomon Zeitlin, “The Origin of the Pharisees Reaffirmed,” JQR 59 (1969): 255–267, on this matter. 42 See Brotzman’s compact history on the transmission of the Old Testament Hebrew text before the third century BCE up until 1450 CE in Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism. A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 37–62; see also the essay of Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Transmission History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran and Other Sites in the Judean Desert,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25 1997, ed. Lawrence H. Shiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 40–50. 43 Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragram,” 85–114, refers to the immense study undertaken by Wolf Wilhelm Graf Boudissin in 1929, who concluded that the LXX read Kyrios as a surrogate for YHWH and should not be considered as a form of the Tetragram, ibid., 6; see also Foerster and Quell, s.v. “ôǂúóøÏ,” 1058–1081. For a designation for ‘God’ in the PsalmsLXX see Ulrich H. Steymans, “Die Gottesbezeichnung Kyrios im Psalter der Septuaginta,” in



32

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem



The various Hebrew terms used when reference was made to a Hebrew deity, together with the prohibition not to utter the sacred name of such a deity resulted in diverse complexities for both the Hebrew and Greek text traditions.44 This layered multidimensional literary conceptual problem inevitably impacted how Paul responds to his source text; that in turn led to a complex cognitive process of conceptualising a Hebrew deity within a new literary conceptual context (target context). It is therefore imperative for this study to be cognisant of all these dimensions and layers in its exploration of a textual induced ‘Pauline’ concept of a Hebrew deity as inferred from the explicit ôǂúóøÏ and ùïǁÏ citations. III. A Brief Illustration of the Complexities and Rule of Thumb Conceptualising a Hebrew deity and finding appropriate Hebrew terms to communicate these concepts all contribute to the difficulties when these concepts are transmitted and reproduced. A comparison between the Masoretic text (MT) and manuscripts found in and around the Judean desert reveals the sensitivity and caution when dealing with the Tetragram. In the case of 11QLevb (Lev 9:24),45 the manuscript reads   while the MT testifies to the term ʤʥʤʩ. The same is encountered in Deut 26:3 with the MT reading   compared to the term ʤʥʤʩ presented in 4QDeutk2 (4Q38a).46 The extent of the problem is underscored when closer attention is given to relevant text-critical data. Take Gen 18:27,

 L' écrit et l'esprit (2005): 325–338. In Steymans’ own words: “Die Septuatinga gibt JHWH, aber auch andere Gottesbezeichnungen, mit Kyrios wieder. Daher ist es keineswegs selbstverständlich, in der Septuaginta dieselbe konzentrische Struktur wiederzufinden,” ibid., 326; see also John W. Wevers, “The Rendering of the Tetragram in the Psalter and Pentateuch. A Comparative Study,” in The Old Greek Psalter. Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma, ed. Robert J. V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 21–35. For an article on how the ‘Divine name’ was read and translated in the Masoretic tradition and Greek Pentateuch, see Martin Rösel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” JSOT 31.4 (2007): 411–428. 44 I attempted to show and accentuate the complexity of naming and referencing a Hebrew deity by comparing Hebrew and Greek self-declarations and expressions in Peter Nagel, “Who and What is a Hebrew Deity? Reflecting on Certain Hebrew and Greek Self-Declarations and Expressions,” in The Septuagint South of Alexandria. Essays on the Greek Translations and Other Ancient Versions by the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa (LXXSA), ed. Johann Cook and Gideon R. Kotzé (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 279–302. 45 F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II: (11Q2–18, 11Q20–31) (DJD XXIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). xiii + 487 pp. + liv plates, plate 566 frag. 2. 46 E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD XIV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995; Reprinted 1999). xv + 183 pp. + xxxvii plates, 4Q38, plate 1090, frag. 5.



A. Introduction

33

Gen 18:31 and Exod 3:4 as examples: the MT reads the term ʩʰʣʠ in Gen 18:27 and Gen 18:31 with a few Hebrew manuscripts reading ʤʥʤʩ.47 As for Exod 3:4, the term ʤʥʤʩ is preferred by the MT, while the Samaritan Pentateuch suggests reading ʭʩʤʬʠ.48 In other cases,49 the Samaritan Pentateuch opposes the MT reading ʭʩʤʬʠ by suggesting reading ʤʥʤʩ.To put it plainly, the rule of thumb in relation to the terms ôǂúóøÏ, ùïǁÏ, and îïûǁüòÏ are that the term ôǂúóøÏ is the Greek equivalent for ʤʥʤʩ, the term ùïǁÏ for ʭʩʤʬʠ and the term îïûǁüòÏ for ʩʰʣʠ.50 But if one compares the eclectic texts of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 5th edition (and where available the Biblia Hebraica Quinta) and the Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Göttingensis editum with the manuscripts found in and around the Judean desert, it reveals a far more complex picture as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Tetragram Reproductions (Third Century BCE Onwards)51 Reference Exod 8:1 Exod 12:27 Lev 9:24 Ps 118:25 Non-biblical Non-biblical Deut 19:14 Lev 4:27 Hab 2:16

LXXGött ôÏ ôþ ôý ôï

MT (BHQ) ʤʥʤʩ ʤʥʤʩ ʤʥʤʩ ʤʥʤʩ

ôÏ ôý ôý

ʤʥʤʩ ʤʥʤʩ ʤʥʤʩ

DJD 4QExodj 2QExodb 11QLeva 11QPsa 1QS 8:14 4Q365 frag. 2:6 P. Fouad 266 4QpapLXXLevb 8HevXIIgr

ʤʥʤʩ ʤʥʤʩ ʤʥʤʩ ʤʥʤʩ ʩʩʩʩ ʤʥʤʩ ʤʥʤʩ ØÐä  

Firstly, the Hebrew text tradition attests to at least four variant terms used to render the Tetragram from the third century BCE onwards.52 The first, and the

 47

Fragments from codicis Hebraici in geniza Cairensi repertum (Ⴔ3) and multiple other mss suggest readingʤʥʤʩ (Gen 18:27). 48 See also Gen 7:1 and Num 14:17. 49 See Gen 28:4; 31:7 and Gen 31:16. 50 The generally accepted rule is expressed by J. B. Fischer, “The Term ÓÔáÞÝâ×á in Josephus,” JQR 49.2 (1958): 132–138, in his opening paragraph, in this case relating to the term îïûøüƿÏ; Cf. Rösel, “Reading and Translation,” 414, and David Trobisch, Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 22–25. See also de Troyer, “The Pronunciation,” 154–159. 51 For a more comprehensive list, see the table in Peter Nagel, “‘God’ constructs at Kirbet Qumran. The Sectarian Manuscripts and the New Testament,” in Gottesschau – Gotteserkenntnis. Studien zur Theologie der Septuaginta, WUNT 1 38/7, ed. Evangelia Dafni (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 129–130. 52 Cf. Donald W. Parry, “4QSama and the Tetragrammaton,” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 106–124.

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

34



most frequently used, is the square Hebrew characters ʤʥʤʩ; the second is four jods Hebrew characters ʩʩʩʩ; the third is old Hebrew characters   (also referred to as Paleo-Hebrew); and finally, four open dots as subscript above ʤʥʤʩ.53 The Greek tradition from the same period reproduces the Tetragram using the following equivalents: ØÐä, open space, ʤʥʤʩ and  54 Secondly, the difficulty in applying the rule of thumb is palpably inferred from the fragmentary data. The exception to the ‘rule’ is visible throughout the constructed BHS/BHQ and LXXGött eclectic texts, leaving the rule of thumb not impervious to scrutiny. The following four examples (Table 2, 3, 4, and 5) taken from four distinct Hebrew texts further amplify the exceptions to the rule. Table 2: Example I (Isa 52:12) Isa 52:12LXX ľüóøŻöïüąüëúëíĦÏ Ġÿïõïǂûïûùï øŻîĜƫýñIJøúïǂûïûùï Þøúïǂûïüëó úǁüïúøÏŷöņ÷ ÙǂúóøÏ ô라Ġóûý÷Ƽñþ÷ŷöĆÏ ôǂúóøÏĽùïļÏØûúëòõ

Isa 52:12MT ʯʥʦ ʕ˝ ʧʑ ʡʍ ʠʬ ʩ ʑ˗ ˒ʠʒʶ ʒˢ ʤ ʕʱ˒ʰʮʍ ʡ˒ ʑ ʯ˒ʫ ʒʬ ʒʺʠʬ ʭʓʫʩʒʰ ʍʴ ʑʬ˂ ʒʬʤʚʩ ʑ˗ ʤʕʥʤʍʩ ʭʓʫ ʍʴ ˛ʑ ʔʠʮ˒ ʍ ʬ ʒʠʸʕ ˈʑʍ ʩ ʩ ʒʤʬ ʎʠ

In Isa 52:12cLXX the text reads ôǂúóøÏĽùïļÏ whereas Isa 52:12cMT reads ʩ ʒʤʬ ʎʠ. In addition to this, the text-critical data presented by the LXXGött notes that the hexapla recension text, including recension L, ‘omit’ the term ôǂúóøÏ, while other authoritative text witnesses support the ôǂúóøÏĽùïļÏ reading.55 Table 3: Example II (Ps 7:7) Ps 7:7LXX ċ÷Ƽûüòùóôǂúóï Ġ÷ŀúñIJûøý ŷĀǃùòüó Ġ÷üøŦÏƽúëûóüņ÷Ġíùúņ÷öøý Ġÿïñƽúùòüó ôǂúóïĽùïǁÏöøý Ġ÷úøûüƼñöëüóŖĠ÷ïüïǀõþ

Ps 7:7MT ʤʕʥ९ ʤʍʩ ʤʮ˒ ५ ʕ ʷॠ ˃˝ʓ य़ ʔʠˎʍ ʠˈʕ ʒ ˚ʤʑ ॴ ʩʸख़ ʕ ʸʥʖʍ ʶ ʺʥʸ४ʖ ʡʍ ʔˆˎʍ ʤʸ˒ ʕ ˆʍ६ ʥ ʩ य़ʔʬ ʒʠ॥ ʺʩ ʕ ˒ʙ ʑ ʑʶ ʨ˝६ ʕ ˇʍ ʮʑ

 53

See Frank Zimmerman, “A Suggested Source for Some of the Substitute Names for YHWH,” in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History, and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev, ed. Charles Berlin (New York: Ktav, 1974), 581–587, for a valuable attempt at arguing a reasonable motivation behind the substitute names for YHWH. 54 De Troyer, “The Pronunciation,” 150–153. 55 The text reading is supported by Uncials A, B, Q, S, and V, including numerous minuscules (the latter of which includes papyri 965 and 958).



A. Introduction

35

In this case, the rule of thumb seems to be upheld with the first occurrence of the Greek ôǂúóï and its Hebrew counterpart reading ʤʥʤʩ. The same, however, cannot be said for ôǂúóïĽùïǁÏöøý – the Hebrew counterpart for the latter reads ʩʬʠ. A similar case is found in Ps 140:7 where the Hebrew text reads ʩʬʑ ʠ४ ʒ ʤʕʥʤʩ ॴʔʬ while its Greek counterpart reads üŒôýúǀŏùïǁÏöøý (Ps 139:7). This would imply, given that one accepts the eclectically reconstructed MT and LXX texts as representative of a possible “Old Greek” and its Hebrew Vorlage respectively, that the ʬʠ term was reproduced using either, (1) ôǂúóïĽùïǁÏ öøý (Ps 7:7), or (2) ùïǁÏöøý (Ps 139:7).56 The inconsistencies and variations speak volumes. Table 4: Example III (1 Kgdms 2:1LXX and 1 Sam 2:1MT) 1 Kgdms 2:1LXX

1 Sam 2:1MT ॡʤʕ˚ ʔʧ ʬ ५ ʒ˘ ʔ˝ʺʍ ˢʔʑ ʥ ʵ५ ʔʬ ʕˆ ʸ ʮʠʖ ʔ ड़ ˢʔʥ ʤ ʕʥड़ ʤʩˎʙ ʔ ʩॡ ˎʑ ʑʬ ʩफ़ ʑʰʸʍ ʷʔ ʤ ʕʮ ʸ६ ʕ ʤख़ ʥʕ ʤʩˎʙ ʔ ʡ ʔʧ ʸ५ ʕ ʩʡʍʔड़ ʩʥʠ४ʖ ʚʬ ʔˆ ʩॡ ʑ˝ ˃ ʺʙ ʓ ʕˆ˒ˇʩˎʩ ʑ ˢʑ ʧʍ ʮफ़ ʔ ˈʩ६ ʕ ˗ʑ

ÙëťïŮï÷ɩûüïúïǃùò ħôëúîǀëöøýĠ÷ôýúǀŏ ŷĀǃùòôƽúëÏöøý Ġ÷ùïŒöøý Ġõëüǂ÷ùò ĠťĠíùúøŵÏüļûüǁöëöøý ïŻƫúƼ÷ùò÷Ġ÷ûþüòúǀďûøý

The ôǂúóøÏ term in the dative case parallels the first preposition ˎʙ ʔ + ʤ ʕʥड़ ʤʩ combination, but the second preposition ˎʙ ʔ + ʤख़ ʥʕ ʤʩ combination does not reflect the general assumption. Instead, the Greek text utilises the ùïǁÏ term in its dative case. There are, however, Hebrew manuscripts and other versions in support of a ʩʤʬʠʡ instead of a ʤʥʤʩʡ reading. These text witnesses therefore support the argument for a different Hebrew Vorlage. A counter argument is that this variation, and others alike, should be attributed to theological reasoning such as to avoid the impression that YHWH represented by the terms ʤʥʤʩ and ôǂúóøÏ act in an unjust way. Table 5, 6, and 7 will challenge Rösel’s57 proposed solution for most of the deviations from the rule of thumb found in the Pentateuch.

 56

See also Ps 12:4LXX (Ps 13:4MT); Ps 17:3LXX (Ps 18:3MT). 57 Rösel, “Reading and Translation.”

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

36



Table 5: Example IV (Gen 4:4) Gen 4:4LXX ôëťÐìïõĬ÷ïñôï÷ ôëťëŻüļÏ ċļüņ÷úþüøüǁôþ÷üņ÷úøìƼüþ÷ ëŻüøŶ ôëťċļüņ÷ûüïƼüþ÷ëŻüņ÷ ôëťĠïŦîï÷ĽùïļÏ ĠťÐìïõ ôëťĠťüøŦÏîǃúøóÏëŻüøŶ

Gen 4:4MT ʠʩʡ६ ʑ ʒʤ ʬ ʓʡ ʤʍ ʓ९ ʥ ʠ˒ ॣʤʚʭʔʢ ʥʰफ़ʖ ʠʖ ʶ ʺʥʸ६ʖ ʫʖ ˎʍ ʮʑ ʯʤख़ ʓ ʒʡ ʍʬ ʓʧ ʮ˒ ʙʒ ʤ ʕʥड़ ʤʍʩ ʲ ˇ४ ʔ ˕ʔʑ ʥ ʬ ʓʡ ʤʚʬ फ़ ʓ ʓʠ ʥʺʙʖ ʕʧʰʍ ʮʚʬ ʑ ʓʠʍʥ

Table 6: Example V (Gen 4:9–10) Gen 4:9–10LXX ôëťïŮï÷ĽùïļÏ úļÏÙëó÷ ÞøŶĠûüó÷ÐìïõĽċîïõƫǁÏûøý* ĽîĜïŮï÷ ÝŻñó÷ǃûôþ öĥƫǂõëÿüøŶċîïõƫøŶöøǂïūöóĠñǃ* ôëťïŮï÷ĽùïǁÏ âǀĠøǀòûëÏ* ƫþ÷ĥëŨöëüøÏüøŶċîïõƫøŶûøý ìøĒúǁÏöïĠôüĦÏñĦÏ

Gen 4:9–10MT ॡʤ ʕʥʤʍʩ ʸ ʓʮʠʖ ˕ʔʥ५ ʯʑʩʷʚʬ ʔड़ ʓʠ ˃ʩʧख़ ʑ ʕʠʬ ʓʡ ʤʩ ४ ʓ ʠफ़ ʒ ॡʸ ʓʮʠʖ ˕ʔ९ ʥ ʩˢʑ ʍˆʣʕड़ʔ ʩ ʠʖ ʬ४ ʩ ʑʫ ʰʙʖ ʕʠ ʩʧफ़ ʑ ʕʠ ʸʮ६ ʒ ˇ ʖ ʏʤ ʸ ʓʮʠʖ ˕ʔʥफ़ ʺʩ ʕ ˈख़ ʑ ʕˆ ʤ ʮ४ ʓ ʩ फ़ ʔʬ ʒʠʭʩʷʏ६ ʑ ˆʶʖ ˃ʩʧʑड़ ʕʠʩʮ४ ʒ ːʬʥ ʍ ʷॢʖ ʤ ʮʙ ʕ ʣʕ ʏʠʤʚʯ ʙ ʕ ʮʑ

In Gen 4:4LXX the definite form of the term ùïǁÏ is used while the MT (Gen 4:4) reads ʤʥʤʩ. The action that the subject is acting out is ĠïŦîï÷ or ʲˇʔ ˕ʔ४ ʑ ʥ both of which can be translated with the English equivalent of ‘to observe,’ ‘to oversee,’ or ‘to look at.’ In Gen 4:9 and Gen 4:10, the LXX utilised the term ùïǁÏ twice to designate the person responsible for the act of speaking, with the MT (only in Gen 4:9) again reading ʤʥʤʩ. Rösel’s argument, namely that the term ôǂúóøÏ is avoided whenever the text speaks of punishment and judgment,58 does not seem to hold water in these instances; for both these texts avoid ôǂúóøÏ although neither of them speaks of punishment or judgment. They might be interpreted as a premature reference to judgement or punishment, but such an interpretation rejects what the immediate literary context intends to achieve. There are other examples from the Pentateuch that can also be used as a critique against Rösel’s proposal.59 Another two interesting cases should be noted, as they further demonstrate the inconsistencies and variations:

 58

Ibid., 420. 59 See Exod 3:4; Lev 2:13; Num 5:5–8, and Deut 12:14 – to mention a few.



A. Introduction

37

Table 7: Example VI (Gen 15:2a; Gen 15:8a) Gen 15:2aLXX

Gen 15:2aMT

õƽñïóîĜÐìúëö Óƽûøüë

ʭ ʸय़ ʕ ʡʍ ʔʠ ʸ ʓʮʠʖ ˕ʔʥ४ ॡʤ ʥʑ ʤʎ ʩ ʩ५ ʕʰʖʣ ʏʠ

Genesis 15:8aLXX

Genesis 15:8aMT

ïŮï÷îƽ Óƽûøüëôǂúóï

ʸ ʮʠʖ ख़ ʔ ˕ʔʥ ʤ ʥʑड़ ʤʎ ʩ ʩ४ ʕʰʖʣ ʏʠ

The term îïûǁüòÏ is used in only 3 texts in the entire Greek Old Testament corpus, namely in Gen 15:2, Gen 15:8, and Josh 5:14. In Gen 15:2 the term îïûǁüòÏ is used as the equivalent for both the terms ʩʰʣʠ and ʤʥʤʩ, while the term îïûǁüòÏ appears to be the equivalent of ʩʰʣʠ in Gen 15:8 and Josh 5:14. In Gen 4:1 the LXX reads ùïǁÏ as opposed to ʤʥʤʩ.60 In Gen 7:1 the term ʭʩʤʬʠ is suggested as an alternative for the ʤʥʤʩ reading by two Hebrew manuscripts, as well as the Samaritan Pentateuch and a Syriac version,61 with the LXXGött reading ôǂúóøÏĽùïļÏ. Most of the ca. 36 text-critical notes on the use of the Tetragram in the Genesis text is related to the LXX additions or alternative readings such as ùïǁÏ where one would have expected the term ôǂúóøÏ.62 The fluctuation and inconsistencies continue in Exod 3:4. The Samaritan Pentateuch repeats its preference for the term ʭʩʤʬʠ over ʤʥʤʩ (Exod 3:4a), whereas LXXGött does not read the expected ùïǁÏwhere the MT reads ʭʩʤʬʠ (Exod 3:4b).63 As a final example, we turn to the Isaiah text. In Isa 22:12, the MT reads ʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʣʠ – represented in the LXXGött with a single ôǂúóøÏ term – while an array of mss groups prefer a ôýúóøÏôýúóøÏ reading;64 Minuscule 91 in turn, reads ôýúóøÏøùïøÏ. A similar reading is found in Isa 40:10MT represented in

 The text witness Epiph II 76 (Epiphanius I–III), however, reads ôŶ (the genitive form of ôǂúóøÏ, abbreviated). 61 In Gen 28:4 the Samaritan Pentateuch proposes the opposite, preferring ʤʥʤʩ over ʭʩʤʬʠ. 62 See Exod 4:1; 8:25; 10:18; 13:21; 14:31; 19:8, and 19:21. Trobisch, Die Endredaktion, 20–21, refer to L. Traube who indicated that the Tetragram was written using square Hebrew characters, but that it was vocalised and pronounced as ʩʰʣʠ. He also notes that the latter is confirmed by the documents found at Qumran. This would be true, as indicated, for the square Hebrew characters used to reproduce the Tetragram, but it would be difficult to prove with a reasonable amount of certainty that the Tetragram was pronounced as ʩʰʣʠ at that time. 63 A similar case is found in Exod 4:1 with the MT attesting to a ʤʥʤʩ and the LXX ĽùïǁÏ reading (cf. Exod 4:11); in both cases, the rule of thumb is undermined. In the case of Deut 1:45, it is noted that codex Vaticanus minuscule mss attest to a plus reading üøŶùïøŶ ħöņ÷ with papyrus 963 as ôýúǀøýüøýùïøýýöþ÷; cf. Deut 2:14 reading ùïǁÏ for ʤʥʤʩ and Deut 3:20 reading ôǂúóøÏĽùïļÏħöņ÷ for ʤʥʤʩ. 64 B, Qmg, 109, 403ƍ, 538. 60

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

38



LXXGött again with a single ôǂúóøÏ term; the Hexaplaric tradition, together with Eusebius, accounts for two ôýúóøÏ terms, whereas Hieronymus attest to a plus reading deus. It suffices to say that these examples aptly illustrate the complexity and intricacies when one is confronted with a concept of a Hebrew deity as it presents itself in textual form spread over centuries covering the different conceptual frame of references. In the next section, the study will focus its attention on constructing a textual history of Hebrew terms used to reference a Hebrew deity.

B. Contextualising the Literary Conceptual Problem B. Contextualising the Literary

I. The Transmission Problem: Hebrew Text Traditions65 The complexities and challenges caused when reference is made to a Hebrew deity will become more evident in this section. The textual evidence that will feature here is text from the Pentateuch,66 Isaiah and the Psalms attesting to ʤʥʤʩ, ʩʰʥʣʠ, ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʬʠ and ʩʸʮ. The reason for limiting it to these textual ‘sources’ is threefold, (1) it is frequently and prominently used in the New Testament, particularly in the Pauline literature, (2) it is representative of three distinct genres, and (3) the ‘Torah’ (Pentateuch) is not only considered ‘authoritative Scripture’ of the Hebrew tradition, but it was also the ‘flagship’ for the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.67 These sources should suffice as a fair representation of terms used and concepts formed in reference to a Hebrew deity. This being the case, countless text fragments that attest to content resembling the Pentateuch texts have been found in and around the Judean desert, although not many contain the term ʤʥʤʩ. Those that do indeed present the Tetragram, attest to square Hebrew characters

 65

The problem of transmitting the Tetragram (both biblical and sectarian) and its impact on the Greek translations is illustrated in Peter Nagel, “The New Testament ôǂúóøÏ Problem and How the Old Testament Speeches Can Help Solve It,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76.4 (2020): a6134, https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i4.6134. 66 Referred to as the Torah or the “first five books of Moses.” 67 The Letter to Aristeas, or Letter to Philocrates, dated the second century BCE, ‘introduced’ the idea that the Torah was the first to be translated into Koine Greek. The letter also talks about the translation of the Hebrew law by 72 interpreters sent from Jerusalem to Egypt.



B. Contextualising the Literary

39

with a limited number of exceptions.68 What follows is a list of selected manuscript fragments69 revealing terms that were used to reference a Hebrew deity.70 (a) 4QExodb (4Q13), frag. 3, col ii, 5–6, col. i (Exod 3:15, 16, 18), frag. 24–25, col. I (Exod 4:28–31), frag. 25, col. ii (Exod 6:7, 10, 13), frag. 33 (Exod 7:6); 4QGen–Exoda, frags. 34–35 (Exod 7:15–20); 4QExodc (4Q14), frags. 1–9, col. i (Exod 8:1), frags. 10–19, col. ii (Exod 9:29–30); 2QExodb (2Q3) frag. 2 (Exod 12:27) attest to both ʤʥʤʩ and ʭʩʤʬʠ. 4QpaleoGen–Exodl (4Q11), frags. 3–4 (Exod 2:24; 3:4), frag. 5, col. ii (Exod 9:29); col. v (Exod 9:12), frags. 7, col. ii (Exod 11:8–9), 4QpaleoExodm (4Q22) col. i and ii (Exod 6:25– 7:16; 7:16–19; 7:16, 17), col. vii (Exod 10:8, 10) read the Paleo-Hebrew form for both ʤʥʤʩ and ʭʩʤʬʠ. 71

 68

See Parry, “4QSama,” 106–125, who presents a short list of authors that dealt with surrogates for the Tetragram, footnote 1, ibid., 106. See also the introductory work of Joel M. Hoffman, In the Beginning. A Short History of the Hebrew Language (New York: New York University, 2004), 39–48. Hoffman deals with the “Name of God,” or, as he calls it, “Magic Letters and the Name of God,” among other things. 69 The sources relied upon for the data presented here include D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD I; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955; Reprinted 2003). xi + 165 pp. + xxxvii plates; P. Benoit, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabba'ât (DJD II; 2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961). xv + 304 pp. + cvii plates; M. Baillet, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumrân (DJD III; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962; Reprinted 2003). xiii + 317 pp. + lxxi plates; J. M. Allegro with A. A. Anderson, Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD V; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968). xii + 111 pp. + xxxi plates; M. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD VII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982; Reprinted 2003). xiv + 339 pp. + lxxx plates; E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma'aĞe ha-Torah (DJD X; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). xiv + 235 pp. + viii plates; E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (DJD XII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994; Reprinted 1999). xv + 272 pp. + xlix plates; E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD XIV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995; Reprinted 1999). xv + 183 pp. + xxxvii plates. 70 See Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton,” PAAJR 2 (1930–1931): 39–67, who dealt with some of the substitutes used as opposed to the Tetragram while ascribing it to the hesitance of the scribes to insert the Tetragram into writing; cf. William H. Brownlee, “The Ineffable Name of God,” BASOR 226 (1977): 39–46, refers to 4QTestamonia, 1QS, and CDC in his discussion of the verbal form “I am” or “I exist” and the one that “brings into existence” in relation to the name of God. In a more recent article, Joseph M. Baumgarten, “A New Qumran Substitute for the Divine Name and Mishnah Sukkah 4.5,” JQR 83.1–2 (1992): 1–5, believes ʥʤ ʥʰʠ located at the end of 4Q266 should be viewed as a substitute for the Tetragram; cf. Parry, “4QSama,” 106–108. 71 Larry Perkins, “ÙãàØÝá. Articulation and Non-Articulation in Greek Exodus,” BIOSCS 41 (2008): 17–33. Perkins considered Greek and Hebrew equivalents and investigated the ‘original’ translation of the term ôǂúóøÏ, ibid., 20–24; see also James R. Davila, “The Name of God at Moriah. An Unpublished Fragment from 4QGenExoda,” JBL 110.4(1991): 577–582.

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

40



(b) 4Q158 frags. 4–15 (alluding to Exodus 3, 19, 20–21 and 30) testifies in all cases to the ʤʥʤʩ using square Hebrew characters; this is also true for 4Q365 frags. 2, 6, 11 and 12 (Exodus 8– 39) and 4Q174 (Exod 15:17–18).72 (c) Manuscript fragments attesting to content relating to the Leviticus document represent the Tetragram using square Hebrew characters; the same applies to the other terms used (cf. 4QLevb [4Q24] frags. 1–8, frag. 1, col. i; 4QLeve [4Q26a] frags. 3–5; 4QLevc [4Q25] frag. 2; 4QLevg [4Q26b] frag. 1; 4QLevd [4Q26] frag. 4; 4QLev–Numa [4Q23] frags. 2– 3, 16–19). Moreover, none of the ‘non-biblical’ material, in this case 4Q365 frag. 23 (Lev 23:42–24:2) and 4Q367 (Lev 15:14–15), make use of any other form of the Tetragram than square Hebrew characters. (d) Manuscript fragments reflecting content from Numbers are dominated by the term ʤʥʤʩ (cf. 4QLev–Numa; 4QNumb [4Q27]). (e) Fragments 11QLevb (11Q2) frag. 2; 1QpaleoLev–Num (1Q3) frag. 1; 11QpaleoLeva (11Q1) frags. H, I, K, col. I–iii, vi prefer ʤʥʤʩ as a reproduction for the Tetragram. There is no evidence of any explicit reference to a Hebrew deity in 6QpaleoLev (6Q2); 2QpaleoLev (2Q5).73 (f) The manuscript evidence testifying to Deuteronomy content follows a similar trajectory as the other Pentateuch documents by reading the Tetragram in square Hebrew characters and attesting to the term ʭʩʤʬʠ (cf. 4QDeuth [4Q35]; 1QDeutb [1Q5]; 4QDeutd [4Q31]; 4QDeutm [4Q40]; 4QDeutj [4Q37]; 4QDeutn [4Q41]; 4QDeuto [4Q42]; 4QPhyla [4Q128]; 4QPhylb [4Q129]; 4QPhylg [4Q134]; 4QPhylj [4Q137]; 4QPhylo [4Q142]; 4QPhylp [4Q143]; 4QPhylq [4Q146]; 1QDeuta [1Q4]; 8QPhyl [8Q3]; 1QPhyl [1Q13]; 4QDeutp [4Q43]; 5QDeut [5Q1]; 4QDeutc [4Q30]; 4QDeutf [4Q33]; 8Q4 Mezuzah; 4QDeuta [4Q28]; 4QDeutg [4Q34]). The only witnesses that represent the Tetragram using the Paleo-Hebrew characters   are 4QDeutk2 (4Q38a) frag. 2 (Deut 11:12; 26:3) and 4QpaleoDeutr (4Q45). (g) Another exception is found in 4Q174 (col. i:1, 19), also an allusion to Deuteronomy, presenting the Tetragram using ʩʩʩʩ.74

 72

As this manuscript portrays a reworking of the Pentateuch, it will be dealt with under the heading ‘biblical’ texts. This is also true for 4Q364, 4Q365, and 4Q367 in terms of the Pentateuch. No distinction is made here between the so-called ‘biblical’ or ‘canonical’ texts and the ‘non-biblical’ texts when dealing with the representation of the ʤʥʤʩ. These categories established by scholars working on the Documents from the Judean Desert to group manuscripts are necessary, but not particularly relevant per se when one deals with the representation of ʤʥʤʩ in Hebrew. The present investigation is focused on the core theological content, which attests to the ʤʥʤʩ as presented by the Hebrew texts in the inclusive sense of the word. Perhaps to rephrase it as “The present investigation is focused on the core theological content of the Hebrew texts – in the inclusive sense of the word – attesting to the use of the name ʤʥʤʩ.” 73 Cf. P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and J. E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD IX; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992). xiii + 250 pp. + xlvii plates. 74 In col. i:1 of this manuscript the scribe assigns the citation to Deut 5:28–29 as “And YHWH spoke to Moses saying: [...]”. So technically it is not part of Deut 5:28–29, but an introductory formula to the citation. In col. i:19 the blessing of YHWH is called upon “Bless, YHWH, [...],” which correlates with Deut 33:11.



B. Contextualising the Literary

41

All Hebrew manuscripts found in the region of Qumran and Wadi Murabba’at papyrus attesting to content reflected in the Genesis text – to be precise, accounting for the terms ʤʥʤʩ and ʭʩʤʬʠ – reproduce the Tetragram using square Hebrew characters, with no discrepancies revealed for the term ʭʩʤʬʠ (cf. MUR1, Gen, Num, Exod; 4QGenb [4Q2] frag. 1; 4QGenk [4Q10] frag. 4; 1Q1 [Gen] frag. 3; 8Q1 [Gen] frags. 2–3; 4QGen–Exoda [4Q1] frag. 9; 4QGenj [4Q9] frag. 1, col. i; 4QGenf [4Q6] frag. 1).75 The same tendency can be observed in fragments testifying to content resembling the Psalms.76 All represent the Tetragram using square Hebrew characters (cf. 4QPss [4Q98b]; 4QPsa [4Q83]; 11QPsc [11Q7]; 5/6HevPs; 4QPsc [4Q85]; 4QPsb [4Q84]; 4QPsk [4Q92]; 4QPso [4Q96];11QapocrPs [11Q11]; except for 11QPsa [11Q5] reading the Tetragram using the Paleo-Hebrew characters  ).77 The use of Paleo-Hebrew characters were not only limited to the Tetragram; PaleoHebrew characters were also used for the term ʬʠ in 6QCompositional Hymn frag. 6:5, frag. 8:1 and col. ii:5 (Deut 8:11). Another employment of   for the Tetragram is found in 3QLam 1:2 (Lam 1:11). Manuscripts 1QpMic, 1QpZeph (1Q15) and 1QpHab (Pesharim) also attest to the Tetragram using  , while 4QpsEzeke (pseudo-Ezekiel) again used ʩʩʩʩ.78 Another manuscript, indexed as pseudo-Ezekiel, utilised square Hebrew characters for the Tetragram.79 The same can be said for the Pesharim manuscripts found in Cave 4 (4Q168, 4Q169, 4Q170), that all attest to the Tetragram using square Hebrew characters. The latter use is also attested in 2QJer frag. 9:1 col. ii and

 75

The obvious exceptions are those manuscripts written in paleo Hebrew script (cf. 4QpaleoGenm (4Q12) frag. 1). 76 Cf. E. Eshel et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady, Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XI; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). xi + 473 pp. + xxxii pl. 77 Another manuscript from the same location indexed as 11QPsc (11Q7) testifies to the use of square Hebrew characters for the Tetragram. Noteworthy is also that ʤʥʤʩ is dominantly used for the Tetragram in the so-called ‘non-biblical’ manuscripts indexed as 11QPsa; cf. Al Wolters, “The Tetragrammaton in the Psalms Scroll,” Textus 18 (1995): 87–99. Wolters focused his investigation on the Psalms scroll and how the Tetragram had been dealt with. Wolters believes the ‘original’ scribe left blank spaces which were later filled with the Tetragram using Paleo-Hebrew script, ibid., 87–89. Cf. J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPs a) (DJD IV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965). xi + 99 pp. + xvii plates. 78 Cf. Barthélemy, D. and Milik, J. T. Qumran Cave 1 (DJD I; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955). xi + 163 pp. + xxxvii plates. 79 The content of these texts alludes to Ezekiel in general, but it is difficult to establish a specific text reference regarding 4Q386, 4Q388, and 4Q391. It is nevertheless possible to identify the content with greater certainty where the ʤʥʤʩ is also read in square Hebrew characters (see 4Q385 [Pseudo-Ezekiel], Ezekiel 37 [frags. 2 and 3], and Ezekiel 10 [frag. 4]).

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

42



frag. 13 col. i as well as in 4QJera col. iv frag. 4:6 and 5QAmos 1:1.80 From the manuscript evidence attesting to the Pentateuch it is clear that the Tetragram is reproduced using square Hebrew characters, with some exceptions, with principally three other terms used to reference a Hebrew deity: ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʬʠ, and ʤʥʬʠ.81 There are no irregularities with the use of ʭʩʤʬʠ and ʬʠ, except for the occasional use of Paleo-Hebrew characters for ʭʩʤʬʠ or ʬʠ. The final source context to be considered is the text ascribed to the prophet Isaiah. The term ʭʩʤʬʠ is used in 94 instances contained in 84 phrase structures – most of which occur in Isa 21–66. The term ʬʠ, in turn, is attested in more than 10 verses,82 while ʤʥʬʠ is deployed only once; i.e. in Isa 44:8. The term ʭʩʤʬʠ is used in combination with ʤʥʤʩ in more than 20 instances,83 with the term ʩʰʣʠ deployed in only 48 verses in comparison to ʤʥʤʩ utilised in 394 verses, occurring 450 times.84 In addition to the use of the term ʩʰʣʠ in Isaiah, the author(s) also made use of the term ʯʥʣʠ.85 The overwhelming evidence produced by the Isaiah scroll,86 a comprehensive manuscript found in Cave 1 and indexed as 1QIsaa,

 80

See the article of Jonathan P. Siegel, “The Employment of Paleo-Hebrew Characters for the Divine Names at Qumran in the Light of Tannaitic Sources,” HUCA 42 (1971): 159–172. Siegel intended to show how both ‘normative’ and ‘sectarian’ Jewish scribes translated theological significant considerations into a scribal convention, ibid., 159. See also Jonathan P. Siegel, “The Alexandrians in Jerusalem and Their Torah Scroll with Gold Tetragrammata,” IEJ 22 (1972): 39–43; see also Donald W. Parry, “Notes on Divine Name Avoidance in Scriptural Units of the Legal Texts of Qumran,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceeding of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, ed. Moshe Bernstein et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 437–449. Parry offers valuable notes on the avoidance of the Tetragram in the legal text found in the caves near Qumran; cf. also Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 218–221. Tov offers valuable insights into the scribal practices surrounding the Tetragram, particularly on the ‘divine name.’ 81 Cf. Jaco W. Gericke, “What is an ʬʠ? A Philosophical Analysis of the Concept of Generic Godhood in the Hebrew Bible,” OTE 22.1 (2009): 21–46. Gericke offers valid and necessary arguments ensuring nuanced reference to a Hebrew deity. Also noteworthy is the philological and literary approach of Aimo A. Murtonen, A Philological and Literary Treatise on the Old Testament Divine Names (El, Eloha, Elohim) and (Yahweh) (Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1952). 82 Cf. Isa 8:5; 10:21; 12:2; 40:18; 42:10; 44:10, 15; 45:14, 15, 20, 21; 46:6, 9. 83 Cf. Isa 7:11; 17:6; 21:10, 17; 24:15; 25:1; 26:13; 35:2; 36:7; 37:4, 16; 20, 21; 40:28; 41:13; 48:1, 17; 49:4, 5; 51:15, 22; 55:5 and Isa 60:9. 84 The use of ʯʥʣʠ and ʩʰʣʠ in relation to ʤʥʤʩ and ʺʥʠʡʶ in Isaiah has been covered for the most part by Rösel, Adonaj, 78–124. See also Johan Lust, “The Divine Titles ʯʥʣʠʤ and ʩʰʣʠ in Proto-Isaiah and Ezekiel,” in Isaiah in Context. Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Michaël. N. van der Meer et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 131–149. 85 Cf. Rösel, Adonaj, 79. 86 E. Ulrich and P. W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls (DJD XXXII; Oxford: Clarendon, 2010).



B. Contextualising the Literary

43

testifies to the use of square Hebrew characters for the Tetragram. This is also the case for text fragments found in other caves (cf. 4QIsaf [4Q60]; 4QIsae [4Q59]; 4QIsab [4Q56]; 1QIsab [1Q8]; 4QIsaa [4Q55]; 4QIsah [4Q62]; 4QIsag [4Q61]; 4QIsam [4Q66]; 4QIsac [4Q57]). The complexity and often confusion that comes with the transmission of the Tetragram is aptly illustrated in 1QIsaa, lines 20, 24 and 25 (Isa 3:15, 17 and 18 respectively).87 The substance of the matter is that in line 20 (Isa 3:15a) the text reads ʤʥʤʩ with a superscript ʯʥʣʠ, while line 24 (Isa 3:17a) reads ʩʰʣʠ with a superscript ʤʥʤʩ, followed by ʤʥʤʩ with a superscript ʩʰʣʠ in line 25 (Isa 3:18); the MT, however, reads ʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʣʠ (Isa 3:15), ʩʰʣʠ (Isa 3:17a), ʤʥʤʩ (Isa 3:17b), and ʩʰʣʠ (Isa 3:18). This is not only a fitting illustration of the complexity, but it also highlights the challenges brought about by the Ketib–Qere tradition. The standard explanation offered by Rösel is that the Masoretes vocalised ʤʥʤʩ with the vowels assigned to ʩʰʣʠ. The latter ‘forced’ the reader to pronounce (Qere – what ought to be read) against what was written (Ketib – what ought to be written).88 The exception would be that if and when ʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʣʠ is written, as it is here, adjacent to another, that the term ʤʥʤʩ would be vocalised to read ʭʩʤʬʠ. This will counter the duplicate reading of “Adonaj Adonaj.”89 An opposing stance on this matter, of which De Troyer is the primary proponent, is that the most ‘usual’ form of the Tetragram in Codex Leningrad, as well as in Codex Aleppo, testifies to ʤʥʕ ʤʍʩ (i.e. shema – what ought to be read) and not ʤ ʖʥʤʍʩ (i.e. Adonaj), implying that the vowels adopted from the Aramaic ʠ ʕʮˇʍ indicate what ought to be read.90 There are, however, some exceptions to the rule.91 Returning to Isa 3:15–18, it is reasonable to infer that a redactor of 1QIsaa wanted to make sure that the Tetragram in Isa 3:15a is pronounced Adonaj, while the Masoretes ‘wrote’ what they, in all probability, heard but wrote ʤʥʤʩ as a superscript as an indication of what was implied by what was read.92 Isa 3:17a seems to indicate that the Masoretes copied what ought to be read, while Isa 3:17b testifies to the fact that they interpreted the term ʩʰʣʠ (1QIsaa) as an indication of what ought to be read, but wrote what they thought was written in the original text being read to them. The reverse is again evident in Isa 3:18, with 1QIsaa bearing witness to the Ketib form ʤʥʤʩ, while the redactor indicated what ought to be read: ʩʰʣʠ. In Isa 3:18 the Masoretes thus ‘inserted’

 This issue is dealt with in more detail elsewhere, see Peter Nagel, “The ùïǁÏ and ôǂúóøÏ Terms in the Isaiah Text and Their Impact on the New Testament. Some Observations,” in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 157, ed. Johan Cook and Hermann-Josef Stipp (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 173–191. 88 Cf. Rösel, Adonaj, 2. 89 Ibid., 3; cf. De Troyer, “The Pronunciation,” 144–145. 90 De Troyer, “The Pronunciation,” 145. 91 E.g., Exod 3:2. 92 Cf. De Troyer, “The Pronunciation,” 144. 87

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

44



ʩʰʣʠ into the main body of the text – either based on the superscript or because they wanted the Ketib form to be representative of the Qere form.93 The variants are not limited to the term ʤʥʤʩ but include the term ʭʩʤʬʠ; some remarks to this end should be in order. 1QIsaa (Isa 37:20) accounts for ʭʩʤʬʠ ʤʥʤʩ, while the MT only reads ʤʥʤʩ;94 Isa 49:14 (1QIsaa) reads ʩʰʥʣʠʥ ʤʥʤʩ with a superscript ʩʤʥʬʠʥ directly above ʩʰʥʣʠʥ, presumably implying that ‘Elohim’ is to be read, which would support the argument that if and when ʤʥʤʩ and ʩʰʣʠ are read consecutively, the consecutive term, be it either ʤʥʤʩ or ʩʰʣʠ should be pronounced ʭʩʤʬʠ to avoid the repetition of ‘Adonaj’.95 A slightly different but related issue is the MT reading in Isa 50:5 attesting to both ʩʰʣʠ and ʤʥʤʩ, compared to 1QIsaa reading ʭʩʤʬʠ ʩʰʣʠ. The latter seems to indicate that the Masoretes wrote what they considered to be an indication of how the term ʭʩʤʬʠ in 1QIsaa should be read.96 Finally, in Isa 61:1 and Isa 61:11,97 the reading of 1QIsaa and 1QIsab are in agreement but differs in 4QIsam and the MT as indicated in Table 8: Table 8: Text Tradition (Isa 61:1, 11) Ref

1QIsaa

1QIsab

4QIsam

MT

Isa 61:1 Isa 61:11

ʭʩʤʬʠ ʤʥʤʩ ʭʩʤʬʠ ʤʥʤʩ

ʭʩʤʬʠ ʤʥʤʩ ----

ʣʠ ----

ʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʣʠ ʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʣʠ

A reasonable inference to be made from the empirical data produced by the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Isaiah texts, irrespective of their often-fragmentary character, is that when reference is made to a Hebrew deity as a creator transcendent wise deity, the terms ʤʥʤʩ, ʩʰʥʣʠ, ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʬʠ, and ʩʸʮ dominates; and when reference is made to the ‘sacred name’ of a Hebrew deity, the square Hebrew characters is the most prominent form reproducing the Tetragram. If and where the term ʤʥʤʩ is used adjacent to ʩʰʣʠ or ʭʩʤʬʠ it caused confusion and difficulties in how the terms are transmitted, as was underscored by the Ketib– Qere tradition. These complexities had to have an impact on the Greek translators of the Hebrew Scriptures.

 93

Cf. Trobisch, Die Endredaction, 21, footnote 19. Noteworthy is the fact that the Greek counterpart of Isa 3:18, represented by the LXXGött, does not attest to any equivalent of these terms. Similar cases of Ketib–Qere ‘confusion’ is detectable in Isa 6:11; 7:14; 8:7 (ʩʰʣʠ as superscript in 1QIsaa with a probable reading of ʤʥʤʩ); Isa 9:7; 21:16; 28:2, 16; 30:15; 49:7; 61:1. 94 The Greek and Syriac equivalents only account for the term ʭʩʤʬʠ. 95 Both 1QIsab and 4QIsab (4Q56) do not attest to any superscript. 96 Cf. Isa 54:6 alternating between ʭʩʤʬʠ ʤʥʤʩ (1QIsaa) and ʭʩʤʬʠ (MT). 97 Cf. Nagel, “The ùïǁÏ and ôǂúóøÏ Terms,” 178.



B. Contextualising the Literary

45

II. The Translation and Transmission Problem: Greek Text Tradition98 The translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was one of the biggest literary ‘Hellenised’ undertakings of its kind. The project is not only known for its sheer magnitude but also because of its religious value and significance.99 A desire developed to translate the Hebrew Scriptures, that was nothing less than ‘sacred,’ into a new idiom using metaphors, rhetoric, allegory, and typology among many other exegetical methods and hermeneutical approaches. The presumed intention was to make the Hebrew Scriptures accessible to the Hellenised Judeans. This required skilled, literate, and knowledgeable people. Surely this undertaking was not considered to be equal to any other ‘profane’ translation process; it demanded exceptional religious wisdom, sensitivity and a mind with incomparable cognitive abilities to blend, re-contextualise, reimagine, and conceptualise theological significant ideas cast in the Hebrew vernacular/parlance using ‘suitable’ Greek equivalent terms. The terms ʤʥʤʩ, ʩʰʥʣʠ, ʬʠ, ʭʩʤʬʠ, and ʩʸʮ used to reference a Hebrew deity was considered to be of utmost religious value and meaning that required ‘appropriate’ Greek equivalents such as ùïǁÏ, ôǂúóøÏ and îïûǁüòÏ. The first challenge one is confronted with is the limited and fragmentary nature of the textual data. Secondly, not only are the data scarce and fragmented, but in most cases, they do not attest to the terms ôǂúóøÏ, ùïǁÏ and/or related terms.100 To confirm, it is not a case of the texts avoiding these terms, but it just happens that they are not visible on the available manuscript fragments. Table 9 serves as a conflated summary of possible Greek terms used when reference is made to a Hebrew deity. These terms were considered ‘appropriate’ Greek equivalents to reproduce a Hebrew deity.

 Cf. Nagel, “The New Testament ôǂúóøÏ Problem.” 99 Cf. Natalio F. Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 18–20; cf. Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture. Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), xi. Hengel also considered the introductory remarks by Robert Hanhart, whose brief introduction proves to hold valuable insights, ibid., 2–18. 100 Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts. Manuscripts and Christian Origin (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), recognises the complexity of the issue when dealing with such data, stating that the difficulty is to determine whether the artifact is indeed Jewish or Christian, ibid., 17. Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts that can be dated before the Christian era are, for obvious reasons, posited as Jewish, ibid., 18. 98

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

46



Table 9: Oldest Greek Manuscripts Evidence101 Text reference Deut 11:4

Deut 23–28 Exod 28:4– 7 Lev 26:2– 16 Lev 1:10– 11 Lev 2:3–5 Lev 3:9–13 Lev 3:13– 14 Lev 4:3–4 Lev 4:26– 28 Lev 4:4 Lev 4:6–8 Lev 5:18– 24 N/A Deut 18:16 Deut 19:10 Deut 19:14

Identification

Date

Material

Term

4QpapLXXDeut (4Q122), frag. 1

2 BCE

Papyri

P. Ryl 458 (#957) 4QpapLXXExod (7Q1) 4QpapLXXLeva (4Q119) frag. 1 4QpapLXXLevb (4Q120) frag. 1 4QpapLXXLevb frag. 2 4QpapLXXLevb frags. 6–7 4QpapLXXLevb frag. 8 4QpapLXXLevb frag. 9 4QpapLXXLevb frag. 20–21 4QpapLXXLevb frag. 10 4QpapLXXLevb frags. 12–15 4QpapLXXLevb frags. 27–31 7QpapEpJer (7Q2) P. Fouad 266b (#848) col. 4, frag. 6 P. Fouad 266b col. 4, frag. 10 P. Fouad 266b col.8, frag. 11

2 BCE 2/1 BCE

Papyri Papyri

[blank space left in recon]102 -------

2/1 BCE

Papyri

----

2/1 BCE

Papyri

2/1 BCE

Papyri

[Øëþ in recon]103 [Øëþ in recon]

2/1 BCE

Papyri

[Ø]ëþ

2/1 BCE

Papyri

[Øëþin recon]

2/1 BCE

Papyri

Øëþ in recon]

2/1 BCE

Papyri

Øëþ

2/1 BCE

Papyri

2/1 BCE

Papyri

2/1 BCE

Papyri

[ǿĮȦ in recon]104 [Øëþ in recon]105 [ǿĮȦ in recon]

2/1 BCE 1 BCE

Papyri Papyri

ßÔÝ4 ʤʥʤʩ ßÔÝ4

1 BCE

Papyri

1 BCE

Papyri

blank space…ßÔÝ4 ʤʥʤʩ

 101

Table 9 is a slightly revised version of the table published in Nagel, “‘God’ Constructs at Kirbet Qumran,” 127–144. It should also be stated that some of the figures relating to the content of table 9 have been used in Nagel, “The New Testament ôǂúóøÏ Problem.” 102 With “blank space left in recon” is meant that those that reconstructed the papyri fragments left a blank space in the reconstruction, but the papyri fragment itself does not attest to any reproduction form of the Tetragram. 103 The manuscript allows enough space to insert the term ôǂúóøÏ in both 4QpapLXXLevb frag. 1:11 and 4QpapLXXLevb frag. 2:1. 104 There appears to be enough space to insert the term ôǂúóøÏ. 105 Again, the space used to reconstruct üþØëþ allows for the term ôǂúóøÏ.



B. Contextualising the Literary Deut 21:8 Deut 25:15 Deut 25:16 Deut 27:2 Num 3:40– 43 Num 4:1–9

P. Fouad 266b col. 15, frag. 21 P. Fouad 266b col. 34, frag. 49 P. Fouad 266b col. 34, frag. 149 P. Fouad 266b col. 39, frag. 59 4QpapLXXNum (4Q121) frags. 1–5 4QpapLXXNum frags. 7–14 8ণevXIIgr col. 18

1 BCE

Papyri

ʤʥʤʩ

1 BCE

Papyri

ʤʥʤʩ ßÔÝ4

1 BCE

Papyri

ʤʥʤʩ

1 BCE

Papyri

ʤʥʤʩ ßÔÝ4

Papyri

----

Papyri

----

parchment

 

parchment

 

parchment

 

parchment

 

parchment

 

parchment

 

Papyri Papyri Papyri Papyri parchment

Jonah 4:2a

8ণevXIIgr col. 18:39 8ণevXIIgr col. 3:36

Mic 1:3

8ণevXIIgr col. 4:33

Zeph 1:14

8ণevXIIgr col. 21:29 8ণevXIIgr col. 28:37 P. Oxy 3522 P. Oxy 4443 P. Oxy 5101 P. Oxy 656

turn of century turn of century turn of century turn of century turn of century turn of century turn of century turn of century 1 CE 1/2 CE 1/2 CE 2/3 CE

P. Oxy 1007

2/3 CE

Hab 2:14 Hab 2:20

Zach 1:3 Job 42:11 Esther 8–9 Ps 26:9–14 Gen 24:39– 42 Gen 2–3

47

  ßÔÝ4   ß4 ÙãàØÝã ZZ

The oldest known text evidence of the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures is 4QpapLXXDeut and P. Ryl 458; both of which testify to content resembling Deuteronomy. Unfortunately, neither of them attests to the terms ôǂúóøÏ or ùïǁÏ. Manuscript 4QpapLXXDeut, however, bears an unusual blank space that might be an indication of a ʤʥʤʩ reading in this instance.106 The manuscript indexed 4QpapLXXLevb, presents a Greek equivalent for the Tetragram in the form of Øëþ; the consistent and widespread use of such an equivalent is in no way certain. According to Rösel, this scribal practice is not a translation of some sort, but rather an indication of that which was spoken.107 The Greek

 106

According to Thomas J. Kraus, Ad Fontes. Original Manuscripts and Their Significance for Studying Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 239, this is an unnecessary blank space in the middle of a word. 107 Rösel, “Reading and Translation,” 416. Frank Shaw dealt with this issue in his doctoral dissertation, “The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of :ëþ,” (PhD diss.,



48

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem



manuscript of Exodus, 4QpapLXXExod, holds no reference to any form of the Tetragram, although the character count of between 19 and 20 per line provides enough space to fit the term ôǂúóøÏ based on the provided reconstruction offered in the DJD series. The Greek manuscript indexed as P. Fouad 266a (Ralphs #942), which is dated to the middle of the first-century BCE containing sections of Genesis (Genesis 3, 4, 7, 37, and 38), could have been instrumental, but none of the manuscript fragments testify to a relevant term used to refer to a Hebrew deity. Notwithstanding, Koenen notes that the use of the ʤʥʤʩ should be inferred due to the probability that the manuscript was written by the same hand as P. Fouad 266b (Göttingen #848).108 As mentioned, P. Fouad 266b (Göttingen #848), showing content from Deuteronomy, reads in almost all cases the square Hebrew characters where one would have expected either the ôǂúóøÏ or an equivalent Greek term. Not only does this manuscript attest to the Tetragram using square Hebrew characters, but it also exhibits, (1) an uncontracted ùïǁÏ term, and (2) the ʤʥʤʩùïǁÏ combination, which is significant as it illustrates how the translators dealt with the ʭʩʤʬʠ ʤʥʤʩ combination. It seems probable that an ‘original’ scribe left a blank space that was filled by a later scribe who opted for square Hebrew script, although not in all cases (e.g., col. 4, frag. 6 and col. 8, frag. 10). The insertion of ʤʥʤʩ was not necessarily the intent of the first scribe because there is ample room for both ʤʥʤʩ and ôǂúóøÏ to fill the blank spaces. What it does signify is the uncertainty and hesitation to reproduce the Tetragram, but if a scribe had to, they would rather prefer the term ʤʥʤʩ.

 University of Cincinatti, 2002), OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1014323679, in which he attempted to argue that it was an ongoing custom to pronounce the name Øëþ within some lower-class groups of Hellenistic Judaism, 201–202 and that there was knowledge outside Jewish circles that Øëþ was the name for the ‘God’ of the Jews. De Troyer, “The Pronunciation,” 153, believes Øëþ is a transliteration of ˒ʤʩ, the three-letter name of God. 108 Cf. Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint. Genesis and Deuteronomy (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1980), 3.



B. Contextualising the Literary

49

 Figure 1: Manuscript 8ণevXIIgr (source: The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library. https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/8Hev1–1).

Another extraordinary find is the Greek manuscript from Naতal ণever indexed as 8ণevXIIgr (content reflecting the Greek minor prophets), witnessing a unique representation of the Hebrew deity in a Greek manuscript.109 The manuscript image in figure 1 reflects content resembling Hab 2:20; what is of interest is the conjunction ôëǀ and the definite article used with the term  ; this is indeed how the term ʤʥʤʩ was conceptualised, a Hebrew deity in its definite form. So, there should be no doubt that the scribe conceptualised a Hebrew deity as ʤʥʤʩ when he used Paleo-Hebrew characters. The LXXGött renders it Ľ îĜ ôǂúóøÏ while the MT supports ʤफ़ ʥʕ ʤʩʙʥʔ as reading. The Greek rendering suggests that there are text traditions supporting the term ôǂúóøÏ the nomina sacraôࡄÏࡄ to be preciseas a suitable equivalent for the term ʤʥʤʩ. It should be reiterated that the Greek manuscripts found at Naতal ণever testify to the consistent use of Paleo-Hebrew script as a reproduction for the Tetragram.110 A practice not confined to the minor prophets and manuscripts found at Naতal ণever.

 109

See Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Die Überlieferung und Verwendung der Septuaginta im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert. Aspekte der neueren Septuagintaforschung und deren Bedeutung für die neutestamentliche Exegese,” in Hellenistisches Christentum. Schriftverständnis – Ekklesiologie – Geschichte, ed. Dietrich-Alex Koch and Friedrich W. Horn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 42–65, for a comparative analysis between 8ণevXIIgr, the MT and LXX, ibid., 62. 110 See E. Tov with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (DJD VIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1990; reprinted with corrections 1995). x + 169 pp. + xx plates.

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

50



 Figure 2: P. Oxy 3522 (source: The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Project, Oxford. Copyright, the Oxyrhynchus Papyri Project. The rectangular frame was inserted by the present author).

Greek manuscripts found at Oxyrhynchus near Egypt, to be precise, P. Oxy 3522 (figure 2, Job 42:11)111 and P. Oxy 5101 (Ps 26:9–14), also attest to the use of Paleo-Hebrew characters for the Tetragram.112 Another peculiar reproduction of the Tetragram attested in a Greek manuscript is the letters ZZ identified in P. Oxy 1007 (Gen 2:18). This fragment reads ZZ followed by O OC; an equivalent reading ôǂúóøÏ Ľ ùïǁÏ confirmed by LXXGött. According to the Hebrew text tradition, these terms are the Greek equivalents for ʭʩʤʬʠʤʥʤʩ.113 If a third century CE dating for this manuscript is accepted, it indicates that the sensitivity towards the sacred ‘name’ of a Hebrew deity persisted at least until the third century CE.

 The LXXGött consistently applies the definite article in front of the term ôǂúóøÏ; cf. Job 42:7, 10, 11, 12, and 17. 112 See Eldon J. Epp, “The Oxyrhynchus New Testament Papyri. ‘Not Without Honor Except in Their Hometown?’,” in Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism. NovTSup 116, ed. Margaret M. Mitchell and David P. Moessner (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 743–801. 113 Cf. MT, 4Q2 Genb frag. 1 Col. II and 4Q8a Genh2 frag. 1. 111



B. Contextualising the Literary

51

Figure 3: P. Oxy 656 (plate 2 frag. c verso [source: The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Project, Oxford. Copyright, the Oxyrhynchus Papyri Project. Frames and arrows inserted by the present author]).

The Greek manuscript (figure 3) indexed P. Oxy 656 (plate 2 frag. c verso), dated to the second century CE, requires special attention since it is the only manuscript of biblical content attesting to uncontracted ôǂúóøÏ terms. It attests to one uncontracted ôǂúóøÏ term in line 3 (Gen 24:39) and another two in lines 16 and 17 (Gen 24:42), with one uncontracted ùïǁÏ term in line 16 and one contracted form in line 17. This is the only Greek witness of a biblical text dated before or after the Christian era that presents an uncontracted form of the ôǂúóøÏ term.114

 4QUnidgr frag. 2.6 is another Greek fragment attesting to ôŵúóøÏ and, although it is not possible to assign it to any biblical content, the possibility exists that these terms might have been used in Qumran not only for profane purposes but also as an equivalent for ʤʥʤʩ; cf. D. M. Pike, D. M. and A. Skinner With a Contribution by T. L. Szink, in Consultation with J. VanderKam and M. Brady, Qumran Cave 4.X XIII: Unidentified Fragments (DJD XXXIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001). xv + 376 pp. + xli plates. 114

Chapter 3: Literary Conceptual Problem

52



Table 10: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 656 (Gen 24:39–42) Gen 24:39, 40, 42 Index P. Oxy 656 (Gött #905) Gen 24:39a ÔØÞÐÓÔâäÙ

 (line 3) Gen 24:40a ÙÐØÔØÞÔÜÛÝØÝ (line 16) ßÔÝ4 Gen 24:42b 6:Þ2