The Fall and Rise of Revelation Revelation was used widely in the early church, then doubted in the East in the fourth century, but eventually accepted again. T. C. SchmidtThe book of Revelation describes many falls from grace, and its own is just as dramatic. In the late first century AD, John of Patmos received a cosmic vision while in exile for Christ. His account of this vision, our book of Revelation, was then quickly embraced by Christians all around the Mediterranean. So popular was Revelation that the number of early Christian writers who mention it rivals that of any other New Testament text. This begins with Papias (c. 115 AD) and Justin Martyr (c. 155 AD) who made use of Revelation in what is today Turkey. They are followed by authors like Theophilus of Antioch in Syria (c. 175 AD); Irenaeus in France (c. 185 AD); Clement of Alexandria in Egypt (c. 195 AD); Tertullian in Tunisia (c. 200 AD); Hippolytus in Rome (c. 200–235 AD), and many other writers besides. By the middle of the third century, it is difficult to find Christians who do not quote from Revelation. So popular was Revelation that the number of early Christian writers who mention it rivals that of any other New Testament text. A reversal of fortune But then, during the fourth century, a great reversal occurred. Several writers in the areas where Revelation had once been so beloved began voicing doubts over its legitimacy. These suspicions soon proceeded to foment and boil over in the succeeding centuries causing Revelation to be omitted from the New Testaments of many churches east of the city of Rome. There, in these Eastern locales, Revelation underwent a kind of New Testament exile from which it was only recalled after many centuries. This resulted in a great irony: Revelation, though possessing one of the strongest scriptural pedigrees, came to be known as the most disputed book in the New Testament. And all this naturally brings up several questions which this article will address: In what churches was Revelation held in suspicion? What caused such suspicions? How were they resolved? And when were they resolved? “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” one of Albrecht Dürer’s 15 engravings of Revelation. Source Doubt spreads Where Revelation was consistently held in high esteem from the very beginnings of Christianity in Western Europe, Northwest Africa, Egypt (both Greek and Coptic speaking areas), and it seems also to have been always embraced in Nubia and Ethiopia, though the evidence for these latter two areas is limited. The story is different for other regions. While Revelation was viewed highly in the Greek-speaking portions of Europe and Asia in the second and third centuries, this changed in the fourth. At that point, a precipitous decline becomes evident, so much so that many later Greek writers never quote from Revelation and even omit it from their New Testament lists. Greek manuscripts of Revelation also become rarer during this time, and those that do exist often place Revelation alongside non-New Testament texts. For more on the history of Revelation, see the author’s book. The situation in Armenian, Syriac, Georgian, and Slavonic contexts was graver still. Evidence suggests that Revelation was excluded when the first Armenian translation of the New Testament was commissioned in the 440s AD. An ancient Armenian translation of the book was eventually carried out, but it was little used. Likewise, the first Syriac translations of the New Testament (3rd–5th centuries) also appear to have omitted Revelation and it was not until the sixth and seventh centuries that Revelation was translated into Syriac. But even then, it was ignored by most Syriac writers and omitted from almost all Syriac biblical manuscripts. In Georgia, Revelation was yet again omitted when the Georgian New Testament was first translated (fifth century), and no translation of Revelation was ever made into Georgian before the tenth century. Lastly, though the first Slavonic translation of the New Testament appears to have included Revelation (ninth century), this translation was lost. Revelation was translated into Slavonic again several hundred years later, but then unhappily lost once more. Why There were multiple reasons for Revelation’s declining fortunes in the East. First and most simply is that Revelation is a difficult book to understand. While some found this difficulty to be divinely and profoundly mysterious, others found it obscure and nonsensical. Hence, these critics of Revelation voiced concerns over its alleged narrative incoherency, its supposed internal contradictions, and its seemingly ridiculous creatures and scenery. Compounding all of these issues were instances where Revelation was felt to be doctrinally suspect, as when Revelation—again allegedly—mentions seven different holy spirits (Rev. 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6), portrays the spiritual heavens in a physical or even grotesque manner (Rev. 21), describes a final thousand-year earthly reign of Jesus (Rev. 20), calls Jesus a mere creature by stating that he is the “beginning of creation” (Rev. 3:14), and other such passages. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Another sharp thorn goading suspicion was that Revelation’s authorship was questionable. Many doubted that John the apostle and evangelist wrote Revelation because its style differed from the other writings of John and because some earlier Christians postulated that there were actually two disciples of Jesus named John. A further, though ancillary, reason contributing to the above concerns was that Revelation viciously critiqued Rome (Rev. 17 and 18). This was well and good when Christians were being persecuted by pagan Rome, but such critiques were harder to swallow when Christians came to rule Rome in the fourth century. Answering the doubts These suspicions were in large part answered by Revelation commentators. Beginning in the sixth century, writers began composing full-length, often verse-by-verse, commentaries defending Revelation from criticism. They pointed out that Revelation is a cyclical work that repeats material from different vantages and perspectives and, in this view, should not be seen as narratively incoherent. Regarding alleged internal contradictions and absurd creatures, commentators again and again highlighted that Revelation proclaims itself as an allegorical work (Rev. 1:1, 1:20, 11:8, 12:1, 17:5, 17:7), and so its imagery should not be taken literally, but instead ought to be probed for deeper, profounder meaning. This too is why one should not assume that Revelation’s earthly depictions of heaven or its thousand-year reign of Jesus pertain to physical reality; rather such things symbolically and mystically outline exalted spiritual realities that would not otherwise be comprehensible to lowly humans. Related A depiction of Rev. 12 in the Silos Apocalypse (11th c.). Add MS 11695 Revelation’s Place in the Greek BibleThe history of the Apocalypse in the Greek manuscripts reveals that its place at the end is not uniform. Clark R. Bates Areas where Revelation was doctrinally suspect were also defended. When Revelation mentions seven spirits, it only uses “seven” as a figurative number representing the perfection of the one Holy Spirit; or if not, then the seven spirits refer to seven high ranking spiritual beings such as the archangels Michael and Gabriel. In like manner, Revelation does not call Jesus the “beginning (archē) of creation” (Rev. 3:14) but rather calls him the “origin” or “ruler” of creation, which indeed are other valid interpretations of the Greek word archē. As for Revelation’s authorship, commentators argued that stylistic differences should not trouble the reader because John may have changed his style intentionally to suit an alternative audience. One or two commentators also seem to have believed that if another John wrote Revelation, then he was still nonetheless a disciple of Jesus and therefore an apostolic man, much like Luke, Mark, James, Jude, and Paul who also wrote documents in the New Testament, yet were not numbered among the original twelve apostles. A final resolution It is impossible to be absolutely precise with dates, but, in the Greek church, Revelation begins its recovery around about the tenth century, though the commentary by Andrew of Caesarea seems to have started propelling it into popularity starting in the seventh century. In the Greek church, Revelation begins its recovery around about the tenth century. In Syriac areas, several famous scholars attempted to promote Revelation, commencing with Philoxenus around 500 AD, who translated it as part of his Syriac New Testament. Revelation was translated again for the New Testament of Thomas of Harkel (c. 615 AD), and an extract of it was later translated by Jacob of Edessa (c. 708 AD). An anonymous Syriac commentary was also written on it probably in the early seventh century, but none of these attempts seem to have been effective—Revelation was still largely omitted from Syriac New Testament lists and manuscripts. However, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it began gaining prestige in West Syriac circles, though East Syriac communities seem to have taken longer to come round, and certain of their communities did not accept Revelation until the early and mid-1800s, soon after the British Foreign Bible Society distributed the first accessible printed edition of the Syriac New Testament. An 11th c. Syriac manuscript that may have once contained the whole NT, including Revelation, but today breaks off at Hebrews (New College MS 333). Photo by Peter Gurry. In Armenia, Revelation was rehabilitated largely by Nerses of Lambron (c. 1179 AD), who re-translated it and then wrote a commentary (adapted from Andrew of Caesarea’s Greek commentary) defending it. His efforts seem to have been greatly successful. In neighboring Georgia, Euthymius the Athonite (c. 978 AD) made the first known Georgian translation of Revelation while also writing a commentary on the text (once again adapted from Andrew). Yet, it is unclear when Revelation became accepted in the Georgian church, and it may have been passed over until the printing of the Georgian New Testament in the early 1700s.1T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society (London: The Bible House, 1903), vol. 2.1 p. 478–479. For the placement of New Testament texts within Georgian manuscripts, see D. M. Lang, “Recent Work on the Georgian New Testament,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 19, no. 1 (1957): 87. In Slavonic circles, an anonymous commentary on Revelation was written in the tenth century (once more adapted from Andrew) and became quite popular. In 1499, the Archbishop of Novgorod included Revelation in his edition of the New Testament. However, as Revelation was regaining (or gaining, as the case may be) its standing in the East, it underwent its first real trial in the West when some of the Protestant reformers questioned its authority. Martin Luther, for example, claimed that Revelation was neither apostolic nor prophetic in his first edition of the German Bible, though in a subsequent edition he mostly reversed course, but still held doubts.2Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann, eds., Luther’s Works, American edition (St. Louis & Philadelphia: Concordia & Muhlenberg, 1955-1986), vol. 35 pp. 398–399 (first preface), 399–411 (second preface). Conclusion Such as that may be, I quite agree with the arguments of Revelation’s ancient and medieval commentators. There are sound, reliable reasons for considering John of Patmos to have been a disciple of Jesus, whether John the apostle or another John. The text of Revelation, albeit challenging and at times bewildering, is full of mystery and profound insight. If you read with a mind awake to Revelation’s cyclical narrative; if you train a patient eye towards Revelation’s own instruction to understand it “spiritually,” then the stumbling blocks fall away. And in due time, you too will be able to exclaim along with Jerome (c. 420 AD) that The Apocalypse of John has as many mysteries as words. In saying this I have said less than the book deserves. All praise of it is inadequate; manifold meanings lie hidden in its every word.3Letter 53.9; translation modified. Notes1T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society (London: The Bible House, 1903), vol. 2.1 p. 478–479. For the placement of New Testament texts within Georgian manuscripts, see D. M. Lang, “Recent Work on the Georgian New Testament,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 19, no. 1 (1957): 87.2Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann, eds., Luther’s Works, American edition (St. Louis & Philadelphia: Concordia & Muhlenberg, 1955-1986), vol. 35 pp. 398–399 (first preface), 399–411 (second preface).3Letter 53.9; translation modified.
Resources for Reading Greek Manuscripts If you want to read Greek manuscripts, use these tools to demystify what looks like an alphabet soup. Clark R. BatesI have been a transcriber of Greek manuscripts for many years now, both paid and volunteer, and a question I often get as a result is how to interpret the vast number of letter combinations or “ligatures” that one finds in these texts. Over the years, I have read many books that cover this material, but have also collected various online resources that I can offer to new transcribers or those just interested in learning about these paleographic features. Incidentally, learning these forms can also help with reading early printed Greek New Testament’s since the typeface used in those editions was modelled after written Greek and includes ligatures. In this article, I will offer my best suggestions for learning how to read Greek abbreviations and ligatures as seen in biblical manuscripts. Terminology First, let’s talk terminology. While the definitions often involve some level of overlap, there are differences in whether something is a ligature, a contraction, or an abbreviation. Abbreviation — the intentional shortening of a word by removing its last few letters. Contraction — the intentional shortening of word by removing letters between the first and last letters of the word. Ligature — the joining of several letters together to create a shortened form of a word, or the replacement of that word with a symbol. An example of a καί ligature and a nu at the end of a line in Codex Sinaiticus at Mark 15:27. Image source Examples of abbreviations one might encounter in Greek manuscripts are numbers that have been replaced with their letter equivalent. Rather than spelling out the infamous mark of the beast in Revelation 13:18, for example, scribes often wrote its equivalent in letters (χξϛ). Another example would be the replacement of a final nu with an overhead line. The most obvious examples of compactions or contractions that you will find in Greek manuscripts are nomina sacra which abbreviate certain common Greek nouns. Ligatures are more difficult to provide examples for since they generally employ symbols rather than letter shapes. However, two of the ligatures most often seen in manuscripts are the combination of omicron and upsilon and the καί (kai) ligature in its various forms. History Abbreviations and contractions can be found in Greek manuscripts during the centuries in which majuscule script was used exclusively. And, while ligatures generally do not appear widely in literary work prior to the transition to minuscule script, the presence of an early καί (kai) ligature can be found already in Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. AD) as shown above. Related Greek and Arabic numerals. Illustration by Peter Gurry. Scribal Blunders in Biblical NumbersDifferent ways of writing numbers in Greek can be difficult both for ancient scribes and modern scholars. Zachary J. Cole Between the fifth and seventh centuries, as cursive majuscule became more prolific in documentary texts, ligature use increased as scribes desired a more rapid or tachygraphic mode of writing. By the ninth century, the conversion from majuscule to a literary minuscule began and the following centuries brought with them an increased production of ligatures for more words. Generally, ligatures are used to represent words of three to four letters or less, but in some creative instances, the ligature for a word like κατά (kata) can be found in place of its use as a prefix on a word like καταβαίνω (katabainō). By the fourteenth century, manuscripts produced in a more scholastic style could be comprised of almost exclusively abbreviations, compactions, and ligatures, making the text almost indecipherable to anyone unfamiliar with this form of writing. An example of lots of ligatures from GA 1969, f. 125r. The text reads: τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· οὐχ ὡς πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ ἔχοντος·1My immense thanks to Dr. Amy Myshrall who was more than willing to share these examples of ligatures when she heard of this article. Image source For present-day transcribers and students of Greek manuscripts the presence of these shapes and symbols can create an impenetrable barrier to proficiency, especially if they lack any resources to guide them through the maze. In order to help others become familiar with the forms they will regularly encounter in Greek manuscripts, I have compiled a list of resources, mostly available online for free, that can be used to help students along the way: Print resources The best print resources for reading and understanding ligatures are in several languages and are not available online are the following. English: Pat Easterling and Carol Handley, eds. Greek Scripts: An Illustrated Introduction. London: Society for the Promotion of Hellenistic Studies, 2001. Italian: Elpidio Mioni. Introduzione alla paleografia greca. Universita Di Padova Studi Bizantini E Neogreci 5 Padova: Liviana Editrice, 1973. French: Alain Blanchard. Sigles et abréviations dans les papyrus documentaires grecs: recherches de paléographie. Bulletin Supp. No. 30. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1974. Related Four Greek biblical manuscripts (Rahlfs 962, GA 2374, GA 01, and GA 1). Illustration by Peter Gurry. Four Benefits of Reading Greek ManuscriptsReading biblical manuscripts, even for beginners, brings history to life and promises untold surprises along the way. Amy S. Anderson Online resources Fortunately, living in a digital age means that many of the earlier, and still very helpful, works on paleography are now available online. The most important of which in English is T. W. Allen’s Notes on Abbreviations in Greek Manuscripts (1967). It has a full description of common ligatures and a discussion on tachygraphy making it a unique and extremely valuable resource. Next to that would be the work of the famous paleographer, Edmond Maunde Thompson whose work Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography (1893) is a bit dated, but still contains a very helpful chapter on abbreviations. Moving to resources that are produced exclusively online, the Vatican library website has an excellent page containing an introduction to Greek paleography. One of the links on the page is to a discussion on abbreviations with helpful diagrams of several ligatures. Additionally, an online PDF of the introduction to William Wallace’s (no, not that one) An Index to Greek Ligatures and Contractions has been made available, which contains his diagrams of numerous ligatures. An online website dubbed the “Textual Critic’s Corner” also has a section devoted to ligatures, with images, along with very clear scans of ligatures used in printed Greek New Testaments and other Incunabula. RelatedErasmus and the Search for the Original Text of the New TestamentMartin HeideThe Changing Fortunes of Codex VaticanusAn-Ting Yi The best resource of all I intentionally left this last online resource for the end because, if you saw it first, you would have ignored all the others! It’s called the CRBMI Searchable Ligature Tool and is the brainchild of Dr. W. Andrew Smith and the Center for Research of Biblical Manuscripts and Inscriptions (crbmi.org). Enterprising transcribers there have developed a searchable ligature/abbreviation tool that allows someone to simply type a letter combination into a search bar and it will return images for all known ligatures of that combination. It is the most thorough database that I am aware of, and it should be a tab on everyone’s computer. Lastly, I would be remiss to not also put on every reader’s radar what will be the largest compendium of all Greek ligatures ever produced. It is slated for publication in 2026, coming from the University of London. Julian Chrysostomides, et al., eds. A Lexicon of Abbreviations & Ligatures in Greek Minuscule Hands: ca. 8th century to ca. 1600. Porphyrogenitus. I would encourage all who are interested to save the information and keep an eye out for its eventual release. Conclusion Knowledge of abbreviations, contractions, and ligatures in Greek manuscripts is of vital importance for anyone in manuscript studies, be they paleographers or text critics. They represent an important era of manuscript production and cannot be ignored if one intends to read or transcribe manuscripts after the eighth century. By providing these resources here, I hope that it will encourage more readers to work with late-antique manuscripts of the Greek Bible and give them the ability to teach others to do the same.Notes1My immense thanks to Dr. Amy Myshrall who was more than willing to share these examples of ligatures when she heard of this article.
Paul and First-Century Letter Writing Understanding his context reveals the Apostle Paul as one of the great letter writers of his age. E. Randolph RichardsMy grandmother called it snooping when you read someone else’s mail. Yet, that is what we are doing, peering over the shoulders of the Philippians, reading Paul’s letter to them. But aside from reading his letters themselves, what can we learn about Paul’s first-century letters by learning about first-century letter writing more generally? Basics of first-century letter writing Paul grew up in a first-century Mediterranean world that loved sending and receiving letters: a sailor wrote his mom (P.Mich. 8.490), a woman invites another to a birthday party (T.Vindol. 291), travelers wrote home (P.Mich. 8.477) or someone at home asks for updates from a traveler (P.Oxy. 123). In every part of the empire where ancient documents could survive, archaeologists have found thousands of letters from everyday people. These everyday letters, uncovered in the last hundred years or so, supplement what we already knew from the letter collections of the great Roman rhetoricians: Cicero, Seneca, Quintilian and Pliny. In every part of the empire where ancient documents could survive, archaeologists have found thousands of letters from everyday people Letters had become quite formulaic, even more than today’s “Dear So-and So” and “Sincerely, …” Both Greeks and Romans, small and great, shared patterns in the way they wrote letters. From England to Egypt, we find the same format, diction, and rhetoric. We should not be surprised to find Paul’s letters fit the mold. The standard format for an ancient letter was an opening, a body, and a closing. Naturally, the skilled Roman rhetoricians brought more variety and complexity to their letters, but there was still amazing conformity. “Antimenes to Zenon, greetings” (P.Zen. 10) followed the standard format. Paul creatively plays on “greetings” (chairein) and the traditional Jewish greeting: “Peace to you” (John 20:19), producing his characteristic opening: “Grace (charis) and peace to you.” It was common to add some elaboration about the recipient and/or the sender: “Apollonarius to Taesis, his mother and lady, many greetings” (P.Mich. 8.491). Similarly, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle …to all God’s beloved in Rome … Grace to you and peace” (Rom. 1:1, 7). Naming the sender The traditional three-part (tripartite) Roman name (tria nomina) comprised a given name (praenomen), a clan or ancestral name (nomen), and, finally, a family name (cognomen). Often only the family (third) name was used in letters (see T.Vindol. 291). In fact, the first name was so standardized and common, it was often just written as an initial. Thus, the famous orator, M. (Marcus) Tullius Cicero, referred to himself as simply Cicero in his letters. Cicero was one of the great letter writers of the ancient world. Source Newly minted citizens proudly showcased their chosen Roman name (but usually only the second and third name): “Apion called Antonius Maximus” (BGU 2.632). So, Luke’s description of the proconsul on Cyprus in Acts 13:7 leaves us only somewhat certain that it was L. (Lucius) Sergius Paulus, brother of Q. (Quintus) Sergius Paulus. Likewise, “Lydia” in Philippi was her family name (Acts 16:14), likely from an ancestor who chose their province of origin as the name. (Thyatira is a city in the province Lydia.) She could be one of the women mentioned by Paul (Phil. 4:2). Paul’s tripartite Roman name was likely [Some common name] Saul[us] Paul[us]. Whichever ancestor first chose the Roman name picked for the ancestral name the most famous member of their tribe of Benjamin, King Saul. For a family name, it appears Paul is a member of the famous Paulus clan of Anatolia (Acts 13:7), albeit likely on the outer fringes of the family tree. As was letter-writing custom, Paul uses only his “last name” in his letter address. The letter opening The letter opening was commonly followed by wishes or prayers for health, “Daily I myself offer prayers for your well-being in the presence of the local gods” (P.Mich. 8.499). Paul occasionally prays for his recipients (Eph. 1:17 and Col. 1:3), but he preferred the far less common custom of giving thanks. In fact, no other known ancient letter-writer had such long thanksgivings. Most ancient letters had a small amount of business to discuss, more like a postcard today and far less than modern letters. Paul fell into a very small group, mostly of philosophers, who beefed up their letters to propagate ideas and to encourage behavior. As we will see below, Paul’s letters were quite long for his time. Following closing greetings, ancient letters often had another brief health-wish, such as “Farewell.” Writing the letter Ancient rhetoricians considered appearance important. When an ancient wished his letter to be well-received, he used a good pen and nice paper (Cic. QFr. 2.15b.1) or even a secretary with beautiful handwriting (Cic. Att. 13.14–25). We see no hints Paul trivialized his letters; we shouldn’t assume Paul sent some rag to Philippi. RelatedPaul and the Septuagint CanonEdmon L. GallagherFour Benefits of Reading Greek ManuscriptsAmy S. AndersonResources for Reading Greek ManuscriptsClark R. Bates Once a polished draft was checked and ready for dispatch, the sender usually added a summary comment, any last-minute updates, and/or greeting in his own hand; thus, a correction is added in a postscript: “Know that I have been assigned to Misenum, for I learned it later” (P.Mich. 8.490), after the final draft was prepared but before it was sealed. In business letters, the postscript often summarized the transaction (which had been spelled out more fully in the letter), in a sense to underscore the author verified the deal. So, “[2nd hand] I, Ammonius, son of Ammonius, have sold the loom, and have received the price of 20 drachmae of silver and will guarantee the sale as aforesaid” (P.Oxy. 264). Paul playfully does the same to his friend: “I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self” (Phlm. 19). Signing the letter The sender’s handwriting authenticated the letter, the ancient equivalent of our signature. We see these changes in handwriting in two ways. First, in the original letter, pulled from the sands, we can see the change in handwriting, indicated by modern editors with “[2nd hand].” A minority of writers expected copies to also circulate. Since copies no longer show the handwriting change, they explicitly noted it: “Greetings to Pilia and Atticus . . . The rest I write to you in my own hand” (Cic. Att. 12.32.1). Paul expected his letters to be copied (Col. 4:16), so he often made similar comments: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand” (1 Cor. 16:21; see also Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17; Phlm. 19). Paul desired the Thessalonians to learn his handwriting: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.” He follows with his version of closing health-wish: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you” (2 Thess. 3:17–18). Preparing the letter After checking the letter and adding any closing remarks, the sender folded the letter (accordion-style like a paper fan), bent it double and tied a string around (and sometimes pressed clay/wax over the knot). We seal envelopes today to keep out prying eyes: “There are very few who can carry a letter of weight without lightening it by a perusal” (Cic. Att. 1.13). Except Philemon, Paul’s letters were much too long to fold in the normal fashion. They were scrolled (like a book!) and tied. P.Oxy. 123 is a letter from a father to a son that mentions how the letter was sent. Image source Sending the letter Paul, like everyone else, had two ways to dispatch a letter: someone traveling that way or sending someone. The common method was someone traveling to that direction: “Having had the luck to find someone going up to you, I felt obliged to [send a letter]” (P.Oxy. 123). Because such methods were dependent upon another, letters often mentioned other letters to verify if they arrived. “I rejoiced greatly on receiving your letter which was given to me by the cutler, though I have not yet received the one which you say you have sent me by Platon the dancer’s son” (P.Oxy. 1676)—apparently, one carrier was more reliable than the other. Paul likely used such happenstance carriers to deliver his early letters too. The cities of southern Galatia, Thessalonica and Corinth were stops along main roads, providing lots of options for carriers. Initially, Paul probably saw no reason to pay costs to send his own carrier. Paul seems to have eventually learned the advantages of a dedicated carrier, who could improve chances of the letter’s safe arrival (for a lost letter, see Cic. Fam. 7.25.1) and authenticate his letters against forgeries (2 Thess. 2:2; 3:17). It appears some misunderstood Paul’s earlier letters, e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 and a trusted carrier/associate could interpret Paul’s intent. Reading the letter For ancients, the performance of a reading (intonation, cadence, gestures, etc.) was a part of rhetoric. Then as now, a reader (lector) who knew Paul’s intent better would read aloud the letter. Once, Paul explicitly validates that he wants the carrier/lector to elaborate: “Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. … I have sent him to you for this very purpose so that you may know how we are” (Col. 4:7–8). Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Paying for and collecting Paul’s letters Today, the cost of writing, even multiple drafts, is insignificant. A denarius is commonly described as a day’s wage, but the only basis for that assertion is Jesus’ parable (Matt. 20:1–15), where he is describing a generous master. Jesus never says it was a standard amount. Actually, a half-denarius was standard pay for a day laborer. We cannot know the exact cost, but we can estimate (very conservatively) the cost in today’s dollars to prepare Paul’s letters, for example: Pauline LetterEstimated Cost (USD)Romans$2,2751 Corinthians$2,108Philippians$5152 Thessalonians$255Philemon$101The estimated cost of Paul’s letters in today’s dollars Ancient letter writers kept copies of their letters, often in “notebooks” (membranae, parchments, 2 Tim. 4:13). Cicero happened to mention making a copy of a letter while at dinner (Cic. Fam. 9.26.1). Another letter became waterlogged and thus was “lost,” but Cicero sent another copy (Cic. QFr. 2.12.4), indicating he had kept one. Our copies of Paul’s letters likely arose from copying Paul’s set, not by going around and collecting the dispatched copies. This was how the letter collections of the other writers were published (see Sue. Vit. Jul. 56.6). Our copies of Paul’s letters likely arose from copying Paul’s set, not by going around and collecting the dispatched copies. Paul’s letters were surprisingly expensive to us, but actually the reason is that his letters were uncommonly long. Even Paul’s letter to Philemon was longer than a typical letter. Paul’s letters were even longer than the famed Roman letter writers: Cicero and Seneca. When we compare average length (word count) of Paul’s letters to the everyday letter and those of Cicero and Seneca, we find this: Letter writerAvg. Words per letterTypical Letter87Cicero295Seneca995Paul2,495 The longest letter by Cicero (2,530 words) or Seneca (4,134) is dwarfed by Paul’s letter to the Romans (7,114). Paul’s opponents said his letters were “weighty” (2 Cor. 10:10), they were not just ridiculing the content of his letters, but their size. Conclusion While clearly within the bounds of the Greco-Roman letter tradition, Paul was one of the great letter writers of his age. Furthermore, he stood on the leading edge with a few others (Cicero, Seneca, Pliny) who were beginning to use “private” letters as a means for propagating philosophies. Paul saw his letters as part of his mission. Today, looking back, we can be glad he did.
The Bible in the Language of Jesus The Syriac Peshitta is an early Bible translation that is key to textual criticism and offers insights into the teaching of Jesus. Philip M. FornessIt may not be as obvious to modern readers, but the earliest Christian communities attached significance to the actual words spoken by Jesus in the Aramaic dialect of first-century Palestine. The Gospels do this several times, drawing attention to the original language used by Jesus and his disciples. Here we can think of Jesus’s quotation of Psalm 22:1 on the cross “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?,” translated as “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46; cf. Mark 15:34). Mark also records Jesus’ Aramaic words while he raises a girl from the dead: “Talitha cumi” (Mark 5:41), and John specifies that Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas “which,” he notes, “means Peter” (John 1:42). All these show interest on the part of the evangelists in the actual Aramaic words of Jesus. But what is Aramaic and what is the history of the Bible in Aramaic? Syriac translations of the Bible The Aramaic language has been in use for over 3,000 years and remains a living language today. Many varieties or dialects of Aramaic existed in Jesus’ day, and Christian communities used Bible translations in two different Aramaic dialects in antiquity: Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Syriac. The Aramaic dialect known as Syriac developed in the region around the city of Edessa which is located in modern-day southeastern Turkey. The Bible was translated several times into Syriac. News about the Old Syriac Gospels translation circulated widely in popular media in early 2023, reporting on fragments of a fourth manuscript containing this version that are identified in two articles from 2022 and 2023. But the most commonly used Syriac Bible translation is known as the Peshitta, meaning the “simple” or “straightforward” version. A new English translation of the Peshitta is nearly complete, and another English translation project is just getting underway. This Bible translation remains in use today in Christian communities of the Syriac heritage. The opening of Matthew in the Old Syriac. BL Add MS 14451, f. 1v (5th c.) Produced in the second century AD, the Peshitta Old Testament forms one of the earliest monuments of Syriac literature. Since it was translated directly from the Hebrew and exhibits knowledge of some Jewish interpretive traditions, scholars used to make the argument that the translation was produced by a community of Jewish converts to Christianity from the city of Edessa. This argument has been called into question, and the current opinion is that the translation was produced by a Jewish community and subsequently used by Christians who also knew Syriac.1Simcha Gross, “A Long Overdue Farewell: The Purported Jewish Origins of Syriac Christianity,” in Jews and Syriac Christians: Intersections across the First Millennium, ed. Aaron Michael Butts and Simcha Gross, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 180 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 131–33. The Peshitta New Testament emerged around the year 400 and forms a revision of the Old Syriac Gospels. Interestingly, five of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament are not included: 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Syriac translations of these books only appeared in the sixth or seventh centuries. The Peshitta also omits the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11, suggesting that the passage must have been absent in the Greek manuscripts available to the translators. A translation in the language of Jesus When reading the Peshitta, one is immediately struck by the fact that this work was written in a dialect of the language used by Jesus. So, what do they do when the Greek source presents Jesus’ Aramaic words noted above? Peshitta Matthew, for example, does not translate Jesus’ Aramaic words on the cross. Peshitta Mark includes the same words of Jesus found in Matthew and then offers a translation that corresponds to the Peshitta version of Psalm 22:1. Further, Mark 5:41 offers no explanation of Jesus’ Aramaic words to the girl in Mark 5:41, and Peter is simply known as Cephas (Kepha in Syriac) throughout the Gospels without any attempt to represent the Greek petros. Even more fascinating are the instances where the Peshitta seems to give insight into the original Aramaic spoken by Jesus. Jeff Childers suggests that the Peshitta may reveal a pun in Jesus’ language in John 8:34. Jesus states in Childers’s translation: “Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.” The Syriac words for “commits” (ʿabed) and “slave” (ʿabda) share the same three-letter root in Syriac. One can imagine how this phrase would have stuck in the ears of Jesus’s audience. Childers identifies another possible wordplay in Luke 12:7. Jesus says to the disciples in Childers’s translation: “But as for you, even the separate hairs of your head are all numbered.” In Syriac, “hairs” (mene) and “numbered” (manyan) share many of the same consonants, suggesting that the original phrase in Aramaic may well have featured alliteration. Translation choices and interpretive traditions Quite beyond the recovery of Jesus’ words in Aramaic, the Peshitta led to distinctive interpretive traditions. In Genesis 2:2, God is stated to have finished the work of creation not on the “seventh day” as in the Hebrew Bible, but on the “sixth day.” Craig Morrison points out that the translators of the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible—made the same decision. The reason for this translation choice seems to be its theological or practical significance. God was completely finished with the work of creation by the sixth day. There should be no confusion that the seventh day, the Sabbath, was entirely reserved for rest. RelatedThe Bible Jesus ReadJohn D. MeadeWhy Didn’t the New Testament Authors Use God’s Name? Part 3Andrew CaseWhat Makes a Bible Translation Bad?Mark Ward The Peshitta’s rendering of Genesis 2:2 had an effect on the Syriac tradition of biblical interpretation. Several early Christian authors wrote works on the six days of creation. The fourth-century Greek author Basil of Caesarea’s sermons on the six days became very popular and were translated into Syriac in the fifth century. The extensive homily on creation by the sixth-century Syriac poet and preacher Jacob of Serugh covers 151 pages in its modern edition. Jacob treats all seven days, dedicating over twenty pages to God’s rest on the seventh day. The focus on God’s rest does not feature so prominently in any other work on the six days of creation in antiquity. Here the Peshitta translation of this passage may have inspired Jacob. The Peshitta also offers a window into how early Christians wrestled with theological terminology, as with Paul’s theology of justification. The Hebrew word ṣedeq, often translated into English “justice” or “righteousness,” was translated in the Septuagint as dikaiosune. Paul uses this term both to refer both to God’s own righteousness and to God’s act of making humanity righteous. As Daniel King and J. Edward Walters discuss, the Syriac text uses two words for the Greek term dikaiosune and related forms: zaddiquta with a semantic range from acquittal to righteousness, and kenuta meaning just or innocent. We can look to the Peshitta to see how ancient translators tried to translate important theological ideas into their language that still challenge modern translators today. We can look to the Peshitta to see how ancient translators tried to translate important theological ideas that still challenge modern translators today. Encountering the Bible through the Peshitta In addition to the text of the Peshitta, its transmission in manuscripts show different ways that Christian communities encountered and read the Bible. The books of Ruth, Susannah, Esther, and Judith circulated in the first millennium as a collection called the “Book of Women.” In a sixth-century manuscript, the early Christian writing the Acts of Thecla which focuses on a female follower of the apostle Paul appears at the end of the collection. As Catherine Burris has discussed, this collection invites readers to hear the stories of virtuous women stretching from the time of the judges through the Jewish communities in Assyria, Babylon, and Persia to the earliest Christian communities.2Catherine Burris, “The Syriac Book of Women: Text and Metatext,” in The Early Christian Book, ed. William E. Klingshirn and Linda Safran, CUA Studies in Early Christianity (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 86–98. By the sixth and seventh centuries, Syriac Christianity had spread as far as China and India bringing the Peshitta with them. These Christian communities had a continuous presence in India down to the Portuguese colonial period. At a synod held in India in 1599, the Portuguese colonizers condemned the omission of five books from the New Testament used by the Syriac Christians of India. Interestingly, they also noted that the Bible used in India did not include a longer version of 1 John 5:7. This extended version reads as follows, with the additional words in italics: “For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” In this way, the Peshitta Bible used by the Syriac Christian communities in India—rather than the Bible of the colonizers—was closer to what is now considered the earliest known version of the New Testament. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: The East Syriac tradition developed a distinct way of organizing the Bible. In addition to the Psalter, they divided the Old and New Testaments into five volumes: (1) the Book of the Pentateuch, (2) the Book of Sessions, (3) the Book of the Prophets, (4) the Book of the Maccabees, and (5) the New Testament.3Heleen Murre-van den Berg, Scribes and Scriptures: The Church of the East in the Eastern Ottoman Provinces (1500–1800), Eastern Christian Studies 21 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 228–29. The contents of the Pentateuch, Prophets, and New Testament are clear. But the Book of Sessions combines an interesting array of historical and poetic books: Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Song of Songs, Sirach, and Job. The Book of the Maccabees features a mixture of histories and wisdom literature: 1–3 Maccabees, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Wisdom, Judith, Esther, Susanna, Epistle of Jeremiah, Epistle of Baruch, and Baruch. How might this organization encourage different ways of encountering and reading the Bible? Conclusion The Peshitta represents a fascinating early translation of the Bible. It has proven important for textual criticism, as the Old Testament was based directly on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament translation was carried out at an early date. As a dialect of Aramaic, the Syriac may offer insight into wordplays used by Jesus. Finally, the Peshitta has served as the Bible for Christian communities for more than 1,500 years. This translation inspired different interpretation traditions, which we can glimpse in the rich literature of the Syriac Christian communities. An earlier version of this article said the Syriac Bible used in India omitted the addition to the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:13, but it actually omitted the longer version of 1 John 5:7.Notes1Simcha Gross, “A Long Overdue Farewell: The Purported Jewish Origins of Syriac Christianity,” in Jews and Syriac Christians: Intersections across the First Millennium, ed. Aaron Michael Butts and Simcha Gross, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 180 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 131–33.2Catherine Burris, “The Syriac Book of Women: Text and Metatext,” in The Early Christian Book, ed. William E. Klingshirn and Linda Safran, CUA Studies in Early Christianity (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 86–98.3Heleen Murre-van den Berg, Scribes and Scriptures: The Church of the East in the Eastern Ottoman Provinces (1500–1800), Eastern Christian Studies 21 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 228–29.
What’s the Big Deal about a New Papyrus with Sayings of Jesus? A second-century date for a new Greek fragment with gospel material makes it unique among papyri. Michael W. HolmesOn August 31st, the Egypt Exploration Society published the latest volume (LXXXVII) in its long-running series on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (volume 1 appeared in 1898). The volume presents many interesting papyri, including a collection of short biographies of eminent Romans and a fragment of the book of Revelation. Thanks to an article in the Daily Beast, however, the spotlight has fallen on a small fragment (about 1.3ʺ wide × 3.6ʺ high) that contains sayings of Jesus in a form similar to the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and Thomas. Why is this such a big deal? Let’s find out. What Are the Oxyrhynchus Papyri? The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a massive trove of papyri (estimates range upwards of half a million) excavated near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt (modern el-Bahnasa) during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by a team organized by Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt. The site is an ancient trash dump, where public and private documents of all sorts were discarded. These included tax assessments, court records, business letters, private letters (even one written by a student at school writing home to ask his parents to send more money), and literary documents. Most were written in Greek, but also Coptic, Latin, Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and other languages are represented. Grenfell and Hunt in Egypt. Wikipedia The papyri—mostly in small fragments—range in date from the third century BC (the Ptolemaic era) to 640 AD (the end of the Roman period). When one of these papyri is published, it is given a standard prefix and a reference number. For example, the very first one published is P.Oxy. 1; the one that is catching so much interest now is P.Oxy. 5575. The literary papyri (perhaps 10% or so of the total) encompass a wide range of Classical and Hellenistic literature. They also include a fair number of Christian writings of all sorts, including prayers (e.g., P.Oxy. 407, 4010), hymns (e.g., P.Oxy. 1786), letters, amulets (e.g., P.Oxy. 1077), homilies, and literary documents. RelatedPutting the New Papyrus of Jesus’ Sayings in ContextIan N. MillsTaking Stock of the “First-Century Mark” SagaElijah Hixson This last category includes fragments of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, several Pauline letters, some Catholic letters, and Revelation, as well as fragments of the Gospel of Thomas (P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655),1These fragments were not recognized as fragments of the Gospel of Thomas until after the discovery of a complete Coptic translation of Thomas near Nag Hammadi in 1945. Gospel of Mary (P.Oxy. 3525), perhaps (but not likely) Gospel of Peter (P.Oxy. 2949, 4009), some unidentified “gospel” fragments (P.Oxy. 210, 840, 1224), several fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas, and one of the Didache (P.Oxy. 1782). So, P.Oxy. 5575 is one of the latest additions to this relatively large category of Christian literary texts from Oxyrhynchus. Why is it attracting so much attention? There are two reasons: first, its content, and second, its (probable) date. What’s in the New Fragment? While it’s not possible to represent accurately the form and layout of the Greek text in English translation, the following layout is an attempt to give an impression of the layout of the content of the fragment. (References in the following discussion to line numbers apply to this English presentation only—they do not correspond to the lines of the Greek fragment.) Recto (→)Verso (↑)… he died (?). [I tell] you: [do not] worry [about] your [life,] what you will eat, [or] about the body, what [you will wear.] For I tell you: [unless] you fast [from the world,] you will never find [the Kingdom,] and unless you … the world, you [will never …] the Father … the birds, how … and [your (?)] heavenly Father [feeds them (?).] You therefore …[Consider the lilies,] how they grow … Solomon … in [his] glory … [if] the Father [clothes] grass which dries up and is thrown into the oven, [he will clothe (?)] you … You [also (?)] therefore … for [your] Father [knows what (?)] … need you have. [Instead (?)] seek [his kingdom (?),] and [all these things (?)] will be given [to you (?)] … An English translation of P.Oxy. 5575 The recto (left) and verso (right) of P.Oxy. 5575 as photographed in 2012 before another small piece of the fragment was identified. Photos by Ardon Bar-Hama The first decipherable letters on the recto side (corresponding to the “odd number” page) of 5575 may be part of the last word of the main saying in Gospel of Thomas 63.1–3 (a saying similar to Luke 12:16–21). Gospel of Thomas, 63: “Jesus said: There was a rich man who had much money. He said: ‘I will use my money so that I may sow and reap and plant and fill my storehouses with produce, so that I lack nothing.’ This was what he thought in his heart. And that night he died.” The saying then continues: “Whoever has ears let him hear.” (This saying survives only in Coptic.) Then follows a saying similar to Luke 12:22/Matt 6:25a (lines 1–5). Next comes a saying similar to Gospel of Thomas 27 (lines 6–10), followed by words similar to Luke 12:24/Matt 6:25b–26 (lines 11–14). Gospel of Thomas, 27: “Jesus said, ‘If you do not fast to the world, you will not find the kingdom of God; if you do not keep the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the Father.’” This is from the only Greek fragment that preserves saying 27 (P.Oxy. 1). The Coptic version is similar, but it lacks “Jesus said” and “of God.” One interesting difference involves the Greek word for “birds”: in line 11, 5575 has ornea, instead of korakas (Luke) or peteina (Matthew). Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: On the verso (“even number page” side) the text is similar to Luke 12:27–28, 30b–31/Matt 6:28b–30, 32b–33, with some differences, larger and smaller. An example of a larger difference: whereas Luke 12:30 and Matt 6:32 end with two “reminders” (i.e., that gentiles seek after such things, and that the heavenly father knows that we need them), 5575—like Justin Martyr, who also quotes this passage (1 Apol. 15.15)—mentions only the second. Why is it important? What makes this a big deal? This is the first known occurrence of the weaving together of material similar to Luke and Matthew, on the one hand, and material similar to—and otherwise known only from—the Gospel of Thomas, on the other. In this significant respect, 5575 is unique among all known papyri. If the proposed date is right, then 5575 would be … one of the earliest witnesses to any Christian document. As for the date: if the proposed date—probably “second century”—is right, then 5575 would be the earliest extant witness to sayings associated with the Gospel of Thomas, and one of the earliest witnesses to any Christian document. Now, put the two issues together—a relatively early date, and a unique interweaving of sayings known from Luke and Matthew with a saying known only from the Gospel of Thomas—and the questions and possibilities overflow. As the editors observe, 5575 may be from a sayings collection, or, given the flow from one saying to another, perhaps a discourse. One possibility is that it represents, or is closely related to, a work which was not dependent upon Gos. Thom. but rather served as a source for it. Or, alternatively, the Gospel of Thomas may be a source for the saying in this fragment—a view that would, in light of the fragment’s early date, require a major re-assessment for the composition of Gospel of Thomas (of these last two possibilities, the former seems far more likely). Remaining questions More questions include: who wrote it, and why? What was his major concern? What does this fragment tell us about second-century Christianity that we didn’t already know? These are all excellent questions, but unfortunately for us, the fragment is so brief and so lacking in any larger context that we simply don’t have the information to answer them. We can speculate, but it is important to keep in mind the difference between speculation and evidence—and to enjoy the thrill of a new discovery. Several papyrus fragments of Revelation have been found at Oxyrhynchus. An earlier version of this article suggested otherwise.Notes1These fragments were not recognized as fragments of the Gospel of Thomas until after the discovery of a complete Coptic translation of Thomas near Nag Hammadi in 1945.
Why Didn’t the New Testament Authors Use God’s Name? Part 3 The use of “Lord” for the divine name probably helped identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament. Andrew CaseWe know that the inhibition for pronouncing God’s name came before Christianity, although we don’t know how widespread it was. It’s possible that rendering the divine name as “Lord” (kurios) had already been a strong tradition for centuries by the time we get to Jesus and the apostles. What’s clear is that the New Testament manuscripts we have all follow the tradition that the Septuagint set, which was to substitute the title “Lord” (kurios) for God’s name (YHWH). So, the fact that the New Testament never uses God’s personal name as revealed in the Old Testament, or even an approximation of it, is crucial. Why did the New Testament authors choose to do this? Was it because they thought God’s name was too sacred to write out in Greek transliteration and feared that God might strike them down if they did so? Or, had its pronunciation already been forgotten to history? Were they afraid that the Jews might be angry about it? Or, was it some other reason(s)? The writers never tell us why, so everything that follows here is speculation. Nevertheless, it’s an honest attempt to grapple with the issue. The New Testament authors knew the Old Testament Because the New Testament authors knew their Hebrew Bible better than we do, it’s highly unlikely that they were ignorant of God’s desire expressed in Exodus 3:15, the way David and the prophets freely spoke to God, calling him by name, and other passages we looked at in part 1 of this series. So, it’s safe to say that they didn’t consider God’s name too sacred to use in transliteration. Finally, we can eliminate the idea that they did so out of fear of the Jews, since they consciously did many other things that infuriated the Jews and brought persecution on them. So, let’s explore some other possibilities. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: The influence of the Septuagint First, it should be understood that the Septuagint became the standard for Jewish communities that were forgetting Hebrew in the midst of a world increasingly dominated by other languages like Greek, Aramaic, and Latin. The New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint extensively, and it was a beloved text to the early Church. When a text is used as a standard for centuries like the Septuagint was, many things become ingrained in tradition. So it’s highly probable that the Septuagint’s use of the title kurios in the place of God’s name came to be a strong tradition in many circles. And because of this, it’s also probable that kurios came to be treated as a proper name, even though it’s not technically or lexically accurate to call it a name. (A modern example of a proper name would be “Joe,” and his title is “Mr. President”) If a community treats a title like a proper name for long enough, it will inevitably begin to feel like a proper name. Subsequent generations will continue to use it, not because they believe it’s wrong to pronounce the actual name, but simply because it feels like God’s name. This has happened in English and many other languages with the title “the Lord.” So it’s plausible that the New Testament authors upheld the tradition of kurios as a centuries-old tradition that people were accustomed to using to refer to God in a personal way. Since they were trying to communicate clearly to a wide range of listeners, some of whom didn’t speak Hebrew and were already familiar with calling the God of Israel kurios, they kept it as a convention for avoiding confusion in their message. At the same time, they were interested in heralding a new covenant in which a new name came to be exalted: Jesus. In Philippians 2:9–11 Paul writes: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” RelatedHow Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2Andrew CaseThe New Testament Use of Jewish PseudepigraphaDaniel M. GurtnerThe Letter and the SpiritMaurice A. Robinson I am convinced, along with many other scholars, that bestowing on Jesus the name/title “Lord,” as the equivalent of Yahweh, is how Jesus has been exalted to the highest place. The twofold result clause that makes up verses 10 and 11 is a direct borrowing of language from Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh (the Lord) says that “before me every knee shall bow, and every tongue will swear [Septuagint has ‘confess’]” that “in the Lord alone are righteousness and strength.” This emphasis on “the Lord” (YHWH) as the one unto whom all shall give obeisance, seems to certify that what Paul has in mind is none other than the name, YHWH itself, but in its Greek form of “the Lord,” which has now been “given” to Jesus. So, “the name that is above every name” is Yahweh. And this probably has another layer of significance: the name Jesus, Yeshua (in Hebrew) means “Yahweh is salvation.” The divine name is historically embedded within Jesus’ name, and this is evident to those who understand Hebrew. But most of the people the New Testament authors were trying to reach were more familiar with Greek, so kurios served as a better way to show the relationship between Jesus/Yeshua and Yahweh. Intertestamental hyperlinks It seems that Martin Luther understood that the New Testament authors upheld this tradition of using kurios so that people could “draw the strong conclusion that Christ is the true God,”1Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 248–249. by associating Christ the kurios with the kurios of the Old Testament instead of having two different proper names Yahweh and Yeshua. In other words, the Septuagint’s use of kurios was paving the way for a seamless, convenient, intelligible way to connect Jesus with Yahweh. The ability to use the same title for both Yahweh and Jesus throughout the New Testament made the overlap natural and more apparent to a Greek-speaking world. It facilitated a high Christology, and effortlessly infused the statement “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9) with a double meaning (see how this convention made Paul’s teaching possible in 1 Cor. 8:5–6). Just as Jesus saw himself all throughout the Old Testament (Luke 24:44), and just as the apostles consistently identified Jesus with Yahweh through allusion and direct quotation of Old Testament passages, the use of kurios allowed early Christians to see and hear that continuity between the testaments, identifying Christ as the God of Israel with a hyperlink across covenants (see another example in Rom. 10:13). So, it would seem that the apostles saw a few advantages in using kurios/Lord in place of God’s name: (1) it preserved an old tradition spread by the loved and respected Septuagint; (2) most probably treated kurios as a name; (3) it may have served to make extra clear that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Israel. Does this mean that they ignored God’s desire in Exodus 3:15? Not at all. Does this mean that they ignored God’s desire in Exodus 3:15? Not at all. Since they were Jews and could read the scriptures in Hebrew, they were probably satisfied that God’s name was preserved there, in its natural habitat. They weren’t trying to publish a new translation of the Old Testament at the time. If they had, they may have made some different decisions than the original translators had concerning God’s name. Likewise, if they had written the New Testament in Hebrew, they probably would have used YHWH for God’s name. It’s important to approach this issue with humility. There are some people who would disagree with my hypothesis. Some believe that much of the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew (which is what multiple Church Fathers claimed), and therefore contained the divine name. Others believe that early Christian scribes changed what the original authors wrote to kurios/Lord for reasons unknown to us. There is no physical evidence for either of these claims. An idea for modern versions This brings us to the question: Is it possible to help contemporary readers enjoy the same advantages in a new translation of the whole Bible while rendering God’s name in the Old Testament as a name? Yes. God is called by the title adonai (“Lord”) over 700 times in the Old Testament, which maintains the hyperlink between both testaments. Thus, modern versions could simply translate those occurrences of adonai as “Lord” and render all 6,800+ occurrences of yhwh as “Yahweh.” The overlap the apostles enjoyed would be preserved while still honoring God’s desire in Exodus 3:15 and making clear to the reader that God actually has a name. In conclusion, the New Testament authors probably used kurios because it ended up being a naming convention that helped identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament. Modern Bible publishers should feel at liberty to break with the Septuagint’s tradition, since the title “Lord” occurs so many times in the Hebrew Bible in reference to Yahweh. Over the centuries some English versions have chosen to render God’s name as a name in different ways, and this fascinating history is the topic of the final installment in this series. Related Illustration by David Fassett How Was the Divine Name Translated in the Reformation? Part 4Translators have wrestled with the divine name for centuries. Some have used it only to reverse course later. Andrew Case This article is in the public domain. You may freely use, share, and reproduce it. For a more in-depth treatment, see here.Notes1Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 248–249.