Kurios Iesous

Yeshua Yaua. The Tetragram and Kurios Iesous in Pauline Literature

Outline
A Kurios, Adonai and Yaua
1 Their meanings
2 Adonai and Yaua in the Hebrew Scriptures
3 Adonai and Yaua in the Septuagint
4 Adonai and Yaua in the Pauline writings in Greek so far
I Where Paul is quoting Yaua for Sure
II Where Paul is quoting Adonai for sure
III Where it is uncertain what he is quoting
B Kurios Iesous and Christos its place in Pauline Literature
1 The meaning of the words
2 The role of the words as a confession at Baptism
3 The role of the words as a saying in the Spirit a "prophetic level" saying
4 The role of the words in the life of the Church and the believer
5 The role of the words as a confession of the whole creation

Contents
Part 1
Kurios, Adonai, Yaua and Yehoshua
O N E
Their meanings

T W O
Adonai and Yaua in the Hebrew Scriptures
In the studies at present to understand where the early Christian community derived the absolute title kurios for Iesous from the focus of the scholars has been the cultural environment of the proclamation of the gospel. Fitzmyer (1997) has summarised the four main positions relating to the source of the title Kurios. The four main positions he outlines are
(1) It has a Hellenistic Pagan Background. As perhaps illustrated by Paul's statement in 1 Cor 8:5-6 The case is that the title is taken over from the use of Kurios as a title for gods in the near east of that period. Fitzmyer gives a list of scholars present in this case.
(2) It has a Hellenistic Jewish background. The case here is that the title ho kurios (The Lord) developed out of the Greek equivalents of Biblical titles of Yaua whether in Hebrew or in Aramaic. So we have Adon and its from with suffix adonai which literally means My lords but became an absolute title for Yaua.So in translating this in the Old Greek or the Septuagint Kurios would have been used.
(3) It has an Israeli Semitic Religious Background. Here the title is said to have "originated in the post-Easter Jewish-Christian community of Palestine" (Fitzmyer 1997 pg 117) In this case Yeshua would have been confessed as adon in Hebrew or marah in Aramaic. And these titles would have arisen from the use of these titles for Yaua in Israel among Israeli Jews of the first century. The case is based on the evidence of the use of the term marah (Lord) in Aramaic with its suffixes as in Marai (my Lord) or Maron (our Lord). Often in the construct for giving a title of Yaua
(4) It has an Israeli Semitic Secular Background
That is it developed in the context of the use of adon or marah as "Sir" or as terms of respect. These develop into their forms with suffixes i.e adoni (my Lord) and marai. We see this then in Marks gospel 7:28 where the vocative kurie is used and Yeshua addressed as "Sir".

Our task is not to see where the early Church got the title from, rather our task is to understand what Paul understood the believer was saying when he confessed or said Kurios Iesous. We know that Paul when speaking or writing used both Greek and Aramaic. We know that he quoted the Septuagint and when sharing in synagogues he would have heard either the Masoretic Text, The LXX, and the Targumim. And we know these three sources would have represented the scriptures in most places where Paul would have preached. My contention is that the understanding of the confession kurios iesous, In the Pauline literature comes not simply by seeing how Paul quotes the scripture to refer to Yeshua but seeing how he views the apostolic ministry and the position of Yeshua in his reflections on Scripture. Much scripture is reflected in his writing although not direct quotations it can be seen as commentary on the fulfilment of scripture and points us to Paul's understanding of the confession kurios iesous.
T H R E E
Adonai and Yaua and Kurios and in the Septuagint (LXX)
What is the confession kurios iesous christos since two Hebrew words lie behind the common noun kurios? The first is Yaua the proper name and eternal and personal name of the God of Yisrael. The second is Adonai a common Hebrew noun meaning Lord or Sir. The blurring of the two words was originally felt to have come with the Jewish Hellenistic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in Greek in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. However with discoveries of manuscripts in the last century it is by no means certain that the LXX (Septuagint) did not maintain the distinction between Yaua and Adonai in translation Royse (1991). In the Hebrew scriptures, there is a clear difference in the use and the importance of the name Yaua and the title adonai and the terms are used many times as a title of God as in Adonai Yaua, the Lord Yaua. The Septuagint manuscripts of the 4th century and much of the Greek New Testament manuscripts we had up until 100 years ago, translated adonai as kurios and replaced Yaua with kurios. However it is now certain that many Greek manuscripts of the Tanakh, including both the LXX and Aquila's translation included a specific representation of the Tetragrammaton distinct from kurios. A number of scholars have gone as far as to try to chronicle the movement in translation policy towards kurios and they suggest four stages in the process. First Yaua was transliterated as Iao (iota, aleph, omega) And this is witness by Diodorus the Sicilian from the first century BC. Then they transliterated Yaua into Aramaic script. Then they used Paleo-Hebrew and finally kurios substituted Royse (1991 ibid). A discussion of the evidence is found in (Metzger, 1981) , for support of the opposing idea that kurios was in the LXX see N.A. Dahl and A. F Segal (1978).

Back in 1959 Kahle could confidently says

"We now know that the Greek Bible text as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the divine name by Kurios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such Mss"

Now if this is the case and the first century manuscripts of the Greek Bible had a form of Yaua in the text different from kurios what of Paul's letters back in the first century? Some have said the Christians translated Yaua to kurios when the Hebrew was not understood any more (in Royse 1991). Well at the time of Paul they did know the name and it was understood and Paul was a Jew. It is quite possible that if we found Paul's manuscripts from the first century and he was quoting, as he often does the LXX we would find that Jesus is Lord could be Jesus is Iao (Yaua). And that this was as Edwin Blackman states "The irreducible minimum of Christian faith" (TIOCB 1971 pg 787) and a part of the "earliest baptismal confession" (ibid).








F O U R
Adonai and Yaua and Kurios in the Pauline writings in Greek so far
We need to observe how Paul uses the absolute title in contrast to how he uses relative titles such as Our Lord (maran, adoneinu, kurios umon) and their Lord etc. Now it is clear that in Paul's mind the title The Lord Jesus Christ carries a different import to Our Lord Jesus Christ. We can see this from the beginning of Pauls letters to the Churches. The formal greeting Paul uses to most Churches is

"Grace to you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (so Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Eph, Phil, 2 Thes .
(The variations read
I Thess: "Grace to you and peace"
Gal: "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ"
Col: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father")

For our understanding of the title the Lord Jesus Christ we can observe the following:
(i) The Lord Jesus Christ. from the beginning of Paul's letters can be seen to be a formal absolute title like God the Father. And it was a title used in the early Church at least by Paul to greet Churches. It was especially linked to the title God the Father. Our question is it is simply saying the Master, Jesus Christ or is it saying Yaua, Yeshua the Mashiach.
(ii) In I Corinthains Paul refers to those "calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". This phrase "calling on the name of" echoes the old testament scriptures from beginning to the end. The first time it is mentioned is in Genesis 4 where in the time of Enosh men began to call on the name Yaua. And through out the Tanakh from Abraham on. We read in Gen 12 "there he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD" NIV The word LORD translates Yaua). And this practice of calling on the name Yaua continued throughout the Tanakh. We need to ask is there any more to this echoe than a similarity of words. Well we see in Romans 10 that Paul connects the calling on the name Yaua in the Tanakh with calling on the Lord Jesus in the New Covenant.

" If you confess with your mouth the "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him form the dead, you will be saved. as the scripture says
"Any one who trusts in him will never be put to shame" (Isa 28:16)
and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile- the same Lord is Lord of All and richly blesses all who call on him, for,
"Every one who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'.

Our most important questions are Who are they trusting in? and Who are they calling on?
From the fact that the confession of the mouth is "Lord Jesus" and the result of that confession is "salvation", it is clear that the Jew or greek is calling on the "Lord Jesus". The believing in the heart that "God raised from the dead" puts the trust on God. So we have two aspects the first the believing on trusting in the fact that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The second the confession Jesus is Lord.

Paul quotes two scriptures from the Tanakh. Isaiah 28:16 and Joel 2:32. In the second it is talking about calling on the nmae Yaua. Clearly connected here to the confession Jesus is Lord. Perhpas indicating that to confess Jesus is Lord is to call on the name Yaua. Again this brings us back to I corinthians where the saints were "calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Is it a leigimate question to ask what is the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? And if it is could the name be Yaua.

Do we have any other evidence that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ is tied to Yaua. The Book of Acts, though not directly a part of out study, has Peter saying


F I V E
Where Paul is quoting Yaua for sure
S I X
Where Paul is quoting Adonai for sure
S E V E N
Where it is uncertain what he is quoting
Part B
E I G H T
Kurios Iesous and his place in Pauline Literature
N I N E
The Meaning of the Words
T E N
The Role of the Words as a Confession at Baptism

Romans was written from Corinth around AD 55/56 winter (Murphy O Connor pp 104-105) or in AD 57 Barker(1985 p1665).

Romans 10:9
"Hoti ean homologeses to rema en to stomati sou oti Kurios Iesous kai pisteuses en to kardia sou
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart
Hoti ho Theos auton egeiren ek nekron sothese. Kardia gar pisteuetai eis dikaisunen stomati de omologeitai eis soterian
That God raised from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation."

The passage draws our attention again because of the apparent simplicity of the action to believe that Yeshua had risen from the dead by God's power and to confess or say the words Kurios Iesous. The result being salvation. There are a number of issues raised by this text in the context of Pauline Theology and the New Testament. For example where is the Christ and him crucified of I Corinthians? What does it means to confess Kurios Iesous? What does it mean to be saved? Saved from what and perhaps even saved for what? Our need however is really to understand what we are confessing when we say "Kurios Iesous" and what is the significance of saying or confessing in the mind of the first century Church of AD 52- AD 57.

The Role of Confession
At least three aspects of the confession Kurios Iesous need to be explained. The first is the significance of confession in the New Testament and first century Church as opposed to the thinking of the words Kurios Iesous. Secondly the meaning of the words actually expressed and why those words carry so much significance. And what perhaps are they equivalent to in Paul's pre Apostolic Pharisaism? What did those words mean to the Jews who they were confessed by or among and what did they mean to the Greeks and the Barbarians who confessed them. Thirdly How is it that by saying them salvation could operate in the confessor. And why is it that to Paul the whole universe and plan of God is moving towards the confession Kurios Iesous Christos.

Confession, Proclamation, Speech and Sayings
The early Church had as Scripture the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms. The Church had a message the life death and resurrection of their Lord Jesus Christ. Before the letter to the Philippians around AD 52-54, it would appear that very little literature had gone out into the Church. Even if we accept AD 45 as a possible date for James it still represents a miniscule amount of literature for the 15 years since the birth of the Church of Mashiach on Shavuoth AD 30. The reason for this is clear the Church was sent to make disciples (matheteusate) to baptize them (baptitzontes autous) teaching (didascontes) the same disciples to observe the commands Yeshua had given the disciples by the words of his mouth.
According to Mark (16:16) the Apostles were commissioned to preach (cherutsate) the good news to all creation (paseh teh chtisei) and everyone who believed and was baptised would be saved (sothesetai) would person not believing would be condemned (katachrithesetai) or judged against. Again in Luke(24:44-9) we have the idea that the Church is sent to proclaim (herald) the message which would usually go beyond mere writing into speech. Luke's words again have parallels with Roman (10:9) and are worth seeing
"Thus it is written that Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and repentance for forgiveness and (for) forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in (on the bases of) his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." Here in common with Romans10 we have the resurrection and a notice of the name, salvation is missing and baptism is missing . We may ask is this the name simply as in authority? Or is it the name as in the name he received after the resurrection which Paul gives us in Philippians 2:9 which most scholars hold to be the tetragrammaton, Yaua This name then on baptism would be confessed, the person then would not be judged against, but saved. In Matthew and Mark baptism is seen as an essential ingredient of the Apostolic proclamation. But in Luke it is missing altogether. Luke in early Church tradition, in the book of Acts (see chapter 21-where Luke uses We when travelling with Paul) and 2 Timothy 4:11, is considered a close associate with Paul. And Paul distinguishes between preaching, which he considered his mission and baptizing which he did but was not sent to do. As he said in 1 Corinthians "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" So for Paul words (admittedly not clever or eloquent words 1 Cor 1) were very important.
The Church then of the first century saw preaching, sayings, speech, combined with Baptism and faith, as very powerful and it was the means appointed to build the Church and spread the gospel.




E L E V E N
The Role of the Words as a saying in the Spirit a "prophetic level" saying
1 Corinthians O Connor (1996) dates as April / May, AD 54 and was written from Ephesus, towards the end of Paul's residence in there
I Corinthians 12
"Peri de ton pneumatikon adelphoi ou thelo umas agnoein…gnoritzo umin hoti oudeis en
Now concerning spiritual gifts brethren I would not have you ignorant. Wherefore I give you to understand that no man
pneumati Theou lalon legei Anathema Iesous , kai oudeis dunati eipein Kurios Iesous ei meh en pneumati agio"
speaking by the spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: that no one can say that Jesus is the Lord , but by the Holy Ghost"
This passage draws our attention not because they who are speaking by the Holy Spirit will not say Jesus be accursed, because this would appear quite naturally. Indeed it is very likely that Paul is giving this instruction because some one carried away in the Corinthian meeting cried out "Anathema Iesous". And the Church not being wise in the discerning of spirit's accepted it as a word in the Holy Spirit. However at least one person got upset and reported to Paul along with the complaints about every one speaking in tongues and no one interpreting. So even as Moses gave instruction how to judge whether a word came from Yaua or no so Paul gives instructions to discern whether a word came from the Spirit or no. John gives similar instruction about discerning the Spirit of Antichrist. What draws out attention is when Paul states "No one is able to say Kurios Iesous" except in Pneumati Agio. We also know that people can mouth the word "Jesus is Lord' and walk away the same way they came. So the problem here is what does Paul mean by this statement. His advice is to inform the Corinthians about spiritual activities.
It is the absoluteness of Paul's statement that leaves a problem which needs addressing. What does it actually mean to say kurios iesous. And is it as W Harold Mare in his comment in the NIV Study Bible pg1750, notes that someone is saying not "Jesus is master" or "Jesus is Lord" using the word kurios to reflect the Hebrew word adonai (emphatic form of Adon) or adon (from an unused root meaning to rule, sovereign or controller) but rather that some one saying Jesus is Yaua that is to say Jesus is "God of Israel the Creator of the heavens and the earth. That when a Jew proclaims "Shema Yisrael Yaua Eloheinu Yaua Echad" They are referring to Jesus the Messiah who was crucified, buried rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven? For a Hellenistic Greek are they saying that the man Jesus who walked the earth in material flesh is the same "To On" (The Existent) of Philo or the same deity who Josephus in his conservative Pharisaism refuses to talk about for his name is ineffable. To be sure to Philo as a Hellenistic Greek coming from a philosophical background influenced by Plato, the Stoics and even the Sophists, name was not a glorifying thing for his 'To on' but a concession to the weakness of material man. To Josephus it was too holy to be uttered. If indeed Paul is saying Kurios Iesous means Jesus is Yaua it would mean there was a time that to say such a thing would to him be blasphemous on two counts. The first would be to say the name and the second would be to identify the man Jesus with the creator. to Once he was a Pharisee and to them the name of Yaua could only by used once a year by the high priest in the temple on Yom Kippour. If someone used the name elsewhere they would be accused of blasphemy and could be stoned to death, Stephen is a case in point. He was stoned to deaf however it is not certain if it was the legal process or mob violence which brought this about.The fact that he was tried and witnesses brought and the fact that he was taken outside the city and stoned all point to legal procedure. The fact that they rushed together upon him and dragged out of the city suggest a mob in action. But looking at is from the legal angle. For what was he stone? Blasphemy. But Klausner(1944) makes a very pertinent point the death penalty should only be applied if he named the name itself.

Stephen is a case in point. He was stoned to deaf. However it is not certain if it was a the legal process or mob violence which brought this about. The fact that he was tried, witnesses brought in, taken to the edge of the city and stoned all point to a due legal process. Baird (1971 pg 739) believes the fact that the mob "cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse" suggests mob violence. He was taken out and stoned. And why then was he stoned for according to Klausner (1944 pg 292) the Mishnah (in the Talmud) asserts "the blasphemer is not culpable unless he pronounces the name itself". According to record of Luke, Stephen had just said "Behold I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God". So there were no grounds for his conviction. However it appears possible that the confession about "The Son of Man being at the right hand of God" may have reached the level of blasphemy in first century Judaism because Yeshua on making the same confession, not long before, was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.
The point is clear, although our launching point was the Church in Corinth in southern Greece or Achaia, the Church in Phillipi northern Greece or Macedonia, both places outside Eretz Yisrael and not part of the seven Toparchies of Judea proper where the Sanhedrin would have had authority, we can still say that if in Hebrew the early Church made as the Confession, Yeshua is Yaua, this would have been counted as blasphemy. This would go far to explaining why the Pharisees and Paul persecuted that name to the death and sought to have the disciples blaspheme.
T W E L V E
The words in the life of the Church and the believer

T H I R T E E N
The Role of Kurios Iesous as a confession of the whole creation
Philippians 2: 9-11
. We hold that Philippians was written, not in Paul's Roman or Caeserian imprisonment, but in his inferred Ephesian imprisonment, during the years AD 52-AD 54.
"Dio kai ho Theos auton uperupsosen Kai echarisato auto to onoma to uper pan onoma
Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name
Ina en to onomati Iesou pan gonu kampse Epouranion kai epigeion kai katachthonion
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of the things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth
Kai pasa glossa exomologesetai hoti "Kurios Iesous Christoseise" doxan Theou
Patros"
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father

To Paul then this confession is the ultimate confession of the entire heavens, earth, and under the earth. The whole result of Yeshua's incarnation, humiliation on the cross, resurrection and ascension is the glory of God the Father. And when all the universe confesses Kurios Iesous Christos God the Father gets the glory. So this text is here because it very universal scope challenges ask to ask the question Why is the confession "kurios iesous christos" so important?






Appendix 1
The Scriptures of the Early Church

The Church in Israel was living in a nation which had been reconstituted after is exile to Babylon. Around 586 BC they had been exiled and began to return in about 539 BC. A community of Hebrews continued and in Babylon but the language of Judah or Hebrew was becoming less and lee know and the language of Babylon Aramaic was becoming the lingua franca for the Ordinary Jews. In order of them to understand the scriptures they needed translation from Hebrew into Aramaic. The Persian empire of Cyrus, which ruled in Eretz Israel from around 539 BC to 332 BC used Aramaic. So the use of Translators increased and the Targumim were developed. Hence from eretz Yisrael eastward the scripture was in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Greeks.
In 334 BC Alexander the Great defeated the successor to Cyrus, and in 332 BC he took eretz Israel. And the process of the spread of Greek culture Hellenization, from Egypt to India took place after his death in 323 BC. The diadochi or four generals of Alexander took over his kingdom. In Syria the dynasty of the Seleucids took over and in Egypt the Ptolemies ended up in control. Eretz Israel came under the rule of either one of these families. The communi9ties were speaking dialects of Greek. In Egypt the family of Ptolemy saw Lagi Soter take the rule of Egypt in 323 BC. He ruled until 285BC. His son was Philadelphus (285-246 BC). He had a very large library and it is reckoned that he desired to have all the books of the world in his library. He heard of the Jewish scriptures and commissioned a translation under his librarian Demetrius. Thus began the beginning of the Pentatuech or Torah into Greek. The work of translation is believed to have continued over the next two centuries. The Greek Scriptures continued as dominant in the Hellenistic world even when the Romans took over. And the languages in the west of the empire were Greek. In Alexandria, Greek, in Eretz Israel the scriptures were the Masoretic Text (MTT), the Targums in Aramaic and the versions of a Greek text Lxx were in use. In the north, in Syria, the Lxx (Septuagint) or another the Old Greek were in use. Lxx, in the major cities like Antioch but if you went out to the villages Syriac a dialect of Aramaic was in use in the Synagogues and they had the forerunner to a text known as the Peshitta meaning simple in Aramaic. Over in the east in the area of Edessa Nisibus there were Greek speaking people but the text in use was probably a Masoretic tradition Syriac text, probably the Peshitta. So as the Church arose out of the synagogues, the community scripture would become the bible of that Church


The Scriptures of Paul
By the times of the first century BC, there were then scripture in a number of languages available.
The Scripture was divided into the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms. They were read in the synagogue each Shabbat and as we can see from Acts, Paul had the policy of going into the town and finding the synagogue and joining the worship on Shabbat. During this service the Torah would be read and this was followed by the reading of the Haphtorah. Someone would then get up and give a word based on the reading or some other matter. In Eretz Yisrael as the Torah was read each verse (parasha) would be interpreted by the meturgeman (professional translator). In the Prophets the translation would take place after every three verses. In the end the Targumim took set form and were written.
Aramaic: The Targumim. The Targum was not read in the synagogue but private collection were permitted and could be read in private study.
The Targums were not always direct literal translations. Indeed they had the function of
1 Harmonising difficult texts
2 Reconciling Biblical texts to tradition
3 spread traditions
4 providing specificity for the listener

So we can hear the culture and beliefs of the community where they operated. This is also true of the Greek versions of the Bible. They too included aggadic supplements in their version. They also were not only translated word for word but included addition and removals, for example in t book of Esther is longer in the LXX and the book of Job shorter, than the MT.

The First Century Scripture or Targums
Aramaic
1 Targum to Job: There is a tradition that one was circulating in the reign of Gamaliel I the teacher of the Apostle Paul.

2 Targum Onkelos: the official Babylonian Targum was redacted by the third century AD. From Israel and exported to Babylon. A literal translation, sometimes paraphrases are used and poetic portions reduced. They
Israeli Targums of Torah
3 Codex Neofiti I Galilean Targum

4 Targum Jonathan (Pseudo Jonathan in the West), Yerushalayim I (Galilean Jewish Aramaic)
free aggadic handling of the text, no figurative speech, no anthropomorphisms for God. Source of Jewish teachings during Talmudic period.

5 Fragmentary Targum (Yerushalayim II) 850 verses
three quarters history of the Penta one quarter Ex Lev Num Legal portions

Targum to the Prophets
1 Targum Jonathan. Orginated first centuries AD in Israel. Believed to be written by Jonatham ben Uzziel, Hillel's most famous student , first century BC. A voice came from heaven when he was translating it. "Who has revealed my secrets?Quoted in the Talmud by san 94b meg.3a mk 28b.
Aggad in Is 12:333:22,62:10, Mich 6:4

Syriac (Eastern Aramaic): Peshitta and other versions
A tradition says that this was made for King Abgar of Edessa who sent 5 scholars to Israel to translate the bile into Syriac. We can see this in the commentary of Bar Hebrseus to Psalm 10. Some identify King Abgar with King Izates II of Adiabene who converted to Judaism in the first century CE (Ant 20:69-71)
Greek Versions
1 The Lxx where the name of Yaua was regularly transliterated into Greek letters, or Aramaic letters or was left in paleo Hebrew.
After Paul.
2 Acquila second century
3 Theodotion (convert to Judaism) Tried to reconcile Septuagint to MT
4 Symmachus (samaritan or Christian)