[b-hebrew] LORD
Lisbeth S. Fried
lizfried at umich.edu
Sun Feb 9 19:06:35 EST 2003
Dear Rolf,
Fascinating,
Thanks!
Liz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of
> furuli at online.no
> Sent: Sun, February 09, 2003 4:13 PM
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] LORD
>
>
> Dear Liz,
>
> A couple of years ago E. Tov visited Oslo and gave a series of
> lectures. A principal theme in these was that many, or even most of
> the Qumran manuscripts were made by different people in different
> places outside Qumran, and then they were imported to Qumran.
>
> "The Rule of the Community" VI,27-VII,2 seems to indicate that a
> substitute was used for the name by the Qumran community. Evidence
> for this is seen in non-biblical manuscripts which use )L where we
> expect the tetragrammaton. There are, however, many non-biblical
> manuscripts that use YHWH, which may suggest that they were written
> by people in other localities who used the name. The witness of the
> biblical manuscripts you mention, is harder to interpret. One could
> argue that because these manuscripts were copies and the
> tetragrammaton was in their Vorlage, it was copied. Even if it
> occurred in the manuscript they could use a substitute when they read
> the text. Or, if biblical manuscripts were copied outside Qumran, the
> tetragrammaton may have been pronounced by the people in these
> localities.
>
> The occurrence of the tetragrammaton in a manuscript, therefore,
> cannot settle the question whether it was pronounced or not. However,
> the occurrence of IAW in 4QLXXLevb suggests pronunciation because it
> is a phonetic transcription.
>
> One important fact regarding the DSS is for the most part neglected
> in discussions about the name, namely, that the substitute used in
> Qumran manuscripts is *not* )DNWNY but )L. Thus the KURIOS of NT and
> LXX manuscripts of the 2nd century C.E. have no antecedent! The
> argument is that at the beginning of C.E. the name was no longer
> pronounced, but was substituted by )DNWNY. Because of this the LXX
> translators and the NT writers translated )DNWNY with KURIOS. And
> that is the reason why KURIOS with reference to God is found both
> places. But the problem is the the most important link, the first one
> is lacking. There is no indication that )DNWNY (or Aramaic MR)/MRY)
> was used as a substitute for YHWH in B.C.E.! And there is no
> evidence that i generally was substituted in the days of Jesus. Thus
> the pointing of YHWH by the Masoretes cannot be traced back longer
> than to the days of Jehuda hannasi and Mishnaic times.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>
>
>
> >Dear Rolf,
> >What troubles me about your excellent discussion
> >is that YHWH is used in the DSS copies
> >of the biblical texts.
> >Liz
> >
> >
> > >
> >> Dear Bill,
> >>
> >> If we look at the question from a historical point of view, it was
> >> not a particular interpretation of Scripture that caused people to
> >> stop pronouncing YHWH, but rather foreign influence. In
> the centuries
> >> after Alexander the Great, the Jews were in many ways
> influenced by
> >> Greek thoughts, including Plato's view that God is nameless. "A
> >> bitter struggle between Hellenists and Hasidim centered around the
> >> pronunciation of the Divine Name." according to rabbi A.
> Marmorstein
> > > (1927) "The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God", p 13. The
> people at Qumran
> > > ceased pronouncing the name while the Pharisees,
> Haemerobaptistae and
> > > others continued to pronounce the name.
> >>
> >> There are three passages in the Tanach that has something
> to do with
> >> the use of the name, namely, Lev 24.16, Ex 3.15 and 20:7.
> >> Manuscripts of the LXX from the second century C.E. translate Lev
> >> 24:16 in a way suggesting that the name should not be
> used (we do not
> >> know the original wording); Targum Onkelos does about the same.
> >> However, the rabbis of old did *not* use Lev 24:16 or Ex 20:7 as
> >> reason for not pronouncing the name, according to G. F.
> Moore (1955)
> >> "Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. the
> Age of the
> >> Tannaim Judaism", vol I, p. 428.
> >>
> >> It is quite strange that the very passage that definitely
> says that
> >> the name should always be used, is the passage that was
> used to show
> >> that the name should not be pronounced, namely, Ex 3:15. For those
> >> interested in the four fanciful ways the words of this verse were
> >> explained to say the opposite of what they do say, please
> look at the
> > > Jewish lexicon M. M. Kasher (1967) "The Encyclopedia of Biblical
> > > Interpretation", vol II, p. 109.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Rolf Furuli
> > > University of Oslo
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list