[b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text
David P Donnelly
davedonnelly1 at juno.com
Mon Sep 22 19:18:22 EDT 2003
Peter Kirk says:
It is highly improbable that L has been tampered with in any systematic
Why would you suggest that?
Remember that there are a number of other MSS of comparable date which
usually read the same.
Maybe I should ask the question in a different manner.
The Ben Chayyim Hebrew text preserves the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew
Word #3068 form,
over 6000 times.
You mentioned previously that this Hebrew word #3068 form was only found
44 times in the BHS.
The following information was found at the link above,
under the heading below:
INTRODUCTION TO THE HEBREW BIBLE PROPER
Because of the presence or absence of the so-called "vowel letters"
(consonants used to indicate vowels)
in unpointed MSS, however,
the consonantal Hebrew text as found in the Masoretic manuscripts
splits into two unique but complementary traditions:
that of Ben Asher (circa centuries 9-10 CE)
and that of Ben Chayyim (circa centuries 13-14 CE).
Could you help me to understand how Ben Chayyim ends up creating a Hebrew
in which the Tetragrammaton is found over 6000 times,
in the Hebrew word #3068 form.
Are there any extant M.T.'s between 1010 A.D. and 1525 A.D.
in which the Tetragrammaton is preserved over 6000 times in the Hebrew
word #3068 form?
But it seems clear that by the time that the Aleppo codex was written,
some time before L,
the traditional way of writing the divine name was already more or less
and has not been changed since.
Certainly Ben Chayyim has changed the writing of the divine name.
Did Ben Chayyim corrupt the Hebrew Text?
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:15:56 -0700 Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> On 22/09/2003 05:43, David P Donnelly wrote:
> >While taking a quick look at the document:
> >"Issues in the Representation of Pointed Hebrew in Unicode (3rd
> >on Peter Kirks web site,
> >I discovered that at Genesis 3:14 in the BHS,
> >the Tetragrammaton is shown just as it is shown in Hebrew word
> >of James Strong's Concordance.
> >At Ezekiel 12:25 [in the BHS Text],
> >a variant of this form is found,
> >which looks almost identical to Hebrew word #3068,
> >until you examine it under a magnifying glass.
> >Under a magnifying glass,
> >it can be observed that there is a diamond shaped cantillation
> >[Revia ??]
> >not a holem,
> >above the waw/vav
> This is indeed a Revia.
> >At Exodus 6:3 [in the BHS Text]
> >another variant of YHWH is found,
> >in which no holem is found above the waw/vav,
> >yet there is a qamets under the waw/vav,
> >and a simple shewa under the yod.
> This is the commonest version, occurring several thousand times with
> various accents.
> >I have chosen only to present the above three variants,
> >while ignoring the variants of YHWH found in the BHS Text,
> >when YHWH immediately follows Adonay,
> >when YHWH immediately precedes Adonay.
> >The question I am asking is:
> >Are there any Hebrew scholars who have examined the Leningrad
> >and believe that the Leningrad Codex has been tampered with,
> >at any of the above three mentioned variants?
> >Dave Donnelly
> From a quick search I found that in eBHS the divine name is written
> with about 115 different combinations of vowels and accents. These
> different forms are used to fit with the context and with the
> cantillation of the verse. So you have to consider 115 variants not
> It is highly improbable that L has been tampered with in any
> way. Why would you suggest that? Remember that there are a number of
> ther MSS of comparable date which usually read the same. Of course
> anything could have happened before the earliest pointed MSS which
> have. But it seems clear that by the time that the Aleppo codex was
> written, some time before L, the traditional way of writing the
> name was already more or less fixed and has not been changed since.
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew