[b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text
jason at hareplay.com
Sat Sep 27 15:13:03 EDT 2003
> Dave says:
> In my particulat situation,
> I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
> as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
> I realize that Masoretic texts disagree with other Masoretic texts,
> but the Old Testament of the English Bible that I use,
> [e.g. the KJV]
> is translated from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
Well, I guess I'll just throw out a couple more comments. I didn't notice
before (I guess I'm just not used to dealing with the English side of this)
that when Dave said that he was trying to "understand the 'it is written'
form of God's Hebrew name," he was saying that he was trying to grasp the
meaning of the KTYB, the [k'tiv] of the text. Sometimes these things just
slip by you. LOL
Secondly, I was unaware that the KJV was translated from the Ben Chayyim
text. Is that significantly different from our MT as presented in the Stone
Chumash or in BHS? I have both of them (and several others), so I guess I'm
just wondering if Ben Chayyim is something that I would have to get as a
separate representation of the textual tradition.
Beyond that, does anyone else pull from this excerpt above that he is more
interested with the Tetragrammaton than with anything else to do with Hebrew
study? What about the rest of the text? And what is up with the KJV
I'm just a bit concerned. I have always looked up to B-Hebrew's level of
intensity in study. Since I signed on (over three years ago) I have always
considered the opinions of these valued scholars to be of high worth...
especially when a discussion is carried to the end and the pieces have come
down. Generally, great answers can be found within the settled findings. It
just bothers me when someone with an obvious theological bend is trying to
divert the list from its great height and pull us down so that we argue on a
child's level over things that have been settled for centuries.
This is one of those issues. Why is this brought up over-and-over? Can we
not just refer him to the archives and move on? We should not have to
explain this ten times in one thread (as has happened this time)! If Dave
were interested in studying Hebrew, he would study Hebrew. However, he has
already demonstrated (by referencing Strong and by his complete lack of
concern for what ANYONE has said to him about this issue) that he is not
interested in studying Hebrew except to further his understanding of this
one word. And surely his motivations behind that are akin to any other
person who wants to sound "studied" and "authoritative" on a subject of
which he/she is completely ignorant.
I have ranted, and surely placed myself in disrepute with some on the list.
I think I will take a few days off.
I just have to say that my annoyance is out of extreme love for the
scholarly drive of this list and for the great participants that we have. So
many of you encourage me daily without even knowing it. I'm sorry to be so
contrary. I just think you should be aware that you are being had (which
many of you probably already see).
More information about the b-hebrew