Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT escape.com>]

Shalom b-hebrew,

Shulman quoting Lawrence Shiffman
> > > We know in any case, that ad-onai was secondarily introduced in the 
> > > Second Temple period often to indicate that the tetragrammaton should be 
> > > pronounced in this manner (not as written).  This is not textual 
> > > variation at all, and has no relevance to what he is claiming.

Schmuel
> > This is hard to understand, is Lawrence saying that it would have no 
> > significance if the "text"
> > is actually changed from tetragrammaton to adonai, or if adonai is added ?
> > Or is Lawrence simply referencing the spoken word... ?

Shulman
> I think he is refering to saying 'ad' as opposed to the name itself. As 
> some here know, the vowels that appear in Jewish religious books when the 
> tetragrammaton appears are for the alternate name to be used.

Schmuel

This leads to another question....

What and where are the earliest rabbinical references to the vowels under 
the tetragrammaton.. ?
And exactly what do they say ?

We likely all know the common understanding that the vowels for adonai were 
placed under the
tetragrammaton as a reminder for the vocalization of adonai instead of YHWH

(I also understand that some Hebraic writings actually added the word 
adonai next to the tetragrammaton as well or instead of this)

Yet rarely do we see any historical references to this understanding, and 
occasionally it
is disputed....... so the rabbinical references would be most welcome ....

=============================

> > Shulman
> > > So essentially the facts are that these are not changes, or variants, 
> > > but places where using the tetragrammaton appears to Gunzburg as being a 
> > > valid substitution for one of the other names being used. I am sure that 
> > > most of the time it is correct, and a substitution could be made, and 
> > > likewise we could find others where we would disagree.

Schmuel
> > Perhaps someone can share give exact examples of what Ginzburg actually 
> > write's in his Massorah, to help confirm that he is just offering a view 
> > of "equivalency of meanings" rather than indicating a substitution or 
> > emandation having been made historically ?

Shulman
> Gen 18:3 is one of them, but variant is listed in BHS to support it.

Schmuel

My question was, how exactly does Ginzburg indicate what he indicates in 
his Massorah Text
The Ginsberg Massorah (Ktav Publishing House, 1975 reprint)

We have seen that Bullinger and Schiffman have interpreted this book 
differently,
so it might help to have a description of Ginzburg's Massorah Text, does he 
place
margin notes, what exactly does he say about equivalence or substitution, 
etc...


schmuel AT escape.com

Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe AT yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/