Biblical Hebrew Forum

[furuli AT online.no]

Dear Dale,

I appreciate your questions, because it is impossible to cover all 
points in a short posting. So let me elucidate.

I do not think that the Masoretes followed any Christian tradition, 
to the effect that their vowel-points were based on )DNY which was a 
translation of KURIOS. Frankly, we do not know the basis of the 
vowels of the Masoretes. But the point I tried to make, was that 
there is no evidence before the days of Jehuda hannasi of any 
substitution of YHWH by )ADNY. So, I guess that the tradition that 
guided the Masoretes was the tradition of the Mishna, the Talmuds and 
old Rabbinic texts.  If I remember correctly, in the first chapter of 
Avot we find "Sinai", "the name of heaven" as substitues fro YHWH, so 
it is evident that several substitutes for YHWH existed at that time.

Another point which was implied in my discussions, is that there is 
much incorrect information given regarding the substitution of YHWH 
in the B.C.E and first century C.E. by fine scholars in lexicons and 
textbooks. The most important error is that the Septuagint 
substituted YHWH with KURIOS - this is definitely wrong! Another is 
that before the start of the C.E. the name was no longer used. While 
this is true in some cases, there is no evidence that even the 
majority viewed the name as ineffable at that time.

Because I do not know the basis for the Masoretic pointing, I cannot 
say anything about whether the Christian use of KURIOS played any 
role for the Masoretes. I have no objections to the general view that 
the choice of vowels by the Masoretes for YHWH was based on the 
vowels of )DNY.  However, I stress that there is no evidence for a 
substitution of YHWH by )DNY in the days of the second temple.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

> Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Rolf:
>
> I'm not sure that you are suggesting this, but the implication, it 
> seems to me, from what you are saying is that the Masoretes borrowed 
> the later Christian practice of using KURIOS for the divine name and 
> so pointed YHWH as Adonai, rather than the other way around, ie., 
> Christians chose KURIOS because the traditional pronunciation of the 
> Hebrew text for the divine name was the Hebrew word for "Lord", "My 
> Lord[s]" (??).  Does it not seem a bit unlikely that the Masoretes 
> would follow Christian conventions?  Does it not seem also a bit 
> unlikely that the Masoretes would have "accidentally" used the 
> Adonai vowels with YHWH, since they in all likelihood knew that the 
> Christians were using KURIOS??
>
> Blessings...
>
>
> **************************************************************************
> Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
> Research Prof., Biblical Languages    Multnomah Bible College
> 8435 NE Glisan Street                      Portland, OR  97220
> V: 503-251-6416    F:503-251-6478     E: dalemw AT multnomah.edu
> **************************************************************************