Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>]

At 12-02-2003 10:05 furuli AT online.no <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

Shalom Rolf,

> 
> It is fine that you focus on the real crux of the matter, namely the
> *substitution* of YHWH. In "Encyclopædia  of Religion and Ethics
> (1909), James Hastings vol IX, p. 178 we find a very interesting
> article entitled "Nameless gods". It shows that gods that are
> nameless are found in religions all over the world "because of the
> mystery which surrounds them or because they are called by some
> oblique epithet, or it may be because their names have been
> forgotten". the Cana'anite god Ba'al and the Egyptian Amen-Ra " whose
> name is concealed for all his creatures" are two examples from the
> neighborhood of ancient Israel. This corresponds to your Ugaritic
> evidence.  The period of time to which we must look to account for
> the substitution of YHWH is the days of the second temple.

Well, it appears to me that if you start with the Hebrew Bible, some
traditions preserved in it, are from before the second temple period. So,
you'll have to start before.

<<SNIP>>

> The important point is that nowhere in
> the Tanach is it said, or even hinted at, that YHWH should not be
> pronounced but substituted. To the contrary, the unanimous witness is
> that the name should always be used! Because we find namelessness all
> around Israel, and because we know that Greek influence was
> particularly strong from the 2nd century B.C.E. onward, and in Greek
> religion namelessness is found, we have strong reason to believe that
> this influence was the cause. This is the conclusion the rabbis I
> mentioned previously also draw.

You will not find a commandment on substitution. Yet, the question is
whether you do not find traces of substitution. One such a trace may be the
so-called Shem-theology in the HB, which may be related to the
hypostatization of the Name. Of course we also have Greek influence in
Jewish tradition, but there are other influences before.

> There may be various reasons, textual and others, why one manuscript
> uses YHWH and another )DNY or )LHYM, without suggeting *substitution"
> ("substitution" = YHWH is ineffable, so we must nor pronounce it but
> use another word).
> 
> My count below regarding the use of designtions in  DSS is fairly complete:
> In 71 extrabiblical DSS manuscripts I count 195 tertragrammatons in
> Aramaic script, 44 in old Hebrew script and 25 examples of dots
> instead of letters.  I count 74 examples of )DNY in 34 manuscripts.
> But none of these appears to be a substitute, but three of them
> (4Q161 (1) and 4Q163 (2)) are followed by YHWH, thus differentiating
> )DNY from being a substitute. In a count (which is not complete I
> find 677 examples of )L, many of them being found in places where we
> would expect YHWH.

The final data point IMHO in the direction of an avoidance of the Name.

> 
> I would also like to point to an example which indicates that YHWH
> was *not* pronounced as KURIOS by the Greek translator of 8HevXIIgr.
> In Micah 1:2 the Hebrew text has )DNY YHWH, and YHWH as expected is
> pointed by the Masoretes as )LHYM. the reason is of course that the
> readers should  not read )DNY )DNY. However in the Greek text of the
> mentioned manuscript we find KURIOS + the tetragrammaton in old
> Hebrew characters. This suggests that the tetragrammaton was *not*
> pronounced by KURIOS; otherwise one would read KURIOS KURIOS (See E.
> Tov "The Greek Minor prophets from Nahal Hever, p. 85.) The
> tetragrammaton also occurs with KURIOS in Micah 4:4 and 5.3 and Jonah
> 2:2. However, in Nahum 1:9 we find QEOS instead of the
> tetragrammaton, which does not suggest substitution but rather
> textual variation.

This is absolutely not an indication as you suggest. It illustrates the
Ketib/Qere of MT, but now with regard to the Greek text. If Kurios is found
before YHWH, you have to read THEOS? Otherwise the MT is the prove that the
Masoretes did not substitute YHWH with )Adonai.

I do have my doubts with regard to the use of the NT in this discussion,
unless the NT would use the tetragrammaton throughout with vocalisation.
Yet, a few points: 

<<SNIP>> 

> If )DNY was a substitute for YHWH,
> Mary would have used it in Luke 1, but the disciple would hardly have
> used )DNY in John 21:7, because then he would have been construed to
> say: "It is God", which evidently was not his meaning.

In the HB )DN/)DNY is used for God and humans; why not here?

> 3) The evidence points in the direction that YHWH was found in the NT
> autographs with reference to God, but was later removed.

This is speculation.

> The few
> instances that can be used in favor of the use of a substitute for
> YHWH, can be explained otherwise. But most of the evidence points in
> the other direction. Two arguments have been used in the past for a
> substitution in the NT of YHWH by KURIOS, 1) this is done in the LXX,
> and the NT followed this example, and 2) the tetragrammaton was no
> longer used by people in general in the days of Jesus. The first is
> wrong 

This is not proven.

> and the second is unsubstantiated.

Absolutely!

> So apart from the textual
> evidence, the simple question is: Why should not Jesus and his
> apostles pronounce YHWH when they read from the Hebrew scriptures or
> in their daily speeches?

The textual evidence is poly-interpretable. As I wrote before, the custom to
write the tetragrammaton in Hebrew (mostly paleo) in greek mss, similar to
the Hebr. and Aram. documents from Qumran, might suggests a ketib/qere
situation, because it was given special emphasis by the use of paleo Hebrew.
The fact that the Name was written in this way, even in Greek mss suggests
in each case that the Name was very special and should thus receive special
attention. In my view a clear example of the hypostatization of the Name and
substitution is very near in such a case.

However, I (and you) have to admit that the data can be interpreted in
different ways.

<<SNIP>>

> I
> agree that the use of KURIOS  for Jesus does not show that he was
> viewed as God.  But in between 50 and 100 instances the use of KURIOS
> both with reference to Jesus and to YHWH in NT manuscripts from the
> 2nd century onwards leaves the reader in confusion regarding the
> reference. But writers do not want their reader to be confused, so
> this use
> is  hardly original.

What about Ps. 45:7: "therefore God, your God has anointed you". In my view
rather confusing, and quite original.




Kol tuv,
Raymond


-- 

__________________________________________________________

Dr Raymond de Hoop 
Lecturer of Biblical Hebrew
University of Groningen
Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies
Oude Boteringestraat 38
NL-9712 GK Groningen
The Netherlands    
e-mail: R.de.Hoop AT theol.rug.nl

Home:  
Boeiersingel 11 
NL-9745 CA Groningen
The Netherlands    
Tel.: ++31 50 553 0115
e-mail: rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl
__________________________________________________________