Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 2/12/2003 4:08:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
furuli AT online.no writes:  (Message to which reply is given removed)

> Two sources can be possible as the basis for substitution, 1) the 
> Hebrew scriptures, and 2) foreign influence. If we count all the 
> epithets and designations for God in the Hebrew scriptures, the list 
> will be very long, but he has only one proper name, YHWH.  In the 
> Bible belt of the US I am told that many persons use the hundred year 
> old American Standard Version with the name "Jehovah", and they 
> pronounce this name with reference to God.  But they also use the 
> word "God", and occasionally "the Lord".  So the point is not that 
> God can be addressed in many ways, in this we agree. But the point is 
> whether the people viewed it wrong to use his personal name and 
> therefore needed to use a substitute instead; that is, was 
> substitution necessary.
> 
> While I think that old Vitringa had a point regarding kolophons and 
> different documents being used as sources for Genesis, the theory of 
> E. J. and P is pure speculation, and would lead to absurdity it it 
> was carried out consistently. It is also quite strange that some 
> believe strongly in the "Deuteronomist(s), who does not have a name, 
> nor any personal history, nor a time reference, but the existence of 
> "David", who both has a name, a personal history, and a time 
> reference is doubted (or rejected).  So, the only conclusion we can 
> draw on the basis of the fact that some contexts use YHWH, others 
> )LHYM, and others )DNY, and still others a combination of these, is 
> that all designations could denote the Creator; there was no 
> competition between the uses. 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.
> 

Your designation of the Documentary Hypothesis as "speculative" tends toward 
a pejorative use.  It would be correct to say that it is proven, but its 
designation as "speculation" would appear to be an attempt to prejudice the 
case.

It is totally unnecessary to attempt to ascribe the usage of a qere for the 
tetragrammaton as due to foreign (Greek) influence as it is fallacious to 
refer to its having been occassioned by trinitarian considerations.  Would 
you likewise ascribe the Kashrut to foreign influence?  I doubt that.  Yet 
the separation of meat and dairy rests upon the expansion of the prohibition 
of the cooking of a kid in its mother's milk which is a far cry from a 
command to separate dairy and meat.  The practice of the perpetual qere for 
the tetragrammaton must likewise be seen as a corresponding expansion of the 
prohibition of using the name La$.fW:) 

> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

You are correct in saying that )DNY was not invariably used as a substitute 
for the tetragrammaton.  You yourself even provide a reason why it would not 
reasonably have been used in particular instances, namely because of the 
presence of )DNY in conjunction with the tetragrammaton.  To conclude from 
the fact that )DNY is not invariably used as a substitute for the 
tetragrammaton that there was no practice of using a qere for it is a non 
sequitur.  You acknowledge that )LHYM was likewise used.  It would thus 
appear that the practice of using a qere in preference to the ketib of the 
tetragrammaton was the general rule though the precise word used in the qere 
was sometimes a variable matter.  Among your statistics regarding the 
(various) WRITTEN representations found in the DSS, you note that dots were 
used.  I might ask how the dots would be pronounced when even the written 
form itself is not given?  Was the extension of the prohibition against using 
the name La$.fW:) extended even further by some to the very written form of 
the name?

> I have elsewhere discussed the NT data at some length. After a study 
> of the 1317 occurrences of QEOS, the 717 occurrences of KUROS, and 
> several other epithets, I concluded:
> 
> 1)  The most common word used as reference for God  in the 1st 
> century C.E. (seen in direct speech) was )LHYM (or )L), and that YHWH 
> was used as well, together with several other designations. But there 
> is no evidence that )DNY was generally used. The speech of Stephen in 
> Acts chapter 7 is representative: QEOS 12 times, KURIOS 4 times, "the 
> God of glory" and "the most high" one time each.

It would appear that your statement that "YHWH was used as well" in the 1st 
century A.D. is assuming that which it is necessary to prove.


> 2) The word KURIOS in the NT was a translation of two different 
> Hebrew words (in direct speech) and not just one. Compare for 
> instance the words of Mary in Luke 1:28 "the Lord (hO KURIOS) is with 
> you", 1:32"The Lord God (KURIOS hO QEOS)  will give him the throne of 
> his Father David" with  the words of the disciple Jesus loved in John 
> 21:7 "It is the Lord (hO KURIOS)." 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.  So )DNY 
> evidently was not used in each case - and as I argue, in neither 
> case- but two different Hebrew words must have been used for the one 
> KURIOS ( Peshitta has MARYA in Luke 1:32 and MARAN in John 21:7). 
> (Note also "the most high" in Luke 1:32, suggesting a diversity of 
> epithets.)

That KURIOS was used for more than one Hebrew original is to be expected.  It 
was quite naturally used for an original )DNY and would be expected to be 
used for the name itself if there were a practice of using a perpetual qere.  
You statement that "Mary would have used it in Luke 1" as though this is a 
contrary-to-fact condition is puzzling since KURIOS is in fact used.  What is 
it you are trying to state here?

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

What is your evidence that the tetragrammaton was used in the autographs of 
the NT?  Are you in possession of these?


> 4. There is much evidence from LXX manuscripts and NT manuscripts 
> (and even Peshitta manuscripts - PIPI and HEHE in their marigins) 
> that in the last part of the 1st century C.E. or the first part of 
> the 2nd century C.E. the tetragrammaton and phonetic transcriptions 
> of the name were substituted by other words (the nomina sacra ks an 
> qs).

You appear to have dug your own grave here.  That other words were used as a 
substitute for Hashem is precisely the nature of the perpetual qere.


> I think that the ANE evidence corroborates with the view that foreign 
> influence was the reason why the name among Jews became ineffable. 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.


Total non sequitur.  The ANE evidence corroborates no such conclusion.

gfsomsel
>From furuli AT online.no  Wed Feb 12 09:51:48 2003
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7990820011
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:51:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [80.213.38.180] (ti200710a080-0346.bb.online.no [80.213.33.90])
        by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04824
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:52:53 +0100 (MET)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a05111b02ba6fd96a6050@[80.213.38.180]>
In-Reply-To: <BA6FE3FA.3AC1%rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
References: <BA6FE3FA.3AC1%rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:51:08 +0100
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: furuli AT online.no
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] LORD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
 <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:51:49 -0000

Dear Raymond,


Just a few  comments due to lack of time.




>
>  >
>  > 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.


That is exactly my point, the group at Qumran used a substitute for 
YHWH - not )DNY but )L.  So this could not be the antecedent of the 
later Masoretic pointing of YHWH with the vowels of  )DNY, nor a use 
of      KURIOS for YHWH in the NT.  Do we have evidence for other 
groups than the Qumran people substituting the name in B.C.E.? If 
not, what is the reason for the widespread belief that it was no 
longer used in this time? Tradition which is repeated over and over 
again!

>
>>
>>  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.


You must leave out the Masoretes, who worked 700-1000 years later, 
from the discussion. E. Tov draws the same conclusion as I do 
regarding Mica 1.2, that the manuscript probably distinguished 
between the tetragrammaton and )DNY.  I think it can mislead some to 
use the technical term Ketib/Qere in connection with Qumran. There is 
nothing like the Masoretic Ketib/Qere in Qumran, but different 
"families" of manuscripts existed side by side.

I do not see any reason to read QEOS instead of YHWH. If you don't 
presume  that the Greek writers had stopped pronouncing the name, I 
see no reason why they should not read KURIOS, and then pronounce 
YHWH.


>
>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


The use of the name in the NT is of course not proved, but there is 
good evidence in that direction. I have not claimed that I have 
proved that, but I have said that I have drawn that conclusion on the 
basis of my study of several thousand verses. See Howard's discussion 
in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. He has drawn a similar conclusion.

The only real evidence of a substitution in B.C.E. comes from Qumran. 
The basic arguments for its non-use in the NT, have been shown to be 
unfounded.  So again, when Jesus read from Isaiah where YHWH is found 
(Luke 4:18), why in the world should he refrain from pronouncing it?


>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.


If we accept that paleo-Hebrew characters indicate non-pronunciation, 
Aramaic letters should indicate pronunciation, and definitely so the 
phonetic transcription IAW.  In my view the paleo-Hebrew letters may 
argue both for and against pronunciation. Would anybody argue that 
whole texts in paleo-Hebrew characters were not read aloud? Even 
though the use of paleo-Hebrew characters in the DSS *could* indicate 
substitution, this need not be the case  in Greek translations (keep 
in mind that most manuscripts where imported from other places).

An important question is how the *translators* of the LXX rendered 
YHWH. To get some clues we should remember that 4QLevb probably is 
from the 1st century B.C.E - two centuries after the start of the LXX 
translation, and P.Fouad 266 with the tetragrammaton in Aramaic 
script is a little older. Even if we accept the argument that 
pale-Hebrew characters suggest substitution, the older IAW suggest 
that in the translation process no substitute was used.


><<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.
>

There is no problem of confusion here, because, as you have shown 
)LHYM could refer to other beings than the Creator. It is easy for 
the reader to see that )LHYM refers to two different individuals. 
However, when KURIOS is used with reference to two different 
individuals in the NT in several instances, confusion occurs when the 
reference in other passages is not clear. that is somethig very 
different from psal 45.

>
>
>Kol tuv,
>Raymond
>
>--
>

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>From brocine AT twcny.rr.com  Wed Feb 12 10:41:59 2003
Return-Path: <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com
        [24.92.226.49])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F30120017
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:41:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from brocine (syr-66-67-64-11.twcny.rr.com [66.67.64.11])
        h1CFh6xF000067  for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:43:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <003d01c2d2ad$71cc1310$0302a8c0@brocine>
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <BA6FE3FA.3AC1%rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
        <a05111b02ba6fd96a6050@[80.213.38.180]>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] LORD
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:43:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
 <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:41:59 -0000

B-Haverim,

A nice source on the origin and history of the tetragrammaton's
ineffability:

The chapter, "The Power of the Divine Name," in _The Sages: Their Concepts
and Beliefs_ by Ephraim E. Urbach, Harvard U. Press, 1979.  pp. 124-134.

Urbach mentions much of the data that has been reviewed recently on
b-hebrew.  His thesis is that the Name became ineffable in Judaism through a
long period of time in order to protect the Name from the increase in
"unruly men" who would use the Name in magical arts and thereby blur the
distinction between human and God.  What is his long period of time?  He
sights the usual evidence from late Bible of Qere 'adonay for Ketiv YHVH,
and he proceeds through the Tannaim, c. 200 CE and the Amoraim c. 300 CE.
In a loose analysis we may say the long period might extend from 6th century
BCE until 300 CE.  Interestingly, Urbach records that while the rabbis
largely agreed on the reason for the Name's ineffability, they could not
agree as to the history of its ineffability.  There seems to be suggestion
that worthy men would pronounce the Name through the early centuries of the
common era.

Regards,
Brytan


B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766