Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

At 12-02-2003 15:51 furuli AT online.no <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

Shalom Rolf, 

> Just a few  comments due to lack of time.

>>> 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.

So, you agree that there is a tendency to substitute the Name. That is the
main issue, the substitute could have differed in groups, regionally etc.
But it also could have differed depending on the context: commentary on a
text, or the reading of a text (cf. Yigal's argument). So, what you have
demonstrated is that there was a tendency to substitute. Only, the
substitute in biblical texts and liturgical contexts is not known.

>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.

Why? It illustrates the point that in case you have the combination of
substitute followed by the to-be-substituted-name [Adonai followed by YHWH;
Kurios by YHWH), you have to look for another substitute. But okay, no
Masoretes: You suggest that in Qumran the substitute was/might have been
)ELOHIM, what happened if they found YHWH )ELOHIM? In the line of your
argueing above, this is the proof they did not substitute YHWH by )ELOHIM!

> 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 agree Ketib/Qere is somewhat misleading, I will use "substitute" for the
Qere. 

> 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.

Two points: 
1.   Supposing that the text from Nahal Hever has some relationship with
Qumran, you just have argued that in Qumran they did substitute YHWH by
)ELOHIM. As far as I am aware, THEOS is the Greek word for the Hebr.
)ELOHIM. So, my argument is completely in line with your argument.

2.   The question was whether your example demonstrates they did not use
KURIOS as a substitute. My answer is that your example does not demonstrate
it. I did not argue that they did substitute, but I do not exclude it and I
gave you some good arguments for it. So, where you try to prove they did not
substitute, I just say you did not prove it.

>> 
>> 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>> 

> 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?

The only thing we have as evidence here, is a Greek text, which reads
KURIOS. You have no text, which has YHWH there. So, prove to me that
(assuming it is historical) Jesus did pronounce YHWH.

In Qumran they probably substituted the Name, and in extra biblical texts
this is apparently )L. Why in the world did they refrain from pronouncing
it? 
We have no evidence they did refrain from pronouncing in Galilea (Luc.
4:18); we only have texts (NT) in which the Name is rendered by KURIOS. In
case this is the representation of what happened in the synagogue, KURIOS is
firstly a rendering of Hebr. )ADONAI. We only know that the original Hebrew
text of Isaiah does read YHWH. But neither you, nor I, do know what the
tradition was there, and -if Jesus did read that text- what he exactly
pronounced.  

>>> 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 same reason as in Qumran, if they did.

>> 
>> 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?

You are ridiculing my argument; just offer us good arguments.

<<SNIP>> 

>> 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.

Elohim is used for God and for humans; Adonai is used for God and for humans
(1Kings 3:17); so why could John not have said "It is the Lord _HA)Adon_"
(John 21:7)? Petrus would certainly not have thought that John meant that
YHWH was standing at the shore :-)

As I wrote before the evidence might be interpreted in different ways. It
appears to me, however, that you do want to prove that YHWH was not
substituted by )ADONAI at the beginning of the C.E. I am not interested to
prove it happened, but I would suggest that you leave both possibilities
open, the facts are not decisive. Now I will leave the discussion.

Kol tuv,
Raymond