Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 18/07/2005 15:35, Alexander Oldernes wrote:

> Peter Kirk wrote:
>  
>
> > A huge range of views on the divine name can be found on the Internet, 
> > some unfortunately based on incorrect facts and bad argumentation.
> >    
>
> What you say is true.
> But I'm not so sure you can say this about what professor Gertoux is writing.
> Have you actually read his book? There is not many who know more about the 
> tetragrammaton than he does.
>  

I have not read Gertoux's book, but I have read his online extracts and 
other materials. I agree that this is well argued and Gertoux is very 
knowledgeable. It would have helped if you had named you source as 
Gertoux, rather than writing "According to http://www.divinename.net/"; 
with no further attribution, which made it sound rather like you were 
trusting anything on the Internet.

> ...
>
>   The situation is identical for other codices. The most frequent error is 
> the transformation e, a into e, o, a, thus the changing of the form YeHWaH 
> into YeHoWaH, which one finds in the Aleppo codex (Ezk 3:13; etc.) and in the 
> Or4445 codex (Ex 16:7; 40:29; etc.) These errors are very old ...

I am interested to see here evidence that the holam was found in Aleppo, 
and so even earlier than L. This would make me question whether this is 
really an "error". Perhaps it was the original pointing, which was for 
some reason partially but incompletely suppressed in some MSS. The 
argument that this is really a misplaced revia is an unlikely one. The 
Masoretic accentuation is very precise, and there is no way that the 
same word would have been left accented with both revia and another 
accent multiple times by mistake.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.0/50 - Release Date: 16/07/2005