Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Doug,


"Correct" depends on what your purpose is. The Hebrew text of the Bible has
"YHWH", which was probably vocalized by the writers, at least of the earlier
books. By the late Second temple period Jews were no longer pronouncing the
Tetragrammaton. So by using "Kurios" Paul was following Jewish tradition of
the time. By using "Lord" now, we would be following that tradition. On the
other hand, by using YHWH or "Yahweh" or "Yahowah" or whatever vocalization
you think is correct you would be "going back" to the pre-exilic practice. 

Whether any particular book was or was not inspired by the Holy Spirit is
was beyond the purview of this list - please drop that particular line. 


Yigal Levin

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Belot [mailto:dbelot AT bigpond.net.au] 
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 2:39 AM
To: Yigal Levin
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah

Yes Yigal we have , tho usually in response to a thread by your guys , which

is a great read by the way , I love it, now the point here is massive, it 
seems to be suggesting that the evidence of the use of the LXX in quoting 
passages from the OT , into the NT is absolute , it was from the LXX that 
the NT Bible writers drew there information, and we have to assume that the 
writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit , at least in the canon of 
Scripture , what we call the NT .

It seems that you are suggesting that use of Kurious is the more correct 
term and would have been Pauls choice of explaining the tetragrammaton , my 
point is why do we now think anyone is better placed than Paul to give us a 
correct method of verbalising the tetragrammton , and Pauls choice was 
obviously to inform us that the Tetragrammaton is Kurious.

And Paul commanded that we now call Kurious  Jesus .  Jesus is Kurious 
.Jesus as Kurious is a basis of salvation.

To then later go further than Paul , and against what Paul was saying seems 
fraught with danger. Why would you think that we/anyone know more than Paul 
, by using such terms as Yahweh or YHWH .

doug belot


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah


> Dear Doug,
>
> While we've had this discussion before, let's just remember that Jesus did

> not write any part of the NT. He probably did speak Hebrew and Aramaic and

> used the Hebrew and Aramaic names for God that Jews were using at the 
> time. As far as we know, by that time Jews were already avoiding 
> pronouncing the tetragrammaton, usually reading "Adonai". The writers of 
> the NT such as Paul used Kurios as a translation of Adonai, best rendered 
> in English as "Lord". I won't get into "Jehovah" and the like, but modern 
> scholars' using Yahweh etc. certainly represents a break with tradition.
>
>
> Yigal Levin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>
> To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 2:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah
>
>
>> This is an interesting admission , if this is so , that the NT was
>> originally in Greek , and we know that the tetragrammaton was considered 
>> by
>> Jesus and Luke and Paul to be best written as Kupiou , why do you think
>> later scholars prempted those obviously better scholars than any of us by
>> ignoring the teaching of Jesus and Paul and bringing in confusion such as
>> YHWH , if Jesus was writing Kupioz , and Paul was writing Kupioz , why 
>> dont
>> we all follow their pattern.
>>
>> Do we think we know more than they.
>>
>> doug belot
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
>> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 5:47 AM
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah
>>
>>
>> > Dear Fred,
>> >
>> > In short, yes. The vast majority of scholars believe that most, if not
>> > all,
>> > of the NT was originally written in Greek, within a Greek-speaking 
>> > Jewish
>> > and non-Jewish milieu. But even if parts were written in either Hebrew 
>> > or
>> > Aramaic, the original texts have been lost. Since the best we have in 
>> > hand
>> > is translations from the Greek into Hebrew or Aramaic, all we would be
>> > able
>> > to discuss is why the translators used this word or another.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yigal Levin
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> > [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of fred 
>> > burlingame
>> > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 5:47 PM
>> > To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> > Subject: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah
>> >
>> > Isaiah 61:1 appears in classical hebrew format.
>> >
>> > A. An introductory clause: "spirit of Lord of me on me because:"
>> >
>> > B. followed by a couplet in parallel: (i) "He annoints me to bear 
>> > tidings
>> > to
>> > afflicted ones; and (ii) He sends me to bind up ones being broken of
>> > heart;"
>> >
>> > C. followed by a couplet in parallel: (i) "to proclaim to ones being
>> > captive, liberty; and (ii) to ones being bound, opening."
>> >
>> > The subsequent, septuagint, greek, translation, in its wisdom, alters 
>> > the
>> > original hebrew and changes clause "C(ii)" to: "to the blind, recovery 
>> > of
>> > sight."
>> >
>> > The subsequent, greek, translation of the original hebrew new testament

>> > in
>> > luke 4:18 then proceeds to further change the hebrew by: (1.) retaining
>> > the
>> > septuagint old testament, new clause "C(ii);" (2.) deleting clause
>> > "B(ii);"
>> > and adding another new clause "C(iii):" "to send to ones being 
>> > oppressed a
>> > release."
>> >
>> > With the symmetry, balance and substance lost in and by the 
>> > hellenization
>> > of
>> > the hebrew new testament, a question arises. Why is the hebrew new
>> > testament
>> > discussed not here? Does the opinion continue to hold sway that the new
>> > testament orginally authored in greek?
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > fred burlingame
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > b-hebrew mailing list
>> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > b-hebrew mailing list
>> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3199 - Release Date: 10/16/10
>> 04:34:00
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 
>> 02/21/2007
> 3:19 PM
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3199 - Release Date: 10/16/10 
04:34:00