Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Dave.

I am surprised to see that you  are not well informed, because I know that 
you have worked a lot with the DSS. The manuscript P. Fouad 266 from the 
second or first century BCE has YHWH in Aramaic script;  8Hev12Gr from the 
first century BCE or first century CE has YHWH in Paleo-Hebrew Script: 
4QLXXLevb from the first century BCE has the phonemic transcription IAO; P. 
Oxy 50.3522 from around 50 CE has YHWH in Paleo-Hebrew script. No LXX or 
LXX-like manuscript from BCE or the first century CE has KURIOS as a 
substitute of YHWH.

I repeat my question: When all the LXX-manuscripots of which we know have the 
tetragram or IAO, and the Chester Beatty manuscripts from the second century 
CE has KS, is it correct to say that the Chester Beatty manuscripts have a 
corrupt text as far as the name of God is concerned?


Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern 
Norway
 
 
Mandag 10. Juni 2013 00:16 CEST skrev Dave Washburn 
<davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>: 
 
> I don't know where you got your information about LXX and related
> fragments, but it's wrong.
> 
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Dave,
> >
> > In all the LXX fragments, and LXX-like fragments up to  about 50 CE we
> > find either YHWH in Hebrew letters or the Greek  transcription IAO where
> > YHWH occurs in Hebrew manuscripts. In the Chester Beatty manuscripts from
> > the second century and other later manuscripts we find KS. Is it a
> > corruption of the text to replace the tetragram or IAO with KS?
> >
> >
> > --
> Dave Washburn
> 
> Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com
> 
> Now available: a novel about King Josiah!