Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Jerry,

I find the situation a little amusing, or at least strange. I have referred 
to graphic evidence for a corruption of the LXX and NT text. But no evidence 
in favor of )DNY being used as a substitute for YHWH before our common era 
has been produced. Nontheless, my evidence has met a high cry of indignation, 
whereas the substitution of )DNY for YHWH has been accepted without any 
evidence.

I have shown that all (the few) the LXX and LXX-like fragments we know have 
God's name in Hebrew or Greek characters. The oldest LXX manuscripts from CE 
(second century CE) have the nomina sacra KS where the quoted Hebrew text 
quoted has YHWH. This is graphic evidence that the text has been changed; 
YHWH has been deleted and KS has been written instead. By the standard 
definition the text have been corrupted. Then I have pointed out that the NT 
manuscripts from the second century CE have KS as well. No one has argued 
that KS occurred in the NT autographs, and if that was not the case, the NT 
text is also corrupted in the same way as the LXX text. This is again graphic 
evidence, and as philologians we must ask what was in the NT autographs when 
the second century manuscripts have the corrupted KS.

Both when the NT writers quoted from the Hebrew text and from the LXX, they 
found YHWH in some form. Why should the NT writers delete YHWH and use KURIOS 
instead when this would be a violation of what is said in the Tanakh, for 
example in Exodus 3:15? The argument has been made that the NT writers 
followed the superstitious custom of avoiding  pronouncing YHWH and pronounce 
 )DNY instead. And you repeat the argument that )DNY was pronounced instead 
of YHWH before our common era. Please give evidence that )DNY was used as a 
SUBSTITUTE for YHWH before the common era. 


Best regards


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
 
 
Mandag 10. Juni 2013 06:39 CEST skrev Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>: 
 
> Hi Timothy (which name do you prefer to be addressed by, Timothy or Scott?)
> 
> 
> 
> Now this one is where I was less than clear.  When I referred to the
> practice of substituting Adonai for Yahweh, I am really referring to two
> distinct but related practices, neither of which caused changes in the
> consonantal Hebrew text.  The first practice is simply that of not
> pronouncing the divine name but pronouncing Adonai instead, and this
> practice probably goes back several centuries BCE.  The second practice is
> that of pointing the text in such a way as to direct the reader to say
> Adonai (or shema, or Elohim) rather than Yahweh.  This second practice is
> confirmatory of, and a continuation of, the first practice.  I'm not sure
> when the vowel pointing was done, but I believe the usual understanding is
> that it was begun around CE 600.
> 
> 
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> 
> Jerry
> 
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
> jshepherd53 AT gmail.com