Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:

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.

You are correct. If I may indulge in a little humor, you could say I wrote the book on biblical passages in the DSS, heh heh.
 

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.

The only one I have in front of me is 4!LXXLevb, so let's get into that. This is from DJD 9, pp. 169ff.

Frag 1 - Lev 1:11 IAW is a reconstruction. The word is not extant in the actual manuscript. In the introductory remarks, the editor admits he's guessing. More on that in a moment.

Frag 2 - Lev 2:3 IAW is another reconstruction. The size of the gap could hold almost any variation. Once again, he's guessing.

Frag 6-7 - Lev 3:11 Another reconstruction.

Frag 6-7 - Lev 3:12 Partial reconstruction. The first letter is missing, and the alpha is uncertain. The final omega is the only letter that is sure, and it could just as easily be KURIW. There's enough space. Another guess. Ditto for the second supposed occurence in line 14.

Frag 8 - Lev 3:14 Another reconstruction.

Frag 9 - Lev 4:3 Ditto.

Frag 11 - Lev 4:4 Both instances are reconstructions, in very large lacunae that could just as easily accommodate something else.

Frags 12-15 have two occurrences, both reconstructions in large lacunae.

Frag 20 - Lev 4:27 This does read IAW. That's one in a row.

Frag 28 - Lev 5:19 Yet another reconstruction in a large gap. Likewise in 6:2 on the same fragment.

So, out of all of those, we have precisely ONE certain reading. Now, back to the editor's comment. He says:

"For the divine name IAW occurs at frg 20 4 and probably 6 12, whereas KURIOS never occurs, and thus IAW is used in the reconstruction." (DJD 9, p. 168)

Can you see the problem here? "KURIOS never occurs" is horribly misleading, because, and I'm going to emphasize this, WE DON'T HAVE ANY EXTANT TEXT WHERE IT MIGHT OCCUR. All but one of the apparent instances of the divine name are missing. One appearance of IAW in this context is not enough to warrant such a total reconstruction. We see lots of mss in the DSS that freely mix different forms such as square vs. paleo script, so there is no certainty at all as to what the scribes' habits were.

Your "evidence" is flimsy at best, borderline nonexistent at worst.
 

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?

No, it is not. You haven't shown anything except that some localized scribes liked to play with the text when translating it. It tells us absolutely nothing about the general state of the name in pre-Christian times or in the time of Jesus. You have speculation, that's all. And it's speculation based on selective evidence, at that.

I'll take a closer look at 8XIIhevgr when I can find my scans of it, but I can say this about that one: it is not LXX, or even LXX-like. It appears to be someone's single-handed, localized translation that has little or nothing to do with the stream of LXX transmission. So it's not going to tell us anything about such possible "corruptions." More on that when I locate it again. For now, you really haven't demonstrated anything except that a lot of people like to speculate about this particular word. That doesn't help much.

-- 
Dave Washburn

Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com

Now available: a novel about King Josiah!