Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Jerry,

As for me, I think we are approaching the end of this thread. But allow me a 
few comments.

You are free to find something likely or unlikely; I will not try to 
interfere with that. This thread started when I, in a post discussing the 
Tanakh. mentioned that there even is  good evidence in favor of the name of 
God being found in the NT autographs. When I sum up the discussion, I see 
that several things have been turned upside down; what is normal has been 
portrayed as abnormal, and what is strange has been portrayed what we should 
expect. Several important points that I have raised have not been addre4ssed.

The following points have not been addressed: 

When Jesus opened the book of Isaiah and read from chapter 61, the normal 
thing to do was to read the Hebrew text, including  YHWH, as it was written. 
Why would he do something abnormal, not pronouncing YHWH, when this would 
have been against everything that is said about God and his name in the 
Tanakh?  Luke reported the incident. If Jesus pronounced the name, why would 
Luke do what would have been abnormal and delete the proper name and 
substitute it with an appellative when the text Jesus quoted had YHWH?

When someone translates a text, the normal procedure in connection with 
proper names is to transcribe them in accordance of the stock of phonemes of 
the target language? According to Archer/Chirichigno, Romans 15:11 quotes 
Psalm 117:1 where YHWH is found? Why would Paul in this verse not follow the 
normal quoting procedure and use the proper name of God?

I have argued in favor of the normal translation and quoting procedures. 
Those who argue in favor of KURIOS in the NT argue in favor of abnormal 
procedures.

A last question: Do you believe that the original manuscript of Romans 15:11 
contained KS, or was KS first introduced in manuscripts of Romans in the 
second century CE?



Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

 
 
Torsdag 13. Juni 2013 04:14 CEST skrev Jerry Shepherd 
<jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>: 
 
> Hi Rolf,
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I didn't reply to your last post to me any sooner.
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your finding "the situation a little amusing."  But I still
> think that what you refer to as "graphic evidence" is better characterized
> as "data" for which you have provided one plausible scenario.  However,
> while the scenario is plausible, I don't this it is the most likely
> proposal, for several reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> (1) As you yourself admit, we're dealing here with only three or four
> fragmentary manuscripts.  I think it is quite a stretch to argue these few
> manuscripts are completely representative of a much larger set.  Among
> these four mss there are two different practices: (1) Greek IAO; and (2)
> YHWH in paleo-Hebrew.   Additionally, there are other mss which simply have
> a lacuna where the divine name would be written, for which there are
> various suggestions as to what could have filled the lacuna (YHWH, IAO,
> KYRIOS, etc.).  I don't think there's enough of a sample here to rule out
> what I would consider to be the strong probability that there were other
> mss, existing at the same time, some of which had KYRIOS.
> 
> 
> 
> (2) It seems to me unlikely that KS would have been used immediately to
> replace YHWH or IAO as opposed to simply replacing KYRIOS.  It seems more
> likely that there were various options open to the Greek translators, and
> that KS is an abbreviation for KYRIOS in the mansucript tradidtion that had
> been using the full word.
> 
> 
> 
> (3) Again, I don't think there is enough representative evidence to talk
> about a corruption.  To argue for a corruption, you would need to
> demonstrate that the later "KS" mss are direct descendants of the
> aforementioned YHWH/IAO mss.  This seems very tenuous.  I would argue that
> it is more likely that they are descendants of KYRIOS mss.
> 
> 
> 
> (4) I haven't read enough of the argumentation on both sides to make a
> determination, but Pietersma's and others' suggestion that the use of the
> tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew in the DSS is archaizing seems very
> plausible.
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the )DNY substitution, without trying to sound flip, let me
> just note that all the MP3 recordings of synagogue services from the last
> few centuries BCE appear to have been lost.  But there is substantial data
> from the DSS mss that Martin Shields listed, from Mishnaic and Talmudic
> statements (which, of course, have to be evaluated for their reliability
> with regard to describing earlier practices), and from Philo, which seem to
> me to converge and make it both plausible and probable that the vocal
> substitution of )DNY for YHWH was at least one of the practices employed in
> the last few centuries BCE to express reverence for the divine name.  By
> the way, note that I refer to this practice as being reverential, rather
> than, as you characterized it, "superstitious."
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate our discussion on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry
> 
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
> jshepherd53 AT gmail.com