Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Rolf, I've been staying away from this one because I really think that it's
a non-issue, but I'll make this comment: the real question is, at what stage
and in what circles did Jews stop pronouncing YHWH and begin saying Adonai
instead. Inferring from modern practice, Jews today (and for most of the
past 2000 years or so) see YHWH and read Adonai just as naturally as
speakers of English see lb and read "pound". It's ingrained in common usage.
In fact so much so, that for most of the past 2000 years or so, since Adonai
is considered the "regular" pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, Adonai
itself is considered to be a sacred name, and in common speech (that is,
outside of the synagogue liturgy) it is replaced by "Hashem" - "The Name".
To many Jews today (those who are not academic Bible scholars), this is
"normal".

Now I don't know whether the circles in which Jesus grew up in the first
century had already adopted this behavior. If they had, Jesus would have
"normally" read Adonai. Do you know what "normal" Galilean Jewish practice
was at the time?

Yigal Levin

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Rolf
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:05 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G. Geroux and the Name

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
 
 

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew