Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

 

While I have already conceded at least a level of plausibility to some of your argumentation, I find that the questions you bring up in this post to be rather weak.

 

You ask: "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?"

 

I see no evidence from the Gospels was Jesus was an iconoclast simply for the sake of being an iconoclast.  If there was already a practice in place of using various circumlocutions rather than pronouncing the divine name (and there is evidence in the Gospels of Jesus using other circumlocutions), and if this practice was established for the purpose of enhancing reverence for God, it would not seem abnormal for Jesus to have adopted the practice himself.

 

You ask: "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 don't know if something special about this particular citation that you're trying to capitalize on -- there are a number of others you could have chosen.  In any case, I see no reason why, if there was already a practice in place of using various circumlocutions for the divine name, it would have been abnormal for Paul, who was still a card-carrying Pharisee (Acts 23:6), to respect that practice and do the same himself.

 

You ask: "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?"

 

I believe that Paul would have written KYRIOS, and that later copyists, would have introduced the KS abbreviation, perhaps influenced by some LXX practices.  Remember that these nomina sacra were used to abbreviate names and titles for Jesus as well.  I think it is more likely that the autographs had IHSOUS, and that later mss used IH or IS.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com