Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ps2866 AT bingo-ev.de]

>I have stated that because we do not have the NT and LXX autographs we do
>not know whether they contained the YHWH in some form or not.
Just ask a group (I think they call themselfs "Jehovas Wittnesess),they
have all the good answers to your so called question. They know what was
in the autographs so heavily corrupted. Yes, it is: "Jehova" !

It seems to me that you try to question obvious facts, namely that no
single NT-manuscript has "Jehova", just to give absurd answers to us,
namely that "Jehova" was in the Original and the only Translation, that is
correct therefore is the New World Edition.

Is that your message here ?

Peter Streitenberger, Germany


> Dear Rolf,
>
> You demonstrate a stubborn insistence on ignoring evidence which does not
> fit with your position, so your conclusions are faulty. Stephen Shead has
> already offered comments, so I shall not repeat his points. I would like
> to make one comment on this claim you keep repeating (and I keep
> disputing):
>
> RF: There is evidence that in the last two centuries BCE the religious
> order at Qumran did not pronounce God's name, but used )L instead. There
> is no evidence that different groups in the second or first century BCE
> used )DNY as a substitute for YHWH.
>
> MS: You draw your evidence from sectarian manuscripts which contain the
> name Yhwh. How can a legitimate claim be made that a word is being used to
> avoid use of the name Yhwh when the manuscript already contains the name?
> Why avoid it and then use it? It makes no sense.
>
> Obviously the best sort of evidence would be a copy of a scribal manual
> which read "We do not write the divine name, we always substitute xyz."
> Now since such a text doesn't exist, we need to look for other pieces of
> evidence. Other legitimate evidence from the DSS would take the form of
> manuscripts which avoid using Yhwh and refer to God. Furthermore, in order
> to determine where substitutions of the name are being made, the best
> indication would be in quotations from the Tanak. Short of that, the use
> of alternate forms in phrases that are found in the Tanak or are strongly
> reminiscent of those phrases. As I have shown, there are a number of such
> pieces of evidence which use ××“×•× ×™ (ʾădônay). I think there is
> actually better evidence for this than for your claims about אל.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin Shields.
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>