Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Timothy Lawson <lostntym8 AT hotmail.com>]

Dear Bryant,

Speaking to your points 1, 2, and of course 3, I'd like to say that is not how I personally understood Rolf.

As to point 4, I didn't see it as an argument from total silence, since there is evidence of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX and he did point that out. He also pointed to Jerome's comments that seem to indicate he knew of copies with the Tetragram in them.

I don't mind disclosing that I share Rolf's religious views, and know that that is a lens I view things through, but I hope that I am also able to set aside my doctrinal views and look at evidence objectively. I suppose, only true agnostics, can claim impartiality without being called to account for their biases...
I've enjoyed this discussion and have been both informed and edified!

My thanks to all,

    Timothy Lawson

> From: bjwvmw AT com-pair.net
> To: rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:06:39 -0700
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G.Gertoux and the Name...
>
> Dear Rolf,
>
> The problem is that you think that the LXX manuscripts are:
>
> 1) All have the Tetragrammaton in them. At least that is how it is being portrayed based on conjecture from a separate manuscript.
>
> 2) That the LXX is a "Christian OT, thus it is part of the NT manuscripts.
>
> 3) That since numbers 1 & 2 above are true, thus the NT manuscripts must have them also.
>
> 4) Arguing from silence; which is a poor argument to begin with.
>
> No original manuscript from the OT or NT is available. You arguments for the Tetragrammaton is based on circular reasoning NOT on the evidence available. The Tetragrammaton is found 6828 times in the Tanakh. It is primarily representated as YHWH (yodh-he-waw-he) without the vowel pointings. The Aramaic script adopted after the Babylonian Exile represents the Paleo-Hebrew script that was still being used ca 150 BC - 70 AD at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Isaiah Scroll, as far as I can tell, does not use the Paleo-Hebrew script. Also the use of Adonai YHWH in Ezekiel 217 out 317 uses in the Tanakh shows that Adonai YHWH was viable title and name for the God of Israel. The Tanakh as Canon was closed after Malachi (using English order) or after II Chronicles (after Hebrew order). The issue of the Apocrypha is another thing entirely and is not germane to this topic unless there are Hebrew manuscripts of them. The LXX is germane to this topic since it is the earliest
> translation of the Tanakh that bears witness to this topic. The NT manuscripts are germane only as they bear witness to the fact that NONE of them have the Tetragrammaton in them including the quotes and allusions of the Tanakh.
>
> Dear Moderators,
>
> I think that one last post from all concerned should be enough on this topic since we are at the point of more heat than light. If any one wants to continue, the let them take it off-list.
>
> Thank you for your long-suffering and patience.
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew