We know in any case, that ad-onai was secondarily introduced in the Second Temple period often to indicate that the tetragrammaton should be pronounced in this manner (not as written). This is not textual variation at all, and has no relevance to what he is claiming.
This is hard to understand, is Lawrence saying that it would have no significance if the "text"
is actually changed from tetragrammaton to adonai, or if adonai is added ?
Or is Lawrence simply referencing the spoken word... ?
I think he is refering to saying 'ad' as opposed to the name itself. As some here know, the vowels that appear in Jewish religious books when the tetragrammaton appears are for the alternate name to be used.
Shulman
So essentially the facts are that these are not changes, or variants, but places where using the tetragrammaton appears to Gunzburg as being a valid substitution for one of the other names being used. I am sure that most of the time it is correct, and a substitution could be made, and likewise we could find others where we would disagree.
Perhaps someone can share give exact examples of what Ginzburg actually write's in his Massorah, to help confirm that he is just offering a view of "equivalency of meanings" rather than indicating a substitution or emandation having been made historically ?
Gen 18:3 is one of them, but variant is listed in BHS to support it.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.