gmane.culture.language.b-hebrew

Re: G.Gertoux and the Name...

Jonathan Mohler — 2013-06-19T05:31:29

Dave:

see my comments below
On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:00 AM, b-hebrew-request-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org wrote:

What Rolf is suggesting is not speculation, it is inference.  Neither is it circular reasoning.  The fact that the NT mss have KS is a bonafide conundrum.  At least as it concerns the Gospel of Matthew, and at the very least the sayings of Jesus.  If there is one clear aspect of Jesus' teaching is that he intentionally exposed man-made traditions which were in direct violation of the Torah.  He taught his disciples to disregard them at every turn in full view of the Pharisees.  (For the moderators' sake: I am not making a faith statement just an argument from what is commonly accepted and unambiguous).  These "traditions of the fathers" as they were so-called were well-intentioned.  No one doubts that the Rabbis had the welfare of the people in mind, but their effect was to destroy the original intent of the Torah.  This was the central teaching of Jesus against these teachers

Hebrew text embedded in NT autographs by 7 authors and then redacted out? - Part 1 - the GOT history

Steven Avery — 2013-06-19T05:22:52

Hi,

Subject was: Re: [b-hebrew] G.Gertoux and the Name...

The goal here is to go through the logical construct of Rolf, in two 
parts.  The first part is how he makes the well known contraction: 
kurios --> KS  .. proposing one special type of historical 
contraction bypassing kurios, going from YHVH --> KS

All the Philip Comfort quotes are online:

Encountering the Manuscripts (2006)
Philip Comfort
http://books.google.com/books?id=nPVHbSscCwYC&pg=PA200

Lots of similar and usually complementary material could be given 
from Larry Hurtado, Dirk Jongkind and many others. For simplicity, 
this post is working mostly with Comfort.

Rolf

Steven
We do not know if they might also contain five extra 
chapters.  Essentially, everything we know about the autographs comes 
from the apographa and ECW discussions of the apographa. Anything 
that claims to be autographic that is not in the copies ... must jump 
over a very high evidentiary bar.

Rolf


Steven
Sounds fine. I will point out that the terminology "LXX" h

עָֽשׁ׃ in Job 4:19׃

Mike Burke — 2013-06-19T05:21:44

My lexicon defines עָֽשׁ׃  as 

* moth 
* herbage, grass

 My question is how you can tell whether a moth or some kind of vegetation is meant in Job 4:19?

Either a moth, or vegetation can be crushed, so how does context help?

Could it be translated either way (as moth, or grass)?


Michael Gerard Burke_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: H$TXWH

J. Leake — 2013-06-19T03:04:17

the essence of the verb is the bowing down, $XH,
 The trouble is, Nir, that the verbs based on ShHW [$XH] that you base your argument on are themselves probably derived from hishtaHawah, not the other way round. If we include the Ugaritic evidence (hishtaHawah is found in Ugaritic) we must admit that the word is ancient. The Arabic cognate verb includes ideas of coiling, whixch seems reasonable (there is no 'af'ala or istaf'ala). 

As an aside, this does introduce the interesting problem suggested by Noeldeke of possible connections between Eve (Hawwa) and the Arabic Hayya, 'serpent', itself probably etymologically *Hawwa (according to Lane, at least, following with cognate words in Arabic). But that might be another thread.

John Leake


________________________________

'inna SâHiba Hayâtin hanî'atin lâ yudawwinuhâ: 'innamâ, yaHyâhâ. 
(He who lives a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it.) 
Tawfiq al-Hakim, Yawmiyyât Nâ'ib fil-'Aryâf.

________________________________



_

Re: H$TXWH

K Randolph — 2013-06-19T03:00:13

Nir:

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir-6nibzBrIEeXBajwh+fDmrg< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:


Whoops, I see I was a little too quick in answering, gave wrong examples.
I’ve got to stop this remembering something, then looking quickly to get
verse numbers.

Look at Genesis 27:29 there is both WY$XW and WY$XWW for plurals, and in
Genesis 43:28 there’s WY$TXW. Both cases, the Masoretes gave an assumed
Qere for a Kethiv, is there any evidence from the DSS that the Qere is
correct? If not, then stick with the Kethiv.


$XH is found in Isaiah 51:23 and Proverbs 12:25 in binyanim other than
Hithpael,

(a few hours after I started writing this response)

The more I look at this, the more questions I have, and the more I question
both what I’ve been taught as well as what conclusions I had reached
earlier based on looking at my copy of a concordance and the text.

There is a verb %XH meaning to swim.

There’s another one $XX meaning to bring down.

Is there such a root as $XH? Without po

Re: G.Gertoux and the Name...

Stephen Shead — 2013-06-19T00:38:04

Hi Rolf,

I meant to comment also on what you said here (but forgot - sorry):

RF:

SS: You seem to be the only person who considers this to be
"circumstantial" evidence, or an argument "from silence", for either KS or
KURIOS in the NT autographs. They are, after all, the same word. And why
couldn't it have been KS in the NT autographs? That, at least, we have
plenty of direct evidence for, do we not (unlike YHWH/IAO)? But all this
seems to be part of your perverse insistence on calling your argument
"evidence", on an equal footing with the NT manuscript evidence.

In fact, let's follow your argument to its logical conclusion: If KS is a
corruption of YHWH, then the NT autographs clearly had YHWH or IAO - both
when quoting the Tanakh **and** when referring to Jesus. After all, KS was
used indiscriminately for both in the NT manuscripts (but not for other
distinguished persons). But then, I'm guessing you're not going to be happy
with that. So are you going to argue that, where they were citing the
Tanakh or

Re: G.Gertoux and the Name...

Stephen Shead — 2013-06-19T00:22:29

Dear Rolf,

You see, my problem with you posting a synthesis of your arguments in order
to end you participation is that I directly countered all those arguments
in my own synthesis/response. That is, I interacted with your arguments,
whereas you ignored mine - and yet you keep using the same arguments and
language as before.

I am sorry you didn't understand my diagram. I was simply summarising what
I had already presented and asked several times, based on your own analysis
- but perhaps I over-summarised. My question is very simple, really - I'll
ask without the diagram this time:

*** The post-CE LXX uses the nomen sacrum KS. But doesn't the evidence
suggest that this was due to early Christian influence (possibly
Jewish-Christian)?

(I will not summarise the evidence and arguments for this - though
Hurtado's article is important. But if you would like me to, I will.)

That is, early Christians began to use KS in their Greek scriptural texts -
both for Jesus and when referring to YHWH, both in NT and LXX

Re: H$TXWH

K Randolph — 2013-06-19T00:13:27

Nir:

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir-6nibzBrIEeXBajwh+fDmrg< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:


These look like a contraction of $ + LHBT for )$R LHBT


This is a contraction of $ + QMTY for )$R QMTY.


Where is this found in Tanakh?


I’m not part of that.

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

H$TXWH

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. — 2013-06-18T22:48:08

dear karl,

you consider WY$TXW and H$TXWH as representing two different roots. i suspect
that this interpretation is incorrect: i consider them the same root, except
that a final H in WY$TXW was dropped by apocope, as is the rule in all the
LH-irregular roots, in the ("short") wayiqtol form: WYR), WYBK etc.

this said, i must admit that i find it difficult to accept XWH as root, 
as the essence of the verb is the bowing down, $XH, and not the hand 
gesture, XWH. and, so, i suggest that the extra W was added at some 
point as the correct hitpael form, H$TXH, sounded too odd, or was
confounded with other words.

best
nir cohen 

Hithpael in Genesis 18:2, 19:1, 1 Samuel 24:8, 25:23, 41, and several other
verses.

The verb שחוה $XWH is found in Genesis 22:5, 42:6, Exodus 11:8, and many other
verses.On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:00:08 -0400, b-hebrew-request wrote


--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew< at >lists.ibiblio.org
http

Re: Hitpael 1st pers plural bow down/worship

Isaac Fried — 2013-06-18T22:40:16

Of course there is a piel and pual in Hebrew. Piel is with the  
inserted (twice?) personal pronoun
-I- for היא 'he', and pual is with the inserted personal pronoun - 
U- for הוא 'he'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 18, 2013, at 5:11 PM, John Leake wrote:


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: Hitpael 1st pers plural bow down/worship

Isaac Fried — 2013-06-18T22:32:58

Is there an added meaning to this ש š in this supposedly hišaph'el  
form?
I have heard it said that שרץ $EREC, 'creeper', is the shefel form  
ש-רץ "that is running".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 18, 2013, at 4:38 PM, J. Leake wrote:


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

H$TXWH

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. — 2013-06-18T22:29:16

uri,

1. as i say, at least one of these words is biblical: $LHBT, which, given the
parallel form LHBH, in my mind is a clear indication of a remnant 
$F(L form in BH. 

2. another possible source is SHIRAT DVORAH (jud 5) where you find (D 
$QMTY which can be interpreted as the $-form of the root QM (though 
this can be debated, of course). masorah did not point this word
with segol as one might expect, indicating they might have considered it
this way too.

3. i do recognize at least one of the other words i mention in
arabic: $XRWR = TXRYR. i am not sure, though, whether any one of these derives
as a direct borrowing on the other. if, then, $XRWR does not come
from arabic, or aramaic, then its source might be biblical or even
canaanite-pre-biblical. but then i find intriguing the question: how did it
find its way to modern hebrew without leaving a biblical trace. it is about
this issue that i hoped to get some input from the experts on b-hebrew.

4. feel free to ignore my remarks on non-biblical words. i j

Re: God's name

Jack Kilmon — 2013-06-18T22:22:15

From: Rev. Bryant J. Williams III 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:42 AM
To: Rolf ; b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] God's name

Dear Rolf,

I will be able to answer this one question since it does not involve questions of hermeneutics: 
Why would the NT writers who quoted the Tanakh delete YHWH and use the substitute KURIOS  instead? 

1. You are assuming that the authors of the NT "deleted" YHWH and substituted KURIOS. There is no evidence to         indicate that.

2. The NT quotes from the Tanakh almost invariably are from the LXX.
    a. This use of the LXX to Greek-speaking assemblies found throughout the Roman Empire would actually make         sense.
    b. The authors of the NT would have used the LXX and the Tanakh. The Book of Hebrews uses the LXX                         exclusively.
    c. The use of KURIOS by the authors of the NT to these Greek-speaking would naturally follow the use made in         the Greek-speaking synagogues as well.

3.

Hitpael 1st pers plural bow down/worship

Chris Watts — 2013-06-18T21:06:24


<<<<< This doesn’t appear to be a regional difference, as the same  
authors used
both. That one author would use both suggests that the two different  
forms
had distinct meanings that were recognized by native speakers.
(incidentally, when I learned German, the local dialect pronounced  
milk as
“Milich”.) >>>>>

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl, this was precisely what I was trying to understand, are there  
any conjectures then as to the possible two different nuances?

Re: G.Gertoux and the Name...

Michael Abernathy — 2013-06-18T20:53:37

Rolf,
I find your argument that there is "no evidence that 'adonay was used as 
a substitute for YHWH in the last centuries BCE" somewhat unconvincing 
but I wanted to give it a fair chance so I did a little research and 
quickly found a relevant article by a rabbi I believe is an orthodox 
Jew, Eric Levy. The article on the Psalms from Qumran can be found here 
www.ericlevy.com/Hodayot%20from%20Qumran%202.doc 
<http://www.ericlevy.com/Hodayot%20from%25%E2%80%8B20Qumran%25%E2%80%8B202.doc> 
.
Rabbi Levy notes that while the Dead Sea Scrolls often made use of the 
Tetragrammaton, the Qumran community “took great pains to avoid using 
the Tetragrammaton” (p. 13).Adding, “The Tetragrammaton is never used in 
the Hodayot, although it appears in apocryphal and canonical psalms 
scrolls found (and perhaps copied) at Qumran” (p. 14) and that the 
Tetragrammaton is frequently replaced by Adonai (p. 16).
I can accept that the scribes did not always avoid using Tetragrammaton 
but it seems dishonest to s

Re: Hitpael 1st pers plural bow down/worship

J. Leake — 2013-06-18T20:38:59

Petr, the difference between the root שחה and השתחוה is an extension by gemation of the last letter, which does otherwise occur in, say, the Arabic if'alla and if'ālla. But alhough you and I are both certain this is a hištaph'el, that's not how it was understood as in Biblical times. 
 
Karl, the שחה forms you are talking about are back-formations from השתחוה as it was no longer seen as being a hišaph'el from חוה but a hithpa'lel from שחה. Note that the words are both few and late in date. The medieval Jewish grammarians who later classified Hebrew grammar on the model of Arabic grammatical models would have been aware of both the Arabic if'alla and the istaf'ala forms and they seem to have preferred the former option. Today we have a clearer picture of the structure of Semitic languages than they could have had then, and can see the development of the word.
 
John Leake
 

________________________________

'inna SâHiba Hayâtin hanî'atin lâ yudawwinuhâ: 'innamâ, yaHy

Re: G.Gertoux and the Name...

Ken Penner — 2013-06-18T19:04:02

I'm trying to stay out of this one other than to point to evidence.
I just ran across this example of reluctance to use the tetragrammaton in the last centuries BCE.
Numbers 10:9 
וְכִי־תָבֹאוּ מִלְחָמָה בְּאַרְצְכֶם עַל־הַצַּר הַצֹּרֵר אֶתְכֶם וַהֲרֵעֹתֶם בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת וְנִזְכַּרְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יהוה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְנוֹשַׁעְתֶּם מֵאֹיְבֵיכֶם
Is quoted in 1Q33 x 6-8 as 
כיא תבוא מלחמה
בארצכמה על הצר הצורר אתכמה והריעות[מה]‬בחצוצרות ונזכרתמה לפני אלוהיכם
ונושעתם מאויביכם
Note the differences are all simply orthographic, except for one word missing.

Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Religious Studies
2329 Notre Dame Avenue, 409 Nicholson Tower
St. Francis Xavier University
Antigonish, NS  B2G 2W5
Canada
(902)867-2265
kpenner< at >stfx.ca





-----Original Messa

Re: God's name

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III — 2013-06-18T16:42:26

Dear Rolf,

I will be able to answer this one question since it does not involve questions of hermeneutics: 
Why would the NT writers who quoted the Tanakh delete YHWH and use the substitute KURIOS  instead? 

1. You are assuming that the authors of the NT "deleted" YHWH and substituted KURIOS. There is no evidence to         indicate that.

2. The NT quotes from the Tanakh almost invariably are from the LXX.
    a. This use of the LXX to Greek-speaking assemblies found throughout the Roman Empire would actually make         sense.
    b. The authors of the NT would have used the LXX and the Tanakh. The Book of Hebrews uses the LXX                         exclusively.
    c. The use of KURIOS by the authors of the NT to these Greek-speaking would naturally follow the use made in         the Greek-speaking synagogues as well.

3. Both Philo and Josephus, like the NT writers and the early Christians (Clement of Alexandria, ca 100 AD) used         the complete LXX which had KURIOS.

4. Some of the older fragmet

Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 126, Issue 30

K Randolph — 2013-06-18T15:46:40

Chris:

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Chris Watts <dekruidnootjes-zLKRkbt3P8esTnJN9+BGXg< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:


You are dealing with an incomplete data set.

The verb שחוה $XWH is found in only Hithpael binyan, but in both Qatal and
Yiqtol conjugations as well as participles, with the normal suffixes as
expected with a lamed-heh verb after the waw.

The verb שחה $XH is found in Hithpael binyan, but only in the third person
plural. It’s also found in other binyanim.


This doesn’t appear to be a regional difference, as the same authors used
both. That one author would use both suggests that the two different forms
had distinct meanings that were recognized by native speakers.
(incidentally, when I learned German, the local dialect pronounced milk as
“Milich”.)

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 126, Issue 30

George Athas — 2013-06-18T14:52:54

Please sign your posts with full name please.

GEORGE ATHAS
Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
Sydney, Australia

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Re: Hitpael 1st pers plural bow down/worship

George Athas — 2013-06-18T14:52:25

Please sign your posts with full name please.


GEORGE ATHAS
Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
Sydney, Australia


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew