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
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Reply via email to