HaShem - Yahweh or Jehovah?

Much obliged kind sir... Those are great websites.I'm obviously new here. From the short time that I've been here, I've realized that the mods on this forum actualy do there job. (I know, bizarre, huh?) Anyway, I'd like to ask you about some personal information, like: Are you Jewish? Do you follow Judaism? Things like that. But I'm not sure if that kind of information is frowned upon in here.

I wanted you to listen to this mans discussions on the programs of May 4th and 5th... here. Lemme know what you think of his presentation.

not at all! it is a little off topic, sure, but... whatever. no. i'm a christian, though a relatively unusual one. yes and no. i'm interested in the religion and some of its traditions, but i'm also not exactly kosher.i became interested in the language due to some issues i've had with translations. it's a little hard to explain, but i found some subtle differences from translation to translations, and several cases of things being rendered very dogmatically. a lot of people turn to concordances and bible dictionaries, but that's really not a very good solution, either (as i quickly found out). knowing some of the language is actually much more helpful. you get the connotations better, and the cultural and linguistic context better, and the grammar. the irony of the whole situation is that i know respect translators a lot more.but i've found it highly useful in understanding the bible, as well as arguing here.

---

i'll give it a listen.edit: some subtle and questionable errors. for instance, he says that yahueh is made of four consonants: it's not. it's four semi-vowels. while technically consonants, they are often used as vowels.he also said that most hebrew words are three letters. that's not QUITE true. all verbs have a 3-letter root, though conjugation etc tends to change that. and he mistakes "yahueh" for "ahayah asher ahayah"his hebrew pronounciation is also worse than mine. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-07-2006 11:13 PMoh boo! they're selling stuff. that's the one thing that irks me the most.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-07-2006 11:18 PMalso, he needs to stop talking about hamlet. he's just taking up time, and not talking about anything important to the topic (and i don't think he knows what he's talking about in regards to hamlet anyways)This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-07-2006 11:33 PM

---

Nonsense? Are you aware as to whether OT and NT Jews addressed their fathers at home by their sirnames/proper names? I doubt that they did.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

maybe i've just missed the rest of this, but it's also irrelevent. we know that nt jews did not call god by name -- and we know this tradition started before christ. while the people in the ot did seem to call god by name, the people who wrote at least some parts of it did not.

---

Greetings. I am new to these parts but I believe I may be able to contribute.
I have been studying the Dead Sea Scrolls for the better part of the last 7 years, and it is interesting to note that on several occasions (though not always) the tetragrammaton is represented in the text through a variety of methods which indicate it's sacredness. In several (primarily "biblical" texts) it is enscribed with paleo-Hebrew characters instead of the standard Hasmonean or Herodian square script. There are also a number of other instances where instead of writing yod-he-waw-he the scribe has opted to write four "dots" on the horizontal ruling in place of the name of God. Examples of the latter practice are found in 1QIsaiah-a, 1QSerek-ha-Yahad, and a rather obscure instance in 4Q382 (4QpapParaKings). all of these examples date from between 200 B.C.E. to about 50 B.C.E., and we have every reason to believe that the practice was probably quite ancient, though not universal.

hi textcritic, welcome to the board. and thanks for the info -- it's nice to have some learned scholars around here in religious fora. really? that's kind of interesting. do you think this indicates a tradition of the holiness of the (paleo) hebrew script, prior to the invention of the aramaci-derived square script presently in use? one similar to today's tradition?i have at least one version of the bible that chooses to render the divine name in hebrew in an important instance or two, even though the rest of the text is in english. i would venture a guess that a similar thought process is going on. there's another such tradition today, where once the name of god is written, it cannot be erased. do you suppose that could indicate the text to be a draft, or unfinished? it's hard to find universal agreement in anything related to the bible, or jewish tradition.

---

quote:

---

do you think this indicates a tradition of the holiness of the (paleo) hebrew script, prior to the invention of the aramaci-derived square script presently in use? one similar to today's tradition?

---

This is exactly what is happening. Profe3ssor Emanuel Tov has done the best and most exhaustive work on scribal practices in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and his latest book: Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004) has extensive information regarding this. Generally speaking, the paleo script was revered for its antiquity. In a similar fashion, it is interesting to note that a friend of mine has done some work with the Aramaic texts from Qumran, and she believes that a similar regard for the Aramaic language is alluded to in some of these compositions. It was highly regarded as the "language of Abraham".

quote:

---

there's another such tradition today, where once the name of god is written, it cannot be erased. do you suppose that could indicate the text to be a draft, or unfinished?

---

The presence of this phenomenon in both 1QIsa-a and in 1QS would suggest to me that this is probably not the case. Common practice was for individual sheets to be enscribed, then edited, sometimes re-edited, and then finally stitched together. The remarkable thing about the Isaiah Scroll is that it was found completely intact from end to end; there are even a few places where the scroll has been torn and repaired. This suggests that entire manuscript was a finished copy. The occurence in 1QIsa-a is curious, as it is found in only one place at Isa 40.7 (Col 33 7); in ALL other instaces, the tetragrammation receives no special treatment.
On an interesting side note, The Great Isaiah Scroll once existed as two separate compositions which were later joined. The first book was comprised of Isa 1-33, and the second of Chs. 34-66.

quote:

---

it's hard to find universal agreement in anything related to the bible, or jewish tradition.

---

Isn't that the truth. It is what keeps my studies compelling.

i was under the impression that aramaic was of later (foreign) origin, or at least in regards to its effect on hebrew, and that the earliest hebrews would have written in something more like paleo-semitic, or paleo-hebrew (which i recall looking something like cuneiform.) it's been a while, so you'll have to fogive my ignorance in this area... that is odd. why that one verse, do you suppose? i've heard that isaiah is comprised of three sources, but i don't recall off-hand where the splits were. does that line up with sources, or was it simply a length issue? they say that true academic study of the bible is on the greatest tests of faith anyone can go through...

---

quote:

---

I was under the impression that aramaic was of later (foreign) origin, or at least in regards to its effect on hebrew, and that the earliest hebrews would have written in something more like paleo-semitic, or paleo-hebrew (which i recall looking something like cuneiform.) it's been a while, so you'll have to fogive my ignorance in this area...

---

You are correct, however it seems that many Jews in the Second Temple Period understood things differently (this does not necessarily mean that they were correct in their thinking). It may be a result of Babylonian and Assyrian influence, but it seems that there was a high regard in some circles for the Aramaic language, and many believed it to be particularly ancient.

quote:

---

that is odd. why that one verse, do you suppose?

---

In this instance it seems to have been a correction made by a later scribe (perhaps the same scribe who penned 1QS, 4QSam-c and 4QTest). There are at least 3 separate hands which can be detected in 1QIsa-a, but this correction has been made by yet another scribe who has not otherwise contributed to this text. It does raise questions about the variance in scribal practices WITHIN established scribal schools. The situation at Qumran is not at all like that which we read about in the Mishna regarding manuscript reproduction.

quote:

---

i've heard that isaiah is comprised of three sources, but i don't recall off-hand where the splits were. does that line up with sources, or was it simply a length issue?

---

Most scholars believe Isaiah is a compilation of at least two sources; the first part comprised of Chs. 1-39, was probably a collection of Isaiah's oracles and tales which was edited by his school of followers, sometime in the late 8th or early 7th century. The second part (Chs. 40-66) was likely appended to the original book and attributed to Isaiah pseudonymously by an anonymous author during or straight after the Babylonian exile. There are a number of scholars who also contend that the "Servant Songs" belong to yet another contributor. The distinctions are made between "Isaiah", "Deutero-Isaiah", and "Trito-Isaiah".
It would have been remarkable if the Great Isaiah Scroll was bisected according to these parametres, but I suspect it was probably as you have suggested. Because the Scroll was originally divided in the exact middle, most likely it was because of its substantial size.

quote:

---

They say that true academic study of the bible is on the greatest tests of faith anyone can go through...

---

I can vouch for this. There was a time when my faith endured a crisis as a result of my studies. In the end, I tend to believe I emerged with stronger convictions and a more solid foundation for my beliefs. While I believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture, I do not delude myself with the fantasy of "inerrency". This doctrine is simply untenable, and can lead to a form of biblicism which elevates the Word of God above the Person(s) and Presence of God himself.

...which may explain why the modern aramaic-derived script came into use, and became the holy script. i have to admit, i'm a little unaware of the mishna tradition regarding reproduction (i've heard bits about speaking aloud). well, that's very hopeful and helpful to hear. i agree with the final statement, as it's something i've seen here many many times. but at the rist of dragging this discussion terribly off topic, could you elaborate on what you mean by "authority" and "inspiration?" when i say "the bible is inspired by god" i mean something very different than when a fundamentalist says "the bible is inspired by god."

---

I will get back to you with the Mishna tractate; I don't remember the reference off hand and I need to do some hunting.

quote:

---

...could you elaborate on what you mean by "authority" and "inspiration?" when i say "the bible is inspired by god" i mean something very different than when a fundamentalist says "the bible is inspired by god."

---

I'm still developing my own position on the whole concept of "inspiration", but I believe the most logical starting point is in 2 Tim 3.16: "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, for refuting error, for correction, and for instruction in matters of righteousness."
There are three fundamental problems with understanding the passage:
1) What is "all Scripture"?
2) What is the meaning of "God-breathed"?
3) What specifically are the parametres and application of "teaching", "refuting error", "correction" and "instruction in matters of righteousness"?
Unfortunately, Paul never defined for us what his understanding of "Scripture" was, except to say that his writings and the writings of the other Apostles were included under the rubric. Paul quotes extensively from Scripture, but he does not restrict himself to a static "version", he has a tendency to conflate, adapt, and paraphrase, and he also quites from an ancient Greek poet and the Targumim on at least one occasion.
The word translated "God-breathed" (theopneumatos) is very rare and very unusual. It is only written in one other place in the entire corpus of classical Greek literature. and its meaning is somewhat obscure. A very literal understanding of it conveys the idea that the sacred writings eminate from the person and presence of God.
As I read Paul's directive, it seems to me that Scripture is presented as a functional template, and not so much as an arbitrary standard. My own personal feelings are that this whole idea of "inspiration" has more to do with the function of Scripture as opposed to the very words. There is a long history in the textualization of Israel's tradition (and in Church traditions, for that matter!) of adaptation and contextualization of the sacred stories and ideas to more accurately reflect the circumstances of the present community. Inspiration means that while the concepts may be adaptable, there is an unending assurance that they have originated from God. I prefer to think that as the Word of God evolves, God is glorified, and thousands of years od history has proved this...
Am I making sense, or merely babbling irrational platitudes?I am perhaps not clear about what "inspiration" is, but I am certain that it has little or nothing to do with fundamentalist ideas of inerrency and infallibility.

no, i think i get what you mean. my own view is actually somewhat similar.i'm not entirely sure that this is what paul meant (or where he included his own writing? it wouldn't really surprise me) however. my personal beliefs are something of a paradox, but then most everything about me is. for instance, i have good reason to believe that the entire book of deuteronomy is an invention from the divided kingdom period, pre-exile. meaning, it was completely forged, and for some rather despicable political ends. but take a verse like "you shall not tempt the lord your god." the only other place it's found is in the new testament, quoted by jesus. and it's a good idea, too.i think that god often works good through the evils of man.the fundamentalists accuse me of picking and choosing, sure. but from a strictly literal standpoint, the texts do not all agree on some minor issues, and there are often MAJOR conflicts of ideology on top of those. fundamentalist christians like to claim to take the whole book, but obviously ignore some of the finer points in leviticus, and try to bend certain things slightly to get them to fit.i am, however, a strict literalist; stricter that the fundamentalists. a fact which amuses me to no end. i do not believe the bible is literally correct in all matters, just that it is meant to be read for the words on the page, not reinterpretted to fit reality or dogma.anyways. we should probably leave any further "inspiration" debate to a more appropriate thread. we've had numerous discussion on it here before.

---