Phlox Pyros

Where did the Septuagint ever transliterate YHWH?

YHWH was translated as God (as in this case) or Lord.

The Septuagint and other versions you mention were not around yet for the supposed 18th century Wellhausian JEPD theory to have had any affect on them.

Loomis

Genesis 14:22, Hebrew Text, "El Most High". Determining Who's Elyon And Jews Lian. :rolling:

Loomis

Phlox, if you are open, and not just attempting to intentionally confuse people, then perhaps you'll change your mind given the overwhelming evidence against your position.

For the love of God please go back to the original thread Translation of Elyon split from Ad Fontes and show us why you think “my translations” are wrong.

JoeWallack

JW:
I was curious as to just how Neutral I had to be without having you criticize it. Guess I still don't know.



Joseph

Phlox Pyros

Of course I am open, just not to ridiculous ideas. I was asking you, was YHWH ever transliterated in the Greek? You said he wasn't there. I was saying I know.

I already did. Apparently you didn't understand. It takes work, but you'll get there.

JoeWallack

JW:
As far as the respective histories of the related X-Uh-Jesus the Jewish opinion has stayed the same, "Like a lion" is Original (there is no known Jewish commentary saying it's not). It's the Christian opinion that is changing. Christian "scholarship" started out with the Theological Assumption that "like a lion" could not Possibly be Original. MidEvil Christian scholarship moved to permitting an actual argument as to Why "Like a lion" was not Original but still required a Conclusion that it wasn't. The beginning of modern Christian Bible scholarship Spinned that "Like a lion" was Possible but Likely not Original. Now you've seen relatively recent Christian Bible scholars Positing that "Like a lion" is Possibly Original. Than there's you. The momentum's there. I feel it! Of course, as Spin says, what scholars say is secondary evidence compared to what the text says.

Regarding the reliability of Textual Transmission I think everyone here except possibly Fr Loopis (who will undoubtedly end up moving a post that starts out related to the OP to one that concludes that the Tetragrammar/YHWH/Lord was/wasnot in/edited the Septuagint/LXX/Masoretic for reasons unknown to me, him or God) will agree that the Hebrew Textual Transmission is Superior to the Greek. The question is How superior is it?

Certainly the Aleppo Codex is much, much later than Greek texts supporting a Verb for the offending word. And that weighs heavily against its weight. But in Textual Evaluation Quality must be considered in addition to Age. And the Aleppo Codex is not just any Codex. Related factors to consider in evaluating the weight of a specific manuscript such as Aleppo are:

1) Is it in the Original language?

2) Is it part of the same Tradition as the Original?

3) Was it created by designated Successors to the Original?

4) When was its underlying Text Standardized?

5) At the time of Standardization was an Inventory made of Textual Variation?

6) Was Inventory of Textual Variation Transmitted along with the Text?

7) Was the Geographical Origination of the Text conducive to accurate Transmission?

8) Who Created the Text and Inventory of Variation?

9) Did the Creator also have a Family of Tradition to rely on?



Joseph

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Loomis

Psalm 22
O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

Job 41
Will he keep begging you for mercy?
Will he speak to you with gentle words?

Psalm 22
They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

Job 41
Will traders barter for him?
Will they divide him up among the merchants?

Who can strip off his outer coat?
Who can pierce to the inside of his armor?

Psalm 22
they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Job 41
I will not fail to speak of his limbs.

The 'poor suffering Jew' in Psalm 22 is a huge talking worm/ serpent/ centipede/ dragon/ sea monster, who goes by the names “Majesty of the Sea,” Yamm, Rahab, and Leviathan. :wave:

Outside of the bible he/she is called “Prince of the Sea,” Yammu, Lotan, and Tiamat.

JoeWallack

JW:
Shalom A. It would be nice if we could put related discussions in Dedicated Threads. That would make it easier on everyone (except I suppose Truth-Challenged Advocates for that man who like having it unclear when the evidence is strongly against them).

I think I Am close to finished helping make available a Guaranteed or your Soul back serious error regarding the Dating of Jesus' birth which can be easily thrown in an Apologists' face. My next Project is taking Paul Tobin's excellent article on Psalm 22:17:

Psalm 22:16: A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?

and making it another Legends article at ErrancyWiki. I think I can improve on Paul's effort. Speaking of Paul's Rejection of Pascal's Wager Site, for any of the Unfaithful here who are interested in my opinion, Paul's site is excellent and the worst article there is better than any article at Bede's site.

Problems with Bible scholarship to date regarding 22:17 exist on both sides. On the Christian side, it's the same problem they've had for 2,000 years. They either don't know or are not fluent in Hebrew. For an Issue of What is the Original Hebrew, Greek translations have relatively little value. Any translation is relatively poor evidence of the Original word. Christian translations are very poor evidence and Christian translations of a controversial word are worth even less.

On the Jewish side it's simply assumed that the Masoretic tradition determines the Original regardless of the Translation evidence. There's nothing wrong with this assumption if you are only comparing the Masoretic with Christian Greek translations. However, if the Issue is larger than this, than even though the Masoretic by itself normally determines Likely, examination of all the available evidence helps Quantify How Likely.

A, you are welcome to comment on my related article at ErrancyWiki. Regarding the pronounciation evidence that Tov refers to consider that this is Masorah evidence. Indirect Masorah evidence. What you and Tov apparently are not considering is the Direct Masorah evidence, Textual Variation. For the potentially best Masorah evidence, Aleppo, the related page looks to be torn out by some of our superstitious Syrian ancestors who thought it would protect them (boy, were they wrong!). However, the Leningrad Codex shows no textual variation for 22:17. The Masorah for LC is thought to be Tiberian Asher which is considered to be the best Masorah and the Asher family Masorah tradition is thought to go back about 6 generations. There appear to be two subsequent Masorah comments on 22:17. One comment indicates that the word in 22:17 has a different meaning than the same word in a different place. Another comment just places it in the read/write category with no mention of a different read word. Apologists take both as evidence of a cover-up of a different original word but actually both comments are probabaly evidence of the opposite, that the word is original. The comment of a different meaning probably means that the word in 22:17 has an implied verb. The second Masorah comment probably means the same.

The Primary purpose of the Masorah was to Protect the Received Text. An important objective was to Identify Questionable words and document for posterity that something questionable had been noted, but that's what was received so don't change it God damnit. This is the Likely explanation for the two Masorah comments above. There was no awareness of any alternative word, it looked funny without a verb, but that's what was received so don't change it God damnit.

Let me ask you at this point A, understanding that you think it Probable that 22:17 is corrupt. What would be your best translation than? My point being even though you think it Likely that 22:17 is not Original, wouldn't it still be merely your best Choice, due to lack of any more Likely, Specific alternative?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Steven Avery

And this makes Tov's willingness to offer a tripartite defence of the verbal reading that much more significant. From the DSS translation of Flint, Abegg, and Ulrich, to the Greek OT, to the Masoretic Text grammar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

spin

This is one of those lovely ironies of life: praxeus who desparately wants the text to read "pierced" for plainly tendentious reasons, has to denegrate the Hebrew text on this occasion in order to justify his wanton conclusion-driven bias. The word of god as it is preserved in the Masoretic Text plainly does not say "pierced", Tov does not say "pierced", the Nachal Hever text doesn't even say "pierced" (K)RY/W), despite Flint's claims to redefine KRH, having read K)RW in the text.

Perhaps it was some other verb there, praxeus. What would you like it to be? Obviously KRH (to dig) doesn't make any sense. You might like to advocate some other word.


spin