>Thank you for your comments addressing all my points.
(snip)
>My interest for the subject arose when I wrote a thesis about it as a part
>of an intermediate exam in Hebrew. Since then I have followed the
>discussion. What I saw then and still see, is that many of those discussing
>the subject use the same presuppositions as was done in the first part of
>the century when the strongest argument against the Christian use of the
>teragrammaton was that it was not found inthe LXX. When I call for "hard
>evidence" I call for a reevaluation of the situation because there simply
>is no compelling evidence showing that Jesus and his followers ( and all
>other groups) did not use T.
(snip)
><Regarding Josephus' and Philo's writing in the latter
><part of the century, Philo is thought to have been born between 15 and 10
><B.C. and Josephus 37/38 AD. So the former lived through the period we are
><dealing with, and the latter, if not an eye witness to all 1st-century
><events, was, at least, fairly well informed about them.
>
>Agree. I for one also believe that many, perhaps most in Palestine in the
>time of Jesus did not pronounce T, but where is the evidence that Jesus
>did not, and that those writing the NT did not?
>
>>>David, what do you think of the fact that the name occurs in all LXX
>>>fragments until the middle of the first century CE even as a phonetic
>>>transcription?
>
>>That doesn't seem odd, since there never was - as far as I know -
>>any proscription against *writing* the divine name. I would suppose that
>>the scribes doing the Greek transcription, if they were Jewish scribes,
>>probably stopped and cleaned their pens whenever they wrote the name - or is
>>that just a practice that came up later. It's hard to be sure, isn't it.
>
>I think that most scholars would say that the phonetic transcription IAW
>should be construed as indicating pronunciation if evidence for the
>opposite is not produced. From the 3rd.2nd.and 1st centuries BC there is
>evidence from Qumran (c 200-BC) and from the Job Targum (c 100 BC) for
>non-pronunciation (the case with Simon the Just is ambiguous) but this does
>not show any general tendency. Even in Qumran there are 110 occurrences of
>T in thirty (imported?) manuscripts indicating different viewpoints.
>David, three questions to you:
>
>(1) Do you deny that the phonetic transcription IAW means pronunciation?
I don't think it *necessarily* means it was commonly pronounced by
1st-century Jews.
>(2) Do you accept that the lack of pronunciation of T among Jewish groups
>was due to superstition based on Greek and other foreign influence, and
>that this was contrary to the OT?
I think a plausible case could be made that considerations
concerning foreigners and foreign thought might be *one* of the factors in
withdrawal from the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton. Although it
appears that the tetragrammaton was pronounced thoughout the time that the
documents of the OT were originally penned, I wouldn't go as far as to say
that its non-pronunciation is *contrary* to the OT. My opinion is that the
name began not to be pronounced mainly because of concern for taking it in vain.
>(3) Why should Jesus who was against teachings of men accept a custom
>contrary to the Holy Scriptures which he called truth? Or had Jesus other
>reasons for not using T?
I think this question has to do with religious presuppositions which
you hold and which I will not try to address on this forum.
A question I have which may move this discussion back more squarely
into the realm of New Testament studies has to do with the many
circumlocutions for the mention of God in the NT documents. Doesn't it seem
significant that these circumlocutions are most prominent in those documents
that are most Jewish in emphasis or in nature?
Regards,
David L. Moore
Miami, Florida, USA
Southeastern Spanish District of the A/G Dept. of Education
E-mail: dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore