R.J. Furuli wrote:K.W. Randolph wrote:Did you catch on that the pronunciation of יה could very well have been “Ya-ho”, already a way of avoiding the pronunciation of the name יהוה and transliterated at ιαω? In other words, that the evidence that you presented already shows an avoidance to pronouncing the Tetragrammaton? The lack of the “h” and “w” sounds in Greek muddies the waters.
The form yah only occurs 49 times in the Tanakh, mostly in poetic texts. it also occurs together with yhwh (Isaiah 26:4) and therefore cannot be a substitute.
I agree with you that יה cannot be taken as a substitute for יהוה, however most of the uses of יה is in the phrase הללו יה where the common practice is to take יה as a substitute for יהוה. I disagree with that common practice, but it is a common practice nonetheless.
You are speculating absent of evidence that in post-Biblical DSS Hebrew that readers didn’t substitute יה or even אדני for when they read יהוה orally in a text.
R.J. Furuli wrote:Are there any extant Greek mms of the New Testament that has the Hebrew characters in quotations of Tanakh passages that contain the Tetragrammaton? Or have the transliteration of יה as ιαω? The Greek New Testament was written for a mixed audience that contained both Jews, mainly diaspora Jews many of whom knew not Hebrew, and non-Jews who never learned Hebrew, why would the writers of the New Testament not follow a practice that may have been already widespread in the vocalization of Greek?
The oldest manuscript with kurios is from the fourth century CE. The oldest NT and LXX manuscripts are dated in the last part of the second century CE. They have the nomina sacra ks and ths in quotations from the Tanakh.
Both LXX and NT, or LXX alone?
R.J. Furuli wrote: These arepresent emendations of the original texts. We know that the original LXX had tetragrams or iao. But we cannot know which words in the original NT manuscripts tht were emended.
You know from actual manuscripts, or speculation? And where manuscripts had the tetragrammaton, how were they pronounced?
R.J. Furuli wrote:I would like to stress that there is no manuscipt evidence that the original NT manuscripts contained kurios. And there is no manuscript evidence that they contained yhwh or iao. But the pattern of the LXX emendations make the last alternative more likely.
Sorry, but I need actual texts, extent manuscripts, Absent actual manuscripts, this appears to be speculation.
R.J. Furuli wrote:My basic point from the beginning, was that there is no evidence that 'adonai we used as a substitute until the second part of the first century CE. So, the "widespread practice" that you mention is nonexistent.
But you don’t have evidence that it wasn’t an oral widespread practice before then. Further, ιαω is evidence that יה was being substituted for יהוה when the Hebrew text was read aloud.
R.J. Furuli wrote:Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
We have from later sources that אדני was being said when readers encountered the name יהוה, but how soon did that practice arise? Any answer by necessity will be speculation because we’re dealing with something that was oral and not written down.
Because we’re dealing with something where we don’t have proof either way, what use is there to argue?
All the best, Karl W. Randolph.