The Holy Spirit is YHWH in The Old Testament

[SolaScriptura]

The Holy Spirit is YHWH in The Old Testament

In these two passages, it is clear that we have Old Testament teaching on the Person of the Holy Spirit, Who is YHWH.

Isaiah 40:13-14

“Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counsellor who taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him,. And a taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, And showed Him the way of understanding?” Masoretic Text

The Masoretic Text (MT), otherwise the Traditional Text, was undertaken by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, which was begun in the 6th century AD, and completed in the 10th.

There is a very important difference between verse 13 in the MT, and the reading of the Isaiah Scroll, 1QIsaa (DSS), which dates from about 125 BC. In the MT, the words translated in English, “who taught Him”, are in the Hebrew, “yôdî`eºnnû”, which is in the masculine, and grammatically refers back to “YHWH”. However, in the DSS, the Hebrew reads, “yôdî`eºnna”, which is in the feminine, and refers back to “rûªh” (Spirit), which is a feminine noun in the Hebrew language. The difference is at the end, the “û” of the MT, and the “a” of the DSS, masculine and feminine. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is “female”, but, in accordance with the Hebrew grammar, the words are still translated as “who taught Him”, and would refer to “YHWH Rûªh”, as One Person, and not “Spirit” and “Lord” as two distinct Persons.

All of what is said in verses 13 and 14, where we do have the masculine in the Hebrew grammar, “nō·w·‘āṣ” (He take counsel), “way·ḇî·nê·hū” (who instructed Him), “way·lam·mə·ḏê·hū” (and taught Him), refers to “YHWH Rûªh”, the Holy Spirit, Who is clearly here called YHWH.

In 2 Samuel 23:2-3, we have another very clear reference where The Holy Spirit is called YHWH and Elohim

“The Spirit of Yahweh speaks by me; His word is on my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me”

Here we have “Spirit”, which is in the feminine gender. However, in the Hebrew, we have , “dib·ber”, which is in the masculine, “He Speaks”. And, “ū·mil·lā·ṯōw”, is also masculine, “and His Word”. Here the “Spirit of Yahweh”, Who is the Person speaking in the mouth of David, is referred to in the masculine, though “Rûªh”, is grammatically feminine. It is the same Holy Spirit, Who is also called, “The God of Israel”, and “The Rock of Israel”

Both these passages are abundantly clear to the fact, that the Holy Spirit is YHWH, and COEQUAL with God the Father, and God the Son, both Who are also called YHWH in the Old Testament.

It is blasphemy to say, as some do, that the Holy Spirit is no more than “an active force” of God, and impersonal. No “impersonal” thing can ever be called YHWH!

 

[Vinny37]

The Holy Spirit is YHWH in The Old Testament

In these two passages, it is clear that we have Old Testament teaching on the Person of the Holy Spirit, Who is YHWH.

Isaiah 40:13-14

“Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counsellor who taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him,. And a taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, And showed Him the way of understanding?” Masoretic Text

The Masoretic Text (MT), otherwise the Traditional Text, was undertaken by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, which was begun in the 6th century AD, and completed in the 10th.

There is a very important difference between verse 13 in the MT, and the reading of the Isaiah Scroll, 1QIsaa (DSS), which dates from about 125 BC. In the MT, the words translated in English, “who taught Him”, are in the Hebrew, “yôdî`eºnnû”, which is in the masculine, and grammatically refers back to “YHWH”. However, in the DSS, the Hebrew reads, “yôdî`eºnna”, which is in the feminine, and refers back to “rûªh” (Spirit), which is a feminine noun in the Hebrew language. The difference is at the end, the “û” of the MT, and the “a” of the DSS, masculine and feminine. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is “female”, but, in accordance with the Hebrew grammar, the words are still translated as “who taught Him”, and would refer to “YHWH Rûªh”, as One Person, and not “Spirit” and “Lord” as two distinct Persons.

All of what is said in verses 13 and 14, where we do have the masculine in the Hebrew grammar, “nō·w·‘āṣ” (He take counsel), “way·ḇî·nê·hū” (who instructed Him), “way·lam·mə·ḏê·hū” (and taught Him), refers to “YHWH Rûªh”, the Holy Spirit, Who is clearly here called YHWH.

In 2 Samuel 23:2-3, we have another very clear reference where The Holy Spirit is called YHWH and Elohim

“The Spirit of Yahweh speaks by me; His word is on my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me”

Here we have “Spirit”, which is in the feminine gender. However, in the Hebrew, we have , “dib·ber”, which is in the masculine, “He Speaks”. And, “ū·mil·lā·ṯōw”, is also masculine, “and His Word”. Here the “Spirit of Yahweh”, Who is the Person speaking in the mouth of David, is referred to in the masculine, though “Rûªh”, is grammatically feminine. It is the same Holy Spirit, Who is also called, “The God of Israel”, and “The Rock of Israel”

Both these passages are abundantly clear to the fact, that the Holy Spirit is YHWH, and COEQUAL with God the Father, and God the Son, both Who are also called YHWH in the Old Testament.

It is blasphemy to say, as some do, that the Holy Spirit is no more than “an active force” of God, and impersonal. No “impersonal” thing can ever be called YHWH!

Is.40:13: [In this context רוּחַ (ruakh) likely refers to the LORD’s “mind,” or mental faculties, rather than his personal spirit (see BDB 925 s.v. 6).] Footnote to the NET. Likewise the LXX reads νους not πνευμα (as Rm.11:34). I would not place full confidence on the DSS, helpful though they can be.

2 Samuel 23:2-3: I can accept David as having been a polytheist, but not as having been a trinitarian. His general god-type language was in keeping with polytheism:monolatry, but not in keeping with trinitarianism (or binitarianism). In short, I would wish to see more OT evidence if I were to accept that David had understood the spirit to be a person with the father, ie God the spirit with God the father. Poetically I could speak of knowing your mind, without deeming your mind to be a distinct person from you; of your heart speaking to me, without deeming your heart to be a distinct person from you. David was doing poetry, methinks, of Yahweh speaking his mind to him—the mind of Yahweh speaks to me.

I reject polytheism as outliving its use by date (viz the cross), and accept trinitarianism as being a NT revelation (tertiary education). Sinai thinking was crude, but I accept that under Sinai there were strong glimmerings of monotheism among the clouds of polytheism—many Christians still use such cloud-terms in describing God as a god-type (my god is this, that, whatever).

Though IMO Sinai lacked trinitarian foresight, with hindsight we can see that the term Yahweh can function as a unity for one person, even as did the term adam, yet contain a pluralistic meaning (viz three persons; one society: Mt.28:19), as could adam (Gen.5:2): semantic range. Similarly the term theos-as-personhood has its emphasis on the father (1 Cor.8:6), yet can indicate a shared essence (eg Jhn.1:1): the logos was with God [the person], and was deity [in essence].

As to the spirit’s personhood, even the NWT complies with the contra-grammatical masculine-to-neuter, and calls the spirit he (eg Jhn.16:13).

I have no problem with the spirit’s personhood, but I do not take your texts cited as killer-texts.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Is.40:13: [In this context רוּחַ (ruakh) likely refers to the LORD’s “mind,” or mental faculties, rather than his personal spirit (see BDB 925 s.v. 6).] Footnote to the NET. Likewise the LXX reads νους not πνευμα (as Rm.11:34). I would not place full confidence on the DSS, helpful though they can be.

2 Samuel 23:2-3: I can accept David as having been a polytheist, but not as having been a trinitarian. His general god-type language was in keeping with polytheism:monolatry, but not in keeping with trinitarianism (or binitarianism). In short, I would wish to see more OT evidence if I were to accept that David had understood the spirit to be a person with the father, ie God the spirit with God the father. Poetically I could speak of knowing your mind, without deeming your mind to be a distinct person from you; of your heart speaking to me, without deeming your heart to be a distinct person from you. David was doing poetry, methinks, of Yahweh speaking his mind to him—the mind of Yahweh speaks to me.

I reject polytheism as outliving its use by date (viz the cross), and accept trinitarianism as being a NT revelation (tertiary education). Sinai thinking was crude, but I accept that under Sinai there were strong glimmerings of monotheism among the clouds of polytheism—many Christians still use such cloud-terms in describing God as a god-type (my god is this, that, whatever).

Though IMO Sinai lacked trinitarian foresight, with hindsight we can see that the term Yahweh can function as a unity for one person, even as did the term adam, yet contain a pluralistic meaning (viz three persons; one society: Mt.28:19), as could adam (Gen.5:2): semantic range. Similarly the term theos-as-personhood has its emphasis on the father (1 Cor.8:6), yet can indicate a shared essence (eg Jhn.1:1): the logos was with God [the person], and was deity [in essence].

As to the spirit’s personhood, even the NWT complies with the contra-grammatical masculine-to-neuter, and calls the spirit he (eg Jhn.16:13).

I have no problem with the spirit’s personhood, but I do not take your texts cited as killer-texts.

It is the LXX, as we have it today, which is not what the Hebrew scholars translated, as it was "corrected" a few times by the heretic, Origen

there is no doubt that Isaiah 40:13-14, is not talking about the "mind" of God, which is only mentioned by anyone, because of the reading in the LXX, as we have it

In the 2nd century, there were three works in Greek, by Jewish scholars. The ones by by Aquila a Jewish proselyte and Symmachus an Ebionite, read, "“pneuma kuriou, Spirit of the Lord” (Fridericus Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Tomus II, p. 510). and not "νοῦν Κυρίου", as in the LXX

The reading of the DSS and MT, is conclusive that it reads "the Spirit of the Lord", as in One Person, as the Hebrew grammar has it

This reading is also confirmed by,

“Quis adiuvit spiritum Domini?, Who has assisted the Spirit of the Lord?” (Latin Vulgate)

“Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD or who has been to him a counsellor? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him and made him to understand the path of justice and taught him knowledge and showed him the way of understanding? (G Lasma; Peshitta Syriac Old Testament)

“Who hath directed the Holy Spirit in the mouth of all the prophets? Is it not the Lord? He maketh known the words of His will to the righteous, the servants of His Word. 14 I will make known wisdom to them who pray for it from Him, and I will teach them the way of justice; yea, He will give the law to their sons, and He will make known to their sons' sons the path of understanding.” (Targum Jonathan Ben Uziel on Isaiah)

The passage in 2 Samuel is also clear that the Holy Spirit is the subject of verses 2-3, as the Hebrew grammar also clearly shows

The absolute Deity of the Holy Spirit, is not a Christian invention, as it is plainly taught in the Old Testament, centuries before the Founding of the Christian Faith.

There is another interesting reading in the Hebrew grammar, on the Holy Spirit. In Genesis 6:3 we read;

"Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not remain with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.” NASB

Here, the Hebrew word for "Spirit", is not the usual feminine as the noun is grammatically. It reads, "rū·ḥî", which is the masculine, singluar.

Clearly YHWH is not referring to an "impersonal spirit", but The Person, the Holy Spirit. The change of the Hebrew grammar makes this very clear.

This is also see by Jesus' own words on the Holy Spirit. In the Greek langauge, "Spirit" is "πνευμα", which is neuter. again, nothing to do with the "Spirit" being "an impersonal thing", but grammatically. However, when Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John, as in 14:17, instead of using "αυτο", which is grammatically in agreement with "πνευμα", being neuter, Jesus says "αυτον" which is masculine, as found in the oldest Greek manuscript of this passage, P66, which dates from about AD 200. It is interesting in this manuscript, that a later hand, other than the original copyist, tried to erase the "ν", so as to make it neuter! Another example is in John 15:26, where Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as Coming from the "side of the Father (παρὰ τοῦ πατρός)", which shows distinction in Person. Here also, instead of using "εκεινο", which is neuter and agrees with "Spirit", Jesus uses "εκεινος", which is masculine, to show that the Holy Spirit is a PERSON like Himself. This is also clear form "ἄλλον παράκλητον" (14:16), where ANOTHER is "ἄλλον" LIKE MYSELF, and not, "ἕτερος", One Who is completely DIFFERENT from Jesus!

 

[JLB]

It is blasphemy to say, as some do, that the Holy Spirit is no more than “an active force” of God, and impersonal. No “impersonal” thing can ever be called YHWH!

The Spirit of the LORD is the Spirit of Christ.

JESUS is YHWH; the LORD God.

Anytime we see the phrase, “thus says the LORD”, in the Old Testament it refers to the Spirit of Christ.


Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11





JLB

 

[SolaScriptura]

The Spirit of the LORD is the Spirit of Christ.

JESUS is YHWH; the LORD God.

Anytime we see the phrase, “thus says the LORD”, in the Old Testament it refers to the Spirit of Christ.


Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11





JLB

Are you a ONENESS person?

"The Spirit of YHWH", is a distinct Person form the Father and Jesus Christ

This distinction is clear from passages like John 15:26

"When the Counselor comes, the One I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father—He will testify about Me"

Here we have Jesus as the Speaker, in the first Person. He speaks about the Holy Spirit in the third Person, as distinct from Himself. He says that He "will send" the Holy Spirit "from the side of the Father (παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός), again showing distinction of the Holy Spirit from God the Father.

As I have shown in # 3, the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 6:3, is clear that the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from YHWH, the Speaker, and not the "spirit" as the "life" in a person.

 

[JLB]

Are you a ONENESS person?

"The Spirit of YHWH", is a distinct Person form the Father and Jesus Christ

This distinction is clear from passages like John 15:26

"When the Counselor comes, the One I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father—He will testify about Me"

Here we have Jesus as the Speaker, in the first Person. He speaks about the Holy Spirit in the third Person, as distinct from Himself. He says that He "will send" the Holy Spirit "from the side of the Father (παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός), again showing distinction of the Holy Spirit from God the Father.

As I have shown in # 3, the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 6:3, is clear that the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from YHWH, the Speaker, and not the "spirit" as the "life" in a person.

The Holy Spirit
The Spirit of God
The Spirit of Christ

are one.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7


Oneness says this one is three.




JLB

 

[SolaScriptura]

The Holy Spirit
The Spirit of God
The Spirit of Christ

are one.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7


Oneness says this one is three.




JLB

The Greek of 1 John 5:7 ending is: "οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν".

"οἱ τρεῖς", is in the masculine plural, "these Three Persons", as the masculine says; and the plural means THREE distinct Persons

Then "ἕν" is in the neuter, "one thing", as in "one Nature". If the THREE are One and the same, then we would expect the Greek "εἷς"

This is very like John 10:30, "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν", where Jesus says, "I and the Father are one" (literal)

Here we have, "ἐσμεν", which is masculine plural, "We two Persons are"; and then, like 1 John 5:7, there is "ἕν", the neuter, "one thing". Again, for your argument, Jesus would have used, "εἷς".

 

[JLB]

The Greek of 1 John 5:7 ending is: "οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν".

"οἱ τρεῖς", is in the masculine plural, "these Three Persons", as the masculine says; and the plural means THREE distinct Persons

Then "ἕν" is in the neuter, "one thing", as in "one Nature". If the THREE are One and the same, then we would expect the Greek "εἷς"

This is very like John 10:30, "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν", where Jesus says, "I and the Father are one" (literal)

Here we have, "ἐσμεν", which is masculine plural, "We two Persons are"; and then, like 1 John 5:7, there is "ἕν", the neuter, "one thing". Again, for your argument, Jesus would have used, "εἷς".

If you chose to deny that Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH the LORD God then that is between you and God.


I gave scripture.

You use commentary.





JLB

 

[SolaScriptura]

If you chose to deny that Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH the LORD God then that is between you and God.


I gave scripture.

You use commentary.





JLB

I don't know WHAT you are reading?

I have NEVER denied that Jesus Christ is YHWH. The Father is YHWH. The Holy Spirit is YHWH. The Three Distinct Persons are EQUALLY Almighty God in the Eternal Divine Nature/Godhead

 

[JLB]

I don't know WHAT you are reading?

I have NEVER denied that Jesus Christ is YHWH. The Father is YHWH. The Holy Spirit is YHWH. The Three Distinct Persons are EQUALLY Almighty God in the Eternal Divine Nature/Godhead

Agreed.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit wouldn't have been THE unforgivable sin if the Holy Spirit weren't God. Blaspheming against the Son can be forgiven because that's mostly out of spiritual blindness and ignorance, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, though, is denying the mighty works of God after witnessing and experiencing them - such a blasphemer didn't just read and hear about God, they've seen and tasted God, they've felt the presence of God that is the Holy Spirit, and yet they still deny God, that's unforgivable.

 

[Vinny37]

[There is no doubt that Isaiah 40:13-14, is not talking about the "mind" of God]. Was there a doubt for Paul that it was talking about God’s mind? You have failed to explain, explain away, or even mention, Rm.11:25 which I referred to, Paul’s pre-Origen take on Is.40:13 (See G K Beale and D A Carsons’ Commentary on the NT use of the OT, 2009:679; Alec Motyer’s Isaiah (TOTC), 1999:247). Or was Paul wrong and you right?

I think it’s short-changing to effectively dismiss any LXX reading unliked, by linking it to unliked heretics, real or fancied. Incidentally we could debate whether the phenomenal Origen was a heretic—sure he hacked off some believers—and whether or not his textual critique helped restore authentic text. Judaism, unhappy that Christians used the LXX to their disadvantage, went off it for the same reason, producing alternatives. Paul put νους for πνευμα.

The Hebrew was not [the Spirit of the Lord] but [the spirit of Yahweh]: whatever the meaning of ruach here, adonai is not the text. Tyndale made the case for never putting God’s name as [the Lord], but at the least having a visual distinction.

[This reading is also confirmed by…]. This is a different topic of translation. All translation is treason, but by and large I agree with translation from the source language: hence spirit is justifiable for Isaiah (with a footnote as per the NIV); mind for Paul. But with the LXX here, functional translation (eg NET on Is.40:13) can be the better option. After all, Paul chose it and context (so Motyer?) implies it. Note how Douglas Moo noted five different meanings of σαρξ (Scorgie, Strauss, & Voth’s The Challenge of Bible Translation, 2003:366), where a wooden flesh is a lesser servant. Likewise πνευμα might helpfully be translated other than a wooden spirit.

I’m unsure why you repeat the very point I made via the neuter-masculine clash underlying the spirit’s personhood. We do not dispute this hymn sheet. BTW 1, on αλλον/ἑτερος, be aware that classical differences did not always carry into common Greek. BTW 2, in the expression, spirit of Yahweh, ruach is put 15% of the time in the masculine, violating grammar to make a gender point (D A Carson’s Inclusive Language Debate, 1998:95).

Your [there is no doubt] and [clearly shows] are subject to debate.

[The absolute Deity of the Holy Spirit, is not a Christian invention, as it is plainly taught in the Old Testament, centuries before the Founding of the Christian Faith.] The spirit’s deity is not anybody’s invention—humanity can invent concepts; it cannot invent deity—and he is beyond space-time. What you & I can do is debate when humanity first realised that deity was at least a father-spirit binity of persons. You deem the realisation (not an invention!) to have been under secondary education/revelation (Sinai); I reckon it to have been under tertiary education/revelation (messiah). What I do think plain is that Intertestamental Jewish Religion had never fully cast off polytheism, let alone moved to Yahweh being bipersonal. IMO Sinai neither denied nor taught binitarianism, let alone trinitarianism. The absolute deity of the Holy Spirit was a Christian realisation, though Sinai contains texts friendly to deeper meaning (eg the young lad of Is.7:14 who featured as a countdown clock in Ahaz’ days, to God the son entered into human mode: Mt.1:23).

At this point in the game, lobbing another text (eg Gen.6:3) is perhaps unhelpful, and I shall not grasp this new nettle. If you chose the best texts to begin with, yet failed to justify their use, will more texts do more than invite a response, which if negative will invite another text, then another ad nauseum?

 

[SolaScriptura]

[There is no doubt that Isaiah 40:13-14, is not talking about the "mind" of God]. Was there a doubt for Paul that it was talking about God’s mind? You have failed to explain, explain away, or even mention, Rm.11:25 which I referred to, Paul’s pre-Origen take on Is.40:13 (See G K Beale and D A Carsons’ Commentary on the NT use of the OT, 2009:679; Alec Motyer’s Isaiah (TOTC), 1999:247). Or was Paul wrong and you right?

I think it’s short-changing to effectively dismiss any LXX reading unliked, by linking it to unliked heretics, real or fancied. Incidentally we could debate whether the phenomenal Origen was a heretic—sure he hacked off some believers—and whether or not his textual critique helped restore authentic text. Judaism, unhappy that Christians used the LXX to their disadvantage, went off it for the same reason, producing alternatives. Paul put νους for πνευμα.

The Hebrew was not [the Spirit of the Lord] but [the spirit of Yahweh]: whatever the meaning of ruach here, adonai is not the text. Tyndale made the case for never putting God’s name as [the Lord], but at the least having a visual distinction.

[This reading is also confirmed by…]. This is a different topic of translation. All translation is treason, but by and large I agree with translation from the source language: hence spirit is justifiable for Isaiah (with a footnote as per the NIV); mind for Paul. But with the LXX here, functional translation (eg NET on Is.40:13) can be the better option. After all, Paul chose it and context (so Motyer?) implies it. Note how Douglas Moo noted five different meanings of σαρξ (Scorgie, Strauss, & Voth’s The Challenge of Bible Translation, 2003:366), where a wooden flesh is a lesser servant. Likewise πνευμα might helpfully be translated other than a wooden spirit.

I’m unsure why you repeat the very point I made via the neuter-masculine clash underlying the spirit’s personhood. We do not dispute this hymn sheet. BTW 1, on αλλον/ἑτερος, be aware that classical differences did not always carry into common Greek. BTW 2, in the expression, spirit of Yahweh, ruach is put 15% of the time in the masculine, violating grammar to make a gender point (D A Carson’s Inclusive Language Debate, 1998:95).

Your [there is no doubt] and [clearly shows] are subject to debate.

[The absolute Deity of the Holy Spirit, is not a Christian invention, as it is plainly taught in the Old Testament, centuries before the Founding of the Christian Faith.] The spirit’s deity is not anybody’s invention—humanity can invent concepts; it cannot invent deity—and he is beyond space-time. What you & I can do is debate when humanity first realised that deity was at least a father-spirit binity of persons. You deem the realisation (not an invention!) to have been under secondary education/revelation (Sinai); I reckon it to have been under tertiary education/revelation (messiah). What I do think plain is that Intertestamental Jewish Religion had never fully cast off polytheism, let alone moved to Yahweh being bipersonal. IMO Sinai neither denied nor taught binitarianism, let alone trinitarianism. The absolute deity of the Holy Spirit was a Christian realisation, though Sinai contains texts friendly to deeper meaning (eg the young lad of Is.7:14 who featured as a countdown clock in Ahaz’ days, to God the son entered into human mode: Mt.1:23).

At this point in the game, lobbing another text (eg Gen.6:3) is perhaps unhelpful, and I shall not grasp this new nettle. If you chose the best texts to begin with, yet failed to justify their use, will more texts do more than invite a response, which if negative will invite another text, then another ad nauseum?

“According to Paul Kahle, the non-LXX elements in NT quotations of the OT reflect written Greek targums widely used before the church adopted the LXX as its standard version of the OT (The Cairo Geniza, 2nd ed. [1959], 209 – 64). The mass of variant readings in MSS of the LXX —variants that Kahle uses along with the aberrant text of OT quotations in the NT to prove the existence of Greek targums—present a discernible pattern of development from an archetype, not a hodgepodge of unrelated variants from independent Greek targums. Furthermore, the DSS have shown that many of the variants in the Septuagintal MSS were the result of progressive assimilation to the Hebrew text of the OT, not the result of amalgamation of differing Greek targums utilized by NT writers.” (Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol.V)

All the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT for Isaiah 40:13 read SPIRIT, as does the Greek versions made by the Jewish Hebrew scholars in the 2nd century AD, as did the Latin Vulgate made from the Hebrew.

Paul's quotation was changes to reflect the LXX by those who used the LXX when copying the Greek MSS, and not from the Hebrew

 

[Vinny37]

“According to Paul Kahle, the non-LXX elements in NT quotations of the OT reflect written Greek targums widely used before the church adopted the LXX as its standard version of the OT (The Cairo Geniza, 2nd ed. [1959], 209 – 64). The mass of variant readings in MSS of the LXX —variants that Kahle uses along with the aberrant text of OT quotations in the NT to prove the existence of Greek targums—present a discernible pattern of development from an archetype, not a hodgepodge of unrelated variants from independent Greek targums. Furthermore, the DSS have shown that many of the variants in the Septuagintal MSS were the result of progressive assimilation to the Hebrew text of the OT, not the result of amalgamation of differing Greek targums utilized by NT writers.” (Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol.V)

All the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT for Isaiah 40:13 read SPIRIT, as does the Greek versions made by the Jewish Hebrew scholars in the 2nd century AD, as did the Latin Vulgate made from the Hebrew.

Paul's quotation was changes to reflect the LXX by those who used the LXX when copying the Greek MSS, and not from the Hebrew

[Paul’s quotation was changes [sic] to reflect the LXX by those who used the LXX when copying the Greek MSS, and not from the Hebrew.]

Wow, you sacrifice the tenacity of the text on the altar of your thesis (not perhaps Paul Kahle’s, whose thoughts here are commonly held), to ‘revert’ a νους to πνευμα (Rm.11:34) simply by denying Paul’s hand: it must have been changed; therefore it was changed!?

So Paul here was intentionally squeezed into another’s mould, leaving no trace in the global MSS witness, leaving one to wonder whether any so-called Pauline text is authentic? But had we not Is.40:13, Rm.11:34 would certainly not be disputed on internal grounds, since it makes balanced sense; as similarly Is.40:13 does as ruach carrying a sense of mind. Ah, the Marcions of the world have even robbed us of Paul!

If only Romans was squeezed, we must conceive of some dominating redacting itch in Rome, pressing Hebrew text into Greek mould. But if early, would none living have blown the gaffe; if late, would no copies have circulated far and wide (the tenacity of the text)?

If throughout the Paulines, we must conceive of some global dominating redacting itch, pressing Jewish-Hebrew text into Jewish-Greek mould. Even at the point, would none have blown the gaffe?

It’s quite a sledgehammer thesis to crack a nuisance nut. One might still ask why any so wished to change Paul to your conjectured and unprovable text. Your conjecture’s a far bigger biggie than merely seeking to cling on to a binitarianism predating messiah. If that is your only way to escape Rm.11:34, I confess that I am blown over, and bow out.

 

[SolaScriptura]

[Paul’s quotation was changes [sic] to reflect the LXX by those who used the LXX when copying the Greek MSS, and not from the Hebrew.]

Wow, you sacrifice the tenacity of the text on the altar of your thesis (not perhaps Paul Kahle’s, whose thoughts here are commonly held), to ‘revert’ a νους to πνευμα (Rm.11:34) simply by denying Paul’s hand: it must have been changed; therefore it was changed!?

So Paul here was intentionally squeezed into another’s mould, leaving no trace in the global MSS witness, leaving one to wonder whether any so-called Pauline text is authentic? But had we not Is.40:13, Rm.11:34 would certainly not be disputed on internal grounds, since it makes balanced sense; as similarly Is.40:13 does as ruach carrying a sense of mind. Ah, the Marcions of the world have even robbed us of Paul!

If only Romans was squeezed, we must conceive of some dominating redacting itch in Rome, pressing Hebrew text into Greek mould. But if early, would none living have blown the gaffe; if late, would no copies have circulated far and wide (the tenacity of the text)?

If throughout the Paulines, we must conceive of some global dominating redacting itch, pressing Jewish-Hebrew text into Jewish-Greek mould. Even at the point, would none have blown the gaffe?

It’s quite a sledgehammer thesis to crack a nuisance nut. One might still ask why any so wished to change Paul to your conjectured and unprovable text. Your conjecture’s a far bigger biggie than merely seeking to cling on to a binitarianism predating messiah. If that is your only way to escape Rm.11:34, I confess that I am blown over, and bow out.

Neither Jesus Christ, or the Disciples, nor the Writers on the New Testament used the LXX!