Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Bryant,

On 7th  June you sent a post where you said that I have claimed that some NT 
documents have the Tetragrammaton in the text, but has not produced the 
sources. The same day I sent a post to you where I said that I have never 
written that NT manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton. Nonetheless, on 8th 
June your post with the same claim was sent again, and today the post with 
the same claim appeared a third time. What is the reason for this?



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Søndag 9. Juni 2013 01:31 CEST skrev "Rev. Bryant J. Williams III" 
<bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>:

> Dear Kirk,
>
> See below.
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>
> Dear Scott,
>
> Rolf has made in past posts claims that some NT documents have the 
> Tetragrammaton in the text. Rolf has not produced, to my knowledge, the 
> sources or links for those claims to be verified. It seems that the reason 
> Stephen is asking for the sources to be not the LXX is that by the 4th 
> Century AD the LXX and the NT were combined, e.g. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 
> Vaticanus, etc. Thus, the LXX was considered as part of the Christian 
> Scriptures even though it is the translation of the Tanakh by Jewish 
> translators from Alexandria. If I remember correctly, the LXX in some spots 
> is a witness to an earlier text of the Tanakh predating the Dead Sea 
> Scrolls.
>
> Now, with reference to the the use of κύριος (KURIOS). It is used quited 
> frequently for the Tetragrammaton in the LXX. Yet it is also used in places 
> like Exodus 3:14, Deuteronomy 32:49; and passages in Isaiah 40-60 where Ἐγώ 
> εἰμι (EGW EIMI) is used to translate אֲנִי֙ ('ani), אָנֹכִ֥י ('anoki), etc. 
> In Isaiah 40-61,  κύριος (KURIOS) and Ἐγώ εἰμι (EGW EIMI) are also 
> juxtaposed with each other (See Below).
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>
>