Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Streitenberger" <ps2866 AT bingo-ev.de>]

The writers of the NT obviously didn't know or at least didn't quote from 
LXX-Manusripts containing anything else than KURIOS. There is not the 
slightest evidence for a corruption of the New Testament Text. No early and 
no later manuscript is there to prove this claim, only known through the 
Jehohvas Witnesses trying to justify their false "translation" of "Jehova" 
in their text.
Let's keep this issue away, if we want to be serious. At least it's not 
related to the subject of this board, namely Biblical Hebrew.
Peter Streitenberger, Germany

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Rolf
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 6:35 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G.Gertoux and the Name...

Dear Dave,

In all the LXX fragments, and LXX-like fragments up to  about 50 CE we find 
either YHWH in Hebrew letters or the Greek  transcription IAO where YHWH 
occurs in Hebrew manuscripts. In the Chester Beatty manuscripts from the 
second century and other later manuscripts we find KS. Is it a corruption of 
the text to replace the tetragram or IAO with KS?


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway




Søndag 9. Juni 2013 18:14 CEST skrev Dave Washburn 
<davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>:

> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:
>
> > Dear Stephen,
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > 2) If the nomina sacra represent a change in the text (something is
> > deleted and a new reading is introduced), will that not mean that we 
> > have a
> > corrupt text (=words that were not in the original text)?
> >
> > If the scribes had replaced the word with something else, that would
> constitute corruption. But merely abbreviating some words is simply a
> writing style. It is not "something is deleted and a new reading is
> introduced." The reading is the same word, it's just written slightly
> differently to save space. There is no basis whatsoever for calling use of
> the nomina sacra corruption; this could be considered an abuse of the 
> term.
> If an American is copying a British text and replaces "honour" with 
> "honor"
> is that a corruption? I think not. It's a spelling variation, nothing 
> more.
> It does no damage at all to the meaning of the text because readers still
> know what the word is. It's the same with the NS, and claiming that their
> use corrupted the text is a case of creating an "issue" where none exists.
>
> --
> Dave Washburn
>
> Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com
>
> Now available: a novel about King Josiah!



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew