Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Please consult the "Text und Textwert" volumes, where full collation data is 
provided for all New Testament Manuscripts, Steve.
Then a electronic search with the CNTTS-apparatus will show the same results 
(available at BibleWorks/Accordance). This tool will not provide *all* 
manusripts (as TuT) but all of the older ones. The Majority Text is 
abbreviated and not listed with all its manuscripts. But that is no problem, 
as the Majority text readings are known to be identical (more or less).
The result is the same: no manuscript with "Jehova", not a single one.
Yours
Peter Streitenberger, Germany




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: cosmos AT intergate.com
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 9:46 PM
To: Peter Streitenberger ; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G.Gertoux and the Name...


Speaking as one who has not the background to evaluate or even know all of
the evidence directly, I am interested in following the logic that is
presented by those who do.

Peter Streitenberger wrote:

The writers of the NT obviously didn't know or at least didn't quote from
LXX-Manusripts containing anything else than KURIOS.
Peter Streitenberger, Germany

I would be very interested in the evidence for this statement.

Steve Teague



-----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

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