Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Shead <sshead.email AT gmail.com>]

Dear Rolf,

I'm still struggling to see how you can use the language you are using - like "graphic evidence for a corruption of the LXX and NT text", lumping the two together as if they were on the same level.

Let's see if I can understand your reasoning on the "graphic evidence" (please correct me if it is wrong):

1. The manuscript evidence for the LXX proves that the original text had YHWH, and at a later time this was (inexcusably) changed to κυριος (note: clearly a different word). Thus, graphic evidence for the "corruption" of the LXX.

(Incidentally, I don't think the evidence for this is very strong - there simply aren't a lot of manuscripts on which to base the conclusion, and Martin has presented balancing evidence. But it doesn't bother me if your conclusion is correct, so I'm not going to challenge it here.)

2. There are also LXX manuscripts which have the shortened form ΚΣ. That is, in the case of the LXX, your reconstruction is YHWH --> κυριος --> ΚΣ.

3. The "graphic evidence" in the case of the NT also shows the change κυριος --> ΚΣ (not a new word, as we have observed).

4. Therefore, it's obvious that the progression in the case of the NT was also YHWH --> κυριος --> ΚΣ.

Is that it??

I'm also still wrestling with your language of "corruption" in the NT. Which of the following are you implying?

1. The "corruption" was the change κυριος --> ΚΣ. I've already indicated that it is ludicrous to put this in the same basket as YHWH --> κυριος, and talk about evidence of corruption in the LXX and the NT with regard to the Name.

2. The "corruption" was the supposed change YHWH --> κυριος **in the text of the NT itself** (e.g. the original NT authors quoted the Hebrew Scriptures in Greek, but using YHWH directly, and later copyists changed this to κυριος). Again, there is no "graphic evidence" for such a corruption - it is speculation.

3. It would have been an unthinkable "corruption" if the original NT authors had, in the process of quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, changed YHWH by "translating" it as κυριος. Unthinkable - therefore they didn't.

Number 3 is what you got to in your final paragraph to Jerry. Is this not, in fact, the entire argument? (And ... though I hate to bring up the elephant sitting in the corner ... isn't it only unthinkable given your theological stance? It's not unthinkable if that is in fact what they did.) But all the evidence goes against your reasoning: zero NT textual evidence, and historically highly improbable to have happened with no manuscript trace.

OK, I'll bow out of the discussion now - I've said my piece, and it's gone on long enough. Happy for you to have the last word.

Best regards,

Stephen Shead.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Cc: 
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:38:18 +0200
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G. Geroux and the Name
Dear Jerry,

I find the situation a little amusing, or at least strange. I have referred to graphic evidence for a corruption of the LXX and NT text. But no evidence in favor of )DNY being used as a substitute for YHWH before our common era has been produced. Nontheless, my evidence has met a high cry of indignation, whereas the substitution of )DNY for YHWH has been accepted without any evidence.

I have shown that all (the few) the LXX and LXX-like fragments we know have God's name in Hebrew or Greek characters. The oldest LXX manuscripts from CE (second century CE) have the nomina sacra KS where the quoted Hebrew text quoted has YHWH. This is graphic evidence that the text has been changed; YHWH has been deleted and KS has been written instead. By the standard definition the text have been corrupted. Then I have pointed out that the NT manuscripts from the second century CE have KS as well. No one has argued that KS occurred in the NT autographs, and if that was not the case, the NT text is also corrupted in the same way as the LXX text. This is again graphic evidence, and as philologians we must ask what was in the NT autographs when the second century manuscripts have the corrupted KS.

Both when the NT writers quoted from the Hebrew text and from the LXX, they found YHWH in some form. Why should the NT writers delete YHWH and use KURIOS instead when this would be a violation of what is said in the Tanakh, for example in Exodus 3:15? The argument has been made that the NT writers followed the superstitious custom of avoiding  pronouncing YHWH and pronounce  )DNY instead. And you repeat the argument that )DNY was pronounced instead of YHWH before our common era. Please give evidence that )DNY was used as a SUBSTITUTE for YHWH before the common era.


Best regards


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway