Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Steven Avery <stevenavery AT verizon.net>]

Hi,

Putting aside the group posting history, the point that I am making 
to Rolf Furuli about scribal habits and textual transmission are simple.

If your theory of a New Testament text with Hebrew words originally 
embedded does not reference clearly and astutely the following four issues:

1) Why a diverse variety of writers (allowing they were all Hebrew 
fluent and skilled) would all do the exact same highly unusual 
autographic Greek writing, of interrupting their Greek flow to change 
to a Hebrew script for one word here and there.  Today we have no 
evidence at all that this was ever done. And various gentlemen only 
guess the places this happened by their particular 
doctrinal-Christological need (NWT) or, as here, they tentatively 
limit the question to happening to NT quotes of OT scripture.   No 
matter what, you are placing the exact same unusual writing, never 
seen in autographic Greek, as changing the style of a variety NT 
authors, and nobody else.

2) Why every single case of this occurring in the autographs was 
never recognized in either the manuscript lines, in any Greek, Latin 
or even Syriac texts.  And the conjectured phenomenon was never 
referenced even once by the ECW who talked about the texts.  In other 
words, there is no trace.

3) Why every single one of these cases got redacted into our current 
text, ie. The phenomenon then vanished without a trace. Why did they 
not have a variety of redactions, such as transliterating YHVW or 
Jehovah and a wide divergence between kurios and qeos in many 
instances?  Why the general textual consistency today?  Surely such a 
cumbersome redaction back into the Greek and Latin texts would leave 
lots of variant signs in addition to historical notes.

4) Acknowledge that this is simply a master emendation theory, of no 
textual evidence. Under this theory, the proper NT text was totally 
hid for 1800 years, and is restored by conjectural emendation, all 
done against 1-2-3.

If these issues are not addressed, then I think it is fair to say 
that your theory is of no merit.  Granted, I do not think they were 
addressed by those who earlier floated similar theories, whether it 
be George Howard or David Trobisch, however that is no reason for not 
addressing them today.

==================

Please note that I often find Rolf's writings, and even JW writings, 
of some interest.  The acknowledgement of the name as Jehovah rather 
than yahweh or other modern attempts is extra-fine ( I wonder if Rolf 
has any specific critiques of the Nehemia Gordon material, beyond the 
light dismissal he wrote.)   Their concerns about the development of 
the Trinity doctrine are interesting, even if I do not share their 
general Christology. Rolf has written interestingly on John 1:18, as 
I remember.

However, I see some gaping holes in the New Testament 
emendation-redaction theory being propounded here.

==================

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY.