Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Stephen,

Thank you very much for your apology.  I give my answer below.

Mandag 10. Juni 2013 12:21 CEST skrev 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.

RF: We cannot prove how the original LXX rendered the Hebrew YHWH, because we 
do not have the LXX autographs. All we can do is to look at the evidence that 
is extant. And this evidence show that at least until 50 CE, YHWH was found 
in LXX manuscripts. Between 50 CE and around 130 CE, YHWH and IAO were 
removed from the LXX manuscripts and replaced by KS. The task of a copyist 
was to reproduce the text as faithfully as possible in the new manuscript he 
was making. When a proper name is removed and an appellative (a title) is 
introduced instead, this means that the text is corrupted. I cannot think of 
a better example of textual corruption than this. Graphic evidence means that 
we can see the evidence in the texts, we need not make conjectures. The 
graphic evidence for the deletion of YHWH is visible for anyone who wants to 
look.
>
> (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.)

RF: You must consider the evidence, and it is your privilege to draw your own 
conclusions.
>
> 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.

There are LXX manuscripts with KS, but the earliest of these manuscripts are 
from the second century CE. It is supposed that KS is an abbreviation for 
KURIOS, and this is likely. The graphic evidence indicate only two steps and 
not three:
 YHWH ----> KS
>
> 3. The "graphic evidence" in the case of the NT also shows the
> change κυριος --> ΚΣ (not a new word, as we have observed).

No, there is no graphic evidence for KURIOS in the LXX, only for KS. In other 
words: Someone consciously deleted YHWH from the LXX manuscripts between 50 
and 130 CE, and there is no evidence that the person(s) used the appellative 
KURIOS instead of YHWH. The evidence only show that YHWH  was deleted and 
that the replacement was KS.
>
> 4. Therefore, it's obvious that the progression in the case of the NT was
> also YHWH --> κυριος --> ΚΣ.
>
> Is that it??

RF: Not exactly so.  The word KURIOS in not a part of the evidence at all, 
only KS. In the NT manuscripts from the second century CE, we find KS, the 
very word that represents a corruption of the LXX text. I cannot imagine that 
you will claim that this abbreviation was found in the NT autographs, and if 
you do not make this claim, the abbreviation KS in NT manuscripts is a change 
of the text. We do no know which word was used for YHWH in the original NT 
text, because we do not have the autographs. But the pattern of the LXX is 
interesting:

LXX; YHWH, IAO -----> KS

NT:     ???------->        KS

Philologians consider all kinds of evidence that are available. In addition 
to manuscript evidence from the source language and the target language, they 
consider historical, sociological, and theological issues, scribal habits and 
many other things. If we look at the use of KURIOS from a historical point of 
view, we find that the word occurred rather late in Egypt where the LXX was 
translated.  KURIOS as a noun occurs for the first time in Greece in the 
fourth century BCE. Its reference was a slave owner or the legal guardian of 
a wife or girl. Later it was applied to gods and rulers in Greece. With few 
exceptions, KURIOS was never used in Egypt with reference to gods or rulers 
prior to the first century BCE. (See Theological Dictionary of the New 
Testament, Vol III, p 1049). If the translation of the LXX started in the 
third century BCE, it is a question if the word KURIOS was available for the 
translators at all.

If we as philologians look at the text of the Tanakh and its religion, we 
find absolutely no reason why the LXX translators should use a substitute for 
YHWH. To the contrary, the text explicitly says that God's name shall be used 
to time indefinite. Even if the custom of reading )DNY instead of YHWH was 
widespread before our common era, why should the NT writers follow such a 
superstitious custom?  Jesus and the NT writers condemn superstition and the 
traditions of men that contradict the statements of God (this is also 
relevant philologically speaking). And the most important thing: Several 
times I have asked if any list member can present evidence that )DNY was used 
as a SUBSTITUTE for YHWH before 50 CE. I have received no answers except one. 
I will in another post show that the references to the DSS in this post do 
not support the mentioned substitution.

>
> 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.

RF: The word KURIOS is not mentioned in the manuscripts, only KS. The 
corruption is YHWH, IAO ----> KS.
>
> 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.

RF: We do not know how YHWH was rendered in the original LXX, but all the 
evidence suggest that God's name in some form was retained. We do not know 
how YHWH was rendered in the original NT, but the graphic evidence is that 
the corrupt word in the LXX is KS, and that NT manuscripts have KS as well. 
This suggests that the same corruption occurred in the NT. I would not use 
the word "speculation," because there are many interesting data to review. I 
have no direct evidence that KURIOS occurred in the NT autographs, and I have 
no direct evidence that YHWH of IAW occurred in the NT autographs. Therefore 
we must consider the extant data and draw out conclusion.
>
> 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
> >

 Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway