Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Steven Avery <stevenavery AT verizon.net>]

Hi,

Rolf
> Dear Steven, Your posts show that you have a particular religious 
> agenda, and that is against the rules of b-hebrew. So I see no 
> reason why I should answer you.

Steven
Rather transparent, Rolf.  The issues below on the previous post, the 
four questions, are about scribal habits and textual transmission. 
They are very difficult for your theories.  And they answer any 
request from you for objective questions, questions that simply look 
at the evidence and theories from a textual perspective.

This post is carefully putting aside your earlier accusation and any 
bit of earlier rough-and-tumble.  All that is bridged under. Your 
request is that all sides put away doctrinal perspective in the 
current discussion.  Done.

===========

"If these issues are not addressed, then I think it is fair to say 
that your theory is of no merit".

===========

Why not try to address the issues of scribal habits and New Testament 
transmission?

How many New Testament authors do you claim all wrote with this very 
unusual textual idea of stopping writing Greek and inserting a Hebrew 
word, in the Gospel accounts and Acts and the Epistles and 
Revelation, in Hebrew script? About seven individuals would have to 
be involved in the same never-seen, unique and then vanishing-poof 
writing style.

Luke
Matthew
Mark
John
Paul
the author of Hebrews (if not Paul)
James 2:23 - Genesis 15:6

So you have six or seven authors independently doing the same highly 
unusual style, in about 12 books written over decades.

And then you have all the transmission problems below, the redaction 
syndrome, which you understandably do not want to address.

If this theory held water, you would analyze about 25-50 verses and 
show that they have far greater textual variation than other verses 
with kurios or qeos that can not have a Tetragram connection.  It is 
rather obvious that your proposed redaction away from the Hebrew 
script should lead to much greater textual variation in your verses.

Since it appears that you do assert that your claim wants to be a 
type of scientific study, this would be a perfect way to demonstrate .. or not.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY

Steven Avery
> > 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.
> >
> > ==================