Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Stephen.

I did not respond to your last long post because you expressed your opinions 
and your logic, which is your right. But no new evidence was presented. 
Several questions that no one can answer were also asked. For example: "Would 
1st C Jews have agreed with you that it would be unthinkably blasphemous to 
translate YHWH as κυριος in a Greek translation of the Tanakh?" Moreover, to 
respond to such a long post would require an even longer post, and I think 
that the different viewpoints have been given enough space.

I would like to make one remark to your long post though : When you say that  
my arguments rest on the assumption "It would have been unthinkable," you 
misrepresent me. In my post that you responded to, I say that I do not argue 
that something is self-evident, and I have never spoken of anything as 
"unthinkable." To the contrary, I have stated that because we do not have the 
NT and LXX autographs we do not know whether they contained the YHWH in some 
form or not. Then I have presented the arguments I think would illuminate the 
issue. You will not find any categorical arguments in any of my posts.


Lørdag 15. Juni 2013 14:49 CEST skrev Stephen Shead <sshead.email AT gmail.com>:

> Dear Rolf,
>
> I want to respond to three things you said in your last two posts to the
> whole list:
>
> 1. You said: "The use of such a substitution [i.e. of 'adonay for YHWH] is
> the requirement for those who argue that KURIOS was written as a substitute
> for YHWH the NT autographs."
>
> This is ridiculous. There is no such requirement, as I amply demonstrated
> in my previous replies to you.

RF: Interesting! You believe that KURIOS was used as a substitute for YHWH in 
the NT autographs. If your reason for believing that KURIOS  was used is not 
that the Jews in pronunciation used 'adonay when YHWH occurred in the text, 
why do you believe that KURIOS  was used in the NT autographs? By the way, 
the word "ridiculous" will hardly fit a cordial scholarly discussion.
>
> 2. You said: "The pattern of the LXX (YHWH/IAO ----> KS) suggests, but do
> not prove, that the NT autographs contained YHWH or IAO."
>
> I have already dealt with this faulty logic, and you have not responded.
> Even on its own merits, the above is extremely weak, given the lack of any
> non-κυριος/ΚΣ variant in any NT MS. However, I have also argued, based on
> the MS evidence and Hurtado's excellent analysis, that ΚΣ in the LXX
> tradition was probably influenced by ΚΣ in the early Christian(-Jewish)
> tradition, which removes even the superficial appearance of logic that your
> argument might have had.

RF: You have the right to say that in your view my logic is faulty. But your 
claim that I have not responded is strange. So let me try again.

FACT 1: All the known LXX fragments up to 50 CE has YHWH or IAO. FACT 2: The 
LXX manuscripts from the second century CE has KS. FACT 3: Someone deleted 
the name of God from the LXX manuscripts between 50 CE and the second century 
CE. This led to a corrupted text. FACT 4. The NT manuscripts from the second 
century CE contain KS, as do the LXX manuscripts.

REASONING 1: The letters KS were not in the NT autographs (no one has argued 
in favor of that), and this shows that the NT text has been changed. But we 
do not know what was written in quotes from the Tanakh where YHWH was found 
in the quotes. REASONING 2: Because what was substituted by KS in the LXX was 
YHWH, it is likely that what was substituted in the NT was YHWH as well. 
Corroborating this likeliness is that the Tanakh says that YHWH should be 
used as God's name for ever. If there still is something to which I have not 
responded regarding manuscript data, please tell me what it is.

>
> 3. You said: "I think it is time to draw the lines together."
>
> I disagree. I have countered everything you presented in these two emails,
> in terms of "evidence" you claim exists for YHWH in the NT. Yet you have
> not responded to anything from my previous post. Therefore, I hardly think
> it is appropriate for you to "draw the lines together".

> Perhaps you are preparing a response. But so far, you have simply repeated
> yourself without answering any challenges.

RF: When I speak of drawing the lines together, I speak of course about the 
arguments I have used in many different posts. You are welcome to draw your 
lines together, the lines by which you say you have countered everything I 
have presented. It is fine to make a synthesis of one's arguments, so the 
list-members can make their decisions. However, in your long post you 
mentioned a host of possibilities  and probabilities, and you should not 
expect me to comment an such things.
>

>
> Best regards,
> Stephen Shead.




Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway