Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Bryant,

Normally your posts are clear and to the point, but in this post I have 
problems with your logic.


Lørdag 15. Juni 2013 22:06 CEST skrev "Rev. Bryant J. Williams III" 
<bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>:

> Dear Rolf,
>
> The problem is that you think that the LXX manuscripts are:
>
> 1)    All have the Tetragrammaton in them. At least that is how it is being 
> portrayed based on conjecture from a separate manuscript.


RF: The words "think" and "conjecture" are not warranted. I have presented 
the data: All known fragment of the LXX up to 50 CE have YHWH or YAO. This is 
not conjecture, it is a fact! I have written that these manuscripts do not 
prove that the LXX autographs contained YHWH or IAO, but the evidence we have 
suggests that the LXX autographs contained YHWH or IAO.


>
> 2)    That the LXX is a "Christian OT, thus it is part of the NT 
> manuscripts.


RF: I have never written or implied that the LXX is a "Christian OT."  I have 
not made any quality assessment of the manuscripts I discuss. I have only 
pointed to the fact that the LXX manuscripts from the second century contain 
KS. Then I have drawn the same conclusion as G.D Kilpatrick, who is an expert 
on ancient manuscripts, that between 50 and 130 CE the teragrams were removed 
from biblical texts and replaced by KS. I have further noted that because of 
this tampering with the text, the LXX manuscripts from the second century 
onward contain a corrupt text as far as the name of God is concerned.


>
> 3)    That since numbers 1 & 2 above are true, thus the NT manuscripts must 
> have them also.
>
> 4)    Arguing from silence; which is a poor argument to begin with.


RF: The word "must" above is not warranted  and misrepresents my arguments. I 
have pointed out that the NT manuscripts from the second century  contain KS 
as do the LXX manuscripts of the same age.This means that someone changed the 
NT text in the same way as the LXX text was changed. Therefore, something 
different from KS was written in the NT autographs. We do not know what that 
word was, but because KS is a substitute for YHWH in the LXX, most likely it 
is a substitute for YHWH in the NT as well. Corroborating this conclusion is 
the fact that the Tanakh says that the name YHWH should be used for ever, and 
no one have so far presented good reasons for why the NT writers  should 
substitute YHWH with KURIOS in quotes from the Tanakh. Your words about 
arguing from silence are strange, because everyone must argue from silence. 
We do not know how the name of God was written in the NT autographs, so also 
those who believe that the original NT contained KURIOS,  argue from silence.


>
>         No original manuscript from the OT or NT is available. You 
> arguments for the Tetragrammaton is based on circular reasoning NOT on the 
> evidence available.

RF: Now I am bewildered. Where is the circularity in my presentation? As 
shown above, and in my other posts, it is the evidence available that I use 
as my basis: The LXX fragments, The LXX and NT manuscripts from the second 
century. The words of Exodus 3:15 and other passages in the Tanakh.


The Tetragrammaton is found 6828 times in the Tanakh. It is primarily 
representated as YHWH (yodh-he-waw-he) without the vowel pointings. The 
Aramaic script adopted after the Babylonian Exile represents the Paleo-Hebrew 
script that was still being used ca 150 BC - 70 AD at Qumran in the Dead Sea 
Scrolls. The Isaiah Scroll, as far as I can tell, does not use the 
Paleo-Hebrew script. Also the use of Adonai YHWH in Ezekiel 217 out 317 uses 
in the Tanakh shows that Adonai YHWH was viable title and name for the God of 
Israel. The Tanakh as Canon was closed after Malachi (using English order) or 
after II Chronicles (after Hebrew order). The issue of the Apocrypha is 
another thing entirely and is not germane to this topic unless there are 
Hebrew manuscripts of them. The LXX is germane to this topic since it is the 
earliest translation of the Tanakh that bears witness to this topic.  The NT 
manuscripts are germane only as they bear witness to the fact that NONE of 
them have the Tetragrammaton in them including the quotes and allusions of 
the Tanakh.
>
> Dear Moderators,
>
> I think that one last post from all concerned should be enough on this 
> topic since we are at the point of more heat than light. If any one wants 
> to continue, the let them take it off-list.
>
> Thank you for your long-suffering and patience.
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III




Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway