Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Rolf <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:

Dear Doug,

The problem is that none of the oldest NT manuscripts, from the second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries contain the same word as the one that was written in the NT autographs where the name of God occurs.

You don't know this. It's pure speculation. They abbreviate the word KURIOS, but it's still the same word. This is more circular reasoning.

 

These manuscripts have KS, which is a later substitute for God's name. No one knows with certainty how God's name was written in the NT autographs, and therefore we must sift the evidence and find how God's name  most likely written.

But that's the problem. There's no evidence to sift. It all uniformly reads KS/KURIOS. The so-called earliest LXX manuscripts have nothing to do with how it was written in the New Testament, especially since, as I already pointed out, those mss aren't consistent among themselves, and even appear to use the archaic letter forms to further obfuscate the name and make it even less pronounceable. Throw in the fact that they were produced most likely by a very narrowly-populated, separatist group that had a major mad-on for the mainstream Temple cult, and the value of those mss for telling us anything about NT scribal practices diminishes to nothing. In other words, for determining what was in the NT, they're meaningless.
 

Therefore, your question should be reformulated: "What is the evidence in favor of YHWH in the NT autographs,

There is none.
 

and what is the evidence in favor of KURIOS?

All of it.

Problem solved.

-- 
Dave Washburn

Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com

Now available: a novel about King Josiah!