Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Dave,

If we look at the issue from the point of view of scientific methodology, 
what is "speculation"? It is to make a statement that is only a guess, 
because there is no evidence in favor of it.


Mandag 17. Juni 2013 19:14 CEST skrev 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.

RF: I know that the NT manuscripts from the second, third, fourth and fifth 
century contain KS—this is no speculation.
By calling "KS" an abbreviation for KURIOS, you yourself admit that KS was 
not found in the NT autographs. When I say that I do not know how the NT 
autographs rendered God's name, is this speculation? No! To say that one does 
not know something is a legitimate scientific statement and not speculation.

In the extant LXX fragments , KS is a substitute for YHWH—this is not 
speculation; it is a fact. When you say that KS in the NT manuscripts from 
the second century onward, is an abbreviation of KURIOS, that occurred in the 
NT autographs, you are guilty of speculation, because there is no manuscript 
evidence for it. The  evidence we have is that KS is a substitute for YHWH.

>
>
>
> > 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.>

RF: How can you connect the LXX manuscript with YHWH with a "very 
narrow-populated, separatist group"? This is a very clear example of 
speculation, because there is absolutely no evidence for the claim..
>
> > 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.
>

When we do not have the NT autographs, we do not know whether they contained 
YHWH or KURIOS. The occurrence of KS in second century NT manuscripts does 
not solve the problem, because KS can either be an abbreviation of KURIOS or 
a substitute for YHWH. When there are two possibilities, and you choose one 
of them and say that the other is impossible, you are not only speculating, 
but you show a lack of scientific balance. When I, on the other hand, say 
that I do not know how God's name was written in the NT autographs, but the 
bulk of the evidence speaks in favor of YHWH, I open the possibility for both 
solutions, but I prefer the solution with YHWH because, 1) both when the NT 
writers quoted the Tanakh and the LXX, they found YHWH or IAO in the Vorlage, 
2) The NT writers believed that the Tanakh was God's inspired word from which 
nothing should be deleted, 3) They had no reason that we know about to use a 
substitute for YHWH, 4) to the contrary, the Tanakh says that YHWH should be 
used for ever, and 5) in the case of the LXX, KS is a substitute for YHWH, 
and that can be the case in the NT manuscripts from the second century as 
well.




> --
> Dave Washburn
>
> Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com
>
> Now available: a novel about King Josiah!

 Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway