Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Steven,

I sent a post to the list with a synthesis of my arguments, in order to end 
my participation in this thread. You responded to that post, and I responded 
to your post. 

 I do not understand what you mean by your formula below, so I cannot comment 
on it. I have presented my data and my conclusions several times, so I see no 
need to do it again.

It is most important to admit that because we do not have the NT autographs, 
both those who believe that these autographs contained KURIOS and those who 
believe that they contained YHWH, argue from silence. Both groups must build 
on circumstantial evidence, and the interested persons should consider this 
circumstantial evidence in order to draw their conclusions.




Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
 
 
Tirsdag 18. Juni 2013 00:53 CEST skrev Stephen Shead 
<sshead.email AT gmail.com>: 
 
> Dear Rolf,
> 
> (Sigh)... You keep doing this, and I simply don't have time to respond
> every time. But you keep repeating the same arguments, as if they stand
> unchallenged, yet you still have not responded to my refutations of exactly
> these arguments. I refer to your reply to Bryant:
> 
> 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.
> >
> 
> 1. This does *not* mean that "someone changed the NT text in the same way
> as the LXX text was changed", nor that "something different from KS was
> written in the NT autographs". That is pure conjecture. Moreover, I am
> still waiting for an answer to a very simple question: Does not the
> evidence of the LXX and NT manuscripts, according to Hurtado's analysis of
> the nomina sacra, lend more support to the following line of influence?
> 
> LXX MSS (YHWH/IAO)  -->  NT (??)  -->  all early NT MSS (KS)  -->  LXX MSS
> (KS)
> 
> If so, I have said that your argument loses even its semblance of logic. Do
> you disagree? Why? Somebody at some stage began to use KS in Greek texts to
> refer to the divine Name. You think the NT authors couldn't have done so.
> But you have no evidence for this, despite your repetition of the same
> arguments.
> 
> 2. I have presented in some detail reasons for why the NT writers should
> have used KURIOS in referring to YHWH. Whether or not those reasons are
> "good" ones is up to others to judge and comment on. You have not responded
> or refuted these, so please do not say that no one has done so.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stephen Shead.