Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] God's name

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] God's name
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:20:13 +0200

Dear Bryant,


Tirsdag 18. Juni 2013 08:10 CEST skrev "Rev. Bryant J. Williams III"
<bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>:

> Dear Rolf,
>
> [Rolf]
> 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.
>
> [Bryant]
> 1. Which extant LXX fragments? Please give the evidence with links to see
> photos, if possible. I know that you gave some from the DSS, but that was
> shown to be one manuscript that had 3, possibly 4, conjectural emendations.
> Furthermore, since the DSS are most likely from the Essenes, I really
> wonder how that proves your point since they were clearly a sectarian group
> with isolationist tendecies that bordered on cultic status. This would
> indicate that the group had some interesting interpretations that were not
> necessarily mainstream.

Take a look at the home page of R. Kraft:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/kraft.html
I think we should use the same kind of reasoning regarding the two LXX
manuscripts among the DSS as we do in cpnnection with the great Isaiah scroll
and the other scrolls. We do not question these manuscripts because they are
connected with a group that possibly was Essenes. In the mentioned Isaiah
scroll, there are many differences compared with the MT. But we do not
question the text because of these. The same can be said about the two
manuscripts found in Egypt; we have no reason to question the text. So the
fact is that there are four different LXX manuscripts with YHWH and IAO.
Until new evidence to the contrary are discovered, we must take this evidence
seriously. We can also keep in mind that IAO was extensively used by Greek
speaking non-Jews from the third century BCE to the second century CE.


>
> 2. How is KS as substitute for YHWH not speculation? Please explain your
> reasoning here. Since the NT autographs are not available, how would this
> be speculation when NT manuscripts from the 2nd Century AD onwards have
> KURIOS, then KS with a line over it in several of the manuscripts but not
> all of the manuscripts. Please give evidence to support your claims that KS
> appeared in the autographs.

RF: All the LXX fragments, including the Job fragment from c. 50 CE, have IAO
or YHWH. The LXX manuscripts from the second century CE have KS where the
mentioned LXX manuscripts have IAO or YHWH. Thus, the graphic evidence shows
that KS was used as a substitute for YHWH; no speculation here. Please note
that I have used "evidence" and not "proof." I am open for the possibility
that new evidence that may lead us in a different direction than the present
evidence, may be discovered. But before that happens, we must build on the
evidence we have.

The LXX evidence shows that KS was used as a substitute for YHWH. The
consequence of this is that the NT manuscripts from the second century CE
with KS cannot be used as evidence that KURIOS was written in the NT
autographs. The KS in the NT manuscripts can either be an abbreviation for
KURIOS or a substitute for YHWH. I have not claimed that the NT autographs
had KS, but I have said that the most likely conclusion is that the NT
autographs contained YHWH.

Now I would like to ask you a couple of questions: Why would the NT writers
who quoted the Tanakh delete YHWH and use the substitute KURIOS instead?
Both the Tanakh and the NT contain many passages that stress the importance
of knowing and using the name of God (for example Exodus 3:15 and John 17:6).
When the name was viewed so important, why should the proper name be removed?
And, even if evidence from BCE was discovered that 'adonay was pronounced
when YHWH occurred in the text, would that not be a violation of the words of
the Tanakh? Why should the NT writers follow a custom introduced by men
instead of following the Tanakh, when both Jesus and the NT writers condemned
the traditions and customs of men?

>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>
>
>
>
Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page