Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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