Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Shead <sshead.email AT gmail.com>]

Dear Rolf,

You see, my problem with you posting a synthesis of your arguments in order to end you participation is that I directly countered all those arguments in my own synthesis/response. That is, I interacted with your arguments, whereas you ignored mine - and yet you keep using the same arguments and language as before.

I am sorry you didn't understand my diagram. I was simply summarising what I had already presented and asked several times, based on your own analysis - but perhaps I over-summarised. My question is very simple, really - I'll ask without the diagram this time:

*** The post-CE LXX uses the nomen sacrum KS. But doesn't the evidence suggest that this was due to early Christian influence (possibly Jewish-Christian)?

(I will not summarise the evidence and arguments for this - though Hurtado's article is important. But if you would like me to, I will.)

That is, early Christians began to use KS in their Greek scriptural texts - both for Jesus and when referring to YHWH, both in NT and LXX manuscripts. That probably explains KS in the LXX manuscripts: it is a Christian phenomenon.

Do you agree that this fits the evidence?

Best regards,

Stephen.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:58:13 +0200
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G.Gertoux and the Name...
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.