Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Rolf,

I meant to comment also on what you said here (but forgot - sorry):

RF:

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.

SS: You seem to be the only person who considers this to be "circumstantial" evidence, or an argument "from silence", for either KS or KURIOS in the NT autographs. They are, after all, the same word. And why couldn't it have been KS in the NT autographs? That, at least, we have plenty of direct evidence for, do we not (unlike YHWH/IAO)? But all this seems to be part of your perverse insistence on calling your argument "evidence", on an equal footing with the NT manuscript evidence.

In fact, let's follow your argument to its logical conclusion: If KS is a corruption of YHWH, then the NT autographs clearly had YHWH or IAO - both when quoting the Tanakh **and** when referring to Jesus. After all, KS was used indiscriminately for both in the NT manuscripts (but not for other distinguished persons). But then, I'm guessing you're not going to be happy with that. So are you going to argue that, where they were citing the Tanakh or referring to Israel's God, KS is a corruption of YHWH, but where they were referring to Jesus, KS is an abbreviation of KURIOS? Or perhaps was simply KS in the autograph?

Best regards,

Stephen Shead.