Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Barry,

Whereas you have tried to stay out of the discussion, I have tried to end 
this discussion. But then someone has asked a question, and it is polite to 
try to answer honest questions. Little new have been said in recent posts, 
and it seems that we are moving in circles.

You use the strong expression "completely false" and "defies logic," and your 
last expression about "special pleading" makes me wonder if you carefully 
have read my posts. I therefore feel the need to repeat a few things:

1) I have NOT introduced "an argument to explain how it (KS) had to derive 
from YHWH." But I have pointed to the FACT (not argument) that the LXX 
fragments we have up to 50 CE uses YHWH/IAO and the second century CE LXX 
manuscripts use KS. I do not deny the possibility that old LXX manuscripts 
with KUROS may be found, but hitherto no such manuscripts are known. So the 
evidence, and I say EVIDENCE, is that KS in the second century LXX 
manuscripts was used as a substitute for YHWH. This shows that KS CAN be used 
as a substitute for YHWH.

The second century NT manuscripts have KS, and because the evidence shows 
that KS CAN be used as a substitute for KS, KS in the NT manuscripts CAN  
either be a substitute for YHWH or an abbreviation of KURIOS. The difference 
between us is that I say that because we do not know, it is possible that 
either KUROS or YHWH was written in the NT autographs. I further say that the 
evidence speaks in favor of YHWH. You, on the other hand, are only open for 
one of the two possibilities, and you say that the possibility  of YHWH in 
the NT autographs  "defies logic" and  "is completely false." I hope that 
this is not the kind of dogmatic statements that you teach your students to 
use.

So regardless of what you say: because we do not have the NT autographs, both 
arguments that KURIOS was written in the original NT and that  YHWH was 
written there are arguments from silence.




Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


 
Tirsdag 18. Juni 2013 13:38 CEST skrev Barry <nebarry AT verizon.net>: 
 
> On 6/18/2013 1:58 AM, Rolf wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but this is too much. This is 
> completely false -- it is not an argument from silence. There is 
> positive evidence that the autographs contained KURIOS in that all 
> surviving manuscripts have either KURIOS or KS. It is the burden of 
> proof on the part of one claiming otherwise to explain this, and so far 
> no reasonable explanation has been forthcoming. It amounts to "I want it 
> to be this way, so therefore it had to be that way." That the nomen 
> sacrum could somehow derive from the Hebrew defies logic -- surely the 
> Occam's razor explanation is that it derives from the Greek KURIOS, and 
> introducing an argument to explain how it had to derive from YHWH is 
> surely simply special pleading.
> 
> -- 
> N.E. Barry Hofstetter
> Semper melius Latine sonat
> The American Academy
> http://www.theamericanacademy.net
> The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
> https://jmba.org
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew