Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Barry <nebarry AT verizon.net>]

On 6/19/2013 1:04 PM, Rolf wrote:
> 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.

Really, you think?

> 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:

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I stand by my statements.

> 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.

You have not responded to facts about those manuscripts which others 
have advanced. Also, KS is an abbreviation for a Greek word, not a 
Hebrew one. It simply stands to reason that the scribes had before them 
an exemplar with Greek words, and chose to use that particular scribal 
convention to represent the word. This is the simplest and most likely 
explanation.

> 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.

No, there is a huge logical gap in your reasoning here, namely, as neat 
a petitio principi as I've ever seen. You really are assuming your 
conclusion as evidence, and jumping from a few fragmentary OG 
manuscripts to the entire NT scribal tradition. What is the reverse of 
the genetic fallacy?

> 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.

Not so fast. The extant manuscripts are positive evidence that the 
exemplars from which they copied had Greek words. You are correct that 
it is not direct evidence of the autographs, but if a change was made 
somewhere in the tradition, you have to give a reasonable explanation of 
the change to explain the fact that no surviving Greek NT manuscript 
from any textual family has the tetragrammaton.



--
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Semper melius Latine sonat
The American Academy
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
The North American Reformed Seminary
http://www.tnars.net
Bible Translation Magazine
http://www.bible-translation.net

http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog