Dear Bryant, On 7th June you sent a post where you said that I have claimed that some NT documents have the Tetragrammaton in the text, but has not produced the sources. The same day I sent a post to you where I said that I have never written that NT manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton. Nonetheless, on 8th June your post with the same claim was sent again, and today the post with the same claim appeared a third time. What is the reason for this?
Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Søndag 9. Juni 2013 01:31 CEST skrev "Rev. Bryant J. Williams III" <[email protected]>: > Dear Kirk, > > See below. > > Rev. Bryant J. Williams III > > Dear Scott, > > Rolf has made in past posts claims that some NT documents have the > Tetragrammaton in the text. Rolf has not produced, to my knowledge, the > sources or links for those claims to be verified. It seems that the reason > Stephen is asking for the sources to be not the LXX is that by the 4th > Century AD the LXX and the NT were combined, e.g. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, > Vaticanus, etc. Thus, the LXX was considered as part of the Christian > Scriptures even though it is the translation of the Tanakh by Jewish > translators from Alexandria. If I remember correctly, the LXX in some spots > is a witness to an earlier text of the Tanakh predating the Dead Sea Scrolls. > > Now, with reference to the the use of κύριος (KURIOS). It is used quited > frequently for the Tetragrammaton in the LXX. Yet it is also used in places > like Exodus 3:14, Deuteronomy 32:49; and passages in Isaiah 40-60 where Ἐγώ > εἰμι (EGW EIMI) is used to translate אֲנִי֙ ('ani), אָנֹכִ֥י ('anoki), etc. > In Isaiah 40-61, κύριος (KURIOS) and Ἐγώ εἰμι (EGW EIMI) are also juxtaposed > with each other (See Below). > > Rev. Bryant J. Williams III > > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
