Dear Rolf, I will answer briefly.
>> 1) Du you agree with professor Kilpatrick that the nomina sacrum, KS, did not occur in the NT autographs? >> >> 2) If the nomina sacra represent a change in the text (something is deleted and a new reading is introduced), will that not mean that we have a corrupt text (=words that were not in the original text)? See Dave's reply, which is absolutely correct. It is not a different **word** in the text. It is quite clearly the same **word**, in the same language, pronounced identically, just written in a different way. So yes, it is a change in the text. But isn't it blindingly obvious that this is a change of a quite different order from, say, changing YHWH to κυριος in the process of copying? >> 3) When a word in an ancient text has been changed or is not understandable, will the use of all kinds of relevant information in order to restore the original word represent "sound philological methods"? I'm almost afraid to ask, but ... how on earth is this relevant?? In this case, you have failed to produce a single shred of evidence that the NT text (LXX doesn't count!!) had anything other than κυριος or its abbreviation ΚΣ. So there is no evidence that the text "has been changed". And "is not understandable"??? Nothing linguistically incoherent about the use of κυριος in the NT (and of course, we're not allowed to air religious objections). Hence my objection to "sound philological methods". Best regards, Stephen Shead.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
