Dear Steven, Your posts show that you have a particular religious agenda, and that is against the rules of b-hebrew. So I see no reason why I should answer you.
Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Mandag 10. Juni 2013 17:32 CEST skrev Steven Avery <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > Putting aside the group posting history, the point that I am making > to Rolf Furuli about scribal habits and textual transmission are simple. > > If your theory of a New Testament text with Hebrew words originally > embedded does not reference clearly and astutely the following four issues: > > 1) Why a diverse variety of writers (allowing they were all Hebrew > fluent and skilled) would all do the exact same highly unusual > autographic Greek writing, of interrupting their Greek flow to change > to a Hebrew script for one word here and there. Today we have no > evidence at all that this was ever done. And various gentlemen only > guess the places this happened by their particular > doctrinal-Christological need (NWT) or, as here, they tentatively > limit the question to happening to NT quotes of OT scripture. No > matter what, you are placing the exact same unusual writing, never > seen in autographic Greek, as changing the style of a variety NT > authors, and nobody else. > > 2) Why every single case of this occurring in the autographs was > never recognized in either the manuscript lines, in any Greek, Latin > or even Syriac texts. And the conjectured phenomenon was never > referenced even once by the ECW who talked about the texts. In other > words, there is no trace. > > 3) Why every single one of these cases got redacted into our current > text, ie. The phenomenon then vanished without a trace. Why did they > not have a variety of redactions, such as transliterating YHVW or > Jehovah and a wide divergence between kurios and qeos in many > instances? Why the general textual consistency today? Surely such a > cumbersome redaction back into the Greek and Latin texts would leave > lots of variant signs in addition to historical notes. > > 4) Acknowledge that this is simply a master emendation theory, of no > textual evidence. Under this theory, the proper NT text was totally > hid for 1800 years, and is restored by conjectural emendation, all > done against 1-2-3. > > If these issues are not addressed, then I think it is fair to say > that your theory is of no merit. Granted, I do not think they were > addressed by those who earlier floated similar theories, whether it > be George Howard or David Trobisch, however that is no reason for not > addressing them today. > > ================== > > Please note that I often find Rolf's writings, and even JW writings, > of some interest. The acknowledgement of the name as Jehovah rather > than yahweh or other modern attempts is extra-fine ( I wonder if Rolf > has any specific critiques of the Nehemia Gordon material, beyond the > light dismissal he wrote.) Their concerns about the development of > the Trinity doctrine are interesting, even if I do not share their > general Christology. Rolf has written interestingly on John 1:18, as > I remember. > > However, I see some gaping holes in the New Testament > emendation-redaction theory being propounded here. > > ================== > > Shalom, > Steven Avery > Bayside, NY. > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
