Dear Rolf, I want to respond to three things you said in your last two posts to the whole list:
1. You said: "The use of such a substitution [i.e. of 'adonay for YHWH] is the requirement for those who argue that KURIOS was written as a substitute for YHWH the NT autographs." This is ridiculous. There is no such requirement, as I amply demonstrated in my previous replies to you. 2. You said: "The pattern of the LXX (YHWH/IAO ----> KS) suggests, but do not prove, that the NT autographs contained YHWH or IAO." I have already dealt with this faulty logic, and you have not responded. Even on its own merits, the above is extremely weak, given the lack of any non-κυριος/ΚΣ variant in any NT MS. However, I have also argued, based on the MS evidence and Hurtado's excellent analysis, that ΚΣ in the LXX tradition was probably influenced by ΚΣ in the early Christian(-Jewish) tradition, which removes even the superficial appearance of logic that your argument might have had. 3. You said: "I think it is time to draw the lines together." I disagree. I have countered everything you presented in these two emails, in terms of "evidence" you claim exists for YHWH in the NT. Yet you have not responded to anything from my previous post. Therefore, I hardly think it is appropriate for you to "draw the lines together". Perhaps you are preparing a response. But so far, you have simply repeated yourself without answering any challenges. Best regards, Stephen Shead.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
