Dear Rolf, You see, my problem with you posting a synthesis of your arguments in order to end you participation is that I directly countered all those arguments in my own synthesis/response. That is, I interacted with your arguments, whereas you ignored mine - and yet you keep using the same arguments and language as before.
I am sorry you didn't understand my diagram. I was simply summarising what I had already presented and asked several times, based on your own analysis - but perhaps I over-summarised. My question is very simple, really - I'll ask without the diagram this time: *** The post-CE LXX uses the nomen sacrum KS. But doesn't the evidence suggest that this was due to early Christian influence (possibly Jewish-Christian)? (I will not summarise the evidence and arguments for this - though Hurtado's article is important. But if you would like me to, I will.) That is, early Christians began to use KS in their Greek scriptural texts - both for Jesus and when referring to YHWH, both in NT and LXX manuscripts. That probably explains KS in the LXX manuscripts: it is a Christian phenomenon. Do you agree that this fits the evidence? Best regards, Stephen. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rolf" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:58:13 +0200 > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G.Gertoux and the Name... > Dear Steven, > > I sent a post to the list with a synthesis of my arguments, in order to > end my participation in this thread. You responded to that post, and I > responded to your post. > > I do not understand what you mean by your formula below, so I cannot > comment on it. I have presented my data and my conclusions several times, > so I see no need to do it again. > > It is most important to admit that because we do not have the NT > autographs, both those who believe that these autographs contained KURIOS > and those who believe that they contained YHWH, argue from silence. Both > groups must build on circumstantial evidence, and the interested persons > should consider this circumstantial evidence in order to draw their > conclusions. > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rolf Furuli > Stavern > Norway > > > Tirsdag 18. Juni 2013 00:53 CEST skrev Stephen Shead < > [email protected]>: > > > Dear Rolf, > > > > (Sigh)... You keep doing this, and I simply don't have time to respond > > every time. But you keep repeating the same arguments, as if they stand > > unchallenged, yet you still have not responded to my refutations of > exactly > > these arguments. I refer to your reply to Bryant: > > > > RF: The word "must" above is not warranted and misrepresents my > arguments. > > > I have pointed out that the NT manuscripts from the second century > contain > > > KS as do the LXX manuscripts of the same age.This means that someone > > > changed the NT text in the same way as the LXX text was changed. > Therefore, > > > something different from KS was written in the NT autographs. We do not > > > know what that word was, but because KS is a substitute for YHWH in the > > > LXX, most likely it is a substitute for YHWH in the NT as well. > > > Corroborating this conclusion is the fact that the Tanakh says that the > > > name YHWH should be used for ever, and no one have so far presented > good > > > reasons for why the NT writers should substitute YHWH with KURIOS in > > > quotes from the Tanakh. Your words about arguing from silence are > strange, > > > because everyone must argue from silence. We do not know how the name > of > > > God was written in the NT autographs, so also those who believe that > the > > > original NT contained KURIOS, argue from silence. > > > > > > > 1. This does *not* mean that "someone changed the NT text in the same way > > as the LXX text was changed", nor that "something different from KS was > > written in the NT autographs". That is pure conjecture. Moreover, I am > > still waiting for an answer to a very simple question: Does not the > > evidence of the LXX and NT manuscripts, according to Hurtado's analysis > of > > the nomina sacra, lend more support to the following line of influence? > > > > LXX MSS (YHWH/IAO) --> NT (??) --> all early NT MSS (KS) --> LXX > MSS > > (KS) > > > > If so, I have said that your argument loses even its semblance of logic. > Do > > you disagree? Why? Somebody at some stage began to use KS in Greek texts > to > > refer to the divine Name. You think the NT authors couldn't have done so. > > But you have no evidence for this, despite your repetition of the same > > arguments. > > > > 2. I have presented in some detail reasons for why the NT writers should > > have used KURIOS in referring to YHWH. Whether or not those reasons are > > "good" ones is up to others to judge and comment on. You have not > responded > > or refuted these, so please do not say that no one has done so. > > > > Best regards, > > Stephen Shead. >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
