On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Barry wrote:
> On 6/19/2013 1:31 AM, Jonathan Mohler wrote:
>
> This seems rather far afield from Biblical Hebrew, but oh well...
>
>> What Rolf is suggesting is not speculation, it is inference. Neither is
>> it circular reasoning. The fact that the NT mss have KS is a bonafide
>> conundrum. At least as it concerns the Gospel of Matthew, and at the
>> very least the sayings of Jesus. If there is one clear aspect of Jesus'
>> teaching is that he intentionally exposed man-made traditions which were
>> in direct violation of the Torah. He taught his disciples to disregard
>> them at every turn in full view of the Pharisees. (For the moderators'
>> sake: I am not making a faith statement just an argument from what is
>> commonly accepted and unambiguous). These "traditions of the fathers"
>> as they were so-called were /*well-intentioned*/. No one doubts that
>> the Rabbis had the welfare of the people in mind, but their effect was
>> to destroy the original intent of the Torah. This was the central
>> teaching of Jesus against these teachers. In this light, one can't help
>> but ask whether the tradition of concealing the name of God doesn't fall
>> under "traditions of the fathers" that supplant the law of God, and if so
>
> I'm sorry, but it's not a conundrum at all, and your rabbit trail on Jesus'
> teaching on tradition does nothing to explain the habits of scribes. You'll
> note that it's not just KURIOS which lends itself to a nomen sacrum. It's not
> an attempt to conceal the divine name, but an abbreviation which is
> explainable on other grounds -- see Hurtado and Comfort, much of whom Steven
> Avery has handily quoted in another post.
>
I agree that it does not address the scribal habits. But if some refused to
follow the tradition of saying Adonai/etc, as the evidence shows, is it really
a stretch to suggest that Jesus and his followers were good candidates for that
kind of behavior. Then if we discover evidence that they in fact used Kyrios
in their writings, then from a theological point of view one would have to
assess how that is consistent with their practice in other matters of man-made
traditions.
>
>> This part of the argument baffles me. The fact that the extant NT mss
>> all have KS says nothing about the first century. They just speak to
>> the fact that in the second century Scribes put KS for God's name.
>> That's all. There is no more evidence in these mss for KYRIOS than
>> for YHWH or IAO. And it doesn't matter if there is one MS or 5000 MSS.
>> Until we find MSS from the first century with KYRIOS, we cannot speak
>> of the newer documents as evidence. The scant evidence (OT Greek mss
>> BCE) that Rolf has presented speaks more to the issue than the silence
>> of the first century autographs. The argument may be weak, but as an
>> inductive argument, it is cogent.
>
> Again, a nomen sacrum is a form of abbreviation. If KS or the equivalent is
> used (the second letter varies according to the case of the word), then it is
> a logical and far easier explanation that the exemplar the copyist used had
> either KS or KURIOS.
It is still just an inference. A good one, but still an inference. In one
case the pro is that KS stands for KYRIOS, while the con is that the mss are
after the fact. In the other case, I see 2 pros: 1) the mss are before and
contemporary with the NT writings, 2) they reveal actual scribal practice, not
inferred practice; while the con is they are not NT documents.
The fact that we have OT Greek mss with YHWH/IAO into the first century, and no
Greek OT with KYRIOS, then in the second century we have mss with KS, seems to
me a good argument by analogy that maybe the NT originals did have YHWH or IAO.
(I am not taking a position here, just pointing out that it is a good argument
by analogy)
Both sides of this argument are simply offering up what they think is the more
plausible inference. However your argument is faulty. You cannot offer up a
conclusion that includes one of your premises. That is not a sound argument.
Your premise is that KS is an abbreviation of KYRIOS occurring in the copied
text, but that premise is only an inference itself and has no evidence to back
it. You are making an inference on an inference and calling it logical. It
would be better to say, "if scribal practice of the second century was to write
KS where they found KYRIOS , then one can infer that the original writings had
KYRIOS." Then you would have to proceed to back up the premise with evidence.
But this thread has clearly shown that we do not possess any NT mss with
KYRIOS. In the end, one must hold judgment till the above premise is validated
by evidence.
>
> --
> N.E. Barry Hofstetter
> Semper melius Latine sonat
> The American Academy
> http://www.theamericanacademy.net
> The North American Reformed Seminary
> http://www.tnars.net
> Bible Translation Magazine
> http://www.bible-translation.net
>
> http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
Jonathan Mohler
Baptist Bible Graduate School
Springfield, MO
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
