Dear Jerry,
See my comments below.
Torsdag 20. Juni 2013 08:41 CEST skrev Jerry Shepherd <[email protected]>:
> Hi Rolf,
>
> Thanks for your answers. And now four points/questions/corrections.
>
> 1. Actually, you have been less than forthcoming that KS was an
> abbreviation for KURIOS. And I think that accounts for at least some of
> the flack that you've been getting in some of the responses. Indeed, even
> in this response you only acknowledge that KS is "most likely" an
> abbreviation for KURIOS. Is there really any doubt?
I like to look at different possibilities in my studies, and I try to avoid
all-propositions and categorical statements. We do not know all the
circumstances around the creation of the nomina sacra, and I cannot be certain
that all uses of them are similar. So I choose the formulation "most likely."
BTW, this standpoint has been expressed by me in different writings for many
years.
>
> 2. Now, since you do acknowledge that KS and its variants were "most
> likely" abbreviations for KURIOS, another important question for you to
> answer is: Why was KURIOS chosen to represent YHWH or IAO rather than some
> other word/title?
I do not know. But I can point to some possibilities:
The NT is the collection of writings for the Christian Church. In these
Scriptures there are statements that apostasy from Christianity would occur.
Paul says "until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed"
(2 Thessalonians 2:3 NIVI). The rebellion (apostasy) would occur after Paul's
death. "! know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and
will not spare the flock." (Acts 20:29 NIV). In the days of John, who evidently
was writing in the last part of the first century CE, apostasy was in full
bloom: "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the
antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know
it is the last hour.
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had
belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that
none of them belonged to us." (1 John 2.18, 19 NIV).
The Tanakh is perfectly clear: YHWH should be the name of the Creator for ever.
Jesus and the Christian writers believed that the Tanakh was the truth, and was
inspired by God ("Your words is truth," John 17:17 NIV; "All Scripture is
God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
righteousness, " (2 Timotheus 3:16). On the basis of what the Tanakh says and
the reverence of the NT writers for the words of the Tanakh, there is no reason
why they should not use YHWH in quotes from the Tanakh. (No list-member has so
far given one reason for the deletion of God's name).
However, namelessness of the god was important for Plato, for Philo and for
some Egyptian gods, and different groups had a superstitious fear for
pronouncing the name of the God of the Jews. Some of those "who went out from
us" (from the Christian congregations) were influenced by some of these
non-Christian ideas, and it is likely that their scribes deleted YHWH from the
NT manuscripts and used the substitute KURIOS instead, because of such
influence.
But why did these scribes use KURIOS (KS) and not another word? I see two
possibilities, 1) KURIOS were applied to some gods and rulers, and therefore it
was the best substitute they could think of to express namelessness, or 2) the
superstitious custom of reading 'adonay when YHWH was written in the text could
have been in its infancy, or more widespread, at the end of the first century
CE. So, this custom could have influenced the copyists and the Greek cognate
word KURIOS was used.
I recommend the book: "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of
Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament." B.D.
Ehrman, 1993. The author discusses several corruptions of the NT text for
doctrinal reasons.
>
> 3. I know it's hard keeping track of all that people have said in their
> responses, but I have not "closed the door" on the possibility that YHWH
> could have been written in the NT autographs; but I do believe that it is
> extremely unlikely, in that the NT documents are not, like the LXX mss,
> copies or translations of Hebrew mss; rather they are new creations:
> Gospels; historical accounts, and letters.
RF: It is good to hear that you do not rule out the occurrence of YHWH in the
NT autographs. A balanced scholar keeps the possibilities open until clear
proofs are given for one possibility. It is saddening to see persons on this
list with academic degrees making categorical statements when evidence, let
alone proofs, are lacking.
>
> 4. My questions re the two NT passages do in fact have theological
> implications; but I have no desire to explore them. I only want to know
> what you think was in the autograph.
RF: I think that the word KURIOS was applied to Jesus and other lords (1
Corinthians 8:5, 6), and that YHWH was exclusively used of God the Father. When
scribes, who earlier had been a part of one Christian congregation, deleted
YHWH and used the substitute KURIOS, that resulted in confusion. This is so,
because in many cases (at least one hundred) it is not clear to whom KURIOS
refers. It may be that this confusion between God and Jesus that now was
introduced into the manuscripts, was one of the factors that influenced the
bishops when they gradually, at different councils, from the fourth to the
sixth century, formulated the trinity doctrine.
>
> Blessings,
>
> Jerry
>
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
> [email protected]
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
