On 6/20/2013 3:11 AM, Jonathan Mohler wrote: Just some technical responses, since this thread now has a termination point...
> 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. I supposes, but I'm not really concerned with theological speculation until I have hard evidence to consider. In the meantime, I'll go with what appears to me to be the best explanation for the manuscript evidence we do have in our possession. > 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. Of course it's simply an inference – as with many things ancient, we deal in probabilities based on the facts that we do have. > 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) Then you have the same problem has Rolf, finding a reasonable explanation as to why all the manuscript traditions from all geographical locations ceased using the tetragrammaton. > 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. I am not guilty of a petitio principi. It is not a conclusion that all surviving NT manuscripts and the vast majority of LXX/OG manuscripts use KURIOS or KS. I did not make an absolute claim as to what the autographs might have – I said that it was a reasonable inference that the exemplars from which the scribes that leave us our surviving manuscripts copied had KURIOS or KS. Of course there is an assumption, that the scribes copied faithfully what they had before them. And do you really mean "But this thread has clearly shown that we do not possess any NT mss with KYRIOS" since we obviously have many NT mansucripts with KURIOS and KS? -- 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 _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
