Hi Jonathan, Did you mean to address this to someone else?
Blessings, Jerry Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected] On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Jonathan Mohler <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Jerry, > > On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, > > I know Barry has already replied, but I just wanted to add my 2c on the > following: > > JM: > >> 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. >> > > Hmm... what you say here baffles me! If this is correct, the entire > discipline of textual criticism has to be screwed up into a ball, burned, > and its ashes scattered to the four winds. Of course the manuscripts > matter! They are our primary witnesses (i.e. direct evidence) to the text. > And their number and diversity matter also, because of the way copies were > themselves copies and spread around different geographic regions. Changes > in one "branch" of copies were unlikely to affect other "branches". > > I get that, and agree with you that they are our primary witnesses. I > appreciate how you worded this whole message. It is written properly as a > good inferential argument. I just don't like when people dismiss Rolf's > argument by belittling his evidence, and by wording their side as a forgone > conclusion. Rolf's argument has its challenges for sure, as you point out. > > The manuscripts and other NT citations (in letters etc.) are the direct > evidence we have. I presume what you mean is that, in this case (with KS), > the manuscript evidence is so wrong and unreliable, across the board, that > we need to turn to other logical arguments to propose the original text. > That doesn't stop them from being the most important witness to the NT > text. > > So what you (or anybody else) need to argue is that *despite* the direct > MS evidence, there are other reasons for suggesting that the ENTIRE > manuscript tradition was somehow changed, in a very short space of time, > with no variation branches. > > Agreed, this is the biggest challenge to Rolf's theory. > > Now in one sense, unless you want to argue that the autographs had KS > (that is what we do have evidence of, not YHWH), then we all have to do > this to a certain (very small) extent. That is, we are discussing the most > convincing explanation of the existence of KS across the board, without > variation or challenge, from very early. The two sides: > > Not necessarily. Wouldn't it be plausible that by the second century the > KS practice had been fully developed by the LXX tradition. Then, when NT > scribes of that century began to make their copies, they simply borrowed > the KS tradition from the LXX. This could account for the possibility of > Rolf's theory. > > - KURIOS --> KS: This is really hardly a significant change. It's the same > word, and the change thus has no theological ramifications (I.e. no > objections about changing the text - "merely" a reverential abbreviation). > Easily explained by an early tradition in which special names associated > with God were highlighted in the written text - with the advantage of being > shorter and easier to write. It must have caught on early and not caused > any waves. > > - YHWH --> KS: Let's start with the assumption that the NT autographs did > *not* use YHWH for Jesus, but only in Scripture quote or other references > to Israel's God. Jesus was referred to only with KURIOS. Yet within a > generation of the completion of the NT, not only had the text been > corrupted by changing YHWH to KS - a change which was, according to you, > clearly prohibited by the teaching of Jesus himself in the NT - but at the > same time, the references to Jesus as KURIOS (and not references to other > KURIOI) were also changed to KS, thus introducing a huge, substantive > change to the text and introducing a theological identity or ambiguity > which wasn't there before. Yet apparent nobody objected to this, and the > earlier true text has not survived. > > Not only that, there is not even any comment on this in any of the church > fathers, nor explanation of the Hebrew name (in the older/better MSS) for > the benefit of poor Greek-speakng Christians. Contrast the LXX, where not > only is there variety in the MS tradition, but even post-CE, when KS came > to predominate, we still have comments from Christian church leaders on the > Hebrew name in the MSS. Not so with the NT. > > Yes their silence is one of the most impressive aspects of the whole issue. > > Best regards, > Stephen > > > Kind regards, > Jonathan > > *Jonathan Mohler* > *Baptist Bible Graduate School* > *Springfield, MO* > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
