Yes, I meant Stephen. Sorry about that. Jonathan Mohler On Jun 20, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Jerry Shepherd wrote:
> 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
