Part of the JW's argument for the inclusion in the Jehovah is that there was a custom to remove it from the Old Testament. Is that true? Am I even getting the argument right? If it is true, when did it this start?
ackack
Removal of YHWH from Old Testament
by ackack 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
moggy lover
Hi, AA, No the issue is'nt the OLT Testament but the NEW. YHWH occurs at least 6000 times in the Heb text of the OT but is patently absent from the New. To most intelligent people the reason is obvious: Whereas the OT was a "dispensation" that reached out to a tribal community living in a distinct part of the world, and represented their distinctive culture and committment to a religious faith, and their worship of a distictive, almost tribal, God, the New Testament has a different thrust.
Its purpose is to provide a "Dispensation" that reaches out to the global community of peoples, all of whom share the one common denominator in that all are mortal. The New Testament makes the extraordinary claim that the divine provision for escaping this peril is a "new" name, that of JESUS. Acts 4:12
Not content with that biblical explanation, the WTS has to see a diabolically contrived conspiracy which saw the "removal" of this name from the NT hence its inclusion in the NT of the WTS "translation" Of course in replacing the name in the NT, the delicate need was, not simply to replace the Tetragrammaton in the NT, but to do this with selectivity so as not to prejudice the integrity of an already existing WT theology.
Cheers
-
Narkissos
Part of the JW's argument for the inclusion in the Jehovah is that there was a custom to remove it from the Old Testament.
Do you mean the inclusion of "Jehovah" into the New Testament? In that case, it is only a small "part" of the argument indeed, but you are correct.
If it is true, when did it this start?
As far as the Old Testament is concerned, probably in the early 3rd century BC at least, judging by the original substitution of kurios to Yhwh in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the rarity of Yhwh in the latest books of the Hebrew Bible, and the regular substitution of 'elohim to Yhwh in the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text of an important section of Psalms. But remember this tradition was not unanimous. There have also been attempts to make sense of the name Yhwh in a monotheistic setting (e.g. Exodus 3:14ff), and even to introduce it into the LXX (the famous Greek manuscripts with the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton instead of kurios, which the WT often refers to). However, none of the New Testament texts shows any evidence of concern for the name Yhwh per se, and so the introduction of "Jehovah" into the NT is completely artificial (and sometimes utterly destroys the meaning, e.g. Romans 10 and 14).
-
ackack
Sorry, my post appeared a bit jumbled due to operator error. What I meant to say, was that part of the argument for the inclusion of Jehovah in the New Testament is the belief that there was a tradition to remove the name from the Old Testament. (At least thats how I understood it). Something like that:
- The name Jehovah appeared in the New Testament originally.
- There was a tradition to not say the name.
- Eventually, there was a tradition to not copy the name.
- Hebrew OT sources eventually stopped using the name.
- Greek NT source eventually stopped using the name.
After all, if the argument actually goes like this:
- The name Jehovah appeared in the New Testament originally.
- There was a tradition to not say the name.
- Eventually, there was a tradition to not copy the name.
- Greek NT source eventually stopped using the name.
Then wouldn't that be based on pure fantasy, as there is no evidence to support 1 and 4? However, if the above scenario is the actual argument, then at least that would have some sort of verifiability. Right?
ackack
-
Shazard
Well if there would be written YHWH in Old Testametn today, nobody would understand what really is meant by this. There are meny gods and each of them has meny names. And in this case YHWH is just another name of another god. But what really YHWH means is - "The Creator" - the one and only source of whole reality, GOD, CREATOR, LORD. I agree that LORD is not the best substitution for YWHW, better would be "CREATOR" as YHWH stands for "One who brings into beeing". And this is essencial part of Christianity, Christians believe that only Creator is God and only God is creator. If one is not creator it is not God and if one is not God it is not creator.
-
Narkissos
ackack,
I'm not sure I understand your argument, or the difference between the two lines of reasoning you seem to oppose. Fwiw I'll comment the first one, but the same comments apply to the second:
- The name Jehovah appeared in the New Testament originally. Unsubstantiated claim: there is no material evidence to this, and there is much rhetorical evidence against the presence of Yhwh (in any form) where the NWT introduces it -- especially in Romans where the Pauline reasoning is based on the use of kurios.
- There was a tradition to not say the name. A very widespread Jewish tradition, especially in the Greek-speaking realm to which the NT belongs.
- Eventually, there was a tradition to not copy the name. "Copy" implies you are thinking of the Hebrew OT. In that case, this is not true, as the use of Yhwh was generally maintained in copy (although not read aloud) down to the Masoretic period in the Middle-Ages.
- Hebrew OT sources eventually stopped using the name. Although the name becomes scarce in late OT texts, it doesn't disappear altogether; and as I stated it was generally maintained where it originally belonged (see # 3).
- Greek NT source eventually stopped using the name. This of course rests on the unsubstantiated assumption # 1.
Shazard,
YHWH is just another name of another god.
That's exactly what it was in the original polytheistic context of ancient Israelite religion. Go figure.
But what really YHWH means is - "The Creator" - the one and only source of whole reality, GOD, CREATOR, LORD. I agree that LORD is not the best substitution for YWHW, better would be "CREATOR" as YHWH stands for "One who brings into beeing". And this is essencial part of Christianity, Christians believe that only Creator is God and only God is creator. If one is not creator it is not God and if one is not God it is not creator.
Unfortunately this is certainly not the original meaning of Yhwh, but a secondary explanation designed to make sense of it in a monotheistic context (Exodus 3:14ff). Generally the whole idea of a specific name for the only God was felt as a logical contradiction, whence the widespread trend not to use it in spite of older tradition and its subsequent reinterpretations. What the Greek-speaking Jew Philo writes about this subject prior to the birth of Christianity is a good example of that (On the Change of Names, 7ff).
Do not, however, think that the living God, he who is truly living, is ever seen so as to be comprehended by any human being; for we have no power in ourselves to see any thing, by which we may be able to conceive any adequate notion of him; we have no external sense suited to that purpose (for he is not an object which can be discerned by the outward sense), nor any strength adequate to it: therefore, Moses, the spectator of the invisible nature, the man who really saw God (for the sacred scriptures say that he entered "into the Darkness," by which expression they mean figuratively to intimate the invisible essence), having investigated every part of every thing, sought to see clearly the much-desired and only God; but when he found nothing, not even any appearance at all resembling what he had hoped to behold; he, then, giving up all idea of receiving instruction on that point from any other source, flies to the very being himself whom he was seeking, and entreats him, saying, "Show my thyself that I may see thee so as to know Thee." But, nevertheless, he fails to obtain the end which he had proposed to himself, and which he had accounted the most all-sufficient gift for the most excellent race of creation, mankind, namely a knowledge of those bodies and things which are below the living God. For it is said unto him, "Thou shalt see my back parts, but my face shall not be beheld by Thee." As if it were meant to answer him: Those bodies and things which are beneath the living God may come within thy comprehension, even though every thing would not be at once comprehended by thee, since that one being is not by his nature capable of being beheld by man. And what wonder is there if the living God is beyond the reach of the comprehension of man, when even the mind that is in each of us is unintelligible and unknown to us? Who has ever beheld the essence of the soul? the obscure nature of which has given rise to an infinite number of contests among the sophists who have brought forward opposite opinions, some of which are inconsistent with any kind of nature. It was, therefore, quite consistent with reason that no proper name could with propriety be assigned to him who is in truth the living God. Do you not see that to the prophet who is really desirous of making an honest inquiry after the truth, and who asks what answer he is to give to those who question him as to the name of him who has sent him, he says, "I am that I Am," which is equivalent to saying, "It is my nature to be, not to be described by name:" but in order that the human race may not be wholly destitute of any appellation which they may give to the most excellent of beings, I allow you to use the word Lord as a name; the Lord God of three natures--of instruction, and of holiness, and of the practice of virtue; of which Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob are recorded as the symbols. For this, says he, is the everlasting name, as if it has been investigated and discerned in time as it exists in reference to us, and not in that time which was before all time; and it is also a memorial not placed beyond recollection or intelligence, and again it is addressed to persons who have been born, not to uncreated natures. For these men have need of the complete use of the divine name who come to a created or mortal generation, in order that, if they cannot attain to the best thing, they may at least arrive at the best possible name, and arrange themselves in accordance with that; and the sacred oracle which is delivered as from the mouth of the Ruler of the universe, speaks of the proper name of God never having been revealed to any one, when God is represented as saying, "For I have not shown them my Name;" for by a slight change in the figure of speech here used, the meaning of what is said would be something of this kind: "My proper name I have not revealed to them," but only that which is commonly used, though with some misapplication, because of the reasons abovementioned. And, indeed, the living God is so completely indescribable, that even those powers which minister unto him do not announce his proper name to us. At all events, after the wrestling match in which the practicer of virtue wrestled for the sake of the acquisition of virtue, he says to the invisible Master, "Tell me thy Name;" but he said, "Why askest thou me my name?" And he does not tell him his peculiar and proper name, for says he, it is sufficient for thee to be taught my ordinary explanations. But as for names which are the symbols of created things, do not seek to find them among immortal natures.
-
greendawn
Why did the dubs decide to resurrect a name that was not used for 2500 years or so? Even the Jews don't use it and the christians apparently did not even in the early church. Why? Because for the church the central figure is the Christ whereas jehovah refers straight back to OT days and the law of Moses which became obsolete. It's just ridiculous when the dubs keep going on about jehovah it's like going round wearing cloths of the 17th century.
-
jwfacts
The WTS is using an unsupported theory that Jehovah should be in the NT.
The problem is that it is very damaging to the credibility of the bible to say God allowed his name to be removed without a trace. How can you trust any part of the bible then?
There are over 5000 ancient manuscripts going back the within 100 years of Jesus spanning over several continents. To have it removed from every version of the NT within such a short time before it was taken by missionaries like Paul to remote areas when Christianity was being spread so quickly would have required a conspiracy of monumental proportions.
The similarity with the OT removal is not valid because there are many versions in existence with YHWH in it or YHWH and the subsitiute words both in them. It was not a conspiracy to remove all trace of YHWH, but just a reminder not to pronounce it out loud.
-
ackack
Nark, this was the point I was thinking about:
Eventually, there was a tradition to not copy the name. "Copy" implies you are thinking of the Hebrew OT. In that case, this is not true, as the use of Yhwh was generally maintained in copy (although not read aloud) down to the Masoretic period in the Middle-Ages.
As a JW, I had always assumed that there was a custom to remove the name from hebrew to hebrew translations (of the OT obviously), and on that basis they claimed that the name was removed from greek->greek copies (of the NT). If the argument merely is that greek->latin (or any other languages) had the name removed, then, thats a pretty flimsy argument.
ackack
-