Hi. Excuse me if this has been discussed before but I’m looking for evidence that any of the NT authors knew that the name Yahweh (Yahveh, Jehovah, YHWH, or any variation) existed. I’m testing a naïve hypothesis that says that the NT authors were reading from the LXX and that they only saw kurios. Keep in mind I’m a complete novice and a (friendly) dangerous idiot.
New Testament support for the name Yahweh?
by WhatSexRU 31 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
Well, there is substantial NT support for kurios in the LXX source texts (and of course, kurios is only what occurs in the NT mss. themselves). Here are some examples from Romans alone:
"That if you confess (homologésés) with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord (kurios),' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (sóthésé). For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess (homologeiti) for salvation (sótérian). As the Scripture says, 'Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame'. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile -- he is the same Lord (kurios) of all and richly blesses all who call on him for (gar, indicating a logical relation), 'Everyone who calls (epikalesétai) on the name of the Lord (kuriou) will be saved (sóthésetai)" (Romans 10:9-13).
"If we live (zómen), we live (zómen) to the Lord (kurió); and if we die (apothnéskómen), we die (apothnéskómen) to the Lord (kurió). So, whether we live or die (zómen te apothnéskómen), we belong to the Lord (kuriou). For this very reason (eis touto, indicating the logical relation), Christ died (apethanen) and returned to life (ezésen) so that he might be the Lord (kurieusé, notice that this is a verb) of both the dead and the living (i.e. everyone). You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all (pantes) stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: 'As surely as I live (zó),' says the Lord (kurios), 'every (pan) knee will bow before me; every (pasa) tongue will confess to God' " (Romans 14:8-11).
The NWT, by arbitrarily substituting "Jehovah", obscures the logical argument made in such passages.
-
Leolaia
In case it wasn't clear, the first passage cites Joel 2:32 LXX and the second cites Isaiah 45:23 LXX. In both cases, kurios occurs in the LXX where YHWH occurs in the Hebrew originals. The use of the verbal form in the second passage also indicates that the use of kurios in this text is not a simple substitution of "YHWH" in the Pauline autographs.
Compare the NWT renderings:
"For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation. For the Scripture says: 'None that rests his faith on him will be disappointed.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved' ".
"If we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. Therefore both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah. For to this end Christ died and came to life again, that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living (i.e. everyone). But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written: " ‘As I live,’ says Jehovah, ‘to me every knee will bend down, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God’ ".
The interpolation of "Jehovah" in the first passage breaks the connection between v. 9 and 13, unless one understands that Jesus is Jehovah (and no JW in good "standing" would have that understanding). In the second passage, the interpolation of Jehovah extends even beyond the OT citation, breaks the connection between Christ's lordship over the "living and dead" and the lordship of the "Lord" (kurios) over "every knee and every tongue", breaks the connection between Christ "coming to life" in order to become Lord (kurieuó) over everyone and Christians who "live for the Lord", breaks the connection between the "Lord" (kurios) who declares "As I live" and Christ who has come to "life" in order to be "Lord", and robs the use of verbal kurieuó "to be Lord" of the meaning it gains from its context.
-
moggy lover
Briefly the WTS arguments are summarized:
1 The original LXX contained the Tetragammaton in Heb charcters
2 Most LXX scholars recognize this
3 Several ancient Heb manuscripts [called the "J" references] use the Tetragammaton
4 Jesus recognized the importance of Gods "name" [Matt 6:9, Jo 17:26]
Now the facts:
1 The WT's claim of the "original" LXX having the Tetragrammaton rests soley on the evidence of a Papyrus MS dated to the 1C BC called the Fouad 266. This set of fragments contains portions of the book of Deuteronomy, and in 49 places the Tetragammaton can clearly be seen in Hebrew characters among the Greek. It is sheer nonsense to conclude that because the Fouad 266 is one of the oldest of LXX MSS that it represents the original.
There is at least one other fragment of an LXX MS - found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, catalogued as 4Q LXX Lev [a] which in fact does not contain the Hebrew name. It uses "Kurios". Also dated to the 1CAD it may be older than the Fouad 266, by at least a generation.
It is impossible to determine what the "original" LXX said, because ever since its first publication in the 3C BC it was published in several "recensions" [editions which had an original syntax]. The only thing we can say for certain is that by the 1C AD when the NT was being written, several copies of the LXX were in circulation, of which one, representing the book of Dt, contained the Divine Name.
2 This is an exaggeration. Most scholars do not in fact recognize this. One scholar, Prof George Howard did, back in 1977 write an article for the Journal of Biblical Literature where he suggested that the NT writers may have had access to LXX MSS which contained the Divine Name, however, whether they then actually wrote the Tetragammaton down was not proved. He admitted his idea was only a "theory" and subject to scholarly debate.
The WTS however, not only concurred with Prof Howard's views, but made him say much more than what he actually did. They posited his "theory" as fact [See BRef pg 1564]
3 There is no Hebrew MSS of the NT available. The Hebrew texts that are being referred to by the WTS are in fact "translations" of printed texts [hence not hand-written MSS] of the NT dating from the 13th C at the earliest. Two problems arise from the use of the WTS using these "J" documents. Many of them are in fact based on the Erasmus RT NT text, which the WTS has rejected as being false. Evidently a corrupt NT text can preserve a better representation of the NT than many of the earliest Greek MSS. Secondly, many of these "J" references were published after the NWT was brought out!! For instance J 20 was published in 1963, J 22 in 1979, and J 23 in 1975.
4 It is true that Jesus proclaimed the "name" of God. But what name? The evidence cleary shows that the "name" Jesus proclaimed was "The Father" [capital "T" capital "F"] To suggest that The Father is only a title and not a "name" is facetious, to say the least, since even the WTS admits that the word "name" refers to one's position of authority.[ Compare the expression, "in the NAME of the Holy Spirit", and see "Insight" Vol 2 pg 464]
Hope tis helps
Cheers
-
Death to the Pixies
This is an exaggeration. Most scholars do not in fact recognize this. One scholar, Prof George Howard did, back in 1977 write an article for the Journal of Biblical Literature where he suggested that the NT writers may have had access to LXX MSS which contained the Divine Name, however, whether they then actually wrote the Tetragammaton down was not proved. He admitted his idea was only a "theory" and subject to scholarly debate.
Not to get into another one of these debates, but your comment here really is an exaggeration. You can add heavyweight Emanuel Tov- and you can add Dr. Trobisch into the LXX originally containing the Tetra camp. Trobisch believing YHWH was in the NT "canonical edition" (as he calls it) as well. I believe this, IMO, is one of those controversial issues that JWs will eventually be exonerated on.
-
icocer
bookmarking. Interesting.
-
WhatSexRU
Thanks everyone. Great info. But I think you misunderstood me (it happens all the time). I know that the name YHWH was replaced with the title LORD in the LXX. And I know that the NT followed. But what I want to know is if the various authors of the NT were even aware that the name YHWH existed? I know I’m being weird - but please deal with it. Suppose for the sake of argument that they (any of the various authors of the NT) thought that the LORD was a title for Theos, or Elohim, or El. How do we know that they knew that the name YHWH existed?
-
Narkissos
One must remember that the "LXX original translation" actually extended over several centuries, well into the 1st century AD, allowing for many variations within the "original".
As for the oldest part (the Torah/Pentateuch), the weight of evidence, as (imo convincingly) shown by A. Pietersma in his study "Kyrios or Tetragram: a Renewed Quest for the Original LXX" (in De Septuaginta, Studies in Honour of John William Wevers, 1984), favours the thesis that kurios is original and that the paleo-Hebrew Tetragram belongs to a Palestinian-influenced revision in the 2nd century BC. (I haven't seen what Tov says on this topic, though. If DttP has a reference I'm interested.)
Whatever the case of the "original LXX," the rhetorical analysis of the very passages of Romans which Leolaia quoted above proves beyond any doubt that the LXX which Paul knew read kurios. So did, equally beyond any doubt, Philo's LXX (e.g. his use of kurios as the practical name actually given by God to men in Exodus, in The Change of Names). Of course this is not as easily provable for any NT quote of the LXX (in Matthew or Luke for instance). But the best the WT can muster here is an argument from silence.
-
Narkissos
How do we know that they knew that the name YHWH existed?
While it is culturally probable that some of them (especially in a Jewish-Christian milieu like Matthew) did, I can't think of any direct, formal or textual, evidence to that effect. The specific absolute use of egô eimi ("I am") in John rests on the LXX of Deutero-Isaiah, "he who was, is and comes" in Revelation from Jewish commentaries on Exodus 3... they have at best an indirect relationship to Yhwh and do not absolutely imply a knowledge of the name itself.
-
WhatSexRU
The thing I hear all the time is that the name YHWH was considered sacred and taboo, and that’s why YHWH was replaced with LORD. But even if that is true then isn’t it also possible that the NT authors never knew about the name YHWH? Also, what specifically was Jesus accused of in Mark 14? What constituted blasphemy? Was it that he said YHWH? Or is it that he claimed to be the anointed one?