by slimboyfat 7 Replies latest watchtower bible
An interesting recent article on the divine name in early Christianity.
The author is surely a Witness apologist. A friend of Furuli perhaps?
Search google for the PDF of:
Reflections on the Use of the Name Yahuwah (Yahweh) or IAO in the Early Church Communities by Antony Michael Hylton Sion School Orrfuglveien 15, Skien 3741, Norway
Skien, Norway - that's where Kent Steinhaug lives, or did live the last time we heard from him.
It seems he belongs to an ever weirder sect than JWs.
The name of God, YHWH, had a special sound and a special pronunciation and a special meaning in Hebrew. Translating all that into another language and culture diminished that meaning. So apparently it was decided best not to translate the name, but to leave it holy and special in its original language. Thus "God" and "Lord" were used to refer to the creator in other languages. That is why it does not appear in the surviving transcripts.
The key here is remaining faithful to the transcript of scripture or changing the transcript to insert what was never there based on interpretation. When you are unfaithful to the transcript, you are not translating the Bible but creating a commentary or exegetical document, thus it defiles the original text.
Of course, some texts present a potential interpretation anyway, such as a reference to "those belonging to the Lord" can refer to either Jehovah or to Christ. Which one? If the translator decides it should be Jehovah, then that is just their personal opinion, which then corrupts the scripture.
"Obedience is better than sacrifice."
Revelation clearly says not to change one thing in the holy scriptures, but the WTS decides otherwise. That is why it is called in the Bible, "the man of lawlessness."
Interestingly Iao is also a form of what we call Jupiter or Ju + piter, that is sky father.
That is interesting, and I think, pertinent mP.
The Septuagint in its earliest form included the tetragrammaton. By the second century this paper says apparently IAO was being used. It says as a transliteration but I wonder if it was more of substitute acronym ??
That aside, I think the paper's contention is that there would hardly be a lacuna between the usage of the Tet. and then IAO.
But I think your link to Jupiter etc is a likely explanation for the use of IAO.
yes ?
Am I right in saying that the tetragrammatom was NEVER in the NT ? I asked that question of a chap from Birmingham (England ) University who was giving a lecture at our church on early manuscripts of the NT and he said that ,NO the tetragrammaton had not been used in any NT manuscripts ever found . So Lars is perfectly right in stating that translating Lord into Jehovah in some instances is only justified by the WT theology in order to back up their insistance of using the name Jehovah at all .
Also it is awkward for them when Lord is used of both Yaweh and Jesus as ,of course, they deny the divinity of Jesus and so feel the need to separate the two completely in scripture.
The Teragrammaton is not in any early N.T manuscript we have, with the exception I suppose of forming part of the word Hallelujah in Revelation.
This does not mean it was never there, and I think the WT's case for putting it in where the NT writer is quoting from the Septuagint has perhaps a tiny bit of merit, but very very tiny. Would the copies of the Sep. that Paul and others had access to have contained the Tet ? Perhaps, but not in Paleo Hebrew script I bet, and I am not convinced that they would write it in their quoting thereof, as they would in their mind be reading Kurios or another substitute word.
The arguments on this will never be settled.
But, even if we accept the argument for putting it in where the Septuagint had it, there is no justification where no such quote underlies the text, as in the number of times they inserted it in Revelation with no cause whatsoever, apart from trying to make it fit their theology, and ignoring the clear instruction, from Jesus ! not to add to the scroll.
