JW`s Lie about Christendom hiding the Name Jehovah.or its equivalent Yahweh

by smiddy 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ruby456

  things were not like they are today, for example no printing presses, photocopiers etc.

  Plus there were so many different groups and each seemed to favour different currents - those who wanted to Hebraicize the divine name and so yhwh was written in stylised ancient Hebrew characters, those who wanted to Hellenise the divine name hence Iao, abbreviations like Jah, aramaic renditions, magical texts that linked Iao to Zeus and company. the divine name was used in greetings, in prayers, in hymns and there was never an insistence on all groups needing to treat the name in universally standardised way during the first few centuries. The area of use was vast and varied and this is probably down to the magnitude of the Jewish diaspora and to their adaptability and the way they settled into different areas and adopted local languages in addition to their own (Goodman, 2007, Rome and Jerusalem, the Clash of Ancient Civilisations).

  Think of the diversity of Jews today - is it any wonder that they prefer to say G-D.
• 

  Earnest

  Earnest : So, for some reason which is open to debate the name of God was removed from the Christian LXX
  

  jhine : The removal of the Divine name in all of the [NT mss] copies made...would have had to have been a huge undertaking .

  Yes. I expressed myself badly. I didn't mean that the name of God had been removed from the copies of the LXX in which it already existed. Or from NT mss in which it existed (if it did). I meant that at some time during the first century, probably after the destruction of the second temple, God's name was replaced with the word 'Lord' in subsequent copies they made.

  So, in LXX mss prior to the second century C.E we do find the teragrammaton and the Greek equivalent. After the first century we do not. As we have no NT mss prior to the second century we cannot say whether they followed the same pattern but it is reasonable to think so. As Dr Paul Kahle said 58 years ago (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222),

  We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios; but the Tetragrammaton, written with Hebrew or Greek letters, was retained in such MSS.

  So, in the time that the Gospels and letters were written by Jews for Jews it seems likely that they followed the same pattern. As Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles I am less sure of him, although the letter to the Hebrews would surely be an exception. Also, if he was quoting from the LXX I would not expect him to change it.

  There are indications that there was some control in copying the Christian scriptures. One notable effect are the sacred names referred to earlier, where 'Lord' and 'God' and several others are abbreviated. This happens in all early Christian mss, but not in Jewish mss, so you can tell whether a copy of the LXX is Jewish or Christian. Another effect is that books (codices) were used instead of scrolls. This, again, is identifiable as Christian. Universally. So it is quite feasible that it was decided that kyrios would replace God's name. The reason may be, as Kahle suggests, that "the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more." It was not necessarily a Satanic plot. It could have been that they simply wanted to distinguish themselves from being a Jewish sect. I don't know. But I'm pretty sure it happened.
  
• 

  Ruby456

  interesting that the trinity doctrine developed during the second and third centuries CE. It seems that this happened simultaneously with the use of Lord and theos as default designations for the father and for Jesus. Then with the various councils that were held to unify the church things that ran contrary like Arius' 3/4 th century doctrine were deemed heresy and sent underground or forgotten. thats why the fragments from the qumran desert are so significant in their use of the divine name because they evidence an earlier time between Jesus' death and when the terms Lord and theos replaced the tetragrammaton from the second century onwards.
• 

  Earnest

  Also interesting is the influence of Platonism on the early Church Fathers. Plato maintained that Absolute Being has no proper name, as that would require something greater to give the name. So, as early as the second century Justin Martyr was talking about "a God who is called by no proper name" (First Apology, 10.1) and "the unbegotten and ineffable God" (Second Apology, 12.4).

  So this could also have had an influence. If the scriptures contain God's name then he can be named alongside all the other gods, but God without a name distinguishes him from the other gods. It makes me think of Paul's speech on the Areopagus where he said (Acts 17:22-31) :

  Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
• 

  Ruby456

  I agree Earnest and this is what Martin Goodman refers to as a clash between Jerusalem and Rome. I would further argue that Egyptian, Greek and Roman religion follow a different trajectory to Mesopotamian and Middle Eastern religion and this is linked to the development of antisemitism against religion that is tied so much to place and to a God who wants to remain distinct. In a nutshell there is the emphasis on Justice writ large and of God acting within human history in biblical OT faith and Jehovah's witnesses pick up on very very well so for me this agrees with their use of the divine name. It sort of fits together like a jigsaw puzzle but perhaps working unconsciously.

  edit: Indeed during the early part of Jw history Egyptology was a mild flirtation and very quickly dispensed with
• 

  jhine

  Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

  "In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
  "We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.

  The idea of the Trinity was about very early on . The latest Ignatius died was 117 Ad , could even have been as early as 98Ad . This was probably written the the 1st Century AD .

  Any JW lurkers please take note . As l said before the WT teaching that the Trinity was " thought up in Nicea is total bunkum . lf they are any kind of scholars they SHOULD know that .

  Jan
• 

  Ruby456

  yes I agree that the idea of a trinity was about early on because it also occurs in ancient Egyptian writings

  here for example from the 13th century BCE

  All gods are three:

  Amun, Re and Ptah, whom none equals.

  He who hides his name as Amun,

  he appears to the face as Re,

  his body is Ptah

  https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3ejfBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq
  

  the context of the above is that Akenaten's monotheistic revolution has been crushed but there are remnants of this drive towards monotheism that still remained to be discussed amongst ancient Egyptians.

  My reason for bringing this up is not to undermine your arguments but to explore how democracy developed in the West - democracy as suggested by first among equals. so mine is a more secular aim and I hope that we can discuss this without my giving you the wrong impression.

  I agree that Ignatius's evidence is early and prolly the earliest surviving evidence regarding the deity of Christ and I think his view was probably part of later developments of the trinity doctrine during the second and third centuries CE. However, during the first century BCE and the first century CE the idea of first among equals in a more democratic form was practiced by Roman republicans as we all know from school life and then during the time of Caesars this began to take on a more Imperial form with the first part of the equation taking greater control over the among equals part so that republicans hardly had any power in comparison with Caesar himself. we see this kind of tussle going on even today in secular political life!!!!

  at the same time I'm not saying that christianity borrowed from the Egyptians as a criticism of christianity. I'm raising this issue because for me it is so interesting that some ideas keep coming back to enrich knowledge and culture and secondly I am amazed at the interconnectedness of ideas particularly when they seem to come from what seem to be disparate areas by today's standards.
• 

  jhine

  Hi Ruby456 , l get what you are saying . Yes the interconnectedness of ideas from such varied places and cultures is interesting . As you know stories of a flood are told in lots of cultures even from Asia .

  l just couldn't resist quoting lgnatius in case there are any JW lurkers on here as the opportunity arose . The lie about the council of Nicea needs exposing as much as poss .

  Jan
• 

  Drearyweather

  Any JW lurkers please take note . As l said before the WT teaching that the Trinity was " thought up in Nicea is total bunkum . lf they are any kind of scholars they SHOULD know that .

  jhine, thanks for bringing up the Ignatius quote.

  However, I don't feel JW's teach that the Trinity was 'thought up' during Nicean council. In their book Reasoning From the Scriptures, the say the following under the heading:

  What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?

  The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

  The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989276

  
  So the JW's accept that the concept of Trinity was gradually developing, however, was adopted as an official creed during the Council of Nicea, which is I guess is true.
• 

  Ruby456

  thanks jhine.

  what the early church fathers wrote is so interesting and I really need to spend more time on this. was reading about Justin Martyr yesterday as Earnest linked to him and his links to Plato. Plato also had links to other Mediteranean philosophical, religious and secular thought.