"Jehovah" in the New Testament

by robhic 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Abaddon

peaceful petes comment made me think of this;
The stoning from 'Life of Brian'
Priest: ...you have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so as a blasphemer...

Women disguised as bearded men: Ooh...

Priest: ...you are to be stoned to death!

Women disguised as bearded men: Aah!

Matthias: Look, I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was: "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehova!".

Women disguised as bearded men: Oooh!

Priest: Blasphemy! He said it again!

Women disguised as bearded men: Yeah! Yes! Yes!

Priest: Did you hear him?!

Women disguised as bearded men: Yeah! Yes! Yes!

Woman: Really!

Priest: Are there any women here today?

Women disguised as bearded men: Uh...ooh...no...

Priest: Very well. By virtue of the authority vested in me...

Rock thrown at Matthias: [Bladonk]

Women disguised as bearded men: Ooh...

Matthias: Oh, lay off! We haven't started yet!

Priest: Come on! Who threw that? Who threw that stone? Come on!

Women disguised as bearded men: She did! She did! He did! He did! He did!

Woman: Sorry, I thought we'd started.

Priest: Go to the back!

Woman: Oh, dear...

Priest: Always one, isn't there? Now, where were we?

Matthias: Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying "Jehova"!

Women disguised as bearded men: Aiiih! He did!

Priest: You're only making it worse for yourself!

Matthias: Making it worse? How could it be worse? Jehova, Jehova, Jehova!

Women disguised as bearded men: Aiiih!

Priest: I'm warning you! If you say Jehova once more...

Rock thrown at Priest: [Bladonk]

Priest: Right! Who threw that?

Matthias: Hehehe...

Priest: Come on! Who threw that?

Women disguised as bearded men: She did! She did! She did! Him! Him! Him!

Priest: Was it you?

Woman II: Yes.

Priest: Right...

Woman II: Well, you did say Jehova!

Women disguised as bearded men: Aiiih!

Rocks thrown at Woman II: [Multiple Bladonks]

Priest: Stop! Stop! Will you stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you

understand? Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say Jehova!

Women disguised as bearded men: Aiiih!

Rocks thrown at Priest: [Multiple Bladonks]

Priest: Aaargh!

Large boulder crushing Priest: [Bladonk]

Woman III: Good shot!

Women disguised as bearded men: [Applause]
peacefulpete

Earnest......My dictionary defines Taboo as:" Separated or set apart as sacred or prophane; forbidden for general use, placed under prohibition or ban."
This why I defined the word in my first post as "as in sacrosant".
I think that well defines the view of the tetragrammaton in the first century.
I corrected the translation name in my post above, sorry. it appears not to have been made for public distribution but is at the National Library of Canada and some universities. BTW all translations are paraphrases as they all involve interpretive word choice. Some are just more informed or honest with the language and historical context.
It was the fanatical sacredness of the Name that motivated the prohibition of it's public usage. Similarly the Temple was viewed as so sacred it was anathema for unauthorized persons to enter.
mizpah

Even as a Jehovah's Witness I was uncomfortable with the Watchtower's explanation of inserting "Jehovah" into their New Testament translation. The argument they used for the OT was that they were "restoring" the name of God according to the ancient manuscripts. Therefore, I admired the effort to do this. But when it came to the NT the translating committee had absolutely no authority to insert "Jehovah" into the text. All the ancient manuscripts did not contain it. The only "authority" cited by the Watchtower was some modern translations that had inserted the name. (Many were modern Jewish translations)
It was an apparent contradiciton to me at the time. How can one cite an the authority of ancient manuscripts to include the name on the one hand and ignore this same authority when it is not found on the other hand. But since leaving the organization, I came to realize that the Watchtower is full of contradictions and double standards!
undercover

The WTS placing Jehovah "back" into the NT or Greek Scriptures is very interesting. As a JW I didn't know of any conflict or controversy regarding this. All I know was that the WTS claimed to put God's name back where it belonged in the Bible. I believed it. Most JWs still do. How many people(still in) know of the controversy? Not too many, I bet.
It's the arrogance in which the WTS claims to know all and be all that, over time, really starts to irritate me. It's one thing to claim to have a certain belief, but to propose that it's truth or the only viewpoint without acknowledging any other viewpoint by any other knowledgeable group or person is unfair and dishonest to it's members. It's members think(as I did) that they are the only knowledgeable source in the world on Bible fact or history.
For twenty some years, I learned everything(well, a lot anyway) pushed by the WTS. Granted, that's more than the average, non-church going person, but now I see that what I've learned really isn't all that special. I am amazed at some of the history and language knowledge of the Bible as written by "worldly" scholars and researchers. Many here have learned so much, as seen in this thread. It just shows me more and more that the WTS is just a book pedaling organization under the guise of religion. They have just enough Bible knowledge and truth to convince some people who will not research for themselves that they are the true religion.
Dogpatch

Here's an article for ya on this subject
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/jehovah.htm
Randy
Net Soup!
http://www.freeminds.org
peacefulpete

If you are willing to slog thru the Trinitarian propaganda there is some interesting points in that article.
Earnest
peacefulpete:
It was the fanatical sacredness of the Name that motivated the prohibition of it's public usage.
The fanatical sacredness which was practiced by the Pharisees and rabbinical Judaism had nothing to do with Jesus' concept of holding things sacred, which is evident in the dialogues he had with them and the whole spirit of the Sermon on the Mount (which included the Lord's Prayer).
In my previous post I expressed reservations about the Lord's Prayer being translated as "Thy name be taboo(as in sacrosanct), thy will be done....." and suggested it was paraphrased. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a paraphrased Bible as long as those who read it understand they are reading a commentary rather than a translation. Consider how the Lord's Prayer is translated in the "Judaeo-Christian Bible Fully Translated" and judge for yourself whether it is not a commentary rather than a translation :
Pray in this manner. Our father in the sky, whose name is taboo, may your theocracy be established. May your whims be gratified on the land as in the sky. Provide us with tomorrow’s bread today. Absolve us of the injuries we commit, as we absolve those who injure us. And don’t encourage us to be defiant. Rather, liberate us from the intolerable.
And any who doubt this is a commentary should consider the chapters:
Nativity of John the Immerser;
The Q Gospel.
Mark
Late Synoptics
Interpolations in the Synoptics
Jewish Gospels
Essene Apocalypse
Nazirite Apocalypse
Paul's companion's memoir
Acts of the Envoys
Beloved Disciple's memoir
Fourth Gospel
Gnostic Gospels
Acts of Peter
So Matthew is spread over chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5. The Lord's Prayer can be found in chapter two of which the preface (page v) says : "The Q Gospel contains those parts of Matthew and Luke that were copied from a lost source commonly called Q."
So why translate this verse as "whose name is taboo". Well, another book written by William Harwood may throw some light on this. It is There Be No Sun But Yahweh, and Jesus Be Him's [sic] Planet and is described as "Science fiction short stories and novellas set in a taboo-free future that has outgrown religion". The fact is that the "Judaeo-Christian Bible Fully Translated" was written with the purpose of demonstrating the Bible is a work of fiction and much is made of how ridiculous the "taboos" of the Law are. It seems to me that he had in mind the fanatical sacredness rabbinical Jews attribute to God's name and used the Lord's Prayer to support his ideas. Further background on William Harwood can be found in the 2002 January/February issue of the American Rationalist of which he is a contributing editor.
No, the earliest Christians did not use the Tetragrammaton as they shared all the same superstitions the rest of Judaism of the time did.
I would also like to comment on this view of "the superstitions of Judaism of the time", especially when referring to the time of Jesus. We know quite a bit about rabbinical Judaism which took shape at the Synod of Jamnia in 90 C.E. but we know precious little of the beliefs of the working Jew (in contrast to the priesthood) prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. What we have learnt from the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it was far more diverse than was ever imagined and that the LXX of the time did contain the tetragrammaton. It is an easy mistake to imagine that rabbinical Judaism with its superstitions reflects Judaism of the time of Christ but that ignores the calamity of the destruction of the second temple which devastated their nation and their faith.
Earnest
Farkel

: My question is this: Can anyone cite a reference work or whatever that backs up the fact that the name does not appear in the NT?
That's not the proper question. That's a negative. The real question is quite simple: "can anyone cite a reference work or whatever that the name DOES appear in any of the reliable manuscripts of the NT?"
Your statement was foolish in that you stated it was a "fact" that the name appears in in NT and yet you ASKED if it was a "fact". I'm not trying to beat you up here, but just trying to point out your fallacy. One cannot state that something is a "FACT" and then beg others to cite a reference to disprove it.
A better way to approach it again is to ask, "does the Divine name appear in the NT? Please provide evidence either way."
Any other approach is bullshit and will be attacked as such.
Have a lovely day.
By the way, I make beautiful music. Wold you like to hear some beautiful music I've done?
Farkel
onacruse

Hey Fark, check out http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/58058/1.ashx
Rob is gonna be doin some serious booty kickin...eheh
Craig
peacefulpete

Earnest...No doubt that was posted in earnest. I wish to thank you for posting the passage directly from the translation, as my 'paraphrase' of it was from recollection and was poor.
What are you telling us? Do you feel that the word taboo is not an accurate word for the verse? Why not? It seems to me to satisfy the Greek and context very well. I don't care about debates about "paraphrase or translation", I thought I made that clear before. Mine was not an appeal to authority, merely an interesting and in my estimation, insightful alternative to the traditional rendering. You correctely stated that there were many sects of Judaism in the first/second centuries. You were also correct in saying that a couple early copies of the Septuigint had the name in the text. That does not erase the fact that "The Name" was regarded as too sacred to utter outside the temple and then only by the High Priest (according to most works). The presence in the text did not require reading it aloud. The majority of copies of the Septuigint (even early ones) have already removed the Name to prevent the unlearned from blaspheming by uttering it. In the face of a complete lack of evidence otherwise and a compelling body of evidence supporting the position that the NT did not contain the tetragrammaton, I feel secure in my opinion.

"Jehovah" in the New Testament

Share this