Posts by Augustin

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

Dear Earnest,

You wrote:

"So whether you wish to call it a conspiracy or not, we clearly have a case for the universal removal of God's name from scripture by the Christians without any record outside of the LXX copies themselves that such a procedure had taken place. It is a very small leap to believe they did the same to their own writings."

This LXX analogy will not work, I think, for the following reason: we do have external evidence for the LXX rendering the Divine Name as YHWH (with Hebrew letters) rather than Greek "kurios". No such evidence exists for the tetragrammaton ever being in the so-called NT. I think this is very important.

If we stick to the "hard evidence", the following two scenarios seem likely: either (a) the Christians started to write the "qere" (i.e. "kurios") when copying the LXX because they found the "qere" in the OT quotations of the NT; or (b) the Christians used "pre-kaige" versions of the LXX with "kurios", not the tetragrammaton. (Note: Howard too thinks that Greek speaking Jews/Christains uttered "kurios" when they saw "YHWH".) As we have at least two possible scenarios supported by the evidence, why opt for an unsupported theory -- if not according to some theological bias?

One should also note that it is not always possible to distinguish Christian and Jewish copies/versions of the LXX/OG. There are scholars, more distinguished than Howard, who would argue that some Jews also had "kurios" instead of "YHWH" in the LXX.

Regards

- Augustin -

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

Dear Earnest,

You wrote

"The fact that this corruption of scripture took place, and was so widespread, helped me realise that it was quite feasible for the replacement of God's name with kurios to have taken place once the Church became gentile. Other phenomena like the nomina sacra and the universal use of codex instead of scrolls convinced me further that the copying of scripture in the post-Apostolic church was both well organised and controlled."

Now, if it was possible for the "apostate" Church to remove the name of God without any trace... perhaps there is much more in the NT that has been tampered with. Perhaps we just cannot trust the NT at all. Eventually, liberals will argue that. And that's ok. (I'm a liberal myself!) But I do not accept a double standard. Thus, I do not believe that what is in harmony with the teachings of the Watchtower is the genuine Word of God, but what is not, is the result of tampering... See my point? Either we have a reliable NT or we do not. All the "corruptions" mentioned in Ehrman's book are documented. The alleged change from "YHWH" to "kurios" or "theos" is not!

What we do know, based on hard evidence, are:

(1) Some, perhaps all, LXX (or LXX'ish) versions around ca. 50 (B)CE had "YHWH" or "IAW". It is possible that some had "kurios" (cf. the "qere"), which many septuagintalists (like e.g. Pietersma) tink was the original rendering of the Divine Name in (at least some parts of the LXX ).

(2) When Jews quoted from the LXX they could write "kurios" instead of "YHWH" / "IAW".

(3) There is no real trace of "YHWH" / "IAW" in the copies / fragments of the NT known to us. No ancient document mentions that "YHWH" / "IAW" was replaced by "kurios".

(4) At least Rom 10:9-13 demonstrates that Paul originally wrote "kurios" as "YHWH" would not make sense here.

(5) So-called "Nomina sacra" are abbreviations, not new forms. Abbreviations do not prove a change from "YHWH" > "kurios".

I have to conclude that I find little or no real support for Howard's theory. I think it's obvious that the Watchtower has rendered "kurios" as "Jehovah" based on theological bias rather than textual evidence. If the "apostate" Church was able to make alterations in the NT without any trace, then how can we trust the NT?

Regards

- Augustin -

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

Hi!

I have noticed that some refer to B. Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture as support for the theory that the NT has been tampered with. Now, Ehrman does not mention Howard's thesis in his book on the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. I am sure Ehrman does not think the NT contained "YHWH" at all. (At least that's what he told me a few years ago... )

So long

- Augustin -

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

Earnest,

Talmud does speak of "Names of God" in writings used by the "Minim". Now, from Qumran we know that at least some Jews had different "holy names" or "names of God". Could it be one of them?

- Augustin -

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

Earnest,

In his interesting article "The Name of God: A Study in Rabbinic Theology" (HUCA 23 [1951], s. 579-604) by Samuel S. Cohon, you will find some very good arguments for identifying the "minim" with Jewish groups influenced by Gnosticism. We know that many Gnostics had a high interest in God's Name, especially the Greek (?) version IAW, which according to e.g. P. Shehan was the 'original' rendering in at least some parts of the LXX.

- Augustin -

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

Earnest,

I know that Talmud mentions the "Minim" and some "Divine Names" in books related to the Minim. But is it clear that the Minim = Christian people? (I haven't seen that stated as a common view.) I have never seen the Talmud mentioning that the Nazarenes used God's Name in their writings. So I would be very interested in the actual reference.

- Augustin -

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

Dear Earnest,

You wrote:

"I meant that there was no concrete evidence, no extant copies of the LXX containing the tetragrammaton, prior to the twentieth century."

True! But my point is that we do not have any testimony of the tetragrammaton ever being in the NT writings. I think that's significant. The findings of some fragments of a revised LXX do not offer any new information; they confirm what we already knew.

- Augustin -

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

Dear Earnest,

Have you read Furuli's book? If so, what do you make of his use of 8HevXIIgr as proof against Pietersma. Any real scholar knows that 8HevXIIgr is a kaige version, not an example of the LXX. Thus, Furuli's argument is not compelling. A problem with many of the so-called LXX fragments is that they are fragments of a revised version of the LXX (OG). That being the case, we still have the interesting possibility that, sday, Paul did use a kaige version of the LXX when he wrote. But evidence at hand demonstrates that he could have written Gr. "kurios" even if he saw Hebr. "YHWH" when he made his quotes from the so-called OT. Thus, having "YHWH" or "IAW" in the LXX does not demand "YHWH" or "IAW" in quotes from the OT.

Regards

- Augustin -

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

51

Jesus Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the J-Documents (split 2 for 1)

by [email protected] in

earnest

for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.

[email protected]

Augustin

Earnest wrote:

" It's true there's not any concrete evidence, no extant copies of the NT with the tetragram, but until the twentieth century there was no evidence to suggest that the LXX contained the name Yahweh."

This seems to be a misunderstanding. As pointed out by Pietersma, basically the findings of old LXX fragments with YHWH did not bring us any thing new. But they they did confirm what Origen had written re: his Hexapla. If we find some evidence, like a) fragments with (Hebrew/Aramaic) YHWH or (Greek) IAW or b) an ancient source (like Origen) testifying that the tetragrammaton originally was in the NT, I will be more than happy to reconsider Howard's theory... to the present day his idea re: the tetragrammaton and the NT remains speculative.

- Augustin -