Posts by slimboyfat

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

slimboyfat

Earnest, trying to follow what aqwsed12345 is saying is a bit like trampling through shifting sand: you think you’re getting somewhere but in the end there’s nothing there. It reminds me of some of the answers you get from ChatGPT that contain all the right vocabulary and relevant scholarly names, but if you read it carefully the attribution of views is slightly off, and the sentences look like arguments in form, but contain no actual substance. Take this sentence for example:

Hurtado’s reference to "a scribal practice that seems to have developed sometime in the second century CE or so" pertains specifically to the "routinely" written form of Κύριος in LXX manuscripts, not to its original use as the rendering of YHWH in the LXX.

At first it looks like it’s making a subtle distinction but on examination it evaporates into nothing. What’s the difference between being “routinely written” and “use as a rendering”? It’s gobbdlegook masquerading as an argument. It’s trying to say Hurtado meant the opposite of what he wrote no matter what.

The trouble with ChatGPT is that it will do exactly what you ask it to do. If you ask a human to give you a good argument against Paris being the capital of France, a human will tell you that’s a waste of time because Paris is the capital of France. If you ask ChatGPT to give you the best arguments it can “think of” then it will oblige no matter how strained the result. Here’s what ChatGPT gave me:

If we’re arguing that Paris is not the capital of France, here’s a compelling angle:

The capital of France is wherever the seat of government is, and historically, that hasn’t always been Paris.

Historical Precedent: During World War II, the French government moved to Vichy, making it the de facto capital from 1940 to 1944. By this logic, Paris is not inherently the capital—it’s a matter of political designation.
Centralization Criticism: Some argue that Paris's dominance creates inequality between regions. A decentralized France might designate a more geographically central city, such as Lyon, as its capital to better represent the nation as a whole.
Symbolic Reallocation: As Strasbourg hosts key European institutions and embodies unity, it could claim a more modern role as France’s "true" capital within the European context.

Thus, the argument would be: Paris's status as the capital is a matter of tradition and convenience, not an immutable fact. Other cities could be the capital, especially in a modern, decentralized France.

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

slimboyfat

Thus, your attempt to portray Hurtado as supporting a second-century introduction of Κύριος into the LXX misreads his argument.

It’s literally what he says: “that is a scribal practice that seems to have developed sometime in the second century or so.”

If you can’t understand a statement as simple as that don’t expect me to engage with the rest of your verbiage. Why not simply say you think Hurtado is wrong about this, instead of trying to get him to say the opposite of what he wrote?

8

Interesting bit of Watch Tower history

by vienne in

two images of allegheny city and a challenge.

see https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ the newest post.

.

slimboyfat

I’ve looked through all Leolaia’s threads and can’t find it. But she may well have been commenting on someone else’s thread. Or it could have been lost, as we know some threads have been lost or deleted over the years. But most likely it’s there somewhere, it’s just difficult to find.

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

slimboyfat

I don’t know what kind of game you’re playing here, aqwsed12345. Skehan argued that Yaho was the original form of the divine name in the LXX. Tov agreed with him. Now Eugene Ulrich agrees with them both. You are simply wrong to claim otherwise.

You write:

The claim that Hurtado concluded κύριος entered the LXX only in the second century CE is inaccurate.

It is what Hurtado wrote:

Our manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX) routinely have kyrios where the Hebrew has YHWH, but that is a scribal practice that seems to have developed sometime in the second century or so.

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/yhwh-texts-and-jesus-a-follow-up/

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

slimboyfat

Often you are making assertions rather than making an argument. For example, you wrote:

The presence of ΙΑΩ or the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton in these manuscripts must be understood as variants or later revisions, not as evidence that they were the original translation practice of the LXX.

Why “must” this be so? You seem to be unmoved by the manuscript evidence that led senior LXX scholars Skehan and Tov to conclude that Yaho is original and by the fact that even Larry Hurtado (an apologist for Nicene theology) concluded that kyrios didn’t enter the LXX until the second century CE. If despite all the manuscript evidence, onomastica, variants, and expert opinion you still think it “must” be otherwise, I don’t know what use is anything more than I can say.

8

Interesting bit of Watch Tower history

by vienne in

two images of allegheny city and a challenge.

see https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ the newest post.

.

slimboyfat

No idea what the answer to the question in the blog post is. Will an answer be posted at one point?

Many years ago, Leolaia offered analyses of Angels and Women and Seola but after much searching I have been unable to find the threads. Maybe someone else has it?

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

slimboyfat

While Shaw highlights that ΙΑΩ appears in magical texts, onomastica (name lists), and select Jewish papyri, this evidence does not demonstrate widespread liturgical or scriptural usage of ΙΑΩ among Jews in the 1st century CE.

That’s not what Shaw’s book says at all. Have you read it?

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

slimboyfat

While Shaw’s work highlights that ΙΑΩ was known and used in certain Jewish contexts, this evidence does not prove it was the original or predominant rendering of YHWH in the LXX.

Neither did I claim that it does. You are not reading what I wrote. Shaw’s work shows that use of the divine name Yaho was widespread among ordinary Jews. This refutes the idea that use of the divine name would not have been familiar for first century Jews when the early Christians used it. On the subject of what was written in the LXX, as I understand it, Shaw’s view is that there was diversity of forms from early in the LXX.

If the NT authors did not consider the possibility that readers might “confuse” YHWH with Jesus, they wrote with a level of carelessness that fundamentally undermines the inspiration and sacredness of their writings.

The NT authors went out of their way to show that Jesus is Lord in a completely different sense than God. For example, Psalm 110.1 is the most quoted OT text in the NT, precisely because it makes the distinction between Jehovah God and Jesus as messianic Lord crystal clear. It says:

Jehovah declared to my Lord:“Sit at my right handUntil I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”

Notice here that “Jehovah” (YHWH) is speaking to the messiah as “Lord” (adonai) and that the messianic Lord is clearly subordinate to God. That is how the early Christians distinguished between God and Jesus and is why this text fitted their purpose so well. This careful distinction is also maintained in Phil 2 where Jesus is given the title Lord “to the glory of God the Father.” God himself is not Lord “to the glory of another”. God is almighty in his own glory. Again this text clearly distinguishes Jesus from God and subordinates him to God.

In what sense is Jesus Lord? The NT itself says that Jesus is our Lord because he died and bought us with his blood. That makes Jesus our “owner” which is what his Lordship means in this context. This is spelled out in 2 Peter 2.1 and Jude 4. It is also the basis for the distinction between the honour due to God in Revelation 4 and the honour due to Jesus in Revelation 5. In Revelation 4 God is worthy of honour and glory because he is the one who lives forever, who created all things and because of his will they exist and were created. In chapter 5 Jesus, the lamb of God, is worthy of honour and glory because he died and gave his life that he might buy back humans from sin and death. So again, clearly, Jesus as the owner and Lord of saved humans is Lord in a very different sense from Jehovah who is the ever living God of creation.

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

slimboyfat

Who made the decision on this? Where is the “smoking gun?”

The people who are responsible for introducing nomina sacra into the text are likely the same ones who discontinued using the divine name.

When I mentioned the quality of the Leviticus fragment with Yaho, what I had in mind was Peitersma’s comment that “the Septuagintal credentials of [the manuscript] are well nigh impeccable”. I quote that from memory and I think that’s the exact phrase he used.

More importantly, if Christians were using the Tetragrammaton to call upon the God of Israel, it would have caused massive controversy.

There is a lot of evidence that ordinary use of the divine name in the form Yaho was widespread among ordinary Jews in the first century. See the many sources that indicate this in Frank Shaw’s book The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of IAW (2014).

Was It the Christians? If Christians systematically removed the Tetragrammaton, why did they replace it with Kyrios—a term already used for Jesus throughout the NT? This substitution only reinforces the NT’s high Christology, where Jesus is identified with the Lord of the OT (e.g., Romans 10:13 citing Joel 2:32).

Yes, because their theology had moved on from the monotheism of the NT toward a Trinitarian reading that incorporated Jesus in a triune God. Howard and Trobisch both explain this factor as important in the disappearance of the divine name from Christian texts. Here is Howard’s explanation:

Is there any way for us, at this late date, to calculate the effect which this change in the Bible had on the second century church? It is of course impossible to know with certainty, but the effect must have been significant. First, a number of passages must have taken on an ambiguity which the original lacked. For example, the second century church read, “The Lord said to my Lord” (Matthew 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42), a reading which is as ambiguous as it is imprecise. The first century church probably read, “YHWH said to my Lord.”
To the second century church, “Prepare the way of the Lord” (Mark 1:3) must have meant one thing, since it immediately followed the words: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” But to the First Century Church it must have meant something else since they read, “Prepare the way of YHWH.”
The second century church read 1 Corinthians 1:31, “The one who boasts, let him boast in the Lord,” which was probably considered a reference to Christ mentioned in verse 30. But to the first century church, it probably referred to God mentioned in verse 29 since they read, “The one who boasts let him boast in YHWH.”
These examples are sufficient to suggest that the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates kyrios and theos blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible to tell which one was meant. This is supported by the fact that in a number of places where Old Testament quotations are cited, there is a confusion in the manuscript tradition whether to read God or Christ in the discussion surrounding the quotation. Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate “Lord”, scribes were unsure whether “Lord” meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries.

See the rest of his article here.

https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/the-name-of-god-in-the-new-testament/

Trobisch argues similarly in his book, focussing on 2 Cor 3.14–18 as his example, and Luise Schottroff focuses on 1 Cor 2.16 to make a similar point.

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

slimboyfat

While scholars like Tov and Skehan argue for the originality of the Tetragrammaton their views are far from universally accepted. Their conclusions rely heavily on the limited evidence of fragments like P. Fouad 266.

Emanuel Tov and Patrick Skehan argued that Yaho was the original form of the divine name in the LXX, not YHWH or kyrios. They argued this on the basis of the good Septuagintal quality of the fragment containing Yaho in Leviticus (not P. Fouad 266) and the widespread use of Yaho in onomastica. To this can be added references to the normative use of Yaho among Jews and Christians by early Christian and Roman authors. You are correct there is evidence of diversity in the early LXX as argued by Frank Shaw and now also Anthony Meyer and others. Nevertheless, Tov and Skehan argued that Yaho was original and kyrios was a later form and Larry Hurtado latterly supported the view that kyrios only appeared in the LXX from the second century CE onwards.

Philo does refer to the divine name on the forehead of the high priest, knowledge of which some have argued he derived from copies of the LXX text.

There is evidence in the NT text of disruption around the use of the divine name in the high number of textual variants for kyrios and theos where the divine name originally appeared. This formed a key part of George Howard’s argument for the divine name in the NT, which other scholars such as Lloyd Gaston, David Trobisch, Frank Shaw, Luise Schottroff, and John McRay have supported. If the divine name did not appear in the original NT then is there an alternative explanation for the number of variants? The removal of the divine name also introduced ambiguity around the meaning of kyrios in texts such as Acts 1.24, 1 Cor 2.16 and Jude 5. Thus the original use of the divine name in the NT text resolves a number of problems including the persistent references to Yaho in various sources, textual variants in the NT text, and extraneous ambiguity surrounding the use of kyrios in various passages.