Posts by Earnest

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

aqwsed : Since, according to the majority of scholars, only Kyrios was in the original version of the Septuagint,...

In the T&T Clark Handbook of Septuagint Research, 2021, Patrick Skehan, Emanuel Tov and Eugene Ulrich all agree that the writing of the divine name as IAW in 4Q120 is more original than Kurios.

In Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert, p.8, Tov writes regarding 4Q120 :

This papyrus represents an early version of Greek Scripture, as shown by several unusual renderings, including the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton as Iaw, instead of its translation as kurios in the later Christian manuscripts of the Septuagint. 4QpapLXXLevb probably reflects a version antedating the text of the main manuscript tradition of the LXX.

aqwsed12345 : I don't know why you want to go back to the era of Judeo-Christianity and reproduce its theological climate.

Because that is when the New Testament was written and where we must go to establish the most likely original text.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

aqwsed : And importantly, the Talmudic text does not refer to "the divine name" but to "names of God" (plural), which does not necessarily refer to the Tetragrammaton.

Earlier you quoted Karl Georg Kuhn as arguing that

sifrei minim should be understood not as gospels but as Old Testament texts belonging to heterodox Jewish groups such as those at Qumran as well as to Jewish Christians; and gilyonim should be understood not as gospels but as Marginalia cut off from Biblical texts;

Are you seriously suggesting that these did not contain the tetragrammaton, or that "names of God" in these texts do not include THE name of God? Whether or not they pronounced it, we are talking about what was written, but there is evidence that the divine name was used by Jews in and around the first century as discussed in this thread earlier.

aqwsed : You don't get my argument: the very fact that SO MANY readings of the text have survived, just not [those containing God's name], proves [they didn't exist].

As far as we know, NO readings of the text have survived from the time the church was primarily Jewish. Put aside your fixation of a conspiracy and consider the first audience of the gospels, particularly Matthew, and letters like Hebrews and Jude. Let us just suppose that these writers used a form of God's name when quoting or alluding to the OT. If we look at copies of the LXX from that time, they had the tetragrammaton although they were written in Greek. Other copies had the Greek form of the name, IAW. Let us suppose that the writers quoting or alluding to the OT wrote down what they read. Of course, copies of these are made and circulated. After the destruction of the temple, the nature of the church changes from a predominantly Jewish church to a predominantly Gentile one. Now that the copyists are gentiles, they do not understand what the tetragrammaton is and so do the obvious thing and replace it with a word they know fits the context, usually Lord or God. Maybe this happened, maybe it didn't. But it is not surprising that among the texts copied more than a hundred years later the use of the tetragrammaton had died out. After all, that is exactly what happened with the LXX texts of the OT. And it did not require a conspiracy or a central church authority, it only required the change of the church from Jewish to Gentile.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

aqwsed : I think it follows from [textual variation] that there must have been "Jehovah" in all such places. Well, that's a pretty unscientific proposition.

Of course I never made that proposal. I was specifically addressing Jude vs 5 and was proposing 'Jehovah' as a possible cause of the variation in that verse. When addressing variation in a text there are certain common principles that can be observed but each text is different and it does not simply follow that the cause of variation will be the same. One common principle considered is whether the text contains a quotation of the Old Testament which includes God's name, and in these cases greater weight can be given to the probability that the use of God's name in some form by the writer gave rise to variation among the copyists. In the case of Jude vs 5 it alludes to Exodus 12:41 and Numbers 14:35, both of which contain God's name. When the reading ("Jesus") is "difficult to the point of impossibility" (UBS Committee) you have to consider what may have caused the variation. It is unlikely that a copyist would replace "God" or "Lord" with "Jesus" in a verse referring to God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt, which leaves you with the plausible option that the text contained God's name in a form that Greek copyists did not understand.

Regarding the passages in the Tosefta that specify that the gilyohnim and the books of the minim which contain the names of God do not have to be saved from fire, I accept that gilyohnim may not refer to the gospels specifically. You say that the books of the minim refers to the writings of the Jewish heretics (e.g. Sadducees, Nazoraeans, Samaritans etc.), but it is not clear why you exclude those Jewish heretics and their writings whose "heresy" was belief in Christ. At any rate, I am pleased to note that you now accept that the minim (whoever they were) did use the names of God in their books, which certainly included the tetragrammaton as the context shows.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : [The Samaritans, Essenes, Gnostics, etc.] were considered heterodox, heretics (minim). Of course, none of these used "Jehovah" in the manner of the Watchtower in the era of Christ, but don't let that bother you.

In the Tractate Sabbath the Tosefta lays down the rules for Jews to observe the sabbath. It makes an exception in certain instances, one of which is where sacred books are at risk of burning.

However, Shabath 13:5 says that in the case of the gospels (gilyohnim) and books of the minim, they "are not saved from fire; but one lets them burn together with the names of God written upon them. Rabbi Jose the Galilean says : On week days the names of God are cut out and hidden while the rest is burned. Rabbi Tarphon says that if they fall into my hands I shall burn them together with the names of God." It is unlikely that "names of God" does not include the most obvious name, the tetragrammaton.

Whoever the minim were, and quite likely they included Christians who had apostasized from Judaism, it does seem that they used the names of God in their writings in the era of Christ.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

aqwsed : And there is no difference in the fact that according to [the Watchtower] Jesus led the Jews out of Egypt, so they can have no problem with any of the readings of Jude 5.

Perhaps I was not clear in the point I have been making since you raised the matter of the "new reading" in NA28 of the name "Jesus" in Jude vs 5 here.

It is irrelevant whether or not the Watchtower has a problem with the reading of Jude 5. It is relevant that prior to NA28, the majority of the UBS Committee held that the use of "Jesus" in this verse was "difficult to the point of impossibility" even though it was supported by a number of manuscripts.

In the field of textual criticism, biblical scholars weigh up the textual variation in available manuscripts and try to determine what original text most likely explains the variation that followed. In Jude vs 5 there is a wealth of variation as follows :

παντα απαξ γαρ Ιησους — 1739mg

απαξ παντα οτι Ιησους — A B 33 81 2344 itdem,div vgmss (eth) Jerome

απαξ παντα οτι κυριος — Ephraem

απαξ τουτο οτι ο θεος — 5 623mg

απαξ παντα οτι ο θεος — Cc 623 2805 vgms (slav)

απαξ παντας οτι θεος Χριστος — 𝔓72*

απαξ παντα οτι θεος Χριστος — 𝔓72c

παντα οτι κυριος απαξ — א Ψ

παντα οτι ο κυριος απαξ — C* 307 326 431 436 453 630 808 1505 1611 2138 2200 2412 2495 syrh

παντα οτι ο θεος — Lucifer

παντα οτι ο θεος απαξ — 442 621 1243 1845 1846 2492 𝑙596 itp vgmss syrph arm geo Clementvid

παντα οτι Ιησους — Cyril

παντα οτι Ιησους απαξ — 6 93 322 323 665 1241 1501 1739 1881 2298 itar,c cop Origenper 1739

παντα οτι ο Ιησους απαξ — 88 915

απαξ οτι ο κυριος — 1409

απαξ τουτο οτι ο κυριος — L 049 18 35 61 104 181 254 307 326 330 431 436 451 453 629 808 (909) 945 1067 1175 1292 1678 1836 1837 1844 (1875) 1877 2127 2374 𝔐 Lectpt Ps-Oecumenius Theophylact

απαξ τουτο οτι Χριστος Ιησους — 1735 𝑙591

τουτο απαξ οτι ο κυριος — K 056 𝑙593

απαξ τουτο υμας οτι ο κυριος — 0142

As this thread is about "Jehovah in the NT" I pointed out that the textual confusion could have occurred because Jude originally used God's name in some form and subsequent copyists chose to replace it with an alternative. This is not suggesting any "conspiracy" which you go on about, but simple human nature who (in a possible scenario) come across the Hebrew tetragrammaton or the Greek PIPI (which Jerome mentions [Letter 25 to Marcella]) in the text and replaces it with something which makes more sense to them. If you think this scenario is unlikely, I am asking for thoughts on a more plausible text which would explain the variation that followed.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

aqwsed12345

Thank you for your thoughts about first-century Judaism and nascent Christianity which was far more variable than you suggest, but you fail to address the substance of my posts which have been about the textual variation of Jude vs 5 and how we can account for it. In addition, you have made no comment on how we can account for the unique reading of Jude vs 5 in P72 which occurs nowhere else even though it supports the Athanasian heresy.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

Earnest : How much more likely it is that God's name was used in some form and was subsequently replaced by whatever the copyists of various manuscripts could find to fit.
pizzahut2023 : The Tetragrammaton was certainly not in Jude 5. Nor anywhere in the NT.
Earnest : How do you know when the earliest manuscript evidence we have for Jude 5 is in the third/fourth century? And when the tetragrammaton or other forms of God's name occurs in all copies of the LXX prior to 200.
aqwsed12345 : Have you ever heard of the term "burden of proof"?

There would be a burden of proof if I had maintained that the textual variation of Jude vs 5 (regarding who saved Israel out of Egypt) proved that the original text contained God's name in some form. Instead I said it was more likely God's name was used as this explained the subsequent variation in manuscript tradition. On the other hand, pizzahut2023 was quite certain about what was not there in the original which we simply don't know.

pizzahut2023 : If we go by the EARLIEST manuscript evidence, then it's WORSE for your position because P72 says "God Christ"!!

P72, also known as Papyrus Bodmer VII, contains vss 1-25 and is the earliest witness we have for Jude. It was written in Egypt and dated to the late 3rd or early 4th century, a time when controversy about the identity of Christ was rife. James Royse, in his book on Scribal Habits in early Greek New Testament papyri, says (p.475) that "the significant percentage of nonsense readings in P72 and the very large percentage of singulars resulting from non-standard spelling show that the scribe of P72 was extraordinarily careless", and that the scribe "can also be seen to have increased the rate of production of nonsense as he went further with his copying".

What were the theological tendencies of this scribe? Marchant King, in his Notes on the Bodmer manuscript (Bibliotheca sacra 121, 1964, p.57), commented on three unique readings in P72 "giving evidence of the fullest acceptance of the deity of Christ by the scribe (or one of his predecessors) and the church in his area". These unique readings are 1 Peter 5:1 where it reads "the sufferings of God" (instead of Christ), 2 Peter 1:2 where it omits the word "and" after "God" so that it reads "in the knowledge of God our Lord Jesus", and Jude vs 5 where it reads "God Christ" as shown below.

This reading is unknown in any other manuscripts. It shows two things. First, that scribes had no qualms about correcting manuscripts to what they thought was meant, especially if there was some confusion in what was originally written (like, for example, a Hebrew word appearing in a Greek text). Secondly, it shows that there are texts we only know of by the chance survival of one papyrus in the Egyptian climate, so the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

pizzahut2023 : The Tetragrammaton it was certainly not in Jude 5.

How do you know when the earliest manuscript evidence we have for Jude 5 is in the third/fourth century? And when the tetragrammaton or other forms of God's name occurs in all copies of the LXX prior to 200.

Trinity believers may not see a difference if it's "Jesus", "The Lord", or "God", but the Jewish recipients of his letter at the time certainly would, being without the "benefit" of the development of the trinity doctrine hundreds of years later.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

aqwsed : it was this "Angel of the Lord" who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, led and protected them in the wilderness, gave them the law on Mount Sinai;

Your lengthy justification for the removal of God's name is interesting, but in the context of Jude vs 5 you seem to maintain that the manuscript support for "Jesus" is warranted as it was the "angel of the Lord" who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, and you identify that angel with the preincarnate "Jesus". Jehovah's Witnesses agree with much of what you say regarding the role Jesus played as the "angel of Jehovah (YHWH)" in his dealings with the patriarchs and the nation of Israel, and this is additional reason (not to digress) they accept the identification of him with the archangel Michael.

But you do not address the very obvious anomaly that the name "Jesus" is used in this context, where we are referring to a time when the only person with the name "Jesus" was Joshua (the Hebrew form of the Greek 'Jesus'), and the verse apparently does not refer to him. There is nowhere in scripture to suggest that the "angel of Jehovah" was known by the name 'Jesus' prior to his earthly existence. Which is why the UBS Committee was of the opinion that the reading ("Jesus") in this verse was difficult to the point of impossibility. How much more likely it is that God's name was used in some form and was subsequently replaced by whatever the copyists of various manuscripts could find to fit.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : It is worth considering one of the new readings of Nestle-Aland's latest 28th edition

I agree you have put the textual problem of Jude 5 clearly, but it was not a new reading. The first edition of the UBS Greek New Testament contained the reading "Jesus" in the text, but this was changed in the third edition when it was replaced with "Lord" in the text and "Jesus" in the margin. Now in NA28 they have returned "Jesus" to the text.

In his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger explains why "Lord" was preferred. He says the majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (as the nomen sacrum for "lord" (ΚΣ) can be mistaken for the nomen sacrum for "Jesus" (ΙΣ)). They observed that nowhere else does Jude employ the name "Jesus" alone and others have queried whether Jude would refer to "Jesus" as "saving Israel out of Egypt" at a time when he was not known by that name.

Verse 5 has a number of variations :

I desire to remind YOU, despite YOUR knowing all things once for all time, that [ ΚΣ (Lord) / OΚΣ (the Lord) / ΙΣ (Jesus) / ΘΣ (God) / ΘΣΧΣ (God Christ) ], although he saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those not showing faith.

with the following manuscript support :

Lord [ΚΣ] ... codex Sinaiticus (4th century), codex Athous Lavrensis (8th/9th century)

the Lord [OΚΣ] ... codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century), Syriac (7th century), codex Cyprius (9th century), codex Regius (13th century)

Jesus [ΙΣ] ... codex Alexandrinus (5th century), Vaticanus (4th century), minuscule 33 (9th century), miniscule 1739 (tenth century), miniscule 1881, Origen, Cyril, Jerome, Coptic

God [ΘΣ]... codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (2nd corrector), some Vulgate mss

God [the] Christ [ΘΣΧΣ] ... papyrus 72 (3rd/4th century)

All these variations suggest there was some confusion about the text, and the fact that "Lord" has no definite article in some manuscripts suggests it replaced a name. The original might have contained the name "Jesus" which many manuscripts support despite it being unlikely, but others have suggested that this textual confusion occurred because Jude originally used God's name in some form which is why NWT includes "Jehovah" in this verse.