aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 718 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  A Comparative Analysis of Theocratic Warfare, Mental Reservation, and Taqiyya

  The doctrines of theocratic warfare (Jehovah’s Witnesses), mental reservation (Catholicism), and taqiyya (Islam) address situations where truthfulness is withheld or altered under specific circumstances. Though they share some similarities, their theological frameworks, ethical boundaries, and applications differ significantly. This article examines each doctrine in detail, citing relevant sources and examples to illuminate how these teachings function in practice.

  1. Theocratic Warfare (Jehovah’s Witnesses)

  Theocratic warfare is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of withholding information or misrepresenting truth to protect their organization or its members. According to the Watchtower, June 1, 1960, p. 352, “as a soldier of Christ, he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God’s foes. Thus, the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God’s cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God’s enemies.”

  Theocratic warfare applies in situations where disclosing truth could endanger the organization or its members, such as during legal disputes or confrontations with governmental authorities. The Jehovah’s Witnesses define lying narrowly as “providing falsehood to a person entitled to know the truth” (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 245).

  If a Jehovah’s Witness is questioned about sensitive organizational activities by a government authority perceived as hostile, they might provide evasive or misleading answers to protect their community. For instance, in regions where their religion is banned, members might deny hosting religious gatherings.

  This practice has been criticized for undermining transparency and creating ethical inconsistencies. Critics argue that the doctrine fosters a double standard, allowing deceit under the guise of protecting “God’s cause” while holding others to a higher standard of truthfulness.

  2. Mental Reservation (Catholicism)

  Mental reservation is a Catholic theological concept that allows ambiguity or equivocation to balance the obligations of truthfulness and justice. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC, para. 2482), “a lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving,” but mental reservation permits avoiding a lie by employing ambiguous language under specific circumstances.

  Types

  1. Wide Mental Reservation: The ambiguity arises from the words themselves or the situation, without direct falsehood.

  2. Strict Mental Reservation: Involves mentally qualifying a statement to make it true for the speaker but misleading for the listener. This was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679.

  Mental reservation is permissible when protecting justice, confidentiality, or human life. For example, a priest maintaining the seal of confession may respond, “I don’t know” to inquiries about confessions, meaning “I don’t know in a communicable sense.”

  During World War II, Catholics hiding Jews from Nazis might have said, “There are no Jews here,” meaning “None here for you to harm.” This wide mental reservation avoids a direct lie while protecting lives. Catholic teaching maintains that its use is strictly limited to situations where justice or confidentiality demands it, emphasizing that outright deceit remains intrinsically evil.

  3. Taqiyya (Islam)

  Taqiyya, primarily a Shi’ite Islamic practice, permits concealing one’s faith or uttering falsehoods to protect life, property, or religion under persecution. It is rooted in Qur’anic injunctions such as Qur’an 3:28: “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers, unless you fear them as a precaution.”

  According to mainsteam Sunni Islamic understanding Taqiyya is only permissible in situations of extreme danger, particularly when a Muslim’s life or faith is at risk. Sunni Islam also acknowledges similar principles in rare cases, such as during warfare or to avoid persecution. Shi’ite Muslims under historical Sunni oppression often practiced taqiyya to avoid execution or forced conversion. For instance, during the Abbasid Caliphate, Shi’ites might have publicly professed Sunni beliefs while secretly adhering to Shi’ism.

  It is also recognized in Sunni jurisprudence in extreme circumstances (e.g., the miḥna under Caliph al-Ma’mun). There are some Hadiths and references related to the concept of taqiyya or its broader application, including dissimulation, deceit, and related practices in Islam. These are cited with the potential for application in justifying a broader use of dissimulation under specific conditions.

  A) "War is deceit." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith 269)

  Muhammad declared that deceit is permissible during warfare. This statement was made in the context of various incidents where strategic deception was used to gain an advantage over opponents. This Hadith is often cited to justify acts of deception in military or political contexts to protect or advance Islamic interests.

  B) "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 49, Hadith 857)

  Muhammad explicitly allowed lying for the sake of reconciliation between disputing parties. This creates a precedent for lying under the guise of a greater good, extending to situations where the cohesion of the Muslim community or personal safety is at stake.

  C) "Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief under compulsion, while his heart remains firm in faith, will be absolved." (Quran 16:106)

  This verse was revealed concerning instances where Muslims were forced to deny their faith under persecution. It explicitly allows verbal dissimulation of faith to protect oneself while maintaining inner belief.

  D) "Who will kill Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, who has hurt Allah and His Messenger?" Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered and said, "To kill him, I will need to deceive him." The Prophet said, "You may do so." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Hadith 369)

  Muhammad allowed deception to gain the trust of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, which led to his assassination. This event is frequently cited as a historical example of the permissibility of deceit against those perceived as enemies of Islam.

  E) "Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them." (Attributed to: Companion Abu Darda, cited in: Tafsir Ibn Kathir’s Commentary on Quran 3:28)

  This quote supports taqiyya in interactions with non-Muslims, advocating for outward friendliness while maintaining internal animosity. Encourages strategic dissimulation in interpersonal relations with non-Muslims when necessary.

  F) "If you ever make a promise or an oath and then find something better, you should expiate the oath and do what is better." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Hadith 260)

  This principle was applied in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, where Muhammad made a treaty with the Quraysh but later broke it when circumstances favored Muslims. Justifies breaking agreements or promises if it benefits the Muslim community.

  G) "If any of you ever pass gas during prayer, hold your nose and leave." (Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 1, Hadith 681)

  Muhammad instructed Muslims to use a form of subterfuge to avoid embarrassment during prayer. Provides a basis for using minor deceptions in daily life for self-preservation or dignity.

  H) "Whoever disbelieves in Allah after having believed, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with faith..." (Quran 16:106)

  This verse explicitly allows outward denial of faith under compulsion, a cornerstone for taqiyya. Allows Muslims to verbally conform to non-Muslim expectations to avoid persecution.

  I) "So do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are uppermost." (Quran 47:35)

  Peace treaties or conciliatory measures are only tactical and temporary, dependent on the Muslims’ strength relative to adversaries. Supports strategic truces as part of a broader agenda of eventual dominance.

  J) "War is a game of deception." (Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Hadith 6303)

  Echoing the permissibility of deceit in warfare, this reinforces the idea that misdirection is a legitimate tool in conflicts. Encourages misleading enemies about internal capabilities or intentions.

  Islamic scholars assert that it is restricted to life-threatening situations and is not a general dispensation for dishonesty.

  Comparison Table

  

  Application in Everyday Scenarios

  Scenario 1: A Hostile Interrogation

  · Jehovah’s Witness: Might evade or mislead to protect the organization, citing “God’s enemies”.

  · Catholic: Might employ wide mental reservation, saying something ambiguous but technically true.

  · Muslim: Might use taqiyya to deny their faith if persecution threatens their life.

  Scenario 2: Preserving Confidentiality

  · Jehovah’s Witness: Would prioritize theocratic interests, possibly withholding truth.

  · Catholic: Might use mental reservation to protect confidentiality without outright lying.

  · Muslim: Would likely not invoke taqiyya unless the situation involved imminent danger.

  Scenario 3: Defending Faith in Debate

  · Jehovah’s Witness: Might avoid disclosing controversial doctrines to protect the faith’s image.

  · Catholic: Would emphasize truthfulness, avoiding mental reservation.

  · Muslim: Taqiyya would not apply; honesty is expected unless under persecution.

  Conclusion

  Theocratic warfare, mental reservation, and taqiyya reflect each tradition’s priorities and historical circumstances.

  1. Jehovah’s Witnesses prioritize organizational protection but face criticism for potential ethical inconsistencies.

  2. Catholics uphold absolute truthfulness while allowing rare, carefully defined exceptions to protect justice and confidentiality.

  3. Muslims, particularly Shi’ites, permit taqiyya only under extreme duress, emphasizing its historical roots and limited scope.

  Understanding these doctrines requires careful consideration of their theological and practical contexts, as well as the ethical challenges they present.
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Hurtado maintains that the oral substitution of Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton predates the second century CE, being a dominant Jewish practice in the reading of the Scriptures. He also asserts that the routine scribal practice of writing Kyrios in LXX manuscripts developed in the second century CE, a timeframe that corresponds to broader textual standardization. Hurtado does not suggest that Christians introduced Kyrios into the LXX. Instead, he recognizes Kyrios as part of Jewish liturgical practice well before the Christian era, with Christian adoption reflecting continuity with Jewish traditions rather than a radical departure. Your Mischaracterization: You conflate Hurtado’s acknowledgment of a second-century scribal standardization with the claim that Kyrios was only introduced into the LXX at that time. This ignores Hurtado’s explicit emphasis on the earlier oral tradition and the diversity of scribal practices in pre-Christian Jewish manuscripts.

  Hurtado’s position is not a "stronger claim" than that of Tov and Skehan. Instead, Hurtado builds on evidence that Kyrios functioned as an oral substitute from early on, irrespective of its later dominance in written texts. Tov and Skehan focus on the scribal preservation of the Tetragrammaton, which is compatible with the idea that Kyrios was used orally alongside written forms like ΙΑΩ or the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.

  Hurtado acknowledges the variety of practices in early Jewish manuscripts, including the use of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, ΙΑΩ, and other forms. His argument is not that Kyrios was the exclusive rendering of YHWH in the pre-Christian period but that it was the dominant oral substitute. This diversity is evident in manuscripts. Hurtado’s recognition of this diversity does not contradict his argument about the widespread oral use of Kyrios before the second century.

  Hurtado does not support the idea that Christians were responsible for introducing Kyrios into the LXX. Instead, he attributes its use to Jewish scribal and liturgical practices, which were later inherited by Christians. The dominance of Kyrios in Christian manuscripts reflects continuity with Jewish practices, as evidenced by the widespread oral substitution of Kyrios for YHWH in pre-Christian Jewish worship.

  The summary provided by ChatGPT is broadly accurate, though it simplifies some nuances. It correctly highlights, that according to certain scholars that original rendering of YHWH in the LXX was likely the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters or transliterated forms like ΙΑΩ. Kyrios became dominant over time, reflecting Jewish liturgical practices that substituted Adonai for YHWH when read aloud. Christian manuscripts standardized Kyrios, continuing Jewish traditions. This aligns with Hurtado’s position and the broader scholarly consensus that Kyrios was not a Christian innovation but a development rooted in Jewish practice.
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Hurtado’s statement refers specifically to the routine written replacement of the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios in Greek manuscripts. He does not claim that the oral substitution of Kyrios for YHWH began in the second century. In fact, Hurtado explicitly states that the oral substitution of Kyrios predates the second century CE and was already the dominant practice among Greek-speaking Jews long before this time. To quote Hurtado directly (from the very blog post you cited):

  “When reading the Greek OT it appears that the dominant practice was to substitute the Greek term Kyrios for YHWH.”

  This means that Kyrios was already being used as the spoken equivalent for YHWH in Jewish liturgical and scriptural contexts prior to the second century. The reference to the second century pertains to when Kyrios became the standardized written form in Greek LXX manuscripts, replacing the previously used Hebrew script for the Tetragrammaton. Hurtado’s discussion distinguishes between two practices:

  1. Oral Substitution: Substituting Kyrios for YHWH in Jewish readings and teachings, which predates the second century CE.
  2. Written Replacement: The formal practice of writing Kyrios in place of the Tetragrammaton in manuscripts, which became routine in the second century CE.

  This distinction aligns perfectly with the historical evidence. Pre-Christian Jewish manuscripts, such as Papyrus Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr, use the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew or transliterated forms like ΙΑΩ, reflecting diversity in written practices. However, the oral substitution of Kyrios was already widespread, and Hurtado affirms this repeatedly.

  You claim my distinction between “routinely written” and “use as a rendering” is meaningless, yet this distinction is crucial. Allow me to clarify:

  • "Use as a rendering" refers to the theological and liturgical practice of substituting Kyrios for YHWH when referring to the divine name.
  • "Routinely written" refers to the scribal decision to standardize the replacement of YHWH with Kyrios in Greek manuscripts, as opposed to retaining the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script.

  Hurtado’s point is that while the written use of Kyrios became fully standardized in the second century CE, the oral substitution of Kyrios for YHWH predates this by several centuries. This is not an attempt to misrepresent Hurtado; it is a precise reading of his nuanced argument.

  You claim my position is analogous to ChatGPT producing meaningless "arguments" against an established fact, such as Paris being the capital of France. This comparison is flawed. Unlike the undisputed fact of Paris being the capital of France, Hurtado’s discussion of Kyrios involves subtle distinctions between oral and written practices. It is not a simple black-and-white matter. I was not attempting to deny Hurtado’s statements but rather to explain them accurately. Your interpretation collapses oral and written practices into a single event, ignoring Hurtado’s distinction.

  You attempt to conflate Hurtado’s discussion of Kyrios with the claims of Skehan, Tov, and others about ΙΑΩ. However as noted, Hurtado affirms that Kyrios was already dominant az least as the spoken substitute for YHWH before the second century CE. The isolated presence of ΙΑΩ in fragments like 4Q120 reflects regional or sectarian practices rather than a universal standard. Even Tov acknowledges this diversity, emphasizing that the Old Greek (LXX) tradition accommodated different scribal practices without standardization. The overwhelming dominance of Kyrios in extant manuscripts, particularly those used and cited by early Christians, demonstrates that Kyrios became the primary rendering of YHWH in both Jewish and Christian traditions.
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  Emanuel Tov’s position on 4Q120 and ΙΑΩ requires a nuanced understanding. Tov acknowledges the presence of ΙΑΩ in certain early fragments but explicitly refrains from generalizing this as the original or universal practice of the LXX translators. For example in his "Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research," Tov argues that the use of ΙΑΩ or the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew within Greek manuscripts reflects textual diversity, not uniformity. This diversity suggests localized practices, and Tov states that such forms represent variant traditions, rather than the original text of the LXX. Furthermore, 4Q120 does not prove that ΙΑΩ was the standard rendering of YHWH in the LXX. It is a single fragmentary manuscript reflecting one regional practice, and its use of ΙΑΩ aligns with Egyptian Jewish scribal customs rather than a universal LXX tradition. If you believe otherwise, you need to cite where Tov explicitly equates ΙΑΩ with a universal and original stage of the LXX translation. His consistent emphasis on textual diversity and recensional tendencies undermines the claim that ΙΑΩ was the original form used across all LXX texts. While Tov claims that 4Q120 reflects the "Old Greek" tradition of Leviticus, this does not imply that ΙΑΩ was the universal or exclusive rendering of YHWH. Instead, it demonstrates that the Old Greek tradition allowed for varied treatment of the divine name, with Κύριος being dominant in other Alexandrian texts. By the way, Patrick W. Skehan describes 4Q120 "as a considerable reworking of the original LXX to make it conform both in quantity and in diction to a Hebrew consonantal text nearly indistinguishable [...] from that of MT.

  Philo’s treatment of the divine name is highly relevant because Philo, as a representative of Alexandrian Judaism, consistently uses Κύριος when quoting the LXX, reflecting the dominant practice of Greek-speaking Jews in his time. His avoidance of ΙΑΩ or YHWH in transliteration further undermines the claim that these were standard in the LXX. If ΙΑΩ were the universal rendering, it is inexplicable that Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish scholar, never uses it in his extensive corpus. Philo’s silence on ΙΑΩ supports the conclusion that Κύριος was already the standard and dominant rendering of YHWH in the LXX by the first century CE.

  The development of the nomina sacra does not indicate a conspiracy to obscure YHWH. Instead the nomina sacra, such as ΚΣ for Κύριος and ΘΣ for Theos, emerged as a Christian scribal practice emphasizing reverence for sacred names. This practice aligns with earlier Jewish traditions of avoiding the pronunciation of YHWH and substituting it with Adonai in Hebrew or Κύριος in Greek. The consistent use of the nomina sacra across early Christian manuscripts demonstrates that Κύριος was already established as the rendering for YHWH in both Jewish and Christian texts. There is no evidence of a conspiracy to "replace" YHWH with Κύριος. The uniformity of Κύριος in LXX and NT manuscripts reflects continuity, not alteration. The lack of transitional evidence cuts both ways. If Κύριος were a later addition, we would expect to find manuscripts showing mixed usage of Κύριος and YHWH/ΙΑΩ, and historical records documenting the alleged replacement of YHWH with Κύριος. However, such evidence is entirely absent. The consistent use of Κύριος in extant manuscripts suggests that it was the standard rendering from the outset. Conversely, the isolated presence of ΙΑΩ and the Tetragrammaton in a handful of manuscripts reflects localized or revisionist practices, not the original LXX tradition.

  ---

  @slimboyfat

  While Skehan and others argue that ΙΑΩ represents an early transliteration of the divine name, they do not claim that this was the universal or exclusive form in the LXX. Instead, they acknowledge regional diversity in rendering the divine name, with ΙΑΩ being a localized transliteration tied to Egyptian Jewish communities. Skehan’s broader textual studies highlight that Κύριος emerged as the dominant rendering in the Greek-speaking Jewish world due to its alignment with the oral tradition of substituting Adonai for YHWH. Moreover, Eugene Ulrich’s work also supports the idea of textual diversity, emphasizing that the Tetragrammaton (in Hebrew script) and ΙΑΩ reflect specific scribal tendencies rather than the universal form of the LXX. Your claim oversimplifies their positions and ignores their acknowledgment of the dominance of Κύριος in the extant LXX manuscript tradition, particularly as preserved and transmitted by early Christian communities.

  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. In the same blog post, Hurtado affirms that "the dominant practice" among Greek-speaking Jews before the second century CE was to substitute Κύριος for YHWH orally when reading the LXX. This directly supports the idea that Κύριος functioned as the standard rendering of YHWH even before the second century CE. Hurtado acknowledges the presence of manuscripts that retain YHWH in Hebrew characters (e.g., Paleo-Hebrew), but he emphasizes that these reflect one particular scribal practice rather than the norm. His statement "Kyrios was used without the definite article to function as if it were a name" shows that the LXX translators and users treated Κύριος as a theological equivalent of YHWH. Thus, your attempt to portray Hurtado as supporting a second-century introduction of Κύριος into the LXX misreads his argument. He affirms that Κύριος predates this period as an established substitution for YHWH.
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  1. Why "Must" ΙΑΩ Reflect Later Revisions?

  The statement that ΙΑΩ and the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton reflect later revisions rather than the original translation practice is not an unsupported assertion but a conclusion grounded in the following evidence:

  Manuscripts like 4Q120, P. Fouad 266, and others that contain ΙΑΩ or the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton represent specific textual traditions that do not align with the dominant manuscript tradition of the LXX. 4Q120 (Leviticus) reflects a regional transliteration practice, likely aimed at preserving the phonetic sound of YHWH for a specific audience. This does not mean it was the standard rendering across the broader Jewish or Alexandrian communities. P. Fouad 266, with the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew, shows evidence of a revisionist tendency to reintroduce the Hebrew form into Greek texts, likely for liturgical reasons. Emanuel Tov himself acknowledges this in his work on the Kaige recension, which aimed to align Greek texts more closely with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew.

  Scholars like Anneli Aejmelaeus and Emanuel Tov highlight that the diversity in rendering the Tetragrammaton reflects later textual developments and recensional efforts, particularly among Jewish scribes who sought to preserve the Hebrew form in certain contexts. Tov notes that while ΙΑΩ may appear in some fragmental early manuscripts, its usage is localized and sporadic, not indicative of the broader Alexandrian Jewish tradition that gave us the Septuagint.

  The overwhelming majority of extant Greek manuscripts, including Christian LXX texts, consistently use κύριος. This uniformity strongly suggests that κύριος was the standard rendering from the outset, even if regional or sectarian variants like ΙΑΩ existed. If ΙΑΩ had been the original rendering, we would expect to see it in more manuscripts, including those used and transmitted by early Christians. Instead, the manuscript tradition overwhelmingly attests to the dominance of κύριος.

  So the assertion that ΙΑΩ reflects later revisions is not an unsubstantiated claim but a conclusion drawn from the broader textual and historical evidence. The diversity of renderings (e.g., ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew YHWH) represents localized practices or recensional efforts rather than the original translational standard.

  2. Addressing Skehan, Tov, and Hurtado

  Your claim that Skehan and Tov concluded that ΙΑΩ was original is an oversimplification of their positions.

  While Tov acknowledges that manuscripts like 4Q120 may reflect an early stage of the Septuagint tradition, he does not argue that ΙΑΩ was universally or originally used. Instead, he emphasizes the diversity of practices and the likelihood of later revisions aimed at preserving the sacred name. Tov’s work on the Kaige recension demonstrates that efforts to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton or its transliteration were part of a broader attempt to align Greek texts with the Hebrew Masoretic tradition. This supports the idea that ΙΑΩ and the Tetragrammaton reflect revisionist tendencies, not the original translation.

  Skehan's views on ΙΑΩ are rooted in the recognition of its sporadic and localized usage. He does not dismiss the predominance of κύριος in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Skehan’s arguments must be understood in the context of his broader textual analysis, which acknowledges the coexistence of multiple practices without asserting that ΙΑΩ was universally original.

  The claim that Hurtado concluded κύριος entered the LXX only in the second century CE is inaccurate. Hurtado’s actual position is more nuanced. Hurtado discusses the development of the nomina sacra (κύριος → ΚΣ, θεός → ΘΣ) in early Christian manuscripts as a scribal practice emphasizing reverence for divine names. This practice, while well-established by the second century CE, does not imply that κύριος itself was a late addition to the LXX. It should also not be overlooked that the nomina sacra are already present in the earliest NT MSS, and we don't have a single MS at all that does not not use them. Hurtado’s work supports the idea that κύριος was already in place in the Jewish Septuagint tradition and was later abbreviated as ΚΣ in Christian manuscripts. Hurtado’s analysis of New Testament texts demonstrates that early Christians identified Jesus as κύριος in continuity with the LXX’s use of κύριος for YHWH. This identification would have been impossible if κύριος had not been the standard rendering in the LXX.

  3. The Manuscript Evidence: ΙΑΩ vs. κύριος

  The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supports the primacy of κύριος as the standard rendering of YHWH in the LXX. Extant LXX manuscripts, including those used and cited by early Christians, consistently use κύριος to render YHWH or ΙΑΩ. This uniformity cannot be dismissed as a later Christian innovation, as it predates the Christian era. Manuscripts containing ΙΑΩ (e.g., 4Q120) are rare and reflect specific textual traditions, not the broader Jewish or Alexandrian practice. The appearance of ΙΑΩ in magical texts and onomastica further highlights its niche usage. Philo, a contemporary of the early Christian era, consistently avoids the Tetragrammaton and never uses ΙΑΩ, despite his extensive use of the LXX. This silence strongly suggests that ΙΑΩ was not a widespread or dominant rendering in the LXX tradition.

  If we accept the claim that κύριος was a second-century CE "addition" to the LXX, several logical problems arise:

  1. Who Made the Decision? There is no evidence of a centralized decision or conspiracy to replace YHWH or ΙΑΩ with κύριος. At the time when the LXX was translated, there was no universal Jewish or Christian authority capable of enforcing such a change.
  2. Why Is There No Transitional Evidence? If κύριος replaced ΙΑΩ, we would expect to find manuscripts showing mixed usage or transitional forms. Instead, the manuscript tradition consistently attests to κύριος as the rendering of YHWH.
  3. Why Did Early Christians Adopt κύριος? Early Christians inherited the LXX as their authoritative Scripture and used κύριος to identify Jesus with YHWH. This continuity suggests that κύριος was already established as the standard rendering in the LXX.
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Too bad you can't give a meaningful answer to 99% of my argument.

  My initial argument acknowledges that Shaw demonstrates the wider historical use of ΙΑΩ in onomastica, Jewish texts, and magical papyri. However, this does not automatically equate to widespread liturgical usage, especially within canonical contexts like the LXX. Shaw’s emphasis on diversity and localized practices supports the idea that ΙΑΩ was one of many renderings in circulation, but not necessarily dominant in formal Jewish liturgical or scriptural contexts. Shaw himself writes that the evidence for ΙΑΩ is diverse and scattered, often appearing in contexts like personal names, magical texts, and marginal Jewish traditions, which does not refute the centrality of κύριος in mainstream Jewish liturgical practice.

  Shaw acknowledges that ΙΑΩ reflects an attempt to transliterate the divine name phonetically into Greek. However, the Septuagint translators prioritized theological and functional equivalence over phonetic representation, resulting in κύριος as the respectful substitution. This aligns with the established Jewish practice of using "Adonai" in oral recitation of the Tetragrammaton. Shaw’s work does not negate the overwhelming manuscript evidence showing κύριος as the dominant rendering in extant Septuagint texts, especially those preserved and transmitted by Jewish and early Christian communities.

  Shaw critiques Pietersma's position that κύριος was uniformly original to the Septuagint but does not provide definitive evidence that ΙΑΩ was the primary rendering. Instead, Shaw highlights the diversity of practices and manuscript traditions, suggesting that various forms (including ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew YHWH, and κύριος) coexisted in different regions or communities. My argument that manuscripts containing ΙΑΩ (e.g., 4Q120) likely reflect localized or revisionist traditions rather than the original LXX rendering aligns with Shaw’s acknowledgment of regional diversity.

  Shaw emphasizes that ΙΑΩ had a “widespread” non-mystical use in certain contexts but does not argue that it was widely accepted in formal Jewish worship or canonical scripture readings. The theological reverence for the divine name likely influenced the choice of κύριος as a liturgical substitute, consistent with Philo of Alexandria’s writings and the broader Jewish tradition of avoiding the Tetragrammaton’s pronunciation.

  While Shaw critiques oversimplifications in traditional scholarship, he ultimately concedes that the historical reconstruction of the LXX’s original form is complex and inconclusive. However, the overwhelming dominance of κύριος in early Christian LXX manuscripts and citations in the New Testament suggests its primacy in liturgical and scriptural use.

  My argument is not that ΙΑΩ was unknown or marginal, but that its specific appearance in texts like magical amulets, niche Jewish traditions, or non-canonical settings does not establish it as the dominant rendering in the Septuagint’s liturgical context. Shaw’s work supports the idea of textual diversity but does not provide evidence that overturns the widespread use of κύριος in Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions.

  Your objection may stem from conflating Shaw’s demonstration of ΙΑΩ’s broader historical use with a claim of its dominance in the Septuagint. Shaw’s work, while valuable for understanding diversity, does not contradict my point that κύριος remained the standard rendering in Jewish and Christian liturgical texts.

  ---

  @Earnest

  Claim: Emanuel Tov, alongside Stegemann and Skehan, views ΙΑΩ as reflecting the earliest stage of the LXX translation, not a later revision.

  Emanuel Tov does indeed assert that ΙΑΩ may represent an early transliteration of YHWH in some texts, but this does not establish it as the universal or original practice of the LXX translators. Several critical points weaken this claim. The presence of ΙΑΩ in 4Q120 reflects a localized or sectarian variant, not a uniform or universal translational strategy. Anneli Aejmelaeus has argued that early LXX translations, particularly those predating the Kaige recension, displayed considerable diversity in translation strategies. This diversity includes ΙΑΩ as a phonetic transliteration but does not negate κύριος as the more systematic and widespread practice.

  The use of ΙΑΩ appears primarily in fragments with sectarian characteristics, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 4Q120). These communities often sought to preserve the sacredness of the divine name, diverging from mainstream Hellenistic Jewish communities that adhered to oral substitution (Adonai → Kyrios). As Tov and others point out, later revisions or corrections inserted ΙΑΩ or the Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton into Greek texts for liturgical or theological reasons.

  Christian LXX manuscripts, which represent the dominant textual tradition, overwhelmingly use κύριος. This strongly suggests that κύριος was the standard rendering in the original translations, even if exceptions like ΙΑΩ existed in sectarian or regional contexts. The predominance of κύριος in manuscripts used by both Jews and Christians further supports its originality as the default rendering of YHWH in Greek.

  Claim: There is no evidence of a transition from YHWH/ΙΑΩ to κύριος in NT manuscripts. The absence of transitional evidence undermines the idea of κύριος replacing the Tetragrammaton.

  The NT manuscripts we possess (dating to the 2nd century CE and later) consistently use κύριος or θεός. This uniformity is not evidence of a sudden replacement but rather reflects the established textual tradition that early Christians inherited from the LXX. If YHWH/ΙΑΩ had been used in NT texts, some transitional evidence should exist, such as manuscripts with mixed usage. However, no such manuscripts have been discovered, undermining the claim that a systematic replacement occurred.

  The introduction of nomina sacra (e.g., KY for κύριος) in early Christian manuscripts aligns with broader scribal practices of reverence but does not imply that κύριος was absent before this development. The absence of transitional evidence for KY (κύριος) mirrors the broader absence of transitional evidence for any competing terms like ΙΑΩ. This further supports the argument that κύριος was the dominant rendering in pre-Christian LXX manuscripts.

  The claim that the NT’s use of κύριος arose to distance Christianity from Judaism is speculative and unsupported by textual or historical evidence. Early Christians explicitly identified Jesus with the κύριος of the LXX (e.g., Philippians 2:11, quoting Isaiah 45:23), suggesting continuity rather than a departure from Jewish tradition. The universal use of κύριος in Christian LXX manuscripts cannot be dismissed as a mere "Christian innovation." Several historical and theological factors support its originality. The choice of κύριος in the LXX aligns with the theological goal of portraying God as the sovereign ruler of all creation (ho Kyrios tēs oikoumenēs). This universalist emphasis is a hallmark of the LXX and is absent from transliterations like ΙΑΩ, which lack such theological nuance. Early Christians inherited the LXX as their authoritative Scripture. Their use of κύριος reflects continuity with Jewish tradition rather than a departure from it. The association of κύριος with both God (YHWH) and Jesus in the NT highlights its centrality in early Christian theology and its roots in the LXX.

  The theological hostility displayed by Jehovah’s Witnesses in accusing early Christianity of deliberately “corrupting” Scripture by substituting the Tetragrammaton with κύριος or abbreviating sacred names (nomina sacra) is both historically unfounded and theologically unwarranted. Their willingness to portray Judaism as a more faithful preserver of the Scriptures while suspecting proto-orthodox Christianity of all forms of malice reflects a deeply flawed understanding of textual history and early Christian scribal practices. Far from being a malicious attempt to hide or distort theological truths, the use of nomina sacra was motivated by reverence for sacred names and reflects early Christian scribal practices rooted in Jewish traditions.

  The nomina sacra were abbreviations of divine titles and names in early Christian manuscripts, such as κυριος (Lord), θεος (God), Ιησους (Jesus), and Χριστος (Christ). These abbreviations were marked with a horizontal line above the letters to signify their sacred nature. Far from being a clandestine effort to suppress theological truths or obscure the divine name, the nomina sacra were a deliberate act of reverence.

  As Bruce Metzger highlights, the nomina sacra were not invented to save space but were intended to express respect and veneration for divine names. The unique formatting—using generous spacing and overlines—emphasized their sacred significance. The systematic application of nomina sacra to sacred terms alone (e.g., distinguishing "spirit" from "Spirit") demonstrates that this was an exegetical decision made with theological precision.

  The Jewish oral tradition of substituting “Adonai” for YHWH in Scripture readings influenced the Greek rendering of YHWH as κύριος in the Septuagint. Early Christians, inheriting the Septuagint, naturally retained this substitution while introducing the nomina sacra as a further sign of reverence. The use of sacred abbreviations in Jewish contexts, such as the Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton in Greek manuscripts like P. Fouad 266, indicates that the concept of reverence-driven abbreviation was not uniquely Christian but had roots in Jewish textual practices.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses allege that the use of κύριος and the nomina sacra reflect an intentional effort by early Christians to “obscure” the divine name (YHWH) and introduce heretical theology. This claim is unfounded for several reasons. Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently argue that the substitution of YHWH with κύριος in Christian manuscripts reflects a coordinated effort by later ecclesiastical authorities, possibly the papacy. However the papacy as a powerful institution did not exist in its developed form until the 4th century, and no ecumenical council addressed the issue of divine names in Scripture. The nomina sacra practice predates such developments, as evidenced by their appearance in manuscripts from the 2nd century CE, well before the rise of formal ecclesiastical hierarchies. The use of κύριος in the LXX predates Christianity itself, making any alleged “decision” irrelevant.

  It is entirely plausible that the apostles themselves initiated the use of κύριος and the nomina sacra. Early Christian communities sought to honor sacred names, and the consistent appearance of nomina sacra across widespread regions suggests that this practice originated during the apostolic era. If the apostles used κύριος in place of YHWH, as suggested by their extensive quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament, this further validates the practice as rooted in Christian orthodoxy.

  The nomina sacra were not a suppression of truth but an elevation of sacred terms. Reducing the practice to a conspiratorial effort ignores the cultural and theological motivations behind it. The absence of YHWH or ΙΑΩ in Christian manuscripts is not evidence of suppression but reflects the broader Jewish reluctance to pronounce or write the divine name, a tradition the early Christians respected and continued.

  The universal use of κύριος and its abbreviation (ΚΣ) in Christian manuscripts suggests that no transition was needed because κύριος had already been firmly established in the Greek text of the Septuagint before Christianity adopted it. If there had been a conspiracy to replace YHWH with κύριος, we would expect evidence of resistance or debate in early Christian writings. Instead, the use of κύριος is universally accepted without controversy.

  The nomina sacra safeguarded sacred names from profane use while making their reverence explicit in written texts. Far from obscuring theological truths, they highlighted the centrality of these terms in Christian worship and theology. The consistent use of nomina sacra in Greek, Latin, Coptic, and other manuscript traditions reflects the early Christian commitment to preserving the sacred in a universally recognizable way. The contraction of sacred names mirrors theological themes in Scripture, such as Christ being “the Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 22:13), reflecting the divine completeness of the names abbreviated in the nomina sacra.

  The accusations by Jehovah’s Witnesses that the early Christians maliciously replaced YHWH with κύριος and introduced the nomina sacra to suppress the divine name are historically and theologically baseless. The evidence shows that:

  • The use of κύριος and the nomina sacra was motivated by reverence, not deception.
  • These practices reflect a continuity with Jewish traditions of substituting the divine name and elevate, rather than obscure, theological truths.
  • The uniformity of κύριος in Christian manuscripts and its adoption in New Testament writings underscores its centrality in early Christian worship and belief.

  The argument made by Jehovah’s Witnesses about the alleged "conspiracy" to replace the Tetragrammaton with κύριος in early Christian texts mirrors the Islamic claim of Tahrif al-Nass—the corruption of the text of the Bible. This comparison is worth exploring, as it highlights the weaknesses in such claims and the historical and textual evidence that refutes them. In Islamic thought, particularly among certain Muslim apologists, Tahrif al-Nass refers to the belief that the original text of the Bible (Torah, Psalms, and Gospel) has been corrupted or altered by Jews and Christians to conceal the true message of God. This claim often lacks specific historical or textual evidence and is based on the Qur’an's allegations (e.g., Surah 2:75-79), which accuse the People of the Book of concealing or miswriting portions of scripture.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the original New Testament and Septuagint manuscripts contained YHWH (or ΙΑΩ) and that these were deliberately replaced with κύριος by proto-orthodox Christians. This, they allege, was done to obscure the divine name and replace it with a generic title. The similarity to Tahrif al-Nass lies in the accusation of deliberate tampering for theological purposes. There is no historical or manuscript evidence supporting the idea of a conspiracy to systematically alter sacred texts. Neither Islamic apologists nor Jehovah’s Witnesses provide specific instances of textual replacement or transitional manuscripts that show mixed usage (e.g., some portions with YHWH and others with κύριος). Both accuse early Christians or Jews of acting with deliberate theological deceit, which contradicts the textual and historical realities of how sacred texts were transmitted.

  Both Jehovah’s Witnesses and Islamic proponents of Tahrif al-Nass face a similar logical problem: if their accusations are true, why is there no transitional evidence or record of controversy or debate over the alleged alterations? If YHWH or ΙΑΩ were systematically replaced with κύριος, why are there no historical records or transitional manuscripts showing partial replacements? Why did early Christians adopt the Septuagint (which they inherited from Jews) without resistance, even though it consistently used κύριος? If Jews or Christians corrupted the Bible, why do we have no historical evidence of such changes in the manuscript tradition? Ironically, the Qur’an itself affirm the reliability of Jewish and Christian scriptures in several verses.

  The accusations by Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Islamic apologists parallel one another in their reliance on unsubstantiated claims of textual corruption and theological tampering. However, both claims are refuted by the overwhelming manuscript evidence, the historical continuity of scribal traditions, and the logical inconsistencies inherent in their arguments.

  • In the case of nomina sacra, the evidence demonstrates that the use of κύριος and its abbreviation as ΚΣ was an act of reverence rooted in Jewish and Christian traditions, not a deliberate erasure of the divine name.
  • Similarly, the Islamic claim of Tahrif al-Nass ignores the textual consistency of the biblical manuscripts and fails to provide historical evidence for systematic corruption.

  The historical record overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the sacred texts of both the Old and New Testaments were preserved faithfully, and practices like the use of nomina sacra reflect reverence and continuity rather than tampering or conspiracy.
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Jehovah’s Witnesses Terminology: A Critical Analysis of Apostasy and Misuse of the Concept

  The terminology employed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (commonly known as Jehovah’s Witnesses) reflects not only their theological position but also their deep-seated anti-Catholic bias. This article critically examines their usage of the term apostasy, juxtaposes it with its traditional Christian, especially Catholic, understanding, and contrasts it with heresy. Furthermore, it explores the misuse of the term apostate by Jehovah’s Witnesses, drawing parallels to the takfiri rhetoric in radical Islam, and how this undermines their claim to intellectual and theological legitimacy. Jehovah’s Witnesses categorize all non-Witness Christian denominations as part of the "Great Apostasy," equating them with spiritual defection. This view, while internally consistent with their theological worldview, highlight their exclusivist rhetoric and offer a clear basis for evaluating their terminology.

  The Christian Understanding of Apostasy and Heresy

  In traditional Christian theology, the term apostasy refers to the complete renunciation of the Christian faith by someone who was previously a believer. It is derived from the Greek word apostasia, meaning “to stand away from” or “defection.” Apostasy is a significant act of rebellion against God, marked by a deliberate abandonment of the Christian identity. For instance, a baptized Christian converting to Islam, Buddhism, or atheism is considered an apostate.

  Heresy, on the other hand, refers to the denial or distortion of specific tenets of Christian doctrine while maintaining an overall Christian identity. Historically, figures like Arius or Pelagius were labeled heretics for their doctrinal deviations, yet they never renounced Christianity outright. The Catholic Church, while condemning heresies, did not consider heretics as apostates unless they formally renounced the Christian faith altogether.

  This distinction underscores the nuanced understanding of theological errors within Christianity: apostasy represents a complete departure, while heresy is a deviation from orthodoxy.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses Misuse of Apostasy

  Jehovah’s Witnesses use the term apostasy far more broadly and indiscriminately. They apply it not only to individuals who leave their movement but also to all other Christian denominations. This is evident in their literature, where the “Great Apostasy” is described as the supposed “corruption” of Christianity that began right after the apostolic age, culminating in the establishment of "Christendom" (a term they use pejoratively to refer to all non-Witness Christian groups).

  By conflating apostasy with heresy, Jehovah’s Witnesses make a fundamental theological error. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians who profess belief in Christ and adhere to core Christian doctrines, even if differing in interpretation, are not apostates under the traditional definition. Labeling them as such is not only terminologically incorrect but also polemically divisive. It disregards centuries of Christian theological discourse and creates an exclusivist narrative where only Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered true Christians.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses define apostasy broadly to encompass any deviation from what they consider "true worship." Their Insight on the Scriptures explains apostasy as a "rebellion against Jehovah God and a departure from true worship." (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 126) This definition sets the stage for their labeling of all other Christian groups as apostates, even those who maintain their belief in Christ and the Bible.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses consider all of "Christendom"—not just certain groups or movements—part of apostasy. According ot the Jehovah’s Witnesses, right after the death of Christ’s apostles, a "Great Apostasy" took root. It flourished in the form of "Christendom", which "adopted" "pagan "beliefs and practices, creating what the according to them Bible calls 'Babylon the Great.' For them every branch of Christianity outside the Witnesses’ organization is considered part of an overarching apostasy

  By claiming that "true Christianity" was effectively dormant for centuries until the emergence of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the organization positions itself as the sole custodian of authentic Christian worship. This leaves no room for recognizing the faith of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or Protestants, all of whom are lumped together under the banner of "apostasy".

  A critical linguistic distinction in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rhetoric is their use of "Christendom" instead of Christianity. In their publications, "Christendom" is consistently used to refer to all Christian denominations outside of their organization, emphasizing their deviation from what Jehovah’s Witnesses define as true Christianity. This distinction is strategic, as it enables them to delegitimize other denominations without engaging directly with their theological claims. They claim that the "true Christians" are separate from "Christendom", which is steeped in "apostasy" and "false worship", and emphasise that "Christendom’s" practices are not just errors; they are "rebellion" against God. By framing other denominations as part of "Christendom," they subtly assert that these groups are fundamentally distinct from "true Christians," who are, by their definition, only Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  The Anti-Catholic Bias in the Misuse of Apostasy

  The Watchtower Society’s anti-Catholic rhetoric plays a significant role in their misuse of apostasy. By using apostate instead of heretic, they aim to evoke stronger negative connotations, tapping into the broader cultural disdain for traitors. This is especially ironic considering that the Catholic Church, often accused of dogmatism, does not go as far as to call non-Catholic Christians apostates. Instead, the Church acknowledges them as separated brethren, albeit with theological disagreements.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses reserve special criticism for the Catholic Church, often portraying it as the epicenter of apostasy. This antagonistic stance is rooted in their interpretation of Revelation, where "Babylon the Great" is equated with all "false religion", with "Christendom"—and particularly the Catholic Church—at its heart. By depicting "Christendom" as corrupt and "apostate", Jehovah’s Witnesses make it clear that their denunciation of other Christian groups goes far beyond doctrinal differences; it is an outright rejection of their legitimacy as Christians.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses' refusal to use heresy is strategic. The term heresy is historically associated with the Catholic Inquisition, a period often mischaracterized in anti-Catholic propaganda (cf. Black Legend). Avoiding this term allows Jehovah’s Witnesses to appear more inclusive and exploratory, even as they perpetuate a deeply exclusionary theology.

  The Original Meaning of “Christendom”

  The term Christendom originated as an Anglo-Saxon word, crīstendōm, coined in the 9th century to describe the cultural, political, and religious unity of Christian-majority regions under the influence of the Christian faith. It referred to the “dominion or sovereignty of Christianity,” encompassing territories where Christianity was the dominant religion. Initially, it signified a universal Christian community bound by faith and a shared identity, shaped significantly by the political and religious dynamics of the Roman Empire and later medieval Europe.

  Historically, Christendom evolved as a concept to denote the collective Christian civilization that emerged through the integration of secular power and Christian religious authority. The term encapsulates the profound influence of Christianity on law, education, art, philosophy, and governance, particularly in the Western world. It also embodies the idea of a united Christian polity that extended across Europe, manifesting as a socio-political entity grounded in Christian values.

  The Watchtower Society’s Distortion of “Christendom”

  In contrast to its historical and theological roots, the Watchtower Society employs the term "Christendom" with a distinctly pejorative undertone. Within their literature, "Christendom" is used not to celebrate the cultural and historical achievements of Christianity but to critique and delegitimize all forms of organized Christianity outside of their movement. This usage reflects their anti-Catholic and anti-mainstream Christian bias.

  The Watchtower Society distinguishes between Christianity—a label they reserve exclusively for their own beliefs—and "Christendom", which they use to describe what they consider to be apostate, hypocritical, or corrupted forms of Christianity. In their rhetoric, "Christendom" becomes synonymous with false religion, encompassing all other Christian denominations, which they accuse of betraying the teachings of Jesus by compromising with political and cultural systems.

  Why the Watchtower’s Usage is Problematic

  1. Historical Inaccuracy: The Watchtower Society's definition of "Christendom" as a derogatory term ignores the historical significance and complexity of the term. "Christendom" historically encompassed the development of Christian civilization, including its moral and intellectual contributions to the world. By reducing it to a symbol of apostasy, the Society erases centuries of Christian history and culture.

  2. Theological Exclusivism: By reserving the term Christianity for themselves, Jehovah’s Witnesses delegitimize the Christian identity of billions of believers worldwide. This exclusivist attitude contrasts sharply with the Catholic Church’s more inclusive view, which recognizes all who are baptized in the name of the Trinity as Christians.

  3. Conflation with Apostasy: The Society's use of "Christendom" conflates it with their concept of a “Great Apostasy.” They label historical Christian institutions as apostate for integrating with political systems or adopting practices they deem unbiblical. This overlooks the nuanced theological and historical reasons behind the evolution of Christian doctrines and practices.

  The Islamic Concept of Apostasy and the Takfiri Parallel

  In Islamic theology, apostasy (irtidad) similarly refers to the act of leaving Islam, often punishable by death in traditional interpretations of Sharia law. A radical subset of Islam, known as takfiri, extends this concept by declaring fellow Muslims apostates for perceived doctrinal or behavioral deviations. Groups like ISIS have exploited this ideology, justifying violence against Muslims who do not conform to their interpretation of Islam.

  This takfiri approach parallels the rhetoric of Jehovah’s Witnesses in unsettling ways. Like the takfiris, Jehovah’s Witnesses declare all other Christians to be "apostates", effectively excommunicating everyone of "Christendom". While Jehovah’s Witnesses do not advocate violence, the underlying logic of exclusion and the delegitimization of others’ faiths mirror the exclusivism of radical Islam.

  The rhetoric used by Jehovah’s Witnesses bears an unsettling resemblance to the takfiri doctrine in radical Islam, where fellow Muslims are declared kafir (unbelievers) for not adhering to a purist interpretation of Islam. Both approaches revolve around exclusivism: a binary worldview in which only one group holds the truth, while all others are considered rebellious or illegitimate.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses’ denunciation of all other Christians as apostates mirrors the takfiri methodology of declaring mainstream Muslims apostates for failing to adhere to specific doctrines. The implications are similarly divisive: instead of fostering dialogue or understanding, such rhetoric alienates and demonizes those with differing beliefs.

  This parallel casts Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rhetoric in a troubling light. While they do not advocate violence, their spiritual condemnation of others perpetuates an "us vs. them" mentality, fostering isolationism and intellectual rigidity. For an organization that professes to champion love and truth, this resemblance to radical exclusivism damages their credibility.

  The Watchtower Society's dismissal of all other Christians as part of "Christendom" bears unsettling similarities to the rhetoric of takfiri movements in radical Islam. Takfiri ideology involves declaring fellow Muslims apostates for deviating from specific interpretations of Islamic law. Similarly, Jehovah’s Witnesses denounce all other Christian denominations as part of a corrupted, false religious system.

  This parallel is significant and concerning for several reasons:

  • Sectarianism: Both ideologies foster division by denying the legitimacy of other faith communities within their broader religious tradition.
  • Rhetorical Extremism: Labeling entire groups as apostates or false Christians creates an “us vs. them” dichotomy that stifles dialogue and mutual understanding.
  • Negative Associations: The comparison to takfiri rhetoric risks aligning Jehovah’s Witnesses with the sectarian extremism seen in radical Islam, casting a shadow over their claims of being a peaceful, truth-seeking organization.

  A More Respectful Alternative

  If the Watchtower Society were to label other Christian denominations as heretical rather than apostate, they would align more closely with historical Christian terminology. Heresy denotes doctrinal error within the faith, while apostasy involves a complete rejection of the faith. Acknowledging this distinction would demonstrate a greater respect for the shared Christian identity of other groups, even amidst theological disagreements.

  Such a shift would not only improve the Society’s credibility but also mitigate the alienation and offense caused by their current rhetoric. It would allow for a more constructive critique of other denominations without resorting to exclusivist and inflammatory language.

  The Theological and Ethical Implications

  The implications of this parallel are troubling. By adopting a terminology that resembles takfiri rhetoric, Jehovah’s Witnesses align themselves with one of the most divisive and destructive forms of religious discourse. This not only alienates them from broader Christian ecumenism but also casts a shadow over their claims to moral and theological superiority.

  If Jehovah’s Witnesses were to use heresy instead of apostasy, they would be engaging in a more accurate and respectful dialogue with other Christian groups. Such a shift would acknowledge the shared Christian identity of others while still allowing for doctrinal critique. However, their insistence on apostasy reflects an underlying exclusivist agenda that prioritizes sectarian identity over theological precision or mutual respect.

  Conclusion

  The misuse of apostasy by Jehovah’s Witnesses exemplifies their theological isolationism and anti-Catholic bias. By conflating apostasy with heresy, they distort established Christian terminology to delegitimize all other denominations. This approach not only disrespects the shared heritage of Christian faith but also mirrors the divisive rhetoric of radical Islamic takfiri ideology. For an organization claiming to uphold truth and justice, such a stance is both intellectually and ethically indefensible. A more accurate and respectful approach to theological differences would benefit not only their relations with other Christians but also their credibility as a religious movement.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses’ misuse of the term "apostasy" to describe all other Christian denominations reflects both a theological misunderstanding and a polemical strategy. By conflating heresy with apostasy, they delegitimize centuries of Christian faith and dialogue. Their anti-Catholic rhetoric and their binary distinction between "true Christianity" (themselves) and "Christendom" (everyone else) parallel the exclusivist takfiri ideology of radical Islam, raising serious ethical and theological questions about their approach.

  The term Christendom has a rich historical and cultural meaning that reflects the development of Christian civilization. The Watchtower Society's misuse of the term as a synonym for apostasy distorts its significance and reinforces their theological isolationism. By adopting a rhetoric reminiscent of takfiri extremism, they risk alienating themselves further from the broader Christian community and damaging their moral credibility. A more accurate and respectful use of theological terminology would foster greater understanding and dialogue, aligning with the values of truth and humility they claim to uphold.

  Such rhetoric not only undermines their claims to inclusivity and truth but also risks alienating them further from the global Christian community. A re-examination of their terminology and a more respectful approach to other faiths would benefit their credibility and contribute to a more meaningful interfaith dialogue.
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Here is an interesting and thought-provoking quote:

  “Christianity, unlike Islam, did not enjoy the protection of the civil authority for its first four centuries. During this time, Christian books—including copies of the New Testament—were destroyed during the “Great Persecution” under the emperor Diocletian in the early fourth century. This may partially explain the scarcity of early New Testament manuscripts from that time. Another reason for the paucity of manuscript evidence from the first four centuries is the fragile nature of the papyri upon which the first copies of the New Testament were written. Later developments, such as the use of parchment, allowed for the production of copies that were far more resilient, thousands of which have survived to the present day. Nevertheless, a significant amount of manuscript evidence from these early centuries remains, which helps us trace the history of the New Testament’s transmission during this period.

  Unlike the systematic destruction of divergent manuscripts in the Qur’ān’s history under Caliph Uthman, early Christians did not organize to eliminate manuscripts with variant readings. For example, among Church Fathers like Jermone, Irenaeus, and Augustine, Origen (c. 185–254) acknowledged textual variations in New Testament manuscripts and explored the causes of textual corruption. The presence of variants in the Greek New Testament manuscripts has long been a source of criticism from Islamic apologists and embarrassment for some Christians. However, viewed differently, these variants provide a wealth of data for scholars about the history of the text and turn out to be a net positive for the reliability and stability of the New Testament. These variants were not always seen as a liability for the New Testament by scholars and Christian leaders, and for good reason.

  There are as many as 500,000 textual variants among Greek New Testament manuscripts, which might seem to suggest instability. However, the large number of extant manuscripts provides numerous data points, enabling scholars to identify meaningful variants and reconstruct the autographical text with high probability, tracing the history of its transmission over two millennia with greater confidence. One might even say that the textual variants are a providential feature of the tradition rather than a bug.

  In contrast, the homogeneity of the Qur’ān’s text, achieved by Uthman’s destruction of variant manuscripts, gives an appearance of stability but presents significant challenges for text-critical study. Keith Small notes that:

  “Without textual criticism being done on early manuscripts of the Qur’ān, claims for the preservation of the Qur’ān are challenging to evaluate and in some respects are both unverifiable and unfalsifiable; that is, they can’t be proven to be either reliably or unreliably transmitted.”

  The destruction or loss of early Qur’ānic witnesses during Uthman’s standardization campaign leaves scholars with fewer resources to reconstruct the early textual history of the Qur’ān, making the task of textual criticism even more difficult.

  In comparison, the rich and complex tapestry of the New Testament’s transmission allows scholars to examine multiple streams of textual evidence. This diversity ensures that Christians today can have confidence that the New Testament they read is what the early Church received. If, hypothetically, only the Byzantine textform (also known as the Majority Text) of the New Testament had survived, we would doubtless have a good and largely accurate text. Still, in lacking access to the fuller range of textual streams in the tradition, it would be impossible to detect potential errors that might have entered unnoticed. We could never be sure if the more homogeneous text of the Byzantine tradition went back to the autographs or not. Fortunately, because multiple textual streams have survived, we can have confidence in the accuracy of the New Testament text—a level of certainty that the Qur’ān’s transmission history does not provide. What is remarkable about the New Testament tradition is that despite the shockingly high number of extant variants, the story of Jesus and his gospel are preserved throughout the tradition’s different textual streams of every leaf of every manuscript, as is the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ and the meaning of his life, death, and resurrection.

  These differences highlight why the New Testament’s text and history are more accessible to scholars than the Qur’ān’s and why the historical realities of the manuscript tradition, far from being an embarrassment to Christians, should be a source of encouragement. They allow us to conduct the historical research necessary to show its stability and reliability going back to the beginnings of Christianity. Unfortunately, the Qur’ān’s textual tradition, due to its intentional early homogenization, leaves far less room for such investigation.”

  Source: The Qur’ān, Textual Criticism, and the New Testament
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  Claim: Manuscripts such as 4Q120, P. Fouad 266, and Naḥal Ḥever proves that ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH predated the use of κύριος in the LXX.

  While these manuscripts are significant for understanding the textual history of the LXX, they do not prove that κύριος was not the original translation for YHWH, because these manuscripts reflects revision, not originality:

  1. P. Fouad 266: This fragment preserves the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script embedded within the Greek text. However, as Emanuel Tov and others acknowledge, this reflects a revisionist tendency to reinsert the Hebrew name for liturgical or theological reasons. The Greek translation preceding this insertion likely used κύριος, consistent with Jewish oral substitution of “Adonai.”
  2. 4Q120 (Leviticus, 1st Century BCE): The use of ΙΑΩ is a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton and is not a translation. It reflects how YHWH was pronounced phonetically but does not represent a standardized rendering. ΙΑΩ appears sporadically and is limited to a handful of texts. Its presence does not demonstrate widespread adoption in the Septuagint tradition but instead reflects regional or sectarian preferences. As Anneli Aejmelaeus points out, the translation vocabulary of early LXX manuscripts was not yet standardized, and revisions like the Kaige recension aimed to align Greek texts with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. This indicates diversity in early textual traditions but does not negate the predominance of κύριος.
  3. 8HevXII gr: This scroll also uses the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton within the Greek text, aligning with the same revisionist tendencies seen in P. Fouad 266. Importantly, this reversion to the Hebrew form reflects a Jewish attempt to preserve the Tetragrammaton in opposition to the Christian use of κύριος.

  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. The widespread use of κύριος in the majority of extant manuscripts, including Christian copies of the LXX, strongly suggests that it was the standard rendering from the outset. In conclusion, manuscripts like 4Q120 and P. Fouad 266 reflect revisionist efforts to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton, not the original Septuagint translation practice.

  Claim: The absence of God’s name in NT manuscripts is due to their late date (2nd century CE and beyond), by which time κύριος had already replaced the Tetragrammaton.

  If the NT authors originally used the Tetragrammaton (e.g., ΙΑΩ or YHWH), we would expect to see transitional evidence—manuscripts or fragments showing a gradual replacement of the name with κύριος. However, no such transitional manuscripts exist. The NT manuscripts we have (2nd century and later) consistently use κύριος or θεός in OT quotations. If a widespread conspiracy or systematic replacement occurred, it would leave textual or historical traces—but none are found. Christians inherited the LXX as their authoritative Scripture, and they quoted it extensively in the NT. The consistent use of κύριος in these quotations reflects the tradition as it existed in the LXX manuscripts available to them. Early Christians saw no need to alter the text because κύριος was already established as the equivalent of YHWH. If Philo’s writings avoided the Tetragrammaton due to his theological beliefs, what about other contemporary Jewish authors? There is no evidence that ΙΑΩ or YHWH was widely used in Greek Scriptures of the time. The absence of God’s name in NT manuscripts aligns with the established practice of using κύριος in the LXX. The lack of transitional evidence further weakens the claim that the Tetragrammaton was systematically replaced.

  Claim: Philo’s avoidance of God’s name is irrelevant because it stems from his belief that God is “unnameable” (akatonomastos).

  Philo’s avoidance of the Tetragrammaton actually strengthens the argument that κύριος was used as a substitute for YHWH. Philo’s reverence for God as “unnameable” aligns with the Jewish practice of avoiding the pronunciation of YHWH. Instead, Jews orally substituted “Adonai” for the Tetragrammaton. In Greek, this practice naturally led to the substitution of κύριος, which means "Lord." If ΙΑΩ were widely used in Greek Scriptures during Philo’s time, it is remarkable that he never mentions it. His complete silence suggests that ΙΑΩ was not standard or widely accepted in Greek-speaking Jewish communities. Philo’s writings confirm that Jews of his era avoided pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, which aligns with the LXX translators' choice to render YHWH as κύριος. Philo’s influence is irrelevant to the broader Jewish tradition of substituting κύριος for YHWH, because his avoidance of the Tetragrammaton simply aligns with the general Jewish practice of substituting κύριος for YHWH and further weakens the case for ΙΑΩ as the original rendering.

  The uniform use of κύριος in Christian LXX manuscripts and NT quotations provides strong evidence that it was the established Greek equivalent for YHWH, rooted in Jewish tradition and adopted by early Christians.

  ---

  @slimboyfat

  Claim: Shaw’s work shows the name "Yaho" (ΙΑΩ) was familiar and widespread among ordinary Jews, challenging the claim that early Christians avoided using the divine name.

  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. The contexts in which ΙΑΩ appears—magical amulets, Jewish incantations, and niche transliterations—are fundamentally different from the formal translation of Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The Septuagint translators were producing a canonical and liturgical text for the Jewish community in Alexandria, not magical or mystical documents. ΙΑΩ reflects a transliteration, not a translation. It preserved the phonetic sound of YHWH for specific uses but does not indicate that it was the dominant rendering in the Septuagint.

  The Jewish practice of avoiding pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton and substituting it with "Adonai" (Lord) was already established by the Hellenistic period. This reverence strongly influenced the Greek translators, who adopted κύριος as the functional and respectful equivalent of YHWH. This substitution was not merely a practical decision but reflected Jewish theological sensitivities. Evidence from Jewish writers like Philo of Alexandria confirms this. Philo symbolically refers to the divine name and never uses ΙΑΩ, despite living in the same cultural and historical context.

  The diversity in rendering the Tetragrammaton (e.g., ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew YHWH) reflects later textual developments and recensional efforts, not the original translation of the LXX. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Emanuel Tov emphasize that manuscripts with ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH are likely part of Jewish revisions (e.g., the Kaige recension), aimed at aligning Greek texts more closely with the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The absence of ΙΑΩ in the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts and the uniform use of κύριος in Christian LXX traditions suggests that κύριος was the original and standard choice.

  Shaw’s evidence for ΙΑΩ does not disprove Pietersma’s hypothesis. The appearance of ΙΑΩ in regional or magical contexts reflects diversity and revisionist tendencies, not the original Septuagint practice. The Jewish avoidance of pronouncing YHWH and the substitution of "Adonai" in oral recitation provide a consistent explanation for the use of κύριος in the earliest Greek translations.

  Claim: Psalm 110:1 and other NT passages clearly distinguish between Jehovah (YHWH) and Jesus, presenting Jesus’ lordship as subordinate to God.

  Actually title Κύριος as applied to Jesus operates on two levels:

  • A) Divine Lordship: The NT writers use Κύριος to directly identify Jesus with YHWH. This is evident in OT quotations where Κύριος (YHWH) is applied to Jesus. For example Romans 10:9-13 connects confessing Jesus as Κύριος with calling on the name of YHWH (Joel 2:32).
  • B) Messianic Lordship: As Messiah, Jesus is also “Lord” in the sense of being the promised Davidic King who reigns with divine authority (cf. Psalm 110:1). This does not exclude His divine nature but fulfills God’s promise to establish a ruler whose kingdom will have no end (Luke 1:32-33).

  Jesus’ divine Lordship is eternal, whereas His messianic Lordship is revealed and recognized in time through the Incarnation and Resurrection. While Psalm 110:1 distinguishes between YHWH and the messianic Lord (Adonai), the NT intentionally applies this passage to Jesus (e.g., Matthew 22:44; Acts 2:34-36). By identifying Jesus as the one who fulfills this psalm, the NT writers elevate Jesus to the divine throne, a position of supreme authority and honor.

  Acts 2:36 refers to Jesus’ human nature being glorified through the resurrection and ascension. The statement “God has made Him Lord” does not deny Christ’s eternal divine nature. Rather, it emphasizes that Jesus, as fully human, has been exalted to sit at the right hand of the Father. This is consistent with Philippians 2:9-11, which describes Jesus’ exaltation following His humility and obedience to death. The title Κύριος is given to Jesus as the culmination of His salvific work, not as something newly conferred upon Him in essence. Jesus has always been Lord by virtue of His divine nature. What is “made” or conferred is the manifestation of His Lordship in His human nature after the resurrection. This does not conflict with His eternal divine identity as the Son.

  Philippians 2:9-11 intentionally echoes Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH declares: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” Paul applies this passage directly to Jesus, declaring: “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (κύριος), to the glory of God the Father.” The NT authors do not view this as a diminishing of God’s glory. Instead, Jesus’ exaltation as κύριος participates in and reflects the divine glory. The NT authors’ use of κύριος for Jesus reflects their understanding of his divine identity. In Romans 10:13 Paul quotes Joel 2:32: “Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (YHWH) will be saved.” He applies this to Jesus, affirming that Jesus is the Lord (κύριος) who saves. NT writers consistently apply OT passages about YHWH to Jesus (e.g., Hebrews 1:10 quoting Psalm 102:25-27). This would be blasphemous unless they understood Jesus as sharing in YHWH’s divine nature.

  The assertion that Jesus' lordship in the New Testament merely derives from His sacrifice as "owner" of redeemed humans while being different in nature from Jehovah's eternal lordship neglects the deeper Christological truths revealed throughout Scripture, particularly in Revelation 4 and 5. In Revelation 5:13, all creation praises both "Him who sits on the throne" (God) and the Lamb (Jesus) together. The Greek text highlights that the same blessing, honor, glory, and dominion (τὴν εὐλογίαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὸ κράτος) are given equally to both. Worship of Jesus is not lesser or "different" but identical to the worship of God. The use of articles (τὴν) before each term makes the praises specific and unambiguous; no relative or lesser worship is implied. The universal scope (all creatures in heaven, earth, and under the earth) reflects the magnitude of this worship.

  In this Old Testament passage, homage to David is "civil reverence," whereas praise to God remains religious worship. Revelation 5 differs because Jesus is explicitly given the same religious adoration as God in the heavenly throne room. If Jesus were a mere creature, it would constitute idolatry to worship Him alongside God.

  The distinction between creation (those who worship) and God and the Lamb (those who are worshipped) demonstrates that Jesus is not part of creation but shares in the divine nature. Revelation 5:13 specifically says that "every created thing" worships God and the Lamb. If Jesus were created, He would fall into the category of "every created thing" and could not simultaneously be worshipped as God. This echoes Philippians 2:10-11, where Jesus is given the name above every name, and every knee bows to Him in the same way Isaiah 45:23 describes allegiance to YHWH alone In Revelation 22:3, God and the Lamb receive "sacred service" (latreuo), a form of worship explicitly reserved for God in both the Old and New Testaments (cf. Matthew 4:10, Deuteronomy 6:13). This shows that the Lamb is not worshipped through God or relatively, but directly as God.

  The fact that Jesus redeemed humanity with His blood (Revelation 5:9) demonstrates His role as Savior, but this act does not define or limit His lordship. Jesus was already "Lord of all creation" before the Incarnation (Colossians 1:16-17). His redemptive act affirms His divine prerogative to rule and judge all things (Revelation 19:16). Worship of the Lamb is not “different” but complementary to the worship of God. They share one divine essence and are worshipped as one God. The joint worship of God and the Lamb underscores Jesus’ equality with God, not ontological subordination.
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Claim: The introduction of nomina sacra into Christian manuscripts aligns with the alleged decision to discontinue the use of the Tetragrammaton.

  The nomina sacra (e.g., ΚΣ for κύριος, ΘΣ for θεός) may be a Christian scribal innovation, intended to show reverence for sacred names in scripture. However, this does not support the idea that κύριος replaced YHWH at that time. By the time nomina sacra were used, the LXX tradition already rendered YHWH as κύριος. The uniform Christian use of κύριος in LXX manuscripts is strong evidence that it was the earlier, standard translation. There is no transitional manuscript showing a removal of the Tetragrammaton and its replacement with κύριος. If this were a deliberate change, such a transition would leave clear traces, yet no such evidence exists. Furthermore Pietersma and Tov argue that early manuscripts where the Tetragrammaton appears (e.g., in paleo-Hebrew) reflect later Jewish recensional activities, not the original Old Greek translation. The Kaige recension supports this: It was an effort by Jewish scribes to revise Greek texts to align with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text, including the reinsertion of the divine name. So even the introduction of nomina sacra is chronologically and textually distinct from the use of κύριος as a rendering for YHWH. The lack of any transitional evidence undermines the claim of a systematic removal of the Tetragrammaton.

  And by the way, if it was the Christians, why does the Watchtower cite Shabbat 116a from the Talmud, suggesting that it was done by the Jews?

  Claim: Frank Shaw argues in The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of IAW (2014) that ΙΑΩ was widely used among ordinary Jews in the 1st century.

  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. The use of ΙΑΩ is largely regional (especially in Egypt) and primarily appears in Jewish magical texts and onomastica (lists of divine names). These sources are distinct from the formal translation tradition of the LXX. Transliteration of YHWH as ΙΑΩ served a different function, particularly in mystical and magical contexts. Manuscripts using ΙΑΩ are isolated and fragmentary. They represent regional or liturgical variants, not the broader Greek Jewish tradition. In contrast, the majority of surviving LXX manuscripts and Christian quotations consistently use κύριος. Philo (1st century CE), a prominent Hellenistic Jew, does not use ΙΑΩ in his works. Instead, he adheres to the reverence for the divine name by substituting it symbolically or with κύριος. If ΙΑΩ were widespread among Jews as Shaw suggests, it is notable that Philo does not reference or use it. So Shaw’s assertion for ΙΑΩ as “widespread” among ordinary Jews fails to account for its contextual and regional limitations. It does not challenge the evidence that κύριος was the standard and dominant Greek rendering of YHWH in the LXX tradition.

  Claim: Howard and Trobisch argue that the removal of the Tetragrammaton and its replacement with κύριος contributed to Christological "ambiguities", paving the way for Trinitarian theology.

  This claim is speculative and ignores key historical and textual evidence. The translation of YHWH as κύριος in the LXX occurred before the emergence of Christianity. Jewish translators rendered YHWH as κύριος because it was the Greek equivalent of "Adonai," which Jews substituted orally for YHWH. This Jewish practice, rooted in reverence for the divine name, directly influenced the LXX. The New Testament authors inherited the LXX tradition where YHWH was consistently rendered as κύριος. The high Christology of the NT arises not from confusion but from a deliberate identification of Jesus with YHWH. For example Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32, applying "whoever calls on the name of YHWH" to Jesus as κύριος; Philippians 2:11 declares that every tongue will confess Jesus as κύριος, echoing Isaiah 45:23, where κύριος refers to YHWH. If the Tetragrammaton had been systematically removed to accommodate evolving Christology, we would expect transitional manuscripts or explicit evidence of such a decision. None exists. Early Christian manuscripts uniformly use κύριος, reflecting the inherited LXX tradition. There is no evidence that Christians replaced the Tetragrammaton; they simply adopted the Greek text as it stood. The alleged ambiguity between “Lord God” and “Lord Christ” is a theological interpretation, not a textual fact. The NT authors intentionally identified Jesus as κύριος (YHWH), not out of confusion but as a bold theological assertion. Jewish criticisms of early Christians (e.g., accusations of idolatry) focused on their worship of Jesus, not on their supposed misuse of the divine name. The same word was used to refer to Jesus ("the Lord," κύριος) and even the Holy Spirit (e.g., 2 Corinthians 3:17). There is no rule or reference in the New Testament suggesting that κύριος had one meaning for YHWH and a separate meaning for Jesus. If the use of the nomina sacra means that YHWH or ΙΑΩ originally stood in place of ΚΣ, that does not support your theological agenda either, since Christ is called ΚΣ the same way in the earliest MSS, but on what basis could you claim that YHWH or ΙΑΩ only appeared where God the Father is called ΚΣ? Based on these facts, we have only three options:

  1. 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.
  2. If the NT authors aimed to deceive intentionally, then the entire issue would be meaningless.
  3. If the NT authors wrote carefully and conscientiously without intending to mislead, the logical conclusion based on the evidence is that they also affirmed Jesus' deity.

  If the writers adhered to Watchtower theology, why were they not concerned about someone "confusing" Jesus with the Lord?

  The Smoking Gun?

  You cannot give a satisfactory answer to the question: Who made the decision to replace YHWH (or ΙΑΩ) with κύριος? Even more specifically: Who was the “Caliph Uthman” of the “apostate” (=proto-orthodox) Christianity who ordered the standardization of the NT and, under this heading, the falsification of the text?

  The answer lies not in a conspiracy but in the Jewish translation process itself. The Jewish translators of the LXX rendered YHWH as κύριος because it reflected the Jewish oral practice of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH, and it was a theological choice to preserve reverence for the divine name. There was no systematic removal: The use of alternatives like ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH reflects later recensional efforts to reintroduce the divine name in specific Jewish contexts. Christians inherited the LXX as it stood, with κύριος already in place. There is no evidence of tampering or conspiracy to replace the Tetragrammaton.

  So there is no “smoking gun” simply because there was no conspiracy. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that κύριος was the original and standard Greek rendering of YHWH, rooted in Jewish translation practices.