aqwsed12345
So, for the first time, anyone wrote down this reading exactly 1,200 years after the destruction of the Second Temple. In the intertestamental era, the pronunciation of YHWH was completely pushed out of public use, it could only be pronounced by the Jewish high priest in the Temple during the Yom Kippur. If anyone else, anytime else, had uttered it, they would have been executed. In addition, by the time of Christ, even the high priest only uttered it softly. Consequently, Raymundus Martini's reading cannot be an authentic witness to the original pronunciation of YHWH much earlier. According to the scholarly consensus, these medieval authors did not know that the Masoretes marked the consonants of YHWH with the vowels of Adonai, not to indicate that it should be pronounced that way, but so that the Jewish reader in the synagogue would know that when came here, then should pronounce Adonai or Elohim. That's why in the Masoretic tex we read "YeHoWah" and "YeHoWiH" also. For a Jew, it was clear, but Christians don't know about this Jewish ruling, so Raymundus Martini didn't know that, that's how IEHOVA was born: out of a misunderstaning. However, this is completely wrong. The Watchtower doesn't even try to defend this reading, just assering "we don't know for sure, but Jehovah is established and traditional." Well, we don't know for sure what was that, but we can surely know that it was never "Jehovah".
-
Your comments here are nonsense for you do not provide sufficient detail for your argument. The issues concerning the transmission of the pronunciation of the Name are complex. I recommend that you read the chapter entitled 'From Maimonides to Tyndale' in The Name Of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which Is Pronounced As It Is Written I-Eh-oU-Ah -Its Story, Gerard Gertoux,2002, pp.151-163, University Press of America. This chapter contains much information about Raymond Martin and his antecedents.
--
"Clear and compelling" evidence would be an early authentic manuscript that contains this. Everything else is just speculation, hypothesis and most of all conspiracy theory. There is no circumstantial, let alone direct evidence for this. Such "reasonable to assume" and the like is not evidence, but wishful thinking.
--
I strongly disagree. For clear and compelling evidence is presented by the NWT Committee from the 1950's by means of either an extensive Foreword and Appendices which present their reasons for the insertion of the Name into the NT. It would be most helpful if the autographs were extant but scholars have to work with materials at hand and make scholarly adjustments accordingly based on the evidence before them.
--
"Clear and compelling" evidence would be an early authentic manuscript that contains this. Everything else is just speculation, hypothesis and most of all conspiracy theory. There is no circumstantial, let alone direct evidence for this. Such "reasonable to assume" and the like is not evidence, but wishful thinking.
--
Again I disagree. The frequency of the NAME in the OT most certainly must be a factor when His Name is used both directly or indirectly, especially in the case of quotations from the OT are used in the NT. The NWT has no place for 'wishful thinking' in the exercise of its scholarly discretion.
--
Unless, of course, if there is no evidence that when the New Testament writer quoted Old Testament in such a way that by actually writing the name YHWH! Furthermore, according to Howard's theory, even if it was written down, it was not spelled out in Greek (e.g. Γιαχβέ), but YHWH in Hebrew letters. Now, that's not what the NWT does.
--
Nonsense. The fact of a quotation has the NAME then it would be expected that the NT author or copyist would faithfully reproduce that name in the NT quotation and there is sufficient evidence in the absence of the autographs that this was the practice.
---
Why do you lie that no one before the Watchtower Society knew that the Tetragrammaton existed at all? In the two-thousand-year history of Christianity, it was never "obsured", even in your publications there are many references to the fact that it is painted in churches, it was also included in some church hymns, and it is also included in the theological books published centuries before the creation of the Watchtower Society. Church Fathers wrote about this, etc. It was not "obsured".
--
The simple fact is that Jewish scribes and Christendom's scholars have over time hidden the Name by means of translations that either do not contain the Name or have reduced its occurrence and have not bothered to even say the NAME as is the case right up to the present.
--
y the way, did you read what I wrote? And what Raymond Franz wrote on the subject?
--
What you have written is too lengthy, boring and not poorly set out. I have read Franz's nonsense on the Name in the NT and Greg Stafford's rebuttal to Raymond Franz's opinion.
scholar JW
