Now explain to me why the NW translators assume that all copies in all areas were corrupt, as regards the divine name? that none of them represents the original text, since all use kurios, never Yhwh?
Never???? There were some that had the Hebrew Tetagrammaton.
None. Remember, my question was about NT ChristianGreekmanuscripts (mss). The Greek mss which have the Tetragrammaton are of the Jewish Septuagint (LXX), i.e. OT. The "J"-documents which are listed in the footnotes and appendices of the NWT, deceptively on par with the Greek mss, are free translations from the Greek into Hebrew, one from the late middle-ages, the others from the modern period down to the 20th century. They are absolutely no witnesses to the original Greek text.
However, there was no equivalent of the name in Greek
Wrong. There are transliterations in Greek such as Iaô (which is found in some LXX mss), Iabe, Iabai, Iaouai... not in NT texts though...
- and shortly after the apostles died, the Trinitarians arose.
Remember, those pesky Trinitarians were around too when those NT copies were produced which transmitted the NT oh so accurately (you do deserve your bone after all). And after all they did not change the verses which JWs and other unitarians use against the Trinity, did they? Why they would have made a successful conspiracy against the "divine name" is beyond (even Trinitarian) logic -- especially when you think that most Greek-Hebrew translators who produced the so-called "J-documents" were Trinitarian too and that their point in "translating" the NT kurios with the Hebrew Tetragrammaton was, precisely, to identify the "Lord Jesus" with the OT Yahweh!
Joel USED the Divine Name. Since Paul, who was a Jew and spoke Hebrew, used the name- and certainly would not corrupt Joel's words,was referring to it- maybe using "Kurios" instead, since there was no Greek pronounciation of it at that time! My guess is you're implying Jesus WAS Jehovah- and that the name "Jesus" replaced it. Correct?
Whether Paul spoke Hebrew at all is debatable (Acts 21:40; 22:2 say he did, but to me that doesn't prove anything; well, let's admit it for the sake of argument). But my point is the following: Paul (writing in Greek) pleads that the Gentile believers are saved by confessing Jesus as kurios (v. 9), thereby calling on the name of the kurios (v. 12). His scriptural basis (gar, "for, because", v. 13a) for doing so is the quotation of Joel, which in Greek reads pas (gar) hos an epikalesètai to onoma kuriou sôthèsetai -- "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved". That makes sense. Substitute Yhwh for kurios and it makes no sense whatsoever. Paul has no reason for quoting Joel and his argument is left without any scriptural basis. Iow, the rhetorical analysis of the text shows that Paul had to use kurios here and the NWT is wrong; worse, it destroys the whole argument (which most JWs never realise because they don't care for the argument, they just quote v. 13 out of context). If, as you maintain, Paul was thinking Yhwh when he wrote kurios, this has to apply to v. 9 and 12 as well for the argument to stand (I don't think that was his point btw, but this is the consequence of your assumption). Got it now?
The Jews, even though speaking the language of whatever land they live in-as tody- in general, still sopke Hebrew. When Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah at the temple, it was likely in Hebrew- and to think HE wouldn't honor nor use the Name of his God & Father is ludicrous. Also, to think Jesus- who condemned their ridiculous traditions- would follow them by NOT using the Name- is EQUALLY so!
This is historically wrong. Most Jews in Palestine (not to mention the diaspora) spoke Greek and Aramaic; Hebrew was hardly understood outside the priestly circles. As early as in Ezra-Nehemiah you find indications that the practice of Hebrew is waning, whence the need to interpret/translate Torah reading (Nehemiah 8:8 which Jewish translation points to as the start of the -- originally oral -- Aramaic targumim).
Moreover, how do (you think) you know Jesus was not following contemporary Jewish traditions? Because the Gospels mention specific conflicts, e.g. on the Sabbath or the washing of hands. The same Gospels picture him as following other traditions, such as the fringe of garments or Hanukkah. Do they mention any conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees about the use of the divine name? QED.
Before we get down to doctrine, let's get the source straight. The OLDEST early Christian manuscripts DID NOT use "Jehovah" in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Why didn't the WTBTS use those? Which manuscripts are these? In any event, if some earlier than the end of the 1st and 2nd century of Christ left the name out, there were those that HAD it in Hebrew in the Greek text.
Not
NT mss. See above.
