Nark wrote:"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.
Mad: You are correct here, my mistake, but notice what is hinted by scholars about this:
Tetragrammaton in the New Testament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
- See main article: New Testament.
Archaeologists have discovered papyrus fragments of the New Testament dating as far back as the middle of the second century. Of all 5,000 extant manuscripts, none contains either the Hebrew (????) or Greek transliterations (?aß?) of the Hebrew name ????. One of the most ancient fragments, the papyrus codex designated Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 P46, is dated prior to AD 200 and contains nine of the apostle Paul's letters. In the Chester Beatty papyri, we find ?S and sometimes TS with a horizontal bar above them where the tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text. These are abbreviations for kurios (?????? "lord") and theos (?e?? "god"). Some scholars think that these abbreviations were not part of the autographs and thus were added some time later,  concluding that YHWH did indeed occur in the NT. 
An article by George Howard in the March 1978 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review set forth a theory that YHWH appeared in the New Testament and that "the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates kyrios and theos blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ." 
Mad writes: There's no way to know YET- but since even YOU won't argue about the existance of the Divine Name- used more than ANY other in the Bible, do you REALLY believe that TRUE servants of God would have deliberately left it out the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament verses quoted that DID use it- especially if what you say next about a Greek form of it existing is true? Unless Jehovah is just a disgarded name for Christ-as taught by most churches ignoring God's Word, it is a Name even above Christ's- since He is the One who GAVE all power & authority to His Son- our Lord & King!
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...
Mad asks: What is the time period assigned to "lao"?
- 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!
Mad: That's easy, Nark! To change ALL scripture to support the Trinity, would have meant LITERALLY changing it ALL- so instead, as Satan with Eve, they just used the tiny seed of an inserted twist now and then to make it APPEAR plausible!
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?
Mad: Yes, I got it now! Since Jehovah had appointed Jesus as Lord & Christ, Paul decided to discard the Name of the very One Christ honored most of all- even tho Paul KNEW what Joel REALLY said! It's been a long time since I've seen ANYONE desperately fight this hard against Jesus' God and Father. Bash my brotherhood all you want- but our Lord is NOT going to take kindly to those bashing his Father, Nark!
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).
There are many details in the accounts that prove you (and the opinions of any scholars) wrong on this. Here's an example:
John 19:20-22 (King James Version)
20- This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21- Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22- Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
Mad: The priests did want the public to read "King of the Jews". But, I suppose you will argue with this, as well.
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.
Mad: Simple. Jesus was a Jew, bound to the Law he was about to fulfill- the only tradition he condemned was tradition added to and violating the Mosaic Law. No mention is made about how the Jewish Clergy felt about his making his Father's Name known again- but they intensly upset about everything he said and did, so, no, there wasn't any such scene as was in the movie "the Life of Brian"- which, by the way, you MUST see, if you never did! Since not ONE manuscript, vellum or parchment from the time of Apostles survives- they are all later copies- we can play this tennis game forever-but nothing can be stated with certainity as to why the Name isn't there!
Nark, please dwell on 2 facts of scripture:
1- The Divine Name is there, and
2- It is the Name of Jesus' God & Father, regardless as to why it was replaced by those that recopied the New Testament long after Christ had been resurrected.