Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?

by hamilcarr 39 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  hamilcarr,

  Interesting question (although it vastly exceeds your initial topic).

  We might as well posit the opposite, namely that any text of necessity transcends its "original" context. It is bound to be read from a different perspective than the writer's -- in fact, it is never read from the writer's perspective, not even by the writer him/herself if s/he actually comes back to read what s/he has written. Différance. Already plain in Bible intertextuality -- every quotation and allusion implies a dislocation and reframing of the text, and a new meaning, as elusive as the former ones.

  There is quote and quote I suppose. Taking into account the elusiveness of meaning undermines the authoritative kind of quote. A quote doesn't prove anything. Otoh, the inspirational quote (that which doesn't compel, except in a highly subjective way) remains possible, and all the more fruitful imo.
• 

  Forscher

  I fear you have read WT lit so long....you now may write for them.

  That's your opinion oomp. You go on to make an unsupported assertion, so I hardly feel the need to rehash a subject which has been argued ad infinitum

  on this forum already. I would be interested to find out on what authority you have to make such a blanket pronouncement anyway?

  Narkissos, one of my current long-term projects is greater understanding of French. I do have an absurdly basic thing which bothers me about the use of a particular French verb. Would you be willing to explain a usage which bothers me by PM?

  I am fascinated with the current back and forth on the theories about the LXX recension which may or may not form the basis for the NT quotations. I would, however, like to hear more about why folks think the so called "Palestinian" recension would not have followed the already well-documented custom of the Alexandrian Jews in regards to the use of the Divine name in the LXX as well.

  Forscher
• 

  Narkissos

  Forscher,

  Here's an interesting online article: http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/05_2/troyer_names_of_god.htm

  Awaiting your pm.
• 

  jwfacts

  I tend to think that the discussion of which sources were quoted is used to confuse the average JW. The deeper the discussion, the more likely a JW is to think it is over their head and just accept that the Watchtower seems to know what it is talking about.

  The key to the discussion is that of thousands of Greek NT documents, no known fragment exists with Gods name on it. Regardless of which OT documents were quoted from, the Name is not found in NT documents. As Funkyderek mentioned, it is mutually exclusive to claim the Bible is infallible and inspired, but that we have portions missing without trace that we need to guess at and change.
• 

  hamilcarr

  We might as well posit the opposite, namely that any text of necessity transcends its "original" context.

  You're perfectly right, Narkissos.

  I misexpressed myself, I should have added:

  despite the fact that there is no evidence that the Bible could transcend its own context any more than any other text.

  or even:

  despite the fact that there is no evidence that the Bible could transcend its own context on purpose

  I would even venture to assert that all religious Biblicial interpretations commit exactly this same error.

  Otoh, the inspirational quote (that which doesn't compel, except in a highly subjective way) remains possible, and all the more fruitful imo.

  I think that would be a great attitude towards any ancient text. But here again the main question is whether it's justified to go beyond the subjective level (and I think that's what many do)?

  although it vastly exceeds your initial topic

  Maybe the only clue to understand what's really at stake in this kind of topics is to get grips on the different paradigms behind a seemingly irrational act like the addition of Jehovah in the NT.
• 

  Earnest

  Hi Narkissos,

  Which of the NT books do you think was written in Palestine (and why)?

  May I suggest that the more pertinent question, especially regarding the Gospels, is where do I think the logia or sayings, which were apparently used by the gospel writers as the core of their gospels, were written...and the answer is Palestine. It seems that long before the gospels were written, the recollections of eye-witnesses were written down and distributed amongst believers. This is evident not only in the parallel accounts of the Synoptic gospels, but also in the sayings of Jesus referred to by Paul and James, as well as manuscript evidence that has been found of such sayings.

  If you are talking about what a "historical Jesus" might have said (supposedly in Aramaic) or read (in Hebrew?) where does the LXX exactly come into the guesswork picture?

  The LXX only comes into the picture to show that God's name was removed from scripture. I am not personally convinced it was only a Palestinian recension of the LXX which contained God's name, because papyri have been found both at the Dead Sea and in Egypt containing the tetragrammaton. Whatever the case may be, most of the oldest copies we have of the LXX contained God's name in either the Hebrew or Greek form, and later copies no longer contain it. As we have no extant "sayings of Jesus" going back to the first century, it is difficult to say with certainty whether or not they contained God's name.

  Oompa

  And to my knowedge, the only historian in the world to ever make a copy of an original writing of ANY of the NT books did not find the TG there! He is just a little famous for using his research to create the Latin Vulgate...(no Jehovah there!), and his name is Jerome aka Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus.

  Your reference to Jerome making a copy of an original writing of a NT book is mistaken. What Jerome actually wrote, in chapter three of "On Illustrious Men", was

  Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it.

  What he is saying is that the gospel in Hebrew is preserved in the library at Caesarea, not that it is the original writing. And there is nothing to suggest he made a copy of it, as it doesn't seem as if he actually saw it if he needed the Nazarenes of Beroea to describe it.

  so what did Jerome find when he copied the original writings of John..........nada.....no tetragrammaton....period....end of story....it was not there an it is so deceitful for WT to even imply it MUST have been there!

  And even if he had copied it, it is likely he would have replaced God's name with dominus ('Lord') if he came across it, as he did in his translation of the OT.
• 

  Witness 007

  A Sister asked me that very question when I was a Servant and my answer was........ummmm......{Me Thinking:Well I can't lie to her}...well
• 

  Narkissos

  May I suggest that the more pertinent question, especially regarding the Gospels, is where do I think the logia or sayings, which were apparently used by the gospel writers as the core of their gospels, were written...and the answer is Palestine. It seems that long before the gospels were written, the recollections of eye-witnesses were written down and distributed amongst believers.

  I am definitely less confident than you in the process of (oral, then written) tradition as the background of the extant gospels (let alone "recollections of eye-witnesses"). Anyway, from the perspective of the current topic, it must be noted that scriptural debates involving sizeable OT quotations are the least likely to belong to such "traditional" material (with the possible exception of very short quotations, such as "the two main commandments"). Instead they bear the mark of a redactional construction.

  This is evident not only in the parallel accounts of the Synoptic gospels, but also in the sayings of Jesus referred to by Paul and James, as well as manuscript evidence that has been found of such sayings.

  The parallel accounts in the Synoptics actually testify to written influence from one text to another. And, significantly, the parallels in Paul and James are not presented as "sayings of Jesus," which rather points to a common Christian fund (sometimes ascribed to Jesus) than to original Jesuine tradition.

  (Sorry I have to leave, I'll get to the rest of your post later.)
• 

  Narkissos

  I'm back :)

  I am not personally convinced it was only a Palestinian recension of the LXX which contained God's name, because papyri have been found both at the Dead Sea and in Egypt containing the tetragrammaton.

  You're quite right, that's why I wrote "Palestinian-influenced recension" (which maybe was not clear or accurate enough).

  Let me try to explain: one essential issue of Judaism in the Roman period was the constant power struggle between Judea and the diaspora. The Jerusalem establishment sought to control diaspora Judaism as much as it could (depending on political opportunities) and impose it mostly exclusivist, identitarian policies, while many diaspora Jewish centres (especially Alexandria) tried to maintain their autonomy and reinforce the existing (but fragile) cultural bridges between Jewish communities and surrounding Gentiles. The LXX was originally an Alexandrine initiative under the protection of Hellenistic Ptolemaic rulers. Jerusalem had little or no say in the matter. The Alexandrine mentality in the early 1st century is wonderfully illustrated by the works of Philo, who tries hard to make Jewish monotheism and the only "Bible" he knows (the Septuagint) understandable, acceptable and even attractive to the educated Hellenistic circles. To Philo and his Greek readers a "personal name" for the only God doesn't make any sense: calling him "God" and "Lord" is the best any man (Jew or Gentile) can do (cf. On the Change of Names, 11ff). This was certainly not the perspective of the Jerusalem establishment, which tried to modify the LXX wherever it could. So it's no surprise that we find Judean-influenced recensions out of Judea (at least where the physical conditions for mss conservation were optimal).

  Now the question is, in which circles do early Christianity and NT texts emerge? In exclusivistic Jewish communities, prone to insist on the use of the Tetragrammaton as one of many features separating Jews from Gentiles? Or in culturally assimilating Jewish communities, trying to be understandable and attractive to Gentiles? The answer is pretty obvious to me, and then the absence of any use of the Tetragrammaton in NT mss is hardly surprising.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Narkissos, Thanks for your illuminating post.

  Now the question is, in which circles do early Christianity and NT texts emerge? In exclusivistic Jewish communities, prone to insist on the use of the Tetragrammaton as one of many features separating Jews from Gentiles? Or in culturally assimilating Jewish communities, trying to be understandable and attractive to Gentiles? The answer is pretty obvious to me, and then the absence of any use of the Tetragrammaton in NT mss is hardly surprising.

  I think an obvious comparison could be drawn between first-century exclusivistic Jewish communities confronted with the consolidation of the supra-national Roman empire, on the one hand, and nineteenth-century christian communities faced with similar developments on a worldwide scale, on the other hand. So, the sole purpose of using the TG, is a need for exclusiveness and discord. If history repeats itself, we may be assured these movements are short-lived.