I pressed enter to soon...
I'd love to see if they translated Acts 15:29 as "blood" or "murder"...
Oldest bible being put online - what will that mean for WTS teachings?
by Simon 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Narkissos
cognac,
I'm afraid you'll be disappointed: it's a Greek text, and your question is not about the text or (at least literal) translation but interpretation...
Earnest,
I'm not sure what you are hinting at (if anything) with the nomina sacra... inasmuch as they are used in all instances of theos (both for the "God" the logos was with and the "God" the logos was) I doubt they can be very helpful to JW apologetics here -- but perhaps that's not your point.
-
Earnest
cognac, there is already an English translation to go with it. If you go to the site you will see on the right hand side you have the option of including a translation. Acts 15:29 can be found at the top of the third column and reads:
...APEXECTHAI ...that you abstain from
EIDWLOTHYTWN things sacrificed to idols
KAIAIMATOCKAI and blood and
PNIKTWNKAIPOR things strangled and lew-
NIAC... dness...
-
Earnest
Narkissos,
For a change there was nothing I was hinting at in my reference to the nomina sacra. I do not know of any printed Greek text that shows them and simply point it out as a matter of interest for those who are unaware of this practice or have not seen it in the actual text before. Imo this is a real benefit of having the text online as we can not only see what was written but also how it was written with abbreviations, corrections, lack of punctuation and spacing between words...all grist for the mill.
-
slimboyfat
In a general sense the nomina sacra are important because they are the key to a world of evidence that shows the early Christian texts likely originally contained forms of the divine name, and that the early church had a lower Christology more in line with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses than the mainstream Christian tradition.
-
rebel8
The changes are of little importance. And doctrinally speaking, I am not aware of anything significant at all.
These sound significant to me.
contains two extra books in the New Testament.
goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus
omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.
Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion"
missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned...inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.
Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross.
-
Brother Apostate
Fortunately, I have learned by experience not to pre-judge anything before I have seen it.
Some leave the JWs but never leave their prejudice, as in: "I've heard one side of the story, it must then be the true story."
I believe slugs have more common sense than those who stake a claim to knowledge of a subject based on a news story.
As Bugs Bunny would characteristically say of such individuals: "Sheesh, what a maroon!"
Good Day!
BA
-
Narkissos
sbf,
If I am not mistaken, so far all your attempts at pointing to anything specific about this "world of evidence" have resulted in the opposite: showing that the NT allusions to the theme or "meaning(s)" of the "divine name" (1) belong to christological interpretations which presuppose a very high Christology and (2) do not imply a literal use of the name Yhwh, especially not one distinguishing the Father from the Son to early Christians. But your general statement has remained miraculously unaffected (in quasi-scholar fashion).
If the nomina sacra are the "key," please explain how it works. Do you think they replace older occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in some form? Always or just when you find it convenient? For instance, did John 1:1 originally read "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with YHWH, and the logos was YHWH"? If not, what are they exactly supposed to point to, and how?
-
AllTimeJeff
Great article, not that those who are determined to believe that their bible's represent the unerring word of god can be objective. Chalam gave a portion of comments that are obviously against the article: Here are some other counterpoints to that, just to be fair...
It never ceases to amaze me that people can take what has been written by man, and altered by man, over the centuries, as being the 'inerant' word of God. People copy manuscripts. People are fallible, and people make mistakes. Surely, if there is any 'word of God' around, it should not be possible to make any mistakes when transcribing what is there, it should not be possible to change it in anyway, and the latest version should therefore the be same as the first version.
Unfortunately the Bible has always been altered by the hand of man. The Reformation decided to leave out entire books of the Bible including Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Maccabbees 1& 2. Large chinks of Esther and Daniel also made it to the "cutting room floor."
I welcome this (and any other) compilation and comparison of ancient texts. As soon as hardline views on scriptural infallibility are debunked, then Christianity will be forced to take a more organic approach to their faith, gaining some much needed credibility with agnostics in the process. Next stop, Creationism!
Didn't they also find the missing page that says 'All characters depicted in this book are purely ficticious and any resemblence to anyone alive or dead is purely co-incidental.'
I include the last one as Chalam did, for irony's sake.
Regretably, believers will once again be arguing over small nuances in an attempt to prop up their own dogma, rather then asking some basic, logical questions:
Why would god leave such important matters of faith at the mercy of imperfect men to translate?
If god confused the languages at Babel to keep man from building to the heavens (btw, that failed, see: NYC, Tokyo, London, etc) why couldn't he have made a way for Hebrew or Greek to be spoken by man these days? Could he, in his infinite power, not forseen that English (with English's perfect translation, the King James Bible) would be the language spoken at the time of Christs coming and just be plain about it in our language?
Why not just be plain about it?
You all can go ahead and argue all about what this does or doesn't show. But the article itself is very credible, as are its conclusions about how the bible was (as the Sinaticus shows) versus what it is now... (a mess rivaling a jig saw puzzle)
What does this tell us about god? Not a very flattering view of how "god" chooses to communicate with us....
-
slimboyfat
Narkissos my understanding of how the special notation of the Tetragrammaton in Jewish texts at the turn of the era is the background for the Christian nomina sacra of later centuries is informed by the arguments made by David Trobisch, George Howard, John Ziesler and Rolf Furuli. I have listened to your arguments with respect, but I don't think you have effectively countered the arguments Trobisch, Howard, Ziesler and Furuli have made. I wouldn't insult you by calling this failure "miraculous", in fact one might not even call it particularly surprising since from what you have said previously you have never actually read any of those arguments.
Jewish texts in various languages used special notation for divine names at the turn of the era, and for the Tetragrammaton in particular. The pre-Christian LXX preserved The divine name in various forms. The earliest Christians used these copies of the LXX containing the divine name and followed the same practice of incorporating the divine name in quotations (as in Paul's letters) and where copying the style of the LXX (as in Luke-Acts) in using such phrases as "angel of Jehovah". When Christian redactors decided to replace the divine name in the LXX and NT with a Greek equivalent they wanted to use a marker that would preserve its significance as God's personal name in the text. This was accomplished by following a Jewish custom and using a contracted form of kyrios where it replaced the Tetragrammton. At first this served to distinguish where "Lord" referred to Jesus (uncontracted) and where it referred to God. (contracted) In subsequent generations of the text however the distinction was lost as instances of "Lord" referring to Jesus were contracted also. The same happened with theos. This reflected the changing view of Christ over this period as he was no longer seen as an angel but increasingly as God himself. In time other 'sacred' words were also contracted in the Christian LXX and NT where they were deemed to have a sacred meaning: Father, Spirit, Christ, Jesus, man, Son, mother, Israel, cross, heaven, Jerusalem and sporadically a few others.
This is my brief explanation of how the Christian nomina sacra has the Tetragrammaton as its background, and how the replacement of the Tetragrammaton with nomina sacra by Christian redactors resulted in blurring the identities of Jesus and Jehovah and a high Christology paving the way to Nicaea.
A recent article restating the case for kyrios being the first nomen sacrum and the Tetragrammaton being its basis can be found on online by searching:
P.Lond.Lit. 207 and the origin of the nomina sacra: a tentative proposal