I don't think anyone has suggested the Tetragrammaton was in John 1:1. My own view for what it is worth is that the Fourth Gospel is quite late and possibly one of the few NT texts that never contained the divine name. Why did you call me quasi-scholar? That was uncharacteristically mean.
Oldest bible being put online - what will that mean for WTS teachings?
by Simon 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Earnest
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?
Narkissos, while your question was addressed to slim I hope I may offer a viewpoint as I do think there is a connection between the two although I would not describe it as the "key". George Howard discussed the nomina sacra in his article 'The Tetragram and the New Testament' (JBL, 1977, pp.63-83) and says:
...conservative Jewish Christians probably continued to write the Tetragram in their copies of the LXX. Toward the end of the first century Gentile Christians, lacking a motive for retaining the Hebrew name for God, substituted the words kurios and theos (kurios being used more often than theos) for the Tetragram. Both were written in abbreviated form in a conscious effort to preserve the sacral nature of the divine name. Soon the original significance of the abbreviated surrogates was lost, however, and many other contracted words were added to the list.
He then goes on to say that there is good reason to believe a similar pattern evolved in the New Testament. This seems to me a reasonable explanation for the nomina sacra. In his book Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, C.H. Roberts devotes a chapter to the origins and significance of the nomina sacra and explains:
The concept of the sacredness of the name of God and the related beliefs that this should in some fashion be expressed in the way the name was pronounced or written...is in this context indubitably Jewish; the ineffability of the name of God, expressed when the Law was read in Hebrew by replacing the vowels proper to it by those of Adonai ('Lord'), is directly or indirectly the psychological origin of the nomina sacra
So while this does not mean that everywhere the abbreviation of 'Lord' or 'God' occurs the original text contained the tetragrammaton, the special treatment given to "sacred names" does contribute to the sense that the sacred name was also, at one time, used.
And, yes, I'm also surprised and disappointed that you resort to name-calling.
-
cognac
Thanks Nark...
Thanks for the english translation Ernest!
-
BurnTheShips
These sound significant to me.
Significant in what sense? Doctrinally? These are not significant.
contains two extra books in the New Testament.
Just because it is in the Codex does not mean it was considered canonical. The Codex, which is of Alexandrian type, was written about 350. Athanasius of Alexandria gave the list of the books he considered canonical in 367, and it does not included the two "extra books". However, he does list the two "extra books" as something that were to be read in Church.
Many of the early compilations of books had different additions and omissions of books than what later was decided as the official canon. This is not new knowlege. The canon was basically closed at the end of the 3rd Century. It is the same list we have today.
goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus
That is contained in the Epistle of Barnabas, one of the "extra books." Thus this does not give any indication of textual corruption in the accepted canon. The agreement on what made up a New Testament book was getting close to completion, but it would take at least 50 more years from the writing of Sinaiticus to get to that point. Besides, I've read Barnabas, and I don't remember any anti-semitism (which is a modern idea anyway).
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.
This is the "long ending" of Mark, which is not part of the original text. The oldest versions of Mark, including Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, end abruptly at 16:8. There are other early manuscripts that end here also. This part of the original text was probably lost and not unique to Sinaiticus. There are several variants on the ending of the book after 16:8 that were written later. This has been known by Christianity for a looong time.
Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion"
I've looked up every text in the NT where Jesus heals a leper, and in none of them does Sinaiticus show Jesus being angry healing a leper.
missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned...inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.
Again, not unique to Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus has an asterisk here showing an alternate reading which includes the Pericope Adulterae. The narrative however, is known from at least the early second century, from another unknown writing.
Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross.
Luke 23:34 from the Codex Sinaiticus site:
But Jesus said: Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And dividing his clothing among them, they cast lots.
One of the correctors thought this passage was doubtful, the other two did not. It is in the original text however. You can easily look it up at the Codex Sinaiticus site if you don't believe me.
The guy that wrote this article does not have a clue and has a huge axe to grind. That is a very bad combination.
BTS
-
cabasilas
My wife has a Bible that has a section in the back that contains devotional articles. Does that mean they're considered part of the Bible? How many JWs have had the "Reasoning" book added to the back of their Bibles? Just because the Shepherd of Hermas was added to that particular Codex does not mean it was considered on the same level as other books. That's a very anachronistic view -- looking at the Bible like the Protestants have since the 1500s. The early Church did not publish Bibles in book form for distribution.
-
slimboyfat
The early Church did not publish Bibles in book form for distribution.
Yes they did. In fact there is much discussion about whether the Codex Sinaiticus is possibly one of the 50 Bibles the Emperor Constantine commissioned from Eusebius.
See Books and Readers in the Early Church by Harry Gamble.
-
cabasilas
50 copies would not make a distribution list. Nor would it have the same sort of clout as the 1611 "Authorized" Version. Books then had to be hand copied and only represented the particular person (or group of persons) who put it together. They were not "official" texts. The first such "official" text would probably be Jerome's (which is later).
-
BurnTheShips
The canon was basically closed at the end of the 3rd Century.
Correction: 4th.
BTS
-
BurnTheShips
My wife has a Bible that has a section in the back that contains devotional articles.
Due to this thread, I am currently re-reading Barnabas and Hermas. What is interesting is that both of the "extra books" are at the end of the Codex, after Revelation. Precisely the same location many modern bibles would put "apocryphal" writings or explanatory articles today.
BTS
-
allelsefails
And Luther put Revelation and James at the end of his bible as unnumbered additions not a part of the text. The idea that the "canon" was settled at any point in history is ridiculous. The Ethiopian Church, and Syrian Church (one of the oldest in existence) use different canons to this day. Athanasius in 367 was the very first list of scripture to be the 27 we know today for the NT but he gave a different list of OT books than what we used today. And his voice was not definitive. A council met soon after that accepted his list of NT books but without Revelation. The idea of a NT canon having any historical basis is not based on any history I've read yet.