Oldest bible being put online - what will that mean for WTS teachings?

by Simon 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • quietlyleaving
    quietlyleaving

    Here is an interesting discussion of George Howard and the tetragram. It seems to me that George Howard is a scholar who searches for continuity but finds he has to rely on conjecture to do so. The study begins like this....

    http://www.tetragrammaton.org/tetrapdxd.htm

    The Watch Tower Society relies heavily on a study by George Howard [1] which supports the Tetragrammaton's [2] presence in the Christian Greek Scriptures. It would be helpful to the interested reader to evaluate the entire manuscript. However, its length does not allow reproduction in this appendix. (Copies are available from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, NY.) Therefore, only pertinent quotations and summaries of the study will be given here. Quoted materials are set in a distinctive type face. Where needed, Greek and Hebrew words are translated in brackets added to the Howard text. In the opening paragraph, George Howard says:

    [1] This material was originally presented at the University of Georgia (Atlanta) and subsequently appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, #1, March 1977, pp. 63-83 entitled "The Tetragram and the New Testament." Permission to quote from this article has been granted by the Society of Biblical Literature.

    [2] Both "Tetragrammaton" and "Tetragram" are appropriate designations for the Hebrew form of God's name ????. The Howard study uses the term "Tetragram."

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    A council met soon after that accepted his list of NT books but without Revelation.

    Please explain. The Council of Carthage in 397 pretty much settled what belonged in the NT for western Christianity . IIRC, this includes Revelation. Pope Damasus held a council with the same list in 382. You yourself mention Athanasius in 367. Augustine pretty much considered it a settled issue in the early 5th, and the Eastern churches in that century as well.

    The idea of a NT canon having any historical basis is not based on any history I've read yet.

    Please explain. The NT canon has a historical basis, since we are discussing actual lists from authoritative historical sources. By the way, I believe the NT canon is the same for both the Ethiopian and Syrian Churches.

    BTS

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    Wasn't there an apologist here named 'scholar'? Hence the quasi-scholar comment.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    slimboyfat and Earnest,

    I'm not running for the "nicest JWN poster" award but I don't think I have actually resorted to "name-calling"... in any case, if anyone cares about "Narkissos" being nice or rude (which I hope not and very much doubt) they can make their mind about it either from your characterisation or by what I have actually written, on this thread or in the rest of my posting history.

    As I have admitted before, I read what I feel like reading, and these days that rarely includes the kind of fringe Biblical scholarship JW (semi-)apologists seem to be fond of. I may respond to arguments and "evidence" inasmuch as they are set out clearly online though. I don't think I "owe" anybody more than that (or anything for that matter).

    My approach to Bible texts is certainly not that of exhaustive academic scholarship. Its particular angle is determined by my personal history which includes an intimate interest (or "bias" if you want, of a religious, mystical, theological, or philosophical kind depending on the cases) in the texts as well as the practice of translation. Contextual narrative or rhetorical meaning and its drift from text "pre-history" to the history of exegesis is henceforth central to it.

    My biggest issue with the NWT on that particular topic is that, imo, its insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT does alter the meaning of a number of texts to the point of destroying it completely in some cases (e.g. Romans 10:13). As I have acknowledged already, this is not always so: in some passages the insertion of "Jehovah," although materially (and as far as I have gathered, theoretically) unwarranted, doesn't alter the meaning significantly (e.g. Luke 1--2).

    I confess that I have very little sympathy for general theories of "scripture" which extrapolate from the Jewish Hebrew or Greek "corpus" to the NT one(s), disregarding the functional differences between them and more importantly the inner diversity of each collection -- why,how and to which audience the individual texts were written in the first place, before they were collected and copied as one book (the contents of which varied btw as the present thread illustrates). So when I hear of a theory inferring from the presence of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton or some Greek transliteration of it in (some) LXX mss that the same might have happened in Christian "scripture" just because we regard both indifferently as "scripture," my first question is, where could have that happened (in spite of the lack of any material evidence that it did)? What texts are we exactly speaking of? How would the hypothesis fare in the narrative or rhetorical context of each passage and each work? What would it explain better than the majoritary LXX and NT ms usage of kurios, especially anarthrous, standing for the "divine name"? To which specific early Christian audience would it make sense?

    Maybe it's not necessary to hijack this thread further and the discussion can follow on one we have already hijacked, and where it has been left pending (not by me): http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/174104/4/Nehemia-Gordon-and-the-pronunciation-of-the-tetragrammaton

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Looking over your old posts Narkissos is a good suggestion, not to make a judgement but just because they are good reading. And I said the 'quasi-scholar' comment was uncharacteristically mean. I respect you so much and look up to you like a mentor (whether you like that or not) - you were kind to me some time ago when you suggested I read Narcissus and Goldmund and The Outsider - so the suggestion I am writing in bad faith or just poorly is deflating I admit. But I won't make a drama out of it especially since you clarify you are Narkissos of the screen not Didier of the north of France. I didn't think there was a difference but I stand corrected.

    I am sorry about having left the other thread pending. I have thought about replying to you and Leolaia many times and there is much I would like to say. I was just a bit overwhelmed by the sheer volume of it. And I have been reading lots of new information on the subject in the past few weeks. My silence marks trepidation and cogitation, not indifference or disregard for the comments you have both made.

    Furuli is a 'fringe scholar' for this subject for sure, but I don't see how you could justify saying that for any of the other scholars I mentioned.

    John Ziesler's books on Paul's theology are published by academic presses: Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, SCM. James Dunn names Ziesler's Pauline Christianity as among the three most popular introductions to Paul in English in his own book The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Ziesler's commentary Paul's Letter to the Romans discusses the distinction made between the Lord God and the Lord Jesus in Romans 10 in particular. He argues that the context shows the Lord God, as source of the resurrection and hence salvation, not the Lord Jesus is in Paul's mind when he quotes Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13:

    5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

    David Trobisch has also been published by academic presses. He spoke at the academic conference on the Codex Sinaiticus at the British Library this month, alongside scholars such as Eldon Jay Epp, Albert Pietersma and Harry Gamble. The foreword to his book Paul's Letter Collection was written by Gerd Theissen. I don't think he can be relegated to a lunatic fringe. He argues that the Tetragrammaton was originally used in the books of the NT in his book The First Edition of the New Testament, where he also explores the origin of the nomina sacra at some length.

    And I think you are unfair to George Howard on the other thread when you infer he did not appreciate there was not a New Testament as such in the first century. He was a professor of Religion who was published in peer reviewed journals - I think he deserves some credit - and it seems highly unlikely somehow he was unaware the parameters of the NT were not settled in the first century. His perhaps imprecise language in the Biblical Archaeology Review about the first century New Testament may possibly be explained by the target audience in that instance which was the general public not his academic peers. It's certainly true his theory about the Tetragrammaton originally being in the writings of the NT was not embraced by other scholars when it was published - by hey maybe he was just ahead of his time.

    And there are many prominent scholars who support aspects of the argument for the Tetragrammaton being in early Christian texts. Emanuel Tov is now in print rejecting Albert Pietersma's view that kyrios was used in the original LXX, instead supporting Paul Skehan's argument that IAW was the original rendering. Textual scholars of the Hebrew Bible/LXX don't come much more senior than Tov. Reading Frank Shaw's dissertation recently convinces me the tide is turning in the direction of those who have argued the LXX and early NT texts used the divine name. The idea that the divine name had fallen out of use by the first century outside of mystical contexts is everywhere in retreat. And the indications from within the NT text itself that there was a continued focus on the divine name, and that there is something amiss with how the extant text employs divine names, is coming more sharply into focus.

    I know by now not to do anything as futile as attempt to compel you to read something you don't want to. But you are asking the question how I can still say there is good evidence the Tetragrammaton was originally in the NT writings despite our previous conversations. I am saying it is because of what I have read by George Howard, David Trobisch, John Ziesler. (And on related subjects: Emanuel Tov, Colin Roberts, Paul Kahle, Paul Skehan, Bart Ehrman, Larry Hurtado, Bruce Metzger, Frank Shaw and many others) This is not "fringe Biblical scholarship", it's just scholarship, for whatever reason, you've chosen not to read.

    I will put this post over on the other thread also in view of your suggestion.

  • allelsefails
    allelsefails

    BTS - Perhaps I did not express my point properly. There was not a single list found that has the canon we use today until 330 years after Jesus death! Many early Christians quoted from some of these books, but not as scripture - just quotes. I see no evidence of a universally accepted NT list in history. Even tho Athanasius used the same list most do today he was not the "authority" on the subject. No Catholic Canon existed until the Coucil of Trent in 1545! As mentioned Luther (the inventor of Protestantism) did not accept Revelation or James as canonical. And up to today we still have conflict.

    ^ "Canon of the New Testament" . http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm .

    Athanasius is also the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. A milestone in the evolution of the canon of New Testament books is his Easter letter from Alexandria, written in 367, usually referred to as his 39th Festal Letter. Pope Damasus, the Bishop of Rome in 382, promulgated a list of books which contained a New Testament canon identical to that of Athanasius. [citation needed] A synod in Hippo in 393 repeated Athanasius' and Damasus' New Testament list (without the Epistle to the Hebrews), and a synod in Carthage in 397 repeated Athanasius' and Damasus' complete New Testament list.

    Scholars have debated whether Athanasius' list in 367 was the basis for the later lists. Because Athanasius' canon is the closest canon of any of the Church Fathers to the canon used by Protestant churches today, many Protestants point to Athanasius as the father of the canon. They are identical except that Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. [ 16 ]

    [edit] Augustine and the North African canons

    Augustine of Hippo declared without qualification that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive" (On Christian Doctrines 2.12). Of course, this whitewashes the fact that by "Catholic Churches" he means those whose opinion he accepts, since many Eastern Churches rejected some of the very books Augustine upheld as universally received. In the same passage, Augustine asserted that these dissenting churches should be outweighed by the opinions of "the more numerous and weightier churches."

    Augustine effectively forced his opinion on the Church by commanding three synods on canonicity: the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 A.D. (M 237-8). Each of these reiterated the same Church law: "nothing shall be read in church under the name of the divine scriptures" except the Old Testament (including the Deuterocanonicals) and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. Incidentally, these decrees also declared by fiat that Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, for a time ending all debate on the subject.

    The first council that accepted the present canon of the books of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (A.D. 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Revelation was added to the list in 419. [ 71 ] These councils were convened under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. [ 72 ] [ 73 ] [ 74 ]

    Note - Revelation added in 419 not in 393 or 397.

    Here is the info found on Wiki (Most have reliable references - too much to put here) on different canons still in use today.

    [edit] Peshitta

    Main article: Peshitta

    The late-5th or early-6th century Peshitta of the Syrian Orthodox Church [ 86 ] includes a 22-book NT, excluding II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. (The Lee Peshitta of 1823 follows the Protestant canon)

    McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-2, lists the following Syrian catalogue of St. Catherine's, c.400:

    Gospels (4): Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Gal, Rom, Heb, Col, Eph, Phil, 1-2 Thess, 1-2 Tim, Titus, Phlm.

    The SyriacPeshitta, used by all the various Syrian Churches, originally did not include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation (and this canon of 22-books is the one cited by John Chrysostom (~347–407) and Theodoret (393–466) from the School of Antioch). It also includes Psalm 151 and Psalm 152–155 and 2 Baruch. Western Syrians have added the remaining 5 books to their NT canons in modern times (such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823). Today, the official lectionaries followed by the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (India), and the Chaldean Syrian Church, also known as the Church of the East (Nestorian), with headquarters at Trichur (India), still present lessons from only the 22-books of the original Peshitta. [ 87 ]

    [edit] Armenian canon

    The Armenian Bible introduces one addition: a third letter to the Corinthians, also found in the Acts of Paul, which became canonized in the Armenian Church, but is not part of the Armenian Bible today. Revelation, however, was not accepted into the Armenian Bible until c. 1200 A.D. when Archbishop Nerses arranged an Armenian Synod at Constantinople to introduce the text [ 88 ] . Still, there were unsuccessful attempts even as late as 1290 A.D. to include in the Armenian canon several apocryphal books: Advice of the Mother of God to the Apostles, the Books of Criapos, and the ever-popular Epistle of Barnabas.

    The Armenian Apostolic church at times has included the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in its Old Testament and the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, but does not always list it with the other 27 canonical New Testament books.

    [edit] East African canons

    The Coptic Bible (adopted by the Egyptian Church) includes the two Epistles of Clement, and the Ethiopic Bible includes books nowhere else found: the Sinodos (a collection of prayers and instructions supposedly written by Clement of Rome), the Octateuch (a book supposedly written by Peter to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (in two parts, the first details rules of church order, the second relates instructions from Jesus to the disciples given between the resurrection and the ascension), and the Didascalia (with more rules of church order, similar to the Apostolic Constitutions).

    The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement. [ 88 ] The canon of the Tewahedo Churches is somewhat looser than for other traditional Christian groups, and the order, naming, and chapter/verse division of some of the books is also slightly different. The Ethiopian "narrow" canon includes 81 books altogether: The 27 book New Testament; those Old Testament books found in the Septuagint and accepted by the Orthodox; as well as Enoch, Jubilees, 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, and 3 books of Maccabees; however, the three Ethiopian books of Maccabees are entirely different in content from the four Books of Maccabees known elsewhere.

    The "broader" Ethiopian New Testament canon includes four books of "Sinodos" (church practices), two "Books of Covenant", "Ethiopic Clement", and "Ethiopic Didascalia" (Apostolic Church-Ordinances). However, these books have never been printed or widely studied. This "broader" canon is also sometimes said to include, with the Old Testament, an eight part history of the Jews based on the writings of Flavius Josephus, and known as "Pseudo-Josephus" or "Joseph ben Gurion" (Yosef walda Koryon). [ 89 ] [ 90 ]

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    There are many books in both the OT and NT aprocryoha (SP?) that were not used as canon and no one really knows why.

    1Enoch is an example of one from the OT that was not used and that was still quoted from, heck, Revelation and 1Enoch have quite a few things in common.

    There are a few apocolypse in the NT, those of Peter and james for example, there are variosu Acts and lets not forget that the earliest christian writing was probably the "Passion narrative".

    Remember John's revelation was not accepted as Canon for some time and even then many had issues with it.

    One of the biggest issues was that of authorship, but that issue tend to be used on a "subjective" basis and was very bias, I mean, if we were to remove all writings in which the authorship was in question or anonymous, well, where would the NWT be right now ?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit