What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 263 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    slimboyfat, are you saying that none of the pre-2nd century CE extant copies of the Septuagint contain the divine name? I thought most of those did. Are you saying there are hardly any extant pre-2nd century CE copies of the Septuagint? Are you saying that all of those manuscripts use the divine name in the places where the same verses in the Hebrew language manuscripts of the OT say "YHWH?

    If you are saying such, then what you are saying in your posts makes a very strong case that what the WT has been saying (since the release of the 1950 first printing of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the NWT, and perhaps even since 1948 when the WT saw copies of Septuagint fragments containing the tetragram) about the removal of the name "YHWH" from the NT is true. If a pre-3rd century CE manuscript of any portion of the NT were to be found containing the name "YHWH" and if such were to be published in a scholarly journal, that would have a tremendous effect upon modern Christian theology and upon the credibility of some of the the WT's long held teachings!

    A moment ago I did an internet search on the words 'scholar "Lloyd Gaston" yahweh' and in doing so I found your comments posted at https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6276841381822464/most-successful-teaching-jehovahs-witnesses-amazing-new-book-on-divine-name .

  • waton
    waton

    If the creator of this immense universe we live in had any interest in this controversy, he would have never allowed this confusion to exist in the scriptures. imho. ---and conveniently

    The truth stays the same as Jehovah and Jesus never change : from GodBeliever

    Yeah, the name means: He is ever changing to whatever He wants/needs to be? rotating the 4 faces, eagle, man, lion and bull? or lying bull----? twisting neck, arm and scripture's meaning? ?

    all man-made concepts from A-Z.?

    the future will tell. enJoy.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    The early copies of the LXX do is the divine name. Unfortunately we do not have copies of the New Testament that are as early as those LXX manuscripts. If we did then we would know for sure whether the early New Testament used the divine name. In the absence of NT copies the safest assumption is that the same practice of using the divine name was followed in the New Testament as in the LXX.

    Those who insist that the NT manuscripts must be followed despite the fact that they date from a later period should bear in mind that those manuscripts don’t use “Lord” in full either, they all use abbreviations for Lord: KC. Those forms arose sometimes between the composition and the earliest manuscripts we have. So whatever way you look at it, none of event the earliest New Testament manuscripts preserve the original presentation of the divine name in those documents, they all contain a later modification.

    This is the book where Lloyd Gaston agrees with George Howard that the New Testament contained the divine name and uses it in his translation of Paul’s letters.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Paul-Torah-Lloyd-Gaston/dp/1597525383/

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Hi Slim,

    I believe that the New Testament is reliable. Conspiracy theories are interesting but unproven.

    The NWT inserts the divine name 232 times in the NT. Over half those inserts are not based on quotations from the OT but obvious leadership bias.

    So even still, Jesus name is emphasized more (300+ vs 232) than the name Jehovah.

    And again, scripturally speaking, there is no access to the Father without the Son. One cannot be saved, one cannot receive the Holy Spirit, one cannot see the kingdom of God without believing in the only Begotten of the Father.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    The idea that "there is no access to the Father without the Son" is a Christian idea not held by Jews who practice Judaism. The Bible book of Psalms contains numerous prayers to YHWH without invoking the name Yeshua. A great many of Jews of deep religious faith pray to God (using the Hebrew word meaning "Lord") and believe as much as devout Christians that God hears their prayers. The model prayer in the gospels of Matthew and Luke instructs the followers on how to pray, yet nowhere does it invoke the name of Jesus or the word Christ (though admittedly in other parts of the gospels Jesus instructs his followers to ask in his name when asking something of the Father).

    No better results are obtained when Christians (whether non-JW Christians or Jehovah's Witnesses) pray to God than when people practicing Judaism pray to God, or when Muslims pray to God. The results are same as when atheists contemplate what they want in their lives.

    Of course I have high conviction that no prayer reaches God/god (any god) and that there is no holy spirit (or any spirit being), since I'm now an atheistic naturalist.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    Obviously, the NT is about the fulfillment of Bible prophecy of the Messiah, Jesus. But it was the Great Jehovah that fulfilled prophecy by providing Jesus.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    @DJW,

    The idea that "there is no access to the Father without the Son" is a Christian idea not held by Jews who practice Judaism.

    You are absolutely right

    https://youtube.com/shorts/mqT7lC4Y8U4?feature=share

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Conspiracy theory? That seems to be the go to, discrediting label these days, doesn’t it?

    The divine name was removed from the LXX by Christians in the first couple of centuries CE - the pattern of its use and subsequent removal shows this. There are no New Testament manuscripts from the earliest period when the divine name was intact in the LXX. Since we know the divine name was removed from the LXX in that very period, it makes sense that the same process took place in the New Testament by the same people responsible for transmitting both texts. On top of that we have many verses in the New Testament that simply make much better sense on the assumption that the divine name was in the original. Plus there are all the variants conspicuously around ambiguous instances of “Lord”. Use of the divine name in the early New Testament is the most reasonable inference from the available evidence. So, if we must speak about “conspiracy”, then the conspiracy is among the scholars who have ignored or downplayed these facts for decades. In fact Lord Gaston describes the “discovery” as being “strangely neglected”.

    He further described the implications of the removal of the divine name from the New Testament this way:

    “G. Howard points out that in none of the now considerable LXX texts from the first century is kyrios used for the tetragrammaton, which is written in Hebrew letters. He concludes that the use of kyrios was begun by Christian scribes in the second century, who applied it also to New Testament texts. This means that Old Testament citations in the New Testament manuscripts originally contained the tetragrammaton. It will be seen that this makes a considerable difference in the interpretation of many texts.” Paul and the Torah, pp. 117, 118.

    Let’s be clear, the reason why Trinitarians want to avoid the evidence for the divine name in the New Testament is because it undermines their theology. Because when the divine name is restored to the text then the distinction between Jesus and Jehovah becomes even clearer than it already is. The removal of the divine name went hand in hand with the elevation of Jesus to supreme deity, and the Trinity teaching. That’s why many will continue to ignore, downplay, or mischaracterise they evidence at all costs.

    How can Jesus possibly be “emphasised” more than Jehovah? His very name means “Jehovah is salvation”. So every occurrence of the name Jesus points to Jehovah as the source of salvation. It’s literally as daft as saying “Jehovah is salvation” is emphasised more than “Jehovah”. The early Christians knew what Jesus’ name meant and they knew it’s implications in pointing to Jehovah as the source of salvation. (See Matt 1:21)
  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Hi Slim,

    "Conspiracy theory? That seems to be the go to, discrediting label these days, doesn’t it?"

    That the divine name was in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament is a theory...since it does not appear in one of the thousands of ancient manuscripts. Now if a bunch of Trinitarians or some other group in the second century plotted to and removed the divine name from all existing manuscripts that would certainly qualify as a conspiracy. So conspiracy theory readily fits the bill.

    So the fact is that there is no proof the the divine name was in any ancient Greek NT manuscript and there is no proof of a conspiracy to remove the name. So my take is that a real conspiracy took place in the offices at headquarters in Brooklyn when a group of men made it their aim to insert the divine name into the Greek NT 237 times to fit their theology where the evidence says it does not belong, rendering the New Testament unreliable.

    JWfacts has this to say on the subject:

    Several available manuscripts date back to this period. P47 dates prior to 300 A.D. and contains four uses of Kyrios from Revelation that the NWT translates as Jehovah. P66 dates from around 200 A.D. from John (written in 98 A.D) and contains five occurrences of Lord that appear in the NWT as Jehovah. Some manuscripts go back to within 25 years of John's writings, yet none contains YHWH.

    Evidence it did not Appear

    There is much evidence that YHWH never appeared in the New Testament. Most obvious is the absence of YHWH in any of the 5,000 discovered Greek New Testament manuscripts.

    Important evidence is also contained in the writings of the early Christians. These are referred to as the Apostolic Fathers and Ante Nicene Fathers who wrote from the times of the Apostles to the third century. This includes Polycarp, who studied with the Apostle John and Justin Martyr who lived from 110 to 165 A.D. Their extensive writings are a source of information on the early Church, including the formulation of the Trinity doctrine and the development of the Bible Canon. Yet in their writings there is no discussion about the removal of God's name from the Scriptures. If a global conspiracy existed to remove YHWH from the all New Testament manuscripts debate most certainly would have occurred between these writers.

    Furthermore, their works do not contain YHWH when quoting from New Testament Scriptures. For example, in Against Heresies, Irenaeus quotes Matthew 1:20; 4:10 and Romans 11:34, each time using the word Lord instead of Jehovah. Clement, mentioned at Philippians 4:3, wrote the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians between 75 and 110 A.D. and used Kyrios when quoting from the Old Testament. (See 1 Clement 13:5 which quotes Ezekiel 33:11.)

    Justin Martyr converted to Christianity around 150 A.D., a mere 50 years after the Bible was completed. He had access to early copies of the New Testament yet in The Second Apology, Chapter VI he wrote;

    "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions."

    Justin Martyr shows that Christians referred to the Father by appellations, but not a name such as Jehovah.

  • Sea Breeze

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit