Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?

by minimus 43 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Crazyguy

  David-jay one thing to remember yes people do believe that possibly a new god was introduced to the Jews from the area you mentioned but let's not forget that the writers said this god was the god of the forefathers and gave this god the same atributes as El and Baal Hadad.

  There is also some scriptures talking about a mountain in the north called Zaphon and this was Baals mountain the scriptures in question transfers this mountain and its holy place to another to the south. I'll have to look it up but again it's as if they transferred the mountain and the God down to thier mountain nearer to them.
• 

  schnell

  @David-Jay, you are the hero of this thread.
• 

  smiddy

  The four Hebrew letters that represent God`s name in the Old Testament (hebrew Scriptures ) the tetragrammaton do not appear in the New Testament the Christian Greek Scriptures.

  Nor do any equivalent four letter Greek letters translated from the Hebrew , the Tetragrammaton exist in the New Testament,to represent the name of God. Their just not their.

  Those four consonants , translated in english from Hebrew as either JHVH or YHWH , contained in the Old Testament are their because they exist in the Old Testament Hebrew sources.

  And so the name Jehovah / Yahweh (preferably ) is warranted in the Old Testament .

  But the same cannot be said about that name for God or any other name for God in the new testament.because the source of these texts do not contain those four letters either in Greek or Hebrew to warrant their inclusion in the New Testament,

  Neither Jesus , the Apostles ,nor his disciples ever used the " word" Jehovah in the New testament /Christian Greek Scriptures

  Not one of them ever used that word Jehovah /Yahweh , not one of them.

  Yet in the Christian Greek Scriptures the New Testament plainly states that the name of JESUS is to be "exalted above" every other name in Heaven , on Earth , and under the Earth.

  The Bible clearly shows that followers of Jesdus Christ were by

  " Divine providence " to be called Christians ( not Jehovahs Witnesses )

  That is from the mouth of God., if you put your faith in the Bible.and not a man made organization of the late 1800`s ,when so many religions began.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Actually Papyrus Rylans 458 has lacunae where either YHWH or KYRIOS would be found. The Wikipedia entry for this is clumsily written, if that is what you are relying upon:

  The manuscript has been used in discussions about the Tetragrammaton, although there are actually blank spaces in the places where some scholars such as C. H. Roberts believe that it contained letters.[3] According to Paul E. Kahle, the Tetragrammaton must have been written in the manuscript where these breaks or blank spaces appear.[4]

  The text is not extant in the places where the divine name would appear, so experts have divided over what would have originally stood there. Paul Kahle for example was confident that the Tetragrammaton was used in the text. In truth the text simply doesn't survive where it would need to in order to tell us one way or the other. See section 1 here that explains:

  http://digidownload.libero.it/domingo7/howard.pdf
  

  You can examine the whole thing to see that neither YHWH or KYRIOS is part of the preserved text:

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Rylands_458#/media/File%3AP._Rylands_458.jpg
  

  The author of the Wikipedia entry apparently equates "blank spaces" with lacunae, which is confusing for people familiar with the later manuscript of Genesis (PBerlin 17213) that reportedly has blank spaces where the divine name should appear. (Although this is disputed by Emanuel Tov) This manuscript dates from the third century CE and represents a relatively late development in the treatment of the divine name.

  All the earliest extant copies of the LXX used either YHWH or IAW. Copies using substitutes do not appear until the second century CE. The fragments of the LXX from the first century and earlier use YHWH or IAW. There are no fragments from this early period that use KYRIOS. Or if there are could you point them out?
• 

  David_Jay

  Slimboyfat,

  Actually, I've worked on an interconfessional translation of the Scriptures in the early 2000s between Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. I did some work on the Deuterocanonicals, and with help from members of the CBA I got access to the textual materials that went into the current Catholic NABRE. It used a "patchwork" approach to produce its current 2011 revision of these books, including Hebrew manuscripts previously unavailable to produce English versions of Tobit and Ben Sira.

  It was during this period that I got access to the Septuagint texts. Jews don't use them much anymore, even though they are Jewish translations of the Tanakh into Greek. This is when I got to see the various fragments for myself (though most in facsimile format due to the fact that the originals cannot be exposed to handling). Pr458 has spaces with dots instead of the Tetragramaton. I've seen it personally as well as the 2nd generation LXX texts with the Divine Name in Hebrew characters.

  The Septuagint is a work of the BCE period, not the CE era. The reason the CBA members were so helpful in my introduction to these tests is that the Catholic Church accepted the Canon of the Alexandrian Septuagint prior to the development of both the Marcion canon and the New Testament canon. It is marked as the "LXX" (which is the number 70 in Roman numerals) due to the tradition that 70 scholars of the Jewish diaspora produced it.

  So no, I am not relying on Wikipedia but my own educational training I received after leaving the JWs and my personal experience from my professional life.

  Your claim that the LXX is a Christian work from the Christian era is neither substantiated by history or dating of the manuscripts themselves. The Septuagint is well-known as a work of the Jewish diaspora Second Temple era, predating Christianity. Some of the quotes of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament come from the LXX, which in itself proves that it came before the first century.

  The finalized generations of the Septuagint abandoned the use of retaining the Divine Name centuries before the first Christian texts were composed. Because it was used as a source for Tanakh quotes, the New Testament has no use of the Divine Name when it quotes the LXX. This was even acknowledged in the appendix material of the original 1950 edition of the New World Translation.

  Because the LXX has those "extra" books like Ben Sira, Tobit, Wisdom, and editions to Esther and Daniel is the reason the Catholic Church has them in their canon. It was the version of the Old Testament inherited by the original Church. The books of Maccabees, products of the Septuagint, contains the origins of the Jewish celebration of Chanukah and are read by many Jews each year on the 8 nights of celebration. These facts alone show the LXX cannot be a product of the CE period, let alone that secular history records when the LXX was produced.

  To demonstrate, a copy of the Septuagint (which legend said was owned by Cleopatra) was reportedly lost in the fire set by Julius Caesar's men during a battle which spread to the Library of Alexandria. This happened during one of his famous battles that occurred in 48 BCE. This footnote to history would have been impossible if the LXX was a product of the Christian era.

  Again, as I've stated in my previous post, why believe me, a Jew, right? We wouldn't know our own history or details about our own holy books like the Septuagint, or so it seems by the way many Christians and non-Jews challenge us about the details regarding our own culture.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I respect your experience and the fact you are Jewish. It doesn't alter the facts. PRylands 458 doesn't contain any instances of the divine name or its substitutes, on this the various experts, and the photographs agree. If you are correct there are dots in this manuscript where the divine name should occur (I have never seen this stated in relation to this manuscript) then it would significantly alter scholarship on the manuscript. Have you got any reference to back this up? All the scholars I have read agree the text is not extant in the places where the divine name or its substitutes would appear.

  Your claim that the LXX is a Christian work...

  I have not said this and I am at a loss where you get this idea.

  What I have said is that all the LXX fragments earlier than then second century CE use forms of the divine name. None of them use KYRIOS in this early period.
• 

  David_Jay

  Dude, Slimboy, you started off by saying...

  "The earliest Christian copies using KYRIOS date no earlier than late second century AD. The fragment of Genesis that leaves spaces for either YHWH or KYRIOS is quite late, from the third century, and probably Christian."

  There are no Christian copies of the Septuagint. They are Jewish. The Septuagint was completed in 132 BCE, and as such this statement of yours is impossible. Christians did not produce the LXX, and the earliest copies predate the first century CE.
  
  
• 

  David_Jay

  And I just verified this with several scholar friends of mine.

  Papyrus Rylands 458 contains only verses from Deuteronomy, and contrary to your claim, it covers verses in which the Divine Name is supposed to occur, namely...

  Deuteronomy 28:17-19 and 27:15 and 28:2.

  Where the Hebrew text contains the Divine Name in these verses, Papyrus Rylands 458 contains empty spaces.

  There are various photographs of this papyrus all over the Internet, as well as well-established agreement in many authoritative publications and academic journals. Your claims that this is a product of the Christian era and covers no verse where the Divine Name should appear are quite incorrect.
• 

  slimboyfat

  There are no Christian copies of the Septuagint.

  What is codex Sainiticus then, and the many many other Christian copies of the LXX? This is so demonstrably false, maybe you mistyped or meant to say something else?

  Christians did not produce the LXX, and the earliest copies predate the first century CE.

  This is what I am saying. And none of those pre-Christian copies use KYRIOS. All of them use forms of the divine name.

  Papyrus Rylands 458 contains only verses from Deuteronomy, and contrary to your claim, it covers verses in which the Divine Name is supposed to occur, namely...
  Deuteronomy 28:17-19 and 27:15 and 28:2.

  I did not say the verses did not contain the divine name. I said there are lacunae in the manuscript where the divine name or a substitute would appear. You can see this in the picture posted above, or read it in comments from scholars such as Howard, Pietersma, Tov and others.

  Your claims that this is a product of the Christian era and covers no verse where the Divine Name should appear are quite incorrect.

  I have nowhere said PRylands 458 is Christian. It is from the second century BCE so it cannot be Christian.

  Please post any reference anywhere that says PRylands 458 has dots or spaces in place of the divine name.
• 

  David_Jay

  The Codex Sinaiticus is a Christian codex of the Christian canon written by Gentiles, whereas the Septuagint is made up of Jewish scrolls written by Jews.

  The Codex Sinaiticus comes from around 300 CE, but the Septuagint from around 132 BCE.

  The Codex Sinaiticus was written in leafs, sown into signatures, an invention of the Gentiles, whereas the codex had not been invented when the Jewish translators of the Septuagint did their work (which is why the LXX is on scrolls).

  The Codex Sinaitcus contains the entire Christian canon of books, and it was composed by Christians some 300 years after the Temple fell. The Septuagint is a Jewish translation of the Tanakh into Greek of the Second Temple era, almost 200 years before the birth of Christ.

  The Greek translation of the Old Testament in the Codex Sinaticus is a copy of a late tradition of the Septuagint, whereas the Septuagint is not a copy of anything but an original translation.

  You claim here that "I have nowhere said PRylands 458 is Christian. It is from the second century BCE so it cannot be Christian." But prior to this, in an earlier post you wrote:

  The earliest copies of the LXX used various forms of YHWH or the Greek transliteration IAW. (There are about 7 such examples) None of the Jewish fragments that survive show KYRIOS instead of the divine name. The earliest Christian copies using KYRIOS date no earlier than late second century AD. The fragment of Genesis that leaves spaces for either YHWH or KYRIOS is quite late, from the third century, and probably Christian. It is probably indicative of the transition from using YHWH to KYRIOS in Christian practice.

  You write that “the earliest copies of the LXX used various forms of YHWH” though you now agree that the earliest example in the Rylands fragment does not. You also wrote that there are “Jewish fragments” of the LXX that have survived in contrast to a “fragment of Genesis” of the LXX that “is quite late, from the third century, and probably Christian.”

  From this I gathered you were saying that the PR 458 is the fragment “that leaves spaces...from the third century, probably Christian.” My mistake if I didn’t understand you, but the only copy of the Septuagint “that leaves spaces” for YHWH is PR 458. PR 458 contains only portions of Deuteronomy, not Genesis, and originates from about 200 years before the birth of Christ.

  You added in a later post: “The text is not extant in the places where the divine name would appear.” But as I demonstrated, PR 458 consists only of Deuteronomy sections, and the Divine Name is supposed to appear several times at Deuteronomy 28:17-19 and 27:15 and 28:2, where PR 458 only has spaces instead.

  So I will claim I am making the mistake in understanding you. You wrote these things, but obviously you have different meanings behind your words I do not see. You must be talking about something else and thus we are comparing your apples to my oranges.

  But your claims about what is the LXX and what isn’t might be due to your mistaking all Greek translations of the Hebrew text as Septuagint, where that is not the case. If it wasn’t on a scroll written by Jews circa 200-150 years before Christ, it is not the Septuagint.