by smiddy 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Anybody else see a problem reconciling these two claims?
I like the video you posted berrygerry
"JWs lie about Christendom..."
In other breaking news, water is wet.
careful
There is an interesting new book out by Robert J. Wilkinson published in 2015, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God. It's big and dense. In his chapter 10, "The Tetragrammaton in Vernacular Bibles, Popular Print, and Illustration," he has some discussion on the name Jehovah. Among the things he notes is that this form of the divine name "commended itself to English Protestants" (page 357), so that's why it caught on so much in the English-speaking world. You might want to look at it, or to the review of it by Frank Shaw (who also has a book out on the divine name—see here: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6276841381822464/most-successful-teaching-jehovahs-witnesses-amazing-new-book-on-divine-name) in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 67 (2016) pages 759-762: https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/67/2/759/2568861/Tetragrammaton-Western-Christians-and-the-Hebrew?redirectedFrom=PDF.
There is still much to learn on this subject.
careful, while what you say is true, Wilkinson does attest how the use of the tetragrammaton after the first century CE succumbed to the desire on the part of christians to remove the tetragrammaton from awareness by means of the substitution of LORD for it grew and grew (to distance themselves from Jews) so that both the old testament and the new testament ceased to contain the tetragrammaton and so great was its removal that the time came when no one questioned its absence p.124). This I think supports the JW position re the tetragrammaton and this prolly also influenced English protestants too.
also this agrees with other scholars like F Shaw who makes similar points regarding the first 150 years of christianity. I think JWs have a strong line of argument for their reception of the tetragrammaton to include it in their bibles.
I really think that arguments between biblical scholars on this site obscure what the situation was like during the first 150 years of christianity because the one scholar who comes to mind, Narkissos, was obviously arguing from Christian tradition and he therefore treated his own translation of the bible from that pov. In contrast slimboyfat tends to be dismissed an a young ardent enthusiast for the name Jehovah. I think this is misleading.
While this discussion is interesting, it is undeniable that nearly all of the new Bible translations in the last 30 years do not contain the Divine name.
Ruby456 , l think that it has been said a couple of times on this thread , once by me , that the Tetragrammaton was never in the NT . ls there proof that it was ? a few years ago a Biblical scholar from Birmingham ( UK ) University lectured at my church and l asked that question . He said that no early manuscripts had been found containing the Tetragrammaton . l also seem to remember reading that the first JW NWT had a foreword acknowledging this .
Jan
THE DIVINE NAME (pg 10 of 1950 version of the NWT)One of the remarkable facts, not only about the extant manuscripts of the original text, but in many versions, ancient and modern, is the absence of the divine name
jhine what does the NWT say in more recent editions about the use of the divine name? I ask because the dead sea scrolls were discovered during 1946-56 and the divine name does appear here as Iao probably pronounced Jahu or Iahu or something like that.
that 1950 NWT as you say notes the downplaying of the tetragrammaton. I don't like the term original texts cos there were no original texts - all texts are about reception and the ways they were received at the time. Early christianity sought to distance itself from Jews and their texts and this eventually led to the complete substitution of the tetragrammaton by the use of the world Lord. so this is what JWs are referring to from whatever scholarship they have done. One can actually feel their sense of outrage that the divine name is taken out of the text. However in putting it in they are distancing themselves from other branches of christianity today and indicating that they are going to be very literal.
My own interest is in reception studies rather than in anything else cos I am interested in what conditions were like on the ground at the time. It gives a great buzz when I find something interesting and I tend to dig away to trace what scholars argue about to make up my own mind. Often though I have to allow place for ambiguity and that we will never know for sure. xjws operate in this space I think. Your pastor seems to be drawing on christian tradition to support his stance while JWs will do anything but support Christian tradition although when we look deeper they are very much aligned with protestantism as careful mentioned from Wilkinson's book (see where I have bolded below).
There is an interesting new book out by Robert J. Wilkinson published in 2015, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God. It's big and dense. In his chapter 10, "The Tetragrammaton in Vernacular Bibles, Popular Print, and Illustration," he has some discussion on the name Jehovah. Among the things he notes is that this form of the divine name "commended itself to English Protestants" (page 357), so that's why it caught on so much in the English-speaking world. You might want to look at it, or to the review of it by Frank Shaw (who also has a book out on the divine name—see here: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6276841381822464/most-successful-teaching-jehovahs-witnesses-amazing-new-book-on-divine-name) in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 67 (2016) pages 759-762: https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/67/2/759/2568861/Tetragrammaton-Western-Christians-and-the-Hebrew?redirectedFrom=PDF.
There is still much to learn on this subject.
Ruby456 , l did not say my Pastor / Vicar l said a professor from Birmingham University who came to talk about early manuscripts . He was not following Christian Tradition and was well aware of the Dead Sea scrolls and all the other manuscripts that had been found up until , l think that it was about 4 years ago . Tradition had nothing to do with it .
Also in the 1950's edition despite , AT THAT TIME , acknowledging no mention of the Tetragrammaton in any of the EARLIEST manuscripts the WT still went ahead and added Jehovah where they THOUGHT it appropriate , with no basis for doing that .
Jan
