NWTetc (09-Jul-04 10:00 GMT) : I will say that my research notes (now 27+ years old) tell me that I checked 1 Corinthians 7:17 and it did contain a tetragrammaton in place of kurios (at the beginning) and did not contain a tetragrammaton in place of theos (at the end) as you asserted. So, according to my notes, the WT got it right the first time. Maybe I "slipped up" as you claim they did. I can't recall that detail now. I can only rely on my notes. However, I hope to have a microfiche copy of J7 in the next month. So, I can check it again.
Which brings me around to why I found your explanation very, very interesting. My guess is that you have never seen a J-Docuement. So, someone else fed you that paragraph. What was your source? I want to know this very, very much.
Sorry, NWTetc, wrong on both counts. 1 Corinthians 7:17 (in J 7,8 ) does contain the tetragrammaton in place of theos (at the end), not in place of kurios (at the beginning), as I asserted. My undertanding that this was the case was initially based on the footnotes to 1 Corinthians 7:17.
Pre-1984 footnote on the name Jehovah in place of kurios (at the beginning) :
"Jehovah, J 7,8 (in accord with Romans 12:3, 2 Corinthians 10:13 and Hebrews 2:4); God, J 17 and Textus Receptus; the Lord, P 46 [Aleph]BACDVgSy p J 18 ."
Post-1984 footnote on the name Jehovah in place of kurios (at the beginning) :
in accord with Romans 12:3 and 2 Corinthians 10:13;
the Lord, P
[Aleph]ABCD; God, Sy h and Textus Receptus.
Post-1984 footnote on God in place of theos (at the end) :
"God, P 46 [Aleph]ABCDVgSy p ; the Lord, Sy h and Textus Receptus; Jehovah, J 7,8,10 ."
So even though the NWT translators did not concur with the translators of J
that theos should be replaced with the divine name, its quite clear when comparing the two footnotes that they had initially mistaken the tetragrammaton to be in place of kurios, as you did.
You are also mistaken in your guess that I have never seen a J-Document as I then verified my conclusion by checking the J-Document at my local university library. If you are interested, I will scan the page on this thread for you to see for yourself.
Earnest (10-Jul-04 03:29 GMT) : I have sufficient confidence that the translators of the NWT would know the difference between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John to accept that they would not mistake the two. Unfortunately I have had some difficulty in obtaining a copy of this rather obscure translation (published by the British Jews Society of Haifa in 1930) but have contacted the American Bible Society as they may still have it in their library. I will certainly relay their observations if they do, but it is not unusual for translations of the Gospels to show the parallel readings in the other Gospels.
I have had a reply from the American Bible Society which seems to bear out your conclusions. Our correspondence was as follows :
...I wonder if you would confirm whether or not there are also passages of Luke in this Gospel. I am particularly interested whether it contains the 'Temptation in the Wilderness' passage in Luke 4, possibly as a parallel passage to the little John has to say, and whether the passage in Luke contains the tetragrammaton where it occurs in Jesus' quotations from the OT.
...I have in front of me the book you are interested in. I do not read Hebrew, but it was not difficult to identify Jn 1:51 and I can assure you no parallel texts are quoted here or anywhere else in the book. I do not see the tetragrammaton anywhere on the page.
While I don't consider it a matter of great importance, I do find this rather perplexing because of the accuracy in providing the details of this translation, even saying that a copy of the translation (J 19 ) "is found at the library of the American Bible Society, New York city." Now if you are trying to provide non-existent evidence, you do not give readers such detailed information regarding your source. An interesting thing that I learnt from the American Bible Society is that J 19 is a translation by Delitzsch and edited by T.C. Horton. It is not Horton's translation. The NWT describes it as "arranged by T.C. Horton." So despite the assurance by the ABS I still feel there is something unusual about this translation, and have contacted the the 'British Jews Society' (now known as the 'Christian Witness to Israel') to see if I can obtain a copy. I will keep the board informed but it may be some time before I have opportunity to check this for myself.